☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Truth And Concepts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 151480" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Lee ji,</p><p></p><p>I had started to write and then ran out of ideas and decided to just leave it. But I have changed my mind now.</p><p>I will respond only to some points that I think are important. If there is anything else that you think I should respond to, please let me know.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean living the life of a householder and yet being able to develop moral and mental purity? I believe that what I've proposed is the very basis for this to happen. Indeed so much so that I'd go on to suggest that, to think that one might be better off changing one's circumstances for the purpose, will likely take one in the wrong direction. Let me explain:</p><p></p><p>Here or there, now or then, man or woman, all there ever is, is the present moment experience through one of the five senses and the mind. The priest or the householder, both see, hear, have attachment, aversion, think, feel, perceive etc. So the reality or Truth to be known is exactly the same. To think therefore that one needs to change one's circumstance in order that certain good qualities might better develop, is to be guided by attachment to results and wrong understanding. In other words, being that the aim is to understand who we are, we don't then think to change anything, but just "understand" what is now.</p><p></p><p>Indeed it is when we do not understand this, that we then have such ideas as balancing one kind of life with another. The split is artificial and remains always at the background. Therefore no matter how hard we try to balance things, ignorance and attachment has its way and the result is just more self-serving set of ideas. You can see it happening all the time, that in the name of the miri and piri concept, people feel justified in being attached to family and one's way of life, which when seen correctly is nothing but an excuse for indulgence in pleasure and seeking honour, praise and material gain. </p><p></p><p>To be 'in the world' but 'not of the world' is easily used as excuse for "worldliness". And the only way to that this can be recognized is through the development of wisdom.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The point is not whether concepts are required, no doubt they are, and not only for communicating ideas, but to be able to function at all. What has been pointed out all long was about the taking of concepts for "real" when in truth they are not. And by concepts here, I do not mean the labels, but the very perception of "something" just before the recognition of what that something is and then attaching a label to it. This is because the thinking process begins immediately following the sense perceptions and the wrong understanding can happen at the sense perceptions itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I hope what I've said above has answered this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Science is only an idea, that too based not on what is perceived through the senses, but something that is projected into those concepts that follow.</p><p>The internet is a concept; the idea that you and I are communicating using the internet is more concepts. This is not a problem so long as one does not believe that any of it is "real". To however go on to project the idea of science into the picture and insisting to attribute things to it, sounds like going a step further in the wrong direction where the reference point is only an idea and will forever remain so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You probably have more generosity than I do.:blueturban:</p><p></p><p>If I had no idea about Buddhism but one day found a book with no reference to who wrote and what the associated religion is, on reading and being inspired, I imagine that my thoughts immediately goes towards who the author might be? When I read about what can only be a reflection of human qualities, in expressing gratitude, this would be aimed at someone who has the capacity to acknowledge the thanks. Although I can imagine being "attached" to the book itself and thinking that it will help me in the future and thanking the stars for it. ;-) And this of course would be all about 'me' and 'mine'.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Like I said, you probably have much more generosity in store. </p><p></p><p>If someone gave me a piece of chocolate, I'd thank him for it. But 'gratitude', this is something else. I see no reason to feel gratitude for something that satisfies desire. I'd feel grateful to someone for reminding me about the value of goodness and anything that triggers some level of understanding. If someone saved my life, I'd thank him for it, but hopefully the gratitude is not because I got to live longer regardless of how I live that reminder of my life, but because I am able to develop more understanding. And the kind of understanding includes the fact that it is not really that person who has determined how short or long my life is, but my own karma. Besides his act of kindness is his good karma and a good reminder for me, therefore this is what I am grateful to him for.</p><p></p><p>I see nothing in science that is aimed at the encouragement of morality and other kinds of good and therefore have no reason to feel gratitude towards it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Aren't these two very different things, namely 'Truth' and a 'true' proposition? Truth (as I know it), is something that is its own proof, whereas a true proposition is something that requires evidence outside of itself, or in other words, needs to itself be proven.</p><p></p><p>And you say that 2+2=4 is what science has shown you; otherwise you'd never have come to know this important aspect of life? But why would even think that without science, you and I won't know how to count or add? Are you saying that if I discovered the method of 'addition' on my own, that this could only be the result of a method that of science, hence the value and objective reality of it? </p><p></p><p>But let me ask you Lee, without consciousness which experiences objects through the five senses and the thinking process which follow, would you even have any idea about say, a star, not to mention how many, and learning how to count them? In going on to attribute to science all such things, have you not given life to something that is necessarily only a creation of the mind? If you are in fact suggesting that the scientific methods exist regardless whether or not one is aware of it, tell me, through what do you know this? Will you be using the scientific method to prove the validity science?</p><p></p><p>Putting aside the need to distinguish realities from concepts, do you think that objects (concepts) out there come with them a need to be counted and classified? Is it not human desire which necessitates thinking for example, in terms of size, and how much and how many? Do the planets and star systems operate because of science or is it that science in following a particular approach of study, comes up with certain theories? And of all the possible perceptions and line of thought, is not science only one of them? </p><p></p><p>So in fact, not only does consciousness which experiences things come first and science does not take this into account, but physical phenomena following particular laws have not also been touched upon. Science in knowing only shadows will therefore at best only make true propositions, but never know the Truth. In being so "involved" in its projections and not realizing it however, it gets misled and also very misleading. </p><p></p><p>This however is not saying that science conflicts with the Truth, but rather that science works within only conventional reality and has limited scope. If this is understood, then one can work using scientific knowledge while at the same time be developing understanding of the Truth.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In fact we are! You, I and conversations are concepts. And although this is one example where were there no concepts we'd not be able to function at all, this however does not then elevate them to the status of "reality". The realities are seeing / visible object, hearing / sound, thinking, perception, attention and so on. It is due to the arising of these from moment to moment that concepts intermittently come to be objects of consciousness, but only as shadows of experience and not as reality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you are here expressing the "materialistic view" which I commented on in an earlier message. This simply expresses a tendency to interpret experience a particular way. And being that at no point does this involve any direct study of mental and physical phenomena, means that it must be motivated by ignorance and craving. What you observe is what almost everyone else does and they all are as convinced about it as you are. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said, it is not unexpected that most people will arrive at the kind of conclusion being that the mode of observation and reasoning must more or less be the same. The only way to get past this is to realize the distinction between concept and reality, and knowing what the objects of the senses are and what is the result of the thinking process. </p><p></p><p>Brain does not feel, think, perceive or know anything. It is composed of matter and nothing more. The concept has arisen in part due to having made an association of human and animal behaviour with the fact of brain activity and when certain part of it is damaged or removed. </p><p></p><p>Brain is the center of most if not all bodily activities. There are physical realities which are the base for consciousness and its mental factors to arise. And although these are not observable by science being so very ephemeral and in fact, not capable of being experienced through the senses, they however must depend on yet other physical phenomena, those that form the basis for the concepts which are the object of study of the sciences. It is by way of such relationships that when something effects the brain, for example in consuming alcohol, that there is effect on the ability to experience through the five sense and thinking and to remember and so on. </p><p></p><p>I do not expect you to agree with any of this Lee, given that you come from a totally different background. Only know that within this particular system, every phenomenon can be explained without any contradiction. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not based on experience, but some understanding about "view". </p><p>If for example, I realize that perception of the computer screen follows from the experience of certain colours and thinking about shape and form with the help of memory, then I know not to refer to such things as brain to explain what goes on. If I find myself thinking about brain, I can see that this is based purely on thinking, the result of past perceptions. With this I am then drawn even more to consider the realities of the present moment instead of making reference to some theory about the nature of experience, let alone think about the brain. </p><p></p><p>This is important especially when one considers such things as moral and immoral mental states. Following the method of science leads to overlooking or explaining away of this very important aspect of religion. Given that we are to be aware of our mental state and know what triggers immoral states and what the moral ones and where each possibly leads, you as a Sikh Lee, how do you reconcile this?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>An idea, yes, but one which is not much different from that of the dog crossing the road. What do you have to say about a dog crossing the road Lee?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And God in creating human beings probably followed the laws of science too. ;-) </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or you can interpret the situation like this:</p><p>Man was savage and there was no science then. When he evolved, science came to be. </p><p>When you use the computer for studying about science, it is you who is directing the show, not the computer.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When you come across a fork on the road, does not thinking about which way to go come *after* the perception of the fork? And when you do decide to take one and not the other, does this not happen as a result of the thinking process which moves around past perceptions and these arise *not by any choice*? The end result of having decided on one and not the other, does this not impresses upon you as reflecting your particular inclinations and set of values?</p><p></p><p>Free will is an extremely misleading concept, one which is held by those whose only other option is to think in terms of determinism. Both however are results of the attachment to "self" and belief in "control". But there is also what is called the Middle Way. This is when there is understanding of the present moment. </p><p></p><p>When anger arises and there is no understanding, it is taken for me and mine and therefore seen as lasting. One then tries to get rid of or control it and this is attachment and ignorance taking over. There is the perception of making a choice between getting angry or not, and then being successful or failing. But the truth is that consciousness has simply changed objects as a result of conditions one leading to another. And in thinking that one has the choice whether or not to get angry, is to replace one kind of wrong with another, indeed a worse one. </p><p></p><p>Mention of the idea about conditionality and no control appears to those who believe in free-will as being deterministic. But nothing is further from the truth, since to understand the present moment and coming to see that this is conditioned already, is itself a very strong condition for a more positive course of action. Anger as a mental phenomenon does not last beyond a moment. That it appears to last is the result of ignorance and attachment which feeds the anger which then acts as a condition for it to arise over and again in close succession. </p><p></p><p>So really, it is rather the belief both, in determinism as well as free-will, which is directly or indirectly a condition for more anger and other unwanted qualities one thinks to control, to in fact increase. Have you not observed for example, that often people have aversion to their own aversion? This is what ignorance does and is why understanding is the only solution. With ignorance and craving in control, one in fact is akin to a leaf in the wind being blown this and that way. In understanding there and then that this is what is taking place, is to not then be at the mercy of desire, momentarily though this may be. </p><p></p><p>Or put it another way, normally it is desire at work taking the role of both the teacher and the student. This includes the idea that we are able to make a choice between doing good and avoiding evil and being successful. With understanding on the other hand, not only there is no impression of having made a choice, there is no reason also to think in terms of success or failure. One reflects attachment and the other, detachment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is not about knowing any one cause or condition, let alone knowing all of them. But rather what they are in principle and how they operate. What you refer to are not the causes and conditions that I make reference to. You talk in terms of "situations" where such things as ignorance, craving, wisdom, morality and so on are not taken into account but instead values are given to outward actions. In looking back at the past with the intention to evaluate one's success or failure must in fact be a perversion of perception and consciousness if ignorance and attachment is doing the talking. So should you in fact rely on such a process?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 151480, member: 586"] Lee ji, I had started to write and then ran out of ideas and decided to just leave it. But I have changed my mind now. I will respond only to some points that I think are important. If there is anything else that you think I should respond to, please let me know. You mean living the life of a householder and yet being able to develop moral and mental purity? I believe that what I've proposed is the very basis for this to happen. Indeed so much so that I'd go on to suggest that, to think that one might be better off changing one's circumstances for the purpose, will likely take one in the wrong direction. Let me explain: Here or there, now or then, man or woman, all there ever is, is the present moment experience through one of the five senses and the mind. The priest or the householder, both see, hear, have attachment, aversion, think, feel, perceive etc. So the reality or Truth to be known is exactly the same. To think therefore that one needs to change one's circumstance in order that certain good qualities might better develop, is to be guided by attachment to results and wrong understanding. In other words, being that the aim is to understand who we are, we don't then think to change anything, but just "understand" what is now. Indeed it is when we do not understand this, that we then have such ideas as balancing one kind of life with another. The split is artificial and remains always at the background. Therefore no matter how hard we try to balance things, ignorance and attachment has its way and the result is just more self-serving set of ideas. You can see it happening all the time, that in the name of the miri and piri concept, people feel justified in being attached to family and one's way of life, which when seen correctly is nothing but an excuse for indulgence in pleasure and seeking honour, praise and material gain. To be 'in the world' but 'not of the world' is easily used as excuse for "worldliness". And the only way to that this can be recognized is through the development of wisdom. The point is not whether concepts are required, no doubt they are, and not only for communicating ideas, but to be able to function at all. What has been pointed out all long was about the taking of concepts for "real" when in truth they are not. And by concepts here, I do not mean the labels, but the very perception of "something" just before the recognition of what that something is and then attaching a label to it. This is because the thinking process begins immediately following the sense perceptions and the wrong understanding can happen at the sense perceptions itself. I hope what I've said above has answered this. Science is only an idea, that too based not on what is perceived through the senses, but something that is projected into those concepts that follow. The internet is a concept; the idea that you and I are communicating using the internet is more concepts. This is not a problem so long as one does not believe that any of it is "real". To however go on to project the idea of science into the picture and insisting to attribute things to it, sounds like going a step further in the wrong direction where the reference point is only an idea and will forever remain so. You probably have more generosity than I do.:blueturban: If I had no idea about Buddhism but one day found a book with no reference to who wrote and what the associated religion is, on reading and being inspired, I imagine that my thoughts immediately goes towards who the author might be? When I read about what can only be a reflection of human qualities, in expressing gratitude, this would be aimed at someone who has the capacity to acknowledge the thanks. Although I can imagine being "attached" to the book itself and thinking that it will help me in the future and thanking the stars for it. ;-) And this of course would be all about 'me' and 'mine'. Like I said, you probably have much more generosity in store. If someone gave me a piece of chocolate, I'd thank him for it. But 'gratitude', this is something else. I see no reason to feel gratitude for something that satisfies desire. I'd feel grateful to someone for reminding me about the value of goodness and anything that triggers some level of understanding. If someone saved my life, I'd thank him for it, but hopefully the gratitude is not because I got to live longer regardless of how I live that reminder of my life, but because I am able to develop more understanding. And the kind of understanding includes the fact that it is not really that person who has determined how short or long my life is, but my own karma. Besides his act of kindness is his good karma and a good reminder for me, therefore this is what I am grateful to him for. I see nothing in science that is aimed at the encouragement of morality and other kinds of good and therefore have no reason to feel gratitude towards it. Aren't these two very different things, namely 'Truth' and a 'true' proposition? Truth (as I know it), is something that is its own proof, whereas a true proposition is something that requires evidence outside of itself, or in other words, needs to itself be proven. And you say that 2+2=4 is what science has shown you; otherwise you'd never have come to know this important aspect of life? But why would even think that without science, you and I won't know how to count or add? Are you saying that if I discovered the method of 'addition' on my own, that this could only be the result of a method that of science, hence the value and objective reality of it? But let me ask you Lee, without consciousness which experiences objects through the five senses and the thinking process which follow, would you even have any idea about say, a star, not to mention how many, and learning how to count them? In going on to attribute to science all such things, have you not given life to something that is necessarily only a creation of the mind? If you are in fact suggesting that the scientific methods exist regardless whether or not one is aware of it, tell me, through what do you know this? Will you be using the scientific method to prove the validity science? Putting aside the need to distinguish realities from concepts, do you think that objects (concepts) out there come with them a need to be counted and classified? Is it not human desire which necessitates thinking for example, in terms of size, and how much and how many? Do the planets and star systems operate because of science or is it that science in following a particular approach of study, comes up with certain theories? And of all the possible perceptions and line of thought, is not science only one of them? So in fact, not only does consciousness which experiences things come first and science does not take this into account, but physical phenomena following particular laws have not also been touched upon. Science in knowing only shadows will therefore at best only make true propositions, but never know the Truth. In being so "involved" in its projections and not realizing it however, it gets misled and also very misleading. This however is not saying that science conflicts with the Truth, but rather that science works within only conventional reality and has limited scope. If this is understood, then one can work using scientific knowledge while at the same time be developing understanding of the Truth. In fact we are! You, I and conversations are concepts. And although this is one example where were there no concepts we'd not be able to function at all, this however does not then elevate them to the status of "reality". The realities are seeing / visible object, hearing / sound, thinking, perception, attention and so on. It is due to the arising of these from moment to moment that concepts intermittently come to be objects of consciousness, but only as shadows of experience and not as reality. And you are here expressing the "materialistic view" which I commented on in an earlier message. This simply expresses a tendency to interpret experience a particular way. And being that at no point does this involve any direct study of mental and physical phenomena, means that it must be motivated by ignorance and craving. What you observe is what almost everyone else does and they all are as convinced about it as you are. As I said, it is not unexpected that most people will arrive at the kind of conclusion being that the mode of observation and reasoning must more or less be the same. The only way to get past this is to realize the distinction between concept and reality, and knowing what the objects of the senses are and what is the result of the thinking process. Brain does not feel, think, perceive or know anything. It is composed of matter and nothing more. The concept has arisen in part due to having made an association of human and animal behaviour with the fact of brain activity and when certain part of it is damaged or removed. Brain is the center of most if not all bodily activities. There are physical realities which are the base for consciousness and its mental factors to arise. And although these are not observable by science being so very ephemeral and in fact, not capable of being experienced through the senses, they however must depend on yet other physical phenomena, those that form the basis for the concepts which are the object of study of the sciences. It is by way of such relationships that when something effects the brain, for example in consuming alcohol, that there is effect on the ability to experience through the five sense and thinking and to remember and so on. I do not expect you to agree with any of this Lee, given that you come from a totally different background. Only know that within this particular system, every phenomenon can be explained without any contradiction. Not based on experience, but some understanding about "view". If for example, I realize that perception of the computer screen follows from the experience of certain colours and thinking about shape and form with the help of memory, then I know not to refer to such things as brain to explain what goes on. If I find myself thinking about brain, I can see that this is based purely on thinking, the result of past perceptions. With this I am then drawn even more to consider the realities of the present moment instead of making reference to some theory about the nature of experience, let alone think about the brain. This is important especially when one considers such things as moral and immoral mental states. Following the method of science leads to overlooking or explaining away of this very important aspect of religion. Given that we are to be aware of our mental state and know what triggers immoral states and what the moral ones and where each possibly leads, you as a Sikh Lee, how do you reconcile this? An idea, yes, but one which is not much different from that of the dog crossing the road. What do you have to say about a dog crossing the road Lee? And God in creating human beings probably followed the laws of science too. ;-) Or you can interpret the situation like this: Man was savage and there was no science then. When he evolved, science came to be. When you use the computer for studying about science, it is you who is directing the show, not the computer. When you come across a fork on the road, does not thinking about which way to go come *after* the perception of the fork? And when you do decide to take one and not the other, does this not happen as a result of the thinking process which moves around past perceptions and these arise *not by any choice*? The end result of having decided on one and not the other, does this not impresses upon you as reflecting your particular inclinations and set of values? Free will is an extremely misleading concept, one which is held by those whose only other option is to think in terms of determinism. Both however are results of the attachment to "self" and belief in "control". But there is also what is called the Middle Way. This is when there is understanding of the present moment. When anger arises and there is no understanding, it is taken for me and mine and therefore seen as lasting. One then tries to get rid of or control it and this is attachment and ignorance taking over. There is the perception of making a choice between getting angry or not, and then being successful or failing. But the truth is that consciousness has simply changed objects as a result of conditions one leading to another. And in thinking that one has the choice whether or not to get angry, is to replace one kind of wrong with another, indeed a worse one. Mention of the idea about conditionality and no control appears to those who believe in free-will as being deterministic. But nothing is further from the truth, since to understand the present moment and coming to see that this is conditioned already, is itself a very strong condition for a more positive course of action. Anger as a mental phenomenon does not last beyond a moment. That it appears to last is the result of ignorance and attachment which feeds the anger which then acts as a condition for it to arise over and again in close succession. So really, it is rather the belief both, in determinism as well as free-will, which is directly or indirectly a condition for more anger and other unwanted qualities one thinks to control, to in fact increase. Have you not observed for example, that often people have aversion to their own aversion? This is what ignorance does and is why understanding is the only solution. With ignorance and craving in control, one in fact is akin to a leaf in the wind being blown this and that way. In understanding there and then that this is what is taking place, is to not then be at the mercy of desire, momentarily though this may be. Or put it another way, normally it is desire at work taking the role of both the teacher and the student. This includes the idea that we are able to make a choice between doing good and avoiding evil and being successful. With understanding on the other hand, not only there is no impression of having made a choice, there is no reason also to think in terms of success or failure. One reflects attachment and the other, detachment. It is not about knowing any one cause or condition, let alone knowing all of them. But rather what they are in principle and how they operate. What you refer to are not the causes and conditions that I make reference to. You talk in terms of "situations" where such things as ignorance, craving, wisdom, morality and so on are not taken into account but instead values are given to outward actions. In looking back at the past with the intention to evaluate one's success or failure must in fact be a perversion of perception and consciousness if ignorance and attachment is doing the talking. So should you in fact rely on such a process? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Truth And Concepts
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top