☀️ 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
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
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: 163006" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Harry ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't recall. Can you please direct me to the particular post?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You see, when being reminded about particular good qualities, you appreciate the value and know that they should be developed. But to think in terms of another person having those qualities and wanting to be like him, this is an instance of conceit and desire and these are *not* worthy of encouragement. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This to me sounds like the ultimate conceit. First you attribute all that “you” think is good onto one entity, give it power of control over all there is, and then say that you want to emulate that entity. </p><p></p><p>When wisdom arises to know the presence of some unwholesome state, there is detachment by virtue of the understanding. Conceit is unwholesome, but to be put off by it because “you” have conceit is just more conceit. Likewise to be averse to anger is just more anger, and to hope to be without desire is actually more desire. In other words you fall into the trap of those same mental qualities which at some point you have understood as being harmful. This shows lack of wisdom and the detachment which necessarily comes with it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't believe in miracles either, but I take it that you also reject such things as supernormal powers, in which I'll have to point out that believing in this is not mutually exclusive to understanding the causes and conditions which lead to increased morality and other kinds of good. Good accumulates by virtue of it having arisen and grows as a result of understanding the value. Trying to please God and anybody with aim of getting something for oneself is desire, and desire is of course an unwholesome mental reality which in fact is cause for unpleasant results in the future. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And while you are thinking about it you might like to consider that the issue is not about how a battle is fought, but to battle at all. And if one is obliged to go into battle because one happens to have joined the army thinking at the time, that there would never be a need to go to battle, one may instead use force to capture the enemies rather than kill them……</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Above is one example. Another as you would know is working as a medic. Indeed if you perchance became enlightened during a battle, you'd be completely incapable of killing even an insect, not to speak of human beings. Therefore you may end up being killed if you can't escape the situation, but this won’t however be a cause for even the slightest regret.</p><p></p><p>But before you come to this point you'd have to consider, if joining the army means that you must fight, why join the army then?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What you suggested before is what most people who don’t follow any religion are inclined to believe. But Sikhism as far as I know, teaches about the wrongness of krodh and the value of ‘love’ does it not? Would it not then be that in all situations the former is to be discouraged and the latter encouraged? The problem is when there is ignorance and one just reacts as before, either with attachment or with aversion. But this is easy isn’t it, and easy too that this is followed by wrong understanding which seeks to justify the attachment and aversion such as in suggesting that there is a time for kindness and a time to express anger? What is difficult is for wisdom to arise to condition the appropriate action because this goes against the stream which we otherwise simply are swept along.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well that is the problem, you are inclined to define reality in terms of what you perceive and have no mind to question the nature of the perception itself. If what you perceive is conditioned by ignorance and wrong understanding, then your objection towards karma reflects the wrong understanding. </p><p></p><p>If you think about moral cause and effect as being for example, you steal and are caught and put into jail, then you are actually overlooking certain things which actually reflect the workings of karma. Karma is a mental reality which behaves according to its own law, therefore if you insist on the kind of cause and effect involving “you” from the moment of your birth till the time that you die, then you are insisting on going by the kind of observation which is dependent on agreed upon convention and not on truth /reality.</p><p></p><p>Karma as cause is actually the intention accompanying mental states such as craving, aversion, jealousy and so on on one side and kindness, giving, morality and understanding on the other. These are not “you” doing this or doing that in a given situation. The results of karma are the experience through the five senses, but also birth, life (life continuum) and death are results of karma. Should these be thought about as being “you” facing this or that situation? Absolutely not. </p><p></p><p>If we are caught up in stories about “me” and the situations of my life instead of thinking in terms of precise mental and physical phenomena, then it is to be expected that you either will believe in karma or you will not. But just as the former does not reflect real understanding about the way things are, neither is the latter making any statement about truth and reality. What actually takes place is rejection of karma due to making a different kind of observation and having different set of beliefs about cause and effect.</p><p></p><p>For someone who has arrived at the conclusion that the right course of action is dependent on the situation such that sometimes kindness is called for but at another time anger, this is clear evidence that indeed the mode of observation is wrong and possibility of understanding karma very remote.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are involved in a kind of observation which does not distinguish correctly, between moral cause and effect. Giving is karma, a cause, and the result of this is not something that the beggar or child does with your gift. What he does is his karma or cause for results that will only come to him later in the form of good or bad experiences through the senses or as rebirth, which of course is unpredictable. And although some instances of giving are preceded by ignorance and desire and others by wisdom which then makes a difference to the quality of the giving, the giving itself is however always good. Lending money is of course not giving, it is business and conditioned by desire. </p><p></p><p>When you suggested, “I do not think good deeds are hugely obvious taken at face value, tough love can be a good deed, although not immediately apparent”, what you appear to have in mind is not the particular mind state arisen with the intention to act, but the short or long term response of the other person. But this is not the way one thinks about moral cause and effect and what is good and bad.</p><p></p><p>Good is good and encouraged by virtue of the fact that particular mental phenomena is seen by wisdom to have some positive quality while at the same time seeing harm in the opposite. This means that you do good for its own sake and not discriminate for example, between who we should be kind to and who not. In the case of giving indiscriminately resulting in the recipient's misuse of the gift, if prior knowledge about the possibility was present, this simply reflects lack of discriminative power, but it does not make the giving somehow wrong.</p><p></p><p>I am leaving out the rest of your post and hope to be able to say more when responding to any subsequent response from you. And also I owe a reply to you, so please don’t forget to direct me to that one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 163006, member: 586"] Harry ji, I don't recall. Can you please direct me to the particular post? You see, when being reminded about particular good qualities, you appreciate the value and know that they should be developed. But to think in terms of another person having those qualities and wanting to be like him, this is an instance of conceit and desire and these are *not* worthy of encouragement. This to me sounds like the ultimate conceit. First you attribute all that “you” think is good onto one entity, give it power of control over all there is, and then say that you want to emulate that entity. When wisdom arises to know the presence of some unwholesome state, there is detachment by virtue of the understanding. Conceit is unwholesome, but to be put off by it because “you” have conceit is just more conceit. Likewise to be averse to anger is just more anger, and to hope to be without desire is actually more desire. In other words you fall into the trap of those same mental qualities which at some point you have understood as being harmful. This shows lack of wisdom and the detachment which necessarily comes with it. I don't believe in miracles either, but I take it that you also reject such things as supernormal powers, in which I'll have to point out that believing in this is not mutually exclusive to understanding the causes and conditions which lead to increased morality and other kinds of good. Good accumulates by virtue of it having arisen and grows as a result of understanding the value. Trying to please God and anybody with aim of getting something for oneself is desire, and desire is of course an unwholesome mental reality which in fact is cause for unpleasant results in the future. And while you are thinking about it you might like to consider that the issue is not about how a battle is fought, but to battle at all. And if one is obliged to go into battle because one happens to have joined the army thinking at the time, that there would never be a need to go to battle, one may instead use force to capture the enemies rather than kill them…… Above is one example. Another as you would know is working as a medic. Indeed if you perchance became enlightened during a battle, you'd be completely incapable of killing even an insect, not to speak of human beings. Therefore you may end up being killed if you can't escape the situation, but this won’t however be a cause for even the slightest regret. But before you come to this point you'd have to consider, if joining the army means that you must fight, why join the army then? What you suggested before is what most people who don’t follow any religion are inclined to believe. But Sikhism as far as I know, teaches about the wrongness of krodh and the value of ‘love’ does it not? Would it not then be that in all situations the former is to be discouraged and the latter encouraged? The problem is when there is ignorance and one just reacts as before, either with attachment or with aversion. But this is easy isn’t it, and easy too that this is followed by wrong understanding which seeks to justify the attachment and aversion such as in suggesting that there is a time for kindness and a time to express anger? What is difficult is for wisdom to arise to condition the appropriate action because this goes against the stream which we otherwise simply are swept along. Well that is the problem, you are inclined to define reality in terms of what you perceive and have no mind to question the nature of the perception itself. If what you perceive is conditioned by ignorance and wrong understanding, then your objection towards karma reflects the wrong understanding. If you think about moral cause and effect as being for example, you steal and are caught and put into jail, then you are actually overlooking certain things which actually reflect the workings of karma. Karma is a mental reality which behaves according to its own law, therefore if you insist on the kind of cause and effect involving “you” from the moment of your birth till the time that you die, then you are insisting on going by the kind of observation which is dependent on agreed upon convention and not on truth /reality. Karma as cause is actually the intention accompanying mental states such as craving, aversion, jealousy and so on on one side and kindness, giving, morality and understanding on the other. These are not “you” doing this or doing that in a given situation. The results of karma are the experience through the five senses, but also birth, life (life continuum) and death are results of karma. Should these be thought about as being “you” facing this or that situation? Absolutely not. If we are caught up in stories about “me” and the situations of my life instead of thinking in terms of precise mental and physical phenomena, then it is to be expected that you either will believe in karma or you will not. But just as the former does not reflect real understanding about the way things are, neither is the latter making any statement about truth and reality. What actually takes place is rejection of karma due to making a different kind of observation and having different set of beliefs about cause and effect. For someone who has arrived at the conclusion that the right course of action is dependent on the situation such that sometimes kindness is called for but at another time anger, this is clear evidence that indeed the mode of observation is wrong and possibility of understanding karma very remote. You are involved in a kind of observation which does not distinguish correctly, between moral cause and effect. Giving is karma, a cause, and the result of this is not something that the beggar or child does with your gift. What he does is his karma or cause for results that will only come to him later in the form of good or bad experiences through the senses or as rebirth, which of course is unpredictable. And although some instances of giving are preceded by ignorance and desire and others by wisdom which then makes a difference to the quality of the giving, the giving itself is however always good. Lending money is of course not giving, it is business and conditioned by desire. When you suggested, “I do not think good deeds are hugely obvious taken at face value, tough love can be a good deed, although not immediately apparent”, what you appear to have in mind is not the particular mind state arisen with the intention to act, but the short or long term response of the other person. But this is not the way one thinks about moral cause and effect and what is good and bad. Good is good and encouraged by virtue of the fact that particular mental phenomena is seen by wisdom to have some positive quality while at the same time seeing harm in the opposite. This means that you do good for its own sake and not discriminate for example, between who we should be kind to and who not. In the case of giving indiscriminately resulting in the recipient's misuse of the gift, if prior knowledge about the possibility was present, this simply reflects lack of discriminative power, but it does not make the giving somehow wrong. I am leaving out the rest of your post and hope to be able to say more when responding to any subsequent response from you. And also I owe a reply to you, so please don’t forget to direct me to that one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
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