☀️ 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
Hard Talk
Why Is The Law Of Karma Rejected?
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: 180393" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Chazsingh ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, it requires many levels of belief and imagination does it not?</p><p>First, you have to conceive of such a “one” which you can only do with reference to what you know, namely that which is based on sense experiences. Second, you must have some basis for believing that what you experience in the here and now is in fact the product of this one. Third, you'd have to believe in the proposition that sound / word (and is it sound or word to begin with? Are not these quite different?) came from the one and then try to conceive how this might be the case. Fourth, you'll have to also conceive what this sound / word is and how it is different from sounds that you hear every day and words that you think about. Fifth, how all that you experience through the five senses and the mind and the experiences themselves, could be the product of this sound (one of these would be other sounds). Sixth, what this naam is and how it is different from the moment to moment experiences through the five senses and the mind. </p><p></p><p>I believe that if these questions are not resolved, even one of them, to follow the suggestion is equivalent to the blind being led by the blind? But even if the questions are answered, other questions arise.</p><p></p><p>First, how thinking about what happened in the past is useful in terms of relevant knowledge? Second, the causes and conditions for one's moment to moment experience can be studied, including when thinking at that very moment, about the past cause, why no attention to this? Third, if one does not believe that what happens “now” can be satisfactorily explained by reference to these causes and conditions, why not?</p><p></p><p>I believe that the study of what is real “now” is the only basis for Truth, anything else must depend of belief and imagination.</p><p></p><p>You said, “whatever word that focuses the mind towards God is a good word to use for meditation”. Let's say for the sake of argument that God is real. Now we know that the word only points to the reality. So the question now is what manifestation and characteristic this God has, such that, on being reminded through recitation of the word, the attention can be drawn to this characteristic. Two, given that it is the characteristic that needs to be attended to, why the repetition of the word as a form of practice? </p><p></p><p>Also a question, although unrelated to the above line of inquiry, but nevertheless a necessary outcome of belief in the concept:</p><p></p><p>God exists. So what?!! How thinking about the creator and creation is relevant when it comes to one's day to day interaction with other people? Does good action require God to be referred to? If so, how and why?</p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you do not see the danger of ignorance. And if you admit to ignorance, what makes you believe that your recitation is not done with attachment, or worse, wrong understanding? </p><p></p><p>And again the question, what value is there in thinking about the “source of existence”? What part this plays in any moral / immoral act?</p><p></p><p>=== </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point was to show you that whatever the subject of meditation is, it must be contemplated upon with a level of wisdom; otherwise it is simply following a ritual. </p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, that is what you are telling yourself, and perhaps you are thinking in terms of one particular goal, but really, the expectation is in the very intention to take action. And the illusion of result is there from the very outset; after all, what's this “witness”? You think that you intend to observe and already the mode of observation is useful / valid?</p><p></p><p>===</p><p> </p><p></p><p>No, it is you who is “witnessing”. I'm simply coming in from an intellectual understanding of causes and conditions. We are not discussing subjective experiences as in whether someone likes the taste of tea or not, but perceptions, objects of experience and views. If someone told you that when he focusses on the image of naked Marilyn Monroe, that he subsequently experiences God Consciousness, would you not question him? </p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wisdom has as its object, aspects of reality, mental and physical. When the object is a concept which has no relation to the reality of the moment, this can't therefore be an instance of wisdom. When a concept is suggested as subject of meditation, this reflects lack of interest, not to speak of sense of urgency to understand the reality now. Simply put, if you do not see the importance of understanding the experience or object of experience now, this can only be because you don't realize what ignorance is and that it continues to accumulate otherwise. If you think that ignorance and true knowledge is about something other than what is “now”, this must in fact be due to wrong understanding. </p><p></p><p>You can see now, that it does not require omniscience to come this conclusion. </p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, you are conceptualizing about this aren't you? When referring to “intellectual understanding”, it is understanding and not conceptualizing that is being referred to. Although this is only preliminary level, but because it is “understanding”, it does not mistake itself for more than what it is. However the connecting line between this and the higher levels of understanding is that they all refer to “now” and must conform to each other. In other words, a person with intellectual understanding and those who have had lots of direct understanding and who have realized, all when expressing themselves will refer to the same reality / Truth. This means that a person who has realized will still value the opportunity to hear and talk about this Truth and will not judge as wrong those whose level of understanding is only at the intellectual level.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, the hallmark of those who refer to personal experience is that intellectual understanding is downplayed, or worse, rejected. And this is reflection in fact, that their experience is not that of the Truth, but something else, and that in fact they don't have any preliminary level of understanding yet. </p><p></p><p>Explain to me what the soul is, so that I may have an intellectual understanding about it by reference to what is “now”? If you tell me that it can’t be intellectualized but only experienced, then from my point of view, this is example of an excuse made by wrong understanding to perpetuate itself. Maya in its worst expression.</p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And when ignorance is understood to any extent, there is no mistaking what it is to “know”. So when someone talks about object of true knowledge what in fact is not, it can be inferred not only that ignorance is being encouraged, but also that he is driven by wrong understanding. And the only driving force that anyone with the kind of base can have to continue engaging in such practices is attachment. </p><p></p><p>===</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, I started to respond to this post without first reading the whole thing. So I was right to have addressed this in the foregoing, having anticipated your line of thought. I hope now you can distinguish between judgments regarding subjective experiences vs. that of general principles.</p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p>And he responds to words…?</p><p>See how the proliferation of view leads one to all sorts of strange ideas? I’m sure many of your fellow Sikhs would disagree with the above suggestion.</p><p></p><p>=== </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So if I focus on the image of Marilyn's left breast, this is useful too, as my thoughts won't be going all over? But let me tell you this, thinking is *never* the problem. The problem is the ignorance, attachment, aversion, wrong understanding and so on which drives the thinking. Therefore if these are not addressed / known for what they are, whatever you choose to think instead, will invariably be driven by these same unwholesome mental factors.</p><p></p><p>=== </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would not even call this wishful thinking since the result projected itself is wrong.</p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, the above is worse than just repeating words with ignorance and attachment. It is the encouragement of wrong understanding, which is the one mental reality which takes one in exactly the opposite direction of Truth.</p><p></p><p>===</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>If one does not even have a correct intellectual understanding of Truth and reality, how can it be expected that a deeper understanding will ever arise? </p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am judging views expressed. If you told me that a particular brand of tea is good and another is bad, or you told me that this car is better than that one, I would not have any reason not to believe you. But when you say that you believe in God and that during moments of contemplation you have come to experience the Truth, this is a contradiction as far as I'm concerned, therefore will be judged as wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 180393, member: 586"] Chazsingh ji, Well, it requires many levels of belief and imagination does it not? First, you have to conceive of such a “one” which you can only do with reference to what you know, namely that which is based on sense experiences. Second, you must have some basis for believing that what you experience in the here and now is in fact the product of this one. Third, you'd have to believe in the proposition that sound / word (and is it sound or word to begin with? Are not these quite different?) came from the one and then try to conceive how this might be the case. Fourth, you'll have to also conceive what this sound / word is and how it is different from sounds that you hear every day and words that you think about. Fifth, how all that you experience through the five senses and the mind and the experiences themselves, could be the product of this sound (one of these would be other sounds). Sixth, what this naam is and how it is different from the moment to moment experiences through the five senses and the mind. I believe that if these questions are not resolved, even one of them, to follow the suggestion is equivalent to the blind being led by the blind? But even if the questions are answered, other questions arise. First, how thinking about what happened in the past is useful in terms of relevant knowledge? Second, the causes and conditions for one's moment to moment experience can be studied, including when thinking at that very moment, about the past cause, why no attention to this? Third, if one does not believe that what happens “now” can be satisfactorily explained by reference to these causes and conditions, why not? I believe that the study of what is real “now” is the only basis for Truth, anything else must depend of belief and imagination. You said, “whatever word that focuses the mind towards God is a good word to use for meditation”. Let's say for the sake of argument that God is real. Now we know that the word only points to the reality. So the question now is what manifestation and characteristic this God has, such that, on being reminded through recitation of the word, the attention can be drawn to this characteristic. Two, given that it is the characteristic that needs to be attended to, why the repetition of the word as a form of practice? Also a question, although unrelated to the above line of inquiry, but nevertheless a necessary outcome of belief in the concept: God exists. So what?!! How thinking about the creator and creation is relevant when it comes to one's day to day interaction with other people? Does good action require God to be referred to? If so, how and why? === So you do not see the danger of ignorance. And if you admit to ignorance, what makes you believe that your recitation is not done with attachment, or worse, wrong understanding? And again the question, what value is there in thinking about the “source of existence”? What part this plays in any moral / immoral act? === My point was to show you that whatever the subject of meditation is, it must be contemplated upon with a level of wisdom; otherwise it is simply following a ritual. === Well, that is what you are telling yourself, and perhaps you are thinking in terms of one particular goal, but really, the expectation is in the very intention to take action. And the illusion of result is there from the very outset; after all, what's this “witness”? You think that you intend to observe and already the mode of observation is useful / valid? === No, it is you who is “witnessing”. I'm simply coming in from an intellectual understanding of causes and conditions. We are not discussing subjective experiences as in whether someone likes the taste of tea or not, but perceptions, objects of experience and views. If someone told you that when he focusses on the image of naked Marilyn Monroe, that he subsequently experiences God Consciousness, would you not question him? === Wisdom has as its object, aspects of reality, mental and physical. When the object is a concept which has no relation to the reality of the moment, this can't therefore be an instance of wisdom. When a concept is suggested as subject of meditation, this reflects lack of interest, not to speak of sense of urgency to understand the reality now. Simply put, if you do not see the importance of understanding the experience or object of experience now, this can only be because you don't realize what ignorance is and that it continues to accumulate otherwise. If you think that ignorance and true knowledge is about something other than what is “now”, this must in fact be due to wrong understanding. You can see now, that it does not require omniscience to come this conclusion. === Well, you are conceptualizing about this aren't you? When referring to “intellectual understanding”, it is understanding and not conceptualizing that is being referred to. Although this is only preliminary level, but because it is “understanding”, it does not mistake itself for more than what it is. However the connecting line between this and the higher levels of understanding is that they all refer to “now” and must conform to each other. In other words, a person with intellectual understanding and those who have had lots of direct understanding and who have realized, all when expressing themselves will refer to the same reality / Truth. This means that a person who has realized will still value the opportunity to hear and talk about this Truth and will not judge as wrong those whose level of understanding is only at the intellectual level. On the other hand, the hallmark of those who refer to personal experience is that intellectual understanding is downplayed, or worse, rejected. And this is reflection in fact, that their experience is not that of the Truth, but something else, and that in fact they don't have any preliminary level of understanding yet. Explain to me what the soul is, so that I may have an intellectual understanding about it by reference to what is “now”? If you tell me that it can’t be intellectualized but only experienced, then from my point of view, this is example of an excuse made by wrong understanding to perpetuate itself. Maya in its worst expression. === And when ignorance is understood to any extent, there is no mistaking what it is to “know”. So when someone talks about object of true knowledge what in fact is not, it can be inferred not only that ignorance is being encouraged, but also that he is driven by wrong understanding. And the only driving force that anyone with the kind of base can have to continue engaging in such practices is attachment. === Ah, I started to respond to this post without first reading the whole thing. So I was right to have addressed this in the foregoing, having anticipated your line of thought. I hope now you can distinguish between judgments regarding subjective experiences vs. that of general principles. === And he responds to words…? See how the proliferation of view leads one to all sorts of strange ideas? I’m sure many of your fellow Sikhs would disagree with the above suggestion. === So if I focus on the image of Marilyn's left breast, this is useful too, as my thoughts won't be going all over? But let me tell you this, thinking is *never* the problem. The problem is the ignorance, attachment, aversion, wrong understanding and so on which drives the thinking. Therefore if these are not addressed / known for what they are, whatever you choose to think instead, will invariably be driven by these same unwholesome mental factors. === I would not even call this wishful thinking since the result projected itself is wrong. === Well, the above is worse than just repeating words with ignorance and attachment. It is the encouragement of wrong understanding, which is the one mental reality which takes one in exactly the opposite direction of Truth. === If one does not even have a correct intellectual understanding of Truth and reality, how can it be expected that a deeper understanding will ever arise? === I am judging views expressed. If you told me that a particular brand of tea is good and another is bad, or you told me that this car is better than that one, I would not have any reason not to believe you. But when you say that you believe in God and that during moments of contemplation you have come to experience the Truth, this is a contradiction as far as I'm concerned, therefore will be judged as wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Why Is The Law Of Karma Rejected?
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