☀️ 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
Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post
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="Parma" data-source="post: 163558" data-attributes="member: 4724"><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Confused ji,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: I beg to differ with you on that confused ji, firstly if there is thinking then there is thought, you say thought does not exist.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: You probably have not read many of my past discussions. It is like this: </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">“Thinking” is a mental phenomenon which follows the experience through the five senses and also otherwise. </span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">As you say thinking is a “phenomenon”, = Oxford dictionary translation, 1) </span></span><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'">a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question. So when a person thinks something by your suggestion you are not thinking it, you have no thought it is a phenomenon, so all your thoughts are in question, you will never have any thought on anything as you never had a point (thought) to begin with. How do answer any question! The whole process of i.e. you, thought is non-existent in your view. That is delusion! You are actually conveying that all thought is nothing! No one has thought in your mind, now that is conceited</span></span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> When for example, there is seeing, what is seen is just visible object or that which is seen. The perception of people and things is the result of the thinking process which follows upon many instances of seeing. These are therefore concepts and this is what I call ‘thoughts’. </span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Look at the above for the answer on this you cannot grasp concepts as by your understanding you do not believe in thought!</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It is the same as in a dream. Those things do not exist, but are simply the object of consciousness created by the thinking process and involving memory. That a dream goes in any direction or even look like a Salvador Dali painting is because at such times, there are no experiences through the five senses to keep the perceptions in check. But concepts / thoughts both are when beings and objects are perceived, in a dream as well as during waking state, and equally unreal / non-existent.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="color: #548dd4">A dream does not physically exist but it is in existence of your thought. Existence is not just life based existence atoms exist, air exists but because you have no thought on it by your understanding they do not exist, but in fact they do!</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">=====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: I can debate that it is thought what sparks off thinking, if you are not aware of a thought how can the thinking process begin. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: What you appear to limit thinking to, are “train of thoughts”. But I call thinking what comes before even the perception of ‘something’ and this itself comes before we are able to identify and then label what that something is. For example, just a vague sense of outline, dimension and depth are according to my understanding, thoughts which are the result of thinking. </span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You cannot seriously be talking about “train of thoughts” as person that does not believe in the existence of thought. Delusion</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">=====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: Although as you say the human senses do play apart in developing a thought it is not the actual basis of thought. That is why people turn to god. Let me give an example; how can you think of god if you have not felt the experiance. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Feeling is a mental factor which arises with *all* experiences, including thinking. If it is not the raw experience of one of the five senses or of life continuum (as in deep sleep), then it must be an instance of thinking at some stage of the process. So as far as I’m concerned, God is a concept all the way through.</span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I agree to this and it is in line with what I have written, only you call god a concept I call god a reality a truth</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: Thought does exist! To Clarify your thought on that.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Thought is not real and therefore does not have the kind of existence consciousness, mental factors and physical phenomena have, but only as object of thinking. </span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">This did not clarify anything. These are just big words concocted together that make no heads or tails of anything</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">. Without getting too personal <span style="color: Red">Alot of what you write is just wafflings and ramblings.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">=== </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: P.s. It is still scientifically unproven at which point thought exists, so you trying to answer the question shows you are attached to your own thought and on that point there is no real justification for your answer.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Huh, you are saying that until science has come up with an answer as to how thought arises, I as a common man must be mistaken about my own understanding about it and therefore also attached to it?</span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">There has to be some truth, (call it scientific) in your conclusions to give your thoughts some substance. At present the process you are using is conceited </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I say that if you follow the lead of science, you will never, ever come to understand the Truth!!</span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Now you don’t believe in science, delusional and conceited fact!</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Science knows only concepts, namely the product of the thinking process. If is tries to study thinking, it can only do so by the process of thinking itself and therefore arrive only at a “concept” about it. What is worse is that science takes concept for reality and therefore leads one further away from the possibility of ever understanding what reality really is.</span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I am lost with you onwards here, if you cannot comprehend thought how can you comprehend reality! </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">But reality, ‘thinking’ being one, can be understood through the development of wisdom only and not through the methods of science / thinking. It is the product of insight which differentiates reality from concepts and thereby increases detachment. Science in failing to make this distinction can only lead to more and more attachment to the different theories that are postulated.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Quote C: Lobh, kam and moh are all forms of attachments and these are three of the Five Evils pointed out in Sikh teachings. So I wonder where you are really coming from with the above. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: Yes these attachments when taken out of proportion are vices, but without them you will also not reproduce. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: To reproduce and increase the population is a virtue? How? </span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Any faith is about people, any religion is about people so to reproduce is about people. To increase population with good virtue is an incentive for humans to lead better lives for your off spring. To be against reproduction would mean to be against humanity or any species; over reproduction is another set issue</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And about attachment, are you saying that so long I can convince myself and others, such as that reproduction is a virtue, I can draw a line as to how much of it is permissible or even desirable? Am I to draw from this that you do not believe that on one hand, attachment, aversion, ignorance, conceit and so on are wrong and on the other hand, kindness, morality, generosity and wisdom are good by their very nature, but instead depend on the context? Would this not be making things convenient and justification for all sort of evil to arise?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="color: #548dd4">No, because I am talking about keeping things in balance on your reasonings in yourself and not diverging all thoughts into one thought process unless it is on the truth. There is contractions in this as the process is keeping a balance. Thinking about only one thought in total, example; about reproduction could lead to untold calamities and tragedies. That’s why the Guru Granth Sahib is guide to keep the thought processes virtuous constant learning and constant improving on the thought process, which can only be obtained from a balanced approach</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: You will not eat or drink. You will not look after you appearance and be clean. It is the proportion and the sanctity of the thought.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: You and I eat and drink out of greed, but this does not mean that those without greed will not eat and drink. Indeed we are at fault since the only sensible reason for eating and drinking is for sustenance. The wise person may even think of food as medicine, since not to eat would make the body sick. And as regards cleaning the body, why would a wise person not clean himself when he knows that otherwise it will get dirty and smelly? With this understanding would cleaning then necessarily involve greed?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">=====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: The Guru Granth Sahib is the guide in keeping things in check, not over indulging, but keeping things in a balance like a housekeepers life balanced with a spiritual one</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: What keeps in check is not the juggling of ideas by those who are motivated by ignorance and attachment, but must in fact be the function of wisdom. And this wisdom does not create scenarios in the mind in order to determine which course of action to take, but understands there and then what the reality is. It is in this very understanding that the right course of action is taken.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">One question for you, as I see it lauded by many members here, but not seen any explanation given in support. What according to you is the virtue in living the life of a householder as against a recluse? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I understand that guru Nanak was a householder and saw rightly that he did not need to change anything in order that understanding is developed. I understand therefore why he would see the error in people deciding to leave their homes in order to do the same. This however does not translate into making the household life the “ideal” as his followers appear to have done. It is simply saying that one can develop understanding in whatever situation one finds oneself in and to think otherwise would be to place oneself on the wrong path. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">======</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: Not true, the reaction of aversion and conceit can actually get weaker with time, as you will notice with some children at time too much chocolate can actually put you off it for good</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Ha, so you are saying that the path to liberation from attachment is the same one which leads to its increase? You get the best of both worlds (no need to find any kind of balance even), eat drink and be merry and in the end you also become liberated from the clutches of attachment. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Yes because the realization is truth. I sit on no seat of judgement; Guru Nanak reformed a canabalist, jesus a prostitute. I don’t think you have read any of my past posts either. If a good man can do bad or a bad man can do good and they keep doing vice versa are they good or bad you cannot label human beings they are humans. Most things can change even laws that are made change constantly. There will be contradictions to all of these thought processes as it is to remain in balance the centred self, which is the important concept.</span></span> </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The child simply realises that enjoyment is not formed just from the chocolate. The child in the example experiences too much and is on one side on the spectrum, peace or enlightenment, or liberation as you call it, is a personal process. What works for one may not work for another, what is one mans thought of heaven may be another mans thought of hell. Truth brings liberation. If you lose attachment what do you actually change in yourself, answer is nothing apart from the thought, but you say there is no thought. I would have thought this would have made more sense to you? You are still the individual that created the need, in that instance the thing that changes is your realization of the truth of that need and nothing more as you just need the truth as a saying goes the truth will set you free. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span> <span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> Do you know in Indian mythology there was a saint called Junamon (may have spelt it wrongly), he was a dakoo, a crook but when he jumped from a mountain of Mata Naina devi God called out to him and he is revered as a saint. Listen the whole proportion of this debate will take going through the entire Gurbani and I am sorry but I don’t have time to do that. It is too in-depth and it is all about individual enlightenment so I will leave you to pick up your own answers on it. I have tried my best to explain the broader thought. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And on that note Sikhism is not about detachment it is about living in the world you are born in and be happy! What’s wrong with that, to experience peace where you are at, as god intended natural peace as god exists everywhere! </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Do you now see how silly your suggestion is?</span></p><p><span style="color: #548dd4"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">By your reasoning it is silly, but you have no thought so!</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">In the above example, you actually make my point! That a kid is put off by chocolate is indication exactly that his attachments has increased such that what used to satisfy and excite does not anymore. He now looks for other more exciting pleasures. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">What do you think, does an old man express less interest in sex because his attachment has diminished, or is it because he does not have the energy or knows that the chance of finding a willing partner is almost zero?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">======</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Quote C: And this is why wisdom is the only countermeasure and why good deeds are encouraged.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: I deeply doubt that a good deed can reform an individual, it just means they have performed a good deed that is not what leads to the change it can give a stepping stone for an individual but realistically the change comes from within the individual not from the outer exterior or outer deeds </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: How is a good deeds an exterior phenomenon and not refer to the person? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">But yes, good deeds without understanding does nothing to the underlying tendencies to evil and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. This is why the ‘countermeasure” was in reference to wisdom and not to good deeds. However, my pointing this was in response to the idea that generally there would be ignorance, attachment and so on and that the more frequently these arose, the stronger they become, therefore it would help that instead, there were good deeds arising every now and then. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">======</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: Any fundamental level is basic, because all thoughts even a computer program to a micro cell, exist only at basic levels after which further development continues, to produce complex entities</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: But as I have tried to point out earlier, concept at its more fundamental stage or at the level of recognizable “things”, are the same in that they are not real and do not exist other than as object of consciousness. On the other hand, the objects of the five senses, namely visible object, sound, taste, smell, heat and so on, these are very real since each have particular characteristics, functions and proximate cause.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">=====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Quote C: And although the person at the first stage of enlightenment sees how attachment and conceit will continue to arise to drive his existence, he knows clearly at the same time, that he can very well function without these.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: You can not function without your senses. Any living thing needs senses to live, it is an survival mechanism. No living thing lives without senses even micro organim's aquire some form of attraction bit like a magnetic field in a sense to communicate and reproduce </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Was I referring to the experience through the senses or was I referring in context, to ignorance, attachment, conceit and such? Read again what I wrote. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">======</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: If the wise person does not need to balance things then at what standpoint are they better at. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Understanding the Truth / reality there and then.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: They are unable as your suggestion to reproduce,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: While the wise person sees the fault in attachment hence value of detachment, you on the other hand appear to think that to reproduce is a virtue. But I’ll wait for your explanation…. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">====</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: to eat to survive as your suggestion requires the individual to be detached</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: I have given an explanation above. There is a difference between eating for sustenance and / or as medicine vs. with the idea of survival.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">==== </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">P: so I ask do you even comply with reality, and so you can cast that thought or that individual as delusional</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Well from my perspective, my reference point has always been reality. Whereas what yours is, is concept, the stuff of dreams. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Ps: Sorry for the long responses Parma ji. I hope they will not put you off. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Parma, post: 163558, member: 4724"] [FONT=Times New Roman]Confused ji, P: I beg to differ with you on that confused ji, firstly if there is thinking then there is thought, you say thought does not exist. C: You probably have not read many of my past discussions. It is like this: “Thinking” is a mental phenomenon which follows the experience through the five senses and also otherwise. [/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]As you say thinking is a “phenomenon”, = Oxford dictionary translation, 1) [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#548dd4][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question. So when a person thinks something by your suggestion you are not thinking it, you have no thought it is a phenomenon, so all your thoughts are in question, you will never have any thought on anything as you never had a point (thought) to begin with. How do answer any question! The whole process of i.e. you, thought is non-existent in your view. That is delusion! You are actually conveying that all thought is nothing! No one has thought in your mind, now that is conceited[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman] When for example, there is seeing, what is seen is just visible object or that which is seen. The perception of people and things is the result of the thinking process which follows upon many instances of seeing. These are therefore concepts and this is what I call ‘thoughts’. [/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]Look at the above for the answer on this you cannot grasp concepts as by your understanding you do not believe in thought![/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman] It is the same as in a dream. Those things do not exist, but are simply the object of consciousness created by the thinking process and involving memory. That a dream goes in any direction or even look like a Salvador Dali painting is because at such times, there are no experiences through the five senses to keep the perceptions in check. But concepts / thoughts both are when beings and objects are perceived, in a dream as well as during waking state, and equally unreal / non-existent.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman] [COLOR=#548dd4]A dream does not physically exist but it is in existence of your thought. Existence is not just life based existence atoms exist, air exists but because you have no thought on it by your understanding they do not exist, but in fact they do![/COLOR] ===== P: I can debate that it is thought what sparks off thinking, if you are not aware of a thought how can the thinking process begin. C: What you appear to limit thinking to, are “train of thoughts”. But I call thinking what comes before even the perception of ‘something’ and this itself comes before we are able to identify and then label what that something is. For example, just a vague sense of outline, dimension and depth are according to my understanding, thoughts which are the result of thinking. [/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]You cannot seriously be talking about “train of thoughts” as person that does not believe in the existence of thought. Delusion[/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman] ===== P: Although as you say the human senses do play apart in developing a thought it is not the actual basis of thought. That is why people turn to god. Let me give an example; how can you think of god if you have not felt the experiance. C: Feeling is a mental factor which arises with *all* experiences, including thinking. If it is not the raw experience of one of the five senses or of life continuum (as in deep sleep), then it must be an instance of thinking at some stage of the process. So as far as I’m concerned, God is a concept all the way through.[/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]I agree to this and it is in line with what I have written, only you call god a concept I call god a reality a truth[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman] ==== P: Thought does exist! To Clarify your thought on that. C: Thought is not real and therefore does not have the kind of existence consciousness, mental factors and physical phenomena have, but only as object of thinking. [/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]This did not clarify anything. These are just big words concocted together that make no heads or tails of anything[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman]. Without getting too personal [COLOR=Red]Alot of what you write is just wafflings and ramblings.[/COLOR] === P: P.s. It is still scientifically unproven at which point thought exists, so you trying to answer the question shows you are attached to your own thought and on that point there is no real justification for your answer. C: Huh, you are saying that until science has come up with an answer as to how thought arises, I as a common man must be mistaken about my own understanding about it and therefore also attached to it?[/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]There has to be some truth, (call it scientific) in your conclusions to give your thoughts some substance. At present the process you are using is conceited [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman] I say that if you follow the lead of science, you will never, ever come to understand the Truth!![/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]Now you don’t believe in science, delusional and conceited fact![/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman] Science knows only concepts, namely the product of the thinking process. If is tries to study thinking, it can only do so by the process of thinking itself and therefore arrive only at a “concept” about it. What is worse is that science takes concept for reality and therefore leads one further away from the possibility of ever understanding what reality really is.[/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]I am lost with you onwards here, if you cannot comprehend thought how can you comprehend reality! [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman] But reality, ‘thinking’ being one, can be understood through the development of wisdom only and not through the methods of science / thinking. It is the product of insight which differentiates reality from concepts and thereby increases detachment. Science in failing to make this distinction can only lead to more and more attachment to the different theories that are postulated. ==== Quote C: Lobh, kam and moh are all forms of attachments and these are three of the Five Evils pointed out in Sikh teachings. So I wonder where you are really coming from with the above. P: Yes these attachments when taken out of proportion are vices, but without them you will also not reproduce. C: To reproduce and increase the population is a virtue? How? [/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]Any faith is about people, any religion is about people so to reproduce is about people. To increase population with good virtue is an incentive for humans to lead better lives for your off spring. To be against reproduction would mean to be against humanity or any species; over reproduction is another set issue[/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman]And about attachment, are you saying that so long I can convince myself and others, such as that reproduction is a virtue, I can draw a line as to how much of it is permissible or even desirable? Am I to draw from this that you do not believe that on one hand, attachment, aversion, ignorance, conceit and so on are wrong and on the other hand, kindness, morality, generosity and wisdom are good by their very nature, but instead depend on the context? Would this not be making things convenient and justification for all sort of evil to arise? [COLOR=#548dd4]No, because I am talking about keeping things in balance on your reasonings in yourself and not diverging all thoughts into one thought process unless it is on the truth. There is contractions in this as the process is keeping a balance. Thinking about only one thought in total, example; about reproduction could lead to untold calamities and tragedies. That’s why the Guru Granth Sahib is guide to keep the thought processes virtuous constant learning and constant improving on the thought process, which can only be obtained from a balanced approach[/COLOR] ==== P: You will not eat or drink. You will not look after you appearance and be clean. It is the proportion and the sanctity of the thought. C: You and I eat and drink out of greed, but this does not mean that those without greed will not eat and drink. Indeed we are at fault since the only sensible reason for eating and drinking is for sustenance. The wise person may even think of food as medicine, since not to eat would make the body sick. And as regards cleaning the body, why would a wise person not clean himself when he knows that otherwise it will get dirty and smelly? With this understanding would cleaning then necessarily involve greed? ===== P: The Guru Granth Sahib is the guide in keeping things in check, not over indulging, but keeping things in a balance like a housekeepers life balanced with a spiritual one C: What keeps in check is not the juggling of ideas by those who are motivated by ignorance and attachment, but must in fact be the function of wisdom. And this wisdom does not create scenarios in the mind in order to determine which course of action to take, but understands there and then what the reality is. It is in this very understanding that the right course of action is taken. One question for you, as I see it lauded by many members here, but not seen any explanation given in support. What according to you is the virtue in living the life of a householder as against a recluse? I understand that guru Nanak was a householder and saw rightly that he did not need to change anything in order that understanding is developed. I understand therefore why he would see the error in people deciding to leave their homes in order to do the same. This however does not translate into making the household life the “ideal” as his followers appear to have done. It is simply saying that one can develop understanding in whatever situation one finds oneself in and to think otherwise would be to place oneself on the wrong path. ====== P: Not true, the reaction of aversion and conceit can actually get weaker with time, as you will notice with some children at time too much chocolate can actually put you off it for good C: Ha, so you are saying that the path to liberation from attachment is the same one which leads to its increase? You get the best of both worlds (no need to find any kind of balance even), eat drink and be merry and in the end you also become liberated from the clutches of attachment. [/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]Yes because the realization is truth. I sit on no seat of judgement; Guru Nanak reformed a canabalist, jesus a prostitute. I don’t think you have read any of my past posts either. If a good man can do bad or a bad man can do good and they keep doing vice versa are they good or bad you cannot label human beings they are humans. Most things can change even laws that are made change constantly. There will be contradictions to all of these thought processes as it is to remain in balance the centred self, which is the important concept.[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]The child simply realises that enjoyment is not formed just from the chocolate. The child in the example experiences too much and is on one side on the spectrum, peace or enlightenment, or liberation as you call it, is a personal process. What works for one may not work for another, what is one mans thought of heaven may be another mans thought of hell. Truth brings liberation. If you lose attachment what do you actually change in yourself, answer is nothing apart from the thought, but you say there is no thought. I would have thought this would have made more sense to you? You are still the individual that created the need, in that instance the thing that changes is your realization of the truth of that need and nothing more as you just need the truth as a saying goes the truth will set you free. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman] Do you know in Indian mythology there was a saint called Junamon (may have spelt it wrongly), he was a dakoo, a crook but when he jumped from a mountain of Mata Naina devi God called out to him and he is revered as a saint. Listen the whole proportion of this debate will take going through the entire Gurbani and I am sorry but I don’t have time to do that. It is too in-depth and it is all about individual enlightenment so I will leave you to pick up your own answers on it. I have tried my best to explain the broader thought. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]And on that note Sikhism is not about detachment it is about living in the world you are born in and be happy! What’s wrong with that, to experience peace where you are at, as god intended natural peace as god exists everywhere! [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman] Do you now see how silly your suggestion is?[/FONT] [COLOR=#548dd4][FONT=Times New Roman]By your reasoning it is silly, but you have no thought so![/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Times New Roman] In the above example, you actually make my point! That a kid is put off by chocolate is indication exactly that his attachments has increased such that what used to satisfy and excite does not anymore. He now looks for other more exciting pleasures. What do you think, does an old man express less interest in sex because his attachment has diminished, or is it because he does not have the energy or knows that the chance of finding a willing partner is almost zero? ====== Quote C: And this is why wisdom is the only countermeasure and why good deeds are encouraged. P: I deeply doubt that a good deed can reform an individual, it just means they have performed a good deed that is not what leads to the change it can give a stepping stone for an individual but realistically the change comes from within the individual not from the outer exterior or outer deeds C: How is a good deeds an exterior phenomenon and not refer to the person? But yes, good deeds without understanding does nothing to the underlying tendencies to evil and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. This is why the ‘countermeasure” was in reference to wisdom and not to good deeds. However, my pointing this was in response to the idea that generally there would be ignorance, attachment and so on and that the more frequently these arose, the stronger they become, therefore it would help that instead, there were good deeds arising every now and then. ====== P: Any fundamental level is basic, because all thoughts even a computer program to a micro cell, exist only at basic levels after which further development continues, to produce complex entities C: But as I have tried to point out earlier, concept at its more fundamental stage or at the level of recognizable “things”, are the same in that they are not real and do not exist other than as object of consciousness. On the other hand, the objects of the five senses, namely visible object, sound, taste, smell, heat and so on, these are very real since each have particular characteristics, functions and proximate cause. ===== Quote C: And although the person at the first stage of enlightenment sees how attachment and conceit will continue to arise to drive his existence, he knows clearly at the same time, that he can very well function without these. P: You can not function without your senses. Any living thing needs senses to live, it is an survival mechanism. No living thing lives without senses even micro organim's aquire some form of attraction bit like a magnetic field in a sense to communicate and reproduce C: Was I referring to the experience through the senses or was I referring in context, to ignorance, attachment, conceit and such? Read again what I wrote. ====== P: If the wise person does not need to balance things then at what standpoint are they better at. C: Understanding the Truth / reality there and then. ==== P: They are unable as your suggestion to reproduce, C: While the wise person sees the fault in attachment hence value of detachment, you on the other hand appear to think that to reproduce is a virtue. But I’ll wait for your explanation…. ==== P: to eat to survive as your suggestion requires the individual to be detached C: I have given an explanation above. There is a difference between eating for sustenance and / or as medicine vs. with the idea of survival. ==== P: so I ask do you even comply with reality, and so you can cast that thought or that individual as delusional C: Well from my perspective, my reference point has always been reality. Whereas what yours is, is concept, the stuff of dreams. Ps: Sorry for the long responses Parma ji. I hope they will not put you off. [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post
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