☀️ 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="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 163718" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Parma ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't say that 'thinking' does not exist, but only that thoughts / concepts / that which thinking thinks about, does not. </p><p>Whether I am thinking about a flying purple hippo or about you or about myself, the thinking is a very real mental phenomenon with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and cause. These different referents on the other hand are just imaginations based on memory and other mental realities. And while thinking rises and falls away in an instant, thoughts don’t rise and fall away, but in fact give out an impression of lasting over time. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Questioning and answering all involve thinking. Both problem and solution depend on thinking process which has concepts as object. Thinking 2 + 2 = 4 involves many, many different concepts and trillions of mind moments. This does not imply that 2, plus or 4 are realties, does it? We function only because of thinking, but this does not require that the different concepts involved be given the status of “reality” / existent. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I do not believe them to “exist”, but I do believe that thinking happens all the time and that without this, it is impossible to function at all. And thinking when arisen, *must* have concepts / thought as object, but this is all that is required of it. On the other hand, the thinking itself *has* to be real and existing, so too the experience of the five senses and their corresponding objects. </p><p></p><p>For example, in order to boil water, there must be thinking, seeing and visible object, body consciousness and the earth, fire and wind elements, intention, feeling, attention, concentration, perception, body intimation and so on, all must be very real and without which no concepts would be thought about. And thinking, must think at many levels starting from drawing outlines, distinguishing objects, space, movement etc., but these as you can now probably imagine, are just mind constructs. Reacting to these constructs will lead me to different experiences through the five senses and the mind and this is basically how everybody functions. </p><p></p><p>Indeed to think that concepts are real and existing, this is not only unnecessary but is in fact a problem, since it leads to functioning driven by ignorance and attachment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since a dream itself is thoughts, you appear to be suggesting that thoughts exist in thoughts. But I think what you really are trying to tell me is that, a dream or any concept is not real, however, there is such a thing called “thoughts” which do exist and is the basis for dreams and concepts in general. I say that there is no such thing, and allow me to come in from another angle to explain this.</p><p></p><p>For anything to be real and existing, it must be either a mental or a physical reality. A dream is not a physical reality as you seem to agree. But is it mental? </p><p></p><p>Mental realities are those which when arisen, must experience something. We can see for example, that perception perceives an object, thinking thinks, feeling feels, concentration focuses, attention attends and so on. Can the same be said about “thoughts”? What would a thought experience?</p><p></p><p>All these above mentioned mental phenomena must arise with consciousness and they all experience the same object. Therefore when there is thinking, thinking thinks thoughts and concentration, perception and so on, all experience the “thought” in their own way. The thought if real, obviously can’t experience itself, so what would it be experiencing? </p><p></p><p>The fact is that concepts are a creation of the thinking process and there is no such thing as ‘thoughts’ from which these concepts come about. There is only thinking which thinks thoughts / concepts and the latter do not exist. They can be said to be “shadows” of reality, and are not themselves reality. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Atoms and air are both concepts, which mean that they do not exist other than as object of thinking. What is real when you look down an electron microscope is seeing experiencing visible object and thinking, thinking about the different concepts. Atom, if conceived of at the time is just that, a concept. Likewise what you take for air is based on the experience through body consciousness at different times, of heat / cold, motion / pressure, hardness / softness and thinking arising to conceive of the particular concept and this too, built upon a myriad of other concepts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I say that thoughts, train or not train, are the creation of thinking. And I believe the thinking to be real and exist.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see the sense of what you are saying. If you agree that the experience of God is at any time only a concept, why do you think then that it is real? You mentioned that the concept originated from a 'feeling'. If I hallucinate and have strong feelings in relation to the object hallucinated, does that make it real?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>After reading my further explanations in this message, what do you now think?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not sure that I follow you. Are you insisting that science has to be expressing some truth and since I say that it does not, I am therefore conceited? Well, you can represent science and point out *one* truth that it has touched upon, and we can discuss that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe in science as a legitimate line of inquiry and thought within the conventional world where concepts are the object of experience. But when it comes to reality / truth, I believe that science has absolutely no clue about this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To 'comprehend' is the function of thinking. And thinking thinks concepts. Concepts can be concepts about reality or as it is usually the case, about that which is not real / does not exist. When it is about reality, such as for example, thinking, feeling, sound, perception, kindness, attachment, aversion, faith, ignorance and so on, this can be a condition for understanding the reality which appears there and then. But this would however be due to the function of wisdom and not of thinking. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ha, and I'm the one who is being accused of arrogance and conceit.</p><p>We can't even control our own minds or know what is going to happen one second from now. And yet believe that there'd come into existence beings who will be virtuous and wise as a result of our decision to reproduce. </p><p></p><p>If you'd focus on the Truth instead of thinking that religion is about people, you'd see that your concept about humanity and all the concerns related to this is in fact a proliferation conditioned by attachment and by wrong understanding.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you ever noticed that the stories we tell ourselves about our own actions, these depends on what at the moment conditions the thinking? Anger weaves out one story, attachment, another and if instead there were kindness, the story would be completely different? Towards the same person, with anger the thoughts are different from when there is attachment and this again different if there is instead, kindness.</p><p></p><p>Everyone is involved in balancing between what actions are proper and what is not. This includes what they consider good and right some of which appear as aimed at others, but is in fact towards self-preservation and perpetuation . If wisdom on the other hand arose instead, it would understand the truth of that moment and condition accordingly, the right course of action. 'Working things out' is what attachment does, not wisdom. </p><p></p><p>Perhaps you might consider giving the concept of 'balanced approach' a different meaning? In Buddhism the Middle Way refers to an instance of wisdom arisen to know the present moment reality. It has nothing to do with thinking in terms of how much and what to do. If one is involved in trying to figure out what to do and not, the Middle Way would be to understand the thinking as thinking or attachment as attachment and from this, the right course of action may emerge. What do you think about this?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have just changed the topic. We were not talking about whether anyone can change (conventionally speaking), but whether the change comes from moving along the same path. I suggest that attachment arisen now increases the tendency, and you are saying that it can one day lead to being free of it. </p><p></p><p>I say that being free of attachment is the result of the development of wisdom. And to give an example of someone in more or less a similar situation to the one you give above is Angulimala:</p><p></p><p>Angulimala who you probably heard about, was involved in killing people with the aim of collecting their finger so as to reach a total number aimed for. This was the result of wrong thinking following the suggestion of a fool. It also showed that because he was yet to become enlightened, the tendency to murder still existed. Upon hearing the Buddha speak however, he suddenly understood. And this is indication not that his attachment and aversion resulted in wisdom, but rather that he had in the past accumulated a great deal of wisdom, so much so that it now resulted in enlightenment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why call anything Law if it can change? Change is the nature of all conditioned existence, and fickle is our attitude towards things, but natural laws don't change nor waver. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is your own attempt at resolution with regard to things that you either do not understand or misunderstand completely.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. Please explain it in a different way if you can.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you can be sure that I appreciate your efforts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Given the teaching with regard to the wrongness of the Five Evils, it is obvious that detachment is very much encouraged. Peace is the peace that comes with this detachment, any other kind must be the influence of these same Five Evils and conditioned by ignorance. It is very much possible to develop detachment while living the household life. This is because detachment is the result of understanding and has nothing to do with any householder's attempt at balancing and arranging things. So I think that you are quite wrong in your conclusion with regard to the aim of Sikhism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is thinking and thoughts are the object. And this is a fact! ;-)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 163718, member: 586"] Parma ji, I didn't say that 'thinking' does not exist, but only that thoughts / concepts / that which thinking thinks about, does not. Whether I am thinking about a flying purple hippo or about you or about myself, the thinking is a very real mental phenomenon with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and cause. These different referents on the other hand are just imaginations based on memory and other mental realities. And while thinking rises and falls away in an instant, thoughts don’t rise and fall away, but in fact give out an impression of lasting over time. Questioning and answering all involve thinking. Both problem and solution depend on thinking process which has concepts as object. Thinking 2 + 2 = 4 involves many, many different concepts and trillions of mind moments. This does not imply that 2, plus or 4 are realties, does it? We function only because of thinking, but this does not require that the different concepts involved be given the status of “reality” / existent. I do not believe them to “exist”, but I do believe that thinking happens all the time and that without this, it is impossible to function at all. And thinking when arisen, *must* have concepts / thought as object, but this is all that is required of it. On the other hand, the thinking itself *has* to be real and existing, so too the experience of the five senses and their corresponding objects. For example, in order to boil water, there must be thinking, seeing and visible object, body consciousness and the earth, fire and wind elements, intention, feeling, attention, concentration, perception, body intimation and so on, all must be very real and without which no concepts would be thought about. And thinking, must think at many levels starting from drawing outlines, distinguishing objects, space, movement etc., but these as you can now probably imagine, are just mind constructs. Reacting to these constructs will lead me to different experiences through the five senses and the mind and this is basically how everybody functions. Indeed to think that concepts are real and existing, this is not only unnecessary but is in fact a problem, since it leads to functioning driven by ignorance and attachment. Since a dream itself is thoughts, you appear to be suggesting that thoughts exist in thoughts. But I think what you really are trying to tell me is that, a dream or any concept is not real, however, there is such a thing called “thoughts” which do exist and is the basis for dreams and concepts in general. I say that there is no such thing, and allow me to come in from another angle to explain this. For anything to be real and existing, it must be either a mental or a physical reality. A dream is not a physical reality as you seem to agree. But is it mental? Mental realities are those which when arisen, must experience something. We can see for example, that perception perceives an object, thinking thinks, feeling feels, concentration focuses, attention attends and so on. Can the same be said about “thoughts”? What would a thought experience? All these above mentioned mental phenomena must arise with consciousness and they all experience the same object. Therefore when there is thinking, thinking thinks thoughts and concentration, perception and so on, all experience the “thought” in their own way. The thought if real, obviously can’t experience itself, so what would it be experiencing? The fact is that concepts are a creation of the thinking process and there is no such thing as ‘thoughts’ from which these concepts come about. There is only thinking which thinks thoughts / concepts and the latter do not exist. They can be said to be “shadows” of reality, and are not themselves reality. Atoms and air are both concepts, which mean that they do not exist other than as object of thinking. What is real when you look down an electron microscope is seeing experiencing visible object and thinking, thinking about the different concepts. Atom, if conceived of at the time is just that, a concept. Likewise what you take for air is based on the experience through body consciousness at different times, of heat / cold, motion / pressure, hardness / softness and thinking arising to conceive of the particular concept and this too, built upon a myriad of other concepts. Well, I say that thoughts, train or not train, are the creation of thinking. And I believe the thinking to be real and exist. I don't see the sense of what you are saying. If you agree that the experience of God is at any time only a concept, why do you think then that it is real? You mentioned that the concept originated from a 'feeling'. If I hallucinate and have strong feelings in relation to the object hallucinated, does that make it real? After reading my further explanations in this message, what do you now think? I am not sure that I follow you. Are you insisting that science has to be expressing some truth and since I say that it does not, I am therefore conceited? Well, you can represent science and point out *one* truth that it has touched upon, and we can discuss that. I believe in science as a legitimate line of inquiry and thought within the conventional world where concepts are the object of experience. But when it comes to reality / truth, I believe that science has absolutely no clue about this. To 'comprehend' is the function of thinking. And thinking thinks concepts. Concepts can be concepts about reality or as it is usually the case, about that which is not real / does not exist. When it is about reality, such as for example, thinking, feeling, sound, perception, kindness, attachment, aversion, faith, ignorance and so on, this can be a condition for understanding the reality which appears there and then. But this would however be due to the function of wisdom and not of thinking. Ha, and I'm the one who is being accused of arrogance and conceit. We can't even control our own minds or know what is going to happen one second from now. And yet believe that there'd come into existence beings who will be virtuous and wise as a result of our decision to reproduce. If you'd focus on the Truth instead of thinking that religion is about people, you'd see that your concept about humanity and all the concerns related to this is in fact a proliferation conditioned by attachment and by wrong understanding. Have you ever noticed that the stories we tell ourselves about our own actions, these depends on what at the moment conditions the thinking? Anger weaves out one story, attachment, another and if instead there were kindness, the story would be completely different? Towards the same person, with anger the thoughts are different from when there is attachment and this again different if there is instead, kindness. Everyone is involved in balancing between what actions are proper and what is not. This includes what they consider good and right some of which appear as aimed at others, but is in fact towards self-preservation and perpetuation . If wisdom on the other hand arose instead, it would understand the truth of that moment and condition accordingly, the right course of action. 'Working things out' is what attachment does, not wisdom. Perhaps you might consider giving the concept of 'balanced approach' a different meaning? In Buddhism the Middle Way refers to an instance of wisdom arisen to know the present moment reality. It has nothing to do with thinking in terms of how much and what to do. If one is involved in trying to figure out what to do and not, the Middle Way would be to understand the thinking as thinking or attachment as attachment and from this, the right course of action may emerge. What do you think about this? You have just changed the topic. We were not talking about whether anyone can change (conventionally speaking), but whether the change comes from moving along the same path. I suggest that attachment arisen now increases the tendency, and you are saying that it can one day lead to being free of it. I say that being free of attachment is the result of the development of wisdom. And to give an example of someone in more or less a similar situation to the one you give above is Angulimala: Angulimala who you probably heard about, was involved in killing people with the aim of collecting their finger so as to reach a total number aimed for. This was the result of wrong thinking following the suggestion of a fool. It also showed that because he was yet to become enlightened, the tendency to murder still existed. Upon hearing the Buddha speak however, he suddenly understood. And this is indication not that his attachment and aversion resulted in wisdom, but rather that he had in the past accumulated a great deal of wisdom, so much so that it now resulted in enlightenment. Why call anything Law if it can change? Change is the nature of all conditioned existence, and fickle is our attitude towards things, but natural laws don't change nor waver. This is your own attempt at resolution with regard to things that you either do not understand or misunderstand completely. I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. Please explain it in a different way if you can. And you can be sure that I appreciate your efforts. Given the teaching with regard to the wrongness of the Five Evils, it is obvious that detachment is very much encouraged. Peace is the peace that comes with this detachment, any other kind must be the influence of these same Five Evils and conditioned by ignorance. It is very much possible to develop detachment while living the household life. This is because detachment is the result of understanding and has nothing to do with any householder's attempt at balancing and arranging things. So I think that you are quite wrong in your conclusion with regard to the aim of Sikhism. There is thinking and thoughts are the object. And this is a fact! ;-) [/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