☀️ 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: 168239" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Vouthonji,</p><p></p><p>I'm writing because the two of us have not entered into a discussion before and you have put so much effort into writing your post. But like with Harry ji, it appears that you too have not grasped what I have been trying to convey so far. And I have come to a point where I question not only my ability to convey the understanding, but more importantly, that this can be done by mere use of reason or continual hammering.</p><p></p><p>I've read the beginning part of your post and will respond only to this and decide whether or not to respond to the rest later on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I hope that you do not mind that I comment verse by verse.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What has necessitated this idea about Eternity? </p><p>The nature of the moment as understood by wisdom is that it is fleeting, and there are only fleeting experiences one following another. Whence comes the impression of anything being eternal or that there exists something behind the particular experience?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is about concepts and not reality. Concepts give out the impression of lasting in time. The world that you refer to exists in time, so too your own self who you judge as lasting only for a short time by comparison. So here we have a story about impermanence / ephemeral in relation to what has in fact been perceived wrongly, as lasting in time. Could this then be wisdom at work or is it merely philosophizing?</p><p></p><p>Realities when known are perceived not only as disintegrating, but in fact already fallen away by the time that it is known. There is no idea about one falling away while another stays. Indeed it has been pointed out that the real “world” is that which disintegrates, implying that if something is perceived as lasting, even if for only one second, that thing does not qualify as being world / reality. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ideas very opposed to Buddhism.</p><p>One, that there is a self to lose. Two, that there is a God / Ground (or any equivalent) from which one emerged, at some point lost connection with, and therefore now seek to merge into or come to realize that there was indeed never any separation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Although this again is about concepts, it can come from a level of wisdom and cause calm. But bliss, particularly when associated with glory, sounds like sense of achievement which is accompanied by clinging. Glory in relation to what? Bliss itself, like any other mental state is impermanent, unsatisfactory, impersonal and unbeautiful. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Although time is a concept, the basis for this is the fact of experience rising and falling away, one following another on and on. But where is there a place for the concept of “timelessness” to be derived from this understanding? </p><p></p><p>Timelessness is intimately tied with the concept of eternity. This is one of the two extremes of wrong views, the other being the annihilationist view, which the Buddha's Middle way works directly against. So again we have an outlook, very opposed to the Buddha's. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no stopping the process of thinking. It is the nature of mind to think about the object of the senses each time that the later occur. Therefore the jumping around from one object to another should not be seen as a problem. Indeed were the mind not to behave this way, one wouldn't be able to reach out for an object or do anything else. If any fault exists, it is in the ignorance and attachment which is the driving force and not the thinking. Not realizing this is the reason why the impression of a still mind is mistaken for some profound experience, when in fact it is only thinking with an object different from what happens normally. The perception of “eternity” is another instance of thinking differently coming across as some kind of realization.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Human: a concept which is judged as transient.</p><p>God: a concept judged as eternal.</p><p></p><p>Wisdom understands what in fact is really going on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Me, mine and I are correspondingly, self-view, attachment and conceit. The only way that the latter two can be eradicated is by first overcoming the former. Eternity view, of which the concept of God is one consequence, is exactly self-view at work. The perception of a “me” needed to be lost is self-view feeding itself. It all comes down to being only a psychological game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Such thoughts can be a condition for moral action, kindness and compassion, but they can also be a cause for actions that in fact come from self-interest but wrongly mistaken for good. The difference is in whether there is any understanding with regard to the nature and hence the advantage of wholesome states and the disadvantage of unwholesome states.</p><p></p><p>When there exists such understanding, almost anything can be a reminder to do good, avoid evil and to cultivate the mind. When this understanding is lacking, then we tend to rely on some kind of script in order that we can then act the desired way, and this of course is not reliable. The only good reason to do good is for the sake of good itself. To rely on a line of thought in order that we can act a certain way will only accumulate the tendency to such, which will lead on another occasion, to look for a reason to act badly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What is seen as transformation is in reality the story about me, Me and ME. A problem is perceived through the eyes of self, which then projects a solution and subsequently follows a path where this self gets reinforced instead of seen through. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One thinks that in referring to a creator, one foregoes control and becomes peaceful. But what is not seen is that the problem is in the very belief in a controller. In giving up control of the small self (which never happens) one comes to be identified with the big SELF. Indeed this is worshipping power!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A very worthy goal indeed. But is this possible without understanding that these are conditioned phenomena which are impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is death and rebirth not every minute, but billions of times in just one second. The death that is being referred to in this verse must therefore, be simply a story about death centered on the 'me'. If death and rebirth indeed takes place from moment to moment, and the cause for this seen, why then believe that the process discontinues with death consciousness? What kind of existence is this “life infinite” which supposedly happens after conventional death?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>According to the Buddha's teachings what keeps living beings tied to the round of existence and within each lifetime is not ego, but attachment. Misidentifying the problem can never lead to following the correct path leading to final eradication of conceit / ego.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now and at any time, there are only conditioned mental and physical phenomena (leaving out the unconditioned Nirvana). All these conditioned phenomena have each a set of cause which are nothing but other equally ephemeral mental and physical phenomena. No place for the idea of being creations or part of some abstract concept such as God, the Tao etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sure that now you do not think so. ;-) And of course I did not 'hit upon' the truth, but am more or less simply parroting what the Buddha enlightened into and taught.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well I say that his “being in the here and now” is in fact a proliferation in the present, of an eternalist view. It has nothing to do with “understanding” the nature of what in fact rises and falls away “now”. Were he to understand the nature of say, seeing or hearing for example, he'd know that these as different from anger or kindness. The former are “resultant” consciousness, whereas the latter are volitional consciousness which are of the nature of “cause”. *This* is the basis for belief in karma and not that which you conceive of and choose to deny. It is from this that belief in rebirth (not reincarnation) then follows. </p><p></p><p>But even if such study has not happened, does it not make sense to at least believe that there must exist a law of moral cause and effect? Karma is all about moral cause and effect. If you deny this, then please explain the basis for your own sense of morality? What do you understand with regard to the value of moral restraint?</p><p></p><p>I'll end here and will wait for your response to see whether or not we should continue with this discussion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 168239, member: 586"] Vouthonji, I'm writing because the two of us have not entered into a discussion before and you have put so much effort into writing your post. But like with Harry ji, it appears that you too have not grasped what I have been trying to convey so far. And I have come to a point where I question not only my ability to convey the understanding, but more importantly, that this can be done by mere use of reason or continual hammering. I've read the beginning part of your post and will respond only to this and decide whether or not to respond to the rest later on. I hope that you do not mind that I comment verse by verse. What has necessitated this idea about Eternity? The nature of the moment as understood by wisdom is that it is fleeting, and there are only fleeting experiences one following another. Whence comes the impression of anything being eternal or that there exists something behind the particular experience? This is about concepts and not reality. Concepts give out the impression of lasting in time. The world that you refer to exists in time, so too your own self who you judge as lasting only for a short time by comparison. So here we have a story about impermanence / ephemeral in relation to what has in fact been perceived wrongly, as lasting in time. Could this then be wisdom at work or is it merely philosophizing? Realities when known are perceived not only as disintegrating, but in fact already fallen away by the time that it is known. There is no idea about one falling away while another stays. Indeed it has been pointed out that the real “world” is that which disintegrates, implying that if something is perceived as lasting, even if for only one second, that thing does not qualify as being world / reality. Ideas very opposed to Buddhism. One, that there is a self to lose. Two, that there is a God / Ground (or any equivalent) from which one emerged, at some point lost connection with, and therefore now seek to merge into or come to realize that there was indeed never any separation. Although this again is about concepts, it can come from a level of wisdom and cause calm. But bliss, particularly when associated with glory, sounds like sense of achievement which is accompanied by clinging. Glory in relation to what? Bliss itself, like any other mental state is impermanent, unsatisfactory, impersonal and unbeautiful. Although time is a concept, the basis for this is the fact of experience rising and falling away, one following another on and on. But where is there a place for the concept of “timelessness” to be derived from this understanding? Timelessness is intimately tied with the concept of eternity. This is one of the two extremes of wrong views, the other being the annihilationist view, which the Buddha's Middle way works directly against. So again we have an outlook, very opposed to the Buddha's. There is no stopping the process of thinking. It is the nature of mind to think about the object of the senses each time that the later occur. Therefore the jumping around from one object to another should not be seen as a problem. Indeed were the mind not to behave this way, one wouldn't be able to reach out for an object or do anything else. If any fault exists, it is in the ignorance and attachment which is the driving force and not the thinking. Not realizing this is the reason why the impression of a still mind is mistaken for some profound experience, when in fact it is only thinking with an object different from what happens normally. The perception of “eternity” is another instance of thinking differently coming across as some kind of realization. Human: a concept which is judged as transient. God: a concept judged as eternal. Wisdom understands what in fact is really going on. Me, mine and I are correspondingly, self-view, attachment and conceit. The only way that the latter two can be eradicated is by first overcoming the former. Eternity view, of which the concept of God is one consequence, is exactly self-view at work. The perception of a “me” needed to be lost is self-view feeding itself. It all comes down to being only a psychological game. Such thoughts can be a condition for moral action, kindness and compassion, but they can also be a cause for actions that in fact come from self-interest but wrongly mistaken for good. The difference is in whether there is any understanding with regard to the nature and hence the advantage of wholesome states and the disadvantage of unwholesome states. When there exists such understanding, almost anything can be a reminder to do good, avoid evil and to cultivate the mind. When this understanding is lacking, then we tend to rely on some kind of script in order that we can then act the desired way, and this of course is not reliable. The only good reason to do good is for the sake of good itself. To rely on a line of thought in order that we can act a certain way will only accumulate the tendency to such, which will lead on another occasion, to look for a reason to act badly. What is seen as transformation is in reality the story about me, Me and ME. A problem is perceived through the eyes of self, which then projects a solution and subsequently follows a path where this self gets reinforced instead of seen through. One thinks that in referring to a creator, one foregoes control and becomes peaceful. But what is not seen is that the problem is in the very belief in a controller. In giving up control of the small self (which never happens) one comes to be identified with the big SELF. Indeed this is worshipping power! A very worthy goal indeed. But is this possible without understanding that these are conditioned phenomena which are impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self? There is death and rebirth not every minute, but billions of times in just one second. The death that is being referred to in this verse must therefore, be simply a story about death centered on the 'me'. If death and rebirth indeed takes place from moment to moment, and the cause for this seen, why then believe that the process discontinues with death consciousness? What kind of existence is this “life infinite” which supposedly happens after conventional death? According to the Buddha's teachings what keeps living beings tied to the round of existence and within each lifetime is not ego, but attachment. Misidentifying the problem can never lead to following the correct path leading to final eradication of conceit / ego. Now and at any time, there are only conditioned mental and physical phenomena (leaving out the unconditioned Nirvana). All these conditioned phenomena have each a set of cause which are nothing but other equally ephemeral mental and physical phenomena. No place for the idea of being creations or part of some abstract concept such as God, the Tao etc. I'm sure that now you do not think so. ;-) And of course I did not 'hit upon' the truth, but am more or less simply parroting what the Buddha enlightened into and taught. Well I say that his “being in the here and now” is in fact a proliferation in the present, of an eternalist view. It has nothing to do with “understanding” the nature of what in fact rises and falls away “now”. Were he to understand the nature of say, seeing or hearing for example, he'd know that these as different from anger or kindness. The former are “resultant” consciousness, whereas the latter are volitional consciousness which are of the nature of “cause”. *This* is the basis for belief in karma and not that which you conceive of and choose to deny. It is from this that belief in rebirth (not reincarnation) then follows. But even if such study has not happened, does it not make sense to at least believe that there must exist a law of moral cause and effect? Karma is all about moral cause and effect. If you deny this, then please explain the basis for your own sense of morality? What do you understand with regard to the value of moral restraint? I'll end here and will wait for your response to see whether or not we should continue with this discussion. [/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