Buddhism Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post

Ambarsaria · Mar 30, 2012

Obviously I am no better than the average person in terms of accumulated tendency to kindness, morality and so on on and have no less hatred, greed, ignorance etc. In fact I have very strong attachments and get angry more easily than most people. And when I think about people like Bin Laden and Gadhafi, knowing myself, it is easy for me to imagine that I have been worse in past lifetimes and will likely be so in future ones. It just happens that the conditions in this lifetime have been such that this has not happened and probably will not.

But all this is to be expected, since change must happen very, very gradually. Indeed it has been compared to using a knife. One does not see how much the handle is worn away when observing one day after another, but only after a long time will you see that it has worn away a little. And according to the Buddha, the first step is the eradication of wrong understanding and doubt and with these, also miserliness and jealousy. And this is already aeons away for someone like me, not to mention anger, sensual desire, conceit, attachment to being and ignorance which are further down the road (although not long after). And what does this point to?

That if we think to fight sensuous attachments, conceit and anger we are in fact invariably encouraging them in other forms and towards other objects. The cause as well as what results is perversion of perception, of consciousness and of understanding. It is this latter which gives the impression not only that we should try to fight these vices, but also the illusion that we have had some success in lessening them.

So long as there is wrong understanding, other evils will not lessen one bit, in fact they are being encouraged in other forms, including to the very idea of being without particular ones. All this is the result of “attachment to self” and the illusion is due to the fact that wrong understanding feels right to the person who has it. It is also from not understanding that the root of the problem is not attachment, aversion and so on, but in fact “ignorance”.

The Buddha gave the example of a man trying to cross the flood (comparable to the flood of desire, aversion, and ignorance). If he strains, he is swept away. If he stands still, he sinks. The former is when for example, with wrong understanding we try to fight our vices, one obvious manifestation of which is asceticism. The other is when we indulge in them thinking that they are not harmful, as in hedonism. The Middle Way is that of understanding which sees the danger of all those mental phenomena and therefore also of any attachment to the idea of being without them. Hence the Path is that of understanding all the way through characterized by a corresponding level of detachment. In other words, a desire to be rid of attachment, aversion or conceit is to be replaced by detachment conditioned by the understanding that that these will lesson only by the gradual development of wisdom.

There are no shortcuts, therefore if you find yourself being attracted to some particular method to grow in morality and wisdom, this again must be due to a perversion of understanding. It is the same when we idealistically go out and try to be proactive in “doing good”, such as what we do in the name of Sewa. It all comes down to “attachment to self” and therefore must in the final analysis be all about me, mine and I. And this is not the way to enlightenment, but in fact more ignorance and more attachment.

There is in Buddhism an object for the development of calm which is “reflection on the qualities of the Buddha”. But who can have such an object? Obviously only the one who does have the depth of understanding to see the true value of all those qualities? So what happens if some so called Buddhist tries to concentrate on what he thinks is a Buddha and the qualities that is possessed by such a one, but in fact is quite ignorant and does this with attachment? The result would be even more perversion of perception, consciousness and understanding would it not?

There is also the problem in thinking in terms of “persons” that this takes the attention away from the qualities themselves. So we risk ending up worshiping the person and this can't be good, can it?

You are probably being too confident. If he is up there somewhere, you will inadvertently every now and then; be seeking approval for your different acts. Just like what happens here, often we write and wonder if anyone will approve of it.

But before reincarnation (rebirth), there must be belief in karma. So yes, I think this is one of the obstacles. In fact it has been pointed out as one of the main obstacles to the development of wisdom. But as I pointed out in our earlier discussions, this is not about blind acceptance, but about understanding. To not believe because one does not yet have the basis to do so is one thing, but to reject it altogether as a result of some wrong understanding about moral cause and effect, this is really harmful.

Ignorance is dark, but on hearing about the Truth a little light can occasionally come through. Wrong understanding on the other hand, is to be facing in a direction where darkness is seen as light, so how can one expect that any real light will ever come through?

We are all more or less in the same boat Harry ji. If I told you about my life, especially in light of what just happened last week, your hair will definitely stand on its ends. I am however encouraged by the fact that although there has been so much aversion (to the point of depression), understanding could still intermittently arise from time to time. But then again the problem is really our habit of thinking in terms of stories about self and other. If instead we could see things in terms of moment to moment experiences, the problems will not appear as such.

You have perhaps accumulated so many preconceptions about the one that this continues to be an obstacle to taking the first necessary step, namely that karma is about your experience “now”. The idea about future lives comes from understanding the nature of that which makes up your day to day experiences such as attachment, aversion, kindness, morality and so on.

I am perceived by some people as the most generous person they personally know. This has put me and my family in a lot of financial trouble, so much so that I am now quite sure that I will not be able to pay for my children's college education and I fear this very much. I regret having helped all those people, but only to the extent that I did not at the time consider wisely. But was my giving bad, no, of course it wasn't. Indeed if I thought otherwise, not only will I not get my money back, I will have added more problems and much worse, namely aversion and wrong understanding.

Not really. Firstly is it about the development of understanding all the way through. This of course will include seeing the value of giving, kindness and so on, which by virtue of the very understanding are encouraged to arise.
And contrary to what some opponents of Karma think, understanding leads to less and less thinking about what the future will bring, (including what rebirth) but more the nature of the “cause” *now*.

If this sense of responsibility comes with the perception of “me”, “mine” and “I”, how can it be good? Anyway, you will have seen from my previous comment that a correct understanding about karma actually leads to thinking in terms of cause which is this moment, and this to me *is* the only real expression of responsibility.

And thank you for giving me the opportunity to sort out my thoughts and for hearing me. ;-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Metta

PS: Original post is here,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...hy-we-not-allowed-cut-hair-23.html#post163053

Harry Haller · Mar 31, 2012

Obviously I am no better than the average person in terms of accumulated tendency to kindness, morality and so on on and have no less hatred, greed, ignorance etc. In fact I have very strong attachments and get angry more easily than most people. And when I think about people like Bin Laden and Gadhafi, knowing myself, it is easy for me to imagine that I have been worse in past lifetimes and will likely be so in future ones. It just happens that the conditions in this lifetime have been such that this has not happened and probably will not.

Without the comfort of the belief in past lives, I am limited to just the belief in this life, and if I am brutally honest with myself, the only way I can judge whether I have succeeded in this life is not a hugely Sikhi yardstick, it is how happy I have made the people round me, how much I have affected Creation, how many snails I have rescued from the bin if you like

But all this is to be expected, since change must happen very, very gradually. Indeed it has been compared to using a knife. One does not see how much the handle is worn away when observing one day after another, but only after a long time will you see that it has worn away a little. And according to the Buddha, the first step is the eradication of wrong understanding and doubt and with these, also miserliness and jealousy. And this is already aeons away for someone like me, not to mention anger, sensual desire, conceit, attachment to being and ignorance which are further down the road (although not long after). And what does this point to?

Confused Veerji, I believe this points to a state of deathlike living, although I am aware this is lauded in Sikhi

That if we think to fight sensuous attachments, conceit and anger we are in fact invariably encouraging them in other forms and towards other objects. The cause as well as what results is perversion of perception, of consciousness and of understanding. It is this latter which gives the impression not only that we should try to fight these vices, but also the illusion that we have had some success in lessening them.

I love this paragraph, it is so true, so spot on, I call it free floating addiction, give up one addiction, and you soon find another, the only solution that I have found in my lifetime so far is to embrace moderation and understand the nature of consequences.

The Buddha gave the example of a man trying to cross the flood (comparable to the flood of desire, aversion, and ignorance). If he strains, he is swept away. If he stands still, he sinks. The former is when for example, with wrong understanding we try to fight our vices, one obvious manifestation of which is asceticism. The other is when we indulge in them thinking that they are not harmful, as in hedonism. The Middle Way is that of understanding which sees the danger of all those mental phenomena and therefore also of any attachment to the idea of being without them. Hence the Path is that of understanding all the way through characterized by a corresponding level of detachment. In other words, a desire to be rid of attachment, aversion or conceit is to be replaced by detachment conditioned by the understanding that that these will lesson only by the gradual development of wisdom.

If we accept our vices as harmful, and accept that they will cause attachment, then understanding and wisdom are the only arrows we have. Most try aversion or conceit, however, for me, the end game is for a complete understanding and submission to vices on the basis that wisdom and understanding has negated the attachment, I wonder if this possible, or even lauded within Buddhism?

There are no shortcuts, therefore if you find yourself being attracted to some particular method to grow in morality and wisdom, this again must be due to a perversion of understanding. It is the same when we idealistically go out and try to be proactive in “doing good”, such as what we do in the name of Sewa. It all comes down to “attachment to self” and therefore must in the final analysis be all about me, mine and I. And this is not the way to enlightenment, but in fact more ignorance and more attachment.

I absolutely agree, it this line of thought by which I find those that 'seek enlightenment' instead of just truthful living, egoistical and self centred.

There is in Buddhism an object for the development of calm which is “reflection on the qualities of the Buddha”. But who can have such an object? Obviously only the one who does have the depth of understanding to see the true value of all those qualities? So what happens if some so called Buddhist tries to concentrate on what he thinks is a Buddha and the qualities that is possessed by such a one, but in fact is quite ignorant and does this with attachment? The result would be even more perversion of perception, consciousness and understanding would it not?

Absolutely!

You are probably being too confident. If he is up there somewhere, you will inadvertently every now and then; be seeking approval for your different acts. Just like what happens here, often we write and wonder if anyone will approve of it.

Before I embraced Sikhism again, I spent 15 years in atheism, behaving exactly the same as I do now, in fact, I think I was a better Sikh when I was an atheist!, but I assure you, Creator to me has absolutely no interest in my life whatsoever, I am going to state some thoughts now that convince me of my inability to call myself a Sikh, but I do not worship Creator, I do not pray to Creator, I do not ask Creator for anything, I debate in my head constantly, but as I refuse to personify Creator, there is no one to seek approval from, no one to love, no one to ask for love back, only Creation, and essence in my head, both representing Creator, but only as a drop of water represents the ocean. I find such behaviour can leave you feeling artificially pleased with yourself, or artificially guilty, as you are assuming you know what exactly the eternal truth is, but we cannot, we just have to play with the little we know.

But before reincarnation (rebirth), there must be belief in karma. So yes, I think this is one of the obstacles. In fact it has been pointed out as one of the main obstacles to the development of wisdom. But as I pointed out in our earlier discussions, this is not about blind acceptance, but about understanding. To not believe because one does not yet have the basis to do so is one thing, but to reject it altogether as a result of some wrong understanding about moral cause and effect, this is really harmful.

I do not know everything, but I know everything about me, more than any living thing alive, for me Karma is not a viable option, I am ashamed to say it is because I love my wife too much, my parents, my brother, I am too attached to them, and I do not intend to change that line of thought, maybe in my next life I will be alone and it will be easier

I am perceived by some people as the most generous person they personally know. This has put me and my family in a lot of financial trouble, so much so that I am now quite sure that I will not be able to pay for my children's college education and I fear this very much. I regret having helped all those people, but only to the extent that I did not at the time consider wisely. But was my giving bad, no, of course it wasn't. Indeed if I thought otherwise, not only will I not get my money back, I will have added more problems and much worse, namely aversion and wrong understanding.

Confusedji, you are an amateur lol, the generosity of my wife and to a lesser extent myself have put us in so much financial trouble that our animals eat better than we do most days!
I hate to get into the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch, but I don't even run a car. We both regret helping some people, but not because of the personal consequences, but because the help we rendered only made the situation worse, it spoilt people, made them unable to fight, made them reliant on handouts, it destroyed friendships, money does that....

Not really. Firstly is it about the development of understanding all the way through. This of course will include seeing the value of giving, kindness and so on, which by virtue of the very understanding are encouraged to arise.
And contrary to what some opponents of Karma think, understanding leads to less and less thinking about what the future will bring, (including what rebirth) but more the nature of the “cause” *now*.

If this sense of responsibility comes with the perception of “me”, “mine” and “I”, how can it be good? Anyway, you will have seen from my previous comment that a correct understanding about karma actually leads to thinking in terms of cause which is this moment, and this to me *is* the only real expression of responsibility.

I could not agree more, do the best you can, expect nothing back, even from Creator, in fact, especially from Creator, concentrate on those round you, concentrate on the moment, love Creation, and if by some dazzling set of circumstances there is anything other than dust after death, enjoy it, otherwise prepare to be wormfood.

An absolute pleasure replying to this post

Archived_member14 · Apr 5, 2012

Harry ji,

This is going to be a long post since many thoughts are running through my head.

Without the comfort of the belief in past lives, I am limited to just the belief in this life,

But remember, although it happens more often that a person believes in past lives and this leads him to seeing things a particular way, it can also be the other way round. Based on some degree of understanding and after hearing about the Truth, certain observations are made here and now which point to the fact that there must have been experiences accumulated from way in the past and that this must continue on indefinitely until and unless one becomes fully enlightened. This is because at this point, the fire completely burns out due to the fact that the fuel for continued existence has run out. It can be seen also, that in the meantime not only there exists so much fuel, but more and more is being added due to particular kind of experiences, and these can't just disappear with the conventional death of this living being. In other words, the causes and conditions for the reduction of fuel is one thing and that of its increase is another, and what is taking place from moment to moment is the latter. Besides, when we try to fit everything in terms of this life alone, this invariably involves the kind of perceptions and understandings which are clearly wrong.

and if I am brutally honest with myself, the only way I can judge whether I have succeeded in this life is not a hugely Sikhi yardstick, it is how happy I have made the people round me, how much I have affected Creation, how many snails I have rescued from the bin if you like

I am glad to hear you say that it is not a Sikhi yardstick, since what you express appears to be all about “self”. No doubt there must be some kindness and generosity involved, but then ambition and conceit come in to direct the show.

For people who have some appreciation of good and see the need to encourage this, there is what is called, “cheating states”, thirty or so of them. These are states that come across to the person as progress along the path of good but in fact is not. They arise invariably in those who make it a point to develop morality, concentration and and so on, but instead of any understanding, are motivated by attachment and wrong understanding and the result is delusion.

Know that attachment is around the corner, ready to pounce on everything including good deeds. Wrong understanding is the worst of mental phenomena which arises very often in those who follow one religion or another and manifested in the idea of being a “good person”. Conceit and attachment to being good and doing good is what such a person has in the place of attachments to sensuous objects and is apparent when he is busy pointing out other people's wrong.

But all this is to be expected, since change must happen very, very gradually. Indeed it has been compared to using a knife. One does not see how much the handle is worn away when observing one day after another, but only after a long time will you see that it has worn away a little. And according to the Buddha, the first step is the eradication of wrong understanding and doubt and with these, also miserliness and jealousy. And this is already aeons away for someone like me, not to mention anger, sensual desire, conceit, attachment to being and ignorance which are further down the road (although not long after). And what does this point to?

Click to expand...

Confused Veerji, I believe this points to a state of deathlike living, although I am aware this is lauded in Sikhi

Can you elaborate on this “deathlike living”? I have no idea as to what you are pointing at and how you draw this from what I wrote.

That if we think to fight sensuous attachments, conceit and anger we are in fact invariably encouraging them in other forms and towards other objects. The cause as well as what results is perversion of perception, of consciousness and of understanding. It is this latter which gives the impression not only that we should try to fight these vices, but also the illusion that we have had some success in lessening them.

Click to expand...

I love this paragraph, it is so true, so spot on, I call it free floating addiction, give up one addiction, and you soon find another, the only solution that I have found in my lifetime so far is to embrace moderation and understand the nature of consequences.

Moderation in my book is in fact, “understanding attachment”. Understanding when it arises knows the nature of attachment and in that performs its function. If there is the idea that “one” has to practice moderation and the reference include doing this and avoiding that in order that particular results will follow, this again is yet another misperception and placing oneself to be fooled by some cheating state. After all, either there is understanding at that very moment or there is not.

To think in terms of “doing something” in order to achieve something else clearly shows that at that moment itself, there is no understanding of the object of consciousness nor is there detachment. In other words, either one understands the attachment “now” and by virtue of this, experience a degree of detachment, or else one thinks “about” attachment with ignorance and a desire to do something about it.

And Harry ji, you say that you do not believe in karma, so I question your understanding when you say “embrace moderation and understand the nature of consequences”. If karma is the law of moral cause and effect and you do not believe in it, your cause and effect must from this perspective, then involve distortion in perception and in understanding. Perhaps you will give an example so that we can discuss this further?

If we accept our vices as harmful, and accept that they will cause attachment, then understanding and wisdom are the only arrows we have. Most try aversion or conceit, however, for me, the end game is for a complete understanding and submission to vices on the basis that wisdom and understanding has negated the attachment, I wonder if this possible, or even lauded within Buddhism?

The way you are thinking about these things is problematic although understandable given that you have yet to understand experiences in terms of impersonal phenomena rising and falling away one moment at a time.

It is the mental factor of wisdom / right understanding which performs the necessary function and is encouraged. When ignorance arises, it is this which obscures the Truth. Likewise, attachment, aversion, kindness, perception, feeling, morality etc. these are mental phenomena performing each, their unique functions. When one thinks in terms of a “me” who needs to do this or that in order that something else happens, this again is due to a mental factor, which in this case is “thinking”. In reality there is no entity standing apart from these mental phenomena and therefore when there is a belief otherwise, this must in fact be the mental factor "wrong view" or 'wrong understanding' performing its function.

“Submission to the vices” is not a good way to look at it. First, this is suggestive of the idea that there is someone who stands apart from these mental phenomena and can decide one way or another, what to do. Second, we understand that the tendencies to the vices remain and are not going to go away anytime soon. However, it is not something that should be encouraged, but what should be are wisdom and other kinds of good. And it is because of wisdom that when the vices do arise, we not become averse, feel guilty or jump to do something about it, since these would be instances of encouraging other kinds of wrong and therefore only make things worse.

There are no shortcuts, therefore if you find yourself being attracted to some particular method to grow in morality and wisdom, this again must be due to a perversion of understanding. It is the same when we idealistically go out and try to be proactive in “doing good”, such as what we do in the name of Sewa. It all comes down to “attachment to self” and therefore must in the final analysis be all about me, mine and I. And this is not the way to enlightenment, but in fact more ignorance and more attachment.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree, it this line of thought by which I find those that 'seek enlightenment' instead of just truthful living, egoistical and self centred.

But the idea “truthful living” too can easily become the object of attachment and wrong understanding. ;-)

You see the solution is not in placing one idea next to another and seeing which one is more correct. It all comes back to what is happening “now”. While someone who is thinking in terms of enlightenment may at that very moment understand what in fact is at the root of the thinking. Another may see the error of such thinking in the other person by way of reasoning, but not however know the attachment that has arisen to drive that reasoning.

You are probably being too confident. If he is up there somewhere, you will inadvertently every now and then; be seeking approval for your different acts. Just like what happens here, often we write and wonder if anyone will approve of it.

Click to expand...

Before I embraced Sikhism again, I spent 15 years in atheism, behaving exactly the same as I do now, in fact, I think I was a better Sikh when I was an atheist!, but I assure you, Creator to me has absolutely no interest in my life whatsoever, I am going to state some thoughts now that convince me of my inability to call myself a Sikh, but I do not worship Creator, I do not pray to Creator, I do not ask Creator for anything, I debate in my head constantly, but as I refuse to personify Creator, there is no one to seek approval from, no one to love, no one to ask for love back, only Creation, and essence in my head, both representing Creator, but only as a drop of water represents the ocean. I find such behaviour can leave you feeling artificially pleased with yourself, or artificially guilty, as you are assuming you know what exactly the eternal truth is, but we cannot, we just have to play with the little we know.

I recognize the idea, it is encouraged in certain other philosophies I remember reading about many years ago. You are a drop of water representing the ocean, so you reason that the former can't then be seeking approval from the latter. It strives instead to understand this through the process of understanding itself. And you acknowledge the possibility of other set of problems, tackled by way of accepting one's own limitations. But I wonder where the concept of “creator” fits into this?

Anyway from where I stand and related to my previous comment, these are all in the realm of ideas where one thought is used to deal with another. You postulate something and go from there. But how you arrived at the idea about ocean and drop of water, I wonder if this has been questioned in light of the fact that it is motivated either by understanding or by ignorance? If the latter, then not only will those problems you have identified arise, but also many others. And with 'creator' can you really avoid approval seeking manifested in one form or another?

I do not know everything, but I know everything about me, more than any living thing alive, for me Karma is not a viable option, I am ashamed to say it is because I love my wife too much, my parents, my brother, I am too attached to them, and I do not intend to change that line of thought, maybe in my next life I will be alone and it will be easier

Are you saying that if you believed in Karma, that this will lead you to less concern about those you love?

Well first, it is not about “believing”, but “understanding”. Second, attachment is not going to go away with less than full enlightenment. Third, if you see the value of kindness of which attachment is the near enemy, you’d want to replace the attachments you have towards those around you with this. And this won't even happen to any degree, and you will no doubt continue experiencing attachment towards these people.

No Harry ji, sort out your thoughts and tell us what the real reason is for your not believing in Karma. ;-)

Confusedji, you are an amateur , the generosity of my wife and to a lesser extent myself have put us in so much financial trouble that our animals eat better than we do most days!

I have no doubt about this, given all that you have written. And I am happy for both of you that this is the case. True wealth is not measured by the “result” of karma as in good experiences through the five senses, but the accumulation and tendency to good deeds. The former is what every Tom, **** and Harry ;-) is after, as manifested in their search for wealth, fame and happiness. The latter is in those who see the value of good deeds, which besides, must also bear fruit in the future.

More wealthy still is wisdom, the kind which is not moved by the Eight Worldly Conditions of pleasure / pain, gain / loss, praise / blame and status / disgrace. Rich or poor, without wisdom, all get pushed around by these forces, either by attachment towards the positive, or with aversion towards the negative ones. In the end, the difference between those who have and those who don't may not really be that much anyway, when taking into account what actually happens from moment to moment. So really, it all comes down to the difference in the effect of ignorance vs. understanding.

From one perspective the quest for wealth is about power. It is a way to gain freedom and control and to not be controlled. But ignorance is what is actually present, including of the fact that the real enemies and cause for being bound is one's own attachment and conceit. And when all this is then made into a philosophy of life, the bind becomes even stronger due to the presence of wrong understanding.

One who is involved in good deeds is at least 'free' during those instances that good intentions arise, because at those times, the mind is without ignorance. And when there is some level of wisdom and this has become the aim, one actually begins to break those bonds, though very gradually. So in fact, only a good person has had a taste of freedom and only a wise person understands what real freedom is.

I hate to get into the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch, but I don't even run a car. We both regret helping some people, but not because of the personal consequences, but because the help we rendered only made the situation worse, it spoilt people, made them unable to fight, made them reliant on handouts, it destroyed friendships, money does that....

Yes, it is my experience too. But I would like to share one thing I only very recently heard about and wished at the time, that I’d known about it much earlier.

It is a practice amongst some Thai people, that they do not become involved in other people's stories about their sufferings. The idea is not to interfere with other people's karma (which I don't quite understand exactly what is meant). But one thing I got from this is that people being self-centered, unfairly draw other people to be involved in their sorrows when they should in fact be keeping it to themselves. Now the other person being ignorant and having still so much attachment and aversion, react automatically with these, sometimes feeling guilty for no reason and sometimes feeling pity ( often mistaken for compassion). And this is not a good situation for all concerned.

I could not agree more, do the best you can, expect nothing back, even from Creator, in fact, especially from Creator, concentrate on those round you, concentrate on the moment, love Creation, and if by some dazzling set of circumstances there is anything other than dust after death, enjoy it, otherwise prepare to be wormfood.

But you see the effect of self-view?
In comparing yourself with a drop of water in the ocean you are influenced by an eternalistic view. Since in fact the drop never was separated from the ocean, therefore at death it never really disappears. But then there is also the inclination toward the annihilationist view which says that what remains is dust or worm food. These are two extremes, while the correct vision is from the Middle, not between, but above. And this is very difficult to happen…..

Harry Haller · Apr 7, 2012

But remember, although it happens more often that a person believes in past lives and this leads him to seeing things a particular way, it can also be the other way round. Based on some degree of understanding and after hearing about the Truth, certain observations are made here and now which point to the fact that there must have been experiences accumulated from way in the past and that this must continue on indefinitely until and unless one becomes fully enlightened. This is because at this point, the fire completely burns out due to the fact that the fuel for continued existence has run out. It can be seen also, that in the meantime not only there exists so much fuel, but more and more is being added due to particular kind of experiences, and these can't just disappear with the conventional death of this living being. In other words, the causes and conditions for the reduction of fuel is one thing and that of its increase is another, and what is taking place from moment to moment is the latter. Besides, when we try to fit everything in terms of this life alone, this invariably involves the kind of perceptions and understandings which are clearly wrong.

My non belief in past lives does not mean that past lives do not exist. I have to keep things simple for myself, otherwise such beliefs would/could corrupt my thinking. I can see the sense and the positives from a belief in past lives, but it also makes the picture a lot bigger and in my view detracts from the importance of this, our one and only life. If you are to say that you believe in past lives, then I agree and support you fully, I respect this idea, and am happy to retain the concept as a possibility, just not one that I am 'betting on'.

I am glad to hear you say that it is not a Sikhi yardstick, since what you express appears to be all about “self”. No doubt there must be some kindness and generosity involved, but then ambition and conceit come in to direct the show.

I accept your description, but I would like to think I follow the maxim of the english philosopher Edmund Burke who said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’, I have little interest in the self from this point of view, my actions are those that in my view, any reasonable human being would do, as I have no friends, there is no one to inform that I have made these actions, and in so far as my own personal thoughts, they remain 'the right thing' to do, rather than mirroring what a nice person I may or may not be. My wife carries this to different heights, and will not even tell me what she may or may not have done on a given day.

For people who have some appreciation of good and see the need to encourage this, there is what is called, “cheating states”, thirty or so of them. These are states that come across to the person as progress along the path of good but in fact is not. They arise invariably in those who make it a point to develop morality, concentration and and so on, but instead of any understanding, are motivated by attachment and wrong understanding and the result is delusion.

I liked this line, it made much sense, I am aware of the existence of cheating states, I have cheated myself for many many years to the point that my wife used to have a nickname for me , 'justification boy', and uses it when she feels I am cheating myself, deluding myself. You say the result is delusion, but the result is also that certain people are receiving the help that they need, a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but should we be hard on such a person, although they may be kidding themselves, actions are still taking place that are good and right. I would like to think that we both have an understanding as to why certain actions should take place, and they have nothing to do with 'pleasing god' or 'confirming our own goodness' but just that they are the correct things to do in respect of the Universal Truth that we subscribe to.

Know that attachment is around the corner, ready to pounce on everything including good deeds. Wrong understanding is the worst of mental phenomena which arises very often in those who follow one religion or another and manifested in the idea of being a “good person”. Conceit and attachment to being good and doing good is what such a person has in the place of attachments to sensuous objects and is apparent when he is busy pointing out other people's wrong.

Yes, I fully agree, I think when one thinks one is good, one has lost already, or even to do good deeds with the thought that this will make me good, are all concepts that will lead to the wrong path, there is only one reason to do good, and that is the deed itself, although from a personal viewpoint, one should look at the consequences of the deed also, whether it would encourage reliance or not.

Can you elaborate on this “deathlike living”? I have no idea as to what you are pointing at and how you draw this from what I wrote.

Deathlike living, the living death, the inability to feel excitement, dread, fear, the rush of blood to the stomach, to get turned on, to feel attachment, where every experience is experienced in a state of calm and acceptance, this is what I would call the living death, and also what is lauded in Sikhism.

Moderation in my book is in fact, “understanding attachment”. Understanding when it arises knows the nature of attachment and in that performs its function. If there is the idea that “one” has to practice moderation and the reference include doing this and avoiding that in order that particular results will follow, this again is yet another misperception and placing oneself to be fooled by some cheating state. After all, either there is understanding at that very moment or there is not.

I completely agree, we can be like children, scared of the burning flame without actually understanding it

And Harry ji, you say that you do not believe in karma, so I question your understanding when you say “embrace moderation and understand the nature of consequences”. If karma is the law of moral cause and effect and you do not believe in it, your cause and effect must from this perspective, then involve distortion in perception and in understanding. Perhaps you will give an example so that we can discuss this further?

If one is to accept that this life is all we have, and given that even if I were to accept the ideal of reincarnation, it would not change the fact that at my death, all I know, all I love, all that is me will be dead, will be gone, I will have no recollection or memories of this life, then in fact we are both singing from the same song sheet. The only difference is that a belief in Karma can assist in the understanding of this life, maybe..

Karma operates on a very simple manner if taken as a view of one life and one life alone, If one studies, one can get a good job, if one kicks a dog, one will get bitten, if one pets a dog, one gets love, but to carry out actions in the hope that life will deal a better hand is a very dangerous road to go down in my opinion. In the same way, those that do bad deeds, that steal, that rape, their own guilt will constantly put them in a state of fear of being discovered, and that is their own hell that they will have created. If every deed that is not a bad deed, is seen as a good deed, then one lives in a state of no fear, of not being discovered, without guilt, this, in my view, is a pleasing state to be in.

“Submission to the vices” is not a good way to look at it. First, this is suggestive of the idea that there is someone who stands apart from these mental phenomena and can decide one way or another, what to do. Second, we understand that the tendencies to the vices remain and are not going to go away anytime soon. However, it is not something that should be encouraged, but what should be are wisdom and other kinds of good. And it is because of wisdom that when the vices do arise, we not become averse, feel guilty or jump to do something about it, since these would be instances of encouraging other kinds of wrong and therefore only make things worse.

Given you previous postings on this topic, perhaps then submission is the wrong word. A combination of wisdom and discipline, coupled with moderation perhaps would be a better way of dealing with the vices?

I recognize the idea, it is encouraged in certain other philosophies I remember reading about many years ago. You are a drop of water representing the ocean, so you reason that the former can't then be seeking approval from the latter. It strives instead to understand this through the process of understanding itself. And you acknowledge the possibility of other set of problems, tackled by way of accepting one's own limitations. But I wonder where the concept of “creator” fits into this?

I do not believe Creator wishes to be worshipped or praised, but my concept of Creator fits in well with the whole of the Ocean,

Anyway from where I stand and related to my previous comment, these are all in the realm of ideas where one thought is used to deal with another. You postulate something and go from there. But how you arrived at the idea about ocean and drop of water, I wonder if this has been questioned in light of the fact that it is motivated either by understanding or by ignorance? If the latter, then not only will those problems you have identified arise, but also many others. And with 'creator' can you really avoid approval seeking manifested in one form or another?

I do worry, I worry that my eating habits are putting more pressure on my heart, that my odd drinking is taking years of my life, that all my years of hellraising have left me with a body that will not make it to its sixties, but never not once, either while incarcerated in prison, or in hospitals, or in courts, have I ever blamed, or requested Creator to intervene, or to accept such circumstances as anything other than consequences of my own actions. The Creator I believe in is more of an energy than a personalised force, the laws of Creation stand, there are no miracles. The only person I am letting down with any wrong decision is myself, increasing say wrong thinking, or deluding myself, yes I think it is possible to believe in Creator but only as the source of all energy in the world, nothing more, nothing magical, nothing supernatural.

Are you saying that if you believed in Karma, that this will lead you to less concern about those you love?

Surely it is human nature to devalue what we will have again. When I was younger, I had a firm belief in 'going again', and as such, I followed the steppenwolf philosophy that one should live as a lucid dream, with suicide a forced awakening. If I believed in Karma, it would devalue everything in this life for me, my thinking would be surface only, the people in this life would just be characters in a play, my role would be an actor, it would all be irrelevant, for me anyway, accepting this is the one and only life means I will never love again like I have today, it means today is all I have, it is a race against time, not to find enlightenment, but to live truthfully, to live honestly, with no game, no subterfuge, just honesty, which I find a wonderful antidote to fear, it kills it, dead.

Well first, it is not about “believing”, but “understanding”. Second, attachment is not going to go away with less than full enlightenment. Third, if you see the value of kindness of which attachment is the near enemy, you’d want to replace the attachments you have towards those around you with this. And this won't even happen to any degree, and you will no doubt continue experiencing attachment towards these people.

The attachment stems from unfulfilled purpose, I have not done enough for my parents, they are unfulfilled, and I am still learning how to do more, I have never shown my wife a true honest love free from lust, I have not been a good brother, and I have maybe shown my stepson that there is an easy way out of anything, but taught him nothing, I think this attachment is the result of unfinished business, it in no way hugely influences my non belief in Karma, I would love to believe in Karma, I concede that anything could happen, but privately, I feel that even if Karma existed, then one should still live this life on the basis that it did not. It is hard enough for me to figure out the purpose of this life, without compounding the problem by taking into account previous and future lives to boot

More wealthy still is wisdom, the kind which is not moved by the Eight Worldly Conditions of pleasure / pain, gain / loss, praise / blame and status / disgrace. Rich or poor, without wisdom, all get pushed around by these forces, either by attachment towards the positive, or with aversion towards the negative ones. In the end, the difference between those who have and those who don't may not really be that much anyway, when taking into account what actually happens from moment to moment. So really, it all comes down to the difference in the effect of ignorance vs. understanding.

Guru Nanakji stated that we must also live as householders, I think this was stated for a reason, it stops us becoming ascetics, monks, it is a checkpoint, I have lost business and money because I have been too preoccupied with philosophy, with thinking, it is a dangerous road, one must be self sufficient, must earn enough to eat, to have a roof over the head, to not be in debt, to have control over ones own life, not to be a prostitute to another, to not compromise ones beliefs in order to make money. One may be the most enlightened in the world, but the balance between ensuring that worldly responsibilities are kept, and enlightenment is hugely important to me, it never used to be, but as I have got older, and freed myself from a lot of superstition and the concept that good deeds will be buy me special credits that will help my life, I have been able to carry out good deeds and attempt to dig our way out of the debt we are in.

From one perspective the quest for wealth is about power. It is a way to gain freedom and control and to not be controlled. But ignorance is what is actually present, including of the fact that the real enemies and cause for being bound is one's own attachment and conceit. And when all this is then made into a philosophy of life, the bind becomes even stronger due to the presence of wrong understanding.

I agree, but there is a quest for wealth, and a quest for stability, I seek the latter.

It is a practice amongst some Thai people, that they do not become involved in other people's stories about their sufferings. The idea is not to interfere with other people's karma (which I don't quite understand exactly what is meant). But one thing I got from this is that people being self-centered, unfairly draw other people to be involved in their sorrows when they should in fact be keeping it to themselves. Now the other person being ignorant and having still so much attachment and aversion, react automatically with these, sometimes feeling guilty for no reason and sometimes feeling pity ( often mistaken for compassion). And this is not a good situation for all concerned.

I agree!

But you see the effect of self-view?
In comparing yourself with a drop of water in the ocean you are influenced by an eternalistic view. Since in fact the drop never was separated from the ocean, therefore at death it never really disappears. But then there is also the inclination toward the annihilationist view which says that what remains is dust or worm food. These are two extremes, while the correct vision is from the Middle, not between, but above. And this is very difficult to happen…..

You are correct, my self view is flawed. I will state it again in a way that I feel more comfortable with. If I am a drop of water, then I have some understanding of the Ocean, the Ocean being Creator. I do not have full understanding, a drop of water cannot bring me understanding of the whales, the sharks, the coral reefs, I have a tiny understanding and concept of the Ocean, this understanding gets bigger or smaller depending on which path I chose to live my daily life, and how much wisdom I have absorbed, do I end up an enlightened free thinking individual, or a slave, or worse, do I consider myself an enlightened free thinking individual, when I am actually a slave, yes there are many cheating states, and when one is in the eye of such, then one will not see exactly where one is.

However, time ticks and waits for no man, ultimately the drop will find the ocean, or it will dry up trying, leaving nothing

I have enjoyed writing this hugely, thank you for your post,

Archived_member14 · Apr 13, 2012

Harry ji,

I am a bit confused about this. I had saved your post in word to respond to later, but apparently it is not the same one as above.

I will send my response which I wrote off-line, anyway, and come back to the other parts later.

You wrote:
My non belief in past lives does not mean that past lives do not exist. I have to keep things simple for myself, otherwise such beliefs would/could corrupt my thinking.

Confused: Are you saying that although you do believe in the possibility of past and future lives, that it however is not helpful to think about it? And what about karma? Since understanding karma is the basis for belief in life beyond this one, what do you think about karma?

====
Harry:
I can see the sense and the positives from a belief in past lives, but it also makes the picture a lot bigger and in my view detracts from the importance of this, our one and only life.

Confused: Confidence / faith in the workings of karma increases as wisdom repeatedly attends to the present moment while at the same time moving away from the tendency to think in terms of the past and future. Your thinking that it detracts from the importance of this life must therefore be due to your own misunderstanding. And since you do not really understand karma, the thinking in terms of this life alone must be a proliferation no different from that which you object. In other words you are still caught up in the idea of a “me” existing in time, it doesn’t matter how long that time is and spans over how many lifetimes or just this one.

====
Harry:
If you are to say that you believe in past lives, then I agree and support you fully, I respect this idea, and am happy to retain the concept as a possibility, just not one that I am 'betting on'.

Confused: You are saying that belief in past and future lives detracts from the importance of understanding this life, but the fact is that this happens due to causes other than the belief itself. And if you fail to identify the real cause and continue to give the wrong reason, invariably the same mental phenomena will influence your own thinking.

A belief can be the result of ignorance or of understanding. If it is ignorance, almost invariably there is wrong understanding and attachment accompanying, and if it is understanding, attachment can arise afterwards, but not necessary. The problem is ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding.

====
Quote: I am glad to hear you say that it is not a Sikhi yardstick, since what you express appears to be all about “self”. No doubt there must be some kindness and generosity involved, but then ambition and conceit come in to direct the show.

Harry:
I accept your description, but I would like to think I follow the maxim of the english philosopher Edmund Burke who said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’,

Confused: I think you know that with only some exceptions, for example criminals, everyone else thinks that he is doing the right thing. And we have this other saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

I’m not sure what Edmund Burke has in mind, but if he is suggesting a proactive approach, I consider it very wrong, since it would be coming from within maya / the world and its values. It is the thinking of the social activist and not of a religious person.

The suggestion starts off by judging a section of the population as evil and this is not what kindness would perceive. How can anything good proceed from this then? It is the kind of perception which leads people to all sorts of wrong actions done in the name of good, right and justice, including declaring wars. And here is no compassion, no morality but instead much conceit, re: “I / we are good” and “he / they are bad”.

Besides what is it to win over evil out there? Is not hatred won by kindness, miserliness by generosity, envy by sympathetic joy, immorality by morality, ignorance by wisdom and so on?

I remember hearing once when I was young, that Guru Nanak said to the effect that “looking into his own mind, he saw no one more evil in the world”. I see this as conveying the idea that the negative judgments towards other people comes from one’s own evil tendencies. This is why a wise person will not be moved by the kind of perceptions E. Burke appears to have.

That said, of course good intentions can arise and we should not waste any opportunity to do good, however these need not be preceded or followed by conceit and attachment. The motivation need not involve the kind of judgement which contrasts one group of people with another. Should kindness after all differentiate between this or that persons, if this in fact does happen, would that not indicate attachment and aversion rather than kindness?

====
Harry:
I have little interest in the self from this point of view, my actions are those that in my view, any reasonable human being would do,

Confused: Attachment to self is rooted in ignorance and when one “believes” in doing the right thing, wrong understanding may be the driving force. This comes across to the person as right, which means that the real motivations are hidden. It takes wisdom to know what the reality is at the moment, and if this does not happen, how can we be sure that what arose was in fact a wholesome or an unwholesome state of mind.

====
Harry:
You say the result is delusion, but the result is also that certain people are receiving the help that they need, a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but should we be hard on such a person, although they may be kidding themselves, actions are still taking place that are good and right.

Confused: There is no reason to be hard on oneself or anyone about anything. The fact is that what has arisen has already passed away. But we do need to point out the Truth with the understanding that it may help that person sometime down the road.

I don’t think that you should measure the effect of any mental or physical action on how it has affected the other person. You may consider the situation ‘before’ taking any action, but once it is done, how it affects anyone else, this does not change the nature of your own action which has already gone. If evil intention has resulted in the good of another, this intention does not somehow turn to good. If good intention has caused others to take it wrongly, the good does not change to bad. The focus should always be on one’s own mind, and it is the cause and effect within the bounds of each individual’s moment to moment experiences which is what should be considered. This is how you come to understand what karma is.

====
Harry:
I would like to think that we both have an understanding as to why certain actions should take place, and they have nothing to do with 'pleasing god' or 'confirming our own goodness' but just that they are the correct things to do in respect of the Universal Truth that we subscribe to.

Confused: I’m not sure about this; you refer to “Universal Truth” yet talk as if this is relative when suggesting that you subscribe to one and I to another. But I’ll not debate this here.

====
Harry:
Yes, I fully agree, I think when one thinks one is good, one has lost already, or even to do good deeds with the thought that this will make me good, are all concepts that will lead to the wrong path, there is only one reason to do good, and that is the deed itself, although from a personal viewpoint, one should look at the consequences of the deed also, whether it would encourage reliance or not.

Confused: Yes, it is always better if wisdom were to arise to assess the situation. But this is very hard to come by, instead the assessment if happens, is usually done with ignorance and attachment.

====
Harry:
Deathlike living, the living death, the inability to feel excitement, dread, fear, the rush of blood to the stomach, to get turned on, to feel attachment, where every experience is experienced in a state of calm and acceptance, this is what I would call the living death, and also what is lauded in Sikhism.

Confused: Well, one might look at it the other way, namely that only with mindfulness and understanding is one said to be awake to life. Otherwise with ignorance, it is as though one is asleep.

Anyway, according to Buddhism, there are four stages of enlightenment, each having eradicated particular set of unwholesome tendencies. The first and the second stages have no more wrong understanding, doubt, envy and miserliness, and therefore if they happen to be householders, still live the life with sensuous attachments, hence some degree of excitement. Only at the third and fourth stages are there no more attachment to sense objects and therefore no excitement towards anything.

====
Harry:
If one is to accept that this life is all we have,

Confused: You may not see it, but this statement reflects what in Buddhism is called “self-view”. It is assuming “ownership” where in reality there is no owner and nothing to be owned.

There is ever only a fleeting moment of consciousness arisen to experience and object, therefore no place for thinking along the lines such as “I was in the past, I am in the present and I will be in the future”. As I pointed out earlier, your identification with this life alone is essentially no different from someone else’s identification with having had past lives, since both are driven by self-view and accompanied by attachment. This is why I reject the idea of reincarnation which assumes the existence of soul or atma lasting in time, but instead think in terms of rebirth with reference to conditioned mental phenomena.

=====
Harry:
and given that even if I were to accept the ideal of reincarnation, it would not change the fact that at my death, all I know, all I love, all that is me will be dead, will be gone, I will have no recollection or memories of this life, then in fact we are both singing from the same song sheet.

Confused: In reality they exist only as objects of consciousness that forms part of your own experience. This means that they in fact are given birth by your own thinking and die each time that you stop thinking about them. That you insist on seeing them as lasting over time, this may be due to your own attachment. But this is an understanding peculiar to Buddhism which sees the fault in ignorance.

If on the other hand what you express comes from seeing the harm in attachment, it could well be what is called “recollection of death”. This is not particularly Buddhist, but is wholesome thinking and involves detachment of a corresponding level.

So no, we are not singing from the same song sheet. ;-)

=====
Harry:
The only difference is that a belief in Karma can assist in the understanding of this life, maybe..

Confused: It is the other way round, understanding reality here and now increases confidence with regard to the workings of karma. This means that if one resists the concept of karma, no real understanding is being developed.
====
Harry:
Karma operates on a very simple manner if taken as a view of one life and one life alone, If one studies, one can get a good job, if one kicks a dog, one will get bitten, if one pets a dog, one gets love,

Confused: Harry ji, I think it is better that you just say that you *do not believe in karma*. Since you know how karma is used generally, why do you wish to give your own spin? Call it something else if you wish, but don’t call it karma.

Karma is moral cause and effect. It is a relationship between one type of mental reality and another type of mental reality. Generosity as a mental phenomenon leads to pleasant experiences through the senses (or rebirth in a good plane of existence). This *cannot be observed*, but understood through study of the characteristics of different mental phenomena, some being of the nature of cause and some being resultants.

The kind of observation you make requires thinking conditioned by memory and believing that this is actually what has taken place. It has nothing to do with any kind of understanding, and is something any Ambarsaria, Confused and Harry will agree with when pointed at. Indeed it is what “learning from experience is all about” and is present not only in human beings, but animals as well. It is a story within the conventional world which is useful for functioning and survival, but if taken as determinative of the way things are, goes at the expense of understanding with regard to what actually happens at the level of consciousness experience. Even within conventional reality, it can be seen as going at the expense of other possible interpretations and this happens by sheer force of attachment to a particular story line, and wrong understanding about cause and effect.

Let’s take the example of kicking a dog and being bitten.
Kicking a dog is a volitional action; the intention which drives this is karma. The dog may or may not bite, so clearly there is no direct correlation between what the dog does to your own “intention”. The dog biting you is another volitional act conditioned by the particular intention. It may be asleep and not actually feel hurt but only enough to wake up. On being bitten, because perhaps you are wearing a thick pair of jeans, the dog’s teeth do not sink in and therefore you don’t feel any pain. So again, your insistence on seeing the correlation between the two acts must be due to sheer force of thinking conditioned by ignorance and attachment. Besides, you may have good intention to kick the dog in order that it move away from impending danger, but the dog bites you anyway and you are hurt. Would it make sense to say then that good intention has led to a bad result?

Like I said, this is how everyone thinks about cause and effect and even animals respond by the same mechanism, one which involves memory, conditioned response, volitional activity and thinking, driven mostly by ignorance and by attachment. And this is how the wheel of existence continues to spin and hence the significance of enlightenment, where Truth / reality comes to be known, including karma.

Back to the situation of a dog being kicked.
If I had an intention to kick a dog, this could be known for what it is including that it is conditioned either by good or by evil roots. Having the expectation of what the response of the dog might be, I can know at the time, the reality of “thinking”. When considering that the kick will cause hurt, I know that it is to be expected due to the fact that when earth element touches the body with a particular force, it causes unpleasant feelings.

And in thinking about the dog’s possible reaction, here I know that generally, beings react to unpleasant bodily sensations with aversion, and in this case, should be expected. But I do also understand that this would depend on so many conditions coming in place, one, that the kick was hard enough, two, nothing else distracted the dog and three, whether the dog was at the time enjoying something else such that in being kicked, it is going to react even more strongly. More importantly however, I know that the dog’s anger is there only because the accumulation of anger exists in it. This means that if on the other hand I was to kick, say and enlightened person, there would not be any anger arisen in response.

Do you see what I’m trying to say here Harry ji?

=====
Harry:
but to carry out actions in the hope that life will deal a better hand is a very dangerous road to go down in my opinion. In the same way, those that do bad deeds, that steal, that rape, their own guilt will constantly put them in a state of fear of being discovered, and that is their own hell that they will have created.

Confused: I remember thinking this way many years ago when like you; I was trying to give my own spin to the idea of Karma. At the time I thought that I was being realistic but it is actually, simplistic. This is because fear and guilt are not results of karma, but are from accumulated tendencies which when arisen are of the nature of “cause”, not resultants. So really, the initial deed will bear fruit in the form of unpleasant experience through the senses, and his we don’t know which ones and when and should not even try to find out. The guilt and fear arises because we continue to be moved by ignorance and craving and no wisdom has arisen. And these would themselves give rise to more negative results in the future. So in fact we react to wrong with more wrong, instead of with wisdom. And this is exactly how we are caught in the cycle of existence with no hope of getting off it.

=====
Harry:
If every deed that is not a bad deed, is seen as a good deed, then one lives in a state of no fear, of not being discovered, without guilt, this, in my view, is a pleasing state to be in.

Confused: And this is the stuff of attachment. ;-)
You see Harry ji, if you misidentify / misunderstand the nature of these experiences, invariably there is going to be attachment to what you conceive of as being the result. Only with wisdom which understands the reality now, is there a degree of detachment.

Allow me to take the example of Buddhists who meditate. It is a common perception amongst these, that while they are engaged in the activity, that this is to not be involved in any bad deeds, hence by default, what they do must be a good deed. But this is wishful thinking and very wrong.

Firstly good deeds, such as giving, morality, kindness, compassion and such, have very specific characteristic and proximate cause and meditation is not one of them. Secondly, what they do is actually wrong practice (amounting to rites and rituals) conditioned by self-view and wrong understanding. Thirdly, it needs much attachment to maintain and must also involve a good degree of conceit. In other words all three proliferations of attachment, conceit and wrong view exists in what they do. So where is the good!!?

Besides Harry ji, not feeling guilty is not necessary a sign of having lived a life without wrong deeds. Guilt is another conditioned reality and this means that if there are no conditions for it to arise, it will not. And I believe that some serial killers for example, go through their lives feeling little or no guilt at all for what they do. So here again we have a mistaken idea about cause and effect…..

Ps: Sorry about the long posts. I guess in this sense I am like my younger son, whose hyperactivity comes in the form of incessant talking. Although I’m very quiet otherwise, when writing such messages, I just go on and on. :-/

Parma · Apr 13, 2012

Confused ji,

A question if you would be so kind to answer? In your view is there any moment or second by your understanding in life where thought does not exist? This I ask as it will help in answering, thoughts on attachment and delusion. Attachment is good and wholesome so long as it does not lead to conceit or aversion. Not all attachment leads to conceit or aversion, it is the proportion of attachment an individual makes to a single thought that can lead to conceit or aversion. No attachment at all leads to delusion as you will not correspond with anything as you would become so detached you would be unable to correspond with anything! Everything must be set in balance that is why Sikhism is path I choose it is a balanced view.

Thank you for taking your time.

Archived_member14 · Apr 14, 2012

Parma ji,

A question if you would be so kind to answer? In your view is there any moment or second by your understanding in life where thought does not exist?

It is like this, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting is resultant consciousness. These are immediately followed by thinking, which is a volitional consciousness. In one second, there are trillions of these alternating each other and not only that of one, but more than one sense experience. Hence the impression for example, that we can hear, think, see and touch, all at the same time. Or when hearing a musical chord, we think that it is only one hearing consciousness, but actually, it is many, many instances of hearing interspersed by moments of thinking.

From this you can see that there are moments, as in raw sense experiences, when there is no thinking. However, leaving this and the experience of deep sleep aside because these are the passive side of life, we could on the other hand come to the conclusion that thinking, which is active, happens all the time.

But you mentioned ‘thought’ and not ‘thinking’ and to be precise, while thinking as a mental phenomenon exists, “thought” on the other hand does not. This is because thoughts are concepts and this is a creation so to speak, of the thinking process.

This I ask as it will help in answering, thoughts on attachment and delusion. Attachment is good and wholesome so long as it does not lead to conceit or aversion.

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.

And it is not the question of attachment leading to conceit or to aversion. Although in the case of aversion, this is conditioned by attachment, the relationship is however not linear. That we are attracted to pleasant objects and averse to unpleasant objects is due to accumulated tendencies such that on tasting something nice, immediately there is attachment and when it is not nice, immediately aversion. But because we are attached to pleasant experiences, we get angry when we don’t get it or we get angry, when we receive what we know to never have liked. And these two tendencies accumulate each time that they arise and therefore the result is that the reaction becomes stronger as time passes.

And conceit, this actually is also conditioned by attachment, but not in the sense that one leads to the other, but rather that with conceit there is not only ignorance at the root, but also attachment.

In conclusion, all three, attachment, aversion and conceit are unwholesome and never good. This is due to their very nature and not because of possible relationship, one with the other. They each have different characteristic and function and each arises with ignorance. What makes them worse, is the accumulative nature of volitional experience in general, this means that each time that they arise, the chance of their arising in the future increases. And this is why wisdom is the only countermeasure and why good deeds are encouraged.

Not all attachment leads to conceit or aversion, it is the proportion of attachment an individual makes to a single thought that can lead to conceit or aversion.

I can understand why you have the kind of impression, but this is because you have not considered things at a more fundamental level. Aversion and conceit can arise immediately following upon raw experiences through the five senses. Indeed this is how it must be; otherwise there would not be longer train of thoughts associated with these mental realities. It is actually the same as in the case of attachment. Because of ignorance we get the impression that we are attached to the “red rose”, but it is actually there before we know it, namely during the experience of raw color, outline, form and all the details which make up the particular concept.

No attachment at all leads to delusion as you will not correspond with anything as you would become so detached you would be unable to correspond with anything! Everything must be set in balance that is why Sikhism is path I choose it is a balanced view.

What you are suggesting is that a person without attachment and conceit will not be able to function nor survive, this is because such a state is akin to delusion.

In another discussion I was talking about recluses who live on the offerings of lay people.

In Buddhism we have four stages of enlightenment; the first is where there is no more wrong understanding, doubt, miserliness and envy and no chance of immoral acts. The second has in addition attenuated but not eradicated sense attachment and aversion. The third has eradicated these two, but may still live the household life with people who understand. The fourth must ordain and become a monk or else die from starvation (unlikely situation though). This is because he has eradicated all kinds of attachment, including to being, eradicated ignorance and also conceit and therefore the question of survival does not even factor. Indeed he understands that whatever happens is due to conditions beyond control. But does this mean that he become a vegetable so to speak? Absolutely not. For him, instead of unwholesome or wholesome realities, functional consciousness arises and this leads to all sort of activities aimed at the benefit of other people, just the opposite to when it is attachment and conceit.

We on the other hand, with still so much ignorance, attachment, conceit and all the rest of the hordes are still caught up in thinking in terms of survival and how best to function in the 'world'. I with my little knowledge can see some sense in the idea that survival is a worthless aim; this is because all conditioned existence has the characteristic of unsatisfactoriness or Dukkha, and this is the First Noble Truth. And therefore also what it means to be on the Path leading out of the cycle of existence. The enlightened person sees this much more clearly and there is no doubt. 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.

If one has tasted and had some understanding about kindness for example, one knows that this and not attachment is *the* way to deal with other people. If there is enough understanding, one will see that conceit is a state of agitation and aimed at its perpetuation therefore comes in the way of smooth functioning and a more peaceful existence.

So really, that you seek to balance things with what you have is from the standpoint of not knowing any better. It is ignorance, attachment and conceit doing the talking in an attempt to perpetuate itself. In other words, it is the deception of Maya in its more subtle form which you are victim of. And what is an issue for you is for the wise person, not a point of consideration at all.

Parma · Apr 14, 2012

Confused said:
Parma ji,

It is like this, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting is resultant consciousness. These are immediately followed by thinking, which is a volitional consciousness. In one second, there are trillions of these alternating each other and not only that of one, but more than one sense experience. Hence the impression for example, that we can hear, think, see and touch, all at the same time. Or when hearing a musical chord, we think that it is only one hearing consciousness, but actually, it is many, many instances of hearing interspersed by moments of thinking.

From this you can see that there are moments, as in raw sense experiences, when there is no thinking. However, leaving this and the experience of deep sleep aside because these are the passive side of life, we could on the other hand come to the conclusion that thinking, which is active, happens all the time.

But you mentioned ‘thought’ and not ‘thinking’ and to be precise, while thinking as a mental phenomenon exists, “thought” on the other hand does not. This is because thoughts are concepts and this is a creation so to speak, of the thinking process.

I beg to differ with you on that confused ji, firstly if their is thinking then their is thought, you say thought does not exist. 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. 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 a god if you have not felt the experience. Thought does exist! To Clarify your thought on that. P.s. It is still scientifically unproven at which point thought exists, so you trying to answer the question shows you are conceited to your own thought and on that point their is no real justification for your answer.

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.
Yes these attachments when taken out of proportion are vices, but without them you will also not reproduce. 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. 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

And it is not the question of attachment leading to conceit or to aversion. Although in the case of aversion, this is conditioned by attachment, the relationship is however not linear. That we are attracted to pleasant objects and averse to unpleasant objects is due to accumulated tendencies such that on tasting something nice, immediately there is attachment and when it is not nice, immediately aversion. But because we are attached to pleasant experiences, we get angry when we don’t get it or we get angry, when we receive what we know to never have liked. And these two tendencies accumulate each time that they arise and therefore the result is that the reaction becomes stronger as time passes.
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

And conceit, this actually is also conditioned by attachment, but not in the sense that one leads to the other, but rather that with conceit there is not only ignorance at the root, but also attachment.

In conclusion, all three, attachment, aversion and conceit are unwholesome and never good. This is due to their very nature and not because of possible relationship, one with the other. They each have different characteristic and function and each arises with ignorance. What makes them worse, is the accumulative nature of volitional experience in general, this means that each time that they arise, the chance of their arising in the future increases. And this is why wisdom is the only countermeasure and why good deeds are encouraged.
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

I can understand why you have the kind of impression, but this is because you have not considered things at a more fundamental level. Aversion and conceit can arise immediately following upon raw experiences through the five senses. Indeed this is how it must be; otherwise there would not be longer train of thoughts associated with these mental realities. It is actually the same as in the case of attachment. Because of ignorance we get the impression that we are attached to the “red rose”, but it is actually there before we know it, namely during the experience of raw color, outline, form and all the details which make up the particular concept.
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

What you are suggesting is that a person without attachment and conceit will not be able to function nor survive, this is because such a state is akin to delusion.

In another discussion I was talking about recluses who live on the offerings of lay people.

In Buddhism we have four stages of enlightenment; the first is where there is no more wrong understanding, doubt, miserliness and envy and no chance of immoral acts. The second has in addition attenuated but not eradicated sense attachment and aversion. The third has eradicated these two, but may still live the household life with people who understand. The fourth must ordain and become a monk or else die from starvation (unlikely situation though). This is because he has eradicated all kinds of attachment, including to being, eradicated ignorance and also conceit and therefore the question of survival does not even factor. Indeed he understands that whatever happens is due to conditions beyond control. But does this mean that he become a vegetable so to speak? Absolutely not. For him, instead of unwholesome or wholesome realities, functional consciousness arises and this leads to all sort of activities aimed at the benefit of other people, just the opposite to when it is attachment and conceit.

We on the other hand, with still so much ignorance, attachment, conceit and all the rest of the hordes are still caught up in thinking in terms of survival and how best to function in the 'world'. I with my little knowledge can see some sense in the idea that survival is a worthless aim; this is because all conditioned existence has the characteristic of unsatisfactoriness or Dukkha, and this is the First Noble Truth. And therefore also what it means to be on the Path leading out of the cycle of existence. The enlightened person sees this much more clearly and there is no doubt. 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.
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

If one has tasted and had some understanding about kindness for example, one knows that this and not attachment is *the* way to deal with other people. If there is enough understanding, one will see that conceit is a state of agitation and aimed at its perpetuation therefore comes in the way of smooth functioning and a more peaceful existence.

So really, that you seek to balance things with what you have is from the standpoint of not knowing any better. It is ignorance, attachment and conceit doing the talking in an attempt to perpetuate itself. In other words, it is the deception of Maya in its more subtle form which you are victim of. And what is an issue for you is for the wise person, not a point of consideration at all.

If the wise person does not need to balance things then at what standpoint are they better at. They are unable as your suggestion to reproduce, to eat to survive as your suggestion requires the individual to be detached so I ask do you even comply with reality, and so you can cast that thought or that individual as delusional

Harry Haller · Apr 14, 2012

I am a bit confused about this. I had saved your post in word to respond to later, but apparently it is not the same one as above

I added to it later that evening, Confusedji

Confused: Confidence / faith in the workings of karma increases as wisdom repeatedly attends to the present moment while at the same time moving away from the tendency to think in terms of the past and future. Your thinking that it detracts from the importance of this life must therefore be due to your own misunderstanding. And since you do not really understand karma, the thinking in terms of this life alone must be a proliferation no different from that which you object. In other words you are still caught up in the idea of a “me” existing in time, it doesn’t matter how long that time is and spans over how many lifetimes or just this one.

Faith in such a system would shake my very foundations and force me to abandon the path I am on at present. As you must know, we all have to follow our path, and if and when the time is right, another path will suddenly make sense, at present the path of Karma is incompatible with my beliefs, but that is not to say it does not exist.

Confused: You are saying that belief in past and future lives detracts from the importance of understanding this life, but the fact is that this happens due to causes other than the belief itself. And if you fail to identify the real cause and continue to give the wrong reason, invariably the same mental phenomena will influence your own thinking.

A belief can be the result of ignorance or of understanding. If it is ignorance, almost invariably there is wrong understanding and attachment accompanying, and if it is understanding, attachment can arise afterwards, but not necessary. The problem is ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding.

I have had to read the above several times in order to come up with a suitable answer, i can certainly see the sense in the whole karma argument, I suppose if I delved into it a bit more, I might even believe in it, however, I put faith in Guruji, it is a bit like distance healing, or prayer for the sick, they are most wonderful concepts and very attractive to believe in, as is karma, but the jist I am getting from the people I would call Guruji, all 11 of them, is that such paths are just circular, they are entertaining, but you end up just going round and round, Guruji has saved me much time by outlining which paths bear fruit and which do not, as such, I feel that these paths do not lead to enlightenment and Mukti.

Confused: I think you know that with only some exceptions, for example criminals, everyone else thinks that he is doing the right thing. And we have this other saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

I am unfamiliar with this concept, all my life I have known when I was doing something bad, or something good, and I have done plenty bad, but I never put myself under the illusion it was good.

I’m not sure what Edmund Burke has in mind, but if he is suggesting a proactive approach, I consider it very wrong, since it would be coming from within maya / the world and its values. It is the thinking of the social activist and not of a religious person.

I do not think he was talking about being proactive, because that does beg the question what is good and what is bad, I like to think of that quote being a bit more obvious, say walking past a robbery, a rape, a crime and doing nothing.

Besides what is it to win over evil out there? Is not hatred won by kindness, miserliness by generosity, envy by sympathetic joy, immorality by morality, ignorance by wisdom and so on?

I am not sure about this, I find hatred is won over by understanding, miserliness by understanding, envy etc etc, I think it is all understanding, otherwise you run the risk of being taken for a fool, a mug, unless people truly understand there is no hope, how to provide that understanding is possibly a bigger question, but I am not sure it is by being a kind generous moral person. This is where the Karma issue creeps in, you are looking at it from a much bigger picture than I am.

That said, of course good intentions can arise and we should not waste any opportunity to do good, however these need not be preceded or followed by conceit and attachment. The motivation need not involve the kind of judgement which contrasts one group of people with another. Should kindness after all differentiate between this or that persons, if this in fact does happen, would that not indicate attachment and aversion rather than kindness?

I think that good intentions, kindness and the oppertunity to do good should be carried out with extreme care and caution. I feel there is a huge risk of being manipulated and for the wrong people to be given this, better to help someone who will benefit, than somone who it will corrupt, that is where logic and thinking comes into it.

Confused: Attachment to self is rooted in ignorance and when one “believes” in doing the right thing, wrong understanding may be the driving force. This comes across to the person as right, which means that the real motivations are hidden. It takes wisdom to know what the reality is at the moment, and if this does not happen, how can we be sure that what arose was in fact a wholesome or an unwholesome state of mind.

====

We can be sure, as a Sikh, by reading and understanding Bani, which in my view, provides all the wisdom one needs to make the best decisions one can. Not blindly, but decisions made on the basis of intelligence, wisdom, discretion.

I don’t think that you should measure the effect of any mental or physical action on how it has affected the other person. You may consider the situation ‘before’ taking any action, but once it is done, how it affects anyone else, this does not change the nature of your own action which has already gone. If evil intention has resulted in the good of another, this intention does not somehow turn to good. If good intention has caused others to take it wrongly, the good does not change to bad. The focus should always be on one’s own mind, and it is the cause and effect within the bounds of each individual’s moment to moment experiences which is what should be considered. This is how you come to understand what karma is.

I believe in Creator and Creation, so the effect of my actions on Creation is of huge interest to me. I suppose my thinking is possibly incompatible with the whole concept of karma, but then that is because I follow a religion which, in my view, places no importance on karma whatsoever. I am more concerned with the effect my life has on the rest on Creation. Will I leave this earth better or worse for my presence, sounds egoistical, but is more to do with the knock on effect my actions have on the rest of Creation. That to me is important.

Confused: I’m not sure about this; you refer to “Universal Truth” yet talk as if this is relative when suggesting that you subscribe to one and I to another. But I’ll not debate this here.

I think there are truths, and there are universal truths. To a Hindu, his truth is his truth, but I do believe that there are universal truths which unite us all, be they Hindu, Sikh,
An example could be that it is wrong to rape a woman.

Anyway, according to Buddhism, there are four stages of enlightenment, each having eradicated particular set of unwholesome tendencies. The first and the second stages have no more wrong understanding, doubt, envy and miserliness, and therefore if they happen to be householders, still live the life with sensuous attachments, hence some degree of excitement. Only at the third and fourth stages are there no more attachment to sense objects and therefore no excitement towards anything.

I am not sure I wish to live my life like this, It is idealistic, I find Sikhism offers a more realistic path, a combination of the spiritual and the worldly, I can find the state you describe through drugs, I do not want this, I want to enjoy the smell of cut grass, the smile on a babys face, I want to feel attracted to my wife, to enjoy polishing my car, to laugh at a good comedy, but also to know thr truth, and to know what it means to live, not some day, not when I am enlightened, but now, today, right now.

Your post is long, I will have to attack the rest tommorow Confusedji

Ambarsaria · Apr 14, 2012

Thank you Confused ji, Parma ji and Harry Haller ji for your posts. Great dialog. I have couple of comments.

harry haller said:
I am not sure about this, I find hatred is won over by understanding, miserliness by understanding, envy etc etc, I think it is all understanding, otherwise you run the risk of being taken for a fool, a mug, unless people truly understand there is no hope, how to provide that understanding is possibly a bigger question, but I am not sure it is by being a kind generous moral person. This is where the Karma issue creeps in, you are looking at it from a much bigger picture than I am.

Understanding is fundamental to universal truth in action. So developing understanding, using understanding are a means to enable truth in action whether it is Universal truth or other truths.

Lack of understanding and the mindset to not understand perhaps is cause of 99.99% of bad in this world both intentional or unintentional. I used to think to myself,

World has problems not because of what people know about each other, but what they do not know about each other.

I have found that it helps distill most conflicts and other situations very quickly. Of course it is in humans to be mysterious, hide self from being known, communities to hold secrets, countries to camouflage weaknesses or intentions. However as soon as you start applying understanding and be openness driven, a necessity in understanding, a whole new and a better world starts to unfold.

Confused ji said:
Anyway, according to Buddhism, there are four stages of enlightenment, each having eradicated particular set of unwholesome tendencies. The first and the second stages have no more wrong understanding, doubt, envy and miserliness, and therefore if they happen to be householders, still live the life with sensuous attachments, hence some degree of excitement. Only at the third and fourth stages are there no more attachment to sense objects and therefore no excitement towards anything.

I am with Harry Haller ji on this. I do not believe in this third fourth stage thing. The premise of renunciation for subsistence and dependance on others while the people so providing are in stages 1 or 2 is fundamentally flawed. Taken to its logical conclusion, if all in a given society suddenly rose to third and fourth stages, there will be no continuation of human life. It appears that the third and fourth stages need for their existence the continuous supply of people in stages 1 and 2.

I believe it is a simple monastic trick that many religions carry out. The existence of Brahmins in Hinduism and the monks in Buddhism are just two examples. We in Sikhism have also seen examples of this through personal Gurus, the dehra Babas, the dehra Sants using same technique. To me this is all fundamentally exploitative just sugar coated. It matters not how good the exploiters are or how good their intentions as the double standard is an insult to the followers or sustainers of such people.

Just some ramblings. mundahug

Metta.

Archived_member14 · Apr 15, 2012

Parma ji,

P: I beg to differ with you on that confused ji, firstly if their is thinking then their 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. 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’.

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.

=====
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.

=====
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.

====
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.

===
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 their 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?

I say that if you follow the lead of science, you will never, ever come to understand the Truth!!
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.

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?
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?

====
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.

Do you now see how silly your suggestion is?

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.

Parma · Apr 15, 2012

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.
As you say thinking is a “phenomenon”, = Oxford dictionary translation, 1) 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

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’.
Look at the above for the answer on this you cannot grasp concepts as by your understanding you do not believe in thought!

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.

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!
=====
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.
You cannot seriously be talking about “train of thoughts” as person that does not believe in the existence of thought. Delusion

=====
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.
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

====
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.
This did not clarify anything. These are just big words concocted together that make no heads or tails of anything. Without getting too personal Alot of what you write is just wafflings and ramblings.

===
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?
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

I say that if you follow the lead of science, you will never, ever come to understand the Truth!!
Now you don’t believe in science, delusional and conceited fact!

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.
I am lost with you onwards here, if you cannot comprehend thought how can you comprehend reality!

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?
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

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?
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
====
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.

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.

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.

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.
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!

Do you now see how silly your suggestion is?
By your reasoning it is silly, but you have no thought so!

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.

Archived_member14 · Apr 17, 2012

Harry ji,

This is probably the longest post ever on SPN. Sorry if it turns out to be a burden for you.

====
Harry: Faith in such a system would shake my very foundations and force me to abandon the path I am on at present.

C: I suspect that your understanding about faith is different from mine. Faith as it is generally used is more about belief in something that has not been tested and proven and perhaps used as a working hypothesis. What I'm talking about on the other hand is almost the opposite of this. But first let me say a little about the two kinds of faith that I know to exist as a mental factor, and which arises only with wholesome states.

The first is with reference to all kinds of good. For example one gives when otherwise one might have held tightly to one's possessions, this is reflection of faith / confidence in giving. The second kind of faith is with reference to the development of understanding. It is confidence in the function of understanding and what is understood thereby. This includes the knowledge of what causes continued existence and the path (understanding itself) leading out of this.

With regard to karma, the confidence is of this second kind. Understanding Karma begins at the intellectual level, with reference to the idea of moral cause and effect. This leads to the study of different mental states and actually beginning to recognize which of these states are cause and which are resultants, and also as these manifest in the conventional world.

Karma is the “intention” which arises with all volitional actions, be this mental, verbal or physical. It is with increased understanding of these volitional actions and differentiating them from resultant consciousness that confidence in karma comes about. It has nothing to do with thinking about some action now and belief that this will lead to some result in the future, but rather understanding an aspect with regard to the nature of the present moment. I believe that your conception of karma involves some story concerning, the past, the present and the future and this may be the problem.

=====
Harry: As you must know, we all have to follow our path, and if and when the time is right, another path will suddenly make sense, at present the path of Karma is incompatible with my beliefs, but that is not to say it does not exist.

C: I don’t think in terms of persons following different paths. I may have a general idea about you following Sikhi and I following Buddhism, but when I respond, I do not think about this. Your characterizing what I have been saying as “path of Karma” is rather strange. I consider it the path of understanding the Truth, the Four Noble Truths to be precise. Indeed understanding itself is the Fourth of these Truths and sometimes called the Truth of the Path. Karma on the other hand is covered by the First and Second Truths.

You are perhaps thinking that I am encouraging the use of the concept of karma, as guide to action, one which requires thinking in terms of cause and effect happening in time. But as I explained earlier, understanding karma being all about now, leads to less thinking in terms of the past and the future. And it is not that *believing* in Karma leads to better understanding of what is now.

However on the other hand if there is rejection of the concept, this must be due to a wrong understanding about “now”. So in fact it all comes down to whether one is coming from a right understanding or wrong understanding with regard to one’s moment to moment experiences. If it is the former, then one will believe in Karma and if it is the latter, rejecting karma is one possible symptom, which will then only make things worse.

I can understand if someone believed in a controlling God why they might reject Karma. But you Harry ji, do not have this conception, so this particular problem is not there. But of course there is deeper problem, but you will not be aware of this. It is the problem of “self-view” one which is characterized by the tendency to look beyond the present moment for the answer to the question of cause and effect. We can discuss this if you like. In the meantime I would appreciate any explanation as to why you think that belief in karma is incompatible with your present set of beliefs.

====

Quote: Confused: You are saying that belief in past and future lives detracts from the importance of understanding this life, but the fact is that this happens due to causes other than the belief itself. And if you fail to identify the real cause and continue to give the wrong reason, invariably the same mental phenomena will influence your own thinking.

A belief can be the result of ignorance or of understanding. If it is ignorance, almost invariably there is wrong understanding and attachment accompanying, and if it is understanding, attachment can arise afterwards, but not necessary. The problem is ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding.

Harry: I have had to read the above several times in order to come up with a suitable answer, i can certainly see the sense in the whole karma argument, I suppose if I delved into it a bit more, I might even believe in it, however, I put faith in Guruji, it is a bit like distance healing, or prayer for the sick, they are most wonderful concepts and very attractive to believe in, as is karma, but the jist I am getting from the people I would call Guruji, all 11 of them, is that such paths are just circular, they are entertaining, but you end up just going round and round,

C: Something must be blocking my view, but if you can Harry ji, please explain how belief in karma as I've tried to explain the concept, is a circular path. Or perhaps the problem is that you have wrongly made it into a “path”, something I did not suggest?

====
Harry: Guruji has saved me much time by outlining which paths bear fruit and which do not, as such, I feel that these paths do not lead to enlightenment and Mukti.

C: Guru Nanak did teach a path, but I don't believe that he would have suggested that it is easy or that it is short cut, given his understanding as to the extent of ignorance and attachment in everyone. The perception that one life is enough for anyone to become liberated comes I think, from his more ambitious and deluded followers.

The cause must match the result projected. If you think that any person can be liberated in a matter of 20, 30, 60 or 80 years, please tell me what you see as being the cause leading to this?

======
Harry: I am unfamiliar with this concept, all my life I have known when I was doing something bad, or something good, and I have done plenty bad, but I never put myself under the illusion it was good.

C: Are you trying to convince me that every time that a bad intention arose, you knew of its existence but still went ahead to follow its lead?
Anyway, if it was in fact wisdom which arose to know it, this would have lead rather, to not follow the intention, otherwise why even call it wisdom?

======
Quote: I’m not sure what Edmund Burke has in mind, but if he is suggesting a proactive approach, I consider it very wrong, since it would be coming from within maya / the world and its values. It is the thinking of the social activist and not of a religious person.

Harry: I do not think he was talking about being proactive, because that does beg the question what is good and what is bad, I like to think of that quote being a bit more obvious, say walking past a robbery, a rape, a crime and doing nothing.

C: I must say that such attitude really puts me off.
Any degree of self-examination would reveal the existence of so much defilements. But even if the person was saintly, he’d sympathize with others who he knows to be still mired in ignorance and attachment. This is because he would understand what it means to be in the situation, which he too was in and took a long, long time to get out of.

Have you not observed that when you do any wrong, (and remember “justification man”); if it is not wishing not to be found out, that at least your wrong be forgiven and that you are given a second (and third, and fourth and fifth) chance? Why is it then that we are so quick to play the police with regard to other people’s wrong actions?

A saintly person has kindness towards everyone, not only the victim in a given situation. If he acts, it is not with the kind of perception that you appear to have. Indeed he may feel compassion more towards the aggressor, since he knows that that person's action is one which will lead to the experience of bad results. He does not play the karma police, but instead understands that whatever happens does so by conditions beyond control, such that whether he intervened or not, no one knows what is going to happen down the road. This conditions calm as opposed to the agitation which must necessarily exist when following E. Burke’s suggestion, who I think, would have been better off had he considered the lesson Jesus Christ was giving when he said, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone….”

=====
Quote: Besides what is it to win over evil out there? Is not hatred won by kindness, miserliness by generosity, envy by sympathetic joy, immorality by morality, ignorance by wisdom and so on?

Harry: I am not sure about this, I find hatred is won over by understanding, miserliness by understanding, envy etc etc,

C: You mean no kindness, generosity or sympathetic joy need to arise toward the other person at some point? What state exactly would be directed towards the other person?

====
Harry: I think it is all understanding, otherwise you run the risk of being taken for a fool, a mug, unless people truly understand there is no hope, how to provide that understanding is possibly a bigger question, but I am not sure it is by being a kind generous moral person.

C: First, do you suppose that these states can be made to come about by will and that anyone at all will have it? Two, what kind of understanding are you referring to? Is it the kind which involves thinking and trying to assess a situation, one which does not necessarily involve awareness of one's intentions and understanding the difference between good and evil states? If so, this and not what you have identified, is reflection of a “fool”. Fool, is the person who does not see the value of good and harm of evil. It is nothing to do with being judged by others as such or as gullible.

Earlier you had agreed that good deeds are done for their own sake, but now you appear to add conditions.

====
Harry: This is where the Karma issue creeps in, you are looking at it from a much bigger picture than I am.

C: Not really, you are looking beyond the present moment and thinking in terms of situations, and project that I am having thoughts that extend over a large area. But in fact I have all along, tried to encourage not moving away from the present moment.

====
Quote:That said, of course good intentions can arise and we should not waste any opportunity to do good, however these need not be preceded or followed by conceit and attachment. The motivation need not involve the kind of judgement which contrasts one group of people with another. Should kindness after all differentiate between this or that persons, if this in fact does happen, would that not indicate attachment and aversion rather than kindness?

Harry: I think that good intentions, kindness and the oppertunity to do good should be carried out with extreme care and caution.

C: I wonder if your objection arises in part, as result of your own wrong characterization of what I've been saying, re: 'path of Karma' instead of 'path of understanding'?

Anyway, the “any opportunity” in my comment above, does include whatever else that is needed for the act to be carried out. The encouragement should not be read as suggesting being impulsive. On the other hand however, it appears that your objection comes from being inclined toward the suggestion that there’d be times when kindness is not appropriate? If so, I’d suggest that this is not the kind of perception associated with any level of wisdom. It is hard enough that any kindness arise at all, harder still for wisdom to do so and see kindness for what it is. Also not all moments of kindness is accompanied by the necessary zeal and energy in order that the act is carried out. All this is known by wisdom which then seeks to encourage these necessary supports.

It may be that an act of kindness is not preceded by careful consideration of the situation. But this is a different problem and not an excuse to discourage kindness. One perhaps will need to develop other good qualities, but to think that kindness is not called for is wrong thinking. After all kindness can arise but one may hesitate to act it out due to other considerations. But this is not the same as saying that kindness is not needed. It can be there and its value acknowledged, and ready to be expressed when the situation demands.

====
Harry: I feel there is a huge risk of being manipulated and for the wrong people to be given this, better to help someone who will benefit, than somone who it will corrupt, that is where logic and thinking comes into it.

C: You are of course right that it is better to give to someone with virtue than to someone without (conventionally speaking). And also that some people will become spoilt and try to manipulate. But this is about giving, not about kindness, and giving material help and not say, the gift of truth and the necessary zeal and energy required for this to happen. So one might say with regard to the corrupt, that in fact kindness is called for even more.

Logic and thinking is helpful only if supported by understanding. A shrewd businessman for example thinks from all sides, but only to his own advantage and because of this, is not “wise” at all. And if the thinking is in fact associated with wisdom, you are actually talking about that which would also see the value in generosity and kindness. So it is not like one will go against the inclination of the other. Indeed it may come down only to how best the kindness and generosity be expressed and not to whether to express it or not.
What do you think?

====

Quote:Confused: Attachment to self is rooted in ignorance and when one “believes” in doing the right thing, wrong understanding may be the driving force. This comes across to the person as right, which means that the real motivations are hidden. It takes wisdom to know what the reality is at the moment, and if this does not happen, how can we be sure that what arose was in fact a wholesome or an unwholesome state of mind.

Harry: We can be sure, as a Sikh, by reading and understanding Bani, which in my view, provides all the wisdom one needs to make the best decisions one can. Not blindly, but decisions made on the basis of intelligence, wisdom, discretion.

C: So what is it about, your wisdom arisen to understand what the reality is now, or following someone else's suggestions? Can you give an example of what it means to read the Bani and following its suggestions *with wisdom*?

======
Harry: I believe in Creator and Creation, so the effect of my actions on Creation is of huge interest to me.

C: I’ve seen you and Ambarsaria ji give so much importance to the particular idea, one which I recognize as having elements of Taoism and some western mysticism. I will not be surprised that you will not find the same implications, expressed anywhere in the Siri Guru Granth.

And as you know, this is very far from my own position.
The Buddha once gave a simile of the man shot by an arrow who will not allow medical help unless he first knew who shot the arrow, where he lived, his family, what wood the arrow was made, what wood the bow, etc. This man would therefore die before he came to know the answers. The message here is not so much that he is wasting precious time, but rather that his is a wrong line of enquiry.

If there is any penetration into the nature of the present moment experience, it will be seen that all the causes and conditions reside in that very moment. To seek an answer outside of this must therefore indicate lack of understanding, and because of this, encouraging of speculation and inevitably coming upon a wrong answer.

======
Harry: I suppose my thinking is possibly incompatible with the whole concept of karma, but then that is because I follow a religion which, in my view, places no importance on karma whatsoever. I am more concerned with the effect my life has on the rest on Creation.

C: Your ideas I believe, comes from the concept of Hukam.
In Buddhism there is the Five Niyama or Cosmic Orders of which Moral Order is one. Karma is this Moral Order. This concept of Niyama is not given that much attention, perhaps because it is philosophical in exposition and therefore may lead the attention away from considering the present moment. It should not encourage proliferating into ideas about events happening in time; but it can be a basis for a correct attitude towards experience and the object of experience. And certainly not with the idea of control, but rather understand and detach.

I think you can have a similar attitude towards the concept of Hukam? And could not Hukam in fact include the Moral Order? Instead of events happening in time involving interaction between different beings and objects, cannot Hukam be understood by way of understanding the experience now? And there is ever only the “now” to be known and this is fleeting and therefore nothing that can be brought back in an attempt to look more into it. And why would you seek to understand other than what appears to the consciousness now?

What do you think Harry ji, is this possible without any conflict arising as result?

=====
Harry: Will I leave this earth better or worse for my presence, sounds egoistical, but is more to do with the knock on effect my actions have on the rest of Creation. That to me is important.

C: From where I stand, you are proliferating like crazy.

====

Quote:Confused: I’m not sure about this; you refer to “Universal Truth” yet talk as if this is relative when suggesting that you subscribe to one and I to another. But I’ll not debate this here.

Harry: I think there are truths, and there are universal truths. To a Hindu, his truth is his truth, but I do believe that there are universal truths which unite us all, be they Hindu, Sikh,
An example could be that it is wrong to rape a woman.

C: And why do you think this is? Because of the reality of the Moral Order / Karma!! ;-)
But of course, it comes down to mental phenomena such as attachment and the nature of attachment.

I’ll not comment on the part about Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist truths, except that anyone who has even a little understanding about “Truth” will not make the kind of suggestion.

====
Quote:Anyway, according to Buddhism, there are four stages of enlightenment, each having eradicated particular set of unwholesome tendencies. The first and the second stages have no more wrong understanding, doubt, envy and miserliness, and therefore if they happen to be householders, still live the life with sensuous attachments, hence some degree of excitement. Only at the third and fourth stages are there no more attachment to sense objects and therefore no excitement towards anything.

Harry: I am not sure I wish to live my life like this, It is idealistic,

C: Well you can't even if you wanted to. Indeed it won't happen precisely because you *want* to. So really it is only a game conditioned by ignorance and desire, making this into an ideal and then rejecting it.

====
Harry: I find Sikhism offers a more realistic path, a combination of the spiritual and the worldly,

C: You mean what you read into Sikhism.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to make a statement about the wrongness of desire but at the same time also to feel justified in encouraging it.

Desire is wrong in all its manifestations, but it is not going to go away. So like I said, you will have it for a long, long time to come. But if you actually think desire is good at some level, whatever you state about its wrongness in other forms is just desire doing the talking and another object for it to feed on. In short, the distinction between spiritual and worldly and all the implications you put into this, is just ignorance and desire playing games. Desire gobbles everything and wants to be praised for it.

====
Harry: I can find the state you describe through drugs,

C: Reminds me of Carlos Castaneda and his perverted ideas.

====
Harry: I do not want this, I want to enjoy the smell of cut grass, the smile on a babys face, I want to feel attracted to my wife, to enjoy polishing my car, to laugh at a good comedy, but also to know thr truth, and to know what it means to live, not some day, not when I am enlightened, but now, today, right now.

C: It is fine and fair if you want to enjoy life. This would be an honest statement with regard to where you are at. I seek pleasure too, all the time. However I don't go on to believe that this seeking of pleasure is good, but you on the other hand, appear to do this. So as far as I'm concerned, for you to state that you want to know the Truth, this is not convincing at all. Sorry.

Harry Haller · Apr 17, 2012

This is probably the longest post ever on SPN. Sorry if it turns out to be a burden for you.

It is no burden brother, the mental gymnastics required to read and respond to your posts is welcome, I find it gives me peace and direction, although I had not fully responded to your last post, I will use the time to fully respond to this one.

C: I suspect that your understanding about faith is different from mine. Faith as it is generally used is more about belief in something that has not been tested and proven and perhaps used as a working hypothesis. What I'm talking about on the other hand is almost the opposite of this. But first let me say a little about the two kinds of faith that I know to exist as a mental factor, and which arises only with wholesome states.

The first is with reference to all kinds of good. For example one gives when otherwise one might have held tightly to one's possessions, this is reflection of faith / confidence in giving. The second kind of faith is with reference to the development of understanding. It is confidence in the function of understanding and what is understood thereby. This includes the knowledge of what causes continued existence and the path (understanding itself) leading out of this.

With regard to karma, the confidence is of this second kind. Understanding Karma begins at the intellectual level, with reference to the idea of moral cause and effect. This leads to the study of different mental states and actually beginning to recognize which of these states are cause and which are resultants, and also as these manifest in the conventional world.

Karma is the “intention” which arises with all volitional actions, be this mental, verbal or physical. It is with increased understanding of these volitional actions and differentiating them from resultant consciousness that confidence in karma comes about. It has nothing to do with thinking about some action now and belief that this will lead to some result in the future, but rather understanding an aspect with regard to the nature of the present moment. I believe that your conception of karma involves some story concerning, the past, the present and the future and this may be the problem.

I have read this several times now, and I am beginning to understand your definition. Correct me if I am wrong but it is more about having a constant mental state, and because that is not so easy, identifying the mental states, and what causes these mental states, and how we deal with them, either by thought, action, spoken word, or even through writing

, taken in this context, I can see how karma manifests itself even in one life, so my lack of belief in reincarnation does not have to extend to a denial of karma

C: I don’t think in terms of persons following different paths. I may have a general idea about you following Sikhi and I following Buddhism, but when I respond, I do not think about this. Your characterizing what I have been saying as “path of Karma” is rather strange. I consider it the path of understanding the Truth, the Four Noble Truths to be precise. Indeed understanding itself is the Fourth of these Truths and sometimes called the Truth of the Path. Karma on the other hand is covered by the First and Second Truths.

You are perhaps thinking that I am encouraging the use of the concept of karma, as guide to action, one which requires thinking in terms of cause and effect happening in time. But as I explained earlier, understanding karma being all about now, leads to less thinking in terms of the past and the future. And it is not that *believing* in Karma leads to better understanding of what is now.

However on the other hand if there is rejection of the concept, this must be due to a wrong understanding about “now”. So in fact it all comes down to whether one is coming from a right understanding or wrong understanding with regard to one’s moment to moment experiences. If it is the former, then one will believe in Karma and if it is the latter, rejecting karma is one possible symptom, which will then only make things worse.

I can understand if someone believed in a controlling God why they might reject Karma. But you Harry ji, do not have this conception, so this particular problem is not there. But of course there is deeper problem, but you will not be aware of this. It is the problem of “self-view” one which is characterized by the tendency to look beyond the present moment for the answer to the question of cause and effect. We can discuss this if you like. In the meantime I would appreciate any explanation as to why you think that belief in karma is incompatible with your present set of beliefs.

I would not say I completely understand karma, but I certainly now know what karma is not!

Karma as I now understand it is a release from the 'think-do' mentality that I possess, so it certainly is to do with the now, and not the past or the future, given my fresh understanding, I am now happy to accept karma as completely compatible with my thinking. It is interesting to note how many different types of karma there are, and how each religion has a different take on it, so I apologise for my confusion and ignorance as to which karma you were referring to.

C: Guru Nanak did teach a path, but I don't believe that he would have suggested that it is easy or that it is short cut, given his understanding as to the extent of ignorance and attachment in everyone. The perception that one life is enough for anyone to become liberated comes I think, from his more ambitious and deluded followers.

The cause must match the result projected. If you think that any person can be liberated in a matter of 20, 30, 60 or 80 years, please tell me what you see as being the cause leading to this?

I think there is a tendency for people to put off things while they live, enlightenment being one of them, it is easier to work towards something if you have many lifetimes to achieve it, but Guru Nanakji , I think, tried to teach us that enlightenment is through living, rather than living being a dead weight whilst trying to be enlightened. I think through a combination of discipline, moderation, wisdom and understanding, 60-80 years is adequate time if one is committed to the truth, and truthful living.

Harry: I am unfamiliar with this concept, all my life I have known when I was doing something bad, or something good, and I have done plenty bad, but I never put myself under the illusion it was good.

C: Are you trying to convince me that every time that a bad intention arose, you knew of its existence but still went ahead to follow its lead?
Anyway, if it was in fact wisdom which arose to know it, this would have lead rather, to not follow the intention, otherwise why even call it wisdom?

Yes, dear Confusedji, every time a bad intention arose, I still went ahead , I do not know if wisdom is the correct word, but I am not in the habit of kidding myself, most of the 1990's were spent on a mad rollercoaster, the only outcome being to find new and interesting ways to pleasure myself, and every single one of them was wrong, in fact the more wrong they were, the bigger the high felt.

Have you not observed that when you do any wrong, (and remember “justification man”); if it is not wishing not to be found out, that at least your wrong be forgiven and that you are given a second (and third, and fourth and fifth) chance? Why is it then that we are so quick to play the police with regard to other people’s wrong actions?

A saintly person has kindness towards everyone, not only the victim in a given situation. If he acts, it is not with the kind of perception that you appear to have. Indeed he may feel compassion more towards the aggressor, since he knows that that person's action is one which will lead to the experience of bad results. He does not play the karma police, but instead understands that whatever happens does so by conditions beyond control, such that whether he intervened or not, no one knows what is going to happen down the road. This conditions calm as opposed to the agitation which must necessarily exist when following E. Burke’s suggestion, who I think, would have been better off had he considered the lesson Jesus Christ was giving when he said, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone….”

This is very interesting, but it almost lauds viewing the world as a giant TV set, it requires a certain amount of detachment from reality. I think it is commendable, but also highly idealistic. Someone who does not judge, who does not put the rights of the victim above the rights of the aggressor, its almost like the world is a play with the only purpose being to educate and enlighten, I cannot accept a world like this, so either my understanding is wrong, or the concept is wrong, or, the concept is correct, my understanding is correct, but it is incompatible with my current thinking.

quote: Besides what is it to win over evil out there? Is not hatred won by kindness, miserliness by generosity, envy by sympathetic joy, immorality by morality, ignorance by wisdom and so on?

Harry: I am not sure about this, I find hatred is won over by understanding, miserliness by understanding, envy etc etc,

C: You mean no kindness, generosity or sympathetic joy need to arise toward the other person at some point? What state exactly would be directed towards the other person?

I will be frank here, if I went home later and found someone raping my wife, my immediate response would be to drag him off and insert one of my ferrets in his rectum. What would be your response?

Harry: I think it is all understanding, otherwise you run the risk of being taken for a fool, a mug, unless people truly understand there is no hope, how to provide that understanding is possibly a bigger question, but I am not sure it is by being a kind generous moral person.

C: First, do you suppose that these states can be made to come about by will and that anyone at all will have it? Two, what kind of understanding are you referring to? Is it the kind which involves thinking and trying to assess a situation, one which does not necessarily involve awareness of one's intentions and understanding the difference between good and evil states? If so, this and not what you have identified, is reflection of a “fool”. Fool, is the person who does not see the value of good and harm of evil. It is nothing to do with being judged by others as such or as gullible.

Earlier you had agreed that good deeds are done for their own sake, but now you appear to add conditions.

I think good deeds should be done with the consequences in mind, consequences to self, to others. Is it a good deed to give the rent to the homeless if it results in your own eviction? I think your answer would probably be, 'yes', as there is an attachment to having a home. I find your thinking incompatible with living a householders life, however I respect it as a path, and a worthwhile one.

Harry: This is where the Karma issue creeps in, you are looking at it from a much bigger picture than I am.

C: Not really, you are looking beyond the present moment and thinking in terms of situations, and project that I am having thoughts that extend over a large area. But in fact I have all along, tried to encourage not moving away from the present moment.

I accept my misunderstanding of the word 'karma' , so this quote is moot, I now understand the concept thanks to your patient explaining, I may not even have fully understood it, but I would to think I am on the right path.

Harry: I think that good intentions, kindness and the oppertunity to do good should be carried out with extreme care and caution.

C: I wonder if your objection arises in part, as result of your own wrong characterization of what I've been saying, re: 'path of Karma' instead of 'path of understanding'?

taken in that context, I cannot argue with you. However as a Sikh, I think I have to add logic and discretion into the pot.

Anyway, the “any opportunity” in my comment above, does include whatever else that is needed for the act to be carried out. The encouragement should not be read as suggesting being impulsive. On the other hand however, it appears that your objection comes from being inclined toward the suggestion that there’d be times when kindness is not appropriate? If so, I’d suggest that this is not the kind of perception associated with any level of wisdom. It is hard enough that any kindness arise at all, harder still for wisdom to do so and see kindness for what it is. Also not all moments of kindness is accompanied by the necessary zeal and energy in order that the act is carried out. All this is known by wisdom which then seeks to encourage these necessary supports.

It may be that an act of kindness is not preceded by careful consideration of the situation. But this is a different problem and not an excuse to discourage kindness. One perhaps will need to develop other good qualities, but to think that kindness is not called for is wrong thinking. After all kindness can arise but one may hesitate to act it out due to other considerations. But this is not the same as saying that kindness is not needed. It can be there and its value acknowledged, and ready to be expressed when the situation demands.

You certainly have your timing spot on. I have decided to suspend all kindness in order that we get our life back on track. I either have to detach myself to the point that I do not care about the rent being paid, or having no heating and food in the house, and I will be honest, that was the situation in my house last night. Do either of us care? no, not at all, there was enough for the animals, we have plenty of sweaters, but do I wish to impose this life on us as we hit our 50's?. I am an extreme person, if I were to follow your beliefs, then I would have to follow them to the furtherest point I could, otherwise there would be no point. I cannot do this, our acts of kindness have so far cost us close on £150,000. Enough I say, I have been working 7 day weeks for longer than I care to remember, and yet we seem overflowed with requests for kindness, and still people do not learn, people keep making the same mistakes, and we are part of this problem by showing kindness when that is clearly not what is required. It is our kindness that is making matters worse, not only for ourself, but for the people that we are kind to.

Logic and thinking is helpful only if supported by understanding. A shrewd businessman for example thinks from all sides, but only to his own advantage and because of this, is not “wise” at all. And if the thinking is in fact associated with wisdom, you are actually talking about that which would also see the value in generosity and kindness. So it is not like one will go against the inclination of the other. Indeed it may come down only to how best the kindness and generosity be expressed and not to whether to express it or not.
What do you think?

I am not and have never been a shrew businessman, I actually do business from the perspective of those that I am doing business with, and will at times, refuse to do business if I feel it is not in the best interests of the other party, I deal in second hand laptops, and will refuse to sell if I feel the purchaser would be better off with a new one. I find this attitude on the whole, keeps me in money to an adequate level, until of course my wife gets a sob story, and I get roped into parting with it, however this has now stopped. I agree with your statement as to how best to express kindness, this is something we are trying to understand, rather than constantly throwing money at problems.

Harry: We can be sure, as a Sikh, by reading and understanding Bani, which in my view, provides all the wisdom one needs to make the best decisions one can. Not blindly, but decisions made on the basis of intelligence, wisdom, discretion.

C: So what is it about, your wisdom arisen to understand what the reality is now, or following someone else's suggestions? Can you give an example of what it means to read the Bani and following its suggestions *with wisdom*?

ਇਕਿ ਕੰਦ ਮੂਲੁ ਚੁਣਿ ਖਾਹਿ ਵਣ ਖੰਡਿ ਵਾਸਾ ॥
Some pick and eat fruits and roots, and live in the wilderness.
ਇਕਿ ਭਗਵਾ ਵੇਸੁ ਕਰਿ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਜੋਗੀ ਸੰਨਿਆਸਾ ॥
Some wander around wearing saffron robes, as Yogis and Sanyaasees.
ਅੰਦਰਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਛਾਦਨ ਭੋਜਨ ਕੀ ਆਸਾ ॥
But there is still so much desire within them-they still yearn for clothes and food.
ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਗਵਾਇ ਨ ਗਿਰਹੀ ਨ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥
They waste their lives uselessly; they are neither householders nor renunciates.
ਜਮਕਾਲੁ ਸਿਰਹੁ ਨ ਉਤਰੈ ਤ੍ਰਿਬਿਧਿ ਮਨਸਾ
The Messenger of Death hangs over their heads, and they cannot escape the three-phased desire.
ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਕਾਲੁ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਨੇੜੈ ਜਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਦਾਸਨਿ ਦਾਸਾ ॥
Death does not even approach those who follow the Guru's Teachings, and become the slaves of the Lord's slaves.
ਸਚਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਸਚੁ ਮਨਿ ਘਰ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥
The True Word of the Shabad abides in their true minds; within the home of their own inner beings, they remain detached.
ਨਾਨਕ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਨਿ ਆਪਣਾ ਸੇ ਆਸਾ ਤੇ ਨਿਰਾਸਾ ॥੫॥
|5|| O Nanak, those who serve their True Guru, rise from desire to desirelessness. ||5||

To me this is saying that one can never become truly free of attachment, and although one can strive for detachment from a mental point of view, your actions must always take into account the fact that we are also householders, that we must use our brains, our logic, rather than follow concepts for the sake of the concept.

I think you can have a similar attitude towards the concept of Hukam? And could not Hukam in fact include the Moral Order? Instead of events happening in time involving interaction between different beings and objects, cannot Hukam be understood by way of understanding the experience now? And there is ever only the “now” to be known and this is fleeting and therefore nothing that can be brought back in an attempt to look more into it. And why would you seek to understand other than what appears to the consciousness now?

What do you think Harry ji, is this possible without any conflict arising as result?

Absolutely, I find the concepts of Hukam and Karma (Buddhist) quite closely linked. They both, in my view have to do with the order of the world right now,

Harry: Will I leave this earth better or worse for my presence, sounds egoistical, but is more to do with the knock on effect my actions have on the rest of Creation. That to me is important.

C: From where I stand, you are proliferating like crazy.

having understood your concepts a bit more, yes I suppose I am

H

arry: I find Sikhism offers a more realistic path, a combination of the spiritual and the worldly,

C: You mean what you read into Sikhism.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to make a statement about the wrongness of desire but at the same time also to feel justified in encouraging it.

I wish to live, to be alive, and I would be the first to admit that what I read into Sikhism is not what is universally accepted. Of course I want to eat my cake, what would be the point in having a cake otherwise

Harry: I can find the state you describe through drugs,

C: Reminds me of Carlos Castaneda and his perverted ideas.

It is true though, certain drugs can induce a state of absolute kindness, detachment acceptance, interesting experience, but incompatible with being a householder.

Harry: I do not want this, I want to enjoy the smell of cut grass, the smile on a babys face, I want to feel attracted to my wife, to enjoy polishing my car, to laugh at a good comedy, but also to know thr truth, and to know what it means to live, not some day, not when I am enlightened, but now, today, right now.

C: It is fine and fair if you want to enjoy life. This would be an honest statement with regard to where you are at. I seek pleasure too, all the time. However I don't go on to believe that this seeking of pleasure is good, but you on the other hand, appear to do this. So as far as I'm concerned, for you to state that you want to know the Truth, this is not convincing at all. Sorry.

Every day I meet people who tell me what they aspire to, yet make no effort in changing their life to meet these aspirations. I would rather be honest and say to you that I wish to enjoy the experience of this playground called life, every day, whether I am hungry, cold, to still find happiness, contentment, a purpose, a goal, to learn something new, that for me is life. I do not seek pleasure all the time, I seek a balance between being happy, and being useful, and in living like this, to seek the truth.

Our views are different brother, however, today I think I got a grasp on Karma, so there is hope for me yet.

Thank you again for a wonderful 90 mins spent reading and replying, it has given me much food for thought, and there are ideals and theories you have mentioned that I will certainly think about when I cannot sleep, and I will play with the theories and debate them for many nights to come, thank you again for your time and energy

Archived_member14 · Apr 17, 2012

Ambarsaria ji,

Quote: Originally Posted by Confused ji
Anyway, according to Buddhism, there are four stages of enlightenment, each having eradicated particular set of unwholesome tendencies. The first and the second stages have no more wrong understanding, doubt, envy and miserliness, and therefore if they happen to be householders, still live the life with sensuous attachments, hence some degree of excitement. Only at the third and fourth stages are there no more attachment to sense objects and therefore no excitement towards anything.

I am with Harry Haller ji on this. I do not believe in this third fourth stage thing. The premise of renunciation for subsistence and dependance on others while the people so providing are in stages 1 or 2 is fundamentally flawed.

I wonder how you drew this from what I said.
These different stages refer to enlightened people and not to differentiation between monks and lay people. There are unenlightened monks and there are enlightened lay people. Also why did you create a situation between these different stages and come to the conclusion that those in 1 and 2 are the providers of requisites for those in stages 3 and 4?

Besides, I only said that those at the final stage must become monks or die from starvation. This is because only by force of attachment and conceit, is one able to function in the “world” so as to earn food, shelter and clothing. Indeed as I said in another message, this was the reason why the order of the monkhood was created. (Actually it happened automatically with the first disciple who became fully enlightened.)

Also you have created a false premise in suggesting the idea, “renunciation for subsistence and dependence”. A person renounces not in order that he will depend on others. He renounces because he sees the dustiness of the lay life after having developed the understanding with regard to the danger of attachment to sense objects. And of course this is a situation different from the fact of being fully enlightened and having to ordain.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if all in a given society suddenly rose to third and fourth stages, there will be no continuation of human life. It appears that the third and fourth stages need for their existence the continuous supply of people in stages 1 and 2.

You and I are not even close to stages 1 and 2. We are at zero and minus. ;-)
As I said, you have misunderstood my reference to the four stages of enlightenment. This is different from the concept of lay disciples vs. monks.

Anyway, you and I exist to offer enlightened monks the requisites or not, this is not reason for concern on the part of those monks. They became enlightened precisely with knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. The first and second of which are Dukkha and the Cause of Dukkha.

Even someone like me from time to time have a glimmer of what this is. It is saying that life / conditioned existence, is insubstantial and therefore not worth seeking after. The Buddha likened birth, old age and death to a man being offered by someone to be taken to a garden. There once they reach, this man is suddenly pushed to the ground and is on his knees. The second person then draws his sword and chops the first person's neck off. And this happens over and over again, but we are completely oblivious and therefore likened to men who walk unaware, straight to the edge of a cliff and falls over. Sometimes in seeking pleasure, we behave like the man who enjoys licking honey off a razor blade. So absorbed is he in the taste, that he doesn't realize it when the blade cuts his tongue, until the day it is discovered that the tongue has become completely disfigured.

So really, there is never going to be a shortage of people. And if there are few of those who would provide monks with requisite, this would not be because everyone has suddenly become enlightened. But rather because there'd be no enlightened people to give, but instead only those who like to lick honey off a razor blade, while moving toward the edge of the cliff.

I believe it is a simple monastic trick that many religions carry out. The existence of Brahmins in Hinduism and the monks in Buddhism are just two examples.

You are speculating and generalizing. I don't know what Hindu encompasses, but if this includes those particular wise people just before and during the Buddha's times and outside of his religion, I'd be able to give support even for their decision to renounce the world. The Buddha's teachings is not as you appear to suggest, aimed at renouncing the world, but understanding the Truth. So no matter you are a layperson or a monk, the aim is the same. But being a monk has its own reason which is that it is based on seeing danger in sensuous attachment and the dustiness of the household life. Therefore if you have anything to say, I think this is where your argument should be directed, instead of speculating as you have done above.

We in Sikhism have also seen examples of this through personal Gurus, the dehra Babas, the dehra Sants using same technique. To me this is all fundamentally exploitative just sugar coated. It matters not how good the exploiters are or how good their intentions as the double standard is an insult to the followers or sustainers of such people.

I call these people {censored}roaches. And I tell you, I have been reacting to such people no matter which religion they come from, since I was young. And today I consider almost 100 % of Buddhist monks to be in the same category. But unlike you, I also understand that the tradition has its roots in something really great and most worthy of veneration. And I include here, also those people I consider the cream of society who lived just before the Buddha turned the Wheel of the Dharma.

Archived_member14 · Apr 20, 2012

Parma ji,

Quote 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.>>

As you say thinking is a “phenomenon”, = Oxford dictionary translation, 1) 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.

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.

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

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.

Quote C: 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’.>>

Look at the above for the answer on this you cannot grasp concepts as by your understanding you do not believe in thought!

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.

A dream does not physically exist but it is in existence of your thought.

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.

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!

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.

You cannot seriously be talking about “train of thoughts” as person that does not believe in the existence of thought. Delusion

Well, I say that thoughts, train or not train, are the creation of thinking. And I believe the thinking to be real and exist.

Quote 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.>>

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

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?

Quote 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.>>

This did not clarify anything. These are just big words concocted together that make no heads or tails of anything. Without getting too personal Alot of what you write is just wafflings and ramblings.

After reading my further explanations in this message, what do you now think?

Quote 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?>>

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

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.

Quote C: I say that if you follow the lead of science, you will never, ever come to understand the Truth!!>>

Now you don’t believe in science, delusional and conceited fact!

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.

Quote C: 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.>>

I am lost with you onwards here, if you cannot comprehend thought how can you comprehend reality!

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.

Quote C: To reproduce and increase the population is a virtue? How?>>

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

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.

Quote C: 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?>>

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

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?

Quote 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.>>

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.

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.

Most things can change even laws that are made change constantly.

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.

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.

This is your own attempt at resolution with regard to things that you either do not understand or misunderstand completely.

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. Trutb h 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.

I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. Please explain it in a different way if you can.

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.

And you can be sure that I appreciate your efforts.

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!

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.

By your reasoning it is silly, but you have no thought so!

There is thinking and thoughts are the object. And this is a fact! ;-)

Parma · Apr 20, 2012

Quote 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.>>

As you say thinking is a “phenomenon”, = Oxford dictionary translation, 1) 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. [/FONT]

I didn't say that 'thinking' does not exist, but only that thoughts / concepts / that which thinking thinks about, does not.[/FONT]
You do realise what you are writing, you are suggesting that thinking has its own thinking process! In your own words and by your own idea’s what you have actually mentioned is that thinking does not now exist as thinking needs its own thinking to exist, by your suggestion it is a phenomenon so it is in question. Delusional![/FONT]

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. [/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
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]
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. [/FONT]
Mind moments, trillions of mind moments, so you are even now suggesting there is no thinking! Is the thinking, the mind, the moment or is the mind moment the thinking? Personally it is thought what you are on about! Delusion, Fact![/FONT]

This does not imply that 2, plus or 4 are realties, does it?[/FONT]
You’ve have no concept of reality either! Delusional, will you say that 2 and 4 do not exist as numbers either? What next? [/FONT]

We function only because of thinking, but this does not require that the different concepts involved be given the status of “reality” / existent. [/FONT]
At one point you are mentioning nothing can exist without thinking then you go on to suggest that thinking is the only thing that brings more thinking, but then you suggest thinking is a mind moment. Make up your mind either there is thinking or mind moments! The conclusion of your idea’s is; you are neither the thinker, the thinking the thought. You are neither the seeker the seeking the sought. Your process has become quagmire. [/FONT]
Realise in trying to split the processes of thought in fact you have split your reasons and so you have split your justifications. In context the individual or the concept of what you are. Your justifications have become delusional. [/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote C: 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’.>>

Look at the above for the answer on this you cannot grasp concepts as by your understanding you do not believe in thought! [/FONT]
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. [/FONT]
To keep things simple please write shorter sentences as it does not require big paragraphs to get the idea across. If anything it causes confusion that is your name and no solid answers formulate. I appreciate your efforts but it just gets dull and uninteresting to reply and if that is your style. To me that is just a waste of mental matter. In that context there is no point for me personally to carry on;[/FONT]

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.[/FONT]
At what point do you contemplate reality?[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
A dream does not physically exist but it is in existence of your thought. [/FONT]
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. [/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
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! [/FONT]
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.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
You cannot seriously be talking about “train of thoughts” as person that does not believe in the existence of thought. Delusion [/FONT]
Well, I say that thoughts, train or not train, are the creation of thinking. And I believe the thinking to be real and exist.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote 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.>>

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]
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?[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote 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.>>

This did not clarify anything. These are just big words concocted together that make no heads or tails of anything. Without getting too personal Alot of what you write is just wafflings and ramblings. [/FONT]
After reading my further explanations in this message, what do you now think?[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote 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?>>

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]
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.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote C: I say that if you follow the lead of science, you will never, ever come to understand the Truth!!>>

Now you don’t believe in science, delusional and conceited fact! [/FONT]
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.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote C: 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.>>

I am lost with you onwards here, if you cannot comprehend thought how can you comprehend reality! [/FONT]
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. [/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote C: To reproduce and increase the population is a virtue? How?>>

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]
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.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote C: 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?>>

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 [/FONT]
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?[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Quote 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.>>

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. [/FONT]
No I have not changed the topic. Thought and thinking is what we are talking about and as such it will take all types of explanations! [/FONT]
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. [/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
Most things can change even laws that are made change constantly. [/FONT]
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. [/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
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]
This is your own attempt at resolution with regard to things that you either do not understand or misunderstand completely.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
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. Trutb h 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]
I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. Please explain it in a different way if you can.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
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]
And you can be sure that I appreciate your efforts.[/FONT]
Quote:[/FONT]
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]
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.[/FONT]
Your conclusions are aimed in regards to detachment and not in regards to Sikhism. In fact Sikhism is beyond your thoughts so please refrain, and I would appreciate it if you would not use terms on Sikhism and any other religious path as your knowledge is not gained from faith but a delusional detached motive of thought, my thoughts I try to gain from balanced reasons, and I am willing to accept all versions of thought apart from thinking that thinking is existing without thought, that is madness.[/FONT]

Quote:[/FONT]
By your reasoning it is silly, but you have no thought so! [/FONT]
There is thinking and thoughts are the object. And this is a fact! ;-) [/FONT]
There is thinking and thought are the object. What is the Fact? I guess you mean you agree thoughts exist fact[/FONT]

Archived_member14 · Apr 20, 2012

Parma ji,

Yes, I write long responses and not so clearly much of the time (except to me when reading over or somebody who comes from my kind of understanding). And I *am* a very muddle-headed person. This is enough reason for you to drop the discussion at any time. But since it seems that you have not yet understood where I am coming from, allow me to say more here.

=====
This part from your response:

Quote C: We function only because of thinking, but this does not require that the different concepts involved be given the status of “reality” / existent.

Parma: At one point you are mentioning nothing can exist without thinking then you go on to suggest that thinking is the only thing that brings more thinking, but then you suggest thinking is a mind moment. Make up your mind either there is thinking or mind moments!

C: I don’t believe I ever suggested that “nothing can exist without thinking”, nor that “thinking is the only thing that brings more thinking”.
It is like this:

What we are is a moment of consciousness arisen with a set of mental factors at some material base, one after another and another. When there is seeing for example, seeing as a conscious moment arises with perception, attention, concentration, life faculty, feeling, intention and contact. These latter are mental factors each performing their individual functions in order that the experience happens. And they all, along with the seeing consciousness, arises at a material bases, the eye-base.

Seeing is extremely fleeting and is followed by some other kind of consciousness. This would arise at another material base and with its particular set of mental factors. Seeing and the other sense door experience is a resultant consciousness. Thinking on the other hand is a volitional consciousness which arises following upon the sense experience and also otherwise. But like all consciousness it too is fleeting.

I call all of these ‘mind moments’ because there ever exists only one experience at a time and all of them are equally momentary.

So there is thinking. It is a reality and exists, but this existence is momentary as must be all conditioned existence. Thoughts are created so to speak, by thinking, and does not have any characteristic. When there is a thought, it is because at that moment, thinking has arisen due to some proximate cause. Thoughts themselves do not rise and fall away but are only the “objects” of the thinking consciousness. Unlike the thinking itself, they are therefore not said to be real and existent.

I hope the above has better clarified my position.

=====
Parma: The conclusion of your idea’s is; you are neither the thinker, the thinking the thought. You are neither the seeker the seeking the sought. Your process has become quagmire.

C: According to me, there is of course no thinker. If I refer to myself, you or anyone in a conversation, it is only for the sake of communication to distinguish between what comes down to different set of experiences.
There is on the other hand “thinking” and “seeking” and objects thought about and sought after. The objects in this case however, are only ideas, hence non-existent. Can you please tell me what problem you have with this proposition?

=====
Parma: Realise in trying to split the processes of thought in fact you have split your reasons and so you have split your justifications. In context the individual or the concept of what you are. Your justifications have become delusional.

C: I understand that this is because you believe in the existence of a ‘self’ or ‘soul’, whereas I come from a Buddhist perspective which does not believe in the existence of this. And this may be the reason why you read into my comments certain contradictions. What do you think?

=====
Quote C: 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.

Parma: At what point do you contemplate reality?

C: In the above quoted passage, I pointed to such things as consciousness, the earth, fire and wind elements, intention, feeling, attention and so on. These are what in fact arises and falls away all day, from which the different concepts are conceived. They can when the conditions are right, be known for what they are. But do I? No. My level of understanding is at what is called, the level of hearing and of considering and very little more.

======
Parma: Your conclusions are aimed in regards to detachment and not in regards to Sikhism. In fact Sikhism is beyond your thoughts so please refrain, and I would appreciate it if you would not use terms on Sikhism and any other religious path as your knowledge is not gained from faith but a delusional detached motive of thought, my thoughts I try to gain from balanced reasons, and I am willing to accept all versions of thought apart from thinking that thinking is existing without thought, that is madness.

C: I did say very clearly, that thinking when arisen must have thoughts as object. In other words, there is no thinking without thoughts. What I am trying to get across to you however, is that while thinking is real with particular characteristics, function, manifestation and proximate cause, thought on the other hand, are only “objects” of this thinking. This is because they do not rise and fall away, and have no characteristic, function and so on. And since for anything to be real and existent they must rise and fall away, and have characteristic etc. thoughts can’t be said to be real and existing. Do you now have a better idea of what I am saying?

You say that Sikhism is beyond my thoughts and therefore I should refrain from making any statement about it. But why particularly this? If the reason you give is that I deny the existence of ‘thoughts’, then you should not even be trying to tell me this with the expectation that I will respond positively to your suggestion. I mean, I’d be too deluded would not I? In other words, how is it that you expect me to be able to comprehend and follow your suggestion at all?

=====
Quote C:
There is thinking and thoughts are the object. And this is a fact! ;-)

Parma: There is thinking and thought are the object. What is the Fact? I guess you mean you agree thoughts exist fact.

C: “Object of experience" does not make it existent. Object of thinking in fact makes it *non-existent*. That is what thinking does, it thinks, imagines, dreams, and project and at best is said to “make sense” of what has just been experienced through one of the five senses. But even in this case, it is based on the memory of what those particular objects were.

Parma · Apr 21, 2012

C: I did say very clearly, that thinking when arisen must have thoughts as object. In other words, there is no thinking without thoughts. What I am trying to get across to you however, is that while thinking is real with particular characteristics, function, manifestation and proximate cause, thought on the other hand, are only “objects” of this thinking. This is because they do not rise and fall away, and have no characteristic, function and so on. And since for anything to be real and existent they must rise and fall away, and have characteristic etc. Thoughts do arise and fall away. You have a thought it arises and then after you have had enough of thinking about the thought it falls away. thoughts can’t be said to be real and existing. Do you now have a better idea of what I am saying? No, you are over thinking and condradicting the concept of thought. You say for somthing to exist it arises and falls away in your own statements. Now you are actually providing your own condradictions to your own answers wright at the same time as you are writing that it is wrong. Which makes no sense at all. Either thoughts exist or they don't even in an object of thought as that would still be a thought. Unless you are going to re-write a whole new dictionary where thought does not mean thought but it means something else!

You say that Sikhism is beyond my thoughts and therefore I should refrain from making any statement about it. But why particularly this? If the reason you give is that I deny the existence of ‘thoughts’, then you should not even be trying to tell me this with the expectation that I will respond positively to your suggestion. I mean, I’d be too deluded would not I? In other words, how is it that you expect me to be able to comprehend and follow your suggestion at all?

(I did say very clearly, that thinking when arisen must have thoughts as object. In other words, there is no thinking without thoughts)
That is my point exactly you are too deluded to comprehend a simple "thought" so how are you going to comprehend a religion, which is far more complex. Now you are saying there is no thinking without the object of thoughts. Firstly you wrote thoughts do not exist. So by that conclusion you are now implying that thinking does not exist either. What are you writing about?

Your thoughts please lol

Ambarsaria · Apr 21, 2012

As Parma ji suggested I believe the dialog is getting stuck in the weeds of what is thought and what is thinking. It is kind of inappropriate and not helpful if we don't use common understanding of usage of some words. To help let us see if we agree about the key words repeated often.

Thought (noun)
1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work.
5. a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her.

Think

adjective, noun
verb (used without object)

1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
3. to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
4. to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of his phone number.
5. to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.: She thought about cutting her hair.

verb (used with object)

6. to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
7. to have or form in the mind in order to understand, know, or remember something else: Romantic comedy is all about chemistry: think Tracy and Hepburn. Can't guess? Here's a hint: think 19th century.
8. to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think the deal over.
9. to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
10. to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil of the neighbors.

Perhaps we can retrace where we started physically as a help to see how and where we are.

In the womb
Born
- Our own heart beat
- Hear beyond the embryonic fluid
- See beyond the embryonic fluid
- Touch beyond the inner body of mother
- Taste beyond the embryonic fluid
- Smell beyond the embryonic fluid
Our brain wiring begins for the world outside of the womb and as of our senses
Thinking and thoughts develop and leave traces
- Thinking and thoughts continue to leave ever more traces
We are where we are,
- We as one being act as from,
  - The history that we have lived to date
  - The experiences we have lived to date
  - The thoughts that we have lived to date
  - The conditioning that we have developed to date
Instances of consciousness and the like that rise and fall are only in the context and of note as per Items 4 and 5 above.
We die and we leave influences of parts of our 5 in the main with others and their equivalent 4, 5 and 6.

NOTE: In some other posts I have tried to explain this as partial rebirth of ourselves in others and theirs in us. A pseudo and partial incarnation if you may.

Any comments.

Metta

Buddhism Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Harry Haller

Archived_member14

Harry Haller

Archived_member14

Parma

Archived_member14

Parma

Harry Haller

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Archived_member14

Parma

Archived_member14

Harry Haller

Archived_member14

Archived_member14

Parma

Archived_member14

Parma

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Latest Activity