• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

An Important Question For Your Views

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,950
56
United Kingdom
I am an agnostic who enoys life, is very comfortable with his surroundings and inner being, is not spiritual, drinks, smokes, looks at other women without guilt ( sometimes points out the nicer ones to the wife!) and generally indulges in whatever makes me (and my wife happy). I have no guilt, no urges that are left undone and am happy with the fact that we evolved from apes.

I have a few things that arouse my curiosity (a) why are mangoes so nice tasting (b) how was the earth placed in such a way so that the sun isnt so near that we burn to death and not so far that we all freeze and (c) what was there before the Big Bang? These queries, however, get a few moments of my attention now and again when i am feeling philosophical . These are not the questions i am asking though.

My question, and please i would prefer answers without endless diatribe and MORE IMPORTANTLY without self important and wise sounding statements and one liners ....

Some posts on this website have made reference to faith and the need to have a faith in a religion or God ( i capitalise God for respect to yourselves) to guide ones self on what is right or wrong... or what to eat or what not to eat...or who to marry and who not to marry.

The question for you that also raises my curiosity is why do i not need to have a need for such a faith?

I think people above have answered these question far better than me, and I think you have partly answered it yourself.

Me personally I think it's all relative. It's how you understand it. Every book, method of teaching has a certain slant to it from the authors point of view. The author can only convey their understanding and feeling through illustration and example. Unless you live exactly that persons life you will never know exactly what that persons experience are, and even then biologically it would still diffferent for you. It is for YOU to make the connection. If you cannot make a connection then you must move on.

I have some question for you?

1) What do you understand by the word "God"?
2) Is this "God" the same as the idea professed by Nanak of "Onkaar"?
(2a) Have you read or studied any of the Sikh texts (or any other faith)?
3) Have you ever been in a life threatening situation (or loved ones)?
4) If so, what were your thoughts in that situation?
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Pablo ji,

I had written a couple of responses and decided against posting them for several reasons, one being that they'd come across as being too technical and lacking of humour. Also I feared that you would be put off by the length of the messages, being slow-witted, you will not get any one-liners from me but what is probably worse. ;-) I can't change any of this but I really wish to share some of my understandings with you. So I ask you from the outset, to be patient.

Like you I was born into a Sikh family and like you I do not believe in God. I wouldn't however call myself an agnostic since the concept of God does not form part of my thought process except when I read and discuss here or overhear my wife's conversations with others. ;-) And even then, I reduce all this to being simply reflection of a tendency to interpret experiences one particular way.

I have been influenced wholly by the Buddha's teachings, and although I have no expectation of influencing you, I expect however, that some of what I say will be useful.

You wrote:

My dabblings in Buddhism stopped when the concept of Karma came up - I cannot subscribe to any path/religion that states an act of kindness must be done for a better next life because that act then becomes selfish.

Just as you know others to possibly misinterpret particular teachings; you'd agree that you too are possibly misinterpreting the concept of karma. Indeed the probability is very high given your source must be one of the many schools out there all of who clearly disagree with each other. And obviously I am just one of those, but I tell you, they are wrong and I am right!! ;-) Don't let this put you off, read on and then decide whether you agree with me or not.

Everything that the Buddha taught points to that which makes up our lives and can be known from moment to moment. Right now as you read this message, there arises and fall away many different kinds of consciousness through the senses and the mind. In what comes across as "me seeing words on a computer screen", there are in fact some very different kinds of consciousness alternating between each other, such that if you really believed in the existence of such an entity as "I" and things such as "words" and "computer screen", you'd be quite wrong.
Let me explain:

"Seeing" is one mental reality which when it arises must experience a physical reality peculiar to it called "visible object" or simply, "that which can be seen". These two are merely kinds of elements with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. What you conceive of as words and computer screen is the result of another mental reality, namely "thinking". This happens as a result of the influence of other mental realities such as memory and attention which makes it that the object of thinking, namely words and screen are only "concepts", hence not real. Likewise the impression that you have of a "self" who experiences this or that and who can make choices, is also a result of the thinking process based on all the different experiences through the five senses and the mind. So when you end up taking the concepts of "me" and "things out there" as real and existing, this is due to another mental reality, namely "wrong view" or "wrong understanding".

Wrong view or self-view is from which most Buddhists read the Buddha's teachings and the reason for misinterpretation. But of course this is to be expected. Only if we've accumulated a great deal of wisdom from past lives (I know you are reacting to this ;-)), or if we are fortunate enough to meet such a person, will we at some point begin to understand correctly what is really being pointed at. And the impression one gets is that of a shift in perception, one comparable to taking a quantum leap. Of course, as it is in my case, this change of perception is only momentary and happens only once in a while, at other times, the same old way of perceiving things just continue. This is because the understanding is only at the beginner level of intellectual understanding. This is enough however, to recognize certain wrong perceptions, including those expressed in the form of the different religious and philosophical teachings and ideas out there. One determining factor is that while the Buddha's teachings leads to the 'now' with an understanding to distinguish 'reality' from 'concepts', other teachings in referring to concepts just encourages more ignorance about reality.

So when we come to the concept of karma, we should ask ourselves, what is it? Given what I've said so far, I think you could guess correctly that it must in fact be a reality. What reality? The mental factor of "intention" which arises with all consciousness.

In the case of the five sense experiences however, intention does not function as "cause" being that these are in fact "resultant" consciousness. And when we are for example, simply attracted to a pleasant sights or sounds, the intention there is not of the strength that will bring results in the future, although it does accumulate as tendency. When it arises during instances such as lying, stealing, killing etc., however, the intention then is strong enough to act as cause for the arising of results in the future. This is the case also when instead, such actions as kindness, moral restraint, generosity and so on arises. In the one the result is bad and in the other it is good.

So we learn to distinguish two distinct types of consciousness, one which is the nature of cause and the other that of result. We then understand that it is intention in the one, which is what leads to getting to experience the other in the form of either pleasant or unpleasant experiences through the senses. And it is from understanding this relationship that one is then lead to agree with the suggestion that good and bad intention or karma, gives rise to result in the form of rebirth in a happy or unhappy plain of existence.

So it is not just a matter of "belief" that one thinks about karma and rebirth. Thinking in terms of the next life as being result of karma, is a matter of fact and does not come without realizing that this life itself is result of past karma. And when it comes down to it, indeed it is all happening now, there is results of past deeds in the form of certain kinds of experiences, and there are those that are of the nature of cause for future result. Thinking then, that a good deed will result in good rebirth does not have to imply doing it to gain something. For someone who has had some grasp of the Buddha's teachings, it is clear that the aim is to get out of this whole mess. After all, the first of the Four Noble Truths states that all conditioned existence is Dukkha or Suffering and the cause for this is grasping, which is the second of these four truths. So someone who correctly interprets the Buddha's teachings would do good not in order to be reborn in a better plain of existence, but with the understanding in fact, of the harm of ignorance and attachment.

The encouragement is always to know the present moment reality by the "characteristic", where no label is attached, for example hatred is different in nature from kindness, is it not? And the understanding is that it is only when this has happened to any extent, that one's confidence in what is good and bad, right and wrong has any real basis. Let alone having to make reference to some set of teachings or teacher in order to then act one way or the other, there is no need even to try and talk oneself using reason, for doing what must be done. This is because it is all about the development of "understanding" which at some point grows to see the value of good for what it *is* and likewise, the harm of evil, the leader of which is "ignorance".

That said, I think it can be inferred from the above, that a "disbelief" in karma must in fact be an obstacle. This is because it would reflect not only not understanding the present moment, but also not acknowledging the reality / concept distinction. The perception must be that of a "self" who acts and who will receive results in the future, in which case accepting or not accepting karma makes very little difference since in both cases it takes the attention away from understanding the "impersonal reality" that karma is.

So what do you think now Pablo ji, would any of us have arrived at such kind of understanding on our own? Do we not need all the help we can get? And is it not rather that, left to our own devices, the "vices" would rule? But of course, first you'd need to recognize and acknowledge the vices for what they are, which I'm not sure that you do. Indeed you appear to be trying to justify having some them, and this I consider really dangerous.

What do you think Pablo ji?
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
Pablo ji,

@Lee - "Gurur ji teaches us that all is Gods will, perhaps then you are simply not yet meant to search for God? Or perhaps your karma dictates that you should at this time question your lack of faith?" My dabblings in Buddhism stopped when the concept of Karma came up - I cannot subscribe to any path/religion that states an act of kindness must be done for a better next life because that act then becomes selfish.


Hehe then perhaps mate you have misunderstood what karma is?

Karma does not say or force you to do kind acts so that kindness comes back to you but is rather a natural law of actions and consequences.

Tell me do you agree that all actions have consequences and that as a human you should face up to the consequences of your actions?

Karma does not force your actions, you do not need to act kind to get kindness back. Karama is the measurement of you actions and the natural consequances of them. Whether you subscribe to gravity or not it still effects you, karama then can be said to be much the same. It is not dogma to be belived or disbelived it is a natural universal law.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
55
I am an agnostic who enoys life, is very comfortable with his surroundings and inner being, is not spiritual, drinks, smokes, looks at other women without guilt ( sometimes points out the nicer ones to the wife!) and generally indulges in whatever makes me (and my wife happy). I have no guilt, no urges that are left undone and am happy with the fact that we evolved from apes.

I have a few things that arouse my curiosity (a) why are mangoes so nice tasting (b) how was the earth placed in such a way so that the sun isnt so near that we burn to death and not so far that we all freeze and (c) what was there before the Big Bang? These queries, however, get a few moments of my attention now and again when i am feeling philosophical . These are not the questions i am asking though.

My question, and please i would prefer answers without endless diatribe and MORE IMPORTANTLY without self important and wise sounding statements and one liners ....

Some posts on this website have made reference to faith and the need to have a faith in a religion or God ( i capitalise God for respect to yourselves) to guide ones self on what is right or wrong... or what to eat or what not to eat...or who to marry and who not to marry.

The question for you that also raises my curiosity is why do i not need to have a need for such a faith?

Pabloji,

Curiosity has got the better of me, I have some questions for you in a positive sense, I would like to learn from you!

You say you have no guilt and no urges that are left undone, this is amazing, you have achieved what people have been trying for years, you sound competent and are clearly not a mad slave to your desires, can you tell me how you have achieved this, and what is your 'moral code', do you lead a fairly normal life? or is yours spent all day ensuring no urges are left undone?

Are you at complete peace with yourself?, to say you suffer no guilt is nothing short of amazing, do you have discipline? do you have balance, moderation?

I would be very interested in your answers, as if you clearly have achieved this without spiritual assistance, I think that is pretty remarkable!
 

Ajuni

(previously sikhipyar)
SPNer
Aug 22, 2011
22
12
Alberta, Canada
PabloJi

To me everyone is Sikh, we just all have different names for it. We are all disciples trying to understand the bigger picture, which is the universe.
The thing is to me it seems you do have faith, faith that you are in fact agnostic. Your faith is what you believe and how much strength you put into believing what it is you believe. You believe in believing "nothing"

Actually a friend of mine told me a story yesterday, which made me think..i believe it could help you gain insight towards your question.
A story (example...in no way to offend):
A hindu has faith in his philosphy, so he goes to mandir(temple) every friday to leave fruit.
A agnostic has faith in his philosphy, so he goes to temple every friday to throw a rock.

It rains one day... the hindu does not go to temple that day, but the athiest still goes to throw the rock because that is his faith.
Would it be that the agnostic has instilled more faith than the hindu?

Faith is what you believe in, and it is different for every living being. whether you may call yourself, sikh, hindu, christian, agnostic, or athiest. all of these examples still believe something, and they believe it with a whole heart. That to me is what faith is, putting every ounce of energy into what you believe.

The simple question I ask you is, why would you treat your body with such harm, when you know the long term effects that arise from smoking, and drinking. Your body is a "temple" it is your vessel into this life form, you must take care of it my friend. These are words I give to you as a fellow human being who has tampered with her own body through the use of such things, but is it truly worth it in the end? Once your age increases, your body does not have the elasticity as when it was young.

Please even though you do not believe in the sikhi philosphy or other philosphies that promote bodily health, do take care of your vessel. It is the only one you have. In that case believe whatever your heart chooses to believe at this time, so long as you place your whole heart into this belief. It will be a faith entirely your own.

I hope this was of help and did not confuse you, I hope you were able to understand the point I was trying to make. Though i may not have articulated it very well.

Thank you for your curiousity though, your curiousity enables myself to grow and reach the point in which I am trying to reach.

May you find the answers you are searching for.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Sikhipyar ji (and Pablo ji),


I was hoping someone would respond, but since no one else has done, I hope that you do not mind that I do.


To me everyone is Sikh, we just all have different names for it. We are all disciples trying to understand the bigger picture, which is the universe.
The thing is to me it seems you do have faith, faith that you are in fact agnostic. Your faith is what you believe and how much strength you put into believing what it is you believe. You believe in believing "nothing"

Actually a friend of mine told me a story yesterday, which made me think..i believe it could help you gain insight towards your question.
A story (example...in no way to offend):
A hindu has faith in his philosphy, so he goes to mandir(temple) every friday to leave fruit.
A agnostic has faith in his philosphy, so he goes to temple every friday to throw a rock.

It rains one day... the hindu does not go to temple that day, but the athiest still goes to throw the rock because that is his faith.
Would it be that the agnostic has instilled more faith than the hindu?

Faith is what you believe in, and it is different for every living being. whether you may call yourself, sikh, hindu, christian, agnostic, or athiest. all of these examples still believe something, and they believe it with a whole heart. That to me is what faith is, putting every ounce of energy into what you believe.


Are you then saying that what Guru Nanak did was essentially to point out the fact that it is all OK? That it didn't matter what anyone was doing and believed in, the result will more or less be the same? Do you not think that one set of beliefs have consequences different from another set of beliefs? Is it not evident that you in believing what you do are looking in a direction different from someone who thinks that you are wrong? Why did Guru Nanak point out the wrongness of thought and action of the people during his time? Why did he emphasize the need to overcome the Five Evils and encouraged moral values?

It is clear that Pablo ji, in believing what he does, feels justified in indulging in sensual pleasures. Guru Nanak on the other hand, said that Lobh is to be overcome. Does this not indicate that one set of beliefs has consequence different from another, and if one of these is to be considered right, the other must be wrong?

I think that you are trying to be conciliatory, which is fine. And I don't consider Pablo ji to be a bad person. Also I do not expect anyone here to be different from anyone else in terms of having a great tendency to ignorance and attachment. Indeed, I'd say that my attachments are no less than that of Pablo ji's! What I object to however, are the views / understandings with regard to their occurrences. Pablo ji's is one which takes what is bad for good. And yours although different, however because it does point out the real problem, must indirectly encourage the same.

If you do not see Pablo's attitudes as having negative consequence and indeed go on to cover it up with what I see as a distorted understanding about such things as "faith", then your position must in fact be no better than that of Pablo ji's. Indeed it is clear that you miss the point when you went on to suggest the following:


The simple question I ask you is, why would you treat your body with such harm, when you know the long term effects that arise from smoking, and drinking. Your body is a "temple" it is your vessel into this life form, you must take care of it my friend. These are words I give to you as a fellow human being who has tampered with her own body through the use of such things, but is it truly worth it in the end? Once your age increases, your body does not have the elasticity as when it was young.

Please even though you do not believe in the sikhi philosphy or other philosphies that promote bodily health, do take care of your vessel. It is the only one you have. In that case believe whatever your heart chooses to believe at this time, so long as you place your whole heart into this belief. It will be a faith entirely your own.


The wrongness in alcohol consumption is in that it leads to moral heedlessness. If this is not appreciated and one instead refers to "health" as reason for not drinking, it then encourages only more attachment to me, my body and my health.

When you talk about "faith", this must be something which is of the nature of "good" must it not? Should we therefore not be more discriminating in using the concept?

Faith is faith in good and these are two. One with reference to all kinds of good states such as generosity, morality, renunciation, patience, truthfulness, kindness, compassion and so on. The other is faith in the development of wisdom which knows all things as they are and is cause for the increase of good and discouraging of evil. So I suggest that you question your conception of faith Sikhipyar ji, to see whether what you take for faith is in fact what it really is, because if it is not, then by default it must be something which is the outcome of ignorance and attachment.


I hope this was of help and did not confuse you, I hope you were able to understand the point I was trying to make. Though i may not have articulated it very well.

Thank you for your curiousity though, your curiousity enables myself to grow and reach the point in which I am trying to reach.

May you find the answers you are searching for.


And don't we usually find what we seek? Is it not therefore wrong to be encouraging this given that no consideration is made to the difference between good and evil? And should not you then also question the impression that you get, of "growing and reaching the point in which you are trying to reach"?
 

findingmyway

Writer
SPNer
Aug 17, 2010
1,665
3,778
World citizen!
Yes I did. Purely because of the same reason as you for leaving Christianity. Any book, any hymn, any teaching and any quote will always be warped by the writer, composer, teacher and quoter - who knows for sure what was actually said or written. It is for this reason I cannot accept anything unless proven before my eyes. Yes that also applies to evolution and the big bang theory. Everything around us has been warped and it makes no sense to me to say one faith hasn't been or is less warped than another and makes even less sense to need to follow such faiths because of the lack of proof that the original ethos has not been tainted ....in any way at all.

Hang on, I may have just answered my question !! Praise be to...err..myself ?! ( with a little help from Annie !)

A lot of the Sikhi I observed when growing up made no sense to me. I went the opposite way to you. Rather than rejecting it I went back to the source and started reading SGGS for myself. Don't rely on anyone else's interpretation, use others for help but nothing can beat understanding for yourself. Only then can you truly say whether you agree with Sikhi or not.


My final thought on this? Live and let live and live by your own made up moral code not by someone elses?

Why don't you follow your own advice?? We didn't come to you demanding you to change. It was you who came to us demanding we justify our beliefs. I am tired of having to defend my lifestyle choices again and again in both the real world and the virtual world. Either admit you are searching for answers as you are not 100% content or admit that others can find solace in Sikhi even if you cannot (or will not).
 

Scarlet Pimpernel

We seek him here,we sikh
Writer
SPNer
May 31, 2011
1,005
1,095
In the Self
Way Ji,to be fair unless Pablo has a forum ,we cannot go to him,we should not get defensive ,Pablo Ji the only problem with ones own moral code, is that one has to be free of worldliness to make a code, otherwise it will be influenced by the worldliness.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
55
Sinner veerji,

I think Pabloji's code is intentionally worldly, but according to him, he is happy with that, the problems will start when the worldly items disappear, or when too much weight is applied to the relevant items
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
Pabloji,

Curiosity has got the better of me, I have some questions for you in a positive sense, I would like to learn from you!

You say you have no guilt and no urges that are left undone, this is amazing, you have achieved what people have been trying for years, you sound competent and are clearly not a mad slave to your desires, can you tell me how you have achieved this, and what is your 'moral code', do you lead a fairly normal life? or is yours spent all day ensuring no urges are left undone?

Are you at complete peace with yourself?, to say you suffer no guilt is nothing short of amazing, do you have discipline? do you have balance, moderation?

I would be very interested in your answers, as if you clearly have achieved this without spiritual assistance, I think that is pretty remarkable!


Harry ji,

I am not Pablo of course but I want to answer this question for myself, and I too would be intersted to see Pablo's reply.

Morality is instilled in a person overe time, and also I belive has much to do with genetics.

I myself have always had a strong moral stance, ever since I can remember, dispite my upbrining and before I ever heard of God or religion.

My faith has only clarifyed that my moral stance is a good one.

In short religious faith is not the start of a moral code, it is there from birth and changes and grows with experiance. So it is of course not only possible but probable that those without religion can have a similar morality to thoses with.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
55
We are all in this together, agnostics, atheists, sikhs, its very easy to say that you think you are so much better than us, that we are so very very good, and you are so very very bad, but at the end of the day, when our time comes to go, if he dies, he dies.

It is easy to question what we do not understand with insults, yes, insult us, but when the will of man enters into your head, you will come to an age one day, when the battle between man and old man will question everything in your life, ok, you may say, I defeat old man, but the real champion within you can never be defeated, ok you may say, soon I fight real champion, but its not that easy.

What we need are mental chaperons, pujamista, official chaperons, where we go, they go, but none the less, it has to be said, when I first started talking to myself, I didnt like him much, and he didnt like me, but as time went on, I noticed him changing, and some change in me too, well, if I can change, and he can change, everyone can change
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
tHarry ji

Please pardon my confusion. Who has insulted? It is not clear from your remarks. I would appreciate a clarification in case moderation is needed. Thanks
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
55
spnadminji,

sorry, no insult took place, it was just a figure of speech, actually i have read it again, and I am not posting in the morning when I have only had 90 mins sleep, as it actually doesnt really make sense, apologies
 

Pablo

SPNer
Aug 19, 2011
9
9
47
Lee ji, Sinner ji, Annie ji, Ambarsaria ji... I appreciate all of your words and i will answer your questions...i am humbled by the time you have taken to read and respond to my posting and all subsequent ones. I mean that with all genuineness...

Harry haller ji,

I feel you're going to have to go through hell, worse than any nightmare you have dreamed. But when its over, I know you'll be the one standing. You know what you have got to do. Do it.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
55
Pabloji,

In his most excellent book,Frau Dedham Tuwal (the old woman of the ring), the Russian writer, Leonard Drago, states that life does not consist of rematches, or replays, this is supposed to be an exhibition fight, this is it.
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top