New posts

Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!

Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up Log in

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 149871" data-attributes="member: 586">Kanwardeep ji,I am not getting some of what you are saying; perhaps you need to explain further. In the meantime I would like to make some general comment based on what I think I understand you to be saying.At the root is attachment. And what is this attachment aimed at? The eye and the ability to see different colours, the ear and to hear different sounds, the tongue and to tasting different flavours, the nose and to smelling different aromas, the body and to touching different sensations, and the mind and to be able to think different thoughts. In other words, we are most attached to me, mine and I. Ironically however, once we begin to understand (and not just assume) that the person we love most in the world is "me", in understanding that everyone else is also like this, we begin to be more sympathetic and kind towards other people. So although it is a rule that we are all selfish and self-centred and do things all day often at the expense of others, our thoughts may begin to gradually incline towards the opposite direction, namely, the benefit of other people. Furthermore on seeing the difference in the quality of mind necessarily involved in these two states, the one would be perceived as desirable and the other not so. This is of course not easy, and not only because we have accumulated so much of the tendency to attachment, but because of what in fact is the real problem, namely ignorance.  It is because of ignorance that all kinds of evil arise. To know ignorance as ignorance and to know attachment as attachment is wisdom. When we know that attachment to self, (which is the driving force for survival) comes down to the fundamental experiences such as seeing, hearing and so on, and that these are extremely fleeting and rise and fall away not in anyone's control, there is no reason to then struggle so much in order to get what we want. If we realize that whatever it is that we aim for in our struggle for survival can't ever satisfy except momentarily, is there any sense in continuing mindlessly pursuing those things?  If we actually begin to see that the attachment itself is a state of agitation and that the detachment which comes with understanding is of the opposing quality, do we still wish to rely on attachment as means to happiness? You may have dropped some word out in the above or I am just too dense right now. But I am very curious to know what is behind the second meaning you mention above and how some Indian saints, Jains and rich people are the same in this regard. So please elaborate.Are you saying here that those saints and rich people were wrong due to some perversion of thought and that the normal and sensible thing to do is to aim at survival?Again, I don't understand your meaning here....</blockquote>

Verification