Buddhism How Buddha Talks About Shabad (Divine Light And Sound)?

[muddymick]

Hello HarryJi.
"ok, do you find such a state addictive" No.

"do you find yourself wishing you could spend all your time in such a state" No.

"do you find such a state preferable to real life?
What do you mean?
Preferable to real life?
Don't you think feelings are real?
If you do not think emotions are real why do you wish to master them?
I personally think that what goes on in my mind is my real life!


"I personally feel the five thieves are also vital to our survival, destroyed, they would take away huge swathes of personality that is needed to survive in life" Could you please explain how greed is necessary for our survival?
In fact HarryJI could you explain how any of the five are necessary to survival...Kam (lust), Krodh (rage), Lobh (greed), Moh (attachment) and Ahankar (ego)

When you indicate that wisdom and knowledge can dimminish Ahanka/Haumai I concur However how do you propose to understand yourself without examining the mind that consititutes the you?
You suggest you want to heighten perception (heightened perception is an altered state) you said earlier you had no interest in altered states! Could you explain this anomly please?
What is the real world? and why are feeling, emotions etc not of it?

"I have a problem with anger for instance, I find it hard to get angry, it causes me a lot of problems, I am rubbish at arguing for instance, especially heated arguments, I back down and try and create peace, but often I will lose out."
With respect HarryJi you will most probably find that is due to Ahankar. When the roots of the 5 are severed or suspended one does not cease to function. Quite the contrary one functions not only with more freedom and happiness but with greater equinimity. One is more likely to survive without them not less.

:happysingh:

 

[Harry Haller]

What do you mean?
Preferable to real life?
Don't you think feelings are real?

no, I do not think feelings are real, I can feel a certain way about something yesterday, that I feel the opposite way about today, so which is the real feeling? today or yesterdays?, I like the idea of the truth, so to that end, only of those feelings may be my true feeling, the other feelings have no validity whatsoever.

If you do not think emotions are real why do you wish to master them?
I personally think that what goes on in my mind is my real life!

If I can master my emotions, then I can stop the screaming, if I can stop the screaming, I can live a peaceful and content life, what goes on in my mind can be so violent, so extreme, that if that is my real life, I may as well slit my throat now . We are getting tied up in the word real, just because I feel something does not make it true. I have felt happy when all around me is going to ****, and I have felt sad when everything is my life is perfect, if I can master my feelings, in my mind, I can feel the truth, I can feel angry when I should feel angry, happy when I should be happy, etc etc

Could you please explain how greed is necessary for our survival?
In fact HarryJI could you explain how any of the five are necessary to survival...

sure, is it wrong to have a greed for knowledge? is a Doctor wrong to have a greed to find a cure? for whatever reason, and for whatever motivates people, has not some of the inventions of the 20th/21st century not come about from greed?

Is lust not needed for babies to keep being born?
Is rage not useful when you are being attacked?
Is greed not useful to further your understanding?
Is ego not important so that you do not treated as a doormat?
Is attachment not a by product of love?

how do you propose to understand yourself without examining the mind that consititutes the you?

I have no problem examining my mind, and to do that I have debate constantly going on in my head, sometimes the screaming starts, that is how I examine my mind, how do you examine yours?

You suggest you want to heighten perception (heightened perception is an altered state) you said earlier you had no interest in altered states! Could you explain this anomly please?
What is the real world? and why are feeling, emotions etc not of it?

I disagree, a heightened perception is constant, it comes from living life, from seeing things, from interaction with people, from knowing yourself, from knowing people, once you have it, it is there forever, it is not an altered state, anymore than knowledge is an altered state, I would say it is an enlightened state, and a permanent one at that. It means that if I meet you, I have the ability of knowing what you are about, and what makes you tick from your speech, mannerisms, manner, etc.

The real world is what we do
feelings and emotions change with the wind, our actions, however are written in stone.

 

[chazSingh]

some interesting reponses above.

For me it is quite simple...

Understand my mind for it creates my whole experience...it decodes the data around me.

It is not the data that is wrong, it is how my mind computes the data.

Can I:

1. Pause before latching onto and acting out a thought
2. can i create a distance between me and my thoughts so that i can witness them passing by and deciding which thought to manifest into actions.
3. can i recognize when my emotions are 'brewing' up...and stop myself from 'becoming' the emotion.

If i can do this, then i become the 'observer' of the thoughts...i can let negative thoughts pass by and do no harm to my being, and i can latch onto the useful thoughts that promote harmony for myself and the others around me(sounds easy...but )

The question then is, If I am not my body, and i am not my thoughts...but i am the observer of the thoughts...

Then who is the observer?

Mind creates the experience, and i'm the observer of the mind...therefore i'm beyond the mind ... getting very interesting now lol


Harry Ji, With regards to heightened perception, i personally think it is forever evolving, because i don;t think there is a limit to the experiences we have or can have here.

 

[muddymick]

no, I do not think feelings are real, I can feel a certain way about something yesterday, that I feel the opposite way about today, so which is the real feeling? today or yesterdays?, I like the idea of the truth, so to that end, only of those feelings may be my true feeling, the other feelings have no validity whatsoever.



If I can master my emotions, then I can stop the screaming, if I can stop the screaming, I can live a peaceful and content life, what goes on in my mind can be so violent, so extreme, that if that is my real life, I may as well slit my throat now . We are getting tied up in the word real, just because I feel something does not make it true. I have felt happy when all around me is going to ****, and I have felt sad when everything is my life is perfect, if I can master my feelings, in my mind, I can feel the truth, I can feel angry when I should feel angry, happy when I should be happy, etc etc



sure, is it wrong to have a greed for knowledge? is a Doctor wrong to have a greed to find a cure? for whatever reason, and for whatever motivates people, has not some of the inventions of the 20th/21st century not come about from greed?

Is lust not needed for babies to keep being born?
Is rage not useful when you are being attacked?
Is greed not useful to further your understanding?
Is ego not important so that you do not treated as a doormat?
Is attachment not a by product of love?



I have no problem examining my mind, and to do that I have debate constantly going on in my head, sometimes the screaming starts, that is how I examine my mind, how do you examine yours?



I disagree, a heightened perception is constant, it comes from living life, from seeing things, from interaction with people, from knowing yourself, from knowing people, once you have it, it is there forever, it is not an altered state, anymore than knowledge is an altered state, I would say it is an enlightened state, and a permanent one at that. It means that if I meet you, I have the ability of knowing what you are about, and what makes you tick from your speech, mannerisms, manner, etc.

The real world is what we do
feelings and emotions change with the wind, our actions, however are written in stone.

Thank you HarryJi,
With respect why do you think feelings are unreal? Why do you surmise that because feelings change then that makes them unreal?
All composite matter in the phenomenological world changes (is it those that change most quickly that you describe as unreal? Because things are in flux (changing between one state and another why do you then believe one state must be compromised by the change?
When a liquid becomes a gas does that mean that one state is not real....because this is the postulation your logic suggests!

A change does not necessitate one former or latter state being untrue!
So with feelings they have an essential quality in a bio-chemical/electrical sense. They are detectable as a change in state of the body. So in a very 'real' sense they are real.

You seem to be confusing the attraction or aversion you attach to particular feelings and thoughts with the feelings and thoughts themselves.
This is one arena where meditation can help. The observation of how feelings arise both physically and mentally can allow one to observe them without either being attracted or averted to them. In such equinimity one learns that it is not necessary to attach either negative or positive emotions to such sensations and thereby see them for what they are. As opposed to how you feel about them. One can also learn about ones habitual patterns (and triggers) of attaching pleasing or undesirable significance to either mental or physical constructs.

Claiming particular thoughts or feelings as invalid is a little pointless. A thought happens, a feeling happens because of a process in cognition. That process will occur whether you call it real or unreal, valid or invalid! That is how we interact with the phenomenological world with our physical apparatus.
What we do have power over is how we react to that process.
Please note when I say 'feeling' here I am talking of the process of physical feeling and cognition not the anger, pain, joy, lust etc etc etc that we attach to the stimulus.

How do we seperate out attachment and aversion to stimulus from the stimulus itself?

It is that attachment and aversion that is invalid or a better term might be useless!
Because we construct it and instead of seeing things as they really are, we react by either trying to avoid those we consider undesirable or clutch dearly to avoid losing the ones we are attracted too.
In this world of change and flux we are tossed this way and that pushing some feelings and thoughts away and trying dearly to make some last forever! Just like you said you can be happy when all is turning to **** and be unhappy when everything is good. Does this not therefore indicate that you reaction to the world is somewhat skewed?

When you talk of the 5 thieves I think you may have been somewhat mislead here Lust is not needed for procreation (infereing that without lust sexual excitement can not occur is blatantly untrue)
Rage is actually counterproductive when being attacked, I can assure you I studied martial arts for quite some years. Greed is not useful for learning (I think you may need to look at what is really meant by these words inc the etymology) Greed would be hoarding more than one needs, eating more than one needs. And with knowledge it can also become a problem I know many acedemics who aquire knowledge like misers aquire money. Being overly attached to it and the way it conflates the ego.
Lack of ego does not mean lack of discernment. One can still look at what would be best action without it. Attachemnt is not a by product of love, real love is selfless. Although when we feel love we often try and make that feeling continue by keeping that which we love (clutching to it) that clutching is an attachment that is not born from love....we construct it by clinging.

Debate in your head is examining your mind? I fail to see how you can examine a situation when you are a active participant in it's drama. I am sorry but this is blatantly impossible....trust me, I and many others have tried. That is why over the last 3000 years tried and tested methodologies have been developed.

I watch my mind and my body in equinimity neither being attracted nor averted to the feeling and thoughts that arise and cessate. When I do become attracted or averted I try to observe how and why, to identify the patterns and triggers, the whys and hows. Then I observe again. I can watch the thoughts and feeling without the delusion that they are me.

In refernce to the latter part of your response you are again seeming to suggest that because a state is more fixed or constant that it therefore has more validity (or truth If you will)
I wonder why you equate eternalism with truth.....As either nihilism or eternalism are extremes. Warned against in The Guru Granth Sahib Ji!

:redturban:

 

[Harry Haller]

Mickji

With respect why do you think feelings are unreal? Why do you surmise that because feelings change then that makes them unreal?

Let us take something as simple as bacon. Yesterday, I hated bacon, I would not eat it if you paid me, the horrible porky smell, the grease, the taste, yuk , give me a large bar of chocolate anyday. Today, I love bacon, I have just had a huge fried breakfast, if both feelings are real, at the time anyway, which one is the true reflection of my feelings on bacon? Which one do I plan my life by? Should I buy more bacon? Should I buy bacon at all? was I having a bad bacon day yesterday? is today a one off? Somewhere there in this situation is the truth, and the truth is that I love bacon, so how much weight do I give yesterdays feelings? How much importance do I give them?

All composite matter in the phenomenological world changes (is it those that change most quickly that you describe as unreal? Because things are in flux (changing between one state and another why do you then believe one state must be compromised by the change?
When a liquid becomes a gas does that mean that one state is not real....because this is the postulation your logic suggests!

the real state is the natural state. If you boil water and it becomes steam, it does not happen on its own, its natural state is water. If I eat certain things, or drink certain things, or think certain things, then my feelings change, it is the natural state that I am interested in, the true state. The true state of water is liquid. It is not a question of what is real or not, more what is true.

A change does not necessitate one former or latter state being untrue!

I believe that it does, if that state is brought on using external forces.

So with feelings they have an essential quality in a bio-chemical/electrical sense. They are detectable as a change in state of the body. So in a very 'real' sense they are real.

If I concede this argument, that they are indeed real, which I have no huge problem doing, but should they be given weight? I act on my feelings, if I feel hungry, I eat, thirsty, I drink, if my feelings, however real they may be are brought about by external stimuli, how much weight should I give them? If all feelings are real, which ones do you trust?

You seem to be confusing the attraction or aversion you attach to particular feelings and thoughts with the feelings and thoughts themselves.
This is one arena where meditation can help. The observation of how feelings arise both physically and mentally can allow one to observe them without either being attracted or averted to them. In such equinimity one learns that it is not necessary to attach either negative or positive emotions to such sensations and thereby see them for what they are. As opposed to how you feel about them. One can also learn about ones habitual patterns (and triggers) of attaching pleasing or undesirable significance to either mental or physical constructs.

I feel everything, I am attracted and feel aversion to everything, to the point where in so far as personality is concerned, anything is possible, between the base howling of an animal to the noble pose of a man, there exist a million different points of existence.

Claiming particular thoughts or feelings as invalid is a little pointless. A thought happens, a feeling happens because of a process in cognition. That process will occur whether you call it real or unreal, valid or invalid! That is how we interact with the phenomenological world with our physical apparatus.

pointless? my dear friend, if I did not class certain thoughts or feelings as invalid, then I would probably be in a prison cell now. I have to label huge swathes of my thinking as pointless on a daily basis, in the days that I did not, in the days I gave them validity and weight, my actions represented those of a madman, at least now, I merely have the thought process of a madman, I know which I prefer.

Does this not therefore indicate that you reaction to the world is somewhat skewed?

absolutely, but I also recognise the world as somewhat skewed too......

When you talk of the 5 thieves I think you may have been somewhat mislead here Lust is not needed for procreation (infereing that without lust sexual excitement can not occur is blatantly untrue)
Rage is actually counterproductive when being attacked, I can assure you I studied martial arts for quite some years. Greed is not useful for learning (I think you may need to look at what is really meant by these words inc the etymology) Greed would be hoarding more than one needs, eating more than one needs. And with knowledge it can also become a problem I know many acedemics who aquire knowledge like misers aquire money. Being overly attached to it and the way it conflates the ego.
Lack of ego does not mean lack of discernment. One can still look at what would be best action without it. Attachemnt is not a by product of love, real love is selfless. Although when we feel love we often try and make that feeling continue by keeping that which we love (clutching to it) that clutching is an attachment that is not born from love....we construct it by clinging

I expected you to tear apart my explanation, after all they were quite weak arguments, however, I hope you understand the essence, for me and for you, yes we can split hairs and get bogged down in semantics, (not that I am anti semantic, ok I swear I will never use that one liner again), however, for those that do not have time to contemplate life, for those living life on the sharp end, the starving, the desperate, I wager those thieves assist in survival.

Debate in your head is examining your mind? I fail to see how you can examine a situation when you are a active participant in it's drama. I am sorry but this is blatantly impossible....trust me, I and many others have tried. That is why over the last 3000 years tried and tested methodologies have been developed.

blatantly impossible? trust you? use a tried and tested methodology? no thanks, my mind is precious, and if its all the same I would rather follow my gut feelings and rely on my reason

I watch my mind and my body in equinimity neither being attracted nor averted to the feeling and thoughts that arise and cessate. When I do become attracted or averted I try to observe how and why, to identify the patterns and triggers, the whys and hows. Then I observe again. I can watch the thoughts and feeling without the delusion that they are me.

as you would, as you are a Buddhist, and I respect that, but its not for me

In refernce to the latter part of your response you are again seeming to suggest that because a state is more fixed or constant that it therefore has more validity (or truth If you will)

not at all, fixed states or consistency are no guarantee of truth, if I have intimated this, I apologise.

I wonder why you equate eternalism with truth.....As either nihilism or eternalism are extremes. Warned against in The Guru Granth Sahib Ji!

again, not at all, the truth is the truth, I only equate the truth with the truth

 

[muddymick]

Harryji,

You stated “Let us take something as simple as bacon. Yesterday, I hated bacon, I would not eat it if you paid me, the horrible porky smell, the grease, the taste, yuk , give me a large bar of chocolate anyday. Today, I love bacon, I have just had a huge fried breakfast, if both feelings are real, at the time anyway, which one is the true reflection of my feelings on bacon?

Of course both feelings are real, there is an identifiable process of cognition with biochemical electrical markers. From a phenomenological perspective they are both real! If you are asking which is your true perspective it suggests that you believe there is an immutable position on taste.
Are you suggesting that there is an immutable singular truth of taste in relation to all tastes?
Just because taste is subject to changes does not make it unreal.
When I stated that thoughts and feelings are real I did not mean they are immutable truths.
Thoughts and feelings like all other things in the world have a relative existence. They arise and cessate, change in relationship to the influence and affect of all other phenomena around them.

You then state “the real state is the natural state. If you boil water and it becomes steam, it does not happen on its own, its natural state is water”

As I know you must be aware the natural state of all things is dependent upon those things affecting it! Please remember all things exist in relation to other things, that is all substances throughout the universe are being affected at all times by numerous conditions, whether it is electro-magnetic, heat, cold, radiation and innumerable other forces.
As the surrounding situation changes so do all thing at vary degrees.
So what situation would we need for your logic to be applicable? We would need to agree an immutable/fixed state of all things as a base line for natural (that would mean no variation from that state in heat, light, electromagnetic influences etc ad infinitum) But as we both know that is both impossible and infeasible.
There is therefore no fixed/immutable natural state!
The only natural state is one that is dictated by any substances interaction with the universe.
As the conditions change then so does the substance!
Arguing that there is an intrinsic state to all substance in the relative world is both ridiculous and unscientific.
Are you suggesting that rain is unnatural? Or snow? Or steam? are they less natural than water?
It is a rather solipsistic to hold the view that water is a more natural state....Eskimos might disagree. So as you can see what is natural is relative to the conditions.

You then stated “my dear friend, if I did not class certain thoughts or feelings as invalid, then I would probably be in a prison cell now. I have to label huge swathes of my thinking as pointless on a daily basis, in the days that I did not, in the days I gave them validity and weight, my actions represented those of a madman, at least now, I merely have the thought process of a madman, I know which I prefer”

I think you misunderstood my intent here. I am not suggesting that because feelings and thoughts are real that one should act upon them without discernment.
I am not sure where you think I suggested this?

If you want to debate in your head, fine! If it makes you happy great. If you feel it allows you to master the 5 thieves even better.

For me I choose to utilise the same vehicles/methods that greater men than me found efficacious and where good enough to describe and proscribe.
That Includes the Guru’s. It would seem a a conscious decision that the Guru's chose to use very distinct words for mental models of observation and thoughts that where utilised by Jains,, Hindus and Buddhists that have very particular meanings in relation to the methodology employed. I have very little doubt that they would have been aware of the meanings of those words (that are included in The Guru Granth SahibJi) and the methods they refer to. One would have to consider why they employed such language if really they meant for people to mentally debate with them selves....you have to agree it is highly unlikely.

With Kind Regards.

 

[Harry Haller]

Of course both feelings are real, there is an identifiable process of cognition with biochemical electrical markers. From a phenomenological perspective they are both real! If you are asking which is your true perspective it suggests that you believe there is an immutable position on taste

It has nothing to do with taste, it has everything to do with perception, today I like bacon, tommorow, I hate bacon, so do I like bacon or not?

Are you suggesting that there is an immutable singular truth of taste in relation to all tastes?
Just because taste is subject to changes does not make it unreal.
When I stated that thoughts and feelings are real I did not mean they are immutable truths.
Thoughts and feelings like all other things in the world have a relative existence. They arise and cessate, change in relationship to the influence and affect of all other phenomena around them.

Lets stick with the piggy analogy, I agree with what you say above, but the question still remains, am I a bacon lover or not? How do I plan my life? do I buy lots of bacon? Is the object of the game to see through the fog of rising and cessating feelings and know who you are? The next time I hate bacon, do I run with it? or do I take a deep breathe and realise that the truth is that I love bacon and I just need to let this time pass? I wish to cut through these rising and cessating feelings, and know the true me, I need to know what my true feelings are on Mr Piggy.

As I know you must be aware the natural state of all things is dependent upon those things affecting it! Please remember all things exist in relation to other things, that is all substances throughout the universe are being affected at all times by numerous conditions, whether it is electro-magnetic, heat, cold, radiation and innumerable other forces.
As the surrounding situation changes so do all thing at vary degrees.
So what situation would we need for your logic to be applicable? We would need to agree an immutable/fixed state of all things as a base line for natural (that would mean no variation from that state in heat, light, electromagnetic influences etc ad infinitum) But as we both know that is both impossible and infeasible

.

If we apply this analogy to life, then there are things affecting our 'state' all around us, the woman at the bus stop in her mini skirt and high heels, the policeman in his patrol car parked up, looking for criminals, the chap in the alley way with a hoodie and a bulge in his pocket, (is that an eighth or are you just pleased to see me?), the argument with our partner over breakfast, the puppy leaving a huge stain of doggypoo on your already stained t shirt, a nice hot bath, I believe that a natural state not only exists, but can exist despite external stimuli, a Sikh would view the woman at the bus stop as a sister/mother/daughter regardless of dress, the policeman as a friend, not an enemy, the hoodie without being afraid, would not argue, and would hug the puppy and change t shirts, the natural state of a Sikh can only be obtained once one knows oneself, and one can only know oneself when the fog of duality has been lifted. It is not good enough to go with feelings, feelings lie, I need to know about whether I like bacon or not dammit.

There is therefore no fixed/immutable natural state!
The only natural state is one that is dictated by any substances interaction with the universe.
As the conditions change then so does the substance!
Arguing that there is an intrinsic state to all substance in the relative world is both ridiculous and unscientific.
Are you suggesting that rain is unnatural? Or snow? Or steam? are they less natural than water?
It is a rather solipsistic to hold the view that water is a more natural state....Eskimos might disagree. So as you can see what is natural is relative to the conditions.

Lets get away from the science and concentrate on the human personality, the point I am making is that not all feelings can be given equal weight. Some feelings are clearly false, and some are true, some are in line with Gurbani and are therefore Gurmukh, some are not, and are manmukh, I believe it is only when one follows the truth that one can make the distinction between the two.

I think you misunderstood my intent here. I am not suggesting that because feelings and thoughts are real that one should act upon them without discernment.
I am not sure where you think I suggested this?

this is an oxy{censored}, you cannot have your cake and eat it my friend. I act on the feelings I feel are valid, I try not to act on those that are not, maybe we are at cross purposes on the words 'real' and 'true', yes, all feelings are real, but, in my opinion, not all are true, by your statement above, you are conceding this, as your discernment is a device to decide yourself what is true and what is false.

For me I choose to utilise the same vehicles/methods that greater men than me found efficacious and where good enough to describe and proscribe.
That Includes the Guru’s. It would seem a a conscious decision that the Guru's chose to use very distinct words for mental models of observation and thoughts that where utilised by Jains,, Hindus and Buddhists that have very particular meanings in relation to the methodology employed. I have very little doubt that they would have been aware of the meanings of those words (that are included in The Guru Granth SahibJi) and the methods they refer to. One would have to consider why they employed such language if really they meant for people to mentally debate with them selves....you have to agree it is highly unlikely.

This is down to intepretation, I do not for one minute believe the Gurus utilised any concepts that were common to Jains, Hindus or Buddhists. I believe the Gurus started completely afresh and actually rejected most of the concepts and indeed methods that were common to the above. I could be boring here and suggest you quote the relevant pages that confirm your statement, but I believe it would just end up in a debate about interpretation and be based on anothers translation, my punjabi is not great, and yours is probably not brilliant either, so it seems a pointless gesture.

I firmly believe the Gurus meant us to mentally debate with ourselves, I do not agree to it being highly unlikely, I do however, believe it highly unlikely that the Gurus meant us to sit in dark rooms meditating on the name of God.

 

[Harry Haller]

Of course both feelings are real, there is an identifiable process of cognition with biochemical electrical markers. From a phenomenological perspective they are both real! If you are asking which is your true perspective it suggests that you believe there is an immutable position on taste

It has nothing to do with taste, it has everything to do with perception, today I like bacon, tommorow, I hate bacon, so do I like bacon or not?

Are you suggesting that there is an immutable singular truth of taste in relation to all tastes?
Just because taste is subject to changes does not make it unreal.
When I stated that thoughts and feelings are real I did not mean they are immutable truths.
Thoughts and feelings like all other things in the world have a relative existence. They arise and cessate, change in relationship to the influence and affect of all other phenomena around them.

Lets stick with the piggy analogy, I agree with what you say above, but the question still remains, am I a bacon lover or not? How do I plan my life? do I buy lots of bacon? Is the object of the game to see through the fog of rising and cessating feelings and know who you are? The next time I hate bacon, do I run with it? or do I take a deep breathe and realise that the truth is that I love bacon and I just need to let this time pass? I wish to cut through these rising and cessating feelings, and know the true me, I need to know what my true feelings are on Mr Piggy.

As I know you must be aware the natural state of all things is dependent upon those things affecting it! Please remember all things exist in relation to other things, that is all substances throughout the universe are being affected at all times by numerous conditions, whether it is electro-magnetic, heat, cold, radiation and innumerable other forces.
As the surrounding situation changes so do all thing at vary degrees.
So what situation would we need for your logic to be applicable? We would need to agree an immutable/fixed state of all things as a base line for natural (that would mean no variation from that state in heat, light, electromagnetic influences etc ad infinitum) But as we both know that is both impossible and infeasible

.

If we apply this analogy to life, then there are things affecting our 'state' all around us, the woman at the bus stop in her mini skirt and high heels, the policeman in his patrol car parked up, looking for criminals, the chap in the alley way with a hoodie and a bulge in his pocket, (is that an eighth or are you just pleased to see me?), the argument with our partner over breakfast, the puppy leaving a huge stain of doggypoo on your already stained t shirt, a nice hot bath, I believe that a natural state not only exists, but can exist despite external stimuli, a Sikh would view the woman at the bus stop as a sister/mother/daughter regardless of dress, the policeman as a friend, not an enemy, the hoodie without being afraid, would not argue, and would hug the puppy and change t shirts, the natural state of a Sikh can only be obtained once one knows oneself, and one can only know oneself when the fog of duality has been lifted. It is not good enough to go with feelings, feelings lie, I need to know about whether I like bacon or not dammit.

There is therefore no fixed/immutable natural state!
The only natural state is one that is dictated by any substances interaction with the universe.
As the conditions change then so does the substance!
Arguing that there is an intrinsic state to all substance in the relative world is both ridiculous and unscientific.
Are you suggesting that rain is unnatural? Or snow? Or steam? are they less natural than water?
It is a rather solipsistic to hold the view that water is a more natural state....Eskimos might disagree. So as you can see what is natural is relative to the conditions.

Lets get away from the science and concentrate on the human personality, the point I am making is that not all feelings can be given equal weight. Some feelings are clearly false, and some are true, some are in line with Gurbani and are therefore Gurmukh, some are not, and are manmukh, I believe it is only when one follows the truth that one can make the distinction between the two.

I think you misunderstood my intent here. I am not suggesting that because feelings and thoughts are real that one should act upon them without discernment.
I am not sure where you think I suggested this?

this is an oxy{censored}, you cannot have your cake and eat it my friend. I act on the feelings I feel are valid, I try not to act on those that are not, maybe we are at cross purposes on the words 'real' and 'true', yes, all feelings are real, but, in my opinion, not all are true, by your statement above, you are conceding this, as your discernment is a device to decide yourself what is true and what is false.

For me I choose to utilise the same vehicles/methods that greater men than me found efficacious and where good enough to describe and proscribe.
That Includes the Guru’s. It would seem a a conscious decision that the Guru's chose to use very distinct words for mental models of observation and thoughts that where utilised by Jains,, Hindus and Buddhists that have very particular meanings in relation to the methodology employed. I have very little doubt that they would have been aware of the meanings of those words (that are included in The Guru Granth SahibJi) and the methods they refer to. One would have to consider why they employed such language if really they meant for people to mentally debate with them selves....you have to agree it is highly unlikely.

This is down to intepretation, I do not for one minute believe the Gurus utilised any concepts that were common to Jains, Hindus or Buddhists. I believe the Gurus started completely afresh and actually rejected most of the concepts and indeed methods that were common to the above. I could be boring here and suggest you quote the relevant pages that confirm your statement, but I believe it would just end up in a debate about interpretation and be based on anothers translation, my punjabi is not great, and yours is probably not brilliant either, so it seems a pointless gesture.

I firmly believe the Gurus meant us to mentally debate with ourselves, I do not agree to it being highly unlikely, I do however, believe it highly unlikely that the Gurus meant us to sit in dark rooms meditating on the name of God.

 

[muddymick]

Harryji,

"It has nothing to do with taste, it has everything to do with perception, today I like bacon, tommorow, I hate bacon, so do I like bacon or not?

I was using taste as both a description of the process and a predilection towards like or dislike. Of course that involves perception. And as I have already slightly belaboured in my last answer you are requesting an immutable truth for very mutable phenomena.

I am wondering if you are confusing objective truth and relative truth?A very common confusion.

"Lets stick with the piggy analogy, I agree with what you say above, but the question still remains, am I a bacon lover or not?
If you did agree or lets say understood what I had answered here you would realise that in light of it the question about a fixed state of liking bacon was impossible.
Your neither addressing my points not it would seem understanding them.

"The next time I hate bacon, do I run with it? or do I take a deep breathe and realise that the truth is that I love bacon and I just need to let this time pass? I wish to cut through these rising and cessating feelings, and know the true me, I need to know what my true feelings are on Mr Piggy"

If you had actually read and understood my previous statements regarding the mutable transient nature of phenomena you would neither ask the question nor expect an answerto that.

"f we apply this analogy to life, then there are things affecting our 'state' all around us, the woman at the bus stop in her mini skirt and high heels, the policeman in his patrol car parked up, looking for criminals, the chap in the alley way with a hoodie and a bulge in his pocket, (is that an eighth or are you just pleased to see me?), the argument with our partner over breakfast, the puppy leaving a huge stain of doggypoo on your already stained t shirt, a nice hot bath, I believe that a natural state not only exists, but can exist despite external stimuli, a Sikh would view the woman at the bus stop as a sister/mother/daughter regardless of dress, the policeman as a friend, not an enemy, the hoodie without being afraid, would not argue, and would hug the puppy and change t shirts, the natural state of a Sikh can only be obtained once one knows oneself, and one can only know oneself when the fog of duality has been lifted. It is not good enough to go with feelings, feelings lie, I need to know about whether I like bacon or not dammit"

This is just a regurgitation of your previous postulation and as I have already quite clearly stated such questions vis-a-vis immutable answers make no sense.

You are now beginning to confuse relative and objective truth. When you talk about non-dual states and mundane phenomena.

I never suggested "going with feelings" and have been quite clear on a number of occasions that I do not suggest that, just because they are real does not mean they should be acted upon!

"this is an oxy{censored}, you cannot have your cake and eat it my friend. I act on the feelings I feel are valid, I try not to act on those that are not, maybe we are at cross purposes on the words 'real' and 'true', yes, all feelings are real, but, in my opinion, not all are true, by your statement above, you are conceding this, as your discernment is a device to decide yourself what is true and what is false"

Sorry it is neither an oxy{censored} nor is it contradictory.
I think again you may be need to define what you mean by true in a relative or objective sense because you seem to confuse them.

"as your discernment is a device to decide yourself what is true and what is false"
No it is not, and you really need to decide what you mean by truth and whether you are referring to relative or objective truth. If you muddle them together it makes no sense especially when refering to non-dual realities and paradigms.

I think it is often referred to as conventional and ultimate truth...it might be worth looking up.

"I firmly believe the Gurus meant us to mentally debate with ourselves"
I have absolutely no proof of that, however the proof on the other hand is very compelling and holds weight with many scholars.

"I do not agree to it being highly unlikely"
I think the evidence speaks more than simple opinions however often stated.

"I do however, believe it highly unlikely that the Gurus meant us to sit in dark rooms"
I think this is a red herring and also a slightly underhand way at discrediting another's postulation. No one has suggested sitting in dark rooms.....


"meditating on the name of God"
I think this you will find is very much prescribed by the Guru's and very explicitly

With deep Regards.

 

[Harry Haller]

Mickji,

we are getting lost in terms, words and semantics, in fact, I have had similar discussions with another Buddhist, dear old Confusedji, I respect your stance and am not trying to change it, however, neither of us is really getting through to the other, I thank you for the time you have taken with me, I will reread your posts tommorow and if I have anything new to add, I will post, otherwise, thanks again for the interaction

 

[Harry Haller]

Mickji

In your world there seems to be many different types of truth, in my world there is only the one.

eacesignkaur:

 

[muddymick]

Harry ji,

my understanding of the teachings of the Guru's is that they regarded the world as both a transitory illusion and relatively real. That is two truths!
God is viewed as the only ultimate objective reality, but within God both conscious and nonconscious objects exist; these created objects are also real. Natural phenomena are real relatively but the effects they generate are unreal objectively. māyā is real as the events are real yet māyā is not real as the effects are unreal (objectively). A commonly used analogy is In the moonless night, a rope lying on the ground may be mistaken for a snake. We know that the rope alone is real, not the snake. However, the failure to perceive the rope gives rise to the false perception of the snake. Once the darkness is removed, the rope alone remains; the snake disappears. One sees the snake, perceives the snake as real in a relative sense it is! the way it makes ones heart rate increase or ones adrenalin increase is real! Objectively though it is unreal!

Sakti adher jevarhee bhram chookaa nihchal siv ghari vaasaa.
In the darkness of māyā, I mistook the rope for the snake, but that is over, and now I dwell in the eternal home of the Lord.
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 332).

Raaj bhuiang prasang jaise hahi ab kashu maram janaaiaa.
Like the story of the rope mistaken for a snake, the mystery has now been explained to me. Like the many bracelets, which I mistakenly thought were gold; now, I do not say what I said then. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 658).
In the Guru Granth Sahib Ji māyā refers to the "grand illusion" of materialism. From this māyā all other evils are born, but by understanding the nature of māyā a person begins to approach spirituality.

Two truths of maya both real and unreal, relative and ultimate truth.

It would seem many are in accord.

in my world there is only the one.

Maybe you still see the snake?


:animatedkhanda1:

 

[Harry Haller]

I would rather see the snake, then be a blind man, in a dark room, kicking the black dog

 

[Harry Haller]

that isn't even there lol lol lol lol

 

[muddymick]

O.k

:blueturban:

 

[spnadmin]

Did we ever get to the answer? How does Buddha talk about divine light and sound? If we did I have lost track. Thanks.

 

[muddymick]

spnadmin ji,
I may be able to offer some small answers, however could you firstly tell me what 'divine' light and sound is from a Sikh perspective?
Then I may decide which sutras and teachings I think may apply.

Thanks

 

[spnadmin]

spnadmin ji,
I may be able to offer some small answers, however could you firstly tell me what 'divine' light and sound is from a Sikh perspective?
Then I may decide which sutras and teachings I think may apply.

Thanks

The first post at this link http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/buddhism/38301-how-buddha-talks-about-shabad-divine-5.html#post163179 began the discussion. It would be great for you to get the ball rolling as a reaction to that comment, and then Sikhs would be able to compre and contrast. The title mentions Buddha. We should start there.:cheerleaders: :cheerleaders: :cheerleaders:

 

[muddymick]

spnadmin ji,
I can give scriptural anecdotes and/or personal anecdotes of light and sound in jhana (absorbtion) which would be appropriate?

 

[muddymick]

Harry ji,
after evening prayers... I realised that I have done you a disservice.
When I posted.. Maybe you still see the snake?

it was really me seeing the snake and acting from Ahankaar and forgetting


Akhan Jor Chupeh Na Jor
(I have) no power to speak, or to do meditation
Nor (do I have) power to collect wealth and rule
Nor the power to control the disturbed mind
(I have) no power to awaken the soul
Nor to reflect on the Divine Knowledge;
Nor the power to find the way
Nor to get release from the bondage,
The one who has the power exercises it
Nanak, none is high or low
- Baba Guru Nanak, SGGS 2

Guru Arjan Dev ji says:

Jit Jit Laye *** *** Lagna
Na Ko Moorh Nahin Ko Siana
Where ever one is placed there one serves
There is no fool or a wise man
- Sri Guru Arjan Dev ji, SGGS 5

You have my apologies and the recognition that what I preached was not reflected in my actions.