Manmukh Or Gurmukh: Can Mind Serve As Spiritual Authority?

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Singh ji and Bhagat ji,

ਸਚਹੁ ਓਰੈ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਉਪਰਿ ਸਚੁ ਆਚਾਰੁ ॥੫॥
sachahu ourai sabh ko oupar sach aachaar ||5||
Truth is higher than everything; but higher still is truthful living.

Above is the highest of the high.


As for Sigmund Freud. No, I do not agree that Freud saw Ego as good. He saw it as neither bad nor good, but as a mental structure that evolves during infancy and into childhood. It is the seat of memory, language and rational thought. It is also responsible for the formation of the self-concept which requires as I said earlier compensatory strategies in order to feel "OK" with itself. These compensations according to Freud can become distorted and lead to mild or severe neurosis - self delusion. In that sense Freud and Nanak might be in agreement -- but this is a ridiculous comparison because Guru Nanak was deeply moved by the social and moral corruption around him and taught that deliverance mukhti comes from union with the creator. Freud on the other hand was seeking a scientific explanation for neurosis.


Now that the person of Sigmund Freud has come up in the the context of the Gurus Sahiban, here are two interesting comparisons. Both were deeply interested in the reason for human suffering. Both were deeply committed to the "moral" dimension of human development.


Sigmund Freud said this about suffering: “We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so forlornly unhappy as when we have lost our love object or its love.” For Freud, the best that we could hope for was to learn to tolerate our suffering with grace. That was the purpose of psychoanalysis -- to learn how to suffer without losing our dignity.

And what did Gurus Sahiban have to say about suffering? It comes from,

ਜਗਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਮੈਲੁ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਮਲੁ ਲਾਗੀ ਦੂਜੈ ਭਾਇ ॥
jag houmai mail dhukh paaeiaa mal laagee dhoojai bhaae ||
The world is polluted with the filth of egotism, suffering in pain. This filth sticks to them because of their love of duality.

And it is released by union with the Divine Essence of the Naam, the identity of the Sat

ਵਿਜੋਗਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਵਿਛੁੜਿਆ ਸੰਜੋਗੀ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੨॥
vijog mil vishhurriaa sanjogee mael ||2||
The separated ones meet, and by great good fortune, those suffering in separation are reunited once again. ||2||


It is curious that the loss of the objects of our love is the first cause of suffering for Freud. And Guru Nanak teaches us that when we cling in attachment to people -- what happens? We suffer. ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਬਨਿਤਾ ਸੁਤ ਬੰਧਪ ਇਸਟ ਮੀਤ ਅਰੁ ਭਾਈ ॥ਪੂਰਬ ਜਨਮ ਕੇ ਮਿਲੇ ਸੰਜੋਗੀ ਅੰਤਹਿ ਕੋ ਨ ਸਹਾਈ ॥੧॥ maath pithaa banithaa suth bandhhap eisatt meeth ar bhaaee || poorab janam kae milae sanjogee anthehi ko n sehaaee ||1|| Mother, father, spouse, children, relatives, lovers, friends and siblings meet, having been associated in previous lives; but none of them will be your companion and support in the end.



Sigmund Freud had this to say about morality and the ego: through our collisions with other people, and in particular with our parents, our superego emerges from the ego. The superego becomes our internal parent, our conscience. It role is to keep our passions and our self-centered egos under control. The superego was to him both necessary and a positive development. Without a superego a person is a sociopath, without a sense of guilt, remorse or compassion.

And for Gurus Sahiban, guilt is an act of ignorance (deeds committed in the darkness that is cast on us in our ignorance of the True Guru).

ਜਿਹਿ ਪਰਲੋਕ ਜਾਇ ਅਪਕੀਰਤਿ ਸੋਈ ਅਬਿਦਿਆ ਸਾਧੀ ॥੨॥
jihi paralok jaae apakeerath soee abidhiaa saadhhee ||2||
But when you go to the world beyond, your guilt will be well known, by the acts of ignorance which you committed. ||2|| (Sant Paramanand)

And the cure is

ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਸੇਵਿਐ ਦੂਜੀ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਜਾਈ ॥
sathigur saeviai dhoojee dhuramath jaaee ||
Serving the True Guru, duality and evil-mindedness are taken away.


ਅਉਗਣ ਕਾਟਿ ਪਾਪਾ ਮਤਿ ਖਾਈ ॥
aougan kaatt paapaa math khaaee ||
Guilty mistakes are erased, and the sinful intellect is cleansed.


So Freud and the Gurus would have made good conversation on the subjects of suffering and morality. But can you see that, although they are concerned with the same things, their understanding is completely different?

One last thought: in both psychoanalyis and Gurbani, it is always the mind that has to be cleansed.

ਅਉਗਣ ਕਾਟਿ ਪਾਪਾ ਮਤਿ ਖਾਈ ॥
aougan kaatt paapaa math khaaee ||
Guilty mistakes are erased, and the sinful intellect is cleansed

 

[BhagatSingh]

great comparison antonia ji! :happy:

 

[BhagatSingh]

Nothing can create the Shabad Guru because the Shabad Guru was here at the beginning, throughout the four ages, here now and will always be here forever and ever. You can't create the Creator. By your logic that would mean there is something higher than the Shabad Guru/God, which is for you the Mind, intellect

I thought by Shabad Guru you meant SGGS.
So ok God is highest authority. I thought that was a given.
After him, the brain/mind are highest authority.

BTW good job you have managed to pull yourself out of the main discussion.

 

[Archived_Member4]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

On Guru Sahib definition you called Guru Sahib a Manmukh. You said that for Guru Sahib the highest authority is there intellect, but not so, it’s the Shabad Guru. Since Guru Sahib calls following the mind as the highest authority Manmukh behavior, by the same notion you called Guru Sahib a Manmukh because you say they use their own intellect as the highest authority. The key word here is HIGHEST. Here let’s go further into it
This is the post to Aad ji after asked by Aad ji to elaborate on your meaning.

You are right. Manmukh is something different. If someone considers their brain authority, it does not mean they are manmukh.

See here, you use just authority alone, but initially you used HIGHEST AUTHORITY. Its supposed to be HIGHEST AUTHORITY HERE because initially this is what you used. So now let’s put in highest authority in here and see where your sentence goes.



You are right. Manmukh is something different. If someone considers their brain HIGHEST authority, it does not mean they are manmukh.



With highest put in to aline with what you said initially then you are calling Guru Sahib a Manmukh still and Freud thing does not make sense. Because in Freuds logic the human still controls the ego. He is still talking about self-willed, not God’s will.


The word ego as of Freuds meaning, means as “I myself”, “the I” The ‘self’ and ‘I’ is still there as the ego as of Guru Sahibs definition; Freud as not get rid of the ego yet. Also Freud goes on further to say that his definition of ego includes the person to be quarterly unconscious. Once again this goes against Guru Sahibs teaching of being fully conscious. None of this holds up and by your own fault you call Guru Sahib Manmukh.

 

[Archived_Member4]

I thought by Shabad Guru you meant SGGS.
So ok God is highest authority. I thought that was a given.
After him, the brain/mind are highest authority.

BTW good job you have managed to pull yourself out of the main discussion.

NO, the Shabad Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. I wrote this in the same post you just replied to, its hard to miss and I just said it again.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh
Whose mind created the shabad Guru whom you call the highest authority?

Nothing can create the Shabad Guru because the Shabad Guru was here at the beginning, throughout the four ages, here now and will always be here forever and ever. You can't create the Creator. By your logic that would mean there is something higher than the Shabad Guru/God, which is for you the Mind, intellect

Here you imply Shabad Guru is creator AKA God.

Quote:
Guru's mind. The Gurus used their intellect to create SGGS.
The intellect or mind did not create the Shabad Guru. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is the Shabad Guru.

here you state Shabad Guru is SGGS. Do you even know what you are talking about?
Then you deny the fact that SGGS was created by the Gurus, and OBVIOUSLY they used their intellect to write it!
In the bold you have again set up a weak form of my argument. I did not mean any intellect, I meant Guru Sahibs' intellect. I have bolded "their" for you so you can see it!

 

[Archived_Member4]

Here you imply Shabad Guru is creator AKA God.


here you state Shabad Guru is SGGS. Do you even know what you are talking about?
Then you deny the fact that SGGS was created by the Gurus, and OBVIOUSLY they used their intellect to write it!
In the bold you have again set up a weak form of my argument. I did not mean any intellect, I meant Guru Sahibs' intellect. I have bolded "their" for you so you can see it!

There is no difference between the Shabad Guru and God one and the same. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is the Shabad Guru meaning God. Guru Sahib is not the body.

Then you deny the fact that SGGS was created by the Gurus, and OBVIOUSLY they used their intellect to write it!

I meant Guru Sahibs' intellect. I have bolded "their" for you so you can see it!

Guru Sahib is not the body. We have gone through this Bhagat Singh. Here is the video again for the reminder.

YouTube - Idol worship - SIKH RELIGION

 

[BhagatSingh]

There is no difference between the Shabad Guru and God one and the same. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is the Shabad Guru meaning God. Guru Sahib is not the body.

By bringing God into the discussion, you have not solved the problem but created another one. Since everyone has their own definition of God, there is no real way of defining God. Guru Sahibs ackwowledge this and this is why we see the Sargun Nirgun concept in SGGS. So it would be wise to leave God out of it.
Also, what is the difference between calling an Idol, God, and a book, God?

Guru Sahib is not the body. We have gone through this Bhagat Singh. Here is the video again for the reminder.

YouTube - Idol worship - SIKH RELIGION

When I say Guru Sahib, I am referring to one of the Gurus e.g. Guru Nanak. You should use a different term for something that is "not the body" because it gets confusing( the reason I dropped this discussion).

----------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the original quesion, can mind serve as spiritual authority?
Since Guru Sahibs used their mind as their spiritual authority (we don't see them folllowing any doctrines or people), and we know that were quite elevated spiritually, I come to the conclusion that one can use their mind as spiritual authority.
Having said that, knowledge is required for spirituality and knowledge does come from other sources. but ultimately it comes down to one's mind.
About Manmukh and Gurmukh, I am starting to think thats about something other than spirituality.

 

[Archived_Member4]

By bringing God into the discussion, you have not solved the problem but created another one. Since everyone has their own definition of God, there is no real way of defining God. Guru Sahibs ackwowledge this and this is why we see the Sargun Nirgun concept in SGGS. So it would be wise to leave God out of it.
Also, what is the difference between calling an Idol, God, and a book, God?


When I say Guru Sahib, I am referring to one of the Gurus e.g. Guru Nanak. You should use a different term for something that is "not the body" because it gets confusing( the reason I dropped this discussion).

----------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the original quesion, can mind serve as spiritual authority?
Since Guru Sahibs used their mind as their spiritual authority (we don't see them folllowing any doctrines or people), and we know that were quite elevated spiritually, I come to the conclusion that one can use their mind as spiritual authority.
Having said that, knowledge is required for spirituality and knowledge does come from other sources. but ultimately it comes down to one's mind.
About Manmukh and Gurmukh, I am starting to think thats about something other than spirituality.

Before I answer this post, which has already been answered, I'll just be repeating myself. Which book are you refering to here in this sentence?

what is the difference between calling an Idol, God, and a book, God?

And if you decide to play your petty games, don't expect a response from me to your whole post.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Before I answer this post, which has already been answered, I'll just be repeating myself. Which book are you refering to here in this sentence?

Any book. But don't worry about that qeustion (yet) as it deals with the video. I think it would a better if I dissected that video in a different thread. your answer to the question would be much more appreciated there. Go ahead and repond to the rest of it.

And if you decide to play your petty games, don't expect a response from me to your whole post.

Singh ji I have never played games on this forum whether petty or not, and I don't plan to in the future.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

IF "books" and Idols were the same..i wonder if the libraries should restock.
Schools should dish out idols and teachers may as well be idols.... Idols teach the idols using the idols ?/:shy::shy::shy:

 

[Archived_Member4]

IF "books" and Idols were the same..i wonder if the libraries should restock.
Schools should dish out idols and teachers may as well be idols.... Idols teach the idols using the idols ?/:shy::shy::shy:

To teach about science in school, they should carve one out to look like Albert Einstein:}{}{}: This way the students will learn more from the teacher rather than a regular teacher idol

 

[Archived_Member4]

When I say Guru Sahib, I am referring to one of the Gurus e.g. Guru Nanak. You should use a different term for something that is "not the body" because it gets confusing( the reason I dropped this discussion).

The video specifically says if Guru ji e.g. Guru Nanak Dev ji was the body then we have to say Guru Sahib died. This does not help your case at all.

----------------------------------------------------------

Going back to the original quesion, can mind serve as spiritual authority?
Since Guru Sahibs used their mind as their spiritual authority (we don't see them folllowing any doctrines or people), and we know that were quite elevated spiritually, I come to the conclusion that one can use their mind as spiritual authority.

See now your backing away from what you initially said, which was:

Well, if Guru Sahib are calling this manmukh behaviour then surely, Guru Sahibs themselves must be manmukh. The highest authority for them was their own intellect

.

First you say highest authority for Guru Sahib was their intellect and by this call them Manmukh.

Having said that, knowledge is required for spirituality and knowledge does come from other sources. but ultimately it comes down to one's mind.
About Manmukh and Gurmukh, I am starting to think thats about something other than spirituality.

Now we are back at square one, It ultimately comes down to the Shabad Guru. Not the mind. Guru Sahib ultimately used the Shabad Guru. Using the mind as the Ultimate is Manmukh behaviour.

This hasn't gone any where you were better off sticking with what was already written.

This just shows how hard you try to change what you said at the beginning, which was completely disrespectful to Guru Sahib.

Once again which is it now Highest authority or authority? In your first post you wrote highest and then wrote just authority in the second post.

 

[BhagatSingh]

The video specifically says if Guru ji e.g. Guru Nanak Dev ji was the body then we have to say Guru Sahib died. This does not help your case at all.

So Guru Sahib died, so what?. BUT their teachings are still with us thanks to SGGS. The teachings is not the Guru, the one who taught those things is the Guru, whohas expired.
The reason why Guru Granth Sahib ji was written is so those teachings can live on forever. This is why we call it Guru Granth, because it TEACHES.
You can call the teachings Guru, or the physical Guru, Guru. I dont care as long as when you talk to other people, who stick with the actual meanings, you understand what they say.

So now that you understand my position. I hope we can drop this play of words, and move on to the issues.

----------------------------------------------------------

See now your backing away from what you initially said, which was:

I am backing away to give you a chance to say what you need without attacking you, which wil make you think i am anti sikh or something. THen you will attack me back and this will go on and on. THe real issues will be dissolved in this battle of utter nonsense. This is why I am backing up. Just tell me when you want to discuss that movie and I am ready but for now, I am going to leave it out of the discussion.

First you say highest authority for Guru Sahib was their intellect and by this call them Manmukh.

No by this I mean they were intelligent! it is YOU who takes that to be something a Manmukh does, NOT ME.
So you need to stop accusing me of things I dont say OR mean.

Now we are back at square one, It ultimately comes down to the Shabad Guru. Not the mind. Guru Sahib ultimately used the Shabad Guru.

The shabad Guru AKA SGGS which is a book that was composed by the Gurus, who used their intelligence (intellect) to compose it, COULD NOT have been an authority for them. Do you see this logic?
Let me explain: Let's say I write a book with what I think. That book is not my authority because I wrote it. Someone who follows the book, for them it could be authority.

Using the mind as the Ultimate is Manmukh behaviour.

See thats what YOU say, not me. So you cannnot blame me for what you think.

This hasn't gone any where you were better off sticking with what was already written.

This time around, I am going to clarify myself, and MAKE you understand my POINT, so that you are not confused over who is anti sikh and who is NOT.

This just shows how hard you try to change what you said at the beginning, which was completely disrespectful to Guru Sahib.

No it wasnt! You THOUGHT it was, because you did not know what I MEANT.
And you are NOT the one blame for that, we both had completely different meanings of things.

Once again which is it now Highest authority or authority? In your first post you wrote highest and then wrote just authority in the second post.

Because I was not taking any God into consideration. Because I dont want to go off into other tangents.
You can ultimately say that God is highest but I am not going to get into that. So please allow me to exclude him and say whatever I going to say and whatever I have said.

 

[Archived_Member4]

So Guru Sahib died, so what?.

This coming out of a Sikh's mouth is one of the biggest insults to Guru Sahib. When someone dies that means back into the cycle of birth and death; union with God is not achieved. Also by your above insult, this would mean you are reading bani of a person that didn't gain union with God, what do you think will happen to you by reading the bani? You aswell die and not achieve union with God. Forgive das for this example sangat.

BUT their teachings are still with us thanks to SGGS. The teachings is not the Guru, the one who taught those things is the Guru, whohas expired.

Gurbani does not agree with you here. The word, the bani is Guru and Guru is the bani.

The reason why Guru Granth Sahib ji was written is so those teachings can live on forever. This is why we call it Guru Granth, because it TEACHES.
You can call the teachings Guru, or the physical Guru, Guru. I dont care as long as when you talk to other people, who stick with the actual meanings, you understand what they say.

Just repeating things read Gurbani and it does not agree with you.

So now that you understand my position. I hope we can drop this play of words, and move on to the issues.

Like I said before stop playing your petty games.

----------------------------------------------------------

I am backing away to give you a chance to say what you need without attacking you, which wil make you think i am anti sikh or something. THen you will attack me back and this will go on and on. THe real issues will be dissolved in this battle of utter nonsense. This is why I am backing up. Just tell me when you want to discuss that movie and I am ready but for now, I am going to leave it out of the discussion.

On my end the discussion was closed, it was and still is you changed your words later on and you backed away from what you initially said.

No by this I mean they were intelligent! it is YOU who takes that to be something a Manmukh does, NOT ME.
So you need to stop accusing me of things I dont say OR mean.

No! here I'll show you what you said.

Well, if Guru Sahib are calling this manmukh behaviour then surely, Guru Sahibs themselves must be manmukh. The highest authority for them was their own intellect

highest means there is nothing above it. Which makes your above statement clearly wrong since Guru Sahib used the Shabad Guru as the Highest authority.

The shabad Guru AKA SGGS which is a book that was composed by the Gurus, who used their intelligence (intellect) to compose it, COULD NOT have been an authority for them. Do you see this logic?
Let me explain: Let's say I write a book with what I think. That book is not my authority because I wrote it. Someone who follows the book, for them it could be authority.

First off, you call Guru Sahib a book, which is completely disrespectful. Every Sikh knows it's Guru Sahib. This logic of your does not make sense whatsoever. Guru Arjun Dev ji put Adi Granth on a platform higher than him at Amritsar. Now Guru Arjun Dev ji doesn't agree with you.

See thats what YOU say, not me. So you cannnot blame me for what you think.

You said the HIGHEST AUTHORITY FOR ANYONE SHOULD BE THERE INTELLECT. Guru Sahib doesn't agree with you on this and I have repeated this for the 100th time. You just don't get it.

This time around, I am going to clarify myself, and MAKE you understand my POINT, so that you are not confused over who is anti sikh and who is NOT.

Changing what you said after will not help your case. We have everything in writing here.

No it wasnt! You THOUGHT it was, because you did not know what I MEANT.
And you are NOT the one blame for that, we both had completely different meanings of things.

There was No different meaning, it all started off with you stating the highest authority of anyone should be their intellect and now you are just trying to ignore this part.

Because I was not taking any God into consideration. Because I dont want to go off into other tangents.
You can ultimately say that God is highest but I am not going to get into that. So please allow me to exclude him and say whatever I going to say and whatever I have said.

You haven't understood what I am saying here. So let me tell you again. In your initial post you wrote HIGHEST authority and then a post to Aad ji you wrote authority. Things didn't add up then and they still don't so, bhagat singh which one do you want to use, either way it still shows you called Guru Sahib Manmukh.

Like I said before it would have been better if you just had left everything the way it was. As I have already pointed out what you did and your numebrous attempts to sly away have failed and they will continue to fail. No point on dragging this on any further.

Take care

 

[Randip Singh]

They come to 2 or 3 different conclusions because some are allergic to the truth and Manmat is there dear friend.

Once you decide to let go of the Manmat mentality then the answer becomes clear. Told to give the head but people just want to give a broken nail and consider it Sikhi.

Is not wanting other people to believe what you believe Manmat?

 

[Archived_Member4]

Is not wanting other people to believe what you believe Manmat?

What your implying is not what I have said. So it's best for you to read my post's again. And I believe you haven't read the whole discussion and just picked one word or just a phrase and tried to to analyyze it. Not a good way to start accusing others.:yes:

 

[BhagatSingh]

Not a good way to start accusing others.:yes:

haha look who's talking...

 

[Archived_Member4]

haha look who's talking...

If that's what you think bhagat, then its fine with me