- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
It depends how you look at it, form and formless can be the same in a certain way AND not the same in another way.
Lets say a man goes salmon fishing (very popular here in Vancouver). Let's just consider a single fish, that swims around freely, living with the constant need for water.
When the man catches it, the fish still has this need for water. But, due to the consequences of the man's actions keeping it out of the water, the fish struggles,flapping away,distraught, as it has this urgent need for water.
Soon, it's life is over and it is dead.
Now, the man takes it home, washes it, then cuts it up carefully into small pieces ready to cook.
The fish is now formless as it is dead and cut up into dozens of pieces.
It is cooked and served on a plate for his evening meal.
He consumes it all and enjoys the meal. As he goes fishing and eats fish often, he knows what will happen in the night during sleep.
He will be woken up thirsty with a need for water........ Even though the fish was all cut up, still in its formless state inside the man, it still urges the NEED for WATER!!
Form and formless can be seen as the same in this sense.
Waheguru
Luckyji
The fish may be lifeless, but it is certainly not formless, I am not sure how someone as intelligent as your good self has got this confused.
The fish is dead, it has no urge for water, this is more a Vedic philosophy, there is no grounding in Sikhi for this concept of dead fish needing water
Sikhi advocates intelligence, discretion, logic, and a respect for the laws of Creation, I find none of this in the above post, please explain so I may understand your reasoning brother