Thanks Gyani Ji Now I know why God gave me a hairy bottom, it was so it can resonate with sound ofcourse!
Last edited:
Why Are We Not Allowed To Cut Hair When It's Ok To Cut Nails, Since Both Are Created By God?
Thanks Gyani Ji Now I know why God gave me a hairy bottom, it was so it can resonate with sound ofcourse!
It's like, "hey all my friends and cool guys are making fun of it and i don't see any compelling reason of having it then why not get rid of it". I can tell u something , Going
in a direction due to these kind of reasons can make us direction-less. For instance check this out http://www.no-shave-november.com/ , so now some people think in some other direction due to
one reason or other. We can easily argue on all these things on what ever length we want.
Now thinking about what is meaningful and what is not then, we humans are capable of taking out meaning from any thing and at the same time making some thing meaningful too.
I think it's not only about having hairs or not having hairs , it's also about if you should or should "not" do
- paath
- sangat
- serving in langar
- trying to put some effort in understanding Sikh history.
- understanding the philosophy of Sikh religion
- helping in some community service,
- contributing financially for some community service
That actually lead to even bigger question if u need any religion or not ?
Thing is, every religion has their own beliefs and some overlap with other religions. Religion can be more like optional thing to some and core things to others.
Now the option is either we can say that i don't need religion , i just want to be like others. Problem with that is "others" is a big variable.
For ex , some of these "others" will want you to have hairs some will not ( like in this case ), same for turban,then your clothes , your hair style , brand of the cloth u wear , liking , disliking about sports , your body structure , community u live in , your parents outfit and thinking, temple u go , festivals you celebrate , your language slang , perfumes u use , way u dance and so many more.
What all we will change to make it same as of others and believe me there is a so many variations when it comes to others likings and dislikings.
Second option is to try understand what a religion is. When it comes to that we need to make some investments to understand and experience the philosophy.
Let me give u an example, I recently attended a class on leadership development in corporates and i was surprised to see how much research is done on how a human behaves and what it takes
to develop some good leadership qualities. People have an ample amount of research on these topics which includes IQ ,EQ , emotional intelligence , somatic intelligence and lots more. Now if I simply tell some body that " Following xyz way " u can be a good leader , probably people will not accept. Check this out http://www.acomplaintfreeworld.org/ .. these people think that having a bracelet in your wrist and changing it every time you complain about some thing will actually make you mind think before you try to complain. Now we can certainly argue on this for what ever length and it may on may not work for certain people. Now point here is that things like these 5 K's we have are reminder of one thing or other to me. Just by having them will not make much of a difference as far as my view is.
Also when we were born god didn't sent some user manual with us on "how to live life" and as i am getting older and meeting so many different people believe me actually i am realizing
there "cannot be a user manual" written on ways to live life. Now people in different religions who started that particular way of life were pretty good thinkers and what ever they came up with
i think that "deserves" some more investment of time on our behalf, which includes reading history , reading philosophy of a religion , rather then just getting rid of it in one shot , which is kind "not" exploring different sides of your self and different views about living life.
I don't see any harm in following and trying these things ( which is actually exciting to me at least) and see where it lead your brain, how it change your thinking. Believe me whether u r in a job or u r studying and ur researching , there are certain practices that needs to be adopted to go to next level without worrying much about who created those practices and until we know the exact principal behind them we will not do it. In our college, prof's have different styles of teachings , colleges have different way of telling things, we don't go and argue with these bodies about why they think that their way of thinking is the best and what is the logical reasoning behind it be fore pursuing it.
Now i did my studies in India so atleast no body bullied my for wearing turban and having hairs. IT surely a problem in foreign countries and at the same time different organizations are working
closely with govt authorities and schools to aware them about Sikh religion. It will take time surely.
Coming from different culture can be seen as a fun too , organizing dance program in your college , participating in functions , participating in debates and discussions about topics which generic in nature and how religions see these topics , participating in NGO programs who help poor with their needs , reaching out to communities to organize and help others when needed. Believe me people are least bother about your hairs when it comes to these things.
At the same time there will be places which will be most bothered about your hairs and turbans including , discotheque , some clubs , prom parties and may be few other things. I would say that is something of personal decisions and as we handle so many other situations these needs to be handled too.
So decision is yours ;-)
in a direction due to these kind of reasons can make us direction-less. For instance check this out http://www.no-shave-november.com/ , so now some people think in some other direction due to
one reason or other. We can easily argue on all these things on what ever length we want.
Now thinking about what is meaningful and what is not then, we humans are capable of taking out meaning from any thing and at the same time making some thing meaningful too.
I think it's not only about having hairs or not having hairs , it's also about if you should or should "not" do
- paath
- sangat
- serving in langar
- trying to put some effort in understanding Sikh history.
- understanding the philosophy of Sikh religion
- helping in some community service,
- contributing financially for some community service
That actually lead to even bigger question if u need any religion or not ?
Thing is, every religion has their own beliefs and some overlap with other religions. Religion can be more like optional thing to some and core things to others.
Now the option is either we can say that i don't need religion , i just want to be like others. Problem with that is "others" is a big variable.
For ex , some of these "others" will want you to have hairs some will not ( like in this case ), same for turban,then your clothes , your hair style , brand of the cloth u wear , liking , disliking about sports , your body structure , community u live in , your parents outfit and thinking, temple u go , festivals you celebrate , your language slang , perfumes u use , way u dance and so many more.
What all we will change to make it same as of others and believe me there is a so many variations when it comes to others likings and dislikings.
Second option is to try understand what a religion is. When it comes to that we need to make some investments to understand and experience the philosophy.
Let me give u an example, I recently attended a class on leadership development in corporates and i was surprised to see how much research is done on how a human behaves and what it takes
to develop some good leadership qualities. People have an ample amount of research on these topics which includes IQ ,EQ , emotional intelligence , somatic intelligence and lots more. Now if I simply tell some body that " Following xyz way " u can be a good leader , probably people will not accept. Check this out http://www.acomplaintfreeworld.org/ .. these people think that having a bracelet in your wrist and changing it every time you complain about some thing will actually make you mind think before you try to complain. Now we can certainly argue on this for what ever length and it may on may not work for certain people. Now point here is that things like these 5 K's we have are reminder of one thing or other to me. Just by having them will not make much of a difference as far as my view is.
Also when we were born god didn't sent some user manual with us on "how to live life" and as i am getting older and meeting so many different people believe me actually i am realizing
there "cannot be a user manual" written on ways to live life. Now people in different religions who started that particular way of life were pretty good thinkers and what ever they came up with
i think that "deserves" some more investment of time on our behalf, which includes reading history , reading philosophy of a religion , rather then just getting rid of it in one shot , which is kind "not" exploring different sides of your self and different views about living life.
I don't see any harm in following and trying these things ( which is actually exciting to me at least) and see where it lead your brain, how it change your thinking. Believe me whether u r in a job or u r studying and ur researching , there are certain practices that needs to be adopted to go to next level without worrying much about who created those practices and until we know the exact principal behind them we will not do it. In our college, prof's have different styles of teachings , colleges have different way of telling things, we don't go and argue with these bodies about why they think that their way of thinking is the best and what is the logical reasoning behind it be fore pursuing it.
Now i did my studies in India so atleast no body bullied my for wearing turban and having hairs. IT surely a problem in foreign countries and at the same time different organizations are working
closely with govt authorities and schools to aware them about Sikh religion. It will take time surely.
Coming from different culture can be seen as a fun too , organizing dance program in your college , participating in functions , participating in debates and discussions about topics which generic in nature and how religions see these topics , participating in NGO programs who help poor with their needs , reaching out to communities to organize and help others when needed. Believe me people are least bother about your hairs when it comes to these things.
At the same time there will be places which will be most bothered about your hairs and turbans including , discotheque , some clubs , prom parties and may be few other things. I would say that is something of personal decisions and as we handle so many other situations these needs to be handled too.
So decision is yours ;-)
I have a question to all people that wear the 5 k's. Which Guru do you Follow? The Guru Granth Sahib does not ask us to wear the 5k's we are to follow the Guru Granth Sahib as the guide to Sikhism. There is no mention of rehayt maryada, and number of other things. So forget any other points as NOTHING else matters! No one else, or nothing else is above the Guru Granth Sahib in Sikhism, So my question to everyone that wears the 5k's is as follows and stated in the above!
Which Guru Do You Follow? :singhsippingcoffee:
Which Guru Do You Follow? :singhsippingcoffee:
Last edited:
- Jul 14, 2007
- 4,576
- 1,609
It is hard to wear the 5K's. The mind creates excuses and doubts and finds it unreasonable to follow a particular regulation. Even in the Millitary training grounds we often 'ponteng' certain rules.
In short, rules are not easy to follow. But they are important for general discipline. As I said, wearing 5K's is not an easy thing. Only those will be wearing them who have subdued their minds wishes. Munn Jeetai Jagjeet.
No where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is it written that the 5K's is a must. But if you follow your Guru's instructions, it is written clearly that Satsang is important.
Really, one must ask where can you find the right people to call it a Satsang!
Those who have attained liberation or those who have not?
This does not mean that others are not liberated. There are many who do not wear 5K's but are liberated. Question is how are you going to identify them?
5K's is one way.
In short, rules are not easy to follow. But they are important for general discipline. As I said, wearing 5K's is not an easy thing. Only those will be wearing them who have subdued their minds wishes. Munn Jeetai Jagjeet.
No where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is it written that the 5K's is a must. But if you follow your Guru's instructions, it is written clearly that Satsang is important.
Really, one must ask where can you find the right people to call it a Satsang!
Those who have attained liberation or those who have not?
This does not mean that others are not liberated. There are many who do not wear 5K's but are liberated. Question is how are you going to identify them?
5K's is one way.
Veera you can identify them with your ears.
- Jul 14, 2007
- 4,576
- 1,609
I 'summon' you to explain what you wish to say clearly. Would be appreciated by Astroboy.
Veera I came as soon as I was summoned,just as we understand eachother through words exchanged and not by appearance,so it must be with the enlghtened one ,you can identify him from his speech,it may not be so easy to ascertain his state from his silhouette.
Last edited:
A simple question, How do you identify a friend? How do you Identify a lover? If a person listens hears and gives their upmost respect to you then they are a person you should hold dear regardless, it would be your own downfall if you regarded them with nothing but contempt. Do you ask your people you love to change for you? If they change there will no longer be any love! People are to be recognized by there individual awakening. People say things as how about when no one would collect the guru's sees after he was martyred. You could have a thousand men with 5k's on if they dont have it in their hearts to do the service for the guru then they will not! You can not make your friends or your loved ones stick up for you. That is something that comes from within. The look is between god and the individual. People live in tribes in jungles will you say they have not found god, they will have a belief system not the same as ours maybe but it exists. It comes down to being able to love people for who they are not what you wish them to be. All people have their own service. When love is created try hurting anything even a dog of someone that has love for something and the lover will lay down his life for that! That is true love of the Guru Granth Sahib that is the true Khalsa and that is the truth in everybody. Try hurting the ones you love it is impossible!
Waheguru
I read this sometime ago I do not how true this is
:interestedsingh:Amarjit
======================
The Truth About Hair and Why Indians Would Keep Their Hair Long
United Truth Seekers
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:32 CDT
© Black ElkThis information about hair has been hidden from the public since the Viet Nam War .
Our culture leads people to believe that hair style is a matter of personal preference, that hair style is a matter of fashion and/or convenience, and that how people wear their hair is simply a cosmetic issue. Back in the Vietnam war however, an entirely different picture emerged, one that has been carefully covered up and hidden from public view.
In the early nineties, Sally [name changed to protect privacy] was married to a licensed psychologist who worked at a VA Medical hospital. He worked with combat veterans with PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder. Most of them had served in Vietnam.
Sally said, "I remember clearly an evening when my husband came back to our apartment on Doctor's Circle carrying a thick official looking folder in his hands. Inside were hundreds of pages of certain studies commissioned by the government. He was in shock from the contents. What he read in those documents completely changed his life. From that moment on my conservative middle of the road husband grew his hair and beard and never cut them again. What is more, the VA Medical center let him do it, and other very conservative men in the staff followed his example.
As I read the documents, I learned why. It seems that during the Vietnam War special forces in the war department had sent undercover experts to comb American Indian Reservations looking for talented scouts, for tough young men trained to move stealthily through rough terrain. They were especially looking for men with outstanding, almost supernatural, tracking abilities. Before being approached, these carefully selected men were extensively documented as experts in tracking and survival.
With the usual enticements, the well proven smooth phrases used to enroll new recruits, some of these Indian trackers were then enlisted. Once enlisted, an amazing thing happened. Whatever talents and skills they had possessed on the reservation seemed to mysteriously disappear, as recruit after recruit failed to perform as expected in the field.
Serious causalities and failures of performance led the government to contract expensive testing of these recruits, and this is what was found.
When questioned about their failure to perform as expected, the older recruits replied consistently that when they received their required military haircuts, they could no longer 'sense' the enemy, they could no longer access a 'sixth sense', their 'intuition' no longer was reliable, they couldn't 'read' subtle signs as well or access subtle extrasensory information.
So the testing institute recruited more Indian trackers, let them keep their long hair, and tested them in multiple areas. Then they would pair two men together who had received the same scores on all the tests. They would let one man in the pair keep his hair long, and gave the other man a military haircut. Then the two men retook the tests.
Time after time the man with long hair kept making high scores. Time after time, the man with the short hair failed the tests in which he had previously scored high scores.
Here is a Typical Test:
The recruit is sleeping out in the woods. An armed 'enemy' approaches the sleeping man. The long haired man is awakened out of his sleep by a strong sense of danger and gets away long before the enemy is close, long before any sounds from the approaching enemy are audible.
In another version of this test the long haired man senses an approach and somehow intuits that the enemy will perform a physical attack. He follows his 'sixth sense' and stays still, pretending to be sleeping, but quickly grabs the attacker and 'kills' him as the attacker reaches down to strangle him.
This same man, after having passed these and other tests, then received a military haircut and consistently failed these tests, and many other tests that he had previously passed.
So the document recommended that all Indian trackers be exempt from military haircuts. In fact, it required that trackers keep their hair long."
Comment:
The mammalian body has evolved over millions of years. Survival skills of human and animal at times seem almost supernatural. Science is constantly coming up with more discoveries about the amazing abilities of man and animal to survive. Each part of the body has highly sensitive work to perform for the survival and well being of the body as a whole.The body has a reason for every part of itself.
Hair is an extension of the nervous system, it can be correctly seen as exteriorized nerves, a type of highly evolved 'feelers' or 'antennae' that transmit vast amounts of important information to the brain stem, the limbic system, and the neocortex.
Not only does hair in people, including facial hair in men, provide an information highway reaching the brain, hair also emits energy, the electromagnetic energy emitted by the brain into the outer environment. This has been seen in Kirlian photography when a person is photographed with long hair and then rephotographed after the hair is cut.
When hair is cut, receiving and sending transmissions to and from the environment are greatly hampered. This results in numbing-out .
Cutting of hair is a contributing factor to unawareness of environmental distress in local ecosystems. It is also a contributing factor to insensitivity in relationships of all kinds. It contributes to sexual frustration.
Conclusion:
In searching for solutions for the distress in our world, it may be time for us to consider that many of our most basic assumptions about reality are in error. It may be that a major part of the solution is looking at us in the face each morning when we see ourselves in the mirror.
The story of Sampson and Delilah in the Bible has a lot of encoded truth to tell us. When Delilah cut Sampson's hair, the once undefeatable Sampson was defeated.
Reported by C. Young
Comment: SOTT can't confirm this story or the research it suggests took place, however, we have wondered on many occasions, what is the use of hair and why so many legends refer to hair as being a source of strength, from Samson, to Nazarenes, to the Long Haired Franks.
Fair enough. If it helps define you for the better of you then fine, there will be arugments to counter act the case above and all sorts. My argument is with the people in authority not giving any other independant Sikhs or lovers of god, the chance to show love and devotion to god in the way they do. They class themselves as Khalsa without knowing that you can not define Khalsa! Purity can not be defined! Every man should be treated with the same respect. That is why I will not say a depiction of a man with a big beard or big hair is wrong either. The definition is a personal one between god and the individual, if it helps you feel royal fine, if make you feel uncomfortable change that be happy as god intends all that god loves is to be happy. Are you not happy when in love? Just because the 5k's are not adhered to they are not a sikh what rubbish. That is what will bring the downfall. Like I mentioned in a earlier post you can not define god and his humble subjects. God exsits in all.
p.s. This is all if the established order wants to last. It is for the established order to change. Otherwise it will all change without you it is happening as I type dera's are forming changing sikhism to individual paths in the end the established order will just become another dera. Either change to accept the full truth and nothing but the truth or the truth will change you. Simple. Who are you fighting for nobody because in the end religion is for peace, and the peacfull will not fight. So you will look foolish due to arrogance, and I tell you what it will be you who misses out, because you will be the next stone the next bin laden maybe. Look at history and instead of becoming history become apart of the future the truth. Develop as all things that survive do and so should sikhism it means learn. Learn it! Develop grow become one!
p.s. This is all if the established order wants to last. It is for the established order to change. Otherwise it will all change without you it is happening as I type dera's are forming changing sikhism to individual paths in the end the established order will just become another dera. Either change to accept the full truth and nothing but the truth or the truth will change you. Simple. Who are you fighting for nobody because in the end religion is for peace, and the peacfull will not fight. So you will look foolish due to arrogance, and I tell you what it will be you who misses out, because you will be the next stone the next bin laden maybe. Look at history and instead of becoming history become apart of the future the truth. Develop as all things that survive do and so should sikhism it means learn. Learn it! Develop grow become one!
Last edited:
Archived_member14
SPNer
Parma ji.
I appreciate that you question the significance of the 5ks. It is with this in mind that I now make some comments, some to further clarify, but some to correct with the idea that the arrow of understanding can gradually be straightened.
----
P: Fair enough. If it helps define you for the better of you then fine, there will be arugments to counter act the case above and all sorts.
C: It makes no difference as you point out, if one keeps hair or not when it comes to the development of understanding and other good qualities. But what if the reason for keeping it is wrong such as those given in the above article and elsewhere? Can one have a distorted understanding about cause and effect and be expected to understand the Truth?
----
P: My argument is with the people in authority not giving any other independant Sikhs or lovers of god, the chance to show love and devotion to god in the way they do.
C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”.
-----
P: They class themselves as Khalsa without knowing that you can not define Khalsa! Purity can not be defined!
C: I think what you are saying is that purity of mind does not come from paying attention to outward behavior, let alone how one looks and what symbols are held. It comes from understanding the mind and what are good and what are evil mental states. To think that conformity in outward appearance can lead to purity of mind is in fact encouraging of belief in the efficacy of rules and rituals which Guru Nanak spoke so much against. Some speak of ‘identity’ and of ‘pride’, but this is the stuff of “ego” which again is spoken against, is it not?
-----
P: Every man should be treated with the same respect. That is why I will not say a depiction of a man with a big beard or big hair is wrong either.
C: Second only to wisdom, kindness or friendliness is the greatest of virtues. Without it, there can be no compassion, no respect and other good qualities. Kindness does not differentiate between persons worthy and not worthy; this is because at the moment it perceives the good in the other person.
-----
P: The definition is a personal one between god and the individual, if it helps you feel royal fine, if make you feel uncomfortable change that be happy as god intends all that god loves is to be happy.
C: This can be misleading.
Being uncomfortable is not a reason to change nor is happiness the reason to go on with what one does. This is what each individual does anyway, and is it not because of ignorance and attachment? The right course of conduct goes against the stream of attachment. This means that any discomfort should be understood instead of reacted to with ignorance; likewise happiness is to be seen for what it is because otherwise, attachment takes reign and directs the show.
True, good deeds is often accompanied by pleasant feelings (happiness), but the feeling itself is *not* the measure. Besides attachment too comes with pleasant feelings, therefore if one were to go by ‘happiness’ this must be due to ignorance. Because a good deed is good because of its nature and not because it is accompanied by happy feelings.
-------
P: Are you not happy when in love?
C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?
------
P: Just because the 5k's are not adhered to they are not a sikh what rubbish.
C: I do not really know what constitutes and what does not a Sikh. However I do know that if one believes that outward appearance and holding of symbols can lead to mental purity, this must in fact lead to much harm, and I don't believe that Sikh encourages this.
------
P: That is what will bring the downfall.
C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name.
-----
P: Like I mentioned in a earlier post you can not define god and his humble subjects. God exsits in all.*
C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction.
ps: The unusual format is because my internet connection is down and this has been written in word and will be transferred to my smartphone and sent via 3G.
I appreciate that you question the significance of the 5ks. It is with this in mind that I now make some comments, some to further clarify, but some to correct with the idea that the arrow of understanding can gradually be straightened.
----
P: Fair enough. If it helps define you for the better of you then fine, there will be arugments to counter act the case above and all sorts.
C: It makes no difference as you point out, if one keeps hair or not when it comes to the development of understanding and other good qualities. But what if the reason for keeping it is wrong such as those given in the above article and elsewhere? Can one have a distorted understanding about cause and effect and be expected to understand the Truth?
----
P: My argument is with the people in authority not giving any other independant Sikhs or lovers of god, the chance to show love and devotion to god in the way they do.
C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”.
-----
P: They class themselves as Khalsa without knowing that you can not define Khalsa! Purity can not be defined!
C: I think what you are saying is that purity of mind does not come from paying attention to outward behavior, let alone how one looks and what symbols are held. It comes from understanding the mind and what are good and what are evil mental states. To think that conformity in outward appearance can lead to purity of mind is in fact encouraging of belief in the efficacy of rules and rituals which Guru Nanak spoke so much against. Some speak of ‘identity’ and of ‘pride’, but this is the stuff of “ego” which again is spoken against, is it not?
-----
P: Every man should be treated with the same respect. That is why I will not say a depiction of a man with a big beard or big hair is wrong either.
C: Second only to wisdom, kindness or friendliness is the greatest of virtues. Without it, there can be no compassion, no respect and other good qualities. Kindness does not differentiate between persons worthy and not worthy; this is because at the moment it perceives the good in the other person.
-----
P: The definition is a personal one between god and the individual, if it helps you feel royal fine, if make you feel uncomfortable change that be happy as god intends all that god loves is to be happy.
C: This can be misleading.
Being uncomfortable is not a reason to change nor is happiness the reason to go on with what one does. This is what each individual does anyway, and is it not because of ignorance and attachment? The right course of conduct goes against the stream of attachment. This means that any discomfort should be understood instead of reacted to with ignorance; likewise happiness is to be seen for what it is because otherwise, attachment takes reign and directs the show.
True, good deeds is often accompanied by pleasant feelings (happiness), but the feeling itself is *not* the measure. Besides attachment too comes with pleasant feelings, therefore if one were to go by ‘happiness’ this must be due to ignorance. Because a good deed is good because of its nature and not because it is accompanied by happy feelings.
-------
P: Are you not happy when in love?
C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?
------
P: Just because the 5k's are not adhered to they are not a sikh what rubbish.
C: I do not really know what constitutes and what does not a Sikh. However I do know that if one believes that outward appearance and holding of symbols can lead to mental purity, this must in fact lead to much harm, and I don't believe that Sikh encourages this.
------
P: That is what will bring the downfall.
C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name.
-----
P: Like I mentioned in a earlier post you can not define god and his humble subjects. God exsits in all.*
C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction.
ps: The unusual format is because my internet connection is down and this has been written in word and will be transferred to my smartphone and sent via 3G.
C: It makes no difference as you point out, if one keeps hair or not when it comes to the development of understanding and other good qualities. But what if the reason for keeping it is wrong such as those given in the above article and elsewhere? Can one have a distorted understanding about cause and effect and be expected to understand the Truth?
Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought. If your thoughts are distorted then what are they distorted by? I would conclude as the guru's have taught, the distortion is worldly vices. Nothing more or less. So put simply, How can one have a distorted understanding about the cause and effect of the truth, on that basis? There is no distortion apart from what you build up yourself!
C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”.
Each individual is not allowed to do as conditions dictate they are dictated too. You must not go to the gurdwara. If a simple man asked to read and do service of the gurbani they are not allowed to unless they have taken the 5k's in some temples. You may not experience the differences talk to a whole sikh community that feel excluded from there own temples. It whole sole purpose and rerasoning in why dera's and other paths are being formed. Breaking up sikhism
C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?
I am surprised you disregard feelings so easily. Everything thing is based on feelings. From the point your mother and father make love and produce you to the point of death the feeling of pain. Religion is based on feelings. Humans animals plants energy some of these actions can not be seen only felt. Without feelings you will not wake up. Everything is bound by feelings. Love is the ulitmate feeling and love naturally brings enjoyment which brings happiness so to be neutral on happiness is like saying i am happy but I dont know it makes no sense. Even people with no concept of communication can understand feeling. That is how deep and big feelings are. Happiness is best understanding of one self try it be happy you will not wont to go back to being sad.
C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name.
Obviously you measure growth in terms of numbers of followers, so how are you going to make someone follow you? Every human recognizes the essentials maybe not in your context but all humans have a conscions, the guru granth sahib is the best guide on forming that conscions better.
C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction.
It is not misleading to entertain a global idea. That is the whole concept of god. Show every man and women the view of love to all others as their brother and sister what is wrong with that concept? To enforce that view on your brothers and sisters is wrong but to view them as your brothers and sisters is not! Like the gurbarni is it is a natural state of progression. Like you said I agree conformity does not apply to appearance, people are born black, white, brown and everything else under the sun, and as such conformity should be liberal a personal point between the individual and god like the world as it is raw. Who are we to judge that Deep down people are not inherently good. Who is to be the judge? So you start to view people as evil or righteous that has a negative effect. View who you are conform to your own understanding of the gurbani, instead of placing it in a box. Listen like I said this is a battle to discover the truth inside you! Whatever path you take make it into a box or disperse it like grains of sand you can not win as the thought process is between the product and the maker. How will a computer work without a person to work the keyboard. This is longing that will not end that is how you know their is a god. You will not drink if you are not thirsty it is a natural custom a natural process to find peace and the truth you can not stop it build a damn build anything. Were you think nothing exsist something will still exsist. This is beyond comprehension it is the truth.
Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought. If your thoughts are distorted then what are they distorted by? I would conclude as the guru's have taught, the distortion is worldly vices. Nothing more or less. So put simply, How can one have a distorted understanding about the cause and effect of the truth, on that basis? There is no distortion apart from what you build up yourself!
C: No, it comes down to each individual doing what conditions dictate. You apparently are not influenced by the authorities, therefore if someone is, the authorities should not be made to blame. They too, are each different individual and will reap the fruits of their own actions and nothing to do with anyone else. I don't think it helps to point a finger at anyone, much less an abstract, labeled “authority”.
Each individual is not allowed to do as conditions dictate they are dictated too. You must not go to the gurdwara. If a simple man asked to read and do service of the gurbani they are not allowed to unless they have taken the 5k's in some temples. You may not experience the differences talk to a whole sikh community that feel excluded from there own temples. It whole sole purpose and rerasoning in why dera's and other paths are being formed. Breaking up sikhism
C: And when there is love (my kindness), do you care whether or not that you are happy? Is this not because kindness is seen as valuable in and of itself? Why pollute it by appealing to the happiness which is only a feeling and in fact may or may not accompany it (because there can be neutral feelings as well)?
I am surprised you disregard feelings so easily. Everything thing is based on feelings. From the point your mother and father make love and produce you to the point of death the feeling of pain. Religion is based on feelings. Humans animals plants energy some of these actions can not be seen only felt. Without feelings you will not wake up. Everything is bound by feelings. Love is the ulitmate feeling and love naturally brings enjoyment which brings happiness so to be neutral on happiness is like saying i am happy but I dont know it makes no sense. Even people with no concept of communication can understand feeling. That is how deep and big feelings are. Happiness is best understanding of one self try it be happy you will not wont to go back to being sad.
C: But some people measure growth in terms of the number of followers and in fact the number of Sikhs may not decrease. But the question is, how many recognize the essentials and how many misunderstand and are only Sikhs in name.
Obviously you measure growth in terms of numbers of followers, so how are you going to make someone follow you? Every human recognizes the essentials maybe not in your context but all humans have a conscions, the guru granth sahib is the best guide on forming that conscions better.
C: In my language, I think what you are saying is that you cannot measure good/ bad, right / wrong in terms of conformity or not, in holding symbols and outward appearance. This I agree with but with the added remark that one should not in fact come to a general conclusion about anyone. This is because a living being is one moment this mind state and another moment, another one, and this happens trillions of times in one second. In other words change, insubstantiality and impersonal is the nature of all phenomena. And as much as it is misleading to entertain a global idea about another person, I think it is wrong also to suggest to the effect that all people deep down inside are inherently good and are moving forward in the right direction.
It is not misleading to entertain a global idea. That is the whole concept of god. Show every man and women the view of love to all others as their brother and sister what is wrong with that concept? To enforce that view on your brothers and sisters is wrong but to view them as your brothers and sisters is not! Like the gurbarni is it is a natural state of progression. Like you said I agree conformity does not apply to appearance, people are born black, white, brown and everything else under the sun, and as such conformity should be liberal a personal point between the individual and god like the world as it is raw. Who are we to judge that Deep down people are not inherently good. Who is to be the judge? So you start to view people as evil or righteous that has a negative effect. View who you are conform to your own understanding of the gurbani, instead of placing it in a box. Listen like I said this is a battle to discover the truth inside you! Whatever path you take make it into a box or disperse it like grains of sand you can not win as the thought process is between the product and the maker. How will a computer work without a person to work the keyboard. This is longing that will not end that is how you know their is a god. You will not drink if you are not thirsty it is a natural custom a natural process to find peace and the truth you can not stop it build a damn build anything. Were you think nothing exsist something will still exsist. This is beyond comprehension it is the truth.
Archived_member14
SPNer
Parma ji,
And I thought that you would agree with most of what I wrote. : -)
No, you are wrong about this. Understanding is a function by one mental reality and thinking is by another one. To get an idea of what the former is, I give you the following analogy:
Perception is like the village child who sees coins in the hand. He experiences only the glitter and shine. Consciousness is like the village adult, who experiences the glitter and shine and knows that it is money. Wisdom is like the money lender, he knows the true value of that money.
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it.
Ignorance is the root of all evil. However when it accompanies attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy and so on, it is not so bad as when it is with wrong understanding. The distortion that accompanied wrong understanding is of the worst kind.
I was referring to the idea of cause and effect in the case of wrong understanding. So it was not about the Truth but what is fact is not the Truth. And this as I said above, is the worst of distortions. Because while the distortion that comes with other instances of ignorance such as attachment and aversion only conditions more of the same, this one mistakes what is not the truth for the truth hence leads one further away from the possibility of ever understanding the Truth.
Each person does what conditions allow and these conditions are not within his or anyone else's control. If you follow someone else's dictates this is because the conditions which include your own ignorance and attachments, dictate that you do. If you are not influenced, this points to other tendencies, but nevertheless still not within your or anyone else's control. Choice is an illusion which wrong understanding likes to believe it has.
But don't you at the same time believe that purity of heart is a matter of each individual's own development? So what if you can't go to the Gurdwara and do what you want to do? Is this an obstacle to right conduct? If you've accumulated much understanding and kindness, can anything stop these from arising in any situation? On the other hand if you have much ignorance and greed, what makes you think that these won't arise when you go to the Gurdwara? If it can happen to those you point a finger at, it can happen to anyone although manifested differently.
We are moved by feelings, this I have pointed out in my last response when I said:
“Being uncomfortable is not a reason to change nor is happiness the reason to go on with what one does. This is what each individual does anyway, and is it not because of ignorance and attachment?”
We are attached to pleasant feelings, repelled by unpleasant feelings and grow in ignorance in response to neutral feelings. This is the way we are and being fuel for continued existence, is the reason why we remain trapped. It is an aspect of wisdom which understands this to be the case and thereby grow less and less influenced by feelings.
Yeah, the stuff of continued existence.
If by this you mean that most people are motivated to follow one religion or another due to attachment and the pleasant feelings which accompany it, I agree. But then this would be the wrong motivation and is reason why people of faith create such a bad impression on those who do not believe in any religion.
Or perhaps you just imagine things and don't know that this is taking place. Energy is a concept, the product of the thinking process, what is experienced through touch are the earth, fire and wind elements. And yes, these are accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but feeling is feeling and not the physical phenomena being referred to.
Let’s say this, all mental states are accompanied by feeling, some pleasant, some unpleasant and some neutral. Attachment can be towards pleasant feelings but not only this, but anything else, for example, color, smell, taste, concepts and so on. So in fact we may wake up in response to pleasant feeling, or we may wake up in response to some other object. And I don’t disagree that feeling is important, as you say, we are “bound by feelings”, but what I’m suggesting at the same time is that this is because of ignorance and attachment.
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another.
So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.
Yes, as I said each mental state is accompanied by feeling and we all find this important. A man who is deaf, dumb and also blind, even he is moved by feelings, so too are animals and insects. And yes, people crave for more and more pleasant feelings, hence the phenomena of addiction to drugs and alcohol. And all beings are repelled by sadness given that this is accompanied by unpleasant feelings, but this is a conditioned response which happens regardless of whether there is any pleasant feelings to compare with.
You misunderstood me. I was pointing to the fact that there are people who do this but suggested that this in fact is not important.
You are imagining things and continue to believe in it in spite of evidence to the contrary.
All human beings have consciousness, but 99.99% of the time, this is rooted in ignorance.
You misunderstood my reference to global. But I'll not go into this now as the response is already quite long. Maybe there will be another chance to clarify.
And I thought that you would agree with most of what I wrote. : -)
No, you are wrong about this. Understanding is a function by one mental reality and thinking is by another one. To get an idea of what the former is, I give you the following analogy:
Perception is like the village child who sees coins in the hand. He experiences only the glitter and shine. Consciousness is like the village adult, who experiences the glitter and shine and knows that it is money. Wisdom is like the money lender, he knows the true value of that money.
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it.
Ignorance is the root of all evil. However when it accompanies attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy and so on, it is not so bad as when it is with wrong understanding. The distortion that accompanied wrong understanding is of the worst kind.
I was referring to the idea of cause and effect in the case of wrong understanding. So it was not about the Truth but what is fact is not the Truth. And this as I said above, is the worst of distortions. Because while the distortion that comes with other instances of ignorance such as attachment and aversion only conditions more of the same, this one mistakes what is not the truth for the truth hence leads one further away from the possibility of ever understanding the Truth.
Each person does what conditions allow and these conditions are not within his or anyone else's control. If you follow someone else's dictates this is because the conditions which include your own ignorance and attachments, dictate that you do. If you are not influenced, this points to other tendencies, but nevertheless still not within your or anyone else's control. Choice is an illusion which wrong understanding likes to believe it has.
But don't you at the same time believe that purity of heart is a matter of each individual's own development? So what if you can't go to the Gurdwara and do what you want to do? Is this an obstacle to right conduct? If you've accumulated much understanding and kindness, can anything stop these from arising in any situation? On the other hand if you have much ignorance and greed, what makes you think that these won't arise when you go to the Gurdwara? If it can happen to those you point a finger at, it can happen to anyone although manifested differently.
We are moved by feelings, this I have pointed out in my last response when I said:
“Being uncomfortable is not a reason to change nor is happiness the reason to go on with what one does. This is what each individual does anyway, and is it not because of ignorance and attachment?”
We are attached to pleasant feelings, repelled by unpleasant feelings and grow in ignorance in response to neutral feelings. This is the way we are and being fuel for continued existence, is the reason why we remain trapped. It is an aspect of wisdom which understands this to be the case and thereby grow less and less influenced by feelings.
Yeah, the stuff of continued existence.
If by this you mean that most people are motivated to follow one religion or another due to attachment and the pleasant feelings which accompany it, I agree. But then this would be the wrong motivation and is reason why people of faith create such a bad impression on those who do not believe in any religion.
Or perhaps you just imagine things and don't know that this is taking place. Energy is a concept, the product of the thinking process, what is experienced through touch are the earth, fire and wind elements. And yes, these are accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, but feeling is feeling and not the physical phenomena being referred to.
Let’s say this, all mental states are accompanied by feeling, some pleasant, some unpleasant and some neutral. Attachment can be towards pleasant feelings but not only this, but anything else, for example, color, smell, taste, concepts and so on. So in fact we may wake up in response to pleasant feeling, or we may wake up in response to some other object. And I don’t disagree that feeling is important, as you say, we are “bound by feelings”, but what I’m suggesting at the same time is that this is because of ignorance and attachment.
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another.
So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.
Yes, as I said each mental state is accompanied by feeling and we all find this important. A man who is deaf, dumb and also blind, even he is moved by feelings, so too are animals and insects. And yes, people crave for more and more pleasant feelings, hence the phenomena of addiction to drugs and alcohol. And all beings are repelled by sadness given that this is accompanied by unpleasant feelings, but this is a conditioned response which happens regardless of whether there is any pleasant feelings to compare with.
You misunderstood me. I was pointing to the fact that there are people who do this but suggested that this in fact is not important.
You are imagining things and continue to believe in it in spite of evidence to the contrary.
All human beings have consciousness, but 99.99% of the time, this is rooted in ignorance.
You misunderstood my reference to global. But I'll not go into this now as the response is already quite long. Maybe there will be another chance to clarify.
Ok, I agree with what you wrote, do you agree : - )
No, you are wrong about this. Understanding is a function by one mental reality and thinking is by another one. To get an idea of what the former is, I give you the following analogy:
Perception is like the village child who sees coins in the hand. He experiences only the glitter and shine. Consciousness is like the village adult, who experiences the glitter and shine and knows that it is money. Wisdom is like the money lender, he knows the true value of that money.
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it.
So your saying their is no thought in understanding? May I ask how did you think that?
Ignorance is the root of all evil. However when it accompanies attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy and so on, it is not so bad as when it is with wrong understanding. The distortion that accompanied wrong understanding is of the worst kind.
I agree!!
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….
Yes giving importance to whether a feeling is pleasant or not is not a mistake. So you would rather have someone remain in a unpleasant feeling and stand their saying that's a nice feeling. No sain person will put up with that torture, sounds like a Nazi concerntration camp!
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another.
So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.
Now you want to split the mind apart, how many realities? Madness my fellow man! I guess the name is very fitting confused ji? lol
welcomemunda This is earth!
No, you are wrong about this. Understanding is a function by one mental reality and thinking is by another one. To get an idea of what the former is, I give you the following analogy:
Perception is like the village child who sees coins in the hand. He experiences only the glitter and shine. Consciousness is like the village adult, who experiences the glitter and shine and knows that it is money. Wisdom is like the money lender, he knows the true value of that money.
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it.
So your saying their is no thought in understanding? May I ask how did you think that?
Ignorance is the root of all evil. However when it accompanies attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy and so on, it is not so bad as when it is with wrong understanding. The distortion that accompanied wrong understanding is of the worst kind.
I agree!!
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….
Yes giving importance to whether a feeling is pleasant or not is not a mistake. So you would rather have someone remain in a unpleasant feeling and stand their saying that's a nice feeling. No sain person will put up with that torture, sounds like a Nazi concerntration camp!
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another.
So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.
Now you want to split the mind apart, how many realities? Madness my fellow man! I guess the name is very fitting confused ji? lol
welcomemunda This is earth!
Last edited:
cheerleader
If we read Gurbani..one thing is crystal clear...GURU JI is very very concerned about the "BHANDA"......several examples of how a BHANDA has to be thoroughly clean..washed..put out in the sunshine rays..etc BEFORE the MILK cna be placed in it t make a PERFECT YOGHURT (and not just split milk / SPOILT MILK..that is of no use)...how the BHANDA must NOT be desecrated...burnt..tortured etc..(The Creator is not glad when we break our bones, not feed, not drink, bathe unnecessarily, stand on one leg for long periods of time , walk up a thousand stone steps on our bleeding knees, etc etc etc etc...all of which are STANDARD methods recommended by religions as WAYS TO MAKE HIM HAPPY)...how a weak/dirty/unfit BHANDA cannot be used to STORE/RECEIVE AMRIT/MILK/YOGHURT etc...
Now if it was ALL in the MIND..why all this "lopsided" overloading on BHANDA METAPHOR....??? Obviously MOST of those ADVOCATING "changes" in the BHANDA ignore these..and concentrate on the "MIND"....which cannot be seen/felt.....while the BHANDA is highly Visible and very difficult to HIDE mutilate unseen.
A cracked POT cannot keep AMRIT or even water. period. The MARYADA is the GLAZE on the BHANDA...the PAINT on the EXTERIOR WALLS...etc etc...and IF we seek to protect the ordinary stone buildings with expensive PAINT....why NOT the MIND be kept safe inside a PERFECT BHANDA of the Human body...Maryada...REHIT is the DISCIPLINE..the "PAINT"..on the BODY that keeps it protected and healthy.. REHNNI RAHEY..SOOEE SIKH MERA....a BUILDING thta is PAINTED REGULARLY...can be compared to one that is NEGLECTED...compare the situation
Food for thought...
Now if it was ALL in the MIND..why all this "lopsided" overloading on BHANDA METAPHOR....??? Obviously MOST of those ADVOCATING "changes" in the BHANDA ignore these..and concentrate on the "MIND"....which cannot be seen/felt.....while the BHANDA is highly Visible and very difficult to HIDE mutilate unseen.
A cracked POT cannot keep AMRIT or even water. period. The MARYADA is the GLAZE on the BHANDA...the PAINT on the EXTERIOR WALLS...etc etc...and IF we seek to protect the ordinary stone buildings with expensive PAINT....why NOT the MIND be kept safe inside a PERFECT BHANDA of the Human body...Maryada...REHIT is the DISCIPLINE..the "PAINT"..on the BODY that keeps it protected and healthy.. REHNNI RAHEY..SOOEE SIKH MERA....a BUILDING thta is PAINTED REGULARLY...can be compared to one that is NEGLECTED...compare the situation
Food for thought...
Archived_member14
SPNer
Parma ji,
Ok, I agree with what you wrote, do you agree : - )
No.
----
Me:
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it.
You:
So your saying their is no thought in understanding? May I ask how did you think that?
In the above paragraph to which you have responded, I did point out that thinking arises with wisdom / understanding did I not? But let us go back to the beginning:
You had said that “Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought”. This suggested that you equated understanding with being a form of thinking.
I responded to this by pointing out that thinking is one reality and understanding another reality and that they can arise together.
So I wonder why you read this as suggesting that “there is no thought in understanding”. Do you perhaps believe that when wisdom arises, it not only understands, but also thinks and that there is no need for a separate mental factor called 'thinking' to assist it?
---
Me:
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….
You:
Yes giving importance to whether a feeling is pleasant or not is not a mistake.
Allow me to come in from another angle.
Attachment is said to be the 'near enemy' of kindness (your love). One of the reasons for this is that both attachment and kindness is associated with pleasant feelings. So obviously if one does not know the difference in characteristics between these two, invariably the attachment will be mistaken for kindness if judgment is made in terms of feeling.
------
So you would rather have someone remain in a unpleasant feeling and stand their saying that's a nice feeling. No sain person will put up with that torture, sounds like a Nazi concerntration camp!
You are unnecessarily proliferating.
The contention is not that kindness is aimed at the happiness and well-being of the other. It is about whether the happiness one feels should be the determining factor as to whether what one thinks or does is right. In other words, whether kindness should be measured by way of the happy feeling arisen.
But even if we consider this from the standpoint of the other person, we know that although attachment is aimed at making others happy it however is *not* kindness, and while the latter is not self-serving in any way, the former actually comes down to one's own happiness. So again we can see how misleading it is to judge by feelings.
-------
Me:
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another.
So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.
You:
Now you want to split the mind apart, how many realities? Madness my fellow man! I guess the name is very fitting confused ji?
What you are saying is that when you distinguish between one kind of mental reality from another it is OK and even wise, but when I do it, it is madness. :- )
Or are you really serious about judging the value of what is good and bad, right and wrong, by way of whether it gives you happiness or not? So according to you, this is wisdom, namely the ability to discriminate between what makes oneself and others happy and what does not and acting accordingly?
Allow me to add the following:
Dukkha or Suffering in Buddhist teachings has been pointed out by way of feelings as follows:
1. Suffering as pain, namely bodily and mental unpleasant feelings.
2. Suffering as change, namely pleasant feelings do not last.
3. Suffering as inherent characteristic, referring to the oppressive nature of all conditioned existence, including neutral feelings.
From the above we can see that even if one experiences happiness, it does not last and may be followed by unpleasant feelings. Indeed if there is attachment and a yearning to have pleasant feelings, disappointment must follow and this is an aspect of aversion which *always* arises with unpleasant feeling. More importantly however, all three feelings, in fact are oppressive in nature, therefore even pleasant feelings cannot be relied upon. The only medicine is the development of wisdom, to this it does not matter whether the feeling accompanying the moment is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.
-----
welcomemundaThis is earth!
There is no earth, only one instance of consciousness experiencing an object through the five senses or thinking (about 'earth' for example).
So my suggestion to you is to get out of the ocean of concepts and come to understand reality. Here there is no one to welcome anyone else, just impersonal elements rolling on one after another.
Ok, I agree with what you wrote, do you agree : - )
No.
----
Me:
Thinking is a mental reality which arises with both ignorance and with wisdom performing a function which neither of these two does. So when it arises with ignorance it thinks wrongly about the object and when it arises with wisdom, it thinks rightly about it.
You:
So your saying their is no thought in understanding? May I ask how did you think that?
In the above paragraph to which you have responded, I did point out that thinking arises with wisdom / understanding did I not? But let us go back to the beginning:
You had said that “Understanding at a pinnacle is just a form of thought”. This suggested that you equated understanding with being a form of thinking.
I responded to this by pointing out that thinking is one reality and understanding another reality and that they can arise together.
So I wonder why you read this as suggesting that “there is no thought in understanding”. Do you perhaps believe that when wisdom arises, it not only understands, but also thinks and that there is no need for a separate mental factor called 'thinking' to assist it?
---
Me:
So from my point of view giving importance to whether the feeling is pleasant or not is a mistake. You however appear to be suggesting that we should be guided in doing what we do by whether this gives rise to pleasant feeling or not….
You:
Yes giving importance to whether a feeling is pleasant or not is not a mistake.
Allow me to come in from another angle.
Attachment is said to be the 'near enemy' of kindness (your love). One of the reasons for this is that both attachment and kindness is associated with pleasant feelings. So obviously if one does not know the difference in characteristics between these two, invariably the attachment will be mistaken for kindness if judgment is made in terms of feeling.
------
So you would rather have someone remain in a unpleasant feeling and stand their saying that's a nice feeling. No sain person will put up with that torture, sounds like a Nazi concerntration camp!
You are unnecessarily proliferating.
The contention is not that kindness is aimed at the happiness and well-being of the other. It is about whether the happiness one feels should be the determining factor as to whether what one thinks or does is right. In other words, whether kindness should be measured by way of the happy feeling arisen.
But even if we consider this from the standpoint of the other person, we know that although attachment is aimed at making others happy it however is *not* kindness, and while the latter is not self-serving in any way, the former actually comes down to one's own happiness. So again we can see how misleading it is to judge by feelings.
-------
Me:
I think you would do well to distinguish feelings which accompany mental states from the other mental factors involved. Feeling accompanies all instances of consciousness, but so do, perception, concentration, attention, intention, life faculty and contact. When you refer to kindness, then there are several other mental factors including, faith, detachment, moral shame, non-aversion (kindness) itself and more. So really, feeling is just one small part of the experience, but more importantly, if you refer to kindness, this is non-aversion the reality which you would want to promote and not “feeling”! You are confusing one reality with another.
So accompanied by pleasant feeling or by neutral feeling, what is important is to see the value in non-aversion.
You:
Now you want to split the mind apart, how many realities? Madness my fellow man! I guess the name is very fitting confused ji?
What you are saying is that when you distinguish between one kind of mental reality from another it is OK and even wise, but when I do it, it is madness. :- )
Or are you really serious about judging the value of what is good and bad, right and wrong, by way of whether it gives you happiness or not? So according to you, this is wisdom, namely the ability to discriminate between what makes oneself and others happy and what does not and acting accordingly?
Allow me to add the following:
Dukkha or Suffering in Buddhist teachings has been pointed out by way of feelings as follows:
1. Suffering as pain, namely bodily and mental unpleasant feelings.
2. Suffering as change, namely pleasant feelings do not last.
3. Suffering as inherent characteristic, referring to the oppressive nature of all conditioned existence, including neutral feelings.
From the above we can see that even if one experiences happiness, it does not last and may be followed by unpleasant feelings. Indeed if there is attachment and a yearning to have pleasant feelings, disappointment must follow and this is an aspect of aversion which *always* arises with unpleasant feeling. More importantly however, all three feelings, in fact are oppressive in nature, therefore even pleasant feelings cannot be relied upon. The only medicine is the development of wisdom, to this it does not matter whether the feeling accompanying the moment is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.
-----
welcomemundaThis is earth!
There is no earth, only one instance of consciousness experiencing an object through the five senses or thinking (about 'earth' for example).
So my suggestion to you is to get out of the ocean of concepts and come to understand reality. Here there is no one to welcome anyone else, just impersonal elements rolling on one after another.
drpranavsingh
SPNer
- Feb 1, 2010
- 9
- 9
I don't quite get the "BHANDA" theories. Theories are abundant. Everyone is smart but "Sehas seanpaan lakh hove, tan ik na challe naal". The only importance hair has in a sikh's life is that of a separate identity. There is no spiritual advantage of hair. Otherwise Bhagat Kabir ji's shabad "ਕਬੀਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਇਕ ਸਿਉ ਕੀਏ ਆਨ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਜਾਇ ॥ ਭਾਵੈ ਲਾਂਬੇ ਕੇਸ ਕਰੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਘਰਰਿ ਮੁਡਾਇ ॥" would never have made an entry into Guru Granth Sahib ji. Now professor Sahib Singh in his teeka says that Kabir ji isn't talking about sikhs because khalsa panth was not formed then! The enlightened professor forgot that Gurbani transcends time. What was true then, is true now and will be true forever.
Sikhism teaches that inflicting pain on self does not lead to salvation. Guru Nank Dev ji says "ਅੰਤਰਿ ਅਗਨਿ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਤਨੁ ਸੁਆਹ ॥" Now one would say that he pointed towards ritualistic rubbing of ashes by hindus. But it applies to sikhs as well who maintain an outwardly symbolic K's without shunning their "ego".
Many sikhs keep hair just because of family or peer pressure, even if tying turban gives them pain in the ears, or traction alopecia or dandruff on the scalp or chronic neck pain because of turban weight(these are all real medical problems faced by sikhs and are well documented in medical literature...enthusiastic sikhs may search on pubmed.com). Is living with pain all life worthwhile? No it is not. Gurbani is against it.
I lived with these problems for 34 years. I gave up my external sikh identity. I am happy now. I can pursue sports and extracurricular activities(how many sikhs swim?). I can get ready in time and not waste 1 hour everyday on beard and turban and instead can utilize it for constructive purpose. At the same time, I can read and embrace the teachings of Gurbani, one at a time. I haven't come across a single tuk in SGGS ji advocating long hair.
I want to make clear that I have utmost respect for gursikhs(As embodied in SGGS ji). I respect my father who is an Amritdhari sikh, leads an honest life and doesn't use intoxicants of any sort(very commonly seen in present day "gursikhs"). He did not bad-mouth or abuse me after I cut my hair, nor did he give me any lecture. Thats how Sikhs should behave. With grace and love, even towards those who don't want to toe the line. For the same reason, I would have same respect for him even if he didn't keep hair. I hope my point is getting across.
In general, youth is not happy with sikh external identity. When Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, said jab lag khalsa rahe neyara, he meant both in appearance and actions. Or else he wouldn't have bestowed his blessings on bhai Nand Lal ji and many other non-khalsa in his cadre. No one can be a sikh by birth. Sikhism cannot be forced upon anyone by making them keep hair.
Mr Confused ji,
You are obviously talking about psychiatric issues here. This is a faith based forum. If you are looking for professional help, I would charge. Religious service I would do for free. If you are looking for help on your thesis try somewhere else that is a professional matter.
I did try to dissect you analogy and it was a beautiful reply only when I tried to post it the site would not let me, I just can not be bothrered now, maybe an admin issue you naughty admins!!! I will not reply further, unless it is regarding faith
:interestedsingh:
You are obviously talking about psychiatric issues here. This is a faith based forum. If you are looking for professional help, I would charge. Religious service I would do for free. If you are looking for help on your thesis try somewhere else that is a professional matter.
I did try to dissect you analogy and it was a beautiful reply only when I tried to post it the site would not let me, I just can not be bothrered now, maybe an admin issue you naughty admins!!! I will not reply further, unless it is regarding faith
:interestedsingh:
- Jul 14, 2007
- 4,576
- 1,609
Parma Ji,
A psychiatrist was once asked how he handled so many cases with such remarkable results.
And the answer was phrased - ".......I don't listen to them."
Yes this is a Faith Forum. And we are all ears sitting at the edges of our chairs just because we are thrilled with the style of various presentations forwarded here. That's what makes SPN a good Forum to visit.
Scarlet P.,
You said that you can judge them by your ears without even seeing the other party, or something like that. Thanks for that. It makes sense but not entirely.
A psychiatrist was once asked how he handled so many cases with such remarkable results.
And the answer was phrased - ".......I don't listen to them."
Yes this is a Faith Forum. And we are all ears sitting at the edges of our chairs just because we are thrilled with the style of various presentations forwarded here. That's what makes SPN a good Forum to visit.
Scarlet P.,
You said that you can judge them by your ears without even seeing the other party, or something like that. Thanks for that. It makes sense but not entirely.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
