• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Controversial Why Is The Law Of Karma Rejected?

Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
SP ji,


Confused Ji

I feel there is truth that in the pure intention lies something that can cancel out what I would call 'current-account-karma',GGS does state that karma-grace has to be achieved to understand this though.


According to Buddhist teachings, on attaining full enlightenment (the Arahat), no bad or good karma is created, being that all intention are functional instead of wholesome, by nature. Before final death comes however, the arahat will continue to receive the results good and bad, of deeds done prior to his enlightenment.

At final death, all past karma becomes nullified due to the fact that there will not be any more rebirth. There is no process by which karma cancels out.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Tejwant ji,



You said in your post in this Sikh Forum, and I am paraphrasing it now "Only Buddha is right and rest are all wrong".


Something particularly wrong and crazy about this?


From your above proclamation, one can conclude that this buddha you are talking about is not the one who did meditation under the Banyan tree for many years to find the meaning of life, but someone else with a Talibanic mentality, which makes you a Taliban buddhist. It is you who is bearing the consequences of this so called righteousness as its result. With your comment you have put "right" in a corner. By Buddha being only the right one and the rest all wrong implies that Buddha is good and hence full of goodness.


No this is not what it implies. And this is what I actually wrote:

Quote:
“Right View is only taught by a Buddha. Everyone else, when it comes to the matter of Truth and reality, are wrong. Does this answer your question?”

Which was a response to your question:

Quote:
“Whose views are correct and who is not wrong? Please elaborate”

So I ask, are you ADD too, or is it that you willfully change the meaning of my words just so that you can then feel more justified in your criticisms of me?


It is sad to notice that you fail to grasp the notion which is, goodness can not be cornered as a monopoly of someone. It belongs to all.

I should not be having to give you any explanation. In this thread itself you can see that I pointed out that Guru Nanak taught about the value of good and the harm of evil. But let me add the following:

Generosity, kindness, good moral conduct, compassion and so on are taught outside of the Buddha’s teachings. The development of wholesome states leading to absorptive concentration requires great understanding and is taught by those outside of the Buddha’s dispensation. Even the understanding about impermanence and suffering is understood to some extent by certain teachers. The Buddha however is called the Anattavadin or the teacher of non-self and this is something no one else understands. This knowledge is the product of enlightenment and is related to that of Conditionality and the Dependent Origination. The latter is description of the process whereby beings go through the cycle of existence and its opposite shows how this cycle comes to an end. The Buddha’s teachings are understood by wisdom different from that which is directed at avoiding sensuous attachment and aversion. It is Right View which sees what ignorance truly is and how this can gradually be reduced and finally eradicated.


Goodness is the center which is surrounded by all different paths that include Sikhi, Buddhism and many many others. Hence your claim of only one way is "right" is a self defeating prophecy which is immersed in arrogance along with the rejectionist and the defeatist attitude.

I hope what I said above has cleared things up a bit.

I am not going to start another thread about Karma and Karam because they have been explained very well by others. It is up to you to grasp the differences and their values.

My objective is to discuss with you not just read past discussions without being able to ask and answer questions. As I said, I hope to find out whether you are right or I am, about the subject.


My last point about you being a killer as any other human being still stands. I will elaborate it further for your own understanding.

We all as humans kill life in order to survive. If you eat raw vegetables, fruits,yogurt; then you are killing life while consuming it. You can experiment these things at home. Put some legumes in water and they will sprout. Put a potato in water and it will start leafing like all other organic products.


Well, I’d have to first believe that these things are sentient beings. Second, I’d have to “intend” (re: unwholesome course of action as reference to particular intention) to kill. Fruits, vegetables, bacteria are not sentient beings!


You claim that Buddha is only "right" and he taught you not to kill but I have shown you that you have to kill in order to survive.

Now, tell me who/what is right?


You have only shown me that you have wrong view and don’t know what constitutes a sentient being.


Your understanding of Buddha's teachings or Buddha? I am sure it is the latter.

Enjoy your journey, learn from it if you can but do not impose your views unto others. Learn to share them, because your kind of imposition hits the fan fast and that fan is facing you, no one else.


When you write it is sharing, and when I write it is imposing?!!
From my perspective which do you think is worse?

a) Me coming in as representative of the Buddha’s teachings has minimal effect on Sikhs here.

or

b) You with what I consider wrong view, and because you are a fellow Sikh, end up encouraging others to the view that you hold.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Spanadmin ji,




This is from another website and represents the Hindu understanding:

Quote:
karma, kárma or kárman (Sanskrit: कर्म, "act, action, performance") — is a noun-form coming from the root kri meaning "to do," "to make." Literally karma means "doing," "making," action. Karma is pronounced as "karmuh," the "uh" being subtle. Karma can best be translated into English by the word consequence. It corresponds to the "action" or "deed" which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra). It applies to all levels of action, including thought, word, feeling and deed, and the effects of it.

Karma refers to (1) any act or deed; (2) the principle of cause and effect; (3) a consequence or karmaphala ("fruit of action") or uttaraphala ("after effect"), which sooner or later returns upon the doer. What we sow, we shall reap in this or future lives. Selfish, hateful acts (papakarma or kukarma) will bring suffering. Benevolent actions (punyakarma or sukarma) will bring loving reactions. Karma is a neutral, self-perpetuating law of the inner cosmos, much as gravity is an impersonal law of the outer cosmos. In fact, it has been said that gravity is a small, external expression of the greater law of karma. The impelling, unseen power of one's past actions is called adrishta.<><end quote>

I suspect that in Sikh teachings the two words karam and karma have been used more or less interchangeably. If you insist on limiting the meaning of karma to the one you have given, one conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Sikhs have misrepresented the Hindu understanding making it a straw man to knock down.

I suspect the other website you mention, and others for that matter, continue to propagate views that are and were heavily dominated by brahmin influences of the 19th Century. One influence being that of the Nirmala sect. Any evidence about differences in spelling and meaning can be found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The interchangeable use may be the result of deliberate teachings. Repeating my earlier comments, this wrong understanding found its way into popular English translations. Some Hindus who grasped the difference have their shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Other historical evidence? The 19th Century and early 20th century also witnessed movements (e.g., Singh Sabha) within Sikhi to return to Guru Nanak's simple philosophy. Even then it was understood that push and pull from the dominant religion had obscured his actual teachings and had altered the beliefs and habits of Sikhs.

What was historically true in Guru Nanak's time? Caste and karma were inextricably bound together. "Straw man?" Guru Nanak was a first-hand witness to the interwoven wickedness of caste and its dependence on a theory of karma, and he was not likely to be short on evidence. Therefore he had no need to resort to straw man arguments.

Any lengthy refutation of your comments would be both tedious and repetitious. The entire thread, and other threads at SPN, can be consulted. If I have to go back and repeat I will, but not at this time. As I said earlier, popular errors are hard to dispel.
 
Last edited:

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Tejwant ji,

Something particularly wrong and crazy about this?
No this is not what it implies. And this is what I actually wrote:

Quote:
“Right View is only taught by a Buddha. Everyone else, when it comes to the matter of Truth and reality, are wrong. Does this answer your question?”

Which was a response to your question:

Quote:
“Whose views are correct and who is not wrong? Please elaborate”

So I ask, are you ADD too, or is it that you willfully change the meaning of my words just so that you can then feel more justified in your criticisms of me?

I should not be having to give you any explanation. In this thread itself you can see that I pointed out that Guru Nanak taught about the value of good and the harm of evil. But let me add the following:

Generosity, kindness, good moral conduct, compassion and so on are taught outside of the Buddha’s teachings. The development of wholesome states leading to absorptive concentration requires great understanding and is taught by those outside of the Buddha’s dispensation. Even the understanding about impermanence and suffering is understood to some extent by certain teachers. The Buddha however is called the Anattavadin or the teacher of non-self and this is something no one else understands. This knowledge is the product of enlightenment and is related to that of Conditionality and the Dependent Origination. The latter is description of the process whereby beings go through the cycle of existence and its opposite shows how this cycle comes to an end. The Buddha’s teachings are understood by wisdom different from that which is directed at avoiding sensuous attachment and aversion. It is Right View which sees what ignorance truly is and how this can gradually be reduced and finally eradicated.

I hope what I said above has cleared things up a bit.

My objective is to discuss with you not just read past discussions without being able to ask and answer questions. As I said, I hope to find out whether you are right or I am, about the subject.

Well, I’d have to first believe that these things are sentient beings. Second, I’d have to “intend” (re: unwholesome course of action as reference to particular intention) to kill. Fruits, vegetables, bacteria are not sentient beings!

You have only shown me that you have wrong view and don’t know what constitutes a sentient being.

When you write it is sharing, and when I write it is imposing?!!
From my perspective which do you think is worse?

a) Me coming in as representative of the Buddha’s teachings has minimal effect on Sikhs here.

or

b) You with what I consider wrong view, and because you are a fellow Sikh, end up encouraging others to the view that you hold.

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

No, I do not have ADD and I am sorry that you do.

I told you in my last post that I would not do " he said, he said", but if you insist on it from your side, please try to be intellectually honest and post my full posts while responding rather than picking and choosing some lines at your convenience to fire back rather than respond. Is this what you have learnt through Buddha's teaching, to be dishonest, both intellectually and as an inter-actor?

I do not think you understand the meaning of "Paraphrasing" and there is no difference in what you said and what I paraphrased. You showed your Talibanic Buddhist side.

You said, “Right View is only taught by a Buddha. Everyone else, when it comes to the matter of Truth and reality, are wrong. Does this answer your question?”

No, it does not. To the contrary. The reason being as mentioned in my post, the part you deliberately omitted that no one has the monopoly on the Truth and reality as you falsely claim.But it shows your Talibanic Buddhist side. History shows that all Buddhists are not peace loving but many of them are quite violent.

FYI, Sentient is mostly used as a medical term which means "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions", but your arrogance laced with ignorance made you think I had no idea about it. It is a very subjective term outside the medical field. Who decides who has feelings or not?

Many claim that Psychopaths have no feelings about their actions. So according to your cop out addition of a word to life, are they sentient or not?

You mentioned life twice in your long Buddhist list of so called Karma. There was no mention of sentient life. You only came with it after being proved wrong when you claimed that you were not a killer which you are, like any other human being.

Are sperm and egg from where you and I came from sentient or not?

Confused ji, life IS life, no matter how you see the things and you and I kill life in order to survive.

Buddha will be shuffling himself in his ashes with your attitude.

Tejwant Singh
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Tejwant ji.



No, I do not have ADD and I am sorry that you do.

I ignored the comment in your last post, but you are saying it again. So I ask you, why do you feel sorry for me for having ADD?

===
I told you in my last post that I would not do " he said, he said", but if you insist on it from your side, please try to be intellectually honest and post my full posts while responding rather than picking and choosing some lines at your convenience to fire back rather than respond. Is this what you have learnt through Buddha's teaching, to be dishonest, both intellectually and as an inter-actor?

I post below, the whole of your last post with the relevant parts in bold.

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

First of all I am sorry to know that you have ADD. If I have offended you in anyway, I seek your forgiveness. I do not want to rehash -he said,he said. The main idea of this forum is to interact and to learn, not to impose one's own will or thought process cultivated via dogmas, religions or by any other manner.

You said in your post in this Sikh Forum, and I am paraphrasing it now "Only Buddha is right and rest are all wrong".

From your above proclamation, one can conclude that this buddha you are talking about is not the one who did meditation under the Banyan tree for many years to find the meaning of life, but someone else with a Talibanic mentality, which makes you a Taliban buddhist. It is you who is bearing the consequences of this so called righteousness as its result. With your comment you have put "right" in a corner. By Buddha being only the right one and the rest all wrong implies that Buddha is good and hence full of goodness. It is sad to notice that you fail to grasp the notion which is, goodness can not be cornered as a monopoly of someone. It belongs to all.

Goodness is the center which is surrounded by all different paths that include Sikhi, Buddhism and many many others. Hence your claim of only one way is "right" is a self defeating prophecy which is immersed in arrogance along with the rejectionist and the defeatist attitude.



I am not going to start another thread about Karma and Karam because they have been explained very well by others. It is up to you to grasp the differences and their values.

My last point about you being a killer as any other human being still stands. I will elaborate it further for your own understanding.


We all as humans kill life in order to survive. If you eat raw vegetables, fruits,yogurt; then you are killing life while consuming it. You can experiment these things at home. Put some legumes in water and they will sprout. Put a potato in water and it will start leafing like all other organic products.

You claim that Buddha is only "right" and he taught you not to kill but I have shown you that you have to kill in order to survive.

Now, tell me who/what is right?

Your understanding of Buddha's teachings or Buddha? I am sure it is the latter.

Enjoy your journey, learn from it if you can but do not impose your views unto others. Learn to share them, because your kind of imposition hits the fan fast and that fan is facing you, no one else.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

What do you understand by having right view / understanding vs. being good?

===
I do not think you understand the meaning of "Paraphrasing" and there is no difference in what you said and what I paraphrased. You showed your Talibanic Buddhist side.

By not understanding the meaning of paraphrasing and /or that I fail to see that in fact right understanding is the same as being good?

Why don’t you now quote the part of my last post where I explained the difference between other teachings and that of the Buddha’s and show me where I was wrong in this?

===
You said, “Right View is only taught by a Buddha. Everyone else, when it comes to the matter of Truth and reality, are wrong. Does this answer your question?”

No, it does not. To the contrary. The reason being as mentioned in my post, the part you deliberately omitted that no one has the monopoly on the Truth and reality as you falsely claim.


I don’t see where you said “no one has the monopoly on the Truth and reality”. What I see instead is that you have interpreted my saying that only the Buddha understood the Truth as suggesting that only he was good. Please tell me where I was wrong about this.

===
But it shows your Talibanic Buddhist side. History shows that all Buddhists are not peace loving but many of them are quite violent.


And your point is…?

===
FYI, Sentient is mostly used as a medical term which means "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions", but your arrogance laced with ignorance made you think I had no idea about it. It is a very subjective term outside the medical field. Who decides who has feelings or not?


My understanding of sentience include the ability to feel, be conscious, intend, perceive, think, make decisions, perform good and bad deeds and experience the result. This is clearly not what science considers, so I don’t care what the meaning is according to science. If you go by the scientific meaning, then know that you are not talking about the reality, but only a concept as taught by one particular field of study.

===
Many claim that Psychopaths have no feelings about their actions. So according to your cop out addition of a word to life, are they sentient or not?

And you believe that psychopaths don’t have feelings?!! But of course, I think what those people actually mean is that psychopaths are indifferent. This according to me, is a reference to aversion which must in fact be accompanied by unpleasant feelings.

===
You mentioned life twice in your long Buddhist list of so called Karma. There was no mention of sentient life. You only came with it after being proved wrong when you claimed that you were not a killer which you are, like any other human being.

A Buddhist reading the list would understand what is meant, he’d know that “life” in the list is reference to sentient life. And I expected you to understand the same, but apparently you did not. So my later on pointing out “sentient being” was not a cop out, but rather a further qualification necessitated as a result of you expressing your ignorance.

===
Are sperm and egg from where you and I came from sentient or not?

No.

===
Confused ji, life IS life, no matter how you see the things and you and I kill life in order to survive.

What you are actually saying is, “life IS as Tejwant thinks and classifies. Therefore eating fruits and vegetables and drinking lassi amount to killing. But that’s OK, since we all need to survive”.

Please explain to me the virtue of killing in order to survive?

===

Buddha will be shuffling himself in his ashes with your attitude.

So you know the Buddha and you think that he understood the same Truth as say, Guru Nanak and Jesus. This means for example, that he believed in God and soul, right? So maybe, I, who has come to conclude that these two concepts are the biggest fictions perpetuated in human history, should perhaps start my own little religion / cult?
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

I feel sorry for all who suffer. I volunteer in the Govt. clinic with the teenagers having ADD, ADHD and other ailments. Hence, I understand their limitations and frustrations. I apologise if my saying sorry has offended you.

I am done talking to you, till you learn how to interact. My last point is that it is shame to notice you do not even read what you have highlighted in my post. Here it is what I said,"It is sad to notice that you fail to grasp the notion which is, goodness can not be cornered as a monopoly of someone."

Enjoy your journey.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Tejwant ji,


More later, but for now just want to say that I appreciate your work at the Govt. Clinic. Keep it up.

The reason I questioned you was not because I was offended, just that I consider other things more in need of attention than having ADD.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Tejwant ji,
The reason I questioned you was not because I was offended, just that I consider other things more in need of attention than having ADD.

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let's be brutally honest here. It is you who mentioned having ADD. I kept quiet and never said anything about it. However more than once you "diagnosed" me with having ADD in a sarcastic, angry and wishful manner. In other words you mocked your own ailment and wished someone else should have it too.

Well, was I not talking in terms of what goes on in general here? I wonder if you too have ADD, because this happens to me quite often, namely that I skip over words and misunderstand the message.
.

I ignored it the first time when you lanced your wishful thinking of ADD towards me, but sadly you kept on doing the same, making mockery of your ailment and insulting all those who have it and wished those who did not should. I do not have the habit of tooting my own horn what I do in my spare time is no one's business and my duties are mine only. It is not a favour to anyone. It is my responsibilty to pitch in to the best of my abilities

the reason I questioned you was not because I was offended, just that I consider other things more in need of attention than having ADD.

So, I ask you if it was not that important as you mentioned above, then why did you repeatedly make mockery of it and wished others had the same which is a very wishful thought process. I hope this is not part of your Buddha's teachings, who according to you has the only truth and reality, no one else does.

Confused ji, all of us have some kind/s of ailments. If we wish the same onto others, then it seems we are living in the "curse of karma" according to your religion, where as in Sikhi prayer we say," Sarbat da Bhlah"-. May all humankind be well in all aspects.

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
japposatnamwaheguru: :tablakudi::grinningsingh: lol 0:)

You are truly incorrigible. Humor tends to be in short supply on the Internet. Especially when a poster is laughing at himself, with himself. Most everyone takes that sort of thing completely seriously. Therefore, I am going to leave this one up. There may be a hue and a cry.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,386
5,690
There is lot of incisive dialog so I have been more trying to absorb and take it in as appropriate.

I do believe that we need to recognize that karam/deed is a well used word in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. There are accents/”matras” that create associative application of the base word ਕਰਮ/karam. It is an active noun in most usage.

Here some examples,

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=7&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&fb=0&k=1

ਕਰਮੀਕਰਮੀਹੋਇ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ
करमी करमी होइ वीचारु ॥
Karmī karmī ho▫e vīcẖār.
By their deeds and their actions, they shall be judged.
ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੰਮਾਂ ਤੇ ਅਮਲਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਕਰਮੀ ਕਰਮੀ = ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ।
(ਇਹਨਾਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਨਾਵਾਂ ਤੇ ਰੰਗਾਂ ਵਾਲੇ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦੇ) ਆਪੋ-ਆਪਣੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਹੋਏ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ (ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਦਰ ਤੇ) ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ
…………..

ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮਿਪਵੈ ਨੀਸਾਣੁ
नदरी करमि पवै नीसाणु ॥
Naḏrī karam pavai nīsāṇ.
They receive the Mark of Grace from the Merciful Lord.
ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਉਤੇ ਮਿਹਰਬਾਨ ਮਾਲਕ ਦੀ ਮਿਹਰ ਦਾ ਚਿੰਨ੍ਹ ਪੈ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਨਦਰੀ = ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨਵਾਲਾ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ। ਕਰਮਿ = ਕਰਮ ਦੁਆਰਾ, ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ। ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮਿ = ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ। ਪਵੈ ਨੀਸਾਣੁ = ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨ ਪੈ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ,ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਵਡਿਆਈ ਦਾਚਿਹਨ (ਮੱਥੇ 'ਤੇ) ਚਮਕ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਅਤੇ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਬਖਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ (ਉਹਨਾਂ ਸੰਤ ਜਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੱਥੇ ਉਤੇ) ਵਡਿਆਈ ਦਾ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨ ਚਮਕ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
……………

ਗਿਆਨ ਖੰਡ ਕਾ ਆਖਹੁ ਕਰਮੁ
गिआन खंड का आखहु करमु ॥
Gi▫ān kẖand kā ākẖhu karam.
And now we speak of the realm of spiritual wisdom.
ਹੁਣ ਮੈਂ ਗਿਆਤ ਦੇ ਮੰਡਲ ਦੇ ਅਮਲ ਬਿਆਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ।
ਕਰਮ = ਕੰਮ, ਕਰਤੱਬ। ਏਹੋ = ਇਹੀ ਜੋ ਉਪਰ ਦਸਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ।
ਹੁਣ ਗਿਆਨ ਖੰਡ ਦਾ ਕਰਤੱਬ (ਭੀ) ਸਮਝ ਲਵੋ (ਜੋ ਅਗਲੀਆਂ ਤੁਕਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਹੈ)।
…………..
ਕੇਤੀਆ ਕਰਮਭੂਮੀ ਮੇਰ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਧੂ ਉਪਦੇਸ
केतीआ करम भूमी मेर केते केते धू उपदेस ॥
Keṯī▫ā karam bẖūmī mer keṯe keṯe ḏẖū upḏes.
So many worlds and lands for working out karma. So very many lessons to be learned!
ਅਣਗਿਣਤ ਹਨ ਧਰਤੀਆਂ ਤੇ ਪਹਾੜ ਨੇਕ ਅਮਲ ਕਮਾਉਣ ਦੇ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਅਤੇ ਅਣਗਿਣਤ ੳਤੇ ਅਣਗਿਣਤ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਧਰੂ।
ਕੇਤੀਆ = ਕਈ, ਬੇਅੰਤ। ਕਰਮ ਭੂਮੀ = ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਭੂਮੀਆਂ, ਧਰਤੀਆਂ। ਮੇਰ = ਮੇਰੁ ਪਰਬਤ। ਧੂ = ਧ੍ਰ ਭਗਤ। ਉਪਦੇਸ਼ = ਉਹਨਾਂ ਧੂ੍ਰ ਭਗਤਾਂ ਦੇ ਉਪਦੇਸ਼।
Another reference below,
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1345&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&fb=0&k=1

ਨਾਮੁ ਵਡਾਈ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਕੀਏ ੪॥
नामु वडाई सिरि करमां कीए ॥४॥
Nām vadā▫ī sir karmāʼn kī▫e. ||4||
He placed the glory of the Naam above these rituals. ||4||
ਆਪਣੇ ਨਾਮ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਭਤਾ, ਉਸ ਨੇ ਐਸੇ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਥਾਪੀ ਹੈ।
ਸਿਰਿ ਕਰਮਾਂ = ਕਰਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਉੱਤੇ ॥੪॥
ਪਰ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨੇ ਹੀ ਨਾਮ-ਸਿਮਰਨ ਨੂੰ ਸਭ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੈ ॥੪॥
………..

Let us review the highlighted words,

1. ਕਰਮੀ ਕਰਮੀ/ Karmī karmī
ਕਰਮੀ ਕਰਮੀ = ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ।
- per deeds/actions done by the living
2. ਕਰਮਿ/ karam
ਕਰਮਿ = ਕਰਮ ਦੁਆਰਾ, ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ।
- through act of a blessing
3. ਕਰਮੁ / karam
ਕਰਮ = ਕੰਮ, ਕਰਤੱਬ।
- deed; method of doing
4. ਕਰਮ / karam
ਕਰਮ (ਭੂਮੀ) = ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੀਆਂ (ਭੂਮੀਆਂ, ਧਰਤੀਆਂ)
- deeds/actions done ( at the lands, earths, etc.)
5. ਕਰਮਾਂ / karmāʼn
(ਸਿਰਿ) ਕਰਮਾਂ = ਕਰਮਾਂ ਦੇ (ਸਿਰ ਉੱਤੇ )॥੪॥
- Based upon actions/deeds
CONCLUSION:


1. It appears beyond any doubt that the word Karam used in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is solely directed at the proposition of doing/acting/carrying out/carried out.
2. The word Karma is not found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji except as in example 5 above and is again linked to the usage per application of deeds/actions carried out in certain ways.
3. We need to recognize that all of us are following parts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji per our understanding as well are a product of the culture that surrounds us. The culture of Punjab and what people are surrounded by is predominantly Hindu. Innocently or otherwise usage of common phrases like,
a. ਜੇ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੇਊ/ਲਿਖਿਆ ਮਿਲ ਜਾਊ|/Will get what is pre-destined!
b. ਪਿਛਲੀ ਜਿੰਦਗੀ ਦੇ ਕਰਮ ਭੁਗਤ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ|/Paying for previous lifes ill deeds.
It does not take much to jump from this into Karma as many a Sikhs do and billions others do. But this is not the teaching of our Guru ji or Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Hope the above is useful in the context of this thread.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: Complete Shabads/Gurbani stanzas will make the post un-tenable so I have given the references to Srigranth.org for complete shabads. If I am directed otherwise I will post the shabads below.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
 
Last edited:

Luckysingh

Writer
SPNer
Dec 3, 2011
1,634
2,758
Vancouver
I hope that we are all clear and have much better understanding of the differences in ''Karam'' and ''Karma'' :noticemunda::noticemunda:


Since we have mentioned 'ADD' on a thread about karma, I would just like to make a comment and ask everyone's opinion or understanding.:sippingcoffeemunda:

Firstly, ADD is something that more of us are now aware of, however there are still too many undiagnosed patients out there struggling with everyday life due to this.

My question is just something as an example for this thread-

1(a) If you are an adult who has just been diagnosed with ADD, then is it because of past Karma ??
OR
(b) Is it because of the divine will of God ?
OR
(c) Is it because you feel you deserve to have it because in your younger years you feel you abused your own body with the wrong diet/drugs/unhealthy lifestyle...etc..?


2) You have the choices to use tools like ritalin,adderall,dexedrine...etc.. and alternative therapies like yoga, exercise, meditation...etc..to help you adjust and gain control over this disorder.
Would you class these steps as actions or acts of ''Free-will'' ??
OR The divine will of God, having them provided for you ??

OR would you say that it is all because of free-will and your own actions, since you are suffering due to your own neglect as in 1(c) ????



I have no issue if admin find this post innappropriate and wish to delete it !
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
I hope that we are all clear and have much better understanding of the differences in ''Karam'' and ''Karma'' :noticemunda::noticemunda:


Since we have mentioned 'ADD' on a thread about karma, I would just like to make a comment and ask everyone's opinion or understanding.:sippingcoffeemunda:

Firstly, ADD is something that more of us are now aware of, however there are still too many undiagnosed patients out there struggling with everyday life due to this.

My question is just something as an example for this thread-

1(a) If you are an adult who has just been diagnosed with ADD, then is it because of past Karma ??
OR
(b) Is it because of the divine will of God ?
OR
(c) Is it because you feel you deserve to have it because in your younger years you feel you abused your own body with the wrong diet/drugs/unhealthy lifestyle...etc..?


2) You have the choices to use tools like ritalin,adderall,dexedrine...etc.. and alternative therapies like yoga, exercise, meditation...etc..to help you adjust and gain control over this disorder.
Would you class these steps as actions or acts of ''Free-will'' ??
OR The divine will of God, having them provided for you ??

OR would you say that it is all because of free-will and your own actions, since you are suffering due to your own neglect as in 1(c) ????



I have no issue if admin find this post innappropriate and wish to delete it !


I find them good questions. The bigger problem will be coaxing posters to connect replies about medication and treatment to a pro-karma theory versus a con-karma theory. Things could go off in unrelated directions. All in all I believe that asking whether illness or disability result from past-life karma, or the karmas of parents (very common belief), are relevant to this discussion.

For some of us the idea that one reaps illness because of past karmas gives a clear reason why Guru Nanak could never have accepted a law of karma in the first place. It leads in the direction of blaming the victim, and we have seen plenty of that. BTW, it also leads to the criticism that karma theories are "moral nihilism." Those in power use theories of karma to punish the powerless.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Tejwant ji,


The reason I questioned you was not because I was offended, just that I consider other things more in need of attention than having ADD.

Let's be brutally honest here. It is you who mentioned having ADD. I kept quiet and never said anything about it. However more than once you "diagnosed" me with having ADD in a sarcastic, angry and wishful manner. In other words you mocked your own ailment and wished someone else should have it too.


I think I would have snapped at you and be on the warpath, had it not been that I just read a couple of pages from a book on adult ADD I started reading a few days ago (which is one reason I made use of the concept instead of my usual reference to particular mental states). In that it was stated that one of the possible symptoms of ADD is sarcasm, which I was quite surprised to read, judging from my own experience. But I do see why you would think that I have been sarcastic; after all you have been working with many different people with ADD.

And I think that if you got past this initial reaction, you’d not come to the kind of conclusion you did above. I mean why would someone who has admitted to having ADD wish it on someone else?

The reason I mentioned ADD the first time in our conversations was after you accused me of proselytizing. It was to highlight the fact that I expend much energy into writing and why I'd not do this if proselytizing was my objective, especially since I also see at the same time, little sign of others being influenced.

===
Quote: Well, was I not talking in terms of what goes on in general here? I wonder if you too have ADD, because this happens to me quite often, namely that I skip over words and misunderstand the message.
.

I ignored it the first time when you lanced your wishful thinking of ADD towards me, but sadly you kept on doing the same, making mockery of your ailment and insulting all those who have it and wished those who did not should.


And frankly, I am thinking, “Damn you”!
This second time was after I perceived you as misrepresenting what I said. And it was stated as an excuse “for you”, which if turn out to be true, makes you the object of sympathy and not of insult. I thought about my own experiences and how you'd similarly be experiencing difficulty. And right now, the word paranoia comes to mind, but even here, amidst the anger, moments of sympathy arise in between.

Just last night, my older son came to me after being scolded by his mother, and said that he was fed up of being scolded, and immediately started to criticize her for this habit. I told him that she can't help herself as we all are with regard to our own peculiar tendencies. I then told him that when we criticize other people, at that time we are overlooking our own state of mind and forgetting our own faults.

===
I do not have the habit of tooting my own horn what I do in my spare time is no one's business and my duties are mine only. It is not a favour to anyone. It is my responsibilty to pitch in to the best of my abilities

And you read my response to you regarding this as motivated by ill-will hence this response from you? I was actually expecting a friendly response.

===
Quote:the reason I questioned you was not because I was offended, just that I consider other things more in need of attention than having ADD.

So, I ask you if it was not that important as you mentioned above, then why did you repeatedly make mockery of it and wished others had the same which is a very wishful thought process.

I explained above, but I can't be sure now whether you will take it in a positive way. It is almost like I'm trying to calm down a guard dog who mistrusts me while defending its master.

===
I hope this is not part of your Buddha's teachings, who according to you has the only truth and reality, no one else does.

Other than simply stating that the Truth can't be anyone's monopoly, can you give some reason for thinking this way? And can you answer one simple question, why if Guru Nanak and the Buddha both understood the Truth, did one teach about God and the other did not?

===
Confused ji, all of us have some kind/s of ailments.

Yes, I know.

===
If we wish the same onto others, then it seems we are living in the "curse of karma" according to your religion,

The reason I stated that “I consider other things more in need of attention than having ADD” is this:

Worldly pursuit such as academic success and career aside, except for the fact that anger arises when being distracted, I consider my ADD relatively harmless. As I understand it, ADD is primarily pure ignorance rooted in restlessness and attachment to sense objects. And of course it reflects also a lack of wisdom. None of this however, is karma result, but are states which are of the nature of cause.

Pure restlessness although unwholesome, and can condition other unwholesome states, can't itself give rise to unpleasant results. The sense attachments associated with ADD, although these are unwholesome and are accumulative and sometimes a cause for anger is not however, of the strength which will condition bad results.

This is the reason why I consider ADD a small problem. The real problems being the 10 unwholesome courses of action which I listed earlier, the worst of which is Wrong View.

===
where as in Sikhi prayer we say," Sarbat da Bhlah"-. May all humankind be well in all aspects.

There are places in the Buddha's teachings where reference is made to thinking about all beings in all directions with kindness / friendliness. But we are also reminded about being truthful to the reality. This means that we have to consider if we truly have that much kindness? Indeed do we even know to differentiate kindness from attachment? Because if in fact we don't have the kind of kindness what ends up being the case is that we just grow in attachment and tendency to fool ourselves, and this can't be good.
 

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,192
I work in an organisation where we diagnose children and adults with a particular type of disorder. I was talking with our senior diagnostician a couple of years ago who said it's interesting to see how some parents react when she tells them their child has a life-long disability. She said she's seen families react with shame because they've said it's due to past karma. She's also seen people draw acceptance from their faith with a type of 'Well it's all God's plan' philosophy.

Our clients also come in for therapy sessions, and it's heartbreaking to hear them wailing or screaming for no apparent reason (or for a reason we're not able to sense, like maybe the lights are too bright, or the airconditioner makes a low rumble that they're very sensitive to but the rest of us just filter out). Or when they start lashing out at their therapist who is trying to help them process certain stimuli or develop a skill.

Personally, I take a 'human biology, life sucks sometimes' approach. I'm not convinced there's anything more supernatural about it all, whether it's 'gods plan' or past karma.

It's hukam in so far as natural laws of biology, effects of environment etc.

If we continue to pollute, genetically modify food, keep putting additives in our food, perpetuate deforestation, neglect education, neglect community and family leading to breakdown, then we reap our own consequences. It's not karma, it's just natural law (hukam).

Hmm, I've just found the foundation of the issue for my own thread, the 'fate of nasty people' thread. Cool, thanks Lucky veerji!
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,024
7,183
Henderson, NV.
Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

I would like to forget all this *** for tat thing but one thing caught my eye which forced me to write this post because it needs a lot of knowledge and clarifications.

You write:

Other than simply stating that the Truth can't be anyone's monopoly, can you give some reason for thinking this way? And can you answer one simple question, why if Guru Nanak and the Buddha both understood the Truth, did one teach about God and the other did not?

1.Who taught what and where? Please give your answer with concrete references.

2. Did Buddha write anything?

3. If he did then, who has the original writings of Buddha and where are they kept?

4. Are they available on the internet?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Ambarsaria ji,


CONCLUSION:
1. It appears beyond any doubt that the word Karam used in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is solely directed at the proposition of doing/acting/carrying out/carried out.
2. The word Karma is not found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji except as in example 5 above and is again linked to the usage per application of deeds/actions carried out in certain ways.

So this means that Karma is used to mean action as well? Some people appear to insist that In Sikh teachings karma is rejected because it means “consequence of past actions”.

Also, if karma and karam are mentioned in the context of doing and acting only, does it follow that this means that there is no result of those actions? Emphasizing action now while not talking about the past and future does not come across to me as a denial of karam or karma being cause that will bring result in the future or that certain experiences in one's life is of the nature of result. It is simply saying that what is past is gone and what is in the future hasn't come, therefore only what is "now" is worthy of consideration. Am I wrong in this? If so, please explain why?

===
3. We need to recognize that all of us are following parts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji per our understanding as well are a product of the culture that surrounds us. The culture of Punjab and what people are surrounded by is predominantly Hindu. Innocently or otherwise usage of common phrases like,
a. ਜੇ ਕਰਮਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੇਊ/ਲਿਖਿਆ ਮਿਲ ਜਾਊ|/Will get what is pre-destined!
b. ਪਿਛਲੀ ਜਿੰਦਗੀ ਦੇ ਕਰਮ ਭੁਗਤ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ|/Paying for previous life’s ill deeds.


Karma is not pre-destination and I wouldn't phrase particular experiences of mine as “paying for previous life's deeds”.

But let me ask you this, why do you not believe that certain volitional actions will bring corresponding results in the future? Do you not see that mental states such as attachment, anger, kindness, wisdom and so on, have accumulative effect, such that for example, anger arisen now adds that much to the tendency for anger to arise in the future (re: habit)? If so, what is the reason that you reject the idea of seeds of volitional activity being planted which will bring results in the form of other experiences in the future?

Remember that we are talking about mental realities as against physical realities. The latter can only gradually disintegrate and change, whereas consciousness passes on the accumulated tendencies from one to the next and this accumulation grows rather than diminish.
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top