Controversial Why Is The Law Of Karma Rejected?

[Archived_member14]

Chazsingh ji,

In the here and now are hundreds of thoughts passing through the mind, some pass by un-noticed, others have an effect on our actions and decisions.

With Simran, you start to detach from these thoughts that:
pa(n)ch dhooth moodd par t(h)aadtae kaes gehae faeraavath hae ||
The five thieves stand over your head and seize you. Grabbing you by your hair, they will drive you on. 821

you say "which can be understood, whereas the recitation of an abstract concept, this amounts to no more than ritualistic practice"

My older brother i would describe as, very humble, loving, has a yearning for mystery, exploration of the unknown, and yearning for God.
I told him that i do simran/meditation on "waheguru" "satnaam" etc...i thought he took no notice.

Replace Waheguru and Satnam with Jesus, Krishna, Ram, Buddha, Dao, Om, THAT etc. and you may begin to have an idea what this really is about. Allow me to explain.

There are a number of meditation subjects enumerated in the Buddhist texts which when contemplated upon, conditions wholesome consciousness manifested as a calm state. These include death, corpse at various stages of decomposition, breath, the earth, fire and wind elements, infinite space, infinite consciousness, loving kindness, compassion, equanimity, the Buddha, the Dhamma etc. All these require a level of understanding to grow and develop and the final result is deep states of concentrative calm.

Using the concept of Buddha as illustration.

This subject involves the qualities of the Buddha, his wisdom, compassion, kindness, patience and so on. This means that one must at least have some understanding of what the Buddha taught and also the nature of each of these different qualities. And it should be expected that this will arise only when the conditions are right, therefore must start only with occasional very brief instances of wholesome states. Also it will depend on the individual's inclinations whether or not he is inclined to think about the Buddha. Perhaps he is more inclined to think about other subjects or not any one of them at all. The important thing is that one can't simply decide to think about the concept of Buddha or any of the other subjects and expect a wholesome state of mind to arise. Because otherwise it is just greed and this will only bring wrong results, though masked as right.

None of the meditation subjects can be chosen with the expectation that wholesome states will arise, grow and develop. Each person will reflect or not on one or more of the subjects constantly as per conditions, and this, only with a level of wisdom. Simply thinking about the concept will not do the trick, but would in fact lead to negative results, since the starting point then can only be motivated by ignorance and greed.

Note that all this involves the arising of wholesome states. However even this, at best leads only to deep concentrative calm where the defilements are suppressed. Meaning, ignorance is not addressed and therefore the underlying greed and hatred remains as strong as ever.

Now, I can understand at least intellectually, how these different subjects can be reflected upon with wholesome consciousness, as I can relate to them with reference to particular experiences. However when it comes to Waheguru or Satnam, I can't say the same, being that these are clearly abstractions which is proliferation of view. And while those other meditations are seen as ultimately not useful in terms of final liberation, they are however highly wholesome. These two concepts on the other hand, have nothing to do with the arousal of any kind of wholesome state. And like, Jesus, Krishna, Ram and Buddha, are conceived of with attachment and ignorance and therefore can only lead to more of the same.

The illusion of result that you and all followers of the respective religions experience is due simply to greed having changed objects, accompanied by very pleasant feeling. No understanding about anything is ever involved. Take for example the millions of Buddhists worldwide who have taken up one form or the other of meditation practice, these people experience what their greed has sought and found. And because it is done with the idea of a “self” who can make things happen by following a particular conventional activity, qualifies as “ritualistic practice”. Indeed, short of wisdom, any attempt to catch the moment with the idea that something good is being achieved, automatically becomes the stuff of rite and ritual.


And you are in fact asking people to simply repeat words….

A few weeks later we were driving back from playing football, and he told me that he started doing Simran whilst lying in bed before he went to sleep, and then went on to describe some potent spiritual experiences...energy flowing through his body, manifestation of light in the minds eye.

For him everything changed from being a ritual to being something he could try, test, evaluate the results...and now he loves simran.

No practitioner, especially those who have been exposed to the idea of wrong practice, will admit that theirs is wrong. The Buddha was strong against wrong practices, yet 99% of Buddhists today are involved in one or the other form of ritualistic practice. The Sufis had some proponents who pointed out the silliness of certain forms of ritualistic activities, yet evolved what I consider one of the silliest forms of practice, the dance involving dressing a particular way and turning around and around like idiots. And yes, they experience something which they consider positive, and you won’t be able to convince them otherwise. Ignorance is blind, wrong understanding takes what is wrong for right and greed just pulls one along in its direction.

A wise man will not look to result, but to the cause. And the cause is “now”. To measure success by looking at the result is placing oneself to be fooled.

I guess you just have to try it....but don;t forget it won't work if you dont have that inner yearning for god or the pull which is 'grace' in iteself.

The inner yearning comes at the end of repeated thinking with attachment. One simply wants to experience more pleasant feelings having made the association of this with the particular concept.

Sorry to be so blunt.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

well...Today I watched an Islamic Scholar on TV..and he was answering questions form his viewers..
One question was..WHY are the MEN "rewarded" with 78 VIRGINS...in Heaven..after death...and the what about the women..what do they get..its not even mentioned...

His answer:

Just look around you...everyone knows a MAN is "UP and ready" to go at a moments notice...some even "get UP" just watching porn...yet others get up on seeing lingerie..some even a picture will do..blah blah...a MAN gets "married"..he still OGLES every woman passing by..on the bus..outside his kitchen window..at the office...blah blah...even the Law allowing FOUR wives doesnt seem to curb this insatiable appetite...so Allah in His Infinite wisdom...decided to reward the "good" men with 78 VIRGINS (Perpetually VIRGIN despite a million penetrations !!)...

And YES..the WOMEN..what about them..?? well well..well..women as we all know love SHOPPING..even window shopping will do...a woman is always UP and READY at a moments notice to.....SHOP....and now laughingly..the Imam says..so in MY OPINION..the Women get LIMITLESS SHOPPING PRIVILEGES...Free Shopping VOUCHERS galore...discount vouchers..free returns..blah blah...and its NOT 'mentioned" because everybody already knows ...what women really want...END of SESSION..

And then I thought baout the Karma...its the very same thing..only slightly different...CLEVER MEN BULLSHITTING OTHERS to control them...OH..see that Cripple...bad karma..he must have done something real BAD in his past life...REPENT OH CRIPPLE..be SORRY..and in your NEXT LIFE..you will be reborn a CHEETAH..so you can RUN faster than you crawled in human form...!!!...OH..see that beggar..he struck the LOTTERY..what GOOD KARMA...he must have done so many good deeds in his past life..

ITS NOTHING but LIES...Fake HOPE and PROPOGANDA to CONTROl and MANIPULATE people..to "accept" their MISERY..and hope for the best next time..eh....you are poor..never mind..God will give you a GOLDEN SPOON when you are reborn...you will be born Bill gates Junior...just DONT CAUSE ANY TROUBLE NOW...sit down and be quiet...repent..be sorry..be happy as you can...

 

[Archived_member14]

Luckysingh ji,

I have not rejected karma and I hope you don't think that I intended to !!

Infact, I accept that karma, free-will, pre-ordained, destiny..etc.. all occur and are dictated under the One Divine Will of Hukam.


Although, it may be slightly off-topic, so I will try not to go off a tangent.
My mention was specifically talking about ''God-realisation''.
In my experience and opinion, one has to work on 'self-realisation' to start with and this is where simran can help you if you try.
I personally don't think that knowing my karma accounts and balance is going to help me 'find myself' or get to the core of ''self-realisation'' !

The idea of “knowing karma accounts” is wrong in any context. But understanding karma is called for in all situations (whether it happens or not is another matter) given that there is some kind of action, mental, verbal or bodily, all the time. Not understanding means more ignorance, and with ignorance comes attachment and aversion, nothing good.

The whole way I conduct myself with the consequences I am faced with determines my ''self'' and then ''God-realisation''.
I can't see how the reasons or karma influences that give rise to these very consequences can determine how I act and conduct myself !!!

Karma is volitional consciousness, its result are the resultant consciousness as in the experience through the five senses. Understanding the difference between these two is an important step towards the reduction and final eradication of unwholesome tendencies and the increase of wholesome ones and realization. What other way is there?

Anyway, the bigger question is probably -
''What is God-Realisation ?""
I'm sure some of us wonder what this exactly is and what does one know or achieve once they have this 'realization' ????

- I reckon we all have our own personal ideas about this, but the one thing that I can say for sure about myself is-

..that, simran has probably helped me into finding myself and gaining some 'self-realisation'. Which in turn will hopefully pave the way towards God-realisation !!

Well, understanding the volitional consciousness behind the actions, and how this and the sense experiences have arisen and already fallen away by the time one thinks about them, reveals that nothing is within anyone’s control, because indeed there is no “one” to be found anywhere.

When this God-realisation occurs (with his grace), the largest factor to be realised would be that ''self'' and ''God'' were not that apart or separate anyway!!

If the conditions for any one of the experiences through the five sense or mind is seen for what it is, one would realize how untenable this idea about self and God really are. All phenomena dependent on other phenomena must rise and fall away immediately. If God exists, it must be a fleeting phenomenon. And in a universe of fleeting phenomena, what would you consider God?

One would be able to truly confirm that all the time they felt they were looking for God and trying to realise, He himself was searching and looking for you and now you have both merged and realised !!

You are and were HIM, and he WAS and IS You ALL ALONG. There is NO Duality or Separateness, it's only us that create this within his very own creation.
All the time you were him and he was you !

Hearing hears sound and arises at the ear base only to fall away instantly together with the mental concomitants. This is followed immediately by another phenomenon equally fleeting until it is time for thinking to arise at the mind door. Whatever happens at the mind door, this too involves a series of extremely fleeting phenomenon one after another. It is here that the idea of God, self, connection / non-connection, duality / non-duality are conceived of.

So you can see that while the idea of something lasting in time and non-separateness are being conceived of, that which thinks itself, together with the accompanying mental factors rise and fall away by the gazillions unknown and unacknowledged……

In my opinion, this is the True Realisation and when this happens then nothing else, be it karma, deeds, actions or reactions..etc.. actually matter and never really did !!!

That sense of True Realization is itself karma through the mind door. Good or bad, this only your own wisdom can know.

Strange that you say that karma never really mattered…..

 

[Archived_member14]

Gyani ji,

well...Today I watched an Islamic Scholar on TV..and he was answering questions form his viewers..
One question was..WHY are the MEN "rewarded" with 78 VIRGINS...in Heaven..after death...and the what about the women..what do they get..its not even mentioned...

His answer:

Just look around you...everyone knows a MAN is "UP and ready" to go at a moments notice...some even "get UP" just watching porn...yet others get up on seeing lingerie..some even a picture will do..blah blah...a MAN gets "married"..he still OGLES every woman passing by..on the bus..outside his kitchen window..at the office...blah blah...even the Law allowing FOUR wives doesnt seem to curb this insatiable appetite...so Allah in His Infinite wisdom...decided to reward the "good" men with 78 VIRGINS (Perpetually VIRGIN despite a million penetrations !!)...

And YES..the WOMEN..what about them..?? well well..well..women as we all know love SHOPPING..even window shopping will do...a woman is always UP and READY at a moments notice to.....SHOP....and now laughingly..the Imam says..so in MY OPINION..the Women get LIMITLESS SHOPPING PRIVILEGES...Free Shopping VOUCHERS galore...discount vouchers..free returns..blah blah...and its NOT 'mentioned" because everybody already knows ...what women really want...END of SESSION..

And then I thought baout the Karma...its the very same thing..only slightly different...CLEVER MEN BULLSHITTING OTHERS to control them...OH..see that Cripple...bad karma..he must have done something real BAD in his past life...REPENT OH CRIPPLE..be SORRY..and in your NEXT LIFE..you will be reborn a CHEETAH..so you can RUN faster than you crawled in human form...!!!...OH..see that beggar..he struck the LOTTERY..what GOOD KARMA...he must have done so many good deeds in his past life..

ITS NOTHING but LIES...Fake HOPE and PROPOGANDA to CONTROl and MANIPULATE people..to "accept" their MISERY..and hope for the best next time..eh....you are poor..never mind..God will give you a GOLDEN SPOON when you are reborn...you will be born Bill gates Junior...just DONT CAUSE ANY TROUBLE NOW...sit down and be quiet...repent..be sorry..be happy as you can...

So you were quick to make the comparison and you think that this gives credibility to your line of reasoning against karma. But what kind of argument are you actually relying on?

I wonder what your reaction would be if each time that I argued against the concept of God, I came in with the Abrahamic perception and you had to remind me again and again that the Sikh one was totally different? Would it not be quite frustrating, especially if I kept going on and on using what amounts to a straw man argument and continuing to add my own spice into it?

Have you seen me approach the subject like you do with regard to karma, namely resorting to a speculative theory about a particular reason one group of people might have had for inventing God? Is this even a valid form of argument? What if I said for example, that God was conceived of by people who yearned for a father figure or something like that and kept projecting this on to you? Or as many atheists do, that God was a way to explain phenomena by people who were superstitious and no sense of reason nor the curiosity of a scientist? And each time that you tried to explain how logical the Sikh teaching is, I respond by citing how superstitious and unreasonable you are for believing in God?

I try not to approach the question in such a way, and this is because to do so would only reflect my own lack of understanding. What I do instead is to come in from the stand point of perception and of view, which I consider as getting to the root of things.

To speculate about the thinking of others, be it in the past or even now, and then use it to argue against a concept is wrong enough. Worse is when it is then forced onto another person who has repeatedly expressed a different understanding.

So far neither you nor anyone else here appear to even consider attempting to address karma directly. I wonder if this is because you will then have to give a proper reason as to why you reject the concept. But you can try for example, to address the point regarding the “three rounds” I talked about in my post to Luckysingh ji. From there the discussion can then go on to the question of past and future lives. What do you think?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

You seem very angry, frustrated and full of ire which is laced with wrath and self loathing. It must be what you call is your Karma.

you write:

So far neither you nor anyone else here appear to even consider attempting to address karma directly. I wonder if this is because you will then have to give a proper reason as to why you reject the concept. But you can try for example, to address the point regarding the “three rounds” I talked about in my post to Luckysingh ji. From there the discussion can then go on to the question of past and future lives. What do you think?

In the above you have shown your own lack of understanding of yourself and beliefs in Buddha whom you admit never wrote nor said a thing unlike Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru. We know what and when our Gurus wrote and what they wrote about by themselves. So, for you to say Buddha said this and that is nothing but a manufactured stuff by someone else. Seeing that, one can easily come to the conclusion that you believe in the tooth fairy too. I hope she left something under your pillow.

Your babble is only good for you when you are standing in front of the mirror frothing at yourself because of your karmas.

Sikhi has no god, no belief, no faith, no religion, no Karma, no silly rituals; the latter two you are part and parcel of.

Get rid of your self hatred and anger and begin to learn through acceptance how to embrace the world in the light by not refusing to learn. It will help you come out of the darkness which is the result of your closed inner windows. Must be your karma.

Enjoy your journey by breaking your inner shackles that you have imprisoned yourself with.

Tejwant Singh

 

[chazSingh]

Chazsingh ji,

Replace Waheguru and Satnam with Jesus, Krishna, Ram, Buddha, Dao, Om, THAT etc. and you may begin to have an idea what this really is about. Allow me to explain.

whatever word that focuses the mind towards God is a good word to use for meditation....fpr me 'Satnaam; , waheguru, or ekongkar satnaam defines the focus for god...
the meaning of these words explains - "from the one came the sound/word, and from the sound came existance...the naam is the truth'
so when i meditate on these sounds and words, i am focusing on the source of all existance, even though at this moment i cannot comprehend what that source is.

There are a number of meditation subjects enumerated in the Buddhist texts which when contemplated upon, conditions wholesome consciousness manifested as a calm state. These include death, corpse at various stages of decomposition, breath, the earth, fire and wind elements, infinite space, infinite consciousness, loving kindness, compassion, equanimity, the Buddha, the Dhamma etc. All these require a level of understanding to grow and develop and the final result is deep states of concentrative calm.

I won't comment on Budism, as i don't know enough about it.

None of the meditation subjects can be chosen with the expectation that wholesome states will arise, grow and develop. Each person will reflect or not on one or more of the subjects constantly as per conditions, and this, only with a level of wisdom. Simply thinking about the concept will not do the trick, but would in fact lead to negative results, since the starting point then can only be motivated by ignorance and greed.

I'm not going into it expecting anything...just to be a witness to all that occurs or doesnt occur...i'm happy if something happens, or if nothing happens.

Note that all this involves the arising of wholesome states. However even this, at best leads only to deep concentrative calm where the defilements are suppressed. Meaning, ignorance is not addressed and therefore the underlying greed and hatred remains as strong as ever.

you must have been witness to every single persons experiences and experienced them for yourself to make such a judgement....in fact that would make you God, for He is the only existance that exists within us all and experiences all that we experience....

How can you possible even make a statement that for every such persons experiences with meditation, that their ignorance hasnt been addresses....it would make you ALL KNOWING to make such statements...god bless ji.

Now, I can understand at least intellectually
Understanding intellectually is probably your downfall. Experience of the soul goes beyond intellect...the mind cannot even comprehend what lies beyind its boundaries...


The illusion of result that you and all followers of the respective religions experience is due simply to greed having changed objects, accompanied by very pleasant feeling. No understanding about anything is ever involved. Take for example the millions of Buddhists worldwide who have taken up one form or the other of meditation practice, these people experience what their greed has sought and found. And because it is done with the idea of a “self” who can make things happen by following a particular conventional activity, qualifies as “ritualistic practice”. Indeed, short of wisdom, any attempt to catch the moment with the idea that something good is being achieved, automatically becomes the stuff of rite and ritual.

to understand the ignorance of the world, one must understand when they themselved are being ignorant...
your statements above again suggest that you are ALL KNOWING and have studied, and experienced first hand everything that every meditation practitioner has ever experienced...god bless you ji.
You seem to be the kind of person that would tell someone that they didnt enjoy a movie, when they said they did...taking away someones very personal experience with your 'intellect' and 'understanding'

And you are in fact asking people to simply repeat words….

I wish i could say it was just repeating words...but God decided to show me otherwise.
Repeating words is to get your mind to focus on a single thing, because it's used to just rambling on with countless thoughts. I chose a word that focuses me on God.
Once i have controlled the mind...the idea then is to 'listen' and not repeat.....to listen to what exists within ones own consciousness...

The Word as Jesus describes it... The shabad that Guru Granth describes.

Once the mind is tamed, one can quickly with grace start to experience the one thing that is 'unchanging' that is 'infinte' that is forever existing..
the one thing that doesnt 'hate' or has no 'enemies' that has no 'fear'
one merges, blends, experiences that state.

I feel sorry for anyone that things this is all about just repeating words.



A wise man will not look to result, but to the cause. And the cause is “now”. To measure success by looking at the result is placing oneself to be fooled.

Not paying too much attention to results...or perceived results...
just being 'witness' to them...like sitting on a train and just being aware of what flashes by but not paying too much attention to them, or attaching ones thoughts to any particular sight.
Eventually one reaches the destination..
being Witness to result and moving forward prevents any attachment...and i don't look to want that same experience.
Any peace felt...again...being witness to it...but i never look to want the same experience again.
Again Ji, you are trying to make ALL KNOWING assumptions, god bless ji.

The inner yearning comes at the end of repeated thinking with attachment. One simply wants to experience more pleasant feelings having made the association of this with the particular concept.

Sorry to be so blunt

No need to be Sorry, just remember 'intellect' can only be used to understand what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste...these senses create our world. 'Intellect' cannot and will never be able to understand what lies beyond itself...therefore respect someone elses experience, as it is their own personal experience, and unless you experienced it with them at the exact moment in time and space...then you fall short of being able to judge those experiences..

God Bless Ji

 

[Archived_member14]

Tejwant ji,

You seem very angry, frustrated and full of ire which is laced with wrath and self loathing. It must be what you call is your Karma.

How perceptive.
I'm being sarcastic, of course.
Yes there was some aversion. But not to worry, because I'm one of those people who, although we get very angry, very fast, it goes away almost immediately. Besides who can get angry at Gyani ji for long? He comes across to me as quite a likable person in fact. Unlike you though, you always get on my nerves. But then again this must be due to my own expectations.

When I saw your name under this thread, I thought that you were finally going to come in with a constructive response to the topic of discussion re: Karma. But instead, you make a judgement on my character as you have done so many times before. I guess it's a case of a leopard being incapable of changing its spots. And I wonder if this is an attempt to distract. Or perhaps you are trying to bully me out of this forum? If the latter is in fact what you have in mind, know that I will surely stop one day, and the reason for this will either be that I don't have time, or that I'm tired, or maybe I become paralyzed or am dead, but definitely it will not be because of you.

And what are you pointing at exactly when you said in the above, that “It must be what you call is your Karma”?

You appear very vague about this.

Quote: So far neither you nor anyone else here appear to even consider attempting to address karma directly. I wonder if this is because you will then have to give a proper reason as to why you reject the concept. But you can try for example, to address the point regarding the “three rounds” I talked about in my post to Luckysingh ji. From there the discussion can then go on to the question of past and future lives. What do you think?

In the above you have shown your own lack of understanding of yourself and beliefs in Buddha

What do you know about the Buddha? Are you going to express your understanding or will you just keep making this kind of statement with the hope that I might begin to doubt myself?

In the above you have shown your own lack of understanding of yourself and beliefs in Buddha whom you admit never wrote nor said a thing unlike Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru.

And what great insight is this supposed to reveal?
Before you answer, let me pave the way for you.
I am least interested in the historical Buddha and history of Buddhism. The Buddha to me refers to the “one who knows and sees”. The set of teachings that I find valuable and consider Truth, can only be associated with such a person. Any other teaching or interpretation does not impress me as the Truth and therefore can't be said to have come from a Buddha.

And really, in the end it comes down to your understanding vs. my understanding about what constitutes Truth does it not? So we don't even really have to bring the Buddha or Guru Nanak into the picture. But I remember having suggested this to you before and invited you to a discussion. I guess though, that this time too, you will avoid doing this…:-/

I'd like to add also, that followers of living Gurus such as Sai Baba (he is dead of course) had a living person to guide them, does that make what he taught more worthy of trust?

And do you realize that an oral tradition involving large number of people regularly reciting a given set of teachings is less liable to corruption as compared to written texts?

We know what and when our Gurus wrote and what they wrote about by themselves. So, for you to say Buddha said this and that is nothing but a manufactured stuff by someone else.

Well, you could be manufacturing stuff in the process of interpretation. But let's not go that way. Let's just start a discussion about Truth without reference to either the Buddha or any of the Sikh Gurus.

Seeing that, one can easily come to the conclusion that you believe in the tooth fairy too. I hope she left something under your pillow.

If you can convince me that my understanding of the Truth is wrong and yours is right, you can consider me as being completely deluded and constantly in a dream state. Until then, know that from my perspective, if anything represents the concept of tooth fairy absolutely, it is God.

Your babble is only good for you when you are standing in front of the mirror frothing at yourself because of your karmas.

And the way you throw around the concept of karma, sounds like you are talking from under water or rather, mud.

Sikhi has no god, no belief, no faith, no religion, no Karma, no silly rituals; the latter two you are part and parcel of.

You mean silly rituals only cover particular activities performed by Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. What Sikhs do, such as keep hair uncut and the other four Ks and singing songs and playing musical instruments in praise of God do not count as ritual?

Belief in Self and tendency to rites and rituals go hand in hand. And belief in God is a powerful cause for arousing this particular tendency. In other words, if you believe in God, you can't avoid one form of ritualistic activity or another.

Get rid of your self hatred and anger and begin to learn through acceptance how to embrace the world in the light by not refusing to learn.

Learn? What kind of learning are you referring to? Are you talking about learning as in understanding language and communication? Learning as in acquiring a set of knowledge from a particular field of study? Learning as in training oneself to think logically? Or learning as in coming to gradually understand the Truth?

This last one is what I'm interested in and have been trying to encourage here. And I don't believe that you have any clue about it at all.

It will help you come out of the darkness which is the result of your closed inner windows. Must be your karma.

Enjoy your journey by breaking your inner shackles that you have imprisoned yourself with.

You apparently are enjoying having a go at what amount to your own mis-characterization of others as well as the ideas that they are trying to get across.

So don't enjoy, because you do this with eyes closed, and I would like to see you open your eyes even if only for a second, before death comes.

 

[Archived_member14]

Chazsingh ji,

Replace Waheguru and Satnam with Jesus, Krishna, Ram, Buddha, Dao, Om, THAT etc. and you may begin to have an idea what this really is about. Allow me to explain.

whatever word that focuses the mind towards God is a good word to use for meditation....fpr me 'Satnaam; , waheguru, or ekongkar satnaam defines the focus for god...
the meaning of these words explains - "from the one came the sound/word, and from the sound came existance...the naam is the truth'

Well, it requires many levels of belief and imagination does it not?
First, you have to conceive of such a “one” which you can only do with reference to what you know, namely that which is based on sense experiences. Second, you must have some basis for believing that what you experience in the here and now is in fact the product of this one. Third, you'd have to believe in the proposition that sound / word (and is it sound or word to begin with? Are not these quite different?) came from the one and then try to conceive how this might be the case. Fourth, you'll have to also conceive what this sound / word is and how it is different from sounds that you hear every day and words that you think about. Fifth, how all that you experience through the five senses and the mind and the experiences themselves, could be the product of this sound (one of these would be other sounds). Sixth, what this naam is and how it is different from the moment to moment experiences through the five senses and the mind.

I believe that if these questions are not resolved, even one of them, to follow the suggestion is equivalent to the blind being led by the blind? But even if the questions are answered, other questions arise.

First, how thinking about what happened in the past is useful in terms of relevant knowledge? Second, the causes and conditions for one's moment to moment experience can be studied, including when thinking at that very moment, about the past cause, why no attention to this? Third, if one does not believe that what happens “now” can be satisfactorily explained by reference to these causes and conditions, why not?

I believe that the study of what is real “now” is the only basis for Truth, anything else must depend of belief and imagination.

You said, “whatever word that focuses the mind towards God is a good word to use for meditation”. Let's say for the sake of argument that God is real. Now we know that the word only points to the reality. So the question now is what manifestation and characteristic this God has, such that, on being reminded through recitation of the word, the attention can be drawn to this characteristic. Two, given that it is the characteristic that needs to be attended to, why the repetition of the word as a form of practice?

Also a question, although unrelated to the above line of inquiry, but nevertheless a necessary outcome of belief in the concept:

God exists. So what?!! How thinking about the creator and creation is relevant when it comes to one's day to day interaction with other people? Does good action require God to be referred to? If so, how and why?

===

so when i meditate on these sounds and words, i am focusing on the source of all existance, even though at this moment i cannot comprehend what that source is.

So you do not see the danger of ignorance. And if you admit to ignorance, what makes you believe that your recitation is not done with attachment, or worse, wrong understanding?

And again the question, what value is there in thinking about the “source of existence”? What part this plays in any moral / immoral act?

===

There are a number of meditation subjects enumerated in the Buddhist texts which when contemplated upon, conditions wholesome consciousness manifested as a calm state. These include death, corpse at various stages of decomposition, breath, the earth, fire and wind elements, infinite space, infinite consciousness, loving kindness, compassion, equanimity, the Buddha, the Dhamma etc. All these require a level of understanding to grow and develop and the final result is deep states of concentrative calm.

I won't comment on Budism, as i don't know enough about it.

My point was to show you that whatever the subject of meditation is, it must be contemplated upon with a level of wisdom; otherwise it is simply following a ritual.

===

None of the meditation subjects can be chosen with the expectation that wholesome states will arise, grow and develop. Each person will reflect or not on one or more of the subjects constantly as per conditions, and this, only with a level of wisdom. Simply thinking about the concept will not do the trick, but would in fact lead to negative results, since the starting point then can only be motivated by ignorance and greed.

I'm not going into it expecting anything...just to be a witness to all that occurs or doesnt occur...i'm happy if something happens, or if nothing happens.

Well, that is what you are telling yourself, and perhaps you are thinking in terms of one particular goal, but really, the expectation is in the very intention to take action. And the illusion of result is there from the very outset; after all, what's this “witness”? You think that you intend to observe and already the mode of observation is useful / valid?

===

Note that all this involves the arising of wholesome states. However even this, at best leads only to deep concentrative calm where the defilements are suppressed. Meaning, ignorance is not addressed and therefore the underlying greed and hatred remains as strong as ever.

you must have been witness to every single persons experiences and experienced them for yourself to make such a judgement....in fact that would make you God, for He is the only existance that exists within us all and experiences all that we experience....

No, it is you who is “witnessing”. I'm simply coming in from an intellectual understanding of causes and conditions. We are not discussing subjective experiences as in whether someone likes the taste of tea or not, but perceptions, objects of experience and views. If someone told you that when he focusses on the image of naked Marilyn Monroe, that he subsequently experiences God Consciousness, would you not question him?

===

How can you possible even make a statement that for every such persons experiences with meditation, that their ignorance hasnt been addresses....it would make you ALL KNOWING to make such statements...god bless ji.

Wisdom has as its object, aspects of reality, mental and physical. When the object is a concept which has no relation to the reality of the moment, this can't therefore be an instance of wisdom. When a concept is suggested as subject of meditation, this reflects lack of interest, not to speak of sense of urgency to understand the reality now. Simply put, if you do not see the importance of understanding the experience or object of experience now, this can only be because you don't realize what ignorance is and that it continues to accumulate otherwise. If you think that ignorance and true knowledge is about something other than what is “now”, this must in fact be due to wrong understanding.

You can see now, that it does not require omniscience to come this conclusion.

===

Now, I can understand at least intellectually

Understanding intellectually is probably your downfall. Experience of the soul goes beyond intellect...the mind cannot even comprehend what lies beyind its boundaries...

Well, you are conceptualizing about this aren't you? When referring to “intellectual understanding”, it is understanding and not conceptualizing that is being referred to. Although this is only preliminary level, but because it is “understanding”, it does not mistake itself for more than what it is. However the connecting line between this and the higher levels of understanding is that they all refer to “now” and must conform to each other. In other words, a person with intellectual understanding and those who have had lots of direct understanding and who have realized, all when expressing themselves will refer to the same reality / Truth. This means that a person who has realized will still value the opportunity to hear and talk about this Truth and will not judge as wrong those whose level of understanding is only at the intellectual level.

On the other hand, the hallmark of those who refer to personal experience is that intellectual understanding is downplayed, or worse, rejected. And this is reflection in fact, that their experience is not that of the Truth, but something else, and that in fact they don't have any preliminary level of understanding yet.

Explain to me what the soul is, so that I may have an intellectual understanding about it by reference to what is “now”? If you tell me that it can’t be intellectualized but only experienced, then from my point of view, this is example of an excuse made by wrong understanding to perpetuate itself. Maya in its worst expression.

===

to understand the ignorance of the world, one must understand when they themselved are being ignorant...
your statements above again suggest that you are ALL KNOWING and have studied, and experienced first hand everything that every meditation practitioner has ever experienced...god bless you ji.

And when ignorance is understood to any extent, there is no mistaking what it is to “know”. So when someone talks about object of true knowledge what in fact is not, it can be inferred not only that ignorance is being encouraged, but also that he is driven by wrong understanding. And the only driving force that anyone with the kind of base can have to continue engaging in such practices is attachment.

===

You seem to be the kind of person that would tell someone that they didnt enjoy a movie, when they said they did...taking away someones very personal experience with your 'intellect' and 'understanding'

Ah, I started to respond to this post without first reading the whole thing. So I was right to have addressed this in the foregoing, having anticipated your line of thought. I hope now you can distinguish between judgments regarding subjective experiences vs. that of general principles.

===

And you are in fact asking people to simply repeat words….

I wish i could say it was just repeating words...but God decided to show me otherwise.

And he responds to words…?
See how the proliferation of view leads one to all sorts of strange ideas? I’m sure many of your fellow Sikhs would disagree with the above suggestion.

===

Repeating words is to get your mind to focus on a single thing, because it's used to just rambling on with countless thoughts. I chose a word that focuses me on God.

So if I focus on the image of Marilyn's left breast, this is useful too, as my thoughts won't be going all over? But let me tell you this, thinking is *never* the problem. The problem is the ignorance, attachment, aversion, wrong understanding and so on which drives the thinking. Therefore if these are not addressed / known for what they are, whatever you choose to think instead, will invariably be driven by these same unwholesome mental factors.

===

Once i have controlled the mind...the idea then is to 'listen' and not repeat.....to listen to what exists within ones own consciousness...

I would not even call this wishful thinking since the result projected itself is wrong.

===

The Word as Jesus describes it... The shabad that Guru Granth describes.

Once the mind is tamed, one can quickly with grace start to experience the one thing that is 'unchanging' that is 'infinte' that is forever existing..
the one thing that doesnt 'hate' or has no 'enemies' that has no 'fear'
one merges, blends, experiences that state.

I feel sorry for anyone that things this is all about just repeating words.

Well, the above is worse than just repeating words with ignorance and attachment. It is the encouragement of wrong understanding, which is the one mental reality which takes one in exactly the opposite direction of Truth.

===

No need to be Sorry, just remember 'intellect' can only be used to understand what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste...these senses create our world. 'Intellect' cannot and will never be able to understand what lies beyond itself...

If one does not even have a correct intellectual understanding of Truth and reality, how can it be expected that a deeper understanding will ever arise?

===

therefore respect someone elses experience, as it is their own personal experience, and unless you experienced it with them at the exact moment in time and space...then you fall short of being able to judge those experiences..

I am judging views expressed. If you told me that a particular brand of tea is good and another is bad, or you told me that this car is better than that one, I would not have any reason not to believe you. But when you say that you believe in God and that during moments of contemplation you have come to experience the Truth, this is a contradiction as far as I'm concerned, therefore will be judged as wrong.

 

[Ishna]

But when you say that you believe in God and that during moments of contemplation you have come to experience the Truth, this is a contradiction as far as I'm concerned, therefore will be judged as wrong.

Well then it's a good thing Chazji is on a SIKH forum and not a Buddhist one. If you want to be the judge, jury and executioner, perhaps you'd be best doing it on a Buddhist forum, rather than going on and on and on in someone else's back yard.

 

[spnadmin]

Yes it is our blessing that ChazSingh is on a Sikh forum. But I don't think a Buddhist forum would be fairly "judged" by the turn of this thread. Parsing ideas and reactions down to the smallest elements, ceaseless analysis, Yes...one can find that in the writings of scholarly monks and I don't doubt one can hear it in monkish debates that are traditional within Buddhism. However the times, places and purposes of such are also limited in Buddhist discourse. In addition, we are not getting the benefit of traditional argument that builds to a conclusion and considered the ethical and moral impact of its own line of thought... importance to creation.

Humor streaking through a lecture. The personal and disarming response, "I don't know." Both missing in Confused ji's presentation. We are helping Confused ji work through his thought processes, rather than being helped to a clear encounter with things as they are.

The thread has been psycholinguistic surgery for about 11 of its 15 pages, or maybe an autopsy on written realities, nothing more. It is exhausting even numbing at times. Guru Nanak as much said of this sort of debate in the shabads.

And when our Guru Sahibhan speak about giving up the pride of intellect, it was this they were talking about. Endless parsing. They were not suggesting we abandon our intellects or inquiring minds, or reason, or questions. They were warning that the "unpoised" intellect has a bad habit of romping about like a camel --- visiting oasis after oasis -- going nowhere but in circles.

Now the thread stays open because the topic is important. I would suggest that forum members go back and find ideas in the thread that they can develop because it interests them. Use the thread to work out your thought processes. Don't be so reactive. You don't have to be an audience. Forget about responding to the karmic details. Details fall short. The big picture that some seek and others have found comes through sudden spurts of recognition, not by 15 pages on a forum thread.

 

[spnadmin]

btw Ishna ji

The judging? No worries. We are not in the end judged by the Law of Karma but by the "Lord of Dharma."

 

[Archived_member14]

Well then it's a good thing Chazji is on a SIKH forum and not a Buddhist one. If you want to be the judge, jury and executioner, perhaps you'd be best doing it on a Buddhist forum, rather than going on and on and on in someone else's back yard.

I have expressed my intentions for writing here before. If you don't like what I write, and especially since you judge them as “going on and on and on”, why do you continue to read them? But don't tell me to go to a Buddhist forum instead; my posts are aimed at Sikhs, so where but in a Sikh forum can I write them?

You chose to interpret my use of the word judge in a way it was not intended. The following is from a dictionary:

judge (jj)
v. judged, judg•ing, judg•es
v.tr.
1. To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
2.
a. Law To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.
b. Obsolete To pass sentence on; condemn.
c. To act as one appointed to decide the winners of: judge an essay contest.
3. To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.
4. Informal To have as an opinion or assumption; suppose: I judge you're right.
5. Bible To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.

v.intr.
1. To form an opinion or evaluation.
2. To act or decide as a judge.
n.
1. One who judges, especially:
a. One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness: a good judge of used cars; a poor judge of character.
b. Abbr. J. Law A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law.
c. Law A bankruptcy referee.
d. One appointed to decide the winners of a contest or competition.
2. Bible
a. A leader of the Israelites during a period of about 400 years between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul.
b. Judges (used with a sing. verb) Abbr. Judg. or Jgs or Jg See Table at Bible.

In the above, my meaning was more or less in accordance the ones in bold. Had it not been that I think that you did not really intend it, I'd consider your remark quite nasty.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to know that I will not write here anymore, except maybe to the moderator regarding how I can delete my old posts. And no, this decision is not because of what you wrote, but the contents of the moderator's post immediately following this one is the reason.

 

[spnadmin]

I have expressed my intentions for writing here before. If you don't like what I write, and especially since you judge them as “going on and on and on”, why do you continue to read them? But don't tell me to go to a Buddhist forum instead; my posts are aimed at Sikhs, so where but in a Sikh forum can I write them?

Now I am Confused! To what end do you "aim" your comments at Sikhs? :whatzpointkudi:

as opposed to members of other religions or spiritual paths? Why are Sikhs targeted to receive your messages? Especially since there has been little in any of the threads where you write that is a unified SIKH point of view, but what individuals have written, Please do not "confuse" Sikhs as individuals with anything other than Siks writing as individuals.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Confused ji thanks for your posts. I have enjoyed these at times while I may not have agreed with everything. I totally agree that we are much a slave of conditioning through our past actions and that our responses are so conditioned and rise and fall instantaneously all the time. I more fundamentally believe that any such conditioning is not linear a one life to one life mapping that goes on or continues in a series of life forms or incarnations. Our conditioning is a confluence of too much biological and much other of all around from ages ago to the moments just past.

An example of my conditioning in part is related to Guru Nanak Dev ji, genes of my parents, innumerable other interactions in multiple instances all the way from you and many that I may not even recollect, and so on. This just is not Karma but simple parameters in which humans act or respond based on their capabilities and limitations as life form.

Whereas you may believe in defining Karma as you do but it is understood by almost the whole universe quite differently. These is a dis-connection with what you have posted and what the thread starter has almost implied as though there does exist so called "LAW" without even at the minimum level defining what such a law stands for. It is just a sexy phrase in so called "Law of Karma".

What I strongly disagree with is your statements about the truth only as per Buddha and nothing else. This I fundamentally disagree with as you are espousing blind faith and no questioning and state that there is no need to actually understand this. This is fundamentally opposite of Sikhism which continues to teach a need to understand and acquiring understanding forever. Sikhism does teach that there is no way to know all and does not to claim monopoly on such knowledge. Sikhism simply states such knowledge to be infinite while being specific and true. However if you project Buddhism and Buddha to have put it into a box, then fundamentally I just cannot accept that as I find this simply impossible.

You are a big man in mind and I respect your unique style of articulating specifically and writing with clarity. However, you have shown your failings here at spn as much as any one else here. In that sense you or others are not superior versus others but simply different.

I always wish you well whether those wishes you believe have a meaning or not. In my limited faculties that is all I can offer.

Regards and wishing you to interact as you choose, when and where and as often.

PS: Confused ji I regret that I have not as actively responded to your posts. I find that the longer posts that have resulted from interactions in this thread to be too convoluted and me not having the energy to contribute to further escalation in the lengths of replies in such posts. For me genius is in brevity and any fool like me can make it much longer. At times I take note of this in my writing.

 

[Ishna]

I have expressed my intentions for writing here before. If you don't like what I write, and especially since you judge them as “going on and on and on”, why do you continue to read them? But don't tell me to go to a Buddhist forum instead; my posts are aimed at Sikhs, so where but in a Sikh forum can I write them?

Oh, but I didn't judge your posts as 'going on and on and on', I formed an opinion after careful consideration.

My guess is your posts are aimed at Sikhs to try and correct what you perceived to be our 'wrong understanding' and our 'ignorance'. That's almost bordering on prosthelytizing.

Oh, and I haven't been reading your posts, I've been skimming over some of them. I don't want to learn about Buddhism, which is why I'm here on a Sikh forum.

 

[Harry Haller]

I have expressed my intentions for writing here before. If you don't like what I write, and especially since you judge them as “going on and on and on”, why do you continue to read them? But don't tell me to go to a Buddhist forum instead; my posts are aimed at Sikhs, so where but in a Sikh forum can I write them?

You chose to interpret my use of the word judge in a way it was not intended. The following is from a dictionary:

judge (jj)
v. judged, judg•ing, judg•es
v.tr.
1. To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
2.
a. Law To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.
b. Obsolete To pass sentence on; condemn.
c. To act as one appointed to decide the winners of: judge an essay contest.
3. To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.
4. Informal To have as an opinion or assumption; suppose: I judge you're right.
5. Bible To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.

v.intr.
1. To form an opinion or evaluation.
2. To act or decide as a judge.
n.
1. One who judges, especially:
a. One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness: a good judge of used cars; a poor judge of character.
b. Abbr. J. Law A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law.
c. Law A bankruptcy referee.
d. One appointed to decide the winners of a contest or competition.
2. Bible
a. A leader of the Israelites during a period of about 400 years between the death of Joshua and the accession of Saul.
b. Judges (used with a sing. verb) Abbr. Judg. or Jgs or Jg See Table at Bible.

In the above, my meaning was more or less in accordance the ones in bold. Had it not been that I think that you did not really intend it, I'd consider your remark quite nasty.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to know that I will not write here anymore, except maybe to the moderator regarding how I can delete my old posts. And no, this decision is not because of what you wrote, but the contents of the moderator's post immediately following this one is the reason.

Confusedji

If you will excuse me, I think you are being silly. I have a lot of time for you, and a lot of love, but I will be honest, I do not read your posts anymore, I find them rambling and with no effort at sharing understanding. You tend to stick to the ' ok folks, heres the truth' rather than the ' ok what is common to all of us and how can we learn from each other', but that is ok, that is just you and the way you are.

you are our resident Buddhist, your view comes in very useful at times, and sometimes you are a fountain of wisdom. May I suggest you stay, and cease attempting to change peoples minds, and just be yourself. We love you for that