# The God Element



## CuriousCour

Why does the god element get incorporated into the message.Is it a way to get people to surrender and conform to the teachings?Because if not they won't be saved from harm and unpleasantness?
"_The goal of human life is to break the cycle of birth's and deaths and merge with God_."..How do the guru's know this is the truth?
And if you believe it is true because they've said it is, is that not blindly following?

I think that the gurus deliver valuable principles but why does god come into it?


----------



## msbaath

CuriousCour ji
there is evidence of god everywhere, all this clever creation cant be a spontaeous accident
and you say we cant be sure if gurus are speaking the truth
i agree with you we need to be skeptical
but the proof that gurus are a trustworthty source is very evident
two of our gurus have sacrificed their life for their beleif and philosophy
that means they were very sure of what they were saying
had they said something thats not true that would have implied that they are dishonest. and i dont believe a dishonest person can sacrifice his life for something
besides what gurus say is confirmed by enlightened persons of all ages and places
i dont know about you but all my skepticism has died its own death
we have examples of people who die and kill in expectation of a heaven and hooris but they are fools(fools rush where angels fear to tread)


----------



## spnadmin

angie ji

I agree with your point of view. Just a factual correction: more than 2 of our gurus sacrificed their lives for what we believe.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> Why does the god element get incorporated into the message.Is it a way to get people to surrender and conform to the teachings?Because if not they won't be saved from harm and unpleasantness?
> "The goal of human life is to break the cycle of birth's and deaths and merge with God."..How do the guru's know this is the truth?
> And if you believe it is true because they've said it is, is that not blindly following?
> I think that the gurus deliver valuable principles but why does god come into it?



First of all, it is nice you see the valuable principles Guru has given us. So anything else Guru has given us is valuable too. Including the concept of God. And now when he has given us concept of God, you have to forget any other God concept anyone else has given  you. You have to unlearn about God to the point that God exists. Guru says God exists. And now you have to get into the ocean of pearls of Guru Granth Sahib. And find out about God. For this definition and understanding of God will be totally different from what you have heard so far.


----------



## Archived_member14

Msbaath ji,


Quote:
“besides what gurus say is confirmed by enlightened persons of all ages and places”


Since it has always been my suspicion that this might be the case but not having had any clear evidence, I am not singling you out in asking you these questions.

From general observation I have come to the conclusion that Hindus and Sikhs respect the Buddha to a lesser or larger degree. If anyone amongst them really believed that he was enlightened, this could however only be as a result of hearsay. I am not sure if you include the Buddha in the “enlightened persons of all ages and places” referred to above. But if you have, I’d like to ask you this:

Did the Buddha believe in God? Are his teachings aimed at the realization of God’s existence?

I ask this in order to help clear my suspicion, but of course you are not obliged to answer if you do not want to.

In a short while I leave and will be away for three days and therefore will not be able to respond.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

Budhha didn't believe in existence of God, nor he asked to go for it. For he gave his followers an important task, to realize their own existence. To make their own existence meaningful, to connect to themselves. I assume that once you are at peace with yourself, you can ask where you came from and where you will go. We as Sikhs try and realize that we came from infinity and we go towards infinity and this present is just a part of that cycle. You are trying to mix two approaches.


----------



## Archived_member14

Kjsinghhyd ji,




kjsinghhyd said:


> Budhha didn't believe in existence of God, nor he asked to go for it. For he gave his followers an important task, to realize their own existence. To make their own existence meaningful, to connect to themselves. I assume that once you are at peace with yourself, you can ask where you came from and where you will go. We as Sikhs try and realize that we came from infinity and we go towards infinity and this present is just a part of that cycle. You are trying to mix two approaches.




Thank you for expressing your own understanding on this matter.

I have no intention to mix any two approaches, nor do I even take such things as being an “approach”, but was responding to Masbaath’s suggestion that all enlightened persons came to the same conclusion about the existence of God. Now either the Buddha was not an enlightened individual since he did not believe in the existence of God, or he did in fact believe in it but just didn’t make a categorical statement about it.

What I gather from your own statements is that it doesn’t matter if one believes in God or not, only that there is more than one way to achieve life’s goal. So I must ask you this; what do you understand by ‘enlightenment’. And to become enlightened is to be so, to what?

Now I must leave immediately.
Thanks.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> What I gather from your own statements is that it doesn’t matter if one believes in God or not


 
For Budhhists it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They do believe in Nirvana and ending cycle of Life and Death. We call this stage free from cycle as being that of merging with Waheguru. Buddhists on the other hand, don't mention God literally. And if you try and do research, they reject Creator of Universe as a deity or person. They reject the idea of trying to describe how the Universe was created. We reject it too. It is something which cannot be explained. For us, God is the Universe, God is the Truth. And such impersonal definition of God finds acceptance with Buddhists too. They reject god born on the 7th sky and creating Adam and Eve in 6 days concept.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

Suggested Reading:
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Nanak_in_Sikkim,Ladakh_%26_Tibet


----------



## Ambarsaria

Confused said:


> Kjsinghhyd ji,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for expressing your own understanding on this matter.
> 
> I have no intention to mix any two approaches, nor do I even take such things as being an “approach”, but was responding to Masbaath’s suggestion that all enlightened persons came to the same conclusion about the existence of God. Now either the Buddha was not an enlightened individual since he did not believe in the existence of God, or he did in fact believe in it but just didn’t make a categorical statement about it.
> 
> What I gather from your own statements is that it doesn’t matter if one believes in God or not, only that there is more than one way to achieve life’s goal. So I must ask you this; what do you understand by ‘enlightenment’. And to become enlightened is to be so, to what?
> 
> Now I must leave immediately.
> Thanks.


Confused ji thanks for you post and the others in this thread too.

I want to pose the following,



If two people have enlightenment and they are asked to express it, would they express it the same way and agree about the sameness of such enlightenment?
Supposition:
If Gautam Buddha was asked to describe his enlightenment without using the word God?
If Guru Nanak was asked to describe his enlightenment without referring to God?
Question:  Would Gautam Buddha and Guru Nanak be close or far from each other?
_Without having the benefit of their physical presence amidst us, I humbly submit that they will be closer rather than further to their realization.  For me "great minds think alike but not 100% similar".
_
_I am not psychic but based on my participation on these boards and dialogs (specifically with Confused ji and many other very great contributors, I humbly submit that my observations have some iota of merit._
 
 


I also submit that, no two people in the world would  have exact same experience of enlightenment, or express and  experience enlightenment the same way.
I also submit that search for 100% enlightenment is impossible as 100% will vary from person to person and it won't be identical.  Hence comparing enlightenment is also fruitless.
One could compare results of one's enlightenment in terms of our responses to various matters and perhaps concurrences and differentiations.

 

Not to prove just to learn, enjoy and share respectfully.

Sat Sri Akal._
_


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

Manne Ki Gatt Kahi na Jaye
_The state of the faithful (enlightened) cannot be described_

The problem is the way we understand enlightenment. It is not about giving boons, predicting stuff etc. It is about being wise. It is about having Knowledge. And knowledge is infinite. Can one measure infinity? No. Is infinity of one different from Infinity of other? No. See even our maths incorporate the God concept


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

Now more on infinity. 1/0 is also infinity and 2/0 is also infinity though 1!=2.

So what is common here?

0

When we become 0 we feel INFINITY


----------



## Shanger

CuriousCour said:


> Why does the god element get incorporated into the message.Is it a way to get people to surrender and conform to the teachings?Because if not they won't be saved from harm and unpleasantness?
> "_The goal of human life is to break the cycle of birth's and deaths and merge with God_."..How do the guru's know this is the truth?
> And if you believe it is true because they've said it is, is that not blindly following?
> 
> I think that the gurus deliver valuable principles but why does god come into it?


... this didnt go down to well when I asked this. 




msbaath said:


> CuriousCour ji
> there is evidence of god everywhere, all this clever creation cant be a spontaeous accident
> and you say we cant be sure if gurus are speaking the truth
> i agree with you we need to be skeptical
> but the proof that gurus are a trustworthty source is very evident
> two of our gurus have sacrificed their life for their beleif and philosophy
> that means they were very sure of what they were saying
> had they said something thats not true that would have implied that they are dishonest. and i dont believe a dishonest person can sacrifice his life for something
> besides what gurus say is confirmed by enlightened persons of all ages and places
> i dont know about you but all my skepticism has died its own death
> we have examples of people who die and kill in expectation of a heaven and hooris but they are fools(fools rush where angels fear to tread)



ive said before, just because we dont have an explanation for the earth doesnt mean that it is proof of god. 

with regards to "clever creation" with the amazing feats of natures come flaws, its not perfect. many animals die just after theyve been born, it takes just 1 out of millions of sperm to fertilise the egg etc, you must take the good with the bad. 

*Deleted. Undermines the status of Sikh Gurus as sharing one light, and in that sense, although they were mortal,  they were ethically and spiritually the teachers who dispelled darkness. No one on a Sikh forum is  in a position to critique the moral strengths and weaknesses of Nanak 1 through 10. *

"besides what gurus say is confirmed by enlightened persons of all ages and places"

that is not true unless you can show that these "enlightened people" can do special things or know special things. *Note: Sikh Gurus themselves did not perform "miracles." So it is unclear what you mean by "do special things or know special things." *


----------



## spnadmin

Shanger ji

I feel I must go into more detail about the deletion, Shanger ji.  Do also consider this an official warning. If you were to visit a Roman Catholic forum and disputed the moral nature of Jesus of Nazareth, or his special status as an Incarnation of God the Father, or his miracle-working, you would not be well received. That would be because you would have contradicted a central tenet of that faith. If you were to visit a Muslim forum and decided to critique the moral nature of Mohamed, or you said he was not a Prophet, you would not be well-received. Here you are on a Sikh forum, as "undisclosed" in your own beliefs, and you have questioned the moral stature of our Sikh Gurus and their special status. You have suggested that proof of doing special things and knowing special things should be forthcoming before accepting that they were extra-ordinary people. So why should this be well-received?  Open dialog and freedom to discuss diverse points of view does not include an analysis of the ethical, moral, or even spiritual status of the Sikh Gurus. Consider that you are here because SPN is more tolerant than many other religious forums, and SPN gives you permission to speak. Do not take advantage of our liberal stance, or use the forum to create doubt. There were 10 Sikh Gurus who gave voice to the Shabad in their own way, through Gurbani, good karma, or both. All shared the same light, and we are left with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to guide us as the final and everlasting Guru. If you continue in this way, which is really only more repetition of things you have said in the past, you will be escorted out of here. Permanently. SPN is not your personal soapbox. 

I think I have been very clear. So please do not sent me any private messages asking for clarifications and justifications. They will not be answered. In addition, do not take me to task on this thread. That will only hasten your departure. I have been respectful in my comments. I expect the same from you. 

Thank you.


----------



## msbaath

dear spnadmin g
im spot on when i say only two gurus sacrificed ther lives
name the third one
and 
thanks for agreeing with my point of view
thank you very much


----------



## msbaath

this is for shanger
i can see where u come from
miracles and feats dont exist
nobody has every done one
those who claim they did are dishonest people


----------



## msbaath

for confused g
ok ur talking about buddhism
buddhism is a great religion
but i dont know much about it 
because what buddha says(or what we assume he said) doesnt appeal to me( im sorry if someone is hurt)
so i dint bother to go further into buddhism
there r so many religions( i dont want to mention)
that do not agree with sikh philosphy
so i do not agree to them
yes you r correct i said many enlightened  persons  agree to sikh philosophy
i dint name them
so let me name a few
all the bhagats(they were not sikhs)
jallaludin rumi
bulle shah
*Mansur*_*Al*-Hallaj
and many other sufi saints
im not sure if i helped u in any way
thanks


----------



## spnadmin

*Admin note: A recent comment has been moved from this thread. There is some misunderstanding about each and everyone being "free" to say what he/she wants. Everything posted is subject to being moved or deleted according to our Terms of Service. Thank you.*


----------



## Shanger

It is not possible to discuss the validity of Sikhism without questioning the gurus?

Banning that basically makes this a place for sikhs to co-sign each other rather than have debates with others. 

Doesn't send a very good message out imo.


----------



## spnadmin

Shanger said:


> It is not possible to discuss the validity of Sikhism without questioning the gurus?
> 
> Banning that basically makes this a place for sikhs to co-sign each other rather than have debates with others.
> 
> Doesn't send a very good message out imo.





> It is not possible to discuss the validity of Sikhism without questioning the gurus?



No it is not possible to question the Gurus. Though one can and should ask questions about the Gurus. 

It sends out an excellent message. The message sent says that Sikhs co-sign the message of their gurus. They debate with one another, and with others. We do not debate the validity of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which emanates from our Gurus. We do not debate the validity of our Gurus. 


Otherwise, why bother to be a Sikh?


----------



## spnadmin

Shanger ji

Obviously your either did not read or chose to ignore my warning above, and decided to continue to bicker on this point.



> In addition, do not take me to task on this thread. That will only hasten your departure.



*There will be no more chances. If I  find one more example of this anywhere on any thread, you are out of here permanently. *


----------



## Shanger

Any time I counter your points you delete my posts to make it look like i was flaming or something.

If you had any honour you'd reply to my posts, keeping them there, and let the readers make their own minds up.
*
Banned and forum leaders will decide whether to make it permanent. *


----------



## findingmyway

Shanger,
Freedom of speech comes with a responsibility not to be offensive for the sake of it.

It is not our job to educate you. You must do that for yourself. The Guru's were human beings but they were better humans that you or I will ever be. This is revealed through their teachings which empowered people away from the slavery of the time (slavery in terms of enforced belief systems as well as physical rule). People who are not Sikhs and have studied SGGS cannot find fault with it and agree it is a wonderful trove of wisdom. The Guru's lives also showed how amazing they were as they made many sacrifices and constantly stood up for others in a very selfless way.

The only way to remove ignorance is to research. School teaches us the skills to be able to do this. If you are really interested in Sikhi then you will spend time studying SGGS. If not, your posts become mischievous. We have many members from other faiths and belief systems. This is respected and welcomed. All we ask in return is mutual respect. Undermining SGGS on unfounded grounds is a slap in every Sikh's face.

You talk about honour. So show us your honour. Increase your understanding by being constructive not critical at every turn.


----------



## Ambarsaria

spnadmin ji this was developing into a very thought provoking thread with good participation.  It appears this person just cannot tolerate good dialog.  By the way dialog was not about everyone agreeing but sharing.

Is it possible to delete the posts from this person to maintain discourse without distraction?

Thank you and it will be much appreciated.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14

Kjsinghhyd ji,


Quoting me: What I gather from your own statements is that it doesn’t matter if one believes in God or not 



> Kj: For Budhhists it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They do believe in Nirvana and ending cycle of Life and Death.



C: Are you suggesting that in the end it does not matter what one believes in as long as one follows the suggestions of any particular religion? What the Truth is does not matter? I wonder how anyone can hold onto such a position and still be motivated enough to move in the one direction until the goal is reached?


> Kj: We call this stage free from cycle as being that of merging with Waheguru. Buddhists on the other hand, don't mention God literally. And if you try and do research, they reject Creator of Universe as a deity or person.



C: So you are saying that one system of beliefs explicitly encourages a belief in God and another does not, yet both are moving towards the same goal and both would in the end come to realize directly, the reality of God? Anyway, I suspect that your source with regard to Buddhism comes from some Mahayana tradition, one which I happen to reject completely.




> Kj: They reject the idea of trying to describe how the Universe was created. We reject it too. It is something which cannot be explained.



C: There is the simile of a man being shot by an arrow. Someone comes forward to help him, but this man refuses help until he finds out who shot the arrow, what his clan is and so on. When the answers are given, he insists on knowing which wood was used, which kind of bow etc., and then it is too late and he dies. This simile is used to show the danger of philosophical speculation and the importance of having enough understanding to condition a sense of urgency, one which leads to taking into consideration only what is “now”. 

It is not so much a matter of ‘how’ it was created, but more of ‘when’ it all started. After all, how it is and maintained is explained by the concept of the five ‘cosmic orders’ and these are:

1.	Caloric order.
2.	Germinal order.
3.	Moral order.
4.	Psychical order.
5.	Natural phenomena sequence.

Without getting into the details, I’d just point out that this explains the arising, maintenance and falling away of all conditioned existence. And with the development of understanding, one comes to be more and more convinced that this is true and was so in the past and will be in the future. The only way that this kind of understanding is ever developed, is by the study of the present moment. Everything else is speculation and some of the questions asked are symptomatic of madness even.




> Kj: For us, God is the Universe, God is the Truth. And such impersonal definition of God finds acceptance with Buddhists too. They reject god born on the 7th sky and creating Adam and Eve in 6 days concept.



C: I hope that you can now see why yours must be a wrong representation of the Buddha’s teachings? Both physical and mental phenomena rise and fall away in an instant by complex set of conditions. Nothing ever remains for even one millisecond to affect other objects, let alone be the basis for the kind of belief which suggests ‘unity’ of some kind.


----------



## Archived_member14

Ambarsaria ji,

There is good reason why we should avoid a discussion on this topic. It would have been better had Msbaath ji made it clear from the beginning that the Buddha was not included in his or her mention of ‘enlightened’ people. But since you have asked, I think I should give a response, but would suggest that we leave it here and not go any further after this.

====


> Ambarsaria:
> I want to pose the following,
> 
> If two people have enlightenment and they are asked to express it, would they express it the same way and agree about the sameness of such enlightenment?



C: Only one enlightened person will understand what another enlightened person has experienced. In terms of what otherwise is the object of experience, that of enlightenment will be expressed in terms of negating all those other experiences. 

====


> Ambarsaria:
> Supposition:
> If Gautam Buddha was asked to describe his enlightenment without using the word God?
> If Guru Nanak was asked to describe his enlightenment without referring to God?
> Question: Would Gautam Buddha and Guru Nanak be close or far from each other?



C: Sorry I do not agree with this line of enquiry, since the fact is that the Buddha did not believe in God and Guru Nanak did so. Enlightenment is supposed to reveal the “Truth” and this is then taught to others. And it is this Truth expressed which is what attracts the followers and maintains their confidence. Had it been that it does not really matter what the conclusion arrived at is, such confidence could not be aroused. 

====
Ambarsaria:
Without having the benefit of their physical presence amidst us, I humbly submit that they will be closer rather than further to their realization. For me "great minds think alike but not 100% similar".



> C: Right is right, wrong is wrong and the Truth is the truth. So yes, great minds think alike. The question here however is this, did the Buddha and Guru Nanak both arrive at the same truth? We do not need them to be here in order to determine this, since it is evident in what each of them taught.



====


> Ambarsaria:
> I am not psychic but based on my participation on these boards and dialogs (specifically with Confused ji and many other very great contributors, I humbly submit that my observations have some iota of merit.



C: I surely would like to hear what the basis for this is. But it is perhaps better that I not insist on it.

====   


> Ambarsaria:
> I also submit that, no two people in the world would have exact same experience of enlightenment, or express and experience enlightenment the same way.



C: There is really no need to think in terms of the quality of the ‘experience’ itself. But one thing that caught my attention in Msbaath ji’s original message was the idea that “all enlightened people would come to the same conclusion”. This is because a similar idea is expressed in Buddhism as well, namely that all enlightened people of the past and future would arrive at the same Truth and end up teaching the same thing.

====


> Ambarsaria:
> I also submit that search for 100% enlightenment is impossible as 100% will vary from person to person and it won't be identical.



C: No two moments are ever the same, including what goes on within the individual. But in terms of what “kind” of mental and physical phenomena there are, the experience of “seeing” for example, is the same for a fish, an insect or a man. Being that seeing has a particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause which are not the same as in the case of say, hearing or thinking. So sure, wisdom understands that no two moments are ever the same; however it must also have arrived at the conclusion that the elements are what they are and what conditions them. This latter is what all those who “know” will also agree upon. 

====


> Ambarsaria:
> Hence comparing enlightenment is also fruitless.



C: And the question is, can two persons both enlightened, come to a different conclusion about the Truth?

====


> Ambarsaria:
> One could compare results of one's enlightenment in terms of our responses to various matters and perhaps concurrences and differentiations.



C: Yes, it would manifest in the actions performed. However, this is not really how we determine if someone is enlightened or not. Obviously, the person judging would himself have to have a good degree of understanding, but I’d suggest that this person will not be looking so much at the results, but rather the “causes”. And one sure way for this to happen, is to be involved in a discussion with the individuals concerned.

====


> Ambarsaria:
> Not to prove just to learn, enjoy and share respectfully.



C: I appreciate the initiative. 

Regards.


----------



## Archived_member14

Msbaath ji,


Had you made this clear in that first post, this discussion needn’t have taken place. Perhaps, I should not have poked my nose into the matter anyway regardless of the perception. But since we have come so far and this being one of the things I had in mind and wanted to address, I’d like to response to the following part of your message:



> Msbaath:
> ok ur talking about buddhism
> buddhism is a great religion
> but i dont know much about it
> because what buddha says(or what we assume he said) doesnt appeal to me( im sorry if someone is hurt)




C: At one time in my life I would probably have made a similar comment. My stating that ‘Buddhism is a great religion’ or that the ‘Buddha was enlightened’ would have been more or less a product of hearsay, rather than any attempt to study the teachings. 

The Buddha at one point, in response to someone who was attracted to his outward appearance and demeanor and following him everywhere, said that “only if you understood my teachings would you really ‘see’ me”. 

The implication of this is that we should first develop some understanding of what he taught before we can make any statement about the value of his teachings. And in the process we’d come to understand better the qualities of the Buddha and only then can we say that he was in fact enlightened. 

And for this reason I would have preferred that you did not include the Buddha in your reference to ‘enlightened people of the past’.


> Msbaath;
> im not sure if i helped u in any way



C: Yes you have. ;-)


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> Kj: For Budhhists it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They do believe in Nirvana and ending cycle of Life and Death.
> 
> C: Are you suggesting that in the end it does not matter what one believes in as long as one follows the suggestions of any particular religion? What the Truth is does not matter? I wonder how anyone can hold onto such a position and still be motivated enough to move in the one direction until the goal is reached?


 
Nirvana is like Realization, finding your Purpose. There are so many ways to define it yet it cannot be defined. There have been great Masters in every religion, as long as you are following one Master Truly, you will find Light and Truth in your life. It doesn't matter if you do Kung Fu, Karate or Tae Kwan Do. But the purpose is be able to defend. Similarly purpose of Spirituality is to Awaken and Merge your Soul with One Soul. Buddhists might call it Soul of Knowledge or something, we call the One Soul Waheguru.



> Kj: We call this stage free from cycle as being that of merging with Waheguru. Buddhists on the other hand, don't mention God literally. And if you try and do research, they reject Creator of Universe as a deity or person.
> 
> C: So you are saying that one system of beliefs explicitly encourages a belief in God and another does not, yet both are moving towards the same goal and both would in the end come to realize directly, the reality of God? Anyway, I suspect that your source with regard to Buddhism comes from some Mahayana tradition, one which I happen to reject completely.


 
Well Sikhism doesn't consider Waheguru as a deity or person either. The systems are not different, but are perceived to be different. We think of our Souls as drops of water trying to be back in Universal Sea of Waheguru. You think your Souls at a plane, with good actions they rise up on the plane and the highest plane is of Buddha! See I am not a Buddhist, I am trying to be Sikh. I don't know fully about Buddhist traditions.



> It is not so much a matter of ‘how’ it was created, but more of ‘when’ it all started. After all, how it is and maintained is explained by the concept of the five ‘cosmic orders’ and these are:
> 
> 1. Caloric order.
> 2. Germinal order.
> 3. Moral order.
> 4. Psychical order.
> 5. Natural phenomena sequence.
> 
> Without getting into the details, I’d just point out that this explains the arising, maintenance and falling away of all conditioned existence. And with the development of understanding, one comes to be more and more convinced that this is true and was so in the past and will be in the future. The only way that this kind of understanding is ever developed, is by the study of the present moment. Everything else is speculation and some of the questions asked are symptomatic of madness even.


 
I can't talk much about these 5 Orders as I haven't read or researched about them. But there is an important question. What is Morality? How do we define something as Moral and Immoral? What is guiding us in this Judgement?



> Kj: For us, God is the Universe, God is the Truth. And such impersonal definition of God finds acceptance with Buddhists too. They reject god born on the 7th sky and creating Adam and Eve in 6 days concept.
> 
> C: I hope that you can now see why yours must be a wrong representation of the Buddha’s teachings? Both physical and mental phenomena rise and fall away in an instant by complex set of conditions. Nothing ever remains for even one millisecond to affect other objects, let alone be the basis for the kind of belief which suggests ‘unity’ of some kind.


 
My friend, if there is anything which binds all the people, countries, planets, galaxies and universes, multiverses, it is Truth. Truth has no date of birth, Truth will never die. Truth has prevailed all creation and destruction. Truth makes people happy when they speak the Truth, Truth makes them doubt their actions when they go against it. If a Buddhist believes in Truth then how is a Buddhist different from a Sikh? Truth is the common goal in all human religions.

Truth is a natural phenomenon. If a meteor strikes Earth, then the crater stays there. As a mark of Truth, that yes a meteor did strike at that place. If some planet gets destroyed, then there are asteriods sprewn over in space. Another mark of Truth. A son has DNA of both Father and Mother, that is his mark of Truth for being a loving son.


----------



## Ambarsaria

*kjsinghhyd* and confused ji thanks for your comments and inputs.  I have the following two comments in terms of one for Confused ji and the other for *kjsinghhyd*,




> *Confused ji states*:
> The Buddha at one point, in response to someone who was attracted to his outward appearance and demeanor and following him everywhere, said that _“only if you understood my teachings would you really ‘see’ me”. _
> 
> The implication of this is that we should first develop some understanding of what he taught before we can make any statement about the value of his teachings. And in the process we’d come to understand better the qualities of the Buddha and only then can we say that he was in fact enlightened.
> 
> *Answer Ambarsaria:*  Confused ji I do not expect you to study Sikhism in as much detail as I will never be able to understand to your level either.  One part of sentence highlighted above in your comment is verbatim used in Sikhism teachings,





> "Bani Guru, Guru hai Bani, wich Bani ..... "
> _Translate:  If you understand the writings (Gurbani or writings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji), you will understand me or the writers.
> _​So there is congruence of approach by the masters I recognize there may be differences in teachings.







> *kjsinghhyd writes*:
> 
> Well Sikhism doesn't consider Waheguru as a deity or  person either. The systems are not different, but are perceived to be  different. We think of our Souls as drops of water trying to be back in  Universal Sea of Waheguru. You think your Souls at a plane, with good  actions they rise up on the plane and the highest plane is of Buddha!  See I am not a Buddhist, I am trying to be Sikh. I don't know fully  about Buddhist traditions.
> 
> *Ambarsaria comment*:
> 
> I do not believe that the following is my understanding of Sikhism and teachings thereof,
> 
> "We think of our Souls as drops of water trying to be back in Universal Sea of Waheguru."
> ​I believe Sikhism teaches us that we need to understand the truth.  We are always part of the truth but it is the understanding that is missing.  So just as Confused ji believes in "the truth" per Buddhism, the same truth applies from his perspective whether one understands or not.
> 
> So Sikhism teaches that we live in the universe with an "undeniable supreme truth", what you call merging is simply the recognition of what that "truth is" which Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji guides Sikhs through.  You are always living it, submerged in it before birth, during life and after death.
> 
> There is no special merging or submerging needed unless you want to classify "understanding the truth" as "submerging in the truth" where as I will call it being at peace with the truth through understanding.


Sat Sri Akal.
[/FONT]


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> There is no special merging or submerging needed unless you want to classify "understanding the truth" as "submerging in the truth" where as I will call it being at peace with the truth through understanding.


 
Yup my line was metaphoircal for submerging in truth only.


----------



## Ambarsaria

kjsinghhyd said:


> Yup my line was metaphoircal for submerging in truth only.


kjsinghhyd ji that is great.

You are a very wise Sikh.  Try to help others and share your understanding _(if you are already not doing it, that is!_) with your friends, family and strangers, as your understanding is very good.

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.:afriends2:mundahug


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

Hmm, I try and share at times, but mostly find things am lacking knowledge, so I stay silent there and go back to study.


----------



## CuriousCour

msbaath said:


> CuriousCour ji
> there is evidence of god everywhere, all this clever creation cant be a spontaeous accident
> and you say we cant be sure if gurus are speaking the truth
> i agree with you we need to be skeptical
> but the proof that gurus are a trustworthty source is very evident
> two of our gurus have sacrificed their life for their beleif and philosophy
> that means they were very sure of what they were saying
> had they said something thats not true that would have implied that they are dishonest. and i dont believe a dishonest person can sacrifice his life for something
> besides what gurus say is confirmed by enlightened persons of all ages and places
> i dont know about you but all my skepticism has died its own death
> we have examples of people who die and kill in expectation of a heaven and hooris but they are fools(fools rush where angels fear to tread)



msbaath ji,

Firstpoint: No ones saying its a spontaneous accident.Because you can't find an explantion it doesn't mean it is gods doing.Isaac Newton (who some regard as the greatest genius ever lived) attributed the workings of the solar system to god.Why? Because at the limits of his knowledge he couldn't work it out himself.Yet hundreds years later another mathematician solves the problem without referencing to god because he figured it out.Second point: Nothing is clever about this creation.In the universe planets have unstable orbits,theres radiation, extreme temperatures, you can get sucked into a black hole,thousands of meteorites are hurled against planets.On earth theres floods, earthquakes,tsunamis, volcanoes, we can't live on 2/3rds of the earth's surface. What about humans? Our teeth fall out with age, we go blind/deaf, we don't have two seperate airways so can easily choke, were warm blooded so we have to constantly eat, we can't detect magnetic fields, we can't smell lethal gases.Do you see what im getting at?
Being very sure and knowing the truth are two different things.I could be very sure in knowing that i can jump off the grand canyon and hover to safety.Doesn't mean its the truth.


----------



## CuriousCour

kjsinghhyd said:


> First of all, it is nice you see the valuable principles Guru has given us. So anything else Guru has given us is valuable too. Including the concept of God. And now when he has given us concept of God, you have to forget any other God concept anyone else has given  you. You have to unlearn about God to the point that God exists. Guru says God exists. And now you have to get into the ocean of pearls of Guru Granth Sahib. And find out about God. For this definition and understanding of God will be totally different from what you have heard so far.



kjsinghhyd ji,

Not necessarily.I could give you valuable advice on how to write a book does that then mean my advice on how to build a house is valuable?(even though i have no knowledge whatsoever of how to build a house).Thats the thing.I have never had the god concept implanted in my head so ive always investigated myself.It sounds like your saying guru said,so now you have to almost persuade yourself until you believe.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

If I am a doctor you will take my medical advice but not my financial advice. But Guru is wise in all spheres, for Guru Himself is the Wisdom imparted in all spheres of life. The kind of Wisdom Guru gives can be used Universally anywhere.


----------



## Archived_member14

Kjsinghhyd ji,




> Quote:Kj: For Budhhists it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They do believe in Nirvana and ending cycle of Life and Death.



Old C: Are you suggesting that in the end it does not matter what one believes in as long as one follows the suggestions of any particular religion? What the Truth is does not matter? I wonder how anyone can hold onto such a position and still be motivated enough to move in the one direction until the goal is reached? 



> KjS: Nirvana is like Realization, finding your Purpose. There are so many ways to define it yet it cannot be defined.



Cf: Yes Nirvana can’t be defined for the simple reason that it is the “unconditioned reality’ and all we ever experience and come from are the “conditioned realities”. But allow me to use the Pali word now instead of the Sanskrit, since I want to avoid any Mahayana misconceptions.  

The experience of Nibbana is not akin to ‘finding the purpose’. It is the unconditioned reality which becomes the object of enlightenment, when the perception of the unconditioned helps to see through the nature of conditioned phenomena and eradicates particular unwholesome tendencies depending on the stage of enlightenment. This can only ever happen with the development of wisdom when conditioned realities are insighted and understood over a long period of time, such that in the end one is ready to experience the unconditioned. 

The experience itself is very momentary and one goes on living one’s life as usual, only without particular unwholesome experiences beginning with wrong view, doubt and tendency to rite and ritual ever arising again. At this stage it becomes impossible to break the five precepts, namely, killing, stealing, lying etc. Later at higher levels of enlightenment are eradicated, sensual desire and aversion. Finally at the last stage, attachment to being, ignorance and conceit are no more. 

=======


> KjS: There have been great Masters in every religion, as long as you are following one Master Truly, you will find Light and Truth in your life. It doesn't matter if you do Kung Fu, Karate or Tae Kwan Do. But the purpose is be able to defend.



Cf: With Truth as the aim, my question is whether the ‘cause’ professed matches this. But of course, it’s just an idea each person projects a personal meaning into.

=======


> KjS: Similarly purpose of Spirituality is to Awaken and Merge your Soul with One Soul. Buddhists might call it Soul of Knowledge or something, we call the One Soul Waheguru.



Cf: I take it that what you mean by ‘merge’ is in fact a reference to ‘Awakening’.

The Truth to be understood (gradually) according to Buddhism, are all that goes on from moment to moment through the five senses and the mind. In any one of these momentary experiences, there is no self or soul, but only mental and physical elements conditioning each other, rising and falling away together instantly. Therefore if one starts off with the perception of a self or soul and aim at what one thinks to be the Truth, this is an instance of a ‘cause’ not being in line with the result aimed at. But of course, it will lead somewhere which will then be mistaken for Truth, and I call this ‘illusion of result’. The fact is that ‘self-view’ or ‘wrong view’ stands in direct opposition to right view, which the development of wisdom is all about.

=======
<snip>


> KjS: Well Sikhism doesn't consider Waheguru as a deity or person either.




Cf: I know this.

=======


> KjS: The systems are not different, but are perceived to be different. We think of our Souls as drops of water trying to be back in Universal Sea of Waheguru. You think your Souls at a plane, with good actions they rise up on the plane and the highest plane is of Buddha! See I am not a Buddhist, I am trying to be Sikh. I don't know fully about Buddhist traditions.



Cf: Yes, you don’t know where I am coming from. It is not the Buddhism that has so far been your source of information. 

There is of course no self or soul to rise from one plane to the next. One must also distinguish plane of existence from plane of consciousness, and realize that all this is in fact all about the development of wisdom, such that no matter which plane of existence one finds oneself in, when the conditions are appropriate, this wisdom can arise. 

Unless one has reached at least the first stage of enlightenment, there is no guarantee that rebirth in a good plane will happen. Being reborn in higher realms is the result of good deeds, and this can happen without having to follow the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha’s teachings are however aimed at the development of right understanding and not to being reborn in ever higher planes. 

In other words, yes, good deeds lead to good results (rebirth being one), however this would still be the stuff of continued existence in the cycle of birth and death. The development of wisdom on the other hand, is the one cause which can lead to going out of this cycle.

======
<snip>


> KjS: I can't talk much about these 5 Orders as I haven't read or researched about them. But there is an important question. What is Morality? How do we define something as Moral and Immoral? What is guiding us in this Judgement?



Cf: The only thing that can ever guide us is the understanding of the difference between good states and evil states. Greed, aversion, ignorance and all those realities which depend on these such as conceit, wrong view, jealousy, doubt, shamelessness and so on are the evil states. On the other side, the good states include non-greed, non-hatred, wisdom and all the realities in dependence, such as generosity, kindness, faith, compassion and morality. All these states rise and fall away by conditions and it is imperative that we know them by their characteristics, as and when they appear.

This is the only real basis for morality. In short, good is good because it is, and bad is bad because it is. In the absence of such understanding, we usually end up relying on reference points that are arbitrary. This can only lead to doubt and much mischief in the long run. The truth is that there is never any justification to have aversion, to kill, to steal to lie, to be jealous, to miserliness and so on, yet we often find ourselves wondering whether we should act this way or that way in certain situations. On the other hand, there is never a moment where kindness is not called for, but not really knowing what this is; we sometimes feel justified for being angry or else go on to express attachment, mistaking it for kindness.   

But then there is so much more accumulations for ignorance and other evil that it should be expected that only rarely can we act morally. This is why according to the Buddha’s teachings the five moral precepts are said to be “training rules” rather than commandments. Since in the end, we are meant to “understand” them and not just follow.

=======


> Quote:Kj: For us, God is the Universe, God is the Truth. And such impersonal definition of God finds acceptance with Buddhists too. They reject god born on the 7th sky and creating Adam and Eve in 6 days concept.



Old C: I hope that you can now see why yours must be a wrong representation of the Buddha’s teachings? Both physical and mental phenomena rise and fall away in an instant by complex set of conditions. Nothing ever remains for even one millisecond to affect other objects, let alone be the basis for the kind of belief which suggests ‘unity’ of some kind. 



> KjS: My friend, if there is anything which binds all the people, countries, planets, galaxies and universes, multiverses, it is Truth.



Cf: You mean as in Gaddhafi to his people or the Al Queda to the U.S. government? ;-)

=========


> KjS: Truth has no date of birth, Truth will never die. Truth has prevailed all creation and destruction. Truth makes people happy when they speak the Truth, Truth makes them doubt their actions when they go against it. If a Buddhist believes in Truth then how is a Buddhist different from a Sikh? Truth is the common goal in all human religions.



Cf: At one time I thought that it was good that some people set out on the “quest for truth”. However now I am not impressed by the idea anymore. Now I consider only understanding itself, no matter what level, to be aimed at the Truth. In other words, only if one has had an inkling of what the Truth is, can one make any correct statement with regard to it. All other instances of referring to the concept must in fact be rooted in ignorance and craving, and this can never lead to the good. 

Shame and fear of evil is what keeps the human world from becoming like animals. Morality exists because to be human is to have some capacity to judge right from wrong. But only wisdom can recognize wisdom, and only this can understand the Truth. 

=========


> KjS: Truth is a natural phenomenon. If a meteor strikes Earth, then the crater stays there. As a mark of Truth, that yes a meteor did strike at that place. If some planet gets destroyed, then there are asteriods sprewn over in space. Another mark of Truth. A son has DNA of both Father and Mother, that is his mark of Truth for being a loving son.



Cf: While observing a meteor, there are the experience through the five senses and the mind, without which the idea of ‘meteor’ wouldn’t even be conceived of. In the absence of any understanding about these, one is left to work only with shadows / concepts. If craving arises and one is not aware of this, all perceptions and subsequent proliferations follow the dictates of ignorance and this same craving. If the knowledge derived from such ignorance is mistaken for Truth, this is a case of being deluded. 

When matter contacts another matter, this is in accordance with the ‘caloric order’ and is a Truth. But do we know this? Do we not instead conceive of the ideas, meteor, earth and the activity of striking, and build a story around this all the while driven by ignorance and attachment ? Would the qualifying as Truth such a case not then be meaningless?


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> Quote:Kj: For Budhhists it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They do believe in Nirvana and ending cycle of Life and Death.
> 
> 
> 
> Old C: Are you suggesting that in the end it does not matter what one believes in as long as one follows the suggestions of any particular religion? What the Truth is does not matter? I wonder how anyone can hold onto such a position and still be motivated enough to move in the one direction until the goal is reached?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KjS: Nirvana is like Realization, finding your Purpose. There are so many ways to define it yet it cannot be defined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf: Yes Nirvana can’t be defined for the simple reason that it is the “unconditioned reality’ and all we ever experience and come from are the “conditioned realities”. But allow me to use the Pali word now instead of the Sanskrit, since I want to avoid any Mahayana misconceptions.
> 
> The experience of Nibbana is not akin to ‘finding the purpose’. It is the unconditioned reality which becomes the object of enlightenment, when the perception of the unconditioned helps to see through the nature of conditioned phenomena and eradicates particular unwholesome tendencies depending on the stage of enlightenment. This can only ever happen with the development of wisdom when conditioned realities are insighted and understood over a long period of time, such that in the end one is ready to experience the unconditioned.
> 
> The experience itself is very momentary and one goes on living one’s life as usual, only without particular unwholesome experiences beginning with wrong view, doubt and tendency to rite and ritual ever arising again. At this stage it becomes impossible to break the five precepts, namely, killing, stealing, lying etc. Later at higher levels of enlightenment are eradicated, sensual desire and aversion. Finally at the last stage, attachment to being, ignorance and conceit are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well said. The experience is momentary but the lesson learnt lasts till the end of life.


=======
KjS: There have been great Masters in every religion, as long as you are following one Master Truly, you will find Light and Truth in your life. It doesn't matter if you do Kung Fu, Karate or Tae Kwan Do. But the purpose is be able to defend. 



> Cf: With Truth as the aim, my question is whether the ‘cause’ professed matches this. But of course, it’s just an idea each person projects a personal meaning into.



=======
KjS: Similarly purpose of Spirituality is to Awaken and Merge your Soul with One Soul. Buddhists might call it Soul of Knowledge or something, we call the One Soul Waheguru.


> Cf: I take it that what you mean by ‘merge’ is in fact a reference to ‘Awakening’.
> 
> The Truth to be understood (gradually) according to Buddhism, are all that goes on from moment to moment through the five senses and the mind. In any one of these momentary experiences, there is no self or soul, but only mental and physical elements conditioning each other, rising and falling away together instantly. Therefore if one starts off with the perception of a self or soul and aim at what one thinks to be the Truth, this is an instance of a ‘cause’ not being in line with the result aimed at. But of course, it will lead somewhere which will then be mistaken for Truth, and I call this ‘illusion of result’. The fact is that ‘self-view’ or ‘wrong view’ stands in direct opposition to right view, which the development of wisdom is all about.



=======

KjS: Well Sikhism doesn't consider Waheguru as a deity or person either. 




> Cf: I know this.


=======


> KjS: The systems are not different, but are perceived to be different. We think of our Souls as drops of water trying to be back in Universal Sea of Waheguru. You think your Souls at a plane, with good actions they rise up on the plane and the highest plane is of Buddha! See I am not a Buddhist, I am trying to be Sikh. I don't know fully about Buddhist traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf: Yes, you don’t know where I am coming from. It is not the Buddhism that has so far been your source of information.
> 
> There is of course no self or soul to rise from one plane to the next. One must also distinguish plane of existence from plane of consciousness, and realize that all this is in fact all about the development of wisdom, such that no matter which plane of existence one finds oneself in, when the conditions are appropriate, this wisdom can arise.
> 
> Unless one has reached at least the first stage of enlightenment, there is no guarantee that rebirth in a good plane will happen. Being reborn in higher realms is the result of good deeds, and this can happen without having to follow the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha’s teachings are however aimed at the development of right understanding and not to being reborn in ever higher planes.
> 
> In other words, yes, good deeds lead to good results (rebirth being one), however this would still be the stuff of continued existence in the cycle of birth and death. The development of wisdom on the other hand, is the one cause which can lead to going out of this cycle.
Click to expand...


I am not aware of a separate plane of conscience from the plane of existence. Maybe I understand the concept, but can't put it in words. And wisdom leads to good deeds. An unwise person will not have many good deeds.

======
<snip>


> KjS: I can't talk much about these 5 Orders as I haven't read or researched about them. But there is an important question. What is Morality? How do we define something as Moral and Immoral? What is guiding us in this Judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf: The only thing that can ever guide us is the understanding of the difference between good states and evil states. Greed, aversion, ignorance and all those realities which depend on these such as conceit, wrong view, jealousy, doubt, shamelessness and so on are the evil states. On the other side, the good states include non-greed, non-hatred, wisdom and all the realities in dependence, such as generosity, kindness, faith, compassion and morality. All these states rise and fall away by conditions and it is imperative that we know them by their characteristics, as and when they appear.
> 
> This is the only real basis for morality. In short, good is good because it is, and bad is bad because it is. In the absence of such understanding, we usually end up relying on reference points that are arbitrary. This can only lead to doubt and much mischief in the long run. The truth is that there is never any justification to have aversion, to kill, to steal to lie, to be jealous, to miserliness and so on, yet we often find ourselves wondering whether we should act this way or that way in certain situations. On the other hand, there is never a moment where kindness is not called for, but not really knowing what this is; we sometimes feel justified for being angry or else go on to express attachment, mistaking it for kindness.
> 
> 
> But then there is so much more accumulations for ignorance and other evil that it should be expected that only rarely can we act morally. This is why according to the Buddha’s teachings the five moral precepts are said to be “training rules” rather than commandments. Since in the end, we are meant to “understand” them and not just follow.
Click to expand...


See there is this common understanding of difference between good and bad states. It is common to all. It is like some inexplainable phenomenon which exists in the world. You can say good is good because it is. But it's hard to explain this to others. This understanding is what we call that God has come to abide in your heart, rule your heart or be active in your heart/mind. All we pray is for God or Understanding to be active and guide us down the good path.

=======


> Quote:Kj: For us, God is the Universe, God is the Truth. And such impersonal definition of God finds acceptance with Buddhists too. They reject god born on the 7th sky and creating Adam and Eve in 6 days concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old C: I hope that you can now see why yours must be a wrong representation of the Buddha’s teachings? Both physical and mental phenomena rise and fall away in an instant by complex set of conditions. Nothing ever remains for even one millisecond to affect other objects, let alone be the basis for the kind of belief which suggests ‘unity’ of some kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KjS: My friend, if there is anything which binds all the people, countries, planets, galaxies and universes, multiverses, it is Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf: You mean as in Gaddhafi to his people or the Al Queda to the U.S. government? ;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, the Truth binding the Libyans is that they have been quiet for so long, and so they seek democracy by shouting. And the Truth is that CIA trained Al Qaeda to route the Russians out.
=========


> KjS: Truth has no date of birth, Truth will never die. Truth has prevailed all creation and destruction. Truth makes people happy when they speak the Truth, Truth makes them doubt their actions when they go against it. If a Buddhist believes in Truth then how is a Buddhist different from a Sikh? Truth is the common goal in all human religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf: At one time I thought that it was good that some people set out on the “quest for truth”. However now I am not impressed by the idea anymore. Now I consider only understanding itself, no matter what level, to be aimed at the Truth. In other words, only if one has had an inkling of what the Truth is, can one make any correct statement with regard to it. All other instances of referring to the concept must in fact be rooted in ignorance and craving, and this can never lead to the good.
> 
> Shame and fear of evil is what keeps the human world from becoming like animals. Morality exists because to be human is to have some capacity to judge right from wrong. But only wisdom can recognize wisdom, and only this can understand the Truth.
Click to expand...

Don't mind my use of words. But it is common saying that wisdom which is not practiced doesn't become knowledge. If you understand Truth but don't practice it in life fully (where quest for Truth is Metaphor) then you will lose your wisdom of Truth (it will fade away). In Sikhism it is said, Truth is High, Higher still is Truthful Living. Our Guru says a person who lives in Truth, is a True Divine being.

=========


> KjS: Truth is a natural phenomenon. If a meteor strikes Earth, then the crater stays there. As a mark of Truth, that yes a meteor did strike at that place. If some planet gets destroyed, then there are asteriods sprewn over in space. Another mark of Truth. A son has DNA of both Father and Mother, that is his mark of Truth for being a loving son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cf: While observing a meteor, there are the experience through the five senses and the mind, without which the idea of ‘meteor’ wouldn’t even be conceived of. In the absence of any understanding about these, one is left to work only with shadows / concepts. If craving arises and one is not aware of this, all perceptions and subsequent proliferations follow the dictates of ignorance and this same craving. If the knowledge derived from such ignorance is mistaken for Truth, this is a case of being deluded.
> 
> When matter contacts another matter, this is in accordance with the ‘caloric order’ and is a Truth. But do we know this? Do we not instead conceive of the ideas, meteor, earth and the activity of striking, and build a story around this all the while driven by ignorance and attachment ? Would the qualifying as Truth such a case not then be meaningless?
Click to expand...


There are 2 things here. One is that things observed by the 5 senses and the mind are not True but ignorance. It may be, but until the Truth is fully revealed/understood by me, I cannot call the former ignorance. It is like till you don't get one thing in hand, you don't let go of other. In any case, attachment of any sort is not good. Secondly I was just giving an example of when matter contacts matter and it leads to changes in both of them.


----------



## Archived_member14

Ambarsaria ji,




Quote:Confused ji states:
The Buddha at one point said:


> Cf: Not being difficult or arguing just for the sake of arguing.
> 
> We know that Sikh teachings emphasize ‘understanding’ just as Buddhist teachings do. It is not unreasonable then that the kind of conclusion will be arrived at through simple reasoning. The question should be, what is the understanding that is being encouraged in either case. And this you know is different.
> 
> On a couple of occasions in the past, I pointed out to my Buddhist friends some ideas from Sikhism that is similar to that of Buddhism, such as the rejection of rites and ritual and the idea that if one associates with fools, it is akin to handling coal. At the time I entertained the thought that this was the result of Guru Nanak’s extensive study of other religions and therefore he must have been influenced to some extent by Buddhism as well. Although I do not insist on this idea anymore and believe that it is possible that he arrived at what he did independently, it is very clear to me, that the ‘understanding’ pointed at is very different indeed.
> 
> Similarly there are ideas expressed in Taoism and Sufism that I know are similar to that of Buddhism, but let me take one idea, a quote I once liked very much, as example to illustrate why I think the underlying understanding is so different.
> 
> There is a Sufi saying that goes something like this:
> 
> “You can’t ride a camel which hasn’t arrived and you can’t ride one which is already gone.”
> 
> This is a statement encouraging of taking the present moment as reference point and as basis for knowledge. People who follow Buddhism are attracted by this same idea. But just as most Buddhists get it wrong due to their lack of understanding of the difference between reality and concept, everyone else who has not made this distinction, would have a different understanding about this.
> 
> *The present moment is defined by the reality which presents itself.* And the understanding would be that it has already fallen away. This attending to the present reality can’t happen simply by deciding to do so, since this would be equivalent to an attempt to ride the camel which has either just gone or one which hasn’t arrived yet. The thinking which thinks to note, would be the reality of the present moment and is not known, but instead the object of this thinking which must necessarily be a concept, is taken for real and proliferated upon.
> 
> In other words, what most people understand as being present, are such things as “when sitting, one knows that one is sitting” or “when washing the dishes, one is aware of washing the dishes”. But these are concepts, of self, activity and situation, while the realities of thinking, seeing, touching, visible object, feeling, memory, attachment, ignorance etc. rise and fall away unknown.
> 
> One kind of object is the basis for the development of wisdom and insight, the other kind is basically no different from that which has given rise to all the theories and philosophies about self and the world that we see lined up on shelves in any library. And is why I can’t expect to learn anything worthwhile from any of these books. Indeed such perceptions is what leads to identification as ‘me’, ‘mine’ and ‘I’ which in turn are cause for much evil and also one’s own suffering. Of the three, self-view (or wrong view), attachment, and conceit, the first is said to be the most dangerous, and is very hard to see.
> 
> Attachment and conceit are often perceived in fact, through the lens of self-view and this creates an illusion of ‘knowing’, and so one ends up thinking that one is on the right track when in reality it is not. It is like one has had a glimpse of the wrongness of the other two unwholesome realities, but quickly fall prey to the third one. But this is to be expected since self-view or wrong-view is hidden and can only ever be revealed and taught by a Buddha. This is why he is sometimes referred to as ‘Anatta-vadin’ or the ‘teacher of non-self’.
> 
> Ambarsaria ji, the above is meant to illustrate how different the Buddha’s teaching is from all other religions and philosophies. I am quite sure that you will never accept it and make it part of how you perceive things. But I do hope that you will pause to consider, the next time that you are inclined to see similarities between Buddhism and Sikhism, whether or not it can be misleading.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

OUR  GURUS HAVE NOT GIVEN THE CONCEPT OF GOD ANYWHERE.

GURU IS GIVING THE CONCEPT OF GURU-GUR WHICH SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS GURU JOTi that is A WAVE OF THE WORD GURU which is INFINITE WITH NO START-MID OR END.In SHORT GURU GUR IS ALSO REFFERED AS GUR ONLY.

WHAT I FIND IS THAT THE WORD GOD IS OUR OWN INTRODUCTION FOR GUR.

BY VERTUE OF THE WORD GUR WE REFER BANI AS GURBANI.

SO WE SHOULD ANALYSE HOW CORRECT IS THE USE OF WORD GOD IN GURBANI.?

PRAKASH.S.BAGGA


----------



## Archived_member14

Kanwaljit  ji,


==
<snip>
Kj:
Well said. The experience is momentary but the lesson learnt lasts till the end of life.


Con: Thanks. But I wonder if you took into account the part about the need for development of wisdom over a long period of time? ;-)

=======

<snip>

Kj:
I am not aware of a separate plane of conscience from the plane of existence. Maybe I understand the concept, but can't put it in words. And wisdom leads to good deeds. An unwise person will not have many good deeds.


Con: Yes, wisdom leads to good deeds. An unwise person may have accumulated the tendency to good deeds such that it can arise often. However, without wisdom, this tendency will not get any stronger but in fact diminish.  

======
<snip>
Kj:
See there is this common understanding of difference between good and bad states. It is common to all. 


Con: I once suggested that people who are attracted to religion do so initially, because of the teachings about the value of morality, kindness, compassion, giving, honesty and other kinds of good. Indeed one of my intentions was to encourage people here to consider more about this aspect of their religion while I try to overlook the other ideas that I do not agree with. This was fine in theory, but now I realize that it is not so in practice.

Some of the reasons for this include the fact that this was an undertaking for which I’m not equipped enough. The idea to address this particular aspect while keeping separate certain core ideas is not practical, although had I known that the Sikh understanding about Karma is what I now see, I’d probably not even have tried. But allow me to highlight one particular difference in understanding.

The idea of encouraging good and discouraging evil, in the case of certain other religions, is based on the understanding about the nature and value of good states and harm in bad ones, beginning with attachment to sense objects. While Buddhism does encourage all kinds of good, its aim however is to understand all states, be it good, bad or indeterminate, and also all matter, as impermanent, insubstantial and non-self. In other words, while other religions “understand the value” of say, morality, Buddhism “sees it for what it is”. 

And this understanding would include seeing them as elements, as aggregates, as base, as cause (karma), resultants or functional, as wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate and more. One also comes to know besides the characteristics and manifestation of each reality, their functions and proximate cause. However from the very beginning, understanding the difference between concept and reality is necessary if further development is to happen.

So while other religions, despite seeing the value of good and harm of evil, end up ‘identifying’ with their experiences as me, mine and I, Buddhism does not see any ‘self’ or ‘soul‘ anywhere, but only impersonal elements.

I hope that you now see the difference Kj?

=====
Kj:
It is like some inexplainable phenomenon which exists in the world. You can say good is good because it is. But it's hard to explain this to others.


Con: Not at all. I say this because we can directly know it. You are unnecessarily making it into something mysterious.

The fact is that you and I make reference to moral states all day and this is because they are very much real. Kindness is a state of mind, ill-will is a state of mind, and similarly moral restraint is a state of mind. Each of these has particular characteristic, function and cause. They can be referred to and communicated to others precisely because everyone experiences them, except that there is no understanding involved. And this is why we need to at least learn about them from those who do understand. And why failing this we end up with our own misleading theories.

========
<snip>
KjS: My friend, if there is anything which binds all the people, countries, planets, galaxies and universes, multiverses, it is Truth.

Quote:Cf: You mean as in Gaddhafi to his people or the Al Queda to the U.S. government? ;-) 


Kj:
Yes, the Truth binding the Libyans is that they have been quiet for so long, and so they seek democracy by shouting. And the Truth is that CIA trained Al Qaeda to route the Russians out.


Con: You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth?

======
Quote:KjS: Truth has no date of birth, Truth will never die. Truth has prevailed all creation and destruction. Truth makes people happy when they speak the Truth, Truth makes them doubt their actions when they go against it. If a Buddhist believes in Truth then how is a Buddhist different from a Sikh? Truth is the common goal in all human religions.

Quote:Cf: At one time I thought that it was good that some people set out on the “quest for truth”. However now I am not impressed by the idea anymore. Now I consider only understanding itself, no matter what level, to be aimed at the Truth. In other words, only if one has had an inkling of what the Truth is, can one make any correct statement with regard to it. All other instances of referring to the concept must in fact be rooted in ignorance and craving, and this can never lead to the good. 


Kj:
Don't mind my use of words. But it is common saying that wisdom which is not practiced doesn't become knowledge. If you understand Truth but don't practice it in life fully (where quest for Truth is Metaphor) then you will lose your wisdom of Truth (it will fade away).


Con: One starts off ignorant about the Truth and then one hears about it. Most people do not even appreciate it but for those who do; it starts with intellectual understanding and reflective acceptance. This *is* a level of understanding and must accumulate before it can become ‘practice’. If one thinks to practice when the understanding at the intellectual level is absent or weak, one can be sure that the driving force must be ignorance and craving.

What do you mean by practice Kj?

=====
Kj:

In Sikhism it is said, Truth is High, Higher still is Truthful Living. Our Guru says a person who lives in Truth, is a True Divine being.

Con: I would say, just develop understanding and allow it to lead the way. Be wary of any ambition with regard to practice and results, because this would surely take you in the wrong direction.

=========
Quote:KjS: Truth is a natural phenomenon. If a meteor strikes Earth, then the crater stays there. As a mark of Truth, that yes a meteor did strike at that place. If some planet gets destroyed, then there are asteriods sprewn over in space. Another mark of Truth. A son has DNA of both Father and Mother, that is his mark of Truth for being a loving son.

Quote:Cf: While observing a meteor, there are the experience through the five senses and the mind, without which the idea of ‘meteor’ wouldn’t even be conceived of. In the absence of any understanding about these, one is left to work only with shadows / concepts. If craving arises and one is not aware of this, all perceptions and subsequent proliferations follow the dictates of ignorance and this same craving. If the knowledge derived from such ignorance is mistaken for Truth, this is a case of being deluded. 

When matter contacts another matter, this is in accordance with the ‘caloric order’ and is a Truth. But do we know this? Do we not instead conceive of the ideas, meteor, earth and the activity of striking, and build a story around this all the while driven by ignorance and attachment ? Would the qualifying as Truth such a case not then be meaningless? 


Kj:
There are 2 things here. One is that things observed by the 5 senses and the mind are not True but ignorance. It may be, but until the Truth is fully revealed/understood by me, I cannot call the former ignorance. It is like till you don't get one thing in hand, you don't let go of other. 


Con: Like I said above, one hears about the Truth, accepts it and proceeds from there. And as explained, the Truth according to Buddhism is just these experiences through the five senses and the mind and their objects (excepting concepts / ideas) when known for what they are. After having made the reality vs. concept distinction, we can be sure that if we do not have any awareness of say, visible object and only the perception of people and things, that there must indeed be ignorance there. Or, since we accept that each reality must have a characteristic, if we find ourselves thinking for example, that objects and situations perceived are real, then not only is there ignorance, but wrong understanding as well.

This is intellectual understanding, and is how it must be for every beginner. There is much to be developed (over lifetimes) at this level itself before little by little, ‘practice’ arises and develops. So you don’t actually need to have great wisdom before you can let go, indeed there must be an element of detachment from the very beginning of development, including at the level of intellectual understanding. Only this happens with understanding and is not something we can decide to ‘do’ or make happen. 

=======
Kj:
In any case, attachment of any sort is not good. Secondly I was just giving an example of when matter contacts matter and it leads to changes in both of them.


Con: Please give me an example of matter. I am quite sure our understanding of what this is, is quite different.

Thanks for engaging me in this discussion.


----------



## Ambarsaria

Confused ji just wondering on the following,



Intellectual understanding that develops little by little does it not become part of your sub-conscious and accumulates
This then has the effect of your auto response without thinking and following the truth

Where one has not developed the right understanding, we will still have the wrong understanding in our subconscious
So our subconscious without involvement will still allow wrong
Is the learning process actually displacing wrong with right over time in the sub-conscious

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

THERE IS ONLY ONE ?TRUTH" OF THE UNIVERSE AND THAT IS STATED IN GURBANI AS

"AADi SACHu JUGAADi SACHu HAI BHEE SACHu NANAK HOSEE BHEE SACHu"

OTHER THAN THIS TRUTH EVERYTHING ELSE IS "CONFUSION" ONLY.

SO WE SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH OF THE UNIVERSE AS STATED IN GURBANI.THAT IS 
ALL.

PRAKASH.S.BAGGA


----------



## Archived_member14

Ambarsaria ji,



Thanks for your questions.
I’m going to get into some details, so please read with patience.

==
Ambarsaria:
-Intellectual understanding that develops little by little does it not become part of your sub-conscious and accumulates

Cf: There is no subconscious in the Buddhist teachings. The concept as is used in psychology is the result of not understanding the nature of consciousness and the accompanying mental factors. 

There can only be one consciousness through one of the five senses and the mind arising at one time. Consciousness is chief in experiencing, however it must arise with at least seven mental factors namely, feeling, contact, perception (or memory), intention, concentration, attention and life faculty each performing their particular functions without which there can’t be any experience. This minimum seven is only in the case of ‘resultant’ consciousness such as seeing, hearing, smelling etc. During moments of impulsion which follow these and at other times, and which are of the nature of ‘cause’, there must however be other mental factors to act as support such as, applied thought, discursive thought, energy, interest and so on, and these must be rooted either by the unwholesome roots namely attachment, aversion and ignorance or the wholesome ones, namely non-attachment, non-aversion and wisdom. 

From the above you can see that ‘feeling’ and ‘perception’ arises with every moment of consciousness and one can reflect on how these two play very important roles in our moment to moment experiences. This is why in the classification into the ‘Five Groups of Existence’ which human beings in the final analysis are, both these make up each one group. The other three are consciousness, mental formations and matter. All other mental factors apart from feeling and perception come under the group, ‘mental formations’. This is because, greed, aversion, kindness, understanding, ignorance, shame, shamelessness, generosity, miserliness, confidence, doubt and so on, these when they arise, accumulate as tendency. 

This accumulation however is in the consciousness itself which when falling away, conditions the next moment of consciousness and transfers so-to-speak, all that has been accumulated from the past onto it. Remember however, that we are talking about a “mental reality” and this has no shape or form. So we need to be careful about imagining how this works, taking care not to become confused because we are able to conceive of it only in terms of something which has shape and form. 

There is no limit as to how much of the tendencies is accumulated and carried on from one life to another. When attachment arises however, aversion cannot. Does this then mean that the latter is not there? No, all the tendencies exist, but when one manifests, the others lie dormant within the consciousness itself. And when the conditions are right for these, any one of them can arise while the others do not.

Consciousness arises and falls away so fast that it gives the impression not only of continuity, but also the illusion that many things are happening at the same time. But allow me to give an illustration:

Seeing arises to experience visible object. If this is a pleasant object, attachment arises immediately and begins to think about it. There must be many, many life-continuum consciousness in between each process. But also before one can begin to recognize any object and subsequently label it, there must be many more instances of raw ‘seeing’ and the thinking which gradually adds a sense of dimension, with perception working its way at recognizing based on past experiences. All this would have involved trillions of mind moments and by the time we even begin to ‘consider’ the object, many more would have arisen and fallen away.

It is understandable therefore that a psychologist posits the idea of subconscious to explain what is hidden as a result of his own ignorance. 

So to answer your question about intellectual understanding, yes it does accumulate as tendency, but in the consciousness itself.

====
Ambarsaria:
-This then has the effect of your auto response without thinking and following the truth

Cf: There are many levels of understanding. When strong enough, it can arise instead of attachment and ignorance, the moment we wake up in the morning. And yes, just as attachment can arise for example, with regard to ‘sound’, so can wisdom arise to understand sound as just sound. Indeed this is what is encouraged all the time, even when the understanding is obviously very weak, namely to understand the reality by their characteristic and not to be concerned about the names / labels.    

====
Ambarsaria:
-Where one has not developed the right understanding, we will still have the wrong understanding in our subconscious

Cf: We will continue to have wrong understanding accumulated as tendency unless we have reached the first stage of enlightenment when this tendency is eradicated completely. But yes, in the meantime any direct understanding works to weaken the overall tendency to wrong understanding.

====
Ambarsaria:
-So our subconscious without involvement will still allow wrong

Cf: Not subconscious of course, but yes as long as there is the tendency, anything can happen, including deeds that we can’t imagine we could do.

====
Ambarsaria:
-Is the learning process actually displacing wrong with right over time in the sub-conscious

Cf: The process is sometimes identified as “straightening of view”. It involves amongst other things, recognizing wrong as wrong when it arises.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

CONFUSED Ji,

Your concept of ?ONE CONSCIOUSNESS " is well understandable and this is the only "TRUTH" we should talk about. 
Other than this truth everything else is relative and more one goes far in explanations there is "CNFUSION "Oonly.

In Sikh philosophy what is being refered as TRUTH" is the reference of this consciosness only.There is complete knowledge of this consciousness in terms of DIVINE WORD as GURU.So nothing beyond this word GURU.

The above explanation should be clear enough.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> I once suggested that people who are attracted to religion do so initially, because of the teachings about the value of morality, kindness, compassion, giving, honesty and other kinds of good. Indeed one of my intentions was to encourage people here to consider more about this aspect of their religion while I try to overlook the other ideas that I do not agree with. This was fine in theory, but now I realize that it is not so in practice.


 
I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time). It is at that time they have questions and they need good answers. And if they stick, that means they are getting the right answers. People following a religion they were born into is just like living in their parent's house. They have not made the house brick by brick like parents. We need to make our own spirituality and connection with God (knowledge/truth) brick by brick.



> The idea of encouraging good and discouraging evil, in the case of certain other religions, is based on the understanding about the nature and value of good states and harm in bad ones, beginning with attachment to sense objects. While Buddhism does encourage all kinds of good, its aim however is to understand all states, be it good, bad or indeterminate, and also all matter, as impermanent, insubstantial and non-self. In other words, while other religions “understand the value” of say, morality, Buddhism “sees it for what it is”.


 
I guess for bad states, we have been given 5 basic Evils which misguide man.



> And this understanding would include seeing them as elements, as aggregates, as base, as cause (karma), resultants or functional, as wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate and more. One also comes to know besides the characteristics and manifestation of each reality, their functions and proximate cause. However from the very beginning, understanding the difference between concept and reality is necessary if further development is to happen.
> 
> So while other religions, despite seeing the value of good and harm of evil, end up ‘identifying’ with their experiences as me, mine and I, Buddhism does not see any ‘self’ or ‘soul‘ anywhere, but only impersonal elements.


 
But then aren't you trying to find out how these elements work in each 'person'? And don't you assess how things are within 'yourself'?



> The fact is that you and I make reference to moral states all day and this is because they are very much real. Kindness is a state of mind, ill-will is a state of mind, and similarly moral restraint is a state of mind. Each of these has particular characteristic, function and cause. They can be referred to and communicated to others precisely because everyone experiences them, except that there is no understanding involved. And this is why we need to at least learn about them from those who do understand. And why failing this we end up with our own misleading theories.


 
We believe the Blueprint for these States of Mind is the Cause of all Causes. That is how we see Waheguru.



> You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth?


 
Precisely, there are things (or Truth(s)) hidden behind everything which we may not see, which might change our judgement later. So the most wise person is the one who sees the Complete Truth.

Let me give example of a newly married couple. The young wife does not get up on time in the morning and husband scolds and berates her. Then wife tells the husband that he snores and she can't sleep. Now you have a fight with no reason, which should have been avoided. But a Truth about husband was NOT known to husband himself. It was some Truth observed by the other person. We are all lacking in knowledge of Truth, in some form or the other.



> One starts off ignorant about the Truth and then one hears about it. Most people do not even appreciate it but for those who do; it starts with intellectual understanding and reflective acceptance. This *is* a level of understanding and must accumulate before it can become ‘practice’. If one thinks to practice when the understanding at the intellectual level is absent or weak, one can be sure that the driving force must be ignorance and craving.
> 
> What do you mean by practice Kj?


 
Practice means speaking Truth all the time, even if Truth hurts. Being honest in all your work dealings. Never bribing a cop just to let go off ticket or get your file attested in some government office. Having the patience that people are corrupted and if you stick to Truth, things will take time to get done. Truth means not taking one minute more than your regular lunch time. Truth means being in office when it starts. There are so many things, and at each action in your life, you can be or not be following Truth.



> Like I said above, one hears about the Truth, accepts it and proceeds from there. And as explained, the Truth according to Buddhism is just these experiences through the five senses and the mind and their objects (excepting concepts / ideas) when known for what they are. After having made the reality vs. concept distinction, we can be sure that if we do not have any awareness of say, visible object and only the perception of people and things, that there must indeed be ignorance there. Or, since we accept that each reality must have a characteristic, if we find ourselves thinking for example, that objects and situations perceived are real, then not only is there ignorance, but wrong understanding as well.
> 
> This is intellectual understanding, and is how it must be for every beginner. There is much to be developed (over lifetimes) at this level itself before little by little, ‘practice’ arises and develops. So you don’t actually need to have great wisdom before you can let go, indeed there must be an element of detachment from the very beginning of development, including at the level of intellectual understanding. Only this happens with understanding and is not something we can decide to ‘do’ or make happen.


 
Agreed that Truth is what we sense through the five senses. But in Sikhism we have been taught that what you see, hear, touch etc. in this world will be lost. So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world? Now Death is another big Truth for all those who have been Born. But only Guru (or a spiritual master) can help your realize that truth! And when you realize the Truth, your actions in life change. I think that is when True Detachment kicks in.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

KANWALJEET SINGH JI,

First and the last part of your post are the most appropriate views you have presented.I greatly appreciate your these views.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Archived_member14

Prakash ji,




prakash.s.bagga said:


> CONFUSED Ji,
> 
> Your concept of ?ONE CONSCIOUSNESS " is well understandable and this is the only "TRUTH" we should talk about.
> Other than this truth everything else is relative and more one goes far in explanations there is "CNFUSION "Oonly.
> 
> In Sikh philosophy what is being refered as TRUTH" is the reference of this consciosness only.There is complete knowledge of this consciousness in terms of DIVINE WORD as GURU.So nothing beyond this word GURU.
> 
> The above explanation should be clear enough.
> 
> Prakash.S.Bagga




C: I am not sure whether I grasped what you wanted to convey. 
The ‘one consciousness’ that I was referring to is not something that is underlying or common to all, but in fact what is uniquely experienced at any given moment. What is common is that for each person, there must be only one experience at a time. I point this out because we usually get the impression for example, that we see, hear and think simultaneously when in fact this can’t actually happen. And because we don’t know this, we then go on to form ideas about reality which must necessarily then be wrong.


----------



## Archived_member14

Kanwaljit ji,


===
Quote:I once suggested that people who are attracted to religion do so initially, because of the teachings about the value of morality, kindness, compassion, giving, honesty and other kinds of good. Indeed one of my intentions was to encourage people here to consider more about this aspect of their religion while I try to overlook the other ideas that I do not agree with. This was fine in theory, but now I realize that it is not so in practice. 

Kj:
I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time). 


C: I don’t think this is necessarily so. Just because we are attracted to a religion does not necessarily mean that we understand what it is that we are seeking. Obviously we start off with ignorance and some craving, even when it is a reaction to the perception of something being wrong with our lives. The teachings do not have any magical effect, and people find what they seek in it. So religion likely becomes just another object of attachment, conceit and view. And when added with the fact that as adults, reactions rooted in these three proliferations have become habitual, things become even harder especially given the possibility of being fooled into thinking that one is on the right track.

True when we are young we are usually drunk in the perception of youth. Not only do we not consider the facts of old age, sickness and death, but we often also strongly believe in ourselves. This latter is often the reason why young people are unwilling to pay any attention to the suggestions of religion. I however believe that a major fault lies is in the way that it is generally presented by the adults around them. And this reflects how these adults themselves must lack in understanding.

===
Kj:
It is at that time they have questions and they need good answers. And if they stick, that means they are getting the right answers.


C: In my own experience, even in the presence of the best of teachers, wrong questions are asked and when the appropriate answers are given, they are easily misinterpreted. The reason is because of one’s own lack of understanding and the tendency to grasp at everything in order to satisfy the ‘self’. It takes some wisdom to ask the right questions, but the truth is that mostly we ask not for the sake of understanding, but with the aim of getting results.  Also I think you will agree that in reality most adults do end up in the presence of teachers who are not wise at all. What happens then is that these teachers will teach in a way catering to the desires of the followers, and this can never lead to any good. Yet, they all believe that they are getting the right answers and this is why they stick to the teacher. 

===
Kj:
People following a religion they were born into is just like living in their parent's house. They have not made the house brick by brick like parents. We need to make our own spirituality and connection with God (knowledge/truth) brick by brick.


C: At one time I entertained the idea that, given the fact that young people are presented with a distorted view about their own religion as reflected in the way people around them practice it, to begin and question the religion they are born into is a sign of intelligence. But since then I’ve come to distinguish intelligence from wisdom and therefore do not think that way anymore. Besides people are motivated all the time by ignorance and craving including when they agree or disagree with religion. 

So in fact to follow the religion we are born into or any other religion is not the question, since it comes down to whether or not any level of understanding does arise. The bricks used as building block must therefore refer to instances of such understanding arising and not some vague idea bout following a particular religion.

====
Quote:And this understanding would include seeing them as elements, as aggregates, as base, as cause (karma), resultants or functional, as wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate and more. One also comes to know besides the characteristics and manifestation of each reality, their functions and proximate cause. However from the very beginning, understanding the difference between concept and reality is necessary if further development is to happen.

So while other religions, despite seeing the value of good and harm of evil, end up ‘identifying’ with their experiences as me, mine and I, Buddhism does not see any ‘self’ or ‘soul‘ anywhere, but only impersonal elements. 

Kj:
But then aren't you trying to find out how these elements work in each 'person'? And don't you assess how things are within 'yourself'?


C: I do often make the mistake of attributing experiences to self and persons, but I’m often reminded about this. Reference to ‘you’ and ‘me’ when making a statement about reality is for the purpose of distinguishing different ‘streams of consciousness’ which must necessarily be separate and distinct. When making a statement about particular characteristic, function and proximate cause and pointing out the fact of conditionality and the general characteristics of  impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self, one must take care about associating this with a ‘self’.

Feeling is feeling, not my or your feeling. If I forget this, I move away from understanding feeling for what it is. If I try to assess what feeling is in terms of how it works “in me”, then I’m not talking about feeling itself, but about me and mine. If I compare my experiences with those of other people, then it is a story about “I” or conceit. Indeed when feeling is known directly, it is known as just an ‘element’ and it is in this very process that one comes to understand that there is no self. So in fact it is not even about convincing oneself of anything.

=====
Quote:You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth? 

Kj:
Precisely, there are things (or Truth(s)) hidden behind everything which we may not see, which might change our judgement later. So the most wise person is the one who sees the Complete Truth.


C: Reading the first half of the first sentence, I thought that you were getting somewhere.  But when it came to the idea about ‘change of judgment’ and of ‘complete’ truth, I realized that you were not referring to what I thought you might have.

There are of course underlying truths to every conventional situation conceived of and the objects of which it is composed. When for example I perceive of a train that I have to catch, this can only happen because there are the realities such as seeing experiencing visible object, thinking based on past memory and body consciousness experiencing pressure and hardness. These being ephemeral can only be understood as and when they appear or not at all. Hence the idea of revisiting whereby what was not known is now revealed and our minds changing, does not apply here.  This and the idea of complete / incomplete truth seem therefore to be about conventional situations. 

Conventional situations are not real since they can only ever be “thought about”.  Anything about it which comes across as truth or untruth, must also therefore be a product of thinking about things based on difference in information. 

=====
Kj:
Let me give example of a newly married couple. The young wife does not get up on time in the morning and husband scolds and berates her. Then wife tells the husband that he snores and she can't sleep. Now you have a fight with no reason, which should have been avoided. But a Truth about husband was NOT known to husband himself. It was some Truth observed by the other person. We are all lacking in knowledge of Truth, in some form or the other.


C: The example given is about change of stance due to difference in information received. If the truth that you are referring to is known by similar kind of process, then I doubt it would be something I’d consider Truth. 

=====
Quote:One starts off ignorant about the Truth and then one hears about it. Most people do not even appreciate it but for those who do; it starts with intellectual understanding and reflective acceptance. This *is* a level of understanding and must accumulate before it can become ‘practice’. If one thinks to practice when the understanding at the intellectual level is absent or weak, one can be sure that the driving force must be ignorance and craving.

What do you mean by practice Kj? 

Kj:
Practice means speaking Truth all the time, even if Truth hurts. Being honest in all your work dealings. Never bribing a cop just to let go off ticket or get your file attested in some government office. Having the patience that people are corrupted and if you stick to Truth, things will take time to get done. Truth means not taking one minute more than your regular lunch time. Truth means being in office when it starts. There are so many things, and at each action in your life, you can be or not be following Truth.


C: If what you are saying is in fact a reference to understanding the value of good states and how these can develop, I will agree with you. However if you are referring to courses of action that must be undertaken irrespective of whether any understanding is involved, this to me is the stuff of rite and ritual, and which I see as wrong. 

=====
<snip>
Kj:
Agreed that Truth is what we sense through the five senses. But in Sikhism we have been taught that what you see, hear, touch etc. in this world will be lost. 


C: All realities rise and fall away completely in an instant. However when one consciousness falls away, it conditions the next instance of consciousness and passes on all that has been accumulated. We forget about our experiences in past lives, but we certainly carry over the tendencies for good and bad that have arisen in the past such that they must arise again in the future.

=====
Kj:
So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world?


C: All we know is ‘conventional’ death just as it is with everything else. We are swimming in the ocean of concepts from birth to death and therefore our life is lived like in a dream. In reality death is a particular type of resultant consciousness, so is the case with birth. And what we call ‘life’ is composed of yet other types of resultant consciousness, interspersed with moments of volitional consciousness which are of the nature of cause. When death arises, it is followed immediately by rebirth as another being. But conditionality rolls on whether we are here or somewhere else.

=====
Kj:
Now Death is another big Truth for all those who have been Born.


C: Right on!

====
Kj: 
But only Guru (or a spiritual master) can help your realize that truth! And when you realize the Truth, your actions in life change. I think that is when True Detachment kicks in.


C: There must always be beginning steps to everything. Big detachment must start with small detachment.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh

> Kj:
> I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time).
> 
> 
> C: I don’t think this is necessarily so. Just because we are attracted to a religion does not necessarily mean that we understand what it is that we are seeking. Obviously we start off with ignorance and some craving, even when it is a reaction to the perception of something being wrong with our lives. The teachings do not have any magical effect, and people find what they seek in it. So religion likely becomes just another object of attachment, conceit and view. And when added with the fact that as adults, reactions rooted in these three proliferations have become habitual, things become even harder especially given the possibility of being fooled into thinking that one is on the right track.



Yes it shouldn't be superficial, you have to dig inside your soul like a mole, continuously, go deeper and deeper!

===



> It takes some wisdom to ask the right questions, but the truth is that mostly we ask not for the sake of understanding, but with the aim of getting results. Also I think you will agree that in reality most adults do end up in the presence of teachers who are not wise at all. What happens then is that these teachers will teach in a way catering to the desires of the followers, and this can never lead to any good. Yet, they all believe that they are getting the right answers and this is why they stick to the teacher.



A good teacher will also make you ask the right questions. In our Gurbani, Guru asks some amazing questions and answers them in the next Stanza. Like you are having a conversation.

====


> Quote:You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth?
> 
> Kj:
> Precisely, there are things (or Truth(s)) hidden behind everything which we may not see, which might change our judgement later. So the most wise person is the one who sees the Complete Truth.
> 
> 
> C: Reading the first half of the first sentence, I thought that you were getting somewhere.  But when it came to the idea about ‘change of judgment’ and of ‘complete’ truth, I realized that you were not referring to what I thought you might have.
> 
> There are of course underlying truths to every conventional situation conceived of and the objects of which it is composed. When for example I perceive of a train that I have to catch, this can only happen because there are the realities such as seeing experiencing visible object, thinking based on past memory and body consciousness experiencing pressure and hardness. These being ephemeral can only be understood as and when they appear or not at all. Hence the idea of revisiting whereby what was not known is now revealed and our minds changing, does not apply here. This and the idea of complete / incomplete truth seem therefore to be about conventional situations.
> 
> Conventional situations are not real since they can only ever be “thought about”. Anything about it which comes across as truth or untruth, must also therefore be a product of thinking about things based on difference in information.



I am talking about the fact that not everyone can see the big picture. And change of judgement revolves around finding more pieces to the puzzle than you thought 

=====


> Kj:
> Let me give example of a newly married couple. The young wife does not get up on time in the morning and husband scolds and berates her. Then wife tells the husband that he snores and she can't sleep. Now you have a fight with no reason, which should have been avoided. But a Truth about husband was NOT known to husband himself. It was some Truth observed by the other person. We are all lacking in knowledge of Truth, in some form or the other.
> 
> 
> C: The example given is about change of stance due to difference in information received. If the truth that you are referring to is known by similar kind of process, then I doubt it would be something I’d consider Truth.



This is example of not looking before you leap. We think we know everything or so. We fire our mouths at first word of criticism from someone. And basically everyone is unhappy 
=====



> Kj:
> So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world?
> 
> 
> C: All we know is ‘conventional’ death just as it is with everything else. We are swimming in the ocean of concepts from birth to death and therefore our life is lived like in a dream. In reality death is a particular type of resultant consciousness, so is the case with birth. And what we call ‘life’ is composed of yet other types of resultant consciousness, interspersed with moments of volitional consciousness which are of the nature of cause. When death arises, it is followed immediately by rebirth as another being. But conditionality rolls on whether we are here or somewhere else.



Well said.. death as consciousness! And immediate rebirth.. Hmm.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

CONFUSED Ji,
You have rightly thought of "CONSCIOUSNESS".

We should talk.think and live with this CONSCIOUSNESS only.All talks other than this CONSCIOUSNESS are futile and yieldno fruitful results.

Gurbaani is the SIMPLEST way of remaining in contact with this CONSCIOUSNESS because Gurbaani is all about this Consciousness only .Gurbaani connects thru DIVINE knowledge of NAAAMu of this CONSCIOUSNESS.

The bliss of thisDIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS can not be realised thru talks or any other such efforts 

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Archived_member14

Kanwaljit ji,


Quote:Kj:
I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time). 


C: I don’t think this is necessarily so. Just because we are attracted to a religion does not necessarily mean that we understand what it is that we are seeking. Obviously we start off with ignorance and some craving, even when it is a reaction to the perception of something being wrong with our lives. The teachings do not have any magical effect, and people find what they seek in it. So religion likely becomes just another object of attachment, conceit and view. And when added with the fact that as adults, reactions rooted in these three proliferations have become habitual, things become even harder especially given the possibility of being fooled into thinking that one is on the right track. 

Kanwaljit:
Yes it shouldn't be superficial, you have to dig inside your soul like a mole, continuously, go deeper and deeper!


Con: I think we need to be precise in this matter. 

What is it to be superficial, what is it to be deep and what is it to ‘dig inside’? If we start off with wrong perception and wrong understanding, the end result must also be wrong, although it would appear right to the one in whom it is all happening. 

Introspection is an activity much praised by all; however this is almost all the time, a navel-gazing activity. Understanding must be involved every step of the way, if not, what appears sincere and aimed at self-knowledge may in fact just be a trick played by ‘self’ to perpetuate itself.

We may appear to think less and less about other people and grow to consider more, our own reactions to situations. But this could well be aimed at the kind of results which arouses pleasant feelings to which we are then attached, which is no different from what use to happen while involved in judging other people. So is this deep or is it as superficial as ever? If it is simply a reaction to pleasant feelings as used to happen, could one then said to have dug any deeper inside? 

One needs to take care not to be taken in by the perception of a ‘self’ who must dig deeper into his own mind or some such. After all if a ‘self’ does not in fact exist and the idea of mind is based on the perception of something ‘lasting in time’, this would then not be a good starting point. 

But of course it is to be expected that we would start off mostly going wrong, and in fact this would happen quite often all the way through until wisdom has been developed to some good extent. The point however is that we need to recognize wrong as wrong and not mistake it for right and insist upon it.

===
<snip>
C: Conventional situations are not real since they can only ever be “thought about”. Anything about it which comes across as truth or untruth, must also therefore be a product of thinking about things based on difference in information. 

Kanwaljit:
I am talking about the fact that not everyone can see the big picture. And change of judgement revolves around finding more pieces to the puzzle than you thought.


Con: And what I was saying is that this applies only to conventional reality and situations. This is not to say that thinking as you suggest is useless, indeed it must be useful in our day to day living particularly when involving interaction with other people. However I distinguish such thinking from the development of wisdom itself. Besides, as I suggested with regard to the idea of introspection, here too, attachment and self-view may well be the motivating factor. In which case, the end result will only have the appearance of wisdom, but not so in reality.  

The development of understanding must have the present moment reality as object. This is not something that we ‘think about’, indeed if we find ourselves thinking too much about it, this is likely because of attachment, while the correct development of understanding must necessarily involve some degree of detachment.  

=====
<snip>
Kanwaljit:
This is example of not looking before you leap. We think we know everything or so. We fire our mouths at first word of criticism from someone. And basically everyone is unhappy.


Con: Again, although this is good advice, it does not necessarily point to the development of wisdom, the kind that I refer to. ‘Looking before one leaps’ may be a result of understanding there and then, the unwholesome state of mind arisen. However it is also possible that some self-serving motives was underlying of which one was not aware, but which comes across as sincere. On the social level this may appear to have resulted in good, however in terms of the development of wisdom and other good states, no good likely happened at all. 

=====
Quote:Kj:
So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world?


C: All we know is ‘conventional’ death just as it is with everything else. We are swimming in the ocean of concepts from birth to death and therefore our life is lived like in a dream. In reality death is a particular type of resultant consciousness, so is the case with birth. And what we call ‘life’ is composed of yet other types of resultant consciousness, interspersed with moments of volitional consciousness which are of the nature of cause. When death arises, it is followed immediately by rebirth as another being. But conditionality rolls on whether we are here or somewhere else. 

Kanwaljit:
Well said.. death as consciousness! And immediate rebirth.. Hmm.


Con: 
Just like now really.
One moment of consciousness falls away which must give rise to another moment, as long as the fuel remains. The fuel is not this ‘body’ which we have grown to identify with and associated with ‘our life’. But is the attachment which we’ve accumulated over the endless round of existence and which we clearly have kept adding to in this life itself. 

Almost no one ever thinks to study consciousness itself, being that ignorance invariably arises and with this follows attachment and wrong understanding that have ‘concepts’ as object. With no understanding of the reality of the moment, the inclination is to then take those perceptions very seriously. From this we then go on to deny ideas that lie outside of our world view. 

We deny rebirth, but do we know the “birth” of this life!? Have we ever had any inclination to even wonder about it, or do we just push it to the back of our minds or explain it away one way or another? Do we not end up denying that which we have zero understanding about or which we misunderstand completely? Is this not like a child covering her eyes with her hands, believing then that the object in front of her must have therefore disappeared?


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

CONFUSED Ji.
I would refer to the conent of your last para' Almost no one ever thinks to study consciousness itsel".I appreciate this is actually what is really important in life.
Can you pl answer the following

1,,What is the way of studying this consciousness ?
2...What is Going to happen having  studied this consciousness?

I look forward to your post on these points.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

KANWALJIT SINGH Ji,/CONFUSED Ji

I have read your postings with personal attention and I salute to your way of presenting logics.At such a age of your it is really a gift to you thru SATiGURu Ji.

I am sure you can come up with very strong understanding of Gurbaani to guide the younger generation with strong convition.

Confused Ji is again marvellous eloculator if he can be more specific about Consciousness it would be a great contribution from him.

With best wishes to both of you

Prakash.s.bagga


----------



## Archived_member14

Prakash ji,


Other matters kept coming up and I couldn’t find time to respond earlier.
You asked:

Prakash:
1,,What is the way of studying this consciousness ?


C: Although you have not asked the question in the way that only someone who has already begun to study Buddhism would, I’d like to respond as though you did in fact do so. 

The Buddha’s teachings should be seen as ‘descriptive’ and not ‘prescriptive’ in nature, therefore questions about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ often reflect some degree of misunderstanding. The reason for this is that at any given moment no matter what situation and whether asleep or awake, in reality there is only one consciousness with the support of its mental concomitants arisen to experience an object. These have arisen as a result of causes and conditions some from the past and some in the present, but the important thing to realize is that there is no ‘self’ who stands apart and can control anything.

There is of course willing or intention to do this or to do that. Intention however, arises with all states, including the ones leading to the thought about doing this or doing that. It is fine, in fact necessary, to plan, to think and to follow thought suggestions in one’s conventional day to day life. And here we can talk about ‘how to’ and about ‘methods’. However when it comes to consciousness and other realities involved during these times, the understanding should be that they have been conditioned to arise and fallen away already by the time we know it. Therefore we need to realize that here, there is no method as in ‘what can be done’ or ‘what can I do’.

But of course there are causes and conditions and these can be pointed to at, such that upon hearing about them, if any understanding has been accumulated from the past, this can condition some level of the same now. The conditions for the development of understanding itself are roughly:

1.	Hearing the Truth.
2.	Association with the wise.
3.	Wise attention.
4.	Practice in accordance to the Truth.

The above needs elaboration and much explanation, however I won’t go into that now, but instead start to address your question more directly.

Consciousness is one of two conditioned mental realities, the other being the mental factors which accompany it and which perform functions the consciousness itself cannot. We can’t therefore be expected to come to understand consciousness without also understanding these other mental realities. Not only this, since our life in fact consists of experiences through the five senses and the mind, of ‘material realities’, without which consciousness which ‘thinks’ about this and that could never take place, we need to also develop understanding about these material realities as well. Indeed the first ‘insight knowledge’ which is a very high level of wisdom but only the beginning before there can be the other insight knowledges, is the clear distinction between mental and physical phenomena. 

So we start off with understanding intellectually, that there are two kinds of conditioned realities, one mental and the other physical. The former is that which can and must experience something, the latter is that which cannot experience anything. These two are considered ‘realities’ because they have characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. And this is what distinguishes both from ‘concepts’. Concepts are mind created and therefore have not objective reality. Any apparent breaking down of concepts such as in trying to determine the chemical composition of some chemical, is done so by way of thinking in terms of more concepts, one serving the function to explain another.

So with the background of this distinction, we can then develop better understanding about whatever that goes on from moment to moment. We learn for example, to know when we take concepts for reality and when we confuse material realities for mental ones. We know when there is understanding and when there is ignorance. And understanding, we know how little or how much. 

None of this however, happens as a result of ‘trying’, and given that we must understand any and every reality, this can’t happen if we think to understand one reality (such as consciousness) of our own choosing. Besides any level of understanding, including the first baby steps must come with it a corresponding level of detachment and this is opposed to attachment. And so it follows that if we are moved by desire, from which ideas about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ are conceived, one goes further away from the goal rather than towards it.

In conclusion, there is consciousness now, and it has already fallen away. It is missing the point to try to catch it or wait to catch the next one, since in truth this is following shadows with ignorance and craving. When these tendencies are noticed often enough, it can happen then that a time will come when instead of ignorance; some level of wisdom arises with a mental or physical reality as object. And this is “how” the study of consciousness takes place.

All that said, I must confess that what I’ve written is not based on any deep understanding on my part, but as you say, I am good at exposition and therefore it is due to this ;-). As time passes, I can only admit to more ignorance and become ever more convinced that mine are just the first baby steps in the right direction. Although I believe that this is how it must be, and I should be glad to at least realize it. 

====
Prakash:
2...What is Going to happen having studied this consciousness?


C: I suspect that your conception of consciousness is not the same as mine. I however will say this with regard to my own understanding, that the study of consciousness and other realities works directly to oppose and finally overcome ignorance. And being that ignorance is the root cause for all evil states, the development of wisdom works to encourage all good states. All this is aimed at enlightenment, and this means getting out of the cycle of existence.

I am not sure I have answered your question in a way that will satisfy. But do ask more questions if you think that you must.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

CONFUSED Ji,
Your all explanaton about consciousness is excellent and worth knowing.
You will appreciate a fact that our knowledge about anything should be taken as complete when at least minimum two parametres are known about that thing.
And these two parametres are 

1.....Name of the thing

2.....FigorForm of the thing

In absence of any one of above parametres my knowledge would remain incomplete
So my knowledge about 'CONSCIOUSNESS"  would be complete when I know about 
Name as well as Fig/Form of the consciousness.
I am interested in knowing from your goodself

The NAME [If any} of the CONSCIOUSNESS and
THE FIG/FORM of the  CONSCIOUSNESS

Having known above I think I can have better understanding about CONSCIOUSNESS.

PRAKASH.S.BAGGA


----------



## Ambarsaria

Confused said:


> Ambarsaria understands the red font parts in this section delimited by quotes.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Prakash ji,
> 
> 
> Other matters kept coming up and I couldn’t find time to respond earlier.
> You asked:
> 
> Prakash:
> 1,,What is the way of studying this consciousness ?
> 
> 
> C: Although you have not asked the question in the way that only someone who has already begun to study Buddhism would, I’d like to respond as though you did in fact do so.
> 
> The Buddha’s teachings should be seen as ‘descriptive’ and not ‘prescriptive’ in nature, therefore questions about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ often reflect some degree of misunderstanding. The reason for this is that at any given moment no matter what situation and whether asleep or awake, in reality there is only one consciousness with the support of its mental concomitants arisen to experience an object. These have arisen as a result of causes and conditions some from the past and some in the present, but the important thing to realize is that there is no ‘self’ who stands apart and can control anything.
> 
> There is of course willing or intention to do this or to do that. Intention however, arises with all states, including the ones leading to the thought about doing this or doing that. It is fine, in fact necessary, to plan, to think and to follow thought suggestions in one’s conventional day to day life. And here we can talk about ‘how to’ and about ‘methods’. However when it comes to consciousness and other realities involved during these times, the understanding should be that they have been conditioned to arise and fallen away already by the time we know it. Therefore we need to realize that here, there is no method as in ‘what can be done’ or ‘what can I do’.
> 
> But of course there are causes and conditions and these can be pointed to at, such that upon hearing about them, if any understanding has been accumulated from the past, this can condition some level of the same now. The conditions for the development of understanding itself are roughly:
> 
> 1.    Hearing the Truth.
> 2.    Association with the wise.
> 3.    Wise attention.
> 4.    Practice in accordance to the Truth.
> 
> The above needs elaboration and much explanation, however I won’t go into that now, but instead start to address your question more directly.
> 
> Consciousness is one of two conditioned mental realities, the other being the mental factors which accompany it and which perform functions the consciousness itself cannot. We can’t therefore be expected to come to understand consciousness without also understanding these other mental realities. Not only this, since our life in fact consists of experiences through the five senses and the mind, of ‘material realities’, without which consciousness which ‘thinks’ about this and that could never take place, we need to also develop understanding about these material realities as well. Indeed the first ‘insight knowledge’ which is a very high level of wisdom but only the beginning before there can be the other insight knowledges, is the clear distinction between mental and physical phenomena.
> 
> So we start off with understanding intellectually, that there are two kinds of conditioned realities, one mental and the other physical. The former is that which can and must experience something, the latter is that which cannot experience anything. These two are considered ‘realities’ because they have characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause.  And this is what distinguishes both from ‘concepts’. Concepts are mind created and therefore have not objective reality. Any apparent breaking down of concepts such as in trying to determine the chemical composition of some chemical, is done so by way of thinking in terms of more concepts, one serving the function to explain another.
> 
> So with the background of this distinction, we can then develop better understanding about whatever that goes on from moment to moment. We learn for example, to know when we take concepts for reality and when we confuse material realities for mental ones.  And understanding, we know how little or how much. We know when there is understanding and when there is ignorance.
> 
> None of this however, happens as a result of ‘trying’, and given that we must understand any and every reality, this can’t happen if we think to understand one reality (such as consciousness) of our own choosing. Besides any level of understanding, including the first baby steps must come with it a corresponding level of detachment and this is opposed to attachment. And so it follows that if we are moved by desire, from which ideas about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ are conceived, one goes further away from the goal rather than towards it.
> 
> In conclusion, there is consciousness now, and it has already fallen away. It is missing the point to try to catch it or wait to catch the next one, since in truth this is following shadows with ignorance and craving. When these tendencies are noticed often enough, it can happen then that a time will come when instead of ignorance; some level of wisdom arises with a mental or physical reality as object. And this is “how” the study of consciousness takes place.
> 
> All that said, I must confess that what I’ve written is not based on any deep understanding on my part, but as you say, I am good at exposition and therefore it is due to this ;-). As time passes, I can only admit to more ignorance and become ever more convinced that mine are just the first baby steps in the right direction. Although I believe that this is how it must be, and I should be glad to at least realize it.
> 
> ====
> Prakash:
> 2...What is Going to happen having studied this consciousness?
> 
> 
> C: I suspect that your conception of consciousness is not the same as mine. I however will say this with regard to my own understanding, that the study of consciousness and other realities works directly to oppose and finally overcome ignorance. And being that ignorance is the root cause for all evil states, the development of wisdom works to encourage all good states. All this is aimed at enlightenment, and this means getting out of the cycle of existence.
> 
> I am not sure I have answered your question in a way that will satisfy. But do ask more questions if you think that you must.



_Confused ji can I summarize that for myself as follows,_
_
_



> One is so detached and has so conditioned oneself that everything happens as good, hence one is enlightened.
> 
> That is, one does not have to think to do good.
> 
> This all being driven by understanding.
> 
> Hence, Is it equivalent to a fully enlightened soul and through your conditioning your actions and consciousness are in synch that your action/reactions have no conflict and there is no remorse or any other emotions displayed as life goes on.
> 
> 
> The emotional part scares me as I think I will feel like a "zombie" but I am obviously making a mistake along the way of this understanding.


Please comment and correct.

Thanks.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

AMBARSARIA Ji,
You have given the perfect answer by stating the effect of understanding the consciousness as getting out of the cycle of existence.
I hope here our understanding of consiousness could not be different.
Thanks,
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria

prakash.s.bagga said:


> AMBARSARIA Ji,
> You have given the perfect answer by stating the effect of understanding the consciousness as getting out of the cycle of existence.
> I hope here our understanding of consiousness could not be different.
> Thanks,
> Prakash.S.Bagga


Prakash.s.bagga ji that is left in black as I don't understand what "  ...  consciousness as getting out of the cycle of existence." has anything to do with anything.

Sorry in case it was not clear.  It is only the red parts that I agree with or understand within the quoted text.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14

Prakash ji,




prakash.s.bagga said:


> CONFUSED Ji,
> Your all explanaton about consciousness is excellent and worth knowing.
> You will appreciate a fact that our knowledge about anything should be taken as complete when at least minimum two parametres are known about that thing.
> And these two parametres are
> 
> 1.....Name of the thing
> 
> 2.....FigorForm of the thing
> 
> In absence of any one of above parametres my knowledge would remain incomplete
> So my knowledge about 'CONSCIOUSNESS"  would be complete when I know about
> Name as well as Fig/Form of the consciousness.
> I am interested in knowing from your goodself
> 
> The NAME [If any} of the CONSCIOUSNESS and
> THE FIG/FORM of the  CONSCIOUSNESS
> 
> Having known above I think I can have better understanding about CONSCIOUSNESS.
> 
> PRAKASH.S.BAGGA



I am not sure what you are asking. You highlight ‘name’ and ‘figure / form’. While I have come across ‘name’ used with reference to ‘mental realities’, although I would not use it myself, I suspect that yours must be different still, from what I have encountered so far. And although I have seen ‘form’ used in place of ‘material realities’, which again is a term I wouldn’t use, but since you are using it with relation to consciousness and in conjunction with ‘figure’, I have no idea what it is that you are pointing at. I tried to look up ‘figure / form’ on the internet, but no success. 

So please do explain what it is that you have in mind exactly.


----------



## Archived_member14

Ambarsaria ji,


Thanks for taking an interest and asking questions.

====
Ambarsaria:
Confused ji can I summarize that for myself as follows,


Quote:One is so detached and has so conditioned oneself that everything happens as good, hence one is enlightened. 


Con: Detachment is the mental factor of non-attachment which arises together with wisdom and also during other wholesome states. When it is with wisdom, it serves the function of detaching from what otherwise is the object of ignorance and attachment. Just as wisdom when arisen, accumulates as tendency, so too detachment when arisen, accumulates. 

Enlightenment is the function not of detachment, but of understanding. And this is not about seeing everything as “good” but “as it is”. Remember, all conditioned phenomena are by nature, “dukkha”.

===  
Ambarsaria:
That is, one does not have to think to do good.
This all being driven by understanding.

Con: After the first stage of enlightenment, there is still attachment to sense objects and hence aversion continues to arise, and also ignorance and conceit remains until one reaches full enlightenment. What is no more at this stage are wrong understanding, doubt, jealousy and tendency to rite and ritual. And because there is no more wrong understanding, the tendency to lie, steal, kill, involvement in illicit sex and to taking intoxicants no more exists. So with reference to these, it is not a matter of thinking ‘not to’, but just that it won’t ever happen. 

When it comes to lesser forms of attachment and aversion, because of the level of understanding, these decrease in strength and frequency. Besides, because wisdom supports the development of other kinds of good, such as kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity, these readily arise during times which otherwise would have given rise to attachment and aversion. And this may or may not be prompted by thoughts to do good. There is no rule in this regard. 

====
Ambarsaria:
Hence, Is it equivalent to a fully enlightened soul and through your conditioning your actions and consciousness are in synch that your action/reactions have no conflict and there is no remorse or any other emotions displayed as life goes on.


Con: The tendency to remorse does not exist from the first stage of enlightenment. I would not think in terms of good actions on the part of enlightened individuals, especially the fully enlightened ones, as being the result of ‘conditioning’, but rather that of having “eradicated” the tendency to wrong / evil states. 

While the lesser enlightened ones still go by wholesome states of mind, the fully enlightened are driven by what is called, ‘functional states’. Wholesome and unwholesome states are of the nature of cause which must bring results, but Arahats being fully enlightened, have functional consciousness instead, and these can’t produce any results. They however are nevertheless the culmination of the good accumulated from the past; including times well before any understanding was developed.  

======
Ambarsaria:
The emotional part scares me as I think I will feel like a "zombie" but I am obviously making a mistake along the way of this understanding.
Please comment and correct.

Con: Yes, you are imagining wrongly. And since I think that what you have in mind are states (emotions) that are undesirable even for us now, I’d like to ask you why you value them? 

All enlightened beings obviously have much greater kindness, generosity, compassion, sympathy, faith, moral shame and so on than you and I can imagine. When it comes to “equanimity” with relation to other beings, this is with the understanding about karma and its results. This arises with the perception that nothing can be done to help the other person, and often following moments of pure kindness and compassion. But this is far from cold or zombie like, but in fact very bright, being that it is rooted in, besides wisdom, the mental factors non-attachment and non-aversion as well.
I hope this has cleared things up Ambarsaria ji.


----------



## Ambarsaria

Confused ji thank you very much.  That has cleared it up for me.

A little bit of the mental agitation trying to understand has subsided.

Sata Sri Akal.mundahug


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

CONFUSED Ji,
I consider  CONSCIOUSNESS primarily as a "CONCEPT".Therefore I am interested in knowing the basic definition or reference of CONSCIOUS NESS.This would enable me to understand the concept of CONSCIOUSNESS as I can find from within GGS Whether it is same or different so that I may not be interacting in a wrong way.
Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I did realise that my reference of CONSCIOUSNESS is different than that of yours .
So you are absolutely right in your response .Thanks,
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Archived_member14

Prakash ji,




prakash.s.bagga said:


> CONFUSED Ji,
> I consider  CONSCIOUSNESS primarily as a "CONCEPT".Therefore I am interested in knowing the basic definition or reference of CONSCIOUS NESS.This would enable me to understand the concept of CONSCIOUSNESS as I can find from within GGS Whether it is same or different so that I may not be interacting in a wrong way.
> Prakash.s.Bagga



I understand consciousness at the conceptual level too. But there are concepts which refer to that which is real and to those that do not exist in reality. The concept of consciousness is an example of the former and a most important one at that. This is because without it, nothing can be known; not the mental factors, not the material phenomena, not the unconditioned reality and no ‘concepts’ would ever be conceived of. This means that as long as there is life, there is consciousness, one experiencing one object, followed by another, on and on. So for example as you read this message, there must be at least seeing consciousness, thinking and life faculty arising in alternation very rapidly and  continuously without any gap. But of course we know this only in theory and you are asking further, what in theory is the nature of consciousness?

Here is what I found on the web (and did some edition to):

“Consciousness (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: ‘consciousness has the characteristic of knowing objects.’(As 112) For although such causal conditions as those of support and immediate contiguity are also relevant, consciousness does not arise in the absence of an object, and therefore its characteristic is spoken of with reference to that. This rejects the view that consciousness arises in the absence of an object.”
====

“By ‘consciousness’  is meant that which ‘thinks of’ its object, is aware variously”.
...
“But consciousness does not arise singly. Just as in saying ‘the king has arrived,’ it is clear that he does not come alone...........But it may be said that consciousness has arisen in the sense of a forerunner. For in worldly phenomena consciousness is the chief, consciousness is the principal, consciousness is the forerunner.”

====
“Its characteristic is cognizing an object.

Its function is being a forerunner, precursor. It is like a town-guard, seated at cross-roads in the middle of town. He notes each townsman or visitor who comes, that is, the object. Thus it is the chief or leader in knowing an object.

It has connection as manifestation. We read: 
“The consciousness which arises next does so immediately after the preceding consciousness, forming a connected series.” Consciousness arises and falls away, succeeding one another.

The proximate cause of consciousness is mental phenomena and material phenomena. Consciousness is a conditioned reality. Conditioned realities cannot arise singly, and thus, consciousness does not arise without accompanying mental factors.”

====
"By 'consciousness' (citta) is meant that which thinks of its object, is aware variously. Or, inasmuch as this word 'consciousness' is common to all states or classes of consciousness, that which is known as worldly, moral, immoral, or the great inoperative, is termed 'consciousness', because it arranges itself in a series (cintoti, or, its own series or continuity) by way of apperception in a process of thought. And the resultant is also termed 'consciousness' because it is accumulated (cito) by kamma and the corruptions.

"Moreover, all (four classes) are termed 'consciousness' because they are variegated (citra) according to circumstance. The meaning of consciousness may also be understood from its capacity of producing a variety of effects.

"Herein consciousness with lust is one thing, that with hate is another, that with delusion is another, that experienced in the universe of sense is another, and those experienced in the universe of attenuated matter, etc., are others. Different is consciousness with a visible object, with an auditory object, etc.; and in that with visible object, varied is consciousness of a blue-green object, of a yellow object, etc. And the same is the case with the consciousness of auditory objects.

"And of all this consciousness one class is low, another is medium, and another is exalted. Among the low class again consciousness is different when dominated by desire-to-do, or when dominated by energy, or by investigation. Therefore the variegated nature of consciousness should be understood by way of these characteristics of association, locality, object, the degrees of comparison and dominance."

=====
And here is a good explanation by someone who truly knows what she is talking about:

< Consciousness is an element which experiences something, a reality which experiences an object. It is the “chief”, the leader in knowing the object which appears. There is not only consciousness which sees, consciousness which hears, consciousness which smells, consciousness which tastes or consciousness which experiences tangible object, there is also consciousness which thinks about many diverse subjects. The world of each person is ruled by his consciousness....

Because of visible object which appears through the eyes it seems as if there are many people living together in this world, at a certain time and in a particular location. However, if there is clear comprehension of the characteristic of the element which experiences, the reality which arises and sees the object which appears at that moment, one will know that, while there is seeing just for a short moment, there is only the world of seeing. Then there are no people, other living beings or different things. At the moment of seeing there is not yet thinking about shape and form, there is not yet thinking of a story about what is seen.

When we think that there is the world, beings, people or different things, we should know that this is only a moment of consciousness which thinks about what appears to seeing, about visible object. Seeing occurs at a moment different from thinking about what appears. For everyone there is consciousness which arises just for a moment and is then succeeded by the next one, and this happens continuously. Thus, it seems that there is the whole wide world with many different people and things, but we should have right understanding of what the world is. We should know that realities appear one at a time, and that they appear only for one moment of consciousness. Since consciousness arise and fall away, succeeding one another very rapidly, it seems that there is the world which does not disintegrate, the world which lasts, with beings, people and many different things. In reality the world lasts just for one moment, namely, when consciousness arises and cognizes an object just for that moment; and then the world falls away together with the consciousness. ...

Mindfulness of consciousness means that, when there is for instance seeing, mindfulness is mindful, non-forgetful, of its characteristic. We should investigate, study and apply our attention to the reality of seeing so that we shall gradually have more understanding of it. We can come to know it as the element which experiences what is appearing through the eyes. ...>

and

<Consciousness is the reality which clearly knows the object which appears, be it through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body-sense or the mind. Whatever objects the mental factor contact, contacts, the consciousness which  arises together with it clearly knows the characteristic of that object, it knows each different object. When it is said of consciousness, the reality which experiences something, that it has the characteristic of clearly knowing an object, we should understand what that means. It means that consciousness knows the different characteristics of the different objects appearing through the senses or through the mind-door. Consciousness is the reality which clearly knows an object, and the object is a condition for consciousness to arise and to experience that object. The object is object-condition (aaramma.na-paccaya), it is a condition for the arising of consciousness by being its object. Consciousness cannot arise without knowing an object, but besides object-condition there are also several other conditions for each type of consciousness which arises.>

Prakash ji, I hope the above is enough to give you an idea as to the Buddhist understanding of consciousness.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga

CONFUSED JI,
YES Now I understand your concept of Consciousness which is related to the Consciousness of thoughts,feelings and senses.
In this context your interpretation is very correct.
But I was probably thinking of some SUPER DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS which should be quite different from this .
Thank you very much for such wonderful response to my questions.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria

prakash.s.bagga said:


> CONFUSED JI,
> YES Now I understand your concept of Consciousness which is related to the Consciousness of thoughts,feelings and senses.
> In this context your interpretation is very correct.
> But I was probably thinking of some SUPER DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS which should be quite different from this .
> Thank you very much for such wonderful response to my questions.
> Prakash.S.Bagga


Prakash.S.Bagga ji it is very interesting dialog.

It appears that I interpret the following,

*Confused ji:*  Buddhism teaches,


Self Enlightenment
Through Buddha's teachings
 
There is no dependence on,
Super consciousness
Or trying to merge in the same
 
 
No belief in God
Believes in incarnation
*Prakash.S.Bagga ji:*


Enlightenment as consciousness
Enlightenment through understanding
 
Belief in super consciousness
Merging into super consciousness
All efforts towards it
Ik Jyot (one light)
 
 
Belief in God
Believes in Soul never dying and staying one
*Ambarsaria:*


Enlightenment as consciousness
Enlightenment through understanding
 
Super consciousness
Does not believe in it
Does not believe in the merging business
 
Belief in God
God is conceptual personification of the truth behind all in the Universe
Living in maximum consonance with the truth is Enlightenment
 
Believes in Soul as consciousness that grows with you from Birth to Death
The soul interacts with other souls and develops and impacts every soul interacted with
Soul interactions do not need physical face-to-face sensory exchanges
Souls are always interacting through mental processes including
Dialog of any form with and without time elements
Written
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
Mail and text like this forum
 
Verbal
Visual unspoken
Etc.
See also, (http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...oul-creation-growth-death-transformation.html)


Souls as a single entity dissipate at death
Become pats of other souls that interacted or will interact with the soul in means other than physically live interaction (writings, videos, memories, etc.)

 

Just summarizing and sharing my understanding for comments and not to read anyone's mind.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14

Ambarsaria ji,


Some comments regarding your summary of my position:




Ambarsaria said:


> Prakash.S.Bagga ji it is very interesting dialog.
> 
> It appears that I interpret the following,
> 
> *Confused ji:*  Buddhism teaches,
> 
> 
> Self Enlightenment
> Through Buddha's teachings
> 
> There is no dependence on,
> Super consciousness
> Or trying to merge in the same
> 
> 
> No belief in God
> Believes in incarnation




C: Incarnation or reincarnation is what Hindus believe in. The Tibetan Buddhist tradition go by the same concept as well, but this is because they do not really understand the Buddha’s message. 

But the Buddha taught “rebirth”, not incarnation and reincarnation. Indeed the latter idea is necessitated in the minds of those people who can’t get away from the idea of a lasting entity or soul, which is what Tibetan Buddhists appear to be trapped in, in spite of their knowledge about conditionality and dependent origination. So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta.  

“Self Enlightenment”, I wonder what you mean by this? It is obvious that enlightenment is what each individual experiences as a result of understanding accumulated and developed from the past. Is this not how you’d conceive of it as happening for a Sikh as well? Also why have you stated the Buddhist position regarding enlightenment as being “through Buddha's teachings” distinct from the Sikh one which is, “through understanding”? Does it impress upon you that the Buddha’s way has little to do with any real understanding but more to do with working with certain set principles?


----------



## Ambarsaria

Confused said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> 
> 
> Some comments regarding your summary of my position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C: Incarnation or reincarnation is what Hindus believe in. The Tibetan Buddhist tradition go by the same concept as well, but this is because they do not really understand the Buddha’s message.
> 
> But the Buddha taught “rebirth”, not incarnation and reincarnation. Indeed the latter idea is necessitated in the minds of those people who can’t get away from the idea of a lasting entity or soul, which is what Tibetan Buddhists appear to be trapped in, in spite of their knowledge about conditionality and dependent origination. So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta.
> 
> “Self Enlightenment”, I wonder what you mean by this? It is obvious that enlightenment is what each individual experiences as a result of understanding accumulated and developed from the past. Is this not how you’d conceive of it as happening for a Sikh as well? Also why have you stated the Buddhist position regarding enlightenment as being “through Buddha's teachings” distinct from the Sikh one which is, “through understanding”? Does it impress upon you that the Buddha’s way has little to do with any real understanding but more to do with working with certain set principles?


Confused ji I wrote that knowing the danger but felt it will be worthwhile to contrast.  I can correct or change as you explained.



_*In terms of the following,*_


> more to do with working with certain set principles?​


 


Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is a holy book that through a question and answer type logic elicits your understanding
It is an interactive treatise to develop understanding and is not laid out in defining a set of all inclusive rules or principles and listed in specific order of precedence or priority
So this I classified as "through understanding" versus if there are stages of enlightenment definition and movement from one stage to the next as being different.
I probably missed something and appreciate your comments or rebuke from a Buddhism perspective!
 
 
_*Also the following please,*_


> So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief  in* soul or Atman* (_Is this Tibetan Buddhism belief!_)  more than it does with those who believe in _*non-self or  Anatta*_ (_Is this your belief and is it part of Buddhism and a common referencable name for it!_).



Sikhism believes in Atma or Soul but not in the context of incarnation or reincarnation.
 I thank you and regards.

Sat Sri Akal.​


----------



## Archived_member14

Ambarsaria ji,


A:
Confused ji I wrote that knowing the danger but felt it will be worthwhile to contrast. I can correct or change as you explained.


Con: I thought that this more or less might have been the case. 

==
A:
In terms of the following,
Quote:more to do with working with certain set principles?

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is a holy book that through a question and answer type logic elicits your understanding
It is an interactive treatise to develop understanding and is not laid out in defining a set of all inclusive rules or principles and listed in specific order of precedence or priority
So this I classified as "through understanding" versus if there are stages of enlightenment definition and movement from one stage to the next as being different.
I probably missed something and appreciate your comments or rebuke from a Buddhism perspective!


Con: You think that the idea about stages of enlightenment is incompatible with that of understanding got through listening and discussing? 

I think it was in this thread itself that I mentioned that the conditions for the development of right understanding leading to enlightenment are:
1.	Hearing the Truth.
2.	Association with the wise.
3.	Wise reflection.
4.	Practice in accordance with the Truth.

The above applies not only to those who have yet to reach the first stage, but also those who have, but yet to reach the final stage of enlightenment. Indeed the first three stages are said to ‘need more work’, and even if one has reached the stage when ‘no work needs to be done’, no one ever says no to ‘hearing and discussing’ the Truth. But of course, all this has value only if the ‘Truth’ heard is indeed the Truth.  After all the Greeks also value dialogue and questioning, which to me has no real value, being that what they do talk about is not the Truth, can only therefore lead to more attachment and ignorance.

The stages of enlightenment point to the fact of particular unwholesome tendencies at each stage being eradicated completely, beginning at stage one with, wrong understanding, doubt, tendency to rite and ritual, miserliness and envy. Ignorance, conceit and craving for being are eradicated at the final stage. Even the Buddha when he was under the Bodhi tree, had to pass through all these four stages, although in his case, one succeeding the other very rapidly. In conclusion therefore, as far as I’m concerned, anyone, anywhere, if they claim full enlightenment, would have to have experienced these four stages. 

====
A:
Also the following please,
Quote:So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman (Is this Tibetan Buddhism belief!) more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta 
(Is this your belief and is it part of Buddhism and a common referencable name for it!). 


Con: The Tibetans will of course deny that they believe in soul or Atman. I however do not judge a person’s position from what he thinks he beliefs or admits to. The Tibetans would talk a lot about dependent origination which points to co-dependence of mental and physical phenomena and meant to explain the very ‘existence of life’. They’d also stress much on the idea of ‘emptiness’, which although is meant to discourage clinging to all phenomena, is in fact aimed at denying their very existence in order to then assert a belief in a kind of underlying ground of being, supposedly from which all phenomena arise and fall away and are interrelated. 

While dependent origination was indeed taught by the Buddha and explains why there must be birth and rebirth. And while ‘emptiness’ can be said to come out from his teachings about Anatta or non-self. The Tibetan Buddhists however end up misinterpreting and mixing these two concepts together in a way which only reinforces what must in the end be a perverted understanding of the Buddha’s message.

This above and their idea about ‘reincarnation’ (as against rebirth) points to the fact of an unwillingness to forgo of the idea of an abiding ‘self’ which moves on from life to another and which at the end (upon death of the fully enlightened), reap the fruit of success. In other words, it is self-view which is what motivates the beliefs and peculiar interpretations, yet it is self-view which must be dealt with before any other kinds of unwanted states can be seen through and finally eradicated.    

Yes, there is no ‘self’ and a correct understanding is that all phenomena, both physical and mental, are Anatta or non-self. This is the Buddhist understanding.  

=====
A:
Sikhism believes in Atma or Soul but not in the context of incarnation or reincarnation.

Con: Yes, I see a lot of resistance to the idea of continuation of accumulated tendencies as another ‘being’, beyond this particular life.


----------

