# What Is Karma In Buddhism And In Sikhi?



## Archived_member14 (Nov 13, 2010)

Tejwant ji,

You wrote:

Karma is again different than it is in the Hindu concept. Karma in Sikhi means,"we reap what we sow" in this life as reincarnation does  not come in the equation. Hence, Karma in Sikhi is a proven fact.<end quote>

Could you please elaborate and give some examples of this, namely that Karma is a proven fact? 

Thanks.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 13, 2010)

*Re: Are the Important Scriptures of World Religions, Simply Opinions?*



Confused said:


> Tejwant ji,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> ...



Here are a couple of very simple worldly examples:
- If you are pleasant to people, they are more likely to be polite to you too. If you are rude to people, they are more likely to be rude back to you.

- If you are a helpful person and help others without thinking about how it wastes you time, in the future if you are in a situation where you need help then you are more likely to receive it as others remember the favours you have done for them.
</end>


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 14, 2010)

*Re: Are the Important Scriptures of World Religions, Simply Opinions?*

Findingmyway ji,




findingmyway said:


> Here are a couple of very simple worldly examples:
> - If you are pleasant to people, they are more likely to be polite to you too. If you are rude to people, they are more likely to be rude back to you.
> 
> - If you are a helpful person and help others without thinking about how it wastes you time, in the future if you are in a situation where you need help then you are more likely to receive it as others remember the favours you have done for them.
> </end>




The examples you give are as far as I can see, the outcome of a kind of observation about the conventional world which we do all the time but not with any real understanding. Connections are made between what we perceive to be cause and what is effect which does not correspond with the reality of karma.

In the first example that you give, ‘being pleasant to someone’ is karma since it is a volitional action. But so is someone else’s being polite to you, this too is a volitional activity. So what in effect you are suggesting is that karma which is cause, leads not to an effect, but to another cause. 

Besides, you talk about a particular result as “more likely” to happen; this seems to be saying that any karma will not necessarily produce a corresponding kind of result. Is this in line with the fact of karma being a ‘universal law’?

More importantly, ‘being pleasant’ is not necessarily done with kindness, but as it more likely is the case, with attachment and some conceit. Yet in both cases, what is observed in terms of reaction in the other person, it is the same. And as you know, someone may with good intention point something out to another person but that person takes it bitterly. So really, in making the kind of conventional observation, are you really pointing to the law of cause and effect which is karma such that good leads to good results and bad to bad results?

But this is what I’d like to suggest:

Taking for example my being rude to someone, the reason that the other person is more likely to be rude back is due to his own accumulated tendencies and underlying attachments. Were kindness to arise instead, then he’d not be rude ‘back’ or if he understood that I’d reap the fruit of my actions, he may have compassion or be equanimous about it. Or he may quickly catch any aversion arising before it became strong enough to express as rudeness. 

Given this, the other example that you give would appear even more problematic. 
When you say that the other person will return a favor if he ‘remembers’ the help which I gave him in the past, you are now factoring also memory. And so now you are saying that certain karma will bear fruit provided that I come in contact with the same individual I acted well towards, and that too that he must remember me and the particular past event and deed? Is this not odd?

The reason I asked Tejwant ji to clarify is because I don’t believe that we can actually observe and prove as “fact” the workings of karma, although what goes on in the conventional world could be said to be its ‘shadows’. For example, if one became sick and stricken with pain, we could say that this is the result of bad karma in the past. What karma exactly this was however, we can only ever speculate about, but then this would not only be a vain activity, but in fact very misleading. 

We can talk in general about good resulting in good and bad resulting in bad. And we can know in theory what kind of experiences these refer to exactly and begin to engage in a totally different kind of study about our own experiences. Beginning with the actions through body, speech and mind, we can come to gradually understand karma for what it is. We also learn to understand those experiences which are the results of karma and see that these two are in fact quite different in nature. And then we will not go by just some vague idea about karma, let alone project some false notion about cause and effect onto our experiences. 

With this comes the interest in understanding what is it that is the experience “now”, as against thinking in terms of causal connections between any two events in the conventional world. This is the only way that any belief in karma becomes established. Indeed to be seeking some corresponding manifestation of this law in terms of events in one’s life thinking to “prove” karma this way, is likely a reflection of a lack of understanding and therefore any proof found does nothing to arouse any real confidence, but only increases doubt. 

Furthermore, inevitably we come to be faced with apparent contradictions such as a ruthless businessman becoming successful and happy, a kind and honest man having many personal problems, a drug dealer being pronounced innocent and an innocent man being wrongly accused of murder. These can all be explained in terms of karma that go back to past lives and results ripening in future ones. But one is stuck so to speak, if one insists on just this one lifetime alone. And again it only encourages more doubt.

On the other hand, when karma and its results are being studied in terms of the different kinds of experiences, there is no mind to “prove” anything in terms of events. Yet this is what leads one away from questioning such things as rebirth and the existence of different realms. After all, one has only just begun the study, and clearly an infinite supply of ignorance remains and continually arises. And one can begin to see doubt at work and the myopia related to the insistence that this is the only life we have. This latter I believe is in many cases, the driving force behind the need to seek evidence about karma in terms of observable events in one’s life. But alas, this is being caught up in a vicious cycle where ignorance and doubt increases, but one thinks otherwise.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

*Re: What is karma*

*The above posts have been moved from
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...ptures-world-religions-simply-opinions-3.html

as they relate to a new topic which warrants a discussion of its own.
Thanks,
Jasleen
*


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

*Re: What is karma*

Confused ji,
I would like to ask one question here please. Are you judgung success/good things etc on worldly standards or spiritual ones? If judging on worldly standards then your argument holds. However, that implies that Guru Arjan Dev Ji and others that went through torture had bad previous karma. The fact they were able to deal with it and still say 'Tera bhana meetha lage' to me seems the best kind of karma. That is what I am aiming for-to be able to deal with anything and retain my spirituality and my good qualities (still got a way to go yet!). Success in business will bring material comforts but these provide temporary pleasure and are more likely to cause the recipient to get seduced by maya and therefore stray from the path of being a gurmukh. Therefore is it really the outcome aimed for by karma?
Interested in hearing your thoughts,
Jasleen


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 14, 2010)

*Re: What is karma*

Jasleen ji,

<<<I would like to ask one question here please. Are you judgung success/good things etc on worldly standards or spiritual ones? If judging on worldly standards then your argument holds. However, that implies that Guru Arjan Dev Ji and others that went through torture had bad previous karma. The fact they were able to deal with it and still say 'Tera bhana meetha lage' to me seems the best kind of karma. >>>

If by worldly you refer to man-made rules, this is not what I am talking about. If by spiritual you mean the law of cause and effect which include karma and its results, yes I am expressing my understandings about this. But you say that my arguments hold if what I refer to is in the sphere of the former, so I’m not really sure now what you have in mind in making this particular distinction.

Yes, anyone who is subjected to torture and feels the bodily pain, this must be the result of some bad deed done in the past. And yes, if that person bears the pain patiently, this is good karma. 

<<< That is what I am aiming for-to be able to deal with anything and retain my spirituality and my good qualities (still got a way to go yet!). >>>

We should be careful about any tendency to overreach. Knowing ourselves is to know our limitations and accepting it. Ambition with respect to good qualities is still ambition and is never useful. Our problem is ignorance and craving, wanting to acquire more good qualities and being disturbed by the bad ones, we end up encouraging evil in other forms usually disguised as good. Patience is called for when we become aware of some bad quality in ourselves. Overall, walking along the path of good should be done with courage and ease of heart. Any agitation is sure sign of some wrong attitude taking over.   

<<<Success in business will bring material comforts but these provide temporary pleasure and are more likely to cause the recipient to get seduced by maya and therefore stray from the path of being a gurmukh. Therefore is it really the outcome aimed for by karma?>>>

I don’t understand your last question.
In giving the example of the ruthlessness of the businessman and his being happy and successful, I was trying to show that these two did not have any direct connection. The businessman’s ruthless activities will sure bring bad results, but any happiness, honor, praise and respect which he receives, would in fact be the result of some good karma done in the past. It makes no difference for example; that someone praises him for his ability to make money. People think what they like to think and there will be some people on the other hand, who will highlight the ‘inherent greed’ in association with the same concept and instead of praise they would express blame. This again is an example of the tendency to think about cause and effect not in line with the way things really are.

I hesitate to make the connection between being rich and falling prey to maya. Attachment is the enemy which is subtle and when everything is going fine, we are usually not motivated to seek answers, unlike when there is dissatisfaction. But really, you can’t say that the rich experiences more attachment and less dissatisfaction than those who aren’t. Attachment has its way and even for the poor some object will always be found. 

I hope some of what I wrote has been of help.


----------



## findingmyway (Jan 28, 2011)

Confused ji,
I have been meaning to reply to this post for sometime but have lacked the time and energy to write my thoughts down though they have been in my head for sometime. Perhaps I was wrong to bring in worldly examples at the beginning but I do not reject them completely as on a superficial level I think thoughts such as those in day to day working are productive in improving manners. We can never really know a persons motivations but that is no reason not to encourage courteous and considerate manners. However, my understanding of karma goes much deeper and it is something I think about an awful lot, especially recently.

I truly struggle with relating karma to past lives as there are just too many pitfalls in this approach. On many levels it also encourages a sense of defeat and gives people an excuse out of their situation. The belief seems to act as a scapegoat rather than a push for improvement. In the example of the bad businessman, you say, "happiness, honor, praise and respect which he receives, would in fact be the result of some good karma done in the past." I do not understand this as you are relating his worldly happiness and praise to good karma. My understanding about karma is more spiritual because you have already said that we do not really know the intentions of the people giving this praise etc and we do not know how lasting or deepfelt that happiness is. I will explain further a little later.

I have spent much time with people with learning difficulties on both a professional and personal level. People will often say they must have bad karma from a previous life to be born like that. However, I can't buy this as many of the people I know are inspiring and more contented than I will ever be. Most people equate being born into comfortable home, healthy, few hardships in life with previous good karma. Again I cannot agree as this is judging from worldly levels and not spirituality. Different communities have different ideas of what is good and what is bad and these are sometimes opposites so how do we judge good and bad karma in those situations? Premature babies have no time to earn any karma for their next birth so what happens to them? So many holes and question marks, the list of possibilities is endless.

The thing that puzzles me most is when I think about Guru Arjan Dev ji. According to conventional wisdom, on one hand Guruji must have had the most incredible good karma to be a Guru. On the other hand there must have been bad karma there for Guruji to be martyred after enduring the most painful horrendous torture. I cannot reconcile those 2 things. 

For this reason I understand karma to arise from our actions in this life and we have control over that karma. The result of karma is also the ability to rise above bitterness, lust, attachment, greed, revenge, anger, ego while dealing with the world. Good karma allows us to always do the right thing and deal with the consequences as doing the right thing is usually tougher. Above all good karma allows us to feel the connection with Waheguru. Whether I believe in reincarnation or not, I'm not sure but I don't believe it is relevant to karma in this lifetime as we have full control over how we behave and think should we choose to exercise that control.



> We should be careful about any tendency to overreach. Knowing ourselves  is to know our limitations and accepting it. Ambition with respect to  good qualities is still ambition and is never useful.



I cannot agree with this. As human beings we should always strive to be better people. If we just accepted the way things are and didn't try to correct out faults the world would be an even worse place than it is. I do not understand how on any level striving to be a better person with better qualities can be bad? More important is how you go about it and that is where counterproductive actions can be taken. That should not stop us from trying to develop good qualities but make us wary of how we are doing it. Attachment will only arise if you are making the changes for worldly praise and to massage your own ego, not if you are truly trying to do seva in the broadest sense of the word. This world drags us down so it is a constant effort to rise above it. Merely accepting my limitations rather than trying to deal with them would only result in me drowning as the fight would be too tough. Accepting my natural greed, anger, lust, attachment and ego rather than tackling it would take me further away from Waheguru.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 28, 2011)

Confused said:


> Tejwant ji,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> ...



Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

Sorry for the delayed response. Allow me to ask you a couple of questions so we can take this discussion a bit further and learn from it.

1. What don't you understand in or what is your contention about"we reap what we sow"?

2. How the above is not a fact? If one sows the seeds of any sweet fruit, the result of reaping the same is not only probable but factual. The same goes for  the seeds of a bitter thorny fruit.

3.In one of your responses to Jasleen, you write:

</end>_"Yes,  anyone who is subjected to torture and feels the bodily pain, this *must  be the result of some bad deed done in the past*. And yes, if that  person bears the pain patiently, this is good karma. _"

The above in bold sounds quite factual for you the way you have put it, what makes you so sure of your claim above?

Has anyone come back from the past life or anyone living in this life mentioned what they did in their past lives?

Yes, Sikhi is not into reincarnation, hence that is not the benchmark for anything in Sikhi.

More hearing from you.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


<end quote="">

</end>


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 28, 2011)

Was it Karma of past deeds, past janams also casue of the horrible tortures SIKH SHAHEEDS went through ? Guru Arjun Ji felt the pain of the hot plate, and bore the pain gracefully..didnt blame anyone for this..BUT as His HUKM..His Bhanna...what Karma if nay was involved ??..........because the Martyrdom of Guru Arjun ji was just the beginning..then a long line of such martyrs begins...Guru Hargobind Jis Battle fileds...Death of Baba Atall rai Ji ( of baba atall pakeena pkaiyan ghall fame )....Guru Teg bahadur Ji....Battles of Guru Gobind Singh ji..His four sons...Muktsar..Baba Banda Singh...Maharaja Ranjit Singh..Anglo-sikh battles..Gurdwra Sudhaar lehr 1900-1945 Kookas andolan..Morchas of Akali dal..World wars Sikh Soldiers....1947 partition..1984..bluestar..ops in Delhi Kanpur etc etc....was all this due to KARMA of Past janams/deeds.......and then all these martyrs gt REINCARNATED ?? Doesnt JIBE with GURBANI...in fact look like hurdles or pitfalls...prickly questions difficult to justify with GURBANI...


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 28, 2011)

On this thread too it will help to understand the contradictions between "karma" in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Hindu notions of karma. Please see the article by Dr. Baldev Singh, who examines the connections between Karma, transmigration and reincarnation, and tries to show that the traditional notions, which are tied to the caste system and were not originally part of the sanatan dharma,  are incompatible with Nanakian Philosophy.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Jasleen ji,

Thanks for reopening this discussion. I had forgotten that I wrote so much about Karma here already. 

I’d like to go step by step in providing an outline about this subject.

Q: What is Karma? Is it a reality or just an idea?
A: A reality.

Q: What kind of reality, mental or physical?
A: Mental.

Q: Which mental reality?
A: The mental factor of intention or volition.

Q: What does intention do?
A: It performs the function of coordinating and ‘willing’. It is that which motivates wholesome and unwholesome actions through body, speech and mind. In performing the function of willing, it takes the nature of being “cause” which must bring result in the future. When weak in strength, although it will not produce results ever, however the tendency to the particular wholesome or unwholesome state accumulates. 

Q: What kind of results does karma or intention give rise to?
A: Karma can give rise to both mental and physical phenomena. The latter include the five sense organs or to be more precise, the “base” upon which the sense consciousness arises, namely seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and body consciousness.

Q: Does karma give rise to result in other forms?
A: Besides sense experience which arises during life, the last consciousness with its volition is cause for rebirth which follows immediately upon death. This very same karma is cause for what is termed life-continuum and the death consciousness of the new life. Life-continuum are those states which arise and fall away continuously between moments of sense experience and the volitional consciousness following upon these. It is exactly what is there when we are in deep sleep.

Q: So karma is one kind of experience with the nature and function of being ‘cause’, and this is different from those kinds of experiences which are its ‘result’?
A: Yes, we need to understand the difference and not join the two together; otherwise we end up either talking about karma in terms of ‘situations’ which then likely leads to more proliferation of thought. Or worse, we may confuse the two, taking what is in fact of the nature of cause to be a result. For example in feeling aversion to some pain, not being able to distinguish these two, we may think that the pain is continuous, when the truth is that the pain itself does not last long, but the thinking with aversion which is accompanied by unpleasant feeling, keeps arising to give the impression that ‘pain’ persists.  

Q: This sounds like a practical application of the knowledge. In terms of the development of understanding, what is the importance of making this distinction?
A: Without knowing this, karma will never be understood and doubt about it will continue to arise. This leads to being attracted to ideas about cause and effect that are conventional which really have nothing to do with the reality of consciousness, the mental concomitants and of physical phenomena. And being that these are in fact all there ever is at any single moment of our lives, not knowing them means ignorance increases. But more importantly, if we reject karma and instead believe in some other idea about cause and effect, we end up accumulating wrong understanding and the attachment which necessarily accompanies this. 

Jasleen ji, the above is rough, but I can’t think of another approach at this time. I do hope however, that it is enough background knowledge such that it makes it a little easier for you to understand my comments in the message which follow.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Jasleen ji,


This must be my longest post anywhere, so be warned. ;-)

=======


> Findingmyway:
> I have been meaning to reply to this post for sometime but have lacked the time and energy to write my thoughts down though they have been in my head for sometime. Perhaps I was wrong to bring in worldly examples at the beginning but I do not reject them completely as on a superficial level I think thoughts such as those in day to day working are productive in improving manners. We can never really know a persons motivations but that is no reason not to encourage courteous and considerate manners. However, my understanding of karma goes much deeper and it is something I think about an awful lot, especially recently.




C: Anything can be a condition for the arising of wisdom as long as the accumulation for this is strong. On the other hand, when it is weak or absent, no matter how much one is pointed to about the truth which is right here and right now, one would prefer instead, to proliferate in terms of past, present and future driven by attachment and wrong understanding. 
And yes we should encourage people towards the good and not assume anything.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> I truly struggle with relating karma to past lives as there are just too many pitfalls in this approach. On many levels it also encourages a sense of defeat and gives people an excuse out of their situation.




C: It is good to realize that one does not understand Karma. But it can be very bad if one *misunderstands* it. A correct understanding of karma will never give the impression of being fated. Anyone who feels helpless when thinking about karma must surely be having some misconception about it. Likewise in the case of those who use it as an excuse for certain behavior.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> The belief seems to act as a scapegoat rather than a push for improvement. In the example of the bad businessman, you say, "happiness, honor, praise and respect which he receives, would in fact be the result of some good karma done in the past." I do not understand this as you are relating his worldly happiness and praise to good karma.




C: Please change the ‘happy’ to ‘pleasure’. 
I was not referring to anything situational, but rather to precise mental and physical phenomena consisting of series of momentary sense experiences together with any interpretation of these.  A voice of praise for example would consist of hearing particular sounds and thinking about them in a particular way, which reflects the intention of the other person who is giving the praise. This is one thing we all seek and the rich man simply happens to receive it. 

I then distinguished this from the otherwise arising of greed and other unwholesome states in the case of such a person. I said that the former must be result from the past, and indeed if you think that this person has only done evil all his life, the event must then go back to previous lives, otherwise what else could possibly be the cause? But even if we were to interpret praise, honor etc. differently, one would still have to acknowledge that the pleasant experiences through the five senses, do indeed occur for the rich man as it does for everyone else. What then would you consider as being cause for these, and when could they have been initiated? 

==========


> Findingmyway:
> My understanding about karma is more spiritual because you have already said that we do not really know the intentions of the people giving this praise etc and we do not know how lasting or deep felt that happiness is. I will explain further a little later.




C: It is true that we don’t know the intentions of the other person. But praise is praise and blame is blame. If we mistake one for the other, this is due to perversion of perception and consciousness on our part, we’d be wrong in our conclusions, but this does not change the reality. If for example, we do not detect the sarcasm and are led wrongly to believe that we are being praised, this would simply be due to having been wrong about it.

But praise, blame, pleasure, pain etc. like all realities, are transient. If you are thinking something as happening in time and lasting long, then you are in fact thinking about situations and not in terms of the reality.

==========


> Findingmyway:
> I have spent much time with people with learning difficulties on both a professional and personal level. People will often say they must have bad karma from a previous life to be born like that. However, I can't buy this as many of the people I know are inspiring and more contented than I will ever be.



C: You’d both need to differentiate result from causes. Being born handicapped, such as blindness, is result of bad karma done in the past. But this is only one thing and should not be tied up with other aspect of the person’s life. He or she may have great accumulations for kindness which could lead him in fact, to do much good in that life thereby increasing the chance of better birth in the future. Besides in that life itself, he could well be having good experiences through the other senses, but even if this did not happen, understanding should never cause one to feel hapless and dejected. Indeed, at those moments one would do well with some *understanding* about karma and realize that such attitudes are the stuff of the very cause for bad results. In other words, stop complaining and instead understand what is really going on!

In the case of the mentally handicapped, he may have difficulty understanding anything. But this is no reason not to try, after all what is more valuable than an encouragement to good? Besides, our concerns in this kind of situation usually revolve around worldly considerations, for example that the person should function well enough not to then be subjected to blame by other people. But we forget that it is moral integrity which is most important, indeed in that very situation patience and understanding is what all involved need to have. The way we end up trying to fix anything, when analyzed, does it not always come down to a matter of catering to desire aimed at just the four desirable ones of the eight worldly conditions?

==========


> Findingmyway:
> Most people equate being born into comfortable home, healthy, few hardships in life with previous good karma. Again I cannot agree as this is judging from worldly levels and not spirituality.




C: Not necessarily. Yes, people do get caught up in ideas about situations, but we can understand these things as being metaphors instead. In which case, being born healthy with few hardships etc. would mean there is much greater frequency of pleasant experiences through the five senses as compared to the unpleasant experiences.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> Different communities have different ideas of what is good and what is bad and these are sometimes opposites so how do we judge good and bad karma in those situations?



C: And this is exactly why we need to develop our own understanding, otherwise we’d be influenced by such set values. The reference point must be a mental reality; greed is greed and unwholesome because it has a particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. Why would you trust the majority view to dictate what is right and what is wrong, except when it comes to social rules?

==========


> Findingmyway:
> Premature babies have no time to earn any karma for their next birth so what happens to them? So many holes and question marks, the list of possibilities is endless.




C: Even for those who die at an old age, the karma which decides the next rebirth does not necessarily come from this life, but objects and tendencies from past lives can come in at any time. And it is the law of psychical order that just before the dying consciousness which is result, a moment of mental volition must arise.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> The thing that puzzles me most is when I think about Guru Arjan Dev ji. According to conventional wisdom, on one hand Guruji must have had the most incredible good karma to be a Guru.



C: Hmm, to teach is karma, but you are making it sound as if it is ‘result’ of karma. Or do you mean that he received praise, status and gain?

=========


> Findingmyway:
> On the other hand there must have been bad karma there for Guruji to be martyred after enduring the most painful horrendous torture. I cannot reconcile those 2 thin


gs. 


C: You’d need to think about all this in terms of momentary experiences. In a day, we all experience both the result of good as well as bad karma; this is what makes this ‘human plane’ ideal for the development of wisdom. I have no problem in this regard in accepting that the Buddha, even after his enlightenment, experienced results of bad karma done in past lives. Indeed this happened just before his death when he ate bad pork curry and had to experience pain and discomfort.

==========


> Findingmyway:
> For this reason I understand karma to arise from our actions in this life and we have control over that karma.




C: Then will yourself to enlightenment, right here and right now! 
Which karma conditioned which result is said to be one of the “unthinkables” and can lead to madness if indulged in. And I believe that your insistence that it must all take place within this lifetime is a species of such thinking.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> The result of karma is also the ability to rise above bitterness, lust, attachment, greed, revenge, anger, ego while dealing with the world. Good karma allows us to always do the right thing and deal with the consequences as doing the right thing is usually tougher. Above all good karma allows us to feel the connection with Waheguru.




C: You are confusing cause with result and attributed to karma what in reality is accumulated tendency.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> Whether I believe in reincarnation or not, I'm not sure but I don't believe it is relevant to karma in this lifetime as we have full control over how we behave and think should we choose to exercise that control.



C: First, I do not subscribe to the idea of ‘reincarnation’ but to ‘rebirth’. 
Yes, it is useless to think about the past and like I said, to wonder about which result come from which cause is not only futile but harmful. On the other hand however, failing to acknowledge that the cause of a particular result can come from past lives and deeds now gives result not necessarily in this life, is to approach the matter in a way which will never lead to the understanding of it. More importantly, the accumulated tendencies if they indeed come from our endless going round the cycle of existence, but we look to tie events together to explain our behavior and moral cause and effect, this would be akin to being delirious about the whole thing.

That you think that there is control over our actions, may in fact be fed by such myopic vision. 

There is no control ever, either at the level of sense experience which is “result” or at the level of volitional actions which is “cause”. Seeing arises not because we will it, but by conditions including visible object / light coming within range and contacting the eye-base and the same goes for the reaction which immediately follows. They arise by a complex set of conditions and all gone before we can think about it. It is delusory to think that there is control over any of this. But understanding this is itself a case wisdom being developed. And this leads not to think in terms of past causes and future effects, but the need to come back to the present moment. 

On the other hand, no matter how much we think to only concentrate in this life, if this is motivated by wrong understanding about karma, it can only lead to proliferations *about* the present, but never understanding it.

==========
Quote Me: We should be careful about any tendency to overreach. Knowing ourselves is to know our limitations and accepting it. Ambition with respect to good qualities is still ambition and is never useful. 


> Findingmyway:
> I cannot agree with this. As human beings we should always strive to be better people.




C: Wisdom does not strive, it simply understands and detaches. What you describe is the exact opposite of this.

==========


> Findingmyway:
> If we just accepted the way things are and didn't try to correct out faults the world would be an even worse place than it is.



C: This is just a trick played by attachment and wrong understanding. There is no need to fear such thing happening. I was talking about acceptance which comes from understanding, not otherwise. Wisdom can only have the effect of encouraging good of all kinds by way of understanding its value and the harm in evil states. And one big evil in need of recognizing is ‘self-attachment’ which drives us to seek ‘gain’ even with regard to ideas about good.

=========


> Findingmyway:
> I do not understand how on any level striving to be a better person with better qualities can be bad? More important is how you go about it and that is where counterproductive actions can be taken.



C: The aim determines the path followed, if the one is conditioned by attachment and wrong understanding, so will the other. And the end result would be what I call, ‘illusion of result’, one which is then held on to tightly and feeds into the ambition. Having perceived something as counterproductive, taking steps to correct this, what if this is aimed at that particular illusion?

==========  


> Findingmyway:
> That should not stop us from trying to develop good qualities but make us wary of how we are doing it.




C: Seeing through ‘wrong effort’ is an instance of ‘right effort’ and this accumulates.

==========


> Findingmyway:
> Attachment will only arise if you are making the changes for worldly praise and to massage your own ego, not if you are truly trying to do seva in the broadest sense of the word.




C: So you need to understand the mind don’t you? Otherwise how would you know if it is indeed right effort? Not knowing this, how can you ever be sure that seva will not serve ego in ways not readily apparent?

===========


> Findingmyway:
> This world drags us down so it is a constant effort to rise above it. Merely accepting my limitations rather than trying to deal with them would only result in me drowning as the fight would be too tough.




C: Why do you perceive the enemy as being ‘out there’? Our real enemies are the ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit and wrong understanding with which we keep perceiving things. One way to counter these is to develop good qualities such as kindness, compassion, moral restraint, generosity and so on. However the only way that they can gradually lose their power, is through the development of understanding, and this does not require being proactive about it. In fact a proactive approach is reflection of agitation which comes with attachment and aversion. And surely you’d not want to encourage these do you? 

==========


> Findingmyway:
> Accepting my natural greed, anger, lust, attachment and ego rather than tackling it would take me further away from Waheguru.




C: Again, we are talking about acceptance that comes with understanding. Indeed this acceptance is a manifestation of ‘detachment’ which is a requirement from the very outset for anyone who sees the harm of its opposite, namely ‘attachment’.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 30, 2011)

Confused ji and findingmyway ji! Thanks for engaging each point in this dialog in a serious and systematic way. 


Out of pure selfishness on my part, for now I am personally gaining a better sense of karma in Buddhism. 
Out of a perceived need to make interfaith comparisons and contrasts more complete, imho, a gap in our offerings on Buddhism is filled.

The thread can now be moved to Interfaith Dialogs since the conversation has clearly taken that direction.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Tejwant ji,


I wrote a response and thought that I had already sent it. But since I have not been able locate it; I am now sending a new one.

Thanks for responding.
=======


> Quote
> You wrote:
> 
> Karma is again different than it is in the Hindu concept. Karma in Sikhi means,"we reap what we sow" in this life as reincarnation does not come in the equation. Hence, Karma in Sikhi is a proven fact.


Me:
Could you please elaborate and give some examples of this, namely that Karma is a proven fact? 




> Tejwant:
> Sorry for the delayed response. Allow me to ask you a couple of questions so we can take this discussion a bit further and learn from it.
> 
> 1. What don't you understand in or what is your contention about"we reap what we sow"?



C: I was not questioning the idea “we reap what we sow” but what you said about  Karma being a ‘proven’ fact, which I took to be as referring to observable events from which a conclusion is drawn. In other words, I wanted to know how you came to be convinced about the reality of karma.

========


> Tejwant:
> 2. How the above is not a fact? If one sows the seeds of any sweet fruit, the result of reaping the same is not only probable but factual. The same goes for the seeds of a bitter thorny fruit.



C: Are you giving this as an example of karma at work?

========


> Tejwant:
> 3.In one of your responses to Jasleen, you write:
> 
> "Yes, anyone who is subjected to torture and feels the bodily pain, this must be the result of some bad deed done in the past. And yes, if that person bears the pain patiently, this is good karma. "
> ...




C: I am as sure about it as much as my understanding allows, not more and not less, which admittedly, is only at the kindergarten level and is light years away from the perfect understanding got as a result of direct insight. I believe however, that I am on the right track and this is based on the little understanding about the difference between states that are ‘cause’ and those that are ‘result’. This of course does not make what I state about the subject any more that mere repeating what is said in the texts. But alternative explanations have at the same time, been seen through to some extent, including those observations made in the conventional world, which we readily place our confidence and trust on. 

=========


> Tejwant:
> Has anyone come back from the past life or anyone living in this life mentioned what they did in their past lives?




C: I believe this is a wrong approach to the problem, being that the problem is our ignorance of the Truth and not the lack of evidence, scientific or otherwise. Would we trust anyone’s testimony if the tendency to doubt is strong? Indeed, even if we were somehow transported into the distant past and provided ‘evidence’ of our having had another life. This kind of knowledge does absolutely nothing to reduce doubt. 

On the other hand, even if this is just to acknowledge it, if one sees the importance of understanding the present moment, one will admit to being completely ignorant about the mental and physical realities that make up this. At the same time however, there is confidence that the only way to understand anything ‘real’ is to study it directly and not just when we think about it. The fact that any evidence given as support for karma does nothing to reduce doubt, is based on this particular understanding that doubt can only be removed by direct understanding of both mental and physical phenomena. Evidences given are simply concepts placed against other concepts and weighed against. It works to appease the mind by sheer power of attachment to a particular idea. 

==========


> Tejwant:
> Yes, Sikhi is not into reincarnation, hence that is not the benchmark for anything in Sikhi.




C: Are you saying that Sikhi denies reincarnation or that it does not give it much weight? If the latter, I’d like you to consider what I suggested in my message to Ambarsaria ji in the “Do You Think That Sikhism Is Right/From God?” thread which I sent yesterday.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 30, 2011)

Confused ji I believe I am starting to follow your Karma exposition.  In a way to understand I have paraphrased below with mostly your words from your Q&A in the following,
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...-is-karma-in-buddhism-sikhi-2.html#post141412​ 
_Ambarsaria summary of Confused ji:_
_Karma is a mental reality performing the function of coordinating and willing continuously, giving rise to both mental and physical phenomena through sense consciousness and the last consciousness with its volition, is *cause for birth which follows immediately upon death.*_

  I can also understand the birth and death as mental physical phenomena in respect of Karma.

  However I want to pose for comment a variation on the one-to-one continuum.  I illustrate it as,

  Abbreviations:
·         B(1) -> Birth 1
·         D(1) -> Death 1
·         L(1) ->  Life 1
·         K(1) ->  Karma L(1)
·         Note:  I will arbitrarily classify state (1) as related to present life.  So negative numbers will be past and positive numbers >1 will be future.

  Example 1:  Linear continuity of  single Karma flow
  ---------->  B(-1), D(-2), L(-1), K(-1) *-> *B(0), D(-1), L(0), K(0) *-> *B(1), D(0), L(1), K(1) *-> *B(2), D(1), L(2), K(2)  ------------->

  Example 2:  Progressive continuity of many Karma interactions and cross development

  ---------->  B(-1), D(-2), L(-1), *K(w)* -> B(0), D(-1), L(0), *K(x)**-> *B(1), D(0), L(1), *K(y)* -> B(2), D(1), L(2), *K(z)*  ------------->

  In Example 2, I can understand and see that K(w), K(x), K(y), K(z) as composite Karmas built from linear in Example 1 as well impacted by your life linkages blood/genetic (physical but possible mental phenomena as well)  and virtual (social/cultural/etc., mostly mental but some physical phenomena as well) beyond your own oneness.

  I believe Sikhism not being anti-Science could reconcile with Example 2 versus Example 1.

  Either I am totally screwed up in my understanding of your great post or I am starting to crawl in my understanding of the same.

  Any comments appreciated.

  Sat Sri Akal.

PS:  Some relationship to Reasons 3, 4 and 5 in the following (5 Reasons why you won't die ...),

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/34243-five-reasons-you-wont-die.html#post140863


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 1, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,


You must think that I’ve got a good IQ or something. But I actually get nervous when encountering numbers and equations! As a result I don’t really know what you are asking. You’d need to explain it to me some other way, and since I don’t in fact have a good IQ, a detailed explanation would be helpful. 

I understand that this is how you are trying to grasp the matter and it is in accordance with your particular accumulations. However I do feel that it is not right to try understanding these things by use of diagrams or equations. What is required is study of the present moment which includes recognizing any tendency to go off into intellectualizing about things. It appears to me that you are trying to get a big picture about karma or a bird’s eye view of it, which is fine if this is needed to get you interested. However it does seem like a formidable task for me to try and explain it to you in such a context.

Also there is one thing you’d need to take into consideration. You will have noted that I talk a lot about ‘conditionality’. This is basically, specific types of relationships between mental and physical realities taking place at any given moment, without which the arising of those realities could not happen. There are altogether 28 of these conditions of which ‘karma condition’ is just one. Gets quite complex doesn’t it? 

========


> You wrote:
> Confused ji I believe I am starting to follow your Karma exposition. In a way to understand I have paraphrased below with mostly your words from your Q&A in the following,
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/interf...tml#post141412





> Ambarsaria summary of Confused ji:
> Karma is a mental reality performing the function of coordinating and willing continuously, giving rise to both mental and physical phenomena through sense consciousness and the last consciousness with its volition, is cause for birth which follows immediately upon death.



C: OK for now, although I do anticipate some problem down the road, but I’d wait for that to happen before explaining more.

========
Ambarsaria:





> I can also understand the birth and death as mental physical phenomena in respect of Karma.



C: Birth must be mental, although as all mental realities need a physical base upon which to arise, birth too needs one and this is the ‘heart base’. 

========


> Ambarsaria:
> However I want to pose for comment a variation on the one-to-one continuum. I illustrate it as,
> 
> Abbreviations:
> ...




C: I await a more easy-to-understand version of the above. Meanwhile I’d like to point out that the physical reality such as the sense base and heart base which I’ve mentioned, are in fact so ephemeral that science won’t ever be making a statement about them. The attention of science at any given time is towards concepts which I consider to be ‘shadows of reality’, but never to reality itself. 

Likewise what you state about ‘virtual’, this too is concept. And of the 28 types of conditions that I mentioned above, concepts can only be ‘object condition’, which means it is the object of consciousness and nothing more. What you may have in mind are a host of experiences joined together by thought to create what is then taken to be ‘social influence’ etc., but the fact is that each one of those are actually separate instances of consciousness related to the next one by yet other types of conditions. And the conditionings involved in each one, are very specific. More importantly however, they are extremely fleeting and so if you are having some global idea as to what in fact influences what, that thought could in fact be misleading.

==========


> Ambarsaria:
> I believe Sikhism not being anti-Science could reconcile with Example 2 versus Example 1.
> 
> Either I am totally screwed up in my understanding of your great post or I am starting to crawl in my understanding of the same.
> ...




C: Again I’d need a ‘for dummies’ version about the subject. Although physics was indeed my favorite subject in school, we never even heard about quantum physics in those days. Before becoming interested in Buddhism I had read a little bit, but I don’t remember anything now.

On the surface, what you cited appears to have some interesting ideas. However, the starting point and the concluding one are a problem, but to be expected since it comes in from what according to Buddhism is called ‘self-view’. This latter is at the root of what is termed ‘wrong view’ which has been compared to someone moving in the dark without any sense of direction. And what is also obvious and to be expected is that science does not and cannot work with reality, but only concepts. And therefore no matter how otherwise sincere a scientist is in his so-called ‘quest for truth’, he’d forever miss the point.

Sorry for the delay in responding, things just kept coming up. But I hope I can give a more prompt response next time.


----------



## findingmyway (Feb 7, 2011)

Just wrote a very long post and lost it so am going to try again tomorrow as too exhausted now. I hate computers! :crash: yellingsardarni:down::8-:crash:


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 7, 2011)

:motherlylove: :motherlylove:

You have had a hard time of it with that computer of yours. Rest sounds good to me.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 7, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> Just wrote a very long post and lost it so am going to try again tomorrow as too exhausted now. I hate computers! :crash: yellingsardarni:down::8-:crash:


Just Karma :noticemunda:, it is written in the Kundli!winkingmunda

Computers are so dumb till they find an intelligent partnerlol

Me brain starting to melt so I have been parked to cool off for last 24-48 hours.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 8, 2011)

Confused said:


> Tejwant ji,
> 
> 
> I wrote a response and thought that I had already sent it. But since I have not been able locate it; I am now sending a new one.
> ...



Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

The problem I find in this  interaction of ours is and please correct me if I am wrong that you see everything even what is shared with you about Sikhi through your Buddhist lens hence disregard what the true values and Sikhi concepts are shown to you. The interaction becomes a circular argument rather  than a learning interaction.

I can rebut  your response one by one but that will lead us no where as it  seems you are not open minded enough to accept Sikhi concepts of things like Karma, reincarnation and many more. No one is asking you to embrace them but just try to find another lens through which you can appreciate within of this prism which encompasses everything.

As,  you, yourself  have admitted  many times  that you do not like long responses/posts which shows that your mind has already been made up and hence the refusal to see the contents of the long post which I am sure would be a learning expereince and at times eye openers.

What I would suggest and this suggestion is only if you are interested in learning about Sikhism in a comparative fashion, to read many threads and posts already posted in this forum which have all the answers you have thus far asked and then share your experience by comparing them with your concepts and values.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Admin (Feb 8, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> Just wrote a very long post and lost it so am going to try again tomorrow as too exhausted now. I hate computers! :crash: yellingsardarni:down::8-:crash:


while writing longish replies it is advisable to use MS word or notepad and never forget to hit CTRL+S every time you stop to think. will save you a lot of time. japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 8, 2011)

Tejwant ji,


Thank you for pointing out what you perceive about me. It is good to remember whenever I feel irritated by anyone else's expressions, how much of a pain I can be to others with the way I express myself. But thats about the only thing I can do since its unlikely that I will change anytime soon. I realize too, that people are discouraged from responding to my posts for this and other reasons, not only here, but elsewhere as well. Besides I do express my Buddhist ideas on things in a way which could well come across as imposing to some people.  



> You wrote:
> The problem I find in this interaction of ours is and please correct me if I am wrong that you see everything even what is shared with you about Sikhi through your Buddhist lens hence disregard what the true values and Sikhi concepts are shown to you. The interaction becomes a circular argument rather than a learning interaction.



C: One could say that I'm generally inattentive and about the most muddle headed and self-absorbed person that I know. And this happens more or less when reading too. Regarding reading Sikh ideas through my Buddhist lens, you must be referring to my statements to Ambarsaria ji regarding the vices? I admit yes, that this is what I did. But then again, I do not recall reading anything substantial and definitive regarding Karma from the Sikh perspective. Indeed I’m waiting to hear this, and thought yesterday, on reading Findingmyway’s post which got lost, that perhaps she had done just that. 

On ‘disregarding Sikhi concepts’, what do you mean exactly by this? I can say that I disagree with them, but you seem to be saying that I am not even interested to read, which of course is true to some extent, since I read only the responses given to me and nothing more. 

Regarding ‘circular argument’, I’m not familiar with the concept, so I don’t really know what it is that you are referring to, but would be interested to hear about it.

=======


> Tejwant:
> I can rebut your response one by one……..




C: Please do, as much as you think needed, otherwise how would I know what people think? I like to believe that something useful has been said, but if it turns out that nothing at all is accepted, then I shouldn't continue to waste other people's time.

=======


> Tejwant:
> I can rebut your response one by one but that will lead us no where as it seems you are not open minded enough to accept Sikhi concepts of things like Karma, reincarnation and many more. No one is asking you to embrace them but just try to find another lens through which you can appreciate within of this prism which encompasses everything.




C: Again I’m sorry for being such a pain. 
I know people make reference to being open-minded a lot, but the concept does not play any part in my own thinking. 

If you are saying that I am ‘fixed’ in my way of thinking, I can only say that I wish I could be more and more confident about those things that I value and try to share with others here. If you are saying that I don’t speak with enough of a friendly attitude, I admit that I don’t have much kindness. If you are expecting me to leave room for the possibility of other teachings being right, all I can say is that I’d need to hear about it and would go on a one idea at a time basis. But then maybe I’m not hearing and this is what you are telling me! But as I said earlier, I’m not very attentive, however, with regard to those parts that I do read, I think that like everyone else, the evaluation happens automatically, even if this was to ‘pause and give more thought to the subject’. In other words, the lens through which I perceive is conditioned and I can’t see through two of them at the same time. Whatever the associated thoughts and how quick or slow one arrives at any conclusion; I don’t think one is necessarily more right than the other in this regard. I'll admit to being uncompromising, but is this necessarily a sign of foolishness? On the other hand, in being open and receptive, is this a sign of wisdom necessarily? 

========


> Tejwant:
> As, you, yourself have admitted many times that you do not like long responses/posts which shows that your mind has already been made up and hence the refusal to see the contents of the long post which I am sure would be a learning expereince and at times eye openers.




C: Sure, I do speak often from preconceived conclusions, but I do not encourage this. It’s just that there is too much ignorance and attachments and these arise uncontrollably. Were wisdom to arise instead and with this some goodwill, my interactions would have been different or maybe, I’d not say anything at all. ;-)

The fact that I don’t read long posts however is not only when it comes to materials here, but also those that interest me deeply.  You may be surprised to hear that I have read only one Buddhist book by my favorite author in ten years. I have at least seven other books by her and many others with very valuable material, but I have yet to read any of these. So you shouldn’t take it that I don’t bother because I have made up my mind. Although to some extent this is true, since I’d likely have done it had I read comments made here that aroused my curiosity. 

=======


> Tejwant:
> What I would suggest and this suggestion is only if you are interested in learning about Sikhism in a comparative fashion, to read many threads and posts already posted in this forum which have all the answers you have thus far asked and then share your experience by comparing them with your concepts and values.



C: I’m not interested in comparing, but I would be interested to hear what it is that is really taught. It would be too much work for me to read through all those postings here and I suspect that even then, I’d not be able to make out what is the definitive understanding. Even in Buddhists groups when the same thing is suggested to me, I usually ask that person to provide me with a summary or detailed exposition as he sees fit. And this is what I’d like to request of you Tejwant ji, if it is not too much trouble. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 9, 2011)

Confused said:


> Tejwant ji,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> ...



The strongest argument for me against the Hindu notion of Karma not being the same as the Sikh notion of Karma is the caste system.

As Sikhs we do not believe in caste, because caste is linked to ones past sins in a former life.

If you don't believe in caste then you don't believe in the Hindu notion of Karma.

</end>


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 9, 2011)

Randip ji,




Randip Singh said:


> The strongest argument for me against the Hindu notion of Karma not being the same as the Sikh notion of Karma is the caste system.
> 
> As Sikhs we do not believe in caste, because caste is linked to ones past sins in a former life.
> 
> ...




But isn’t this a wrong application of the concept by a certain group of people only? Between the two, the concept of Karma and Caste System which of these would define Hindu? Would it be right if someone were to throw out certain concept in Sikh teachings based on misapplication by some group of people claiming to follow Sikhi? You surely wouldn't say that the concept of Karma originated in the minds of those who wanted to control people and create the caste system, would you? If not, how about giving some credit to any correct application of the idea by those who may in fact disagree with the caste system as you do, most particularly those who lived long before the caste system came into existence? And would not the reasonable conclusion be that, “those who believe in Karma will not believe in the caste system”!?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 9, 2011)

Confused said:


> Tejwant ji,
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out what you perceive about me. It is good to remember whenever I feel irritated by anyone else's expressions, how much of a pain I can be to others with the way I express myself. But thats about the only thing I can do since its unlikely that I will change anytime soon. I realize too, that people are discouraged from responding to my posts for this and other reasons, not only here, but elsewhere as well. Besides I do express my Buddhist ideas on things in a way which could well come across as imposing to some people.
> ...



Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response.

One can easily notice how you contradict yourself from one sentence to the other in your post above. I am not interested in rebutting or giving you point by point answer because, as you have admitted yourself above that it would be just a waste of time because you are unwilling to make knowledge your best friend by refusing to read what has been offered.

I will just respond to what I have put in bold above. In Sikhi,inner journey is meant to be of the individual and of the individual only. Each of us carry our own spiritual torch. You have asked me to give you a summary of what I mean. Rather than giving you a summary, I have requested you to read many threads that are already on this forum which also include my posts so you can have an idea about the subject being discussed from the Sikhi viewpoint, but you have refused to do that.

I am sorry to disappoint you but I can not offer you something that you should have a desire yourself to know on a silver platter in the form of cliff notes. You have to make an effort yourself for that because it is your own personal journey. If you refuse to learn and exchange ideas, then I am afraid, I can not be of any help.

Enjoy your journey.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 9, 2011)

Confused ji, Randip Singh ji and Tejwant Singh ji I have written a brief post given some of the discourse in this thtread.  Sharing it for discourse not to prove right or wrong.

Some time-lines about Hinduism, Karma and Buddhism below,

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->  

Hiduism (Aryan based), Brahmins and Caste origination 1500 BC
Buddha was born in B.C. 560 and died at the age of eighty in B.C. 480.
The Bhagavad Gita (5th to 2nd century BC)
Caste System much enforced from 700AD onwards (supported by Islamic interactions and forgiveness of Jizya for upper classes)
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->  The following summary for illustration from, 

(http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_caste.asp)
​​  <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object  classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->  





> *1.  Justification in the Vedas:* No vedic tradition is valid unless it is found in the Vedas. The caste system would not have found approval among the vedic people unless there was some reference to it in the Vedas. _The Purusha Sukta in the 10th Mandala of the Rigveda describes how the castes came into existence_, from different parts of Purusha, the Cosmic Soul, at the time of a grand sacrifice performed by the gods. The brahmins came out of his mouth, the kshatriyas from his arms, the vaisyas from his thighs and the sudras from his feet.
> 
> Miracles and born and bred as unequal, _not recognized_ in Sikhism as equality at all stages of life postulated.





> *2.  Justification in the theory of Karma:* The concept of _karma_ perfectly justifies the caste system based on birth. It favors the argument that people of lower castes have to blame themselves for _their plight because of their bad karma in their past lives_. (Lord Krishna).
> 
> Assignment of higher or unequal by birth, _not recognized_ in Sikhism as equality at all stages of life postulated.





> *3.  Justification by the theory of Gunas:* According to many schools of Hindu philosophy, all beings and objects in the world contain the triple gunas or qualities of Prakriti. Their dominance or suppression cause people to act and behave differently and make them fit for certain types of occupations. These three qualities are sattva, rajas and tamas.
> 
> Sikhism postulates _all being from one source and continuing so_ and a creation of God which cannot be fully known or described by anyone.





> *4.  Justification by the religious laws:*The caste system was justified by most of the smriti literature, Manusmriti being the most notorious among them and by such religious scriptures as the Puranas, the Sutra literature and scriptures such as the Bhagavadgita and some later day Upanishads. The law books not only justified rigid caste system but prescribed severe punishments in case of violation.
> 
> The rigidity of Caste system starts to creep back in after the death of Buddha and during interactions with Islam later on in the Indus valley.
> 
> Supported by early Islamic interactions and forgiveness of Jizya { Under Islamic law, _jizya_ or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens} for upper classes.  This was followed by Islamic aggressors and conversions of Hindus to rigid Islamic interpretations.  This was the time of establishment of Sikhism to de-demonize Hinduism practices, beliefs and systems as well as fighting the Islamic aggression and religious preachings.


_*
There are actual counter writings about each and every of the four  categories of Hinduism Caste and Karma identified above in Sri Guru  Granth Sahib ji.*_




> _Randip Singh ji_
> The strongest argument for me against the Hindu notion of Karma not being the same as the Sikh notion of Karma is the caste system.
> As Sikhs we do not believe in caste, because caste is linked to ones past sins in a former life.
> If you don't believe in caste then you don't believe in the Hindu notion of Karma.
> ...


Buddhism while believing in Karma does not subscribe to Caste systems (same as Sikhism for caste system rejection) but different and specific concept of Karma.  The specifics of Karma in Buddhism, not subscribed to completely, as described in Sikhism postulations and discoveries through Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  


While there appear to be in some writings Miracles, "I am God" statement attributions, monks having a specific purpose and duties while supported by the rest of the population to provide for their subsistence; one sees some parallels with Hinduisms and Brahmin like practices via-a-vis Monks and Brahmin Pujaris.




> Confused ji,
> You may be surprised to hear that I have read only one Buddhist book by my favorite author in ten years.


Confused ji thanks for your posts and I would like to know if possible for you to send a PM or otherwise provide info about the book you refer to.  I will also get to, one day, describe the equations in my post depending upon how this thread develops.

Sat Sri Akal.peacesign


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 10, 2011)

Tejwant ji,

You wrote:



Tejwant Singh said:


> One can easily notice how you contradict yourself from one sentence to the other in your post above. I am not interested in rebutting or giving you point by point answer because, as you have admitted yourself above that it would be just a waste of time because you are unwilling to make knowledge your best friend by refusing to read what has been offered.




This is the second time that this has happened. The first time, perhaps the realization was weaker, that I quickly found justification to continue as I did before. This time however, it is different.

I had written a somewhat critical response to you, but when it was time to review it; this part quoted above struck me differently. I realized suddenly, how foolish I have been. 

True, at no time did I ever think to learn ‘from’ Sikhi, this is consequence of what I’ve come to understand through the Buddha’s teachings, which I consider very different from everything else. Indeed the more I come across core ideas of other teachings, the more wrong they all appear to me. And so I see myself here, as more or less sharing my understanding in order that other people may refine their own. Although I was not out to convert anyone for sure, sometimes however, the ‘sharing’ does become more like ‘preaching’! I’d have an idea that this was going on, but would brush it aside as unavoidable and of little consequence. In other words, I’d manage to wriggle out of the situation.

However today, after reading your comment quoted above, the image of being an ‘intruder’ came to mind. And suddenly I realized how very foolish and unkind I have been. It is one thing to share one’s understandings, however most of my comments especially those recently made, have been something else altogether. They have been more about the great ‘me’, than with any objective to help other people. Not only this, but the “I” conceit would come in each time that I feel compelled to respond and argue. 

Indeed how could all this not happen? The very idea to come in here and think to share must in fact have been conditioned by some degree of conceit!! And therefore to a good degree, I’ve been fooling myself all along and in the process have given others the wrong impression ending up perhaps, misleading some. Probably some here saw through all this, but chose not to say anything! 

But just one point Tejwant ji, with regard to my unwillingness to wade through all the posts you have asked me to read. I really do have an aversion to reading in general. Besides there are other things that would take my interest away from reading even a little. I would however have read any comments you make with interest if it was in a discussion, and so you should not take my unwillingness to read what you suggest as sign of insincerity. It would have been easier if you’d said that you do not wish to go to the trouble of re-writing all the comments which you have made before here. Then I’d simply have to decide whether or not to continue, i.e. if I wanted to, I’d have to read and be satisfied with whatever I can gather, or not bother with it at all. Besides it did not even occur to me at the time, that all you were asking of me was to read ‘your’ comments in those discussions.  

But anyway, this is my last post before a response to Ambarsaria ji, which I will compose later on after dinner. Lastly, I take this opportunity to apologize to you and everyone else here, for having been so intrusive. I’d likely read on and off some of the messages, and maybe respond to any response to this post of mine, but certainly no more poking my nose into any discussion.


----------



## Randip Singh (Feb 10, 2011)

Confused said:


> Randip ji,
> 
> But isn’t this a wrong application of the concept by a certain group of people only? Between the two, the concept of Karma and Caste System which of these would define Hindu? Would it be right if someone were to throw out certain concept in Sikh teachings based on misapplication by some group of people claiming to follow Sikhi? You surely wouldn't say that the concept of Karma originated in the minds of those who wanted to control people and create the caste system, would you? If not, how about giving some credit to any correct application of the idea by those who may in fact disagree with the caste system as you do, most particularly those who lived long before the caste system came into existence? And would not the reasonable conclusion be that, “those who believe in Karma will not believe in the caste system”!?


 
No!

Its not an application, but an absolute fact. Caste and Karma in Hinduism are beyond question linked. One goes in hand with the other. If you have no Caste you have no past Karma.

Karma in Hinduism was designed to control people (Varna/Jati are testiment to this)

The Sikh notion of Karma is more akin to, for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Sikhism simply states that Human life is precious and above all other forms of life, so use it well, for if you don't you will suffer (here and now) in one way or another.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 10, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,

At the end of my post to Randip ji, I had wanted to suggest that after rejecting the particular Hindu understanding of Karma, the Sikh understanding about it should be provided. But I decided against it as I thought that it may come across as a challenge.

I don’t know Hindu, but I wouldn’t try to learn about it from any scholarly writings. A scholar seeks to come to a general conclusion about groups of people and does not take into consideration the mind of the individual. He may study outward behavior of selected individuals, but then this clearly is a place where his projections likely take effect. And scholars will talk in terms of philosophy and the evolution of ideas, but again this is an abstraction and missing the point. Because religion is about the individual, not the outward behavior, but his attitude towards experiences.  

I don’t know Hindu, but what I do know is that any religion must be based on moral principles and this is what attracts different people to it. When I stated that Karma existed before there was caste system, historically I thought that this was the case, but this was not all that I had in mind. One thing I had in mind was that Karma as a moral principle is a universal law, and any correct or incorrect application must necessarily come after some recognition of this fact. And this means that Karma must override any other considerations, ones that we may feel disinclined to accept. 

An individual who approaches religion is attracted to those parts which teach morality, and Karma *is* a moral law. If there is anything else that interests him, these comes *after* and is never that important. It seems like an insult then, to suggest more or less that Hinduism is built on the caste system and that those who follow it are fools. I would say that even amongst those who feel suppressed by the system, they gain inspiration from those parts of their teachings which is about Karma and rightly! 

After all, what is the urge ‘to do good and avoid evil’ all about if not a reflection of this law being a Universal Truth? If Hinduism teaches about Karma, then it surely must have been based on such a truth and not as suggested, a creation by those who seek to control other people? You may not agree with the teachings, but why insult people’s intelligence?   

I appreciate your efforts to provide the necessary information and I think you were hinting at the Sikh concept of Karma when you remarked:

“Sikhism postulates all being from one source and continuing so and a creation of God which cannot be fully known or described by anyone.”

 I am however not going to engage in discussions here anymore and therefore apologize for having to make your efforts go more or less in vain.

Regarding the book you asked about, it is not like it was an important book from where I got all my ideas. But just that it is small in comparison and easier to read. It was “Buddhism in Daily Life” by Nina Van Gorkom. You can do a search and will surely come upon an online version of the book.

Thanks for all your discussions and kindness shown.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 10, 2011)

Confused ji thanks for your contributions.  I have downloaded the book you referred to and plan to study/read it.

In my way of philosophical thinking,


When all agree there is no learning.
When everyone _states their mind and puts in effort_, there is great learning
Not to stroke any egos, I have learnt a lot through this thread and many others at SPN with contributions from all or even jostling of philosophies and beliefs.

As you may have noticed in the contributions, Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji in Sikhism is not a book of definitions or rituals to salvation, etc.  

It is in a way a self contained Off-Line course that one can go through at their own pace to find answers for a practical life within the grander belief in _*"One Creator" who has enabled each and all to discover all without limitations and free from*_,


Where were you born in the Universe?
What is your sex?
What is your profession?
Who are your parents?
What is your education?
What are your physical attributes?
What physical environment you live in?
What religion you follow?
.
.
An open ended empowering of you if you need or want to discover and live a practical life!
Enjoy life and through your posts I have come to know that you do and are a practical person.

Sat Sri Akal.mundahug


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 10, 2011)

Confused said:


> Tejwant ji,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> ...



Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for your candor and honesty. It is much appreciated. As a Sikh, a student, a learner and a seeker; I must admit that I have learnt a lot from your insights shared by you through your posts in different threads.

I feel very fortunate to be a Sikh because it makes learning a life long endeavour and this is the main objective of mine for interacting in this forum.

Enjoy your journey.

Thanks once again for your valuable contributions.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## findingmyway (Feb 11, 2011)

I see a lot has happened in this thread! This time my reply comes from a pre-typed document which was my usual course of action until recently!!

Confused ji,
This is going to be a very long reply too (though possibly not as long as the one I wrote earlier). Your posts have confused me no end as I really don't fully understand where you are coming from or the concepts you are proposing. I see lots of mixing up between the mind and the real world in a way that doesn't make sense to me. I'll try and tackle various points you have mentioned so bear with me. Before I do that though I would just like to mention that we all feel we are on the right path. Listening to other points of view is great until they are put across as I am right and you are wrong and it cannot possibly be any other way. When things are discussed without this bias and talking down to people then it is a positive learning experience  by allowing us all to amend our understanding. This is why I like to hear other points of view. Yours provide much thought as they come from a different perspective.



> Q: So karma is one kind of experience with the nature and function of being ‘cause’, and this is different from those kinds of experiences which are its ‘result’?
> A: Yes, we need to understand the difference and not join the two together; otherwise we end up either talking about karma in terms of ‘situations’ which then likely leads to more proliferation of thought. Or worse, we may confuse the two, taking what is in fact of the nature of cause to be a result. For example in feeling aversion to some pain, not being able to distinguish these two, we may think that the pain is continuous, when the truth is that the pain itself does not last long, but the thinking with aversion which is accompanied by unpleasant feeling, keeps arising to give the impression that ‘pain’ persists.


 

 I am not really clear on what you consider to be result or cause. You refer to such concepts a lot so it may help for you to clarify. I ask not to be contrary but to understand more. With reference to karma, what do you see as causes and results? How are you relating pain to karma? Pain is pain-it still hurts. That is due to the firing of pain neurons which are there to make us sit up and take note. We cannot change that. I would say it is the ability to deal with pain rather than the pain itself which is related to karma. Our current lifetime is going to have a huge impact on that. Good karma results in ultimate peace rather than worldly praise, status, pleasure etc that you allude so several times in your posts.  


 Please also clarify what difference you see between rebirth and reincarnation and how this affects your understanding? My understanding is that rebirth refers to the spiritual soul during this lifetime and is determined by our actions and thoughts. Reincarnation is the rebirth of soul into a new body, new life and is not a central belief in Sikhi.


 Going back to the beginning, you define karma as intention and volition. There is a huge difference in the 2. Intentions are not enough, actions are essential for good karma. There is a Christian saying, “The road to the devil is paved with food intentions.” If we follow our will it can take us in the wrong direction. Gurbani teaches us to control our will and bend it to look beyond ourselves. That is how to earn good karma which will help us to lead a happy and spiritual life. Merely knowing our own mind is not enough as per my understanding, we need to then learn to control our senses and hence become better people. Knowledge is power but only if we choose to use it rather than sit on it saying this is the way it is!


 You mention memory. Memory is a very powerful teaching tool. Paying a good deed back is not necessary, it can also be paid forward. Paying forward is actually more beneficial. Your concept of karma requires an even more elusive concept of memory-that of the memory of previous lives encased in a soul. Memory during the lifetime seems more credible. Gurbani is all about thinking about our actions so they are not controlled by lust, anger, attachment, greed and ego. Memory can help with this.


 I find some difficulty in understanding your concept of attachment and how you judge people.  On one hand you agree that a persons intentions cannot be known but then you also seem to use your perception of those actions for understanding karma. Attachment cannot be eliminated completely but needs to be used constructively. You are attached to your notion of karma and other Buddhist concepts and I am attached to the SGGS. I would not necessarily call these negative attachments if they sustain and inspire us. You also talk about pleasure. I see this as a worldly attachment along with many other sensations. It is spiritual peace I aim for to try and detach myself from worldly pleasure and pain. (Not close to achieving this yet though!) Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.


 You talk about misunderstanding being dangerous. To whom and how? 100% understanding on every topic by all people is not possible. That is also God's will! Karma is such a topic where I don't think it is possible for any of us to know with complete surety what is right. I am a scientist and like to have evidence. I see the evidence of Waheguru's existence all around me in the real world. I see the effects of karma within a lifetime but I do not see the effects of past lives. This does not mean it is not possible but until I see evidence then I will not believe. If I did it would become blind faith and this is not encouraged by Gurbani. Until there is evidence, nothing is a proven fact.


 This may be a case of “agreeing to disagree” over whether past lives are central to karma or not. If you feel I am a lost soul that is ok as I am used to it. One of my Christian friends no longer talks to me as I refused to be saved by Jesus! Apologies for the length, jumping nature and generality of this post. I hope it is still coherent. It has been an exhausting week!
 Gurfateh.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 13, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,


I really appreciate your earnestness in asking for clarification and the willingness to continue with this discussion. But I don’t think that it is going to be fruitful to do so. 

My own understanding is very weak and the impression I often get but keep overlooking is that given the depth of the Buddha’s teachings, it should be expressed only when someone asks to hear and not otherwise. This was not the case with me approaching this group.  Besides I’d often be led to conclude that I should start from the very beginning and go step by step, but this did not happen either. I took it that Karma was also taught in Sikhi and thought to encourage a more accurate understanding about this by putting forward my own understandings. I was told by a friend that without the understanding of conditionality and non-self, this would not work, but I ignored this too. 

After I decided finally not to participate anymore, given the space, I have grown even more convinced about the need to not continue making the same mistake. Besides, people know me already and can always contact me in private if they are interested and then I could direct them to some books, like the one I did for Ambarsaria ji. 

I would have liked to be able to respond to all your questions, but I’ve actually already explained many of them in previous messages. It may be that my posts have always been so long that these points got hidden? Other questions follow from these and would not have needed to be asked. 

I’d however like to close this discussion with a comment on this part of your post:

Findingmyway:
"Karma is such a topic where I don't think it is possible for any of us to know with complete surety what is right. I am a scientist and like to have evidence. I see the evidence of Waheguru's existence all around me in the real world. I see the effects of karma within a lifetime but I do not see the effects of past lives. This does not mean it is not possible but until I see evidence then I will not believe. If I did it would become blind faith and this is not encouraged by Gurbani. Until there is evidence, nothing is a proven fact."

When I was your age I would never have imagined that one day I’d be talking in support of the concepts of Karma and rebirth. I had rejected religion and everything that came out from it and considered myself scientific in thinking. When I first got interested in Buddhism, like so many people everywhere, I interpreted these ideas in terms of what I could observe in the conventional world. However when I did finally come to accept the idea of rebirth ten years ago, this was not because I suddenly became fearful of consequence and started to believe blindly. It was in fact because I was led to consider realities that are here and now, that caused me to accept and not reject the idea as I did before. In other words, I accept Karma and Rebirth on the basis of an understanding of mental and physical phenomena that make up my life, now. 

And while this is based on some level of understanding, the insistence on interpreting them in terms of the present life, in fact came from attachments to other ideas / world views, one tending towards annihilationism. There was a well know Buddhist monk in Thailand with a huge following in Thailand and also in the West. This monk in his writings explained Karma and Rebirth and the idea of Heaven and Hell as I used to do in the past. 

When I was first introduced to the understanding that I now have, I was still reading and listening to this particular monk. But gradually I came to detect faults in his teachings and later on to conclude that this monk was in fact quite childish and arrogant. This is a monk who was supposed to be a disciple of the Buddha, but what he teaches is actually saying that the Buddha was ambiguous in his teachings or that he was using those ideas only as a metaphor. A little sense would have gotten him to realize where he was coming from with his own interpretation. A little appreciation of the power of ‘truthfulness’ would have made him see that the Buddha couldn’t have referred to something which his audience could easily take literally, what in fact was meant to be metaphorical. A little appreciation of the Buddha’s ability to teach in diverse ways would have made him realize that he needn’t have to rely on the metaphors to begin with. A greater understanding would have led him to conclude that the Buddha could have uttered only words that are affirmations of the Truth and beneficial to others.      

I have been hearing similar attitudes expressed here with regard to the idea of Karma and reincarnation, sometimes with the fervor of a rebellious young man. If one’s mind can’t wrap around an idea, this is what one needs to realize, or else come to know where one is coming from with one’s own interpretation. Instead, people insist upon it that reincarnation is meant only as a metaphor. But the fact is that there is really no need for using such metaphors to express an idea since there are in fact many other ways to do it. It would be ambiguous to do so since after all it is more likely that people (in India!) would take it literally. Would it then not reflect a lack of teaching skills on the part of the teacher and also of the tendency to truthfulness? 

You do not want to believe blindly in rebirth, and I say you shouldn’t. But you seek to determine the truth of this in the way that science does for anything it subsequently comes to accept or reject. And I say that this is the path of ignorance and craving and which makes you no better than the blind believers. Why?

Any idea held in mind is due to the function of memory and thinking. While the latter two are ‘realities’ with particular characteristics, ideas are concepts created by these. The concept of the earth being spherical is based upon certain experiences through the five senses which are real, but science does not at all take these into consideration, but instead builds the idea from other concepts arisen over and over again, such as what is involved in a person travelling in one direction and coming back to that same point. All these are concepts held together by force of attachment and made to associate in such a way that the final conclusion is arrived at. And once the final product is there, what is its status? Just another conclusion held together by the power of memory and thinking. In other words, the idea held in mind of the ‘round earth’ or that of the ‘flying hippo’, neither of these are affirmations of Truth. The former may have the status of an agreed upon convention and the latter not, but this makes it only a ‘conventional truth’ and not an ‘ultimate’ one.

The ultimate truths would be as I’ve pointed out so many times, such phenomena as seeing , hearing,  sound, taste, the earth element, the fire element, thinking, perception, feeling, birth consciousness, dying consciousness, attachment, aversion, wisdom, kindness, morality, concentration, masculinity, feminity, life faculty, attention etc., etc. These have particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause none of which is mentally created. They are what both the scientist as well as the believer in flying hippos can come to understand directly, but do not. 

And this is due to “ignorance”, another one of the ultimate realities with a particular characteristic, function and proximate cause. And the above should answer this query of yours:

Findingmyway:
"You talk about misunderstanding being dangerous. To whom and how? 100% understanding on every topic by all people is not possible."

Understanding and misunderstanding is spoken of with reference to the mental and physical realities which make up the experiences of all people. It is not about knowledge based on conventional truths which does not add to or subtract anything from the equation. And while all the scientific knowledge based on so called ‘evidence’ does absolutely nothing to reduce doubt, insight into the phenomena which make up our lives is the only way by which doubt is lessened and finally overcome.

I’ve just done it again, going on and on with a degree of conceit. ;-) But you must have been patient, in which case I must thank you for it.
And with this I end.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 13, 2011)

Confused ji thanks for coming by.  Please continue to do so.

It appears custodians in all religions/thought constituencies leave something to be desired and we also talk about that in other threads about Sikhs.

Do continue to visit and you may never know that one day we will have a common understanding or at least a full and honest understanding of each others thoughts.

Your contributions I have found thought provoking and triggering me to study more and that is a positive for me.

I do want to attend to my "equation post" if you would have time in the future.  That is very much related to some pretty critical spiritual incidents in my life so perhaps these will lead me to something too.

Regards and Sat Sri Akal.

PS:  What is the greeting/salutation in "Buddhism" or is it basically joining of the hands and showing a respectful smile as we do too.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 13, 2011)

Confused ji

I agree with Ambarsaria. It is important to have the perspective of other religions, from those who are knowledgeable, and not necessarily restricted to Interfaith Dialogs.

Reading earlier you thought yourself an "intruder"  -- I do not myself see it that way. The decision and judgment of course is for your to make. The dialog here can be tenacious and that is not always negative all the time. Think about your decision.


----------



## findingmyway (Feb 13, 2011)

Confused ji,
Some clarifications.
1) I asked for clarification because I did not understand your point of view. Even if it was answered in your previous posts it was not clear to me. This may be my fault in understanding.
2) I do not reject karma or rebirth but my understanding of them is very different to yours. This is not because of science though I do use science to confirm things for me but science has many holes yet. Your understanding is based on Buddha's teachings whereas mine is based on Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Therefore, it is to be accepted that there will be some areas where our understanding will differ. Who is right? Well only Waheguru knows so I will not say you are misunderstanding but equally I do not believe I am misunderstanding either until someone shows me otherwise from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Other points of view help me differentiate thoughts in my head.
3) I'm not sure I agree with your list of ultimate truths as these can be changed and can be misleading. Thats maybe another idea we will not see eye to eye so probably best to leave things here.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 13, 2011)

findingmyway ji and others I wonder if we want to continue dialog in this thread.  I may or may not represent a studied view per Sikhism but I do want to share some thoughts on this pretty important topic.  

There is also possibility for spnadmin ji to merge it with older or other threads as appropriate.

There is very common proverb in Punjabi and is often heard mostly from elders as "Karma the lekhah", i.e. "It is all Fate";  "Puranian bughtey hovan gae", i.e. "We are paying for the past";  "Patah nahin kihdi sajah sanu mil gaee", i.e. "Don't know whose bad actions we are paying for"; "Wadhian nen koyee parupkar keteh hone gae", i.e. "Perhaps we are reaping the results of good deeds from past generations"; and similars.  Many times these are also implied and stated as Karma or "Jo karma wich", i.e. "whatever the destiny".

I await some feedback and confirmation.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 13, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,





Ambarsaria said:


> Regards and Sat Sri Akal.
> 
> PS:  What is the greeting/salutation in "Buddhism" or is it basically joining of the hands and showing a respectful smile as we do too.




There is pressing the hands together with the tip of the fingers being at the level of the chin or higher and a slight bow or more depending on how much respect one likes to show. It is meant as greeting or parting when the word Sawasdee is used. The same gesture is also used when thanking and apologizing. This is Thai culture and not particularly Buddhist.

There is however a Buddhist expression using the same gesture called Anumodana. It is used in the general Thai population to mean simply congratulations. The original meaning however is, “I rejoice in your good deeds”, and this I find very special but never practice myself. This is because I must have too little accumulation for generosity and perhaps wisdom as well, and too much miserliness. Anumodana is an expression of generosity, which involves one’s own ability to appreciate goodness and with a good heart, let the other person know that this is what you just got from that person’s good deeds.  

But in case you are wondering what I might write at the end of a post? I use Metta sometimes. Metta is loving-kindness or goodwill or friendliness and I write this to remind myself of its value.

Metta,


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 13, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> There is very common proverb in Punjabi and is often heard mostly from  elders as "Karma the lekhah", i.e. "It is all Fate";  "Puranian bughtey  hovan gae", i.e. "We are paying for the past";  "Patah nahin kihdi sajah  sanu mil gaee", i.e. "Don't know whose bad actions we are paying for";  "Wadhian nen koyee parupkar keteh hone gae", i.e. "Perhaps we are  reaping the results of good deeds from past generations"; and similars.   Many times these are also implied and stated as Karma or "Jo karma  wich", i.e. "whatever the destiny".



All these famous proverbs which are commonly used in Punjabi in our everyday lives are justifications for what has happened. They do not lead us anywhere and are based on Hinduism and Islam because Hell and Heaven are parts and parcels of Karma and reincarnation.

In fact, there are many verses in Gurbani that reject all and some more of these sayings. 

Do you think our 5th and 9th Gurus and all the other Sikhs who sacrificed their lives and fought against tyranny and injustice uttered these words?  "Puranian bughtey  hovan gae", i.e. "We are paying for the past";  "Patah nahin kihdi sajah  sanu mil gaee", i.e. "Don't know whose bad actions we are paying for".

We know they did not because they believed and lived in Hukum and Bhana. 

So, these sayings mean nothing to a Sikh, to the contrary. There is also  another saying " rab toun dariah kar"- be fearful of God which also  does not reflect Gurmat values that teach us rather to be God loving. In  fact I wrote a little piece about it and I would request Spnadmin ji to  send it to you.

Sikhi rejects karmas of previous lives because it rejects reincarnation. 

Sikhi is a very pragmatic way of living. Gurbani teaches us to breed goodness within and make this world a better place for others as our Gurus did for us. It teaches us to leave the footprints of goodness for others to follow irrespective of anyone's hue, creed or faith.

Lastly, Sikhi teaches us to become the flowers of the Gurmat garden so that we are able to emit the scent of goodness in all directions sans bias.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 13, 2011)

There are 2 reasons not to close the thread. Or merge it with a related thread. 

1. To close/nerge threads has an adverse effect on Google page ranks. So thread closing has to be used judiciously, and my philosophy has been to shut down disruptive conversations started for purposes of dawa'h, or trolls,  or those disrespectful of Sikhi and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 

2. We continue to learn, even when we are tired of reading and writing the same old thing. After this thread loses interest, you never know. Another Buddhist may come along. Maybe one with a Mahayana perspective or some sub division of that branch of Buddhism, like Zen. Or maybe a Buddhist will want to relate this conversation to "engaged Buddhism." Such individuals may have very different things to say. Perhaps we can learn more about Buddhism from that conversation. And.. perhaps a Sikh will want to discuss another facet of the conversation that we have not considered.

The thread is in Interfaith Dialogs to exchange ideas across experiences of religious definition and belief. 

Of course I can be over-ruled.   :noticemunda:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 13, 2011)

Findingmyway ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please do not feel disappointed about not getting your queries about Confused ji's posts answered by him. I have tried the same and was not successful.

Confused ji has admitted himself in his post addressed to me that he did not come in this forum to learn which is a bit bewildering to say the least. I do not know any religion including Buddhism which I know something about that makes us refuse to learn. 

Isn't interaction all about that?

As, you yourself must have noticed that Confused ji's posts are full of self contradictions. He is confused between truthiness and truthfulness. For him the Earth being round is more an illusion which he calls a conventional truth than a reality. His long list of so called ultimate truths makes no sense to me because ultimate means the end, no change. He fails to understand that  there is no absolute truth but truth is absolute. Objective reality is very fluid. All continents were together once and that was real  and now they are not which is also real. Many planets are formed and destroyed every moment of our lives which is also real.

The proofs of it are in the first pauri of Jap.

Confused ji has a lot to offer. He has a lot of treasure within but it is sad to notice that he is not able to do that. He wants to have the First and the Last word and gets a bit testy when challenged. I know Buddhism does not teach its followers to become snakes and sit on the treasure and guard it with tooth and nail. Gautam Buddha taught to the contrary.

Lastly, I would like to add that your name " Findingmyway" says it all and what a beautiful journey it is for you and for all of us who are privileged to learn from your open-mindedness and your thought process!!

You help many of us find our ways.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 13, 2011)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


Tejwant Singh ji thanks for the reply.

My object in citing the proverbs was to indicate how in every day life Karam/Karma is so emphasized by the masses in Sikhism.  

It is not my belief, endorsement or conclusion for these to be true to Sikhi or our Gurus teachings.

I personally do believe in a few of the things in the following Post,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/34243-five-reasons-you-wont-die.html#post140863

I much rather participate and get some comments in that thread as well.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 14, 2011)

Tejwant ji,




Tejwant Singh said:


> Confused ji has a lot to offer. He has a lot of treasure within but it is sad to notice that he is not able to do that. He wants to have the First and the Last word and gets a bit testy when challenged. I know Buddhism does not teach its followers to become snakes and sit on the treasure and guard it with tooth and nail. Gautam Buddha taught to the contrary.



Very good! You have just opened the way for different kind of discussion. One in which I need not state that I come from a Buddhist perspective and you do not have to say that you come from a Sikh one. I am going to initiate a new thread for this purpose. 

I will start with stating my understanding about ultimate reality / truth vs. conventional reality / truth and illusion and what it is to be deluded. It should be expected that the use of certain words from the English language will be inadequate; therefore you should ask for clarification if some of it appears odd rather than insist on the meaning that you are familiar with. And it should also be expected that my power of recall is far from perfect, so I'd likely leave some aspects out of the definitions.

We can also discuss what it is to ‘learn’, and whether it does really happen when someone thinks that he is going through the process. Whatever impression you get about my character, do not make any moral judgments, we can do without such unnecessary distraction. I struggle with language, and it appears that my vocabulary is very small as compared to your own. I consult the dictionary very often when writing my messages, but sometimes I forget to and use words whose meaning I have only a vague idea of. Therefore again, ask for clarification and hesitate from judging so quickly. 

Thanks, and hope to see you there.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 14, 2011)

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:


> Very good! You have just opened the way for different kind of discussion. One in which I need not state that I come from a Buddhist perspective and you do not have to say that you come from a Sikh one.


I am afraid you are mistaken and totally incorrect in your assumption. If you read your posts again, you declared your Buddhist side from the get go. You talked nothing but Buddhism. You came to this Sikh forum knowing that most of us are Sikhs. In fact, my religion on top of my every post says -Sikhi.

So, your being Buddhist and interacting with Sikhs is not the point of discussion or contention. We welcome and interact with peoples from different cultures, backgrounds and religions. The proof is in the discussions on the wide ranges of topics that you can find them here for your own education.

The contention comes when you showed your real desires and goals to make us learn about Buddhism but under the same token, you also declared that your goal was not to learn about Sikhism.

Your being an intelligent person with lots of insights should know that no religion teaches that and your wide stance on that is nothing but a self defeating prophecy.

Life is not a one way street. If it were and if one claims that it is, then either  one starts talking to oneself or to the walls or hits the dead end in any direction he/she turns to.



> I am going to initiate a new thread for this purpose.


I am looking forward to it.



> Whatever impression you get about my character, do not make any moral judgments, we can do without such unnecessary distraction.


Confused ji, I am not here to judge any one's morals or character. It is not in me to do that. Having said that, I love good debates, exchange of ideas from which I learn a lot. This is the only way to be a Sikh, a learner, a student, a seeker.

Thanks for changing your mind and coming back. Will look forward to your insights.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 14, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> Tejwant Singh ji thanks for the reply.
> 
> My object in citing the proverbs was to indicate how in every day life Karam/Karma is so emphasized by the masses in Sikhism.
> 
> ...



Ambarsaria ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the clarifications. Much appreciated. I have read the article you mentioned above. I have read many  essays by the authour and like what he writes.

I have a suggestion to make. As, you have also read the article and identify yourself with it, it would be a good idea if you gave your thoughts on it which will give others the chance to also pitch in.

I am looking forward to your input.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Feb 14, 2011)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


Tejwant Singh ji can you make something out of the following post I wrote,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...-is-karma-in-buddhism-sikhi-2.html#post141441

It tries to show we are inter-related to the past to others, present and also how it continues in time into the future.  In a way one way or another in perpetuity in small or big ways to all, which could be called "Ek noor ...." as in the following,

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=149216095102269

_*The relationships/incidentals are unrestricted but as developed/happening/developing to be any of physical, observable, non-observable, ethereal and everything in between.*_ _

Confused ji's comments have been related to Karma as it Happens from what I can understand and also relate to in the above!  The only problems I run into is the pre-ordained line of thinking in general and a complete soul as an entity to stay as one versus development of new souls with parts from all past, present and future as it may.

_


> None of this violates the,
> 
> *As you sow, so shall you reap
> 
> *line of thinking that few have put down as the "Sikhi" complete view.  The above simply defines the environ that the "As you sow, so shall you reap" operates in.





Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Feb 14, 2011)

Tejwant ji,




Tejwant Singh said:


> I am afraid you are mistaken and totally incorrect in your assumption. If you read your posts again, you declared your Buddhist side from the get go. You talked nothing but Buddhism. You came to this Sikh forum knowing that most of us are Sikhs. In fact, my religion on top of my every post says -Sikhi.




No Tejwant ji, you are at this point projecting those labels. True, up until now I have referred back to the Buddha as being the source of all my understanding and you have also said that you are Sikh. However even then, it was never about “Buddhism”, but the “Truth”. Never at any point was I promoting Buddhism, but rather what I understand to be Truth. 

I never considered myself to be standing for Buddhism; the only thing is that I realize that no one other than the Buddha could have arrived at what he did and teach it. And the thing that binds me to Buddhism is the impression that *this is the Truth*.

And it is not like I come here as a Buddhist to debate against Sikhs. I don’t even believe that anyone here is consistently Sikh. I speak from an understanding about differing “views” as reflected in people’s statements and not any label they like to attach to. In this regard, I consider everyone to be a mix bag of many different views regardless whether they think themselves Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim. 

But of course, of all views, I see only one as being right. And this should explain why I don’t think to learn “from” other religions and philosophies and that at best I can only learn “about” them, and this in order to identify the dominating view. Indeed more or less the same thing happens when I’m faced with Buddhists coming from differing interpretations. I am never impressed when they quote the scriptures given my perception of the underlying view they come in with, as being wrong. And btw, I did say that I was ready to learn ‘about’ Sikhism, only that I wasn’t ready to read long articles and discussions. And besides, although I don’t expect to learn from other teachings, I do learn something from the interaction *each time*, no more and no less than anyone else. 

Up until now none of all this was apparent, therefore understandably anyone would conclude that my participation here was that of a Buddhist talking to Sikhs. And admittedly, I too often think the whole situation to be as such. But believe me; I’d rather not have such a thing influence me. It is self-defeating as you say, but for reasons which include those things I said to you when I finally decided to quit this discussion. 

When you commented on the ‘round earth’ idea, I took this as moving out of the discussion between a Buddhist and a Sikh onto between two people interested in understanding ‘reality’. No doubt that you will come in with your own past conditioning, and I with mine, how could we expect otherwise. However I suggest that we avoid steering things back into that old territory where we label this Buddhist and that Sikh. It should be a situation where neither of us will be compelled to defend anything. And who knows, in spite of what I keep saying, I may end up learning something “from” you. ;-)

With this I go on to that other thread.


----------

