# Do You Believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji Became MUKT/”got Salvation”?



## Ambarsaria (Nov 13, 2012)

There is much discussion about mukti/salvation at SPN.  There are aspects of killing or eliminating five thieves.  Re-incarnation has been bundled in and introduced into the dialog by some.  Others believe that there is only one life as humans and we better achieve and do what we will ever be able to do and it better be in our life times.  There are quite a few who are centric on Naam (wisdom of the creator) simran/recitations, etc.

  I personally find it instructive to look at examples and learn.  So hence this thread and I raise here the question,

  Do you believe Guru Nanak Dev ji became mukt/”got salvation”?

  For me the Guru ji clearly became mukt (found salvation or mukti).  The tell tale signs are as follows,


Guru ji without being physically around are as much present as they were in life of people of the times
So Guru ji have traversed past the physical manifestation of living for posterity
 
  I believe we should try to emulate or try to live our lives through Guru ji as an example.  Some aspects were,


He did not banish to seek the creator
He traveled to seek wisdom and spread what he learnt

He was not stuck into a methodology of achievement
With the right mindset and living thereof he just achieved through living a normal family life

He did not profess or overtly seek to control the five thieves but lived so these were not a hindrance to good living
He did not lay out one liners, one words and other shortcuts and magic mantras to help people find salvation
His was a life style of living it and teaching by example

 
  Hence,

*Question:*  Do you believe Guru Nanak Dev ji achieved mukti/salvation?​ 
  What do you think?

  Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *For me many others have found salvation.  Some examples outside of Sikhism that I do so believe in the likes of,


Buddha
Jesus
Many great saints of Catholicism
Muhammad
Einstein
etc.
          By the way I do   not believe that believing in God/creator is any prerequisite to finding mukti/salvation.  Atheists and agnostics can achieve it as much as anyone else.

Enjoy the following too in tune and words if you can,

Gurdas Mann - uchadar babe nanak da.flv - YouTube
Baba Nanak - Jazzy B / Jandhu Littranwala lyrics - YouTube
AANVI BABA NANKA - YouTube
  <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object  classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 13, 2012)

My dear brother Ambarsaria ji peacesignkaur
A brilliant thread! 

Yes, I do certainly believe that Guru Nanak Dev attained to enlightenment/salvation/liberation/moksha/nirvana, whatever one calls that supreme state. 
He could not have taught the profound and beautiful teachings that he did, lived the life that he did, found the Sikh Panth and continue to have such an enduring presence in the hearts of so many, had he not. 
Guru Nanak's writings resonant with my own heart. "Whom shall I despise since the one Lord made us all?" Nanak said. Guru Nanak believed that all humans are equal, regardless of color, ethnicity, nationality or gender. He was ahead of his time by about 500 years. 

What an incredible soul.

The importance and enduring legacy of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji can be seen in this special message sent from the Vatican to the worldwide Sikh Community in 2010 on the feast day of his Prakash Purab:  



> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM PRO DIALOGO INTER RELIGIONES
> 
> N. 764/10
> 
> ...


BTW I would just like to add that I have been blessed this night with a wonderful fireworks display by my Sikh neighbours across the street from where I live. I believe they were celebrating Diwali? Splendid show!


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 13, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,

You appear to have your own peculiar take on the concept of Mukti. This must be why you include Einstein and the one person I consider the joke of religious history, namely Mohammad, in your list. Also I don't see the Buddha mentioned anywhere. Or maybe he is included in one of those atheists / agnostics? ;-)

You stated about Guru Nanak:


> [*]He did not profess or overtly seek to control the five thieves but lived so these were not a hindrance to good living




Taking Mukti to be more or less synonymous to Enlightenment, I therefore ask this: What is enlightenment and enlightened is to what? And Liberation / Release is release from what?

My own answer:
Enlightenment is the culmination of the development of wisdom. Wisdom is to understand the way things are / Truth, its development therefore means to gradually grow deeper in such understanding which at enlightenment, becomes absolutely clear. Liberation ultimately, is therefore, from ignorance. 

What are the way things are / Truth? To me the obvious answer is, that which make up our moment to moment experiences, this include “mentality” or that which knows / experience something, and “physicality”, or that which does not know anything. Understanding these must then answer the questions regarding birth, aging, sickness and death, the implication of which is that final release, must mean release from the cycle of existence. (Did Einstein or Mohammad answer these questions? Obviously not.)

It is because of ignorance that there is attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy, miserliness, immorality. Release from ignorance must then mean that these would also be totally eradicated.

One important implication of all this is that, all those who become enlightened, when teaching, must point to the same Truth / Truths and also the Path leading to this. 

I hope this has answered your question to some extent.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 13, 2012)

Confused said:


> Enlightenment is the culmination of the development of wisdom. Wisdom is to understand the way things are / Truth, its development therefore means to gradually grow deeper in such understanding which at enlightenment, becomes absolutely clear. Liberation ultimately, is therefore, from ignorance.


 
Dear brother Confused ji mundahug

My understanding would be that in Buddhism, enlightenment is the realization of the Four Noble Truths - the reality of suffering and impermenance, the origin of suffering in craving and attachment, the knowledge that the cessation of suffering is attainable and the path to the cessation of suffering which is the Noble Eightfold Path. One must to achieve this "take refuge" in the Buddha, the Sangha (Community of Lay and Monastics) and in the Dharma (The Teaching of the Buddha). Finally the Buddha taught of the "Four Marks of Existence" - that all things are impermanent, that this impermanence causes suffering, that this impermanence means that all things in creation are "Not Self" (ie have no lasting nature) and that 'Nirvana' is peace, freedom from this cycle of attachment to impermanence, a state of stillness which would enable a person to become enlightened in this life and in the next wholly freed from this transient world and the cycle of samsara, and after death be in a state beyond the reach of place and time now that cravings have become extinct like a candle flame blown out by the wind. One comes to such awareness through wisdom, which enables one to see the conditioned links that make up the Five Skhandas, and therefore perceive Notself - the illusion of selfhood created by these five aggregates. 

Do you think that such knowledge is attainable only for Buddhists? Would you accept that people from other faiths have and can attain to such enlightenment? 




> "...All conditioned things are impermanent. The one who knows and perceives this fact ceases to be miserable. This is the way of purity of vision..."
> 
> *- Buddha, the Dhammapada*


 

You see I do not think that such "purity of vision", such wisdom, is limited by faith. I believe that many shinning lights in the heaven of spirituality, all over the world, in different cultures and belief systems, have attained to such wisdom - because human nature is one, we share a common mind, predicament, suffering and therefore the path to liberation for all of us is the same, even with our wide disparity of cult. However I have got the impression from past discussion with you that you adhere to a strict, exclusive belief in "salvation" which can be experienced only by Buddhists. I recall quoting mystics from my faith only to find you dismissive of their experiences. 

Thus I believe what Cardinal Cusa once said: 




> "...But, how should we bring the manifold of religions to one unity, since our people have defended their religion with blood, and they hardly will be willing to accept a new, unified religion?
> 
> Answer: You should not introduce a new religion. But, you should yourselves comprehend, and then show to the peoples, that the true religion is presupposed before all other religions. The unity is before the separation occurs...You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere...Moses had described a path to God, but this path was neither taken up by everyone nor was it understood by everyone. Jesus illuminated and perfected this path; nevertheless, many even now remain unbelievers. Muhammad tried to make the same path easier, so that it might be accepted by all, even idolaters. These are the most famous of the said paths to God, although many others were presented by the wise and the prophets...*Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one, which you call wisdom...There can only be one wisdom. For if it were possible that there be several wisdoms, then these would have to be from one. Namely, unity is prior to all plurality*...There is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths..."
> 
> ...


 


> "...Cardinal Cusa claimed that God sent a variety of prophets into the world in order to reveal Himself to humanity. To achieve this goal these prophets created a variety of faiths...*In this manner Cusa gives such figures as Buddha and Muhammad a similar status to that of prophets of the God of Israel*... n short there is but one religion, but a diversity of religious faiths. Because of this Cusa does not think that religious diversity need be a source of conflict. For Cusa since the diversity of faiths are merely different ways of articulating the same underlying truth, there is no real basis for mutual attacks over these differences." - _Ethical implications of unity and the divine in Nicholas of Cusa By David John De Leonardis_


Thanks :sippingcoffee:


----------



## harcharanjitsinghdhillon (Nov 13, 2012)

to my understanding base on sikhism is to find permanent salvation or breaking away from cycles of birth and death with the help of naams rising above duality, mind must be surrendered completely..Yes to me guru nanak did found permanent salvation  because he always speaks on naams.. but the most vital off all are  we  all of us are going to earn salvation after being subjected to his teachings?? for satgurus no probelm they will earn salvation easily


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Nov 13, 2012)

GuRu Nanak Dev ji is MUKATi DATAA......The Source of Mukati

There can be no second thought on this.

Prakash.s.bagga


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 14, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,
I will have to go with Guru Granth Sahib and Prakash ji on this. Guru Nanak Dev ji is the *One* who grants mukti! Your question is not applicable to any of the Gurus. 

ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ ਬਾਵਨ ਭਾਇਓ ॥
In Sat Yug, You tricked King Bali into humility, in the form of a brahmin dwarf, Vaman.

ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਘੁਵੰਸੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥ 
In Treta Yug, You were called the ideal warrior-king, Ram of the Raghu dynasty.

ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ਕੰਸੁ ਕਿਰਤਾਰਥੁ ਕੀਓ ॥ 
In Dwapar Yug, as the shudra Krishan Murare, you liberated Kans.

ਉਗ੍ਰਸੈਣ ਕਉ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਭੈ ਭਗਤਹ ਜਨ ਦੀਓ ॥ 
You blessed Ugrasain with a kingdom, and You blessed Your humble devotees with fearlessness.

ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰੁ ਅੰਗਦੁ ਅਮਰੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥ 
In Kali Yug, You are called Guru Nanak, Guru Angad and Guru Amar Das.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਬਿਚਲੁ ਅਟਲੁ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਓ ॥੭॥ 
The sovereign rule of Sri Guru is unchanging, steady and permanent, and Your arrival is the Command of Adi Purakh. ||7||
Page 1390
 
Cheers

PS Confused ji we believe Buddha is God. Thus the question of mukti is not applicable to Him either.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 14, 2012)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> GuRu Nanak Dev ji is MUKATi DATAA......The Source of Mukati
> 
> There can be no second thought on this.
> 
> Prakash.s.bagga


 Deleted.
Bhagatji answered before me about the importance.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 14, 2012)

Vouthon ji,


Had you expressed a correct understanding of the Buddha’s teachings, I’d simply ask you to tell me how this is the same as other teachings. But you have not done this and also gone on to add your own concepts, such as, “all things in *creation* are…..” and this makes the whole thing very confusing. I therefore will begin by asking, based on the following:



> “Quote: "...All conditioned things are impermanent. The one who knows and perceives this fact ceases to be miserable. This is the way of purity of vision..."




Please give a few examples of “conditioned things” and what does it mean for those things to be conditioned?

Also you might like to ask yourself this: Why the need to see any a, b and c teacher and follower of religion as all pointing to the same reality / understanding?

If you have a solid basis for this, please point out to me what it is that I am missing. Saying that I am dismissive of other paths and that I “adhere to a strict, exclusive belief” does not tell me anything other than that you continue to be deluded. 

Thanks.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 14, 2012)

Bhagat ji,




> PS Confused ji we believe Buddha is God. Thus the question of mukti is not applicable to Him either.




But the Buddha did not consider himself any different from other beings who are subjected to birth, old age, sickness and death. And if his disciples thought of him as God, how could they be enlightened and considered the Sangha, one of the Three Gems?


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Nov 14, 2012)

I think one should understand the distinction between 
MUKATi and MOKSHA. (Salvation)

From Gurbanee one can see a quote as
ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥ 

करमी आवै कपड़ा नदरी मोखु दुआरु ॥ 

Karmī āvai kapṛā naḏrī mokẖ ḏu▫ār. 

By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.

Thus MOKSHA(Salvation) is a rare phenomena and is subject of pure NADAR of the Creator GuRu/Prabhu.
. From Gurbanee one learns about Mukati as Jeewan Mukati.Now one may attain the status of being Jeewan Mukati but still may not attain salvation

There is strong evidence in Gurbanee to ascertain that GuRu Nanak Dev ji attained
both status.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 14, 2012)

Confused ji thanks for your post.  Whether you like it or not, I have included Buddha ji in my starting post.  The name was on my mind and I made an error.  As we all know I am no person to be making judgements on such people but I make simple humble citations from the heart.  There are far too many to be cited around the world of times past and times present.

Now to your post and couple of comments.





Confused said:


> .......  Taking Mukti to be more or less synonymous to Enlightenment, I therefore ask this: What is enlightenment and enlightened is to what? And Liberation / Release is release from what?


_For me Mukti/Mukt (getting salvation/"one's having achieved salvation") goes beyond "Enlightenment.

Example a person by themselves, recluse, fully enlightened is not Mukt/"got salvation".  For me a true test of true Mukti/Mukt is that the form, physical, the time, the place, etc., become of no consequence.

So it is a two points journey,
_

_Enlightened_
_Essential_
 
_Enlightening_
_Essential as this causes the separation from form, physical, the time, the place, etc._
_Here we are almost 543 years past the time Guru Nanak Dev ji was born_
_Millions of his sons and daughters,_
_without a physical connection to his lineage_
_without the impact of 500 plus years on his message_
_all over the world and not just Nankana Sahib and surrounding areas_
 
 
_Let us take stock of our lives and see where we are at?  Some of us has some time left on this earth while many others are closer to dust that we will merge with again in years and decades to come.  There can be no confusion or illusion where the Mukt/"got salvation" people stand.  They are a shining light that so gets absorbed by many, they are like "paras"/"magic stone" and whoever they touch turns to Gold.  The touch is not superficial but intense recognition and understanding of these so enlightened.
_


Confused said:


> My own answer:
> Enlightenment is the culmination of the development of wisdom. Wisdom is to understand the way things are / Truth, its development therefore means to gradually grow deeper in such understanding which at enlightenment, becomes absolutely clear. Liberation ultimately, is therefore, from ignorance.
> 
> What are the way things are / Truth? To me the obvious answer is, that which make up our moment to moment experiences, this include “mentality” or that which knows / experience something, and “physicality”, or that which does not know anything. Understanding these must then answer the questions regarding birth, aging, sickness and death, the implication of which is that final release, must mean release from the cycle of existence.


_Confused ji great truth in the above that you  state at least the way I read it._


Confused said:


> (Did Einstein or Mohammad answer these questions? _Obviously not_.)


_The enlightened don't need to answer to anyone nor describe their wisdom.  What we need to observe is the impact they had at spiritual level and functional level for thousands, millions and even billions.  It simply cannot be just washed aside in rhetoric._


Confused said:


> It is because of ignorance that there is attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy, miserliness, immorality. Release from ignorance must then mean that these would also be totally eradicated.


_Confused ji to be enlightened you don't need to be like God/creator.  Stay human as we are and all before were.  What made them different was enlightenment in spite of all that you postulate as prerequisites to enlightenment.__  It matter little if they slayed the five thieves.  It mattered much if they had such under control on a sustained basis and that is the best one can hope for or expect to achieve and still find enlightenment._


Confused said:


> One important implication of all this is that, all those who become enlightened, when teaching, must point to the same Truth / Truths


_Confused ji the enlightened share their wisdom without asking for you to write and exam and give you a mark on pass, fail and distinction.  The enlightened wanted to teach you fishing and did not give you fish to eat for a day._


Confused said:


> ... and also the Path leading to this.


_Confused ji why should there be a single unique path or runway to take off on "Enlightened Jets".  The enlightened teach us the skills.  The paths vary and much of the other parameters of existence vary.  That is creation.

_What stays the same is the light of the enlightened which lights our ways but does not chose the ways for us.Regards and thanks as always for your contributions.

*PS:  *

*1. * *Harcharanjitsinghdhillon ji* says "...... _for satgurus no problem they will earn salvation easily_".

I assume by  ..satgurus..  you are referring to Guru Nanak Dev ji and not someone that is not named in this thread.

Veer ji if you think the life of Guru Nanak Dev ji's was a piece of cake, try walking a few steps.  Guru Nanak Dev ji lived in adversity throughout with overwhelming sea of skeptics and plain enemies who did not see eye to eye with his enlightened ways.  Try taking a trip to Mecca or criticize the Brahmins in Benares. mundahug

*2. * *Prakash.S.Bagga ji *does raise some great observation.  

I believe we will be totally amiss of teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Guru Nanak Dev ji if keep looking for some easy ways and waiting for the creator's lightening rod to strike us.  All enlightened people lived tough lives and practical lives.  Hence the need to be very averse of shortcuts, etc.  

It may serve us well to identify and post about some enlightened people.  Let our love not be guiding but what little enlightenment we have so guide us to bring such people to everyone's attention.

I am sorry, I cannot name anyone living in this category right now.

*3. Vouthon ** ji *great post and thanks for your wonderful effort and style of writing.

Your message is good and description very logical as to how things are.  I have a mental block on God/creator classifying people at birth to be Prophet, etc.  It flies straight in the face of so called equality in God/creator's space for all.
 For example the following from your post,

"...Cardinal Cusa claimed that _God sent a variety of prophets into the  world in order to reveal Himself_ to humanity. To achieve this goal these  prophets created a variety of faiths...*In this manner Cusa gives such figures as Buddha and Muhammad a similar status to that of prophets of the God of Israel..... "
*
So technically the statement is correct that God/creator sent such to earth.  But such is true of each and everyone and not just the folks mentioned.I believe God/creator embeds great and at times unlimited potential in all.  How such produces fruit may or may not be known in all detail by anyone!  The infinity of creator and creation is far to huge for our feeble minds beyond conjectures and wishful thinking.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 14, 2012)

Confused ji,


Confused said:


> Bhagat ji,
> But the Buddha did not consider himself any different from other beings who are subjected to birth, old age, sickness and death.


Neither did God. God is not separate from His created beings. They are one and the same. Talk of separation comes from avidya, ignorance/inability.



> And if his disciples thought of him as God, how could they be enlightened and considered the Sangha, one of the Three Gems?


Sangha? as in to accompany others, preferably spiritual beings? Is it like Sagh Sangat?

To answer your question though, His disciples can be enlightened by following His path of course.

Ambarsaria ji,
You missed Hindu saints like Adi Shankara, Ramanuja and Kabir. Adi Shankara was one of the first to say something akin to "Sab gobind hai" of Gurbani. He said all existence is Parbrahm. There is only Parbrahm. 

Also Muslim ones like Rumi. His poetry, some of which I have read, goes deep into the soul.

I think by 'Satguru' HSD ji means any one who has completely merged in God. We use the term for God and to describe beings that merged with him. This includes Guru Nanak, Sant Kabir and the enlightened ones from Benares.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Nov 14, 2012)

To understand the right answer one must know How Nanak Dev ji became 
GuRu Nanak ?

Is Nanak ji Born as GuRu?

Prakash.S.Bagga


.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 14, 2012)

Confused said:


> Vouthon ji,
> 
> Had you expressed a correct understanding of the Buddha’s teachings, I’d simply ask you to tell me how this is the same as other teachings. But you have not done this and also gone on to add your own concepts, such as, “all things in *creation* are…..” and this makes the whole thing very confusing. I therefore will begin by asking, based on the following:
> 
> ...


 
My dear brother Confused ji, 

Firstly, do you think that "_you continue to be deluded_" is in accordance with "right speech", a keystone moral teaching of the Noble Eightfold Path? I have four Buddhist associates, two Therevada (one a convert from Catholicism to Buddhism) one Mahayana and the other Vajrayana, with whom I have had many a deep, engaging conversation and I can tell you that they have debated with the most entrenched and fundamentalist of Christians who have offended their faith greatly and yet they have never resorted to such language, always replying compassionately, as I would expect a follower of the Buddha to do. I think that you could have phrased your words in a slightly less offensive fashion ie "you continue to misunderstand", or "you continue not to comprehend". To accuse someone of "delusion" is very a severe and harsh accusation to make. 

Secondly, you know as well I do, dear friend, that I am a theist and so therefore I call the universe "creation". I did not imply that the Buddha belived the universe to be created, I of course have read the _Brahmajala Sutta_ and its depiction of the 'deluded' (  ) Brahma who thought he was the Creator and convinced others to believe the same, that is the other "gods" who fell from the Abhassara and are reborn into this jhanic heaven. Brahma thought he had created them. When the Earth is formed later, one of these gods dies and is reborn as a human, who becomes an ascetic. Through diligent mental cultivation, he is able to recall just one immediate past life, from which he wrongly concludes that Brahma created humans, and that he is ‘eternal’ and ‘unchanging’. The Buddha thus illustrated how belief and worship of a creator god arose, according to his own understanding. 

I am aware of this. I therefore know that in Buddhism there is no such thing as "creation" or indeed a "Creator". I think that you have inferred far too much from my own personalized use of the word "creation". 

Other than that, can you tell me what you think I "got wrong" in my previous post vis-a-vis the Buddha's teachings? I am genuinely interested, in that it would improve my knowledge. I had understood that the key facets of Buddhist doctrine were the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Jewels and the Four [or three] marks of existence. 

Thirdly, *an example of conditioned things*? The Buddha taught that all things are conditioned. That each individual part of the condition is "notself". Form is not self. Feeling is not self. Sensation is not self. All of these things are conditioned by other things. Anything that is conditioned is therefore subject to conditions. If it is subject to conditions, then its existence is not independent, but dependent on those conditions and so it is "NotSelf". To be conditioned is thus to be dependent on or influenced by something else. That is my understanding of conditioned. If I am wrong, then please do correct me - but actually tell me where I am wrong this time around :grinningkaur: 
Your question makes no sense to me since it posits that I would believe some things in the material world not to be conditioned. Nothing is permanent. Everything changes. The only thing that is unconditioned according to Gautama Buddha is Nirvana, so pray tell me why you want me too look around at the universe and pick out one thing from everything that is conditioned? 

But if you want an example, then why not use a human being. Humans are dependent on oxygen and nutrients to survive. We are not independent because we require the prior condition of the presence of oxygen and nutrients in order to exist. Therefore a human being is impermanent, not eternal and will undergo change. 

Now, my understanding is that one does not need to be a Buddhist to understand the nature of "conditioned". Therefore wisdom is not restricted to any one belief system, nor does it need a belief system at all, rather anyone can come upon such wisdom through their own efforts in meditation and analysis of the universe, not to mention their own persons and the inner workings of the mind. It has been my impression from a past discussion with you that you believe such wisdom to be attained only by an explicit follower of Buddhism given that you believe no other religion to have taught such wisdom. I see that as a strict application of one's own opinion to the detriment of others and a failure to perceive common truths as expressed through different languages, cultures and philosophies. I thus agree with Angelus Silesius when he said: 



> "...The Nightingale mocks not the Cuckoo's note, 'tis true,
> And yet you scorn my song if I sing not as you.
> 
> The more we let each voice sound forth with its own tone,
> ...


 

If I am wrong on that front (ie that you do believe that non-Buddhists can attain to such wisdom and do not have a restricted view of "salvation), then please accept my humblest apologies. 

I see harmony in apparent opposites because I believe that infinity is the coincidence of opposites and is ineffable and inexpressible. No religion and no human being has or ever can fully comprehended the infinite/unconditioned and so no religion or person can be called superior to another, even though our degrees of understanding differ, we ultimately are all left unknowing. All religions and all people have different approaches to that absolute truth and and all contain elements of divine revelation. However they comprehend that truth to varying degrees but are all united in that none of them has fully comprehended that truth, such that all must be understood in relation to each other. No religion or person has a monopoly on truth. 

To use your own words, I believe that for anyone to claim to possess a monopoly on truth, the full knowledge of the "infinite", the inexpressable, the unconditioned, would in fact be "delusion", if one was to label anything with that name.

As I said on a previous thread, May we all mindfully appreciate the rich diversity of every person whom we meet. I end with words from a prevous pope: 



> "...All men, then, should turn their attention away from those things that divide and separate us, and should consider how they may *be joined in mutual and just regard for one another's opinions*...*For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark*..."_ - _
> 
> _Blessed Pope John XXIII, AD PETRI CATHEDRAM (On Truth, Unity and Peace), 1959_


 

Thank you!


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 15, 2012)

Bhagat ji,





> > But the Buddha did not consider himself any different from other beings who are subjected to birth, old age, sickness and death.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did God. God is not separate from His created beings. They are one and the same. Talk of separation comes from avidya, ignorance/inability.



So God is subject to the cycle of existence?
I am confused about what you are saying.
First it sounded as if you were suggesting that Buddha was God different from us and for this reason he did not need to attain liberation. Now it appears that you are saying that like us, he was God too? And further that the concept of Mukti is therefore meaningless since we are all God? But then you also refer to ignorance and I wonder if what you are saying then is that Buddha was God after he became enlightened and this means that God is synonymous to enlightenment?

Is God not also used to denote the Creator and surely you don't mean that when someone who becomes enlightened, he also becomes the creator, do you? So why use “God” and not simply “enlightened”? 

In any case, in the above you refer to the idea of separation vs. non-separation. Please tell me where did the Buddha ever express such an idea? What in his teachings is suggestive that enlightenment means merging with God or whatever else you might call it? Indeed everything he taught, in particular his teaching on the Dependent Origination points to the impossibility of there being such an entity or any kind of controlling agent. The DO in fact explains what life is all about, how there is continual birth, old age and death and this proves that God is a total friction.

 Anyway, if as you suggest God is not separate from his created beings, does this mean that when I am ignorant, it is God who is ignorant? If he has control over all there is, then why did he choose for me to be ignorant of him, in fact not give any credit to the concept? And you, in expressing confidence in Him, is this because he made you more advanced than me? But even here, why make it that you remain with ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit for a long, long time and then need to go through the process of gradually merging with him to finally get rid of these? Why would he do this? Being playful? Indeed why create anything? Is it because it is in his nature to do so which means that he cannot help himself?  




> > Quote: And if his disciples thought of him as God, how could they be enlightened and considered the Sangha, one of the Three Gems?
> 
> 
> 
> Sangha? as in to accompany others, preferably spiritual beings? Is it like Sagh Sangat?



No, the Sangha of the Triple Gems refer to the enlightened disciples, not the average Buddhist layperson or monk. It is there together with the Buddha and the Dhamma for each to clearly reflect the other two. Someone like me, not only do not fit to be considered a Gem, is far from being in the position to even take refuge in them with any degree of confidence.




> To answer your question though, His disciples can be enlightened by following His path of course.



If they considered him God or thought that the Path was about coming to merge with God or whatever, that would be going against his teachings, therefore decrease the chance of the view being straightened. Enlightenment would in this case, be an impossibility. 

And I would like to butt in here:



> Also Muslim ones like Rumi. His poetry, some of which I have read, goes deep into the soul.



So do you think that the Buddha believed in the existence of soul as well? But of course, the idea of “merging” must imply something lasting in time which merges, and this is “soul”.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,




> Confused ji thanks for your post. Whether you like it or not, I have included Buddha ji in my starting post. The name was on my mind and I made an error. As we all know I am no person to be making judgements on such people but I make simple humble citations from the heart. There are far too many to be cited around the world of times past and times present.



So you have some reason to think that both Mohammed and Buddha were enlightened although their teachings were clearly very different? And when the Buddha pointed out the sixty odd wrong paths which all other religions come under, it is either that I'm misunderstanding this or that the Buddha made an excusable error?




> > ....... Taking Mukti to be more or less synonymous to Enlightenment, I therefore ask this: What is enlightenment and enlightened is to what? And Liberation / Release is release from what?
> 
> 
> 
> For me Mukti/Mukt (getting salvation/"one's having achieved salvation") goes beyond "Enlightenment.



OK, but you will still have to answer these questions regarding what is enlightenment and what is liberation. And now also this, why do you think that enlightenment does result in liberation?   




> Example a person by themselves, recluse, fully enlightened is not Mukt/"got salvation". For me a true test of true Mukti/Mukt is that the form, physical, the time, the place, etc., become of no consequence.
> 
> So it is a two points journey,
> Enlightened
> ...



I would like to remind you of the questions again:

1. What is enlightenment and enlightened is to what? 
2. Liberation / Release is release from what?
3. Why do you think that enlightenment does not result in liberation?




> Here we are almost 543 years past the time Guru Nanak Dev ji was born
> Millions of his sons and daughters,
> without a physical connection to his lineage
> without the impact of 500 plus years on his message
> ...



I don't understand the significance of this; please provide some kind of commentary.




> Some of us has some time left on this earth while many others are closer to dust that we will merge with again in years and decades to come.



Is this “merge” the same kind as that which happens during Mukti?




> There can be no confusion or illusion where the Mukt/"got salvation" people stand. They are a shining light that so gets absorbed by many, they are like "paras"/"magic stone" and whoever they touch turns to Gold. The touch is not superficial but intense recognition and understanding of these so enlightened.



I can imagine a Radha Soami or disciple of Sai Baba saying more or less the same thing about their beloved teacher. But I’m sure that you can do better than them. 




> > My own answer:
> > Enlightenment is the culmination of the development of wisdom. Wisdom is to understand the way things are / Truth, its development therefore means to gradually grow deeper in such understanding which at enlightenment, becomes absolutely clear. Liberation ultimately, is therefore, from ignorance.
> >
> > What are the way things are / Truth? To me the obvious answer is, that which make up our moment to moment experiences, this include “mentality” or that which knows / experience something, and “physicality”, or that which does not know anything. Understanding these must then answer the questions regarding birth, aging, sickness and death, the implication of which is that final release, must mean release from the cycle of existence.
> ...



Thank you.




> > (Did Einstein or Mohammad answer these questions? Obviously not.)
> 
> 
> 
> The enlightened don't need to answer to anyone nor describe their wisdom. What we need to observe is the impact they had at spiritual level and functional level for thousands, millions and even billions. It simply cannot be just washed aside in rhetoric.



Why? Why can't this be a reflection of the Yuga in which the bigger fool rises above the lesser fools to lead them? 
Do you feel inclined to consider my arguments mere rhetoric?




> > It is because of ignorance that there is attachment, aversion, conceit, jealousy, miserliness, immorality. Release from ignorance must then mean that these would also be totally eradicated.
> 
> 
> 
> Confused ji to be enlightened you don't need to be like God/creator. Stay human as we are and all before were.




You are saying this, but a good explanation to back it up is needed. 
Actually, try all you might to make God sound perfect, you will not be able to do it. Indeed at one time I used to amuse myself with the thought that, a hundred of the most knowledgeable Theists of all religions will not be able to make God look as good as one wise Buddhist describing the qualities of a Buddha! 




> What made them different was enlightenment in spite of all that you postulate as prerequisites to enlightenment. It matter little if they slayed the five thieves. It mattered much if they had such under control on a sustained basis and that is the best one can hope for or expect to achieve and still find enlightenment.



If there is a reason to reduce them, then there is greater urgency as a result of greater understanding, to eradicate them. If they can be reduced, then why not get rid of them totally? If merely reducing them is already enlightened, what is it to then totally getting rid of them?




> > One important implication of all this is that, all those who become enlightened, when teaching, must point to the same Truth / Truths
> 
> 
> 
> Confused ji the enlightened share their wisdom without asking for you to write and exam and give you a mark on pass, fail and distinction. The enlightened wanted to teach you fishing and did not give you fish to eat for a day.



Yeah, fishing. And my point is that, only one person is teaching this. Others say they do, but actually don't. Although they do end up occasionally giving out fish, these are however not ones they have themselves fished, but bought from the market.




> Confused ji why should there be a single unique path or runway to take off on "Enlightened Jets". The enlightened teach us the skills. The paths vary and much of the other parameters of existence vary. That is creation.



Because for enlightenment to have any meaning, it must be with regard to that which make up our moment to moment lives. Ignorance accompanies our perceptions all the time. The development of understanding is therefore the process whereby this ignorance is dealt with and finally eradicated, resulting in clear understanding of what really goes on. And only one person taught this. Indeed this person was enlightened to the Four Noble Truths, the Third of which is the Path sometimes referred to as the One Path. More importantly however, the teaching of this person when correctly understood must involve the process called, Straightening of View. This includes the ability to distinguish between what is the Path and what is not the Path, meaning, recognizing wrong paths. And this is the basis for my position.




> What stays the same is the light of the enlightened which lights our ways but does not chose the ways for us.



What is same are the five sense faculties and the mind each of which experience their corresponding objects. The one Path therefore, is that which leads to the full understanding of these.




> Regards and thanks as always for your contributions.



If you don't agree with me, I hope at least, that you are not upset by my strong opposition. So far you've shown much patience which I greatly appreciate. ;-)


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

Confused said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> 
> 
> So you have some reason to think that both Mohammed and Buddha were enlightened although their teachings were clearly very different? And when* the Buddha pointed out the sixty odd wrong paths* *which all other religions come under*, it is either that I'm misunderstanding this or that the Buddha made an excusable error? ;-)


 

Let us get a sense of historical perspective here. The Buddha lived around sixth century BC in India. At that time Hinduism as we know it now did not even exist. The main religion was Brahmanism with its primary sacred writ being the cultic Vedas. The Hinduism of the Upanishads developed with some impetus, according to scholars, from the Buddha's teachings and some of the texts were written after his death. There was no Judaism in its final form, no Christianity, no Islam, no Sikhism....most of the world religions did not exist yet and *none* existed yet in their final form, including Buddhism which was yet to undergo a long period of debate between different schools, the writing of the Pali Canon and much more development. 

So why do you say that the Buddha condemned all of these religions that did not exist yet? Simply because he made general statements about "error" and beliefs outwith the scope of Buddhist cosmology/theology, that you, on a purely personal basis, apply to these faiths? You are aware that other Buddhists, Therevada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, are more considerate of other religions and do perceive truth - even if to an inferior degree - in their teachings and praxis. Your statement then about all other religions being "in error" is an interpretation of the Buddha's words rather than a verbatim, literal understanding, much like those who interpret Jesus' statement, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" in a restrictive fashion whereas others do not. 

:sippingcoffeemunda:


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

> And only one person taught this.


 
A subjective opinion conditioned (no pun intended) by your personally held beliefs, personality type and personal experiences in life. Is not everything conditioned by experience? My selection of Catholic mysticism was conditioned by my basic personality and by my experience of being raised Catholic. Are not your views the same? Therefore why can you not see it from other perspectives and accept that truth might not be limited to one man, in one place, at one historical time or indeed to your own perspective born of your own experiences? Other people have different personalities by pure, random, natural chance; different life experiences; different circumstances and so develop distinct beliefs which, although different from your own, does not thereby qualify them as being "wrong, wrong, wrong". 

mundahug


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon ji,




> > Had you expressed a correct understanding ……… “adhere to a strict, exclusive belief” does not tell me anything other than that you continue to be deluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, do you think that "you continue to be deluded" is in accordance with "right speech", a keystone moral teaching of the Noble Eightfold Path? I have four Buddhist associates, two Therevada (one a convert from Catholicism to Buddhism) one Mahayana and the other Vajrayana, with whom I have had many a deep, engaging conversation and I can tell you that they have debated with the most entrenched and fundamentalist of Christians who have offended their faith greatly and yet they have never resorted to such language, always replying compassionately, as I would expect a follower of the Buddha to do. I think that you could have phrased your words in a slightly less offensive fashion ie "you continue to misunderstand", or "you continue not to comprehend". To accuse someone of "delusion" is very a severe and harsh accusation to make.



And your response emanates from right view with loving kindness and some compassion as driving force? ;-)
In the Buddhist teachings “delusion” is another word for ignorance, one of the three unwholesome roots. You don't have a problem with this do you? But of course, I use delusion not to signify ignorance, which would mean that I would accuse you of being deluded all the time, but wrong view. Yes, I could have used “misunderstand” instead, but “delusion” happens to be louder. ;-) It was meant not to insult, but to shake. Could it be that it was the attachment accompanying conceit that confronted those words of mine? 




> Secondly, you know as well I do, dear friend, that I am a theist and so therefore I call the universe "creation". I did not imply that the Buddha belived the universe to be created, I of course have read the Brahmajala Sutta and its depiction of the 'deluded' …….



You had written:
“that all things are impermanent, that this impermanence causes suffering, that this impermanence means that all things in creation are "Not Self"”

You place the concept of creator in the same sentence where you try to point out the fact of impermanence, suffering and non-self which makes it a contradiction, and you accuse me of overreacting?




> I am aware of this. I therefore know that in Buddhism there is no such thing as "creation" or indeed a "Creator". I think that you have inferred far too much from my own personalized use of the word "creation".



So it is not a contradiction to believe in the concept of creator / creation and at the same time, that phenomena are conditioned with the characteristic of impermanence, non-self and suffering?




> Other than that, can you tell me what you think I "got wrong" in my previous post vis-a-vis the Buddha's teachings? I am genuinely interested, in that it would improve my knowledge. I had understood that the key facets of Buddhist doctrine were the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Jewels and the Four [or three] marks of existence.



Perhaps another time in another thread we can get into a more detailed discussion. For now I think, my response to what follows should shed some light. 




> Thirdly, an example of conditioned things? The Buddha taught that all things are conditioned. That each individual part of the condition is "notself". Form is not self. Feeling is not self. Sensation is not self. All of these things are conditioned by other things. Anything that is conditioned is therefore subject to conditions. If it is subject to conditions, then its existence is not independent, but dependent on those conditions and so it is "NotSelf". To be conditioned is thus to be dependent on or influenced by something else. That is my understanding of conditioned. If I am wrong, then please do correct me - but actually tell me where I am wrong this time around



Or perhaps you could read some of what I've posted here in the past. I assumed that you have read some of those responses, and I was wrong? Anyway, if what follows does not suffice, let me know.




> Your question makes no sense to me since it posits that I would believe some things in the material world not to be conditioned.



No, it posits that you do not know or understand what those things are.




> Nothing is permanent. Everything changes. The only thing that is unconditioned according to Gautama Buddha is Nirvana, so pray tell me why you want me too look around at the universe and pick out one thing from everything that is conditioned?



The question was to make known the kind of perception used as basis upon which you then apply those ideas.




> But if you want an example, then why not use a human being. Humans are dependent on oxygen and nutrients to survive. We are not independent because we require the prior condition of the presence of oxygen and nutrients in order to exist. Therefore a human being is impermanent, not eternal and will undergo change.



See, I was right to ask you those questions.
A human being in the above context is not a reality, but a concept / idea. So is oxygen and nutrients. Conditionality as taught by the Buddha exists between mental and physical phenomena, which is what the Noble Truth of Dukkha or Suffering is about. It is the Five Aggregates that you happen to cite in your last message. A human being is therefore in reality, these five aggregates arisen in one moment, only to be replaced by another set of five aggregates. *This* is the impermanency, suffering and non-self as marks of existence referred to by the Buddha. 




> Now, my understanding is that one does not need to be a Buddhist to understand the nature of "conditioned". Therefore wisdom is not restricted to any one belief system, nor does it need a belief system at all, rather anyone can come upon such wisdom through their own efforts in meditation and analysis of the universe, not to mention their own persons and the inner workings of the mind.



This is what exactly the Buddha said:

Loka Sutta: The World 

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"<end quote>

A human being as you use it, the universe, these are concepts that give out the impression of lasting in time. They do not disintegrate. Any idea of impermanence attributed to these are just more concepts, amounting to being only a story about the particular characteristic. And no amount of such thinking will ever lead to the actual experience of these three marks. Although they can easily become the object of attachment associated with a wrong knowledge. Right knowledge on the other hand is associated with detachment.

Without the Buddha's teachings the default is that perceptions of people, animals, things, universe etc. are taken for reality. And it is on the basis of this that all other teachings are formed. The scientists seeks to find the origin of the universe, you in referring to the Creator and those other ideas about conditionality you cited, all these revolve around the perceptions of permanence, happiness, beauty and of self. They are what the Buddha’s teachings go directly against.  




> It has been my impression from a past discussion with you that you believe such wisdom to be attained only by an explicit follower of Buddhism given that you believe no other religion to have taught such wisdom. I see that as a strict application of one's own opinion to the detriment of others and a failure to perceive common truths as expressed through different languages, cultures and philosophies.



And I see you as unreasonably trying to make very different teachings fit together / sound the same. For what reason? I don't know.




> I thus agree with Angelus Silesius when he said:
> 
> Quote:"...The Nightingale mocks not the Cuckoo's note, 'tis true,
> And yet you scorn my song if I sing not as you.
> ...



Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..




> If I am wrong on that front (ie that you do believe that non-Buddhists can attain to such wisdom and do not have a restricted view of "salvation), then please accept my humblest apologies.



You are giving me a chance to reform? ;-)
No, you were right in your first impression. Except a Buddha in his last life, everyone else needs to hear the Dhamma in order that enlightenment becomes a possibility.




> I see harmony in apparent opposites because I believe that infinity is the coincidence of opposites and is ineffable and inexpressible. No religion and no human being has or ever can fully comprehended the infinite/unconditioned and so no religion or person can be called superior to another, even though our degrees of understanding differ, we ultimately are all left unknowing. All religions and all people have different approaches to that absolute truth and and all contain elements of divine revelation. However they comprehend that truth to varying degrees but are all united in that none of them has fully comprehended that truth, such that all must be understood in relation to each other. No religion or person has a monopoly on truth.



That's your story, one woven so that you can continue with the present perceptions and understandings. 




> To use your own words, I believe that for anyone to claim to possess a monopoly on truth, the full knowledge of the "infinite", the inexpressable, the unconditioned, would in fact be "delusion", if one was to label anything with that name.



Of course from your point of view, I am deluded. Why should I expect otherwise?




> As I said on a previous thread, May we all mindfully appreciate the rich diversity of every person whom we meet. I end with words from a prevous pope:
> 
> Quote: "...All men, then, should turn their attention away from those things that divide and separate us, and should consider how they may be joined in mutual and just regard for one another's opinions...For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark..." -
> 
> Blessed Pope John XXIII, AD PETRI CATHEDRAM (On Truth, Unity and Peace), 1959



Wishful thinking of an elephant stuck in the mud trying to pull out the other elephants similarly stuck. Is this the same pope who once said that Buddhism was a pessimistic religion?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon,

If you acknowledge that what the Buddha said were general statements from which I draw the conclusion about other religions as coming under those wrong views, why the need to tell me that those religions didn't exist during the Buddha's time? 

And for your information, I consider 99% of Buddhists out there as wrong, so no need to compare their thoughts and actions with mine.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon ji,



Vouthon said:


> A subjective opinion conditioned (no pun intended) by your personally held beliefs, personality type and personal experiences in life. Is not everything conditioned by experience? My selection of Catholic mysticism was conditioned by my basic personality and by my experience of being raised Catholic. Are not your views the same? Therefore why can you not see it from other perspectives and accept that truth might not be limited to one man, in one place, at one historical time or indeed to your own perspective born of your own experiences? Other people have different personalities by pure, random, natural chance; different life experiences; different circumstances and so develop distinct beliefs which, although different from your own, does not thereby qualify them as being "wrong, wrong, wrong".
> 
> mundahug



You have tried to show me how others teach the same thing as the Buddha, and I have pointed out where you are wrong about this. So instead of the above, why don't you just try again?


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

> Vouthon ji,
> 
> And your response emanates from right view with loving kindness and some compassion as driving force? ;-)
> In the Buddhist teachings “delusion” is another word for ignorance, one of the three unwholesome roots. You don't have a problem with this do you? But of course, I use delusion not to signify ignorance, which would mean that I would accuse you of being deluded all the time, but wrong view. Yes, I could have used “misunderstand” instead, but “delusion” happens to be louder. ;-) It was meant not to insult, but to shake. Could it be that it was the attachment accompanying conceit that confronted those words of mine?


 
My dear brother Confused ji, 

Well I do not recall labelling you with any insulting terms but calling you "brother" and simply then continuing with my line of arguement lol So yes I'm comfortable with my response. AS for yours, well hmm...it _is often_ the first port of retaliation to deflect from oneself and on to the perceived flaws/faults of the other is it not? gingerteakaurWe are all guilty of such knee-jerk reactions from time to time, however, so I do not mean to incriminate you. I asure you, nontheless dear friend, that I was not "hurt" or "insulted" (on a personal level) by your use of the word "deluded", rather I found it slightly strange why a Buddhist would use such language towards another human being, given that in a person of a less held together mental state, it could lead to distress, sadness and increased suffering and even the arising of afflictive thoughts or emotions. I think that it is a word not condusive to common courtesy. It is highly charged and rather offensive in nature. I accept if it is one you are wont to use but its not exactly politically correct is it? Perhaps it is simply because it sounds rather harsh in English, I cannot comment on the Buddha's use of it, if you suggest that he did. 


 You 





> had written:
> “that all things are impermanent, that this impermanence causes suffering, that this impermanence means that all things in creation are "Not Self"”
> 
> You place the concept of creator in the same sentence where you try to point out the fact of impermanence, suffering and non-self which makes it a contradiction, and you accuse me of overreacting?


 

I have already explained that my use of the word "creation" is a result of my privately held beliefs and perception of reality. Nowhere did I imply that the Buddha believed in a "creator". Your problem with my use of the word is your in-built prejudice towards any form of theism, such that you cannot understand how one can be a believer in a Supreme Deity yet also believe that "empty phenomena rolls on and on". It is not a contradiction, it is simply that you are so staunchly atheistic that you have not considered that these two beliefs might not be as irreconcilable as you suspect. 




> So it is not a contradiction to believe in the concept of creator / creation and at the same time, that phenomena are conditioned with the characteristic of impermanence, non-self and suffering?


 

No. 



> Perhaps another time in another thread we can get into a more detailed discussion. For now I think, my response to what follows should shed some light.


 

Well I am studying today but I will be back tommorrow evening (and perhaps tonight), so I would not mind a more detailed discussion at all. However I respect your wishes and will conduct this discussion according to how you want it to pan out. 




> Or perhaps you could read some of what I've posted here in the past. I assumed that you have read some of those responses, and I was wrong? Anyway, if what follows does not suffice, let me know.


 

I have read every one of your responses in full. Often, I perceive them to be filled with distillations of true wisdom clearly born of life experience which I (as yet) do not have. However I also perceive a certain sympathy with a narrow view of reality and an attachment towards a very specific belief system, held so dearly that when challenged at any point, you cannot concede that the other might have a good point, or reflection, or counter-arguement. 




> No, it posits that you do not know or understand what those things are.


 

A subjective statement, without any explanation of where I went wrong. How is that constructive criticism? How does this aid me in my movement from a state of delusion and ignorance to one of enlightenment? It doesn't as far as I can see kaurhug




> The question was to make known the kind of perception used as basis upon which you then apply those ideas.
> 
> And I suppose that you received your answer and, as usual, it was "negative"?
> 
> See, I was right to ask you those questions.


 

Jolly good! 



> A human being in the above context is not a reality, but a concept / idea. So is oxygen and nutrients. Conditionality as taught by the Buddha exists between mental and physical phenomena, which is what the Noble Truth of Dukkha or Suffering is about. It is the Five Aggregates that you happen to cite in your last message. A human being is therefore in reality, these five aggregates arisen in one moment, only to be replaced by another set of five aggregates. *This* is the impermanency, suffering and non-self as marks of existence referred to by the Buddha.


 

How can one who accepts "notself", the idea that the self is an illusion brought about by the combination of the five aggregates, believe a human being to be a "reality"? I never stated that at all, I had in fact already broken it down into feeling being Notself, sensation being NotSelf, conciousness being Notself, form being Notself - that you refer to above. My intent was to explain that our existence as human beings depends on earth, air, water, and other forms of life; existence as a composite of the five aggregates depends on and is conditioned by those things. 




> This is what exactly the Buddha said:
> 
> Loka Sutta: The World
> 
> ...


 

I believe that the universe is impermanent, in a continual state of emptying. I believe that what I call the "soul" is not a lasting, unchannging Atman but a changeable stream of conciousness without any lasting identity. What I therefore term "soul" does not conflict with anatta (no soul) since we come from different religions and use differing terminology. In the "City of God", Saint Augustine condemned those who would claim that there is an "unchanging soul": 



> "...Those thinkers must rank below the Platonists, as we have said...They are not worried by the excessive mutability of the human soul, a changeability which it would be blasphemous to ascribe to the divine nature. They retort, 'It is the body that changes the nature of the soul; in itself the soul is unchanging'. They might as well say, 'It is an external material object which wounds the flesh: in itself the flesh is invulnerable'. Nothing at all can change the immutable; what can be changed by an external object is susceptible of change, and cannot properly be called immutable...If they maintain that the soul is eternal, how can it experience a change to unhappiness, to a condition from which it has been exempt for all eternity?...They would not have babbled like this if they had believed in the truth...if they had held, according to sound Christian teaching, that the soul, which _could_ change for the worse through free choice..."
> 
> _*- Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.), The City of God, Church Father and Doctor of the Church*_


 
Animals, things, the universe - they are not permanent, nor unchanging, so how could I take them for "reality"? The Catholic mystics actually teach, 



> "...Take note with careful discrimination of these two words: _oneself_ and _leave_. If you know how to weigh these two words properly, testing their meaning thoroughly to their core and viewing them with true discernment, then you will quickly grasp the truth...Because of it [the self] a person turns outward [...] when he should be re-turning inward, and he fashions for himself his own _self_ according to what is accidental. He thoughtlessly makes himself a 'self' of his own. In his ignorance he appropriates to this 'self'...But whoever would really leave this self should have three insights. First, *he should turn his thoughtful gaze upon the nothingness of his own self and see that this self, and the self of all things, is a nothing*...What happens to an inebriated man happens to him, though it cannot really be described, that he so forgets his self that he is not at all his self, no longer concious of his selfhood and consequently has got rid of his self completely and lost himself entirely...so it happens that those who are in full possession of blessedness lose all human desires in an inexpressible manner...Otherwise, if something of the individual were to remain of which he or she were not completely emptied...And thus it is...that a man comes forth from his selfhood...This is all the result of total detachment from self..."
> 
> *- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic*


 
And yes, I know, the Catholic mystic called this "ignorance" but "delusion" does not mean the same thing in the English language but has connotations of insanity lolAnd of course because Henry Suso believes in God - he cannot, according to you, understand, I know. The "individual" self or "personality", as Suso explains, is "made" by man alone ie it doesn't actually exist but man fashions it for himself out of accidental things (such as form, sensation, perception etc.) and this false, made-up conception of "self" is at the root of human suffering. The "self" of all things is "nothingness", ie actually "notself". See also Saint Catherine's experience of losing awareness of an independent, separate, permanent, self: 




> The more one is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quite pure...Thus purified I rest without any alloy of self...But this 'I' that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything, wherever it be, in heaven or on earth...I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source...Everything to do with self passes away... I am no longer my own. I have nothing left of myself or of mine..."
> 
> _*- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Catholic mystic* _


 

I believe that the universe is comprised of empty phenomena which rolls on and on, conditioned by prior conditions. I also believe in a Creator. You have never asked me directly how I reconcile these two beliefs but have simply presumed that I am ignorant of the true nature of both anatta and impermanence, simply as a result of my theism. Alternatively, I can agree with you - despite my theism - that God does not exist: 



> "...God never did exist
> Nor ever will, yet aye
> He was ere worlds began, and
> When they're gone he'll stay.
> ...


 



> ..We must divest ourselves of belief in God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, _is_ cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man _does_ divest himself of God as conceived of by most people. The intellectual _where_ is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it...it seems to us to be no-thing...You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...This is the highest goal and the 'where' beyond boundaries. In this the spirituality of all spirits ends. Here to lose oneself forever is eternal happiness, here in this region beyond thought...After this an experienced person achieves liberation from the outer senses...This rapture takes him from images, forms and multiplicity; he loses all awareness of himself and all things...Here, there is no longer any struggle or striving because beginning and end, as we have described it by representations, have become one...This same spiritual 'where', one call call the nameless nothingness. This unity is called a 'nothing' because one can find no human manner of saying what it is...As one is taken in, they are freed and separated from individuality...The spirit loses its own knowledge because it loses itself, lacking any awareness of self and forgetting all things...This naked unity is a dark stillness and a restful calm that no one can understand but one who has experienced...In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God...It is hidden...Eternity is beyond time but includes within itself all time but without a before or after. And whoever is taken into the Eternal Nothing possesses all in all and has no 'before or after'. Indeed a person taken within today would not have been there for a shorter period from the point of view of eternity than someone who had been taken within a thousand years ago...be steadfast and never rest content until you have obtained the Now of Eternity as your present possession in this life..."
> 
> _*- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest* _


 



> And I see you as unreasonably trying to make very different teachings fit together / sound the same. For what reason? I don't know.


 
No, I recognise that different religions have distinct teachings conditioned by environment, culture and inummerable other factors. However I also recognize that all them are born from a grappling with the infinite, fundamental truth of reality, and that none of them are deprived of even a portion of insight into the human predicament because human nature is one and therefore the path to the cessation of suffering is also one, even if it be expressed through distinct language constructs, terminology, belief systems, doctrines etc. 




> Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..


 
I'll let Suso speak again...



> "...Since a person remains basically human, he continues to have opinions and imaginings. But because he has withdrawn himself into that which is, he has a knowledge of all truth; for this is truth itself and the person is unaware of himself. But let this be enough for you. One does not arrive at the goal by asking questions. It is rather through detachment that one comes to this hidden truth..."
> 
> _- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic_


 



> You are giving me a chance to reform? ;-)
> No, you were right in your first impression. Except a Buddha in his last life, everyone else needs to hear the Dhamma in order that enlightenment becomes a possibility.


 
But even those who have heard the Dhamma (that "99%") are also flawed? How and why? What is it about your own understanding of Buddhism that is so very much purer and loftier than these innumerable others? 




> That's your story, one woven so that you can continue with the present perceptions and understandings.


 

Isn't that true for all of us, on some level? 




> Of course from your point of view, I am deluded. Why should I expect otherwise?


 

No, your not. You have never claimed to have a monopoly on truth, only to have the right view whereas we all have "wrong belief" and "wrong view". Qualitively different and besides I would never call another person "deluded". Such is not my style. 




> Wishful thinking of an elephant stuck in the mud trying to pull out the other elephants similarly stuck. Is this the same pope who once said that Buddhism was a pessimistic religion?


 
Nope mundahug

Thanks for your time, engaging, thought-provoking and enlightening as ever (even though we are very different characters!) mundahug


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

Confused said:


> And for your information, I consider 99% of Buddhists out there as wrong, so no need to compare their thoughts and actions with mine.


 
May I ask, what school of Buddhism to you adhere too? I know two Theravadins, one Mahayana and one Vajrayana. On what basis do you call 99% of Buddhists "wrong" and by that do you mean across all three major denominations? Upon which standards do you judge them? If it is not too intrusive, may I ask how you came to hold this very strict understanding that only Buddhism as you understand it is absolutely right and everything other must wrong? There has to be a reason for such a mindset. Please, feel no need to tell me if it is not appropriate, I am merely being inquisitive. 

I tend to think people are born with certain philosophical mental phenomena (understandings). When these phenomena match up with the religion of their birth, they stay and are devout. When they don't, people go on a quest for deeper knowledge, often converting to other religions that seem to gel with their own innate predispositions. As a result, I simply do not judge people and look for the good and truth in every religion and sincere point of view. I am simply asking you to try and do the same once in a while, rather than always presuming that the specific mental phenomena which random chance has given to you, is superior to all non-Buddhists and that others who have this particular mental phenomena are inherently 'right' whereas everyone else is wrong. There is something above our small, human, opinionated, temporal divisions of "right and wrong". 

I suggest you re-fresh your eyes and starting looking for truth in others viewpoints, or at the least the sincere attempt to reach a truth which you find in your own religion, rather than assume that everything outside of your own version/personal understanding of Buddhism is a cesspit of meaningless error and falsehood mundahug

99% of Buddhists are not wrong. They are simply different approaches which different human beings have formulated in their search for meaning and freedom from suffering. They may not tally up exactly with truth as you perceive it but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. 

One of my Therevada friends - the convert from Catholicism - was once asked by an atheist the question, "_What is your opinion of non-Therevada Buddhists_?" 

To which she replied, "_The differences in various Buddhist traditions is pretty subtle and IMO not worth the bother since the differences are mainly about semantics and ceremony. Buddhism picks up the culture of the area it is in and various commentaries reflect those cultures. At their heart almost all forms of Buddhism speak of the same thing but in different ways. On the whole, I don't have any major beef with Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Obviously I don't accept certain incompatible ideas which they believe but as long as they are practicing in accordance with the essentials of the Noble Eightfold Path, then I believe they can move towards enlightenment, and so I have no real criticism to make. Nichiren Buddhism is an exception in my opinion, however_. _Nichiren do use a mantra, "Nam myōhō renge kyō", which can form a sort of meditation. I do have problems with them, mainly due to their attitude to other Buddhists, and the way some of their groups operate._"<!-- / message -->

I imagine that the "incompatible ideas" would be, for example, the Mahayana's use of positive language in describing anatta, the belief in "Buddha Nature" and Nagarjuna's complex philosophical speculations on "emptiness". 

Her answer demonstrates the difference between someone who is a dedicated Buddhist but still has an open mind, as opposed to one with a decidely closed mindset. 

If you are Therevada then I am mighty surprised, since your views on this forum (in terms of your opinion of other Buddhists and non-Buddhists) seem more in line with Nichiren, given that Nichiren Buddhists believe that they alone practise authentic Buddhism based upon the Lotus Sutra (rather than the much earlier Pali Canon). 

I think it would be good to broaden the scope of your understanding and become a little more world-embracing. It would be nice to see you at the very least saying good things about your fellow Buddhists. 

But then again, I am an "ignorant", "deluded, "unenlightened" non-Buddhist - by jove not even one of those _wrong Buddhists_ - so I suppose my thoughts on the matter don't really compute for you do they?  
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

Confused said:


> Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..


 
Yes, he is giving a non-opinion. He has moved beyond opinions, beyond right and wrong. He is simply speaking about the nature of reality. 

I have not reached such a state. I am small and have far to travel but I can discern the truth in what he is saying, and perhaps one day both of us might move beyond opinions like the arhants. 

Compare: 



> "...Nirvana can be translated as freedom, freedom from views. And in Buddhism, all views are wrong views. When you get in touch with reality, you no longer have views. You have wisdom. You have a direct encounter with reality. And that is no longer called views..."
> 
> *— Thich Nhat Hanh (born 1926), Vietnamese Buddhist monk*


 



> "...Opinions are as sand,—a fool would build thereon.
> You, building on opinions, are not the wisest one
> 
> The wise have one wish left: to know the Whole, the Absolute.
> ...


 



> "...Since a person remains basically human, he continues to have opinions and imaginings. But because he has withdrawn himself into that which is, he has a knowledge of all truth; for this is truth itself and the person is unaware of himself. But let this be enough for you. One does not arrive at the goal by asking questions. It is rather through detachment that one comes to this hidden truth...Your questions arise from human thinking, and I respond from a knowledge that is far beyond all human comprehension. You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...In a detached person nothing merely temporal is born in possesiveness. His eyes are opened. He becomes fully aware...No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it..."
> 
> *- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Confused said:


> Bhagat ji,
> So God is subject to the cycle of existence?


This is a wrong question to ask and you ask many such questions later. You are differentiating subject and existence. There is no distinction, no duality here when talking about God. God is the subject, God is existence.

This cannot be recognized through thinking it, through reasoning, inference, logic or deduction.



> I am confused about what you are saying.
> First it sounded as if you were suggesting that Buddha was God different from us and for this reason he did not need to attain liberation. Now it appears that you are saying that like us, he was God too? And further that the concept of Mukti is therefore meaningless since we are all God? But then you also refer to ignorance and I wonder if what you are saying then is that Buddha was God after he became enlightened and this means that God is synonymous to enlightenment?


Do you think you are God? Do you think everyone else is God?

I think everyone is God and Buddha is no different than you and I. Mukti is meaningless jibber-jabber. But no one else seems to think so, they think Buddha is different from them. So to them I would say Mukti is all about becoming good like Buddha.
So yes God is enlightenment, only if you understand the two terms.




> Is God not also used to denote the Creator and surely you don't mean that when someone who becomes enlightened, he also becomes the creator, do you? So why use “God” and not simply “enlightened”?


Yes they do.  You must recognize creation and creator to be One. Creation is happening right now and you are part of it and creating it.

They also become very creative in their profession.



> In any case, in the above you refer to the idea of separation vs. non-separation. Please tell me where did the Buddha ever express such an idea? What in his teachings is suggestive that enlightenment means merging with God or whatever else you might call it? Indeed everything he taught, in particular his teaching on the Dependent Origination points to the impossibility of there being such an entity or any kind of controlling agent. The DO in fact explains what life is all about, how there is continual birth, old age and death and this proves that God is a total friction.


I haven't read His teachings but I have listened to a lot of Buddhist teachings by Shin Zen Young and Robert Thurman.
Non-Dual Awareness ~ Shinzen Young - YouTube
Deepak Chopra - God and Buddha - YouTube



> Anyway, if as you suggest God is not separate from his created beings, does this mean that when I am ignorant, it is God who is ignorant?


There is no I, only God. And God is everything.



> If he has control over all there is, then why did he choose for me to be ignorant of him, in fact not give any credit to the concept? And you, in expressing confidence in Him, is this because he made you more advanced than me?


Well only if you decided that one is better than the other. 

The reality is that there is no you and I. 

"Control over" If He is that which He is controlling...



> But even here, why make it that you remain with ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit for a long, long time and then need to go through the process of gradually merging with him to finally get rid of these? Why would he do this? Being playful? Indeed why create anything? Is it because it is in his nature to do so which means that he cannot help himself?


Start with smaller questions first, only move onto bigger questions like you pose here if you can answer the smaller ones. Here's a smaller question "Why do you ask the the bigger questions?"



> No, the Sangha of the Triple Gems refer to the enlightened disciples, not the average Buddhist layperson or monk. It is there together with the Buddha and the Dhamma for each to clearly reflect the other two. Someone like me, not only do not fit to be considered a Gem, is far from being in the position to even take refuge in them with any degree of confidence.


Ok you need to go take refuge amongst enlightened people now! Don't delay it.



> If they considered him God or thought that the Path was about coming to merge with God or whatever, that would be going against his teachings, therefore decrease the chance of the view being straightened. Enlightenment would in this case, be an impossibility.


Well from personal experience I can tell you this is not true. Stick to your teachings, this thread is clearly about Sikh teachings and according to Sikh teachings Buddha is God. If whatever teachings you may believe suggest this is not the case then that is fine. When standing within one teaching, other teachings seem contradictory but one who has been enlightened does not recognize any contradictions. They only *seem* contradictory at a superficial level.



> And I would like to butt in here:


Anything for you Confused ji. 0



> So do you think that the Buddha believed in the existence of soul as well? But of course, the idea of “merging” must imply something lasting in time which merges, and this is “soul”.


He knew what a soul was. Yeah it seems that way since we view soul and God, as separate.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Do you think you are God? Do you think everyone else is God?
> 
> I think everyone is God and Buddha is no different than you and I. Mukti is meaningless jibber-jabber. But no one else seems to think so, they think Buddha is different from them. So to them I would say Mukti is all about becoming good like Buddha.


 
In Sacred Tradition, recorded by an early Church Father called Saint Clement of Alexandria, Jesus was once asked by a disciple, "I want to see God, show me God my Teacher!" 

Jesus promised to show him God there and then. The disciple was very excited. But then Jesus pointed to a Leper on the roadside. The disciple was bemused. Where is the God that Jesus promised to show him? 

Jesus replied, pointing to the leprous man:





> "...Have you seen your brother? You have seen your God..."
> 
> 
> *- Jesus Christ (Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.19) *


 

The Gurus teach: 





> "...There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same. The One Light pervades all the many and various beings. This Light intermingles with them, but it is not diluted or obscured. By Guru’s Grace, I have come to see the One. I am a sacrifice to the True Guru..."
> 
> *- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p96*


 

That is why Angelus Silesius said: 




> "...He is enlightened, liberated,
> who sees all things as One - Unseparated.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon ji,
That story of Christ almost brought a tear to my eye. Of course, being male we are not blessed in the tears compartment, our biology does not allow it! haha!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya-Bheda-Abheda - The last quote describes this philosophical school of India: "Inconceivable oneness and difference".

A lot of mystics you post believe in some kind of Non-Dualism. Are there any mystics you know of that believe in Dualism? Please share.

I know Madhvacharya was an enlightened Master of Dualism.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita though I have not read his teachings. I just know he exists, and I know that forms of Dualism, like Confused ji's beliefs, can also lead to enlightenment.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Vouthon ji,
> That story of Christ almost brought a tear to my eye. Of course, being male we are not blessed in the tears compartment, our biology does not allow it! haha!
> 
> 
> ...


 
My dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug

Yes indeed, Catholic mysticism embraces both a sense in which there is no difference between man and the Supreme Being in the unitative state and also a sense of distinction (Lover and Beloved) between God and man. This is necessary since God is both immanent within creation and also the trascendent "other" who is known only to Himself. Blessed Ruusbroec calls this the "highest distinction" (or dualism) that one can experience, while at the same time 'feeling' no difference between oneself and God. Depending on what mystic you quote, or what part of the mystics writings on quotes, it can appear very non-dualistic or very dualistic. 

Angelus Silesius, as you have likely come to recognize, is quite firmly non-dualistic in his expressions. And yet he captured the Catholic regard for both immanence and transcendence in a pithy little phrase: 




> "...God is such as He is,
> I am as I must be.
> And yet no two-ness [or "duality"]
> do I see..."
> ...


 

Now think on that for a minute: God and the human being are different, separate. God is "such as He is" and Silesius as as he "must be" and yet there is no duality or difference between them! 

Consider likewise this epic description by Ruusbroec which combines both dualistic and non-dualistic language: 




> "...There follows a third kind of experience, namely, that we feel ourselves to be one with God, for by means of our transformation in God *we feel ourselves to be swallowed up in the groundless abyss of our eternal blessedness, in which we can never discover any difference between ourselves and God**...When we transcend ourselves, and become, in our ascent towards God, so simple that the naked love in the height can lay hold of us, where love enfolds love, above every exercise of virtue – that is, in our Origin, of Which we are spiritually born – then we cease, and we and all our selfhood die in God. And in this death we become hidden sons of God, and find a new life within us: and that is eternal life... This brightness is so great that the loving contemplative, in his ground wherein he rests, sees and feels nothing but an incomprehensible Light; and through that Simple Nudity which enfolds all things, he finds himself and feels himself to be that same Light by which he sees and nothing else. This resplendence is nothing other than an act of gazing and seeing which has no ground: What we are is what we see, and what we see is what we are, for our mind, our life, and our very being are raised up in a state of oneness and united with the truth that is God himself. In this simple act of seeing we are therefore one life and one spirit with God. We feel no difference between ourselves and God, for we have been breathed forth in his love above and beyond ourselves and all orders of being...and in this loving and being loved *we always feel a difference and a duality: this is the nature of eternal love***. And there we find distinction and otherness between God and ourselves, and find God as an Incomprehensible One exterior to us. There in the mystical experience all is full and overflowing, for the spirit feels itself to be one truth and one richness and one unit with God. Yet here there is an essential tending forward, and therein is an essential distinction between the being of the soul and the Being of God; and this is the highest and finest distinction which we are able to feel..."
> 
> *- Blessed Jan Van Ruusbroec (1294-1381), Flemish Catholic mystic*


 

* quite clearly non-dualistic 
** thoroughly dualistic

I will dig out from the writings other quotations from the mystics on dualism, later on brother Bhagat ji.

For now here is Dionysius the Areopagite, who has moments of true dualism and non-dualism. This seems to me to be very dualistic: 




> "...The transcendent surpasses all discourse and all knowledge, abiding beyond the reach of mind and of being...Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech...When talking of the peace which transcends all things let it be spoken of as ineffable and unknowable...By an undivided and absolute abandonment of yourself and everything, shedding all and freed from all, you will be uplifted to the ray of the divine shadow which is above everything that is...Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to what is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor some-one else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing...It has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it. Again, as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge nor truth. It is not kingship. It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it a spirit, in the sense in which we understand that term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth—it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial..."
> 
> *<I>- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th-6th century Catholic mystic)<?"urn:<img src=" /></I>*


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon, Chazsingh, Bhagat and Luckysingh,

Vouthon ji, you have flooded me with so many points to respond to, and there is Bhagat ji’s message to respond to also. It takes quite a long time for me to finish one response, so in order to make it easier for myself, as well as to lead the discussion back to the basics; I have decided to start a new thread. I will do that sometime tomorrow and call it “Truth and reality. Does God have any place in this?” or something along the lines.

Chazsingh ji and Luckysingh ji, I have already written a response to each of your messages from another thread, but given what I've decided to do, instead of posting them, invite you to take part in that new thread. I believe that your questions will directly or indirectly be answered there.

Thanks for your consideration.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon ji,
Any mystics who reject non-dualism? 
I think Madhvacharya rejected any sort of Oneness between God and us. 



> Thus one might distinguish a five-fold difference too in this world;
> 
> 
> 1) Difference between one inconscient and another inconscient;
> ...


He was pretty strong in his stance. Anyone like that?

And I think there have been non-dualists who rejected any sort of difference. This stuff is pretty interesting to read about Lol. It puls you in once you start reading. And what is fascinating is that we are having the same conversations as people back in the 1100s!


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Vouthon ji,
> Any mystics who reject non-dualism?
> I think Madhvacharya rejected any sort of Oneness between God and us.
> 
> ...


 

Excellent question brother Bhagat ji mundahug

You have got my thinking cap on! 

Generally speaking I think that Catholic mysticism is much like Sikhi, in that it presents a sort of middle ground between the extremes of complete non-dualism and complete dualism, in that God is both wholly transcendent (other) and wholly immanent (one). I know that in my religion there have been people who have veered near to the extremity of these two views but I doubt whether I have detected a mystic of my tradition who has been _completely _non-dualist or completely dualist. However I know of two, Meister Eckhart and Catherine of Genoa, who are so non-dual that one can find it very difficult to find any trace of a distinction between man and the Godhead in their writings. 

On the dualism front, I think that many of the Greek Fathers are strongly dualist yet not in sense of the Madhvacharya. You see mysticism in Catholicism, and indeed in most philosophies, is about bridging the gulf between our creatureliness and the uncreatedness of God. Its about intimacy, oneness, unity. 

I mean according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) and Dionysius mentioned above, God is utterly transcendent and unknowable to the rational intellect. This idea of the absolute darkness of the Godhead posits a greater difference between creator and creation but nowhere near to the extent of say, non-Sufi Islam or the Madhvacharya. Consider Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus

For example they write: 



> "...The Nature that is all-sufficient and ever-lasting, encompasing the universe, exists neither in space nor in time, but is before both these and above these in an ineffable way - self-contained, perceived by faith alone, immeasurable in ages, without the accompaniement of time...Within that transcendent and blessed Power all things are equally present as in an instant..."
> 
> *- Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) *


 



> "...O all-transcendent God, you are above all that is.
> These words cannot contain all that could be sung of you.
> What hymn can ever celebrate your praise?
> You are too wonderful for words,
> ...


 

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]They both start of promising on the dualism front, with a wholly "other", transcendent Deity but then we find [/FONT]the idea of God "encompassing the universe" and God being "the all" which "everything abides in" which are both very "immanent", not non-dualist but certainly not radically dualist to the extent of the philosophy that you mentioned, It seems impossible for them ever to create a complete dualism because Catholic theology is wedded to the idea of God being at once immanent and transcendent. 

mundahug

I agree with you though that dualism is an equally valid path to salvation, its only that the Catholic mystics seem to maintain a balance between the two extremes and when they veer it is almost always to the non-dualist sounding extreme (even though they still actually on some level believe God to be transcendent and other) ie 



> "...The pure and clear love can desire nothing of God, however good it may be, that could be called participation, for it wants God himself...I will not be content until I am locked and enclosed within that divine heart in which all created forms lose themselves and, so lost, remain divine...*My I is God, and I know of no other I than this my God*...In this way God so transforms the soul into Himself, its God, that it sees nothing but God...The more the soul is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quire pure and rests in God...Thus purified the soul rests in God without any alloy of self; my very being is God...Everything that has being has it from God's highest essence through participation; but the pure and clear love cannot be content with seeing that it has acquired God through participation, nor with his being in it as a creature...My being is God, not through participation, but through true transformation and through annihilation of my own being...So in God is my me, my I, my strength, my bliss, my desire. But this 'I' that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything, wherever it be, in heaven or on earth...I do not want a love that would be for or in God. I cannot bear to see this word for, this word in, for to me they indicate a thing that would be between me and God...Faith seems to me wholly lost...for it seems to me that I have and hold in certainty that which I believed and hoped in former times. I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than Him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source of his infinite love, as if I were quite under water in the sea and could not touch, see, feel anything on any side except water...Everything to do with self passes away. It [the soul] neither sees, speaks, nor knows loss or pain of its own...God became man in order to make me God; therefore I want to be changed completely into pure God..."
> 
> *- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Catholic mystic *


 



> "...The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love. Your human nature and that of the divine Word are no different. The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge...To guage the soul we must guage it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. You must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-person, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality, sundered from all twoness, and in whom we must eternally sink from nothingness to nothingness. Separate yourself from all twoness. Be one in one, one with one, one from one. When is a man in mere understanding? When a man sees one thing separated from another. And when is a man above mere understanding? When a man sees All in all, then a man stands beyond mere understanding..."
> 
> *- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon ji
As a non-dualist I would agree with Dionysius, that God cannot be understood by the rational intellect. This is also explained in Patanjali's Yoga Sutra, one the best books ever written on Yoga/ Union with God. You should check out translations of it. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/ysp/index.htm

I don't think this (what Dionysius says) is evidence for dualism. Dualism highlights the distinction between God and souls, and between two souls. From the non-dualist perspective, dualism is to be overcome and oneness to be realized. From the dualist perspective, distinction between God and soul is the reality and a soul should learn to adopt Godly traits ie. love for mankind. 

Yeah those mystics are non-dualist. I think you'll find dualism as a philosophy in Christianity, the scriptures, etc. I don't know much about it but all my Christian and Muslim friends are dualists. (Haven't met many Jews) They would tell you outright, "we are not as smart as God."

We are so off topic, let me conclude my posts by saying I now realize how little I know of dualist philosophy. It sounds like an entire new world to explore (remember Christopher Columbus?), and I think in doing so I can better understand the nature of reality. 
_
The garden can be seen best from many perspectives._


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 15, 2012)

A query for my friends Confused ji, Vouthon ji and Bhagat Singh ji.  Salvation, mukti, etc, is so sexy that people spend nights chanting, staying awake, putting others down, destroying their selfhood and so many antics.

  I have a query and I have taken some lines from your recent posts in this thread.  Question really centers around enlightenment and associations there of.

  I will pose questions and give you my honest answer to set the stage.  Let us warm things up first,


Confused said:


> “Truth and reality. Does God have any place in this?” or something along the lines.


_Confused ji what makes you thinks even if it is a valid question?  Did you talk to God to elaborate if it even registers with him/her as of any substance?_


Vouthon said:


> You have got my thinking cap on!


_Vouthon ji, the truly enlightened don’t wear a thinking cap as they just are at every moment._


BhagatSingh said:


> _The garden can be seen best from many perspectives._


_BhagatSingh ji you are trying to see the garden in different ways to enlighten or you have too much time on your hand versus look and exhaust at least one way?_

Sorry above simply stated in jest and not to be taken any other way .  Do hit me if you so chose for the indiscretion!

*Question 1:*  Do you believe you have reached your target level of enlightenment and if not what percentage of possible achievement have you accomplished?
*Ambarsaria Answer 1:*  I believe I have reached about 20% of possible that I would like to be at.  However given practical parameters of life I will feel blessed to reach 40%.

*Question 2:  *Have you set a goal for mukti or freedom from physical cycles of life and death and what will you do to achieve it?
*Ambarsaria Answer 2:  *I don’t believe nor focus on so called 8.4 million cycles or manifestations of life.  I am more than content to be dust to dust and be part of a future grass blade, a flower, a monkey or a rat and I would not give a rat's azz lolabout it.  I wish to achieve a partial salvation (non-physical) by positively or in an enlightening way impact one other person.  By comparison the standard for mukti is like Guru Nanak Dev ji with millions so impacted.

*Question 3:*  Do you believe there are shortcuts to enlightenment and salvation and if so what are some key ones?
*Ambarsaria Answer 3:*  There are no shortcuts I believe in.  It is hard work and living in consonance.  Even Guru Nanak Dev ji worked so hard to enlighten all that he has.  If there were shortcuts he could have used the potion and given the same to us given the kind and sharing person he was.

  Regards and thanks for interacting in this thread.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,
There is no shortcut or even a way to become enlightened. One day it just happens.

PS from the Matrix, ahem "There is no garden"
There Is No Spoon - The Matrix (5/9) Movie CLIP (1999) HD - YouTube


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 15, 2012)

Bhagat Singh ji thanks for the answer.  One follow up.





BhagatSingh said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> There is no shortcut or even a way to become enlightened. One day it just happens.
> 
> PS from the Matrix, ahem "There is no garden"


_Is that one day tied to a day in your life like you were born so and that is it or that you searched and sought and it suddenly so dawned, etc.?__  Take your time as it is a loaded question with the "Karma" and "re-incarnation" crowds to ponce on it.  I have resisted the temptation to address Prakash.S.Bagga ji's questions along such lines as it would probably really take this thread to la-la land.  No disrespect.

I do agree that there perhaps is a confluence moment when you hit your head and say I got it and suddenly bright lights lit up around your head.

Sat Sri Akal.
_


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji,
If you are not enlightened yourself you won't get it no matter how I explain. So just do what you do best. The *mere* intention that you want to be liberated is enough to liberate you. 

Nothing else is needed and at the same time, you can also support your intention with all the rituals of the world, studying, meditating, working-hard, and so on.

"Do not try and bend the spoon." I would add "only intend for it to bend."

PS I edited my last reply.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

Thank you brother Bhagat ji mundahugThis has been most enlightening!

Because Christianity is a Western religion we don't tend to use the terms such as "dualism" and "non-dualism", so it has been difficult for me to fully understand what is meant. You have, nonetheless, really aided my understanding. I am not knowledgeable about the words in question (I would have to read more deeply into, say, Vedanta or such). 

According to what you write above, I would say that the Catholic mystics are non-dualist in the sense that the distinction between man and the Godhead is overcome on one level and yet they are dualists in the sense that God is still, in essence, a separate, trascendent being on another level. In Christian mystical theology, we become _by grace _what God is by nature: God, pure God. Its difficult to explain but the mystics often say that it is like a drop of water falling into a cask of full of wine, it becomes one in every way with the wine, while still retaining its own substance. In this sense man loses any awareness of himself as an independent, separate being and yet he does not become God as he is in Himself, in that transcendent, unknowable aspect. In his Essence, God is utterly beyond creation, not limited by creation, distinct from everything in existence including us. In his Energies (to use Eastern Catholic linguistics), in that immanent aspect, God is in everything and we become one with him and lose awareness of ourselves as a distinct being while never unitung with God in Essence (having a distinct essence by God's grace). 

We call this becoming God _by grace_. We _do _become God, if that is non-Dualism, but not in Essence (as he is only in Himself, transcendent aspect)? Would that still qualify as non-dualism? 

Catholic mysticism is a bit more enigmatic than say, mainline Protestant Christianity, which IMHO often sees God as only transcendent but not immanent.

Transcendence and immanence is the typical Christian terminology that one usually uses in my religion when speaking of God as "other" and God as "one" with us. 

The Bible has teachings such as the following: 



> "...The person who unites himself with the Lord becomes one spirit with him..."
> 
> *- 1 Corinthians 6:17*


 
So the idea of union with God is biblical. As is the loss of "self awareness": 



> "...It is no longer "I" who lives but Christ lives in me..."
> 
> _*- (Galatians 2:20).*_


 
The Bible likewise teaches that God is in everything: 




> "...The Spirit of the Lord has filled the Universe...You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living. For your immortal spirit is in all things..."
> 
> _*- The Book of Wisdom (Holy Bible)*_







> "...There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all..."
> 
> *—Saint Paul, Book of Ephesians 4.6 (Bible)*


 

In God we live, move and have our being: 



> "...In him we live, and move, and have our being......"
> 
> *—Saint Paul, Book of Acts 17.28 (Bible)*


 

Everyone becomes "one" in Jesus: 



> "...There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus..."
> 
> *- (Galatians 3:28)*


 
And finally the Gospel of John teaches this very mystical teaching on oneness with God and each other: 



> "...Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one...that all may be one as you Father are in me and I in you, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one..."
> 
> *- Jesus Christ, John 17:21*


 
The above is my favourite biblical text on union (Not just because Jesus said it lol). What do you think of it? Christ says that we can have by grace the same oneness with the Father that he Himself has, such that Jesus will be in us, and we in him, and the Father in Jesus - all one in perfect unity. 

I would appreciate your thoughts in helping me figure all this out!!! 

Thanks a lot for the book on Yoga! I will read it and get back to you.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> _Vouthon ji, the truly enlightened don’t wear a thinking cap as they just are at every moment_.


 
Oh I would agree brother Ambarsaria ji but I am not enlightened, nor would ever claim to be mundahugI am just a learner sitting humbly at the feet of greater men who have went before me and am soaking in their wisdom. 

I like it from down here lolIn my religion it is stated that one must exist in the present moment, without a before or after, without one's mind set to the past or future, as Jesus explained: 




> "....Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Whoever has a crust of bread in his basket and frets about tommorrow has little faith...Our Father's Kingdom is not going to come with people watching for it. No one is going to be able to say, _Look, here_! or, _Over there_! For the Kingdom is inside you, waiting for you to find it....You see a cloud rising in the west and say, _It's going to rain_. When the wind blows from the south you say, _It's going to be a scorcher_. So why don't you know how to interpret the present moment?"
> 
> 
> *- Jesus Christ*


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon said:


> Oh I would agree brother Ambarsaria ji but I am not enlightened, nor would ever claim to be mundahugI am just a learner sitting humbly at the feet of greater men who have went before me and am soaking in their wisdom.
> 
> I like it from down here lol


Look way below of yourself and I am there too  mundahug.kaurhug


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon ji not to stop BhagatSingh ji from addressing your query here is hay-penny worth of my thoughts.





Vouthon said:


> What do you think of it? Christ says that we can have by grace the same oneness with the Father that he Himself has, such that Jesus will be in us, and we in him, and the Father in Jesus - all one in perfect unity.





 same oneness with the Father that he Himself has,
same understanding

such that Jesus will  be in us, and we in him,
joy of like company

and the Father in Jesus - all one in perfect  unity.
joy of being all in consonance of the creator/God so recognized
living as created by the creator and the potential so endowed




> Whole bunch of merriment and tears of joy
> japposatnamwaheguru:cheerleader


Your thoughts much resonate with this thread.  Guru Nanak Dev ji, I am sure, would have taken great joy in people acquiring wisdom.  Guru Nanak Dev ji, I am sure, would have been ecstatic to see people reaching and conversing at level of wisdom with him.  Putting all this to practice and using all this to live in consonance with one creator and creation, hence Sikhism was born and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji came to be.

Regards.​


----------



## namjiwankaur (Nov 15, 2012)

Sat Nam _/|\_

I was reading about the Sufi teachings on seven spiritual levels.  Most of us don't go very far.  A few rise to that seventh level and become pure vessels, so pure that they can speak the Truth because they have removed all the veils & the barriers to behold the Divine in this lifetime.

Guru Nanak was awakened to that pure Realization during this lifetime and this is why his words are like a conversation with God.  They really are an opportunity for us to take in a conversation with God.  

Good poll.  

Nam Jiwan


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 15, 2012)

Vouthon said:


> Thank you brother Bhagat ji mundahugThis has been most enlightening!
> 
> Because Christianity is a Western religion we don't tend to use the terms such as "dualism" and "non-dualism", so it has been difficult for me to fully understand what is meant. You have, nonetheless, really aided my understanding. I am not knowledgeable about the words in question (I would have to read more deeply into, say, Vedanta or such).


I will load this post with links for your reading. I enjoyed reading through them myself a while ago.
 Dualism in the west is used for mind-brain (in psychology), subject-object (in philosophy) dualism. In the east, we use to mean all of the dualities of the world such as night-day, male-female, good-bad, the most fundamental and important duality to overcome is soul-God duality. In Non-dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta), the soul IS God and vice-verse, absolutely no difference! None. One of it's most famous proponent was Adi Shankara.

The line of thought in Sikhism originally comes from Qualified Non-Dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita). The soul is God but has separated from Him, and the idea is to merge back to be God again. So the soul is God but there's a qualifier, only when it attains liberation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja taught this philosophy, and he influenced some of the early Bhagats in Sikhism, who then influenced later ones.

We talked about Madhvacharya and Dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita) already.





Notice in the painting he is holding two fingers up. He says that essentially (in reality) soul-God are different, male-female are different, day -night are different. They are not one and the same (like the other two would say) but two distinct entities. 

There were two videos I posted in a  reply to Confused ji, do take a look at those as well. Shin Zen young, Robert Thurman and Deepak Chopra are all great speakers. The former two are Buddhist. The latter is Hindu.



> According to what you write above, I would say that the Catholic mystics are non-dualist in the sense that the distinction between man and the Godhead is overcome on one level and yet they are dualists in the sense that God is still, in essence, a separate, trascendent being on another level.


My reading leads me to conclude those quotes/teachings are dualism in essence. Yes God is everywhere for the dualists. He is present is us and in the world. Wherever we look we may see Him but ultimately He is separate from us. We cannot be Him, only have good relations with Him as we do with another being. This is the vibe I am getting from your elaboration and the quote. I have not read the entire canon so maybe other parts are non-dualist, who knows but clearly the essence is dualism. But I remember you said some mystics were perscecuted by the Church, this maybe so because they might believe in a Non-Dual reality, and the Church sees Christ's message as Dualist.



> We call this becoming God _by grace_. We _do _become  God, if that is non-Dualism, but not in Essence (as he is only in  Himself, transcendent aspect)? Would that still qualify as non-dualism?


This is Dualism. God is transcendent and immanent is actually part of both Non-Dualism and Dualism but their claim to essential reality is different.

Non-Dualism would say we are in Essence God Himself. "Aham atma.. (I am the soul)"  said God in Bhagwad Gita.

Ambarsaria ji,
Beautifully put. 


> Your thoughts much resonate with this thread.  Guru Nanak Dev ji, I am  sure, would have taken great joy in people acquiring wisdom.  Guru Nanak  Dev ji, I am sure, would have been ecstatic to see people reaching and  conversing at level of wisdom with him.  Putting all this to practice  and using all this to live in consonance with one creator and creation,  hence Sikhism was born and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji came to be.


PS vouthon ji, 


> I am not enlightened, nor would ever claim to be


Remember, just be honest if you ever do become enlightened.


----------



## harcharanjitsinghdhillon (Nov 17, 2012)

There are many types of gurus, some are coming from higher planes not to form religions but to take back the herd of sheeps back to our true home, such khand. In sikhism we define such gurus as satgurus. Mind you maya also will send  some false gurus to impart some untruth teachings. All sikh gurus had earned salvation no question on this. True gurus will always speak of naams. Sat sri akal


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 17, 2012)

*I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....*

My dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug

I truly must thank you in all sincerity for the wealth of information that you have given to me in your last post. I had never heard of the Dvaita (Indian dualism) tradition before and I must say, I find it utterly fascinating! I am very much impressed by Shri Madhvacharya's courage in stating outright his beliefs about the nature of reality. His ideas are compelling. 

I must ask you, nonetheless, something about Sikhi. You say that the Gurus adhered to a "qualitative non-dualism" and that when one merges with Waheguru, there remains nothing of the soul's identity left, absolutely everything becomes lost in the abyss of deity, with no distinction on any level between the Godhead and the soul. 

This, however, has not been my understanding from the Granth and the books I have read on Sikhi do not state this either. Rather I see a position much similar to the Catholic mystics, teaching an identity in difference ie that we become God and perceive no difference between ourselves and Him, yet we retain some measure of creatureliness, a small "point" to which we can return after an ecstatic loss of all self-awarenes and still being an independent "I" experiencing God as the Beloved, while also feeling that the knower and the known are one without any difference, at the same time. It is a paradox and for me it fits because God is infinite and is the coincidence of opposites. We can only be either "this or that", black or white, male or female, gay or straight etc. God however is not "this or that". He can both transcendent and immanent. And when we unite with him, we go beyond "this and that", and can be at once completely One with him without any distiction and also separate. This is identity in difference, it is paradoxical, contradictory and yet I see it as reality. For me Non-Dualists emphasis their essential Unity with God without any awareness of self, whereas Dualists emphasise their distinction from him as the Lover, caught up in the embrace of the Infinite Beloved. I do not see them as necessarily at odds, rather I see the Catholic mystics - and actually Sikhi too - as a _via media_, a _middle path_ between both. 

Let me use the example of the Western mystic Arthur Koeslter. Koestler writes that, "_The "I" ceases to exist because it has . . . been dissolved in the universal pool_." But he goes on to say that when the "I" thus ceases to exist he experiences "_the peace that passeth all understanding_." Who experiences this peace? If there is absolutely no distinction between God and Koestler, how can there be an "experience" of peace? Yet Koestler says that there is no duality between himself and Creator, the "I" of his independent, separate selfhood has utterly ceased to exist. On some level, "I" remain "I", even when "I" have been totally absorbed in God and have had my individuality annihilated in Infinite Being. Identity in difference is plainly expressed here. Inasmuch as I have been dissolved in the Infinite Being and have ceased to exist as myself, I have become identical with that being and I mean "identical" with absolutely no distinction and no awareness of any duality; but inasmuch as I still feel that I, Koestler, experience a peace or blessedness, I still remain distinct from the Infinite Being. 

Scholars call this, "the Pantheistic Paradox" and it is what the Catholic mystics adhere too and tbh, I discern it in Sikhi as well (although I admit that I may be wrong). 

As an example, consider what these scholars write of Sikhi: 



> "...The Sikh God is one with whom the devotee becomes completely absorbed: "As the fish I find the life of absorption in the water of God" (_Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p166_). As the fish is absorbed in the water that is God, the soul is absorbed in the lightness that is God. The fish, even though absorbed in the water that is God, does not lose its fishness, its fish-identity-formation, even though absorbed in the light of God. A pan_en_theistic system, such as Sikhism, allows the soul to retain its soulness while merging with God. The soul, in other words, is not identical with God, even after merging with God, but one might say God is part of the soul. A strict identity soul = God is incarnationism and this is considered anathema in Sikhism. The Granth uses the beloved/lover metaphor for the relation of self to God. God is the beloved and the devotee is the lover. The lover retains her identity yet merges with her beloved, in contrast to the Vendantic theological writings of the Hindu Shankara. Unlike Vedantic theology, Sikhism, by maintaining a panentheistic system, safeguards against the problems of Hindu pantheism. The soul retains its aloneness, yet it is webbed within the larger ecosphere and sphere of the divine..."
> 
> *- Marla Morris*


 

In fact, I expressed myself incorrectly earlier on. Catholic mystics do teach that we unite with the Essence of God. In the third book of his "Espousals", Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck (1293 – 1381) speaks in rapturous terms of the soul's vision of God and of its absorption into the divine essence. He drives the point home with an exciting metaphor: as a drop of wine fallen into the ocean becomes the ocean itself, so the lost soul in God becomes God. "We are beatified in His *Divine Essence*," says Ruysbroeck, and this is the attainment of the Kingdom of those who love God. Some other mystics:




> "...Whether Lover and Beloved are near or far is all one; for their love mingles as water mingles with wine. They are linked as heat with light; they approach and are united as Essence and Being..."
> 
> - *Blessed Ramon Llull (1232 – ca. 1315), Catholic mystic & Franciscan missionary *


 

And Tauler tells us:​ 



> "...In this way the soul takes flight away from itself and from all creatures, for in the simple unity of the Divine Godhead it sheds all multiplicity. It is now exalted above itself...In such a state a man can lose himself entirely in God...Beyond this, he is led into another Heaven which is the divine Essence itself, where the [human] spirit loses itself so completely that no trace of the self remains. What happens to him there, what he experiences and enjoys, no man can ever tell or conceive or understand. Indeed, how could the mind ever grasp such a thing? Even the spirit of man cannot comprehend it, for so submerged is it now into the divine ground that it knows nothing, feels nothing, understands nothing but God alone in His simple, pure, undisguised Unity..."​
> *- Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361), Catholic mystic & Dominican priest*​


 

So the Catholic mystics do say that we unite with the Essence of God. Yet according to them because God is inifinite, we _never _fully comprehend the Essence or pass wholly out of our creaturehood because we have a created soul. Its like trying to fill a jug with all the water in the Pacific Ocean. It would burst. This is what Saint Faustina described: ​ 



> "...The two loves come face to face: the Creator and the creature; one little drop seeks to measure itself with the ocean. At first, the little drop wants to enclose the infinite ocean within itself; but at the same moment, it knows itself to be just one small drop, and thus it is vanquished, and passes completely into God like a drop into the ocean. At first, this moment is a torment, but so sweet that, on experiencing it, the soul is happy...My communion with the Lord is now purely spiritual. My soul is touched by God and wholly absorbs itself in Him, even to the complete forgetfulness of self. Permeated by God to its very depths, it drowns in His beauty; it completely dissolves in Him - I am at a loss to describe this, because in writing I am making use of the senses; but there, in that union, the senses are not active; there is a merging of God and the soul; and the life of God to which the soul is admitted is so great that the human tongue cannot express it..." ​
> *- Saint Faustina Kowalska (1905-1938), Polish Catholic mystic *​


 

Instead of trying to contain the infinity of God, which is impossible because God is infinite and transcedent, we simply "surrender" our independent identity to Him and dissolve in Him.​ 
Read:​ 


> Eckhart asks what happens to the soul which "has lost her proper self in the unity of the Divine Nature." The word "proper" here is used in the sense of "peculiar to oneself," or "individual"; so that the "proper self" means the self as a separate individual. This is "lost" — faded away in the fana experience — in the Divine Unity. What then happens to it? Eckhart writes:
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Does she find herself or not? . . . God has left her one little point from which to get back to herself . . . and know herself as a creature.[/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The thought is oddly expressed. But it is evident that the "one little point" is the point in which the "I" still remains its individual self even when "lost" in the Divine Unity. The word "lost" refers to the identity of God and the soul, while the "little point" is the element of difference.[/FONT]
> 
> 
> ...


 

I am not convinced that Sikhi teaches the full non-dualism of Hindu Vedanta. Sikhi, to my mind, teaches something completely distinct, an identity in difference, a middle way between the extremes of Non-Dualism and Dualism. 

I do not think that any of the Catholic or Sufi mystics would have had the slightest problem with the Granth's description of union with God. In fact, they probably would have thought the Gurus were fellow Catholic/Sufi mystics if one didn't tell them that they were of a different faith! :grinningkaur: 

Catholic mysticism and Sufi mysticism are the primary exponents of deep spirituality in Christianity and Islam and are "siblings" to one another. They essentially teach the same or at least very similar mystical doctrines. What is true for Sufism is generally speaking true for Catholic mysticism and vis-a-versa. I would place Sikhi in the same category as Sufism and Catholic mysticism as teaching an identity-in-difference "the Pantheistic Paradox", rather than Vedantic Non-Dualism. That is not to say that Non-Dualism is in error, far from it, it is right and true but in its own way, focusing - like the dualists - on one aspect of the bigger picture whereas Sufism, Catholic mysticism and Sikhi can see it from two different, paradoxical perspectives. 

Just my humble two cents, I admit that I may be totally wrong gingerteakaur

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as always.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 17, 2012)

There is clear duality (in continuum and linked though) in terms of the in-finiteness of the truth and all being a reflection in parts small and large while all so attached to the source.

Kabir Bani sung by Ustad Ghulam Mohammed Chand Rabaabi presented by Balwant Gurunay.wmv - YouTube

salok mahalla 9th(1 to 8)  mohammad rafi , neelam shahni - YouTube

<!--[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>   <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->





> ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ ॥
> प्रभाती ॥
> Parbẖāṯī.
> Prabhaatee:
> ...


<!--[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]-->We of one source but of different types and molds.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## itsmaneet (Nov 18, 2012)

_yes he already had mukti & was here to mukht many sinners like me ...
_
to elaborate - i can't elaborate my feelings & trust on him also feel it's unexplainable for me.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 18, 2012)

itsmaneet ji thanks for your post.





itsmaneet said:


> _yes he already had mukti & was here to mukht many sinners like me ...
> _
> to elaborate - i can't elaborate my feelings & trust on him also feel it's unexplainable for me.


_One of the important points I want to note is that this thread is not about evaluating Guru Nanak Dev ji.  It is more a positive way of looking into Mukt/mukti so that we can learn from his life.  There are much assumptions and statements by some as to people are just born so.  The truth is that likes of Guru Nanak Dev ji, and many others actually worked very hard in their lives and the results are much a reflection of that.  God/creator's grace is quite important but so is living the life versus just talking, studying or postulating.  So called armchair coaches and athletes sitting in front of TV or computer and passing out advice..

_Just some thoughts.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 18, 2012)

*Re: I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....*



Vouthon said:


> My dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug
> 
> I truly must thank you in all sincerity for the wealth of information that you have given to me in your last post. I had never heard of the Dvaita (Indian dualism) tradition before and I must say, I find it utterly fascinating! I am very much impressed by Shri Madhvacharya's courage in stating outright his beliefs about the nature of reality. His ideas are compelling.
> 
> I must ask you, nonetheless, something about Sikhi. You say that the Gurus adhered to a "qualitative non-dualism"


That's Qualified*, meaning Humans are God but there is a qualifier - only after liberation.



> and that when one merges with Waheguru, there remains nothing of the soul's identity left, absolutely everything becomes lost in the abyss of deity, with no distinction on any level between the Godhead and the soul.


Yes, this only happens on death, as we cannot completely merge in God whilst we are alive, because there is always the tiniest bit of human left even in  a Satguru (the word is used to highly advanced Guru and for God). But we have to make efforts whilst we alive ot have any sort of chance to merge. Th efforts must be made now, this present moment to escape from the rebirth.



> This, however, has not been my understanding from the Granth and the books I have read on Sikhi do not state this either. Rather I see a position much similar to the Catholic mystics, teaching an identity in difference ie that we become God and perceive no difference between ourselves and Him, yet we retain some measure of creatureliness, a small "point" to which we can return after an ecstatic loss of all self-awarenes and still being an independent "I" experiencing God as the Beloved, while also feeling that the knower and the known are one without any difference, at the same time. It is a paradox and for me it fits because God is infinite and is the coincidence of opposites. We can only be either "this or that", black or white, male or female, gay or straight etc. God however is not "this or that". He can both transcendent and immanent. And when we unite with him, we go beyond "this and that", and can be at once completely One with him without any distiction and also separate. This is identity in difference, it is paradoxical, contradictory and yet I see it as reality. For me Non-Dualists emphasis their essential Unity with God without any awareness of self, whereas Dualists emphasise their distinction from him as the Lover, caught up in the embrace of the Infinite Beloved. I do not see them as necessarily at odds, rather I see the Catholic mystics - and actually Sikhi too - as a _via media_, a _middle path_ between both.


Yes this is entirely consistent with my views and my reading of Catholic mystics. Qualified Non-Dualism (Vishishtadvaita Vedanta) is the middle path between Advaita and Dvaita. 

By default we tend to be on the Dualist side so Non-Dualism is emphasized but it's the middle path no doubt.


> Scholars call this, "the Pantheistic Paradox" and it is what the Catholic mystics adhere too and tbh, I discern it in Sikhi as well (although I admit that I may be wrong).


Sikhism is Pan*en*theistic. Meaning Creation is part of a much larger God.

Pantheism is Creation and Creator are the same. This is not Sikh philosophy.

Marla is correct! gingerteakaur


> In fact, I expressed myself incorrectly earlier on. Catholic mystics do teach that we unite with the Essence of God.


We can differentiate between Catholicism and Catholic mysticism. My reading was aligned with yours when you presented the verses from Catholic canon - they were dualistic. In contrast, I would say the mystics are non-dual.



> Instead of trying to contain the infinity of God, which is impossible because God is infinite and transcedent, we simply "surrender" our independent identity to Him and dissolve in Him.


 Yes. There are several layers of infinity. God is a much  larger infinity than us, possessing several infinities into himself. We are also infinite.





> I am not convinced that Sikhi teaches the full non-dualism of Hindu Vedanta. Sikhi, to my mind, teaches something completely distinct, an identity in difference, a middle way between the extremes of Non-Dualism and Dualism.


To clarify once again.
It doesn't teach Advaita Vedanta nor Dvaita, it teaches Vishishtadvaita. They are not the same. One is pure non-dual, the other dual, Vishishtadvaita of Sri Ramanuja is a mid-way meeting of Dualism and Non-dualism, it is called Qualified Non-Dualism.






> I do not think that any of the Catholic or Sufi mystics would have had the slightest problem with the Granth's description of union with God. In fact, they probably would have thought the Gurus were fellow Catholic/Sufi mystics if one didn't tell them that they were of a different faith! :grinningkaur:


Yes not in this sense. But they would disagree with other parts of theology such as rebirth, avatars, sacred forms of God, etc. They are not the same faith.
For example, I don't see a Sufi or Catholic agreeing to this image of God for  example:
ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥
He wields the conch war-horn, quoit-chakar, mace, He is the Great Charioteer of His saints. - pg 1082

This is not merely metaphorical ie. those icons do not just carry a meaning, they are real. God incarnated on Earth and was a charioteer of Arjuna, he wield the conch,chakar and mace, etc. If you read the entire page 1082, this will be clear.

It's great to see that you have thoroughly researched into this. That's an awesome trait to have. The guys who are coming up with Non-Dualism/Dualism and such tend to be like that. 

I must ask you what kind of religious practices are you involved in? What do you do to actively reach out to God?


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 18, 2012)

*Re: I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....*



BhagatSingh said:


> I must ask you what kind of religious practices are you involved in? What do you do to actively reach out to God?


 

My dear brother Bhagat ji kaurhug

As ever, thank you for your very thorough reply. It has been most helpful in helping me understand Non-Dualism/Dualism, concepts which I had not been familiar with prior to this thread, and indeed had little to no knowledge regarding. 

On my religious practices, that is likewise an interesting question. 

I have a variety of what one could call "exterior" and "interior" practices. On the exterior level, I am like an other orthodox Catholic in that I attend Mass every Sunday and read the Bible. I also try to live a good life, reading the mystical writings of my faith and trying to detach myself from my cravings. I often meditate using the Rosary, relecting on Christ's life through the different mysteries, the Glorious, the Luminous etc. I try to see God in everything, in every place, situation, person etc. 

It should be stated that in Catholicism, the earlier practices of the spiritual path are what we call "meditation". Meditation is explicitly discursive, using mental images, ideas, thoughts, concepts, memory (this is known as cataphatic prayer) in other words the left side of your brain - the one dealing with discursive thought. 

"Contemplation", on the other hand, is a freeing of the mind from all images, thoughts, concepts, ideas, sense perceptions etc (this is known as imageless prayer). This is the supreme intuitive awareness of God and equivalent to what many of the Eastern religions mean with the word "meditation". 

On the interior level, one of my main practices (although not the only one) is the praying of, "The Jesus Prayer", or "Prayer of the Heart". 

I just sit quietly with the intention of my will focused on the presence of Christ within, and gently say, "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me" - inhaling on the "Lord Jesus Christ" and exhaling as I say, "Have mercy on me". I start by speaking it out loud then get quietier, and quietier and quietier, until barely a whisper and then I only think it in my head, and focus on breathing. If I become distracted by thoughts, I simply notice them and let them go and return to the breathing and recitation. Eventually I do not even say the prayer in my head, but have it in my heart centre. I sit in perfect stillness, breathing, noticing thoughts as they come and returning again to focus on the breath. 

This is interior prayer, what Christians might call Prayer of the Heart as opposed to prayer of the head. I try not to become attached to outward forms of prayer, to the literal act of counting physical rosary beads, rather I just enshrine the rosary of the Name of Jesus within the very centre of my being, my heart-centre. The Sufis have a saying, "_The Mind is the slayer of the Real_". My prayer is often not an affair of the mind. It is a movement of my whole being. I create an airport within my heart for these thoughts to land and dissipate, so that all of my attention can be focused upon the breath. 

The breath helps me detach myself from my thinking, discursive mind and become more aware of what Catholic mystics call the "Ground of the Soul", beyond thought, feeling, emotions and sense-perception. 

I once had a particularly strange experience during Contemplative prayer, in which I lost awareness of myself, my body and my external reality. It actually induced me into a state of panic and fear when my discursive mind came kicking back. 

You see, I would feel pure "elation" and "exhiliration". A warmth would come through my body after about half an hour of intense Contemplative prayer and meditation. I would get this tingling feeling, that would be very, very pleasurable. In my chest - and this was the most memorable bit - I would get this sensation like pure ectasy that would completely take my breath away, and I would grow faint and gasp out loud like in a sweaty heat wave, but I had no sweat and felt marvellously cool. It was almost like a tension but a very cool and pleasing one that would rise throughout my entire body. I would feel completely calm and joyful for about a day or two after, as if I was high on some kind of drug or had just had a release of endorphins. 

I still get this from time-to-time, although I am trying as much as possible now to detach myself from such "feelings" arising from sense. 
One time, it got really severe. I had experienced a very intense prayer session and went to lie down, because it was late at night, with that feeling of breathless ecstasy still in my chest. And this time, I had the feeling of being sucked as if into a whirlpool. It is difficult to explain but I had the sensation of being pulled to the extent that I visually - whether in a dream-like state induced by my ecstasy or awake - saw a kind of whirling vortex that was dragging me, my mind, my soul I don't know - away from my body, into the very heart of something. It reminded me of a tunnel.* It was dark but there were kind of concentric circles made of very thin threads of different colours - blue, purple, green, red, pink - you name it, all around me like a top, and sides and bottom; whirling, whirling and whirling in a cyclinder formation*. I kept going deeper and deeper, and then I got terribly afraid. It seemed to genuinely be taking control of me. I felt as if I had no power over this movement, deeper and deeper into the vortex. I couldn't go as far as God, or the force or the pull or whatever you call it, wanted me to go. I was too afraid that I was going to die, that the experience was so powerful that I would literally be torn away from my body and become utterly destroyed and reduced to nothing by God or this force, this pull. 

...I had just lay down and was very excited because I had just received this wonderful, warm, ecstastic feeling in my chest...And it was just when I lay down in that state, that I felt myself pulled into that tunnel... it was not sleep too me but rather a literal change of location from my bedroom to this tunnel or vortex or whirlpool [the room faded away as if actually breaking up, like a mist and reappeared later on in the same fashion after the experience]...

And so I pulled back. ['I' seemed to return and stop this experience and this interjection ended it]. I pleaded in my head, _'No, I can't go any further, please'_. I pulled and forced myself to resist. I actually remember saying mentally, screaming in my mind, _'I can't do this, I can't go any further'_. I resisted and pulled and pleaded and was basically in a state of absolute panic and terror. And before I knew it, I felt myself moving backwards, [up the tunnel?] and eventually I was back in my bedroom again, shaking, freezing cold and terrified. I don't know how much time had elapsed...It ended up with me that night feeling pulled into a tunnel/whirlpool with the colours as described around me in concentric circles...I was being pulled into this and lost awareness of any physicality... 

I was seeing circular, amoeboid, or tunnel-like patterns and had the sensation of being "pulled" into them as if it were a tunnel. I felt myself increasingly lose control of and awareness of my body, which was what made me feel terrified when "I" returned and realized what was happening. Strange, strange experience. It was a mental image, or vision that arose spontaneously in the course of my contemplation. It was not self-automated, since it took me completely by surprise. I wrote an account of it later in my diary, and when asked shared kit with one my Buddhist friend's who told me that my experience (which I explained to her in greater depth) had been my entering into Jhana but without proper preparation or understanding of what was happening to me, hence the panic. My religion calls it a "flight of the spirit" ie: 



> St. Teresa of Avila described all this phenomena in various places in her collected works ... and she is a Doctor of the Church.
> 
> In Chapters 28-31 of "Way of Perfection" she describes the inner stillness that comes upon us in contemplative prayer ... the desire to close the eyes and draw inward "like a turtle drawing in its shell." The faculties quiet ... first the will then intellect and memory. These are "suspended" or "absorbed" in her terms ... what she calls the prayer of recollection ... then quiet ... then union. In union we are left in a very delightful, peaceful sense of intimacy with God ... without the "burden" of thoughts and feelings. We are not "doing" we are "being." These are fleeting moments that sometimes come upon us ... perhaps lasting 15 to 30 minutes. These prayer states are described in greater detail as the 4th and 5th mansions in "Interior Castle."
> 
> Perhaps this interior prayer deepens yet further. It may flow over from our interior faculties (intellect, will and memory) to our exterior sense. Ecstasy is the prayer of union that also impacts us physically. As St. Teresa describes the body cools, we're unable to move and left as though dead and sinking or being drawn deep within oneself to our very center ... but it is extremely delightful at the same time. *The flight of spirit is a variation on this ... where we experience a sense of spiritual movement perhaps out of the body or to a different place/locality. And in this very deep prayer (with the eyes closed), we may experience all sort of interior lights or images played out in our mind ... our spiritual eye. These are imaginative visions.* All these types of experiences are described in the 6th mansion of "Interior Castle."


 

I was only 14 and I think in retrospect I wasn't prepared for the loss of awareness of my body. It was a shock and my response was fear. I lost all sense of time and place. I did not feel my physical body, I was light and in a state of bliss, but it drove my to panic when my thoughts returned. 

Do you know of "Centering Prayer", brother Bhagat ji? It is a Catholic form of Contemplative prayer (what you might call "meditation") which I find particularly beneficial and condusive to my soul/mind.

Here is a Catholic priest and modern mystic Fr Thomas Keating explaining something about "Centering Prayer" and ultimate reality: 

The Ultimate Reality with Father Thomas Keating - YouTube

Father Thomas Keating Centering Prayer at The Crossings - YouTube


Also the late Catholic mystic and priest Fr John Main OSB (1926-1982), who taught contemplative prayer with what Catholics call "Prayer Words": 

The Beauty of Prayer - John Main OSB - YouTube

I also use Prayer Words, here is a description of the movement founded by Fr John Main and his technique (Based mostly upon the teachings of the Desert Fathers, Saint John Cassian and the Cloud of Unknowing). In this video they use the word "meditation" rather than "Contemplation": 

Silence in the City - Young Christian Meditators' Stories - YouTube


Here are some Catholic mystics on this form of Contemplation with a prayer word: 



> "...The end of every contemplative and the perfection of his heart incline him to constant and uninterrupted perseverance in prayer: and, as much as human frailty allows, it strives after an unchanging and continual tranquility of mind and perpetual purity. This prayer (The Lord's Prayer), although it seems to contain the utter fullness of perfection inasmuch as it was instituted and established on the authority of the Lord himself, nonetheless raises his familiars to that condition which we characterized previously as more sublime. It leads them by a higher stage to that fiery and, indeed, more properly speaking, wordless prayer which is known and experienced by very few. The formula for this discipline and prayer that you are seeking, then shall be presented to you. Every monk who longs for the continual awareness of God should be in the habit of meditating on it ceaselessly in his heart, after having driven out every kind of thought, because he will be unable to hold fast to it in any other way than by being freed from all bodily cares and concerns… This is then the devotional formula proposed to you as absolutely necessary for possessing the perpetual awareness of God: 'O God, incline unto my aid; O Lord make haste to help me.' You should, I say, meditate constantly on this verse in your heart. You should not stop repeating it when you are doing any kind of work or performing some service or are on a journey. Meditate on it while sleeping and eating and attending to the least needs of nature. This verse is an unassailable wall, an impenetrable breastplate, and a very strong shield for all those who labor under the attacks of demons. It does not permit those troubled by acedia and anxiety of mind or those depressed by sadness or different kinds of thoughts to despair of a saving remedy….This verse, I say, is necessary and useful for each one of us in whatever condition we may live. If I am boiling over with a multitude of different distractions of soul and with a fickle heart and am unable to control my wandering thoughts. Let the mind hold ceaselessly to this formula above all until it has been strengthened by constantly using and continually meditating upon it, and until it renounces and rejects the whole wealth and abundance of thoughts. Thus straitened by the poverty of this verse, it will easily attain to that gospel beatitude which holds the first place among the other beatitudes. For, it says, 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'..."
> 
> *- Saint John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Church Father & Catholic mystic*


 

Another is the anonymous author of the 14th century book "The Cloud of Unknowing" - one of the most influential of all medeival Catholic mystical texts, in terms of lay appeal and popularity - which presents contemplative meditation - or 'preparation' - as a teachable, spiritual process enabling the ordinary person to enter and receive a direct experience of union with God. 

A wikipedia article in which it is mentioned says: 




> The Cloud of Unknowing an anonymous work of Catholic mysticism written in Middle English in the latter half of the 14th century advocates a nondual relationship with God. The text describes a spiritual union with God through the heart. The author of the text advocates centering prayer, a form of inner silence. According to the text God can not be known through knowledge or from intellection. It is only by emptying the mind of all created images and thoughts that we can arrive to experience God. According to the text God is completely unknowable by the mind. God is not known through the intellect but through intense contemplation, motivated by love, and stripped of all thought


 
I am not sure that I would use the word "nondual" because, as you know, I have my reservations about both nondualism and dualism as to whether they are appropriate or precise terms, however it is an accurate description. 

The Cloud was written, not in Latin but in Middle English - which means that it was intended primarily for laymen rather than for priests and monks.

The Cloud of Unknowing elucidates a number of cultivation exercises by which spiritual practitioners can learn to mentally empty themselves, and this is described as "*putting other thoughts away*." 

The Cloud of Unknowing calls these "*special ways, tricks, private techniques, and spiritual devices*". 

The Cloud of Unknowing, advises the aspirant to concentrate on a single syllable such as "God": 


Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>*Choose whichever one [word] you prefer, or if you like, chose another that suits your tastes, provided that it is of one syllable. And clasp this word tightly in your heart so that it never leaves it no matter what may happen. This word shall be your shield and your spear whether you ride in peace or in war. With this word you shall beat upon the cloud and the darkness, which are above you. With this word you shall strike down thoughts of every kind and drive them beneath the cloud of forgetting.* </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Read: 


Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>"...The Cloud of Unknowing also talks of various methods. "*Think of nothing but God himself so that nothing will work in your mind or in your will but only God himself. You must then do whatever will help you to forget all the beings [external forms] whom God has created, and all their works*":

*"See to it that there is nothing at work in your mind or will but only God. Try to suppress all knowledge and feeling of anything less than God, and trample it down deep under the cloud of forgetting. You must understand that in this business you are to forget not only all other things than yourself (and their doings-and your own!) but to forget also yourself, and even the things you have done for the sake of God."*

...In the Cloud of Unknowing you are also told to "*surrender yourself to God, so that you do not admit even a single selfish thought which is your own*," whereas Dionysius the Areopagite instructed us on the way to cultivate as follows:

"*Exercise yourself unceasingly in mystical contemplation; abandon feelings; renounce intellectual activities; reject all that belongs to the perceptible and the intelligible; strip yourself totally of non-being and being and lift yourself as far as you are able to the point of being united in unknowing with him who is beyond all being and all knowledge. For it is by passing beyond everything, yourself included, irresistibly and completely, that you will be exalted in pure ecstasy right up to the dark splendour of the divine Superessence, after having abandoned all, and stripped yourself of everything*."..." 



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The Cloud emphasises experience above all: 


“And so I urge you, go after experience rather than knowledge. On account of pride, knowledge may often deceive you, but this gentle, loving affection will not deceive you. Knowledge tends to breed conceit, but love builds. Knowledge is full of labor, but love, full of rest.”
*—The Cloud of Unknowing (14th Century, Anonymous)*


Read: 


Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>The author [of the Cloud] quickly advises that in contemplation, in what he calls "the darkness of the cloud of unknowing, the beginner must not let ideas about God, his wonderful gifts, his kindness or his works distract us from attentiveness to God himself... They have no place here." At first that seems surprising that we should let go of even our noble thoughts and images of God if we are to travel this path. To our 'awake' thinking mind this is a paradox.

To keep oneself focussed when distractions come (including "holy" thoughts), the author of The Cloud suggests centring attention on a short word:

"*Choose a short word. Fix it in your mind so that it will remain there come what may. This word will be your defence in conflict and in peace.... Should some thought go on annoying you, demanding to know what you are doing, answer with this one word alone." *(5)

The author of The Cloud constantly advises the beginner to strongly associate with this 'word' your faith in God and his providence and goodness:

"*Let this little word represent to you God in all His fullness and nothing less than the fullness of God. Let nothing except God hold sway in your mind and heart*." (6)

This is the experience of those who practice contemplative prayer whether they be saints of ages past or the saints of today who are choosing this path again. The author of The Cloud says:

"*In the contemplative work itself, he does not distinguish between friend and enemy, brother and stranger. I do not mean, however, that he will cease to feel a spontaneous affection toward a few others who are especially close to him. ... The point I am making is that during the work of contemplation everyone is equally dear to him since it is God alone who stirs him to love. He loves all plainly and nakedly for God; and he loves them all as he loves himself." *(8)

Indeed, the ideal presented by John the Baptist when he says "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30) is the ideal of contemplative prayer:

"*And so reject the thought and experience of all created things but most especially learn to forget yourself, for all your knowledge and experience depends upon the knowledge and feeling of yourself. All else is easily forgotten in comparison with one's own self. See if experience does not prove me right. Long after you have successfully forgotten every creature and its works, you will find that a naked knowing and feeling of your own being still remains between you and your God. And believe me, you will not be perfect in love until this, too, is destroyed*." (9)

Contemplative prayer then according to the author of The Cloud cannot be considered as self-serving or focussed on self. He says unequivocally "do not think what you are but that you are" (10). Indeed this path is surely what the world needs now, for all to reflect on not "what" we are but just "that" we are.

This denial of the self however comes at a cost - detachment. 

As time passes in the practice of contemplation, the author of The Cloud tells us our prayer will gather its own momentum and continue day and night beyond conscious control:

*"In the midst of all, you will be offering to God continually each day the most precious gift you can make. This work will be at the heart of everything you do, whether active or contemplative and bring deep spiritual strength and nourishment to renew both your body and your spirit."* (12) 



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 18, 2012)

Vouthon ji,
Wicked! 
I actually only read a 1/3 of your post. I will reply once I get time and give you a reply accordingly but so far it's looking good, you look like you are well on your way. You could teach Sikhs on this forum a thing or two about practicing such things.

PS you can break up large posts with colours, so it's easier to read on a monitor. :>


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 18, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Vouthon ji,
> Wicked!
> I actually only read a 1/3 of your post. I will reply once I get time and give you a reply accordingly but so far it's looking good, you look like you are well on your way. You could teach Sikhs on this forum a thing or two about practicing such things.
> 
> PS you can break up large posts with colours, so it's easier to read on a monitor. :>


 

Apologies for the length brother Bhagat ji :blushhh:

I think I got carried away LOL! icecreamkaur


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 18, 2012)

Vouthon ji, Thanks for sharing your personal experience on here.
I think all of us that meditate can understand and relate to it in some way.

I too have enjoyed these posts and have actually learned what dualism and non- dualism is in greater detail.

Your technique for the 'Jesus prayer' reminded me of a very similar technique that I find beneficial.


> I just sit quietly with the intention of my will focused on the presence of Christ within, and gently say, "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me" - inhaling on the "Lord Jesus Christ" and exhaling as I say, "Have mercy on me". I start by speaking it out loud then get quietier, and quietier and quietier, until barely a whisper and then I only think it in my head, and focus on breathing. If I become distracted by thoughts, I simply notice them and let them go and return to the breathing and recitation. Eventually I do not even say the prayer in my head, but have it in my heart centre. I sit in perfect stillness, breathing, noticing thoughts as they come and returning again to focus on the breath.


 
I like to do more or less the same with the breathing, as I find it mantains the focus.
I would use the 'Waheguru' gurmantar so to say with this method.
One inhales or breathes in saying 'Wahe' and exhales saying 'Guru'.
In addition, there is 'reverse breathing' so to say. One would bring IN the stomach or navel when inhaling and saying 'wahe' and then would release the stomach and navel area when breathing out whilst saying 'Guru'.

I believe this is mentioned in a shabad by Kabirji on page 1123

I only started meditation about a year ago and have tried various techniques, but this seems to be more preferable by me so far.
I find it keeps me more channeled and evokes an intense feeling of love in the heart for our One Lord.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 18, 2012)

Bhagat ji, 
Some very useful information that you have given us here.
The vishishtadvaita is very interesting and I can now see how this is a middle between advaita and davaita.
It makes much more sense and helps to realise what we should accept.

In my opinion so far, I think it comes back to the nirgun and sargun aspects again.
I feel that the spiritual journey which we can begin here helps to align our consciousness. 
We begin a journey where by being completely immersed in gurmat, we go through many repeated modes where nirgun becomes sirgun and sirgun becomes nirgun and so on....
This becomes a part of how the journey progresses until finally the consciousness can become one and advait with the God or almighty consciousness.

Do you interpret it in a similar manner, or do you think we still have some duality aspects once at the final frontier or when merged with the One ?
Or is that about some dual aspects remaining with soul, even when merged whilst consciousness is advait.
A little like where the consciousness becomes advait completely with immersion and soul may maintain some duality!!!
I know that when saying this, I am implying that soul and consciousness can be separate !!!
....Can get confusing !!!:interestedmunda:


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 18, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Vouthon ji, Thanks for sharing your personal experience on here.
> I think all of us that meditate can understand and relate to it in some way.
> 
> I too have enjoyed these posts and have actually learned what dualism and non- dualism is in greater detail.
> ...


 
My dear brother Lucky ji gingerteakaur

Thank you so much for your reply! 

Your technique is practically identical to my own. The Jesus Prayer is an ancient, Eastern Catholic breath-technique that can be dated to around the fourth century AD in origin in its systematic form although Christian ascetics had been doing similar things much earlier. I think that nearly every religion has a variation on this breathing technique with the exhalation and inhalation. I certainly know that there is a parralel in Buddhism and Islam. Sufi Muslims focus on the breath using the _Shahada _"There is no God but God" ie 

"There is no God" - _inhale _

"But God" - _exhale _

There are many variants of the "Jesus Prayer" (a practice which is over a thousand and a half years old in Christian mysticism) and one of the other ones I use is simply, "Jesus Christ" ie 

"Jesus" - _inhale _

"Christ" - _exhale _

I know this can look rather "Christocentric" to non-Christians but one must reflect on what the name "Jesus" means. 

The name "Jesus" comes from the Aramaic _Y'shua _which means, "_YHWH saves_". YHWH is the Divine Name of God in Judaism/Christianity, which Moses taught us, it means "I AM WHO AM". 

So for Christians meditating on the Holy Name of Jesus is meditating on the Name of God, Jesus made this explicit: 




> "...I have revealed your Name to those whom you took from the world to give me...Holy Father, keep those you have given me true to your Name, so that they may be one as we are one_. _While I was with them, I kept those you had given me true to your Name...Holy Father, protect them by the power of your Name, the name you gave me..."
> 
> *- Jesus Christ, Gospel of John*


 
It is by calling on the Name of God that one is "saved" (attains enlightenment/liberation): 




> "...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved..."
> 
> *- Romans 10:13*


 
He means that not only spiritually but literally - his Name (Jesus) literally has God's Name (YHWH) contained within it! lol

Therefore when I pray the "Jesus Prayer" I am literally doing the Christian equivalent of meditating on the _Naam _within Sikhi. 

When you speak of the "navel", you remind me of a rather strange Catholic meditative practice using the breath and the Jesus Prayer, which is described by Saint Symeon the New Theologian. Its called, "Navel-gazing". 

It is from his work on contemplation known as, "The Three Methods of Prayer". He notes: 


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>There are three methods of prayer and attentiveness, by which the soul is either lifted up or cast down. Whoever applies these methods at the right time is uplifted, but whoever employs them foolishly or at the wrong time is cast down...Watchfulness and prayer should be as closely linked together as the body to the soul, for the one cannot stand without the other. Watchfulness first goes on ahead like a scout and engages sin in combat. Prayer then follows afterwards, and instantly destroys and exterminates all the evil thoughts which which watchfulness has already been battling, for attentiveness alone cannot exterminate them. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The first two "methods of prayer", one of which is called the "way of imagination" (ie discursive, through images, concepts and "divine" thoughts), are condemned. The central theme in “The Three Methods” is the need to guard the heart. The first two methods of prayer described by the author are in his view defective, and indeed potentially dangerous, precisely because they neglect the need for such guarding.


The third method is the prayer of the Heart for which Saint Symeon suggests the technique of "navel-gazing": 




> "...Above all else you should strive to acquire three things, and so begin to attain what you seek.
> 
> The first is freedom from anxiety with respect to everything, whether reasonable or senseless – in other words, you should be dead to everything.
> 
> ...


 
* "intellect" in Catholic mystical parlance was described by Saint Gregory Palamas by this definition: "The intellectual activity consisting of thought and intuition is called intellect, and the power that activates thought and intuition is likewise the intellect; and this power Scripture also calls the heart".


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 18, 2012)

> I wonder what all this has to do with either Guru Nanak Dev ji's teachings and/or our learning from his life of achieving mukti or being mukt if one so believes or does not believe.


The reason I state above is because I do not believe Guru Nanak Dev ji achieved what he did by inhaling/exhaling on couple of syllables or words.  Are we looking for a short cut?  Is the world around us so changed that we cannot even understand Guru ji's teachings before calming or shutting ourselves down?  I can understand his teachings fully awake, in any situation if I think of them.  Living by his teachings is a whole new ball game and is the difficult part.

Sat Sri Akal.

---------------------------------------------------------​ 
*PS:  *Brothers and sisters you can split any two syllable word to do the breathing or two single syllable words as a duple.  I believe you can extend it beyond duples to multiple words or syllables for inhale and exhale.  

If you do it fast enough you will hyper-ventilate.  You should see stars or floating objects in front of you if eyes open.  Keep doing ever more and you will start delinking the senses from the surroundings.  You will in the end enter a trance and be in La-la land.  Nothing wrong with it and I am sure at a level it is rewarding, worthwhile and at another level just plain fun and new experience.

_To prove the point:

Ex 1:  Vouthon Happy
_

Inhale ---- "VOUTHON"
Exhale ---- "HAPPY"
_Ex 2:  Lucky Singh_


Inhale ----  "LUCKY"
Exhale  ----  "SINGH"
_Ex 3:  Bhagat Singh_


Inhale ----  "BHAGAT"
Exhale  ----  "SINGH"
 
If you remember passionate embraces over time, I do believe one or the other partner partially ends up in this ecstatic state lol.  Is it spiritual, I do not know!


Sat Sri Akal. mundahug


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 19, 2012)

Muktee is NOT achieved by inhaling/exhaling..its achieved by TRUTHFUL LIVING..practise of Gurbani adopting Gurbani LIVING GURBANI..Becoming GURBANI...exhaling/inhaling assists one to LIVE.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 19, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Muktee is NOT achieved by inhaling/exhaling..its achieved by TRUTHFUL LIVING..practise of Gurbani adopting Gurbani LIVING GURBANI..Becoming GURBANI...exhaling/inhaling assists one to LIVE.


 
Spot on Brother Gyani ji mundahug

In fact I am sure some people do not need/use such techniques at all. 

Its only a method some use to help themselves become detached from distracting thoughts, desires and cravings, and of course for good overall mental/physical health (provided one does not over-strain their breathing and perfurate their lungs!), since the breath is what makes us alive and focus on it. 

In and of itself though, without action and truthful living, it would be useless. 



> "...*Higher than everything is Truth but higher still is True living*..."
> 
> _- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p62_


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 19, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> If you remember passionate embraces over time, I do believe one or the other partner partially ends up in this ecstatic state lol. Is it spiritual, I do not know!​
> 
> Sat Sri Akal. mundahug


 

Well, I would say that the love between two people expressed in their embraces or through sex is indeed spiritual lolThey become one and give themselves to one another. Matter is holy, our bodies are holy, love is holy, embraces are holy. A beautiful image of the soul's union with God, which is why the "Lover/Beloved" metaphor seems to be so pervasive in poetry. 

Brother Ambarsaria ji, as usual you are correct mundahug

Breathing techniques are not necessary. Even in Buddhism they become defunct once a person is able to clear their head without them and simply understand the Four Noble Truths. 

Nevertheless they can be useful for people who struggle with afflictive and/or disorientating thoughts and need something to focus on to try and get some kind of inner stillness and peace. 

There is nothing magical about syllables or words used. "Vouthon Happy, or "Bhagat Ji" would be legitimate - so long as they hold some kind of meaning for the practioner! People often just feel more relaxed and happy if they are focusing on something meaningful to them, ie their religion, their teacher, even friends or family or a word such as "love" with positive connotations. 

It would be a mistake to think that there is something inherently "special" about words used or such. 

Not everyone's cup of tea, but by no means "bad" in and of itself  With proper practice - ie without damaging a lung through over-strained breaths or getting disorientated by mental images induced by the practice in the earlier phases when one isn't used to the breath technique yet - they can be condusive to good health and a clearer mental state, which helps some people lead truthful lives and become better husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, work colleagues etc. 

Some people - just don't need it. Each to their own I say! 

So long as nobody thinks that breathing techniques = spiritual life, then what's the harm? No religion teaches this, which is why the Cloud of Unknowing calls them, "*special ways, tricks, private techniques, and spiritual devices*" that is all they are "TRICKS" but some people like "tricks"! lol

As I said even in Buddhism they are for beginners and those still troubled by distracting thoughts. Once a person advances along their path, breathing techniques are used no more.

So for me its a personal thing, a helpful "device" if one wishes to use it. That's all.

I'll let Bishop Kallistos Ware speak: 




> "...For obvious reasons the utmost discretion is necessary when interfering with instinctive bodily activities such as the drawing of breath or the beating of the heart. Misuse of the physical technique can damage someone’s health and disturb his mental equilibrium; hence the importance of a reliable master. If no such starets is available, it is best for the beginner to restrict himself simply to the actual recitation of the Jesus Prayer, without troubling at all about the rhythm of his breath or his heart-beats. More often than not he will find that, without any conscious effort on his part, the words of the Invocation adapt themselves spontaneously to the movement of his breathing. If this does not in fact happen, there is no cause for alarm; let him continue quietly with the work of mental invocation.
> 
> The physical techniques are in any case no more than an accessory, an aid which has proved helpful to some but which is in no sense obligatory upon all. The Jesus Prayer can be practised in its fullness without any physical methods at all. St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), while regarding the use of physical techniques as theologically defensible, treated such methods as something secondary and suited mainly for beginners. For him, as for all the Hesychast masters, the essential thing is not the external control of the breathing but the inner and secret Invocation of the Lord Jesus..."
> 
> *- Bishop Kallistos Ware (born. 1934), Eastern Catholic [Orthodox]*


 
That is our understanding of these techniques.

BTW A "starets" is a spiritual teacher/guide!


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 19, 2012)

> Once a person advances along their path, breathing techniques are used no more.


A lot of the time the practice becomes an expression of their mental state rather than something that induces it.

One example of this is shabads where Hari is said twice as "Hari Hari". This is the expression of the mental state from years of practice and using rosaries.

All the ancient paintings of Guru Sahibs show them with rosaries. Those rosaries are an expression of who they are. It would be dishonest for them to not carry around a rosary.

A turban and beard is an expression of a true Khalsa. It would be dishonest for Him to not have a turban and beard.

A hijab is an expression of a devout Muslim...

A white markings are an expression of a true Sadhu...

I could go on. These are rituals as well as a way of expressing oneself. This applies to things like chanting and singing Bhajans (hymns from Guru Granth Sahib).


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 19, 2012)

Bhagat Singh ji I have a comment on your continuous propensity to inject Hiduism practices associated words in describing Sikhi, SGGS content, and Sikhism practices.  I will note the one you have used here.





BhagatSingh said:


> .....
> I could go on. These are rituals as well as a way of expressing oneself. This applies to things like _chanting and singing Bhajans_ (hymns from Guru Granth Sahib).


_If you are simply devoid of Punjabi vocabulary and knowledge I would understand.  Bhajans are clearly associated by a person on the street in India and by Hindus as what goes on in the context of Hiduism, the mandirs, the pandits, etc.  SGGS does not have Bhajans it has Shabads._ _Where as Bhajo/"understand-chant" can be understood and even mentioned in Gurdwaras it is a grave insult to suggest that Shabads are Bhajans in SGGS._



> ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥
> He wields the conch war-horn, quoit-chakar, mace, He is the Great Charioteer of His saints. - pg 1082
> 
> This is not merely metaphorical ie. those icons do not just carry a  meaning, they are real. God incarnated on Earth and was a charioteer of  Arjuna, he wield the conch,chakar and mace, etc. If you read the entire  page 1082, this will be clear.
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...-you-believe-guru-nanak-dev-6.html#post175854


_Remember Guru ji were talking to Hindus.  They were not vetting their beliefs.  Rather they were connecting with them through their vocabulary and then enlightening them and taking them away from their useless beliefs and soul entrapment managed by Brahmins._

Such deliberate mis-direction takes threads off-topic. I suggest you think before trying to excite people into reacting and interacting with you.  Agent provocateurs serve some purpose sometimes but not always.  Sometimes one does it too many times to blow the cover and become ineffectual.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 19, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Muktee is NOT achieved by inhaling/exhaling..its achieved by TRUTHFUL LIVING..practise of Gurbani adopting Gurbani LIVING GURBANI..Becoming GURBANI...exhaling/inhaling assists one to LIVE.


 
Of course Gyani ji, you can't become mukt doing some fancy yoga !!
We cannot be giving out mixed and unrealistic messages here.
I don't think anyone said anything about attaining liberation with the aid of breathing.
It won't off track slightly and the breathing is discussed with regards to meditation. For this purpose it can help and that is about it, besides helping you live.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 19, 2012)

To become mukt, one has to 'Earn' it.
This is what I like to term as 'Kamayie' in punjabi. One has to do 'kamayie' in order to move up the spiritual ladder.

Whatever we do in life in terms of job, trade or profession, we also have to 'learn' in order to eventually 'earn'.- One has to sikh (learn) before they can do any Kamayie(earn)
The Learning has to be done so that one can be suitable to earn in that field. We can see that learning and earning go hand in hand.

In a similar manner, in order to move up the spiritual ladder we have to 'LEARN'. 
In gurmat this learning is from a Guru. We have our One guru and this is the primary source of gurmat 'learning'.

The 'learning' alone helps mould us for spiritual enhancing, but to be able to reach the limits like mukti, we have additional earnings or kamayie to accomplish.

We can all do our own kamayian in our own methods or orders. But the learning is from the one guru only.

Personally, I think the easiest way to start is by 1st listening to a verse or shabad and then making a personal effort to understand it because personally they can mean something slightly different for all of us although the universal message is the same.
Once an effort is made and some deeper learning is done, then we can contemplate on it. 
This then becomes a continuous process and cycle of this chain of events.

REMEMBER- Gur bin gyaan na hovai. 
One cannot get gyan (true knowledge) without the Guru

The contemplating that follows is usually the first steps in the kamayie or earning.
I think that we can then continue and do our own kamayie in the order that suits us or the one that we may be suited to.

Then we do our kamayie within the 3 pillars of Kirat karo, vand chaako and naam japo.
as well as living by the rehat.
All of these will help to give us kamayie.

The methods that we use and how we go about doing this kamayie within the pillars and rehat may differ between each of us. 
This is because we all have varying degrees of the 5 evils within us and the mannerisms in which we conduct ourselves to conquer them will also vary accordingly.


This brings me back to naam japo, one of the pillars mentioned above.
 Naam japo is the remembrance of God by keeping your mind focused on the One. 
HOW exactly do we do this ?
Some of us can do it without any effort and can keep that frequency in tune at all times or with very little effort. 
However, some of us have to take a few extra steps for this effort.

Personally, I have to make some time in order to dedicate myself by tuning in with simran and meditation. I feel that for my own kamayie, I have to do something physical in order to connect and focus my mind.
With this comes the breathing and whatever gurmanter you feel helps you connect.

At the end of the day, repeating shabads, repeating nitnem, repeating the connection with God, repeating 'Waheguru', repeating and singing kirtan, repeating ardas, repeating mool mantar...etc....etc.. are ALL REPEATING.
The REPEATING is a requirement and a need for us humans to help the LEARNING which then goes on to help with the EARNING.
Whether someone is learning to drive, learning their math or science, learning to cook...etc.. all repetitive actions of revision, practice and reciting help us to LEARN to the maximum potlential. Then after we can APPLY it in our Earning.

This is why I see that repeating meditation and repeating God's name with my tongue helps me to learn to focus and connect completely. With practice you find that you can connect by repeating less frequently and that is the real goal. To be able to be in a meditative state or to have the name of the lord vibrating within 24/7, without the need for intitial yoga aides of breath control etc...is the ultimate achievement.

I hope you can see how making a physical effort to utter the lord's name helps me to make my earning or kamayie.
Just like in our daily trades we earn money and make our own kamayie in different ways from our neighbours, I see breathing techniques and repeated reciting as my personal method of some kamayie.

The earnings we make in our daily lives and jobs are not permanent like everything else human and they don't get ingrained into our souls or God connection. But the gurmat
 kamayie that we make in our own ways is more than permanent and can be very much ingrained to our God consciousness.

Hope you get my idea, here.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 19, 2012)

> I could go on. These are rituals as well as a way of expressing oneself. This applies to things like chanting and singing Bhajans (hymns from Guru Granth Sahib).<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


 
I think that bhajans is the wider term to describe devotional songs, whereas hymns from Guru Granth Sahib ji are classed as kirtan.
I feel kirtan comes under the umbrella of bhajans, but I can't remember the term bhajans being used to address kirtan.

Ambarsariaji, I don't feel that bhajans is strictly a hindu term although they seem to have hijacked it, because I have a book with kirtan and devotional punjabi songs by Ajaib Singh and these Guru devotional and punjabi songs are labelled as bhajans.

In general within the music industry nowadays, bhajans are referred to hindu devotional songs and 'dharmik geet' is usally referred to punjabi devotional songs that are not classed as kirtan.
To be called Kirtan they have to be hymns from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji, Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Nand Lal ji.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 19, 2012)

Luckysingh ji thanks for your post.





Luckysingh said:


> I think that bhajans is the wider term to describe devotional songs, whereas hymns from Guru Granth Sahib ji are classed as kirtan.
> 
> I feel _kirtan_ comes under the umbrella of bhajans _(untrue as Bhajans have little relevance to scriptures)_, but I can't remember _the term bhajans being used to address kirtan_.


_
The following is an example of a Bhajan which is a great tune sung as a copy of Gurmeet Bawa's song,

Kharo Doli Na Part 1- N A R E N D R A  C H A N C H A L - YouTube

Gurmeet Bawa,

gurmeet bawa - kaharo doli na GPSADDICTED - YouTube

Luckysingh ji Hymns are called Shabads/stanzas.  Kirtan is the singing of Shabads per the underlying musical tone/Raags._

_Here is a quote (there are many more in many posts of his and one tries to ignore) from the post of our friend claiming to be respectful of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and a believer in Sikhism,_


> I could go on. These are rituals as well as a way of expressing oneself.  This applies to things like _chanting and singing *Bhajans* (hymns from  Guru Granth Sahib)_.
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...-you-believe-guru-nanak-dev-7.html#post175893


_Luckysingh ji the above from the post  I found offensive.  This is clear nescent, insidious propagation to  dilute Sikhi into Hinduism.

When did Shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji started to be called Bhajans?_



Luckysingh said:


> In general within the music industry _nowadays_ _(they always were in the 50's, 60's and so on)_, bhajans are referred to hindu devotional songs and 'dharmik geet' is usally referred to punjabi devotional songs that are not classed as kirtan.
> 
> To be called Kirtan they have to be hymns from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji, Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Nand Lal ji.


Here is what SRM says about Kirtan,

<!--[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]-->





> *THE CODE OF SIKH CONDUCT AND CONVENTIONS*​  *CHAPTER V*
> 
> Kirtan (Devotional Hymns Singing by a Group or an Indvidual)
> 
> ...


The above is coming from very learned people and it is not simple whim of a person.  

There is no question a true Sikhs learns and learns from all.  It however does not give such a Sikh or anyone else rights to debase Sikhism and the tenets thereof whether implicitly or explicitly.

I try to hold my horses but was much dismayed while generally respecting the intellect of the person.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....*

Dear Vouthon ji,


Vouthon said:


> It should be stated that in Catholicism, the earlier practices of the spiritual path are what we call "meditation". Meditation is explicitly discursive, using mental images, ideas, thoughts, concepts, memory (this is known as cataphatic prayer) in other words the left side of your brain - the one dealing with discursive thought.
> 
> "Contemplation", on the other hand, is a freeing of the mind from all images, thoughts, concepts, ideas, sense perceptions etc (this is known as imageless prayer). This is the supreme intuitive awareness of God and equivalent to what many of the Eastern religions mean with the word "meditation".


My definition is the other way around but sure. I do basically every practice that is mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib.

I enjoyed reading about your experience. I had several last year, in short bursts. They were all blissful, experiences. No images, sounds thoughts etc, my eyes were open but there was an inner knowing coursing through my mind. They ended with a realization of the nature of Akal Purakh. I use that term specifically, it means Timeless Man, used to refer to God in India, my experiences specifically had to to with this Timeless Man. He is said to possess thousands of hands, eyes, etc while possessing none at the same time. That never made sense of me, until this night when I began my usual, pacing and thinking then become quiet, focusing on my breath and reciting "Waheguru" if my mind wavered from the breath and silence. After getting into a blissful experience, all of a sudden, I could see the nature of my Being, the all-pervading source of everything and the end of perception. The bubble of human capability was there. Everything was there, concepts, ideas, thoughts, mental structures, perspectives, knowledge about God. My purpose and purpose of man. I could see it all fit together, the depth of things. How everything made sense. It was the source of all explanations. The curtains had now been lifted so to speak. This perception deeply penetrated everything I did and encountered in life until I became accustomed to it. It left me with an indescribable sort of openness.

Nowadays, I am trying to explore OBEs, astral travel, telekinesis, lucid dreaming, chi energy, chakras. I want to know what if they are real and so I am slowly experimenting with them in my free time. Before my experiences, this would have been blasphemy for me as a scientist lol but now I think the power of human capability is underestimated. If an ordinary man can be one with God and see everything from His eyes, who is to define what people can do and cannot? what they can experience and what they cannot?



> I was only 14 and I think in retrospect I wasn't prepared for the loss of awareness of my body. It was a shock and my response was fear. I lost all sense of time and place. I did not feel my physical body, I was light and in a state of bliss, but it drove my to panic when my thoughts returned.


That's a good sign. It sounds like the Fear of God. Normally, everyone only talks about love. But they forget fear is an important part of transformation into God. Fear is there because you are dieing. Your sense of self, your body, whatever you think you are, is dieing. The caterpillar dies before it becomes a butterfly. It sheds it's old self to adopt Freedom.



> Do you know of "Centering Prayer", brother Bhagat ji? It is a Catholic form of Contemplative prayer (what you might call "meditation") which I find particularly beneficial and condusive to my soul/mind.


Yes, I agree. I try to do it whenever possible. Even if I am playing Diablo 3. :grinningkaur: Awesome game by the way.



> Here is a Catholic priest and modern mystic Fr Thomas Keating explaining something about "Centering Prayer" and ultimate reality:


Haha, I have listened to that guy before. His teachings seem to be influenced by modern Buddhism. It sounds similar to Ken Wilber, Eckharte and the like.






> The Cloud of Unknowing elucidates a number of cultivation exercises by which spiritual practitioners can learn to mentally empty themselves, and this is described as "*putting other thoughts away*."
> 
> The Cloud of Unknowing calls these "*special ways, tricks, private techniques, and spiritual devices*".
> 
> The Cloud of Unknowing, advises the aspirant to concentrate on a single syllable such as "God"


Plus the quotes you posted. It's the same in Sikhism. Focus completely on "Hari", immerse yourself in Him, lose your sense of self, become a vessel for Hari, be equanimous with His Hukam/intent-doing, stop seeing distinctions and become One.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 20, 2012)

Lucky Singh ji,


> Do you interpret it in a similar manner, or do you think we still have  some duality aspects once at the final frontier or when merged with the  One ?


I sort of let go of interpretations and perspectives. I think you can feel that deep in your heart too.
When fully merged you are dead, this is the final frontier. What happens at this point? Do things even "happen"? I don't know. 

Guru Granth Sahib says we are beings of duality. Without duality we  wouldn't be around. We are engrossed in it, enmeshed in it's very  essence. This is Hari da bhana.



> We begin a journey where by being completely immersed in gurmat, we go  through many repeated modes where nirgun becomes sirgun and sirgun  becomes nirgun and so on....





> A little like where the consciousness becomes advait completely with immersion and soul may maintain some duality!!!
> I know that when saying this, I am implying that soul and consciousness can be separate !!!


What do you mean?
----------------------------
Lucky Singh ji,
Bhajans are hymns, they can be about God and they can be from any source. Geet is the same thing thing, a synonym of bhajan in Guru Granth Sahib. Kirtan is singing praises, they can be about God and can come from any source, it's root word is Keerat (to praise).  These are all related and overlap pretty much all the time. Of course, being Sikhs we sing bhajans from Guru Granth Sahib, Bhai Gurdaas jis and Bhai Nand Lal ji's bani.



> I feel kirtan comes under the umbrella of bhajans,


peacesign Exactly

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹੁ ਤਤੁ ਬੀਚਾਰਾ ॥ 
Says Nanak, contemplate this essential teaching
ਬਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਭਜਨ ਨਾਹੀ ਛੁਟਕਾਰਾ 
that without (singing of) Hari's bhajan there is no liberation. 
page 188

There has been a long tradition of singing about God to connect with Him  in India. Particularly in Sri Ramanuja's line of Qualified Non-Dualism/  Vishishtadvait. He emphasized devotional worship, and was very  influential in shaping beliefs of sants/bhagatsgurus after him to Guru Sahibs and contemporary sants/bhagats/guru and all the way to our time!

I only go by Guru Granth Sahib's use of the words and the definitions in Mahan Kosh. I don't go by what people say or what they normally call it. People's use of words can be quite different from Guru Granth Sahib. For example, "gyani" is used as a slur. But In Guru Granth Sahib this is a respected position. On Page 273 ਨਾਨਕ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਆਪਿ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ॥੬॥  Nanak says a God-realized gyani is God! Why is this said in a manner to insult kesadhari sikhs?


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....*



BhagatSingh said:


> That's a good sign. It sounds like the Fear of God. Normally, everyone only talks about love. But they forget fear is an important part of transformation into God. Fear is there because you are dieing. Your sense of self, your body, whatever you think you are, is dieing. The caterpillar dies before it becomes a butterfly. It sheds it's old self to adopt Freedom.


 
Excellent insight brother Bhagat ji. You do know that this is practically _verbatim _the same as the Catholic mystics? I am very much intrigued that you appear to have reached the same conclusions as them, and even have employed the exact same imagery of the little caterpillar dying to become a butterfly. 

I have chosen two female mystics who said the exact same as you: Blessed Anne of St. Bartholomew and Saint Teresa of Avila: 



> "..I once saw my soul fashioned like a little silkworm, which has been diligently fed and carefully kept by those who raised it. But when it is grown it begins to spin with its little snout a delicate little silken thread to make a little hut for itself, and in so doing it enjoys such sweetness that it does not notice its own death until, robbed of all its powers, it remains enclosed and dead in its shell. Now my soul saw something similar in itself, for with just such sweetness and quiet it gave the almighty God everything it had in itself and enclosed itself like a little silkworm in its nonbeing and in the recognition of its nothingness, with a sweet love that spins at all times in my heart, which no longer wishes to be or to live, for dying is the true being of the soul..."
> 
> *- Blessed Anne of St. Bartholomew, O.C.D (1549-1626), Spanish Catholic mystic & Carmelite nun*


 

And Saint Teresa. This extract is from _The Interior Castle_. In this work Teresa describes the journey of the Christian who is seeking union with the Beloved. In making that journey the Christian has to pass through seven mansions before reaching the centre of the castle where the Beloved lives. One of the images Teresa used to manifest this union is that of a silk worm (caterpillar). Just as the worm has to die to become a beautiful butterfly, so the self has to die in order to become God:



> "...When it is full-grown, then, [the worm] starts to spin its silk and to build the house in which it is to die. This house may be understood here to mean God. Let the silkworm die, let it die, as in fact it does when it has completed the work which it was created to do. Then we shall see God and shall ourselves be as completely hidden in His greatness as is this little worm in its cocoon. And now let us see what becomes of this silkworm, When it is in this state of prayer, and quite dead to the world, it comes out a little white butterfly. Oh, greatness of God, that a soul should come out like this after being hidden in the greatness of God, and closely united with Him, for so short a time I tell you truly, the very soul does not know itself. For think of the difference between an ugly worm and a white butterfly; To see, then, the restlessness of this little butterfly -- though it has never been quieter or more at rest in its life! Here is something to praise God for-- namely, that it knows not where to settle and make its abode. By comparison with the abode it has had, everything it sees on earth leaves it dissatisfied, especially when God has again and again given it this wine which almost every time has brought it some new blessing. It sets no store by the things it did when it was a worm -- that is, by its gradual weaving of the cocoon. It has wings now: how can it be content to crawl along slowly when it is able to fly? All that it can do for God seems to it slight by comparison with its desires. [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It is not surprising, then, that, as this little butterfly feels a stranger to things of the earth, it should be seeking a new resting-place. But where will the poor little creature go? The silkworm has of necessity to die; and it is this which will cost you most; for death comes more easily when one can see oneself living a new life, whereas our duty now is to continue living this present life, and yet to die of our own free will. I confess to you that we shall find this much harder, but it is of the greatest value and the reward will be greater too if you gain the victory. But you must not doubt the possibility of this true union with the will of God. This is the union which I have desired all my life; it is for this that I continually beseech Our Lord; it is this which is the most genuine and the safest..." [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]*- **Saint Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), Spanish Catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church*
> 
> ...


 

You might also wish to reflect on these words of Johannes Tauler concering dying to self: 




> "...In the truest death of all created things, the sweetest and most natural life is hidden. In their death lies the secret of our life. This dying has many degrees. A person might die a thousand deaths in one day and find at once a joyful life corresponding to each of them..."
> 
> *- Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest*


 

And finally Angelus Silesius - who has been quoted a heck of a lot by me in this thread already: 




> "...Death is a blessed thing; if it be vigorous,
> The life that springs from it will be more glorious.
> 
> I do not believe in death; if every hour I die,
> ...


 

Angelus Silesius in fact taught that death does not actually exist. According to him it is an illusion, since nothing really "dies", things simply change into something different ie our bodies disentegrate upon death and return to the earth; a cloud disperses to become rain and so on. The death of the soul is the supreme example of this, we die to self not to cease to be but rather to transform into a new and higher form of life, this time the highest of all: the Unititative Life in God which we live in the here and now, from moment to moment, becoming a seeker of God in all things and then after our death beyond all time and place in God Himself. 

I should add that to "die to self", is to be released from the egoic self, the "me" and its selfish cravings, so that we can literally be "reborn" as a new person in the here and now, and effect change in the lives of others for the common good. Hence why Angelus Silesius said: 




> "...*There is no higher aim*
> *than to reclaim*
> *another, blinded by life's pain - *
> *to make him live and see again..."*
> ...


 

It is to completely lose all self-will and to melt into the Will of God and experience union with Him. 

We die to self to rise again as a new, better person. We die to self daily, whenever we relinquish a selfish attachment. It is a life-long process, although we may recall a moment or one day have a moment when we feel like we have been wholly "reborn" as a new person and died to self completely, to become one in all ways with God. Such is an enlightened state of mind, one of pure clarity and seeing. This is the stage of absorption into the Divine Unity, becoming God by grace as he is by nature, spoken of by the mystics, as much as is attainable in this human lifespan. I would say that I am currently far from the later, although I try to die every die to one selfish desire and then the next, and am reborn every day. Or at least, that is my heart's hope and desire. Through God's Grace I am sustained. 

That is the Catholic understanding of reincarnation. It happens in this one single human lifespan, which is the only one we will ever have. We must be reborn in the _now_. We must aim to die every day to all that is not God, to every ounce of self-will. It is a constant, life-long struggle. Yet there is a "peace which passeth all understanding", when we can die utterly to self and self-will, to be reborn in God as a new being in this life. For me that is enlightenment. 

It is interesting how mystical experience, even to the point of metaphors employed to explain it, crosses religious frontiers. 

Is the image of the caterpillar becoming a butterfly used in the Guru Granth Sahib ji? Its very prevalent amongst Catholic mystics of the Spanish school.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 22, 2012)

*Re: I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....*

Vouthon ji,




> I was seeing circular, amoeboid, or tunnel-like patterns and had the sensation of being "pulled" into them as if it were a tunnel. I felt myself increasingly lose control of and awareness of my body, which was what made me feel terrified when "I" returned and realized what was happening. Strange, strange experience. It was a mental image, or vision that arose spontaneously in the course of my contemplation. It was not self-automated, since it took me completely by surprise. I wrote an account of it later in my diary, and when asked shared kit with one my Buddhist friend's who told me that my experience (which I explained to her in greater depth) had been my entering into Jhana but without proper preparation or understanding of what was happening to me, hence the panic.




Your friend, along with all the other meditating Boodists out there, are amongst the most deluded people on the planet as far as I'm concerned. Regarding such people I’d say, better that they had not heard the Buddha’s teachings, because at least then, they would not project such trash into the Dhamma.

When I first heard Jhana described to me, I was taken aback by how much wisdom is involved in its development. Those during the Buddha's time, particularly his former teachers, who attained the highest levels of Jhana, impressed upon me as being the wisest of people, second only to the Buddha and his enlightened disciples. Although that wisdom is different from that which the Buddha enlightened to and taught, it however was still very great. And this reflected why the Buddha would come to be during the time when the best of people lived, many of who could then understand his teachings and become enlightened.

It all starts with seeing the harm of sensuous attachment and aversion in daily life. Implying of course, understanding the value in non-attachment and non-aversion. Little by little, there is revulsion towards all forms of wrong doing and therefore growth in morality. One withdraws from the company of people and surroundings judged as not conducive to the growth of wholesome qualities and begin associating only with people of integrity. (So you won’t find such people browsing the Internet, for example.)

This then at some point conditions the need to go away to a quiet place in order to develop calm / concentration. But before this, one need to know oneself enough to be able to determine exactly, which of the 30+ possible objects is suitable for one’s own accumulations and how this might lead to deep concentration. And once this has been determined, even then it is still very hard for the very rudimentary level of concentration to be achieved. Indeed in one of the ancient commentaries it has been suggested that only one in hundred thousand of those who begin such practice will attain Access Concentration. And then of these, only one in a hundred thousand will attain the first level of Jhana. Likewise the same ratio for second, third and fourth Jhanas.  

But people today think that all this is a matter of choosing a particular object to concentrate on and soon Jhana, not only the first, but second, third and fourth can all be achieved. And the most common object is breath, which is in fact, the most difficult of objects, i.e. requiring the highest level of wisdom, to discern and concentrate upon. 

So really, anyone who thinks that Jhana is easy and that he or she has attained any one of the levels, must be completely deluded. And now you have an idea why I consider 99% of the Buddhists out there as wrong.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 22, 2012)

Some comments and elaborations regarding post above.



BhagatSingh said:


> _Bhajans are hymns_, they can be about God and they can be from any source. Geet _is the same thing, a synonym of bhajan_ in Guru Granth Sahib. _Kirtan is singing praises_, they can be about God and can come from any source, it's root word is Keerat (to praise).


_A mix bowl of everything where everything is synonym.  _

_Bhajan, Geet, Kirtan_
_How wrong just because one wants to broad brush everything rather than pay due respect and consideration vis-à-vis Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji._

*Note:*_  Read earlier post as to what Kirtan means vis-à-vis Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for a Sikh.  See also succinct clarification with respect to Kirtan in Sikh Reht Maryada._



BhagatSingh said:


> These are all related and overlap pretty much all the time. _Of course, being Sikhs we sing bhajans_ from Guru Granth Sahib, Bhai Gurdaas jis and Bhai Nand Lal ji's bani.




_We suddenly declare that Kirtan is the same as Bhajans in Mandirs and other religions_


_Of course we can say what we like as Guru ji is defense less not being here in body to elaborate_
_Let us review further.  _


BhagatSingh said:


> ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹੁ ਤਤੁ ਬੀਚਾਰਾ ॥
> Says Nanak, contemplate this essential teaching
> ਬਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਭਜਨ ਨਾਹੀ ਛੁਟਕਾਰਾ
> that _without (singing of)_ Hari's bhajan there is no liberation.
> page 188


Now let us review the complete shabad and one quickly realizes that it is not about singing, songs or geets or musical chanting like Bhajans.


> ਗਉੜੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
> गउड़ी महला ५ ॥
> Ga▫oṛī mėhlā 5.
> Gauree, Fifth Mehl:
> ...


Further aspect to consider.


BhagatSingh said:


> …. _For example, "gyani" is used as a slur_. But In Guru Granth Sahib this is a respected position. On Page 273 ਨਾਨਕ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਆਪਿ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ॥੬॥ Nanak says a God-realized gyani is God! Why is this said in a manner to insult kesadhari sikhs?


_Who with little intelligence and knowledge of Punjabi vocabulary uses Gyani as a slur?  There was even religious studies graduating level to pass “Gyani Course” back in the days of partition.  People did not study this to be slurred.  It was a noble endeavor in the study of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji teachings and being able to do so better than less focused curriculum._

Hence we create issues through whimsical approaches, shallow propagation of biases and much less.  Compare it versus what Guru ji's teaching and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji deserves in consideration of respectful understanding and love.

All errors are mine and I stand corrected in my interpretation of the shabad.

Sat Sri Akal.
  <!--[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-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 23, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji

Thank you first for putting isolated tuks in the context of full shabads; second for putting shabads into context of the entire bani; third for giving good insight into the meaning of language that can be misconstrued.

Personally, I voted "Other" because imho Guru Nanak never "got salvation" Yes or No because (if the sakhis can be trusted) Guru Nanak seems to have always "had it."

I am finding myself tired now after even an hour on the forum, and will leave it to you to say more. Just to add that when a message is simple and freed from layers of philosophy plastered on over centuries, it is just so tempting to make it more complicated than it really is. In the face of a field of fresh, white snow, some are content to dwell in the view of this blanket of purity, and others must step on it, so leaving their footrprints. And all of us are free to take our pick. :sippingcoffee: Just my thoughts.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 24, 2012)

Vouthon ji,
I don't know how I got the caterpillar metaphor. But let me tell you it is inaccurate. It's one of best metaphors I know of when talking about enlightenment but it's just not that good. I actually haven't encountered a metaphor that was very close to the phenomenon. Even this one below is one of the best but not quite there yet.

In Guru Granth Sahib, there is the metaphor of the lotus growing in mud but not being stained by it. God is described as the one who dwells in the center of the lotus. 

On page 990
The enlightened is described as a lotus who remains clean even in the mud.
ਪਦਮਨਿ ਜਾਵਲ ਜਲ ਰਸ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਸੰਗਿ ਦੋਖ ਨਹੀ ਰੇ ॥੧॥
The lotus flower is with the scum and the water, but it remains untouched by any pollution. ||1||

On the other hand, the unenlightened is like a frog, who even in the company of Pandits and religious texts like Vedas and Shatras, remains ignorant.

ਪੰਡਿਤ ਸੰਗਿ ਵਸਹਿ ਜਨ ਮੂਰਖ ਆਗਮ ਸਾਸ ਸੁਨੇ ॥
The fool may live with the Pandit, the religious scholar, and listen to the Vedas and the Shaastras.

ਅਪਨਾ ਆਪੁ ਤੂ ਕਬਹੁ ਨ ਛੋਡਸਿ ਸੁਆਨ ਪੂਛਿ ਜਿਉ ਰੇ ॥੪॥
You can never escape your own inner tendencies, like the crooked tail of the dog. ||4|| 

Guru Sahib explain that because the frog is in clean water, it never really notices how clean it is, and takes it for granted. Doing so it remains ignorant.

Vouthon ji,
Here is a different perspective on death but leads to the same thing. When I lost faith in God, he was the one who inspired me to meditate, he was the one to bring it back! The irony... :>
Sam Harris - Death and the Present Moment - YouTube

Shabad is the written or spoken word. Bhajan/geet is sung. Kirtan is to  praise. Yes amongst all, contemplation is there. Guru Granth Sahib is  organized by Raags, Musical structures for a reason. It is meant to be  sung and sung with great feeling. The shabad is to be felt as sound as well as word.

 Music has a quality to engage the right brain and it takes us away  from language (and thought) into something deeper. It is encouraged that it be  combined with Gurbani for the deepest effect on the mind. That's why you always find the Raag written there with every shabad. 

Saying that "Bhajan" implies that it is Hindu is like saying that "Hymn" implies it is Christian.

Vouthon ji,
Try combining some singing with the prayer meditations you do. Let me find you an example of what I am talking about.
Be Thou My Vision - YouTube
Bhajans are wonderful! 



> Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 24, 2012)

> In Guru Granth Sahib, there is the metaphor of the lotus growing in mud but not being stained by it. God is described as the one who dwells in the center of the lotus.


 
Dear brother Bhagat ji icecreamkaur

Thank you for your post! Such beautiful imagery from the Granth. We believe that God is the "center" of the soul, which is the same idea but not as beautifully expressed. 



> "...God is the centre of my soul...Hence, for the soul to be in its center - which is God, as we have said - it is sufficient for it to possess one degree of love, for by one degree alone it is united with Him...The soul's center is God. When it has reached God with all the capacity of its being and the strength of its operation and inclination, it will have attained its final and deepest center in God..."
> 
> *- **Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church*


 
Saint Teresa of Avila, as I described earlier, described our soul as a diamond-like castle, with the body being the outer walls, and our soul the inner rooms. At the very centre-most room of the Castle, dwells the King - God. 

John and Teresa called it the "soul's centre", Tauler "the Ground of the Soul", Eckhart "a little spark of the Godhead" etc. the Catholic mystics have all used different metaphors to describe it. 

Thomas Merton, a modern 20th century mystic, described it this way: 



> "...At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will. This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak His name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely..."
> 
> *- **Thomas Merton, O.C.S.O. (1915 – 1968), Catholic mystic, Cistercian monk & social activist*


 

Again, there is really no difference. 

You remind me very much of Catherine of Genoa who said: 



> "...Oh Love! can it be that you have called me with so much love, and revealed to me at one view, what no tongue can describe? So long as any one can speak of divine things, enjoy and understand them, remember and desire them, he has not yet arrived in port; yet there are ways and means to guide him thither. Words are wholly inadequate to express my meaning, and I reproach myself for using them. I would that every one could understand me, and I am sure that if I could breathe on creatures, the fire of love burning within me would inflame them all with divine desire. I cannot desire any created love, that is, love which can be felt, enjoyed, or understood. I do not wish love that can pass through the intellect, memory, or will; because pure love passes all these things and transcends them. I shall never rest until I am hidden and enclosed in that divine heart wherein all created forms are lost, and, so lost, remain thereafter all divine; nothing else can satisfy true, pure, and simple love. Oh if you knew what I feel within! Pure love cannot endure such comparison; on the contrary, it exclaims with a great impetus of love; _my being is God_, not by participation only but by a true transformation and annihilation of my proper being. God is my being, my _me_. I say _mine_ at present because it is not possible to speak otherwise; but I do not mean by it any such thing as _me_ or _mine_, or delight or good, or strength or stability, or beatitude; nor could I possibly turn my eyes to behold such things in heaven or in earth; and if, notwithstanding, I sometimes use words which may have the likeness of humility and of spirituality, in my interior I do not understand them, I do not feel them. In truth it astonishes me that I speak at all, or use words so far removed from the truth and from that which I feel. I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are..."
> 
> *- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic*


 
Her frustration in finding adequate metaphors to explain her experience to others is shared by all the Catholic mystics, and quite clearly yourself too. 

Saint Thomas Aquinas went further than both you or Catherine though when he said that, "*All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me*". He said this near the end of his life and despite being the father of Scholasticism and the author of the _Summa Theologica, _he wrote nothing else for the rest of his life. He gave up completely trying to explain to other people who had not themselves experienced, which I find quite sad but a reflection of reality. 

Henry Suso said something similar: 



> "...You and I do not meet on one branch or in one place. You make your way along one path and I along another. Your questions arise from human thinking, and I respond from a knowledge that is far beyond all human comprehension. You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it..."
> 
> *- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest *


 

So I would say that the Catholic mystics are all on your side on that front at least. 

All their metaphors and descriptions are to them on a personal level "straw", but they _are _highly useful to other people, oddly enough.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 24, 2012)

I see. Yes the "straw" serves it's purpose. It's a signpost that says look here.



> We believe that God is the "center" of the soul, which is the same idea but not as beautifully expressed.


On Page 974 Bhagat Baini ji says, and I paraphrase.
Once the gateway to this knowledge is illuminated, the Door has been opened. At the center of the countless petals of the Lotus, God abides with all his powers. From within He radiates these powers and manages things. His mind becomes a jewel, one who comes to realize God.



> ...At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is  untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or  spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal,  from which God disposes our lives, which is inaccessible to the  fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will.


Sounds like the state of Samadhi! 
On page 333, Bhagat Kabir ji describes it like so. If only one could experience it they would never forget it. 
ਗਉੜੀ ॥
Gauree:
ਤਹ ਪਾਵਸ ਸਿੰਧੁ ਧੂਪ ਨਹੀ ਛਹੀਆ ਤਹ ਉਤਪਤਿ ਪਰਲਉ ਨਾਹੀ ॥
There is no rainy season, ocean, sunshine or shade, no creation or destruction there.
ਜੀਵਨ ਮਿਰਤੁ ਨ ਦੁਖੁ ਸੁਖੁ ਬਿਆਪੈ ਸੁੰਨ ਸਮਾਧਿ ਦੋਊ ਤਹ ਨਾਹੀ ॥੧॥
No life or death, no pain or pleasure is felt there. There is only the Nothingness of Samaadhi, and no duality. ||1||
ਸਹਜ ਕੀ ਅਕਥ ਕਥਾ ਹੈ ਨਿਰਾਰੀ ॥
The description of the state of intuitive poise is indescribable and sublime.
ਤੁਲਿ ਨਹੀ ਚਢੈ ਜਾਇ ਨ ਮੁਕਾਤੀ ਹਲੁਕੀ ਲਗੈ ਨ ਭਾਰੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
It is not measured, and it is not exhausted. It is neither light nor heavy. ||1||Pause||
ਅਰਧ ਉਰਧ ਦੋਊ ਤਹ ਨਾਹੀ ਰਾਤਿ ਦਿਨਸੁ ਤਹ ਨਾਹੀ ॥
Neither lower nor upper worlds are there; neither day nor night are there.
ਜਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਪਵਨੁ ਪਾਵਕੁ ਫੁਨਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤਹਾ ਸਮਾਹੀ ॥੨॥
There is no water, wind or fire; there, the True Guru (God's image) is contained. ||2||
ਅਗਮ ਅਗੋਚਰੁ ਰਹੈ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਤੇ ਲਹੀਐ ॥
The Inaccessible and Unfathomable Lord dwells there within Himself; by Guru's Grace, He is found.
ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਉ ਗੁਰ ਅਪੁਨੇ ਸਤਸੰਗਤਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੩॥੪॥੪੮॥
Says Kabeer, I am a sacrifice to my Guru; I remain in the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy. ||3||4||48|| 



> _my being is God_, not by participation only but by a true transformation and annihilation of my proper being. God is my being, my _me_.


This is a gold mine Vouthon ji! I am so happy for you right now. You are connected to such pearls of human history.



> because the truth is known by not knowing - Henry Suso


Exactly.

You remember that poem you posted by St. John of the Cross? That poem has become my favourite in the catholic mystic literature.

St. John of the Cross, Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation


> Where no knowing is I entered,
> yet when I my own self saw there
> without knowing where I rested
> great things I understood there,
> ...


----------



## Archived_member15 (Nov 24, 2012)

Dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug

As ever thank you for an insightful and articulate message spoken from a position of respect and cordiality. 



> On Page 974 Bhagat Baini ji says, and I paraphrase.
> Once the gateway to this knowledge is illuminated, the Door has been opened. At the center of the countless petals of the Lotus, God abides with all his powers. From within He radiates these powers and manages things. His mind becomes a jewel, one who comes to realize God.


 
Beautiful. I particularly admire the use of that image of the Lotus flower and the idea of the liberated mind becoming like a jewel. For me it suggests a certain transparency, since a jewel is a glass-like object through which light shines. When we become lost in the abyss of deity, we effectively become transparent, like a clear glass object, through which our centre which is God in all of his fullness can break out and light up the world. 

The great 13th century Italian poet Dante, who composed that epic masterpiece of Western literature the _Divine Comedy_, was also an accomplished mystic in the Catholic tradition. His epic poem is so grandiose, sublime in its old-fashioned language and grand that I cannot possibly quote from it as freely as I can from say the other mystics, and neither do I have a copy to hand. However there is this particular sweet image in one of the cantos (can't for the life of me recall which) but I know that it is in the _Paradisio_ where Dante illustrates the state of being enlightened in metaphorical terms as the holy souls constituting a single flower, where each soul is a petal. The heavenly host (those who have died in an enlightened state) are like the rays of the sun, carrying down the sun's warmth to the flower. God is the sun, which projects His warmth, and offers it without ceasing to the flower. It is an image of being utterly consumed by God. I cannot really explain it but it is striking to read. 

Saint Catherine of Genoa (with whom you will likely be familiar by now given my numerous references to her lol), while not of course using the image of a Lotus (such a plant does not grow in Europe and neither would Western mystics have employed the jewel metaphor) nevertheless captured this idea of transparency very well in language more readily intelligible to medieval Europeans that I think your image of the jewel attempts to convey to those in an Indian context: 



> "...When God sees the soul less transparent than it was at its origins, he tugs at it with a glance, lures it, and binds it to himself with a fiery love that by itself could annihilate it. He continues to draw the soul into this fiery love until it is wholly restored to that state of transparency in which it was born. Divine energies sear and purify the soul until it becomes like gold that has melted in the refiner’s fire. All dross having fallen away. When the gold has come to the point of twenty-four carats, it cannot be further purified. This is what happens in the fire of God’s love. In so acting, God so transforms the soul in Him that it knows nothing other than God; and He continues to draw it up into His fiery love until He restores it to that pure state from which it first issued. As it is being drawn upwards, the soul feels itself melting in the fire of that love of its sweet God, for He will not cease until He has brought the soul to its perfection. The more the soul is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quire pure and rests in God...Thus purified the soul rests in God without any alloy of self; my very being is God...Everything to do with self passes away...Just As a covered object left out in the sun cannot be penetrated by the sun's rays, in the same way, once the covering of the soul is removed, the soul opens itself fully to the rays of the sun. The more the rust of ego is consumed by fire, the more the soul responds to that love, and its joy increases. Truly the soul's being united with and transformed into Him is like fire consuming the dampness in logs. Once the logs are heated through and through, the fire burns and changes them into itself, giving them its own color and warmth and power. I have no longer either soul or heart; but my soul and my heart are those of my Beloved. My self is God, nor is any other self known to me except God..."
> 
> - *Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic*


 

John of the Cross also said much the same, using the image of a "crystal": 




> "...When light shines on a clean and pure crystal, we find that the more intense the degree of light, the more light the crystal has concentrated within it and the brighter it becomes; it can become so brilliant from the abundance of light received that it seems to be all light. And then the crystal is indistinguishable from the light, since it is illumined according to its full capacity, which is to appear to be light...The window of the soul [is] cleansed perfectly and made completely transparent by the divine light..."
> [SIZE=-1]- John of the Cross[/SIZE]​


I feel (but may be wrong) that this might be a parralel to the "jewel" image in a Western context. 




> Sounds like the state of Samadhi!
> On page 333, Bhagat Kabir ji describes it like so. If only one could experience it they would never forget it.
> ਗਉੜੀ ॥
> Gauree:
> ...


 

If Saint Catherine is a gold mine for you then just let me exclaim: this is a lottery win or a hidden treasure for me! There is such an ample distellation of wisdom in the above passage. It is immensely profound. Kabir has always been one of my favourite mystics of any religion. He earns my admiration not only for his obviously inspired poetry but also for the simple fact that he identified wholly neither with Islam or Hinduism and was actually claimed by both after his death! Such is a testament to his greatness of heart. Who wouldn't want such a one as a member of their own religion? He formed his own path, the Kabir Panth that seemed to wean out the essence of both traditions, while letting go of more or less peripheral trappings in both religions. A stunning achievement, I must say. In fact, he is greatly respected by one of the 20th century's greatest scholars of Catholic mysticism, the wonderful Anglo-Catholic mystic Evelyn Underhill, who mentioned Kabir in an exclusive category of mystics whom she regarded as achieving a "synthetic" vision of divine reality which neatly accomodates both the impersonal/personal and immanent/transcedent aspects of the Godhead seamlessly. She was a close friend of Rabindranath Tagore, and she wrote the introduction to his translation of and commentary on a series of songs attributed to Kabir in which she wrote: 




> "... THE POET Kabir, a selection from whose songs is here for the first time offered to English readers, is one of the most interesting personalities in the history of Indian mysticism...Living at the moment in which the impassioned poetry and deep philosophy of the great Persian mystics, Attar, Sadi, Jalalu'ddin Rumi, and Hafiz, were exercising a powerful influence on the religious thought of India, he dreamed of reconciling this intense and personal Mohammedan mysticism with the traditional theology of Brahmanism...*Kabir belongs to that small group of supreme mystics amongst whom St. Augustine, Ruysbroeck, and the Sufi poet Jalalu'ddin Rumi are perhaps the chief who have achieved that which we might call the synthetic vision of God.* These have resolved the perpetual opposition between the personal and impersonal, the transcendent and immanent, static and dynamic aspects of the Divine Nature; between the Absolute of philosophy and the 'sure true Friend' of devotional religion. They have done this, not by taking these apparently incompatible concepts one after the other; but by ascending to a height of spiritual intuition at which they are, as Ruysbroeck said, 'melted and merged in the Unity,' and perceived as the completing opposites of a perfect Whole. This proceeding entails for them and both Kabir and Ruysbroeck expressly acknowledge it a universe of three orders: Becoming, Being, and that which is 'More than Being,' i.e., God.' God is here felt to be not the final abstraction, but the one actuality. He inspires, supports, indeed inhabits, both the durational, conditioned, finite world of Becoming and the unconditioned, non-successional, infinite world of Being; yet utterly transcends them both. He is the omnipresent Reality, the 'All-pervading' within Whom 'the worlds are being told like beads.' In His personal aspect He is the 'beloved Fakir,' teaching and companioning each soul. Considered as Immanent Spirit, He is 'the Mind within the mind.'..."
> 
> *- Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941), Anglo-Catholic mystic & (in many peoples' opinion) the 20th century's greatest authority on Catholic mysticism*


 

In my next post, I'm going to go through that Kabir passage from the Granth verse by verse with commentary from the Catholic mystics which I think "gels" with it, so to speak. 




> This is a gold mine Vouthon ji! I am so happy for you right now. You are connected to such pearls of human history.


 

Bless you brother Bhagat ji. I am indeed blessed with so many luminous, enlightened teachers whose feet I gladly sit under. If only more Westerners were as versed in their European mystical tradition (and the in Eastern Catholic mystical tradition) as are those of Indian extraction in theirs. The West has went down a different path however. In many ways, I am thankful for the benefits of Western civilisation: secularism, democracy, science, rationalism, psychology etc. but the loss of its spiritual foundations in the Catholic and Protestant mystics of the Middle Ages and post-Reformation era is painful to see. 

Your kind sentiment is returned by me to you, who stem from that web of human mystical lore from the Indian subcontinent, finding its most beautiful expression in the numerous writers who make up the Guru Granth Sahib ji, such as Bhagat Kabir and Bhagat Farid before Sikhi and the Gurus. 




> You remember that poem you posted by St. John of the Cross? That poem has become my favourite in the catholic mystic literature.
> 
> St. John of the Cross, Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation


 

I am so chuffed that you like it so much because it actually happens to be my favourite mystical text of any religious writing I have read so far. It holds so much meaning for me. How Saint John was able to explain that which is beyond understanding so skilfully truly blows my mind. I have shared that poem with Buddhists, Baha'is, non-Catholic Christians and even atheists. On every account it has been received with unprecedented enthusiasm. A life-long Buddhist told me that it was (In his own words), "absolutely exquisite" and "99% the teachings of the Buddha" and another Buddhist told me that it sounded as if it had come "straight out of the Buddha's suttas" (better not tell Confused ji this lol or we will set him off on one again lol). 

There has not been one person with whom I have shared that Saint John (or Juan de la Cruez as he is known in his native Spain) poem who has not found it meaningful to their own religious situation. 

I think that part of its appeal is that although John is a Doctor of the Catholic Church (actually declared "Mystical Doctor" by one of the Popes) there is nothing exclusively Catholic or Christian about it, nor is there anything even explicitly theistic such that even Buddhists and atheists can understand. Nowhere is God even mentioned, only that knowledge that is known by not knowing, where all human knowing has an end.

Its a stunning piece of literature that has a truly human message transcending religious frontiers. 

God Bless Saint John of the Cross and Bhagat Kabir ji! cheerleader


----------



## aristotle (Dec 1, 2012)

Was 'Muhammad' enlightened too? One may say so for the sake of being politically correct, but I mean, seriously??

* "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore *strike off their heads* and *strike off every fingertip* of them" (Qur'an 8:12)
* "So when the sacred months have passed away, then *slay the idolaters wherever you find them*, and *take them captive* and *besiege them* and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." (Qur'an 9:5)
* "The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "*Kill any Jew who falls under your power*." (Hadith Tabari 9:97)
And there are scores of such verses in the Qur'an, let alone the Hadiths...

I have my firm stand, if I ever made any list of the enlightened ones, this man would not be featuring in that, for sure...


----------

