# Is It Possible For A Mona To Achieve Samadhi?



## Calgacus (Jan 16, 2011)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh, 


Is it possible for a Mona to get to the stage of samadhi and open dusam dwar through just the merits of seva and simeran


Dear Khalsa Sadh Sangat, 

I have for many years been asking myself this question. Before I proceed it is important I outline my character before your blessed and glorious selves. I am not a 'Sikh' in the term this contemporary moneh proclaim themselves, drinking, smoking and fornicating and suggesting that being sikh only requires to be so through right of birth, how foolhardly!. However, I would proclaim my allegiance is with his Royal Highness, His excellency Emperor Guru Granth Sahib JI, Regal Sovereign of all realms, I will only bow my  head before his greatness. 

I have tried to live as a sikh but the path is very hard, However, I feel through sewa and simeran perhaps I may get somewhere, Now Khalsa ji can you please answer me this can a mona gain the ability to perform samadhi and perhaps enjoy the niceness of dasam dwar.....   I eagerly await your response Khalsa Ji


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 16, 2011)

Calgacus ji

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa! Waheguru ji ki Fateh!

I hope my remarks are helpful.  Your questions about samadhi, dasam dwar, simran and seva are about spirituality more than they are about religion. Simran and seva are part of Sikh spirituality, but one does not have to be a Sikh to perform either one.

Religion and spirituality overlap. But, religion and spirituality are not exactly the same. Religions of the world all have examples of yogis, swamis, ammas, gurus, boddhisatvas, saints, mystics, or other spiritually conscious people, whose lives serve as models for spirituality.  Religions have unique teachings that point to how to be spiritually conscious. But it is also possible to be highly evolved and very conscious spiritually, yet belong to no religion. One can even follow a spiritual path that is open to all religions. Whether connected to a religion or not, spiritual growth is usually accompanied by a teacher of some kind who can provide guidance and help a novice grow. I know Jewish people who study with Tibetan Buddhist monks. I know Hindus who are members of the Kabir panth. There are mystics within Islam who are guides to non Muslims. 

One word of caution, perhaps two. A teacher is important because a teacher can sort out what is truly a matter of spiritual growth and development, and what is self-delusion coming from the ego. But to find a teacher who is genuine, authentic and spiritually developed is not a simple matter of looking one up on the Internet. There are many con artists making money and doing worse in the name of religion. So, in choosing a teacher,  be careful.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 17, 2011)

Calgacus ji I am just curious what are your expectations out of the following two that you have mentioned in your post,



stage      of Samadhi
open      dusam dwar
 
  When I put in “samadhi dasam dwar” in a Google search I end up mostly in the “Naam Simran” sites and “sants”, etc., websites other than this SPN thread.

  If you achieve these two what happens after or once found or reached you will be always able to retain or be able to re-create.

  I am just not sure on the following,



How      far are you from your desired goals?
Are      these the only goals of importance to you right now?
What      are your plans beyond these goals?
Sorry about the questions but I have learnt that sometimes the questions lead to possible answers even though these may seem unrelated.

  There is a thread on “Naam” and meditation in the following which may be of value,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/8672-naam-my-understanding.html

  Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 17, 2011)

YES YES YES YES YES !!!!!!.

:redturban: welcomemunda :redturban: welcomemunda :redturban: welcomemunda :redturban: welcomemunda :happysingh: welcomemunda


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 17, 2011)

Here's a mona who definitely achieved samadhi, he could NOT have done what he did without meditation.
This reminds me of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev ji (and the Sikhs after him) who went through tortures that were much worse. In a way, this video allows us get a glimpse of our own history. (Especially for those who say Guru Arjan cried or something during torture... he probably didn't)
*Not suitable for younger audiences*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-MBhe5Wac8&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 18, 2011)

Bhagat Singh ji so sad to see the video.  We can all see how the person pouring the kerosene made sure he did not get caught in the heat ( as well as all the police) by making a long fuel line on the ground to set the monk on fire.  One does not make comments about the body burnt as such.

However Sikhism is quite clear about self-immolation or its glorification.  That did not stop some of our leaders to ignore this either.  The following from Wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh_Singh_%28Sikh_leader%29

An excerpt,

" After a few unsatisfactory meetings with Nehru, on 16 August 1965, *Fateh  Singh threatened another fast-undo-death and self-immolation*, if a  Punjabi Suba was not created....."

_Just anecdotal, we could see Sri Harmandir Sahib area from our house.  So we were on our roof looking for smoke coming from Akal Takhat Sahib where self-immolation places were built in all four corners on the roof of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib complex.  Even as kids growing up we knew it as a sham.  Suddenly orange juice used to appear just in time.  Just like Master Tara Singh ji used to disappear in the name of Police arrest in cozy Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh while the poor people from villages boarded police buses with small "gathrian" (small packets wrapped in cloth) to see them through the arrests._

_In my mind self immolation by the monks (in the form of passivity and renunciation) is another image (almost mirror) of the training of young muslim kids to wear suicide belts.  By the way not that I necessarily trust or want to claim first hand knowledge, one of our friends from Pakistan told me that the suicide kids are available for a monetary consideration in Pakistan from their handlers who brainwash them.  This world looks like a stage with great stage handlers.  If a religion teaches a monk to do and others to help him do self-immolation I do not see value for such a religion whether they teach you samadhi, dasam dwar, kundalini, etc._

_Mera Sat Gur_ (Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and the ten Gurus) is fine for me whether I can live or follow to be 100% by his guidance.  Any small percentage I achieve is a gift in my life.

YouTube        - bulleh shah kalam punjab punjabi muslim sikh hindu  one god

I do not like all symbology but it is pretty reasonably assembled with reasonable decency and equity.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS:  More immolations reported at Yahoo with Tunisian crisis and I doubt these are meditation/samadhi derived,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110117/ts_nm/us_tunisia_protests_immolations


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji

Great video and the voice was haunting. I was able with some searching on the YouTube site to find out it is Juman Khan from Pakistan. His songs, including of Bulleh Shah can be found at APNA a punjabi heritage site, at http://www.apnaorg.com/music/juman/ 

Somewhat disappointing: on reading the comments at the video site the message is completely lost on some. Thanks.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 18, 2011)

Ambarsaria Ji, my point was not about self-immolation (or samadhi-derived self-immolation??). If you missed it, I was pointing out how samadhi can reduce one's suffering to a great extent, that one can bear immolation or hot stoves or boiling water with unflinching courage. Making reference to the fact that many people do not believe that Sikh Gurus could go through torture without suffering, or they believe that  they would have to be Gods in order to do it.

Oh and not to mention the fact that a mona was able to attain samadhi. :interestedmunda:

But since you brought up self-immolation, I will take this opportunity to learn about why you reject self-immolation as a way of peaceful protest. 
BTW I read this bit already, my thoughts below.


> _Just anecdotal, we could see Sri Harmandir Sahib area....__In my mind self immolation by the monks (in the form of passivity and  renunciation) is another image (almost mirror) of the training of young  muslim kids to wear suicide belts...._


Comparing a *conscious* decision to brainwashing, a* peaceful* vs an utterly destructive method. Seriously? I think you can do better. Do give it a try.

Cheers


PS:


> A number of Buddhist monks (including Thích Quảng Đức)  immolated themselves in protest of the discriminatory treatment endured  by Buddhists under the Roman Catholic administration of President Ngô Đình Diệm in South Vietnam  — even though violence against oneself is prohibited by most  interpretations of Buddhist doctrine. The twenty-third chapter of the _Lotus Sutra_ recounts the life story of the Bodhisattva Medicine King, which served as the main inspiration for the monks and nuns who self-immolated to protest the Vietnam War. In the Sutra, the Medicine King demonstrates his insight into the selfless nature of his body by ritualistically setting his body aflame, spreading the "light of the Dharma" for twelve hundred years. Thich Nhat Hanh  adds: "The bodhisattva shined his light about him so that everyone  could see as he could see, giving them the opportunity to see the  deathless nature of the ultimate."[5]


Wiki


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 18, 2011)

Bhagat Singh ji I am very unsure how to read some of your comments.  Still I will submit my comments and I have taken your comments as appropriate to address in this post.

"I was pointing out how samadhi can reduce one's suffering to a great extent"

His suffering was so reduced that he has to submit himself to burning!  AmI missing something.

"why you reject self-immolation as a way of peaceful protest."

Where is the peaceful part.  Somebody putting kerosene on somebody and lighting a match.

"conscious decision to brainwashing, a peaceful vs an utterly destructive method"

So I am to believe that put somebody alive on fire is not destruction.  I wish he had exploded and took some of the others around him with him and that would have put a stop to it in terms of people exploiting people,

  _  Somebody knew about it including his handlers (some type of so called spiritual teacher)
  -  Somebody picked the spot, bought the kerosene and lighter
  -  Somebody in police hierarchy authorized police to not charge the arsonist who poured kerosen and then lit the fire
  -  Police almost appear to be an accessory when they keep people back as may be someone could have saved the person from murder

I am to believe it is Samadhi/meditation or something when the guy does not show much emotions or reaction.  A mentally sedated person will react the same way if you prop them to sit.

Sorry I don't see anything good in burning people or seeing people being burned alive no matter what the circumstances.

Sant - Sipahi's created by Guru Gobind Singh ji are spiritual and also fighters who have the courage to stand up and address injustice to them and others.

*Soorah so pehchaniye jo lareh deen kay hayt, purza purza kat marey kabhi na shaday khet!*​
YouTube        - Soora So Pehchaniye - Bhai Joginder Singh Riar



Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 18, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,
It's quite simple actually. The Vietnamese government was oppressing the Buddhists that lived there. After some serious conflicts and protests, this dude Thich decided to protest strongly and raise awareness by self-immolation. This is a peaceful way. Just consider its alternative. 
The alternative to this would be to take up the sword, and kill people, which is far more destructive than this. Are you telling me that there is more good to be found when 1000s and 1000s or people die for social cause vs just 1 or two people? I don't think so. This is a peaceful method, and no harm in it, if one decides to do this, is aware of the consequences, and has done everything else one could do then there is nothing wrong with it.

Guru Gobind Singh ji took up the sword after all peaceful methods failed. Methods with the same meaning as this self-immolation. Guru Arjan Dev ji, Guru tegh Bahadur ji, Mati Das ji, Dati Das ji, Dayala ji, so on and so forth. These were peaceful methods to oppose the oppressive government at the time. This same meaning that we find with our Guru Sahib's (*voluntary*) martyrdom are found within Thich Nhat Han's (*voluntary*) self-immolation. The meaning is that "we have tried and tried, yet you guys continue to oppress, it is enough...". Such acts are meant to motivate the masses to take action, and they work!

Veerji, let me remind you that actions alone are not good or bad. What is good or bad is the reasoning and meaning behind that action.
Let me give you a few examples to illustrate this point. 
Why do we do this ritual of tying a turban everyday before we begin to do other things?
The meaning is quite clear, we wear the garb of Khalsa to announce to the world and ourselves that we will uphold Dharm, that we will uphold righteous and truthfulness. (this is what is means to me, I can't speak for anyone else.) Would this action be condemnable? Nope! there is genuine meaning to be found behind it. BUT what if the meaning of wearing a turban everyday was to keep bad spirits away? now that isn't very good reasoning, just a lame meaning to this ritual.

Another Sikh reference, look at Guru Gobind Singh ji's call to arms. He is essentially calling for people to violence. But what does this violence mean? It is self-defense, to protect one's lifestyle, to protect one's belief system and to protect those who cannot defend themselves. NOW violence actually becomes a necessity (if we study the time period), now violence is not seen as a bad thing. There was good reasoning and it had positive meanings attached to it just like the turban. It was for a greater cause, just like the martyrdom and just like this protest.

Now, when do we condemn something. We condemn something because the meaning behind it is just bad, and damaging.
Guru Nanak 1- 10 condemned sati. The reasons for Sati are horrible. The meaning is some sort of a twisted form of husband-worship (at least that's how it was seen during their time). This is why it was (and still is) condemned.

*Admin deletion: No one was critcizing, but rather questioning the logical connections between some assertions and their associated inferences/conclusions.*

 In case, of the Buddhist, he had good reasons to have himself self-immolated. He was working towards a greater cause of which he was only a small fraction. He knew that if he could do this successfully that the suffering of many would be reduced, and it would not lead to bloodshed (as you know Buddhists have picked up weapons when they needed). There should be no doubt about the peaceful nature of this action when we compare it to its alternatives.

-------------------------------
Ambarsari ji,

Samadhi is a state of high concentration and alertness. its a state when essentially one has merged with the ONE. Where all dualistic notions of the world, and all notions of the self (meism, haumai) are extinguished. One can assume this monk has attained samadhi because monks are constantly practicing and traning their minds towards this goal.
During his self-immolation protest, since he had attained samadhi, Thich, was able to take the enormous amounts of pain from the fire, that a normal person could not even imagine. Similar to how Guru Arjan Dev ji was able to endure the intense heat of the plate and the sand being poured on his head. he felt great pain but he was able to reduce his suffering by entering into a state of high concentration and alertness, samadhi. The video shows the power of intense training in meditation, and one can find similar examples, in our history, as well.

Sat sri akal


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 18, 2011)

Bhagat Singh ji I am going to let others contribute.

I believe we are passing each other by in our dialog and I don't want to monopolize the media here.

I generally like your posts but at times I am distressed to see some comments but let us leave it to be my ignorance to understand.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 18, 2011)

Something to consider when we try to place samadhi in the context of Sikhi. Bhagat Trilochan asking whether the traditional path to samadhi makes any sense. Very tough language too, as is the style of Bhagat Trilochan ji, who never beats around the bush. Many of the symbols of the ascetic or monastic path mentioned in each of the verses. These throughout Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji identify the order of monks linked to each sort of symbol. So it is possible to know which bhagatji was referring to. 

ਗੂਜਰੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਤ੍ਰਿਲੋਚਨ ਜੀਉ ਕੇ ਪਦੇ ਘਰੁ ੧ (Ang 525)
Gūjrī sarī Ŧrilocẖan jī▫o ke paḏe gẖar 1
Gujri Reverend. Sire Tirlochan.

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Ik▫oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ.
There is but One God. By the Guru's favour, He is obtained.

ਅੰਤਰੁ ਮਲਿ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਕੀਨਾ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਭੇਖ ਉਦਾਸੀ ॥
Anṯar mal nirmal nahī kīnā bāhar bẖekẖ uḏāsī.
Thou hast not cleansed thy heart from filth, though apparently thou wearest the dress of a hermit.

ਹਿਰਦੈ ਕਮਲੁ ਘਟਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਨ ਚੀਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਕਾਹੇ ਭਇਆ ਸੰਨਿਆਸੀ ॥੧॥
Hirḏai kamal gẖat barahm na cẖīnĥā kāhe bẖa▫i▫ā sani▫āsī. ||1||
In thy body's heart - lotus, thou hast not recognised the Lord, so what for hast thou become a solitarian? 

ਭਰਮੇ ਭੂਲੀ ਰੇ ਜੈ ਚੰਦਾ ॥
Bẖarme bẖūlī re jai cẖanḏā.
The world hast gone astray in doubt, O Jaichand,

ਨਹੀ ਨਹੀ ਚੀਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਆ ਪਰਮਾਨੰਦਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Nahī nahī cẖīnĥi▫ā parmānanḏā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
and hast not realised Lord, the Embodiment of supreme bliss. Pause.

ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਖਾਇਆ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਬਧਾਇਆ ਖਿੰਥਾ ਮੁੰਦਾ ਮਾਇਆ ॥
Gẖar gẖar kẖā▫i▫ā pind baḏẖā▫i▫ā kẖinthā munḏa mā▫i▫ā.
Thou wanderest, eating in every house, hast fattened thy body and wearest a patched coat and ear - rings for the sake of wealth.

ਭੂਮਿ ਮਸਾਣ ਕੀ ਭਸਮ ਲਗਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਤਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥੨॥
Bẖūm masāṇ kī bẖasam lagā▫ī gur bin ṯaṯ na pā▫i▫ā. ||2||
To thy body, thou hast applied the ashes of crematorium, but being without a Guru, thou hast not found the reality.

ਕਾਇ ਜਪਹੁ ਰੇ ਕਾਇ ਤਪਹੁ ਰੇ ਕਾਇ ਬਿਲੋਵਹੁ ਪਾਣੀ ॥
Kā▫e japahu re kā▫e ṯaphu re kā▫e bilovahu pāṇī.
O why mutter spells, O why practise austerities and why churn water?

ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਸੋ ਸਿਮਰਹੁ ਨਿਰਬਾਣੀ ॥੩॥
Lakẖ cẖa▫orāsīh jiniĥ upā▫ī so simrahu nirbāṇī. ||3||
Meditate thou on the Immaculate Lord, who has created the eighty four lakhs of existences.

ਕਾਇ ਕਮੰਡਲੁ ਕਾਪੜੀਆ ਰੇ ਅਠਸਠਿ ਕਾਇ ਫਿਰਾਹੀ ॥
Kā▫e kamandal kāpṛī▫ā re aṯẖsaṯẖ kā▫e firā▫ī.
O Ochre - coloured Yogi, why carriest thou a water-pot and why wanderest thou to thy sixty eight holy places?

ਬਦਤਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਲੋਚਨੁ ਸੁਨੁ ਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀ ਕਣ ਬਿਨੁ ਗਾਹੁ ਕਿ ਪਾਹੀ ॥੪॥੧॥
Baḏaṯ Ŧrilocẖan sun re parāṇī kaṇ bin gāhu kė pāhī. ||4||1||
Says Trilochan, hear, O mortal, having no corn what is it that thou thrashest? 

4th Nanak suggesting that we find natural Samadhi in family life. It is better to be a householder. 

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੪ ॥ (Ang 1246)
Salok mėhlā 4.
Slok 4th Guru.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਨਿ ਸੇ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ॥
Saṯgur sevan se vadbẖāgī.
Very fortunate are they, who serve the True Guru,

ਸਚੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਏਕ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ॥
Sacẖai sabaḏ jinĥā ek liv lāgī.
and who are attuned to the One True Lord.

ਗਿਰਹ ਕੁਟੰਬ ਮਹਿ ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਧੀ ॥
Girah kutamb mėh sahj samāḏẖī.
In their own home and family, they remain absorbed in the Lord's trance.

ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮਿ ਰਤੇ ਸੇ ਸਚੇ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ॥੧॥
Nānak nām raṯe se sacẖe bairāgī. ||1||
Nanak, they, who are imbued with the Lord's Name, are truly detached.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 18, 2011)

The MOST IMPORTANT point we must always keep in MIND is that GURU NANAK JI SAHIB..delivered a COMPLETELY NEW and DIFFERENT DIVINE MESSAGE...a HUGE PARADIGM SHIFT AWAY form all previous and established paths, divine messages and religions etc.
Bhai Gurdass Ji refers to this NEW PATH as the NIRMAL PANTH.

ALL the succeeding GURU SAHIBS..( even those who like Bhai lehnna Ji and Bhai Amardass Ji had spent virtually entire LIFE TIMES in those previous Paths...Bhai lehnna Ji had gone on Yearly DEVI Yatras to Mata vaishno Devi and this presumably followed all the Hindu Rituals of samadhi fasting, mandir aartees etc etc etc FAITHFULLY for over 40 YEARS of his life ..and Bhai Amardass ji was into his SIXTIES when he came into contact with GURBANI via his in Law relationship with  Bhai Lehnna Ji -Guru Angad Ji )....THEN FURTHER PROPOUNDED ONLY THE TEACHINGS of GURU NANAK JI SAHIB.

NOT a SINGLE TUK in SGGS goes AGAINST the Divine Message/Path to Him set out by GURU NANAK the FOUNDER....Sabh te WADDA Satgur Nanak) also shown in the usage of the One and ONLY pen name NANAK for GURBANI penned by the successor GURUS. This is NOT a "GIMMICK" or "false humility" being shown..its a TRUE REFLECTION of the CORE CONCEPTS and Beleifs of Guru nanak Ji being truly followed by His successors even 200 + years later as in the Gurbani of Guru Teg bahadur Ji and the ACTIONS of Guru Gobind Singh ji..and the Sikhs after 1708. Guru Arjun Ji sahib took INFINITE CARE in choosing the GURBANI of the Various Bhagats, Bhatts, Muslim Saints for inclusion in the AAD POTHI SAHIB so that these writers strung across a wide spectrum of Indian space and TIME..also GO BEAUTIFULLY HAND IN GLOVE with the GURBANI of the SIKH GURUS led by GURU NANAK JI SAHIB.

1. Where there was a need Guru Ji felt needed to be fulfilled..as in a SCRIPT...Guru Nnak ji popularised the GURMUKHI SCRIPT ( and thus discarded the "religious scripts" already in vogue in the Vedas/Purans/Koran etc ) Apparently Guur Ji felt that this usage of a different SCRIPT was vital and hence the GURBANI and SGGS is in that script.
2. As to the "words" already in use and commonly understood among the Guur Jis "target audience"...Guru Ji used the same words and the same languages, idionms, muhavras, mythological tales, examples, festivals (kumbh Mela Hardwaar), religious institutions Hardwaar, Ujain, Mecca etc, BUT GAVE ALL THESE HIS UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

So there are "Krishans" and KRISHAN in Gurbani.."rams" and RAM...."gopals" and GOPAL.."meccas" and MECCA.."hardwaars" and HARDWAAR !! and they are NOT THE SAME. Simaraly there are "samadhis" and SAMADHI..."hukms" and HUKM..."fasts" and FAST...."teeraths" and TEERATH..."naam" and NAAM....and someone who assumes that these are SAME..is makinga HUGE MISTAKE.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 19, 2011)

I had decided to stay away from posting here, but this one has necessitated a response. 

=====
In general, we are lost in the world of ideas with little or no grounding in reality. 
Someone had in mind the concepts of mona, of Sikh, of Samadhi etc, proliferated further on these ideas and decided to initiate a thread here. This stirred up a similar process in others (including me, no doubt) some of who expressed their thoughts in response, which then caused further proliferation in all those who read them. This of course is natural. However it is what I’d like to point out, and by making reference to some of the concepts discussed here, try to show the importance of coming to understand the distinction between reality and concepts.

The problem of course, is not in that we live and function using concepts, but we do need to understand this for what it is. If not then as happens all the time, we are so taken in by ideas that when it comes to the use of concepts in order to be free from delusion, we end up in fact, even more lost in it. 

Why should anyone go about thinking himself a mona or sardar, Sikh or non-sikh in association with such matter as morality and mental development? Let alone coming to any kind of conclusion about oneself, such as being this or that kind of person, there is no need even to think in terms of young, old, man or woman.  Attachment to an identity is an obstacle to understanding the truth of who we really are, basically a series of experiences and conditioned responses. 

And look how far we go in our ignorant response towards labels. What necessitated this idea about Samadhi? If particular good deeds are conceived of as leading to Samadhi, why should the concept mona come into the picture? And if good deeds are indeed good and difficult to come by as it is, why the attention goes on to the idea of achieving Samadhi? 

Chances are, that good is not even known for what it is, and the concept of Samadhi has at some point become an ideal, leading then to ‘ambition’ directing the thoughts. Clearly we do not know even in principle, which kind of Samadhi we are talking about. Were we really to know what good states really are and how some of them could possibly lead to ‘right’ Samadhi, we’d know not to speak about the concept in the abstract? This is reflected in the fact of the illustration given about the monk involved in self-immolation. 

It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong aversion. It is also clear that he was involved in worldly affairs, something a monk should not be, to such an extent that his sense of right and wrong became very perverted. How could such a monk have attained Samadhi which in fact must be the end result of good? If anything, he was driven by strong sense of self-righteousness and this is what motivated him. And concentration, anyone can train himself to concentrate hard on an object whereby experiences through the sense doors do not interfere. It is what we do all the time for example when absorbed in some activity that interests us. 

There is also an inclination to judge good and bad in terms of conventional (social) values instead of mental qualities with distinct characteristic, function and proximate cause. Would this not then lead to justification for acts which in fact are driven by ignorance, craving and aversion? Much perversion with regard to moral values grow out of this. 

At no time is there any justification for anger, let alone acts of violence. If we start to think that killing oneself or someone else in the name of justice is OK, we move away from the possibility of developing kindness and encourage instead, more attachment. And with this, good of other kinds such as truthfulness, moral shame, sympathy and equanimity also become hindered. What can be said then about ‘faith’ in the good? Does this then get replaced by faith in a person or an ideal, which in fact can only be attachment? Besides, when aversion is not seen for what it is, would it not likely that pity which is a form of aversion then be mistaken for compassion? 

And is this not what happens whenever there is the perception of oppressor vs. the oppressed? If indeed it were compassion towards the downtrodden, this would have been conditioned by kindness. And if kindness were known, would one perceive the other as oppressor? If one is to have compassion, should it not be more towards the one doing wrong now, since he must reap the fruits of his deeds in the future, whereas on the other hand, the victim is in effect receiving the result of his own wrong deeds in the past. Don’t we react too late so to speak?

But even when we have the oppressed in mind, the fact is that we are reacting to our own unpleasant feelings most of the time. Compassion can never give rise to such kind of feeling. Lacking in understanding of the way things are, we conceive wrongly of situations in which misplaced values are attached. The effect is discomfort towards the particular situation, and so in the end it is never about the other person, but only *me and my feelings*.

It is mostly due to a myopic vision, one involved in the affairs of this world, which causes our sense of value to become distorted. And with the kind of perceptions and when good is not seen for what it is, how can wisdom ever grow? I consider this a really dangerous position to be in?!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 19, 2011)

Confused ji you write very well.  Thank you.

I particularly like how so succinctly you put the following,"It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong  aversion. It is also clear that he was involved in worldly affairs,  something a monk should not be, to such an extent that his sense of  right and wrong became very perverted. How could such a monk have  attained Samadhi which in fact must be the end result of good? If  anything, he was driven by strong sense of self-righteousness and this  is what motivated him. And concentration, anyone can train himself to  concentrate hard on an object whereby experiences through the sense  doors do not interfere. It is what we do all the time for example when  absorbed in some activity that interests us."
​For me to even associate that self-immolation staged, watched and assisted by a crowd to anything good is abhorrent.  His sense of perversion was supported by his so called colleagues, teacher and others.  What an absolutely disgusting (to me) spectacle showing the power of perversion and subversion with arbitrary titles like "Samadhi", etc.

I also felt the title of the thread terrible in its concept and creation by linking mona, etc., and samadhi as though it is a realm of limited application and only available to some and not others as you also alluded to in your post.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 19, 2011)

> Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or _dhyāna_. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the _Yoga Sūtras_ of Patañjali.
> It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object,[1] and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated[2] though the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also refer to an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience.[3]
> In Hinduism, _samādhi_ can also refer to _videha mukti_ or the complete absorption of the individual consciousness in the self at the time of death - usually referred to as _mahasamādhi_.


 
Confused ji,

I want to make several points with regards to your in depth response. I agree with the first half of your talk about ego and how it is attached to identities. The idea that "I am a Sikh" or "I am a Buddhist" is one's ego talking. Guru Nanak said something similar when he became enlightenment. The first thing he said when he came out of the river (in which he meditated for several days) is "Na koi Hindu, na koi Musulman". These identities are false. They will not go with you to the hereafter.

Now onto the rest of your post.
Do you agree that the above quote is what Samadhi really is?
If so, how can you say that anyone can enter samadhi "when they are absorbed in some activity"?
Samadhi is not for everyone. Sometimes there are genetic and environmental factors that limit or inhibit a person from entering samadhi. In Sikh terms, we can refer to God's grace. Where we must work towards God and God responds to our hardwork. If and when he sheds his glance of grace on the individual, they are liberated, essentially, they have entered into samadhi. But not all individuals obtain His grace.

You say:


> It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong aversion.


Aversion to what? Please clarify.


You say that what he did was a wordly effort. Indeed it was. But if enlightened people don't make worldly efforts for betterment, who will?
There is a concept of Miri Piri in Sikhism. In essence, it means that a Sikh must balance her wordly and spiritual affairs. This balance is necessary so that we can work for the common good (through various activities like community kitchen or even taking up arms to defend oneself; worldly) and work towards finding God within (through meditations involving singing, reciting, repeating, and listening; spirituality).

Renouncing the world is discouraged in Sikhism for this reason. However, one must live detached while living amongst and participating in wordly affairs.




> At no time is there any justification for anger, let alone acts of violence.


Confused ji, it is not possible to justify anger, as it is an emotion that will always arise as a response to the environment. However, one can feel anger and not react to it, as great saints do. This of course, requires intense meditation through which intuitive understanding is obtained.

About violence, hmm... what if someone came at you with a knife and stabbed you. And you figured she was going to do it again then again ...and again... as she draws her knife back, ready to plunge in your gut.
What would you do at this point?
a) let her stab and kill you
b) defend yourself

I await your response.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bhagat ji,


Quote:Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali. 
It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object,[1] and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated[2] though the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also refer to an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience.[3]
In Hinduism, samādhi can also refer to videha mukti or the complete absorption of the individual consciousness in the self at the time of death - usually referred to as mahasamādhi. 



> Bhagat:
> Now onto the rest of your post.
> Do you agree that the above quote is what Samadhi really is?




C: I have a problem with it for several reasons.

1. An attempt to explain Samadhi by making reference to different ‘schools’ gives the impression almost, that different causes can lead to the same result.
2. Although one could talk about creating dualities and unnecessary distinctions, the idea of “non-dualistic state” is wrong; being that consciousness arises to experience an object, one performing the function which the other does not. 
3. To suggest that “the person remains conscious” while in Samadhi, creates a mental picture in which two consciousness can arise at the same time, or else creating a duality in which a ‘person’ stands apart from the consciousness?   
4. What is said about the Buddhist view on Samadhi is not correct. There Samadhi is used in reference to two different kinds of development. One is the development of calm leading to what is called Jhana. The other is a reference to the mental factor ‘concentration’, which arises with all consciousness, but here one which accompanies moments of Right Understanding. 

It is therefore very misleading to suggest: 

“the mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience”. 

The mind becoming concentrated and calm is result of one kind of development and this *does not* lead to the ability to discern ‘the changing flow of experiences’. Being that the ability to understand moment to moment experiences is result of a very different path of development. While in the other, the goal itself is to *remain concentrated*. Besides, again here, it creates a misleading mental picture where consciousness with one object can somehow influence a subsequent consciousness with a totally different object. When the fact is that the conditions for the arising of one falls away completely and the next one arises by totally new set of conditions. 

=========


> Bhagat:
> If so, how can you say that anyone can enter samadhi "when they are absorbed in some activity"?


C: That was to point out the nature of samadhi experienced by the monk in the illustration. I was saying that one could train oneself to have what I’d call “wrong samadhi” which would be fueled by attachment rather than any understanding. The example of being ‘absorbed in some activity’ was to highlight attachment as being the conditioning factor and common to both.

=========


> Bhagat:
> Samadhi is not for everyone. Sometimes there are genetic and environmental factors that limit or inhibit a person from entering samadhi.



C: Yes, Samadhi is not for everyone. But why is this? Is it not due to lack of understanding about some aspect of one’s experience? If so, why then refer to such things as genetics as being possibly an influencing factor? It sounds like the ‘mona’ idea to me. ;-)

As you well know, there have been scientific experiments involving doing brain scans of the subjects in an attempt to compare people who mediate with those who do not. The observation made is that those who do meditate, their brain exhibit patterns which are similar to one another and those who don’t have totally different patterns. And in the end the conclusion is that meditation is good for you. 
But what do they know!!?

The scientists were completely ignorant, came from a materialistic outlook and had nothing better to do, while the meditators; they were just sheep and quite stupid ones at that. 

No one who can enter Samadhi would involve himself in such kind of experiments. Why? Because he’d know that it is actually about the development of understanding and that experiment like these very easily mislead. Indeed one of the conditions for entering deep concentration (of the right kind), is being removed from ‘crowds’. How this is actually determined is by the knowledge and understanding expressed. In other words, those who do know what Samadhi really is and seek to find out whether someone else has the ability to experience such a state, would do so by *talking to that person*. It would be his understanding particularly, that of the difference between a wholesome and unwholesome state of mind, which will provide a clue as to whether what he is involved in is worthy of respect. And even if we were to have confidence that such a person is indeed wise, we’d still have to find out if we ourselves are any close to being qualified to do Samadhi.

=========


> Bhagat:
> You say:
> Quote:It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong aversion
> 
> Aversion to what? Please clarify.


. 

C: To the situation towards which he protested.
Did you think that I was referring to the state of mind when he was seated and set fire upon? No, that must have been strong attachment and wrong view at play. 

=========


> Bhagat:
> You say that what he did was a wordly effort. Indeed it was. But if enlightened people don't make worldly efforts for betterment, who will?


C: Worldly in the sense of having no understanding of the way things are and instead being influenced by Maya. Instead of acting based on right knowledge about what is wholesome and what is not and about what is right cause and what is wrong, his is a case of being mired in ignorance and drawn in by situations judged as good and bad. While the wise would know that this is due to one’s own projections, this monk was busy pointing his finger at others.

Being enlightened does not stop one from doing what must be done; on the contrary, one’s actions are pure and considered in fact to have only now become productive. But productive towards what end? Certainly not one which must conform to any misguided sense of values that we are likely to entertain, must it? ;-)

=========


> Bhagat:
> There is a concept of Miri Piri in Sikhism. In essence, it means that a Sikh must balance her wordly and spiritual affairs.


C: I’d suggest:

Develop understanding, this is the only solution. The distinction between worldly vs. spiritual is something I’d not make. I think it can lead to problems, starting with this very idea to “balance”. If indeed this is a wrong distinction to make then it must be the result of wrong perception of things, and would this not then lead to misdirected efforts? Would not much of it involve ‘self’ who goes about trying to balance situations? And would this not give rise inevitably, to attachment? 

On the other hand, if there is understanding in which no situation is seen as better or worse than any other, would not one then act rightly given that it is now not burdened by the kind of value judgements? In other words, there is no time or place in which understanding is not to be developed. This kind of understanding does not lead to an attempt to move away from responsibilities, but on the contrary, face them unhindered by attachment towards any particular outcome.   

========


> Bhagat:
> Renouncing the world is discouraged in Sikhism for this reason. However, one must live detached while living amongst and participating in wordly affairs.



C: Renouncing in the final analysis means renouncing one’s attachments. Not having this understanding, if someone seeks to give up living the household life, this would actually reflect attachment to an idea / situation on his part. But on the other hand, if someone fails to see attachment for what it is, any decision on his part to live amongst people, this would likewise be an excuse for giving in to attachments. And yes, he would definitely be involved in attempting to control / manipulate situations all the time.

So again, develop understanding, is what I’dsuggest.

==========


> Bhagat:
> Quote:At no time is there any justification for anger, let alone acts of violence
> 
> Confused ji, it is not possible to justify anger, as it is an emotion that will always arise as a response to the environment. However, one can feel anger and not react to it, as great saints do. This of course, requires intense meditation through which intuitive understanding is obtained.


. 
C: Anger, like all unwholesome states, is dealt with only by coming to gradually understand it better and better, which happens only when it arises and appears to wisdom. It is eradicated however, not before craving for sense objects is completely eradicated. In the meantime anger can be known for what it is and like an enemy having now been identified, would have less opportunity of overwhelming us. 

With this in mind one might then ask, would so-called meditation, in which the consciousness experiences an object other than anger, how could this ever lead to the diminishing of anger in general? And if when coming out of the meditation, attachment to sense objects arises as it used to before, why should it be seen as capable of controlling anger?    

=======


> Bhagat:
> About violence, hmm... what if someone came at you with a knife and stabbed you. And you figured she was going to do it again then again ...and again... as she draws her knife back, ready to plunge in your gut.
> What would you do at this point?
> a) let her stab and kill you
> ...



C: It is useless to think along such lines, the fact being that no one knows what will happen when the time comes. But of course, you misunderstood my point and I therefore need to clarify.

Forget about defending. Would I actually kill? Given the love for oneself and so much aversion accumulated in my case, I think I would. But not only in such a situation, if for example my children were threatened, I’d not hesitate to kill any number of people whom I consider a threat. And talk about threat, how much of a threat is the situation of termites infesting a part of one’s house and destroying a few things? Not that much isn’t it? Yet, although with some hesitation and bearing with the situation for some time, that is what I do. Only in this case, it is by hiring pest controllers who end up doing the dirty job for me. And now the time for the rats is coming, they have been troubling us for a few years now…. :-/

Bhagat ji, I was not expecting anyone here to be without evil tendencies. What I was trying to encourage however, was to understand them for what they are. And I was trying to discourage strongly, any tendency to judge some expressions of evil in certain situations as being justified. I consider this a very dangerous position.

While I may kill in self-defense because of so much attachment and accumulated aversion, so long as I know these to be harmful and are what lead to the wrong deed, the chance of getting on the right track which is the development of right understanding still exists. However if I believed that this is OK in some situations and not in others, it must be due to *not* taking into consideration that fact of attachment and aversion being cause which must necessarily bring corresponding results. Instead I have taken right and wrong as being determined by situations, ones in which a lot of wrong understanding is invested. This is a situation of facing in exact opposite direction to the light. 

What do you think is behind the thinking of the Islamic suicide bomber for example? Having failed to see harm in aversion and attachment, and being involved in thoughts about this and that, he has spun a good story which is then used as excuse to kill other people. If we continue to supply justification for some evil act, are we not then moving in the direction of the Islamic extremist?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 20, 2011)

I have many questions for you Confused ji. What I am going to do is go through the bits of your post one by one, and express concerns or questions to which you can answer. Hopefully, this will be fruitful for other members as well.

I would encourage everyone else, to comment where the Sikh perspective or any another perspective differs from Confused ji's response.



			
				confused said:
			
		

> Bhagat ji,
> 
> 
> Quote:Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic  schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna. In the  yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga  Sūtras of Patañjali.
> ...


Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?

Would  you agree that practices that differ from yours can get anyone to the same result (result that you are aiming to reach)?


			
				confused said:
			
		

> 2. Although one could talk about creating dualities and unnecessary  distinctions, the idea of “non-dualistic state” is wrong; being that  consciousness arises to experience an object, one performing the  function which the other does not.



Yes I think the idea is that when that consciousness experiences being one with what it's experiencing. Notice how we are talking about it in a dualistic manner, we always do and we can't help it, we can only experience that oneness, in which the distinction between subject and object are dissolved.




			
				confused said:
			
		

> 3. To suggest that “the person remains conscious” while in Samadhi,  creates a mental picture in which two consciousness can arise at the  same time, or else creating a duality in which a ‘person’ stands apart  from the consciousness?



I don't get this point at all. 

We can say a person is unconscious when they are asleep (they aren't paying attention to anything), during samadhi they are conscious (fully alert).  Please respond in light of this.




			
				confused said:
			
		

> 4. What is said about the Buddhist view on Samadhi is not correct. There  Samadhi is used in reference to two different kinds of development. One  is the development of calm leading to what is called Jhana. The other  is a reference to the mental factor ‘concentration’, which arises with  all consciousness, but here one which accompanies moments of Right  Understanding.


Just to clarify, Is Jhana "I worked all day, now i am relaxing. I am calm" OR a state where the individual is experiencing a reduced though level OR both?


And right understanding is knowing intuitively that everything is impermanent and attachment is to these impermanent objects leads to suffering?

Would you say that this understanding can come about by concentrating one's mind and paying attention to our experience of various things we have attachment with? by paying attention to various thoughts that unfold within the mind?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bhagat ji,

I’ll respond to just one part and leave the rest for later.




> Bhagat:
> Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?



Confused:  Just live life naturally.

If this sounds straightforward, either you have understood it, which means that there is no need to ask the other questions you’ve asked, or it means that you completely misunderstand it. If you don’t understand it, the following explanations may help. (It took me a few years after I first heard the particular understanding, to arrive at the above conclusion with some confidence and not by way of logical reasoning.)


A suggestion made early on in my study which was a bit surprising but immediately made sense was that, the Buddha’s teachings are ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive’ in nature. 

The knee-jerk reaction to the idea concerning ‘end result’ is, How to go about it? What to do? This is fine when it comes to conventional living, for example, the thought to build a house would require efforts directed in many directions without which the end result won’t materialize. However, when it comes to the matter of development of understanding, such thoughts about ‘methods’ and ‘how to’ shows lack of understanding.

What we take as being ‘life’ or ‘our life’ is in reality, a series of mental and physical phenomena arisen by conditions, performing particular functions and falling away immediately. The fact that we conceive of a house and think to build one, is due to functions performed by such mental and physical phenomena. These phenomena are all there is, and if we ‘think’ to control them, right understanding would have it that the very ‘thought’ was conditioned and the realities involved fell away already by the time. And so the notion itself would be then seen as mistaken.

Indeed to get things done in the conventional world in which ‘how to’ is a valid question, requires the mental and physical phenomena to be as they are, namely conditioned, fleeting and beyond control. Without realities rising and falling away, we’d not be able to think nor to utter a sentence, let alone get things done. Imagine if they were not this way! 

How could words form if sound didn’t rise and fall away one after another and with mental realities interspersed? And not only this, how could I know who I’m speaking to if there was not also the reality of seeing experiencing visible object and associated with this, the thoughts creating the concept of that other person? Indeed, even though in reality there is only one consciousness arisen at one time, that we get the impression of so many things happening together, is due to the rapidity of these mental and physical realities. (Trillions of mind moments in the span of a lightning flash). 

The problem is that of all the mental realities ignorance is the one which overarch our life and which leads to attachment taking the driver’s seat. Attitudes which work in the conventional world are carried over to the Dharma  And this is the cause for the interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings being what it is today, namely 99.99% of them are wrong. Of course, it is not easy and is why only a Buddha could come to know about conditioned phenomena and the reality of Anatta or no-self. So now I try to explain a little about this:

Seeing arises not because anyone wills it, likewise hearing, touch and so on. Some people argue that they can choose to open and close their eyes and this proves that they can control whether or not to see. But this is exactly an example of ignorance at play driven by an attitude developed in conventional dealings, applied and insisted upon when now thinking about the Dharma.

That we can choose to open or close our eyes is in reality an illusion. What really takes place amongst other things, is that the very thought about eyes was conditioned by other perceptions preceding that moment. The thinking about ‘eye’ and subsequently to ‘open’ or ‘close’, including any intermittent identification with the experience as in, “my eyes” or “I shall open or close”, none of this occurred by choice. There is of course ‘willing’, however this will is not free but rather, conditioned, and to think otherwise is due to the influence of self-view. The problem comes from the perception of lastingness in both oneself as well as the object and with this, the idea of control.

Anyway, what I’m trying to show is that, at no moment is there not a reality, ones which have arisen, performed functions and fallen away already by the time they are known. What we usually end up taking for real, are what I call, shadow of reality, namely, the thoughts which follows upon such experiences. And it is here that the illusion of control dominates. In the case of deciding to close one’s eyes, does it happen as promptly each time? If not, would this not have been due to different perceptions arising in between? And could it not even be that, one will *not* in fact close one’s eyes because of hesitation or that some other thought arose which drew the attention away?    

I often like to give the example of touching. 
Reach out your hand and touch the computer screen (note that if you do it, it couldn’t have been without reading my suggestion, and if you decide not to, that too is a conditioned reaction). What was experienced? Was it heat or hardness or was it pressure? Could you have determined which one of these would be the object of experience? You may note also that the idea of ‘touching the screen’ etc., arises *immediately*, indeed you may have been dominated all through, by the process of thinking, involving perceptions of self, situation and objects out there. But if you analyzed you’d see that in reality however, there must have had to be the experience of seeing and touch as well, although there was no awareness of them at all. 

In the case of a decision to close one’s yes, what if the light in front was so strong that it passed through the eyelids? Besides, the other experience which arose through the other sense doors during that time, was any of that willed? And when finally deciding to open the eyes, must it be that seeing was the first of the sense door experiences to appear? Could it not be hearing that arose even when the eyes opened? Like now, with the eyes open virtually all the time, are there not also the other experiences, which would mean that during those moments, there is no seeing? And this is another matter to consider. 

Seeing is the one reality which experiences visible object / light. This means that the rest of the time we live in total darkness, like the blind. The actual seeing happens in fact, only a very small percentage of the time, yet the impression is that we see all the time. This is purely due to the power of “thought”, namely that we think so much in pictures. This of course is natural, but we do need to know that it takes place and not come to believe wrongly, in the continuity of seeing. 

Coming back to your question, “Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?” 

Do you now see the problem with it? On the other hand, the suggestion to develop understanding is not a matter of “doing”. It is a prompt in fact, to not be driven by desire and mistaken perceptions, to do anything in order to make particular states arise. It is suggesting that the only sensible attitude is one which sees the need not to move away from the present moment into an idealized situation and activity. When this has happened to any extent, one would know that there is no control and that even if one remained lost in ignorance day in and day out, upon reflection one would still not see sense in trying to do something in order to change the course of events. And at that very moment, one would have gotten even if only for a moment, on the right track.

And this is how it must be. One little step at a time, but we shouldn’t feel discouraged if it doesn’t happen often enough. What is seen as inhibiting is impatience and attachment to result, which causes one to be tempted by suggestion to follow this or that practice / method in order to have the desired results. Unnatural would mean here, following a practice with the aim of getting more than what one is naturally endowed with. Not seeing the fact that one is driven by greed which actually takes one in the wrong direction. 

It is attachment to self which cause us to be moved by greed and fear. Sometimes we fear that if we do not become proactive about such things, we’d be driven by evil tendencies. But this again is what ignorance and self-attachment has projected, I’d say it is Maya in one very tricky form. Indeed there is more cause for encouragement in that the development of right understanding supports the development of morality and other kinds of good. 

Someone who has strong tendency to greed, hatred and delusion cannot will himself to be without them. On the other hand, someone else who has a greater tendency to good, desirable states will arise even if he does not want them to. A generous person for example, may decide not to give when thinking about his bad financial status, but would end up giving anyway when the situation arises. And wisdom in seeing harm in ‘self-attachment’, in effect clears the way for wholesome states to arise without the interference of a ‘self’. In other words, wishing to be a better person is in fact not the way to become one. ;-) People need to note the agitation associated with such attitudes. The Middle Way should result in ease and does not mean giving in to evil. It is not proactive, but neither is it standing still, although the accusation often comes of this being the case. But you tell me Bhagat ji, take me for example, do you not perceive much activity here? Would I go on and on as I do now, was I giving in to laziness and other evil tendencies. ;-) But I’d better stop now or I’ll be accused then, of being overactive.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 21, 2011)

Admin note: Just a caution, that it is important in our questions and answers to one another to relate commentary at some point to the thread topic "can a mona achieve samadhi?" All the elements are here in recent comments but it may be difficult to tie them together in relation to what the thread starter has asked. Another point to make. It is not so much that Buddhism is overshadowing the topic. Rather  the meaning and place of samadhi in Sikhism is getting lost in the dialog. Thanks


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 21, 2011)

Spnadmin ji good point in terms of need to focus.  The thread is in Sikh Sikhi Sikhism.

  So I translate it to, as to be discussed in the context of Sikhi Sikh Sikhism:

*·         Samadhi*

o       [/FONT]Yogic concept in present day use

§         Whereas Yoga may be of value for some in physical exercises (you can do pushups, contortions, running, walking, weights, etc., without needing any Yoga guidance), 

§         Whereas Yoga may be of value to some in relaxation (you can relax in many other ways without need for Yoga like reading, walking, sleeping, talking, doing other things that relax, etc., 

§         Samadhi in Yogic concepts promises a path to enlightenment through artificially trying to force your mind into low activity/trance/etc.

*·         Samadhi Spiritual Relevance in Sikh Sikhi Sikhism*

o       [/FONT]Not required for,

§         Enlightenment/Spirituality

§         Studying of Gurbani

§         Understanding Gurus teachings

*·         Mona or not Mona has no relevance to the above*

*·         Other*

o       [/FONT]Samadhi with literal linkage to “Samadh” 

§         Samadhs were,

_·         Highly disdained by our Gurus as it led to abuse and mis-use by sant/mahants, etc., with little value for truth

·         _ _Sources of superstitions, curses, hallucinations, miracles, idol worship, etc._

  Hope it adds to the dialog.

  Sat Sri Akal.

   PS:  In terms of general questions/comments from Bhagat Singh ji,
              ----------------------------------------------------------------
Bhagat:
Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?
Confused: Just live life naturally.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambarsaria:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/questions-and-answers/34206-did-i-feed-the-birds.html#post140755

As for as meditation, I do what comes naturally to me and perhaps God blessed me in that way. I do not plan to follow any methodologies or regimes in this area.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bhagat ji,


========


> Quote:Originally Posted by confused
> 
> Quote:Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali.
> 
> ...


C: I have a problem with it for several reasons.

1. An attempt to explain Samadhi by making reference to different ‘schools’ gives the impression almost, that different causes can lead to the same result.



> Bhagat:
> Would you agree that practices that differ from yours can get anyone to the same result (result that you are aiming to reach)?




Confused: I have come to understand, although only intellectually, that different causes lead to different results. Each attitude of mind conditions a corresponding course of action aimed at a goal particular to it, regardless of what anyone believes and thinks he is aiming for. 

=========


> Quote:Originally Posted by confused
> 2. Although one could talk about creating dualities and unnecessary distinctions, the idea of “non-dualistic state” is wrong; being that consciousness arises to experience an object, one performing the function which the other does not.





> Bhagat:
> Yes I think the idea is that when that consciousness experiences being one with what it's experiencing. Notice how we are talking about it in a dualistic manner, we always do and we can't help it, we can only experience that oneness, in which the distinction between subject and object are dissolved.




Confused: I am not sure that I understand what you are saying.
Do you mean that the idea for example, that seeing is a mental reality and visible object is a physical reality and that the former experience the latter is wrong? Are you saying that in reality there is just the single phenomena of ‘seeing-that which is seen’, and that to consider them as two distinct realities is expression of dualistic thinking?

=========


> Quote:Originally Posted by confused
> 3. To suggest that “the person remains conscious” while in Samadhi, creates a mental picture in which two consciousness can arise at the same time, or else creating a duality in which a ‘person’ stands apart from the consciousness?





> Bhagat:
> I don't get this point at all.
> We can say a person is unconscious when they are asleep (they aren't paying attention to anything), during samadhi they are conscious (fully alert). Please respond in light of this.



Confused: There is never a time when there is no consciousness arising. When fast asleep, one is not conscious of the objects through the five sense doors and such as when dreaming, those created by the mind. But consciousness there is and this is called ‘life continuum’. The object of this is the same as the one which conditioned rebirth and that which will be at the moment of death. This object can’t be known for obvious reasons, but this is not reason to think that it is not there.

Life-continuum can’t experience any other object, and in a way, this makes it what it is. In the same way, the consciousness during samadhi is what it is in part due to repeated taking one particular object which is what allows it to remain ‘concentrated’. To suggest that this leads to alertness, is saying that there could be the experience of *other* objects while still in samadhi. The fact is that once a consciousness arises to experience any other object, then samadhi can’t be there anymore, since the object which determined the samadhi can’t exist at the same time as this new object.

It is common that people take the particular concept and build wrong ideas around it. 

=========


> Quote:Originally Posted by confused
> 4. What is said about the Buddhist view on Samadhi is not correct. There Samadhi is used in reference to two different kinds of development. One is the development of calm leading to what is called Jhana. The other is a reference to the mental factor ‘concentration’, which arises with all consciousness, but here one which accompanies moments of Right Understanding.





> Bhagat:
> Just to clarify, Is Jhana "I worked all day, now i am relaxing. I am calm" OR a state where the individual is experiencing a reduced thought level OR both?




Confused: Jhana is a state of deep concentration and calm, but it is the latter which is what defines it. Calm here means not the absence of certain undesirable states such as in the idea of relaxation, but the presence of wholesome mental factors. Which is why it all begins with the development of good in daily life, and crucial is the understanding of the difference between a wholesome state of mind and the unwholesome. And when it comes to developing this understanding further, at some point the need arises to be able to recollect one particular object (such as, breath, death, morality, loving kindness and so on) often enough, until it can then be taken repeatedly to cause deep concentration or samadhi. But even this is no Jhana yet. 

Jhana is a state not of the sensuous realm, but beyond. And so after achieving deep concentration, the wisdom associated with this would see the need to overcome certain mental factors liable to draw the attention towards sense experiences. Stage by stage these factors, beginning with applied thought, are eliminated, where one then identifies levels of Jhana as first, second and so forth.   

And so is it a state of reduced thought level? You could say so, but I most certainly wouldn’t define Jhana this way.

=======


> Bhagat:
> And right understanding is knowing intuitively that everything is impermanent and attachment is to these impermanent objects leads to suffering?




Confused: Again, not so simple. 
Right understanding is of many levels, developing in stages. It must begin with intellectual understanding, which then leads to direct understanding and to penetration. The actual insight into the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering and non-self is the highest level of penetration just before enlightenment.

Attachment leads to suffering in that it conditions continued existence. So the meaning of suffering here is not just physical and mental pain, but everything that we know. Attachment itself *is* suffering, so too is pleasure or happiness and also all the good states, such as morality, kindness, calm and so on. 

But of course, like I said, understanding is developed stage by stage and this includes coming to know attachment for what it is. This leads at some point to recognize for example, that aversion is related to attachment in that because one does not get what one wants or that one is faced with an undesirable object, aversion arises. This is why aversion is sometimes said to be a species of craving.

========


> Bhagat:
> Would you say that this understanding can come about by concentrating one's mind and paying attention to our experience of various things we have attachment with? by paying attention to various thoughts that unfold within the mind


?


Confused: No.
The object of Right Understanding leading to insight (as opposed to Jhana), must be a mental or physical phenomena. Paying attention to the experience of “various things” is a case of having concepts as object and would be just more thinking. Likewise paying attention to the “various thoughts” that unfold is just another thought chain. This is not awareness of mental or physical phenomena. Indeed the mistake is in the very idea of “paying attention”.

‘Paying attention’ is an idea conceived of as a result of wrong understanding. If indeed wisdom were to arise to know the present moment reality, it would know that this came about not by any deliberate paying of attention. At the moment of thinking to pay attention, this kind of wisdom would know the ‘thinking’ itself, which would lead to not following that very thought suggestion. And this shows that the thought (to pay attention) when acted upon, is conditioned not by wisdom, but by ignorance and desire. And this is exactly what leads to the ‘wrong practice’ of paying attention to ‘various things’ and ‘thoughts unfolding’.

Yet this is exactly what all meditators everywhere are taught to do in the name of Buddhist practice. And is what I was trying to get across to Harry ji in another post. :-/

Bhagat ji, as suggested, this is straying away from the main topic. I don’t think therefore that we should continue this particular discussion here. What say you?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 22, 2011)

I am noticing that this is going to be an impossible dialogue over a forum. The amount of things said will rise exponentially, everytime the other person makes a comment/question on the material already stated.
So it might be better to speak on MSN. Are you familiar with it? Anyways, that's upto you, if you have a few hours on the weekend, we could chat.


----------



## Admin (Jan 22, 2011)

For the benefit of forum readers, better option would be to start related topic referencing this topic in the first post. This way we will have covered all angles in this debate. This should be role model for every discussion.

Chatting in MSN will lose the discussion into an oblivion.

Gurfateh!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 22, 2011)

Aman Singh said:


> For the benefit of forum readers, better option would be to start related topic referencing this topic in the first post. This way we will have covered all angles in this debate. This should be role model for every discussion.
> 
> Chatting in MSN will lose the discussion into an oblivion.
> 
> Gurfateh!


Aman Singh ji one suggestion for your consideration.

I have seen that there are lot of Yoga centric items creeping into many threads.  It could relate to yoga or people claiming or promoting Yoga businesses and cults.  For example you can see it, in a round about way for,


Naam simran
Samadhi
Wahegutu gurmantar
Even "Did I feed the Birds"
....
Perhaps Yoga can be added as a subheading or sub-component under other faiths or Inter-Faith dialog.  Then people can initiate dialog on key aspects to service other posts and threads.  

_For example Taoism is included and may be we can call the new entry Yogism!_

It may facilitate more constructive dialog with perhaps greater participation and clarity as well.

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 22, 2011)

May I support Aman Singh's observations. The dialog has been a learning experience for many of us, particularly as an insight into how a Buddhist might look at some of the issues raised. So it would be a loss for all of us to see that go to an MSN chat that will evaporate as soon as parties log out. 

It is true that as issues are raised additional clarifications are offered. Really there are few options if one does not want misunderstandings to embed themselves in a thread that eventually will stall. 
*
We do need to get back to the question of monas and shamdhi more directly. *And having said this, whether Theravedic Buddhism or Yoga are introduced into a discussion, I believe it is sometimes unavoidable to digress because there is a need explain and elaborate one's comments. The concern on this thread is that the discussion has gone sideways, not off-track, and has become very broad. So the focus gets lost. Let's try for starting another thread as Aman Singh ji has suggested.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 22, 2011)

IMHO..the original question was can a Mona achieve "samadhi". I said YES because of course a Mona can achieve samadhi..he can also achieve many other things..
BUT IS a "samadhi" Gurmatt/or Sikhism...NO...it isnt.
Its got absolutley NOTHING to do with Gurmatt and is NOT needed. The Fact of the matter is whatever GURU NANAK JI THREW AWAY INTO THE DUSTBIN....we SIKHS ran after the GARBAGE TRUCK..and took it ALL BACK. Things like Jaat paat..fastings..teerath yatras..sarovar baths..daan punns..mantars..jantars..paaths..Rituals..karam Kaands..etc etc etc...Guur Ji threw away the Janeau..we changed it to the "Gatra"...Guru Ji discarded the Maala..we changed it to SOLID STEEL Firnahs....Guur Ji said DO KIRT..we say do samadhi...and we keep picking up more and more RUBBISH...running after the Garbage Truck....Yoga...aasans...all sorts of PAKHANDS..Holy Waters..holy coconuts red cloths. ghee jyots..holis, rakhrees, karva chauths, various good days bad days..etc etc..the LIST is endless and we are GOING FARTHER FROM GURU and his GURBANI...:interestedkudi:


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 22, 2011)

Thanks Gyani ji

This really is * the crux,* the core of the discussion.



> IMHO..the original question was can a Mona achieve "samadhi". I said YES because of course a Mona can achieve samadhi..he can also achieve many other things..
> BUT IS a "samadhi" Gurmatt/or Sikhism...NO...it isnt



Whether one agrees or disgrees that a mona can achieve samadhi, the thread topic gets back to Gyani's point above.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 22, 2011)

I can always save the conversation, and post relevant discussions on the forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


> Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or _dhyāna_. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the _Yoga Sūtras_ of Patañjali.
> It has been described as a *non-dualistic state of consciousness* in which  the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the  experienced object,[1] and in which the mind *becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated*[2]  though the person remains conscious.


look at the above definition as I'll be referring to it


Guru Nanak here is referring to a merging with God or on the way to merging with God. (I am also considering Prof Sahib Singh's interpretation as well): http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=21&L=18&id=899
ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ  ਮਹਲਾ  ੧  ॥
 सिरीरागु महला १ ॥
 Sirīrāg mėhlā 1.
 Siree Raag, First Mehl:
 ਇਕੁ  ਤਿਲੁ  ਪਿਆਰਾ  ਵੀਸਰੈ  ਰੋਗੁ  ਵਡਾ  ਮਨ  ਮਾਹਿ  ॥
 इकु तिलु पिआरा वीसरै रोगु वडा मन माहि ॥
 Ik ṯil pi▫ārā vīsrai rog vadā man māhi.
 Forgetting the Beloved, even for a moment, the mind is afflicted with terrible diseases.
 ਕਿਉ  ਦਰਗਹ  ਪਤਿ  ਪਾਈਐ  ਜਾ  ਹਰਿ  ਨ  ਵਸੈ  ਮਨ  ਮਾਹਿ  ॥
 किउ दरगह पति पाईऐ जा हरि न वसै मन माहि ॥
 Ki▫o ḏargėh paṯ pā▫ī▫ai jā har na vasai man māhi.
 How can honor be attained in His Court, if the Lord does not dwell in the mind?
 ਗੁਰਿ  ਮਿਲਿਐ  ਸੁਖੁ  ਪਾਈਐ  ਅਗਨਿ  ਮਰੈ  ਗੁਣ  ਮਾਹਿ  ॥੧॥
 गुरि मिलिऐ सुखु पाईऐ अगनि मरै गुण माहि ॥१॥
 Gur mili▫ai sukẖ pā▫ī▫ai agan marai guṇ māhi. ||1||
 Meeting with the Guru, peace is found. The fire is extinguished in His Glorious Praises. ||1||
 ਮਨ  ਰੇ  ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ  ਹਰਿ  ਗੁਣ  ਸਾਰਿ  ॥
 मन रे अहिनिसि हरि गुण सारि ॥
 Man re ahinis har guṇ sār.
 O mind, enshrine the Praises of the Lord, day and night.

ਜਿਨ  ਖਿਨੁ  ਪਲੁ  ਨਾਮੁ  ਨ  ਵੀਸਰੈ  ਤੇ  ਜਨ  ਵਿਰਲੇ  ਸੰਸਾਰਿ  ॥੧॥  ਰਹਾਉ  ॥
जिन खिनु पलु नामु न वीसरै ते जन विरले संसारि ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Jin kẖin pal nām na vīsrai ṯe jan virle sansār. ||1|| rahā▫o.
One who does not forget the Naam, for a moment or even an instant-how rare is such a person in this world! ||1||Pause||
jgq ivc auh (BwgW vwly) mnu`K ivrly huMdy hn, ijnHW nUµ pRBU dw nwm iKn pl vwsqy  BI nhIN Bu`ldw - prof Sahib singh

This is talking about that concentrated state, for a Sikh is focused on "prabhu da naam".


ਜੋਤੀ  ਜੋਤਿ  ਮਿਲਾਈਐ  ਸੁਰਤੀ  ਸੁਰਤਿ  ਸੰਜੋਗੁ  ॥
जोती जोति मिलाईऐ सुरती सुरति संजोगु ॥
Joṯī joṯ milā▫ī▫ai surṯī suraṯ sanjog.
When one's light merges into the Light, and one's intuitive consciousness is joined with *the Intuitive Consciousness* (God)

 ਹਿੰਸਾ  ਹਉਮੈ  ਗਤੁ  ਗਏ  ਨਾਹੀ  ਸਹਸਾ  ਸੋਗੁ  ॥
हिंसा हउमै गतु गए नाही सहसा सोगु ॥
Hinsā ha▫umai gaṯ ga▫e nāhī sahsā sog.
then one's cruel and violent instincts and egotism depart, and skepticism and sorrow are taken away.
 ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਜਿਸੁ  ਹਰਿ  ਮਨਿ  ਵਸੈ  ਤਿਸੁ  ਮੇਲੇ  ਗੁਰੁ  ਸੰਜੋਗੁ  ॥੨॥
गुरमुखि जिसु हरि मनि वसै तिसु मेले गुरु संजोगु ॥२॥
Gurmukẖ jis har man vasai ṯis mele gur sanjog. ||2||
The Lord abides within the mind of the Gurmukh, who merges in the Lord's Union, through the Guru. ||2||

jy gurU iml pey, (qW auh pRBU dI is&iq-swlwh dI dwiq dyNdw hY, ies dI brkiq  nwl) Awqmk Awnµd pRwpq huMdw hY (ikauNik) is&iq-swlwh ivc juiVAW iqRSnw-A`g  bu`J jWdI hY [1[
 jy pRBU dI joiq ivc AwpxI ijMd rlw dyeIey, aus ivc AwpxI suriq  dw myl kr dyeIey qW kTorqw qy haumY dUr ho jWdIAW hn, koeI sihm qy icMqw BI nhIN  rih jWdy [ - Prof Sahib Singh

This is referring to the non-dualistic state of consciousness, where it  has merged with everything else. When one does not see oneself as a  separate entity.
What is everything else? God, of course! we are part of him, in a state of samadhi we start seeing that.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਜਿਸੁ  ਹਰਿ  ਮਨਿ  ਵਸੈ  ਤਿਸੁ  ਮੇਲੇ  ਗੁਰੁ  ਸੰਜੋਗੁ  ॥੨॥
गुरमुखि जिसु हरि मनि वसै तिसु मेले गुरु संजोगु ॥२॥
Gurmukẖ jis har man vasai ṯis mele gur sanjog. ||2||
The Lord abides within the mind of the Gurmukh, who merges in the Lord's Union, through the Guru. ||2||
ਕਾਇਆ  ਕਾਮਣਿ  ਜੇ  ਕਰੀ  ਭੋਗੇ  ਭੋਗਣਹਾਰੁ  ॥
काइआ कामणि जे करी भोगे भोगणहारु ॥
Kā▫i▫ā kāmaṇ je karī bẖoge bẖogaṇhār.
If I surrender my body like a bride, the Enjoyer will enjoy me.
ਤਿਸੁ  ਸਿਉ  ਨੇਹੁ  ਨ  ਕੀਜਈ  ਜੋ  ਦੀਸੈ  ਚਲਣਹਾਰੁ  ॥
तिसु सिउ नेहु न कीजई जो दीसै चलणहारु ॥
Ŧis si▫o nehu na kīj▫ī jo ḏīsai cẖalaṇhār.
Do not make love with one who is just a passing show.
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਰਵਹਿ  ਸੋਹਾਗਣੀ  ਸੋ  ਪ੍ਰਭੁ  ਸੇਜ  ਭਤਾਰੁ  ॥੩॥
गुरमुखि रवहि सोहागणी सो प्रभु सेज भतारु ॥३॥
Gurmukẖ ravėh sohāgaṇī so parabẖ sej bẖaṯār. ||3||
The Gurmukh is ravished like the pure and happy bride on the Bed of God, her Husband. ||3||
ਚਾਰੇ  ਅਗਨਿ  ਨਿਵਾਰਿ  ਮਰੁ  ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ  ਹਰਿ  ਜਲੁ  ਪਾਇ  ॥
चारे अगनि निवारि मरु गुरमुखि हरि जलु पाइ ॥
Cẖāre agan nivār mar gurmukẖ har jal pā▫e.
The Gurmukh puts out the four fires, with the Water of the Lord's Name.
ਅੰਤਰਿ  ਕਮਲੁ  ਪ੍ਰਗਾਸਿਆ  ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ  ਭਰਿਆ  ਅਘਾਇ  ॥
अंतरि कमलु प्रगासिआ अम्रितु भरिआ अघाइ ॥
Anṯar kamal pargāsi▫ā amriṯ bẖari▫ā agẖā▫e.
The lotus blossoms deep within the heart, and filled with Ambrosial Nectar, one is satisfied.
ਨਾਨਕ  ਸਤਗੁਰੁ  ਮੀਤੁ  ਕਰਿ  ਸਚੁ  ਪਾਵਹਿ  ਦਰਗਹ  ਜਾਇ  ॥੪॥੨੦॥
नानक सतगुरु मीतु करि सचु पावहि दरगह जाइ ॥४॥२०॥
Nānak saṯgur mīṯ kar sacẖ pāvahi ḏargėh jā▫e. ||4||20||
O Nanak, make the True Guru your friend; going to His Court, you shall obtain the True Lord. ||4||20||
------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen Bhagat Kabir ji, even invoking "samadhi" to explain this merging with God. They are the same thing, just described in different words and under different systems of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. To me, they used to appear different, but once I took a closer look I started to see how they were referring to the same phenomenon.
ਗਉੜੀ  ॥ 
 गउड़ी ॥ 
 Ga▫oṛī. 
 Gauree: 

 ਤਹ  ਪਾਵਸ  ਸਿੰਧੁ  ਧੂਪ  ਨਹੀ  ਛਹੀਆ  ਤਹ  ਉਤਪਤਿ  ਪਰਲਉ  ਨਾਹੀ  ॥ 
 तह पावस सिंधु धूप नही छहीआ तह उतपति परलउ नाही ॥ 
 Ŧah pāvas sinḏẖ ḏẖūp nahī cẖẖahī▫ā ṯah uṯpaṯ parla▫o nāhī. 
 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॥ 
 जीवन मिरतु न दुखु सुखु बिआपै सुंन समाधि दोऊ तह नाही ॥१॥ 
 Jīvan miraṯ na ḏukẖ sukẖ bi▫āpai sunn samāḏẖ ḏo▫ū ṯah nāhī. ||1|| 
 No life or death, no pain or pleasure is felt there. There is only the Primal Trance of Samaadhi, and no duality. ||1|| 

 ਸਹਜ  ਕੀ  ਅਕਥ  ਕਥਾ  ਹੈ  ਨਿਰਾਰੀ  ॥ 
 सहज की अकथ कथा है निरारी ॥ 
 Sahj kī akath kathā hai nirārī. 
 The description of the state of intuitive poise is indescribable and sublime. 

 ਤੁਲਿ  ਨਹੀ  ਚਢੈ  ਜਾਇ  ਨ  ਮੁਕਾਤੀ  ਹਲੁਕੀ  ਲਗੈ  ਨ  ਭਾਰੀ  ॥੧॥  ਰਹਾਉ  ॥ 
 तुलि नही चढै जाइ न मुकाती हलुकी लगै न भारी ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 
 Ŧul nahī cẖadẖai jā▫e na mukāṯī halukī lagai na bẖārī. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
 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  ॥ 
 अरध उरध दोऊ तह नाही राति दिनसु तह नाही ॥ 
 Araḏẖ uraḏẖ ḏo▫ū ṯah nāhī rāṯ ḏinas ṯah nāhī. 
 Neither lower nor upper worlds are there; neither day nor night are there. 

 ਜਲੁ  ਨਹੀ  ਪਵਨੁ  ਪਾਵਕੁ  ਫੁਨਿ  ਨਾਹੀ  ਸਤਿਗੁਰ  ਤਹਾ  ਸਮਾਹੀ  ॥੨॥ 
 जलु नही पवनु पावकु फुनि नाही सतिगुर तहा समाही ॥२॥ 
 Jal nahī pavan pāvak fun nāhī saṯgur ṯahā samāhī. ||2|| 
 There is no water, wind or fire; there, the True Guru is contained. ||2|| 

 ਅਗਮ  ਅਗੋਚਰੁ  ਰਹੈ  ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ  ਗੁਰ  ਕਿਰਪਾ  ਤੇ  ਲਹੀਐ  ॥ 
 अगम अगोचरु रहै निरंतरि गुर किरपा ते लहीऐ ॥ 
 Agam agocẖar rahai niranṯar gur kirpā ṯe lahī▫ai. 
 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॥ 
 कहु कबीर बलि जाउ गुर अपुने सतसंगति मिलि रहीऐ ॥३॥४॥४८॥ 
 Kaho Kabīr bal jā▫o gur apune saṯsangaṯ mil rahī▫ai. ||3||4||48|| 
 Says Kabeer, I am a sacrifice to my Guru; I remain in the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy. ||3||4||48||

When I look at what the concept of Samadhi entails, what kind of a state  samadhi really is, and when I understand that I find it is similar to,  if not the same as, the state when one is on the path to merging with  God. They are just stated in different terms, in a different language.


Gyani ji,
I think get the gist of what you are saying in your last comment. Guru Nanak Dev ji always told members of other religions to get back to the essence of their religion. he said so because the religions has been reduced to merely pilgrimages, and merely fasting and so on. Just like how Sikhism is today reduced to merely wearing a kirpan for instance, or merely reading gurbani (just to get it over with). This idea of "extinguishing the fire of ego" is just not present among minds of most Sikhs. and it isn't present in the minds of Hindus and Muslims. It wasn't when Guru Nanak said, for example: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=6&L=16&id=290
Have I understood you well?


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 22, 2011)

Bhagat ji

The links you have given take us to Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa's translation. Not to Professor Sahib Singh of Guru Granth Darpan. It is not clear if you are linking to the shabad or to Professor ji. 

There is no English translation/interpretation of Guru Granth Darapn, only in Punjabi. Here is the link

http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 22, 2011)

Bhagat Singh ji,
I can always save the conversation, and post relevant discussions on the forum.​_That will be useless as you will be editor and a contributor and given the thread so far it will only add to potential ego issues which we all humans have to deal with, vis-à-vis cutting and pasting what supports one’s thoughts as you have done with Gurbani excerpts in your posts so far._

_In order to have a fair dialog, can you please quote something from Gurbani that goes against andh vishvas Samadhi concept._
​In the following I have extended the definition of Samadhi and wish your comments
  Quote:
          Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism,   Buddhism, Sikhism_, Islam,   Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Atheism,_ and yogic schools   is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or _dhyāna or study (Gurus teachings and Gurbani reminds us to keep our   eyes and mind open all the time studying) _. In the yoga tradition,   it is the eighth and final limb identified in the _Yoga   Sūtras_ of Patañjali _( so by   association you are saying Gurbani and Gurus teach us to achieve this!).   
_It has been described as a *non-dualistic state of consciousness* in   which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the   experienced object,[1] and in which the mind *becomes   still, one-pointed or concentrated*[2]   though the person remains conscious. 

  As Gyani ji has so eloquently put and so have Professor Sahib Singh ji,


Guru      Granth Sahib ji is one and indivisible
Quoting      a tuq here or there is terrible to say the least let alone build a      sustained explanation
Professor      Sahib Singh ji and Gyani ji eluded to the fact that it is most important to review      the stanza past the “rahao” and even more importantly read more shabads      rather than less when you attempt to do fragmented deductions.
In      addition, if you are quoting Professor Sahib Singh ji, it is very well      advised to read his preambles so brilliantly written regarding the then      interpretations made by people who as Gyani ji put it “tried to get the      dustbin out of a garbage truck that Gurus worked so hard to dispose of in      establishing Sikhism”
Brilliant       discourse on Bhagat Namdev ji’s Mandir and other controversies including Krishna and idol worship
 
It      makes me very sad to read some of your posts as I consider you to be very      intelligent and articulate person.  If Sikhism is what you are following as      per your name block I am very scared about the future of Sikhism.  Imagine how easy it will continue to be, to      destroy Sikhism when majority of people are generally less critical.
 
  The following is my understanding,


Hinduism      and Islam hate Sikhism as Sikhism shook these to their roots
Certain      elements will try their best to make Sikhism look like something else that      it is not and “fook shkah” (encourage) such misguided people by giving      them visibility and priveleges.
Hindus       will say we are just a sect of Hinduism
Islam       will say we are just mis-guided infidels
 
The      easiest (mind you peaceful strategy) way to destroy Sikhism is to divide      and rule.  So person destroying      Sikhism will take the following actions,
Get       Sikh looking (wearing a turban and facial hair, minor trimming,       threading, is OK) Babey/Maharaj/Sant to start sects and off-shoots,
Radha        Soamis
Ramdasiaye
Narankaris
Ram        Rahim
Bhajan        Yogi
…. Many        many more and it will continue to grow
Obviously         any one is capable of doing some good acts like,
Sewa
Eye Hospital
Marriages
Disco          Bhajans for emotional relief
Etc.
 
 
Common        folk with “monkey see monkey do” or “bhed chal” (like a flock of sheep        moving together) will start confusing each one of these with Sikhism as        espoused by,
Gurus         teachings
Sri         Guru Granth Sahib ji
 
 
 
Results      are not too difficult to forecast,
Destruction       of Sikhism through division
 
 
  I request that you make contributions in terms of stated affiliation to “Sikhism” so that we can have fruitful dialog rather than a “nag” oriented where no matter what any one says a small excerpt will be taken and expanded upon.

  For me best way to be a sikh is,





Learn         from,
Gurus          teachings
Sri          Guru Granth Sahib ji
 
Do         what comes naturally
 
 
 
 
  Sikhism is not some convoluted concept.

  Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 22, 2011)

Admin note: So now let's stay focused on these points. I have paraphrased: 

1. Guru Granth Sahib ji is one and indivisible.
2. Quoting a tuk here or there dos not help to build a sustained explanation.
3. It is important to review the stanza past the “rahao,” and even more importantly read related shabads, rather than state fragmented deductions based on a phrase or a tuk.
4. If you are quoting Professor Sahib Singh ji, one also needs to read the interpretations made by people who tried to explain how our Gurus worked so hard to dispose of stagnant philosophies when our Gurus were establishing Sikhism. 

These have been recurring principles for vichaar here at SPN. We can do this.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 22, 2011)

Ambarsariah Ji has brought forward one very importnat point thta we cannot stress hard enough...that point is about SHABADS or indeed PAGES running BEFORE and AFTER the Shabad we have chosen to present a point. The Unique way Gurbani is arranged in the SGGS attests to this vital point. All the shabads in a particular sequence are complimentary of the Principle and should be read in relation to each other. So even the Rahao Pause is only helpful to an extent...the Complete SHABADS follwoing and preceeding that shabad are ven more vital to understanding Gurbani concepts properly.
My Late Mum and Dad Ji both knew the entire SGGS in Memory and whenever we asked them any question, dad would begin quoting entire shabads in the nearby region of that TUK and then explain it.
In places where the Bhagats have a shabad and where there is even the remotest possibility of some "confusion arising" Guru ARJUN JI took extra caution on adding His or other Guru sahibaans' commentary shabds to make the Principle crystal clear as per Gurmatt espoused by the Founder Guru, Guru Nanak ji Sahib.
What is absolutley clear is that Guru nanak ji Brought forward an entirely NEW and revolutionary GURMATT PATH..the NIRMAL PANTH or Gadee Raah. He REJECTED out of hand all and any pre-established concepts and ways and methods...especillay all those that had become iron clad Rituals and empty/devoid of any value types of Karam Kaands ONLY. Yoga and Samadhis may be good for "physical health"...BUT have no place in the baggage of traveller on the Path of Union with The Creator espoused by Guru nanak Ji Sahib. Such a traveller is better off leaving behind such excess baggage which is not only  a burden but may incur "excess baggage" charges in terms of haumai/hakaar/krodh/etc increase. Its NOT na EASY thing to lose our LOBH/MOH/Attachment and DISCARD material things..how much harder to discard "religious rituals/baggage we carry forward from neighbouring/preceeding environment. ONLY a Sabh Te Wadda Satgur Nanak Ji could immediately cease all such and cut off without a moments hesitation useless baggage like Janeaus, and Yogis samadhis renunciation etc etc. which HINDER rather than ENHANCE our Nirmal panth Journey.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 22, 2011)

Bhagat ji,




BhagatSingh said:


> I am noticing that this is going to be an impossible dialogue over a forum. The amount of things said will rise exponentially, everytime the other person makes a comment/question on the material already stated.
> So it might be better to speak on MSN. Are you familiar with it? Anyways, that's upto you, if you have a few hours on the weekend, we could chat.




I never chat. But if you still wish to continue with this discussion, you may start a new thread in the Interfaith section?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 22, 2011)

Gyani Ji, It's too easy fall into the habit to doing rituals. I understand the sentiments of your post and I agree with you. All I'm saying is that the state of mind Guru Sahibs talk about, the state of mind which a Gurmukh reaches when he is merged with God, is talked about by Buddha and other great saints.
Right now, my understanding of Sikhism, other religions, their practices, philosophy and the meaning behind what we might consider "merely rituals", (however poor this understanding might be) leads me to this conclusion. I reply not to force that understanding on you but to test it in the company of those who are more learned than me in Sikhism. My only request is to simply provide references or guide me to them, that you think will help me correct/advance my understanding. Only references (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and maybe certain portions of DG) will help me with that.
Dhanvaad

----------------------------------------
Confused ji, 
So far, my understanding of your posts is weak, as I am having difficulty grasping all of the content at once. I should let you know that I am a lot younger than you are, and so my ability is not as good as yours when trying to grasp the concepts and the language that comes easily to you. When one can respond right after the other makes a point, the conversations tend to become rather linear and easily understood. I want to clarify that I am only speaking about a text-based conversation, which can then be fully copied and pasted in the forum to open up further discussion. Let me know if this type of conversation is possible.
EDIT: I say 2 hours on weekends, as I have assignments and quizes coming up next week, so forgive me if I don't attend the the discussions in the forum till May. My schedule is further tightened due to my curiosity and tendency to study other religions and viewpoints.
Cheers


----------



## Archived_member14 (Jan 23, 2011)

Bhagat ji,

I like to think that what I’m trying to get across does not require intelligence as it is commonly understood. I’m sure you and many other people here are more intelligent than I am. What is required is the understanding that there is only ever this present moment to be known, and seeing the need to better understand the nature of whatever this might be. And so when I point out to the common everyday experiences through the five senses and the mind, those who do have the interest, their attention would be drawn to whatever appears. With this comes a level of confidence that this is the Path, which then leads to lending ear to words by those who teach about just this kind of thing.

And clearly this has nothing to do with age, but with accumulated tendency from way past. In this regard I know one young man who joined the Buddhist discussion group run by friends, when he was about 22 years old. This person was Polish who could hardly express himself in English. Six months after he joined, it impressed upon me that he came to understand what took me seven years to do. And this was not based on any ability to express and build upon key ideas, but rather the confidence reflected in always coming to the present moment as reference point. On the other hand there are others who have been studying and practicing Buddhism for decades and arguing with us for about ten years, but these have yet to get it and look like they won’t ever. And to be sure most of them are extremely intelligent, some with much background in philosophy from where they can so easily provide references. 

Regarding our discussion, weekends are not good for me anyway. But how about we correspond by email but privately, where you could respond whenever you have the time?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 23, 2011)

Confused ji, I have sent you a PM.


---------------------------------------
Back to The discussion of Samadhi.


spnadmin said:


> Admin note: So now let's stay focused on these points. I have paraphrased:
> 
> 1. Guru Granth Sahib ji is one and indivisible.
> 2. Quoting a tuk here or there dos not help to build a sustained explanation.
> ...


Yes Ambarsaria Ji and Spnadmin ji, I am aware of this, and I agree with this. I will do my best to follow it. 
With regards to 2, my reasons for not presenting whole shabads is because it makes it difficult for me to read posts with long shabads (long posts in general); it's paralyzing. The same happens when I am commenting. It's easier on my eyes to read and have bits of the shabad that I think represent what the shabad is saying (rather the whole shabad). So I simply present the shabad with the correct links so that it can be easily accessed by those who wish to see where I am getting my quotes from. 

For a sustained explanantion, those who are reading should be looking up the shabad anyways. Then they may reply if they think that the shabad has a different message. The shabad in my replies is only one-click away, no one can be that lazy, especially if they are here to learn. 




> It      makes me very sad to read some of your posts as I consider you to be very      intelligent and articulate person.


Ambarsari ji, when you visit a school, do you get sad to see students learning there?
As intelligent or articulate I may sound or may be, there is still a lot I need to learn. SPN is one of those places, where I can do that. That's the only reason I post here. I could of course, learn on my own, but it's good to get some feedback on what I have learned. Often I get to see a different perspective on a particular shabad. Which in the "naam..." thread it was provided by Spnadmin ji and Jasleen ji. I found that interpretation contained less inconsistencies than my own, so I now go with their interpretation... so and so forth with all aspects of Sikhism. I have essentially learned something through this process or went back and relearned, everytime.

Anyways, if you feel that you know more about a certain topic then you are invited to post relevant portions of Sikh scriptures. This is the only way to learn/teach about Sikhism.

PS You asked me to post something in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which criticized Samadhi. I honestly do not know of any such shabad. If you do, please share it with us.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 23, 2011)

Bhaghat Singh ji

This is not a matter of personal taste. Individual members don't decide. 





> With regards to 2, my reasons for not presenting whole shabads is because it makes it difficult for me to read posts with long shabads (long posts in general); it's paralyzing. The same happens when I am commenting. It's easier on my eyes to read and have bits of the shabad that I think represent what the shabad is saying (rather the whole shabad). So I simply present the shabad with the correct links so that it can be easily accessed by those who wish to see where I am getting my quotes from. .



Posting an entire shabad has been a forum rule for a long time. We all have to develop the powers of concentration to focus on an entire shabad and work our way through its meaning. Stamina is the grace of the long distance runner.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 23, 2011)

Ok... is this rule up for discussion?


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 23, 2011)

No.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 23, 2011)

Lol ok.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 23, 2011)

Bhagat Singh ji just three comments with your wording from post on page 4,"Ambarsaria ji, when you visit a school, do you get sad to see students learning there?"
Of course I get sad if I see a bright mind getting to waste.  My comment was in that regard as I saw egoistic approach and a bull headed approach showing up.  If fellow learners don't flag others weaknesses, who would?  So it is meant in the most positive way though it may appear negative

There is a saying, "_When whirlwinds of youth blow, you are blinded for a while"._
​As intelligent or articulate I may sound or may be, there is still a lot  I need to learn. SPN is one of those places, where I can do that.  That's the only reason I post here.
Wonderful articulation.  I do it for the same reason.​It's easier on my eyes to read and have bits of the shabad that I think  represent what the shabad is saying (rather the whole shabad).​Now here is the issue as flagged by spnadmin ji and others.  What makes anyone think that bits of a shabad represent the shabad and not the whole shabad?  Let alone the shabad itself being linked to rest of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

First and foremost guidance from Professor Sahib Singh ji if nothing else is learnt and I paraphrase, " Don't read Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji with a motive to support a point of view or looking for something.  Rather study it and find something. He goes into great detail about Shabad structures to help interpret and understand including reference to the shabad before Rahao and after as one of many nuggets for the layman."
​Don't sell yourself short as in general your posts have good information for me to learn aside from some differences.

Sat Sri Akal.lolmundahug


----------



## findingmyway (Jan 26, 2011)

In many regards this discussion is not fruitful. When we focus on the end result then it distracts from the journey. When we go into something focussed on the end result it can be counterproductive as if that outcome isn't achieved then it leads to disappointment and depression. An element of ego can also be introduced which stops us making the grade. All is governed by Waheguru's will so we can never know how things will work out. We can try our hardest to achieve what we desire but whether this will happen is determined by only Hukam whether we are black or white, Sikh or not, male or female etc

I don't believe can we achieve samadhi is the best question. I think a more appropriate question is how can I live to be the best person I can be.


----------



## Chinu (Nov 14, 2011)

Calgacus said:


> Is it possible for a Mona to get to the stage of samadhi and open dusam dwar through just the merits of seva and simeran


*0*
*No*


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 14, 2011)

why not?


----------



## Chinu (Nov 14, 2011)

harry haller said:


> why not?


*Have you tried it ?0*


----------

