# Are Lascivious Thoughts Immoral If Not Acted On?



## spnadmin (Aug 29, 2011)

Rev. GEOFFRY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.

A basic moral principle for Catholic Christians is that we should always treat other people with respect and never use them as objects or a means to getting our own way.

When we catch a glimpse of an attractive person on the street, for example, the first few moments when we notice her or him and think to ourselves how beautiful they are, those thoughts are not sinful. But when we catch ourselves staring at someone, and thinking lustful thoughts about them, is where we begin to sin because other people do not exist for our pleasure or to be treated as an object to admire or covet.

Even though we may not have acted on those thoughts, when we deliberately entertain them we have disrespected another person’s dignity and their right to be seen as a human being and not just as “someone hot.”

Jesus warned his hearers about objectifying other people by our deliberate, lustful imaginings when he said: “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28 ).

We must strive to see others as a human being made in God’s image and likeness and worthy of our respect.

This is a powerful lesson from Jesus, especially for our times where the gift of our sexuality is so often treated with shallow disregard, or where it is reduced to the pursuit of selfish, self-centred gratification instead of a mutual gift of selfless love in marriage open to the possibility of generating a new human life (cf. John Paul, Theology of the Body).

Rev. RAY INNEN PARCHELO is a novice Tendai priest and founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in Eastern Ontario.

First, let’s clarify Buddhist morality. Buddhists don’t talk about sin, in the sense that an act corrupts or stains some eternal essence or soul (more on “soul” next week). In Buddhist teaching, our actions either lead us closer to or further from Awakening. That is, they are either wholesome or unwholesome (kusala/akusala). Further, the consequences flowing from our acts are in proportion to and in the direction of the quality of the acts. This is what is meant by our karma.

Karma is widely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is not punishment, nor is it a one-for-one con*sequence. An unwholesome act, such as you stealing a loaf of bread, for example, sets in motion a set of con*sequences, which might include, guilt/relief, regret/pride and the impulse to avoid/repeat the theft, depending on your values and intentions. This example, from the novel Les Misérables shows that it is the intent, at least as much as the act, that matters. Unlike the harsh legalism depicted in that novel, stealing a loaf for the hero’s starving child carries different karma than if he stole it to buy cocaine. Karma, then, is less a judging hammer than the momentum from an act.

Back to those lascivious thoughts. Any thoughts do not stand alone, there is a connection between our thoughts and actions. Likewise, thoughts themselves are connected to patterns of wanting something we believe is valuable. There is a continuum of values-thoughts-actions. This is all part of the larger cycle of how things are interconnected and impacted by karma (“conditioned arising” in Buddhist terms).

When these lascivious thoughts arise, it is because we have a desire to possess some person or object, and, in this case, that desire is unwholesome. The momentum for those thoughts have consequences, although quantitatively and experientially less than if we were to act on them. We must remember too, thoughts of all kinds will arise (from previous karma), so we ought not battle ourselves to “control” our thoughts. Far more important that we evaluate how we will act on those thoughts.

KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the Centre for Inquiry, Canada's premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.

What’s in a word? That depends on its cultural definition, and what century we are referring to. In ancient Greece, lascivious meant lustful, and was a general term for a playful, lively desire, without immoral sexual baggage.

This was a good thing for both men and their assorted gods, who not only had lascivious thoughts about those of the same sex, but also acted upon them.

The definition changed with the rise and influence of Christianity throughout Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. It became God-speak for impure sexual thinking. Enter guilty pleasures of the mind. The omnipotent, omniscient creator, able to read our dirty little minds. And we do have them. We are all Winston Smiths, in Orwell’s 1984. Big Brother is not only watching, he also threatens severe torture for thought crime.

But those of us who don’t believe in fictitious damnations allow for lustful thoughts without self-condemnation. Sexual desires, including sexual fantasies, are natural. There is no harm in thoughts, providing they don’t become obsessions and, if carried out, they’re consensual. However, making people feel guilty about lascivious thoughts is most certainly harmful.

There may be some relief for those who struggle with sinful thinking. A sexual enlightenment is occurring in Evangelical circles. In the last few years, several books, sex manuals for Christians, have been released. They encourage sexual experimentation that would make their 19th-century counterparts roll in their graves or turn green with envy.

While encouraging, this revolution needs to go further. I have some pity for homophobic American politicians caught in same-sex affairs: a life of self-loathing for “immoral” thoughts and actions, where the only cure is a futile “pray their gay away.” The only outcome is a family torn apart.

From a humanist perspective, the question should be, “Is labelling thoughts as lascivious immoral?”

ABDUL RASHID is a member of the Ottawa Muslim community, the Christian-Muslim Dialogue and the Capital Region Interfaith Council.

The Islamic view is that we are not really responsible for our thoughts.

Our moral sense may cause an embarrassment at bad thoughts, but we become culpable only when a bad thought is put into practice. In contrast, we are told that our Merciful God will reward us for every good thought and further reward will be added when we put our good intention into action.

While we have no control over our thoughts, we can learn to manage and guide our thoughts. A Muslim scholar suggests that we must counter thoughts that can lead to immorality with thoughts that lead to moral deeds. He warns that bad thoughts can become ideas, which turn into desires and, ultimately, resolutions and actions.

For Muslims, this month provides an excellent opportunity to learn this. It is the month of fasting, Ramadan.

God Almighty says in the Holy Koran that “fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you that you may (learn) self-restraint” (2:193). (Other translations from the original Arabic include “you might remain conscious of God”, “you may learn piety”). The Holy Prophet of Islam said: “One who does not give up falsehood and acting on it, God has no need for him to give up his food and drink.”

To avoid lascivious and other such thoughts, Muslims are advised to spend time in prayer and remembrance and glorification of the Lord. These practices are increased during the month of fasting. When these are coupled with the desire to help the poor and needy of the world, it may leave little time for evil thoughts.

JACK MCLEAN is a Baha'i scholar, teacher, essayist and poet published in the fields of spirituality, Baha'i theology and poetry.

Today’s question asks whether or not a moral distinction may be drawn between thought and action with the lustful desire.

The answer would depend upon which standard is used to judge: the absolute or the relative. The distinction between the ideal and the real may also aid understanding.

The absolute standard of purity/chastity would make no distinction between the thought and action. In absolute terms, the lascivious thought is immoral. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (1844-1921), the son of the Prophet-Founder Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), and the authorized interpreter of his father’s teachings, wrote that we should keep “… secret and hidden thoughts pure before the Lord of Hosts!” (Tablets, vol. 3, p. 704).

The reason is easy to understand. Thoughts, if strongly driven, usually lead to expression, either in word or deed. If the thought is not immoral, it is unlikely that it would lead to an immoral act. Immoral thoughts lead to immoral deeds. Moral thoughts bring peace of mind.

But relatively speaking, the concrete act would be more sinful than the thought. If a lascivious thought remains private, only the thinker suffers. If the thought is acted *upon, one or more persons suffer the consequences. In some moral theo*logies, temptation is not considered to be sinful, but giving in to temptation is a breach of the law.

Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957), grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, drew a realistic distinction between faith and character that may be useful here.

In answering one of many thousands of questions, he wrote through his secretary: “It is often hard to accept this fact and put up with it, but the fact [remains] that a person may believe in and love the Cause — even being ready to die for it — and yet not have a good personal character or possess traits at variance with the teachings. We try to change, to let the Power of God help re-create us, make us true Bahá’ís in deed as well as in belief. But sometimes the process is slow, sometimes it never happens because the individual does not try hard enough. But these things cause us suffering and are a test to us …” (Oct. 17, 1944).

RICK REED is senior pastor at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa

Back in the 1950s, a show tune called “Standing on the Corner” became a popular favourite. The song is sung by a quartet of men who enjoy “standing on the corner watching all the girls go by.” They see no harm in letting their imaginations run free. As one line says, “Brother, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.”

While it’s true you won’t wind up in jail for what you’re thinking, Jesus says you can wind up in hell:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Matthew 5:27-29).

Many folks think Jesus’ words are too extreme. I mean, who hasn’t had lustful thoughts?

Our problem is that we are desensitized to God’s standard of holiness. We think God is merely looking for outward conformity to rules. He’s actually looking for purity of heart: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8 ).

If God’s standards are that rigorous, what hope do we have? The Bible says our only hope is found in Jesus. He

offered His life on the cross as payment for our sins, including immoral thoughts. He also promises to remake us from the inside, renewing our hearts and minds to be increasingly like His (Colossians 3:5-10).

All of us have been guilty of “standing on the corner.” Thankfully, God promises (in Romans 5:1-2) that all who put their faith in Jesus get to stand in His forgiving grace.

BALPREET SINGH is legal counsel and acting executive director for the World Sikh Organization of Canada

In the Sikh faith, sexual relations outside of marriage are not permitted. Sikhs are taught to look upon those younger than them as their children, peers as siblings and those older as parents.

The Sikh Gurus taught that the five vices a spiritual person must control are lust, anger, greed, attachment and egotism. These vices are like a veil which does not allow the individual to recognize the truth and the presence of God within. Although all five of these are inherent to the human condition, they must be controlled in order to follow the spiritual path. The thoughts we harbor in our minds are the seeds which eventually become action and so the real effort is to conquer the mind.

Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs said, “every day, increase your love for your wife. But not go to the bed of another woman even in your dreams.” The message for Sikhs is clear that it is not just lustful actions which are to be avoided but thoughts and dreams as well.

The main tool which Sikhs are to use to conquer lust and other vices is meditation on naam or the name of God. The mind cannot conquer itself without a tool and the tool the Gurus taught is daily meditation. By meditating on naam, one endeavors to discover God’s light within and to see it permeating throughout creation. In such a state, lust and the other vices of the mind fall away and the individual is able to recognize the truth.

Rabbi REUVEN BULKA is head of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa and host of Sunday night with Rabbi Bulka on 580 CFRA

This sounds almost like the age old question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a noise? The answer there depends on your definition - is noise something that is heard, and if no one hears it is not noise; or is noise an objective reality, whether heard or not.

Here too, all depends on how one defines immoral. Is it an action or a process? In other words, if no one knows, aside from the one doing the thinking, is it anything?

And, turning your question on its head, if a person has very noble thoughts, such as the desire to build orphanages, or to provide food for the hungry, but does not carry out these thoughts, are they laudable?

One thing is clear. The words that are linked with immoral - such as evil, vicious, degrading, etc., would not apply to something that is contained only in thought.

And this may come as a surprise - those who have what you refer to as lascivious thoughts but overcome them, and instead live highly moral lives, are actually the subject of great praise in Jewish tradition.

The nobility of the human spirit is apprehended not only in noble action. It is also manifest in the way that we overcome whatever “demons” float in our heads, but which we are strong enough to control, and even to expel. For example, a kleptomaniac who resists the urge to remove cash from an open safe is more worthy of praise than someone who has no such urges and walks by the open safe with no doubts about what is appropriate.

This does not mean that we should go out of the way to populate our minds with untoward thoughts, in order to fight them, win over them, and be declared righteous. That would be foolhardy.

What it does mean is that if these thoughts creep into our minds, this is no indication of inferiority or sinfulness, and instead presents the opportunity for meaningful human triumph.



Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/R...l+acted+upon/5319364/story.html#ixzz1WQijoMdR


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 29, 2011)

Very nice article ,I would write a good response but I have to go and gouge both my eyes out.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 29, 2011)

lol Sinner ji

This is one question that always baffles me. Does the answer lie in how obsessed, how much one's life is driven by "thoughts?" Lustful, but what about other constant metal images and musings? They can be equally forms of attachment. They can also dominate and disrupt a life. I can never decide.

And what does "immoral" mean?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 29, 2011)

Spnadmin Ji,I heard Yogi Bhajan say that God is a thought ,not sure what he meant but what is more puzzling is that science does not really know how a brain creates a thought ,they only know that you need the physical brain ,frontal lobe etc ,they can measure activity but they cannot really make a causal connection.No one has yet been able to synthesise even the simplest thought even after studying the physical brain for hundreds of years.Immoral thought is perhaps thought not informed by morality.Cartesian lecture you may like http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-quest-for-ultimate-reason


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 29, 2011)

Your Hit Parade: Standing on the Corner      - YouTube

Do the females look like girls in the video?  They look like women to me!  More insulting than lustful are the actions lol by calling women girls.

More later!

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 29, 2011)

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



> Rev. GEOFFRY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.
> 
> We must strive to see others as a human being made in God’s image and likeness and worthy of our respect.
> 
> ...


 Not to offend but to add criticality and a view.


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## passingby (Aug 29, 2011)

I feel like sharing on this.

Honestly speaking I do enjoy looking at the opposite sex. And although I do know that this might be interpreted as immoral from Gurbani's perspective yet I do not give much thought to it cos at the stage I am lust is not 'obstructing' my spiritual practice. At least not yet. It might at a future point and at that time I might have to start considering the morals of it, but for now..
I am NOT saying that what I do is okay. Please do not interpret it that way. But just as I sometimes take shot of alcohol and do realize that it from Gurbani's perspective it is 1000% unacceptable, YET I keep on doing it just simply because it has NOT uptil now become any obstruction to my practice of Jaap. At a future point it might prove to be and of course I expect it to be so. But right now my Jaap is intermittent and my thoughts on Gurbani are intermittent and I am focussing more on cultivating a personal bond in my inner heart with Guru Nanak. 
Right now if anything is lacking its concentration, discipline, clarity, faith, inner strength etc. These lackings are the problems. I am not young anymore and my lust today is hardly anything compared to what it was 10 years ago :-D

In addition to this a bit of self-training in observing my thoughts (a J. Krishnamurti effect) also helps me treat these thoughts as coming and going things. Clouds come and go the sky remains, thoughts come and go the 'seer' remains. These days sometimes Mooji's videos on youtube also help me strengthen my resolve about this. 

Anyways, what is important is dedication to sadhana. Rest Guru will take care of. 

If my sharing offended anyone, I ask for forgiveness.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 29, 2011)

Passingby ji people are more alike than different.  There is a nugget in your post above and I quote and comment,



> I am not young anymore (_I don't think you yet have reached a stage to say you are as old/young as you think) _and my lust today is hardly anything compared to what it was 10 years ago :-D _(Good you are as normal as they come)_
> 
> _Passingby ji as time goes on there is less action and more thoughts to compensate for action.  Perhaps 10 years ago you had the energy to do what you thought and it could be love at every (let us say most) sight mundahug_ _and will be considered normal by most of your age.  __Now since the chances of action are less, it will be classified by society as lust at every (let us say most) sight _lol _or somehow wrong._ _ Really nothing has changed other than time, our bodies and those judging and their expectations of us._



Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 29, 2011)

*“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”...........................*

Its the CHARACTER that is the focal point of all that Naam Japping..Rehat Maryaddaing..Matha teking.......Practising Gurbani....because its  CHARACTER that will be judged becasue its the Final Mansion ....the thoughts are just archirect's mind....the words are his drawings...the actions are the bricks and mortar...laid one by one upon each other cemented together.....and then we have the Completed magnificent Mansion to behold....SAINT...SINNER...all picture perfect..or topsy turvy all about to come crashing down witht he next gust of wind...back to a heap of broken bricks and dust..???..a Bhai Mani Singh completley at peace watching his own body being butchered joint by joint with not even a sigh much less scream of pain..or the coward ..who...at the mere sight of the police mans danda..... spills all the beans - including some he just imagined to make the police havaldaar happy...and earn the title of "extremely CO-OPERATIVE" !! CHARACTER !! is the difference...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 29, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh ji based on the word "watch" in your post couple of questions below, 

1.  How can one be the true watchman and a thief at the same time?

2.  Character is defined quite early in one's life (say 12 years or so at the latest), how can one spend rest of the life "watching", what would it do?

The reason for my questions rests on the fact that if you watch every step, you will never take another step after you fall!  You cannot watch rodents on a highway and still drive straight!

Only thing to watch is one's actions and how others affected by such take these and that is part of living with rest of the creation.  Thoughts cannot be watched they can be suppressed through various means like numbing the senses with chanting, drinking, sleeping, activity, etc.

Sorry to slightly see things differently but willing and ready to be corrected as always.

With respect.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## passingby (Aug 29, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> Gyani Jarnail Singh ji based on the word "watch" in your post couple of questions below,
> ...
> 
> Thoughts cannot be watched they can be suppressed through various means like numbing the senses with chanting, drinking, sleeping, activity, etc.



I understand that thought CAN be watched. It requires training but it can be done. Many traditions do it. Theravada branch of Buddhism, those that practice Vipassana do it, Zen buddhists in their Zazen do it, Hindus in their Sakshi Bhaav meditation do it, the modern ones like J. Krishnamurti talk about it, Eckhart Tolle ( author of Power of Now) teaches it amongst others. I remember reading that when Sri Aurobindo tried it under guidance of Yogi Vishnu Bhaskar Lele he attained a completely silent mind, like a vast empty sky. Sri Aurobindo has mentioned that Lele taught him to watch powerfully the thoughts as they arose on the horizon of the mind and drive them away. If I recall my reading correctly, Sri Aurobindo remarked that it was after this he understood that thoughts are individual entities in universe which roam about and can 'enter' mind space from outside.
Most of the new age teachers talk about becoming aware of our emotions and thoughts. At the very least one can become aware of a thought immediately after its appearance. This in itself is a good achievement. The moment you look at your emotion or your thought objectively, it certainly looses some if not whole of its grip on your mind. 
In fact while on this, this is a good way to deal with everyday ego which arises in us. We can 'label' the offending thoughts as 'ego' in our mind the moment they come up and then move on with our practice. This helps to detach us from the thought. The 'us' or the 'me' over here loosely means the consciousness or attention. When attention is in grip of the thought it IS the thought, but when it detaches it can look upon thought in relative freedom from it.

Please note all this is just some practical skills for helping us. They are not a different religious practice and certainly not a replacement of Simran. Just as we sometimes during abhyas one might feel sleepy and then we get up and move around to shake off sleep or drink cold water. Getting up and moving about or taking a bath or drinking cold water should not be taken as anything in themselves, but just a helping aid, so are these things.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 29, 2011)

Passingby ji Sikhism is not a complicated religion that requires all the tools you mentioned in your post.  Sikhism does not stop people from learning and using other stuff.

The fundamental part of Sikhism is to understand what guidance our Guru ji's gave us and how Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji in never changing ways conveys their message.

Object is understanding, living through your actions the understanding you developed.  Understanding does not come from controlling your mind, watching your every thought, it comes from opening and exercising your mind.  There are references to social situations, personal actions, communal activities, and much more dealing with real life.  If one were to close one's mind while trying to understand, in case it gave you undesirable thoughts, you with truthful answer to your inner self will not be able to say that you never had or never will have lascivious thoughts,etc.  Knowing and understanding is the key, controlling and shutting down is not the key.  These are the Hinduism and other religions practices to some how get sparks flying in complete quiet, in certain postures, eating something, repeating/chanting something, etc., that is not the core message of Sikhism.  Sikhism is living with all a practiacl life while understanding creation as much as you can over time and acting with such true understanding.

If you watch too much you become self centered, myopic, not a living Sikh but a managed Sikh, a suppressed soul, a double life of what could be and what is, our Guru ji's don't teach us such a life style.

Sorry if it is little repetitive.

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS: *Biggest gift that parents and Sikhism gives is an open and understanding mind that equips one to deal with the good, the bad and the ugly directly without cover, watching or limitations.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2011)

Gurfatehji, 


An interesting post, my own view has changed somewhat over the last 2 months, changed by about 180 degrees, actually, I used to think that what took place in your thoughts, in your head was of absolute huge consequence, and your actions were not as important. I suppose I wanted to be the opposite of people who have brains like sewers, but put on a pleasing and pleasant personality for the rest of the world. Also forgetting god for a minute, I am aware of how I would feel if my wife had some of the thoughts that men find easy to have, to that end, my wife is the only person I have been intimate with with whom I have never ever let my mind wander during intimacy, I suppose that is respect, but then I have never had a fantasy about something that could not happen, or that I did not want to happen. 

Since embracing the concept of Guru and Waheguru, I now realise the opposite is true, your actions are hugely important, as a way of interacting with the rest of creation, of thanking creation and feeling the love from Waheguru. If in our heads we have the words of the Guru, and outside we have the garden of Waheguru, than it is better to have a beautiful garden. I think all and every thoughts are just that, thoughts, the problem starts when the thoughts become obsessional, and have a need to be acted on. Looking at a woman and thinking, 'hmm that is an attractive woman' to 'what would I like to do to her' is apart by some distance. 

I have a simple rule for lascivious thoughts, if my wife was having the same thought, and I would not be upset by it, then it is fine and innocent, however if I would be deeply upset or hurt by my wife having such a thought, than it is not so fine and innocent, SPNadminji, this rule also works for me in telling me what is immoral and what is not


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Aug 30, 2011)

Just to be sure that I was clear what we are discussing, I looked up the word lascivious:



> las·civ·i·ous   [luh-siv-ee-uhs]  Show IPA
> adjective
> 1.
> inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
> ...



Reading that, I must say that the answer clearly is, of course not, unless we consider our existence immoral.  Not a one of us would exist were it not for the lascivious thoughts of at least one of our parents.

I know, imagining pita ji or - horrors! - mata ji thinking such thoughts is absolutely disgusting to any and all.  However, the truth is that we do exist and sometimes, hard facts must be faced!

 winkingmunda


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 30, 2011)

Mai ji,
Although everyone feels lust and it's not immoral, I think we can draw a distinction between that feeling and the thoughts the follow or precede those feelings.

I think we'd find that thoughts are not so important in procreating. Thoughts (conceptual thoughts) seem to be a very human thing, certainly other animals seem to get along just fine without them.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2011)

Maiji, 

I would humbly beg to differ, some of the thoughts I have regarding my wife are quite pure, but still involve the act of intimacy, in fact, I personally think that the act of intimacy with both parties viewing such as an extension of love, the ability to encourage  love to come alive, is an extremely pure spiritual action. 

However some of the thoughts I have regarding my wife are not so pure, I do not wish to share my pure Guru given love with her, I want something more base, more deviant, I want to taint this purity with a focus not on the whole, but on parts, specific parts of body, clothing etc etc etc. 

So our parents surely had loving thoughts, but does everyone suffer lascivious thoughts and desires?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> Mai ji,
> Although everyone feels lust and it's not immoral, I think we can draw a distinction between that feeling and the thoughts the follow or precede those feelings.
> 
> I think we'd find that thoughts are not so important in procreating. Thoughts (conceptual thoughts) seem to be a very human thing, certainly other animals seem to get along just fine without them.



Strangely enough I do think lust is immoral, again, sorry to bring my wife into this, but we both  know by the way that We look at each other whether the look is loving, and an encouragement to sharing that love in a physical way, which we can both do without lust being present, or whether we are in fact  slaves to lust, and love is far from our minds,


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 30, 2011)

So lust is immoral because it is possible to love without lust.

What is it about lust that makes it moral and/or immoral? Or is it neither?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2011)

possible?????? hand on my heart brotherji, I would say it should be mandatory to love without lust. 

Lust, to me anyway, is immoral because it is not an appreciation of the whole, it merely focuses on the one part that gives you the kick. I have found feelings of lust not wholly unrelated to drug addiction. Lust is not just sexual, lust for money, lust for sex, lust for fine food, lust for knowledge, all these activities, just like the act of love, can be, and should be carried out without lust, that is not to say there is no room for lust in relationships, but in my view it should be carried out with the same caution that ensures you do not spend your life lusting after everything instead of loving it


----------



## passingby (Aug 30, 2011)

Thank you Ambarsaria ji. But you have mixed up a couple of concepts into one pack whereas they are separate and in fact opposite of each other.


Ambarsaria said:


> Object is understanding, living through your actions the understanding you developed.  Understanding does not come from controlling your mind, watching your every thought, it comes from opening and exercising your mind.


#Watching your mind is different from controlling it. Observing and being aware of one's mind does not make it controlled and suppressed and closed. Control and observation are two fundamentally different processes. Awareness of your mind and its movement is the most intimate way of knowing one's own self. Pure observation is devoid of any control. It gives the same treatment to  the undesirable and the desirable thoughts, it just observes.
From this observation comes an inescapable understanding. One cannot deny one's egoistic orientations, or one's true intention and how one is living a life of sham and disconnect. It generates an understanding of how in our daily life we are using our actions and language to convey something separate and different from what is inside.
#The practice of being an observer of your own mind does not make you less social, or less active. On the other hand it makes you authentic in your ways, more sincere, more genuine.



> These are the Hinduism and other religions practices to some how get sparks flying in complete quiet, in certain postures, eating something, repeating/chanting something, etc., that is not the core message of Sikhism.  Sikhism is living with all a practiacl life while understanding creation as much as you can over time and acting with such true understanding.


This is not just a Hindu practice. Going by the prevalence its 99% a Buddhist practice. Modern Hinduism does not practice much of it. Its more focussed on concentration, except for neo-advatic people, but they go a step further with the question 'Who is observing?'. It is, as I mentioned, prevalent in may traditions. 
In fact it is *a natural way of understanding*. We already do it! Every sincere person, every one who has an interest in betterment does it! Only difference is whether he labels it as a skill/tool or not.
This skill is NOT associated with any posture or any particular time or any particular mantra. Not at all.



> If you watch too much you become self centered, myopic,


I beg to differ. Much the opposite happens. As I mentioned earlier you become more powerful, sincere and authentic. There arises a certain something in one's self/core mind which actually makes you free. A lot can be said on this, but not needed here.


> a suppressed soul, a double life of what could be and what is


NOT AT ALL! In fact quite the opposite. You have not understood the process yet. Control and unfettered Observation are NOT the same!



> Guru ji's don't teach us such a life style.


I do not have the arguments ready but my readings of Gurbani communicate to me that there is nothing conflicting at all. If anything Gurbani is closer to this process. 


> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0cm;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->ਗਉੜੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੯ ॥ ਨਰ ਅਚੇਤ ਪਾਪ ਤੇ ਡਰੁ ਰੇ ॥ ਦੀਨ  ਦਇਆਲ ਸਗਲ ਭੈ ਭੰਜਨ ਸਰਨਿ ਤਾਹਿ ਤੁਮ ਪਰੁ ਰੇ ॥੧॥ (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang. 220)


Whether one takes 'Achet' as an adjective of Nar or Paap, clearly the stress is on the the unconscious movements of mind.

A lot more can be said on this with a focused and thorough research.



> ] Biggest gift that parents and Sikhism gives is an open and understanding mind that equips one to deal with the good, the bad and the ugly directly without cover, watching or limitations.


You are getting is wrong. To equip oneself would mean to be in possession of understanding which is a direct result of awareness and observation. You've used the word 'cover'. In fact observation 'uncovers'.

I know that there is a fear that Hinduism is trying to spread itself over Sikhism. And amongst the Sikh circle there is a movement to counter this. My posts here at SPN might seem like I am bringing in Hinduism. But I would like to make it clear that this is NOT my intention.
I am of the opinion that modern and scientific understanding of human psychology is much required for greater understanding of religion itself. This is a part of it.
I also do not feel that there is any danger in knowing what these things are. All of these have brought me closer to Gurbani today than I was years ago. 
I am a practical person myself and do not indulge in theory. What I brought out in my post may look like hocus-pocus in the first look but it is not. It is very practical, very simple and very helpful.
Let me cite an example here. When we do Naam Jaap, there are two things which happen in our mind. The sound we produce becomes the object of our attention and our attention becomes the observer of our sound. After a few moments one's attention tends to wander of to a new object (some thought or memory or a visual etc). One then becomes aware of the fact that attention has wandered. One observes the happening, observes the new object of attention and then gently (exercising one' will) brings the attention back to the Jaap. This is simple but helpful!
Even after this if any of SPN admins feel my posts are leaning too much towards Hinduism or Buddhism, please pm me and I shall desist. 

I shall stop here.


----------



## Archived_Member16 (Aug 30, 2011)

*Power of Thought - A Quantum Perspective - By Kent Healy 
*
http://youtu.be/FeFuc-qFKoA


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 30, 2011)

Passingby ji, just some examples of my weaknesses over the time.  I  suppose you are saying that all such could have been changed through  mental training/watching thoughts and I wonder what would have been the  effort and benefit.

Tu Cheez.Badi Hai Mast-Mohra      - YouTube

1. I wish I was at the stage with Raveena Tandon to protect her from  all  the evil and would have liked to embrace her.  Just the thought   remained. 

Song: Man Dole Mera Tan Dole Mere Film: Nagin (1954) with Sinhala Subtitles      - YouTube

2. I used to wish I was in the Jungle to hug Vjyantimala ji.   Beautiful.   Unfortunately she never knew and it just stayed a thought!

Kundalini Yoga Dance the Chakras      - YouTube
3.  I would like to unwind my Kundalini too!  Great teacher I will like  to learn from her as she is cute too! Just the thought remained.

Awal Allah Noor - Mohinder Singh Bhalla.      - YouTube
4.  I wish I could touch Mohinder Singh ji's feet and thank him personally for this rendition.  Just the thought remains.

I know 1, 2 and 3 can be considered "lascivious" for sure.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 30, 2011)

Ambarsaria Veera Where can I join that yoga class, as I'm really interested in her, I mean yoga!They say it is the thought that counts, I feel that Guru Nanak said Words do not make a sinner or a saint ,Actions are only written in the book of fate.Also if you do not know how to create a thought on demand, how can you be responsible for it,sometimes we say "I can't think" so this means we can't create a thought even when we try ,maybe we are reacting to a stimulas ,usually beauty and that is only natural if you were gay you could stand on the corner and look at girls all day and not have that thought..If I had a pound for every lascivious thought, I would be rich!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 30, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Ambarsaria Veera Where can I join that yoga class, as I'm really interested in her, I mean yoga!


Sinner ji I am not going to partake in pushing any further sins to the pure (regardless, I guess lot of the Kundalini stuff is California).  However a thought not acted upon is well described in the following,

Imagination-Just an illusion      - YouTube

Lot of religions and sects have been created for thought and mind control like Hinduism, Buddhism as some from Indian sub-continent.  Lot of monies and fame achieved by many an exploiters.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 30, 2011)

Veera Ambarsaria Ji The merit in being jat-hi is overcoming lust ,if there was no lust, there could be no jat-hi.I keep feel like watching her do that dance again ,it was _hip_-notic.Please don't worry about the pure ,we have to share with the impure too,If you could be a bit more specific though as California is a big place ,do you have the zip code by anychance?Seriously though, I think it could lead to behaving in an immoral way but thought is not really a behavior in itself and immorality is *behaving* in a wrong manner.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 30, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Ambar Veera The merit in being jat-hi is overcoming lust ,if there was no lust, there could be no jat-hi.I keep feel like watching her do that dance again ,it was _hip_-notic.Please don't worry about the pure ,we have to share with the impure too,If you could be a bit more specific though as California is a big place ,do you have the zip code by anychance?


Sinner ji I have no clue about the video.  I searched to answer one of the Kundalini threads and got to this video on Youtube.

Hope it helps.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## passingby (Aug 30, 2011)

I have already presented what I could. The problem with discussion on forums is that it has a long turn-around time and when the a person chooses to stick to some parts and completely ignore other parts of the exchange it becomes fruitless and directionless. I already made a distinction between control and awareness yet it has been ignored.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that I did NOT talk about mind-control, the posts here also seem to imply as if there is no place of 'mind-control' in Sikhism and it is something laughable or complicated hocus-pocus which Sikhism does not concern itself with. The simple fact is Gurbani DOES concern itself with all this. That is why it says 

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





> ਸਾਧੋ ਮਨ ਕਾ ਮਾਨੁ ਤਿਆਗਉ ॥ ਕਾਮੁ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਸੰਗਤਿ  ਦੁਰਜਨ ਕੀ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਭਾਗਉ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥


  Clearly one is told to run away from Kaam, Krodha and company of evil people because of their effect on mind. And how does the effect manifest ? In form of thoughts and emotions! This is self-evident. It seems absurd to point this simple fact out! 

If one cannot discuss mind, thoughts, emotions on a Philosophical forum (even if its a Sikh forum) then surely something is wrong. Its sad to experience this just when I was beginning to think that SPN is a great place for gaining something.

In any case before this becomes ugly I shall unsubscribe from this thread if there is a provision for it and if there isn't I shall ignore the notification regarding this thread. This were my last words on this thread.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 30, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> Rev. GEOFFRY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.
> 
> A basic moral principle for Catholic Christians is that we should always treat other people with respect and never use them as objects or a means to getting our own way.
> 
> ...




I had little objection with regard to the Muslim perspective in the essay than I did with the Buddhist. ;-) So allow me to try and give a more correct representation of the latter.

As human beings it is not to be expected that there will not be strong sensual desire. After all, this is a sensual plain of existence and being born a human is result of good karma, which means that different from hell, we are here to reap the fruits in the form of pleasant sense experiences.

Sexual desire is desire, only unlike for example; desire for certain foods and music, this one is especially strong. In general, for a man, there is no sight more arousing than that of a woman (same with a woman for a man), likewise no flavour, sound, smell nor touch. 

So it is not surprising that we will have lustful thoughts! Only that unlike food, music and so on, in an attempt at satisfying our urges, with sex, this necessarily involves interaction with another being. And here comes in the question of moral conduct. For a married man, having a relationship with someone other than one's own wife can therefore only be wrong. For an unmarried man, things such as whether the other person is engaged to someone else, or whether she is still under the protection of parents or guardians or that she is a minor should be taken into account because of the consequence that these have, (though I think visiting a prostitute is OK).   

Let us not forget however, that desire is desire and it is in the nature of this to accumulate. Therefore although it is never wrong to have sexual relationship with one's own partner, we should not overlook the fact that if we become obsessed with it, this can one day lead to misconduct in the form of sexual relationships outside of marriage. And this is where we need to consider the nature of desire itself. 

Since sex comes down to the experiences through the five senses, we can see then that if we are unrestrained in desire for the objects of the senses in general, this has influence on our attitudes towards sex as well. Indeed, when desire is strong, it can lead to immoral conducts such as lying, stealing and killing, and also sexual misconduct.

What then should be our attitude towards desire in general and sexual desire in particular? For the latter, there is for example, meditation on the "loathsomeness of the body" where the body is broken down into constituent parts, which makes it that when taken out of context of the overall "looks", it is not pleasant looking anymore, like hair in the soup bowl. Also one could be encouraged to have wholesome thoughts to replace the lustful ones. Both these although wholesome and encouraging of calm, however involve only 'suppression' which do not lead to desire in general being reduced. The only way that desire is ever dealt with any lasting effect is the development of understanding with regard to its true nature. 

When desire arises we can understand that it has arisen by conditions beyond control and be reminded then, of the as yet strong underlying tendency which won't go away any time soon. However being that this must involve a level of understanding which is characterized by a degree of detachment, instead of being discouraged, one is motivated with patience and courage to continue looking in that direction. But before there is any direct awareness and understanding of the reality of the moment, there must first be a correct intellectual understanding as to the nature of the different realities including desire, and also that of awareness and understanding itself. 

That we have a sense of something having occurred is evidence that it has fallen away already. There is therefore no point in trying to deal with it, let alone feel guilty. Wrestling with one's desire can only be done with ignorance and desire and this means that it is actually increasing. In other words, it is part of the development of understanding to realize that you can't desire to rid of desire. 

Seeing this and all the other traps that come with the perception of a "me" who is this way or that way and needs to do something in order to become / change, one is lead to conclude that the development of wisdom must be natural. In other words we are to understand who we are and this won't happen if we believe that we should be doing something in particular or be at another place or time in order that such an understanding can happen or be facilitated. Therefore there is no place for such things as 'meditation' or the practice of 'mind control' in the Buddha's teachings.

If one must use the word 'control' this can refer to the fact of wholesome states arising in place of unwholesome ones or that of wisdom arising in place of ignorance and craving. These however refer to impersonal elements following a particular developmental path and not a result of some "formal practice". The conditions for the development of wisdom or 'right understanding' as stated by the Buddha are:

1. Association with superior, knowledgeable people 
2. Hearing the Dharma 
3. Careful attention 
4. Practice in accordance with the Dharma

None of these happen because we choose it. Only wisdom can recognize wisdom, and if this does not happen, one *will* be wrong about it all. One manifestation of this is the idea of sitting down to meditate in order to watch thoughts. What happens in such a case is simply the replacement of one pattern of thinking with another. While wisdom if arisen would know 'thinking' as just thinking which is impermanent and non-self, the meditator in experiencing states of mind *different* from normal is actually being fooled by what is called "illusion of result". This then motivates him to continue with the particular practice all the while increasing the perception of "me", me who is, who needs to do, who does, who will be, and who achieves. 

Getting back to the matter of lustful thoughts, we can now see that the only right approach is to understand it as just another conditioned arising. Thinking arises and falls away instantly just like any other reality and the attachment accompanying it is equally fleeting and can also be understood. This kind of understanding must grow firm such that we then are not attracted by suggestions to particular deliberate practices. And when it comes to the idea of watching thoughts even now, is it not evident that this happens because we fail to see that the thinking has arisen and already fallen away? And is it not then that what follows is a case of being caught up in thinking rather than understanding it?

I think that this is enough for now. Will wait for a response before adding more.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 30, 2011)

> *NOTE: * I have not changed any of Confused ji's words only changed the color, italics or bold for highlighting for self and if it helps others.


My brother Confused ji comes through again let us note some of the wisdom from the above post,



> As human beings it is not to be expected that there will not be strong  sensual desire. After all, this is a sensual plain of existence and  being born a human is result of good karma, which means that different  from hell, we are here to reap the fruits in the form of pleasant sense  experiences.
> 
> Sexual desire is desire, only unlike for example; desire for certain  foods and music, this one is especially strong. _In general, for a man,  there is no sight more arousing than that of a woman_ (same with a woman  for a man), likewise no flavour, sound, smell nor touch. mundahug
> 
> ...


Confused ji other than Karma aspect in the first paragraph, I have nothing but appreciation and genuinely thank you for your contributions again.  I tried to say such in many a posts in a dis-jointed fashion but your layout is "BRILLIANT".

Thank you many a times again. mundahug

*PS:  *Confused ji other than Karma, based on my understanding of Sikhism, everything else that you say in the above has no conflicts with Sikhism's teachings.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 31, 2011)

Ambarsariah Ji..one can never STOP..watching. I am sure you would have heard the story of the prostitute who asked a saint...is your long white beard as pure as people say...and he said I cannot answer that now. On hsi deathbed he called the prostitute to come to his bedside..and declared..Now I cna say with conviction that my beard is WHITE becasue theres almost no chance of me soiling it by any action...
SO "watching" is a lifelong passion/duty...only at deathbed can we see the results..of a life long watch..AANT KAAL jo....Simreh...means just that.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 31, 2011)

I had dinner with a very wholesome friend some time ago, married, professional, faithful, I asked him what the contents of his mind were like, he smiled and replied, 'a cesspit!'

I have huge difficulty reconciling good men with good actions and minds like cesspits, in my view, our minds are like torches, they shine lights on things that interest us, the more time we spend shining a light on something, the more we think, meditate and contemplate it. 

If a man can live a hugely pious life, but spend a lifetime training the meditative mind so that he can live his perfect fantasy life in his head is that going to help him realise his internal Guru?

For some men, these are not just fleeting thoughts, they are a whole separate parallel life. Every thought, every fantasy not only leaves an illumination of the fantasy shadowing our real life, but wastes valuable thinking and doing time, it is a sign of discontent with real life. 

Strangely enough, sometimes having the courage to live out fantasies, sexual or not, and to see first hand the effects and real time consequences can be a good thing, it educates and confirms, and viewed side by side against the fantasy, exposes it for the waste of time it actually is, of course some people need to spend years in this pursuit before enlightenment kicks in, years, and years and years .......


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 31, 2011)

Passingby Ji Try to watch your thoughts ,sometimes they can get get peremptory and frustrated,you have wrote very well be patient,Ambarsaria Veera must have started listening to Bhagat Kabir Ji Shaloks or Raveena Tandon Songslol


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 31, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Passingby Ji Try to watch your thoughts ,sometimes they can get get peremptory and frustrated,you have wrote very well be patient,Ambarsaria Veera must have started listening to Bhagat Kabir Ji Shaloks or Raveena Tandon Songslol
> _I must say I like all videos except Kundalini one which was kind of "tongue-in-cheek"_.



I don't believe in thought control.  I am not against watching yourself in many ways as per "confused ji's post" and slowly but surely you become in the way you think and the way you act.  All the stuff not in line with such development falls by the wayside naturally.  No magic or cleansing baths or mental shampoos needed.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Aug 31, 2011)

Ambarsaria said:


> My brother Confused ji comes through again let us note some of the wisdom from the above post,
> 
> Confused ji other than Karma, based on my understanding of Sikhism, everything else that you say in the above has no conflicts with Sikhism's teachings.



Ambarsaria ji,

I am happy that you appreciate my message, which means that you actually agree with some aspect of Karma. Maybe later on, you will appreciate the other aspects as well. ;-)


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 1, 2011)

Harry ji,

I would like to comment on this message of yours.




> I had dinner with a very wholesome friend some time ago, married, professional, faithful, I asked him what the contents of his mind were like, he smiled and replied, 'a cesspit!'
> 
> 
> I have huge difficulty reconciling good men with good actions and minds like cesspits, in my view, our minds are like torches, they shine lights on things that interest us, the more time we spend shining a light on something, the more we think, meditate and contemplate it.



There may be a point where the mind becomes markedly pure, but this I believe is a long, long way away. In the meantime a sign of being on the right track would I think, be that one sees more and more of one's own faults. Hence I believe the impression would be more or less as what your friend says, 'a cesspit'.




> If a man can live a hugely pious life, but spend a lifetime training the meditative mind so that he can live his perfect fantasy life in his head is that going to help him realise his internal Guru?
> 
> For some men, these are not just fleeting thoughts, they are a whole separate parallel life. Every thought, every fantasy not only leaves an illumination of the fantasy shadowing our real life, but wastes valuable thinking and doing time, it is a sign of discontent with real life.




Different people, different accumulated tendencies. Discontent can sometimes follow from having some glimpse into the nature of reality, namely that it is impermanent and insubstantial. And contentment may actually be manifestation of the bliss of ignorance. What I'm saying is that we should not think in terms of contentment / discontentment to judge whether someone is on the right track or not.

With regard to morality, it is said that one needs to live with the particular person for a long time before coming to a conclusion whether that person is moral or not and this too, one must be moral oneself. With regard to wisdom, this happens through questioning and discussions and again, we ourselves must first have some wisdom. 

I do not think it is helpful to go by the kind of perception such as that, "For some men, these are not just fleeting thoughts, they are a whole separate parallel life". 

Fleetingness is the nature of all states.
That we get the impression of thoughts lasting is exactly because of ignorance. What actually happens is that thinking arises and falls away very rapidly, only that one perception links with another which then gives the impression of continuity. We can see that when we think of others with kindness, this doesn't appear to last very long, but quickly other impressions come in. This is because compared to such things as attachment, aversion and conceit, the tendency to kindness is so little. On the other hand, when we are angry with someone or attached to something, this seems to go on for a long time. 

What actually happens is that because attachment and aversion arises so easily, it conditions thoughts in a way where one set of perceptions lead to another, hence these continue to arise again and again. And of course, we can see that in fact, other experiences, such as seeing and hearing rise and fall away in between all the time. Except that due to the great amount of ignorance, these are not known but instead one is "lost in the thoughts". And this continues until some perception through one of the senses are strong enough to start another train of thought, at which point one may suddenly feel overwhelmed by the weight of the preceding obsessive thought and begin to think of something else (with attachment of course).  

Thinking with aversion is the result of seeing the negative side of the person. If however, due to conditions, one suddenly had thoughts about the positive side of that person; the train of thought can be seen to be completely different. This shows that what we think is determined by whether the consciousness is rooted in wholesome factors or unwholesome factors and that no thought really lasts. Indeed if we are just a little observant, we can see that even when being obsessed, actually other thoughts come in all the time, although too insignificant to change the general direction.

Yes, obsession does take place. But instead of suggesting that 'for some people thoughts are fleeting and for others they are not', you should be saying that 'sometimes there is obsession and sometimes not'. You could also point out the perhaps the obsession is due to the attachment or aversion being stronger than when there is no obsession. But whether one thinks for a few seconds about something or hours on end about it, the fact remains that thoughts arise and fall away instantly. 

And besides, being obsessed or not is not even the deciding factor as to how much of ignorance and craving there is. Some person with attention deficiency may find himself jumping from one object to another all day, while another in being obsessed with just one or two things, may at other times be experiencing more wholesome states.




> Strangely enough, sometimes having the courage to live out fantasies, sexual or not, and to see first hand the effects and real time consequences can be a good thing, it educates and confirms, and viewed side by side against the fantasy, exposes it for the waste of time it actually is, of course some people need to spend years in this pursuit before enlightenment kicks in, years, and years and years




If wisdom arises, this is in spite of the attachment and ignorance and not as a result of it. And wisdom will know this! If we get the impression that we have learnt something from past wrongs, this likely is an instance of attachment and not of wisdom.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 1, 2011)

A most excellent post Confusedji, some clarification and comments would be great!



Confused said:


> Harry ji,
> 
> I would like to comment on this message of yours.
> 
> ...



now here we have a statement that defines my entire life, I have been quite personal in this reply, because this last line threatens to redefine everything. As an addict to most things throughout my life, I would like to think that I have learnt everything I know from all the wrong I have done in my life, without a need to erect barriers, I know that gambling bores me, the thought of other women bores me, pride and ego bore me, dinner parties bore me, big fast cars etc etc etc, I have always felt that my lifestyle has in some way contributed to the partial peace I feel today, not to be pulled by various things is a huge relief, not wanting to do various things is a huge relief, what you are saying is that I feel this way inspite of what I have done, not because of it, and that I am having difficulty squaring, I look forward to your reply Confusedji


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 3, 2011)

Can actions and thoughts be truly separated? Take for example a man who goes to Gurdwara to learn. Outwardly his action of going there is lauded and an assumption is made about his thoughts. However, once there he finds his thoughts bending to the other side of the room. Should he not make an effort to return his thoughts in a more useful direction? Can his thoughts be ignored even though they are so discordant from his actions? Surely it is this way of thinking that allows sevadaars to steal from golucks etc. Surely bringing action and thought together is what Gurbani teaches us and that both should be appropriate for the situation. 

I like the new profile pics posted by Harry ji and Ambarsaria ji. Surely the action to post those is a reflection of their changing thoughts!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 3, 2011)

findingmyway ji thanks for the post.  Thanks also for comment on the "avatar", what do you see it as a "meany lion" or "gentle lion that can pounce but can also be petted" :sippingcoffeemunda:


findingmyway said:


> Can actions and thoughts be truly separated? Take for example a man who goes to Gurdwara to learn. Outwardly his action of going there is lauded and an assumption is made about his thoughts. However, once there he finds his thoughts bending to the other side of the room. Should he not make an effort to return his thoughts in a more useful direction? Can his thoughts be ignored even though they are so discordant from his actions? Surely it is this way of thinking that allows sevadaars to steal from golucks etc.
> 
> Surely bringing action and thought together is what Gurbani teaches us and that both should be appropriate for the situation.
> 
> ...


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 3, 2011)

Harry ji,

There is so much to discuss, but I don't know if I'll be able to cover all the important points.




> > There may be a point where the mind becomes markedly pure, but this I believe is a long, long way away. In the meantime a sign of being on the right track would I think, be that one sees more and more of one's own faults. Hence I believe the impression would be more or less as what your friend says, 'a cesspit'.
> 
> 
> 
> so to expect someones mind not to be a cesspit would be unusual,



We don't go about judging people this way of course. What we do take note is their actions through speech and body, and clearly in some cases, what comes across to us is genuine goodness, and we should in fact rejoice in this. The perception of cesspit is that of each individual's own mind and not that of the other person.  But yes, we should expect that we are all much defiled.




> I would like to think of my own mind as not being a cesspit, but am I lying to myself,



Lying involves the intention to deceive another person, you are therefore not lying. I do believe that you are genuinely good (perception from the standpoint of the other person ;-)), and that you readily empathize with other people, unlike me, who is quite autistic. What may be going on with you however is that you have identified with your intentions, which come across to you as good, not by wisdom, but something else. And of course, as compared to some of us, you may indeed have strong accumulations to particular good deeds and this is why you do what you do. But still, if we are aware of what goes on from moment to moment, we can see that in any situation, there are both good and bad motives alternating and the self-seeking ones are much more if not overarching. 

For those of us who have made "good" our aim, there is also what in the Buddhist teachings, called "Cheating States". 

It is to be expected, given the lack of wisdom, that when introduced to religious ideas, particularly those related to mental development and purity of conduct, that attachment will be directed towards wanting to accumulate and to achieve. The attachment to 'self' is deeply rooted and has replaced worldly ambition with a so called, spiritual one. Cheating states are those that come across to the person as signs of success along the spiritual path but are in fact not. In reality these come down to being different manifestations of attachment, wrong understanding and conceit, and this means, self-deceptions.

Here we can see the importance of having understanding from the very beginning. And also that all kinds of good such as, truthfulness, patience, morality, equanimity, renunciation and so on, need to be developed as support; otherwise we will keep going off-track and be fooling ourselves. 




> I have erected boundaries to my thinking to the point that any transgression results in guilt or the construction of parallel personalities to achieve this, maybe I should just let it flow



"Understanding" is the key and it is understanding which detaches. The idea of 'letting go' or 'letting it flow' is just that, an idea. When understanding arises, there is detachment but no idea about doing it or not doing it. Indeed thinking to let go and trying to follow it through must be due to attachment which then will likely encourage one or more of the 'cheating states' to take over. 

There is a Buddhist concept called 'Silabattaparamasa', or 'attachment to rules and rituals'. The "Sila" in this phrase is the Pali for "morality". What this then means is that, attachment to morality leads to actions and practices which amount to being "rules and rituals". 

Guilt is a form of aversion and reflects attachment to "self". So you can see how these relate to each other, namely attachment to doing good and feelings of guilt when failing. Instead of guilt, there should be moral shame and fear of blame. While guilt is characterized by agitation and accompanied by unpleasant feeling, moral shame is never agitated or unpleasant. Indeed it arises with all good states and accompanied by faith, calm and a degree of detachment. So you might like to consider this as indicator as to whether what you do is right or notâ€¦.




> It is clearly wrong to seek contentment even if it is the byproduct of ignorance, I suppose in my heart I crave contentment so much that at times I would be willing to drown in the bliss of ignorance, but on the other hand, if these boundaries that have been erected are boundaries to keep ignorance in and wisdom out, in order to maintain some sort of mental status quo, then I am on what possibly appears to be the right track, but is not




Whatever it is, only wisdom can really know. But it has to know it when it manifests and not as an idea or thinking in retrospect. We can't stop thinking about the past, however when this happens, if we do not realize that this is only "thinking" chances are that another muddle is created in which we are then caught. There can be thinking about one's past deeds with a mind which appreciates the deed itself and this is fine, although this may not have anything to do with wisdom. Usually however, the thinking revolves around me, mine and I, and this is not fine.




> > With regard to morality, it is said that one needs to live with the particular person for a long time before coming to a conclusion whether that person is moral or not and this too, one must be moral oneself. With regard to wisdom, this happens through questioning and discussions and again, we ourselves must first have some wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question, what is morality?, is it clean thinking? clean actions? or acceptance of imperfection and being 'yourself'




There is morality which is restraint and there is morality which is action.
The former is when otherwise mental, verbal or bodily transgression would have arisen, but instead a moment of restraint arises due to moral shame and fear of blame. The latter is expressed as good manners which include being considerate, showing respect, expressing gratitude and helping other people. They all point to the state of mind and not to the outward actions. This is why it takes time and very close observation and us being moral ourselves, to know whether someone else is truly moral or not.




> This is extremely true, I myself have a terrible habit of 'racking up' good deeds, and then keeping a mental record of deeds given as opposed to deeds given back. Although I try and act with ' a heart', there are times when I can think of nothing other than 'why am I always giving', and instead of accepting the good in others, I find everyone around me complacent in my giving. In my lust for alooprontha, I have come to the conclusion that I suffer extreme attachment to alooprontha, which causes me much mental debating.



This is ordinary attachment which I'm sure will never be the cause for you to act immorally, so I don't think that you should be concerned about it. Indeed that you are, is sign of attachment to 'self', and this is a problem you should be aware of!  




> The question then is to try and use discipline and wisdom so that I can enjoy AP without being attached to it, to lose AP altogether, or to indulge myself completely and accept that I am attached.



What state of mind does "enjoying" primarily consist of if not attachment? Attachment comes in many forms and degrees. Enjoying food is harmless and should not be our concern because in fact there are other more harmful attachments, including to the idea of being without attachment and using discipline and wisdom to get there. 

Right understanding is the goal from beginning to the end. Attachment, ignorance, aversion and conceit are dealt with as the understanding develops. The idea of dealing with these with wisdom is not itself an instance of wisdom, but that of ambition. It is overreaching. This is the kind of trap that we get into if we do not see the role and importance of understanding and to being patient about it. 




> > Yes, obsession does take place. But instead of suggesting that 'for some people thoughts are fleeting and for others they are not', you should be saying that 'sometimes there is obsession and sometimes not'. You could also point out the perhaps the obsession is due to the attachment or aversion being stronger than when there is no obsession. But whether one thinks for a few seconds about something or hours on end about it, the fact remains that thoughts arise and fall away instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> This does beg the question, 'who am i'. My thoughts often turn 180 degrees, some might say this is fickle, I would like to think that my thoughts vary on new information, but more importantly how balanced my mind is, I seem to be capable of seeing any point of view, while this makes me open minded, I feel it also makes me change direction continually.




It does not matter what the thoughts are and which direction it takes. For all of us, whether we are a farmer, a mechanic, a scientist, a businessman, a social worker or a politician, what we think in a day and how much it jumps from one object to another, the point is to understand the "thinking" itself and any of what conditions it from moment to moment, such as aversion, ignorance, conceit, attachment, jealousy, miserliness or kindness, compassion and so on. There is no point trying to analyse thoughts in order to find the answer since that would only be just more thoughts.

Being open minded is being open to other people's ideas. But if one does not understand thinking as just thinking, one just ends up taking seriously all the thoughts and this is not helpful at all. 




> I would very much like to hear your defination of a wholesome state




Unwholesome states are those that are rooted in ignorance alone or this with either attachment or aversion. Wholesome states are the opposite whose roots are wisdom, non-attachment and non-aversion. A moment of generosity, morality, kindness, compassion, wisdom, sympathetic joy and faith are examples of wholesome states. Anger, lust, jealousy, miserliness, doubt, conceit, ill-will and wrong understanding are examples of the unwholesome. 

In general, a wholesome state is characterized by calm whereas the unwholesome, by agitation. One is productive of good results and the other of bad.




> > If wisdom arises, this is in spite of the attachment and ignorance and not as a result of it. And wisdom will know this! If we get the impression that we have learnt something from past wrongs, this likely is an instance of attachment and not of wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What I am talking about is wisdom which understands the nature of the different phenomena that make up our lives, which include the ability to distinguish good states from bad states and how these and all other kinds of realities are fleeting, insubstantial and impersonal. Your experience on the other hand appears to refer to what can be said to be 'conditioned response' to situations. Your position could perhaps be said to be that of 'worldly wisdom', but is not something that is about understanding the reality "now". 

Although I now see him as being quite misguided, there is something J. Krishnamurti said which has stayed with me for a long time. He said something to the effect that, "we can't learn from experience, but only from what is now". And there is also a Sufi saying with a similar message which I often recall; this is that, "one can't ride a camel which has gone and one which hasn't come, but only the one that is here". 

Learning from the past involves value judgements and thinking in terms of situations. No attention is given to the mental state behind any intention to act now. This must then in fact be just more ignorance, with either attachment, conceit or view and can be seen as an act of avoidance. That is, in taking cues from past experiences, thinking about the present in terms of a situation, one avoids looking at what the reality is now. 

The feeling of relief may be indication of the clinging involved. Yes I'd say that your good deeds now are in spite of the past bad ones. At the time the conditions were such that it was easy for bad deeds to arise and now the conditions have changed. And I'm sure that you will agree that things may have gone differently, for example, if you did not have the problem regarding your health. Besides there are countless examples of so called bad experiences leading to other kinds of wrong behaviours. 

The truth is that it is never the case that good happens as a result of bad, so while those bad deeds not only will bring results in the future, they have also accumulated as tendency, thereby increasing the chance of future arising. The good now is due to the good accumulated from the past, read countless lives, and these accumulate as well. 

Sometimes, in an attempt to explain what is going on but limited by the perception of the different incidents in one's life, a mistaken idea about cause and effect comes to be held. This is perversion of perception, of consciousness and of view all taking effect. To insist on it just adds to the problem. 

This is somewhat rushed, and I have to end right here as my son has been waiting for quite some time to watch â€˜Thorâ€™ with me. :happysingh:


----------



## findingmyway (Sep 4, 2011)

Amarsaria ji,
The eyes of your lion are smiling and show a kindness peacesign

I have several comments I would like to share

1) I believe it is for each person to decide whether their thoughts are appropriate or not and will result in action or not. You cannot know the inner workings of my mind and I cannot know yours so we cannot and should not judge each other or anyone else. These musings are for individuals themselves.

2) Having mind and body in perfect tune is hard but that it why it is a goal and all the worth more to work towards. I am very far from achieving this but I keep this aim in mind. Not all thoughts lead to actions in the short term but if some thoughts are continously entertained unchecked they can lead to an affect on personality and will impact on how you respond to another situation in the future. Those thoughts will also impact on how you interact with those around you, whether you are conscious of this or not. Saying thoughts are sinful is going too far but equally treating thoughts as harmless is also naive. Happy medium with the higher goal in mind is where we should all be headed within ourselves.

3) Gurbani is all about aspiring higher and working towards the ideal so the argument that minds will stray, it is human nature has never held water with me. That's no excuse for not changing. What's the point in life are we are not always trying to work towards the ideal? Then again I have always been very goal driven in all aspects of my life and love having something to work towards. Maybe that is just another aspect of an addictive personality lol


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 4, 2011)

findingmyway said:


> Amarsaria ji,
> The eyes of your lion are smiling and show a kindness peacesign
> 
> I have several comments I would like to share
> ...


findingmyway ji thanks for the post.

Wonderfully stated and I take no exception to all you posted.

Thanks about the lion comment too.  

Let us take another look at the subject.  Is it that animals are more advanced and spiritual than us? They don't seem to have an outside and inside conflict and want to always live in consonance with creation.  Mind you, only they know how they are on the inside.  They do play tricks as part of hunting tactics peacesign.  Is it equivalent to what humans do to get money, property and food?  Are we too hard on ourselves as this appears a common trait in most life in creationpeacesign?

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 4, 2011)

I am missing the centerfold. Did anyone see it?


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 4, 2011)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I am missing the centerfold. Did anyone see it?




lol

That would make a difference would it not?  :whatzpointkudi:


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 4, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> lol
> 
> That would make a difference would it not?  :whatzpointkudi:


Hope the following videos help,

J. Geils Band - Centerfold      - YouTube

MC Hammer - U Can't Touch This      - YouTube

To cancel any immoral thoughts please do per the smiliejapposatnamwaheguru:.  Afterwards you can also use any of the mental shampooing techniques like yoga, meditation, etc.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 4, 2011)

imho 

One needs a brain to have a thought, even a lascivious thought. And the videos imho imho imho only were brainless. But then that is only moi.

Still I must, heaves a sigh, check every video posted here for purposes of moderation. Heaves another sigh.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 4, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> imho
> 
> One needs a brain to have a thought, even a lascivious thought.
> 
> ...


If such offends anyone, I will absolutely delete a post or edit as guided.

Very humbly submitted.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 4, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,




> Let us take another look at the subject.  Is it that animals are more advanced and spiritual than us? They don't seem to have an outside and inside conflict and want to always live in consonance with creation.  Mind you, only they know how they are on the inside.  They do play tricks as part of hunting tactics peacesign.  Is it equivalent to what humans do to get money, property and food?  Are we too hard on ourselves as this appears a common trait in most life in creation?



I've often wanted to ask you about this but hesitate due sometimes to fear of appearing stupid and sometimes for other reasons. But more than anyone here, you have expressed belief in the idea of "consonance with creation" and the implications of this, and if I remember correctly, you even once tried to explain death and rebirth using the idea. 


I also know that you and others here have tried to explain the idea of Creator and Creation in a way that it then becomes impersonal. Although I don't see this as ever going to be achieved given that at the same time, there is belief in a 'soul'. Indeed as I see it, and this is also with science, the problem lies in the perception of a 'controlling agent'. Therefore no matter how hard we try to think in terms of impersonal phenomena, so long as there is the underlying need to look for a 'source' outside of the present moment experience, one can't escape from what I call 'self-view'.

But this is not what I wish to discuss here. What I wish to talk about is this, and here is where my mind comes into knots and why I fear appearing stupid.

If as you suggest that an animal in doing what it does, and the businessman who tries to be secure by whatever means,  are both living in consonance with creation, why is it that you have a problem with people who discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad? Do you not see them as also living in consonance with creation? Obviously you do feel the need to remind others about this don't you, and this means that even you judge some attitudes as correct (hence in consonance) and others as incorrect (hence dissonant)? Is it not possible then, that even within the philosophy that you hold, there is much that must be wrong / bad while others are right / good?

Coming from a Buddhist perspective, when I observe an animal, what I see is a life of much conflict. Even a pet dog with a master who caters to all its needs, must be in a constant state of alert for the next thing that is going to happen. It is driven by greed day in and day out but unlike a human being, it has no clue about this, let alone how it can be overcome. The only time that it is not in conflict is when it is asleep. Therefore while a human being when awake has the possibility of finding a way to not be in conflict, a dog has no such chance to do this.

I think that you are projecting an ideal into the situation with animals and in effect, denying the truth. The same is being done with human beings as well, which makes it that when you said that you agreed with me in an earlier message, it must in fact not be so. Because while I do see a need to not dwell on any chance arising of unwholesome states for the fact that it has arisen and fallen away already, but at the same time consider these to be wrong, you on the other hand, appear to be actually denying that they are. And not only this, in thinking in terms of the "bigger picture", you actually make them appear as good!

But like I said, I am not clear about any of this so I may be wrong about what you think. So I would appreciate if you could clarify.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 4, 2011)

Ambasaria ji

The reason I did not delete or move the videos came from the possibility that 



> Even some times work done by "brainless" challenges us in simple form to learn something.



It did not work that way for me. To me it was exasperating.  It may for someone else. Thanks for your detailed clarification.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 5, 2011)

Confused ji thanks for your post.  Confused ji I have also elaborated on  the concept of consonance in the following post if you wish to review,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/36725-creation-and-consonance.html#post151862

I will review one of the paragraphs and perhaps it will allow me to clarify also other comments you have in your post.  


> If as you suggest that an animal in doing what it does,
> _An animal to have a chance of living in consonance,  it needs to be living as per the creation of such species and members  of such species.  A pet dog does not qualify as an example of living in  consonance rather living in slavery.  Same for a snake in a zoo or Lion  or elephant in a zoo._
> 
> and the  businessman who tries to be secure by whatever means,  are both living  in consonance with creation,
> ...


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 6, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,




> Confused ji thanks for your post. Confused ji I have also elaborated on the concept of consonance in the following post if you wish to review,
> 
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-s...tml#post151862




Thanks, I've read one of your responses to Harry ji. 
There is going to be a lot of questions, I hope that you do not mind.




> I will review one of the paragraphs and perhaps it will allow me to clarify also other comments you have in your post.
> 
> Quote: If as you suggest that an animal in doing what it does,
> 
> An animal to have a chance of living in consonance, it needs to be living as per the creation of such species and members of such species. A pet dog does not qualify as an example of living in consonance rather living in slavery.




Are you suggesting that a Dachshund could have a more ideal existence than being someone's pet? What would that be?




> Same for a snake in a zoo or Lion or elephant in a zoo.




You mean a Chihuahua if not made into a pet would have been found roaming in the wild?




> and the businessman who tries to be secure by whatever means, are both living in consonance with creation,
> 
> A business man living in the society and species has the opportunity to participate innately to live in consonance for such species. Within living in consonance is a self regulating and assured responsibility to deliver on consonance. However, the concept becomes an aggregated factor for a community, a group or such entity to work out details on living within the species and interacting with the rest of creation.



So a human being is in a way handicapped as compared to say, a wildebeest, since the latter does not need much guidance in order to be living in harmony with the rest of its kind, whereas a human being is always resisting and in conflict, clearly no self-regulating faculty within the individual himself? Was there a momentary lapse of attention / oversight on the part of the Creator when the human being was conceived of? Or perhaps there was no such thing as conceiving of an idea and then actualizing it since these are only human characteristics â€¦.? How does it work then, any ideas?




> Within the species the governance and latitude exists to a great deal of variety and deviation from what aggregated norm will define consonance for the collective. Now if a collective tolerates a Business man to live or go for things one way and let a beggar do things in another way, that is an input to the collective while at personal level it may seem hugely different. The collective will be seen by rest of the creation to be in consonance.




So in the end it does not matter what any individual thinks or how he acts, and whether this will lead to good or bad consequence on a personal level, so long as according to the bigger picture, everything is kept in balance, is this what you are saying?




> Now let us take an example perhaps where collective is not in consonance. Excessive use of pesticides leading to water contamination, deforestation leading to mudslides, excessive use of antibiotics leading to super bugs, excessive deviation what our bodies were designed to handle leading to cancers, so on. These are lack of living in consonance of species depending upon level of activity. Consequences are prevalent all over to view.




Well, you can put this in an even bigger picture can't you and come to a conclusion that in the larger scheme of things, even this leads to harmony? So where does one draw the line and why? If your answer is "maintaining the particular species", can you tell me why this is ever important, i.e. in the eyes of God? How is survival of a species a virtue?




> > why is it that you have a problem with people who discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So your concern is not towards what any individual goes through doing what he does and what the consequence of this might be, so long as this helps solve the problem of over population and other such things? So what happens after that, i.e. after the population decreases? Do you then begin to think about the wellbeing of the individual including those that are homosexuals? If so why and if not why? And what would your attitude be towards a homosexual then? Or do you think that everything will automatically be in harmony, including that people will become virtuous and homosexuals will stop being what they are? 




> Population has huge consonance impacts in terms of interaction with rest of the species. I am not for forced sterilization but I am also thinking that we as a species have no answer in many such areas which matter at the consonance level (interaction with other elements and species).




Are you suggesting to the effect that in an overpopulated world it is difficult for such states as kindness and compassion to arise?

The Four Immeasurables namely, kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity are said to be what brings about and maintain good relationship between beings. But this is an individual thing which each person has to see the value of and develop. When these are present, it makes no difference to whom it is directed, be it a saint or a terrorist, or in what situation, some idyllic setting or a noisy and crowded place. In fact one of the obstacles is the idea that these can be directed only to certain individuals and aroused only in some more suitable situation. Also moral shame and fear of blame are said to be that by which regulates a human behaviour, making him different from animals. And this too, is an individual thing.

What do you think about this Ambarsaria ji? Particularly this last comment about moral shame and fear of blame as being what differentiates humans from animals, how does this compare with your own idea about animals being more in consonance with creation than most human beings?




> Would pandemics be a general outcome of our ignorance to keep checks on ourselves as a species versus rest of creation. It is crass way to look at it but perhaps it is a perfectly valid outcome of a species going out of balance with consonance in creation.




Again, it's all about maintaining the species, but to what end? If you are willing to see a whole population suffer and die for the long term goal of maintaining the species as a whole, how do you expect a change of attitude with regard to the rest to suddenly happen? If I'm cold and indifferent towards the killing and death of one person but think that I might then experience kindness and compassion towards the one who survived, what is the probability of this in fact happening? And do you know what one of the conditions for the arising of kindness is? The awareness and understanding with regard to the nature of indifference and callousness! And this won't happen so long as one is involved in trying to justify it under some pretext.




> The general issue of
> Quote: discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad
> 
> with in a species is an intra species matter. If such is driven as a fundamental tenet of a species to deliver on consonance I have no issue. Lot of the discriminatory right/wrong and good/bad is hardly ever done as driven through fundamental needs to be in consonance as a species.




Can you give me one example of a good deed that does not have a positive effect in terms of the relationship between any two human beings, and how this then affects the matter of survival of the species?




> The way creation views us is that 5 are wrong and 5 are right in there actions in impacting consonance, it will say Ok no big deal. Similarly 5 are good nd 5 are bad, no big deal in terms of consonance. It is once such go out of balance to a degree to impact creation around that notice is taken.




Are you suggesting that kaam, krodh, moh, lobh and ahankar generally cause discord, but sometimes that may lead to accord? Likewise are you saying that under certain circumstances gyan, santokh, diraj, sat and so on are not appropriate since they will lead to dissonance?




> So lascivious thoughts, other immoral thoughts, etc., are of no to little consequence to a species living in consonance with creation. If a species has determined that such would lead to conflict with creation at the species level, oh yes then we have issues.




Perhaps you need to understand the following.
-Lascivious thoughts are what lead to acting out those thoughts. 
-That in entertaining them one is planting a seed for more to arise and grow in intensity. 
-Although one can't help having those thoughts, it is important that one acknowledges their wrongness. 
-Believing that their rightness or wrongness is dependent on some consensus with regard to whether this leads to conflict within the species or not, is to actually encourage it.
-Encouraging lascivious thoughts is encouraging what is essentially wrong and productive of wrong.




> Confused ji consonance is a concept of living with whatever is around and how as us different from other elements and species react or coexist. Violations of a greater magnitude by a collective are dealt with or have very serious consequences. In such the ones good versus ones bad will not be differentiated in a collective repercussions. This is shown to us in numerous instances where saints and the good are engulfed by fire, flood, earthquake or a hurricane no different than the immoral and the bad.




What are you doing Ambarsaria ji, sitting on God's throne? ;-) Why do you see the need to put yourself in a position high up, when in reality your feet is touching the ground and your eyes has been structured to see at ground level? If the Creator has created you as you are, he has given you the faculties suitable for the particular existence hasn't he? Would not it then be a perversion of perception and of understanding to be judging from a point of reference which is only a product of imagination? 

While ignorance and greed is what is behind all the problems, now and in the past, and this involves mistake in perception, consciousness and understanding, what you are suggesting is different only in that it comes now, in a royal clothing.




> > Obviously you do feel the need to remind others about this don't you, and this means that even you judge some attitudes as correct (hence in consonance) and others as incorrect (hence dissonant)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK, so let's say that you have such an understanding and is why you speak about it with so much faith. But what about the rest of us? Surely what you have stated so far isn't going to do the trick is it? Or is it that we are to do a Google search, or read the Times, or watch Discovery Channel to get the general idea or something? But even if we did somehow get all the necessary information or some of us have like you, achieved a state of mind which understands "consonance", the question is, what justifies believing for example, that lascivious thoughts are not bad? When faced with a situation which otherwise demands compassion, what would the right attitude be like which states that the compassion then is out of place? What kind of thoughts justify killing say, a mosquito? When is aversion right and kindness wrong?




> > Is it not possible then, that even within the philosophy that you hold, there is much that must be wrong / bad while others are right / good?
> 
> 
> 
> Confused ji I am always willing to stand in the city square to be stoned and corrected. Of course I am part of a bigger collective who I wish would live in consonance with rest of creation. The methodologies or approaches to do so are a conscious effort of the collective.




Well the wrongness is in the very starting point, namely the concept of collective vs. the individual. Indeed collective and individual are only ideas and there is no need to think in these terms when one is faced with the reality of what goes on from moment to moment. The perception through the five senses do not engender the idea of a 'me', let alone that of the 'other'. The idea of a 'self' interacting with people and things is the result of the thinking process and this is fine, in fact necessary, only we need to understand that this is what is going on. Indeed without the perception of another being or person, there can't be morality, nor kindness, generosity or compassion on one hand, nor on the other hand, anger, jealousy, lust and so on. 

However, while attachment, aversion and wrong understanding can arise towards the concept of a 'collective group', morality and understanding do not conceive of such an idea. And when it comes to kindness and compassion, this won't be the real thing if the perception is of a particular group at the exclusion of other groups, but instead it would be their near enemies, namely attachment and pity (a form of aversion).

So no virtue really, in thinking for the collective, only more ignorance, craving, aversion and wrong understanding.




> I honestly believe that Sikhism properly followed assists in such an endeavor.




Frankly I doubt that anywhere in the Sikh teachings are ideas such as the one you express here. I think it is all your own extrapolation of particular key concepts, influenced in part by modern day western thought. 

I have been very direct Ambarsaria ji, but since you are willing to be stoned at, I expect that you will not mind it so much. ;-)


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 8, 2011)

Confused ji some comments back in red.
I have also used CJ to flag your writing and AJ to flag mine and the color red.



> Confused ji thanks for your post. Confused ji I have also elaborated on the concept of consonance in the following post if you wish to review,
> 
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-s...tml#post151862


CJ: Thanks, I've read one of your responses to Harry ji. 
       There is going to be a lot of questions, I hope that you do not mind.

AJ: I will review one of the paragraphs and perhaps it will allow me to clarify also other comments you have in your post. 

CJ:  Quote: If as you suggest that an animal in doing what it does, 

AJ:An animal to have a chance of living in consonance, it needs to be living as per the creation of such species and members of such species. A pet dog does not qualify as an example of living in consonance rather living in slavery. 

CJ: Are you suggesting that a Dachshund could have a more ideal existence than being someone's pet? What would that be?
AJ: A specific Dachshund may not have any existence, say if it was left to such species to be there naturally over time.  There may not be as many and not as many be interested to be open to enslaved living.  You have to ask them as no species can talk about the inners of any other species.

Quote:
AJ:  Same for a snake in a zoo or Lion or elephant in a zoo. 

CJ:You mean a Chihuahua if not made into a pet would have been found roaming in the wild?
A specific Chihuahua may not have any existence, say if it was left to such species to be there naturally over time.  There may not be as many and not as many be interested to be open to enslaved living.  You have to ask them as no species can talk about the inners of any other species.

Quote:
CJ: and the businessman who tries to be secure by whatever means, are both living in consonance with creation,
AJ: Such could at action level be living in consonance with creation while in dis-harmony with his group.  Creation does not care then and suc’s group might!

AJ:  A business man living in the society and species has the opportunity to participate innately to live in consonance for such species. Within living in consonance is a self regulating and assured responsibility to deliver on consonance. However, the concept becomes an aggregated factor for a community, a group or such entity to work out details on living within the species and interacting with the rest of creation. 
CJ: So a human being is in a way handicapped as compared to say, a wildebeest, since the latter does not need much guidance in order to be living in harmony with the rest of its kind, whereas a human being is always resisting and in conflict, clearly no self-regulating faculty (why is such a handicap if that is who we are in the eye of the creator!) within the individual himself? 
To each species its own!  Also remember that we are not equipped to understand the inners of other life forms like such being so incapably different.
CJ: Was there a momentary lapse of attention / oversight on the part of the Creator when the human being was conceived of? 
Creation is variety and balance therein.  There is no blame implied or stated.  It is how it is.  
CJ: Or perhaps there was no such thing as conceiving of an idea and then actualizing it since these are only human characteristics â€¦.? 
Human and other classifications are your imperative and not mine.  There is lot of common and there is also lot of different.
CJ: How does it work then, any ideas?
I have to be the creator to explain that.  I only try to understand and postulate how consonance is a fundamental essence in creation.  Knowing properties of something/someone does not give you the ability to create or re-create.

AJ: Within the species the governance and latitude exists to a great deal of variety and deviation from what aggregated norm will define consonance for the collective. Now if a collective tolerates a Business man to live or go for things one way and let a beggar do things in another way, that is an input to the collective while at personal level it may seem hugely different. The collective will be seen by rest of the creation to be in consonance. 

CJ: So in the end it does not matter what any individual thinks or how he acts, and whether this will lead to good or bad consequence on a personal level, so long as according to the bigger picture, everything is kept in balance, is this what you are saying?
Confused ji this is not a correct interpretation of what I wrote.  What a person does of course has consequences.  But these are relative and not absolte depending on which location or group one lives in.  What is bad in one group may be considered good in another group.  There are local consequences to love in harmony or dis-harmony with your group.  However from a consonance perspective the group is much more important in its actions towards or understanding of rest of creation.
In Islam pigs and dogs are disdained, so these creatures are going to have a terrible time in such groups.  Christian communities and other clusters have different aspects and living in sufficient numbers they have impacts on what surrounds them.
In perfect consonance, the actions, perceptions and interactions would be much more common and synergistic towards all creation.  Sikhism encourages such with great emphasis.

AJ: Now let us take an example perhaps where collective is not in consonance. Excessive use of pesticides leading to water contamination, deforestation leading to mudslides, excessive use of antibiotics leading to super bugs, excessive deviation what our bodies were designed to handle leading to cancers, so on. These are lack of living in consonance of species depending upon level of activity. Consequences are prevalent all over to view. 

CJ:  Well, you can put this in an even bigger picture can't you and come to a conclusion that in the larger scheme of things, even this leads to harmony? So where does one draw the line and why? If your answer is "maintaining the particular species", can you tell me why this is ever important, i.e. in the eyes of God? How is survival of a species a virtue?
Confused ji I am not saying that decisions of species survival reside with us.  Understanding of interactions is most important.  At such point there are decisions and actions that follow based on the needs of each.  Species will come and go through actions of their own or of others but humans as they are put on a pedestal do have a duty to understand how it all fits and be cognizance of such in their actions.  It again leads to living in understanding of all as much as possible without hang-ups and such is again strongly encouraged in Sikhism.

CJ: why is it that you have a problem with people who discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad? 
AJ: Confused ji the issue who is finding faults in who and what is its impact on creation or what note creation will take of such.

Let us take an example of homosexuality. Perhaps it is a good thing as it may lead indirectly to population control which we as a species have determined to fight nature through over population. 

CJ: So your concern is not towards what any individual goes through doing what he does
I cannot have concern for an individual for such matters if such show no signs for need of help that any one can ascertain.  If someone seeks help I try to do what I can.

 CJ: and what the consequence of this might be, so long as this helps solve the problem of over population and other such things? 
Confused ji it has less to do with me but society being accepting of such.  So such groups must have determined something good for society as a whole in that beyond freedom.  What rest of creation will see in such is a sigh of relief that over population is finally abating.
CJ: So what happens after that, i.e. after the population decreases? Do you then begin to think about the wellbeing of the individual including those that are homosexuals? If so why and if not why? 
Our species will be at crossroads at such juncture.  Guess which communities are growing the fastest, the one’s that don’t allow homosexuality, Islam.  Most of the rest of the West is like 1.x babies trajectory of shrinking population trend.  Do I look forward to a day when Islam rules the world, probably not.  Definitely the homosexuals should not look forward to such a day.
CJ: And what would your attitude be towards a homosexual then? Or do you think that everything will automatically be in harmony, including that people will become virtuous and homosexuals will stop being what they are? 
My attitude theoretically will not be here to check things out as it is not a timeframe I expect to see myself out and about.  In current trends Homosexuality will flourish till Islam starts to impact strongly then such will have to take cover and will start declining.

AJ: Population has huge consonance impacts in terms of interaction with rest of the species. I am not for forced sterilization but I am also thinking that we as a species have no answer in many such areas which matter at the consonance level (interaction with other elements and species). 

CJ: Are you suggesting to the effect that in an overpopulated world it is difficult for such states as kindness and compassion to arise?
What are the chances of kindness and compassion when hundred mouths are open while there is only food for ten.  Are we delusional in thinking the growth of population has not created greater issues for humanity!  Why is there so much talk of “me” generation.  It is not just talk it is becoming much more so.

CJ: The Four Immeasurables namely, kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity are said to be what brings about and maintain good relationship between beings. But this is an individual thing which each person has to see the value of and develop. When these are present, it makes no difference to whom it is directed, be it a saint or a terrorist, or in what situation, some idyllic setting or a noisy and crowded place. In fact one of the obstacles is the idea that these can be directed only to certain individuals and aroused only in some more suitable situation. Also moral shame and fear of blame are said to be that by which regulates a human behaviour, making him different from animals. And this too, is an individual thing.

CJ: What do you think about this Ambarsaria ji? Particularly this last comment about moral shame and fear of blame as being what differentiates humans from animals, how does this compare with your own idea about animals being more in consonance with creation than most human beings?
This is much of humans as superiors argument.  So how much incestuous relationships happen in animals?  What guides their code of conduct? One just cannot claim to be superior because of lack of understanding.  Why don’t dogs mate with cats, why don’t dogs kill their young when they are hunger, why don’t lionesses each other cubs, so on.  Human behavior is different so is animal behavior but neither is superior only relative.

CJ: Would pandemics be a general outcome of our ignorance to keep checks on ourselves as a species versus rest of creation. It is crass way to look at it but perhaps it is a perfectly valid outcome of a species going out of balance with consonance in creation. 

CJ: Again, it's all about maintaining the species, but to what end? If you are willing to see a whole population suffer and die for the long term goal of maintaining the species as a whole, how do you expect a change of attitude with regard to the rest to suddenly happen? If I'm cold and indifferent towards the killing and death of one person but think that I might then experience kindness and compassion towards the one who survived, what is the probability of this in fact happening? And do you know what one of the conditions for the arising of kindness is? The awareness and understanding with regard to the nature of indifference and callousness! And this won't happen so long as one is involved in trying to justify it under some pretext.

Quote:
AJ: The general issue of  discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad with in a species is an intra species matter. If such is driven as a fundamental tenet of a species to deliver on consonance I have no issue. Lot of the discriminatory right/wrong and good/bad is hardly ever done as driven through fundamental needs to be in consonance as a species. 

CJ: Can you give me one example of a good deed that does not have a positive effect in terms of the relationship between any two human beings, and how this then affects the matter of survival of the species?
A good deed for example someone comes to visit and not knowing that they have allergies about peanuts.  You are out camping and you offer them the half of your peanut butter sandwich and they die.  So is ignorance a defense for good deeds gone bad in this example.
Example at species level.  Excessive use of anti-biotics is a good dded that your doctor does.  Globally what we have created is a population for ever more susceptible to greater resistance bacteria.  All local good deeds which will be doom in the future for one’s who could not afford the super expensive versions of treatment and perish. Is this local kindness that translated into doom or  what!

AJ: The way creation views us is that 5 are wrong and 5 are right in there actions in impacting consonance, it will say Ok no big deal. Similarly 5 are good nd 5 are bad, no big deal in terms of consonance. It is once such go out of balance to a degree to impact creation around that notice is taken. 

CJ: Are you suggesting that kaam, krodh, moh, lobh and ahankar generally cause discord, but sometimes that may lead to accord? Likewise are you saying that under certain circumstances gyan, santokh, diraj, sat and so on are not appropriate since they will lead to dissonance?
Confused ji few things have survived the test of time for human species if such don’t have some redeeming value.  None of these are 100% right or 100% wrong based on dependency of circumstances and actions.  It is the balance that allows maximum benefit and knowing how to seek or keep such balance.  Rest is empty talk about setting unachievable objectives to subjugate or show greater superficial piety of self.

CJ: So lascivious thoughts, other immoral thoughts, etc., are of no to little consequence to a species living in consonance with creation. If a species has determined that such would lead to conflict with creation at the species level, oh yes then we have issues. 
Confused ji you have reversed the order of my statement.  Anyone’s lascivious or immoral thoughts have no significance for the mango tree or the wandering dog.  Within one’s community and based on your action of course it has consequences.
CJ: Perhaps you need to understand the following.
-Lascivious thoughts are what lead to acting out those thoughts. 
-That in entertaining them one is planting a seed for more to arise and grow in intensity. 
-Although one can't help having those thoughts, it is important that one acknowledges their wrongness. 
-Believing that their rightness or wrongness is dependent on some consensus with regard to whether this leads to conflict within the species or not, is to actually encourage it.
-Encouraging lascivious thoughts is encouraging what is essentially wrong and productive of wrong.
So confused ji, can you name one person dead or alive that you believe had no thoughts related to  kaam, krodh, moh, lobh and ahankar?  What was their life like and how anyone externally verified this state!  So suddenly “kaam” becomes the big daddy of all evil.  This is the one that generally arises and falls without a trace versus the other four that almost are always externally observable.  So do tell me what is so bad about it versus others!

AJ: Confused ji consonance is a concept of living with whatever is around and how as us different from other elements and species react or coexist. Violations of a greater magnitude by a collective are dealt with or have very serious consequences. In such the ones good versus ones bad will not be differentiated in a collective repercussions. This is shown to us in numerous instances where saints and the good are engulfed by fire, flood, earthquake or a hurricane no different than the immoral and the bad. 

CJ: What are you doing Ambarsaria ji, sitting on God's throne? ;-) 
There is no God or God’s throne in Sikhism and I don’t believe in it and neither would I know what it could be like.  Never had such a thought.
CJ: Why do you see the need to put yourself in a position high up, when in reality your feet is touching the ground and your eyes has been structured to see at ground level? 
I am speaking my mind without the need for a reward or to impress but to share with rest of the members of our species.  I do believe in give and take and sharing is productive for me as is receiving.
CJ: If the Creator has created you as you are, he has given you the faculties suitable for the particular existence hasn't he? 
Creator does not put limits on how you use your faculties.  Checks and balances both positive and negatives are within our own species and in our interactions with rest of creation.  Otherwise we would not leave the shades of a banyan tree to go on a bike, a care or train or a plane.  Sikhism espouses the futility or the objective of trying to know all but does not limit you to understand as much while having a practical living.

CJ: Would not it then be a perversion of perception and of understanding to be judging from a point of reference which is only a product of imagination? 
Without imagination there is no life.  Wonderment is the key to understanding.

CJ: While ignorance and greed is what is behind all the problems, now and in the past, and this involves mistake in perception, consciousness and understanding, what you are suggesting is different only in that it comes now, in a royal clothing.
Confused ji you have cut down on so called five evils into two now.  Good to hear that “kaam” has been dropped.  I hardly present anything with glitter and gold but like to state as straight as I can.  Sorry if it appears differently.

CJ: Obviously you do feel the need to remind others about this don't you, and this means that even you judge some attitudes as correct (hence in consonance) and others as incorrect (hence dissonant)? 
Confused ji if I give societal examples I am part of it and not above or below.  

AJ: Confused ji my intent is not to judge. Consonance is an understanding that needs to develop in a collective. It has some meaning at a personal level but it has very important global impacts. I do not judge attitudes as only actions are of important for interactions within creation. One understanding and actions regardless of such are as bad as no understanding and same actions as viewed by the rest of the creation. 

CJ: OK, so let's say that you have such an understanding and is why you speak about it with so much faith. 
I have no faith as I share what I think and not manipulate it because if I am a Sikh I should be doing this or that.
CJ: But what about the rest of us? Surely what you have stated so far isn't going to do the trick is it? 
I don’t know what trick you are referring to.  Sorry.
CJ: Or is it that we are to do a Google search, or read the Times, or watch Discovery Channel to get the general idea or something? 
Most of my learning is through exposure to certain literature way back in childhood and of late interest in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  Rest is your conjecture and I can only feel good if what I say is tops in Google hits even stated by thousand others so that I could be blamed for plagiarism. 
CJ: But even if we did somehow get all the necessary information or some of us have like you, achieved a state of mind which understands "consonance", the question is, what justifies believing for example, that lascivious thoughts are not bad? 
No thoughts are bad as we learn through relative scenarios of good versus bad, evil versus holy, etc., so one is a catalyst for the other even if to generate understanding of goodness.  In this learning if your thoughts don’t interact with others in action, philosophizing around it is childish.
CJ: When faced with a situation which otherwise demands compassion, what would the right attitude be like which states that the compassion then is out of place? 
Compassion and such are also relative terms.  Let me cite an example.  One of the old lady relatives of ours was in a hospital.  She was on assisted breathing.  They have take the tube in and out so many times that her vocal cords stared to obstruct her breathing.  Doctor wanted to pull the plug and she was sure to die.  Her kids agreed to pull the plug and let her go.  They said that through compassion.  Equally through compassion I asked the doctor that he was suggesting the path just because she has swollen neck (yes she is older!).  He had no answer. Asked for alternatives, the doctor suggested doing a tracheotomy.  She recovered and had many healthy years and still around.  So whose compassion was right or wrong is not for me to say.  Everyone projects into the future during an act of compassion and without certainty there is no way to absolutely judge other tha through hindsight after the fact.
CJ: What kind of thoughts justify killing say, a mosquito? 
I don’t go looking for mosquitoes.  If they like my sweet blood and want to bite me, I have a right to wave them off or squat them to recover my blood after the fact! Consequences of cross boundaries of consonance are deadly!
Cj: When is aversion right and kindness wrong?
It is all driven what drives both.  If driven by lack of understanding with reasonable probability to be wrong, either can be wrong.  With higher probability of understanding one can take hold of aversion or kindness as the moment dictates.
Quote:
CJ: Is it not possible then, that even within the philosophy that you hold, there is much that must be wrong / bad while others are right / good? 
AJ: Confused ji I am always willing to stand in the city square to be stoned and corrected. Of course I am part of a bigger collective who I wish would live in consonance with rest of creation. The methodologies or approaches to do so are a conscious effort of the collective. 

CJ: Well the wrongness is in the very starting point, namely the concept of collective vs. the individual. Indeed collective and individual are only ideas and there is no need to think in these terms when one is faced with the reality of what goes on from moment to moment.
There is no such reality as moment to moment as it is simply a conceptual tool to understand as it shows up in actionable or impacting form for a person to self and as to impact on others.
Excessive focus on this moment to moment conceptualization is a falsehood due to lack of understanding how micro things go and such intermediate conceptualizations are as much wisdom as falsehood of no consequence. It is a guesswork limited by one’s understanding and an unknown level of activity that continues in a person at most micro, elemental and molecular level way beyond rising and falling states..
CJ: The perception through the five senses do not engender the idea of a 'me', let alone that of the 'other'. 
Are you suggesting that anything physical we see is not real like one’s own body or parts and same for everything through our various senses.  We don’t have faculties to fully describe self (me) or others so I don’t know why it is even important.
In fact in Sikhism and our Gurus teachings it is repeated again and again to not be futile to try to seek the completeness of information within or without.

CJ: The idea of a 'self' interacting with people and things is the result of the thinking process and this is fine, in fact necessary, only we need to understand that this is what is going on. 
What is the point!  We always think to interact consciously or sub-consciously so that is pretty much how everyone understands it.
CJ: Indeed without the perception of another being or person, there can't be morality, nor kindness, generosity or compassion on one hand, nor on the other hand, anger, jealousy, lust and so on. 
Yes again this is what is entailed in perceiving.

CJ: However, while attachment, aversion and wrong understanding can arise towards the concept of a 'collective group', morality and understanding do not conceive of such an idea. 
CJ: And when it comes to kindness and compassion, 
Kindness and compassion are not necessary to be in consonance with rest of the creation.  Such may be tools that are common and of use in interaction within one’s own species as well as others that can relate to such expressions for seeing all as one creation.
To give someone water if thirst (own species or others), to allow a deer to live rather than not stop and hit with your car, so on, are inter-species interaction skills.  May the dear is also stopped as it could wreck you if it ran into the car while you drive.
CJ: this won't be the real thing if the perception is of a particular group at the exclusion of other groups, but instead it would be their near enemies, namely attachment and pity (a form of aversion).
Pity is not a positive quality emphasized in Sikhism as it is like we acting as a creator and in control to harm and not doing so to show our power in a pitiful way.  Pity is not a character needed to live in consonance.

CJ: So no virtue really, in thinking for the collective, only more ignorance, craving, aversion and wrong understanding.

Totally wrong interpretation.  Collective virtue or understanding is a common entity that will show up in consonance actions.  If it is of consonance, all will become and be one.  If it is not of consonance, there will be conflict between the collectives of species types, elemental and vegetable forms.

The collective is the only way to actually create a functional consonance in actions and its basis for success is not ignorance, craving or aversion but correct understanding.

CJ: Frankly I doubt that anywhere in the Sikh teachings are ideas such as the one you express here. 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji imbues with such teachings.  These are not my formations but what I understand when I review the teachings.  I am only one and I do depend on others of knowledge about Sikhism to help me enhance or vet my understanding.  I have not seen violent opposition to what I state in this regard but that does not make me or it right.  Only discourse and comments of the learned in Sikhism can do so.

CJ: I think it is all your own extrapolation of particular key concepts, influenced in part by modern day western thought. 
I do not read or watch modern day “western thought” entities.  I do observe, I do think, I do try to relate it to all as one, generally the key catalyst for this has been early exposure to Sikhism for me.


CJ: I have been very direct Ambarsaria ji, but since you are willing to be stoned at, I expect that you will not mind it so much. ;-)
I have no problem about directness as long as it is laid out in some detail so it enables one to learn, understand, correct one’s understanding and respond.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 9, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,

Your post is long and as has happened before, I'm having difficulty comprehending your ideas and to address them. So please give me time after this weekend, to write my response.

Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 10, 2011)

Confused said:


> Ambarsaria ji,
> 
> Your post is long and as has happened before, I'm having difficulty comprehending your ideas and to address them. So please give me time after this weekend, to write my response.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.


Confused ji let us work towards convergence and not try to further explode the post.

Let us agree to disagree on certain or all items as necessary and move on and let others come in with their thoughts.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 12, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji,




Ambarsaria said:


> Confused ji let us work towards convergence and not try to further explode the post.
> 
> Let us agree to disagree on certain or all items as necessary and move on and let others come in with their thoughts.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.




I had more or less an idea as to what my response would be, but felt somewhat overwhelmed by the prospect of having to write such a long response. So I thank you for your suggestion which as a result made things easier for me. But still I wanted to write a response in order to clarify some misunderstandings that you have with regard to my position, thinking that other members should also not misunderstand what all that I've been saying. However, on reading something in another thread which compelled me to ask my wife while we were both waiting for our turn at the hospital, a few questions, I changed my mind about this too. 

The gist of our conversation was as follows:

Con: "Is it ever right to kill?"
B: "No."

Con: "Not under any circumstance?"
B: "No, because that would mean you are cutting off the life force of another being and this is wrong?"

Con: Sensing that she has in mind only human beings I asked, "What about animals, if say a lion kills a deer, is it wrong?"
B: "No, because this is what Lions are. They can't survive without killing and eating the meat."

Con: "This may justify the killing in terms of their basic nature and you may not want to blame them for it, however the wrong is still wrong and is reason why it is said that being born an animal, to be able to ultimately be reborn a human being is extremely difficult."
B: "Human beings have choice and this makes their act much more wrong."

Con: "Animals are ignorant, and this adds to the impetus causing them to do wrong without any hesitation. This is why it is said that ignorance is the root of all evil and why wisdom on the other hand leads to increase in all kinds of good. An average human being will have some moments of moral shame, hence restraint and so his will not be as heavy an act." 

We each started to say more in support of our position, but then the nurse called out our names and the discussion ended.

This however was enough for me to see how it will be almost impossible to convince those with the kind of perception, to think about morality in terms of a "state of mind", rather than a conventional act, where any number of arguments can be made to support one's position. 

My intention so far has been to encourage morality amongst members here, even though I know that Sikh teachings and Buddhist teachings are otherwise extremely different. But now I see that so long as the morality of one is based on understanding the characteristic of the different mental realities and the other relies on reference points outside of the moment while using explanations that revolve around conventional reality, and therefore morality is then seen as relative, no real communication can take place let alone any convergence happening.

Regarding, your misrepresentation of my position, I believe that this would not have happened had we continued with the discussion about reality etc. that I once initiated with you. So if you are interested, we can go back there and start again. Otherwise, I have decided to spend my time elsewhere and likely will not come back here again. 

And in case you decide against the particular discussion, I wish to say thanks to you and everyone else for engaging me in the discussions, and to Spnadmin ji for allowing me to air my views.

Good luck.


----------

