Jump to content

JasperS

Members
  • Content Count

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

JasperS last won the day on January 31 2017

JasperS had the most liked content!

About JasperS

  • Rank
    Ladla||Ladli

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm guessing she doesn't come here anymore? But I found this on Sikh Sangat someone posted it there. At least I think she is the same person?
  2. If they had such power to remove sexual intimacy from the equation, did they also remove the rather traumatic and painful aspect of birth from the woman as well? Maybe they beamed the baby outside the body so she didn't have to endure labour or pushing. Since a baby has to be born through a sexual organ normally and since some seem to think that the Gurus would never be associated with anything sexually, then do you think the baby was kind of beamed outside the woman's body so she also wouldn't have to sully herself with using her sexual organs to push the baby out? Or did the Mother not matter? For the record since the Gurus taught that marital relations were not only ok but a natural part of marriage, I do not see how they would then consider it to be a nasty thing when it came to themselves. There is no shame or impurity associated with sexual reproduction. Kaam is not sex. Someone can be affected by kaam for gambling for example. And marital sex in right conditions, done between a committed spouse can also exist without kaam. To suggest that the Gurus would not have any relations with their own wives, suggests that there is something inherently impure or nasty about it. But the Gurus never contradicted themselves did they? So then why would they not advocate asceticism? And we know they did not. Guru Nanak spoke against asceticism as a means to find God. And if they thought sexuality was so nasty for themselves, wouldn't they also relieve their wives of the correspondingly nastiness and impurity of the birth, not to mention the physical trauma and pain? This sounds off to me. Not to mention against what is written in gurbani about marriage and birth which are both seen as sacred.
  3. bro there are some Singhs with not too much up there naturally! I'm sure we all know someone!
  4. Some women also just brush their eyebrows and maybe use some sort of hairspray to keep them somewhat shaped but don't pluck them. My wife (amritdhari) uses a brush to keep them looking neat but she doesn't remove them or shape them that way.
  5. I find it very fascinating. While I don't think that DMT would help anyone who doesn't already have spiritual practice and discipline, I think a natural way to increase levels may help someone who already has had some progress in that area. Did you see the movie based on the book?
  6. paapiman, one should not be doing any sargun pooja or visualizing any "body" in relation to Waheguru: 1. Gurbani says Waheguru is formless 2. Gurbani says ALL forms are within Waheguru, therefore 3. Gurbani also says Waheguru is both the male AND the female, in fact 4. Gurbani tells us Waheguru is ALL there is. 5. Gurbani tells us No single part of creation (no single form) can be wholly Waheguru 6. Gurbani tells us EVERY part of creation IS Waheguru not just human male and female, but all the animals, plants, minerals, planets, stars, stardust, every single atom. 7. Further Gurbani says that NO ONE can imagine Waheguru and one who tries will always fail. Therefore if someone is trying to visualize a male human thinking that is Waheguru they are seriously missing the mark. I get it though, you want some privilege over others and think that your body makes you closer to Waheguru. This is very superiority thinking no different than Brahmans thinking those born in low caste make them further away from our Creator while the Brahman gets to enjoy high life ad be treated as being closer to God. You are completely disrespecting all our sisters by doing so. Waheguru is not a body, but IS ALL bodies. Finally, Waheguru is ONEness. You can't have sargun expression without the nirgun it manifests from. sargun or manifest creation survives only through duality. duality includes everything that was split apart. But Waheguru is not the duality but the ONEness. One who tries to put any label or visual on Waheguru has already failed because they are trying to equate only a small tiny part of the creation as the Creator when they (you) are missing that everything you see and experience while here is ALL Waheguru, but Waheguru is even much more than that. There are countless worlds, countless levels of existence beyond this one which also contain countless lifeforms all having different natures of existence (who knows maybe there are multiple genders beyond male and female even), so many and so fantastical that no creature in any part of the creation could ever comprehend and would go insane to try and grasp it. It's enough to marvel at the possibilities from this perspective and trust what is written in gurbani.
  7. For true hallucinogens, the experiences generated would be false (hallucinations of the physical brain) so of course they would be detrimental. But DMT is a little bit more interesting. First of all, it's not actually a drug per say. It's produced in your own brain, and released in small amounts every night when you sleep and is believed to be partly responsible for dream imagery but it gets more interesting. It's released in huge amounts only twice in your life, at birth, and at death. One has to ask why. One doctor who researched it extensively believes it's the 'spirit molecule' and is the link between the physical body and nonphysical world. People who volunteered in his study described experiences which all seemed to suggest a feeling of having the veil of the physical lifted away and they could connect with, and see the truth and not only connect with it, but feel one with it. You can read his book here for free: http://www.organiclab.narod.ru/books/DMT-The-spirit-molecule.pdf Note that I am not in any way suggesting to experiment with it as it is illegal in many areas, and not enough is known about it. But just wanted to mention it's interesting and is believed to be what those who are in deep meditative states who have powerful experiences, this is the chemical they are causing to be produced in the brain by their deep meditation. So it's not just a drug creating fake hallucinogenic imagery but could be a piece of the puzzle as to how our physical body can interact with whats beyond the physical. In any case the research in the book is quite interesting.
  8. I would say that it's a backup in nature. If something happens to the Mother, or if the Father is left alone stranded with a child, the appropriate hormone can be stimulated simply by the infant suckling. I remember a story actually where a man was stranded on an island with his infant and the Mother was lost in the boat wreck, and it was several weeks before they were rescued. To soothe the crying infant the father let it suckle him, and after awhile he actually produced milk, as in real milk which sustained the infant. So we actually do have the proper anatomy and the function is there although dormant. I know that will gross out poor paapiman who seems to view anything female related as disgusting. The way I look at it, if the function and possibility and anatomy are there, then Waheguru obviously put it there for a reason, or else we would have been born without nipples!
  9. So please tell me then brother, are you saying souls which get a female body are lower status than we are? If so, then you have to qualify why. I don't think gurbani says anywhere that being born female is result of any past sin. (I am well aware of the passage where it says that a man who thinks of women (in sexual sense) at death will come back as prostitute, but that is a specific situation where women are exploited, and the one guilty of that exploitation what better punishment than to experience what it's like to be on the receiving end of that same exploitation. Same as a slave owner a fitting punishment would be to experience being a slave. This is not saying being a woman in general is a lower status than males. Just like saying a slave is not in a lower status. It's the ones doing the exploiting who are guilty.) Other than that Gurbani says akal purakh is both the male AND the female. Gurbani also says for US as in all of us who walk the life of a gurmukh, to see all equally. I don't think you are following that. Gender matters only on superficial things. Yes you are correct! This HUMAN body was given and is our chance to merge with the one! Notice it does not say this male human body? It says this human body. The reason why a human body is required is because its only through this developed of consciousness that we can contemplate creation, creator, and our purpose. The animals are unable to do this because of lack of higher reasoning. They can certainly reason as my naughty little moggie will prove, but higher reasoning is not provided more to one gender over the other init? Being of medical background I have perspective on biology, and gender is only required for procreation. (the proof is that some species do exist which procreate asexually, snails for one) And the reason why gender was even needed was that genetically speaking, asexual reproduction is unreliable to prevent errors in the DNA the more complex a species becomes, requiring diversity of genetic material. This does not establish hierarchy though as both genders are equal halves of the same whole, the human species. Just like yin and yang can not be in a hierarchy, they must be in balance, so to the genders. As long as hierarchy exists in any state we will never achieve balance. But proof is in gurbani. If gurbani is telling us that male and female are equal and moreover that we are to TREAT male and female equally (and you can not contest this fact) then how can you argue against gurbani? How can you blatantly ignore what is written in guru granth sahib? How can you still think females are lower status than males? Anyway I wanted to stay out of these conversations so that's my last word on that. It seems all these type of conversations turn into full out argument and it seems this forum is not too open to this subject. So my final comment on this matter, is I agree totally with what Lucky Ji said, the gender of the Gurus was inconsequential. Their body was a vehicle that we could interact with. The gender of that body at that time I imagine had to be male only for cultural reasoning, I mean look at even now, you flat out refuse to see your sisters on equal level with you, so imagine at that time if light of Guru Nanak Dev Ji had come in a female body would any pig headed males have listened? (and I say pig headed in jest, as I know I can be sometimes just ask my wife )
  10. I think you are seriously missing the mark. I don't think Lucky Ji meant that we have to walk around blind. We need to see to navigate. But we need to see beyond this illusion of Maya. If one arrives to Gurdwara in a red car and another in a blue car does it really matter? The point is they both were going to the same destination and neither should have limitations placed or be put into status hierarchies because of what vehicle they happen to drive to get there. The body is just a vehicle and we are the passenger inside it and the passengers are all the same. In the case of the Gurus, it was the light inside that we follow, the vehicle tat they happened to arrive in, is inconsequential and ceased to exist even in their case. (or are you trying to say a male body is some higher status than a female one? Because Gurbani tells us otherwise and without getting into details because I fear from recent events this forum is not open about these topics but you know its true) The light is the only permanence. If you can't see it, then it's your own issue. My comment to Lucky Ji stands.
  11. In absolute concurrence with the above! Gurus were not the body, they were the jyot within.
  12. Ahh but, but what is a soul? Is not Waheguru the soul behind every entity? Paapiman can you please describe for us the nature of nirgun / sargun, while justifying existence of separate souls? All is ultimately one, is it not? Is the manifest separate from the unmanifest? Who is the I AM behind every single entity?
  13. Actually that was my point. I was trying to get him to think it out and come to that realization himself. Truthful living is not the same as telling the truth. So what you wrote above is exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not possible for a human to always speak the truth 100% of the time (in relative terms).I was just hoping everyone would read the scenario and come to that conclusion themselves thats why I worded it that way. So 100% in agreement with you!
×
×
  • Create New...