sukinder

All, It so happened that I happened to talk about this just a few days ago. I have not read any of the responses and I am sure the points I make is not new, I hope just that it is not too redundant :-). The other day a Namdhari cousin called me from a beach resort, so jokingly I told him to go out to a good restaurant and order some sea food. This fellow is a strict vegetarian so he laughed, but then I got serious…… I suggested to him that he wasn’t involved in killing an animal nor did he order anyone to do so, (I wouldn’t advice anyone to order any live animals to be killed and made into food). Then I reminded him about how he had to struggle just to find vegetarian food when he is away from home. He quickly denied ever being overly troubled. But then I pointed out the fact of always having to go someplace else and so on and how much better it would be if he would eat whatever that was available. He then acknowledged the difference and that those moments *did* involve unnecessary choosing. I then went on to make the distinction between what really one should consider and give importance to and what is merely following someone else’s distorted sense of morality, in this case the Namdhari Satguru. Pointing out acts such as lying, stealing, killing, drinking alcohol and such, and extramarital sex, and how these are ‘undeniably’ wrong, I compared this with ‘being vegetarian’ and other such superficial religious restrictions. Do these have anything to do with morality? I asked. A dead animal is merely protein, potential food as much as a bag of beans. We only project our proliferated ideas onto such experiences and so willingly follow them, after all because they are accompanied with a sense of ‘achievement’ or even ‘self righteousness’. But no, the vegan will argue that if he does not eat, then fewer animals will die. But this is merely thinking very ‘self-centeredly’, as if his actions are indeed going to have that much of an effect. He may further argue that from his own actions, others may follow and this trend might grow. In other words he thinks that he can change another’s potential to greed and aversion from setting an example. This reflects the level upon which he considers this matter of right and wrong, for indeed if he thinks that others are going to ‘learn’ from his outer behavior, then he too must be following a superficial path of conduct. Even in “talking†and discussing the Truth, little ever changes another person’s mind and yet this is the best thing that can ever be done for another, i.e. the gift of Truth. So when instead we bring in *rules* which have no basis in terms of ‘understanding the way things are’, we are in fact doing great disservice to the other. I then told my cousin that I had the problem of being very attached to taste. However this problem has its basis on a ‘reality’ and is not mind-made. I may or may not lessen my attachment as a result of this understanding, but at least I know rightly and acknowledge a weakness where there *is*. However when one is a vegan thinking that this makes him spiritually more ‘pure’, this has nothing to do with reality, but will in fact encourage mental-masturbation of one form or the other. He may and very likely, grows *attached* to this idea about being a vegan and in fact may be as attached to his vegetarian dishes as much as I do to my meat. And being deluded and having the idea of doing the right thing is usually associated with very pleasant feelings, so this fellow could indeed be in a trap!! And we are all aware of the violence that is associated with the self-righteous mind. ;-)

All, I’ll respond in one post if you don’t mind. Quote: Pheena: <<< God whatever or whomever it is, is not limited to a single viewpoint. Buddha is not a Poet like Guru Nanak, Buddha did not dance like Krishna or Meera Bhai. He was not born in a family of Wariors. The teaching of Buddha and Guru Nanak are on 2 different levels and are from 2 different eras. >>> I don’t think it is helpful to think in terms of ‘persons’, disregarding the fact that it is conditioned and impermanent mental states that we are talking about, less so I think, when we add labels such as ‘poet’, ‘warrior’, and so forth. Desire, aversion, ignorance, conceit and all such mental states are precisely what keeps the wheel of life spinning, prolonging our existence in sansara. And since this is in fact what we need to understand; then ‘time’ too should not factor in at all. I think it helps that we can recognize the conceptual layers unnecessarily added over to explain things to ourselves and/or to justify a view point. This makes it harder; in fact it is often even opposed to, to understand the reality of the moment. Quote: Pheena: <<< Altho what seem like contradictory teaching, i only see them as 2 truth that can co-exist. Unless the destination which Buddha reaches is different from what Guru Nanak reached, that is something I seriously cannot fathom, that there are 2 different destinations. Yes, the means to reach there are obviously different, but the end must be the same. There may be and are countless door, but they all must lead to the same source. >>> This is a commonly held view which I admit to having too, a few years ago. But as I begin to know, even within these first baby steps ;-), the mind at work, I can’t but come to the conclusion that the destinations are as varied as the paths taken. The Buddha enumerated 64 views, in his Brahmajala Sutta, that are considered to lead to destinations other than the one taken by those following His teachings. I think you will admit that you don’t really *know* other religions, like you don’t know Buddhism, but it is only a vague “idea†about how every religion teaches one to be good etc. and because you perceive that all of them are followed by many and has lasted hundreds of years. If so, then I think this would be a case of jumping to conclusions without good basis. It is hard enough to get *one* religion right, I feel that I am only scratching the surface in my attempt to understand the Buddha’s teachings. With regards to the Buddhism, I think that more than 99% of the population got it wrong and are going around only with the label “Buddhistâ€, when in fact without this label, they might as well be Taoists, humanists, theists, nihilists or any number of ‘ists circulated in the world today. This means that I reject not only the Zen and the whole of Mahayana tradition, but also most of the Theravada and would in fact consider a non-Buddhist a better candidate to discuss these matters. Those so called Buddhists have made up their minds about the Buddha’s real intent, so I wouldn’t bother to convince them. Quote: Pheena: <<<So i have a question...does the Concept of Shoonia (voidness) expressed in the Sutras of Buddha. If so, then what does it say? >>> Sunnata is synonymous to Anatta in the Theravada tradition. The Buddha hardly ever used this term, perhaps because it was likely to lead to misunderstanding. It could be confused with the state of “Nothingness†which is the end result of a certain level of jhana meditation. This is however far from being the aim of the Buddha’s teachings. The Mahayanists seem to have made a big thing of this concept of “Emptiness†and calling its application as being the expression of the “Middle Wayâ€. To me it is just the mental proliferation of an arm-chair philosopher hiding a deeply held and unrecognized Wrong View. But I won’t go into this here. Enough for you to know though, is that this concept of Sunnata involves seeing conditioned phenomena as empty of ‘self’. It is tied to the other universal characteristic of Dukkha and Anicca (impermanence). The typical theist has the conception of God as embracing *ALL*. It is believed that there are in reality people, things, nature, worlds and universe etc. and that these are related in a certain way, i.e. all being part of the same reality. The typical Sunnata believer, would see the *unreality* of all these concepts and the only reality which is that which arises in the moment, as being empty of any ‘self’ or ‘thing-ness’. Nothing stays to be related to anything else in a way that the ignorant mind likes to think. The ‘thinking’ is a reality which can be known at any given moment, but instead we are taken in by the projections, the shadows which this thinking thinks about. This is why it is essential to realize this distinction between reality and concept, which even most Buddhists don’t, otherwise we end up following our own projections. Of course there are levels of understanding, and for this reason I see no reason to put down any religion. Most of the good religions recognize rightly, the danger and fault in ‘craving’ and ‘aversion’ in all their forms. So what they teach are warnings against doing evil and encouragement to do good. Buddhism however has the aim of eradicating ‘ignorance’. This is done by way of encouraging one to develop Right View, i.e. the one view which disentangles one from the ‘net of views’. Quote: Pheena: <<<Is the concept of God replaced by the concept of Shoonia in Buddhism? Would this even be a worthwhile comparison as one states the absence of existence, yet the other declares existence...? I am curious now whether the sutras actually answer the question of God directly? >>>> One does not come to understanding by philosophizing. The Buddha’s path involves from the very first step, *detachment*. One does not go around stating that “all is emptyâ€, this begs the question, “what is this ‘all’ that is empty?†Even at the level of having a correct intellectual understanding one comes to see how thick one’s ignorance is, and so any idea about “all†is just that, ideas! Anatta is a characteristic of “realities†and what these realities are, we are completely ignorant of except by way of intellectual appreciation from hearing *about* them. They can however be known and must be, but at the same time one must admit to the level of one’s own understanding, which will be mainly intellectual. But you are right, the tendency is so strong, that any idea can be used to cover up every experience and even grow to be ‘worshiped’ ;-). As to whether the Suttas answer the question of God directly, I don’t know. But I suspect not, based on the idea that the people who approached the Buddha during his life were mostly highly developed spiritually and they would not pose such kinds of questions to him. I mean when one has identified the root of the problem as being one’s own lack of understanding, why place any importance to anything outside even if this be in-out oneness? Quote: Sikh_apprentice <<<<Dont buddhists believe that buddha was the incarnation of god, and since then buddha has been incarnated as the dalai lama, which has been passed onto many dalai lamas. on the topic of the current dalai lama he must be the most cheerful, and humerous of all the religious leaders. i saw michael palin interview him on"himalaya with michael palin." he also visited Sri Harmandir shaib ji, and stay overnight in the accomadation in the Gurdwara complex for 65p per night.>>>> No, this is a Hindu idea. The Buddha when he passed away was absolutely “NO MOREâ€, i.e. his karma ran out and there was no more rebirth. The Mahayanists believe in reincarnation, but even they would not say that the Buddha was reborn as the Dalai Lama.

All, I was lead here this time via a post on a Buddhist list belonging to B. Samahita. The poster wrote to invite any learned Buddhist to write about Buddhism here. I am far from being well versed in the Teachings, in fact I read next to nothing directly, almost all my knowledge is through other people’s writings on a certain discussion list. I however feel that I should comment on this matter, as I do not agree with the conclusion made. According to my understanding, there is no place for the concept of a ‘creator God’ in the Buddha’s teachings. There are thousands of Suttas (Sutra) and one picks out this single one (I being poorly read in this regard, do not even know of the existence of such a Sutta) where the question of existence/ non existence of God is put forward and the response is silence/smile, ( I think what follows this are just someone’s additions. The phrasing being quite different from the usual way Suttas are presented) . If indeed there is such a sutta, isn’t it obvious that it would take precisely a ‘Theist’ to do just this and come up with the kind of conclusion that is made? What was further implied is that those who formed part of this 2500 years of tradition, were simple minded people looking at exactly this one single Sutta to justify a preconceived bias, i.e. not to believe in God?! There are many ways to respond to questions and on occasion the Buddha would be silent precisely because it was perceived that the questioner was strongly attached to his views and any categorical answer would be misinterpreted and lead him further into mental complications. The whole of the Buddha’s teachings (I refer to the Theravada tradition only) is aimed at understanding what is experienced through the 5 sense doors and the mind. The uniqueness of the Buddha’s teachings rests upon the understanding of Anatta or Non-self. The experiences through these five sense doors and the mind at any given moment is understood as the ONLY reality, leaving aside Nibbana (Nirvana). In fact it could be said that at a moment of say “seeingâ€, that this is the only “world†existing, and this is so fleeting (lasting shorter that 1 billionth of a second) that the ‘world’ we experience has disintegrated already. – I know this is hard to comprehend, but bear with me for a moment-. The point is that with just these being the only “reality†at any moment, “ideas†about people and things and their relationship to one another are just “conceptsâ€, a product of thinking. There is nothing wrong with the thinking process per se; however, the problem is that when we have no understanding about the elements of experience and hence differentiating between concept and reality, we end up taking the ‘concepts’ to be real! And around these, theories about existence/non-existence based on one’s inclination to annihilationist or eternalist views, arise and thrive. In fact these abound in the world and are taught and sought after with so much passion all in the name of the quest for ‘Truthâ€. :-/ I came across this Sutta where the Buddha seem to be more clear about his position in this matter of God, I quote below only some relevant part: <<<< Tittha Sutta Sectarians “Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that— when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people—even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?...................................... “Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’ When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. >>>> The above may not seem like much of proof of his position, however, the Sutta does not end here but goes on to describe what in fact should be considered true and to be contemplated, i.e. the Elements, the 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and finally the Noble Eightfold Path. Reading this and thousands of other Suttas, it becomes inconceivable that the Buddha would believe in a God. Besides the teachings about conditionality and particularly Kamma (karma) would be quite meaningless when placed along with this idea of a creator God, or Tao or whatever one may postulate along these lines. Also if Buddha had believed in God, then there should be some suggestions of the concept of “grace†and such, and there is none! A serious student of the Buddha’s teachings seeks to “understand†and he does not go about believing or not believing in things. The Buddha himself encourage all to “test the Truth†and stated that what is needed to be known is present in this body of ours, i.e. the moment to moment experiences through the 5 sense doors and the mind. I never find myself thinking if whether there is God or not, in fact it seems that those who call themselves “atheistâ€, are in reality uncertain of their positions. So no, correctly understanding the Buddha’s teachings, even being labeled ‘atheist’ is wrong, how much more so the suggestion of being ‘theist’. These considerations do not even factor in one’s day to day experiences. That said, the truth about “conditionality†does however allow for what one might call gods, ghosts, celestial beings and so on. These are based on the fact of the nature of mind and its relation to matter. What we can see here in this conventional world, earth, are animals and humans, only two such beings. But limiting ourselves to outward appearance and an inherent tendency to nihilism, one should be careful not to dismiss the possibility of other beings on other planes of existence, the reality of which our conditioned senses can’t experience directly. But we can understand this at first theoretically, and gradually through better and better understanding of the nature, come to hold with greater confidence. The important point is that, all these are however “conditionedâ€, i.e. subject to the universal characteristic of impermanence, suffering and non-self. Some might compare God with the concept of the unconditioned Nibbana (Nirvana). But according to the Buddha’s teachings, Nibbana is just a momentary object of the enlightened mind, i.e. it lasts only a billionth of a second. It is that which is needed to clearly “see through†all conditioned states, even the most highly sublime ones. One consequence of this is that one who HAS experienced Nibbana, he would not come away then teaching about ‘Truth’ as is taught in other religions and philosophies. This is why in my opinion Buddhism (as found in the Theravada Pali tradition), being so different from every other teaching, that I think one should not even attempt to find any similarities, less read into it one’s personal ideas. Sorry for stating my views so strongly, I hope you understand the situation. Sukinderpal

Dear Harpreet, >>>First Mr S i would like to apologise if i have come across as a 'nit picker'! <<< You are not, but you are doing just the thing, namely questioning, which is good for both of us. I am too self-conscious (spelled conceited) to ask questions, but while I remain on the sidelines, I have observed some real ‘nit pickers’ who, because they always ask the right questions, have come out with deeper understanding than I do. So please feel free to question any and everything I say, you could be doing us both and perhaps others too, a great favour. >>>I would also like to thank for your prompt reply, i must say your previous post was very intriuging, please could you tell us more about the 'breath', its importance, and how we can use it to help us link to our 'reality'. <<< I am happy that you appreciate these things, but now I am feeling somewhat apprehensive. The best gift any person can ever give another is the gift of Truth; however, because I know that my level of understanding is indeed very low and that I am quite susceptible to the influence of greed, ignorance and conceit, I must ask you to be very discerning. And even though I may ‘assert’ my views, please see it as just my personal way of expression and not think that I am very sure of myself. About ‘breath’, I think you did not get my point previously. I do not encourage ‘willed’ meditation on any object, least of all the breath. There are two basic types of mediation, each useful but having different goals. The first, is ‘tranquility’ (I will include Samadhi here), whose object is to develop ‘wholesome’ states of mind. This kind of meditation has many ‘concepts’ which can be taken as object, including breath. The other kind of meditation is ‘insight’ and this is unique to Buddhism, the object here is a “reality†experienced in the moment through one of the five sense doors and the mind. Here, when breath is the object, then it must be the very special and refined materiality being conditioned by the mind, and is all together different from what you and I understand by the concept of breath. Let us leave the second kind of meditation and talk about the first one. Even when practicing samadhi, one’s understanding of the difference between wholesome and unwholesome states of mind must be quite good. Otherwise, if one starts with an unwholesome state of mind and mistakes it for wholesome, then one follows the wrong way, and the goal will not be reached. If there is a level of concentration, one will mistake unwholesome concentration for real samadhi. In this day and age, it is quite unlikely that such persons exist. Because he would have to be so sensitive to mind states, that it would be difficult for him to live the life of an ordinary lay person, but would instead prefer an isolated place where food and shelter is provided to him without struggle. Otherwise, too much distraction cannot lead to putting effort long enough to arouse real Samadhi. For us, who don’t have such level of understanding, it is inevitable that we go wrong. Attachment has many variety and shades, one of which is that it appears calm like tranquility, such that a person can mistake this for the real thing. Of course conditions are very complex and a person though he has wrong samadhi, if he can on other occasions be moral and restraining, and he observes his mind in relationship to the world (conventional), then he can not be too influenced by the wrong meditation. Only he should be careful not to associate positive result in daily activities, with the practice of meditation. Or else he can grow more and more attached to the practice, and become unable to cope with real life. Better if he recognizes such practice as perhaps a means to ‘calm and relax’ and not think that it is increasing his understanding, because understanding develops only in real life situations. Best would be, that he does not need to be calm and to relax at all (except for sleep) and have the opportunity to instead understand ‘why he is tired and needs to relax’! And in the process he may discover that the root of all his problems is the ‘defilements’ in his own mind. ;-) So better not be tempted to find a shortcut, but develop more patience to understand life (one’s own mind) as it comes. In the name of ‘doing’ the right and religious thing, we will only be taking the wrong route, ignorant of the fact that our ‘greed’ is leading the way under the illusion of developing more good. Like I said in another post, wisdom has the characteristic of being ‘detached’, it does not mind anything and does not seek anything special. >>> Quote: I feel there is something more to be said, but I can’t put my finger on it. You asked: Please add more Mr S, this is very fascinating !..... <<< Right now, nothing comes to mind. But I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity to view this matter again in the future. >>>Can you tell us about love and its role(in life)? <<< In Buddhism what most people call “love†is but another face of ‘attachment’. In contrast there is the reality of Metta; this is sometimes translated as ‘loving kindness’ or ‘friendliness’. Attachment is towards certain people only, but friendliness as in metta, does not exclude anyone. If you feel it towards somebody and not towards others, then it must not be the real thing. We are attached to our family and friends and mistake it for love and not realize that this causes us to be so agitated and controlling at times and self-satisfied and indulgent at other times. The level of our ignorance is so great that we shut out or explain away any negative effect concerning this particular view and even go to the extent of building a philosophy around our attachment and calling it ‘Love’. And I am extremely attached to my own children. However there have been moments when I look at them with metta, and believe me, there is a world of a difference!! >>>I really do believe that from what you have posted above that you do have a good grasp for the essence of sikhism already - please note, i do emphasize that this is my opinion, others may not agree. <<< :-) You are the second person to make such a statement. >>>I would now like invite you to tell me the Essence of Bhuddism(from what you have perceived)........take as long as you want Sukinderpal...... <<< I am not qualified to do this. But we can talk about things and I could say something which may be true to the Buddha’s teachings, though I wouldn’t be too confident about that. >>>For others in this forum, the reason why we must seek knowledge of this kind is because it can be very useful for us if used correctly. Nowadays it is common practice for many Sikhs to 'tolerate' all other forms of religion(if you <snip> So to conclude the water is the same, dont be afraid to drink out of the others glass. <<< I don’t believe all religions point to the same goal, perhaps in words only, but in reality, I believe a definite cause leads to a definite goal, and all religions have different configuration of causes, though in verbal description they may even use the same concept, Mukti, enlightenment and so on to identify the goal and talk about God, Allah or Tao and Akal Purukh as though they were synonyms. But this is not the point. You have brought out the one major cause for our being caught in the cycle of birth and death, which is “attachmentâ€. Being attached to sensual objects and people is no worse than being attached to one’s religion. Guru Nanak most likely did not want Sikhs to be ‘loyal’ to a religion, but instead to seek Truth. I think to pay respect to him, the best way is to follow what he has taught, not to defend a religion. ‘Understand’ his teachings is to understand him. Otherwise you can gaze at his image all day, and still not ‘see’ him at all. But of course, to just point out these things, is not necessarily saying the right thing at the right time. It requires wisdom and compassion to see what others need to hear and still there will be those who are never going to be interested in seeking the Truth at all. So I am satisfied that you are at least interested and do not expect more people to be. ;-) And of course, I am not even confident about my own grasp of the matter. This is already too long, so I will end here. Best wishes, Sukinderpal Ps: my email address is sukin@csloxinfo.com, in case we have to take this off-list. And please expect a delay in any response, as I am going to be busy the next few days.

Dear Harpreet, Firstly I must ask you to be patient with me. I have a short attention span and often my memory is faulty, as a result I am the most disorganized person I know, which may be reflected in the way my messages are written. They are rather free flow. You said: >>>Ive read your above posts in respect to the last paragraph i fail to see the how our views differ, all i did was show you the link between Dhyan and Zen?! <<< Perhaps I just carried over the sentiment from a Buddhist discussion group I am involved in, where currently there is a discussion pertaining to “mindfulness of breathingâ€. Some of us do not believe that the Buddha taught ‘formal meditation’, whereas others believe that it is indispensable to walking the path. So here, having the impression that you believed in it, I just felt the urge to express my view. I know that you are saying nothing more than that attention to breath can induce a degree of concentration. What follows from that, I don’t know. You said: >>>Also in regards to kalyug, i dont understand what your trying to say, you say we are on te end of a good era because there are still people who can interpret the meanings correctly.... well yes i agree you then go on to say that..... Kalyug is ...when....'People will then start to prefer the words of poets, and philosophers and sweet sounding words of the many gurus and sants and leaders of this cult or that.' are you suggesting that people havnt STARTED doing that already ? yes they have.......! <<< I missed out adding that Kalyug will be the time when *nobody* understood the Teachings. And that the Books might be simply objects of interest in terms of ‘ancient teachings’ which has nothing to do with application to living. Scholars may try to study it, but only out of curiosity. But I am proliferating, it is not important I think, shouldn’t we just leave this matter? :-) You asked: >>>Quote: I find myself less inclined to think in terms of existence/non-existence duality. Explain please i would love to learn about more about this <<< If experiences are seen as momentary arising and falling, there is less inclination to posit any existence out there. It is not that one believes that ‘the world out there is just the product of the mind’, this would be a contradiction because the experience *is* of something out there while it lasts. And it makes sense to believe that there are other conditions at play other than the mind. Only ‘nothing remains’ beyond rise and fall. And when ever there is going to be any “knowing†it is going to have this same characteristic of rising and falling never to reappear again. What makes anything appear to last is ‘ignorance’, at the level of perception, as well as at the level of naming and identifying. The computer in front of me seems to exist and last only because I am not able to perceive rise and fall and I “believe in†the computer. And I justify its existence (and my own), by holding on to the memory of past experiences where the same kind of misapprehension has taken place. Of course we do live in the ‘conventional world’ and relate to family, friends, places and situations. In fact, I do mistake the unreal for the real and react with all kinds of emotions 99.99% of the day. However, when it comes to the question of discerning what is real and what is not, then only that which is experienced “now†can be said to be so, the rest is all a product of ‘thinking’. And ‘thinking’ is also real, but the percepts are illusory. So in the end, one can’t say “nothing exists†since there *is* experience, and one can’t say “everything exists†since there is the perception of the fleetingness of those same experiences. If I *insist* on the objective reality of the percepts, then it is inevitable that I build around it all kinds of ‘stories’, justifying its existence and create an illusory world of relations, where everything else exists and made to appear lasting. How does this sound to you? I feel there is something more to be said, but I can’t put my finger on it. You asked: >>>Quote: Once there is any duality at all in our minds, automatically we seek to explain it. Then our vision becomes myopic and we get caught in linear thinking, yes or no to duality? <<< Dualistic thinking is product of self/other split, so it is not helpful. But of course very difficult to identify, I am caught in it 99.99% of the time. :-( You said: >>>Mr S, you seem to say stuff like Quote: From experience I have come to the conclusion that ‘debates’ are self-defeating then you say Quote: Sorry to contradict you here <<< When I start writing I have not clear plan what I would write. In the last letter, by the time I came to the end of it, I saw that my statements did not agree with yours, so just out of a feeling of friendliness I wanted to say “sorryâ€, in case you may feel slightly offended. :-) You then said: >>>I get the feeling you do not want to debate but just preach, if you want to do that then i am very interested in your sermons! <<< I would not presume to do that. Though I think all of us when expressing our viewpoints are in a way ‘preaching’. And I do realize that my style of saying things is more ‘preachy’ than others. And of course, one can’t deny an element of wanting to ‘share’ with others one’s own understandings. However on the whole, believing that any kind of ‘teaching’ must be done with a mind of ‘friendliness’ from a background of ‘comprehensive and deep knowledge’, both of which I don’t have, being generally quite ‘conceited’ and having only a ‘kindergarten level’ of understanding, it would be a great mistake to act as a ‘teacher’. And no, I don’t like debates, and if I get the feeling that any discussion is leading to it, I will bow out of it. >>>To be honest i do't want tp debate on your level, im too thick and do not have wisdom from Gurbani to share with you on a deeper level, from what little i do know, it seems as; Buddha and Nanak got their Amrit from the same pool. <<< :-) My level?!! I only know how to ‘extrapolate’, in the end, I may not be able to comprehend *your* level. Most of the time I forget about the level of my own ignorance, but sometimes I realize that the layer of dust covering my eyes is indeed *very* thick!! Regards, Sukinderpal

Dear Harpreet, Thanks for your response. First of all allow me to make a small correction to a statement I made. I said that individuals seeking to eradicate ignorance are very rare. Upon further reflection, I think that this is not entirely true. I think it is more common than it appears; only the level of understanding involved is very weak. Only I think this group of individuals is common more in those who seek answers in various philosophies than do religions. However because of the strength of the accumulated tendencies to ignorance and views, they come to be easily satisfied with answers. The explanations that sound so convincing are just those that click with what deep in, we believe in. It seems as if the philosophies and religions teach us something new, but more likely we just find them attractive because they agree with our own underlying views. But of course, we can’t say for sure how many of those views have been accumulated, and if any present conditions can cause us to change our minds. However if we are held fast to a certain mistaken view, then logic and reasoning cannot dislodge it. In fact because with each argument we bring up to justify our position, a strong attachment is quite likely being developed at the same time. You recommend that I read the following: >>>http://www.sikhifm.com/sikhismevil.htm This should give you some more information karma, free will, choice etc <<< I am not sure why exactly you wanted me to. But this one I did read :-). I understand that the author is speaking about how ‘good’ and ‘evil’ can exist together and how this is compatible with the fact of an all good creator God. Luckily for me, I don’t have to deal with such issues. ;-) For me good and evil does not exist ‘out there’. In fact it does not even exist ‘in here’. I find myself less inclined to think in terms of existence/non-existence duality. ‘Good’, wholesome states are as transient and dependent on complex set of conditions as is ‘bad’, unwholesome states. When one perceives in oneself this interplay of conditions and how one state of mind arises and falls and can at any time be followed by what may be an opposite quality, then one is not surprised by anything, nor is one inclined to pinpoint and attach labels. And just as it is in here, so it must be out there for other people. There is consequently less and less tendency to characterize, except perhaps to make illustrations. When the reference is to direct verifiable experiences, then there is no need to make any abstractions and create imaginary situations to stress a point. When the world is seen as arising and falling in an instant with each perception, then there is no need to make any ‘conceiving’ with regard the world, i.e. the conventional world. Without this understanding, it seems that we will have an egocentric view of the world, as in ‘our world’ or ‘mother earth’ etc. and then become so idealistic about it. In the same way, there is no need to be a good, compassionate or loving person. Why presuppose a ‘world’ to act upon? If in the moment there is a perception of ‘suffering’ in someone, then compassion can arise there and then and it would have performed its function of alleviating the suffering of another. And if there is no compassion, well and good, just know that there were not enough conditions. But should we be deluded by some ideal? Can ideals spur compassion when there is no level of understanding in the moment? Why further increase one’s ignorance? Once there is any duality at all in our minds, automatically we seek to explain it. Then our vision becomes myopic and we get caught in linear thinking, seeking examples ‘out there’ which will support our outlook. We are not open to the possibility that there are indeed a large host of conditions at play with the arising of any one momentary experience. Instead we are caught in a world of stories which we attempt to string together to explain our position but will never be able to do without running into contradictions, and further spinning out more stories. I do appreciate though, the fact that the author is able to see through the illusion of ‘free will’ as much as he has. And I do admire his ability to think straight, though I wish that he grow to not need to justify his position. >>> Quote: People think that they can find good ‘sangat’ in the Gurudwara, but is it? No. Welcome to kalyug my friend! <<< No this is not kalyug. Though we may be at the edge of the ‘good era’, because there are still wise people around to interpret the good Teachings available. Kalyug will start when, the Teachings being still available whether carved on stone or gold or written on a CD, however there won’t be anyone wise enough to get the real meaning out of it. People will then start to prefer the words of poets, and philosophers and sweet sounding words of the many gurus and sants and leaders of this cult or that. You also asked me to read this: >>>You might want to read osho's discourse on the jap ji sahib; http://www.oshoworld.com/onlinebooks/BookX...e%20vol%201.txt its a very nice read ! <<< It is too long, and I don’t have a taste for Osho. So I think I will pass this one. >>> Quote: because wherever we are, it is always NOW. Hence why Guru Ji precribes the us meditation on breath, Jap Ji Sahib, 'Dihan Karo bibhut' - actually there are 3 different meditation techniques f you read the line carefully, Dhyian itself is beutiful, Dhyan = Chen = Zen <<< Yet all kinds of ‘conceiving’ can happen centered on this one object. Such objects may give rise to a concentrated mind, but that is about it. Wisdom is another matter, and in this case, ‘breath’ as an object of wisdom is the most sublime. Not because it has any magical affect on anyone who concentrates on ‘the conventional object’ we identify as breath, but that ultimately it is a very refined object conditioned by the mind. So only a person who is completely in tune with his mental activities from moment to moment, can breath be of any value. For the rest of us, it is as good an object for the underlying greed, aversion and delusion as anything else. Sorry to contradict you here :-). Regards, Sukinderpal

Dear Harpreet, I have a relatively slow computer with some pop-ups and pop-under invading my machine, plus I live in a country (Thailand) where the phone lines are still not optimized for internet use. So even half an hour after clicking on your link, nothing happened. I do have the English translation of the SGGS downloaded, but I can’t say when I will make the necessary effort to read any part of it. I do have a degree of aversion to ‘reading’, which is why I always prefer and enjoy reading messages and posts off the internet, them being relatively short and don’t demand much attention in terms of time period. I had posted a response to this forum yesterday, but it seems that due to technical reasons, it has been lost. Anyway, this is good, since reconsidering what I wrote, I think I got carried away and crossed some boundaries and was feeling somewhat embarrassed about it. I liked your quote below: >>>Well Guru maharaj ji does say that the path is 'Kaneo tikkhi valo nikki', 'sharper than a sword and fine than a hair'....... Maya(anything that distracts us from our REALITY) is infested in our minds, if you want clear instructions how to overcome hardships and have something clearly laid out fo you then i would say; <<< It has been a long time since I thought about this myself. I guess I might just as well state it, I study the teachings of the Buddha, the above idea is also stated in his teachings. However, when I said that I realized my own need to have ‘something clearly laid out’, I was referring to my own attachment and concluded that I didn’t need to follow my desire. This is not to say that there is little value in having a comprehensive knowledge of the teachings, this is very useful. In fact one similarity I observed between Sikh and Buddha’s teachings, is just this fact about he importance of “listeningâ€, it is completely essential. However, how we approach this matter is important. It must not bee seen as something which will have a somewhat magical influence or even thinking that with time ‘something will sink in’, because in the meantime we would have accumulated a host of attachments and misunderstandings. And these will seed and grow. In the end, as most if not all followers do, we read and listen ‘ritualistically’. And if an outsider were to make an observation, he would notice a host of ‘rites and rituals’ being adhered to. But the so called follower won’t know it, as he has identified himself with doing this and doing that in the name of ‘correctly following the teachings’. Truth has been lost sight of, and Religion has taken over. Wisdom seeks and recognizes wisdom, but how do we know when it is there?! One sure way is to notice if there is any ‘detachment’ involved, but even here there is so much room for self deception, Maya. We may not notice that the same basic tendencies to greed, aversion and ignorance are operating here as it does there in the so-called materialistic world. What is likely added further is the factor of ‘conceit’ which makes superficial assessment and comparisons about ‘self’ now doing the right, good and religious thing and those others out there are the bad guys. The extreme is when someone becomes so self-righteous. One influence here is the idea in one’s mind about time, place and activity associated with religion as against all other activities. This very idea is productive of all kinds of wrong interpretations of what is and what should be. I think, there must be absolutely no discrimination as regard appropriateness to ‘right reflection’ and contemplation or direct understanding. Any dualism makes it harder for understanding with regard to the present moment to be developed, because wherever we are, it is always NOW. One other factor of influence I have recently come to reflect on is based on distinguishing two kinds of wisdom. On the one hand, which is common to *all* followers of any religion, is ‘seeing danger in unwholesome states of mind’. The other which is quite rare amongst individuals, is seeing the danger in “ignoranceâ€, ‘not knowing’. However without any degree of development in the latter, there can’t be any deep appreciation of the former. All kinds of unwholesomeness comes in many degrees and shades, and there are those which disguises as ‘goodness’, wholesome. So if we don’t have the ability to discern and discriminate, then we will quite easily be lead along the wrong path. This is why I am always led to the conclusion that ‘karma’ and other past influences over countless lifetimes, is determinative of whether we will go the correct way. Because the major factor influencing this is whether if we have come upon a ‘wise friend’ and have the good fortune of associating with wise people. The opposite, as in the example in Sikh teachings, about touching a lump of coal and getting one’s hand black, is “everywhereâ€. People think that they can find good ‘sangat’ in the Gurudwara, but is it? (Try the Bangkok Gurudwara. :-() Or else, they associate ‘good conduct’ with reading and “talking†about the teachings and visiting gyanis and so on as comprising good sangat, but should we be so quick to make such a conclusion? But alas, we *will* find what we seek and what we seek is reflective of our own level of understanding, so in the end it comes back to whether we have accumulated enough good karma. :-/ You said: >>>Learn Gurmuki asap! And go to the source, Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj. The Essence of Sikhism? go to the root - the 'mool'; Mool Mantra is a good place to start - mp3 format please download as listen, tell me what you think. http://socs.qmsu.org/sikh/audio/cheemaUncl...heemaUncle).mp3 <<< As my time is indeed quite limited, better I do not have any expectations. In the end, conditions rule! You then said: >>>Please post any issues you want to debate Sir, im sure they will reply in thier masses !<<< From experience I have come to the conclusion that ‘debates’ are self-defeating. Each party relying on the ability to sort out information and thinking logically does not in the end get at the root of the problem, which is ‘attachment to views’ and ‘ignorance’. The winner goes back being more entrenched in his outlook and the looser is simply more confused. Ignorance is indeed very deep. It influences all our choice with regard to which line of reasoning we will take or even being attached to the reasoning process at all. And all the way to our final conclusion it leads us to further being caught in the grips of Maya. I do have the tendency to be preachy, hope you don’t mind my long-winded response. :-) Regards, Sukinderpal

Dear Pheena, I am posting my response to this in the other forum "Formal debates & discussions" as I think this discussion is not appropriate for this one. Of course, I don't expect it to go on much longer though, as few seem to be interested in taking part. Sukinderpal

Dear Harpreet and Pheena, I hesitated at the point of mentioning about being atheist, as this is not even an issue with me. I guess I should have found another way of expressing what I really wanted. I did not intend to draw your attention to this fact at the expense of the main point, which is to know more about Sikh teachings as it applies to daily living. My intention is so that I may be able to relate with my children, who are and will be brought up as ‘Sikhs’. I intend not to interfere nor object to my wife’s bringing them up that way. One impression I got from your response is that, any meaningful statement of fact is consequence of the belief in Akal Purukh. So I guess there is no way of avoiding this. I remember now about some discussions I had with a cyber friend, that in the end it always came down to the question of “beliefâ€. :-/ Anyway, in the meantime it has also occurred to me that I may be attached to the idea of having something clearly laid out for me. I guess I should not cling to this and instead develop more patience and courage to deal with life as it comes. In the end, conditions, the primary influence of which is ‘karma’, *rules* and my fears and projections can only make it more difficult to appreciate this. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, Sukinderpal

Dear All, I discovered this site by chance and have just become a member. I am not sure if my question is appropriate especially in light of the fact that this is specifically for "Gurbani and Gurmat Discussion". I looked into the other forum, but the topic headings did not appear encouraging. I know very little about Sikhism and would like to know more. A little less than two years ago, prompted by my wife's remark, "Sikhism is about the development of wisdom", I joined another Sikh discussion group in order to learn about that "wisdom". This resulted in a year long off-list correspondence with one particular member of that group, and a short time with another member and an owner of a well known Sikh site. In the end I managed to push all three of them away with my eagerness to convince them of my own views. I intend to stay here just long enough to get any information I need, so no reason to fear that the same thing will happen here. I could just go to the various websites and get information, or I could even sit down and talk with my wife. But my problem is, I have heard short quotes by Guru Nanak and Kabir which, at the time I heard them, I liked. However, be it with my wife or anywhere else that I have been, one big obstacle in looking into the actual teachings, is the constant reference to “Godâ€. I admit this is in part due to my own lack of patience. You see, I became an atheist about 28 years ago at the age of 15. From that time on for the next 15 years I was completely uninterested in any religion. So when I finally did, because of a personal tragedy, I was attracted to another religion. And now with the views of that religion influencing me, it is all the more hard to even remotely accept the idea of God or Akal Purukh. :-( So what I really want is, someone to draw out the essential points of Sikhism which apply to the individuals outlook, not on any social or political level (I am completely uninterested in these), but to how he would deal with his experiences, perhaps with the aim of seeing through ‘Maya’ and coming upon a correct perception and understanding of reality. This appears to me as quite a difficult task, but perhaps some of you may have the understanding and intelligence to do it without much difficulty. If not, don’t sweat over it, I will try not to have any expectations. Thanks in advance. Regards, Sukinderpal