Sukhi Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 obviously since neo and his nazis will prolly end up lockin the other thread, let's continue our debate over here. shaka laka baby, ur sayin that lineage matters in terms of teaching but bloodline isn't important. and on the other hand, i've got people saying that bloodline is important. continue on with the discussion. but before u do, i have another question (i know, how annoying): if someone's spiritually enlightened, does it really matter if they got their knowledge from a pamphlet lying in the gutter or from God Him/Her/It/Whatever-self? because in the end, spiritually enlightened souls all have the same knowledge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 hhahahahahahah... goood move sukhi... you truely understand us Nazi..lol Enjoy debates..keep it clean 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakash Singh Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 I don't think we are talking about spiritual enlightenment, we are talking about the authenticity and accuracy of teaaching and knowledge passed down to us from various institutions. Lineage for spirituality isnt necessary, but it is if you want to insure accuracy and authenticity of imformation etc, becasue you have the most original source. I was only joking about the blood line thing. Blood line is not imprtant, unless you are looking into family trees, decendents of some individual etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freed Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Hope this doesn't sound flippant - its a favourite 'joke' of mine and an instant debate winner-but if bloodline is important doesn't it mean that Amitabh Bacchan has a claim to be 'Jathedar' of Akal Takht as his mother is the grand daughter of Khem Singh Bedi -14th descendent of Guru Nanak's second son ? Didn't the Bedi's appoint Ranjit Singh as Maharaja ? Then again Amitabh couldn't do a worse job than Vedanti - plus Amitabh's got a better voice !! Advance apologies for the poor humour !! or if I've offended anyone ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 lol@Freed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamic_Banda Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 those who fall in love with the divine through bhakti do not care for authenticity and neither do they care about the Oraas and the eraas. They just engrossed in the divine man, hence mahapursh like Sant Baba Isher Singh JI could play kulia tarna because the colour and raas (the raag) was created by their love and bhagti. (but even Sant Mahapursh Ji has lineage lol.. ) But you get what I mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Amitabh Bachan, head of Budha Dal? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!Anytime!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 I think it would be foolish to state that lineage is a necessary precursor to spiritual development. However, at the same time, the majority of mystics have come to the position they gained through the direct nurturing, advice and guidance of others. I think the concept of nadri is essential here. The process by which you get to the state of recieving nadr can be with or without guidance. I have no doubts at all that what Bhai Randhir Singh ji experienced is brahmgyan. He describes standard mystical experiences. What is important to note though is that he initially took inspiration from the saints of the day, and further liased with them after his experiences as well. Now the issue for me is how does brahmgyan itself translate into informed opinion upon more mundane political, social, ethical and panthic issues? Does that insight provide a coherent intuitive understanding of such things? The mystic and sociologist Bharati thinks not, and I'm more inclined to agree with him. And it is in this void that tradition, both oral and written, provides a sound grounding in ethical, philosophical and practical guidance on the paramters of tradition...even though at the same time, I love iconoclastic mystics. Jai Jai Guru Nanak Dev ji! Jai Jai Hazrat Sarmud Shahid! Jai Jai Saint John of the Cross. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhi Posted November 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 hoooooooooooooold up... so lineage isn't important? i'm so daft... someone's gonna have to spell it out for me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 please read what I said sukhi. It is important for the transmission of tradition. But, I would argue, it is certainly not a requirement for religious experience. Experiences usually are clarified and contextualised by tradition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhi Posted December 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 i just read it and i'm havin issues still. does tradition, then, rely on blood line? because i'm firmly against blood lines in any sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.