Sukhi Posted March 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 argh... Pheena, i KNOW you wanna discuss this more. come on... don't back off like that! lol... explain the characteristics of Truth and the difference between it and duality. come on! come on! come on! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tableji Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Lets try something, i wana know what you think i've said, I've already written something, trying to decipher what i had said but i wana know what you think. It seems you are on a roll for the past 2-3 months, so who knows u might find something in what i said that is more in depth than i could ever think of. Here are some starting points from teh Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. this should be interesting. Don't retranslate the quotes, but use them as a starting point to think for your own thoughts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 im still waiting sukhi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gupy Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 sin is a relative term, so why define it in the context of Bani that warns against duality? What is good, and what is there that is bad? What is Kharam? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 thas a good point gupy, hence it is not a part of reality but duality. From what i understand sukhi wants to further discuss the differences between the 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhi Posted March 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Lets try something, i wana know what you think i've said, I've already written something, trying to decipher what i had said but i wana know what you think. It seems you are on a roll for the past 2-3 months, so who knows u might find something in what i said that is more in depth than i could ever think of. Here are some starting points from teh Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. this should be interesting. Don't retranslate the quotes, but use them as a starting point to think for your own thoughts. ooookay... what i did, Pheenu, is read the entire shabads that the tuks are from... combining what i learned or interpreted from both, i think we've stumbled onto a discussion of spiritual sins/deeds. for the past couple of weeks, i've been discussing the nature of "nearness" with God with a couple of other people, and the general conclusion seems to be that God is all-pervading and as a result, we're always near him. but we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are far from him, because we can't recognize Him. both of the shabads emphasize this point. so, what i'm thinking is that sin is to continue on being blind to Reality and stumbling through lives. we've blinded ourselves with the various veils of maya, and until we pull them away and open our eyes to light, we are sinning and living the essence of duality. it's dark, because we've shrouded ourselves away from the Light, although the Light pervades through all. virtue then, would be to awaken... to open our eyes... virtue would be to recognize this Truth as put so eloquently by Guru Sahib. not only recognize it, but understand it. and that's an experience i haven't had yet, unfortunately. anyways, i'm doing this at about 6 a.m. my time without sleep. i'm hoping i made some sense... oh and one more thing... the concept of sin/virtue seems to be relatively free from a sense of good/bad. i'll try explaining this later on. cuz i'm SO tired! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalvir Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 what is sin? how does it relate to karma? in my opinion, sin is somehting that we are not allowed to do, because religion has said that we cant, or the prophet(s) have said we cannot. it related to karma because as we know karma is what one has done is their past life that influences us in this life, so what i mean is that if we were just good in our past life, then that indirectly states that there was sin, and thus in our new life, we are good BUT there will always be that something we did our past life that makes us sin. This may have sounded confussing, but its what i intrepret as sin relating to karma. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gupy Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 in my opinion, sin is somehting that we are not allowed to do, because religion has said that we cant, or the prophet(s) have said we cannot. it related to karma because as we know karma is what one has done is their past life that influences us in this life, so what i mean is that if we were just good in our past life, then that indirectly states that there was sin, and thus in our new life, we are good BUT there will always be that something we did our past life that makes us sin. This may have sounded confussing, but its what i intrepret as sin relating to karma. In this case we can argue, as many do, that religion is in essence away of affirming a moral code on a set of people. In real life use this is the main use of religion around the wrold. What better way to impose social rules than the fear of God or hell or rebirth etc... So then you can argue that each of the religions/prophets/gurus/saints are relative and contextual. Therefore not universal. This is why I disagree with the quoted statement, as it is too simplistic. Therefore I would conclude the notion of 'sin' is a man made concept very distant from the theology of 'God', however it is a simple way of explaining deeper understandings of concepts such as Karam, Dharam, Duality and ekta. Just like 'baptism' is now a widespread word used for amrot sanchaar, as is the falsity with using sin with regards Indian understandings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalvir Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 This is why I disagree with the quoted statement, as it is too simplistic. Therefore I would conclude the notion of 'sin' is a man made concept very distant from the theology of 'God', however it is a simple way of explaining deeper understandings of concepts such as Karam, Dharam, Duality and ekta explain, how is this simplistic. and also how is 'sin' a man made concept when as my father has said, its in Gurbani, and Gurbani clearly states that those that go against religious teachings are sinners, an example being, eating halal meat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 ooookay... what i did, Pheenu, is read the entire shabads that the tuks are from... combining what i learned or interpreted from both, i think we've stumbled onto a discussion of spiritual sins/deeds. for the past couple of weeks, i've been discussing the nature of "nearness" with God with a couple of other people, and the general conclusion seems to be that God is all-pervading and as a result, we're always near him. but we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are far from him, because we can't recognize Him. both of the shabads emphasize this point. so, what i'm thinking is that sin is to continue on being blind to Reality and stumbling through lives. we've blinded ourselves with the various veils of maya, and until we pull them away and open our eyes to light, we are sinning and living the essence of duality. it's dark, because we've shrouded ourselves away from the Light, although the Light pervades through all. virtue then, would be to awaken... to open our eyes... virtue would be to recognize this Truth as put so eloquently by Guru Sahib. not only recognize it, but understand it. and that's an experience i haven't had yet, unfortunately. anyways, i'm doing this at about 6 a.m. my time without sleep. i'm hoping i made some sense... oh and one more thing... the concept of sin/virtue seems to be relatively free from a sense of good/bad. i'll try explaining this later on. cuz i'm SO tired! What do u mean by Spritual Sin/Virtue? as oppose to a regular sin/virtue. ok this is what i had written so i'll just post it unedited and see what type of Bhartha we get. uhhhh ok i will try to explain but i think i will fall short. Reality or for a better word Truth Stand Alone without a counter-part. I'm not talking about the truth/false duality. But Truth as in Satya, SatNaam the likeness of Divine everpresent. Sin(bad)/Good exists when the doers exists, When a Divine realized being who is merged with the one acts, his actions are not accounted for on the chart of Karma for he does not act. If one is dead to himself and is only alive to his beloved then so are his actions. Simply put God acts. He is Beyond duality. His is in the realm of Truth where he sees One and no other but this truth. That is the realm of Truth and Reality. You are being fed with this good/bad ideas from the beginning. Be good and you'll received gifts; be bad and you'll be punished. It is a start to lure you into the action of good which brings you to the brighter side of the boat thru which you can escape this duality. But you are still on this boat!! The Destroyer of Sin is not Destroying the Sin (except in the case of debt), but the one who Sins. you do not destroy the Action, but the one who is behind the Action, you, your ego, I. The I in action of Virtue and Sin. You Sin because you are the doer. You do good because you are the Doer. When you are not the doer then who does good and who does bad? Does God Sin on your behalf? Is he then liable for this karmic debt? Is there such thing as a Sin when God Acts thru you. Then you begin to see even behind the action of those who sin is the hand of god. Sin exists thru our own perception, thru the divine perception only his leela is percieved. As long as you are the Doer, you are trapped in the cycle of Karma, when you lose yourself to the beloved, so you are no longer the one behind the action. He is ! Regarding the quotes i've posted, I didn't poste the whole quotes because they were very long, so i took the paurees from the shabads. anyone is more than welcome to read the whole quote so it don't seem like im trying to bend the quotes to propogate my side of the discussion. if it speaks of something other thatn what is being discussed then please do share. btw nothing in my words is concrete, i welcome any opposing views. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein singh Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 a very grey area! sin and paap in my eyes are very relative terms......i.e. i dont think we can define them.....each circumstance will warrant a sighlty different 'right' and 'wrong'........ however, we all have a Conscious state of mind (i hope).....and this allows us to make decisions based on our situation.......and help us deictate what is right and wrong 4 us as individuals 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalvir Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 i think sin and paap can be something we can define. Dont u think that sin/paap means going agaisnt one's religion, not necessarily religion, but going agaisnt something that someone who is wise, etc has told us not to do?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhi Posted March 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 it's all in how you see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein singh Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Reg Dalvirs comments: would killing some-one be sin??........our immediate answer may be yes.....however if we have more insight into the situation our answer may change....i.e. would killing some-one in self defence, or defending your child be sin??.......how would you reply? thus....right/wrong are relative terms in terms of religion.....is it paap to go again religion? again, depends on the situation, but i dont think we should generalise our thinking by saying 'going again religion is wrong'........guru nanak dev ju refused to wear the janju (sacred hindu black thread)......would you class that as paap...or more so....guru ji as a paapi?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lung Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 the scene opens at the boundary... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein singh Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 bruce lung..............umm, i don't understand.....what do you mean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalvir Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Reg Dalvirs comments: would killing some-one be sin??........our immediate answer may be yes.....however if we have more insight into the situation our answer may change....i.e. would killing some-one in self defence, or defending your child be sin??.......how would you reply? thus....right/wrong are relative terms in terms of religion.....is it paap to go again religion? again, depends on the situation, but i dont think we should generalise our thinking by saying 'going again religion is wrong'........guru nanak dev ju refused to wear the janju (sacred hindu black thread)......would you class that as paap...or more so....guru ji as a paapi?? No i wouldn't but u gotta understand my comment in a deeper meaning (good intrepratations though bro), actually with your comment about asking someone that if u kill someone is it a sin i dont think the immediate answer would be yes. FIrslty the person would think about it, i know that i was asked that question and my immediate answer wasn't yes in self defence it istn a sin. take the example u gave about killing someone, yes it is paap to kill someone, BUT its only paap if you do it for no reason as in intentional, but in self defence how can it be sin, Guru Gobind Singh Ji killed the 2 Pathans that tried to kill him in self defence and thats not paap, becuase its self defence. As for the Janee-o, the sacred Hindu thread, its like jewellery in a way, it makes u look better (in a holy way). But the question then arises why must someone wear a (holy) necklace just so that others think ur wise, etc. Things like this Guru Nanak Dev Ji knew, so that's why he rejected it. How can Guru Ji be a paapi if he was enlightened? He was sent here on earth with a mission, and he fulfilled it. he cant be a paapi, Satgur Nanak Pargatia Mitte Dhunde Jag Chanan Hogia. See he came with a message to stop these rituals that have no meaning thats why he cannot and will not ever be classified as a paapi, he as well as the other Guru's havent even done anything that a paapi would do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tableji Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 dalvir, the janju was a tradition, not religious, please do not confuse the two 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.