Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'place'.
There are many disadvantages (limiting factors) if people infer that sackhand is a place where one goes to with identity intact then the (jeev or sukhsham sareer) will be limited in size unless they totally occupy everything and others there would be consumed/crowded by each other, limited power etc they are bound by location and are NOT omnipresent (as it is made out to be the earth is not sachkand but a separate khand). 'They' are not limitless this implies a disadvantage compared to what I understand and what gurmat believes which is that sackhand is everything no limits - omnipotent and omnipresent - Only God is and NO OTHER. Only truth (sackhand) people saying that sachkand is some sort of place do not know the infinite potential of gurmat naam. For (God) sachkand (OBJECTIVE TRUTH) to be a place (which it is not) it must be acknowledged by an individual (I) e.g. I am seeing that floating gurdwara in sachkand. There has to be duality between the perceiver and the object.' Gurbani is against dual consciousness please do a search on ‘durmat’. Essentially in any place where 'one’s' attentive consciousness is still stuck in form 'name and shape' is an illusion (maya). How will one tell the difference between themselves and God? Also the false notion of identity is kept of the person in sachkand then surely they still would have a mind and we are all know a mind is a limited instrument in itself I.E you can only have one thought at one time and have a limited capacity of knowledge. Also with any name and form it is bound by time, which we all know waheguru cannot be (akaal moorat) because if any action that occurs in sachkand (place) will occur in apperceived time i.e there would be a memory of past, present actions because if there were no actions in that place then sackhand would have no action, no one speaking etc. This identity is only a burden and a disadvantage. Also the fear of losing consciousness is downfall amongst seekers – they don’t want identity to be gone and want to remain eternally to experience the ‘bliss’. But this is inaccurate and involves blind faith on a false notion of consciousness being permanent. Scientifically or with veechar one needs to look into how the consciousness arouse. For consciousness to be permanent it has to be eternal and remain 24/7 throughout every moment/second. We know this can be proved wrong because it does not remain as in swoon/ unconscious/ deep sleep or in subconscious there is NO consciousness and the world is NOT. So then we can argue that if consciousness itself is temporary and the same consciousness (person) goes to sachkand then how can we have a full experience of sackhand when our own identity is our downfall for ever lasting experience. Beyond this who remains to enjoy the anand.... Like in deep sleep there is no consciousness and some people are trying to make there consciousness permanent thinking that it is eternal when in deep sleep and even subconsciously it is not. Letting the unconscious and subconscious (consciousness is a slave to the subconscious) take over means a death an annilation of experience. Really we are always dead it is the conscious part of the brain (reaction between neurotransmitters), which only comes temporarily that gives the inference of individuality and doership - that I exist and I WILL GO SACKHAND. It's all utter rubbish there is no one to go sachkand as there is only sachkand. People try to make the I (consciousness) eternal so 'they' can experience the anand and go sachkand. When in reality 'they' are an illusion – and the illusion is trying to escape the illusion – what a paradox! Basically no one wants to die but only dying is eternal!!! Another factor is that the mind is not permanent and it is made from experiences that one gets during their lifetime and something that is not eternal cannot have a permanent identity here after – to prove this point a blind person from birth has no visual thoughts throughout their life he/she just apperceives darkness. While a deaf person from birth can see form and name but has never heard a sound. So this shows that one’s identity are made from this lifetimes experiences. So the mind/memory/ ego are learnt traits that were picked up from the surroundings by the five senses. While the truth (Sachkand) exists prior to the learning period. So since the mind (where identity is made) is temporary it cannot ‘go’ to sachkand. Furthermore some people proclaim that the suksham sareer (mental/astral body) is what is permanent and the sukhsham sareer is the identity of a person with kesh (hair) and this identity is taken to sackhand but this sounds rather presumptuous as Gurbani mentions reincarnation and then was the same sukhsham sareer in a monkey or an ant? Also say one person obtains the human body and but does not realise the Lord and then says he is born again as another human body, which sukhsham sareer has he got and which will enter sachkand? If the sukhsham sareer enters sachkand it must be changeless and permanent and it just doesn’t make sense if the above theory is believed. That would make one particular astral/human identity as a truth, which I believe is subject to guess work, fantasy and opens a doorway to a myriad of questions that sprout from a false believe. Also since God/sachkand resides in ALL even in an agyani (ignorant devoid of naam/Ignorant of God being their true mool) then when kirpa is done the same changeless, permanent avasta must have already been present in the ignorant but missed or ignored, which the concept of non-identity supports while if the perception changed into another realm/place (mistaken as sachkand) then this is a change in ‘reality’, which cannot be correct as God is aadh sach, jugaad sach etc he is always true and ones underlying root prior to perception, learning, inference, apperception and even consciousness must have been true – while sackhand being a place and one retaining identity does not support hence this theory is subject to error. Carrying on with a false pretence of identity remaining then one would further make an assumption that Guru and God are separate. Some people to support this thinking say they are not separate but Guru ji is inside of waheguru and his identity is but is not noticeable to the naked eye. This statement is laughable for any identity to remain the perceiver must have a permanent consciousness and we have already discussed above that this is not possible. Really Guru/Satguru is another word for God (a synonym not a similarity). Some further state that when Waheguru created creation, before it He created Satguru - Waheguru appointed/created Satguru before creating the entire creation. This is false because then there is a notion of two (duality). Mistake is being made between waheguru’s nirgun and sargun aspect making them independently separate – when they are really one and the same and are dependent on each other. Hopefully this write-up has been helpful to prove that identity of one is not and since there is no identity then God/sachkand cannot be place that has independent people in it. However if one still wants it to be a place or wants to believe in permanent identity of individual then carry on doing so as you’ll be seriously disappointed. All in all having an identity is only a limitation and this would make sachkand limited in experience when in reality Gurmat sidhant is much greater than this make belief (manmat) view of sackhand.