Attachment To Sachkhand?

[Singhstah]

Firstly I would like to say everything I'm saying is complelty my opinion, it's probably wrong, and if anyone sees anything which contradicts Gurbani PLEASE tell me.

Singhstah the problem with your undertstanding of moh being attachment to that what is not vaheguru - well what is not vaheguru and what is vaheguru?

hmm, well what I think is that this whole creation, although it is permeated by Vaheguroo, it is'nt Vaheguroo himself and everything that isn't Vaheguroo is Maya.

Maya is all we see around us, the only things which arent maya are our Aatma, and Parmatma.

About love for Vaheguroo, it's every love you can think of and more hana :wubc:

Becoming attached to something exterior means that you will not recognise it inside yourself.

'Sachkhand is vaheguru himself' striking statements like this require a bit of justifcation. Also if Sachkhand is vaheguru what are the the other khands - devi devte?

Ok, well obviously Guroo Sahib's teachings tell us that Vaheguroo Ji is indeed inside us all, but in the case of Vaheguroo Ji I'm not sure if it really matters in what way we love him to begin with, but as Gurbani (cant remember exact tuks) tells us, that love is realised fully when he does reveal himself inside us.

About 'Sachkhand is Vaheguroo himself', it's hard to word exactly what I think, but going back to Vaheguroo permeating everything around us, I think that the only reason we dont realise his presence is because of Maya also being present.

The difference is that Sachkhand is where Maya is'nt present, to be honest I really dont know about the other Khands in terms of the extent of Vaheguroo's presence + Maya's presence, but why I say Sachkhand=Vaheguroo, is that that is the place where Vaheguroo Sahib is compelelty distinct and there is no other presence there.

Oh, and devi devte, well my understanding tells me that they are not in any of the Khands, but still in the lower heavens (Shivpuri, Indrapuri, Brahmpuri etc.), and I know that those heavens are surrounded by Maya.

Really greaaat topic, cant wait for more opinions :TH:

ps.Could someone please point out some tuks about where maya isn't present and other Bani from Mahraj related to the subject. (thanks alredy TKF for that shabad)

[TeriSharan.]

Attachment to family, maya and worldly attackments is dubidha. Attachment to sachkhand, guru, gursikhs, everyones atmaa, vaheguroo etc.. is love.

When wife says to husband I love you, or son says to mother I love you, this is not love its just attachemetn. You can only have love for vaaheguroo, then obviously love will be seen in everybody because vaaheguroo is in everyone!

[Pheena]

About 'Sachkhand is Vaheguroo himself', it's hard to word exactly what I think, but going back to Vaheguroo permeating everything around us, I think that the only reason we dont realise his presence is because of Maya also being present.

Could it be that it is because of the existence Maya that you are allowed to feel this separation.....Perhaps it is not that Maya blocks you from Divinity, rather it is Maya that makes it possible for you seek such Divinity.

Man can claim to be lost only when he can recall his destination...otherwise wherever he is, it is his home.

[Mehtab Singh]

Man can claim to be lost only when he can recall his destination...otherwise wherever he is, it is his home.

DAM! BLOODY GOOD! AWESOME!

[Hell Boy]

Does enlightenment, sachkhand solely exist because of delusion and ignorance, if they dissappear so will enlightenment? delusion and ignorance exist because of enlightenment , when enlightenment ceases ignorance and delusion will also cease?

should we be on guard against thinking of sachkhand or enlightenment as a "thing" to be grasped after, lest it, too should become an obstruction. When the mind that was in darkness becomes enlightened, it passes away and with its passing, the thing we call enlightenment passes to

[Pheena]

Does enlightenment, sachkhand solely exist because of delusion and ignorance, if they dissappear so will enlightenment? delusion and ignorance exist because of enlightenment , when enlightenment ceases ignorance and delusion will also cease?

should we be on guard against thinking of sachkhand or enlightenment as a "thing" to be grasped after, lest it, too should become an obstruction. When the mind that was in darkness becomes enlightened, it passes away and with its passing, the thing we call enlightenment passes to

The Guru exists only as long as the Deciple is a Deciple, But when the Deciple is no more, the Guru cease to be as well.

[I humbly bow]

"When the mind that was in darkness becomes enlightened, it passes away and with its passing, the thing we call enlightenment passes to"

Once sachkhand has been obtained, you have merged with waheguru and there is no greater enlightenment. Hence this is how you will stay for eternity; merged with the supreme being. I personally believe that the enlightenment never passes; it is a part of you always and you are a part of it.

[N30S1NGH]

We all know that according to Sikhi that Moh is considered a road block on the path of sprituality. Is attachment or a desire to reach sackhand or attain brahmgyan also a road block? Does it mean that delusion is still with the the individual if he/she sorts for those things?

Desire to reach sachkhand (meet with your real self which you couldnt meet yet because of your own upadis) and desire to get worldly things have jeman/asman da farak.

Lets just put it this way- one desire is there to merge with nirankar(your real self) and second desire to make you slave of our own thoughts which brings us back and back and back again to this earth to fullfill those desires.

This shows "I desire" is not really bad term as many people like to think this term as taboo or manmat. It all depends on- what you desire?

Attachment/Desire towards to meet vahiguroo/real self is not premenant will go away once you meet your own real self(atma)/taste your own atma ras.

As pheena pointed out fakir saying-

Tarak Duniya, Tarak Ukbah, Tarak Maullah, Tarak Tarak !

[OhTwadi]

.

[JustME]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm a very interesting topic and discussion

Moh = Attachment...........................now in dharmic sense i know a close family friend that is very "into" sikhi......has parkaash of Guru Ji at home etc etc basically shes the ideal gursikh expect she wont take amrit..................she had alot of hardship in her life and turned to God................but i fear this is not wot the untimate aim of finding the Path to God as it were...............in this example she feels by becoming closer to God she will get back what she lost a few years ago and this, i have watched has turned into an obession of wanting something that has gone but "using" the path of God as an excuse to justify the "want"....................

when we want stachkhand in a wordly sense then, i feel that is a bad thing..............each person has their own perception of Stachkhand and peple wanna get there for different reasons...............................some the concept of stachkhand eliminiates this "want" and "need" and the avasta reaches a level of pure unwvering LOVE................it is throught LOVE we can obtain stachkhand and ultimatly waheguru...............but the "want" of waheguru in the first place can originate from Moh as we discover the soul craves something more that what the physical world has to offer.....but attachment to stachkhand, i feel will not get you to stachkhand but is a starting process of channing one of the 5 vices into a postive to walking the path of true enlightenment.............the hardest thing is turningt he attachment into a pure form of longing, desire and want to SUBMIT to the will of waheguru.,..............which can only stem from pure LOVE............

erm..........yeah sorry for the rambling and i hope that made sense my mind goes faster than my fingers

Bhul Chuck maafi

waheguruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu