Identity In Sackhand - Why It Cannot Be

[Consciousness]

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.

[kullykhalsa]

very good read some of the concepts are hard to get but i disagree with the following(although i agree with most of it :-)):

"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."

If your premise is correct he surely thats the same for god...as in a individual must say i am seeing god?

The mind is only limited by ourselves, although i agree with your main premise, scientists say that we only use 10% of our brain

The problem with all of your assumptions are that they are based upon your own beliefs/intelligence/cultural upbringing and then within this you are bound by the english language. The real truth is that we wont know until you get to sachkand or the moment before. Yes to have a conciousness and identify means you cannot be one with waheguru in the english language but if god is omnipotent beyond time/space/reality could it be possible to remain yourself and be competely one with waheguru possibly

[Consciousness]

very good read some of the concepts are hard to get but i disagree with the following(although i agree with most of it :-)):

"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."

If your premise is correct he surely thats the same for god...as in a individual must say i am seeing god?

No because God is not an object he is the subject where all experience arises from so if I understand you correctly the same does not apply to the subject as there is no dual consciousness there. If the individual knew who he/she was would they even bother saying I am seeing God? (maybe to teach others but apart from this?)

qUM dwnW qUM bInW mY bIcwru ikAw krI ]

thoo dhaanaa(n) thoo beenaa(n) mai beechaar kiaa karee ||

You are wise, You are the supreme seer; how could I make You an object of thought?

Awpy vyKY vyKxhwru ]

aapae vaekhai vaekhanehaar ||

The Lord, the Seer, Himself sees.

The problem with all of your assumptions are that they are based upon your own beliefs/intelligence/cultural upbringing and then within this you are bound by the english language. The real truth is that we wont know until you get to sachkand or the moment before. Yes to have a conciousness and identify means you cannot be one with waheguru in the english language but if god is omnipotent beyond time/space/reality could it be possible to remain yourself and be competely one with waheguru possibly

But doesn't gurbani use metaphors/ understanding based upon that time when guru ji was present or the bhagats were.. So would you say gurbani is bound by the gurmukhi language? So bhai sahib jeo 'who' then gets to sachkand? To remain as an individual it would be impossible to be one with God as an individual already applies separation.

Here's a question for you which supposes an individual; Did 'you' leave sachkand or did sachkand leave you?

Daas

consciousness

[Guest]

Not a bad post brother

[PAL 07]

..............could it be possible to remain yourself and be competely one with waheguru possibly

Good point.....this was once asked to Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji and he stated that inorder for me to do katha and speak myself from conscious mind i have to minutely merge into conscious from the pure parmatama form. Incidentally out of all ther kathas i have heard upto now and now i only listen to Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji i am amazed that baba ji' katha is very different from the normal katha we listren to. Whenever anyone gives a discourse it is always 100% biased by ones own interpretations and expweriences.you can tell from Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's katha how he always talks about brahm, gyaan..I love it the way he says " chauteh padh vich charah hojanda"

[luckysingh99]

No because God is not an object he is the subject where all experience arises from so if I understand you correctly the same does not apply to the subject as there is no dual consciousness there. If the individual knew who he/she was would they even bother saying I am seeing God? (maybe to teach others but apart from this?)

qUM dwnW qUM bInW mY bIcwru ikAw krI ]

thoo dhaanaa(n) thoo beenaa(n) mai beechaar kiaa karee ||

You are wise, You are the supreme seer; how could I make You an object of thought?

Awpy vyKY vyKxhwru ]

aapae vaekhai vaekhanehaar ||

The Lord, the Seer, Himself sees.

But doesn't gurbani use metaphors/ understanding based upon that time when guru ji was present or the bhagats were.. So would you say gurbani is bound by the gurmukhi language? So bhai sahib jeo 'who' then gets to sachkand? To remain as an individual it would be impossible to be one with God as an individual already applies separation.

Here's a question for you which supposes an individual; Did 'you' leave sachkand or did sachkand leave you?

Daas

consciousness

We left from the ''True'' origin.

Sachkhand is not a place in the sense that only in this world do we have places and choices to travel there.

When one is within the true realms of the truth, then one knows and feels nothing else except the love for that origin.

When you are there, leaving or not being there is not even an option in the sense that it does not even occur to be elsewhere as you will know that this place is where you really belong.

LOVE and COMFORT of being there is the only Truth that matters. It is where everything that could be lost in you has finally found it's home.

Why do we leave there in the 1st place, when all our soul and atma want is to be back there ?

Well, we only actually become a physical entity and don't leave in effect. Taking birth and being in this world is the beginning of the ''Duality'' that continues to conquer and overide our very physical existence here.

If we can detach and get more inwards into our deep selves, only then can we really find our true selves and the Lord within us.

Remember God is formless. He is not a he or a she, neither is he big or small. His presence can only be seen and felt once you are back there in sachkhand. He doesn't have the characteristics like humans, he doesn't have blood pumping him, however he is a hige source of the infinite energy that maintains the whole universe.

[Mehtab Singh]

Good point.....this was once asked to Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji and he stated that inorder for me to do katha and speak myself from conscious mind i have to minutely merge into conscious from the pure parmatama form. Incidentally out of all ther kathas i have heard upto now and now i only listen to Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji i am amazed that baba ji' katha is very different from the normal katha we listren to. Whenever anyone gives a discourse it is always 100% biased by ones own interpretations and expweriences.you can tell from Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's katha how he always talks about brahm, gyaan..I love it the way he says " chauteh padh vich charah hojanda"

Actually according to Gyani Thakur Singh jee an average GurSikh cannot even fully grasp Sant Gurbachan Singh jee's katha since it comes from a pooran brahmgyani and takes a while to settle down onto one's regular kaljugi mind.

[Lion of Punjab]

Good point.....this was once asked to Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji and he stated that inorder for me to do katha and speak myself from conscious mind i have to minutely merge into conscious from the pure parmatama form. Incidentally out of all ther kathas i have heard upto now and now i only listen to Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji i am amazed that baba ji' katha is very different from the normal katha we listren to. Whenever anyone gives a discourse it is always 100% biased by ones own interpretations and expweriences.you can tell from Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's katha how he always talks about brahm, gyaan..I love it the way he says " chauteh padh vich charah hojanda"

any links too babaji's katha

[PAL 07]

any links too babaji's katha

www.gurmatveechar.com