Buddhism

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

"NIrvana=Akal Purkh"

The Buddhist texts do not have a clear indication in their texts of the Almighty. They do speak of Nirvana, which is the bliss that is obtained after one has mastered their senses and rejected the importance of materialism, but it is not clear as to being the Almighty.

Sikhism from the outset states that there is the One God (Ik Onkaar). The focus of the entire religion is that and there is no ambiguity.

[Singh47]

Why would a Sikh want to join an atheist religion like Buddhism which does not even believe in the existence of God? According to the 36th PouRi of Japjee Sahib, Buddha is in Gyan-Khand. (ketay sidh budh naadh katay katay devi ves). A Sikhs destination is Sach Khand which is far above Gyan Khand. Why give up so much for so little?

[Khalsa04]

Im not the perfect Sikh, i dont have kes, i dont eat meat and I cant remember my last visit to the Gurukhar. Ive thought about various religions and that but ive realised that Sikhi is the true path, we dont force anyone, we do not commit attorcoties, we look after EVERYONE regardless of Sikh or not, and we have brotherhood. Its your decision but remember your Amritdhari, a daughter of Dasam Pita and if you leave Sikhi you will leave your father.

Fateh.

[Pheena]

Sat Sri Akal:

"NIrvana=Akal Purkh"

The Buddhist texts do not have a clear indication in their texts of the Almighty. They do speak of Nirvana, which is the bliss that is obtained after one has mastered their senses and rejected the importance of materialism, but it is not clear as to being the Almighty.

Sikhism from the outset states that there is the One God (Ik Onkaar). The focus of the entire religion is that and there is no ambiguity.

What is Akal Purkh to you?

One can say Buddha's path is wrong, when he has walked upon with 100% surrender and Found Nothing.

[Pheena]

Why would a Sikh want to join an atheist religion like Buddhism which does not even believe in the existence of God? According to the 36th PouRi of Japjee Sahib, Buddha is in Gyan-Khand. (ketay sidh budh naadh katay katay devi ves). A Sikhs destination is Sach Khand which is far above Gyan Khand. Why give up so much for so little?

I don't think Budh in that shabad implies to Buddha. The shabad is Implying your Budh, your Intellect. But i'd liike more explanation as to how it says Buddha is in Gyaan Khand? I could be wrong, so please clear my doubts.

Waheguru.

[jaspreet.kaur]

yeh you guys are probably right..u know more about religion then me....but i dont know yet.. im just this put religion stuff behind me and focus on more important things...atleast for now...i guess...

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Pheena Ji, please do not assign statements to me when I haven't made them. I never said that Buddhism is wrong. However, you yourself and anyone else here can go and read themselves of what the Buddhist texts say. Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other monotheistic religions state unequivocally about the presence of the One Almighty. There is no room for ifs ands or buts. However, such a statement is not present in the Buddhist texts. From the description of Nirvana found in the Buddhist texts, Nirvana sems to be the ultimate reconciliation of one's internal conflicts and desires to a stage of perfect harmony and contentment. However, no allusion to a higher power is made. That is simply what the texts say, and it is being relayed to the readers. No conclusions or opinions have been offered.

[Singh47]

"I don't think Budh in that shabad implies to Buddha. The shabad is Implying your Budh, your Intellect. But i'd liike more explanation as to how it says Buddha is in Gyaan Khand? I could be wrong, so please clear my doubts."

Pheena, both Sahib Singh, and Gyani Narayan Singh Pandit have translating ‘Budh’ in that tukh as ‘Budh avtar'(Buddha) and not as intellect.

[Gupt daasan daas]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

singh 47 is right, it is refering to budh avtaar( buddha)

that whole shabad is referring to devtas, avtaarsm etc. like kirshna, shiva, buddha, etc.

buddha, like jesus mohamaad, etc. were all great

much much better than me

but not at sach khand

at giaan khand

the plane of spiritual wisdom

thas y they got s much gian and shakti

but all our life shud be is about vaheguru jes sipht

and budhhas teachings dont even really tell u if there is a god

even the dali lama will never answer is there a god or not

and sikhi says to praise god with all ure breaths

but they cant even say god exists

as for nirvana

no one knws true anand until satguru makes u expirence it

anand anand sabh ko kahai

anand guru teh janaea

bhula chuka maf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[Pheena]

ms514, my apologies veer, but that was a statement, not directed towards you; hence i said "One" not "You".

How can this one lonely drop contain the whole ocean? How can it know the entire ocean?

This is very interesting: the drop is in the ocean and the drop is the ocean. So in a very profound sense, the drop knows the ocean, because the ocean is not different from the drop. And yet in another sense it cannot know the ocean because the ocean is not separate from it. This is the biggest paradox of religion: we know God and yet we do not know Him at all. How can this be when He throbs in us and we in Him? We are not far from Him; in fact there isn't the slightest distance between Him and us.

So in a sense we know Him well; and yet we do not know Him at all, because we are a part of Him. How can a part know the whole? We dive in Him, we float in Him, live in Him; at times we forget Him and sometimes we remember Him. Sometimes we feel ourselves very near Him and sometimes far. In clear moments we feel that we have known Him. When the heart gets over-filled, we know that we have known, because we have recognized Him. Wisdom comes, then again it is lost and there is deep darkness. Then we falter again. But this very state of knowing and not knowing is the basic condition of a religious person.

When anyone questioned Buddha about God he would keep silent. What could he say? Contradictions cannot be spoken about. If he were to say, "I know," he would be making a mistake, because who

can say that he knows? And if Buddha were to say he did not know, he would be making a false statement, because who knew more than he!

Early one morning a very learned pundit came to Buddha to ask about God.

Buddha remained silent. Soon the pundit left. Ananda asked Buddha why he had not answered, since the pundit was a man who knew a great deal and deserved an answer. Buddha said, "Just because he is deserving, it is all the more difficult to give him an answer. If I said I have known Him, it would be wrong, because without knowing Him completely how could I claim to know Him at all? I I said I did not, that too would be false. All claims derive from the ego and the ego can never know Him. Since he is deserving and intelligent and understanding, I had to keep silent. He understood. Did you not see him bow before he left?"

Then Ananda remembered how the pundit was so grateful that he bowed reverently at Buddha's feet. "How wonderful! Did he really understand? That never occurred to me."