# What Use Is It To Believe Everything?



## Harry Haller (Mar 23, 2012)

Gurfateh

As you go through life you come across many people, some have strong opinions, some have no opinions, just like on this forum in fact!

Is it right to have no opinion? Is it right to believe in everything, to accept everything as a possibility? In my view those that commit to nothing, that always have an open mind, that embrace every possibility are in fact, nothing.. 

Who are they? What do they stand for? what do they believe in? the answer is of course, everything, and nothing. 

I have given much thought to those of multi faith, those that believe in all gods, in all paths, and I have come to the conclusion that although they may believe in everything, what in fact they believe in, is nothing. 

Ask such a person any question, and you will get both sides of the argument, although this is helpful in accepting anothers point of view, it also means there is no conviction, no commitment,

We all have to believe in something, We all have to get off the fence and stand up and say, this is what defines me, this is who I am, sure it may change in time, sure we may even be wrong, but the journey to the truth, in my view, is not accepting everything in the hope that somewhere in there is the truth, but isolating and marking out the truth, and then embracing that, and that alone. Yes, it is a lot harder than a blanket acceptance, but I would rather be something than nothing, even if that something was wrong.


----------



## Annie (Mar 23, 2012)

Haha, Harry ji. When I joined SPN I actually tried to write Everything And Nothing as my adherent religion, but I could not. Not enough space.

I understand and agree with what youre saying, that a person should not indiscriminately observe all religions just to have his bases covered when he dies... What does he think, the Creator wont see right through that sort of trickery? But I would like to offer a different point of view. I find pieces of truth and many similarities in all major religions that I have studied. I want above all to know as much truth as I can, no matter whose holy book it comes from. Simran helps me decide what rings true to me, or at least I hope it does, and what I learn is not an illusion. I do not see the sense in picking a religion just to pick one.


----------



## Parma (Mar 23, 2012)

As you go through life you come across many people, some have strong opinions, some have no opinions, just like on this forum in fact!

A point to you. If they have no opinions on this forum by your understanding? Why are you posting a question on here?

Is it right to have no opinion? Is it right to believe in everything, to accept everything as a possibility? In my view those that commit to nothing, that always have an open mind, that embrace every possibility are in fact, nothing..

I have read somewhere before the catholic faiths concept of god is it views god as a nothingness, that exsits everywhere, is that not a faith, a view, a religion? Many other faiths do as well, so are you rubbishing many faiths? Bringing your self down to the point of nothing is in fact one humble approach, but then it is to become one with that nothing that becomes apart of everything where the true enlightenment takes place. They are contradictions I know but the truth is the whole human life is a condradiction. You are born to live, yet you die. Only when the condradictions make sense do you realise without god it is all non-sense, it is a point of sanity a point of sobriety, were the mind elevates from the condradictions to the truth. Nothing is everything! You are a point of life, and life is the pendulum, the rights and wrongs you either swing this way or that way the point is to stay centred. In becoming that centred individual you are learning of who you are. Very psychological but very practical as well. The greatest discovery any man can make in their whole life. When that is found and you realise you are a concept no greater or lesser than anything else then hopefully you find happiness. The point that I hope every life will strive for constant peace 


Who are they? What do they stand for? what do they believe in? the answer is of course, everything, and nothing. 

Who are you? What do you stand for? You are not a perfect person if I were to say you stand for the truth, the truth is you will lie so their in all is another condradiction. Once you overcome the contradictions then you can establish yourself which is a human. Just the same as every other human in the world what makes you better or the person to sit on the seat of judgment. Same applies to religion as that is based on humanity, so it can only be based on human thinking

I have given much thought to those of multi faith, those that believe in all gods, in all paths, and I have come to the conclusion that although they may believe in everything, what in fact they believe in, is nothing. 

Good they are on the approach to enlightenment. God exsists in everything.

Ask such a person any question, and you will get both sides of the argument, although this is helpful in accepting anothers point of view, it also means there is no conviction, no commitment,
Commitment does not come from conviction. It comes from an understanding expand your thoughts and there you will find your commitment


We all have to believe in something, We all have to get off the fence and stand up and say, this is what defines me, this is who I am, sure it may change in time, sure we may even be wrong, but the journey to the truth, in my view, is not accepting everything in the hope that somewhere in there is the truth, but isolating and marking out the truth, and then embracing that, and that alone. Yes, it is a lot harder than a blanket acceptance, but I would rather be something than nothing, even if that something was wrong.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> 

Certain things will effect all individaully this point is too in-depth as you are trying to define a person. Ask most people and I think alot of people at the age of 80 yrs are still searching for that centre self yet. It is like me saying your a bad man then you go and do a good deed, so define yourself their and then are you good or are you bad? A lot of people go through life without feeling complete psychologically or physically its just a process of life as we are sikh learning until you find that centre and become khalsa, pure can not be defined but a peaceful individual in all situations of life. 
Even when defending one’s self with the kirpan, you should be still at peace not fighting for hate, anger lust, and greed but for definite peace. 
Like Bruce Lee said even in the midst of a fight I do not think about the winning or losing I let nature take its course, think of the moment in hand that centre that peace.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 23, 2012)

Harry ji,
You have to define who you are and simultaneously be completely open to all possibilities.

Hahaha

Most people get stuck on surface level definitions of themselves e.g. religion, caste, creed, capital, etc. These are fine for interacting in the world. Needless to say, they form an important identity to have and adhere to.

When one starts to identify strongly with who they REALLY are, once they find out their actual self, once they find out the only thing that REALLY defines who they are, once they find out their true description, they become open to all things. They become an opening. Both sides of the argument are referring to a reality that  neither argument captures in it's entirety. They become a space for these arguments to play around in, for the world to play around in.

I am not talking about ignorant acceptance but acceptance based on knowing the reality, after careful study and contemplation. The ignorant one has no power to accept or reject, he does not know. He is like a child, just entered the new world, no power to accept, no power to reject, a simple openess to the world, with lots of learning. It is only with knowing you have power to accept and reject. Notice how when you start to mature and learn things, you start accepting and rejecting things. You might become very religious or a staunch atheist. You continue to grow and mature. There maybe a point where you know everything, and though you have all the power to accept and reject, you cannot actually accept or reject anything. You become a child again, open to all there is. Why does this happen? Because you are enlightened, that you know everything, you see that everything is talking about reality. You see it all. You see through the veil of duality (of taking sides). Here exists "knowing" in the pure form. Simply a knowing, peaceful knowing. The pure awareness of what is there to be known. "Knowing" in it's pure form is actually knowing nothing. It is transcending all knowings and non-knowings.

It is all very confusing indeed. Knowing is not knowing. Defining is not defining. What the heck!? lol

Look it's simple: devote time to God, to society, do this, do that, rules, more rules, endless list of rules.

The word 'Abrahamic' comes to mind, does it not? This kind of structure is necessary even for someone who is very enlightened. To him the structure provided by his tradition is necessary. Because the enlightened one by definition is ignorant. He is on the fence. They can both enjoy any field. The only difference between him and somebody who is ignorant is that whereas the ignorant one is on the fence not seeing the fields, the enlightened one sees the wide open fields on both sides. It's pure freedom, he can go anywhere. He is everywhere. 

So what I am saying is that you are very right but also dead wrong.  icecreammunda haahha

__________________
The intellect of the mind is like a drunken elephant. Whatever one utters is totally false, the most false of the false. - Guru Nanak, 351


----------



## Parma (Mar 23, 2012)

The word 'Abrahamic' comes to mind, does it not? This kind of structure is necessary even for someone who is very enlightened. To him the structure provided by his tradition is necessary. Because the enlightened one by definition is ignorant. He is on the fence. They can both enjoy any field. The only difference between him and somebody who is ignorant is that whereas the ignorant one is on the fence not seeing the fields, the enlightened one sees the wide open fields on both sides. It's pure freedom, he can go anywhere. He is everywhere. 

Sorry Bhagat ji, I would just like to add a point on something here. When peace is obtained ignorance is obliterated as ignorance is obtained from not knowing but peace is obtained from knowing the truth! Only difference. Thankyou dont want to spoil your lovely posting I just forgot to mention something and you had written quite well on the matter so just adding my bit. Not having a pop at you or anything. Cheers


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 24, 2012)

Parmaji

A point to you. If they have no opinions on this forum by your understanding? Why are you posting a question on here?

Having no opinions, is also an opinion, no?


I have read somewhere before the catholic faiths concept of god is it views god as a nothingness, that exsits everywhere, is that not a faith, a view, a religion?

I am not prepared to waste precious time and energy debating something that 'you have read somewhere', either submit a factual statement of the Catholic religion and then ask the question or debate 'things you have read somewhere' with someone else


Many other faiths do as well, so are you rubbishing many faiths? Bringing your self down to the point of nothing is in fact one humble approach, but then it is to become one with that nothing that becomes apart of everything where the true enlightenment takes place.

I want nothing from a faith that offers me enlightenment, the very seeking of enlightenment could be seen egoistical, the very talking about enlightenment as an end product muddies the waters hugely, surely best to go with Hukam and take whatever comes as good.

They are contradictions I know but the truth is the whole human life is a condradiction. You are born to live, yet you die. Only when the condradictions make sense do you realise without god it is all non-sense, it is a point of sanity a point of sobriety, were the mind elevates from the condradictions to the truth. Nothing is everything! You are a point of life, and life is the pendulum, the rights and wrongs you either swing this way or that way the point is to stay centred. In becoming that centred individual you are learning of who you are.

There is much talk of finding this centre to know who you are, I will tell you who you are, and you do not even need to find your centre, follow Hukam, rest is habit

Very psychological but very practical as well. The greatest discovery any man can make in their whole life. When that is found and you realise you are a concept no greater or lesser than anything else then hopefully you find happiness. The point that I hope every life will strive for constant peace 


I take it the discovery of enlightenment and happiness is important to you, I have decided these are unimportant to me, the idea is to follow Hukam, and do your best within that Hukam, and then take all outcomes as good, be they happy or sad. 

Who are you? What do you stand for? You are not a perfect person if I were to say you stand for the truth, the truth is you will lie so their in all is another condradiction. Once you overcome the contradictions then you can establish yourself which is a human. Just the same as every other human in the world what makes you better or the person to sit on the seat of judgment. Same applies to religion as that is based on humanity, so it can only be based on human thinking

Who am I? What do I stand for? I am something, and I stand for something. I can go into a casino and put £100 on number 23, it is either going to win or lose, and for a few moments I will lose myself in a flurry of thoughts, did I make the right decision, should I have gone for number 12, and I will either win, or I will lose. I would rather that, and leave penniless, or rich, than stay all night betting on every number, just so that I could win everytime, even though the odds would slowly whittle my money down in time, neither is the truth, but the latter is simply a waste of time. 

Good they are on the approach to enlightenment. God exsists in everything.


It is these sorts of soundbites I find unhelpful and confusing, sure they sound good, but in terms of real life pragmatic assistance they are largely useless. A belief in nothing is an Udasi path, which is fine if your Udasi. 

Commitment does not come from conviction. It comes from an understanding expand your thoughts and there you will find your commitment

more soundbites, we will never understand enough to find conviction without commitment, it is action versus mental gymnastics

Certain things will effect all individaully this point is too in-depth as you are trying to define a person. Ask most people and I think alot of people at the age of 80 yrs are still searching for that centre self yet. It is like me saying your a bad man then you go and do a good deed, so define yourself their and then are you good or are you bad? A lot of people go through life without feeling complete psychologically or physically its just a process of life as we are sikh learning until you find that centre and become khalsa, pure can not be defined but a peaceful individual in all situations of life. 

My own experience is that I know no more than I did when I was in my twenties, I understand things better, we are born with knowledge, it is understanding we lack, as for good or bad, that is all relative, my own benchmark is that anything that takes you closer to the truth as per Hukam is good, and anything that takes you away from the truth, as per Hukam is bad, rather than everything is nothing, nothing is everything, and its all good

Even when defending one’s self with the kirpan, you should be still at peace not fighting for hate, anger lust, and greed but for definite peace. 
Like Bruce Lee said even in the midst of a fight I do not think about the winning or losing I let nature take its course, think of the moment in hand that centre that peace.

I think we must take the utmost care that we do not lose ourselves in these mental gymnastics that convince some people they are enlightened, and try and keep our feet on the ground. Bruce Lee was an actor, who acted in films, whose fighting was choreographed, just what relevance is a quote from an actor who portrayed a fighter, against the scores of Nihangs that died in battle fighting in the ruthless manner that they were famed for?

There seems to be a great tendency in Sikhi to pray and meditate and find the calm, and let Creator do the rest, that is not the spirit of Sikhi I recognise, Sikhi to me is to find peace when situations allow, to find the spirituality, but when the time comes to fight, to raise arms, then you better fight with all your body and soul, or die in meditation. 

We are not Gods, nor are we superpeople, we are just human beings who have been given a mandate, a Hukam, on how to live, it is not going to turn us into Gods, it is not going to turn  us into immortals, it is just going to enable us to spend the rest of our days in relative peace, regardless what the world throws at us, that is the best we can hope for, anyone searching for enlightenment has already lost, anyone searching for happiness has already lost, each day is a lesson, each day we pass or fail, each day is all we have


----------



## Parma (Mar 24, 2012)

I want nothing from a faith that offers me enlightenment, the very seeking of enlightenment could be seen egoistical, the very talking about enlightenment as an end product muddies the waters hugely, surely best to go with Hukam and take whatever comes as good.

As you are not into enlightenment and personal development there is no point in discussing with you. Fine. So long as you are happy it is all that matters dude no need to think above your hukam I guess. One question I would consider though, is who gives you your Hukam? Anyway like you said you are at your station so long as your happy that is fine! winkingmunda
Who am I? What do I stand for? I am something, and I stand for something. I can go into a casino and put £100 on number 23, it is either going to win or lose, and for a few moments I will lose myself in a flurry of thoughts, did I make the right decision, should I have gone for number 12, and I will either win, or I will lose. I would rather that, and leave penniless, or rich, than stay all night betting on every number, just so that I could win everytime, even though the odds would slowly whittle my money down in time, neither is the truth, but the latter is simply a waste of time. 

Like you said you just follow orders hukam, so really you dont stand for nothing, harry stop commenting that is an order! lol. It just shows you can pick a number does not mean you picked it with thought. Your analogy is thought provoking in that it would not matter if you betted on all or the one number if all you want to do is win then you would have realised there is no stratgy just go with the flow!


I am not prepared to waste precious time and energy debating something that 'you have read somewhere', either submit a factual statement of the Catholic religion and then ask the question or debate 'things you have read somewhere' with someone else

This is something I read in one of vouthons previous posts so sorry, i did try finding it through one of his previous posts, I dont have it to hand but maybe vouthon would like to elaborate further? Anyway just to show I am not lying!

Having no opinions, is also an opinion, no?
No it is not!!! Sorry, you are beyond my understanding. Thanks!


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 24, 2012)

Parmaji

As you are not into enlightenment and personal development there is no point in discussing with you. Fine. So long as you are happy it is all that matters dude no need to think above your hukam I guess. One question I would consider though, is who gives you your Hukam? Anyway like you said you are at your station so long as your happy that is fine! 

I do not seek enlightenment, if I were to be enlightened I would not find this state of mind undesirable.Personal development and enlightenment are not mutually inclusive, I am not sure where you have made this judgement on regarding personal development. Hukam comes from the essence of Creator within, we all know what the right things to do or think are, the idea is to trust that Hukam. I never said I was happy with the situation, however I do think it is not Sikh like to want anything, only to do your best at what you know to be right and proper, that we can find from the SGGS. 


Like you said you just follow orders hukam, so really you dont stand for nothing, harry stop commenting that is an order! . It just shows you can pick a number does not mean you picked it with thought. Your analogy is thought provoking in that it would not matter if you betted on all or the one number if all you want to do is win then you would have realised there is no stratgy just go with the flow!


There are many different ways to interpret the SGGS, I interpret on the basis of no reincarnation, no meditation (vedic style), plenty of mental debate, and to live as you think. I find the mistake I have made in the past is to consider living as I think, but that only happens tomorrow, if it does not make sense today, then I run with what I know to be true and good. The practice of Gurbani is more important than the thinking of Gurbani, or even the study, in my view. That is what I stand for. Anyone who looks for enlightenment is by their very nature looking to win, you are contradicting yourself by suggesting we 'go with the flow'. 

No it is not!!! Sorry, you are beyond my understanding. Thanks!

Aww your just saying that to stroke my ego! I would say to have no opinion is an opinion, why else would most opinion polls include a 'dont know' option? why for all the non opinionated people of course, we must be careful that these people never get in power, oh too late....
The thing to note about people with no opinion is that behind them are normally people with many opinions...


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 24, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Harry ji,
> You have to define who you are and simultaneously be completely open to all possibilities. Agreed
> 
> Hahaha
> ...



lol


----------



## Parma (Mar 24, 2012)

It is these sorts of soundbites I find unhelpful and confusing, sure they sound good, but in terms of real life pragmatic assistance they are largely useless. A belief in nothing is an Udasi path, which is fine if your Udasi. 

Commitment does not come from conviction. It comes from an understanding expand your thoughts and there you will find your commitment

How is it useless to not be considered with a conviction, but instead to develop commitment with understanding? Are you saying the mind is a useless instrument? So you go agian spliting sikhism into tribes.

The practice of Gurbani is more important than the thinking of Gurbani, or even the study, in my view. That is what I stand for. Anyone who looks for enlightenment is by their very nature looking to win, you are contradicting yourself by suggesting we 'go with the flow'. 
No I am not condradicting myself by suggesting "go with the flow" because I am saying all journeys are ok, but follow the truth, the path of the gurbani, weather that is your understanding on it or someone else's understanding on it the result i guess is the same it is peace, unless your just looking for hukam. Then define Hukam, and how does that replace peace? Looking to win what? 

I do not seek enlightenment, if I were to be enlightened I would not find this state of mind undesirable. As you are not looking to develop or be a sikh, What are you then are you already realised or dare I say enlightened?
Personal development and enlightenment are not mutually inclusive, What are they then? I am not sure where you have made this judgement on regarding personal development. Personal development means your learning or you learnt something which means you are enlightened. Simple thats the answer to your question

We are not Gods, nor are we superpeople, we are just human beings who have been given a mandate, a Hukam, on how to live, it is not going to turn us into Gods, it is not going to turn us into immortals, it is just going to enable us to spend the rest of our days in relative peace, regardless what the world throws at us, that is the best we can hope for, anyone searching for enlightenment has already lost, anyone searching for happiness has already lost, each day is a lesson, each day we pass or fail, each day is all we have
Who said anything about making people into gods, although god does exsist in you?

Madness my friend it is beyond my thinking like I said good luck to you! Hukam which I do not know your definition for is not sikhism alone that I can say so carry on sikh learn improve otherwise your already where you want to be then you are not a sikh because you are not learning, your progress has stopped. So the question arises once you stop learning what do you become then a Guru? I only believe in the guru granth sahib so to me I will forever be learning, developing and enlighteningmundahug


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 25, 2012)

Harry said:
			
		

> Bhagat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A stance comes naturally when both sides are understood. This kind of stance is very different from a stand where the person *thinks* they have understood both sides but have not. Just look at Ambarsaria ji's post above. His stance comes from ignorance of what I'm saying. Whereas you are here, tackling my post, perhaps trying to understand better or convince me of something, etc, he has already dismissed it as nonsense.

When we understand both sides of the argument, what is it that compells us to choose one over the other? Is it ignorance of the other? Or an understanding of both?

I have found that when I truly understand both sides, my stance is with both and neither. I see how they are right *in their own frame* e.g Ambarsaria ji's is right in his own frame. It is like the person who holds the elephant's trunk and describes him as a tree trunk, where as the one who is hold the tail describes him as a snake. When you understand both fully you know they are describing the elephant. Why then would you take a stance against one or the other?

But the funny thing is when you are called to describe (hold) the elephant you describe (hold) e.g. his leg (because the entire thing cannot be held/cannot be described) and then the other two turn towards you... Now if they see the elephant then they smile, and if they do not well...

There is your stance. 

Now it is true that you can also describe the elephant as a trunk with complete conviction. You can describe the elephant as a tail with complete conviction as well. He can say that "my deepest conviction is that there is an elephant being described as the trunk and tail. I cannot describe the whole thing but trunk and tail seem to be describing it."

This might become your stance, and it will arise of it's own accord. A Sikh might say through God's grace.

One who knows only the trunk can only describe the trunk with complete conviction. And if this is what you call conviction and if this is the only thing you will call conviction then I have to say your definition of conviction is very flawed. It leaves no room for actual growth. Growth is where you expand your mind and start to see more and more of the elephant. 

We are all for what is right. But if you see how someone is right in their own way, then do you accept it or reject it? All you can say is they are right in their own way. You might not hold the same frame as them but you know their frame.

We are all very similar so 99% of the time, if you think someone is completely wrong, they are actually right in their frame., you just haven't understood what their frame is. You might then reject their frame but I think the better way to go about life is understand the other's frame, to incorporate it into your own and then to transcend both, repeat as you encounter other frames. This is growth. And in growth lies happiness.



			
				Harry said:
			
		

> Bhagat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a clearer picture of what I am saying. 
Imagine a ruler (15 centimetres). Everything on this ruler is useful as it comes in handy when making measurements. This ruler is ego.

Now imagine that the one who has the ruler, one day realizes that the ruler that he uses to measure stuff, works great, yes but is not the only scale of measurement. There is the metre stick, there is the tape measure, in fact, his ruler is just a series of numbers in a much larger tape measure. Although, he cannot use this tape measure because being a human he is restricted to his human scale, the 15 centimetre ruler, he can however, then see his own scale in perspective, realizing there are bigger and bigger scales.

How significant is the ego from this perspective of kilometres and kilometres of tape measure? You cannot know until you have that perspective. 

Since he cannot intellectually grasp the tape measure, he can only grasp 15 cm of it, all he can do is simply be aware of the grand scale of things. He cannot speak of them. Thus knowing everything is not really a knowing but a pure awareness of everything. It is knowing nothing in the sense that our normal way of knowing comes in the way of this larger knowing.

Whereas ego is holding onto the 15 cm ruler, anti ego is letting go and expanding the scale. To go deeper into the 15 cm and to go outwards to metres and kilometres.

Both are necessary. 

Like a tree you must expand your branches above ground (in the world) and expand your roots below ground (in the divine). Expand only your stem and branches, your ego with whom you interact with the world, and you risk a weak grounding in reality. You risk being toppled over easily. Expand only your roots, your touch with divine, and you risk losing touch with the world. You cannot be toppled over, you are virtually immortal but you have no effect on the world, you are dead to the world.

Both are necessary. 

Religions try and get you to go both ways. Lots of rituals, lots of structure but guidance on transcending rituals and structure.

Both are necessary.

PS following Hukam is the same as knowing your Self, your centre. Just to clear the confusion.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2012)

Parmaji


No I am not condradicting myself by suggesting "go with the flow" because I am saying all journeys are ok, but follow the truth, the path of the gurbani, weather that is your understanding on it or someone else's understanding on it the result i guess is the same it is peace, unless your just looking for hukam. Then define Hukam, and how does that replace peace? Looking to win what? 

All journeys are ok? does that include Satanism, Anarchism? Is not the truth a relative concept? And its ok to go down this path being guided by anothers understanding? that is how Deras start my friend. Hukam is the path of the Creator that we all are made aware. If you accept Hukam you have no need to concentrate on enlightenment, as that is what you are trying to 'win'


As you are not looking to develop or be a sikh, What are you then are you already realised or dare I say enlightened?

I am not looking for anything, however, each day I follow Hukam, I find something useful. What I am at this moment in time is a learner, but my prize is each day, not the certificate at the end. 

 Personal development means your learning or you learnt something which means you are enlightened. Simple thats the answer to your question

Learning 'something' does not mean you are enlightened, maybe learning what the truth is could pass as enlightenment

Who said anything about making people into gods, although god does exsist in you?

Your desire for enlightenment is a path to be as equal as you can be to God. My desire is only for truth and to serve Creation, we are not on the same path

Madness my friend it is beyond my thinking like I said good luck to you! Hukam which I do not know your definition for is not sikhism alone that I can say so carry on sikh learn improve otherwise your already where you want to be then you are not a sikh because you are not learning, your progress has stopped. So the question arises once you stop learning what do you become then a Guru? I only believe in the guru granth sahib so to me I will forever be learning, developing and enlightening

And while you are learning developing and enlightening, I will simply follow Hukam. This Hukam can teach me much more than an eternity spent looking


----------



## Parma (Mar 26, 2012)

All journeys are ok? does that include Satanism, Anarchism? Is not the truth a relative concept? And its ok to go down this path being guided by anothers understanding? that is how Deras start my friend. Hukam is the path of the Creator that we all are made aware. If you accept Hukam you have no need to concentrate on enlightenment, as that is what you are trying to 'win'
I guess so yes their just other paths but if they bring peace, i dont know what your quiet getting at? But if I found a Satanism, or Anarchism worshipped the truth in the gurbani who am I to stop them. I dont know how dera's start but I guess one way to start them would be to only listen to a Hukam=Command and not Reason. So as you know how dera's are formed how many do you have under your command = hukam? As you listen only to hukam and not reason
Learning 'something' does not mean you are enlightened, maybe learning what the truth is could pass as enlightenment
Wrong, yes it does!
And while you are learning developing and enlightening, I will simply follow Hukam. This Hukam can teach me much more than an eternity spent looking<!-- google_ad_section_end --> 
Ok, I think I should call you god as your hukam is everything. GOD, dude respect other peoples hukam, maybe no one else likes your hukam=command, what you gonna do about that! Your an extreamist (bin laden, Gaddafi, Hitler). Simple. What happens if people dont follow your Hukam=command with you they are on the wrong path. Your hukam= command will end as history shows, tyrants command from their subjects but never last!


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2012)

Parmaji, 

We seem to be going round in circles here, you have posted your adherent as Sikhism, but you seem to be struggling with what Hukam exactly is. All journeys are not ok, to aspire to be a grand cyclops is not ok, to wish to have group sex whilst slaughtering chickens is not ok, we differentiate between good and bad by adhering to the wisdom contained in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. To follow such wisdom is the Hukam. Now the second part is why? I follow this Hukam for the sake of a better day, to emulate Creator, to bring peace and contentment to my life, not to be enlightened. 

Reason is a two way street, some use reason to argue that drink, hair cutting, living Gurus are allowed and should flourish, some use reason to justify their own actions, but at the end of the day you do not need to be a genius to get understanding of what the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji contains, its all quite straightforward. Let us take Mool Mantra, living by Mool Mantra does not take reason, it takes faith, understanding and discipline, to the point that living by this becomes natural and second nature. We are supposed to think, to use logic, to be pragmatic, to be discerning, 

You say that learning 'something' means you are enlightened, in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the name of Creator is described as the truth, the universal eternal truth, if your learning something outside of this, I cannot see how that will make you enlightened, as you so clearly wish to be such, perhaps you could explain how your thinking works, 

Yes, my Hukam is indeed everything, I also respect others thinking completely, I am not sure why you think I do not, Yes, I agree, I am an extremist, I am only happy to settle for the best, the truth, that is all I am happy to accept. 

I am confused by your last statement, only I know my Hukam, how can I expect anyone else to even understand it unless they have lived my life?

My Hukam has been forged in the simple mandates as described in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, together with what my life experience has taught me so far, it is completely personal to me, although the universal messages of peace, love, brother/sisterhood, helping any in need, supporting, honesty, truthful living, clean mind, to have no fear, to have no enemies, surrender of ego,  should be common to all Sikhs. Some of these facets are missing from other paths, like Satanism, so I am still not sure how one could go down the path of Satanism and still have the facets above, perhaps you could explain this 

I would remind you, that at no point have I attempted to foist my way of life on you, I am merely explaining my stand at present, yet it is your posts that are insulting and mocking. Perhaps you could tell me what your stand is so I may learn something from you


----------



## Parma (Mar 26, 2012)

We seem to be going round in circles here, you have posted your adherent as Sikhism, but you seem to be struggling with what Hukam exactly is.
I asked you to explain what your Hukam was in the above post, you didn't. I dont know what hukam is? Please explain?

All journeys are not ok, to aspire to be a grand cyclops is not ok, to wish to have group sex whilst slaughtering chickens is not ok, we differentiate between good and bad by adhering to the wisdom conItained in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 
I did not understand a word of this sentence?

To follow such wisdom is the Hukam
Are you saying the above sentence is your Hukam, that's sickism not Sikhism

Now the second part is why? I follow this Hukam for the sake of a better day, to emulate Creator, to bring peace and contentment to my life, not to be enlightened.
You want to emulate the creator, man I was joking when I was calling you god. Dude I see no point in questioning you, you are your own answer, Nothing!

I would remind you, that at no point have I attempted to foist my way of life on you, I am merely explaining my stand at present, yet it is your posts that are insulting and mocking. Perhaps you could tell me what your stand is so I may learn something from you<!-- google_ad_section_end --> 

Sorry if you feel that way sir. I apologize if I have but I am not ball busting. A man that does not listen to reason is either mad or a tyrant, nothing against you buddy, its the truth, the perception. Look if something is hard like your saying you listen to Hukam but not reason it shows you dont think for anything else and what another thinks, so then that means you are self important no one else's thoughts matter so then you dont gain the truth of an idea a thought you just become absorbed in yourself, which is what people call a tyrant. If your religion is that or your trait is that, your mind is that it creats extreamists all I am describing is the truth of the moment of your thought

You are you! I dont know if a satanist is worse than a close minded individual, atleast a satanist can reform can become anything. I guess, if you become close minded you will always be who you are do what you do and in the end when you do nothing change nothing reason with nothing. You just become i guess nothing! Be happy on your way I am happy on mine. I am not saying anything is better as that needs reason to apprehend (to think about) so good luck to you! Sorry I could never understand your reasonslol


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2012)

Parmaji

It is pointless having this debate until you understand Hukam. As I cannot explain it to you, perhaps when you have realised what it means we can debate again

Best wishes


----------



## Parma (Mar 26, 2012)

harry haller said:


> parmaji
> 
> it is pointless having this debate until you understand hukam. As i cannot explain it to you, perhaps when you have realised what it means we can debate again
> 
> best wishes


 
I asked you to explain? I dont understand? How can i understand if i dont know what this hukam is your on about?
crazy people! I GIVE UP THIS DEBATE UNLESS YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE HUKAM! SIMPLE SORRY I CAN NOT MIND READ. p.s. I hope your not on about some jihad type of turd talk! 


Anyway my peace is by god's grace, that comes from how god expects peace from me, that is God's grace. My peace is god's Hukam not no one else's! I am already at peace


Sat Siri Akal


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2012)

Parmaji

it is a waste of everyones time unless you read what has been posted, but I will try again, this what I posted above, which part do you not understand brother?

*we differentiate between good and bad by adhering to the wisdom contained in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. To follow such wisdom is the Hukam. Now the second part is why? I follow this Hukam for the sake of a better day, to emulate Creator, to bring peace and contentment to my life, not to be enlightened.*


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2012)

Hukam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for the village in Nepal see Hukam, Nepal
Hukam is a Punjabi word derived from the Arabic hukm, meaning "command" or "order." In God whose is referred to as Waheguru. It is by the command of Him that we are born and we die. In the Sikh Scripture, the founder of the religion, Guru Nanak says:
O Nanak, by the Hukam of God's Command, we come and go in reincarnation. ((20))
—Japji Sahib Stanza 20
The whole of the Universe is subject to the Hukam of the Creator God. Nothing ever happens without the Will of Him. This is accepted as one of the primary concepts of Sikhism. For the Sikh, the acceptance of His Hukam is a concept that needs to be learnt and understood. Guru Nanak at the very beginning of the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scriptures of the Sikhs asks:
ਕਿਵ ਸਚਿਆਰਾ ਹੋਈਐ ਕਿਵ ਕੂੜੈ ਤੁਟੈ ਪਾਲਿ ॥
How does one become truthful? How can falsehood be discarded?
—SGGS page 1 paragraph 1
And the answer and reply follows on the next line:
ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ ॥੧॥
By following the Hukam, Says Nanak, by accepting the Hukam, which is written along with everyone! ((1))
— SGGS page 1 paragraph 1
By living in harmony with the Divine Will or Hukam brings everlasting peace. This does not imply that a Sikh does not have his or her "Free-Will – All this means is that the Sikh must bring his will in line with the Will of God.
What is God's Hukam? The Sikh Scriptures outline the ways in which one can bring their own thinking in line with the Hukam. If one engages in the service of God's creation, this is the best way of working in harmony with the Divine Will. Further, by remembering Waheguru one becomes aware of "God desires" and "Divine essence" within the person is realised. By following these "Divine Values" that benefit His Creation, one ends the cycle of Karma and Transmigration.
Recognizing the Hukam of His Command, you shall meet with your Lord and Master. ((1)(Second. Pause))
— SGGS Page 92, Line 5
By submission to God's Hukam (Will), a sense of humility and self-negation is achieved – further one regards himself as an instrument of His Will. He realizes that whatever comes from Him is for his own good. Every misery that he faces is a sort of mercy. He is full of gratitude and prayer for all he has done. Those who have no regard for the Hukam, suffer in pain:
One who does not know the Hukam of the Lord's Command cries out in terrible pain.
— SGGS Page 85, Line 7
The only antidote for egoism and vanity is complete surrender to His Will. Only by conquering the self, can one enter the realm of God's Grace.
Other Meaning:, 'Hukam' also refers to a passage from Guru Granth Sahib, selected by randomly opening the Sikh scripture during a daily ceremony. The passage is considered by Sikhs as the divine "command of the Guru" for the day. Hukam's are taken as guidance in specific situations/answer to questions etc.
Contents  [hide] 
1 Background
2 Conception of the Supreme Being
3 God Without Fear
4 References
[edit]Background

1. The Idea of the Supreme Being (God): Sikhism is a Theistic religion, and totally rejects all reasoning which may attempt to prove that the universe is an automatic machine, or that it is a continuation of atoms which are self-created and self-perpetuating.
2. Self Created. According to the Sikh belief, God is self-created and all that exists, has emanated from Him. As to any speculations about the origin of God or the creation of the universe by Him, no mythological or any other explanation is offered. Man’s intellect cannot penetrate the Divine mystery, and hence all that man can attempt is to feel or realize the existence of God through intuition or spiritual experience, called "anubhava" in Indian philosophy.
3. Beyond Logic & Endlessly TRUE. Logic or any other kind of reasoning can neither prove nor deny the existence of God, for against one kind of reasoning another can be advanced. Hence for man it is to try to realize the existence of God in a spirit of humility, and to engage in prayer and devotion, so that he may become one with the Supreme Reality, that is God. Guru Nanak says in Japji (Stanza 16):
Japji Sahib Stanza 16
—By One Word the whole vastness of the universe was created. Resulting in millions of streams of existence.
Again, in stanza 21 it is said:
Japji Sahib Stanza 21
—The Yogi knows not the day and date of creation. Nor any one the month and season. The creator of the universe alone knows this secret.
4. EternalGod is believed in Sikhism to be eternal—that is, He is without beginning and without end. All else that is visible, had a beginning and will end. Even the sun and the moon, the stars, the earth—all will end.
5. Vedic GODs The gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Indira — and all others are mortal. In other words, they are subject to the control of Time which marks their beginning, decline and end. God alone is Timeless (Akal). Akal is one of the key-concepts in Sikh spiritual thought. While this term is from the Sanskrit in its origin, consisting of ‘a’ (negative prefix) and Kal (time), the particular spiritual and philosophical signification which belongs to it in Sikh thought is unprecedented in Indian philosophy.
6. One GOD Eternal. Sikhism is strictly monotheistic in its belief. This means that God is believed to be the one and sole Reality in the cosmos, and no god or goddess or power like Satan or Ahriman or any other has reality such as God’s. God alone is worthy of worship, and the highest end of existence, that is mukti or liberation can come through Devotion to God alone. All other worship is false and a waste of the precious gift of the human life.
7. Monism Besides its monotheism, Sikhism also emphasizes another philosophical idea, which is known as monism. Monism is the belief that all that our senses apprehend is only appearance; that God is the sole Reality. Forms being subject to Time, shall pass away. God’s Reality alone is eternal and abiding.
8. Man of GOD Hence behind the shows of things, the spiritual vision is always aware of the reality of God. According to this philosophy, the differences created by man’s limited thinking which result in selfishness, egoism and hate are meaningless. Since nothing exists except God; the man of God sees in all beings the reality of God. A few texts from the holy Guru Granth Sahib will illustrate this point:
(Sorath M.I.II—bage 599)
—That which is inside man, the same is outside him;
nothing else exists; By divine prompting look upon all existence as one and undifferentiated;
the same light penetrates all existence.
The Divine (like the lotus) is in the water; yet untouched by it:
(Asa M. I Ashtpadiyan I—page 411)
—Its light penetrates this water entire;
None is near, and none far; I find it ever near, and chant its praises. Nothing else exists inside or outside (man); All happens as He wills it;
Listen Pharthari: This is what Nanak says after contemplation.
(Gauri Ashtpadiyan M.I. 7 - page 223)
—What should the yogi have to fear? Trees, plants, and all that is inside and outside, is He Himself.
9. Differences are owing to man’s ignorance of the Supreme Truth, and to the influence on him of Maya (illusion). Through prayer and devotion and Divine aid the illusion created by Maya is lifted, and then man views the Reality of the universe as one, leaving no scope for hatred, avarice or egoism.
[edit]Conception of the Supreme Being

The conception of the Supreme Reality, i.e. God is fixed in Mul Mantra (The Basic Creed) of the Sikh faith, which stands at the head of the Guru Granth Sahib and is considered to be the opening of the holy text of Japuji. Mul Mantra is chanted and written on all solemn occasions when Divine blessing is sought to be invoked in any undertaking. In its original form it reads: Ek Onkar, Satnam, Karta-Purakh, Nirbhau, Nirvair, Akal Murati, Ajuni, Saibhang, Guru Prasadi. Translated into English, this means: The One Supreme Being; Eternal Holy Reality; The Creator; Without Fear; Without Rancour; Timeless Form; Unborn; Self-Existent; Realized Through Divine Grace. The various elements in the above creed on careful study will yield the true significance of the Sikh belief and its idea of God. The first veer-phrase Ek Oankar contains two terms: Ek (One) and Oankar (The Supreme Being). Oankar comes from the Upanishad and is an extended form of Om, which is the holiest of all names of God. In the Guru Granth Sahib Om is also used—once by Guru Nanak and twice by Guru Arjan Dev. Oankar is the Eternal Reality, above gods and goddesses and is holy and self-existent. To it, in order to emphasize the idea of the sole Reality of God, Guru Nanak has added the numeral 1, which in several Indian languages is pronounced as EK. This EK Oankar is the transcendental, unattributed Absolute. In other words, it is that which is above all Existence, has no attributes, since these will limit its absoluteness and Eternity. In Sukhmani (xxiii.6) it is said:
Whenever he wills, He creates the vast universe; As He wills He is again EK Oankar.
Ek Onkar here as elsewhere implies that Reality which is above and beyond all other existence. The next phrase, Satnam contains two terms. Sat (Satya) is both Real and Holy. Naam is a spiritual idea, which stands for the Essence, the Absolute Reality. It is not merely the name as is commonly believed, but that for which the name of God stands, that is, the Divine Essence. Karta Purakh: Karta is Kartar (Creator). The universe is fashioned by God and not by any deity. He is the Kartar, which is one of the commonly emphasized terms for God in Sikh belief. Purakh is the same Purusha (Male, this Mighty Eternal Creator). Purusha has come from the Rig Veda into Indian philosophy, and is one of the holiest words, as implying the Eternal Creator. Nirbhau (without fear) and Nirvair (without rancour) are two negative attributes, implying God’s absoluteness. Not being subject to any other being, and not being subject to need. He is fearless. Since He is the creator of all existence, He is without hate. He is all love, all benevolence. Hence in Sikh teaching, God is referred to again and again as Father, implying His love and care for all creation.
Akal, as said earlier, is Timeless, Eternal. This term is characteristically Sikh. In numerous Sikh phrases this term occurs. Akal is as unmistakably the Sikh name for God, as Allah in the Muslim tradition.
Ajuni implies that God is not subject to birth and death. Hence the Incarnations of God who are worshipped in various religions in India and outside, are not God, for God is unborn. He is not subject to the physical process of having a father and a mother. Related to this is Saibhang. This is a popular form of Sanskrit Swyambhu (Self Existent).
The last phrase, Guru Prasadi implies that God’s knowledge or realization can come to man neither through reasoning or learning nor through ritual performances like pilgrimages, fasting and keeping sacred days. None of the attempts in the ritual practice of religion will help His realization. Through devotion and prayer God’s grace (kindness, mercy) may be aroused and through that alone may He be realized. This is the great mystery of mysteries, which no man can understand. Grace comes mysteriously and in ways unexpected. Only prayer and devotion from the depth of the heart may draw it on man. For grace (prasad) other terms employed by the holy Gurus are mehar (love), karam (bounty), nadar (glance of compassion), daya (compassion), kirpa (kindness). So, this last phrase is essential in the enunciation of the basic idea of the Sikh faith.
[edit]God Without Fear

In the teaching of Sikhism God is conceived as being without form (nirankar/nirakar). In accordance with this faith, Guru Nanak is known as Nirankari (Believer in the Formless). No image or idol or any figurine can represent God, or be worshipped as God. All existence is God’s visible form, but no part of it is a substitute for God. God is also Nirguna (unattributed) as said earlier. This means that he is not subject to the ‘three qualities’ of ignorance (tamas), passion (rajas), and reasoning intellect (sattva as is all creation or Maya in the different stages of its evolution). God is eternally perfect. Man’s ideal must also be to rise above the three qualities of Maya and enter into the divine state of attributelessness through prayer and devotion. In the state of devotion or bhakti, God is also believed to have certain noble qualities, such as love, compassion, fatherly concern for all creation and the upholding of the moral law in universe. It is through such qualities that He comes close to humanity and becomes ‘the Beloved of His devotees’ (Bhakta vatsala). To love He yields, but no other persuasion.
Man loves Him for the principle of Goodness and Righteousness that is in Him. He is mighty and is constantly intervening in the concerns of the universe by destroying evil. Thus arrogant tyrants such as Ravana, Duryodhana and certain demons in Indian religious history, are destroyed by God’s might operating through certain God-inspired heroes. This belief is also shared by certain other great religions. So, God must be understood to be full of universal love, but also that Might which destroys evil and tyranny. The moral law cannot be defied by man with impunity. Guru Nanak in the hymns on Babur’s invasion points out how the rulers were humiliated at the hands of Babur’s soldiery, which became the instrument of divine justice.
In expressing the idea of God, Guru Nanak and his successors in the holy office of Guruship have employed some other terms which stand for the Absolute Reality. The most commonly used in this respect is Brahm. To give further emphasis to the idea of His transcendental character, this name is used as Par-Brahm (the Brahm beyond human thought). Guru is made to signify the human Preceptor as well as God, from whom all enlightenment and realization proceeds. Guru is also used in the extended compound form as Gurudev—the Lord Enlightened. Satguru (the holy master) is another term used for God. Thakur, Sahib, Swami (all three mean lord, master) are frequently used. From the current Indian phraseology Parmeshwar (the Supreme Lord) is taken. Prabhu (Lord) always stands for God. Often the epithet Sacha (true, holy, eternal) is used as a noun substantive to designate God. Pritam (Beloved), Piyara (Loved One) frequently occur in Gurubani as substantives to designate the idea of God.


----------



## Parma (Mar 26, 2012)

I read it and it still makes Hukam no clearer, as gods Hukam it says the jest of it means is in the individual. Which comes back to my first point, everything is for everybody! I will write something; Paramatma = Param = god, atma = soul, is mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib. It exsists in everyone, the moughals tried to destroy it, they collapsed(Through our guru's). The Romans tried to destroy it they collapsed (Through jesus). The hindu's tried to destroy it they collapsed (Through mohammed) The eygptians tried to destroy it, they collapsed(Through moses). Should I carry on in writing this list, i am sure there are others. The truth, it is in you, try to deny it, or destroy it, and you will collapse.

Waheguru ji ki Khalsa
Waheguru ji Ki fathe

End Of For me


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 26, 2012)

Bhagat Singh ji one comment.





BhagatSingh said:


> A stance comes naturally when both sides are understood. This kind of stance is very different from a stand where the person *thinks* they have understood both sides but have not. Just look at _Ambarsaria ji's post above. His stance comes from ignorance of what I'm saying. Whereas you are here, tackling my post, perhaps trying to understand better or convince me of something, etc, he has already dismissed it as nonsense._


_Bhagat Singh veer ji I apologize for any  indiscretion.  I sought Admin help to delete the post as it did not add  to the discourse.  I have little personal interest in this thread so I  will limit my interactions here in this thread._

_One has to watch out when one pretends to be a  perfectly objective presenter on both sides of a discussion while also  being implicated in a preferred outcome.__  This generally is a conceited way to present one's preferred position in most situations in life.__   It is projected as looking at both sides but it really never is.  It  happens all the time in real life, courts, politics, relationships, etc.__  Sorry for rambling._

Regarding Hukam one may want to interact or self study the Sabad in the following,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sukhm...ni-sahib-astpadi-14-sabad-1-a.html#post162971

This is not the only place in SGGS regarding Hukam but thought it may be of interest.
Sat Sri Akal.  peacesign


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 26, 2012)

Parmaji and Harryji I understand both your points of view and from these I realise that hukam is actually not very easy to describe. One persons undertsanding is not the others. 
It is simply the 'will of God'- however, how each one of us perceives it will be varied. I think that most seem to think that if we live our daily lives abiding with the truth, then whatever paths that get paved for us in the future are in accordance with hukam or God's command. This can get complicated as one will define truth and what is righteous differently to another, so acts of hukam will be different. 
I don't think we should be debating on here what hukam is for each of us, but I think it deserves to be a thread of it's own. ( I haven't checked if there is one already.)
As far as Parma ji's concerns, I understand the angle they are coming from as well as Harry ji's expressions. They both have a standing.

Waheguru
Lucky Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 26, 2012)

Luckysingh ji a comment on your post.





Luckysingh said:


> I don't think we should be debating on here what hukam is for each of us, _but I think it deserves to be a thread of it's own. _( I haven't checked if there is one already.)


_The following is a thread,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37532-hukam-what-does-it-mean.html
_ 
Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 27, 2012)

Parmaji, 

I have had the wonderful chance to give this matter some thought whilst suffering from food poisoning over the last 2 days. In between expelling liquids from all orifices, you have been on mind quite a lot!

The truth is this is something I cannot explain, all I know is that I have probably made every mistake a man could make, and suffered nearly every consequence a man could suffer, which has brought some understanding to me about my actions, the consequences of my actions, and my education. Call it practical education in Bani if you will, all I know is that now I find myself agreeing with Bani not out of lip service, but out of sheer conviction. 

I can understand how it may seem I am lauding Manmukh, but in fact I am lauding Gurmukh, the problem arises as to differentiating between the two. Your point is that Hitler et all, all thought they were carrying out Gods will, Well I cannot speak for them, only myself and my personal experiences., 

However, as I have stated many many times this Hukam must be in line with the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which I believe answers your Hitler question. 

Regards


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 27, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> A stance comes naturally when both sides are understood. This kind of stance is very different from a stand where the person *thinks* they have understood both sides but have not. Just look at Ambarsaria ji's post above. His stance comes from ignorance of what I'm saying. Whereas you are here, tackling my post, perhaps trying to understand better or convince me of something, etc, he has already dismissed it as nonsense.
> 
> When we understand both sides of the argument, what is it that compells us to choose one over the other? Is it ignorance of the other? Or an understanding of both?
> 
> ...



Bhagatsinghji

I actually agree with everything you have written in the above, which is a rarity!

It is possible that this is due to the fever which is currently absorbing me, but I cannot argue with the content of your post. 

I would like to think my veer Ambarsariaji chooses to post what he does to encourage debate and thinking, in fact, I am sure of this fact. He is, in his own way, a vital tool for us all , if he were on the titanic, saving himself would be his last thought, he is the man with the torch and the directions. 

Your goodself is the counsellor on the ship, easing worries, keeping morale up,explaining the situation to those that do not understand, 

However to use the elephant analogy, it, in this circumstance does not quite do justice as an analogy for the simple reason a) we are all different and b) we have a living Guru that tells us which parts of the elephant are useless. 

So lets take something pretty definitive, belief in multiple Gods that once lived, Bani tells us that this is a waste of time, and there is only one timeless God free of birth and death, now, to me, this must take precedent over reality, although I would never mock another, or ask another to yield to my thinking, for me, it is a moot subject. Bani has already saved me the thinking in the matter, I accept that this may be the elephants leg, and I can understand and debate why another could believe in it, but privately, it is a non starter. 

Let us take an extreme, say someone who believes in killing of females, abortion, it is widespread, many do it, for lots it is a definitive part of the elephant, again, I can understand why people do it, and to some extent, I have some sympathy, but personally I would rather chop my hand off. 

Let us go further, honour killings, you see at what point do we say, that is repulsive, that does not belong in civilised society, well its very simple, we must be guided by Bani, it is all we have to guide us.


----------



## Parma (Mar 27, 2012)

I have had the wonderful chance to give this matter some thought whilst suffering from food poisoning over the last 2 days. In between expelling liquids from all orifices, you have been on mind quite a lot!

I'm not all that bad then, Good to know I make you feel better! mundahugkudihug

However, as I have stated many many times this Hukam must be in line with the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which I believe answers your Hitler question. 
I dont think you understand the concept of sikhism harry, sikhism is not a demand on humanity, it is an individual option. Hitler wanted to create a suprior race, sikhism was created not as a race but as a concept of love for each other, to look at each other as humans, and help each other to be better with each other, not with hate, if you then call that a race because to define that love you take up the name sikh, then that is your opinion on it, but that is not a race it is called a religion. Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his whole family for the sake of humanity. His father for the Hindu's, he sacrificed a whole lot for the muslims as well, that's why Muslims helped him look like a Muslim Pir when he tried to escape from battle, due to an order from his 5 beloved.

Humanity is what all gods men have ever loved. You may say how come he was battling if he loved humanity, because other men do not love humanity they wish to kill love, like romeo and juliet's story, their families hate for each other "killed" their own children. 
If romeo had stuck up for his love, would he have been able to get by without a fight? Truth is NO! So they both commited suicide, when romeo thought juliet was dead he took a dagger and killed himself, then she does the same when she awakes to find him dead when their love story's ended which was everything to them their lives ended they had nothing to live for, a bit selfish, well maybe. 
Now Guru Gobind Singh had love for humanity, humanity did not die, humanity had not ended and humanity had not prevailed to be able to love each other and God without prejudice! (as in romeo and juliets case it had ended). So he had to fight for that, fight for people to be able to fight for the love of god, that is within ourselves as well as within each other. Now you might say fight for love? Romeo and Juliet died for love, and they never recieved it, Guru Gobind Singh Sacrificed everything he had for love so that we all can recieve it, undescribable love. Ultimate Love for Humanity. Imagine a world without love, you can see what it did to Romeo and Juliet, Imagine if that happened to humanity! 

p.s. As you want to emulate god, I think you want to start your own religion............ 

So my Best of Regards to you!

please dont respond to me I think your insane no offence! Then again maybe you could become something great! Thanks 

Mr Harry ji


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

Parma said:


> This is something I read in one of vouthons previous posts so sorry, i did try finding it through one of his previous posts, I dont have it to hand but maybe vouthon would like to elaborate further? Anyway just to show I am not lying!


 
My dear brother Parma :whatzpointkudi:

Yes you are completely correct! Catholics believe that God is the coincidence of opposites, and that he is Superessential Nothingness (No-thing-ness) and yet is the ground of Being (isness) that is everywhere, in all things, the very root of their _ISNESS_. Ultimately God and Man, pleasure and pain, success and failure, are ultimately all one in God. The nothingness of the godhead is, in a non-objective manner, the soul's very own ground. Hence the soul, in order to return to its original ground, must break out into the nothingness of the godhead. 




"...A man may go into the field and say his prayer and be aware of God, or, he may be in Church and be aware of God; but, if he is more aware of Him because he is in a quiet place, that is his own deficiency and not due to God, Who is alike present in all things and places, and is willing to give Himself everywhere so far as lies in Him. He knows God rightly who knows Him everywhere...We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in everything...Now rejoice, all ye powers of my soul, that you are so united with God that no one may separate you from Him. Love God, and do as you like, say the Free Spirits. Yes; but as long as you like anything contrary to God's will, you do not love Him..." 

- *Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest *



"...To guage the soul we must guage it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. Thou must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-person, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality, sundered from all twoness, and in whom we must eternally sink from nothingness to nothingness. Separate yourself from all twoness. Be one in one, one with one, one from one. When is a man in mere understanding? When a man sees one thing separated from another. And when is a man above mere understanding? When a man sees All in all, then a man stands beyond mere understanding..." 


*- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest *



_"..._God is everything, yet nothing...God is Truth and wherever we find the truth we find our God, who is Truth...If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. I say that God is neither a being nor intelligent and He doesn’t ‘know’ either this or that. God is free of everything and therefore He is everything. I pray God to make me free of God, for [His] unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions. He is beyond being. He is a nothingness beyond being. God is pure oneness, being free of any accretive multiplicity of distinction even at a conceptual level...When the soul enters the light that is pure, she falls so far from her own created somethingness into her nothingness that in this nothingness she can no longer return to that created somethingness by her own power..." 



_*- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest*_ 





"...God is infinite in his simplicity and simple in his infinity. Therefore he is everywhere and is everywhere complete_._ He is everywhere on account of his infinity, and is everywhere complete on account of his simplicity. Only God flows into all things, their very essences. Nothing else flows into something else. God is in the innermost part of each and every thing...The One descends into everything and into each single things, yet remaining the One that unites what is distinct...God is the being of all beings...All things are contained in the One, by virtue of the fact that it is one. for all multiplicity is one, and is one thing, and is in and through the One. . . The One is not distinct from all things. Therefore all things in the fullness of being are in the One by virtue of its indistinction and unity...When we know creatures in God, then that is called a 'morning knowledge,' and in this way we see creatures without any distinctions, stripped of images and likeness in the Oneness which God himself is...Blessedness consists primarily in the fact that the soul sees God in herself . . . Only in God's knowledge does she become wholly still. There she knows nothing but essence and God. Between that person and God there is no distinction, and they are one. . . Their knowing is one with God's knowing, their activity with God's activity and their understanding with God's understanding...Therefore it is in Oneness that God is found and they who would find God must themselves become One. . . And truly, if you are properly One, then you shall remain One in the midst of distinction, and the multifold will be One for you and shall not be able to impede you in any way...There are people who enjoy God in one way but not in another. They only want to possess God in one way of devotion and not in another. I will say no more about this, but it is nevertheless quite wrong. Whoever wants to receive God properly must receive him equally in all things, in oppression as in prosperity, in tears as in joy. Always and everywhere He is the same..."


_*- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest*_


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

Some more short quotes: 


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...For those who look with their physical eyes, God is nowhere to be seen. For those who contemplate Him in spirit, He is everywhere. He is in all, yet beyond all...." [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*- Saint Symeon the Stylite (c. 390 – 459), Catholic mystic*[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...What does God do all day long? He gives birth. From the beginning of eternity, God lies on a maternity bed giving birth to all. God is creating this whole universe full and entire in this present moment...The one work we should rightly undertake is eradication of the Self. Could you completely forget yourself even for an instant, you would be given everything...God is closer to me than I am to myself...When the soul has lost her nature in the Oneness, we can no longer speak of a 'soul' - but of immeasurable Being...I AM can be spoken by no creature but by God alone. I must become God and God must become me, so completely that we share the same 'I' eternally. Our truest 'I' is God...While she (thy soul) lacks union she has never really loved God, for actual love lies in union, if thou lovest God as God, as spirit, as Person or as image, that must all go. "Then how shall I love him?" Love him as he is: a not-God, a not-spirit, a not-Person, a not-image; as sheer, pure, limpid unity, alien from all duality. And in this one let us sink down eternally from nothingness to nothingness..." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 


*- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest *



"...If your heart is straight with God, then every creature will appear to you as a mirror of life and a sacred scripture. No creature is so small and insignificant so as not to express and demonstrate the goodness of God...I discovered myself to be nothing but nothing; an unweighable substance; a sea that cannot be sailed. In You and by You, I find that I exist as nothing but nothing..." 



*- Blessed Thomas Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (c. 1380 – 1471), Catholic mystic*



[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...It is greater worship to God to see Him in all things, than in any special thing...God said to me in the depths of my soul: '[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am that which is highest. I am that which is lowest. I am that which is All'..." [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*- Blessed Julian of Norwich (1342 –1416), Catholic mystic*[/FONT]


"...God presents himself in the inmost depths of my soul. I understand not only that he is present, but also how he is present. I have seen the One who is, and how He is the Being of all creatures. God is present in everything that exists, in a devil and a good angel, in heaven and hell, in good deeds and in adultery and murder, in the beautiful and the ugly. Therfore, while I am in this Truth, I take as much delight in seeing and understanding his presence in a devil and the act of adultery as I do in an angel and a good deed. The world is pregnant with God...He who loves with not only a part of himself, but the whole, transforms himself into the thing beloved..."

*- Blessed Angela of Foligna (c. 1248 – 1309), Catholic mystic*
 


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...God inhabits every soul, even those of the greatest sinners in the world. There is always this union between God and His creatures, for through it He preserves their being. If it were not so, these souls would instantly cease to be..." [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Catholic mystic*[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...Our essential nature is uncreated, never-born and free in and for itself. It is found in all creatures, but is not restricted to them; it is outside all creatures, but not excluded from them...." [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*- The Cloud of Unknowing, written in the 14th century (Classic text of Catholic mysticism)*[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_*"....*_Man, if thou something love, True love thou dost not know;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God is not this or that, So let the something go._..." _[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), German Catholic mystic and convert from Protestantism*[/FONT]


----------



## Astroboy (Apr 28, 2012)

harry haller said:


> I do not seek enlightenment, if I were to be enlightened I would not find this state of mind undesirable.Personal development and enlightenment are not mutually inclusive, I am not sure where you have made this judgement on regarding personal development. Hukam comes from the essence of Creator within, we all know what the right things to do or think are, the idea is to trust that Hukam. I never said I was happy with the situation, however I do think it is not Sikh like to want anything, only to do your best at what you know to be right and proper, that we can find from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



Questions upon questions have been asked and answered in SGGS. One such is to accept yourself as connected with our Creator like as if he was the bridegroom and we the soul-brides.
See Page 1284 Line 14 to 19.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 28, 2012)

Astroboy said:


> Questions upon questions have been asked and answered in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. One such is to accept yourself as connected with our Creator like as if he was the bridegroom and we the soul-brides.
> See Page 1284 Line 14 to 19.


 
One can also undestand the classification of Soul brides as per character
as

KUCHAJi,

SUCHAJI and

GUNWANTEE

The above classification is well defined in SGGS pp763

Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------

