# On God, Energy And Principle



## mystique_void (May 10, 2009)

The God of Gurbani is kind, caring, loving, merciful, 
compassionate, forgiving, nurturing and benevolent.

Can Energy or the Universal Principle be kind, caring, 
loving, merciful, compassionate, forgiving, nurturing 
and benevolent?  

Creation is not a random process.  Creation demands 
intelligence and deliberation.  For beautiful cars to
come out of a manufacturing plant, we need a 
designer.  The raw materials are not going to 
self-assemble themselves into a car on their own. 

Does Energy or the Universal Principle possess
intelligence that is essential for creation?


----------



## spnadmin (May 10, 2009)

mystique_void ji

Such beautiful words of devotion for Waheguru. Reminds me of this on Ang 8  of Japj(u)ji


 ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਵੇਖੈ ਨਦਰਿ ਨਿਹਾਲ ॥ 
kar kar vaekhai nadhar nihaal ||
Having created the creation, He watches over it. By His Glance of Grace, He bestows happiness.
  

 ਤਿਥੈ ਖੰਡ ਮੰਡਲ ਵਰਭੰਡ ॥ 
thithhai khandd manddal varabhandd ||
There are planets, solar systems and galaxies.
  

ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਥੈ ਤ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਅੰਤ ॥ 
jae ko kathhai th anth n anth ||
If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end.
  

ਤਿਥੈ ਲੋਅ ਲੋਅ ਆਕਾਰ ॥ 
thithhai loa loa aakaar ||
There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation.
  

ਜਿਵ ਜਿਵ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਤਿਵੈ ਤਿਵ ਕਾਰ ॥ 
jiv jiv hukam thivai thiv kaar ||
As He commands, so they exist.
  

 ਵੇਖੈ ਵਿਗਸੈ ਕਰਿ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ 
vaekhai vigasai kar veechaar ||
He watches over all, and contemplating the creation, He rejoices.


----------



## Sinister (May 11, 2009)

​
Many may argue that not all creation demands intelligence and deliberation, intricately pointing out charts and keen observations of natural events (events as small as mitosis or as trivial as the ‘creation’ of feces). 

The evolutionist’s have proof without certainty and the creationist’s certainty without proof. For the creationist every avenue of circumstance is the result of an unimaginable omnipotence actively providing agency through divine willpower. This philosophy does not actively encourage nor facilitate the attainment or betterment of knowledge. This philosophy becomes especially negative if it impedes; investigation, curiosity and imagination. Intuitively it seems that those who make the divine powerful are trying to escape the responsibility of self-observation and self-contemplation. 

Despite the fact that a large number of people are creationists, investigation of random events continues (anything from investigating weather patterns, economics, emergence of dominant viral strains etc). Deist thought exists even amongst the most devout, primarily because; every human is a rational human being (rationality being the agency that ensures survival, rationality being a prerequisite for survival).

Bronislaw Malinowski while observing the tribes of Papua New Guinea found that the first recourse of a fisherman with a torn net is to reweave his net and then have himself blessed by a high priest, not the other way around. Simply put; the flight and fight response precedes our emotional/faith based spirit. 




‘Creation’ is an ineffective word in metaphysics, because a thought of creation extrapolates to ad infinitum, the word is of little interest to a pragmatist or an ontological thinker. Likewise ‘Universal Principle’ would be a useless word to a relativist.

“Do Energy or the Universal Principle possesses
intelligence that is essential for creation?”

what is intelligence?

c h e e r s


----------



## spnadmin (May 11, 2009)

Sinister ji

Based on some things you have said on another thread or two -- about your own view of Divine nature -- you have an interesting thesis working. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. You definitely do not conflate science and religion. One thing that I find interesting in this regard. There is only one religion that I am aware of that considers the Divine to be a Universal Principle. It is the Christian Science Religion. Do not know too much about this faith, but I certainly wonder how the line between the metaphysical and the cosmological is drawn by them. Thank you for your thought provoking remarks.


----------



## lalihayer (May 11, 2009)

> Does Energy or the Universal Principle possess intelligence that is essential for creation?


If we humans with our consciousness are just small part of whole energy, then is it possible that whole energy too have own consciousness?
Is our consciousness just part of larger consciousness, like instincts are part of our consciousness (they come and vanish)?
Does references in Gurbani about beating the death means expanding our consciousness to larger consciousness by breaking walls which hold us within confinement of this mortal body?



> Can Energy or the Universal Principle be kind, caring,
> loving, merciful, compassionate, forgiving, nurturing
> and benevolent?


These emotions are upper emotions on the rainbow of emotions starting with most selfish ones. Even the animals and most of the humans experience lower range of emotions like satisfying body needs and doing actions which are just for self ego. 
But when humans experience emotions which result in actions which are not for self (mercy, forgiveness, self sacrifice etc), it shows glimpse of existence of higher consciousness which we are part of and just can't experience with our own limitations.


----------



## spnadmin (May 11, 2009)

Lallihayer ji


----------



## Sinister (May 11, 2009)

lalihayer said:


> If we humans with our consciousness are just small part of whole energy, then is it possible that whole energy too have own consciousness?


 

what is energy? … to my understanding it is a human physical construct to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Energetically humans and all living matter are agents that use energy to decrease entropy (while we are living we exhibit Disentrophic Behaviour). While non-living matter expends energy that increases entropy humans expend energy that decreases local entropy at the expense of increasing the entropy of our surroundings. So, in effect, the energy expended by humans and that expended by the non-living universe are used for two different purposes, provided the ‘whole’ is a closed system.

Thus energy can only develop consciousness if it is used to decrease local entropy. Hence the existence of consciousness of something like the “whole energy” is unimaginable or at least irrational (as it would violate the laws of thermodynamics).

:{;o: just a little thought experiment i wipped up. :}8-:


----------



## lalihayer (May 12, 2009)

Do lower planes of consciousness like animals ( and big number of humans ) know about higher planes of consciousness? Can they reason that there exist higher planes of consciousness? 
Are laws of thermodynamics are absolute and final? Do we know it all ? ( I know much less than sangat here)
Are we on the top of pyramid ( with all other planes of consciousness below us)?
Every century, year, month brings new discoveries, principles, laws. Are we certain we have gained absolute knowledge this moment? Nothing more follows?


----------



## pk70 (May 12, 2009)

Sinister Ji[/FONT]
 Guru Fateh ![/FONT]
 Glad to see your post.[/FONT]
 You wrote[/FONT]
 “what is energy? … to my understanding it is a human physical construct to explain and predict natural phenomena.”[/FONT]

 Aren’t you limiting the meaning of energy?[/FONT]
 What about the energy “Air” possess? [/FONT]
  And “Lightening”  Is it human physical construct?[/FONT]
 What about the energy in the gravity of the earth? You can say, it is just gravity but in its existence, energy/power exists too.[/FONT]
 I feel “energy” is a word to define power being displayed (or in existence to be displayed) by different visible or invisible sources.[/FONT]
 You wrote[/FONT]
 "This philosophy becomes especially negative if it impedes; investigation, curiosity and imagination. Intuitively it seems that those who make the divine powerful are trying to escape the responsibility of self-observation and self-contemplation. [/FONT]"

 It doesn’t impede at all any kind of investigation; it depends at who you are hinting at? Believers of the true powerful divine power must be open for new experiment, investigation etc. Given life itself is an inspiration for a fine mind to rise further above. Thanks.

[/FONT]
 Regards[/FONT]


----------



## lalihayer (May 12, 2009)

> Hence the existence of consciousness of something like the “whole energy” is unimaginable or at least irrational (as it would violate the laws of thermodynamics).


Isn't that top of the pyramid? Nirgun!


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 12, 2009)

> The God of Gurbani is kind, caring, loving, merciful,
> compassionate, forgiving, nurturing and benevolent.
> 
> Can Energy or the Universal Principle be kind, caring,
> ...


What are you talking about? Are you equating God with energy? What do you mean by energy?
Your question is assumes that there is creation.

Do beautiful cars reproduce? No, therefore they can't evolve.
"Raw materials" CAN self assemble like so:  YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
and then they CAN diversify through evolution because they can REPRODUCE, unlike beautiful cars that cannot.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 12, 2009)

> The God of Gurbani is kind, caring, loving, merciful,
> compassionate, forgiving, nurturing and benevolent.
> 
> Can Energy or the Universal Principle be kind, caring,
> ...


 
Mystic - void ji,

Guru Fateh.

Do you mean by your above explanation that Sikhi is the same as Christianity in which they believe in a personified deity that has used intelligent design to create this universe, hence a dogmatic religion that believes in hell and heaven?

Could you kindly elaborate and clarify your viewpoint?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (May 12, 2009)

Bhagat ji

My impression is that Mystque_void is *not* equating God with energy. In fact he is questioning that equation. He is raising the question: How could it be possible for God to be energy? Why not pose your questiion in a different way?


----------



## mystique_void (May 12, 2009)

Sinister wrote:

_"Many may argue that not all creation demands intelligence and 
deliberation, intricately pointing out charts and keen observations 
of natural events (events as small as mitosis or as trivial as 
the ‘creation’ of feces)"_

That is a good point.  There are great many physical, 
chemical and biological processes that appear absolutely 
random and they are able to create new shapes and 
forms and products.  

But if take a closer look, these seemingly random 
processes are governed by laws and principles.  It's 
highly highly improbable, and in the minds of those 
who believe in God, impossible, that such precise 
laws and principles could be put into place without 
directions from a super-intelligent designer.  

About your question "What is intelligence?": 
This question is hotly debated in the field of 
Artificial Intelligence and there are many theories.
Literally hundreds of books exist on the topic.  
Being a big proponent of the KISS concept 
(Keep It Simple Stupid), I'm going to be very brief.  

We have built computers that can beat the 
top chess players of the world.  In the future 
we may have robotic baseball teams that are 
able to beat the top human baseball teams.
These are good examples of artificial intelligence.  
However, neither computers nor robots have 
the free will.

Let me give you an example of what free will is.
When Guru Gobind Singh asked for the heads 
of Sikhs on the Vaisakhi of 1699, the five 
Sikhs exercised their free will after weighing the 
options (on one side was sure death and on 
the other was Guru's call) and offered their 
heads.  The computers and robots are not able
 to make these kind of decisions by exercising 
free will.  

God not only has supreme intelligence and 
free will, he also enjoys absolute sovereignty.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 12, 2009)

> Aad ji: Bhagat ji
> 
> My impression is that Mystque_void is *not* equating God with energy. In fact he is questioning that equation. He is raising the question: How could it be possible for God to be energy? Why not pose your questiion in a different way?


Firstly, I think Sargun Nirgun best describe God as they allow for any possibility. Energy may not make sense to oyu but may make sense for someone else. Similarly, something you understand about God may not be understood by someone else. So to each his own God but understand that everyone looks at God differently. 
By "you" I mean anyone who is reading.

Mystique Void ji,
About your reply to sinister ji. Let me do my best to answer.


> That is a good point. There are great many physical,
> chemical and biological processes that appear absolutely
> random and they are able to create new shapes and
> forms and products.
> ...


OK 
Why would you explain how those laws got there by answering with something that is even more complex, God? 



> God not only has supreme intelligence and free will, he also enjoys absolute sovereignty.


How do you know this? I say the exact opposite. My claim would be just as valid as yours. 

Please reply to my previous post as well.


----------



## spnadmin (May 12, 2009)

Bhagat ji

Your words as follows; _Firstly, I think Sargun Nirgun best describe God as they allow for any possibility. Energy may not make sense to oyu but may make sense for someone else. Similarly, something you understand about God may not be understood by someone else. So to each his own God but understand that everyone looks at God differently. By "you" I mean anyone who is reading._

I have no problem with the proposition that each person can define God as they will. However in discussing the nature of God as understood within the framework of the Sikh religion, any and all understandings and sentiments don't demonstrate intellectual or spiritual coherence. The discussion of the nature of God begins to resemble an afternoon talk-show -- light conversation and every one walks away feeling validated and therefore cozy within themselves. Everyone's answer is equally good and there are no wrong answers.

The idea that some ideas are clearly off the mark requires a fair amount of disciplined argument and in the case of Sikhism a fair amount of adherence to Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

Also please explain why the statement that Sargun Nirgun covers the possibility that God is Energy is sufficient. Most of the references I have checked limit the meaning of energy to its attributes and actions in the natural world. So Sargun Nirgun may cover that aspect we call Sargun, but certainly understanding God as energy underestimates the extent of His play as sargun and nirgun.


----------



## mystique_void (May 13, 2009)

Bhagat Singh wrote:

"Energy may not make sense to oyu but may make sense for someone else. 
Similarly, something you understand about God may not be understood 
by someone else. So to each his own God but understand that everyone 
looks at God differently."

It's not about what makes sense to you or me or what our individual 
understanding is.  It's not an open-ended quest for God.  We could 
do that if we were taking a course on the philosophy of religion at a 
post-secondary institution.  

On Sikh forums we talk about the concept of God in the context 
of Sikhi.  We have a specific frame of reference in the form of 
the written word of the Gurus and the traditions they 
introduced.  

Let me pick out two typical sabads from Gurbani.  There 
are numerous others like them.

SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge 

SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge

How are we going to apply the concept of Energy or the 
Universal Principle to these sabads?  Does a car battery 
or a light bulb (energy) possess the attributes of God 
that are described in these sabads?

We can't ignore or contradict large portions 
of Gurbani in order to feel good about what makes 
sense to us or what satisfies our personal 
understanding.


Regards,


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 13, 2009)

Antonia ji,
Why do you think that Sargun-Nirgun has a place in Sikhism?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 13, 2009)

mystique_void said:


> Bhagat Singh wrote:
> 
> "Energy may not make sense to oyu but may make sense for someone else.
> Similarly, something you understand about God may not be understood
> ...


Sargun-Nirgun is the context of Sikhi is it not? So to each his own. You forgot about that bit when you replied.



> Let me pick out two typical sabads from Gurbani. There
> are numerous others like them.
> 
> SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge
> ...


Well for one, neither a car battery or a light bulb is energy. Two, it does not not but does that mean it violates or contradicts the Sikh view of God? I would say no.


----------



## spnadmin (May 14, 2009)

Bhagat ji

Nirgun and Sargun have a place in most religions, Sikhism included. These ideas refer loosely to the notion of God's immanence and God's transcendence. They are fundamental to our desire to describe the nature of God. There are Sikhs who study Gurbani with the desire to understand God in nirgun and sargun states. There are Sikhs who think this is a boring pursuit. There are Sikhs who never think about it at all. In this regard, Sikhs are just like everybody else. :welcome:


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 14, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> Bhagat ji
> 
> Nirgun and Sargun have a place in most religions, Sikhism included. These ideas refer loosely to the notion of God's immanence and God's transcendence. They are fundamental to our desire to describe the nature of God. There are Sikhs who study Gurbani with the desire to understand God in nirgun and sargun states. There are Sikhs who think this is a boring pursuit. There are Sikhs who never think about it at all. In this regard, Sikhs are just like everybody else. :welcome:


So what makes Sikhism so special?


----------



## spnadmin (May 14, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> So what makes Sikhism so special?



Bhagat ji

I am in pain now from laughing! What can I say? Why did I think when I was a little girl that my mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw? All my little friends thought that their mothers were the most beautiful. We would get into arguments about it. I would look at their mothers and say to myself, No, no one is more beautiful than my mother. 

Today I look at my mother and I think -- You have a lot of flaws. You made some big mistakes. Certainly you are not a perfect beauty. You got older before my eyes. I have known you all my life and I have watched you wrinkle, become weak, and forgetful. But you are the most beautiful woman I know. 

I think Sikhism is special--  because even though it has wrinkles, flaws, makes mistakes, and is not a perfect beauty it is the most beautiful religion I know.


----------



## pk70 (May 14, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> So what makes Sikhism so special?




Amazing .....

Where aad ji is saying "Sikhism is a special" in her quote?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 14, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> Bhagat ji
> 
> I am in pain now from laughing! What can I say? Why did I think when I was a little girl that my mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw? All my little friends thought that their mothers were the most beautiful. We would get into arguments about it. I would look at their mothers and say to myself, No, no one is more beautiful than my mother.
> 
> ...


Antonia Ji,
You didn't answer my question because now I will ask you why you think its beautiful. Which is what I was asking initially" what is so special"? (something that anyone can look at admire)
I know you think its beautiful. 

I am going to get back to what we were discussing. But I need you to answer this, what makes Sikhism so special? 
You mentioned it has flaws. What kind of flaws? What are they?


----------



## mystique_void (May 14, 2009)

Bhagat Singh wrote:

"Sargun-Nirgun is the context of Sikhi is it not? So to each his own. You 
forgot about that bit when you replied."

The God is infinitely powerful whether manifested (sargun) or 
not manifested (nirgun).  Period.  Think of an absolute monarch.
The absolute monarch may play different roles, may wear 
different dresses for state functions or for hunting but he 
remains the absolute monarch under all circumstances.

In some plays (stage dramas), the monarch may play the 
role of an accountant or a beggar but these are just roles.  
His powers remain intact no matter which role or form 
he is in.  

Suppose the absolute monarch does not make a public 
appearance for a while.  It doesn't imply he has abdicated 
the throne and his responsibilities and now the "Energy" 
or the 'Universal Principle" is in control.  

See the sabads below:      

SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=212
 
SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge


----------



## spnadmin (May 14, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> Antonia Ji,
> ..... Which is what I was asking initially" what is so special"? (something that anyone can look at admire)
> I know you think its beautiful.
> 
> I am going to get back to what we were discussing. But I need you to answer this, what makes Sikhism so special?




Bhagat ji 

I answered the question based on the meaning of "special" that applied for me. So Sikhism is special to me because it is so beautiful.

Which definition of "special" were you using when you asked the question? See below:

Definitions of *special* on the Web:


particular(a): unique or specific to a person or thing or category; "the particular demands of the job"; "has a particular preference for Chinese ...
for a special service or occasion; "a special correspondent"; "a special adviser to the committee"; "had to get special permission for the event"
adapted to or reserved for a particular purpose; "a special kind of paint"; "a special medication for arthritis"
a special offering (usually temporary and at a reduced price) that is featured in advertising; "they are having a special on pork chops"
limited: having a specific function or scope; "a special (or specific) role in the mission"
a dish or meal given prominence in e.g. a restaurant
particular: first and most important; "his special interest is music"; "she gets special (or particular) satisfaction from her volunteer work"
a television production that features a particular person or work or topic; "the last of a series of BBC specials on Iran is being shown tonight"
extra: added to a regular schedule; "a special holiday flight"; "put on special buses for the big game"
Also, Bhagat ji, were you also asking me to explain why I think Sikhism is beautiful? I am not sure that you are. Which definition of beautiful are you basing your quesiton on?

Definitions of *beautiful *on the web: 


delighting the senses or exciting intellectual or emotional admiration; "a beautiful child"; "beautiful country"; "a beautiful painting"; "a ...
(of weather) highly enjoyable; "what a beautiful day"


----------



## spnadmin (May 14, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> Antonia Ji,
> You mentioned it has flaws. What kind of flaws? What are they?



The flaws I have spotted over time have more to do with how Sikhism is practiced and understood by some individuals. I have not identified flaws within Nanakian philosophy. There are areas of theology that I don't think have been well explained, and the same goes for areas of contradictory meaning for some ideas like reincarnation. But again, the flaw is not within Nanakian philosophy but rather with how Nanakian philosophy is interpreted. 

Let me give you a more personal example. For a long time I struggled to understand why anger is a basic evil. My search on this forum and in other readings written by Sikh scholars were not helpful. Only after a systematic study of Buddhist thinking did I get the answer. When I applied the Buddhist understanding to Gurbani there was no inconsistency. Buddhist scholars in this instance were more helpful than Sikh literature on the subject. Why? 

Well this is my intuition only. Buddhism has a longer and fiestier tradition of "teaching." Within Sikhi we have a very hard time with two trends, and I see this on the forum every day. First, among many Sikhs, there seems to be unwillingness to allow debate, and by that I only mean friendly intellectual debate. By contrast, in Judaism there is a centuries old tradition of religious argument among students and teachers that helps to clarify important ideas. Rabbi's and scholars debate with the intention of finding common ground and consensus on the meaning of scriptures.  Among some Sikhs, intellectual arguments too often end with accusations of heresy and name-calling across the board. Second, there seems to be among some Sikhs another pattern:  unwillingness to explore, probe, and analyze altogether. So rather than engage in serious elaboration on an issue, there is  mad-cap posting of Gurbani with little if any explanation. Or someone will say, "There is no point in discussing this any longer. The matter is settled. We should all now be quiet." Of course, there are glorious exceptions to what I am saying, such as the kathas of Sant Muskeen Singh ji. But even with this example, I don't see serious discussion. Rather there is a kind of mum acceptance of what he has said; or wild accusations of heresy against him because he quotes Urdu poets. 

So the flaws are in the application of Nanakian philosophy, not in Sikhism itself. Again forgive me if I have offended anyone. These are my opinions.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 15, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> The flaws I have spotted over time have more to do with how Sikhism is practiced and understood by some individuals. I have not identified flaws within Nanakian philosophy. There are areas of theology that I don't think have been well explained, and the same goes for areas of contradictory meaning for some ideas like reincarnation. But again, the flaw is not within Nanakian philosophy but rather with how Nanakian philosophy is interpreted.
> 
> Let me give you a more personal example. For a long time I struggled to understand why anger is a basic evil. My search on this forum and in other readings written by Sikh scholars were not helpful. Only after a systematic study of Buddhist thinking did I get the answer. When I applied the Buddhist understanding to Gurbani there was no inconsistency. Buddhist scholars in this instance were more helpful than Sikh literature on the subject. Why?
> 
> ...


 
Antonia ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well put. Sikhi needs more debates on the interpretation of Gurbani. Interpreting Gurbani is more difficult than the scriptures in other religions because it is written in a poetic form. So, there are more interpretations to the poetic form when converted into the prose than the scriptures that are already in the prose form. The proof is in the 2 widely used literal translations by Sant Singh Khalsa and Manmohan Singh. They both differ and sometimes contradict each other, hence the real intent of the Gurbani gets lost.

Once we come to the realisation of this that everyone has something to offer in their prose form, then only a constructive debate can have a room to take place. 

Once we shed this notion of Me-ism where our claim becomes that only our interpretation is valid then only we can encourage all to pitch in. By doing this we will be able enrichen ourselves and empower others with the understanding of Gurbani, especially the ones who have been only parroting it for a long time.

So, openmindedness is very important which breeds acceptance and where disagreements are welcome and respected.

What I would suggest here is that we should have a Gurbani studying class in a serious manner like NamJap ji started withBhagtan di Baani. We can choose any other part of Gurbani, may be some from the Nit Nem and register people who may be interested in participating in it and let them bring their interpretations and let us all discuss and debate that by respecting each other even when we disagree.

By starting with these baby steps, we all can pitch in bringing the understanding of Gurbani to a much larger public. Hence we will be able to live  and savour the aura of , "Mil Sadh sangat, bhaj keval naam".

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (May 15, 2009)

This is a terrific idea Tejwant ji -- We need some time to get it organized. Brainstorming the Gurbani sections that we could focus on might be an excellent discussion in the Mentors section. Then everyone would be able to look at options and pick a section of SGGS to explore.


----------

