# Phantom Noises Heard In The Morning



## Sherdil (Apr 13, 2016)

Some people claim to hear strange noises during early morning and meditation. They consider it to be a manifestation of the Anhaad Naad. How can this be if the Dasam Duaar (10th gate), through which we enter the Lord's abode, is only opened after one overcomes the pull of Maya on the other 9 holes (5 senses) of the body? Hearing of course is one of these 5 senses. 

How does one differentiate this from the hypnogogic and hypnopompic auditory hallucinations experienced by narcoleptics? 

Why does the Anhaad Naad have to sound like anything at all? Why can't it simply be the silence, from which all sound arises?


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 13, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Some people claim to hear strange noises during early morning and meditation.



you mean their senses, once being played with and manipulated, start to register false or non existent sounds? how strange!



Sherdil said:


> They consider it to be a manifestation of the Anhaad Naad.



What is Anhaad Naad? where did it come from? Is it a Sikh philosophy or something we borrowed from someone else?


Sherdil said:


> How does one differentiate this from the hypnogogic and hypnopompic auditory hallucinations experienced by narcoleptics?


with great difficulty?


Sherdil said:


> Why does the Anhaad Naad have to sound like anything at all? Why can't it simply be the silence, from which all sound arises?


its just not glamorous enough, I mean nothing is a bit boring, celestial sounds should be bangs and cymbals, harp sounds, celestial maidens singing, etc etc.


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 13, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> its just not glamorous enough, I mean nothing is a bit boring, celestial sounds should be bangs and cymbals, harp sounds, celestial maidens singing, etc etc.



Ah yes, the celestial music is akin to a marching band and Waheguru Himself is the field commander. This is something you have to experience to believe for sure!

It makes me wonder though if we aren't chasing carrots on a stick. Those of us with preconceived notions of a "divine experience" may in fact trick ourselves into believing that we are indeed experiencing something out of the ordinary.

If logic follows, then it goes without saying that deaf people are at a loss when it comes to "hearing" this music.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 13, 2016)

What are the five senses? What is it that makes a sound? What you 'hear' is fully internal. There is in fact no 'out there' it's all quiet. It's because sound exists only as pressure waves until it reaches a receiver... Your ear is not the receiver. In your ear it changes form from pressure waves to electrical signals. It doesn't become what you consider audible sound until your brain deciphers it. Even then, from the outside its still electrical signal. There never was a 'thing' called sound. It's only your brains INTERNAL perception that makes it sound. Cut open a brain of a dead person do you see the 'sounds' that were in there?

This is the same thing with sight and all the five senses!!

When you still your mind you can perceive internal vibrations, and decipher those in the same manner but they are not coming from your ears. Those vibrations are the vibrations of the cosmos of reality.

From spirituality.indiatimes.com:

*"Naad"* ( Punjabi ਨਾਦੰ ) means "the cosmic sound" or "vibrations of the cosmos". Gurbani says that: "Sing the Glorious Praises of the Immaculate True Lord forever, and the Immaculate Sound-current of the Naad shall vibrate within." (SGGS p 121) The sound of the Cosmos can resonate within if one "tunes into this energy". Only by following the rules of nature and realising the patterns and disciplines of the cosmos can one find this hidden energy of internal sound. Only through meditation, external singing and reciting can the bombardment of random noise in the mind be subdued. This internal noise that normally overwhelms the mind can be silenced and one can enjoy and hear the "anhad Naad" ("unheard sound"); this is sound of the cosmos within the mind. It is not to be confused with external vibrations - Naad is vibration within the mind.

To start these internal harmonies one needs to recite melodies with their own voice; the singing of Gurbani kirtan or mantra will invoke the internal symphonies. The Guru tells us: "Repeating the Naam, the Unstruck Sound-current of the Naad resounds."_" (SGGS p 1144) The external melodies resonate and "kick start" the Naad within. Also, Gurbani reminds us to: "Sing the Sweet Ambrosial Praises of the Lord's Kirtan; day and night, the Sound-current of the Naad will resonate and resound." (SGGS p 1219) When on engages in the Lord's praises and sings in remembrance of Him, then the Naad will begin to be heard within. _

The following words in Japji Sahib Pauri 27 "vaajay naad anayk asankhaa kaytay vaavanhaaray. kaytay raag paree si-o kahee-an kaytay gaavanhaaray." which translates to: "Numerous Sound-currents vibrate simultaneously - Where are the musicians? So many melodious Ragas are sung – Where are the singers?" and also Japji Sahib Pauri 29 "bhugat gi-aan da-i-aa bhandaaran ghat ghat vaajeh naad" which means "Make wisdom your food and compassion your attendant; The Sound-current vibrates in each and every heart."


*43 references to the word 'Naad' in the Guru Granth Sahib*
*Anhad Naad, the Cosmic Symphony*

*Anhad-Naad:The Cosmic Symphony by Kailash Vajpeyi*
In a world full of cacophony and chaos, it does seem a little odd to talk about ‘soundless sound’. Interestingly, soundless sound, or "anaahat", has been given equal importance in almost all systems of faith.

Chanting is articulated sound. _“Aad aneel anad anahat Jug-jug eko ves”_ sings Guru Nanak four times in Japji, The opening hymn/prayer in Guru Granth Sahib. The concept is echoed in other cultures also.

The Bible states: “In the beginning was the word” (John 1.1). Vedic scriptures also affirm that the entire cosmic creation began with sound (Brihadrayanaka Upanishad 1.2.4.). ‘God is word’ denotes the physicality of sound but the concept of nada, that ‘God is sound’ is more subtle, because it is related to the Sanskrit word nadi, denoting our stream of consciousness. Before explaining the concept of ajapa jaap, or soundless sound, we must know about the power of the sacred word or sound.

Steven J Rosen, who wrote The Hidden Glory of India, says that a device called tonoscope, graphically demonstrates the power of classical syllables to evoke forms in a physical medium. The tonoscope is a tube suspended over a thin membrane and covered by a layer of fine dust. When sounds are broadcast through the tube, corresponding designs form in the dust that can tell us something about the initial sound that went through the tube. “While most sounds produce random ill-defined forms, the vibrations of a referable incantation produce quite a different result. If the sounds of mantras can activate a gross element such as dust, one can only imagine the power such vibrations have on human consciousness,” he says.

The power of the spoken word, especially japa, has been described in other cultures also. Saint Paul said: “Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10.15). “From the rising of the sun to its setting the name of the Lord is to be praised,” said King David (Psalms 113.3). The Buddha declared: “All who sincerely call upon my name will come to me after death and I will take them to paradise,” (Vows of Amida: Buddha 18).

"Ajapa jap" and "anhad naad" are basically related to electrophysiology. Silent chanting generates a kind of tapas, which flows in a rhythmic wave pattern. Hans Berger, a German physicist, discovered that not only all living tissues are sensitive to electric currents, but after a certain time the tissue itself generated small voltages. Today, Hans Berger’s experiment has been broken up into many components by instruments that can detect fluctuations as small as one ten-millionth of a volt. It would take about 13 million of such currents to light a small flash light bulb.

The audibility of sound waves depends on their frequency and velocity. A sound wave may be audible or inaudible, depending upon the medium through which it travels. All sound is the result of some sort of striking. That is why it has a beginning and an end. But if there could be a sound which is unstruck, then it will have neither a beginning nor an end. Heard and unheard both, it will definitely be imperishable.

A perfect example of soundless sound is described by late Prof. Puran Singh in his book The Story of Rama. Puran Singh arranged a series of lectures by Swami Ram Tirth in Japan which evoked tremendous response.

Prof. Puran Singh, a bio-scientist who authored Swami Ram’s biography, writes: One night after dinner when Swami Ram went to sleep, around 12.30 at night, he (Puran Singh) heard a feeble sound as though someone is saying ‘Ram….Ram….Ram.’ Puran Singh got up and opened the door – but no one was there in the corridor. After a gap of about half an hour he again heard the same sound. This time he entered the room of Swami Ram. To his utter surprise he discovered that though Swami Ram Tirth was fast asleep, the room was resounding with Ram Naam which was coming from his body rather than from his mouth.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 13, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Prof. Puran Singh, a bio-scientist who authored Swami Ram’s biography, writes: One night after dinner when Swami Ram went to sleep, around 12.30 at night, he (Puran Singh) heard a feeble sound as though someone is saying ‘Ram….Ram….Ram.’ Puran Singh got up and opened the door – but no one was there in the corridor. After a gap of about half an hour he again heard the same sound. This time he entered the room of Swami Ram. To his utter surprise he discovered that though Swami Ram Tirth was fast asleep, the room was resounding with Ram Naam which was coming from his body rather than from his mouth.



a miracle!


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 13, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> *"Naad"* ( Punjabi ਨਾਦੰ ) means "the cosmic sound" or "vibrations of the cosmos". Gurbani says that: "Sing the Glorious Praises of the Immaculate True Lord forever, and the Immaculate Sound-current of the Naad shall vibrate within." (SGGS p 121) The sound of the Cosmos can resonate within if one "tunes into this energy". Only by following the rules of nature and realising the patterns and disciplines of the cosmos can one find this hidden energy of internal sound. Only through meditation, external singing and reciting can the bombardment of random noise in the mind be subdued. This internal noise that normally overwhelms the mind can be silenced and one can enjoy and hear the "anhad Naad" ("unheard sound"); this is sound of the cosmos within the mind. It is not to be confused with external vibrations - Naad is vibration within the mind.



Harkiran ji,

A cursory overview of the websites you have cited calls into question their reputablity. We are encouraged to give our own understanding, instead of copying and pasting from websites.

Naad = Sound
Anhaad Naad = Sound without beginning
Anahat Naad = Sound without end

Both Anhaad Naad and Anahat Naad can be given the connotation of limitless, self-emanating sound.

Does silence have a beginning or an end? Is silence self-emanating? Do we tune ourselves into this cosmic "sound" by becoming silent ourselves?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 13, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Harkiran ji,
> 
> A cursory overview of the websites you have cited calls into question their reputablity. We are encouraged to give our own understanding, instead of copying and pasting from websites.
> 
> ...



The point is there is no sound as sound is a purely subjective thing. There only exists vibrations not sound. We interpret vibrations pressure waves in a medium (air) as sound only once those pressure waves are turned into electrical signals and then we 'perceive' it as audible sound. In reality however there is no sound. So then what is silence?

Edit: also, the top part prior to the website link, WAS my own comment...


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 13, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> The point is there is no sound as sound is a purely subjective thing. There only exists vibrations not sound. We interpret vibrations pressure waves in a medium (air) as sound only once those pressure waves are turned into electrical signals and then we 'perceive' it as audible sound. In reality however there is no sound. So then what is silence?
> 
> Edit: also, the top part prior to the website link, WAS my own comment...



I believe internal silence to be achieved when we have control over our mind.

To a deaf person, the world is silent but the mind may still be loud and chaotic. Thus, the Anhaad Naad isn't "heard".


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 13, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> I believe internal silence to be achieved when we have control over our mind.
> 
> To a deaf person, the world is silent but the mind may still be loud and chaotic. Thus, the Anhaad Naad isn't "heard".



Nothing is actually heard (not even what we say is sound).... it's all subjective and perception.  Detune from one thing, and tune into another, which is more primal. Everything is related. Everything is vibration. You feel heat, see light etc. And they too are all vibration. And they too, are purely subjective experience internally. For example, no light actually makes it to the back of your brain where your occipital lobe is... nope its very dark in there! The subjective experience of what you think is light, is merely INTERNAL. It's a picture created in your mind (not anything tangible in a physical sense) which you interpreted from the electrical signals passed from your optic nerve. But what you see as light, is really just frequency. Same with sound.  

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, did it make a sound? Answer is no... because though it made waves in a medium, no receiver was there to translate those waves into subjective experience.

The experience of anhaad naad is no different.  The only thing which changed is the source of the frequency / vibration. The subjective experience is still internal. (but so is everything) The primal frequency / vibration however has no beginning and no end.  This is not purely a metaphor for a calm state of mind. It's a very real thing which has been experienced by many people.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 14, 2016)

given that Sikhism was a religion that was supposed to represent the common sons and daughters of the Punjab, those soil toiling, hard working fol would have been able to appreciate the simplicity that is Sikhism.

I wonder what they would have made of the Vedic slants above


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 14, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> given that Sikhism was a religion that was supposed to represent the common sons and daughters of the Punjab, those soil toiling, hard working fol would have been able to appreciate the simplicity that is Sikhism.
> 
> I wonder what they would have made of the Vedic slants above



Actually what I wrote above is science.  But I want to say that truth is truth no matter what background it comes from.  Gurbani says there is a link between consciousness and matter and that too only recently was found in science. If some Vedic text also declared it prior, doesn't make it wrong, nor against Sikhi. Just because something is Vedic, doesn't mean we have to disagree with everything.  (note I have no idea what is in Vedic texts as I have not studied them). 

By the way nice picture of the first Sikhs you have. You just painted them as all being too dumb to grasp anything. Sikhi is anything but simplistic. If you just follow rehet maryada and not delve into Gurbani then yes it can be simple. Just follow rules and nothing else. If Gurbani was meant to be simplistic, then it would not be a whole granth of poetic metaphors such that even today we are all disagreeing on it.  Even if it were just some huge psychology book delving into the human mind and had nothing at all to do with philosophy or spirituality - in that case it's even MORE complicated as you have would have to apply deep layers of cryptic metaphors to make it work!  Whereas the spiritual messages are a little more clear.


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 14, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Actually what I wrote above is science.  But I want to say that truth is truth no matter what background it comes from.  Gurbani says there is a link between consciousness and matter and that too only recently was found in science. If some Vedic text also declared it prior, doesn't make it wrong, nor against Sikhi. Just because something is Vedic, doesn't mean we have to disagree with everything.  (note I have no idea what is in Vedic texts as I have not studied them).
> 
> By the way nice picture of the first Sikhs you have. You just painted them as all being too dumb to grasp anything. Sikhi is anything but simplistic. If you just follow rehet maryada and not delve into Gurbani then yes it can be simple. Just follow rules and nothing else. If Gurbani was meant to be simplistic, then it would not be a whole granth of poetic metaphors such that even today we are all disagreeing on it.  Even if it were just some huge psychology book delving into the human mind and had nothing at all to do with philosophy or spirituality - in that case it's even MORE complicated as you have would have to apply deep layers of cryptic metaphors to make it work!  Whereas the spiritual messages are a little more clear.



thank you Harkiran for bringing something more to this forum that just the very basic "this is just vedic stuff thought sikhi was different" argument across


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 14, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Some people claim to hear strange noises during early morning and meditation. They consider it to be a manifestation of the Anhaad Naad. How can this be if the Dasam Duaar (10th gate), through which we enter the Lord's abode, is only opened after one overcomes the pull of Maya on the other 9 holes (5 senses) of the body? Hearing of course is one of these 5 senses.




are you referring to me? if so, please state where i said that strange noises in the night are anhad naad...if you can;t find a quote, please close the thread...and re-open the thread that deserves to stay open...i.e the one you suddenly closed.

also, your statement above is filled with contradiction

you said "Some people claim to hear strange noises during early morning and meditation. They consider it to be a manifestation of the Anhaad Naad. How can this be"

then go on to say at later "Why does the Anhaad Naad have to sound like anything at all? Why can't it simply be the silence, from which all sound arises?"



then you say "How can this be if the Dasam Duaar (10th gate), through which we enter the Lord's abode, is only opened after one overcomes the pull of Maya on the other 9 holes (5 senses) of the body?"

sorry, did someone claim to have experienced anhad naad without pulling their attention away from the 9 other doors of the body? or are you just assuming this?




> How does one differentiate this from the hypnogogic and hypnopompic auditory hallucinations experienced by narcoleptics?



i don't know...can you differentiate? are you narcoleptic? have you experienced the auditory hallucination for yourself? please tell us about it...what is it like?

if you haven't....then how on earth will you ever differentiate...

can you differentiate the taste of an apple and an orange without tasting them both? 



> Why does the Anhaad Naad have to sound like anything at all? Why can't it simply be the silence, from which all sound arises?



i dont think it needs to sound like anything at all...and i think that even if you have an audible experience it doesnt mean it is a physical sound created by striking objects...and you're hearing through your physical ears.
anhad naad in its definition is described as unstruck...just by that definition it is something un-imaginable...something different to what we come across daily..

whether that be an auditory experience...an energy, a vibration, an awakening of some sort...a state of being...or whatever...
but what we do know is...it is something that will take you back to God Consciousness...it has that power...hence why shabad is called Guru...

*
Dwell upon the Guru, the Guru, the Guru, O my mind.* (notice hear Guru Ji doest say dwell on the Guru oh my physical ears) 

*The All-powerful Guru is the Boat to carry us across in this Dark Age of Kali Yuga. Hearing the Word of His Shabad, we are transported into Samaadhi.* (ahh ok....its the mind that is doing the hearing..no need for physical ears....and also clear reference to the shabad having the power to transport the mind\soul into samadi)..

full shabad: SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 14, 2016)

Chaz Singh Ji, I think he is referring to my response on the other thread. I was referring to your post where you said that you had experienced sounds during meditation early in the AM. He was dismissing those sounds as just being 'phantom or strange' physical sounds and that your post had nothing to do with the idea of sound being at the basis of creation / manifestation. In essence he was trying to say your post was unrelated to the original post. However, I explained to him that many people have had experiences with non physical 'sounds' which they know were not caused by something in the physical, and that may in fact be related to experience of anhaad naad (and hence, related to the original post of sound being basis of creation). I wasn't referring to you specifically, but just that add 2 + 2 together, deep meditation etc. plus nonphysical frequency which manifests as a subjective experience of 'sound' which is not coming from the physical environment, could in fact be experience of anhaad naad. Doesn't mean that it IS but it could be, and should not be just dismissed because you have not had the experience yourself and want to label it as a hallucination. Who is to even say what a hallucination is? The broad definition just means to experience something which others around you do not. That in my book doesn't mean it isn't REAL however!

The difference with narcolepsy is that hypnapompic and hypnagogic hallucinations are DIRECTLY related to REM state. They are REM manifestations overlapping the waking state and happen when someone is fully aware but in REM state. Someone with narcolepsy has been diagnosed as crossing into REM while awake and you would KNOW if you were afflicted as hallucinations are the least of the symptoms! Catalepsy is the main symptom. (loss of muscle tone - appearing as of the person is asleep) If someone is meditating and completely awake, they are NOT in REM / dream state so logically, they won't be experiencing REM manifestations. Nor can you even force yourself into REM while awake if you wanted to! So, these sounds experienced by people who are in meditation (or what I label as subjective sound... because it may just be frequency / vibration interpreted by the mind as sound) these are not result of something like narcolepsy. And since vibration / frequency IS the basis of ALL, its very possible that we can experience it.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 14, 2016)

chazSingh said:


> *why cant anhad naad be a silence from which all sound* *arises?*



The highlighted says it all. In fact, the statement above makes sense. As I explained, sound is a completely internal and subjective personal experience of frequency / vibration, which on its own (without a receiver) is actually silent. So yes, silence gives way to 'sound' once you have a receiver. The receiver is not your ear (no physical thing can be a receiver - even a radio 'receiver' is only changing radio frequency into electrical signals and then output through the speakers as pressure waves. The receiver is 'consciousness' that can interpret those waves / vibrations as something subjective.

Primal silence (as in the vibrations that exist at the base of the Universe) giving way to ALL sound (meaning ALL subjective internal personal experiences as 'sound') makes sense to me.  Why can't someone detune from specific frequencies experienced in day to day, and tune into the base frequency / vibrations that give rise to ALL such subjective internal personal experiences we call 'sound'?? And how someone subjectively experiences it might be different from another. Some might 'hear' bells (bells have been described), static sounds, etc. Others might 'feel' the vibrations (even though they are not physical vibrations). etc.

So yes, anhaad naad CAN be the silent frequency / vibrations from which ALL things (not just sound) manifest. Our experience of the physical realm is entirely subjective but if you pull apart reality, you will see that everything really is just vibration. So my question to you Sherdil Ji is, why do you think someone can not experience that?


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 14, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> The point is there is no sound as sound is a purely subjective thing. There only exists vibrations not sound



on that basis there is no anything then, because you can break everything down to vibrations, if we are going to down this road, why debate anything, its all vibrations...


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 14, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> By the way nice picture of the first Sikhs you have. You just painted them as all being too dumb to grasp anything



just because one cannot follow your complicated take on Sikhi, does not make one dumb, I struggle to follow it, I am not dumb,


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 14, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> The highlighted says it all. In fact, the statement above makes sense. As I explained, sound is a completely internal and subjective personal experience of frequency / vibration, which on its own (without a receiver) is actually silent. So yes, silence gives way to 'sound' once you have a receiver. The receiver is not your ear (no physical thing can be a receiver - even a radio 'receiver' is only changing radio frequency into electrical signals and then output through the speakers as pressure waves. The receiver is 'consciousness' that can interpret those waves / vibrations as something subjective.
> 
> Primal silence (as in the vibrations that exist at the base of the Universe) giving way to ALL sound (meaning ALL subjective internal personal experiences as 'sound') makes sense to me.  Why can't someone detune from specific frequencies experienced in day to day, and tune into the base frequency / vibrations that give rise to ALL such subjective internal personal experiences we call 'sound'?? And how someone subjectively experiences it might be different from another. Some might 'hear' bells (bells have been described), static sounds, etc. Others might 'feel' the vibrations (even though they are not physical vibrations). etc.
> 
> So yes, anhaad naad CAN be the silent frequency / vibrations from which ALL things (not just sound) manifest. Our experience of the physical realm is entirely subjective but if you pull apart reality, you will see that everything really is just vibration. So my question to you Sherdil Ji is, why do you think someone can not experience that?



very well said...

there seems to be a fare few audible\vibrational\energy type experiences that the truth seeker can be witness to during deep contemplation...

there is something i describe as like a speeding train...
being stood at a train station (consciousness \ dyaan \ attention)...and from a distance the train is coming, getting closer, and wooooooooooooosh...it goes by...and something from the train just takes hold of you (consciosness) and whisks you away with it...

and the mind just thinks....wow....wow...wahe....wahe..waheguru!!!!


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 14, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> on that basis there is no anything then, because you can break everything down to vibrations, if we are going to down this road, why debate anything, its all vibrations...



You can't change reality...sorry LOL. Yes there IS obviously something. But our experience of what is real, is not what is actually real. Its only our subjective experience of what is out there. Take for example certain animals have much larger range of hearing than us. In reality they receive vibrations the SAME as us, but their experience (what they subjectively hear) is different because they can hear frequencies much higher than we can. We receive those same frequencies but when processing them into electrical signals, we lose out. End result is our subjective experience is vastly different from them. They can hear ultrasonic. We can't. Their perception of the world must be completely different than ours. Same as vision. Some animals see in the ultraviolet wavelength. We still receive those wavelengths of light in our eyes. But we lose them in the processing when its transmitted via our optic nerve. End result is we see things much differently than they do. Working with SONAR, I can vouch how light and sound overlap. We can use sound and a SONAR set to build a visual picture of what is around us in the ocean. Different SONARS have different sensitivities. Bats can actually fly by echolocation. Their subjective experience of the world may be closer to what is on a SONAR screen than anything we 'see'.  Yet we occupy the same environment.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 14, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> just because one cannot follow your complicated take on Sikhi, does not make one dumb, I struggle to follow it, I am not dumb,



No, you said that the first Sikhs were too simple to understand anything complicated. That's what I was referring to... not YOU. LOL


----------



## Original (Apr 14, 2016)

Riders n Runners

Cor' I thought I had a sad life ? How wrong ! Looking at you all 'sigh'... I'm not alone ! But hey, special thanks go to Sherdil for the migration.

On a serious note, I'm sure we've killed to death the same in a another thread [amrit vela], did we not ?

Never mind, moving on to the real deal, one can comfortably conclude that there are certain truths beyond the comprehension of the human toolbox. For example, proof of the existence of God. Philosopher, Rene' Descartes had said 'that God had existence in the same way as the triangle has three sides'. Logicians moved in and said, 'okay, if you have a triangle then it must have three sides, but what if you don't have a triangle, then what ? Rene Descartes [scratches head] hmmmmmmmm? ' Logicians continue 'you see ..then you nether have the three sides nor the three angles'.

Conclusion ! Ultimate reality is just not mathematics but a lot more. Sikhism holds that Ekonkar [Anhad Shabd] exists and need no proof for verification since existence is not a predicate but an existence independent of qualitatively, quantitatively and without property.

Evidently it cannot be proven, arguably it could. And the decisive factor is* belief*, which in turn is held together by faith. Faith as we all know is one's personal disposition. Some believe some don't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some experience it one way, whilst, others another way, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Then to label it xyz is sufficient to show existence thereof but insufficient to pin point it particular for its an experience which is transcendence. Then, if Chaz Singh, Original Singh, King Singh and Queen Kaur make claims of something unexplainable happenings, grant it, on account them "mad" for that's what it is until one has it oneself.

Let us try not to decode the experiences Gur Ghar speaks about for they'd be holy n divine to some. Just as Jesus's resurrection and ascension to heaven, is for millions of people a special event, so are the expressions of the writers of Gurbani a special message and, just as none of those people can really know what happened 2000 years ago, nether can we know what happened at Sultan Pur Lodhi. And, just as the Christians *believe* their versions of events are true, so do we believe that "anhad shabd" [unstruck melody] Gur Ghar speaks about is true and is beyond the calculation of human intellect.

So, what do we have ?

Philosopher's have on account it being a personal experience [anhad shabd] deemed it subjective and held that it can never be objectively tested, therefore a yes to the claimants and a yes to the refuter.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 14, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> No, you said that the first Sikhs were too simple to understand anything complicated. That's what I was referring to... not YOU. LOL



I really do not think I did, you drew that conclusion yourself, I stated that they would, and I, struggle with the vedic spirituality aspect of Sikhism, early stories indicate a certain direction of exposure and attempted understanding rather than inclusion and acceptance


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 14, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> I really do not think I did, you drew that conclusion yourself, I stated that they would, and I, struggle with the vedic spirituality aspect of Sikhism, early stories indicate a certain direction of exposure and attempted understanding rather than inclusion and acceptance



Just because two different faiths might cross over in some ideas does not mean those ideas belong to one faith or the other. For example the idea of a creator. You can't say that every religion which has God of some sort is practicing Christianity. Or that any religion with idea of gender equality is following pagan spirituality. (Pagans were first I think to do so but its just to illustrate a point). So just because some ideas might be similar to some things in Vedic philosophy doesn't mean we are following Vedic philosophy. Nor do they hold a monopoly on everything. Truth is truth and there will be some cross over because one religion can not hold a monopoly on truth. So please stop calling certain things Vedic. The sky is blue... I'm sure Vedic taught that too.. Does it mean Gurbani mention of blue skies is Vedic?? Nope... Blue skies is a basic truth to existence.  Same idea...

You had actually said that simple farmers would not understand complicated ideas. Leave the Vedic thing... I give them much more credit as humans. But Sikhi is more action oriented anyway, meaning even if you can't understand something you can still do it. But the truth is there and some of us are drawn to deeper truths in our reality. You may be happy just doing while i am happy doing and understanding or at least trying to understand but in the end both of us have equal chance to attain liberation.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 15, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> ust because two different faiths might cross over in some ideas does not mean those ideas belong to one faith or the other



What about when one of those faiths wishes to proclaim something new, and feels the need to distance itself from the philosophies of the time? As for belonging, well lets see, Hinduism gets karma, which we like to borrow, reincarnation, which we also like to borrow, Diwali, poorenmashi, idol worship, and lots of mythical spirituality, nothing wrong with all that, if that did it for me, I would be a Hindu, I believe that when the SGGS talks of Vedic practices, the tenth gate, the anhaad naad, etc, it speaks as a point of reference, not a validation. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> For example the idea of a creator. You can't say that every religion which has God of some sort is practicing Christianity



I can actually, God, the bearded sandal wearing chap is a Christian Abrahamic concept shared by Muslims and Jews. Ek Onkar is not God, Ek Onkar does not wear sandals, or have a beard. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Or that any religion with idea of gender equality is following pagan spirituality



If the pagans called their equality a special pagan name, say they called it Munchkinism, and I followed a religion that constantly referred to its own equality as Munchkinism, rather than just plain equality, then I would say that religion is following pagan spirituality. Concepts of course cross over, names and terms are particular to the religion. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> So just because some ideas might be similar to some things in Vedic philosophy doesn't mean we are following Vedic philosophy.


 Ah but we are not talking about similar, we are talking about wholesale thefts of Vedic concepts with Vedic names, its not similar, its exactly the same. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> Nor do they hold a monopoly on everything. Truth is truth and there will be some cross over because one religion can not hold a monopoly on truth.


I see, does that include Sikhism?


Harkiran Kaur said:


> So please stop calling certain things Vedic.


sure, if you please stop using Vedic philosophies with Vedic names, I will probably stop calling them Vedic.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> The sky is blue... I'm sure Vedic taught that too..


No, that belongs to science, I am actually surprised you said that. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> Blue skies is a basic truth to existence. Same idea...


actually the sky is not even blue so your argument serves no other purpose than to dilute your own point. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> You had actually said that simple farmers would not understand complicated ideas.



Hmmm this is the second time now in the same thread you have misquoted me, its not hard, see that number 1 at the bottom, if you click on it, it goes to the first page of the thread, where you will find my post, which actually states

given that Sikhism was a religion that was supposed to represent the common sons and daughters of the Punjab, those soil toiling, hard working fol would have been able to appreciate the simplicity that is Sikhism. 

Why are you misquoting me? Where have I used the word simple? I mentioned the words 'hard working', I work hard, I know what it feels like to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, and know what? I have not the time for the deep reflection that you carry out, and I wager those same hard working folk felt the same. That is why we need simplicity, its easy to live by, easy to understand.


Harkiran Kaur said:


> but in the end both of us have equal chance to attain liberation.



If liberation is the end goal, I assume you mean spiritually liberated, where nothing touches you and walk around with fish eyes? Hmm keep it, your welcome to it, I am already free, we all are,other than those tied to a concept of eventual liberation.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 15, 2016)

Hmm I have already addressed your comments before on these. Though your ideas are atheistic so I could easily say you are borrowing atheism and using it as Sikhi. 

So tell me why some concepts can not cross over in all religions? And please show me where it says that every concept in Sikhi must be entirely new or different than any other religion, and how can it be if truth is truth, then truth always existed. Certainly some of the other previous religions at least held SOME of that truth? Including Hinduism? And who cares by what words we call something anyway? Guess what, Hinduism is not the only religion to say we have been here before... Buddhism, Jainism, etc also do. And there have also been religions to say that we do not come back and are here only once... Christianity, Jewish etc.  So you are trying to get away from Hinduism saying Sikhism doesn't believe in reincarnation (actually the word is more transmigration) but okay, so are you saying we are borrowing Christian theology then of only being here once born? How about Atheism? You want to say there is nothing past death.... that's what Atheists believe. Are you trying to hijack Atheist beliefs and put them on Sikhi? There's only a few options... once born and nothing after death, once born and something after death, transmigration (multiple births and deaths) with eventual liberation, transmigration (forever)  Thats only 4 options... choose one, no matter which one you choose guess what? Another religion has already had that concept.  You are using somewhere between Christianity and Atheism (and to make Gurbani fit those concepts you have to really pick it apart... when concepts of transmigration, liberation are pretty clear). 

And by the way, the word God is not referring to a bearded guy. It's just the english word to refer to a Creator - the ONE Creator. Not to a bearded sandal guy.  Here is the Webster Dictionary meaning of the word:

_"_the supreme or ultimate reality: 
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

That sounds pretty generic to me...the supreme or ultimate reality. Seems more Sikh like than Christian! No bearded guy there! Anyway we debated this before and only argued. You say God has to mean Christian, obviously the English dictionary disagrees.


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 15, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> I can actually, God, the bearded sandal wearing chap is a Christian Abrahamic concept shared by Muslims and Jews. Ek Onkar is not God, Ek Onkar does not wear sandals, or have a beard.



From a Sikh perspective...Waheguru Does....wear sandals and have a beard...
But he also, has a shaved head, and a mustache...

Waheguru is also a fisherman, and the boat, and the fish being caught...
He is also Black, white, brown...he is also the blue flower, the yellow flower the green flower...
the sky the moon and the earth...
and everything beyond...

Its all a manifestation of Waheguru.... the Shabad...the many from the one...


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 15, 2016)

If perception of sound is subjective then why use it as an indicator of Divine experience? By nature of it being subjective, it is derived from the point of view of ego, which is the very thing we are meant to overcome. The fact that we are latching on to perceived sensory stimuli indicates that illusion of duality isn't dissipated as there is still an "I am" that is witness to it all. You still feel that it is happening to you. You aren't therefore dying in the Shabdh.

My tip to you all is to not get carried away with what you perceive. It will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing this sound or that vision. The real trick is how much of yourself you can surrender and let go. Nothingness isn't perturbed by any sensation produced by the senses or mind. Nothingness just is.

That's my take, but if you feel that these apparitions benefit you emotionally and spiritually, then by all means continue.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 15, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> If perception of sound is subjective then why use it as an indicator of Divine experience? By nature of it being subjective, it is derived from the point of view of ego, which is the very thing we are meant to overcome. The fact that we are latching on to perceived sensory stimuli indicates that illusion of duality isn't dissipated as there is still an "I am" that is witness to it all. You still feel that it is happening to you. You aren't therefore dying in the Shabdh.
> 
> My tip to you all is to not get carried away with what you perceive. It will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing this sound or that vision. The real trick is how much of yourself you can surrender and let go. Nothingness isn't perturbed by any sensation produced by the senses or mind. Nothingness just is.
> 
> That's my take, but if you feel that these apparitions benefit you emotionally and spiritually, then by all means continue.



I don't think perception = ego.  Why does it have to be associated with ego? Ego or haume is the built up identity we have 'become' in this life - Harkiran Kaur is is false identity. But the consciousness behind Harkiran Kaur is not. That consciousness is what is experiencing... the consciousness is what perceives. In fact the point I was trying to make is that everything we experience, is internal. What and how we experience as reality.... isn't the whole picture. Behind our haume / ego identity exists consciousness - the experiencer. That identity does not exist as separate from anything else. But it CAN perceive! It's only job is to perceive! Consciousness just IS.

If we go by your idea, then consciousness (the primal consciousness behind every being - that is the same ONE consciousness) is not really conscious of anything at all / and or everything is all part of duality. That doesn't make sense! 

Why can't anhaad naad - the unstruck sound, be consciousness itself? The very same conscious energy from which everything emanates?? And for a moment in deep meditation, why can't the haume / ego identity move to the background temporarily and allow the experiencer to actually experience itself??


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 15, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I don't think perception = ego.  Why does it have to be associated with ego? Ego or haume is the built up identity we have 'become' in this life - Harkiran Kaur is is false identity. But the consciousness behind Harkiran Kaur is not. That consciousness is what is experiencing... the consciousness is what perceives. In fact the point I was trying to make is that everything we experience, is internal. What and how we experience as reality.... isn't the whole picture. Behind our haume / ego identity exists consciousness - the experiencer. That identity does not exist as separate from anything else. But it CAN perceive! It's only job is to perceive! Consciousness just IS.
> 
> If we go by your idea, then consciousness (the primal consciousness behind every being - that is the same ONE consciousness) is not really conscious of anything at all / and or everything is all part of duality. That doesn't make sense!
> 
> Why can't anhaad naad - the unstruck sound, be consciousness itself? The very same conscious energy from which everything emanates?? And for a moment in deep meditation, why can't the haume / ego identity move to the background temporarily and allow the experiencer to actually experience itself??



Universal consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality in order to do that. The notion of a perceiver bearing witness to Universal Consciousness indicates that ego has not been dissipated. Perception is a part of Haumai (I am). As long as perception exists, your experience will be purely subjective and unique to you and no one else will be able to convince you otherwise because they cannot see through your perspective. Haumai is not limited to your identity as Harkiran Kaur. It also involves your perception as a distinct witness. If one cannot transcend their finite viewpoint, then they have not achieved the infinite. They haven't died.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 15, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> Universal consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality in order to do that. The notion of a perceiver bearing witness to Universal Consciousness indicates that ego has not been dissipated. Perception is a part of Haumai (I am). As long as perception exists, your experience will be purely subjective and unique to you and no one else will be able to convince you otherwise because they cannot see through your perspective. Haumai is not limited to your identity as Harkiran Kaur. It also involves your perception as a distinct witness. If one cannot transcend their finite viewpoint, then they have not achieved the infinite. They haven't died.



That does not make sense. What you are saying is that outside of this life, there is no perception at all. Meaning what is the point of merging with Creator, if it means there is no existence at all (no perception at all)? That is the same thing as saying that this life is all we have, and then we cease to exist (and no I don't mean in sense of ego identity... but ceasing to exist at all).  Basically without coming out and straight up saying it, you are agreeing with atheism... that is, there is nothing beyond this human life and when we die that's it. We cease to exist at all.  I don't think this is what Sikhi is teaching... at all.

The whole purpose of existence is spiritual progression, what's the point of any spiritual progression, if the end result is ceasing to exist? What did we do all this for?  I refuse to believe that our ultimate destination is just ceasing to exist (ceasing all awareness). And I don't think this is what Guru Nanak Dev Ji experienced, or taught. Or the rest of the Gurus.

But yes, obviously duality is needed to progress... a quote I read somewhere made most sense of it:
"Creation is the act of the ONE Creator, become self aware, through its own creation."

Once that awareness happens, then does it all go black and that's it? Do we just keep coming back as different ego identities forever? Since you are saying that's the ONLY way to exist and have awareness.

But... we are told Waheguru exists also OUTSIDE of the creation, not just inside it.  How then do you explain that?

I believe Gurbani IS saying there is perception beyond our limited viewpoint. Instead of the view you give where there is NO perception at all outside of the illusion, I believe it's more like a perception of everything all at once. The complete opposite of your view.


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 15, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> That does not make sense. What you are saying is that outside of this life, there is no perception at all. Meaning what is the point of merging with Creator, if it means there is no existence at all (no perception at all)? That is the same thing as saying that this life is all we have, and then we cease to exist (and no I don't mean in sense of ego identity... but ceasing to exist at all). Basically without coming out and straight up saying it, you are agreeing with atheism... that is, there is nothing beyond this human life and when we die that's it. We cease to exist at all. I don't think this is what Sikhi is teaching... at all.



But that is what Sikhi says. We as individuals don't exist. We are transient and illusory, stuck in a paradigm of duality. Although we will cease to exist, Existence will continue. Existence will exist forever. We are Existence.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> The whole purpose of existence is spiritual progression, what's the point of any spiritual progression, if the end result is ceasing to exist? What did we do all this for? I refuse to believe that our ultimate destination is just ceasing to exist (ceasing all awareness). And I don't think this is what Guru Nanak Dev Ji experienced, or taught. Or the rest of the Gurus.



There is nothing in it for us. We don't exist. We are puppets played by the One Actor. The purpose of this play is for the One Actor to understand itself. We are tools to achieve this end. As I stated earlier, Universal Consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality to do that. We are a means to that end.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Once that awareness happens, then does it all go black and that's it? Do we just keep coming back as different ego identities forever? Since you are saying that's the ONLY way to exist and have awareness.



I don't think it's a one time event. You have work to maintain the divine relationship as you would with anything else. The waves come and go but the Ocean is permanent. The waves never stop being the Ocean. Then why should the waves ask what is in it for them?



Harkiran Kaur said:


> But... we are told Waheguru exists also OUTSIDE of the creation, not just inside it. How then do you explain that?
> 
> I believe Gurbani IS saying there is perception beyond our limited viewpoint. Instead of the view you give where there is NO perception at all outside of the illusion, I believe it's more like a perception of everything all at once. The complete opposite of your view.



Universal Consciousness is everywhere, but it can only perceive itself through creation. If there is perception, then there is a perceiver who hasn't died. Perception is a part of creation. It comes from Haumai.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 15, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> But that is what Sikhi says. We as individuals don't exist. We are transient and illusory, stuck in a paradigm of duality. Although we will cease to exist, Existence will continue. Existence will exist forever. We are Existence.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in it for us. We don't exist. We are puppets played by the One Actor. The purpose of this play is for the One Actor to understand itself. We are tools to achieve this end. As I stated earlier, Universal Consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality to do that. We are a means to that end.




... but we ARE that Universal Consciousness!

You are not getting what I am saying... we as individuals yes are illusion.  But the CONSCIOUSNESS behind ALL of us is the SAME ONE CONSCIOUSNESS, and THAT CONSCIOUSNESS won't cease to exist because it has ALWAYS EXISTED and ALWAYS WILL EXIST.  The awareness behind all of us, IS THAT AWARENESS. When the haume ceases to exist it won't all go black - you will find you still have awareness, but just not as the you that you are now, but as the REAL you - that Universal Consciousness!  And that is what we can glimpse though meditation etc. or in cases of Brahamgianis live detached while still in this life.



Sherdil said:


> I don't think it's a one time event. You have work to maintain the divine relationship as you would with anything else. The waves come and go but the Ocean is permanent. The waves never stop being the Ocean. Then why should the waves ask what is in it for them?



The waves ARE THE OCEAN!!!! They were never separate from the ocean, only the perspective was separate. In fact we are NOT actually separate from the ONE. We CAN experience as the true identity. Waheguru is not dormant, and unconscious of creation.




Sherdil said:


> Universal Consciousness is everywhere, but it can only perceive itself through creation.



(how do you know? Have you asked and received the answer? Have you experienced beyond duality such that you can say this for sure? If the basis of the entire existence is pure *formless* consciousness then how can it not be aware??) 



Sherdil said:


> If there is perception, then there is a perceiver who hasn't died. Perception is a part of creation. It comes from Haumai.



(I disagree - perception of the illusion sure... but not perception of itself, or perception of the illusion, from a perspective outside of it - Gurbani does say that Creator DOES exist outside of the creation. Creation was born OF the light... meaning the light had to exist first. And in turn the light is in the creation - Meaning that everything exists WITHIN Waheguru. But Waheguru does exist beyond Creation - as that light. And that light is self illuminated, and self aware.

When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc.  Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far??  When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world.  It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?

This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator.  But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go!  In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 15, 2016)

Sherdil said:


> If perception of sound is subjective then why use it as an indicator of Divine experience? By nature of it being subjective, it is derived from the point of view of ego, which is the very thing we are meant to overcome. The fact that we are latching on to perceived sensory stimuli indicates that illusion of duality isn't dissipated as there is still an "I am" that is witness to it all. You still feel that it is happening to you. You aren't therefore dying in the Shabdh.
> 
> My tip to you all is to not get carried away with what you perceive. It will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing this sound or that vision. The real trick is how much of yourself you can surrender and let go. Nothingness isn't perturbed by any sensation produced by the senses or mind. Nothingness just is.
> 
> That's my take, but if you feel that these apparitions benefit you emotionally and spiritually, then by all means continue.



sherdil ji...

there is a process from ego to non ego state...might happen to some in an instant and wooosh they're one with waheguru....for others it takes a lifetime...whatever is in that persons destiny...

so maybe right up until that point of one-oness and ego-less state...the ego will still exist to some extent...*and he sikh, seeking, and the destination appear as seperate a long with the experiences in between...realms, dimensions, awakenings...ego is still there in the Game of love*...some thing loving some thing else and sacrificing everything in the process for that love..

read the Shabads in SGGS ji? even though one-ness has been achieved...they are still almost writing from an ego point of view...because they have to use language...poetry to describe something not describable...they are describing how duality gets to oneness...

so there's no weight in your above argument...or at least i don;t see any


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 15, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc.  Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far??  When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world.  It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?
> 
> This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator.  But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go!  In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.




love this... 
god bless


----------



## Sherdil (Apr 15, 2016)

Harkiran ji,



> When the haume ceases to exist it won't all go black - you will find you still have awareness, but just not as the you that you are now, but as the REAL you - that Universal Consciousness!



You are still describing an idea of Universal Consciousness that you aspire to. The real me is already here, but it exists underneath a layer of identity. Perception is tied to this identity, because there is still an “I am” that is perceiving. Even an experience of Universal Consciousness will still be had from the perspective of “I am”, as in “I am having this experience”. True death leaves no room "I am”.



> (how do you know? Have you asked and received the answer? Have you experienced beyond duality such that you can say this for sure? If the basis of the entire existence is pure *formless* consciousness then how can it not be aware??)



You are confusing perception with awareness. Perception requires a subjective  point of view. Awareness doesn’t have to be confined by such restrictions.

Unbeknownst to you, maybe I have been meditating. The experience of Nothing is more in line with the discussion of dying in the Shabdh that Gurbani discusses. Why should my experience be any less valid than yours?



> I disagree - perception of the illusion sure... but not perception of itself, or perception of the illusion, from a perspective outside of it



Perception can only exist within the illusion. Awareness knows no bounds.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc.  Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far??  When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world.  It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?
> 
> This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator.  But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go!  In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.



This isn't a point of contention. Are you sure you have understood what I have written?


----------



## Admin (Apr 15, 2016)

Dear All, Congrats on a Very Good Discussion! 

*Off topic note: Instead of using colors in the posts, we must use Quotes... otherwise it gets very confusing as to who is posting what... I have made a few edits in the last two posts to highlight the necessity of using Quotes and how easy it becomes for a reader like me to comprehend. Red/Orange/Green are exclusive Colors to be used to give special remarks/notes by mods/admins. Avoid using colors in your posts as a matter of habit. *

*Thank you. Please carry on... *


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 15, 2016)

If there is only ONE, and that one is Conscious, then I AM still holds true. Even if that I AM is ONE.  Just because there is ONE does not mean that ONE must not be able to recognize that it is aware.  Therefore I AM very much does hold true. 

Okay so maybe we are just caught up in terminology.... if you agree with the doctor scenario (which holds true for Ang 736 shabad speaking of the director staging the play and playing the part of all the characters).  My point was, your awareness (if you prefer) will not cease to exist when you shed your identity as Sherdil. You will only recognize that Sherdil was merely a character you were playing. Same as the dreamer recognizes the dream character was only a character and the dreamworld was false. 

Going back to the OP, there is no reason the Dreamer (in this case the BIG dreamer) there is no reason the dreamer can not 'awaken within the dream'  - much the same as we can experience lucid dreaming in our own dreams. We are still inside the dream world but we recognize that its a dream and that our identity in the dreamworld is false (we remember who we are in the waking world). In this case, we are still experiencing the false reality, but we see it for what it is, and we know who we are.  Since science is pointing to pure frequency being at the very base of the Universe, then why couldn't we perceive it when in that 'awakened within the dream' state??  Going back to lucid dreaming, its possible when lucid in a dream that elements (sounds etc) from outside in the waking world, can find their way into the dreamworld... once I had a lucid dream, my cat was meowing at me to wake up to feed her and low and behold, since I was aware of her nearby and heard her, she entered the dream!


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 15, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Hmm I have already addressed your comments before on these



HMMMMMMMM actually to my knowledge I do not think you have satisfactorily explained anything I have asked of you, just essays and essays of rhetoric. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Though your ideas are atheistic



my ideas that god does not wear sandals makes me an atheist?



Harkiran Kaur said:


> So tell me why some concepts can not cross over in all religions? And please show me where it says that every concept in Sikhi must be entirely new or different than any other religion, and how can it be if truth is truth, then truth always existed. Certainly some of the other previous religions at least held SOME of that truth? Including Hinduism? And who cares by what words we call something anyway? Guess what, Hinduism is not the only religion to say we have been here before... Buddhism, Jainism, etc also do. And there have also been religions to say that we do not come back and are here only once... Christianity, Jewish etc. So you are trying to get away from Hinduism saying Sikhism doesn't believe in reincarnation (actually the word is more transmigration) but okay, so are you saying we are borrowing Christian theology then of only being here once born? How about Atheism? You want to say there is nothing past death.... that's what Atheists believe. Are you trying to hijack Atheist beliefs and put them on Sikhi? There's only a few options... once born and nothing after death, once born and something after death, transmigration (multiple births and deaths) with eventual liberation, transmigration (forever) Thats only 4 options... choose one, no matter which one you choose guess what? Another religion has already had that concept. You are using somewhere between Christianity and Atheism (and to make Gurbani fit those concepts you have to really pick it apart... when concepts of transmigration, liberation are pretty clear).



you missed one of the options, the very one that I favour, and that one is, 'I don't know'.

I know this is a concept you may be unfamiliar with.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> And by the way, the word God is not referring to a bearded guy. It's just the english word to refer to a Creator - the ONE Creator. Not to a bearded sandal guy. Here is the Webster Dictionary meaning of the word:
> 
> _"_the supreme or ultimate reality:
> the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"
> ...



there are many different meanings of god in many different dictionaries, I found several that are not pretty generic, I, however, favour making my own arguments rather than trawling the internet for appropriate justifications. 

but just for a giggle, here is one from the Oxford english

(god)(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Anyway we debated this before and only argued.



repeating the same rhetoric over and over again does not constitute an argument, its just boring.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 15, 2016)

chazSingh said:


> From a Sikh perspective...Waheguru Does....wear sandals and have a beard...


and he also does not....



chazSingh said:


> But he also, has a shaved head, and a mustache...


and he also does not....


chazSingh said:


> Waheguru is also a fisherman, and the boat, and the fish being caught...


and he also is not....

so what's your point?

Does  god have herpes, is he a  sexual deviant, does he like a snort and look like a pig? 

yes or no?


----------



## Original (Apr 17, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> ... but we ARE that Universal Consciousness!
> 
> You are not getting what I am saying... we as individuals yes are illusion.  But the CONSCIOUSNESS behind ALL of us is the SAME ONE CONSCIOUSNESS, and THAT CONSCIOUSNESS won't cease to exist because it has ALWAYS EXISTED and ALWAYS WILL EXIST.  The awareness behind all of us, IS THAT AWARENESS. When the haume ceases to exist it won't all go black - you will find you still have awareness, but just not as the you that you are now, but as the REAL you - that Universal Consciousness!  And that is what we can glimpse though meditation etc. or in cases of Brahamgianis live detached while still in this life.
> 
> ...


Harkiran Ji

Your contributions within the spiritual dimension of the word contribution is beyond calculation. I wonder at times whether there'd be probative value in all that you endeavour to substantiate. I sincerely hope so. 

However, as regard on-going discussion, I say as follows: we are considering organic relationships with the *mind-set of formal logic.* Rather than resolutions we end up with paradoxes. It's like saying, "I'm the bud, the bloom, the flower and the fruit; no wait ? I'm not, I'm all of them".

Hence,* sub main jyot, jyot ha soi tis te chanan sub main chanan hoi* [kitan sohila, p 13 SGGSJ, meaning, one light many lamps]. Looking at the same thrThe paradox Indeed it's reality as a whole insofar, the observer is sitting outside, but not true, insofar, experience of the individual regards experience by liner- causal chain of events where conscious activity is a prerequisite to confirm individuality an existence.Yes, sargun-nirgun applicable as a concept but experience requires "conscious agent" to determine actual existence.

Consciousness has always been a source of mystery. Philosophers and Scientists have succeeded in demystifying it to a degree, but still it slips through the net one might cast with words. And, hence, "*vaddaa sahib oucha thoua oucha uppar oucha nauaoo, evad oucha hovaa koi tis ouch kau jaana soi" *[Japji Sahib, meaning, no one knows the limit. The more we try to describe it the more it deludes description....only by *becoming* as high as *He* can one know that exalted Being].

You're a Gurmukh Sikh, meaning, obeying an external authority that corresponds and coordinates with an inner "being" [God]. What you experience is by the grace of God and not everyone evolves to merit such an accommodation for its a karmic accumulation [Sikh Theology] and not laboriously generated. All human endeavours consciously or subconsciously are directed to that end as a matter of course and not of choice.

Thank you for your continuous illuminstions of the spiritual within the physical.


Sherdil said:


> But that is what Sikhi says.


..reference would be appreciated !


Sherdil said:


> But that is what Sikhi says. We as individuals don't exist. We are transient and illusory, stuck in a paradigm of duality. Although we will cease to exist, Existence will continue. Existence will exist forever. We are Existence.


..not quite ! You see, this is where Nanak comes into rescue [renaissance] the soul because people had fallen into all sorts of mix n match ideologies prevalent at the time. He completely changed the trend of religious life in India. Against the world being regarded as Maya [illusion], or a place of doom n gloom [suffering etc], he called it real and meaningful. Against withdrawal from life, he recommended life affirmation as full and virtuous participation in the everyday affairs of life [kirit kar]. Against celibacy and the inequality of women, he recommended a householder's life and equality to women. And indeed, as you know this being the physical dimension of the human condition, the spiritual [meditation] dimension is equally recommended for the purpose of human birth is supplanted to an ultimate end, that is, experience of the Higher Being [Gobind milan ki eah teri bariyaa p12 SGGSJ]. 

As regards "existence"; these are philosophical treatises [Ontology] and can only take you to the door [so dar] of the Being, experience thereafter is independent. The human toolbox, that is, perception n conception cannot enter. Says who ? SGGSJ, page 340. But why ? Because it is beyond time n space. The experience is transcendence, meaning, where ordinary consciousness is confined to the parameters of time n space, the transcendent consciousness [chautha pad, parm pad, p1123 SGGSJ] is beyond. This then from an academic reasoning is  metaphysical a dialectic, meaning, that which exists beyond matter, time n space. That as a result, rules out "nothingness" by definition of it being transcendence for it has certain inherent properties, such as, dark matter, space and time.

Harkiran Kaur has been trying to [bless her], articulate something that is beyond articulation but not beyond validation. And, she is doing a wonderful exposition to show what we call an "organic relationship"


----------



## Original (Apr 17, 2016)

*Polite Note For the Reader *- I've not quite finished the above post [#40] as I would've liked to because the lap top started playing up? I'm  now using the iPad to extend my apologies for the incongruent and incomplete information posted above. Hope those of you who attempt to make sense will pardon my short fall on this count.

Thank you !


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 17, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> *there are many different meanings of god in many different dictionaries*, I found several that are not pretty generic, I, however, favour making my own arguments rather than trawling the internet for appropriate justifications.



Awesome! I am glad you agree that the word God does not have to mean bearded guy with sandals!!! 

The word is a generic term that many cultures use to describe the indescribable... Creator, origin of the universe, universal consciousness, etc. If you have your own definition that's fine too! Just don't dismiss other's use of the word. When others use it as you noted above there are many different meanings put on it, when others use it just remember they are likely not referring to the Christian bearded guy in sandals!! So you don't have to keep accusing us of talking about the Christian version of that word! 

The word is more adjective than noun.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 17, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Awesome! I am glad you agree that the word God does not have to mean bearded guy with sandals!!!



no, you've missed the point as you seem to keep doing, although this is the first time you have not only missed the point but taken it as support of your own argument!

Perhaps next time I will illustrate my arguments with some blow up balloons or something.


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 18, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> and he also does not....
> 
> 
> and he also does not....
> ...



from a sikh perspective...

all that is, is God...

so there's no need to list all the endless possibilities of characters in the play lol

the Ego is the cause of all things negative...
love is the cause of all things selflessly positive


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 18, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Awesome! I am glad you agree that the word God does not have to mean bearded guy with sandals!!!
> 
> The word is a generic term that many cultures use to describe the indescribable... Creator, origin of the universe, universal consciousness, etc. If you have your own definition that's fine too! Just don't dismiss other's use of the word. When others use it as you noted above there are many different meanings put on it, when others use it just remember they are likely not referring to the Christian bearded guy in sandals!! So you don't have to keep accusing us of talking about the Christian version of that word!
> 
> The word is more adjective than noun.



exactly! 

just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
so are meanings to such words...just as we progress towards Waheguru Consciousness...the meanings of these words change

eventually the words will no longer mean anything...definition changes to experiencing and 'be' ing..


----------

