# God / Onkaar



## sukhsingh (Feb 8, 2017)

Should we be using the term God as transliteration for onkaar /akaal /Vaheguru?


----------



## Harry (Feb 8, 2017)

There are a million different words that Sikhs use for God/Ek Onkar, I suppose I would ask, why pick on the word 'God', the words Allah and Ram both have connections with other religions, but it seems that the word 'God' comes in for most of the brunt on the topic. 

Should we only be using the term Ek Onkar exclusively?


----------



## sukhsingh (Feb 8, 2017)

Harry said:


> There are a million different words that Sikhs use for God/Ek Onkar, I suppose I would ask, why pick on the word 'God', the words Allah and Ram both have connections with other religions, but it seems that the word 'God' comes in for most of the brunt on the topic.
> 
> Should we only be using the term Ek Onkar exclusively?


I would argue that 'god' is reductive and incomparable to Allah, ram etc
 Further more it is interesting that ongkaar as expressed in mool mantar encapsulates ram, rahim etc but is more than anyone of those terms and much more elusive


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 8, 2017)

I would say God is an umbrella term something that most cultures would understand as meaning 'creator of the universe' rather than assigning a persona like Allah, ram, Krishna, etc. By the way the Christian persona is actually Jehovah not 'god' where 'god' is just a descriptor of the one in charge so to speak.

Therefore I don't think the term god can be considered a reduction. I view it like this... Prime Minister is the one in charge of Canada but his name is not 'prime minister'. Does that make sense?

And Gurbani tells us that Akal Purakh, Waheguru, Ik Onkar, is beyond any description. We can't ever know the nature of our Creator. only that such Creator DOES exist and is within us and all of its creation. The words we assign to have something to refer to, they are for OUR benefit and not our Creators benefit. We can call Creator whatever we want as long we have devotion and love and desire to find its divine light within us and everyone else.


----------



## Harry (Feb 8, 2017)

sukhsingh said:


> Further more it is interesting that ongkaar as expressed in mool mantar encapsulates ram, rahim etc but is more than anyone of those terms and much more elusive



One could say Ek Onkar has no personalitiy or human emotion, all the above have personalities,and more importantly human emotions and traits


----------



## Harry (Feb 8, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> And Gurbani tells us that Akal Purakh, Waheguru, Ik Onkar, is beyond any description.


 surely therefore it cannot be comparable to a God that does


----------



## Harry (Feb 8, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> We can call Creator whatever we want as long we have devotion and love and desire to find its divine light within us and everyone else.



But personalising Ek Onkar could lead to idol worship without a physical idol. Is something, anything better than nothing?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 8, 2017)

Harry said:


> But personalising Ek Onkar could lead to idol worship without a physical idol. Is something, anything better than nothing?



Harry Ji? Did you read what I said?? LOL I said the term God is specifically the term which does NOT personify Creator. It's just a word to describe who / what we are referring to (a universal word, that all cultured can understand). I think that other religions can use their own words without necessarily succumbing to idol worship. Because idol worship is worshipping a false representation of God.. ie worshipping a stone statue made to be in God's image. Someone can use the name Jehovah for example without necessarily visualizing any specific face or form. The word we use (any word or name) is just for us to have something to refer to. In reality there is no name as name indicates language. Language indicates duality (communication between several beings). God is ONEness and encompasses ALL. Therefore why would our Creator require any specific name or term?? It's just for us.


----------



## RD1 (Feb 8, 2017)

sukhsingh said:


> I would argue that 'god' is reductive and incomparable to Allah, ram etc



What exactly is being "reduced" though when the term 'god' is used?


----------



## Harry (Feb 9, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Harry Ji? Did you read what I said?? LOL I said the term God is specifically the term which does NOT personify Creator. It's just a word to describe who / what we are referring to (a universal word, that all cultured can understand). I think that other religions can use their own words without necessarily succumbing to idol worship. Because idol worship is worshipping a false representation of God.. ie worshipping a stone statue made to be in God's image. Someone can use the name Jehovah for example without necessarily visualizing any specific face or form. The word we use (any word or name) is just for us to have something to refer to. In reality there is no name as name indicates language. Language indicates duality (communication between several beings). God is ONEness and encompasses ALL. Therefore why would our Creator require any specific name or term?? It's just for us.



Harkiranji

But the word God does personify Creator, as it has been used by the Abrahamic religions for so long. If we were to take a brief passage from the bible, 

Exodus 20:5

New Living Translation
You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected--even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me.

How can someone new to religion, given Christianity is quite popular, not get confused by what is God and what is not?

I asked my father once, what god looked like, he thought for a while and then said, in his head, he had a beard, and looked old, and kind, and was the ultimate father, is this not also idol worship? 

There are so many aspects of Creator, so many names, so many personalities, how can it not be confusing to give them all the same values, and say they are all the same thing? 

As a matter of interest, I would like to collate what we do know about Ek Onkar, so as to flag up any major differences between all these Gods. I use the term Gods, because clearly the aspects of God from Exodus 20:5 are incompatible with the Sikh view of Ek Onkar. 

If you could kick off with your personal view of the attributes of Ek Onkar, we could see where this goes


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 9, 2017)

Harry said:


> Harkiranji
> 
> But the word God does personify Creator, as it has been used by the Abrahamic religions for so long. If we were to take a brief passage from the bible,
> 
> ...



I think only a few associate the word God with specificially Christianity as a proper name instead of a noun. Like 'dog' vs 'Scruffy'  You are stuck associating God like the proper name Scruffy.  I and many many others use it like the word 'dog' as simply a descriptor. 

Also the Bible passages you quoted have been translated twice... hebrew and latin I think (or maybe greek in there somewhere) and who is to say that God was the word that was supposed to be used? Even in the context you posted above you would never say I am your Harkiran. So even there, the word God is used as a descriptor and not a proper name with a persona. As I said, the proper term in Christian religion for God is Jehovah.

God (capitalized) according to oxford dictionary:

a: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
b: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe


That is kind of all encompassing of all religions including Sikhi don't you think??


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (Feb 9, 2017)

Harry said:


> There are a million different words that Sikhs use for God/Ek Onkar, I suppose I would ask, why pick on the word 'God', the words Allah and Ram both have connections with other religions, but it seems that the word 'God' comes in for most of the brunt on the topic.
> 
> Should we only be using the term Ek Onkar exclusively?


What is in a name? Languages have words to indicate and relate to particular objects. Each language may be giving different names for the same thing. Thus there may be any number of names for the same thing. It is only a physical indication to the existence of something and directing one to connect to that. If you know to whom you have to connect; it is immaterial as to what name it has been given.


----------



## sukhsingh (Feb 9, 2017)

RD1 said:


> What exactly is being "reduced" though when the term 'god' is used?



Good point! I personally often find that my understanding of akaal / Vaheguru seems somehow limited by the term God. For me God with all the Abrahamic connotations suggests. The term for me is engendered as well as suggesting creation being commanded and overseen by a entity that is neither nirvair or nirbhau


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 9, 2017)

sukhsingh said:


> Good point! I personally often find that my understanding of akaal / Vaheguru seems somehow limited by the term God. For me God with all the Abrahamic connotations suggests. The term for me is engendered as well as suggesting creation being commanded and overseen by a entity that is neither nirvair or nirbhau



But... the term God was never used in a proper name format in Christianity. The proper name in Christianity (and hence a persona) would be Jehovah. The term God is used as merely a descriptor to refer to Jehovah in their case. The term Waheguru is a proper name we use to refer to God. or 'the God' you know what I mean. The term God does not have any specific qualities attached to it.


----------



## sukhsingh (Feb 9, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> But... the term God was never used in a proper name format in Christianity. The proper name in Christianity (and hence a persona) would be Jehovah. The term God is used as merely a descriptor to refer to Jehovah in their case. The term Waheguru is a proper name we use to refer to God. or 'the God' you know what I mean. The term God does not have any specific qualities attached to it.


I understand what you're saying but my specific issue is that within this forum we should try and be more discerning as I think using the word as a transliteration is limiting. I also think that we should be careful in choosing which terms we use.. I appreciate that as a pedant this may be more of an issue for than for others but I also think that for a more intellectual /academic exegetical discussion its important.. I believe  'concept of God' in sikhi is very different from 'god' as popularly understood by most people and therefore opens up the possibility of misrepresentation


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (Feb 9, 2017)

Harry said:


> Harkiranji
> 
> But the word God does personify Creator, as it has been used by the Abrahamic religions for so long. If we were to take a brief passage from the bible,
> 
> ...



The same word may have different connotations in different languages or for the different persons.


----------



## sukhsingh (Feb 9, 2017)

dalvindersingh grewal said:


> The same word may have different connotations in different languages or for the different persons.


I'm sorry but this makes no sense... A word such as God can have different connotations for different people but not for different languages... Since words in  different languages have different connotations themselves... What is the word for God in panjabi?


----------



## lionprinceuk (Feb 10, 2017)

In abrahmic terms, God is a being in the sky or in the clouds.

This then just becomes a sarguna term, which doesn't really represent nirguna Waheguru Akaal Purakh.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 10, 2017)

lionprinceuk said:


> In abrahmic terms, God is a being in the sky or in the clouds.
> 
> This then just becomes a sarguna term, which doesn't really represent nirguna Waheguru Akaal Purakh.



And in dharmic religions God is formless and is within all. That encompasses the nirguna formless. 
In pagan religions God/Goddess are the energy running everything but visualized by numerous avatars with aspects similar to Hinduism. God is just the reference to which we apply 'creator' of all and IS all. And it's the same Creator all religions are trying to understand in their own ways. There is only ONE! The God of Abraham is not some separate thing from Waheguru Ji. They aren't separate entities. It's just that the people of Abraham tried to understand Creator in their own way. 

The term God is not the proper name for the 'being in the sky' ala Abrahamic religion. That is Jehovah. 
And even then it's a misnomer. Nowhere in the bible does it say that God has form. Jesus did similar to avatars. But the 'father' can also be understood in same terms we apply to 'husband lord' versus 'soul bride'. It is metaphoric. It's people who do not understand the metaphor in the Christian bible who put this man in the clouds with sandals and long white hair idea. That is not actually how Christians see God.


----------



## Harry (Feb 10, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I think only a few associate the word God with specificially Christianity as a proper name instead of a noun.



The following is a google image search for God, the results, I feel speak for themselves

god - Google Search



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Like 'dog' vs 'Scruffy' You are stuck associating God like the proper name Scruffy. I and many many others use it like the word 'dog' as simply a descriptor.



I feel you are correct in that, however I also feel you are in a minority, to most it is personable, rather than a descriptor. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> Also the Bible passages you quoted have been translated twice... hebrew and latin I think (or maybe greek in there somewhere) and who is to say that God was the word that was supposed to be used? Even in the context you posted above you would never say I am your Harkiran. So even there, the word God is used as a descriptor and not a proper name with a persona. As I said, the proper term in Christian religion for God is Jehovah.



haha, ok, I knew you would bring this up, so I chose a quote that was pretty definitive in every translation I could find, 

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Although fundamentally, Harkiranji, I am in complete agreement with your philosophies and your points, my own issue is that most do not see it as you do. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> God (capitalized) according to oxford dictionary:
> 
> a: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
> b: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
> ...



nope, supreme beings perfect in power and wisdom, and goodness, probably don't get jealous


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 11, 2017)

Harry said:


> The following is a google image search for God, the results, I feel speak for themselves
> 
> god - Google Search
> 
> ...



ok let's look at that quote you posted:


Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

This is not a personal name. Rather it's saying I am the Lord your 'creator of the universe' am a 'jealous creator of the universe'.  The use of the words 'the' and 'a' denote it IS a descriptor and not proper name. Now substitute in Jehovah and it does not work with the and a.  I am a jealous Jehovah?? I am a jealous Harkiran...?? Doesn't work. It's using God as merely a word to describe 'creator'.  

In  the Bible the personal proper name for God is YHWH  (Yod Hey Vah Hey) or Jehovah (also related to Adonai in Greek).  The Bible very much does use God as a descriptor and most Christians even though they may picture God in their own way, are not using the descriptor word God as a proper name. 

Just because one of the most populous religions in the world sees God as an entity with form, doesn't mean they own the descriptor word God. Should they also own the word Creator too? Then what descriptor do we have left that can be applied across ALL cultures and religions where people would automatically know what we were speaking about? If I talk about Waheguru to most of my English friends, they wouldn't know what / who I was speaking of. And trying to explain, there is no way to get around the use of either Creator of the Universe and / or God. In other religions, the translated word for God, means other things, not necessarily a bearded man sitting on a cloud. Pagans use the word (along with the feminine word Goddess) to describe aspects of nature / Mother Earth. I think they would also agree that God does not have to mean bearded guy sitting on a cloud.


----------



## Harry (Feb 11, 2017)

[


Harkiran Kaur said:


> This is not a personal name. Rather it's saying I am the Lord your 'creator of the universe' am a 'jealous creator of the universe'. The use of the words 'the' and 'a' denote it IS a descriptor and not proper name. Now substitute in Jehovah and it does not work with the and a. I am a jealous Jehovah?? I am a jealous Harkiran...?? Doesn't work. It's using God as merely a word to describe 'creator'.



your argument is flawless, but it also works against the point you are making, surely therefore to call God, God, is incorrect grammatically?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 11, 2017)

Harry said:


> [
> 
> 
> your argument is flawless, but it also works against the point you are making, surely therefore to call God, God, is incorrect grammatically?



Not at all! Because there is only ONE Creator of the Universe. No matter how many cultures ideas of that ONE there are, they are all referring to the same ONE God. Therefore you CAN say God to denote THE God. To say A God is more wrong in sense that it implies more than one - which goes against even Christianity - therefore I am inclined to think some of this is lost in translation.


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (Feb 11, 2017)

Harry said:


> The following is a google image search for God, the results, I feel speak for themselves
> 
> god - Google Search
> 
> ...



On whom should the God feel jealous, enmity or any fear since he is above all His creation.


----------



## Harry (Feb 12, 2017)

dalvindersingh grewal said:


> On whom should the God feel jealous, enmity or any fear since he is above all His creation.



well it does depend on which God you are talking about, but I think he was jealous of other Gods and idols


----------



## Harry (Feb 12, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Not at all! Because there is only ONE Creator of the Universe.


accepted, fully



Harkiran Kaur said:


> No matter how many cultures ideas of that ONE there are, they are all referring to the same ONE God.



but they are not, as each individual God, Allah, Jehovah, Ram etc have very individual facets. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> Therefore you CAN say God to denote THE God. To say A God is more wrong in sense that it implies more than one - which goes against even Christianity - therefore I am inclined to think some of this is lost in translation.



Is that not like calling your dog, dog?, bearing in mind God is a descriptive word, as you pointed out above? Even if it were theologically correct, it remains grammatically incorrect, no?


----------



## Sikhilove (Feb 12, 2017)

Humans love to procrastinate.They find silly things to waste time on instead of finding balance.

The language doesn't matter, we know who God Is deep down, the name doesnt matter, its the Truth recognition that matters.

And the time to recognise it is Now. Tomorrow may not come.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 12, 2017)

Harry said:


> accepted, fully
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They don't actually HAVE individual facets. What is written about is just how humans have tried to understand what is not able to be understood.


----------



## Harry (Feb 12, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> They don't actually HAVE individual facets. What is written about is just how humans have tried to understand what is not able to be understood.



but then this debate was never going to be about what facets they actually HAVE because we could not possibly know, so unfortunately we are only left with the labels that humans have given and the descriptors in these labels, my points are simple. 

1. the use of the word God to call God is grammatically incorrect
2. The attributes to each individual name as given by humans, in order to understand what is not able to be understood, means that each individual name given to God has connotations and personality, and the fact is they all differ depending on which name you pick. Therefore the personality that we have named Ek Onkar has different qualities to Jehovah, given Ek Onkar did not build the world in 7 days. 

How can we stop this confusion if they are all God, yet display different characteristics?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 13, 2017)

Harry said:


> but then this debate was never going to be about what facets they actually HAVE because we could not possibly know, so unfortunately we are only left with the labels that humans have given and the descriptors in these labels, my points are simple.
> 
> 1. the use of the word God to call God is grammatically incorrect
> 2. The attributes to each individual name as given by humans, in order to understand what is not able to be understood, means that each individual name given to God has connotations and personality, and the fact is they all differ depending on which name you pick. Therefore the personality that we have named Ek Onkar has different qualities to Jehovah, given Ek Onkar did not build the world in 7 days.
> ...



Ummm there is no 'they' there is only God. God has no attributes. Humans have given God attributes in order to try to understand God. God is not a personal name and God does not encompass one religion's idea of attributes. Jehovah or Yahwey (YHWH) would be the correct 'name' for the Abrahamic IDEA of 'God'. But God is not a personal name at all. In ANY religion. If we can no longer use God as a universal word to point to the same ONE entity then what word CAN we use??  Waheguru, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, etc are all really the same ONE _____________ what do we fill in the blank with if we can no longer use God?


----------



## Harry (Feb 13, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Ummm there is no 'they' there is only God. God has no attributes. Humans have given God attributes in order to try to understand God. God is not a personal name and God does not encompass one religion's idea of attributes. Jehovah or Yahwey (YHWH) would be the correct 'name' for the Abrahamic IDEA of 'God'. But God is not a personal name at all. In ANY religion. If we can no longer use God as a universal word to point to the same ONE entity then what word CAN we use??  Waheguru, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, etc are all really the same ONE _____________ what do we fill in the blank with if we can no longer use God?



I don't know.. I am not really here to provide explanations or even propagate my own opinion, but what I do know is that Waheguru is very different to Jehovah, quite similar to Brahma, and shares a few qualities with Allah, are they all really the same one? have people corrupted the qualities over the years so that there are marked differences? what do you think?


----------



## sukhsingh (Feb 13, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Ummm there is no 'they' there is only God. God has no attributes. Humans have given God attributes in order to try to understand God. God is not a personal name and God does not encompass one religion's idea of attributes. Jehovah or Yahwey (YHWH) would be the correct 'name' for the Abrahamic IDEA of 'God'. But God is not a personal name at all. In ANY religion. If we can no longer use God as a universal word to point to the same ONE entity then what word CAN we use??  Waheguru, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, etc are all really the same ONE _____________ what do we fill in the blank with if we can no longer use God?


are would argue that they are not really all the same, or atleast unless we all adopted a common definition within this forum we will continue to speak cross purposes? the fact that we are have this discussion only highlights the issue. 

maybe thee should be a common glossay

inaddition vaheguru, ongkar, akaal, ram do not mean the same things conextually so we should be aware of the richness of expresson


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 13, 2017)

Harry said:


> I don't know.. I am not really here to provide explanations or even propagate my own opinion, but what I do know is that Waheguru is very different to Jehovah, quite similar to Brahma, and shares a few qualities with Allah, are they all really the same one? have people corrupted the qualities over the years so that there are marked differences? what do you think?



What I am saying is that the qualities do not exist. They are just ideas created by humans to try to understand something not able to be understood. So to say there exists a white bearded guy with sandals sitting on a cloud - that doesn't exist. Even Christians don't believe so. It's become an 'idea' a way for them to vision something not able to be visioned, but no Christian actually believes there is a humanoid looking being with white hair and a beard and sandals sitting in the clouds! 

Rather, try to look PAST the literal aspects of these different ideas attributed to the ONE Creator. You don't seem to have a problem with labelling everything as Metaphor in other cases, why would it be so hard to draw metaphor out of the descriptions, the personas attributed to the creator of the Universe by different cultures etc (as a means to try to understand in their own way through their own culture's eyes)? I think once you get the idea that NOBODY actually believes in literal beings with different PHYSICAL literal attributes, but instead ALL of them are metaphorical ideas to get the point across, you will see that they are all actually referring to the same ONE Creator. 

For example, the ideas presented by the Christian Jehovah (Yahwey) are Omnipresent, Omniscient, Male, like a Father figure etc) - Take this metaphorically instead of literal: Male, compare this to Gurbani where it says Waheguru is the only Male while rest of us are feminine (soul brides) and even then it's not specific gender in a literal sense but it's comparing the relationship of us to our Creator in sense of marriage because that's the closest we can get to merging with another entity. Father figure.... one who cares for, is aware of his 'children'  I don't think this disagrees with Gurbani. Omnipresent  (present everywhere all the time), Omniscient  (all knowing - aware of creation). None of this disagrees with Gurbani. Christians have just taken metaphor to try to assemble these things into a figure they can actually visualize in their minds - the logical conclusion of that is an older male, father figure. The idea of jealousy, I also don't think is literal but rather to emphasize that there is only ONE. The stories in the Bible also delve deep into metaphor and can't be taken literally. Once you break down the deeper meanings of all the major religions (monotheistic / panentheistic anyway) you will see the similarities and realize the differences are just metaphor / parable.


----------



## chazSingh (Feb 14, 2017)

I remember once i was meditating durinng Amrit vela..was going through a bit of a difficult time in life...and i couldn;t really focus single mindedly on my Simran...
i remember thinking in my mind "Dude!, i could really do with your support...can;t do this alone!" 
Even calling Waheguru 'Dude' in that moment didn't matter...my minds direction was focused into my heart...
Behind any word i was using that night was a whole host of feelings, thoughts and emotions...but they all pointed to one, 'Ik' 'within'..

i don;t know if what i'm saying makes any sense...but we can talk over and over about which word should or shouldn;t be used for the one creator...

really in the end just like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...words are also personal to an individual...two people using the words Waheguru or God could have totally different ideas within their mind...

So why Fret...


----------



## Harry (Feb 15, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> What I am saying is that the qualities do not exist.



 Do you think that leading lights from each of the religions would agree with you? Your basically saying that the personalities and traits for each individual name do not exist, which means that in effect the personality behind the name also does not exist, again, I actually agree with you, but don't you think we will find ourselves in a minority? The object of this thread is to show how the word God cannot be used to describe Ek Onkar, cannot be used by who? people of course, and will people follow the truth, or whatever is palatable? So the fact that you and I are both in agreement over this is irrelevant, the world is not made of Harry's and Harkiran's, our opinions are irrelevant. 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> They are just ideas created by humans to try to understand something not able to be understood



Unfortunately those ideas have progressed over the years into personalities 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> So to say there exists a white bearded guy with sandals sitting on a cloud - that doesn't exist. Even Christians don't believe so. It's become an 'idea' a way for them to vision something not able to be visioned, but no Christian actually believes there is a humanoid looking being with white hair and a beard and sandals sitting in the clouds!



christian god - Google Search

to say "no christian believes there is a humanoid looking being with white and a beard and sandals sitting in the clouds"

is quite a brave thing to say, again, let us look at the populist view, from the link above, at least a few people have this vision enough to replicate it for others to see. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Rather, try to look PAST the literal aspects of these different ideas attributed to the ONE Creator.



I am with you 100%, its not me that you have to convince, its everyone else. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> You don't seem to have a problem with labelling everything as Metaphor in other cases, why would it be so hard to draw metaphor out of the descriptions, the personas attributed to the creator of the Universe by different cultures etc (as a means to try to understand in their own way through their own culture's eyes)? I think once you get the idea that NOBODY actually believes in literal beings with different PHYSICAL literal attributes, but instead ALL of them are metaphorical ideas to get the point across, you will see that they are all actually referring to the same ONE Creator.



well yes and no, they may well be referring to the same one Creator, but these different facets are what makes Creator unique to each religion, and those religions, darn them, are quite keen and eager to keep their individual facets, so yes, you are correct, all you have to do now is inform each religion of this and hope they see it our way! which they probably will not, and that is the issue at hand, regardless of what is true and right, how do we stop Ek Onkar being hurled into the common pool that has become God. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> For example, the ideas presented by the Christian Jehovah (Yahwey) are Omnipresent, Omniscient, Male, like a Father figure etc) - Take this metaphorically instead of literal: Male, compare this to Gurbani where it says Waheguru is the only Male while rest of us are feminine (soul brides) and even then it's not specific gender in a literal sense but it's comparing the relationship of us to our Creator in sense of marriage because that's the closest we can get to merging with another entity. Father figure.... one who cares for, is aware of his 'children' I don't think this disagrees with Gurbani. Omnipresent (present everywhere all the time), Omniscient (all knowing - aware of creation). None of this disagrees with Gurbani. Christians have just taken metaphor to try to assemble these things into a figure they can actually visualize in their minds - the logical conclusion of that is an older male, father figure. The idea of jealousy, I also don't think is literal but rather to emphasize that there is only ONE. The stories in the Bible also delve deep into metaphor and can't be taken literally. Once you break down the deeper meanings of all the major religions (monotheistic / panentheistic anyway) you will see the similarities and realize the differences are just metaphor / parable.




haha, once again, absolutely yes, full agreement, 

idealistically you have an excellent argument, you just have to allow for the people factor! 
I would say allowing for the people factor is what makes idealism different to realism.


----------



## sukhsingh (Feb 15, 2017)

i think were going a bit off point. the issue i was trying to raise was in distinguishing academically or intellectually. i think the use of a particular discriptor in a context is important. I once saw a video from basics of sikhi where in the oral translation jagtar singh translated everything into english except when it came to the word ram which he chose to translate to vaheguru. personally i didn't see the point of swapping 'ram' with vaheguru. when in bani guru sahibs use ram, rahim, akal, are we doing the text justice by simply translating to vahegure/god. surely the use by guru sahib of a particular articulation is important?


----------



## RD1 (Feb 18, 2017)

sukhsingh said:


> i think were going a bit off point. the issue i was trying to raise was in distinguishing academically or intellectually. i think the use of a particular discriptor in a context is important. I once saw a video from basics of sikhi where in the oral translation jagtar singh translated everything into english except when it came to the word ram which he chose to translate to vaheguru. personally i didn't see the point of swapping 'ram' with vaheguru. when in bani guru sahibs use ram, rahim, akal, are we doing the text justice by simply translating to vahegure/god. surely the use by guru sahib of a particular articulation is important?



I think that the openness to using various terms to refer to the One is excellent. It reinforces inclusiveness - which is key in Sikhism. It indicates that there is not one label that is better than any other, that there is not one label that more adequately defines the One. Us humans are not capable of understanding and comprehending the entire scope of the One. And we should embrace and accept the various labels SGGS uses.

I agree though, as has been pointed out in this thread, that different terms for the One, can have different connotations. Personally, I resonate most with using Ik Onkar, as I feel this is the most broadest term for the One, and therefore encapsulates so much more. It also beautifully accentuates the abstractness of the One.


----------

