# ONE Universal Concept Among All Religions: God Is Within All, And All Is God



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 26, 2012)

I just wanted to share an awesome article I found online, that outlines the basic truth in ALL the World's religions (albeit sometimes hidden)... that the Creator is within everything, and everything is within the Creator. It compares this universal truth among most of the major religions, including Sikhism. Though I'd like to point out, I feel it wrongfully left out any mention of Sikhism when it talks about the concept of Maya / Illusion... I also believe that while ALL religions are paths to the same place, Sikhism seems to me, to be the one that is the most direct path, explaining all these concepts directly... not hidden.  The article also takes one of my favourite subjects, Quantum Physics, and ties it to this ONE Universal Truth!

Appropriate credit given:
Quoted from: http://www.iawwai.com/EveryoneIsGod.htm

*Everyone is God*​ 
What has always historically been the unbelievable truth has today finally become the inescapable truth. What in the past could only be spoken of in parables can now be spoken directly and what in the past could only be described in part can now be described more fully.​ 
This section deals with the idea that a person's real identity is ultimately God. Or put another way it is to say that when a person truly experiences herself or himself as God, then this is not some illusion. Rather the experience of becoming God is to see things as they really are. It is the discovery of our true nature and the realization that it is material physical existence that is really illusory. When we see beyond the appearances of 'normal' physical reality then we are no longer trapped in the delusion that we are our physical bodies. We see that our real identity transcends the material. So instead of seeing ourselves as a person trapped in a physical body, gazing out upon a vast impersonal universe; instead we come to understand that we are God living through a person gazing out and reflecting upon itself, that is the Universe, that is God.​ 
Many people are familiar with the idea of the 'Christ within'. In Hinduism's premier holy text the Bhagavad Gita we have the 'Krishna within', and the Koran tells us that Allah is 'closer than your jugular vein'. The Buddhist scriptures talk about the Buddha within and correspondingly the Adi Granth, which is the Sikh holy text, describes that 'the one God is all pervading and alone dwells in the Mind'. Though many religious people know the idea that God is to be found within them, they imagine that somehow a small and divided piece of God is inside them or perhaps that all it means is that there is some aspect of God within us. However other passages in the scriptures of the World's religions also clearly state that God is indeed within us, but also that God is undivided, indivisible and always one. For instance this idea is clearly stated in the Bhagavad Gita in the following passage...​ 
_'Although the Supersoul [i.e. God within], appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one.' _- Bhagavad Gita Chap 13, verse 17​ 
Also the idea that God is an indivisible unity, forms one of the central tenets of the so called monotheistic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is confirmed in what is referred to in the Bible as the greatest commandment, also known as the 'schema', which begins like this...
_'Hear O Israel, the lord your God the lord is One...' _- Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4​ 
So it is always the oneness and totality of God that is to found within each and every one of us. This is the mystery of the 'all in all', an idea that is expressed several times in the New Testament and also one that is found in the Bhagavad Gita, as the following passage demonstrates...
_'The man whose self is disciplined in yoga, whose perception is the same everywhere, sees himself in all creatures and all creatures in himself.' _- Bhagavad Gita 6:29​ 
Also related to this idea of the 'all in all' or the idea that within a person is to be found all of existence, is the mystery of the kingdom of Heaven. For it is stated in the Bible that this is to be found inside you, as described by Jesus in gospels. As it says in the Gospels...​ 
_"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." _- Bible, Luke 17:21​ 



 
This diagram apart from showing the essential unity of all World religion, also illustrates the fact that all religion has an exoteric or visible side but also an esoteric or hidden and more secretive aspect to it. In the outer sections of the diagram are represented the exoteric facets of World religiousity. Here we find the rules, rituals and regulations which differ from religion to religion. In the more medial sections of the circle are represented the esoteric traditions. It is here that we find more commonality in belief between the World's different religions. Near the centre of the diagram are different words for God. When we delve right to the heart of all true Religion then we find the Universal truth that we ourselves are that which is called God.​ 
So to recap, it is a recurring idea that somehow God is within us and also that God is within us indivisible and undivided. This is really the same idea as the 'all in all' or the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven that is to be found within a person. If we go on to delve deeper into the heart and history of world religion then we discover the idea that everyone is God is expressed more directly. To give several instances and starting with Islam we have some mystical quotes from Muhammad who said...
_'Man is my mystery and I am his mystery, for I am he himself and he is also I myself' - _Muhammad, Hadith Qudsi
He also said _'Whoever knows himself knows God'_. And if we examine the history of Islam and some of its more mystical sects then we find again the belief that everyone is God, i.e. the various mystical sufi groups, the Ismailis sect and the celebrated heretic and martyr Al Hallaq.​ 
Shifting our focus now to Christianity, when we examine the sayings of Jesus outside the Bible and also even some of the passages within it we discover that the message of Jesus wasn't just that only 'I and the father are one' and that only 'I am the son of God'. We learn that the real uncensored and unadulterated message of Jesus is that we are all God and also that we are all sons and daughters of 'the father'. In the Gospel of Thomas, which many scholars consider a more accurate source of Jesus' sayings than the Bible he says... _'__Whoever drinks from my mouth shall become as I and I shall become as he and hidden mysteries to him shall be revealed._' - Gospel of Thomas, verse 108
Also, in the Gospel of John in the New Testament, chapter 10 is related an incident when Jesus was about to be stoned to death by his fellow Jews for claiming to be God. Significantly in verse 34 of chapter 10, in his defense he quotes from the Psalms saying...
_"Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods' _" - Bible Psalm 82:6​ 
It is interesting that in the Psalms the above passage is followed by the statement... 
_"You are all sons of the most high." _- Bible Psalm 82:7​ 
Essentially these two passages express between them two of Jesus' main and central assertions, i.e. firstly that, he is the son of God and secondly, that he _is_ God. But the clear implication here is that not only is he claiming that he himself alone is God or that he himself alone is the son of God. But by the fact that he quotes from this Psalm, just quoted, in defense of his own claim to be God. He therefore is in effect saying that everyone is God and also that everyone is the son or daughter of God.​ 
Also if we examine the very early history Christianity then we discover that indeed some of the early Christians were like their founder, going off into the desert and trying to achieve a state of union and oneness with God.​ 
When we examine Hinduism we have a situation where historically the idea that everyone is God was quite openly believed and was constantly reiterated in ancient Indian holy texts called the Vedas. The idea is further reinforced in the Vedanta texts which means the summing up or end of the Vedas, and also commonly known as the Upanishads. Perhaps the idea that everyone is God was most elaborated in the heavily mystical Tantric traditions of India. However, through the course of Indian history things changed. It was during medieval times that revisionist philosophers and theologians started to alter the original truth behind Hinduism. It was during this period that distinctions started to be drawn between a person and God and also between God and the Universe. This movement is referred to as the Bhakti movement and did to Hinduism what the Roman Emperors did to Christianity and what the Caliphs did to Islam. The truth that everyone is God was altered and suppressed. However, even today the belief that a person's real identity is God is relatively common in India. 
Similar parallels and correspondences can be made with Buddhism, Taoism and Judaism. When we consider the metaphysical assertions of Buddha, the Taoist texts and the mystical traditions of Judaism, taken together with the idea that everyone is God; then this better explains the cryptic sayings and completes our understanding of what the ultimate spiritual attainment is. When we accept that all the worlds religions are really asking after the same truth then we may come to understand that the Tao in Taoism, the Void in Buddhism and Ein Sof in Jewish mysticism, are really just different names for the same God. And also just different names for the same ultimate God that is called Brahman in Hinduism, Allah in Islam and the Word or Logos in Christianity. Therefore this idea of union with and becoming God is the universal truth behind all world religion.​ 
*What stops us from seeing that we are God? *​ 
To most people this assertion, that a persons real identity is God, might seem opaque and unbelievable. Something so far from the boundaries of normal experience and common sense. Most people would find the idea that their real identity was God, outlandish and counter to all intuitions and assumptions that they hold about themselves.​ 
In order to understand this situation, a useful analogy may be employed. Imagine meeting a person who thought that the world was flat as many people did so believe in the not so distant past, the wise and the unlearned alike. Now imagine trying to explain to that person that you could go East by going West. To a person who believed that the world is flat, the notion of going East by going West would sound like an absolute absurdity. Yet you, I and everybody from around the age of five onwards, knows and accepts that you can go East by going West. We know and can accept this idea because we know that the world is round and not flat.​ 
And so by replacing one assumption with another we are able to see truths that we otherwise would not have been able to. This is the reason why it is so difficult for most people to entertain the idea that everyone's true identity is God. We hold certain incorrect assumptions about ourselves and about reality and it is these assumptions which prevent us from seeing the truth. So what are these assumptions?​ 
The main assumption which stops us from seeing that we are God is called Materialism. It is the belief that existence is material or physical. We normally come to believe that we are inhabiting a physical world consisting of material objects and also we come to identify ourselves with our physical bodies. And so we consider the nature of existence to be physical and material. We also come to the belief that our subjective experience or consciousness, somehow depends on our physical bodies for its existence and also that there is a physical world outside of us which is independent of our subjective internal reality. This constellation of related beliefs is called Materialism.​ 
This idea of Materialism is opposed by the idea called Idealism which holds that the essence of existence is consciousness, and that it is only the subjective world that is truly real. So these two philosophical ideas form the two competing camps in the great ontological debate which concerns itself with the nature of existence. This debate between the Materialists and the Idealists has raged over the centuries and indeed over the millennia. Mostly, the dominant position has been Materialism and one of the reasons for this is that it has been very difficult to demonstrate convincingly how Idealism can be the more viable position. That is, no one has been able to show how all existence is consciousness. Materialism is the position we normally come to accept, so it has always been a sort of default assumption, in the same way that primitive peoples normally came to believe that the World was flat. And without another competing view to challenge this belief, the idea of a flat Earth was the dominant viewpoint. So we have a similar situation with the idea of Materialism versus the idea of Idealism. That is, throughout most of recorded history the dominant position of Materialism has never been seriously challenged and at the same time a strong case has never been made for the competing idea of Idealism.​ 
However, things have changed. Today the assumption of Materialism can be undermined from every conceivable angle, philosophical, spiritual and scientific. Also with the help of recent discoveries in mathematics made in the past few decades, a compelling case can now be made for Idealism. 
Some of the greatest philosophers from Plato to Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley have long been telling us the assumption of Materialism is flawed from the outset because we can never have certain knowledge of the physical world and that we can only truly know our own consciousness. That is to say the belief in a material world independent of our consciousness can only ever be assumption, and also one that can never be proven. Modern day philosophers accept this, even those that believe in Materialism. However, though accepting the flaw in the assumption of Materialism, they might counter that the alternative belief Idealism, as mentioned earlier, cannot be proven either. But this is what the mystics and founders of religion have been proving for themselves all through history. The experience of being God is not just the ultimate attainment of life but also the ultimate proof that everything is consciousness. The experience of being God is the experience of the oneness of all things, and the totality of that oneness. Normally we experience ourselves as a part in the all, i.e. as a physical human body in a vast physical universe. In the experience of being God we become the all and the physical universe including our physical bodies is then seen to be illusory. We become the all that is God, and experience that which we really are. In this state it is realized that it is we ourselves who are the generator of the illusion of the physical reality. This is a recurring theme in religion. In the section of this website entitled 'The nature of reality', I demonstrate how Idealism works and show what is behind the illusion of physical reality.​ 
The idea of the material world being illusory is a very ancient one that comes up again and again, all through history and all around the world. We've already mentioned Plato who described the material world as like shadows projected onto the walls of a darkened cave. And that spending our mortal lives within the cave we only ever see the shadows. We never see the greater reality that exists outside the cave or the objects that we only see the shadows off.​ 
In Hinduism we have the concept of _maya_. _Maya_ is the appearance of the physical world generated through _lila_ which means the action or play of Brahman which is the Hindu expression for the ultimate God. This physical world so created is merely illusory and God becomes embodied within this physical world of mere appearances. So God immersed in this illusion that is the physical world; takes on the roles of physical life forms, acting out an infinite succession of life paths. Therefore all of us are like the characters in a vast cosmic stage play and God is the actor who brings these characters to life. Therefore a part of _maya_ is the illusion of the physical self and this gives rise to the belief that we have a spiritual essence or soul separate from Brahman or God. This in Hinduism is called _atman_. However, another recurring idea in Hinduism describes how the _yogin_ or mystic adept is able through _yoga_ (disciplined unitive action) to stop the process of _lila_ or the play of God. Once _lila_ ceases, he or she is able to see through the illusion of _maya_, transcend the illusory physical world and thereby become Brahman or God again. In so doing he or she is able to see that _atman_ or the idea of self separate from the other people and separate from God was also an illusion. This is the key idea at the heart of Hinduism, that _atman_ and Brahman are one and the same, i.e. that a persons real identity is God.​ 
In the teachings of Buddha we have a concept, corresponding to that of _maya_ in Hinduism. This is the called _sanyatta_ which is sanskrit and translates as 'emptiness' in english. This concept describes how all the objects around us and all material things exist only as an appearances and behind that appearance is emptiness. That is, they don't really exist and therefore it is only consciousness that exists. So physical objects and the material world exist only as projections of our conscious state. Conscious states themselves being manifestations of the one God or in Buddhist parlance 'the Void'. This original meaning is sometimes misinterpreted by modern day Buddhists to mean that things are only empty of value. i.e. that the things we perceive as having value, lose their value for us if we can make ourselves see things differently. However, an ancient legend describes how when Buddha gave a sermon about _sanyatta_, many of the listeners suddenly had heart attacks. This story should not be taken literally. It was created to show that _sanyatta_ is a shocking meta-physical assertion about the nature of reality not merely some statement about the relative value of things. This true interpretation of _sanyatta_ or emptiness is kept alive today mainly in some of the Mahayana strands of Buddhism and also by Vajrayana Buddhist sects from Tibet. Also, the fact that Buddhism is derived from Hinduism supports the case that _sanyatta_ and _maya_ are interchangeable concepts. That is they both talk about the illusory nature of reality.​ 
The idea of the illusory nature of reality is probably most developed in Hinduism and Buddhism but it is also alluded to in the other main religions of the world. In the Gospels, Jesus time and time again points out a higher realm of existence above and beyond the physical world. And in his sayings and sermons he repeatedly tells people not to focus their time and energies on things and matters relating to the material world. In the Koran, Muhammad says that 'the life of this world is but a diversion'. And also, the Taoist sage ponders whether he is really a butterfly dreaming that he is a man. When we consider that it is Materialism, or the belief in an external physical reality existing outside of consciousness which prevents us from seeing the ultimate truth in religion that we are God. Then it is not surprising that all the world religions should contain statements and sayings which undermine and contradict the fallacy of Materialism. We have already discussed that some of the greatest philosophers of all time have demonstrated that the belief in Materialism can only ever be an assumption and an unprovable one at that. World religion seems united in telling us that Materialism is not the real nature of things. And also that there is something above and beyond the physical material world that is far more real and which is the true nature of existence. And so, moving onto the world of science we discover that through the enquiries of the quantum physicists, the metaphysical truths of world religion and the intuitions of the philosophic greats are today being confirmed. The discoveries of quantum physics are strongly suggesting that reality is indeed illusory.​ 
Today, science seems to have come full circle. If we study the history and origins of science we discover that the first scientists, or the proto scientists, were almost invariably mystical in their outlook or else religiously inclined. Recently though, through the discoveries and insights from the quantum physicists, we are seeing science making a return to some very ancient mystical ideas. So what is Quantum physics.
Quantum physics is the study of reality at sub atomic scales and is only a quite recent development emerging early in the 20th century. It studies the substrate of the physical universe at an extremely fine resolution, indeed, at a sub atomic level. What quantum physics has discovered is that the material world of matter is very very strange and not what we think it is. Without getting into too technical a discussion, some quotes from some of the greatest physicists of recent times, help to illustrate the situation. For instance, quantum physics so baffled scientists that the Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman said that "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't really understand it". And also, the late great John Wheeler who worked with Albert Einstein, summed up what quantum physics is telling us about physical reality by saying that "There is no out there, out there!".​ 
Quantum mechanics forces us to question our pre-conceived notions about reality, and challenges our existing assumptions. It has really exposed the cracks in our existing structures of belief, namely Materialism, and opens the way for other ideas to be considered. In the same way that advances in astronomy and navigation started to challenge the idea that the world is flat or the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So it is that quantum mechanics is challenging the incumbent assumption about the nature of existence called Materialism. This facilitates and helps to set up the necessary conditions for the acceptance of the idea that everyone is God. It undermines the main false assumption that stops us from seeing who we really are.​ 
Another fairly recent discovery of science which is relevant to our discussion that everyone's true nature is God, is the phenomenon called quantum entanglement. Not only is quantum mechanics telling us that that the physical world is illusory, it is also suggesting that the entire universe is really a unified & inseparable oneness. When we consider this phenomenon that the quantum physicists have discovered called entanglement then we see why this is the case. Entanglement is the quantum mechanical property where if two sub atomic particles occupy the same point in space at the same point in time, then they become like a single unified whole. This then gives rise to the phenomenon called 'non-locality', whereby these two particles may influence one another instantaneously even if they are both located at opposite ends of the universe. Though separated in space they seem to have instant communication with one another, as if they were one single entity. This property is so mysterious and baffling that even Einstein considered it an impossibility. However experiments have repeatedly proven Einstein wrong, and have shown that entanglement and non-locality are indeed properties of the physical world. Things get interesting when we consider that the entire Universe started from a single point, the so called 'Big bang singularity'. Because the entire Universe occupied the same point of space, every single atom in the universe is entangled with every other atom. So even though the universe which started with the big bang expanded and separated out to what we can see and measure today, it also exists as a single unified and inseparable whole.​ 
Without a doubt all of this is not intuitive and runs counter to what we normally assume about physical reality. It normally seems to us that there is a physical reality 'out there' populated by separate and distinct objects, so how can these objects really be a single entity? But that's the whole point. Quantum mechanics is forcing us to re-examine our existing assumptions. It is suggesting to us that we consider the possibility that reality is not what it seems, that it is really illusory. Also quantum mechanics is inviting us to start entertaining the idea of the universe as being a 'oneness' and further still that we are that 'oneness'. That is, we are that oneness reflecting upon itself.​ 
So therefore, that which stops us from seeing that we are God is the assumption called Materialism which, whether they know it or not, is the belief about reality that most people hold. As we have discussed, this assumption is undermined by findings from science and also by lines of inquiry from the world of philosophy. Further, it is a view which is incorrect according to some of the metaphysical assertions of the World's great religions. When we abandon the assumption of Materialism then we can start to see that physical reality is indeed illusory and that the nature of existence is consciousness. We may also come to see that all reality is really one consciousness, i.e. God, and that we are that one consciousness. This is the truth behind the position called Idealism which stands in opposition to the idea of Materialism, and its ultimate proof derives from the direct experience of being God. Put another way, the mystery of consciousness and the mystery of God are really different names for the same mystery.​ 
*If everyone is God, why am I not experiencing that I am God? Is this it? *
When a person is told that their identity is really God, then normally the reaction is one of disbelief and a total rejection of the notion. Those that are willing to entertain the idea a little further may go on to ask, 'But if I am God why am I not feeling like God? Why do I suffer? Is this all there is to being God?' The answer to this is that when we are living out our lives as mortal human beings and not knowing who we really are, then we are entangled in the human condition. We are driven by our basic desires and our basic fears. Thus we live out the experiences of 'normal' life, feeling pleasure and pain and all the while identifying with our physical bodies. Therefore seeing our existence as physical and so it seems to us that we are living out our lives in a material world. However, in this state we are as asleep to our true nature which is God. To awaken from this state is the achievement of an attainment that is described in all the worlds religion's and is really the ultimate goal of the spiritual journey. Known by many names, it is referred to as 'The Kingdom of Heaven' in Christianity, in Islam it is the 'Garden', in Hinduism it is called 'Moksha' and in Buddhism 'Enlightenment'. The word 'Buddha' actually means 'awakened one'. This ultimate mystical goal is a state where a person realizes his or her true identity as God. It may also be described as a union with God. So likewise when a Jewish kabbalist unites with 'Ein Sof' i.e. God, or a Taoist mystic unites with the Tao, then this equivalent to the same exalted goal that is referred to in the other religions. Seen in this light, we can see clearly that Jesus' claim to be one with the Father, i.e. God, and his teachings about the mysterious Kingdom of Heaven that is to be found within, are both really talking about the same thing.​ 
There may be some debate in some quarters as to whether the 'Kingdom of Heaven' in Christianity is really the same as 'Moksha' in Hinduism, or whether the 'Garden' of Islam is really the same as 'union with the Tao' in Taoism. There will always be those who more naturally see and find differences between the religions. However if we start from the reasonable assumption that all the World's religions are really asking after the same truth and worshipping the same God, even if 'God' is given many different names. Then of course it is reasonable and sensible to suppose that the ultimate attainment of all the World's religions is one and the same. When we further consider all the evidence which suggests this common thread in all the World's faiths which talk about the God within and the idea of union with God, then surely what goal can be more ultimate than that? The assertion being made here is that the state of true union with God is the experience of being God and waking up to our true identities.​ 
*Summary and Conclusion *
So a person's real identity is God but though we are all God, we are God asleep. And though we think we are awake we are really as in a dream. The awakening from this sleep or dream is the ultimate attainment described in all the World's religion and the realization of our true selves as God.​ 
Historically, the idea that a person's identity is really God has always been the unbelievable truth. Many people experienced for themselves this truth but there was no way that this idea could be communicated in a way that made sense to most people. So all through history this truth had to be hidden or else spoken of indirectly and in parables. However, things have changed. I believe that the situation we have in the world today is one where the unbelievable truth has finally become the inescapable truth. That is, advances in human knowledge, in the fields of science, mathematics, philosophy and theology; have set up the conditions whereby the idea that everyone is God, can finally be expressed in a convincing, compelling and reasonable way. In another section of this website, I explain how it is that everyone is God in the section entitled 'The nature of God'.​ 
Finally, concerning the mystical journey, and the ways and methods that people may realize themselves as God. The problem today is not only that people no longer know the way to God, but also that people don't even know that the journey exists. An understanding of the truth that everyone is God is the prelude to the mystical quest for self realization and spiritual awakening. Once a person is fully aware of his or her true identity then this knowledge may lead to a powerful personal transformation and perhaps ultimately to the attainment of the divine.​


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Sep 26, 2012)

Yes there is One God. Problem is what the people interpret that One God wants us to do. There is an interesting book series called 'Conversations With God' on what God really wants. And then there is the Priest class, which will confuse us with 'Fear of God' and make us do things they want us to do. Result - the world is in total chaos.


----------



## Parma (Sep 26, 2012)

Great article, also it is the reason why you should never hurt anyones feelings! You hurt the truth that is within yourself, it also serves as a guidance with regards to bad communication with one another, when you realise you and I are one, what is the argument, people should only have love and peace!animatedkhanda1


----------



## dalbirk (Sep 27, 2012)

IMHO all the diehard Hindus delibrately STEAL the concept of Sikhism like Universal Brotherhood of mankind , one day I heard Asa Ram Bapu giving advice for achieving a state of JIWAN MUKT which is also a SIKH ONLY concept , but take out ONE LINERS from trillions of pages of Hindu scripts to justify their statements . Actually Hinduism does not believe in Universal Brotherhood not it believes in state of Jiwan Mukt , these articles DELIBRATELY leave out Sikhism from mentioning because promoting Sikhism will mean going against the principles of Caste , Heaven & Hell , Human ( Brahmin/Idol )Worship , Low Status of Woman & thousands of Karam Kaands  & other cash generating methods perfected by Brahmins over a period of 3500 years .


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 27, 2012)

dalbirk said:


> IMHO all the diehard Hindus delibrately STEAL the concept of Sikhism like Universal Brotherhood of mankind , one day I heard Asa Ram Bapu giving advice for achieving a state of JIWAN MUKT which is also a SIKH ONLY concept , but take out ONE LINERS from trillions of pages of Hindu scripts to justify their statements . Actually Hinduism does not believe in Universal Brotherhood not it believes in state of Jiwan Mukt , these articles DELIBRATELY leave out Sikhism from mentioning because promoting Sikhism will mean going against the principles of Caste , Heaven & Hell , Human ( Brahmin/Idol )Worship , Low Status of Woman & thousands of Karam Kaands  & other cash generating methods perfected by Brahmins over a period of 3500 years .



Important points thanks!  I noticed Sikhism was left out in most of the article, but that much of it agrees with Sikhism.  I don't think the authors were Hindu though... There is also big mention of Christianity and Islam too and even Judaisim.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 27, 2012)

dalbirk said:


> IMHO all the diehard Hindus delibrately STEAL the concept of Sikhism like Universal Brotherhood of mankind , one day I heard Asa Ram Bapu giving advice for achieving a state of JIWAN MUKT which is also a SIKH ONLY concept


Lol then you'd be pretty surprised to know how old that concept actually is.


----------



## dalbirk (Sep 28, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Lol then you'd be pretty surprised to know how old that concept actually is.


Bhagat Singh ji ,
                You also seemed to have been swayed by the propaganda of RSS since 1998 . The concept of Universal Brotherhood ( if ever it was ) in Sanatan Dharma / Hinduism/Brahminism was dumped the very day it was written in RIGVEDA the base of so called Hinduism in Purush Sutra Verse 1 " The creator of the Universe is Brahma , from the Mouth of Brahma came the Brahmin , from the chest came Kshatriya , from the thighs came Vaishya & from the feet came Shudra " . The concept of Universal Brotherhood if it ever was a part of so called Hinduism was never brought to light , BTW all the books I have read on Hinduism are actually the opposite of each other , also the DEFINITION of Hinduism is still not clear to me after five years of random reading . Can you define the SO CALLED Hinduism for me clearly ?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 28, 2012)

Dalbirk ji,
There is no such thing as Purush Sutra in Rig Veda. I think what you talking about is the hymns associated with the Purush. They proceed as follows:


> *HYMN XC. Puruṣa.*
> 
> 1. A THOUSAND heads hath Puruṣa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.
> On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.
> ...


First time touching Rig Veda, thank you for the opportunity. Let us discuss this hymn further.



> BTW all the books I have read on Hinduism are actually the opposite of  each other , also the DEFINITION of Hinduism is still not clear to me  after five years of random reading . Can you define the SO CALLED  Hinduism for me clearly ?


"*So called* Hinduism" That's right! There is no such thing. If anything it is a collection of religions: practical philosophies with its associated traditions and rituals. We can make a new thread on this.
Now do you see how stupid this sounds "Actually Hinduism does not believe in Universal Brotherhood" Has this person looked at all the traditions?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Sep 28, 2012)

The TOP THREE ( I mean on the Diagram) declare..ONLY I AM TRUTH...ONLY I CAN LEAD YOU TO HIM...FOLLOW ONLY ME...or be DAMNED.

The Bottom THREE ( same diagram)  DONT actually have A GOD...

This is a ILLUSIONIST ARTICLE....."what i would call a "CLOUD"..smoke screen...not real.

PRACTICE is what makes it RIGHT...concepts on paper dont translate into actions dont change people...and thats WHY "religious" persecutions.death in name of that "Universal GOD" ( who is actually not at all universal at all)...because MY GOD doesnt like YOUR FACE is the reality...Very Rarely people like BHAI GHANIYAH ji come along who "see the same God" everywhere...in the Mughal as well as the fellow SIKH....MAJORITY see "EVIL ENEMIES...DUSHMAN.. at worst and just plain unfriendly a t best....MORE people have DIED from RELIGIOUS WARS than any others...so wheres the PROOF about this UNIVERSAL GOD ?? Theories ???japposatnamwaheguru:


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 28, 2012)

I don't think the article was about a Universal God... but more of the fact that references to God being 'within everyone and everything' are found in all the major religions of the World.  So the concept of the divine within everyone, is what is Universal (our ultimate identity as a reflection of the ONE Creator) not the actual concept of the nature of the Creator and definitely NOT the dogma associated with each religion. 




Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> The TOP THREE ( I mean on the Diagram) declare..ONLY I AM TRUTH...ONLY I CAN LEAD YOU TO HIM...FOLLOW ONLY ME...or be DAMNED.
> 
> The Bottom THREE ( same diagram) DONT actually have A GOD...
> 
> ...


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 28, 2012)

According to Buddhism, what is taken for a being, is in reality instances of mental and physical phenomena conditioning each other and which falls away instantly the moment they arise. There is therefore no place for such ideas as God, a controller / creator, or anything residing in anything else.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 28, 2012)

Likewise, the article by OP says Void, which is the No Self.


----------



## Rory (Sep 28, 2012)

Gyani Jarnail-ji said:
			
		

> The TOP THREE ( I mean on the Diagram) declare..ONLY I AM TRUTH...ONLY I CAN LEAD YOU TO HIM...FOLLOW ONLY ME...or be DAMNED.


I understand & agree with the rest of your post, but I feel like I should point out that Judaism doesn't teach "follow or be damned". Judaism is a lot different that way, compared to Christianity and Islam; what I've learnt from a Jewish friend of mine is that the concept of hell (a place where sinners burn for eternity) doesn't even exist in Judaism and the word "hell" is not found in the Tanakh ("Old Testament").
Christian scholars translate the Hebrew word "sheol" in the Tanakh as "hellfire" to support their doctrines, but in Hebrew, "sheol" is literally the word for a grave (i.e. where a person is buried when they die).

The views of rabbis are varying but practically all of them teach that paradise is for all good people, not just Jews.

I searched around and this page is a nice resource, there are some links to related questions as well, they might be worth a read: http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 28, 2012)

Bhagat ji,




BhagatSingh said:


> Likewise, the article by OP says Void, which is the No Self.



*The* No Self!? 
This is apparently what a certain group of people did a couple of thousand years ago, from which originated the Mahayana.
The Buddha when referring to the five aggregates pointed that these had the characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no self. Those who could not understand what these five aggregates are and therefore make the reality vs. concept distinction, ended up making “no self” or “emptiness” into a thing. Realizing their mistake, they then tried to remedy this by such teachings as, “Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form”….  However, by this time they are already deep in philosophical speculation, a thrust away from the possibility of understanding reality now. The concept of Emptiness gave rise to a whole new philosophy culminating in what essentially is the exact opposite of what the Buddha really taught. 

Ideas such as Buddha Nature, Indra’s net of jewels and Ground of Being, which is in fact similar to the concepts of Soul, Interconnectedness and God, got promoted. However these go against the idea that samsaric existence is conditioned and have the characteristic of impermanence, insubstantiality and no self. 

So Bhagat ji, there is no “no self” as something existing in itself, but rather, there are fleeting mental and physical phenomena which are conditioned, and being conditioned, have the characteristic of rise and fall, suffering and no self.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 29, 2012)

Confused ji,
Glad to hear from you again. You should really post more often.

Words like God and soul are not referring to things in my opinion (I don't have a problem with them being things though). On a certain level of course, there are concepts that Gurus tell us about but the ACTUAL is more like the no self you describe err... not describe. lol How do I describe that in which descriptions breakdown?

How a lack of something, anything, be a thing that a mind speculates on is beyond me, but I have seen me do it, it's doing it right now in fact. I am still perplexed. 

Heidegger said something to the effect that when we study something when we ask something to show itself to us, the way in which we do so causes certain parts of the <whatever it is or is not> to show itself and causes other parts to become hidden from us. Like the elephant who cannot be seen whole, but one man grabs the tail, another one grabs the, well, you know the rest of it. 

Tell me Confused ji, are you going to die?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Sep 29, 2012)

Rory Ji..
Thanks for the info on Judaism..appreciated....and i stand corrected.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Sep 29, 2012)

One should be One-Self Aware.


----------



## Archived_member14 (Sep 30, 2012)

Bhagat ji,




> Words like God and soul are not referring to things in my opinion (I don't have a problem with them being things though). On a certain level of course, there are concepts that Gurus tell us about but the ACTUAL is more like the no self you describe err... not describe.  How do I describe that in which descriptions breakdown?
> 
> 
> How a lack of something, anything, be a thing that a mind speculates on is beyond me, but I have seen me do it, it's doing it right now in fact. I am still perplexed.




Let me put it this way:
“No self” is not simply a denial of the existence of “self” but rather a description of one of the three universal characteristic of all conditioned existence. There are these mental and physical conditioned phenomena and there is the unconditioned Nibbana / Nirvana (but this we don't need to talk about), every things else, such as people, things, time, situations are simply ideas created by the thinking process. This means that “self” is the illusion and “no self”, the reality.

'No self' therefore points to the way things are, whereas the perception of self is the result of ignorance and wrong understanding. So you don’t try to understand no self by reference to what self is. Instead you understand a reality experienced through the five senses and the mind and thereby come to see that in fact “self” is a misperception / misunderstanding. When getting across the idea of no self, all one needs to point at are the moment to moment experience which make up our lives. Nothing mysterious at all! 

Regarding concepts such as God and soul being *like* the 'no self' that I refer to, this is only your own imagination! 
As I said, no self is understood by way of studying what is experienced through the five senses and the mind. God and soul on the other hand are concepts entertained due to *not understanding*, in fact *misunderstanding* exactly this. Indeed you would have noted that the constant reminder regarding the need to understand the realities appearing through the five senses and the mind is what “no self” engenders, God and soul on the other hand, leads away from such consideration and instead to something else altogether. One encourages not moving away from the present moment as the only valid object for the development of understanding, the other leads to following ideas about particular conventional activity, time, place and preconceived object of contemplation. And here you can see the huge difference, namely that while the one does not choose to “do” anything out of the ordinary having understood the impermanent and 'no self' nature of conditioned existence, the other in going by a program of practice is reflection of going by the perception of permanence and of self.

So really, what you are doing is trying to make concepts that in fact oppose each other, appear the same.



> Heidegger said something to the effect that when we study something when we ask something to show itself to us, the way in which we do so causes certain parts of the  to show itself and causes other parts to become hidden from us. Like the elephant who cannot be seen whole, but one man grabs the tail, another one grabs the, well, you know the rest of it.



This is the nature of the thinking process. Thinking performs its particular function and should not be expected to do what only wisdom can do. But does wisdom understand what you are suggesting it does? 

The blind man who holds the tail is not asked to make a statement about the whole elephant, but what is experienced at that very moment of touching. The knowledge that comes from this would be the same as in the case of someone, blind or not blind, who happens to touch the ear, the trunk, or the leg.  That you and Heidegger think that an elephant exists out there to be understood is exactly what I was pointing at when I suggested that God and soul are concepts entertained due to *not understanding*, in fact *misunderstanding*  reality. Perhaps now you can see how this latter encourages more ignorance about the present moment and wrong understanding which believes in the existence of particular kinds of concepts, such as God and soul.




> Tell me Confused ji, are you going to die?



So long as I refer to the idea of having been born and am living, sure, I am going to die!


----------



## itsmaneet (Sep 30, 2012)

your name 'confused' is enough to describe your present condition. There's no scope of confusion in Sikhi. If you are into Sikh there's no scope of confusion. All trust be on Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Even if your confused at some point reciting Gurbani itself will eradicate all your confusion & then hope we see your real name on the SPN


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2012)

Confused ji,


Confused said:


> Bhagat ji,
> Let me put it this way:
> “No self” is not simply a denial of the existence of “self” but rather a description of one of the three universal characteristic of all conditioned existence. There are these mental and physical conditioned phenomena and there is the unconditioned Nibbana / Nirvana (but this we don't need to talk about), every things else, such as people, things, time, situations are simply ideas created by the thinking process. This means that “self” is the illusion and “no self”, the reality.


 
I would say "No self" is all encompassing space or emptiness in which there is the arising and falling of conditioned phenomenon. Those ideas created by the thinking process, the thinking process and the self, are all conditioned phenomenon that arise and fall in the no self.  No self isn't a denial of any particular existence, whether it be the self or anything else, it is existence itself, all of it. If it opposes the self, then it has become a sort of self in itself, it has become the "no self" self, you see? 

So no self if it is truly no self, it has to encompass without opposing.





> 'No self' therefore points to the way things are, whereas the perception of self is the result of ignorance and wrong understanding. So you don’t try to understand no self by reference to what self is. Instead you understand a reality experienced through the five senses and the mind and thereby come to see that in fact “self” is a misperception / misunderstanding. When getting across the idea of no self, all one needs to point at are the moment to moment experience which make up our lives. Nothing mysterious at all!


 Indeed.




> Regarding concepts such as God and soul being *like* the 'no self' that I refer to, this is only your own imagination!
> 
> As I said, no self is understood by way of studying what is experienced through the five senses and the mind. God and soul on the other hand are concepts entertained due to *not understanding*, in fact *misunderstanding* exactly this. Indeed you would have noted that the constant reminder regarding the need to understand the realities appearing through the five senses and the mind is what “no self” engenders,


 And yes this is what soul and then God engender as well, with one change in perspective.





> God and soul on the other hand, leads away from such consideration and instead to something else altogether. One encourages not moving away from the present moment as the only valid object for the development of understanding, the other leads to following ideas about particular conventional activity, time, place and preconceived object of contemplation. And here you can see the huge difference, namely that while the one does not choose to “do” anything out of the ordinary having understood the impermanent and 'no self' nature of conditioned existence, the other in going by a program of practice is reflection of going by the perception of permanence and of self.


 

Ok therein lies your misunderstanding. Now I agree that God and soul on the conceptual level can be misleading but that is true of no self as well. On a conceptual level it is just an misleading. Though that is not my concern here. I am talking about the actual not what misleads amateurs, those who are starting out.





> So really, what you are doing is trying to make concepts that in fact oppose each other, appear the same.


 They are different indeed and belong to two different paradigms. There is a perspective change that is required if one wants to understand God and soul from the non-theist perspective, and a perspective change that is required to understand the no self from the theist perspective.

Heidegger in his philosophy when referring to the revealing process of reality, echoes this same thing. He says when we ask reality to present itself to us, the way in which we do so causes certain parts of that reality to reveal themselves and other parts to conceal themselves. (To clarify he is not talking about an elephant) It is like that famous Japanese proverb goes something like "a garden must be viewed from many angles to be seen properly". Now you may say the garden does not exist. All that exists is your perspective of the garden. You must understand that "garden" is referring to "all perspectives of the garden", not just yours but my perspective, and Akasha j's perspecive, Gyani ji's perspective and so on.
 

So a change in perspective is required if one wants to understand something outside of their perspective, obviously. But it is difficult to make this change since we are so identified with our own perspective, which forms as a result of absorbing various concepts, we are exposed to, year after year after birth. 

This change is definitely not easy to make and to process different perspectives quickly requires one to be the at the level of an Arhat, who can make this change for every perspective that exists out there. But again such a change is required if a non-theist wants to understand the theist, and vice versa. If a human wants to understand another human, essentially.


It's upto the individual whether they want to learn how to escape their perspective, to see outside of it. Not to discard it but to transcend it, absorbing other perspectives in the process, discarding none of them, but transcending all.






> So long as I refer to the idea of having been born and am living, sure, I am going to die!


 I meant not as some sort of logical knowing like "Mortals die. I am a mortal. Therefore, I will die" or "That which is born dies, I was born therefore I will die." Not like this. I mean another kind of knowing. Do you know in the other kind of knowing that you will die?<!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0cm;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## Archived_member14 (Oct 2, 2012)

Bhagat ji,


This is going to be long and controversial, so brace yourself.



> > Let me put it this way:
> > “No self” is not simply a denial of the existence of “self” but rather a description of one of the three universal characteristic of all conditioned existence. There are these mental and physical conditioned phenomena and there is the unconditioned Nibbana / Nirvana (but this we don't need to talk about), every things else, such as people, things, time, situations are simply ideas created by the thinking process. This means that “self” is the illusion and “no self”, the reality.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, you will at least now admit that the “no self” which you equate with God is one that is according to *your* interpretation, not mine! 
The “boundless space” referred to in Buddhist texts is one of the objects of the development of calm, and not of insight, which is what the Buddha’s teachings is about. Boundless space is an idea, the object of contemplation for those who know only how to suppress the defilements, and not to its eradication. Only penetrative insight into one of the three general characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no self is the doorway by which enlightenment occurs. Boundless space being a concept, does not exhibit any of these characteristics. 

Emptiness or sunnata / no self in the texts as I said before, refers to the particular characteristic of all conditioned phenomena. That you see this as being same as 'all encompassing space' and then go on to suggest that conditioned phenomena exist within this, is from where I stand, the result of wrong understanding.




> Those ideas created by the thinking process, the thinking process and the self, are all conditioned phenomenon that arise and fall in the no self.



Does this mean then that thinking itself is 'self' as are seeing, hearing, feeling, perception, earth, wind and fire elements? Self exists within no self, sounds to me like metaphysics gone crazy!




> No self isn't a denial of any particular existence, whether it be the self or anything else, it is existence itself, all of it. If it opposes the self, then it has become a sort of self in itself, it has become the "no self" self, you see?



So you are positing that there is such a thing as “self” and then insisting that the concept of no self should be such that it accommodates this. And then you go on to say that if I fail to do this, then I have made no self into a self? But would I then not have established the existence of self? But of course this is strange logic isn't it?




> So no self if it is truly no self, it has to encompass without opposing.



So you are saying that no self could well be done without and replaced by the concept SELF with capital letters? The Buddha was actually teaching the same thing as Vedanta?




> > Quote: 'No self' therefore points to the way things are, whereas the perception of self is the result of ignorance and wrong understanding. So you don't try to understand no self by reference to what self is. Instead you understand a reality experienced through the five senses and the mind and thereby come to see that in fact “self” is a misperception / misunderstanding. When getting across the idea of no self, all one needs to point at are the moment to moment experience which make up our lives. Nothing mysterious at all!
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.



I must be misunderstanding something. So far the impression is that you are telling me that no self does not deny the existence of self. But in the above I said that “self” is a misperception / misunderstanding” and you agree with this. Can you please clarify because it seems like you are contradicting yourself?




> > Quote:Regarding concepts such as God and soul being *like* the 'no self' that I refer to, this is only your own imagination!
> >
> > As I said, no self is understood by way of studying what is experienced through the five senses and the mind. God and soul on the other hand are concepts entertained due to *not understanding*, in fact *misunderstanding* exactly this. Indeed you would have noted that the constant reminder regarding the need to understand the realities appearing through the five senses and the mind is what “no self” engenders,
> 
> ...



You mean I could well replace “consciousness experiencing an object” with “God experiencing God”? And I could say for example, that hearing consciousness is soul? 

Nah, my impression when seeing soul and God being referred to and taught about, is that of encouraging *not* to attend to one's moment to moment experiences but rather to “believe” in something that is never a part of anyone's experience. One is asked to be involved in the kind of perceptions where concepts are taken for reality and made to form some kind of connection, all by sheer force of imagination. Indeed if it was not for the fact that there is no intention to mislead and that each person is responsible for what he believes in, I'd consider God the biggest lie ever perpetuated in human history.




> > Quote: God and soul on the other hand, leads away from such consideration and instead to something else altogether. One encourages not moving away from the present moment as the only valid object for the development of understanding, the other leads to following ideas about particular conventional activity, time, place and preconceived object of contemplation. And here you can see the huge difference, namely that while the one does not choose to “do” anything out of the ordinary having understood the impermanent and 'no self' nature of conditioned existence, the other in going by a program of practice is reflection of going by the perception of permanence and of self.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok therein lies your misunderstanding. Now I agree that God and soul on the conceptual level can be misleading but that is true of no self as well. On a conceptual level it is just an misleading. Though that is not my concern here. I am talking about the actual not what misleads amateurs, those who are starting out.



Yes no self could be misleading but only if one has proliferated on the concept as you have done. Someone who understands correctly will not put forward the idea without reference to ordinary day to day, moment to moment experiences. One is not asked for example, to contemplate or imagine no self, but to develop understanding of such mundane experiences as seeing, hearing, touching, thinking and so on. Indeed one is also reminded that what is to be understood are characteristics of realities where no labels apply. God on the other hand, is a huge label forced upon, one which actually goes against the nature of these experiences, being that it is associated with the perception of permanence, happiness and self, when reality in fact exhibit impermanence, suffering and no self.  

The concept of God misleading only amateurs / beginners? Being misled can only lead to further being misled. Why use such ideas at all if there is any understanding and one knows that beginners will be misled!!? And how can it be expected that wrong lead one day to right? Well, the fact is that what you judge otherwise is in fact wrong made to appear right by power of delusion.



> > Quote: So really, what you are doing is trying to make concepts that in fact oppose each other, appear the same.
> 
> 
> 
> They are different indeed and belong to two different paradigms. There is a perspective change that is required if one wants to understand God and soul from the non-theist perspective, and a perspective change that is required to understand the no self from the theist perspective.




So the path to Truth is not about development of understanding of the way things are, but repeated thinking along one of the many possible lines of inquiry? No need to bother about whether such thinking is conditioned by wisdom and detachment or by ignorance and attachment? Just follow a particular so called paradigm of thought?  

And the Noble Truth of the Path which the Buddha was enlightened to is actually coming to see this as being one of the many possible ways to experience the Noble Truth of Cessation? I'm going to have to tell my teacher and all my friends about this…..




> Heidegger in his philosophy when referring to the revealing process of reality, echoes this same thing. He says when we ask reality to present itself to us, the way in which we do so causes certain parts of that reality to reveal themselves and other parts to conceal themselves.



Well, reality is nothing more than that which rises and falls away “now” experienced through one of the five senses and the mind. Either one understands this or does not understand it, but reality appears all the time! Starting from the very beginning with intellectual understanding which acknowledges the fact, there is no impression about one part of reality being revealed and causing another to conceal. Rather there is understanding or not of what has arisen and fallen away.  

The idea that there is something that can be observed in part comes from the assumption that there exists something out there waiting to be known / observed. But conditioned phenomena rises and falls away instantly there and then, and what went before and what follows are altogether different realities.




> (To clarify he is not talking about an elephant) It is like that famous Japanese proverb goes something like "a garden must be viewed from many angles to be seen properly". Now you may say the garden does not exist. All that exists is your perspective of the garden.




No. No me and no garden, but just thinking, thinking about garden. So yes, I was right about the perception of elephant as coming from a view which takes the elephant as existing and needed to be 'viewed from many angles'. This is perception of self and permanence, something which the Buddha's teachings work directly against.




> You must understand that "garden" is referring to "all perspectives of the garden", not just yours but my perspective, and Akasha j's perspecive, Gyani ji's perspective and so on.




Whether it is one or all perspectives, if seeing, visible object, perception, thinking etc. are not known, the knowledge that comes must be completely worthless. Indeed it does not even matter if one mistakes a rope for a snake, or is hard of hearing, color blind, have no sense of smell or starting to experience dementia, the point is always to understand the present moment reality for what it is. Perception is perception and to be known for what it is, no matter this is of a snake or rope mistaken for a snake.




> So a change in perspective is required if one wants to understand something outside of their perspective, obviously.




Change of perception (instead of perspective) comes with understanding reality and not from thinking differently about some concept. To believe otherwise can only be due to wrong understanding and will lead to more ignorance.




> But it is difficult to make this change since we are so identified with our own perspective, which forms as a result of absorbing various concepts, we are exposed to, year after year after birth.




Regardless of what one believes, seeing that only this present moment is real and to be understood is the only step in the right direction.




> This change is definitely not easy to make and to process different perspectives quickly requires one to be the at the level of an Arhat, who can make this change for every perspective that exists out there.




One of the first important steps along the Path of the development of right understanding is to make the reality vs. concept distinction, but you are suggesting that an Arahat would involve himself with thinking about many different concepts as basis for true knowledge?!! :-/




> But again such a change is required if a non-theist wants to understand the theist, and vice versa. If a human wants to understand another human, essentially.




As a student of reality, I see no reason to try and understand theism, having understood to some extent what conditions such a belief. Understanding another human would include knowing where he is right and where he is wrong. It does not mean that someone who does not believe in God should suddenly see the belief as equally valid.




> It's upto the individual whether they want to learn how to escape their perspective, to see outside of it. Not to discard it but to transcend it, absorbing other perspectives in the process, discarding none of them, but transcending all.




Yeah, there is no wrong, but only right and more right.




> > Quote: So long as I refer to the idea of having been born and am living, sure, I am going to die!
> 
> 
> 
> I meant not as some sort of logical knowing like "Mortals die. I am a mortal. Therefore, I will die" or "That which is born dies, I was born therefore I will die." Not like this. I mean another kind of knowing. Do you know in the other kind of knowing that you will die?




I know only of two kinds of death, one the conventional death as I pointed out. The other is the momentary death which happens all the time with the falling away of each consciousness. Which kind of death and the knowing of it are you referring to?


----------



## Archived_member14 (Oct 2, 2012)

Itsmaneet ji,




itsmaneet said:


> your name 'confused' is enough to describe your present condition. There's no scope of confusion in Sikhi. If you are into Sikh there's no scope of confusion. All trust be on Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Even if your confused at some point reciting Gurbani itself will eradicate all your confusion & then hope we see your real name on the SPN




I don't exactly remember why I chose "Confused" here, but on another website I call myself "Ignorant". There are many I could choose from for my next group, such as conceit, delirious, mad worldling, defilement, fool and so on, these more closely represent who I really am.

But if you are asking about the name given by my parents and family name, it is Sukhinderpal Singh Narula.

Regarding not being confused as a result of following and having trust in Sikh teachings, I wonder how this is different from say, a Muslim, Christian or Jew who follows a strict regiment of activities, including prayer and study, and all with the impression of doing what is right and being on the right path?


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Oct 2, 2012)

I am surprised to see where is tha need for such long explanations about ONE which is COMMON to all.
I think the more we write ,the more we say, the more confused we become.
Therefor it is always better to be short and to the point.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Archived_member14 (Oct 2, 2012)

Prakash ji,



> I am surprised to see where is tha need for such long explanations about ONE which is COMMON to all.



Should you be surprised? Do you truly know what is *needed* and act accordingly or is it simply that your nature / accumulated tendencies lead the way?

I write as I do like a mad man, and you write as you do like another mad man, what's the difference? I sometimes have difficulty understanding brief statements, and you appear to have difficulty understanding long explanations. I mean, my long post did not at any point convey such ideas as “ONE which is COMMON to all”, yet you read me as expressing this. Indeed what I'm pointing at in my long post is that, all there exists to be known is what rises and falls away through one of the five senses and the mind “now”. That it is ignorance of this that such ideas as God or One comes to be formed and entertained!

So yes, what I’m talking about is really simple, namely that there exists just these six doorways through which anything is known and that we need to understand this and nothing more. And this is common to all. But does anyone here understand this? You obviously don't! But can you now see why repetition and long explanations might be needed? It is simple, but hard to see, as a friend used to say. And talking about friends, do you think I need to talk much about such things to them? Just a look can sometimes get the message across. 



> I think the more we write ,the more we say, the more confused we become.
> Therefor it is always better to be short and to the point.



You are using your own personal inclination to decide what the correct course of action should be for other people. When I write, I see it as an opportunity to sort out my thoughts and perhaps there arise some instances of what is called, “straightening of view”. 

Since I've joined SPN, I've been consistently sending out essentially the same message. You say that I have become more confused. Please point out my confusion to me, otherwise I consider your statement as groundless and an attempt to divert and distract. 

Regarding short and to the point statements vs. long winded ones, which is better, the former expressing wrong understanding, or the latter expressing right understanding?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Oct 2, 2012)

Confused brother ji thanks for your post.  Wonderful and thought provoking and well written as always. mundahug

I believe in Sikhism there is no concept of God/creator to be a "self", a body, a description of any level of completeness.  All who try to define simply define their own limits either of origins selfish or origins ignorance.  It is more of "all is" which is the mirror of "all is not".  It is the duality that is inviolable and unexplainable.  As from dust to dust the illusions come and go the void or no-self never changes.  Through all change, all life, the more we think or believe changes, the lesser the change is.  Actually there is no change just we cannot comprehend beyond birth, life and death of ourselves. 

Regards.

PS:  A point on Prakash.S.Bagga ji's post above.



prakash.s.bagga said:


> ..... long explanations about ONE which is COMMON to all.
> Prakash.S.Bagga


_Veer ji I believe the assignment by us to matter and energy as something other than atoms and waves is the issue.  That is the only thing that so far has been discovered by limited intellect humans with the best brains._

We can call this as the truth and manifestations but the atoms and energy are never still and always in instances of mobility or disturbance.  We are just an exchange machine doing the churning of such manifestations.  Our illusion can not be forgotten but living in illusion can be made illusonary enjoyable and contented in contemplation of what is creator and creation and all as one.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Oct 3, 2012)

Empty vessels make the most noise.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Oct 3, 2012)

Ref.the very first message of this thread
In the diagram depicting all world Religion I observse that there is no mention of

SIKH RELIGION. 

Is Sikh Religion is not one of the Youngest Religion of the World.?

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Archived_member14 (Oct 7, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji, 

I have been busy and therefore could not respond earlier.




> Confused brother ji thanks for your post. Wonderful and thought provoking and well written as always.




Although I do not expect any change in basic outlook, I do hope however, that what I write will sometimes cause people to question their understandings. So thank you for telling me this.




> I believe in Sikhism there is no concept of God/creator to be a "self", a body, a description of any level of completeness.




There are three different ways in which “self” manifest, self-view, attachment and conceit. Attachment and conceit are a problem, but they are not insidious like self-view. Indeed so long as the latter is not known, the other two will not ever lessen but in fact strengthen. When I point out the danger of “self”, it is therefore self-view which I have in mind. 

Self is not just having a pictorial idea about something. It is attributing characteristic and functions to something outside of the present moment, one which is not in line with the law of cause and effect and of conditionality. It is associated with the idea of “control” over phenomena which comes from one's own tendency to believe in control. It manifests as an attempt to find the original cause, be this the idea of God, Tao or Big Bang and dwelling on such questions as, which came first, the hen or the egg. It reflects a lack of sense of urgency with regard to understanding what the reality “now” is, but instead is attached to concepts / stories about reality and explanations thereof. Having failed to make the reality / concept distinction and seeing the harm in ignorance now, one conceives of some ultimate reality unknown, but knowable in the future. And whatever actions one undertakes in order that this happen, invariably involved is a belief in an abiding 'self' who will one day realize / identify with the larger Self. Indeed the belief in soul is corollary to this belief in some kind of Self out there separate from or encompassing all.

One parable the Buddha gave was of the man shot by an arrow who was offered help to remove it by a doctor. This man refused to have the arrow taken out unless he was told who shot the arrow. When this was given, he wanted to then also know which family he came from, which wood was used for the arrow, the bow, where the tree for the wood grew etc. In the meantime he'd suffer from the wound and ultimately die.




> All who try to define simply define their own limits either of origins selfish or origins ignorance. It is more of "all is" which is the mirror of "all is not". It is the duality that is inviolable and unexplainable.




And you do not see this as symptom of the belief….
There can be no other option for a person who believes in the existence of anything outside of the present moment experience, than to be involved in projections. Recognizing one particular projection does not stop one from going on to project something else, even if this is the idea of something being ineffable. In other words, saying that something exists that can't be described is already projecting. Instead of thinking that one's faculty is limited, better come to realize what drives one to speculate to begin with.

Indeed the faculties namely, the eye and seeing, ear and hearing, mind and thinking, etc. are simply conditioned there and then by other conditioned phenomena all of which can be known. And this is what the Buddha realized and was basis for his seeing through all speculative philosophies. So it has nothing to do with the idea of the faculties being “limited”, but coming to understand that each of them perform a unique function and fall away completely, followed by another set of realities with other functions.




> As from dust to dust the illusions come and go the void or no-self never changes. Through all change, all life, the more we think or believe changes, the lesser the change is. Actually there is no change just we cannot comprehend beyond birth, life and death of ourselves.




Yes, this is what you believe. 
As I suggested above, if eye and seeing for example, are seen for what they are, namely conditioned and impermanent, insubstantial and no self, such speculative philosophies will not be entertained. When the causes and conditions for the present moment are revealed, what place is there for such ideas as first cause or the existence of an underlying or overarching reality?


----------

