# As A Sikh Do You Ever Ask When Hurting Or Feeling Low, God/Creator, Why Me?



## Ambarsaria (Mar 22, 2012)

We are all human being whether Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, atheists.  Many a times our bodies reflect our ways of living.  Our inner self also reflects a core quite but also very unique in our thoughts and reactions.  One of the emotions generally related to our living is attachment/Moh.   It affects us when what we experience differs from expectations in a negative way.

*EXAMPLES:*


A dear      one gets sick or passes away.
You      lose all you have.
Nothing      seem to go your way no matter how hard you try compared to person next to      you, who you believe has all the luck.
   We learn from the school of hard knocks and find ways to reason and achieve peace.  It is perhaps possible we can learn and share as well and so help each other and our own selves.

How you cope spiritually and in your mind to negative feelings?


I believe it is Karma from      many lives before that I am paying for.
I believe I am just reaping      what I sow in this life.
Up/down is being human and      creator is neither partial nor vengeful.
I am thankful for what I have      versus be sorry for what is not perfect.
Other.
   Any thoughts.

  Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 23, 2012)

How come it's not possible to select more than one option?



> How you cope spiritually and in your mind to negative feelings?


Any meditative tradition suggests teh path of least resistance. You let yourself feel the negativity and let yourself feel bad. No need for some kind of rational explanation or anything (like the ones in the poll) these add to the resistance. In fact, explanations and further thought initially hinders the meditative process. Just feel it. Feel the negativity in you and slowly start to feel the positivity surrounding the negativity. The positive in which the negative dwells. And be at peace with this negativity. It's OK to be negative.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 23, 2012)

Bhagat Singh ji thanks for your post.  Couple of comments.





BhagatSingh said:


> How come it's not possible to select more than one option?
> _I was looking for the strongest answer as a reflection on what one would experience most._
> 
> Any meditative tradition suggests teh path of least resistance. _You let yourself feel the negativity and let yourself feel bad. _No need for some kind of rational explanation or anything (like the ones in the poll) these add to the resistance. In fact, explanations and further thought initially hinders the meditative process. Just feel it. Feel the negativity in you and slowly start to feel the positivity surrounding the negativity. The positive in which the negative dwells. And be at peace with this negativity. It's OK to be negative.
> _So does negatively falls just as it rises naturally without any thoughts?  I want to meet a person like that._ _Doesn't sound plausible to me._


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 23, 2012)

> I want to meet a person like that.


Oh there are sooo many. Authors of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Echkart Tolle, Shinzen Young, Thich Nhat Hanh, etc etc. list goes on...

Ok I went with "other". I cannot relate to any of the poll options. For me it's always other kinds of rational thoughts based on what I have studied of human biology and psychology, what I understand of the phenomenon itself, and the insights I got from meditating.

Thoughts are a result of and further drive the momentum of negativity. Hence why you replace thoughts with "Waheguru waheguru..." "Ram Ram..." and at least the negativity isn't being fuelled. Further meditation then clarifies the perception. You see things for what they are. You see reality itself, God. You will notice that an accurate perception of life is the antidote to negativity. So stop providing fuel, provide the antidote and the brain returns to homeostasis... eventually. 

ਮਲਾਰ ਮਹਲਾ ੪ ਪੜਤਾਲ ਘਰੁ ੩
मलार महला ४ पड़ताल घरु ३
Malār mėhlā 4 paṛ▫ṯāl gẖar 3
Malaar, Fourth Mehl, Partaal, Third House:

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਬੋਲਤ ਸ੍ਰੀਰਾਮ ਨਾਮਾ ਮਿਲਿ ਸਾਧਸੰਗਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਤੋਰ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
हरि जन बोलत स्रीराम नामा मिलि साधसंगति हरि तोर ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Har jan bolaṯ sarīrām nāmā mil sāḏẖsangaṯ har ṯor. ||1|| rahā▫o.
The humble servant of the Lord chants the Name of the Supreme Lord; he joins the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Lord's Holy. ||1||Pause||

ਹਰਿ ਧਨੁ ਬਨਜਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਧਨੁ ਸੰਚਹੁ ਜਿਸੁ ਲਾਗਤ ਹੈ ਨਹੀ ਚੋਰ ॥੧॥
हरि धनु बनजहु हरि धनु संचहु जिसु लागत है नही चोर ॥१॥
Har ḏẖan banjahu har ḏẖan sancẖahu jis lāgaṯ hai nahī cẖor. ||1||
Deal only in the wealth of the Lord, and gather only the wealth of the Lord. No thief can ever steal it. ||1||

ਚਾਤ੍ਰਿਕ ਮੋਰ ਬੋਲਤ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤੀ ਸੁਨਿ ਘਨਿਹਰ ਕੀ ਘੋਰ ॥੨॥
चात्रिक मोर बोलत दिनु राती सुनि घनिहर की घोर ॥२॥
Cẖāṯrik mor bolaṯ ḏin rāṯī sun gẖanihar kī gẖor. ||2||
The rain-birds and the pea{censored}s sing day and night, hearing the thunder in the clouds. ||2||

ਜੋ ਬੋਲਤ ਹੈ ਮ੍ਰਿਗ ਮੀਨ ਪੰਖੇਰੂ ਸੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਜਾਪਤ ਹੈ ਨਹੀ ਹੋਰ ॥੩॥
जो बोलत है म्रिग मीन पंखेरू सु बिनु हरि जापत है नही होर ॥३॥
Jo bolaṯ hai marig mīn pankẖerū so bin har jāpaṯ hai nahī hor. ||3||
Whatever the deer, the fish and the birds sing, they chant to the Lord, and no other. ||3||

*ਨਾਨਕ ਜਨ ਹਰਿ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਗਾਈ ਛੂਟਿ ਗਇਓ ਜਮ ਕਾ ਸਭ ਸੋਰ ॥੪॥੧॥੮॥
नानक जन हरि कीरति गाई छूटि गइओ जम का सभ सोर ॥४॥१॥८॥
Nānak jan har kīraṯ gā▫ī cẖẖūt ga▫i▫o jam kā sabẖ sor. ||4||1||8||
Servant Nanak sings the Kirtan of the Lord's Praises; the sound and fury of Death has totally gone away. ||4||1||8||*
Guru Granth Sahib Page 1265

Har Jan Bolat Sriram Nama-Bhai Harjinder Singh-Naad      - YouTube


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't think any specific one is what I feel the most as I would go for more than 1 option and it would vary from time and situation. 
Then again, I try not to look at anything from the negative aspects and always try to view the positive within the matter. I can always find some positive reasoning with all dilemnas and this would be what I would focus on. But this search for positive doesn't always become clear on first approach, therefore a typical reaction could be- OK, this is the pits or the worst possible time such and such could have happened, so let's think what advantage or good could come out of this!!- this would be a typical example of a reaction to some disaster.
When it comes to blaming, I try very hard NOT to blame others even when it's obvious, but I look at my weakness for letting it get to this stage. By this I mean, others are not always entirley to blame as I could have taken steps not so to prevent their actions- as this would be in their control  but I could have taken steps to not let it affect me,as a result of their actions. So if a negative situation affects me then I feel something could have been done by me for not letting it progress and bother me.

Waheguru
Lucky Singh


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 23, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> We are all human being whether Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, atheists.  Many a times our bodies reflect our ways of living.  Our inner self also reflects a core quite but also very unique in our thoughts and reactions.  One of the emotions generally related to our living is attachment/Moh.   It affects us when what we experience differs from expectations in a negative way.
> 
> *EXAMPLES:*
> 
> ...



Veerji

good question, I think there comes a time when we need to shy away from what is idealistic and right and concentrate on what is realistic and fruitful. 

I am done with tomorrow, all I have is today, so right now, I would choose, and have chosen 'Up/down is being human and creator is neither partial nor vengeful'

I did think about 'I am thankful for what I have versus be sorry for what is not perfect', but that does not encapsulate my thinking as well as the former. Truth is I am in no mood to accept, but also in no mood to blame anyone other than myself for my own problems, (of which if I am honest, are few and minimal), 

I think one has to accept that there is no magical miracle machine in the sky, everything we do, everything we think, has a knock on effect, there are also events beyond our control, if a madman breaks in and rapes my wife, we will  have to live with and deal with that, I certainly would not start blaming Creator, or myself, but we would both certainly use our relationship with Creator to deal with the problem. Would we pray for forgiveness for the rapist, maybe visit him in jail, offer him a job when he came out? Absolutely not, that is the Christian way, We would see justice done, one way or another. 

There is a facet of Sikhism to guide us through all events in our life, I feel a lot of Sikhs seem to be using one facet designed to deal with one problem, for all problems, or for the wrong problem, We get angry when we should be calm, We are calm when we should be angry, we retaliate when we should be looking for olive branches, we offer peace when we should be unsheathing our sword. We meditate when we should be fighting, and we fight when we should be at peace, We all know what to do, but only understanding and enlightenment tell us when and in what circumstance and which facet to deploy.


----------



## Annie (Mar 24, 2012)

I need to find a reason for things that happen in ordr to keep my sanity. If I search enough, I can find some sort of positive side or at  least a lesson in almost any situation.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

My dear brother Harry, 

I ask that question all the time, who doesn't? Ultimately I place my trust in the Divine Will of God. Suffering is not without meaning. 


"...No hardship and loss is without some gain, and there is no harm that is wholly negative. Whoever has abandoned themselves and gone entirely out of themselves, for such a person nothing can be a cross, or pain or suffering, but for them all is bliss, joy and the heart’s delight and they will come and follow God truly. There are people who enjoy God in one way but not in another. They only want to possess God in one way of devotion and not in another. I will say no more about this, but it is nevertheless quite wrong. Whoever wants to receive God properly must receive him equally in all things, in oppression as in prosperity, in tears as in joy. Always and everywhere He is the same...If you wish that nothing should be far or remote from you, then join yourself to God, for then a thousand years will be like a single day. Thus I say that in God there is neither sadness, nor suffering, nor distress, and if you wish to be free of all distress and suffering, then turn to God and fix yourself in Him alone. It is certain that all your suffering comes from the fact that you do not turn to God and fix yourself in Him alone. The whole of human perfection is to respond in the same way to all things, not to be broken by adversity nor carried away by prosperity, nor to rejoice more in one thing than in another, nor to be frightened or grieved by one thing more than another. Real though the suffering is which in this way comes to the good person, everything which the good person suffers for the sake of God he or she endures in God and God suffers with them in their suffering. If our suffering is in God and God suffers with us, how then can suffering be grievous for us, when suffering loses its grievousness and our suffering is in God and _is _God? Just as God is Truth and wherever we find the truth we find our God, who is Truth, so too, in the same way exactly, when we find pure suffering in God and for God’s sake, we find God _as _our suffering. A quiet mind is one which nothing weighs on, nothing worries, which, free from ties and from all self-seeking, is wholly merged into the will of God and dead to its own..." 



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





"...Grace is from God, and works in the depth of the soul whose powers it employs. It is a light which issues forth to do service under the guidance of the Spirit. The Divine Light permeates the soul, and lifts it above the turmoil of temporal things to rest in God. The soul cannot progress except with the light which God has given it as a nuptial gift; love works the likeness of God into the soul. The peace, freedom and blessedness of all souls consist in their abiding in God's will. Towards this union with God for which it is created the soul strives perpetually..." 



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





"...The most powerful form of prayer, and the one which can virtually gain all things and which is the worthiest work of all, is that which flows from a free mind. The freer the mind is, the more powerful and worthy, the more useful, praiseworthy and perfect the prayer and the work become. A free mind can achieve all things. But what is a free mind? A free mind is one which is untroubled and unfettered by anything, which has not bound its best part to any particular manner of being or devotion and which does not seek its own interest in anything but is always immersed in God’s most precious will, having gone out of what is its own..." 



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


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 28, 2012)

Vouthon ji thanks for the quotes kaurhug   from,
*Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest*

What a brilliant mind?

Is there a book or other reference to read more of the Priest's work specially online or the Internet?

Regards.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Vouthon ji thanks for the quotes kaurhug from,
> *Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest*
> 
> What a brilliant mind?
> ...


 

My dear brother Ambarsaria kaurhug

I agree Eckhart had a brilliant mind! 

There are variety of sources you could check up on to learn more about the Master Eckhart and his teachings. 

The best translations of some of his works I know of is:  

Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense (Classics of Western Spirituality)by Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn published by Paulist press, you can buy it here off Amazon: Amazon.com: Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense (Classics of Western Spirituality) (9780809123704): Meister Eckhart, Edmund Colledge, Bernard McGinn, Houston Smith: Books


A good online source is "_The Eckhart Society_": http://www.eckhartsociety.org/

Its an academic organisation dedicated to the study of Eckhart's mysticism and thought. The authors write, _"...The Eckhart Society is dedicated to the study and promotion of the principles and teachings of Meister Eckhart, a medieval theologian, philosopher and mystic. The Society is committed to the highest possible standards in scholarship and spirituality – which was also the goal of the Meister. It welcomes all, no matter of what faith or none, to whom Meister Eckhart is of interest. It publishes a __Review__ and a series of newsletters. There is a three day annual __Conference__ with speakers drawn from amongst the foremost scholars in Eckhart studies as well as those from related disciplines and other religions..."_

You can find some quotes from Eckhart's writings on wikiquote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart

If you type his name into google you will find a plethora of articles about Him from people as diverse as Buddhists, Hindus, Christians etc. 

I believe that he is particularly popular, outside the Catholic Church, with Buddhists. The founders of the Eckhart Society were Protestant Christians who were going to convert to Mahayana Buddhism when their spiritual teacher told them to go and read Eckhart instead of seeking another religion, and they subsequently converted to Catholicism - because they found within Christianity in the person of Eckhart what they'd been seeking outside it. 

Have you heard of Eknath Easwaran? He was a famous Hindu spiritual teacher of the 20th century. In his books he quotes copiously from Eckhart, who was his favourite Western mystic. 

You can some of his books online, for example "Original Goodness": http://www.cehs.wright.edu/resources/forms_and_things/classnotes/original_goodness.pdf

Aldous Huxley, in his great book _The Perrenial Philosophy, _published in 1945, quotes many times from Eckhart (I recommend buying this one): Amazon.com: The Perennial Philosophy (Perennial Classics) (9780060570583): Aldous Huxley: Books

Evelyn Underhill, an Anglo-Catholic mystic who died in 1941, published an absolutely fantastic book on mysticism in 1910 called: "Mysticism - A Study in the Nature and Development of Spiritual Conciousness" in which she devotes many of her pages to Eckhart and quotes from his writings, you can it for free online here: 

http://www.christianmystics.com/Ebooks/Mysticism_Study_Nature_Development/mysticism.pdf

Failing all this just type his name into google and you'll get plenty of material on Him! :grinningkudi:

 Speaking of the great Catholic mystic Eckhart, Eknath Easwaran wrote: 


"...These words of Meister Eckhart, addressed to ordinary people in a quiet German-speaking town almost seven hundred years ago, testify to a discovery about the nature of the human spirit as revolutionary as Einstein’s theories about the nature of the universe. If truly understood, that discovery would transform the world we live in at least as radically as Einstein’s theories changed the world of science. “We have grasped the mystery of the atom,” General Omar Bradley once said, “and rejected the Sermon on the Mount…Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” If we could grasp the mystery of Eckhart’s “uncreated light in the soul” – surely no more abstruse than relativity! – the transformation in our thinking would set our world right side up....“Its fruits will be God-nature!” What promise could be more revolutionary? Yet Eckhart, like other great mystics of the Catholic Church before and after him, does no more than assure us of his personal experience. The seed is there, and the ground is fertile. Nothing is required but diligent gardening to bring into existence the God-tree: a life that proclaims the original goodness in all creation..." 


*- Eknath Easwaran (1910 – 1999), Indian Hindu mystic* 


So yes I agree - Eckhart is fascinating! kaurhug


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

*Here are some small quotes from Eckhart and a link to the books they are from - check them out! *

*God Is Everywhere*
"One who truly has God will have Him in all places, in the streets and in the world, no less than in the church."
(_Meister Eckhart, from Whom God Hid Nothing_) 

*A Book about God*
"Every creature is full of God and a book about God."
(_The Reinvention of Work_ by Matthew Fox) 

*Spiritual Transformation*
"A person works in a stable.
That person has a breakthrough.
What does he do? 
He returns to work in the stable."
(_Meditations with Meister Eckhart_ by Matthew Fox) 

*What God Expects of You*
"God expects but one thing of you, and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being and let God be in you."
(_The Perennial Philosophy_ by Aldous Huxley) 

*Why We Miss God*
"God is at home in us, but we are abroad."
(_Call to Purpose_ by Richard Solly) 


*The Inward Work*
"The outward work can never be small if the inward one is great, and the outward work can never be great or good if the inward is small or of little worth." 

(_The Reinvention of Work_ by Matthew Fox) 

*The Underground River*
"God is a great underground river that no one can dam up and no one can stop." 
(Wrestling with the Prophets by Matthew Fox) 

*God Is Still at Work Creating*
"God is creating the entire universe, fully and totally, in the present now."
(_Wrestling with the Prophets_ by Matthew Fox) 

*Do Justice*
"If you want to discover who you are, do justice engaging fully in order to change things."
(_Earth Story Sacred Story_ by James Conlon) 

*Let Go of God*
"In order to find God, we must let God go.
There above the mind, God shines."
(Why Not be a Mystic? by Frank Tuoti) 


*No Bad Luck*
"However, I have never had bad luck. This is because I live with God and always feel that what He does is for the best. Whatever God sends me, be it pleasant or unpleasant, I accept with a grateful heart. That is why I have never had bad luck."
(_The Inner Treasure_ by Jonathan Star)


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

Interestingly enough the _Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh _speaks of Eckhart, saying of him: 


*"....One of the most lucid prophetic precursors of the spiritual foundations of democratic religion was Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), the great Dominican mystic of the Rhineland in Germany. During the twilight of the Middle Ages [...] Eckhart emerged in the Rhineland, speaking in the great cathedrals of Cologne and Strasbourg, not in the Latin of the scholastics or the French of the aristocracy, but in the simple vernacular German of the common people of his time. Using plain words and ordinary idiom, Eckhart preached a lofty democratic vision of God as ‘Pure Being’ and ‘Pure Unity’ in the universal common ground of every human soul. We are all one and equally grounded in God, Eckhart argued. The problem is that we don’t realise it, because our perception of the truth is obstructed by our own egocentric attachments and illusions. According to Eckhart, the task of spiritual awakening for every person is the same — only let go of your egocentric attachments, and your true nature of oneness with all people in God will thereby be illuminated..."*


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2012)

"...If indeed a man thinks he will get more of God by meditation, by devotion, by ectasies or by special infusion of grace than by the fireside or in the stable - that is nothing but taking God, wrapping a cloak around his head and shoving him under a bench...If you are wrapped up in an ecstatic experience and hear that a hungry person is at the door, leave behind your rapture and go and prepare some soup for him...If a person were in such a rapturous state as St. Paul once entered, and he knew of a sick man who wanted a cup of soup, it would be far better to withdraw from the rapture for love’s sake and serve him who is in need...Do not cling to the symbols, but get to the inner truth..." 

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


----------



## aristotle (Mar 31, 2012)

As a part of my Indian upbringing I was always spiritually fed about the Karma theory, after lives and previous lives. But now when I have taken up Science as my profession and reflected about the normal happenings around, the whole concept seems so naive to me ..
I would just like to quote from Einstein..
" I believe in God, If by the word 'God' you mean the embodiment of physical laws of nature .. "
:interestedsingh:


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 31, 2012)

aristotle ji thanks for your post.  One comment,





aristotle said:


> As a part of my Indian upbringing I was always spiritually fed about the Karma theory, after lives and previous lives. But now when I have taken up Science as my profession and reflected about the normal happenings around, the whole concept seems so naive to me ..
> I would just like to quote from Einstein..
> " I believe in God, If by the word 'God' you mean the embodiment of physical laws of nature .. "
> :interestedsingh:


How about the following,



> Understanding the eternal truth and living in understanding of such



Is it in line with what Einestein says other than the focus on Physical?  As I understand it, such is one of the fundamental teachings in SGGS.

Sat Sri Akal.​
​


----------



## aristotle (Mar 31, 2012)

That depends on how you interpret it.
* Some people think reading religious texts is the only way to gain the 'eternal' knowledge, they dub all other ways to have knowledge as 'physical'(=non-eternal).
* While for some, dissecting the mysteries of nature is the 'eternal' knowledge.
* Some combine both..
==But the big thing as a Sikh(=sisya=student), is to keep learning==


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 31, 2012)

Aristotle ji one comment.





aristotle said:


> That depends on how you interpret it.
> * Some people think reading religious texts is the only way to gain the 'eternal' knowledge, they dub all other ways to have knowledge as 'physical'(=non-eternal).
> * While for some, dissecting the mysteries of nature is the 'eternal' knowledge.
> * Some combine both..
> *==But the big thing as a Sikh(=sisya=student), is to keep learning==*


_SGGS has this as a common theme as to the in-finiteness of the creator and so to the in-finiteness of learning and hence learning all the time!__  The issue many of our Sikh brothers and sisters have is that they want to get there in a hurry without regard to how many been before us that we are part of and how many past us that we would be part of._ _There is no end to this either, evolved learning or reality of how it has been unfolding for ever and will continue to do so needs to be recognized for living in consonance with the present and every moment._

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## aristotle (Mar 31, 2012)

The Creator is described in the Gurbani as 'Apaar' (or the one who cannot be fully known or described) and so is his(?) creation.
This fact does not deter the Gurus and Saints whose hymns are included in the Guru Granth Sahib, to sing the praises of the creator.
Infinity is not 'void', it is instead 'all pervading'. This is a novel concept of the Gurbani. Gurbani does not vainly boast of 'describing' the Lord as do the other religious texts, it instead encourages to dwelve into the infinity and become one with the creator.
It is more of a realisation than a description, I think. Gurbani is thus the perfect spiritual meal for my scientific mind.


----------



## Diyelasi Tali (Apr 1, 2012)

_I chose_ _"Up/down is being human and creator is neither partial nor vengeful." because of the countless horrific scenes that I dealt with as a Police Officer for so many years. I have arrived at the location of a violent crime and saw brother Officers shaking their heads and saying "There can't be a God, he wouldn't let something like this happen to innocent people..." As a Crime Scene Photographer for eight years and a Child Sexual Abuse Investigator for another eight, I *had *to develop some sort of explanation for man's inhumanity to his fellow man as a coping mechanism. I found comfort in telling myself that it wasn't a vengeful God behind what had happened, no matter how "good" or "bad" the victim was. I never searched deeper for further answers...just shook it off and went on to the next call.
_


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 1, 2012)

Diyelasiji

Creator gives us full reign to carry out our actions I believe. The laws of nature, of man,  Creation are respected by Creator I also believe. 

I note you are part Red Indian, my wife has told me many fascinating stories about the Red Indians and their respect for Creation. (wife is the brains in our marriage )


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 2, 2012)

Dyelasi ji

It's nice to have people from all different backgrounds to communicate with. I understand your interest in sikhism and that is good.
 From what I know, native Indians believe that a human consists of equal parts of mind, body and soul and also that all life forms such as creatures and nature are creations of One true creator or God.
The sikhism belief is also very similar in terms of just the One true lord.
Spirituality is a huge part of indian culture that it overlaps so closely that to some it seems like a religion.
In a similar way, sikhism and khalsa is more a way of life rather than being charachterised by praying and rituals.
Attaining control over mind helps one achieve more spirituality in both cases and regarding all of creation as sacred.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm a Sikh.  animatedkhanda1


I do the chardi kala thing, not always very well, but usually with some success.


----------



## findingmyway (Apr 15, 2012)

Something a partially sighted patient said to me has stuck with me and inspired me. She said a lot of people exclaim Why Me when coming to difficult patches in their life. Her reply was why not?! If we don't want it to be me then by definition someone else should suffer so indeed why not me? Life's challenges have to be dealt with and not cried over. That's just the way it is! That is my attempt at being chardi kala


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Apr 15, 2012)

I try to remember to ask for greater strength to endure.  I've learned from experience that hard times are times of great learning if I can get through them.gingerteakaur

I'm not exactly a saint, though.  At times, especially when I'm in pain, like right now, it's really hard not to succumb to self-pity.  Usually turning on the news channels will cure me, at least temporarily.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 19, 2012)

> I'm not exactly a saint,


 
_Sis ,Saints have to Soldier on ,that is why we are Saint-Soldiers, you cannot have one without the other,pain is just the chisel that carves your character-Self, it will make you or break you._


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 20, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> _Sis ,Saints have to Soldier on ,that is why we are Saint-Soldiers, you cannot have one without the other,pain is just the chisel that carves your character-Self, it will make you or break you._



Spji,

I find this a tiny bit Abrahamic given the multitude of people around the world in pain. I did not realise pain was rated so highly as a means of character formation............


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Apr 20, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> _Sis ,Saints have to Soldier on ,that is why we are Saint-Soldiers, you cannot have one without the other,pain is just the chisel that carves your character-Self, it will make you or break you._



A soldier who is not a saint is a brute.
A saint who is not a soldier is a weakling.
Our Guru Sahiban were very wise!

I accept necessary pain as a learning experience.  I believe a certain amount of pain of various sorts - physical, emotional, spiritual - is part of the human experience and unavoidable. I believe pain is part of the natural order; I do not believe Akal Purakh sends us pain to test or strengthen us

We can choose to use pain to grow stronger or be broken by it - or both.  We can be broken and recover and become stronger than before.

Of course, some people seem to be innately stronger and some weaker. It is not for the stronger to denigrate and humiliate the weaker.  It is then for the stronger to lift up the weaker and help them gain strength, so we all gain. 

Excuse me now, I'm in a lot of pain and must go take a Vicodin before it gets so bad I can't walk.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 20, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Spji,
> 
> I find this a tiny bit Abrahamic given the *multitude* of people around the world in pain. I did not realise pain was rated so highly as a means of character formation............


 
Musketeer funny you should say that as Abraham means father of the *multitude.*

_I see you have an aversion to Abraham .These are the attributes of God in Christianity is he that different?._

Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 21, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Musketeer funny you should say that as Abraham means father of the *multitude.*
> 
> _I see you have an aversion to Abraham .These are the attributes of God in Christianity is he that different?._
> 
> ...



Firstly, I have never found Creator to be wrathful, secondly, the Abrahamic god has form, gets angry, plays mind games, demands respect and is capable of great destruction. Yes, I do think he is that different.......


----------



## BhagatSingh (Apr 21, 2012)

Harry ji,
The Creator-tion (Creator-Creation complex) is in complete Oneness (non-descriptive) until the Oneness is seen as duality. In duality the Creator (is perceived as one who) loves and gets angry and becomes destructive and protective towards His Creation and all that juicy stuff. Recall the story of Prahlaad. For Prahlaad's protection, the Creator exploded out of the pillar (was perceived in duality) as a Man-Lion and unleashed His wrath on the Demon king.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 21, 2012)

> Firstly, I have never found Creator to be wrathful, secondly, the Abrahamic god has form, gets angry, plays mind games, demands respect and is capable of great destruction. Yes, I do think he is that different.......<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


 
Veera _He was angry back in Biblical times but by the time Sikhism started he had calmed down._


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 21, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Veera _He was angry back in Biblical times but by the time Sikhism started he had calmed down._



In Sikhism, Creator is formless, without hate, judges everyone to be equal, be they homosexual or female, I know its all very 'right on' to view God/Creator as the same in all religions, but I find the Abrahamic God to be a completely different concept from that which Guru Nanak Ji gave us, both in description, personality and order.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 21, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Firstly, I have never found Creator to be wrathful, secondly, the Abrahamic god has form, gets angry, plays mind games, demands respect and is capable of great destruction. Yes, I do think he is that different.......


 
Dearest Harry 

*"...Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God*...*Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love...God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them*...*There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love...**"* 

_- __1 John 4:18 (Holy Bible) _



Is this really a fair assesment of the Christian conception of God? It is not the conception of God espoused by Jesus or the Church Fathers or Saints of the Catholic Churches. It is not the God I believe in or worship. 

Catholicism teaches us that God is everywhere; that he is Unknowable in essence; that He is _Love itself in the plenitude of his nature without any trace or shred of hatred; _that he loves all, whether humans consider them good or bad; that he sustains all and that he is ultimately nothingness. 

I believe that the Creator is unknowable and inexpressible in his essence. He is pure spirit. No one has ever seen God. None can ever know him as he is in Himself. We will never and can never fully understand God. In this sense God is impersonal, transcendent, above and beyond all conceptions of human thought or imagination. In the very truest sense, God does not really "exist" in the way we do. For from Him came _all things_ in existence, and so he is not Himself a "thing", not a created reality, rather he is "nothing" - that is "no-thing". In this sense there is a distiction between Creator and creature. 

And yet in a different way, God is also - without being paradoxical - knowable. He is closer to us than our own soul. He is our very being, the ground of our being, the First Cause from which springs all created reality. He is known to us through the imprint of his being which lives and moves and breathes in and through all things. He is known to us through ourselves - for our bodies are the Temples within which his Holy Spirit dwells. We are made in his Image, and so he is known to us through other human beings. God is Love and so all who love are born of God and know God. In every perfect act of human love, we see God. He enlightens all men who are in the world, who ever have been in the world and who will ever be. 

In this sense God is not separate from ourselves, and there is no distinction between Him and us. This is what Meister Eckhart understood when he exclaimed: "*The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love. Your human nature and that of the divine Word are no different.” (Meister Eckhart)*<!-- google_ad_section_end --> 


This is from the Baltimore Catechism published in the 1870s and 1880s, that was taught to all Catholic school children throughout the United States and internationally and was the an authoritative compilation of Catholic doctrine: 


"...* 164. What do we mean when we say God is "infinitely perfect"? *

A. When we say God is "infinitely perfect" we mean there is no limit or bounds to His perfection; for He possesses all good qualities in the highest possible degree and He alone is "infinitely perfect."


*Q. 165. Had God a beginning? *

A. God had no beginning; He always was and He always will be.

*Q. 166. Where is God? *

A. God is everywhere.

*Q. 167. How is God everywhere? *

A. God is everywhere whole and entire as He is in any one place. This is true and we must believe it, though we cannot understand it.

*Q. 168. If God is everywhere, why do we not see Him? *

A. We do not see God, because He is a pure spirit and cannot be seen with bodily eyes.

*Q. 169. Why do we call God a "pure spirit'? *

A. We call God a pure spirit because He has no body. Our soul is a spirit, but not a "pure" spirit, because it was created for union with our body.

*Q. 170. Why can we not see God with the eyes of our body? *

A. We cannot see God with the eyes of our body because they are created to see only material things, and God is not material but spiritual..." 


- _*The Baltimore Catechism (1885), (then) authoritative compilation of Catholic teachings* _


Catholicism has a rich spiritual tradition with a sacramental vision of reality that sees God's presence in everything, everwhere and in everyone. 

To quote a doctor of the Church: 


_"...God said unto me: I gleam in the waters, and I burn in the sun, moon and stars. With every breeze I awaken everything to life...Oh fire of the Holy Spirit, life of the life of every creature, holy are you in giving life to forms ...Oh boldest path, penetrating into all places, in the heights, on earth, and in every abyss, you bring and bind together. From you clouds flow, air flies, Rocks have their humours, Rivers spring forth from the waters And earth wears her green vigour... Human beings cannot live without the rest of nature, they must care for all natural things...Then creation recognized its Creator in its own forms and appearances. For in the beginning, when God said, "Let it be!" and it came to pass, the means and the Matrix of creation was Love, because all creation was formed through Her as in the twinkling of an eye...Do not mock anything God has created. All creation is simple, plain and good. And God is present throughout his creation. Why do you ever consider things beneath your notice? God's justice is to be found in every detail of what he has made...No creature has meaning without the Word of God. God's Word is in all creation, visible and invisible. The Word is living, being, spirit, all verdant greening, all creativity. This Word flashes out in every creature. This is how the spirit is in the flesh—the Word is indivisible from God_..._" _

*- Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), philosopher, mystic, visionary, artist, poet, composer, theologian and Doctor of the Catholic Church* 


"...The fullness of joy is to behold God in everything..." 

*- Blessed Julian of Norwich **(1342 –1416), Catholic mystic*


"...The day of my spiritual awakening was the day I saw and knew I saw all things in God and God in all things..." 

*- Saint Mechthild of Madgeburg (c. 1207 – c. 1282/1294)*



_Dearest brother Harry, do you find these Catholic teachings objectionable? Do you think that we do not worship the same God as Sikhs? _

Certainly I believe that Catholics and Sikhs worship one and the same God; as do Muslims, Hindus etc. 

We might have varying understandings of Him, but there are common, universal expressions as well and I find nothing in the Catholic conception of God that is not in tune with Sikhism apart from the obvious exceptions of the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Trinity.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 21, 2012)

Vouthon Veer/Brother ji I have some comments.  I am sure Harry veer will answer too as you requested.





Vouthon said:


> _Dearest brother Harry,  __do you find these Catholic teachings  objectionable?__Do you think that we do not worship the same God as  Sikhs? _


_Vouthon ji I am actually shocked at closeness of thought between Catholicism quotes that you post versus what I understand of Sikhism thoughts.__  I believe we are closer than we are far.

I believe the issues come up in the delivery of the message or the definition of someone chosen to represent God/creator.  Sikhism does not associate with the concept of someone speaking on behalf of or so chosen to speak for God/creator at variance to all humanity.  Sikhism without reservation recognizes all as one in the court of God/creator (i.e. the creation we are part of).  There is place for the wise, the learned, the pious, but not being any closely associated with God/creator versus any man/woman/child on the street.  They just may have better developed understanding.
_ 


Vouthon said:


> Certainly I believe that _Catholics and Sikhs worship one and the same God; as do Muslims, Hindus_ etc.


_Vouthon ji the issue is not about God/creator but its personification, its idolization, access control to God/creator through messengers of God, deities representing God, the institutions set up to organize and exploit the common person and indoctrinate them in the name of God/creator.  _

_This is equivalent to the phrase that "devil is in the detail"._

_So the details in Catholics, Muslims, Hindus are significantly different and these detail destroy any commonness that may be at the origin.

This is the dilemma!__  Technically if all Sikhs, Catholics, Hidus, Muslims stayed to the one creator/God much defined as formless and pretty close in essence between Sikhism and Catholicism, then whole world could all be Sikhs.__  It appears Sikhs have stuck to the source while others have then elaborated and created divisions.__ 

At least that is what I think!_icecreamkaur


Vouthon said:


> We might have varying understandings of Him, but there are common,  universal expressions as well and I find nothing in the Catholic  conception of God that is not in tune with Sikhism apart from _the  obvious exceptions of the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Trinity._


_Thank you very well put.  

One has to think how big a divide it creates.  I believe it creates a big one philosophically that becomes segregational when implemented to make Sikhs as Sikhs and Catholics as Catholics._

Regards and always enjoy your posts.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 21, 2012)

> obvious exceptions of the Incarnation of God in Christ and the Trinity.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


Christian ,Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is full of stories about incarnations of God but everyone takes them to be mythology.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 21, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Firstly, I have never found Creator to be wrathful, secondly, the Abrahamic god has form, gets angry, plays mind games, demands respect and is capable of great destruction. Yes, I do think he is that different.......


 
I'm sorry, I'm not sure you really mean this because I find it difficult to agree.
I've always assumed all these references are for the same One God, wether abrahamic or not. 
This view is more familiar with the extreme islamic view that some have today.
I probably wouldn't have had any faith today if it were not for the teachings of Jesus that I learnt when younger. I simply cannot deny any teachings of the bible even though it is not my chosen faith.
Let's not forget that it's similar views to this, that end up starting wars and world wars.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks for your reply brother Ambarsaria! :whatzpointkudi:
I'll get back to you tommorrow! An excellent post! A lot to ponder 0

I leave you with this, from one of my favourite Catholic mystical poets *Gerard Manley Hopkins*, S.J. (28 July 1844 – 8 June 1889) who was an English poet, Roman Catholic convert, and Jesuit priest. Its two poems of his - the first called, _"God's Grandeur - The World is Charged with the Grandeur of God_" and the second, "_Pied Beauty_". 

Gerard Manley Hopkins - God's Grandeur - YouTube

Gerard Manley Hopkins - Pied Beauty - YouTube


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=601 bgColor=#ffffff align=center><TBODY><TR><TD align=center>*7. God’s Grandeur*</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><!-- END CHAPTERTITLE --></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=601 bgColor=#ffffff align=center><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><!-- BEGIN CHAPTER --><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>T[SIZE=-1]HE WORLD[/SIZE] is charged with the grandeur of God.</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>[SIZE=-2]_5_[/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD>And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>And for all this, nature is never spent;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>[SIZE=-2]_10_[/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD>And though the last lights off the black West went</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Because the Holy Ghost over the bent</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=601 bgColor=#ffffff align=center><TBODY><TR><TD align=center>*13. Pied Beauty*</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><!-- END CHAPTERTITLE --></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=601 bgColor=#ffffff align=center><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><!-- BEGIN CHAPTER --><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>G[SIZE=-1]LORY[/SIZE] be to God for dappled things—</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>[SIZE=-2]_5_[/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD>And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>All things counter, original, spare, strange;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>[SIZE=-2]_10_[/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD>Praise him.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
If anyone whats to read more about Him and his poetry then you can check out this book by Skylight publications: 

Amazon.com: Hopkins: The Mystic Poets (Mystic Poets Series) eBook: Gerard Manley Hopkins, Thomas Ryan: Kindle Store

The blurb says: 


_"...Gerard Manley Hopkins, Catholic mystical poet, is beloved for his use of fresh language and startling metaphors to describe the world around him. Beneath the surface of this lovely verse lies a searching soul, wrestling with and yearning for God. Hopkins writes from a Catholic Christian background, and yet his themes speak to people of all faiths who seek a deeper understanding of the presence of God in all of life. This beautiful sampling of Hopkins's poetry offers a glimpse into his unique spiritual vision that continues to inspire readers throughout the world. The poems unite his two devotions, presenting mystical images of God in the natural world, which serve as a window through which you might also begin to see the Divine Presence in the world around you..."_


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 23, 2012)

Vouthon said:


> Dearest Harry
> 
> *"...Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God*...*Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love...God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them*...*There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love...**"*
> 
> ...



Vouthonji

I have long admired your writings, you write extremely well, I even quote from some of your posts to my Christian Customers. 

Firstly, let us take the concept of love, your quote 4:18 sums up beautifully the concept of love, however, I have to admit to being extremely wary of people that are flowing with love, my life experience has taught me that those that shower love, invariably have an equal affliction for showering anger, for God to also possess this facet of personality, I find extremely hard to accept. This duality surely can be possessed by human and animal kind, but by God? 

I realised you are quoting from the ESV Bible, so to be consistent, I have used the same version.

Nahum 1:2-8
English Standard Version (ESV)
God's Wrath Against Nineveh

*The Lord is a jealous and avenging God;the Lord is avenging and wrathful;
the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebukes the sea and makes it dry; he dries up all the rivers;
Bashan and Carmel wither; the bloom of Lebanon withers. The mountains quake before him;the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it. Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him.The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble;
he knows those who take refuge in him. But with an overflowing flood
he will make a complete end of the adversaries, and will pursue his enemies into darkness.*

At the end of the day, one can quote from stories, publishings, rumours, hearsay, etc etc etc, but in the same way that as a Sikh, I have to give the final authority to the SGGS, surely as a Catholic, you must accept the above without dispute. 

I personally do not think you are Catholic per se, I think you are heretic Catholic, I think, like me, you do not accept the emperors new clothes. 

If we are talking about you, I find you extremely enlightened for your age, and  your posts are extremely thought provoking and agreeable, however, I find the description of GOD as stated above to be based on fear and intimidation, rather than love and inclusion. 

peacesignkaur


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 23, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not sure you really mean this because I find it difficult to agree.
> I've always assumed all these references are for the same One God, wether abrahamic or not.
> This view is more familiar with the extreme islamic view that some have today.
> I probably wouldn't have had any faith today if it were not for the teachings of Jesus that I learnt when younger. I simply cannot deny any teachings of the bible even though it is not my chosen faith.
> Let's not forget that it's similar views to this, that end up starting wars and world wars.



Sikhs have never started a war, that is not the style of Sikhism, however, Sikhism stands as a different animal altogether from the herd. And yes, Luckyji, I really do mean it, otherwise I would not write it!

Again, I am aware it is 'right on' and 'modern' to be all inclusive and see the good in everything, but each religion offers a completely different mindset to the next, this is possibly why those that follow all religions invariably end up going round in circles. 

Let us sum up the point of the main ones together with the conclusion. 

Christianity -All have sinned and are thereby separated from God. Salvation is through faith in Christ and, for some, sacraments and good works. Conclusion-Eternal heaven or hell (or temporary purgatory)

Hinduism-Humans are in bondage to ignorance and illusion, but are able to escape. Purpose is to gain release from rebirth, or at least a better rebirth.Conclusion-Reincarnation until gain enlightenment.

Islam-Humans must submit (islam) to the will of God to gain Paradise after death.Conclusion-Paradise or Hell.

And finally, Sikhism as I see it,  given my current understanding

There is no sin, and no separation from God. Salvation is through adherence mentally and physically to Hukam, the order of the world, this salvation is able to be realised on a daily basis and without judgement, rituals, pleasing God. Conclusion- Death, but you live on through your actions and those you have touched. 

So which you worship? the God that installs fear in you, the God that gives you a second chance? the God that bribes you? or the God that pretty much leaves you alone to live your life as per an advised existence with no reward other than doing the right thing, the truthful thing. I guess each has its merits, and I have no ruck with anyone lauding any path and following it, but how does chopping and changing from each path work?, or believing in all paths, if I were to accept each description of God, then what happens when I die? How do I converse with God, as a friend?, as a lover?, as an angry father? as a strict teacher? Do I worry about pleasing God? Do I worry about letting God down? Am I fearful of angering God?  

As a Sikh, God is my best friend, my lover, its a cosmic thing, being in the order of the universe, stepping on footprints that are already there to guide me, and if I do not, then I suffer the consequences, not from wrath, or anger, but just consequences, from an order that works like clockwork, not an order that is at the whim of someone that clearly may need anger therapy


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 23, 2012)

Dear brother Harry mundahug​ 

Thank you most kindly my good sir! I appeciate this very much.You have provided me with an excellent post, and I more than sympathise with the points that you have raised. Allow me to offer some of my own thoughts.​ 
I will take it in parts.​ 
Firstly, on the concept of *love*.​ 

"...The biblical image of love is not an emotion or feeling, but it is the glue and the motivator for each person to pursue a more Christ-like way of life...This bold Christian view of love demonstrates clearly that it cannot be reduced to emotion. Love looks like something. Here, St. Paul describes it with poetic detail. He tells what love is – patient, kind, enduring– as well as what it is not – jealous, pompous, inflated, rude, quick-tempered. The reading also foretells what happens when love is absent. Without it, lives and relationships are like a noisy gong. We can accumulate things, be showered with gifts, and even give things away, yet without love, all is worthless... A love that Christ demonstrates by dying for all of us is a bond of love that cannot be broken by anything – earthly, supernatural, or otherwise..." ​ 
- Father_ Darren M. Henson, a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Kansas City _​ 

I believe that you are talking about people who are driven solely by their _emotions. _A lot of Catholic teaching warns against being too _emotional _since as you say such a person given to extremities of love will also, by contrast, often be driven to extreme shows of anger if a negative circumstance were too arise, or if the object of their obsessive love were to spurn and reject it, which would often lead that so-called 'love' to take a jealous, wrathful turn. A good example of this is the character of Shakespeare's _Othello. _At the very start of the play he is over-the-top, ecstastically in love with his wife Desdemona. His love is demonstrative, powerfully affectionate and seems to consume Him. But when he suspects wrongly, fooled by his manipulative friend Iago, that Desdemona has cheated on Him with another man, he becomes vile and abusive towards her, violent and taciturn - which results in Him tragically strangling her to death at the end of the play before then committing suicide when he learns that she was innocent. Its a tragic but skilful depiction of a man _overpowered and controlled by his strong emotions. _​ 
Thus we find that in the earliest Catholic/Christian document outside of the New Testament, the _Didache _(prononuced _Day-DAR-kay), _which means "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", written between the years AD 50-60; and forming a crucial part of Catholic _Sacred Unwritten Tradition as opposed to Written Scripture _- we find this salient warning:​ 

"...Two ways there are, one of spiritual life and one of spiritual death, but there is a great difference between the two ways. The way of life is indeed this: First, you will love the God who made you; secondly, _"_you will love your neighbor as yourself._.._Love those who hate you, and you will have no enemies. *Yet hold yourself away from the fleshly and kosmic strong desires*...You will not hate any people, but you will reprove some, and you will pray for some, and some you will love more than your life. My child, flee from every evil thing, and from everything like it. *Do not become angry or prone to anger, for anger is the way to murder. Neither should you be jealous, nor one who creates strife, nor emotional. For murders are born out of all of these*. My child, do not become strongly desirous...*Now the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and filled with emotions*..." ​ 
_- Didache (AD 60-80), The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations_​ 

So as you can see having strong emotions is something which even the earliest Christians warned against. The love which Christian's speak of, and which they say God _IS_, is not a human love founded on _familiarity and affection. _We feel that kind of love only for our closest associates, our family and the like. The love Christian's speak of is a _Divine Love_ which in the original Greek of the New Testament is called _agape_ - self-donating love. Its not so much an emotion as it is _an state of mind and activity. _Thus Saint Paul tells us in the Book of Romans, "_Love is always patient and kind; l__ove is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, it is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth. It is always ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends_” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 NJB)​ 
Its about having a right attitude to life and other people, one which does not divide between good and evil; black and white; believer and non-believer but which motivates the person to be like God, to do good to everyone whether "evil" or "good" and to be willing to _sacrifice ones own happiness, pleasure, comfort and even life for the sake of one's fellow human beings, no matter whether they are Mother Teresa or a drug dealer and thug. It is active and living - not a "feeling", it is a Way of Life for those who practice it. _​ 
Religion must be founded upon and built up in Love, for _God is Love_, and love in the Bible is never a 'feeling' but is always something which is _active_ - hence why the word used most in the New Testament for love is "agape" or "charity" - a 'self-giving' love. The second word used for love in biblical greek is 'phileo' or _brotherly love_. Religion cannot be lived by oneself or for oneself. Religion connects us with the human race at large and gives us a universal vision of reality. The word religion comes from the Latin _religio_ which means "to bind" or "to connect".​ 

Hence why in 1890 Pope Leo XIII wrote:​ 

“_*The maternal love of the Catholic Church embraces all people*_...It is the industrious guardian of the teachings of its Founder [Jesus] who, by His words and those of the apostles, taught men the fraternal necessity which unites the whole world. From Him we recall that everybody has sprung from the same source and is called to the same eternal happiness” ​ 
(Pope Leo XIII, _CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE;1890_)​ 

For Catholics love is not an emotion we develop, it is a Life that We Life, a life lived for the service of others and not ourselves, as the Bible tells us:​ 

"...*Live in love*, as Christ loved us, and handed himself over for us...” ​ 
- _Saint Paul, Ephesians (5:2, 25-32), Bible_​ 

This love, by necessity, makes us go beyond the confines of race and religion and grasp a deeper reality, the underlying unity of all human beings in their origin and destiny - in God, from whom we came and to whom we all return, as Pope Pius XII explained upon hearing that World War Two had begun in 1939:​ 


"..._What a wonderful vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end... *This divine law of solidarity and love assures that all men are truly brothers*,* without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and societies. In the light of this unity of all mankind*, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times...With a heart torn by the sufferings and afflictions of so many of her sons, but with the courage and the stability that come from the promises of Our Lord, the Spouse of Christ goes to meet the gathering storms. This she knows, that the truth which she preaches, the charity which she teaches and practices, will be the indispensable counselors and aids to men of good will in the reconstruction of a new world based on justice and love, when mankind, weary from its course along the way of error, has tasted the bitter fruits of hate and violence..._
_Whatever We can do to hasten the day when the dove of peace may find on this earth, submerged in a deluge of discord, somewhere to alight, We shall continue to do..." _​ 

*- Venerable Pope Pius XII,Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of the Human Race) October 12, 1939*​ 

And so without exception this _agape _love given to us as a parting gift Christ on the night before his death on the cross, should impel us to exhibit selfless compassion and service towards all human beings irrespective of religion:​ 

"...[Many non-Christians are] ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace; because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all...God forbid, then, that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith [non-Christians]. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation...” ​ 
_- Blessed Pope Pius IX (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR, August 10, 1863)_​ 

“…I want to accustom all the inhabitants, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and nonbelievers, to look on me as their brother, the universal brother. Already they’re calling this house “the fraternity” (khaoua in Arabic) — about which I’m delighted — and realizing that the poor have a brother here — not only the poor, though: all men…Above all, always see Jesus in every person, and consequently treat each one not only as an equal and as a brother or sister, but also with great humility, respect and selfless generosity…”​ 
_- Blessed Charles de Foucauld (1858- 1916), Catholic mystic and martyr_​ 

Blessed Pope John Paul II stated in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem that:​ 
*“Man – whether man or woman – is the only being among the creatures of the visible world that God the Creator has willed for its own sake [to know him]; that creature is thus a person. Being a person means striving towards self-realization, which can only be achieved through a sincere gift of self. The model for this interpretation of the person is God himself". *​ 
*And GOD IS LOVE! :grinningkaur:*​ 
Often this love does not feel good. Often it does not even appear to be on the surface "loving". Many early Christians were orstracized by their families for Love of Christ, for adherence to their faith. It is a love that can _break bonds of familiarity, for the sake of a Higher Truth and a Higher Unity embracing all humankind. _​ 
_This can be seen most clearly in the life of the third century AD Saint and Catholic martyr Perpetua, a young Roman Noblewoman. _​ 
_Saints Perpetua and Felicity were martyred in Carthage in about the year A.D. 203, together with three others. In the year 203, Vivia Perpetua made the decision to become a Christian, although she knew it could mean her death during Septimus' persecution._ _The five martyrs were catechumens when they were arrested during the persecution of Emperor Septimus Severus, but they were baptized before they were led away to prison. Vivia Perpetua (whose name means "life everlasting") was a young married woman from a noble family and with an infant son, while Felicity was a servant and eight months pregnant. Perpetua’s mother and two brothers were Christian, but her father was pagan. When she was arrested, her father tried to get her to deny that she was a Christian in order to save her from execution, but Perpetua refused to deny her Lord. Christianity was at that time an illegal religion in that part of the Roman Empire. Her father was frantic with worry and tried to talk her out of her decision. We can easily understand his concern. At 22 years old, this well-educated, high-spirited __woman__ had every __reason__ to want to live -- including a baby son who was still nursing. We know she was married, but since her husband is never mentioned, many historians assume she was a widow._​ 

_Perpetua wrote an account of her trials before her death, which was finished and published after her death aged only 22 by her a friend, in which she tells us in her own words: _


_"...While we were still with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his *affection for me*, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from the faith — *“Father,” said I, “do you see, let us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something else?” And he said, “I see it to be so.” And I replied to him, “Can it be called by any other name than what it is?” And he said, “No.” “Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.”* Then my father, provoked at this saying, threw himself upon me, as if he would tear my eyes out...After a few days there prevailed a report that we should be heard. And then my father came to me from the city, worn out with anxiety. He came up to me, that he might cast me down, saying, “Have pity my daughter, on my grey hairs. Have pity on your father, if I am worthy to be called a father by you. . . . Lay aside your courage, and do not bring us all to destruction; for none of us will speak in freedom if you should suffer anything.” These things said my father in his affection, kissing my hands, and throwing himself at my feet; and with tears he called me not Daughter, but Lady. And *I grieved over the grey hairs of my father, that he alone of all my family would not rejoice over my passion. And I comforted him, saying, “On that scaffold whatever God wills shall happen. For know that we are not placed in our own power, but in that of God.” And he departed from me in sorrow*..."_


_By law, a pregnant woman could not be executed, but Felicity soon gave birth in prison, and she was happy that she could suffer death for Christ with the others._​ 
_The prison was so crowded with people that the heat was suffocating. There was no light anywhere and Perpetua "had never known such darkness." The soldiers who arrested and guarded them pushed and shoved them without any concern. Perpetua had no trouble admitting she was very afraid, but in the midst of all this horror her most excruciating pain came from being separated from her baby. _
_The young slave, Felicity was even worse off for Felicity suffered the stifling heat, overcrowding, and rough handling while being eight months pregnant. _
_Two __deacons__who ministered to the prisoners paid the guards so that the martyrs would be put in a better part of the prison. There her mother and brother were able to visit Perpetua and bring her baby to her. When she received permission for her baby to stay with her "my prison suddenly became a palace for me." Once more her father came to her, begging her to give in, kissing her hands, and throwing himself at her feet. She told him, "We lie not in our own power but in the power of God." _
_When she and the others were taken to be examined and sentenced, her father followed, pleading with her and the judge. The judge, out of pity, also tried to get Perpetua to change her mind, but when she stood fast, she was sentenced with the others to be thrown to the wild beasts in the arena. Her father was so furious that he refused to send her baby back to Perpetua. _

_The four new Christians went to the arena (the fifth, Secundulus, had died in prison) with joy and calm. Perpetua in usual high spirits met the eyes of everyone along the way. We are told she walked with "shining steps as the true wife of Christ, the darling of God." _

_When those at the arena tried to force Perpetua and the rest to dress in robes dedicated to their gods, Perpetua challenged her executioners. "*We came to die out of our own **free will** so we wouldn't lose our freedom to worship our God. We gave you our lives so that we wouldn't have to worship your gods.*" She and the others were allowed to keep their clothes. _

_The men were attacked by bears, leopards, and wild boars. The women were stripped to face a rabid heifer. When the crowd, however, saw the two young women, one of whom had obviously just given birth, they were horrified and the women were removed and clothed again. Perpetua and Felicity were thrown back into the arena so roughly that they were bruised and hurt. Perpetua, though confused and distracted, still was thinking of others and went to help Felicity up. The two of them stood side by side as all four martyrs had their throats cut. Then they were tossed about by an exceptionally wild cow, gored, and thrown to the ground. Perpetua encouraged the others and astounded the crowd. Finally, they were put to the sword. _

_Perpetua, along with other Christians of Carthage, went bravely to her death while admonishing other Christians, "*Stand firm in faith, love one another and do not be tempted to do anything wrong because of our sufferings*."_​ 
_However not being killed outright by the beasts, Saint Perpetua alone survived of the five victims and so a young gladiator was sent out into the Stadium to finish her off. When he saw that it was a delicate, pretty young woman that he - a hulking brute - had to kill, he wept and pleaded not to have to do so heinous a thing. Perpetua took pity on Him, and guided the sword of the frightened gladiator assigned to kill her to her own throat. The ancient account of her death says "*Such a woman - one before whom the unclean spirit trembled - could not perhaps have been killed, had she herself not willed it.*"_​ 
Every single year Catholics honour Saint Perpetua by remembering her in every Easter Mass. She died for freedom to practice her religion. That is *LOVE. And GURU TEGH BAHADUR DIED FOR THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS TO PRACTICE THEM! THAT IS LOVE!!!!*


_And so Saint Paul writes: _​ 

_*"...What will separate us from the love of Christ?*_
_*Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine,*_
_*or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?*_
_*No, in all these things, we conquer overwhelmingly*_
_*through him who loved us.*_
_*For I am convinced that neither death, nor life,*_
_*nor angels, nor principalities,*_
_*nor present things, nor future things,*_
_*nor powers, nor height, nor depth,*_
_*nor any other creature will be able to separate us*_
_*from the love of God in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 8:31b-35, 37-39)* _​ 

_This is the love that Perpetua exemplified; and you can substitute the words "Jesus Christ" above for "Love of God in Nanak", or "Love of God in Krishna" - it is a UNIVERSAL LOVE! _


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 23, 2012)

Vouthon Veerji, 

Many thanks for your post, most eloquently worded as per usual., however, I would be most grateful, if could answer in your own words the following which have not been clarified. 



> “Man – whether man or woman – is the only being among the creatures of the visible world that God the Creator has willed for its own sake [to know him]; that creature is thus a person. Being a person means striving towards self-realization, which can only be achieved through a sincere gift of self. *The model for this interpretation of the person is God himself*".
> 
> And GOD IS LOVE!



Yet, in my bible quote, which formed the centre of my argument, you have not addressed the way in which God is described, you do, however, confirm that God is to be emulated, which leaves me slightly confused. How can I , if I were catholic, emulate a jealous and angry God?


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 23, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Vouthon Veerji,
> 
> Many thanks for your post, most eloquently worded as per usual., however, I would be most grateful, if could answer in your own words the following which have not been clarified.
> 
> ...


 
My dearest brother harry mundahug

I am writing this part as we speak LOL - remember I said I would reply to you in segments? lol

Give me a little bit of time to tweak what I'm writing


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 23, 2012)

Vouthon said:


> My dearest brother harry mundahug
> 
> I am writing this part as we speak LOL - remember I said I would reply to you in segments? lol
> 
> Give me a little bit of time to tweak what I'm writing



so you did!


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 23, 2012)

Dear brother Harry 

I think I went a little bit overboard with length in my previoius post so I'll try and keep this post more concise but still meaty. 

Before I address the actual bible quote you provided me with directly, I would like to first explain the Catholic view of the Bible, which is quite different to how Protestants view the Bible, Muslims the Qur'an and Sikhs the Guru Granth Sahib ji. We have a radically different relationship to this sacred text, and it is important to understand this. 

Our Muslim brothers often to refer to Christians as "People of the Book", a term of respect for other Abrahamic religions, but one which Catholics outright reject. Catholicism is not a religion of the Book, the Bible or otherwise. 

As the Catechism explains: 

*"...The Catholic faith is not a "religion of the book." Catholicism is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter,the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."..."* 

Unlike the Qur'an and the sacred poetry of the Gurus, Jesus never wrote anything directly. He never came to give the world a Sacred Sctipture. Christians later wrote some of his words down, and the Apostles wrote writings that were written down for reasons of posterity that were later received as inspired writ, but this was never what Jesus commanded. 

Jesus called Twelve Apostles and an extended group of disciples composed of men and women and created a construct now known from the early second century onwards as _the Catholic Church which means in English, "the Universal Assembly" [of Christ's disciples]. _He gave these Apostles a _set of teachings which he desired to become a Tradition - _this word comes from the Latin _traditio_ which means, "to hand down". Jesus laid hands on the Apostles, ordaining them with his authority to teach, and they in turn laid hands on other people and gave them the authority to teach. And thus began what Catholics call, "the Apostolic Succession" - the direct line of succession of bishops stretching right back to the Apostles and then to Jesus Himself which constitutes the Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church united around the locus of stability that is the Church of Rome, headed by the Pope, where the Apostles Peter and Paul wanted the fledgling Church to forever have its centre of gravity, the root of this living, beathing tradition handed down from Christ to his Apostles and the Bishops, priests and laity that would suceed them down the generations. 

The New Testament Writings are the codification of some of these teachings in _Written form. _However Catholics also possess multitudes of _Unwritten, non-bliblical Apostolic teachings which are of equal authority with the Bible. The Church approved and selected the Writings which would form the New Testament, but it and not the Bible remained the Living Tradition created by Jesus and passed down from Bishop to Bishop by the laying on of hands. _It only could infallibly interpret the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, through the lens of that Sacred Tradition of which the NT constitiuted the written part - and it interprets it in a progressive development of doctrine and understanding over time, that is still happening now, through the living witness of the Early Church Fathers, the later saints, scholastics, theologians, mystics and the Church hierarchy. 

Thus the Catholic Church explained at Vatican II. 


The Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II") wrote an important document called "On Divine Revelation" (_Dei Verbum_ in Latin). It's quite readable, and contains definitive teaching on the full meaning of Catholic Tradition. 
The Council notes the importance of seeing that Catholic Tradition is firmly rooted in the Apostles: it is Christ's whole gift to them, and to us. The Council writes: 
In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion..., commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. 
(_Dei Verbum_, 7) ​It is specifically this "commissioning of the Apostles" that is fulfilled in the handing on of Catholic Tradition. 
The Apostles dedicated themselves to this mission, and they appointed other faithful men to succeed them and carry on their work. That same passage of _Dei Verbum_ continues: 
This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. 
(_Dei Verbum_, 7) 

​To see Sacred Tradition in action, lets take the teaching that abortion is evil and cannot be condoned by Christians. This is stated nowhere in the Bible but Christ and Apostles clearly taught it. 

This Sacred Tradition is attested as far back as the first century documents the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabus, written before the close of the Apostolic age: 


*The Didache*


_"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]). _


*The Letter of Barnabas*

_"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). _


Now lets trace this Sacred Tradition about a century later, the Apostolic Age has closed but this Sacred revealed tradition is still being attested to by Church authorities as universal Christian belief from Jesus and the Apostles: 


*Tertullian*

_"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]). _


And 200 years after this: 


*The Apostolic Constitutions*

_"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . if it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]). _


And now just over 20 years ago in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church: 


*Modern Catechism of the Catholic Church*

_"...2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72 _


_Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 _
_My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74 _

_2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: _


_You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 _
_God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes__..."_


That abortion is unlawful for Christians is thus (undisputably) Divine Revelation since it is a genuine Sacred Tradition that has always and universally been taught by the Church. But its not at all biblical. 

Pope Benedict XVI gave a beautiful catechesis on Catholic Tradition in late April, 2006. He says that we miss the profound meaning of Catholic Tradition if we see it only as the handing on of a static Revelation. 
More than that, it is the *active*, continuous work of the Holy Spirit in our particular time: it makes real and tangible "the active presence of the Lord Jesus in his people, realized by the Holy Spirit". 
Seeing Catholic Tradition as the active presence of Christ through the work of the Spirit is precisely what accomplishes the "transmission of the goods of salvation" to us: 
Thanks to Tradition, guaranteed by the ministry of the apostles and their successors, the water of life that flowed from the side of Christ and his saving blood comes to the women and men of all times. In this way, Tradition is the permanent presence of the Savior who comes to meet, redeem and sanctify us in the Spirit through the ministry of his Church for the glory of the Father. ​This reality of the divine action of the Holy Spirit within the Church is essential to understanding Catholic Tradition. It is what makes Sacred Tradition something far different than mere human traditions. 
Through that same action of the Spirit, Catholic Tradition incorporates us into the Communion of the Saints. It ensures the connection "between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the disciples, and the present experience of Christ in his Church." 
The Pope concludes: 
Tradition is the living river that unites us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are always present, the great river that leads us to the port of eternity. In this living river, the word of the Lord...: "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age", is fulfilled again (Matthew 28:20). ​Through Catholic Tradition, the Holy Spirit works to bring the grace and truth of Christ into our own lives. 

Because Christ was born a Jew, and Christianity first emerged as a distinct religion from the Mother religion of Judaism, Christians inherited the Jewish scriptures known by Jews as the _Tanakh _and by us Christians as _the Old Testament _that you quote from above, and which you think based upon that quote from Nahum, depicts an angry, jealous and wrathful God. 

The Old Testament does not form part of the teachings which Jesus passed down, however Christians do believe it to be inspired and divinely revealed *BUT *also to be imperfect and provisional unlike the _Sacred Tradition _passed down from Jesus, being written as it was by men of their times under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within them, who made use of their own experiences, knowledge, aptutides, skills and the _genre _that they chose to write these texts with. And so you get from these writings a true, holy and divine understanding of God but mediated through the understanding of imperfect human beings living many thousands of years ago amidst pagan nations worshipping many gods and in a state of permanent warfare and tribalism. God, nonetheless, guided this ancient people known as the Hebrews, gradually, from the depths of ignorance of his Nature and Oneness, from polytheism and human sacrifice to animal sacrifice, then to no sacrifices at all, from hatred to love, from war to peace - gradually revealing more and more about Himself to this little Middle-eastern tribe, moving them away from barbarity and paganism with every passing age, so that they would become "a light to the nations" - and fulfil his plan of being the race that would give birth to Jesus Christ who would go on to found a religion that would become the religion of the Roman Empire, slowly leading all the nations of the then known world away from polytheism to worship of One God, away from merely outward shows of ceremonial religion, and excessive rules and dietary codes, to a more interior religion founded upon a more exalted understanding of God as Love Itself. 

Thus in the Catechism the Church explains:


*204* God revealed himself *progressively *and under different names to his people



_Dei Verbum_ itself notes, that the Old Testament “contains matters imperfect and provisional.” But the Council goes on to say that, 

"These books [of the Old Testament] nevertheless show us authentic divine teaching. Christians should accept with veneration these writings which give expression to a lively sense of God, which are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way" (15).


Thus in other Books of the OT we find teachings such as this: 

"...The Spirit of the Lord has filled the Universe...The whole universe before you is like a speck that tips the scales, and like a drop of morning dew that falls on the ground. But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people's sins. For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? *You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living. For your immortal spirit is in all things*...For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen...You, our God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy. For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power..." 


_*- The Book of Wisdom (Holy Bible)*_

_The Book of Wisdom was written only aroumd 150 years before the birth of Christ and you can easily see the progression the Catholic Church speaks about. _


The Book of Nahum which you quote from above was written by the Prophet Nahum in the 740s BC - that is _OVER SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE BIRTH OF JESUS. _

You thus quoted from a book produced - yes under the guidance of the Holy Spritit but by a people that were not yet even pure monotheists, but many of whom still worshipped many gods, passed their children through fire to sacrifice them to these foreign idols and did many other such barbarities. 

The subject of Nahum's book is the approaching complete and final destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the great and at that time flourishing Assyrian empire by the Babylonian Empire. The King was at the height of his glory. Nineveh was a city of vast extent, and was then the center of the civilization and commerce of the world, a "_bloody city all full of lies and robbery_" (Nahum 3:1), for it had robbed and plundered all the neighboring nations. It was strongly fortified on every side, bidding defiance to every enemy. 

From its opening, Nahum shows God to be slow to anger - a certain progression from the then current understandings of God by the Assyrians and other neighbouring nations with their multiple warrior gods who delighted in warfare, the spilling of blood and in frenzied orgies - although not as yet a pure understanding of God as taught by Christianity or Sikhism. 

Thus Nahum writes, 

Nahum 1:3 (NIV) _The LORD is slow to anger and great in power...The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him_

_Slow to anger - far cry from this dude: Ashur, the King of the Assyrian gods, a circle or wheel, suspended from wings, and enclosing a warrior drawing his bow to discharge an arrow,_

_Ashur and the other deities were physical gods made of wood and stone that reflected human society. Nahum preached a God who was not of physical form, but was formless, whose form could not be depicted because he had none, who was slow to anger and a safe refuge for all who trusted in Him, who was infinetly good. _

_Ashur's followers chanted, "With the mighty power of the *god Ashur*, my lord, I marched to the land Sugu...I conquered their cities, took their gods, and brought out their booty, possessions and property. I burnt razed and destroyed their cities and turned them into ruin hills. I imposed heavy yoke of my dominion upon them and made them slaves of Ashur, my lord. I marched to the land of Sighu, people unsubmissive to the god Ashur my lord. I brought about their defeat. I built up mounds with the corpses_..." 

The Assyrian Army massacred men, women and children of the cities that refused to pay them tribute. Israel was one of them. And now Nahum, in the name of the true God, was standing up and fearlessly declaring that the rule of the Assyrian Empire was at an end and a new age was coming, where men would trust not in gods of wood and stone but in the Onle, Living God - not in the power of men but in the divine. 

Jesus taught: 

"...But I say to you, *Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous*. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect..." 


_- Jesus Christ (Gospel of Matthew 5:44-48)_


_God makes his sun rise on evil and good without partiality and with equal love and care? And furthermore this selfless, impartial, open-ended, universally applicable love is the justification for the need of Christians to love their enemies? _


You will not find that full, purified depiction of God yet in the Book of Nahum. Humanity was not yet advanced enough. The most important thing then according to the Divine Plan was to remove humanity from idolatry and pride and strength in _human might, arms and warfare and idolatry. _

Nahum was telling the humanity of his time that the Assyrian Empire, for all its power and might, would pass away. It was mortal, it could not last. And so he directed their attention to a Higher Power, which he called _YHWH - translated as, "the Lord" in our Bibles. _The Divine Name YHWH could not be pronounced, so had to be substituted with other words, and it means, "I AM WHO AM". A God who _IS. _Not an idol to be worshipped with human and animal sacrifices. And Nahum, to convince his people of this truth, made use of the violent imagery then used by the Assyrians to describe both their own power and their gods - _the message was simple: Everything that you think these violent, worldly Kings and Empires are, God is so much more. Trust in Him and not in mere men! _

_It took a long time to get humanity to the exalted, pure vision of God that is found in Sikhism and indeed in the Catholic mystics. _

_Please don't judge ancient peoples by modern standards. Its not fair brother. _

How can one compare a poem to God written 3000 years ago during the Assyrian conquest of Israel and Guru Nanak in the 1400s? So much progression has happened since then.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 23, 2012)

Oh btw just in case anyone gets confused, one of the ancient quotes I have above on abortion writes: 

_"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . if it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]). _

_When it speak of witchcraft it is talking about pagan practices such as passing children through fire to cast mythical spells and offering them to gods that don't exist in the context of the quote from Exodus about augurs, which took place over 1,000 years before Christ. And when it says "avenged" it is referring to the canonical penalty of preventing a Catholic from receiving the sacraments for a period of time so as to hit home the gravity of the crime which has taken place - abortion, infanticide or passing children through fire- from the Christian perspective, just in case anyone was like - What??? The Book of Exodus describes how pagan witches and shamens would send children through fire in mystical rituals in a form of child sacrifice that was practiced as late as Roman times in some places 0_

_In the Torah Moses said that the death penalty should be given for witches and shamens that passed their children through fire, however the Early Christians believed that the death penalty was illegal - that no life could be taken away. So they suggested imposed a merely canonical penalty for this crime, not being able to partake of the sacraments. As the Church Fathers explain concerning capital punishment: _


“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.” – Saint _Athenagoras of Athens (aprox 180 AD), Church Father, A Plea for the Christians 35_

"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men...Nor is it lawful to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.” – _Lactantius, Church Father (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.20_

"During the first few centuries after Jesus' execution, Christians were instructed to not participate in the execution of a criminal, to not attend public executions, and even to not lay a charge against a person if it might possibly eventually result in their execution. Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr and other Christian writers who discussed capital punishment during the first three centuries after Jesus' execution were absolutely opposed to it." - _VIEWS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY_


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 23, 2012)

Vouthon ji thanks for detailed well laid out post one above last.

I have a question and not to be flippant.  Abortion I see and agree and Sikhism from what I know sees and believes the same.  mundahug

Question of contraceptives!  Why such get suckered in and under what guidance?  Does it relate to the logic as "sex for procreation" only or something like that?  Why sex not be part of loving one another just as kissing, hugging, embracing, sleeping together in mutual warmth and passionate embrace?

Thank you.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 23, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Vouthon ji thanks for detailed well laid out post one above last.
> 
> I have a question and not to be flippant. Abortion I see and agree and Sikhism from what I know sees and believes the same. mundahug
> 
> ...


 

My dear brother Ambarsaria 0

An excellent question! 


There is no mention in Catholic _Sacred Tradition_ of contraception. The current Church hierarchy admits this, although not happily, and so the majority of Catholics use contraception. lol

It all started in the 1930s when the Church of England approved artificial contraception. The Pope, Pius XI, was extremely worried that this would give young people a free license to have sex as much as they liked with multiple partners and so issued an encyclical explaining that while sex was not just for procreation, but also for the mutual unity and pleasure of spouses in a committed relationship, it should also be _open to life and let nature run its course. _This text is called *Castī* *Connūbiī *(Latin: "of chaste wedlock")<SUP> </SUP> and was a papal encyclical promulgated by Pope Pius XI on December 31, 1930 in response to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican church. It stressed the sanctity of marriage, prohibited Catholics from using any form of artificial birth control, and reaffirmed the prohibition on abortion (which as you know is part of the Tradition and can't be changed). The encyclical encouraged Catholics to use _Natural Family Planning ie have sex when the woman is in her infertile period so as to avoid childbirth. _The Pope thought that observing natural periods and cycles like this would not only be legitimate but help the couple grow. 

Since then Catholics have been most displeased with the Church hierarchy for insisting on a teaching which has no basis in the Tradition, and I am one of those people. 

There are calls now to get rid of this teaching and I expect the next Pope will do so. 

However it will be with great _displeasure _on the part of the Church. 

In our bibles there is a book in the OT called the "Song of Songs" which is a poem about the romance between a young unmarried woman and man - a noblewoman and a shepherd boy - who slip off in the middle of the night without their parents knowing to kiss and be with each other and eventually after making commitments in secret to one another _make love. _In this book of the Bible the young couple aren't having sex to procreate should we say lol

Here's an excerpt: 

*"Kiss me, make me drunk with your kisses!
Your sweet lovemaking
is better than wine

...

Take me by the hand, let us run together!

My lover, my king, has brought me into his chambers.
We will laugh, you and I, and count each kiss,
better than wine.

Every one of them [the other maidens] wants you. 

...My king lay down beside me
and my fragrance
wakened the night
All night My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh 
that lies between my breasts. 
My beloved is to me a cluster of
henna blossoms in the vineyards of En-ged

...

And my beloved among the young men
is a branching apricot tree in the wood.
In that shade I have often lingered,
tasting the fruit [Oral sex 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ] 

...

Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind!
Blow upon my garden that its fragrance may be wafted abroad. 
Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits
[Oral Sex]

...

How beautiful you are and how pleasing, 

O love, with your delights! 

Your stature is like that of the palm,

and your breasts like clusters of fruit. 

I said, “I will climb the palm tree;

I will take hold of its fruit.”

And oh, may your breasts be like clusters
of grapes on a vine, the scent
of your breath like apricots,
your mouth good wine-

That pleases my lover, rousing him
even from sleep."

*...I imagine that would rouse me from sleep as well...lol


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 23, 2012)

Wonderful poem (wow  :hug: :40:  :Luv:  :afriends2.

Thanks for the complete answer.  I hope the repeal comes through for the good of all Catholics.  I note that "edicts given to people as help and guidance that only force them to break or dis-respectfully obey are not very spiritual and take away from the richness and beauty of a religion like Catholicism".

I understand fully.

Regards.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 23, 2012)

Vouthonji

I have learned much today, thank you

It is always a pleasure debating with a gentlemen

kind regards

Harry


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 23, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Wonderful poem (wow :hug: :40: :Luv: :afriends2.
> 
> Thanks for the complete answer. I hope the repeal comes through for the good of all Catholics. I note that "edicts given to people as help and guidance that only force them to break or dis-respectfully obey are not very spiritual and take away from the richness and beauty of a religion like Catholicism".
> 
> ...


 

Thank you brother Ambarsaria! :whatzpointkudi: Very well put, I agree 100% and I love those smilies too! lol

I also hope that this teaching is reppealed. Its been a burden from the beginning and an unnecessary one at that. 

But things like this have happened throughout Catholic history. Its nothing new. The church hierarchy is the _trustee _if you like of the _Tradition _and we believe that it will never teach anything expressly _against the Tradition_, however its fallible human members have often broke _the Tradition_ and its taken ordinary Catholics to stand up and re-claim it for ourselves. 

The Catholic Church has a long history of what we call _faithful dissenters - Catholics who in their lifetimes are often condemned but soon after or later are recognised by the hierarchy as saints, the most splendid and brilliant Catholics of their time. _

Differing with church authority is a noble tradition and today countless "good" Catholics routinely defy the teaching on artificial contraception. The dissenting tradition includes the likes of Galileo, Blessed John Henry Newman, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Hildegard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart, Servant of God Matteo Ricci, and John Courtney Murray. 

Do you know of Saint Francis of Assisi, the thirteenth century nature-loving Catholic friar? Well, he opposed the then Pope too his face for corruption. The pope prohibited his order at first, the Franciscans, but then relented and admitted that he'd got it wrong. 

Saint Joan of Arc was burnt on a stake in the 1400s for heresy at the age of just 19, by French Bishops in league with her English enemies. 20 years later she was absolved by the Pope himself who admitted that the Church hierarchy in France had made a terrible mistake, had in fact put nationality and factionalism above truth and her murderers were then condemned. She was later declared a _Saint._

_Saint John of the _Cross was imprisoned in the sixteenth century by members of his own order, and deprived of food and kept in chains. He was later declared not only a Saint but also a Doctor of the Church in recognition of the wonderful, exuberant, inspired poetry he wrote to his Beloved - _God_ - while in prison. 

Mary MacKillop, an Australian nun who was excommunicated in 1871 for challenging a bishop's efforts to govern her religious community. More than a century later, Pope John Paul II declared her "blessed" and in 2010 she was declared a "Saint". 

In twelfth century Germany, the Benedictine abbess Saint Hildegard of Bingen, healer, scientist, composer and author of 10 books, awakened popes and abbots alike, firing off letters like this one to Pope Anastasius IV: “O man, you who sit on the papal throne, you despise God when you don’t hurl from yourself the evil but even worse, embrace it and kiss it by silently tolerating corrupt men. . .And you, O Rome, are like one in the throes of death. You will be so shaken that the strength of your feet, the feet on which you now stand, will disappear. For you don’t love the King’s daughter, justice.”


She is now _Saint Hildegard and a Doctor of the Church:sippingcoffeemunda:_


Saint Symeon (949–1022 AD) spoke from personal experience of the vision of God. One of his principal teachings was that humans could and should experience theoria (literally "contemplation", or direct experience of God). Symeon endured severe opposition from church authorities, particularly from the chief theologian of the emperor's court, Archbishop Stephen, who at one time was the Metropolitan of Nicomedia. Stephen was a former politician and diplomat with a reputation for a thorough theoretical understanding of theology, but one which was removed from actual experience of the spiritual life. Symeon, in contrast, held the view that one must have actual experience of the Holy Spirit in order to speak about God, at the same time recognizing the authority of scripture and of the earlier church fathers. 


In one of his hymns, Saint Symeon had Christ speaking the following rebuke to the bishops:


*"They (the bishops) unworthily handle My Body*
*and seek avidly to dominate the masses...*
*They are seen to appear as brilliant and pure,*
*but their souls are worse than mud and dirt,*
*worse even than any kind of deadly poison,*
*these evil and perverse men!"* _(Hymn 58)_



He became - SAINT SYMEON! :sippingcoffeemunda:


Saint Thomas Aquinas, who followed a century after Hildegard, wrote commentaries on 10 works by the greatest scientist of his day, Aristotle, even though the pope had forbidden Christians to study Aristotle. So controversial was Aquinas in his day that the king of France had to call out his troops to surround the convent where Aquinas lived to protect him from Christians aroused by fundamentalist clergy. For Aquinas, “revelation comes in two books—the Bible and Nature” and “a mistake about nature results in a mistake about God.”

Aquinas insisted that one is always responsible to one’s conscience, more than to any other authority. (Indeed, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. cites Aquinas on this point in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.) Aquinas was condemned by church authorities three times after he died but eventually was declared a saint and Doctor of the Church; and in the 19th century Catholics were not allowed to study any theologians apart from Thomas Aquinas' works in seminary! 


Another Dominican, Meister Eckhart, is probably the greatest mystic the West has produced. His writings abound with depth, humor, paradox and challenges to establishment Christianity. For example, he declares, “I pray God to rid me of God.” He emphasizes what contemporary Biblical scholars are saying, that Christ is found not just in Jesus but in all of us. Eckhart says, “_What good is it to me if Mary gave birth to the son of God 1,400 years ago and I do not do so in my time and my person and my culture_?” Eckhart was never condemned or declared a heretic but the Church gave him a very hard time. He was tried for heresy but beat the hierarchy with the stunning statement that left them gob-smacked: "_I may err like all men but I am not a heretic, for the first has to do with the mind and the second with the will_*".* It was reading Eckhart that converted Fr Thomas Merton from atheism in the 1930’s to Catholicism and eventually into becoming a prophetic mystic of the 60‘s. Pope John Paul II was a devotee of Eckhart! 



Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit mystic and scientist who was banished from his home country to China early in the 20th century by church authorities, but who found plenty of scientific and mystical work to delve into in his exile. He spent his life researching the deeper meanings of science and spirituality and, being forbidden to publish most of his works in his life time, he left his books in the hands of a lay woman who got them published after he died. He is now considered to be one of the greatest Catholic mystics of the 20th century and is going to a candidate for canonisation pretty soon. 

These are all noble dissenters, and it was explained well by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a somewhat eccentric German Catholic polymath, in 1952: 


*"...The Catholic has the duty of forming, educating and training his conscience...Yet the Catholic who has lost his faith and who honestly accepts the teachings of another religious body commits a mortal sin if he does not publically embrace whatever religion he believes in. Father O'Karr very wisely points out that George Bernard Shaw was very much mistaken when he claimed Saint Joan of Arc for Protestantism. It was precisely her defiance of ecclesiastical authority and her strict adherence to her conscience which made her canonization (elevation to sainthood) possible within Catholicism...According to Catholic theology it is, therefore, quite likely that Jan Hus' soul went straight to heaven after his death, provided he sincerely believed in his own views, however erroneous [he rebelled against Catholic dogma and was a precursor to Protestantism]..."*


I am reminded of words spoken by the younger Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Fr Joseph Ratzinger and wrote a commentary on the Second Vatican Council in which he said:


*“Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition…. There is a distorting tradition as well as a legitimate tradition, ….[and] …consequently tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically.”*


I would suggest that contraception is clearly part of this distorting tradition. 



So on the issue of dissenting from the teaching on contraception, Catholic history is encouraging - the dissenters of today are often the saints of tommorrow in Catholicism :sippingcoffeemunda:


----------



## ravneet_sb (Apr 28, 2012)

Sat Sri Akaal,

When we say of previous Karma's. 
It's not karam of one's own span of life, 
but life that has crossed ages, life of parents, 
grand parent's ........ and so on. 

And the wonder word 

Re  Produce      means repeat production.

How creator creates             re production

Genetic records repetition and reproduction 

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Harry Haller (May 3, 2012)

ravneet_sb said:


> Sat Sri Akaal,
> 
> When we say of previous Karma's.
> It's not karam of one's own span of life,
> ...



Ravneet_sbji

I concede your translation to a point, but clarification is needed. Are you talking of the *actions* of our ancestors, or are you talking about facets of personality?

thanks


----------



## ravneet_sb (May 4, 2012)

Sat Sri Akaal,
Harry Ji, 

What is experienced through children, that most of there action are reflections of parental or ancestral repeat. And the fact is just correlated with re production.

Secondly religion often says all human are from the same source, 

from genesis of plants to animals to humans, 

mutations have resulted in human form, 

from than onward new form of life as "human" is on earth,
and further vocal mind has developed in the form, 
every human is having all the record since genesis,
only one loses the power to retrieve it.

With blessing of nature, one can realise.

There is no death in reality.

As the trinity (sound, light and matter) was always there, will always be there, 

Forms of existence of matter only changes.

Death is only perception of humans.

True Nature Prevails and commands everywhere 

Every matter is live and dead, 

as trinity prevails in all forms, animated or non animated.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki FAteh


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Harry ji,
Evolution


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

I thought you believed in reincarnation as opposed to evolution dear Bhagat Singhji


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

They are not mutually exclusive Harry ji.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

point taken, do you believe one must reincarnate to evolve?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

No reincarnation is not necessary for evolution by natural selection (the theory).

But reincarnation is spiritual evolution (evolution of the soul) by definition.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

in that case I would be hugely grateful for your definition of reincarnation, no one liners, be specific, is it the Hindu type, the Buddhist type? What does one take from this life exactly to the next

:interestedsingh:


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Why do you want the (or my) definition of reincarnation?


----------



## ravneet_sb (May 4, 2012)

SAT SRI AKAAL,

Word which one can not imagine is just read/written/spoken, 
one should be able to imagine to know word, 
and than imagination which can not be realised is not real (SAT), but just "EGO" one's own mind's thought creation. Experience SAT or Real

What is word "SOUL" and "SPIRIT"? Sat of these words.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

why to further my knowledge of course, if I am able to adopt one of your images as my icon, then to know more about the brain that thought up the image surely cannot hinder my development, and it is not 'the' but yours , and only in reference to spiritual evolution,


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

ravneet_sb said:


> SAT SRI AKAAL,
> 
> Word which one can not imagine is just read/written/spoken,
> one should be able to imagine to know word,
> ...



ji, I always though of Sikhism as the one religion where simplicity rules, although I love your posts, as they make me think, but the thoughts are so ambiguous to be of any assistance at times, :sippingcoffeemunda:


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Well, you'll start contemplating it and so what good is that to me when my intent is to quite your mind?
Have a look at this painting, I think it maybe the path of least contemplation.


----------



## ravneet_sb (May 4, 2012)

harry haller said:


> ji, I always though of Sikhism as the one religion where simplicity rules, although I love your posts, as they make me think, but the thoughts are so ambiguous to be of any assistance at times, :sippingcoffeemunda:


 

Harry Ji,

Soul and spirit are not fancy words, 
its light and sound in the matter, 
as in humans. 
Each life is union of soul and spirit, contained in matter.

One reads genetic tape with inner light and gives expression (written/vocal/symbolic etc) 

Get one word to realise world 

Its very simple  as "GURU's BANI"

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

My mind is quite made up my dear brother on the whole subject of reincarnation, yesterday I read a huge article on men that change sex to women, I learned quite a lot, however, I have no intention of changing sex myself, it is understanding, not contemplation I seek, the only thing I contemplate is Creator

However, your painting speaks more than words, thank you for sharing kaurhug


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

> My mind is quite made up my dear brother on the whole subject of reincarnation,


And what does your mind tell you?


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

Ravneetji

In the same way that I find little common ground with Confusedji, on account of the revolving of huge amounts of philosophy around Karma, could you tell me what your opinion is of what happens on death to this soul and spirit?

many thanks


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

When I die, I am dust, if anything other than that were to take place, Balle Balle, but I live my life on the basis of that concept

Just so we have relevance to the thread, I think it is important to see things either as a single lifetime, or multiple ones, when asking the question asked in the title


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Hmm and who is this 'I' that dies and turns to dust?


----------



## Taranjeet singh (May 4, 2012)

Bhagat ji, 
I think it addresses the question to a great extent. The Journey of soul continues along with all that it has accumulated.....Let us enjoy ourselves the shabad.


ਗਉੜੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
गउड़ी महला १ ॥
Ga▫oṛī mėhlā 1.
Gauree, First Mehl:

ਪਉਣੈ ਪਾਣੀ ਅਗਨੀ ਕਾ ਮੇਲੁ ॥
पउणै पाणी अगनी का मेलु ॥
Pa▫uṇai pāṇī agnī kā mel.
The union of air, water and fire -

ਚੰਚਲ ਚਪਲ ਬੁਧਿ ਕਾ ਖੇਲੁ ॥
चंचल चपल बुधि का खेलु ॥
Cẖancẖal cẖapal buḏẖ kā kẖel.
the body is the play-thing of the fickle and unsteady intellect.

ਨਉ ਦਰਵਾਜੇ ਦਸਵਾ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥
नउ दरवाजे दसवा दुआरु ॥
Na▫o ḏarvāje ḏasvā ḏu▫ār.
It has nine doors, and then there is the Tenth Gate.

ਬੁਝੁ ਰੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਏਹੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥੧॥
बुझु रे गिआनी एहु बीचारु ॥१॥
Bujẖ re gi▫ānī ehu bīcẖār. ||1||
Reflect upon this and understand it, O wise one. ||1||

ਕਥਤਾ ਬਕਤਾ ਸੁਨਤਾ ਸੋਈ ॥
कथता बकता सुनता सोई ॥
Kathṯā bakṯā sunṯā so▫ī.
The Lord is the One who speaks, teaches and listens.

ਆਪੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੇ ਸੁ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
आपु बीचारे सु गिआनी होई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Āp bīcẖāre so gi▫ānī ho▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o.
One who contemplates his own self is truly wise. ||1||Pause||

ਦੇਹੀ ਮਾਟੀ ਬੋਲੈ ਪਉਣੁ ॥
देही माटी बोलै पउणु ॥
Ḏehī mātī bolai pa▫uṇ.
The body is dust; the wind speaks through it.

ਬੁਝੁ ਰੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਮੂਆ ਹੈ ਕਉਣੁ ॥
बुझु रे गिआनी मूआ है कउणु ॥
Bujẖ re gi▫ānī mū▫ā hai ka▫uṇ.
Understand, O wise one, who has died.

ਮੂਈ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਬਾਦੁ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੁ ॥
मूई सुरति बादु अहंकारु ॥
Mū▫ī suraṯ bāḏ ahaŉkār.
Awareness, conflict and ego have died,


ਓਹੁ ਨ ਮੂਆ ਜੋ ਦੇਖਣਹਾਰੁ ॥੨॥
ओहु न मूआ जो देखणहारु ॥२॥
Oh na mū▫ā jo ḏekẖaṇhār. ||2||
but the One who sees does not die. ||2||


ਜੈ ਕਾਰਣਿ ਤਟਿ ਤੀਰਥ ਜਾਹੀ ॥
जै कारणि तटि तीरथ जाही ॥
Jai kāraṇ ṯat ṯirath jāhī.
For the sake of it, you journey to sacred shrines and holy rivers;


ਰਤਨ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਘਟ ਹੀ ਮਾਹੀ ॥
रतन पदारथ घट ही माही ॥
Raṯan paḏārath gẖat hī māhī.
but this priceless jewel is within your own heart.


ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਪੰਡਿਤੁ ਬਾਦੁ ਵਖਾਣੈ ॥
पड़ि पड़ि पंडितु बादु वखाणै ॥
Paṛ paṛ pandiṯ bāḏ vakẖāṇai.
The Pandits, the religious scholars, read and read endlessly; they stir up arguments and controversies,


ਭੀਤਰਿ ਹੋਦੀ ਵਸਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ॥੩॥
भीतरि होदी वसतु न जाणै ॥३॥
Bẖīṯar hoḏī vasaṯ na jāṇai. ||3||
but they do not know the secret deep within. ||3||


ਹਉ ਨ ਮੂਆ ਮੇਰੀ ਮੁਈ ਬਲਾਇ ॥
हउ न मूआ मेरी मुई बलाइ ॥
Ha▫o na mū▫ā merī mu▫ī balā▫e.
I have not died - that evil nature within me has died.


ਓਹੁ ਨ ਮੂਆ ਜੋ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਇ ॥
ओहु न मूआ जो रहिआ समाइ ॥
Oh na mū▫ā jo rahi▫ā samā▫e.
The One who is pervading everywhere does not die.


ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ ॥
कहु नानक गुरि ब्रहमु दिखाइआ ॥
Kaho Nānak gur barahm ḏikẖā▫i▫ā.
Says Nanak, the Guru has revealed God to me,


ਮਰਤਾ ਜਾਤਾ ਨਦਰਿ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੪॥੪॥
मरता जाता नदरि न आइआ ॥४॥४॥
Marṯā jāṯā naḏar na ā▫i▫ā. ||4||4||
and now I see that there is no such thing as birth or death. ||4||4||


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSinghji, 

soul, spirit, body, all interesting words, but to be simple, 'I' is the entity that is currently debating with you


ਮਰਤਾ ਜਾਤਾ ਨਦਰਿ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੪॥੪॥
मरता जाता नदरि न आइआ ॥४॥४॥
Marṯā jāṯā naḏar na ā▫i▫ā. ||4||4||
and now I see that there is no such thing as birth or death. ||4||4||

which leaves nothing, or everything, depending on how you look at it lol


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Taranjeet Singh ji,
Have you seen it?

Harry ji
My question to you is still on the table. Who is this *I *you are talking about (that is debating with me, is it really?)?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 4, 2012)

Veera It is Harrys' _My_ that he is calling _I_ ,oh no _I_ didn't say that,_My_ bad.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

Bhagatsinghji

The 'I' that I talk about is my very essence, all that is Harry, all my neurosis, my aspirations, my faults, my truths, my lusts, desires, it is everything that combines to make me who I am, what then is your I, or have you not finished with your questions?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 4, 2012)

Veera your neurosis hides your essence,it is not part of it ,all that is Harry throw away,when there is no you left, then you have it. Times Up


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

hahahaha let us contemplate my last Range Rover, before I spent the housekeeping on the blown head gasket, the faulty air suspension, the rear axle, it was a Range Rover with a blown head gasket, faulty air suspension, and a broken rear axle, thats what it was, if I were to sell it, I would have to declare these faults, or are you suggesting I advertise it as perfect?

It was a Range Rover, but with issues, I am a Human Being, but with issues, my essence has to include these issues, or what essence is it? a playful fancy of perfection? the ultimate Harry? no such thing exists, I exist with my neurosis, they are part of me, my essence is incomplete without them

Maybe some day Creator will put me in for a service


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

harry haller said:


> Bhagatsinghji
> 
> The 'I' that I talk about is my very essence, all that is Harry, all my neurosis, my aspirations, my faults, my truths, my lusts, desires,


How far does this list go? where do you draw the line? 

my desires, ..  my objects of desire, my legs, my parts, my arms, going past the sensory neurons in my skin... which are also mine BTW, the ground I am standing on is mine, my computer, my house, my driveway, my street, my country, my continent, my himalayan mountains, my great wall of china, my pacific ocean, my moon, jupiter, my alpha centauri

when do I stop?

This is a great exercise. Attach "my" to anything and it is yours. I can make anything mine. Is that who I am? 



> I exist with my neurosis, they are part of me, my essence is incomplete without them


You exist with?
Great, I think we can get back to the exercise. What do I exist with? Well unlike you Harry, I am not a puny person, I exist with everything. I exist with you and SP ji. I exist not just with my neurosis but with existence itself.

By your logic I AM everything.

By Sp ji's logic I AM nothing. Going in reverse and saying I am not anything I exist with.


Haha where do we go from here. We have covered all ground. Every crevice. Everywhere we go we find the I. 



> which leaves nothing, or everything, depending on how you look at it


Lol why does it depend on how we look it? I don't think we are looking at it right.


How many parts do we add or remove from a Range Rover before it stops being a Range Rover?

What makes it a Range Rover? It's name makes it a range rover. If no one called it a range rover it would cease to be a range rover. So the name is all that matters? The name makes you, you. The name makes me, me. Not my name or your name. The name. You can add things to a name, it is the same, you can subtract things like Sp ji, it is still the same.

The name makes everything what it is? Sounds shallow. It's just a name, there is nothing to a name. There is nothing to *a* name but what about *the* name? But what is *the* name, which makes everything what it is?

...here we thought we could understand reincarnation and add more knowledge to us. We don't even understand that which is trying to understand.


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 4, 2012)

There is an idea, prominent in Catholic mysticism and somewhat similar to Buddhism, that being being attached _to nothing _and by recognising nothing as uniquely _your own possession_ but rather as something loaned to you by the Creator that will pass too your children or others when you die - that you come to possess _all things _since you view everything from what the gurus call, "the Single of Equality" - nothing appears alien to you, everything in creation is _yours _and equally belongs to everyone else. And so through this_ poverty of spirit _you paradoxically come to possess all things by letting go of any unique attachment to anything. And so you come to be like God, who is equally in all, through all and sustains all without _grasping or possessing anything for Himself_ but rather gifting everything selflessly for the benefit of all his creatures. 

Thus Saint Francis dropped his _egoistic "I" in view of a higher being _and let go of his attachment to any of his possessions, and in this way he came to possess everything in creation, every single object and creature became his "Brother" or "Sister" because he was now like God, having everything without having anything. 


_"...Spiritual poverty, deepest wisdom, you are slave to nothing, _
_      And in your detachment you possess all things..." _

*- Blessed Jacopone Da Todi (c.1230-1306), Catholic mystic*

What you think guys? :singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

> What you think guys?


Don't get us started again Vouthon ji. Before thinking I was. Now, I don't even know. icecreammunda


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Don't get us started again Vouthon ji. Before thinking I was, now I don't even know. icecreammunda


 
LOL icecreammunda

I'm sorry - I couldn't resist. I saw you all roped in paradoxes and so thought I'd add my own to the mix. This is a fascinating thread :whatzpointkudi:
I do believe in non-attachment though. Its a keystone of Buddhist, Catholic and Sufi mysticism. That's powerful testimony from many disconnected sacred traditions. Through being attached to nothing as uniquely _your own _you come to possess all.

Eastern Orthodox mystics say that one should never trust thoughts. According to the Hesychasts thoughts are not really _you that is your deepest being. _They are a distraction from your true self. In Orthodoxy the goal is to become aware of thoughts and then let them go and focus on your breathing. This way you begin to see thought-patterns that are pulling you in certain directions and keeping you from stillness within.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

It's great the more the merrier... err the less the merrier?

Roses are red.
What else is red?
Well, red is red.
Red is a word, how can it be red?
*facepalm*
I suck at poems! 
lol

Haha but it rhymes though


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

> my desires, .. my objects of desire, my legs, my parts, my arms, going past the sensory neurons in my skin... which are also mine BTW, the ground I am standing on is mine, my computer, my house, my driveway, my street, my country, my continent, my himalayan mountains, my great wall of china, my pacific ocean, my moon, jupiter, my alpha centauri



I do not think you have grasped what I said, everything within me, physically and mentally is me, that does not include the ground, my house, the driveway , you stop when you have reached the limits of my physical and mental presence.




> You exist with?
> Great, I think we can get back to the exercise. What do I exist with? Well unlike you Harry, I am not a puny person, I exist with everything. I exist with you and SP ji. I exist not just with my neurosis but with existence itself.



you are taking this out of context, maybe you should get more sleep so you can understand fully my answers, this was in reply to Spji's comment above, taken in that context it makes fine sense. 

I am not sure what sense existing with existence actually means, would you care to explain




> How many parts do we add or remove from a Range Rover before it stops being a Range Rover?



That is easy, it as per the specifications on delivery from the company that Created it...




> What makes it a Range Rover? It's name makes it a range rover. If no one called it a range rover it would cease to be a range rover. So the name is all that matters? The name makes you, you. The name makes me, me. Not my name or your name. The name. You can add things to a name, it is the same, you can subtract things like Sp ji, it is still the same.



nonsense, you cannot stick a Range Rover badge on any car, just as you could not expect to label another human being 'Harry' and expect it to act, behave and think like me. A Range Rover is what it is because of what is under the skin, of what it looks like, it needs to be original and as per specification. 

I do not need to understand reincarnation, although it helps when I debate with people like yourself, as it assists in seeing a different point of view, that is all I asked, 5 hours later, I rather wish I had not, its quite a simple answer BhagatJi , Confusedji managed it quite reasonably without all the dramatics

gingerteakaur


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Harry ji,



> as it assists in seeing a different point of view


Lol I am showing you a different view and debating with you and you are still complaining about not getting reincarnation definitions from me when all you need it for is to see a different point of view and debate with me.  Hahaha



> Confusedji managed it quite reasonably without all the dramatics


How ungrateful of you.
:angryyoungsingh:



> my physical and mental presence.


That's what I am talking about. Mentally you can be on Mount Everest right now. Mentally you can even be mount everest.
And physically, why do you stop at the level of your skin? Why not keep going?



> existing with existence


You are doing it right now. 



> nonsense, you cannot stick a Range Rover badge on any car


That's what they did. They stuck a range rover badge on some random car they made and called it range rover. -_-
You think if they had called a different car range rover, you would not think that different car is a range rover?
If your parents had named you Happy, would you be Harry?

I am in fact trying to explain reincarnation to you. But we aren't getting past the first steps, including myself because I am stuck with you. As soon as you get to the next step, so do I.

You see in order to understand reincarnation, we must understand the medium by which it operates. We have not understood that yet. But as you say you need not understand reincarnation. You are right. That is true of everything. You need not understand anything. You really don't need to.

Where does that get us however? Where can we go from there? Nowhere. We cannot go anywhere. Let's stay home. That's the I.

Are you with me so far?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 4, 2012)

> Confusedji managed it quite reasonably without all the dramatics,How ungrateful of you


 
God is most Dramatic,God is the Static,I'm his Fanatic .


Who are you ? Halt ,take one face and identify your Self.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

Bhagat Singhji

You want me to play Batman to your Riddler?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Harry ji,
You think you can pull of his voice? ... or lack thereof?

Reincarnation
After death the soul leaves the body. Before birth the soul enters another body. Which one came first even the soul doesn't know. After birth, during life, it immediately gets engrossed in the world. It forgets it original nature and ceases to see the world as a play. Thus it becomes entangled. It comes and goes from the world trapped in the illusion that it's real. The only way of it's release is to see the world as a play. Seeing it as play, it recognizes itself as the player. This process takes several lifetimes leading to freedom from the play, as the soul starts to see more and more with experience. It sees the play for what it is, a play. It then lives happily ever after. Now this is all within the realm of time, it is all false; the spatial temporal realm is false. Outside of time, reincarnation looks like this.

Now Harry ji, what did you learn from that?


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSinghji

Many thanks for your short and succinct description of what you call reincarnation, I think it is a workable concept, it certainly explains the way and manner in which you post, and it has assisted me in understanding your core better than I did 7 hours ago, when I first asked the question. 

In some respects, I am drawn towards it, because as a concept, it is certainly more attractive than death and dust, and it also goes a far way to explaining the role we all have on this earth, and how we let external stimuli affect us and influence us. However, it is not for me, for the simple reason that I believe our role on this earth is far greater than what amounts to a participation in a soap opera, but, again, many thanks for your time and energy in explaining it to me, and I apologise for my ingratitude

time for a hug? I like hugs mundahug


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 4, 2012)

harry haller said:


> BhagatSinghji
> 
> Many thanks for your short and succinct description of what you call reincarnation, I think it is a workable concept, it certainly explains the way and manner in which you post, and it has assisted me in understanding your core better than I did 7 hours ago, when I first asked the question.
> 
> ...


 

I personally don't believe in reincarnation either but I do think that our brother Bhagat has been very patient and articulate in explaining the concept for those of us who do not adhere to it mundahug

This Life for me is the only one we have. Mortality gives meaning to life. The finality of it is for me what makes it so precious, a gift from God. 

I believe that each human being existed from all eternity as an idea in the Mind of God. We are made in his Image, and he is our prototype. The idea longs to re-unite with the Prototype. 

Reincarnation does not gel well with my philosophy of reality, however I understand why people adhere to it: It hits home the truth of the non-existence of an egoistic self, independent of others, and it allows one to see the spiritual journey as an evolutionary processes of a concious soul over thousands or millions of years of enlightenment process. 

However I do not believe in it. mundahug

I believe that the whole concept of human rights founded upon the dignity of the unique human person fits better within life as viewed as one and finite rather than many. Each person is an Image of God and unique; once that person dies, we have lost a unique _Person_ not a mere body inhabitated by a soul that will go onto another body. For me, reincarnation devalues the importance of incarnate, bodily existence and the dignity of each, individual human person. I realize that this is only my perspective, other people such as brother Bhagat do not and should not have to see it that way.

But for me Life is so beautiful and meaningful, from the caterpillar up to the lion, from the walnut to the tree, from the rat to the human being, because it is lived only once and is finite.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 4, 2012)

Harry ji, 
You missed it. The seven hours of thing we were doing, that was it, that was the core. 

Maybe next time.

*Hugs*


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

> I realize that this is only my perspective, other people such as brother Bhagat do not and should not have to see it that way.



maybe we should tie him down and tickle him until he does


----------



## Harry Haller (May 4, 2012)

> You missed it.



au contraire brother I am well aware of what you were trying to do, however, given we are both 180 degrees apart, unless one of us had said 'STOP' we would still be here now attempting to hold our positions, instead of just sharing what we believe in


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 4, 2012)

Vouthon said:


> LOL icecreammunda
> 
> I'm sorry - I couldn't resist. I saw you all roped in paradoxes and so thought I'd add my own to the mix. This is a fascinating thread :whatzpointkudi:
> I do believe in non-attachment though. Its a keystone of Buddhist, Catholic and Sufi mysticism. That's powerful testimony from many disconnected sacred traditions. Through being attached to nothing as uniquely _your own _you come to possess all.
> ...


Bhagat Singh ji, Vouthon ji, Harry ji and all other children in learning  icecreammunda



> Let your thoughts go so that you may listen to your true self.
> 
> Let your thoughts go and let your true self speak.
> 
> ...


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 4, 2012)

Thank you for your very perceptive reply Brother Ambarsaria ji peacesignkaur
I think what I was meaning earlier - or rather not that I was meaning but the hesycasts - is that we of the modern West have been raised with an underlying assumption, summed up in the well-known phrase of Rene Descartes at the beginning of the Enlightenment era: "_I think, therefore I am."_ The worldview of modern rationalism, which has lost an awareness of the unchanging soul in man, leads one to the assumption that our thoughts are what or who we are, and, conversely, that we are the sum total of our thoughts. Therefore, we automatically feel that we have to trust our thoughts, to take a stand for them, to defend them as we would our own life. 

This is the underlying falsehood of the modern worldview and psychosis. It is precisely by placing _absolute, unmitigated_ trust in the formulations of the human mind — rather than in the Divine — that modern Western man has come to water down or abandon his once-cherished Christian Faith and indeed embrace mere materialism or atheism.

There is something deeper than our thoughts, a _Person _made in God's Image, immortal, unchanging because he has his origin and destiny in the Mind of God who will never die. 

Sometimes negative thoughts crop into our mind. Its perfectly natural because none of us are perfect. However some people notice these thoughts and identify them as part of their _Self. _They thus come to the conclusion that _Lust is innate to them; that hatred is innate to them; that pride is innate to them; that envy is innate to them when none of these things are. There is no such thing as 'evil', what we call evil is simply the lack of Good which alone exists. And so people lose their true selves, which can only be found in God, and give heed to the false, lower self they have created themselves. _

_Thought leads to thought patterns, which leads to identity with those thoughts, which leads to a mask covering the true purity within, the pure relection of God in the spark of our soul. _

_Rarely are people true to themselves. They become what they think they are, rather than who they truly are because they allow life experiences, habits, the way the dress, the food they eat, the friends they hang around with, and the thoughts they think "define" them rather than seek for definition of themselves in God. _

We human beings wear so many masks of our own creation.

We take refuge in our thoughts, fantasies and emotions because they provide us with a deceptive sense of security and self-sufficiency. But Christ tells us to abandon that security and make ourselves vulnerable, relying wholly on our Creator. Both Christ and Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism (a Chinese religion), likened this state of self-abandonment to the will of God in the present moment to the mind of a little child who has not yet developed a mature ego.... "_Become as little children_," they said.

A child is much more in synch with the true Origin of knowing than is an adult. Simple and spontaneous, the little child knows without knowing _how _he knows. He can be happy without knowing he is happy. Isn't that beautiful and wondrous? He just IS. What adults often consider joy or contentment is in truth the emotional excitement of their ego; while a little child's happiness consists in the simple, selfless joy of being alive. 

When Christ told each person to "deny himself" and "lose his life," he was not suggesting that one obliterate the conscious mind, thereby denying our unique Personhood as some New Agey type people seem to want to do. Rather, he was telling us to purify it by casting off the false ego that has grown on it like a parasite and which is covering it. Thinking, imagining, dreaming and emotion are not destroyed, rather they are wholly submitted to the higher Will of God.



_"...Prayer cannot be pure if the mind is actively engaged in following thoughts. For prayer to be pure, it must arise from a pure spirit, or nous, and this can only occur when one first stands watch, and thus rises above thoughts and images...The holy fathers of the Orthodox Church say that man was created in a state of pristine simplicity—pure awareness. In the beginning, his thoughts and memories were not diversified and fragmented as they are today, but were simple and one-pointed. He knew no mental distraction. While being wiser than any human being today, he was in a state of innocence, like a child, and in this state he lived in deep personal communion with God, and in harmony with the rest of creation. _
_Being in such close communion with God, primordial man participated directly in God’s grace, which he experienced as a divine and ineffable light dwelling within his very being..._
_With man’s departure from the Way, he lost the primal simplicity and became fragmented. His awareness was no longer single and one-pointed. As St. Macarius the Great wrote in the 4th century, “Man’s thoughts became base and material, and the simplicity and goodness of his mind were entertwined with evil, worldly concerns.” Also with his departure from the Way, man fell under the illusion of his self-sufficiency. Before, when he had lived in communion with God, he did not regard himself as self-sufficient. Living in harmony with the Way, he had acted spontaneously, without striving and without self-interest. When he stepped away from God, he fell to the lie that he could exist of himself. This is a lie, because without God willing him into existence, he would be nothing at all. Now man acted with calculation, no longer spontaneously, striving for the sake of personal gain, and pitting himself against others. __Man had been made to desire and to seek God, to rise ever higher toward God in the communion of love. But when he departed from the Way, he fell to love of himself, and to desire for created things. Since the desire for created things is against man’s original nature, it leads to suffering. It can never bring true, complete, and lasting happiness..."_ ​ 
*- Hieromonk Damascene, Eastern Catholic (or "Orthodox") mystic*​


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 4, 2012)

Vouthon brother there is great wisdom in your post but I will comment on just one point you noted.





Vouthon said:


> We take refuge in our thoughts, fantasies and emotions because they provide us with a deceptive sense of security and self-sufficiency. But Christ tells us to abandon that security and make ourselves vulnerable, relying wholly on our Creator. Both Christ and Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism (a Chinese religion), likened this state of self-abandonment to the will of God in the present moment to the mind of a little child who has not yet developed a mature ego.... "_Become as little children_," they said.
> 
> A child is much more in synch with true the Origin of knowing than is an adult. Simple and spontaneous, the little child knows without knowing _how _he knows. He can be happy without knowing he is happy. Isn't that beautiful and wondrous? He just IS. What adults often consider joy or contentment is in truth the emotional excitement of their ego; while a little child's happiness consists in the simple, selfless joy of being alive.


_True *I* is __who we are when we are born.__  A little seed of a soul or just a little root transplanted in creator's ways._
_
There is little difference between a root or foliage in a child as it all is one and the same.__  When the I becomes me and basically __me__ is what is above ground versus __I__ now being underground, me has, me wants, me gives, me loves, me destroys, etc.  The distance between __I__ which is still there versus __me__ expands.  One's who can relate to the __I__ and reflect it in their __me__ have found what billions have been searching for.  Those who live in the closeness between the __*I*__ and __me__ go on to becomes the people of wisdom, saints, and the persona of spirituality.

_Just some loose ramblings.

Regards.  kaurhug


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 4, 2012)

Ambarsaria said:


> Vouthon brother there is great wisdom in your post but I will comment on just one point you noted._True *I* is __who we are when we are born.__ A little seed of a soul or just a little root transplanted in creator's ways._
> 
> _There is little difference between a root or foliage in a child as it all is one and the same.__ When the I becomes me and basically __me__ is what is above ground versus __I__ now being underground, me has, me wants, me gives, me loves, me destroys, etc. The distance between __I__ which is still there versus __me__ expands. One's who can relate to the __I__ and reflect it in their __me__ have found what billions have been searching for. Those who live in the closeness between the __*I*__ and __me__ go on to becomes the people of wisdom, saints, and the persona of spirituality._
> 
> ...


 
BRAVO! What you have written above is very meaningful and profound to me, not loose ramblings. I think that you have touched the heart of spirituality. 

Wow! That is a beautiful and very deep understanding of the relationship between what I would call the _Higher and lower self. _*You have been able to express in a paragraph what I have been trying, but failing adequately, to explain in a massive post. I think that you have hit the nail on the head brother Ambarsaria ji! I just love how you understood exactly what I was trying to say and distilled the essence, the gem if you like, the needle in my haystack. You are brilliant! *

I consider the fragmentation between these two to be at the root of all human suffering. Human beings are out of harmony. We are at war within ourselves. The goal of the spiritual seeker should not be to destroy the _lower self ("me") but rather reconcile it, harmonize it with your Higher self ("I"). The problem I have with Hinduism and Buddhism is that often it seems like they strive for self-obliteration ie no thoughts, imagings, emotions, desires which would lead to insanity and no joy in living not to mention lose of Personhood. _

There was a truly wonderful Catholic mystic called Blessed Juliana of Norwich (ca. 1342 – ca. 1416) who lived in England. She is regarded as one of the most important Catholic mystics and is even quoted as an authority in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the current Pope, Benedict XVI, dedicated a whole Sunday morning sermon to talk about her just over a year ago. You can read this talk of the Pope on her here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20101201_en.html

Through Blessed Juliana I learned about the distinction between what she calls _the Substance and Sensuality within man - _which corresponds roughly to what I call the Higher and lower self and what you refer to brilliantly as "I" and "me". I often associate the Substance with the human spirit, that God-breathed aspect of the soul that is directed towards and lifts itself up to God at all times; as distinct from the lower self (the Sensuality) which is our ordinary physical and psychological life, which matures as we develop and can become misdirected and obscured by ego. Our essential selfhood, our substance, our "I" is eternally united with God from whom it flows forth, though we are not always aware of it. Our sensuality is different, indeed it is very far from always being united with God. In each of us, Juliana tells us, lies the higher, inner self and the lower self. When our sensuality - the 'Me' - is not focused on God as the centre of our lives, then we are broken and fragmented because the higher self and the lower self are out of tune with each other. The task of spirituality is the reunifiction of our sensuality (our 'me') with our substance (our "I") so that we can become whole again in God. This is called sometimes _The Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. _

Do you know the word "salvation"? It comes from the Koine Greek word _sozo _which means "to make whole again". peacesign A lot of Christians don't understand this because they read the Bible in English translations and do not know the meaning of the original words. 

So in brief: Our essential self is always united with God, no matter how we feel or what we are concious of or what we do, it is the essential Ground of our Being which constitutes our selfhood, flowing from Being Itself, and no matter what we do it is always still what is. 

But our sensuality can be directed elsewhere, as it often is, away from God. This fragmentation must be healed. Our sensuality (Our "me") is focused away from God and fragmented from our substance ("I") and so we are divided against ourselves. 

We are created with a natural, in-built orientation to God in our inmost self, and are at odds with ourselves until this orientation is made the focus of our whole life, integrating our sensuality with our substance, which is always united with God. 

And I agree, it is when this _wholeness _between I and Me is regained, that a Saint or enlightened being is born :sippingcoffeemunda: 

Two perfect exemplars of this are the great Catholic mystic Saint Francis of Assisi and Jalal'u'ddin Rumi, the greatest mystic of the Islamic world. Saint Francis had been a rich, selfish playboy knight until at the age of 25, when - imprisioned by an army attacking his home town of Assisi - he had an incredible spiritual experience which changed his life forever, and which a few days later led him to see God in a leper whose face and body had been destroyed by the disease. At first repulsed, Francis then went down and kissed the leper and renounced all claims to his father's inheritance. Thus a Saint was born. In the Islamic world, Rumi had been until the age of 37 an Islamic scholar and jurist, skilled in Hadith - Shariah Law - but lacking any spirituality whatsoever, having merely outward religion and intellect. And then he met a wandering Sufi mystic called Shams and somehow he was awakened to his Higher Self. Shams later died, some say killed, and Rumi was overpowered with grief. But in his grief he started to whirl, to dance, and through this the Islamic lawyer was transformed into a God-intoxicated devotee of the religion of Love alone. 

Both Francis and Rumi were alive at the same time and although separated by geography, culture and birth-religion they essentially awakened to the same truth. In this same 13th century, Meister Eckhart was also born in Germany and he too, this Dominican scholar and Professor of Catholic theology, became a God-intoxicated mystic. 

Read: 


_"...Very few in Western society in our time would deny that we are individually and collectively fragmented. That is obvious enough from the mess and muddle of our lives and the society around us. Juliana would say the root of all this is that we are quite literally heart-broken. Our heart, our being, is split in two by the division between our substance and our sensuality. Human wholeness can never be achieved until this brokeness is healed. Our substance is always united to God; but our sensuality all too easily focuses on other things, most obviously on ourselves. We may call this sin, or brokeness or soul-sickness, or alienation; but whatever term we use, there is a fracture at the centre of our Personhood, the deep wound which divides us from ourselves and makes us hurting and hurtful people, spreading pain like an infectious disease in which everyone contaminates everyone else...Turning from God is turning from our deepest self. Because our substance is essentially united with God whether we know it or not, and because that is constitutive of our being human at all, the denial of God in our lives actually is the denial of our deepest reality. Juliana goes so far as to say that a person who persists in this denial ultimately annihilates himself or herself..."_ 

*- Grace Jantzen, Julian of Norwich: Mystic and Theologian*


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 4, 2012)

> _When the I becomes me and basically me _


Riddle me this ,Riddle me that ,it's a fact,he was me and I was *he*.


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 4, 2012)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Riddle me this ,Riddle me that ,it's a fact,he was me and I was *he*.


Scarlet veer I think this is for Harry veer and he may have something to relate regarding Hess too with Half man/half wolf face.   Me occasionally talk to I and I rarely changes, me changes   all the time.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 4, 2012)

> Scarlet veer I think this is for Harry veer


Veer Ji My ramblings are only ever meant for me and Spn is just my note pad ,please forgive my not making sense.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 4, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> ....... The only way of it's release is to see the world as a play. Seeing it as play, it recognizes itself as the player. This process takes several lifetimes leading to freedom from the play, as the soul starts to see more and more with experience. It sees the play for what it is, a play. It then lives happily ever after........
> 
> Now Harry ji, what did you learn from that?


 
Harry ji take note,
You obviously have a few more lifetimes to go through before your soul acknowledges it's purpose, reincarnation and the life of play.
Bhagat ji's understanding puts him a few lifetimes ahead:interestedmunda:

Maybe once the soul realizes exactly what it is and accepts the play as play, so to say, then it can depart from the bodily reincarnations and live happily ever after.....!!

Lets say that the 'soul' goes through these experiences in different lives as reincarnations to develop by learning through these experiences.
Once it has developed and learnt, then it can be out the cycle and at 'the happily ever after' stage, as Bhagat ji said.

BUT, how can one know what stage their 'soul' is at in this development ???
Well, all I know is that I'm not at the 'happily ever after' as yet.


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 4, 2012)

Luckysingh ji one comment,





Luckysingh said:


> Lets say that the 'soul' goes through these experiences in different lives as reincarnations to develop by learning through these experiences.
> Once it has developed and learnt, then it can be out the cycle and at 'the happily ever after' stage, as Bhagat ji said.
> 
> BUT, how can one know what stage their 'soul' is at in this development ???
> Well, all I know is that I'm not at the 'happily ever after' as yet.


_Don't assume sequential re-incarnation or linear thinking is how the creator thinks, plans and acts.__  You probably heard people talk about at least in mannerisms and physically someone being like a far removed great grand uncle/aunt, etc., instead of their father and mother.__  Life is wonderful but it does not follow a straight line and one way movement._

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 4, 2012)

I'm not assuming in this sense at all.
With note to the concept briefly explained by Bhagat ji, I'm just adding to this.
Taking into account that there is creator, soul and the illusion we experience or 'play'.
Development of this soul takes many lifetimes to say simply.
Where am I on this stage ?, is the question.


----------



## ravneet_sb (May 4, 2012)

Sat Sri Akaal,

Interesting facts, there is tradition to register the genetic record and events of birth and death, 
Pandits (few aware people of those times) use to get the things registered for all the beings, than the next generations, are facilitated with accumulated karmas of there ancestors, 
it was central record keeping, all generations used to register, and was adhered be masses, by creating fears, and is still followed by masses.

and as any thing may be knowledge can not exist as only positive, it has both aspects positive and negative, except nothing.

but some of them misused for moey and material collections, which has lead to downfall, and more people were educated about these facts, to stop inter human exploitation.

Basic knowledge was delivered free of cost by supreme saints dhan dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji to masses, 

Formal education is just for earning livelyhood, 

but to lead life with balanced emotions, religious education, which connects us to roots of life is of utmost importance. 

One  disconnected from basic awarenes, can never be happy and satisfied.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
 Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (May 4, 2012)

harry haller said:


> ji, I always though of Sikhism as the one religion where simplicity rules, although I love your posts, as they make me think, but the thoughts are so ambiguous to be of any assistance at times, :sippingcoffeemunda:


I think the simplicity of Sikhi has much in common with the simplicity of Zen.  A bit hard to explain, but I'm foolish enough to give it a go.

At first, Sikhi is very simple and straightforward, a sort of refinement of the bhakti path of loving devotion.  Love Gurus Sahiban and their teachings.  Love the Eternal, Akal Purakh.  Love and care for all people as your sisters and brothers.  Love and care for the Creation.  Love, love, love, love.

Then you study Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji, from the deceptively simple Shabads of Bhagat Kabir ji to the obviously deep and meaningful Shabads of Guru Nanak Dev ji.  There is no way of getting around the complexity of thought and meaning in all these shabads.  In fact, with study, even the seemingly simple shabads have depths of meaning you could drown in, if you're not careful.    This is a very difficult study, wrought with complexities and pitfalls...

I am told that if you persist, eventually you will see everything as a unified whole, simple and elegant beyond mere words.  I am not there yet, although I have had glimpses.  Perhaps some of our more spiritually advanced members can elaborate on this.  

Or perhaps I have it all wrong!  :noticekudi:  One thing I am sure of, Sikhi cannot be reduced to a set of rules and remain Sikhi.  

"Oh, Juanita, I call your name."

Just to stay at least marginally on topic, my favourite answer to "Why me?" is "No particular reason."


----------



## Harry Haller (May 5, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Harry ji take note,
> You obviously have a few more lifetimes to go through before your soul acknowledges it's purpose, reincarnation and the life of play.
> Bhagat ji's understanding puts him a few lifetimes ahead:interestedmunda:
> 
> ...



or maybe some of us are going to be very very very disappointed........ lol


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 5, 2012)

> Bhagat ji's understanding puts him a few lifetimes ahead


Yes!! I win! 
haha among students understanding is all that matters and is seen as a good thing, which it is but it is 'no understanding' that puts one ahead. I do have understanding and thus I have already been beaten by many. Many from whom we never hear because they had no understanding. 

A (true) student is one without understanding, he has not already made up his mind. And at no time does he ever make up his mind. Because he knows as soon as he makes up his mind, he is no more a student. As soon as he thinks he understands he is done for.

Vouthon ji,


> Mortality gives meaning to life.





> I believe that the whole concept of human rights founded upon the dignity of the unique human person fits better within life as viewed as one and finite rather than many. Each person is an Image of God and unique; once that person dies, we have lost a unique Person not a mere body inhabitated by a soul that will go onto another body.


I see the world this way but it does not oppose reincarnation the way you think it does.



> I believe that each human being existed from all eternity as an idea in the Mind of God. We are made in his Image, and he is our prototype. The idea longs to re-unite with the Prototype.


The concept of reincarnation starts from this belief. Imagine a basketball (as a human being) and imagine the ground underneath it (as God), essentially what we are talking about is, taking that basketball and dropping it from a certain height. It bounces several times. Each time it hits the ground and rises you notice the basketball looks different, it's still a basket ball but it's got a different design on it, etc. But in the end it hits and ground and stays there. That on the micro scale is our lives, on the macro scale it maybe called reincarnation. The word for reincarnation is actually Sansar, which means "the world".

Anyway I just wanted to say that for me reincarnation does not impede on this world-view like you suggest. When we look at 100, 1 seems small. When we look at human history, the life of one man seems insignificant. Can you look at both the history and that man's life with clarity?


----------



## Harry Haller (May 5, 2012)

> Yes!! I win!



I was unaware Luckyji had become Creator lol



> A (true) student is one without understanding, he has not already made up his mind. And at no time does he ever make up his mind. Because he knows as soon as he makes up his mind, he is no more a student.



There are words for this,namely being  indecisive, hesitant, faltering, undecided, indeterminate, wavering, vacillating, none of them are particularly laudable, certainly not any words I would use to describe great Sikhs of old.



> Anyway I just wanted to say ....



Ok, I know you won, but this is SPN, not the bloody Golden Globes lol


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 5, 2012)

Good for you Harry ji. You found some words.


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 5, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> The concept of reincarnation starts from this belief. Imagine a basketball (as a human being) and imagine the ground underneath it (as God), essentially what we are talking about is, taking that basketball and dropping it from a certain height. It bounces several times. _Each time it hits the ground and rises you notice the basketball looks different, it's still a basket ball but it's got a different design on it, etc. _But in the end it hits and ground and stays there. That on the micro scale is our lives, on the macro scale it maybe called reincarnation. The word for reincarnation is actually Sansar, which means "the world".


_Veer Bhagat Singh ji every time the basketball hits the court, the court changes too.  So how can there be a continuation if there is continuous change with infinite number of interactions and bodies involved at the micro and macro level?  Hence to claim or project re-incarnation as continuity or continuous is bogus.

_Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 5, 2012)

Please elaborate.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 5, 2012)

I used to think that, and nowadays my view has shifted to, why NOT me?:singhsippingcoffee:


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 5, 2012)

In terms of the original topic of this thread, I love this quote from Meister Eckhart: 


"...This I know, that the only way to live is like the rose which lives without a _'why'..._Man must live without why...Why do you love God? - I don't know, because of God. - Why do you love truth? - Because of truth. - Why do you love justice? - Because of justice. - Why do you love the good? - Because of the good. - Why do you live? - Forsooth! I don't know! But I am happy to live...You might ask life itself over a period of a thousand years the following question: "Why are you alive?" And still the only response you would receive would be: 'I live so that I may live'. Why does this happen? Because life rises from its own foundation and rises out of itself. Therefore, life lives without a reason - life lives for itself...Whatever I know to be God's will - the longer, the better, and the greater the pain, the greater the joy. For to do God's will is heaven, so the longer the will lasts, the longer the heaven, and the greater the pain from God's will, the greater the blessedness...The soul is in God and God in the soul. If anyone put water in a barrel, the barrel would surround the water, but the water would not be _in_ the barrel, nor would the barrel be in the water: but the soul is so wholly one with God that the one cannot be understood without the other. We can understand heat without the fire, and the shine without the sun: but God cannot understand Himself without the soul nor the soul without God - so completely are they one...Some people run in front of God, some beside God, some follow behind God. Those who run in front of God are they who follow their own will and do not care about God's will: that is altogether bad. The others, who run beside God, say, 'Lord, I want only what you want'. But if they are sick, they wish for God to want them well: that may pass. The third are those who follow behind God: wherever he wants to go they willingly follow Him, and they are perfect...These people follow God wherever he leads them, in sickness or in health, in good fortune or in bad...Thus God is in the soul, and the soul is in God..." 

_- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260-1327) (Sermon Seventy One), Catholic mystic and Dominican priest_


----------

