# Concept Of Evil Spirits In Sikhism



## vijaydeep Singh (Dec 3, 2004)

Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh
Here das is starting a bit tricky debate,what Sangat as general feels about ghosts or evil spirits or there concept viz a viz Sikhism.

Das wants to say often a misdeed of person and resultant weak will power cause the possision by 'Ghost' or often it could be a mental ailment.

But as per  Das Only but Akal exist in all universe as Univers is the manifestation of Akal.

Yet like souls with body exist so do souls without body do exists.

So it is in Gurbani

Kai Kot Jachh Kinnar Pishach,
Kai kot Bhot Pret Sukar Mrigach

moderator/Admin Kindly edit if verse is not coreectly written

Kai mean many
kot mean crorre ie 10 millions
Jachh is slang from Yaksha a type of human like entity(refered as human only in Akalustat)
They could be native of Sri Lanka before Sinhalees from north India sttled there.
Kinnar are men from high mountain from Kinnaour of Himachal Pradesh(both are refered in hindu mythology also as semi or full divine man like creatures).

Pishach is a type of Ghost ,which is vampire

Bhot and pret both are used for ghost.
Prest could be a ghost never been in human body while bhoot is ghost at least been born as human or may be other body and yet to be salvaged.

Suker is pig.

Mrig is deer.

Mrigach stand for what Das ask you for it.

But as per das Ghost do exist.And they posses the one who are devoid of faith in Akal. As there mind or brain is empty of Akal so those humans are always in bad frame of mind.

So dead or evil spirits occupy that empty place and try to use that body for fullfiling their unfullfilled desires(during there life,They still could not get salvation because they are yet to come out of earthly desires).

(Das is reapeating some things as said by Giani Sant Singh Ji Maskeen in one of his casatte).

Das awaits your views on it.

And on ghost busters in Sikhism like Baba Vadbhag Singh Ji 's school.

Das agrees to one more plus point of Baba Vadbhag Singh Ji' school of Thought.

Shaster Vidiya ustad of Das in Delhi have some devotion towrads that mentality and That ustad is so far succesfull to reconvert patit back to Sikh swaroop.

Also das knows a family of hindus ,who were Radha Swamis but this cult could not solve there super natural problem but Baba Vadhbhag Singh Ji'scool  did solve it.So they have left Radh Swamis and are adhereing to Sikh and Pro Guru Granth Sahib Ji school of Baba Vadhbhag Singh Ji.

Das has intentionally choosen this rather a contrvertial topic but in day to day practicle life Sikhs do encoounter such problems related to 'Ghosts'.

Das is just inviting the views of learned Sikhs on this issue so that there knowledge can be used in future for the welfare of mankind.

Akal may help us.Akal is only who help all.


----------



## Arvind (Dec 3, 2004)

This is a question so dear to me. I will just go off-topic on this for sometime. When I was a kid (12 yrs old), I got interest in calling these spirits etc. I dont know whether they existed or whatever, but was impressed by someone who did it. The interest led me to level of craziness. So much that whenever I am free, I am doing the same kind of (non-sense) of supposedly calling them! Later this paranoia went so deep into my head that I could visualize the complete universe within my head with all those planets, moons etc. This started to happen regularly, then I think, that was the point when I got scared, and got off my obsession, and never did it again.

Coming back: Guru Sahib mentions about two poles of most of the things - good or evil etc, same thing applicable to spirits - jakhh, kinner, pisach, bhoot, pret etc. One wonderful thing I have experienced while doing paath, is that these things dont seem to come near at all, or perhaps if they come, they intend to join the sangat. Not sure, if this is some kind of halucination what people call as spirit seeing, anyway, my human perceptions are not strong or ready enough to sustain that experience yet.

I strongly feel, there are things like nau nidhi, atharah sidhi etc too, which comes as a by-product of feeling 'Haazra Hazoor'. I consider people doing simran for obtaining just these as a goal are under a big mayajaal (illusion)

Just sharing my own feelings. Sangat: please forgive me, if this didnt make any sense. I look forward with equal interest what Gurmat says about this.

Best Regards.

PS: 'Kai Kot... ' baani is correct as per Guru Granth Sahib ji (276)


----------



## drkhalsa (Dec 3, 2004)

Dear Singhji 

Iit is infact hazy area in my concepts but I would like to share with you  what I know 
My father is amritdhari sikh and regular nitnemi from years I have seen him . And he use to tell me stories about sikhi and many other things and he use to condem wadbhag singh very much but when as a kid i asked him about the existence of bhot and spirits then the common reply was every thing exist but for for sikh these things matter nothing the same thing he use to say as vijaydeep has said he use to say people away from god or people doing puja of demi gods become slave of them and these things punish them . Frankly telling I wa svery small kid then ( 8 years old ) but I have never experienced any thing like that in my life . But I remember one incident when my father was talking to my mother And iwas sleeping near by that my father witnessed something like peer asking him to do something then somehow he getting out of situation but when after that i asked him he never told me any thing .Since I was 15 years I stayed away from my parents for studies and still away till date so I never got chance to really clearfy all this things but offcourse I was curious about it 
But the bottom line is I never had any experience of such thing in my life .


----------



## Singhstah (Dec 5, 2004)

i believe these spirits and ghosts exist, but i dont belive in the vadbhag singh dera http://tapoban.org/Loving%20Letter%20to%20a%20Troubled%20Youth.pdf  check that out


----------



## devinesanative (Jan 7, 2006)

No Spirit or Ghost Exists . Even if I will try to explain , I will fail because words cannot express it .

But , Spirit and Ghost Does not Exists . 

But if you want to see Spirit or Ghost , You can . Not even see but even touch them ......


----------



## devinesanative (Jan 7, 2006)

What's the mystery about baba Wadbhag singh ji dera ...

This has spoiled many lives due to misconceptions about evil Spirit ....

My own chacha became a Shadai ... There's lot to say but don't want to repeat those horrible years of child hood .....

There is my cousin brother who has visited many gurudwaras but still says evil spirit has captured him.

But what I have gained through years of researching and finding answers .. as per my findings what I conclude is that Wadbhag singh dera has too much negative energies surrounding . 


The more you think negative , more you generate negative energy , ultimately you attract negative environment and negative people .

And all this sums up to such a situation that Evil spirit starts coming .


----------



## devinesanative (Jan 7, 2006)

drkhalsa said:
			
		

> Dear Singhji
> 
> Iit is infact hazy area in my concepts but I would like to share with you what I know
> My father is amritdhari sikh and regular nitnemi from years I have seen him . And he use to tell me stories about sikhi and many other things and he use to condem wadbhag singh very much but when as a kid i asked him about the existence of bhot and spirits then the common reply was every thing exist but for for sikh these things matter nothing the same thing he use to say as vijaydeep has said he use to say people away from god or people doing puja of demi gods become slave of them and these things punish them . Frankly telling I wa svery small kid then ( 8 years old ) but I have never experienced any thing like that in my life . But I remember one incident when my father was talking to my mother And iwas sleeping near by that my father witnessed something like peer asking him to do something then somehow he getting out of situation but when after that i asked him he never told me any thing .Since I was 15 years I stayed away from my parents for studies and still away till date so I never got chance to really clearfy all this things but offcourse I was curious about it
> But the bottom line is I never had any experience of such thing in my life .


 
Dear Drkhalsa ,

Just Spend two hours with me I will Make you believe and even touch that peer not only peer but even Most Beautiful woman on this earth .... 

This is all the game of phsycology and psychic powers , which every human being has it .


----------



## devinesanative (Jan 7, 2006)

Arvind said:
			
		

> This is a question so dear to me. I will just go off-topic on this for sometime. When I was a kid (12 yrs old), I got interest in calling these spirits etc. I dont know whether they existed or whatever, but was impressed by someone who did it. The interest led me to level of craziness. So much that whenever I am free, I am doing the same kind of (non-sense) of supposedly calling them! Later this paranoia went so deep into my head that I could visualize the complete universe within my head with all those planets, moons etc. This started to happen regularly, then I think, that was the point when I got scared, and got off my obsession, and never did it again.
> 
> Coming back: Guru Sahib mentions about two poles of most of the things - good or evil etc, same thing applicable to spirits - jakhh, kinner, pisach, bhoot, pret etc. One wonderful thing I have experienced while doing paath, is that these things dont seem to come near at all, or perhaps if they come, they intend to join the sangat. Not sure, if this is some kind of halucination what people call as spirit seeing, anyway, my human perceptions are not strong or ready enough to sustain that experience yet.
> 
> ...


 
Our brain reproduces what it records .....

I have talked to my own brother , Listened to him , Touched to him , While he was watching Television and I was sleeping ......


----------



## drkhalsa (Jan 7, 2006)

> Dear Drkhalsa ,
> 
> Just Spend two hours with me I will Make you believe and even touch that peer not only peer but even Most Beautiful woman on this earth ....
> 
> This is all the game of phsycology and psychic powers , which every human being has it .


 
Dear D S

I am really excited about your invitation
so when can we meet


----------



## SUKHWINDER1 (Jul 3, 2013)

A great topic which many hesitate to discuss. Perhaps I would have dismissed these kinds of topics as some matter of superstition until I encountered an problem myself. Has SikhPhilosophyNetwork ever looked into Islam---the jinns where Quran explains very clearly how they are used in black magic. I mean it explains complete technicality of it. How they are called and given tasks(depending on the intention of who calls them). I am sharing my personal experience because our Sikh community needs to be aware of the fact that many ill-willed Muslim criminals(in our case, this person is from Pakistan)use these ways for crime( in the hope of no criminal consequences). And to confuse the victim, these kind of criminals try to make it a matter of Sikhs vs. Muslims. I didn't know this person and I only contacted him because he was part of local Desi Radio. I had called him for some work related issue(not radio but mine) and from that point he planned this ugly crime against me and my family. I had no idea of his reputation until he wronged us where I came to know  he had been known to stalk, harass, threaten to kill and deceive(money frauds) people.
Any how, I never knew this person personally and was never involved with him. All of a sudden, something struck me with the overwhelming thoughts of him threatening me of my death and that how he had hated my kids since he saw them(they were barely 7 and 8) and my end was near. And that after my end, he will get to them. And he told me that he was reaching me through some technology that couldn't be proven in the court of law. He knew I had no idea about jinns and how they work. During my research, some body told me that he inflicted her with evil also. She called him a Satan and told me how she went through suicidal stages. Through my research, I found out that it was not any kind of technology; he was using the way of jinns(which many Muslims are expert in) to torture me with utmost ugliness  24/7. It is the kind of ugliness that one can not even imagine....It included and includes rapes, beating, torture of our children, elderly parents and threats to kill my brothers(whom he inflicted the same way). Much torture was and is done to accept it as our insanity when in any real sense even if we became insane, it couldn't be around him. Because he was never part of our life. He had no significance in our life in any way. We were never involved with him in any way. He is a criminal and he thought it could be the best way to plan such kind of a crime against a Sikh family since a Sikh family will not know how he could be reaching them. They couldn't go to criminal law and if they tried to tell the community, the community will think of them as insane since a common Sikh has no clarity about these kind of ways or jinns. In fact, many of them think of such reality as a superstition since we don't talk about these ways or of technicalities of how these things are done while they are clearly explained in Quran. And Islamic countries have death sentence for using these ways. Somebody from Pakistani community who would fear death at the thought of somebody from Pakistani community coming to know of him using these ways against some family of a Pakistani community felt so confident to wrong a Sikh family that not only he will be able to inflict torture on the parents of this family, but also will get away with the consequences. And furthermore, the parents will be considered insane if they tried to talk about it to their community. In the beginning, he tried to tell us that it was a matter of Muslims hating Sikhs. However, the reality is that he had committed many crimes against his own community also. His reason of using religion behind such ugliness was to confuse us and was to provoke us emotionally and personally towards his very lowly and despicable crime. 
My intention in writing this in detail is that we as a community need to address such problems. We not only need to make our community aware of such practices of ill-willed criminals from Pakistani community, but also need to make sure that such kind of criminals may never attempt such a crime thinking we will not understand crimes. We need to have ongoing educating programs on all the communities that coexist here in these countries. Our new migrating families(in fact all families) need to have awareness about these communities before they ever become prey to ill-willed criminals from these communities just because they didn't know certain things about certain cultures or religions.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 3, 2013)

SUKHWINDER1 said:


> A great topic which many hesitate to discuss. Perhaps I would have dismissed these kinds of topics as some matter of superstition until I encountered an problem myself. Has SikhPhilosophyNetwork ever looked into Islam---the jinns where Quran explains very clearly how they are used in black magic. I mean it explains complete technicality of it. How they are called and given tasks(depending on the intention of who calls them). I am sharing my personal experience because our Sikh community needs to be aware of the fact that many ill-willed Muslim criminals(in our case, this person is from Pakistan)use these ways for crime( in the hope of no criminal consequences). And to confuse the victim, these kind of criminals try to make it a matter of Sikhs vs. Muslims. I didn't know this person and I only contacted him because he was part of local Desi Radio. I had called him for some work related issue(not radio but mine) and from that point he planned this ugly crime against me and my family. I had no idea of his reputation until he wronged us where I came to know he had been known to stalk, harass, threaten to kill and deceive(money frauds) people.
> Any how, I never knew this person personally and was never involved with him. All of a sudden, something struck me with the overwhelming thoughts of him threatening me of my death and that how he had hated my kids since he saw them(they were barely 7 and 8) and my end was near. And that after my end, he will get to them. And he told me that he was reaching me through some technology that couldn't be proven in the court of law. He knew I had no idea about jinns and how they work. During my research, some body told me that he inflicted her with evil also. She called him a Satan and told me how she went through suicidal stages. Through my research, I found out that it was not any kind of technology; he was using the way of jinns(which many Muslims are expert in) to torture me with utmost ugliness 24/7. It is the kind of ugliness that one can not even imagine....It included and includes rapes, beating, torture of our children, elderly parents and threats to kill my brothers(whom he inflicted the same way). Much torture was and is done to accept it as our insanity when in any real sense even if we became insane, it couldn't be around him. Because he was never part of our life. He had no significance in our life in any way. We were never involved with him in any way. He is a criminal and he thought it could be the best way to plan such kind of a crime against a Sikh family since a Sikh family will not know how he could be reaching them. They couldn't go to criminal law and if they tried to tell the community, the community will think of them as insane since a common Sikh has no clarity about these kind of ways or jinns. In fact, many of them think of such reality as a superstition since we don't talk about these ways or of technicalities of how these things are done while they are clearly explained in Quran. And Islamic countries have death sentence for using these ways. Somebody from Pakistani community who would fear death at the thought of somebody from Pakistani community coming to know of him using these ways against some family of a Pakistani community felt so confident to wrong a Sikh family that not only he will be able to inflict torture on the parents of this family, but also will get away with the consequences. And furthermore, the parents will be considered insane if they tried to talk about it to their community. In the beginning, he tried to tell us that it was a matter of Muslims hating Sikhs. However, the reality is that he had committed many crimes against his own community also. His reason of using religion behind such ugliness was to confuse us and was to provoke us emotionally and personally towards his very lowly and despicable crime.
> My intention in writing this in detail is that we as a community need to address such problems. We not only need to make our community aware of such practices of ill-willed criminals from Pakistani community, but also need to make sure that such kind of criminals may never attempt such a crime thinking we will not understand crimes. We need to have ongoing educating programs on all the communities that coexist here in these countries. Our new migrating families(in fact all families) need to have awareness about these communities before they ever become prey to ill-willed criminals from these communities just because they didn't know certain things about certain cultures or religions.


 

Excellent idea, let us completely ignore the teachings of the SGGS and launch full scale into a comprehensive education program to ensure this sort of thing never happens, maybe we could have large camps set up where speakers could give lectures on how to avoid being targeted, maybe the sangat could give donations to the speakers, so that these wise men can safeguard us all with amulets and charms, in fact, why not even leave Sikhism all together and instead put our faith in these wonderful speakers who are brave enough to protect us all from genies with big turbans and silly accents, 

Sorry I have to go now, it is time for my morning ceremony to ward off evil spirits, I have to walk round my car three times whilst sprinkling rice and chanting loudly


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 3, 2013)

SUKHWINDER ji

I think before I or anyone else replies, a little clarification is needed. Would you tell us more about the "jinn" in this story and stories like these? Is the jinn an evil force, something that overtakes a person in a powerful way like an urge? Or are you thinking of it more like a spirit with a life of its own that has influence over someone?

How you see this makes a difference in how I would personally respond to your story. Thank you.


----------



## arshdeep88 (Jul 3, 2013)

The mere question in my mind that do evil spirits exist in the world brought me to this website many months back

i was also trying to search if evil spirits exist or not and was trying to get to know what Guru Granth sahib ji says about this.
The mere question came up in my mind  because one of my muslim friend use to tell me how in QURAN there are many descriptions of jins and evil spirits and i use to watch lot of this GHOST HUNTERS kind of programmes too. 
There was one time i was asking myself come on GOD if there are some ghosts show me in the middle of the night (hahaha i must say after this talk with myself i use to get scared off and say no GOD i dont wanna see them hahaha ,just kidding).
I had Seen many videos of Maskeen ji and ranjit singh too who in one of the many videos have talked about anglels and evil spirits too citing references from bani from sukhmani sahib.

Right when i was sure that Gurbani talks about Evil spirits and ghosts and angels ,i visited this forum and heard views of many people about it.One of the view was that HUMAN is the only evil spirit and angel  being talked of in gurbani in various stages of his/her life.This View was something new for me and honestly never tried thinking from this view.But more i started thinking from this view the more i find out this to be true.

YES we humans are more dangerous than whatever power evil spirits maybe believed to posses.Take out daily newspaper and read the news yourself,everyday you will find atleast 5-6 gore murders done in new style and or in manner never even imagined or done before.

Politicians ruining the country are literally more dangerous than what evil spirits are believed to be 

Humans Whom we know are capable of betraying you right when you trust them and commit to crimes no one could have even imagined off

so decide who is more dangerous ...
evil spirit whom we dont trust dont know or a HUMAN whom we trust and boast  of knowing and understanding to the best

Personally i have settled today with this view that There might be no evil spirits and  the things and talk of EVIL SPIRITS being talked of in gurbani are just stages of Humans characterized by ill traits.Though just my view only

But as said by lucky singh ji in one of the other forum that Interpretation of things changes with ones own development and growth so tomorrow it might see things from different view.Personally today i haven't seen such evil spirits  and would believe that HUMANS are the only EVIL SPIRITS


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 3, 2013)

Thanks arshdeep ji

Thanks because the expression or something like it, "he was like an evil spirit" or "he seemed taken by an evil spirit" uses the idea of an evil spirit much like a metaphor. When we say that we do not mean "spirit" in a literal sense.  I really want to know how SUKHWINDER ji understand the concept of an evil spirit, or how can we really answer the question asked? There is even the issue of evil itself. You gave some good examples of how evil seems to take on a life of its own in the lives of crooked people. 

A sincere question deserves to be taken seriously.  Taking it seriously doesn't mean anyone has to believe in spirits. It means the effect on another's life is worth thinking about.


----------



## muddymick (Jul 3, 2013)

Would it be possible that what is often considered or perceived as evil spirits by people is actually psychological problems or processes that are projected on to the world. I have worked in mental health and apart from the usual procession of bhoot,pretas, Djinns and demons. People believe themselves cursed, attacked or persecuted by, every one from Jimmy Tarbuck to super gran.

I am not saying supernatural beings do not exist! Nor am I saying they do! I am all for rationally looking at the evidence both scientific and anecdotal.
Whether they actually exist at all outside the mind may not matter much to someone who is being attacked by one! Alleviating the suffering would seem to be the most important part. Whether that be by incantations, psychotherapy or Chlorpromazine. 

Although personally I think there is much to universe we do not understand and its supernatural denizens are just the tip of the iceberg. I do also suspect that many people project their fears, confusion and other negative emotions and processes outside of themselves unable to face their responsibility.

:happysingh:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 4, 2013)

muddymick said:


> Would it be possible that what is often considered or perceived as evil spirits by people is actually psychological problems or processes that are projected on to the world. I have worked in mental health and apart from the usual procession of bhoot,pretas, Djinns and demons. People believe themselves cursed, attacked or persecuted by, every one from Jimmy Tarbuck to super gran.
> 
> I am not saying supernatural beings do not exist! Nor am I saying they do! I am all for rationally looking at the evidence both scientific and anecdotal.
> Whether they actually exist at all outside the mind may not matter much to someone who is being attacked by one! Alleviating the suffering would seem to be the most important part. Whether that be by incantations, psychotherapy or Chlorpromazine.
> ...



Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well said.

Thanks for your insights. It is interesting to know how mind games are played consciously/intentionally or unconsciously/unintentionally by us.

The demons we create within perhaps are our own alter egos which we are too afraid and insecure to confront.

It can be a slippery slope for anyone without any gripping to hold on to.

Let me stop before I get into a trance.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 4, 2013)

Evil spirits only exist in my opinion if the latter is minimum 200 proof. It would make a great jinn tonic btw.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 4, 2013)

GURU NANAK JI writes.."KOI MUGHAL NA HOAA ANDHA...Not a single cannon got BLOCKED !!...and given the fact that GURU NANAK JI is way way way MUCH WISER than ME..I TRUST HIS CONCLUSION 1000000000%.....THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS.PERIOD.

( THIS IS FROM THE EYE WITTNESS ACCOUNT OF bABARS invasioN AND destruction OF punjab....THE muslim seers AND peers AND hindu pANDITS HAD ADVISED THE lodhi sultan NOT TO WORRY THE LEAST BIT..THEY HAD powerful jinns AND DEMONS UNDER THEIR WILL AND THESE JINNS WOULD blind THE mughals AND bABAR AND jam shut THEIR cANNONS....SO THE iNDAIN lODHI aRMY WOULD SLAUGHTER THE MUGHALS...but THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED...NO MUGHAL WAS BLINDED..NO CANNON JAMMED..AND BABAR CARRIED OUT THE WORST MASSACRE IN EMNABAAD AND OTHER TOWNS...READ THE GURBANI AND CONCLUDE.:kaurkhalsaflagblue::kaurkhalsaflagblue::kaurkhalsaflagblue::kaurkhalsaflagblue::kaurkhalsaflagblue:


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji,



> GURU NANAK JI writes.."KOI MUGHAL NA HOAA ANDHA.



could you please give us the reference so we can look it up?

Thanks


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 4, 2013)

muddymick ji the following if it helps,





muddymick said:


> Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji,
> 
> could you please give us the reference so we can look it up?
> 
> Thanks


The complete shabad is quite long but I have given reference to the URL for you to read before and after the line of interest,


> http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=417&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&k=1&fb=0
> 
> ਕੋਟੀ ਹੂ ਪੀਰ ਵਰਜਿ ਰਹਾਏ ਜਾ ਮੀਰੁ ਸੁਣਿਆ ਧਾਇਆ ॥
> कोटी हू पीर वरजि रहाए जा मीरु सुणिआ धाइआ ॥
> ...


<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

Ambarsaria Ji,

nice one! thanks very much!:happysingh:


Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

With respect I have read the Shabad to try and contextualise the quote kindly offered by Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji  





> None of the Mogals went blind, and no one performed any miracle. ||4||


 however I still fail to understand how it indicates that phenomena beyond our ability to explain does not exist?
I don't think it does.

unless some one could explain this to me?

I am fully aware of the argument that nothing happens outside the natural laws.

However it is a slightly problematic argument when one considers that no one knows what those laws are, we have some ideas, however they are constantly changing and being refined!

So to make a judgement by that yard stick infers one understands the entirety of the laws governing creation.

I don't!

eacesign:


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 4, 2013)

muddymick ji you make valid comments.  I have some comments from my understanding of Sikh Guru ji's teachings and SGGS.





muddymick said:


> With respect I have read the Shabad to try and contextualise the quote kindly offered by Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji   however I still fail to understand how it indicates that phenomena beyond our ability to explain does not exist?


_Guru ji first and foremost are teachers in Sikhism.  They had wisdom and insights that challenged observationally or simple truth oriented being denied by the religions and so led masses of the day.  Their teaching style was example and common events or occurrences.  __They used this to debunk and also to free people so exploited or misled.  So whereas the so called magic makers made all kind of statement Guru ji in this shabad discuss how it was all irrelevant.__  Was a common person so enabled to challenge the religious muftis/pundits, etc., of the day?  The answer clearly would be no.  As such people would simply tell the followers that they really did not follow directions or had other faults so the magic did not happen.  It happens today in India as much as perhaps in other religious guidance.

Sikhism does not shy away from stating so and hence a thorn in the behind of Islam and Hinduism of the times and even perhaps to this day.  
_


muddymick said:


> However it is a slightly problematic argument when one considers that _no one knows what those laws are_, we have some ideas, however _they are constantly changing and being refined!_


_muddymick ji indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known.  But with every passing moment one is encouraged to seek more and live so.  Sikhism does not believe that anyone knows all or has monopoly over that.  I am sure Guru ji were quite familiar with Buddhism and it would apply to Buddha as much as the prevalent religion regimes of the day.  They were not trying to demean but simply stated what the insights they had._


muddymick said:


> So to make a judgement by that yard stick infers _one understands the entirety of the laws governing creation_.


_Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all.  Know ever more but not all.  The more important part being to live with ever knowing more.  It could mean corrections from day one to day one hundred but that is living as Sikh.  

_Hope it provides input for clarification or dialog.

Regards.


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

Ambarsaria Ji,

Thanks for the reply.



> So whereas the so called magic makers made all kind of statement Guru ji in this shabad discuss how it was all irrelevant. Was a common person so enabled to challenge the religious muftis/pundits, etc., of the day? The answer clearly would be no. As such people would simply tell the followers that they really did not follow directions or had other faults so the magic did not happen. It happens today in India as much as perhaps in other religious guidance.
> 
> Sikhism does not shy away from stating so and hence a thorn in the behind of Islam and Hinduism of the times and even perhaps to this day.




I think this is laudable!




> muddymick ji indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known. But with every passing moment one is encouraged to seek more and live so.



I think we concur provisionally on this!

 As my previous post indicated 





> it is a slightly problematic argument when one considers that no one knows what those laws are, we have some ideas, however they are constantly changing and being refined!



I only agree provisionally because I agree that that is usual, what I disagree with is that... 





> fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known.



I will explain below, I think the Guru ji's gave us guidance to achieve perfect knowledge, non-dual awareness through the Guru Grant Sahib Ji.



> I am sure Guru ji were quite familiar with Buddhism and it would apply to Buddha



With respect I would rather avoid addressing either Lord Buddha or Buddhism in this particular arena ( I have not brought it up) as I would not want my comments to a) Derail the thread from Sikhi or b) be misconstrued. Thanks



> They were not trying to demean but simply stated what the insights they had.



Don’t worry I perceived nothing demeaning in this!



> Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all.


  again I disagree"



> The more important part being to live with ever knowing more. It could mean corrections from day one to day one hundred but that is living as Sikh.



I find no fault with this.

However Gurbani does suggest that a Gurmukh has perfect knowledge of the natural world!
How could one who is no longer estranged by duality not know that which he is?



> Stanza 42
> The gurmukh attains the pure naam
> The gurmukh burns the ego with shabad
> The gurmukh sings the praises of the Truth
> ...



From what I have read (which is negligible) Gurmukh is usually a noun, signifying one who is Guru-facing or enlightened. But the word 'gurmukh' in these stanzas appears with a “sihari” which renders it a preposition.
a preposition is - a word that links or shows a relationship between a noun and pronoun to another word in the sentence. "Above", "by" and "through"are some examples.By this logic, Gurmukh becomes, “by facing the Guru,” or “by turning to the Guru.” Where 'Guru' is the noun and “by facing” or “by Turning” are the prepositions.The question then is: is 'gurmukh' a person or a process? I would presume a process. What process? Of shaking away the delusion of duality.



> He possesses all qualities (SARGUN);
> He transcends all qualities (NIRGUN);
> He is the Formless Lord.
> He Himself is in Primal Samaadhi.
> ...


 
With respect!


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

Tejwant Singh ji,

I am sorry about addressing this so late in the proceedings. I have only just read through the thread in its entirety and I am a little unsure as to your meaning here   





> It can be a slippery slope for anyone without any gripping to hold on to.
> 
> Let me stop before I get into a trance.



Could you illuminate me?

Many thanks

eacesign:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 4, 2013)

> Tejwant Singh ji,
> 
> I am sorry about addressing this so late in the proceedings. I have only just read through the thread in its entirety and I am a little unsure as to your meaning here



My Quote:
It can be a slippery slope for anyone without any gripping to hold on to.
Let me stop before I get into a trance.



> Could you illuminate me?
> Many thanks



Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

The above segment belongs to the whole post in response to what you had written. It was regarding the self created "demons" of our minds.

The trance part was tongue in cheek related to that, a common thing in "demon based" cults like Voodoo, Macumba,Candomblé - the latter two are common in Brasil and are very similar to Voodoo and all these are African religious traditions.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

Tejwant Singh ji,

aaaah many thanks.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 4, 2013)

muddymick ji thanks for your reply and succinct style.  I have some comments.





muddymick said:


> I will explain below, I think the Guru ji's gave us guidance to achieve perfect knowledge, non-dual awareness through the Guru Grant Sahib Ji.


_Guru ji give us guidance that the most positive path to accumulating understanding that increases with every moment and living thereof is to recognize one creator (Gur) and one creation thereof.  In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no.  As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing._


muddymick said:


> With respect I would rather avoid addressing either Lord Buddha or Buddhism in this particular arena ( I have not brought it up) as I would not want my comments to a) Derail the thread from Sikhi or b) be misconstrued. Thanks


 _muddymick ji I mentioned this simply to flag as you have shown your adherence as Buddhist.  There have been some posts with Buddhist adherence where the concept of perfect knowledge gained and imparted by Buddha has been implied or postulated.  Sikhism does not recognize this to be possible or to be privy to one._


muddymick said:


> However Gurbani does suggest that a Gurmukh has perfect knowledge of the natural world!


_muddymick ji Gurbani recognizes a Gurmukh to be on the fundamental right path.  Right path, the travel to destination, the time to travel final destination are as little known to a Gurmukh as anyone else.  Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding.  Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator._


muddymick said:


> How could one who is no longer estranged by duality not know that which he is?


 _Your reference to “sargun” (*all *qualities) and “nirgun” (*no* qualities) needs to be in context.  The definition of *all* is not given as creation is beyond humans and their understanding too.  Similarly * no* may be taken in human terms and the definition of *nothingness* eludes brightest of minds.  Again nothingness for humans as part of creation may have totally different meaning for other parts of creator’s creation.  So this duality is like “infinity” and “zero”._


muddymick said:


> The question then is: is 'gurmukh' a person or a process? I would presume a process. What process? Of shaking away the delusion of duality.


 _The process part is turning towards (one creator and one creation).  Many derivations for one who has turned, language describing it (Gurmukhi), and so on._

  I conclude by citing a pauri out of Japji Sahib that further elaborates context of Sargun and creator,


> http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=5&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&fb=0&k=1
> ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
> Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.
> 
> ...


I hope this leads to mutual understanding/dialog.   

  Regards.
  <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object  classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 4, 2013)

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have used the word duality in many of your posts. 

Would you be kind enough to elaborate it in practical and pragmatic terms in the world we live in and deal with on daily basis.?

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## muddymick (Jul 4, 2013)

Ambarsaria ji.
 Many thanks for the reply. I hope my ‘succinct style’ does not appear rude? That is not my intent!



> Guru ji give us guidance that the most positive path to accumulating understanding that increases with every moment and living thereof is to recognize one creator (Gur) and one creation thereof. In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.



Are you suggesting that recognising the one creator as separate?

And thereby imparting separateness with creation?

If the path is perfect must it not lead to perfection?

Is complete perfect knowledge beyond knowing, because if it is you are suggesting a dichotomy between Waheguru and the created?



> He possesses all qualities
> He transcends all qualities
> He is the Formless Lord.
> He Himself is in Primal Samaadhi.
> ...





> muddymick ji I mentioned this simply to flag as you have shown your adherence as Buddhist. There have been some posts with Buddhist adherence where the concept of perfect knowledge gained and imparted by Buddha has been implied or postulated. Sikhism does not recognize this to be possible or to be privy to one.



I don’t recall posting anything regarding perfect knowledge imparted or gained by Lord Buddha. I also don’t recall implying such or postulating such? If you would be kind enough to show me you will have my sincere apologies.
I also have to add I think the knowledge of my use of Buddhism is a lens through which my words are often judged by others. 
I often ride a bicycle to work, but sometimes I catch the bus and even more rarely I ride my motorcycle.
I am not only a cyclist! Or a passenger! Or a Biker!



> Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator.



Are you suggesting that the destination of perfect path is not Gurmukh?

What is it then called in Gurbani?

Is the Shabad quoted incorrect, or more rightly is my understanding incorrect?

Can then one not possess all qualities, transcend all qualities, be the formless Lord in primal Samadhi?
If  this dichotomy between creator and created is as your postulation insists then does not the very Mool Manter become nonsensical?




> Your reference to “sargun” (all qualities) and “nirgun” (no qualities) needs to be in context. The definition of all is not given as creation is beyond humans and their understanding too. Similarly no may be taken in human terms and the definition ofnothingness eludes brightest of minds. Again nothingness for humans as part of creation may have totally different meaning for other parts of creator’s creation. So this duality is like “infinity” and “zero”.


I am sorry but can you put this another way as I am finding it difficult to grasp your meaning?

Do you not think that the pauri out of Japji Sahib has a very different context?
 Especially considering it’s position in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji?

Thank You.


----------



## Luckysingh (Jul 5, 2013)

Not wanting to go off-topic here, but I feel that Nirgun and Sargun BOTH make up the formless Nirankaar.
It seems a little incorrect to say that sargun is a physical manifestation or is a 'Form' whereas Nirgun is completely 'Formless'
I think they both represent the formless.
You could say that the effect of nirgun or some confined result of it is what makes sargun.
Another way of looking at it is the Antarjami or the inner knower and doer within us all.
This can be called the God or creator within us.
But since this formless Nirankaar is 'confined' within our own physical manifestation therefore it is a Sargun roop.


There has been some comments made about duality with regards to jinns and evil spirits...etc..
With reference to these or to simplify, I would also say that such things only exist whilst there is a duality.
In simple terms the duality exists because of the maya illusion and presentation of the physical world.
As long as this will remain, so will Ego and so will the belief of ghost and spirit existence.

We could say or another way of simplifying it for understanding is to think that- In the beginning or before any creation there was just God or the formless creator.
ie. No duality or 'Advait'
Once a creation or world was created, then the duality also came into existence.
This _separateness_ of creation and us to the God creator is what creates the duality.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 5, 2013)

muddymick ji thanks for your post.  Some comments follow.





muddymick said:


> Are you suggesting that recognizing the one creator as separate?  And thereby imparting separateness with creation?


 _Wholeness of creation and creator could be taken as synonymous from my understanding.  Any part of creation cannot be taken as representation of creator’s wholesome.  So the separateness is man made and non-existent otherwise if you have right vision to see all as one then there is no separation between creator and creation._


muddymick said:


> If the path is perfect must it not lead to perfection?


_One could be developing perfect understanding on a perfect path and there is no issue.  However the perfect path does not imply acquisition of complete perfect knowledge as measured in terms of human life times and the vastness of creation._


muddymick said:


> Is complete perfect knowledge beyond knowing, because if it is you are suggesting a dichotomy between Waheguru and the created?


_Yes complete knowledge is beyond knowing the pauri I quoted describes it with many metaphors and aspects._


muddymick said:


> I don’t recall posting anything regarding perfect knowledge imparted or gained by Lord Buddha. I also don’t recall implying such or postulating such? If you would be kind enough to show me you will have my sincere apologies.


_muddymick ji I did not flag you as posting so but a person I respected did so a while ago.  I believed he had quite a bit of purity in following Buddhism and I had respect for him._


muddymick said:


> Are you suggesting that the destination of perfect path is not Gurmukh?


 _Gurmukh is on the perfect path.  The qualities shown by a Gurmukh are representative of the perfect path.  Depending on the stage of understanding of such Gurmukh the level of understanding of Gurmukh will vary and not be complete._


muddymick said:


> What is it then called in Gurbani?


_Sikhism does not have a separation for a Gurmukh to have an understanding and living without the understanding.  True Gurmukh lives with the true understanding to the level acquired and to greater level of understanding over time.  One creator, one creation and living in consonance with all, all the time._


muddymick said:


> Is the Shabad quoted incorrect, or more rightly is my understanding incorrect?


 _You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji._


muddymick said:


> Can then one not possess all qualities, transcend all qualities, be the formless Lord in primal Samadhi?


_This Samadhi business is mixing oil and water where a Sikh needs no Samadhi stuff.  In living wide awake and aware is Sikh living, Sikhi path and way to continuously gain more understanding as one traverse per the Sikhi path guided in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji._


muddymick said:


> If this dichotomy between creator and created is as your postulation insists then does not the very _Mool Manter become nonsensical_?


 _You need to state specifics I do not respond to such language.  Well I can but it is not very productive.  Search for mool mantar review at spn and then provide how you have deduced what you have._


muddymick said:


> Do you not think that the pauri out of Japji Sahib has a very different context?  _Especially considering it’s position_ in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji?


_I do not see differences in guidance be it at the beginning, middle or later parts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Such observations are simply divisive and not scholarly._

Regards.
  <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

Ambarsaria Ji, with respect..

I think I will have to approach this differently, As i detect some contradictions.


Lets deal with the most obvious first so we don’t get bogged down by too many avenues of attention.

If that’s o.k?. 

I will mark each of your postulations with a number for ease of reference.
Then we can establish the statements congruence within Gurbani and within your 
posts.



> 1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”





> 2)“Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all. Know ever more but not all”





> 3)“In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.”





> 4)“Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding. Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator”



So lets look at one…




> 1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”



This is very explicitly stating that there is a difference between the Knower and the Known.

You are stating here quite explicitly that knowledge of Waheguru and creation is limited for that creation; therefore there is a difference between God and creation!

If Waheguru is no different from his creation (unity, single, one) and his creation is limited then by definition Waheguru is subject to the same imitations!

You are rejecting the unity of God here!

You are saying certain aspects are limited, whereas other aspects are not.

You are saying something is the same but different……how?

This therefore implies that God has different qualities to his creation!

If they have different qualities are they not separate?

Lets see if that statement is congruent with your others here;

Statement 2) is in agreement as it clearly says there is a difference between the knower and the known.

Statement 3) is also congruent as it clearly implies that infinity and perfect knowing are not qualities that certain parts of creation can have! 

4) This is also congruent with the former statement although I do not want to do you a disservice here and make a false assumption. A Sikh who follows the Guru’s by destroying the ego and the five poisons and becoming one with Waheguru is called what in Gurbani?

So I think we can clearly see that the above statements from one to four are in agreement (although I will concede statement four is far from clear)

They all reject the unity of God!

So if we move to the puari from Japji next, lets see if that is congruent with 1 to 4?
I will mark the puari lines from 1a to 7a.



> http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gur...1&p=1&fb=0&k=1
> ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
> Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.
> 
> ...



I think it may be best to deal with this line by line in relation to your four initial postulations regarding the separate nature of the creator and his creation.

Line 1a) It Regards the attributes of God, as it does not relate to unity, there is no incongruence with your statements nor with mine.

2a) Now here is the rub  “His limits cannot be perceived” and I am presuming this is the crux of you argument.
However it is on rather shaky ground, does this statement mean God has no limits?
As how could you perceive that which does no exist?
Or does it mean man cannot see/ understand/know his limits?
Personally I agree with the rest of Gurbani and read it as the former that god has no limits! 
I think maybe we need to contextualise this both linguistically and philosophically (I will revisit this)

3a) Here we have a repeat in theme The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. 
Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
One has to ask the obvious question again, does it mean man is separate (has different qualities) from his creator thereby negating both the mul mantar and the vast majority of Shabads relating to God’s unity or would a more consistent and logical deduction be that these limits cannot be perceived because they do not exist?
One has to look at the Guru Granth Sahib ji as a whole for this answer and one would (with all faith in Gurbani’s infallibility) conclude it would not contradict itself as you suggest!

4a)Again in this line are you suggesting that the reason people struggle is because they have separate qualities from god and creation or because the limits do not exist?
I would conclude that the limits do not exist and refer you to the observations above vis-à-vis consistency, logic and infallibility of Gurbani!

5a)How can one know a limit that does not exist? How can language a finite structure explain the infinite?
Again considering Gods infinite nature how could a limit be known? That would be illogical, inconsistent and contradictory. As would suggesting a difference between the creator and the created!

6a)I think this line like the first is neither contentious nor directly relevant to this particular debate.

7a)I don’t see how this line could imply difference in qualities between creator and created in light of the previous contextualisation however if you have any thoughts I am most happy to address them.

8a)I think this line can hold no water for you when considered again in context rather than implying a separation, a difference in quality it affirms his unity!

We then move on to another section of similar postulations. I will again for ease of reference mark them with numbers from 5 to 12.




> 5)“Wholeness of creation and creator could be taken as synonymous from my understanding”.



In statement 1) you very clearly say that not all knowledge or truth can be known and we have dealt with the implications of that statement above. Yet here you say that creator and creation are the same, have the same qualities. 
This is a direct and blatant contradiction.
They have the same qualities, they are one. Yet they have different qualities, one is infinite and the other limited.
Do you not see the problems here?

In statement 2) pretty much the same contradiction occurs again making a clear division between knower and known.

In statement 3) Again contradictory, you say perfect knowledge is infinite so it can not be known! Clearly saying man has an inability to deal with the infinite. Man has different qualities to God. If man is different how is he synonymous with God?

In statement 4) I think you really need to either accept the description of Gurmukh in Gurbani or offer an alternative interpretation that is consistent and logical. If we take your interpretation, you again proscribe different qualities to creator and created. You insist on the duality of God.





> 6)“Any part of creation cannot be taken as representation of creator’s wholesome”



Is this statement consistent with your other statements? Yes apart from god being synonymous with creation.
Is it contradictory to your other statements? No apart from from god being synonymous with creation.

You are placing a reference on creation that I am not!
It is you suggesting that a different bit of creation has a different quality from the rest!
The whole point is that one does not take parts of creation; creation is one as is its creator.
It is you creating the false division!
As creation in reality does not have parts, it is!
The creator and all creation are one!
How would you suggest one separates God from his creation?
If you accept the unity of God how do you then suggest one creates disunity to look at whether all the component parts are of the same quality.
That is ridiculous.
How would you take any part of creation?
When it does not have a part but a whole!
However this statement is absolutely consistent with all other statements except 6!



> 7)“So the separateness is man made and non-existent otherwise if you have right vision to see all as one then there is no separation between creator and creation”



So the difference in qualities and abilities etc that you insist on in statement 1 to 7 (except 6) are all irrelevant now? Because of one contradictory statement separateness is non-existent?

So now you agree with me creator and creation have no fundamental difference they are one?

So I refer you to all my previous refutations regarding your insistence on qualitative difference, duality and disunity of God and creation?




> 8)“complete knowledge is beyond knowing the pauri I quoted describes it with many metaphors and aspects”



I dealt with that above, however in relation to your other posts it contradicts non apart from 5 and 7 when considered within your dualistic perspective.



> 9)“Gurmukh is on the perfect path. The qualities shown by a Gurmukh are representative of the perfect path”



You really need to either accept what Gurbani says about Gurmukhs non differential with all creation or offer another direct quote that explicitly says different.
If that is the case that Gurbani contradicts itself then we need to decide what is the name we give to a human who has achieved union with God?



> 10)“Depending on the stage of understanding of such Gurmukh the level of understanding of Gurmukh will vary and not be complete”



See my answer to 7) above. If it is a general term for one on the path please give me reference from Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



> 11)“Sikhism does not have a separation for a Gurmukh to have an understanding and living without the understanding. True Gurmukh lives with the true understanding to the level acquired and to greater level of understanding over time. One creator, one creation and living in consonance with all, all the time”



In the first line I have no idea what you mean? How does one have an understanding and live without it?
You imply that Gurmukh is a process that never reaches non dual experience?
If that is the case what is one called who does? Can I have a reference from Gurbani?


12)“You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”

Reference please?



> 13)“This Samadhi business is mixing oil and water where a Sikh needs no Samadhi stuff. In living wide awake and aware is Sikh living, Sikhi path and way to continuously gain more understanding as one traverse per the Sikhi path guided in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”



If it is mixing oil and water please blame the Guru responsible for writing it!
If a Sikh does not need Samadhi why is it in the Guru Granth Sahib ji are you suggesting it is a mistake or irrelevant?
If parts of the Guru granth Sahib ji are mixing oil and water or irrelevant why are you suggesting being guided by it?

Many Thanks 

:interestedmunda:


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 5, 2013)

muddymick said:


> apnadmin ji,
> 
> Thank you however he was not alone in his sardonic implications.:yellingmunda:
> Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
> ...



My advice would be to put this behind us and pick up where you left off with Ambarsaria ji. 

I will delete everything in between as off topic and distracting.


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

Harry ji or Tejwant ji, 

I have now looked at these posts from archivedmember10  (not a lot to look at really) unless there are some I have missed.
Apart from the inclusion of an admittance to being Buddhist (although I suspect with good evidence from entirely different traditions and lineages) there the likeness ends.

As I have stated earlier I sometimes travel to work by bicycle, sometimes by bus and train, sometimes by motorcycle and sometimes I walk. It is not fair to define me exclusively by those actions. I am not exclusively a cyclist nor a passenger nor a biker nor a walker.

I am not sure what the issue is here?

There seems to be an issue with my Buddhism?

If there are assumptions about it, worries about, dislike of it, or just distrust then ask me to clarify or discuss, unless I am informed what can I do about it?

People on here seem to give it much more consideration in these discussions than I do!
I am not sure why?

I think it may be useful to ask yourselves honestly that if I had come on here without professing my religious affiliations using a smattering of Panjabi with a name Like Manjit Singh would your pre-judgements and judgements have been different?

I was hoping that with your history and scripture you would be open to honest,robust discussion and debate regardless of my religious, racial or goodness knows what incidentals.

If I am wrong, it is with a touch of regret.

However I would prefer honesty, I will still contribute (I am to old to take my bat home) but at least I will be aware.

Thank you


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 5, 2013)

muddymick said:


> Harry ji or Tejwant ji,
> 
> I have now looked at these posts from archivedmember10  (not a lot to look at really) unless there are some I have missed.
> Apart from the inclusion of an admittance to being Buddhist (although I suspect with good evidence from entirely different traditions and lineages) there the likeness ends.
> ...



Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let me say something as a starter, Sikhi is based on revelation through investigation. Hence questioning anything is must as you may have noticed the same in your own posts. No body accused you of anything. I just asked you a simple YES and NO question.

I would like you to relax, agree, disagree, explain the latter and move on. This is the only learning process a Sikh, a learner a seeker knows.

Spnadmin ji did the right thing as an administrator to delete the unneeded posts. 

Enjoy your interaction with Ambarsaria ji who is a very keen and open-minded Sikh and we have all learnt from him.

Lastly, I would add that a Sikh would not be a Sikh if he/she were not honest.

Relish your journey and I apologise for any misunderstandings.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 5, 2013)

muddymick said:


> Harry ji or Tejwant ji,
> 
> I have now looked at these posts from archivedmember10 (not a lot to look at really) unless there are some I have missed.
> Apart from the inclusion of an admittance to being Buddhist (although I suspect with good evidence from entirely different traditions and lineages) there the likeness ends.
> ...


 
Mickji

Apologies, it just tickled me that your writings were so similar to Confusedji, I had a few debates with him in the past and I found them both enjoyable but also very deep, perhaps too deep for me. 

Your Buddhism is hugely relevant, it defines who you are, everything you see is through Buddhist tinted lenses, just as everything I see is through Sikh tinted ones, so our backgrounds act as a foundation for every challenge we come across in life, it is the first reference point that guides us. 

How can you not say that is relevant


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

Harry ji,
I am probably a little to straight forward at times. I thought my honesty and motivation was in question. If it was not then apologies are not needed. I have in a few posts been unfairly accused of placing a Buddhist slant on the thread or referring to Buddhism. When in fact I was trying to avoid just that without being rude when others had brought it up.

My Buddhism is partially relevant (but again being mindful that I do not de-rail the thread or be perceived as proselytising) I will contextualise this briefly. I have practiced many forms of discipline both secular and religious. I know that I could experience the ineffable utilising many of them (I have to greater and lesser extents, mostly lesser truth be told) I have studied and practised Advaita Vedanta, Christian contemplation, Sufi discipline, more esoteric forms of both western and eastern mysticism and some disparate forms of Buddhism (in this country and abroad). They are all relevant to me! They all define me in varying degrees. But just like I studied Karate first, then Jeet Kune Do, then Kick boxing, then Lee family poison hands kung fu before settling with Ip chung Wing Chun Kung Fu. They inform me! They are vehicles to take me to an objective. Is my journey or my destination that of a Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Sikh? In a fight will I be wing chun or karate or both or neither. If I win or lose what has lost me or the style?
Travelling on a motorcycle to Blackpool, is my journey only characterised by my motorcycle or if I travel by Robin Reliant (goodness forbid) is it characterised by that?
My Buddhist practice is just that a vehicle to reach a destination. Does it preclude other vehicles? No. 
I am not partisan about it, I have no interest in gaining converts or even proving it’s worth to others. I am secure enough to know that at this time and at this place it is a useful vehicle for me.
Do I still admire other vehicles, do I still share journeys, will I eventually share the same destination…yes.
To say I am a Buddhist is an arbitrary label it doesn't define me or my journey it just tells you my preferred mode of transport.
One that in the final destination I will leave behind like some old useless socks!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jul 5, 2013)

Muddymick ji some clarifications.  I will not try to extend the length of your reply as it is not very tenable in the forum style format.  Instead I have taken the four numbered items and tried to flag what stares us within the quoted Gurbani.

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gur...1&p=1&fb=0&k=1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*3)“In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.”*
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ 
Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ. 

Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them. Endless are His Actions, endless are His Gifts. 
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ) ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਗਿਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ (ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ। (ਗਿਣੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ)। ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਤੇ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ। 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  ………………………..
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*2)“Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all. Know ever more but not all”*
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰੁ ॥ 
Anṯ na jāpai kīṯā ākār. Anṯ na jāpai pārāvār. 
The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. 
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਜਗਤ (ਜੋ ਦਿੱਸ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ) ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਉਰਲਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰਲਾ ਬੰਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ। 
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

…………………………
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”*
ਏਹੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਕਹੀਐ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥ 
Ėhu anṯ na jāṇai ko▫e. Bahuṯā kahī▫ai bahuṯā ho▫e. 
No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said. 
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਇਹ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ (ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਜੀਵ ਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ) ਕੋਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕਦਾ। ਜਿਉਂ ਜਿਉਂ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਆਖੀ ਜਾਵੀਏ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਤਿਉਂ ਤਿਉਂ ਉਹ ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ, ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ ਪਰਤੀਤ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ। 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…………………
*4)“Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding. Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator”*
ਏਵਡੁ ਊਚਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਤਿਸੁ ਊਚੇ ਕਉ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥ 
Ėvad ūcẖā hovai ko▫e. Ŧis ūcẖe ka▫o jāṇai so▫e. 
Only one as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State. 
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਉਸ ਜੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਹ ਹੀ ਉਸ ਉੱਚੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਕਿ ਉਹ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ)। 

ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥੨੪॥ 
Jevad āp jāṇai āp āp. Nānak naḏrī karmī ḏāṯ. ||24|| 
Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself. O Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. ||24|| 
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ। ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਹਰੇਕ) ਦਾਤ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੨੪॥ 
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Muddymick ji I don’t know if you understand or know Punjabi and can read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for yourself.  If you do then this is one of the simplest shabads for translation and understanding.  It does address the four items for me that you marked.

  There is not much more I can add.

  Sat Sri Akal.
  <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object  classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

Ambarsaria ji,

I don't want to repeat my refutations of your methodology or of the conclusions you have  come to regarding this Shabad. I think I was fairly explicit in my last post.

I fail to see how reposting the original arguments that were logically refuted whether in tandem with the Shabad or not constitutes either an argument, refutation or fresh postulation.

Unless I am missing something repeating does not constitute analysis or argument.

I am at tad of a loss here.

Why haven'y you addressed the points in my refutation?

:11:

Is there some confusion with my refutation?
I will be happy to explain the methodology and logic again if you so wish?
Please if there are points that you do not understand or could do with re-phrasing let me know?


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

Ambarsaria ji,



> I don't understand what you are posing.



Yes I think that is apparent.



> If you know Punjabi and can read and understand the same, there is no argument from what I understand.



That is is untrue! and a red herring! Especially in light of your absolute failure to address even one logical point!



> By the way such positing of concepts is not just one pauri or one shabad.



Another red herring, as at no time did I suggest such. Answering a question that was never posed is just a distraction.



> It is consistently and methodically reinforced by various contributors in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



Another red herring, suggesting that I acted contrary to this position. I did not, in fact the obverse!



> If you do not want to accept Gurbani with simplest of statements that are so easily understood by most



Another red herring, suggesting that because something is accepted by most it is true! that is a fallacy called appeal to popularity.
Here is an explanation Also Known as:



> Ad Populum
> 
> Description of Appeal to Popularity
> 
> ...



It is considered in scholarly, academic and theological circles to be ridiculous.



> I don't know what me or any other Sikh can do for you.



Nothing as you well know we can only do for ourselves, which I why I suggest you try a more critical and logical appraisal instead repetition of the same illogical mistakes!



> You are stretching so called refutations like rubber band but it does not add much to when you are more specific and brief.



another red herring, making wildly inapplicable analogies to discredit.
Stick to the facts, don't use repetition instead of logical argument!



> It is OK to sometimes stop arguing and part ways on a subject versus just clutter a thread which is already kind of off-topic in terms of focus on "Evil Spirits".



Distraction and get out clause.
Just address the facts or admit you do not understand (there is no shame in that) the postulations.

I am quite willing to make it much simpler and deal with one point per post!
Or even move it to another thread?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 5, 2013)

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have no idea why you sound so angry? We are here to have a conversation and trying to learn from each other.

If you do not like what Ambarsaria ji said, then explain your point of view in a mature adult manner. Spitting out words like "red herrings" does not further any dialogue. It makes the accuser look bad and infantile, I might add.

I myself have no idea what you did not understand. Ambarsaria ji's responses were to the best of his knowledge and I happen to agree with him.

I do not understand  what your gripe is with the subject and with his responses. There seem to be absence of some connection somewhere. Let's try to find that out via conversation.

Talking about conversation, I am still waiting for your response to my query to you and I can see you are very good at responding quite quickly and I have no idea what is causing this delay from your part. Does it only happen when it interests you? It is a question not an accusation.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

Tejwant ji,



> I have no idea why you sound so angry? We are here to have a conversation and trying to learn from each other.



I am not angry I can assure you.



> We are here to have a conversation and trying to learn from each other.



Learning is only possible with investigation and application. Not with repetition and diversion.



> If you do not like what Ambarsaria ji said



It is not a matter of liking or disliking.



> then explain your point of view in a mature adult manner.



which i have and have offered to re-phrase or explain point by point.



> Spitting out words like "red herrings" does not further any dialogue. It makes the accuser look bad and infantile, I might add.



I have not spat, I have posted my objection to diversionary devices that were irrelevant to the subject in hand.



> I myself have no idea what you did not understand. Ambarsaria ji's responses were to the best of his knowledge and I happen to agree with him.



That is because it was not a matter of what I did not understand. And complicity from any quarter is irrelevant.



> I do not understand what your gripe is with the subject and with his responses. There seem to be absence of some connection somewhere. Let's try to find that out via conversation.



Firstly I have no gripe and the suggestion I do undermines my fair and logical appraisal.

That there is an absence of connection I agree wholeheartedly with and tried to adress by requesting dialogue on the points not just blind repetition.
Finding out via conversation was my whole point in offering a number of ways to explore the issue rather than juvenile attempts at undermining a position ( a position that was neither comprehended nor examined I might add)



> Talking about conversation, I am still waiting for your response to my query to you and I can see you are very good at responding quite quickly and I have no idea what is causing this delay from your part. Does it only happen when it interests you? It is a question not an accusation.



Sorry you have lost me? If I have been impolite in not answering can you please remind me and accept my apologies.
It may have to wait now as it is  1.20 and I get up at 5.00. 
Because I have had a lung infection I have been off work (hence lots of time on the internet in bed) Now I am more tickety boo. I must get back to my routines.
I hope this is acceptable?



> Does it only happen when it interests you? It is a question not an accusation.



This is not the first time you have tried this 'it's only a question' approach. Both you and I know that most questions hold an inference! If I asked you 'did you steal that' it carries an inference that I don't trust you or that  you are untrustworthy, it infers a suggestion or doubt to those that hear it or read it. I could give you numerous examples that would illustrate this. 
I maybe straight forward even a little vociferous at times, but my objection, arguments, disagreements and umbrage are straight forward and honest.


----------



## muddymick (Jul 5, 2013)

removed due to duplication


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 6, 2013)

> Travelling on a motorcycle to Blackpool, is my journey only characterised by my motorcycle or if I travel by Robin Reliant (goodness forbid) is it characterised by that?
> My Buddhist practice is just that a vehicle to reach a destination. Does it preclude other vehicles? No.
> I am not partisan about it, I have no interest in gaining converts or even proving it’s worth to others. I am secure enough to know that at this time and at this place it is a useful vehicle for me.
> Do I still admire other vehicles, do I still share journeys, will I eventually share the same destination…yes.
> ...


 
No one is accusing you of trying to gain converts, all I am saying is that your Buddhist foundations propagate through everything you do. 

Your car analogy is flawed, your destination and my destination are not the same, I do not have a destination, only a way of life, only today. 

Of course your journey is characterised by your mode of transport, a journey to Blackpool on a motorbike, and a journey to Blackpool in a Reliant Robin are two separate journeys, with two separate experiences, and you will learn separate things during each journey and have challenges related to your mode of transport. For instance, if it is raining, one mode will get you wet, the other mode will get you laughed at, they are two separate journeys. 

I personally like Land Rovers, have driven them for years, and I hate driving anything else, I say hate, hate is a strong word, I am happiest in a Land Rover, but even then, not a discovery, nor a freelander, or even a defender, ideally a 4.2 LSE, or a 4.6 HSE, but only in the years 1994-1998. When I plan journeys, I know what to expect on the drive, I know the engines, the gearboxes, how it should handle, how much stuff I can get in it, all the dogs have their own sitting position, its all good. I cannot understand people who say a car is a car, it is much more than that, I am very loyal to my cars, I love them, like people, I can still make a journey in a Robin Reliant, but it would not be the same, and it probably would not get to my destination, if my destination were say, a wooded forest in the middle of nowhere, I have two stickers on the back of mine, one is the Land Rover motto 'one life, live it' and the other is ' you can go faster, but I can go anywhere', they reflect my feelings on cars, and dare I say it, life.

by the way, that's a lot of herrings


----------

