# A Conscious Creator In Sikhi And Other Faith Traditions?



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 25, 2013)

A conscious creator in Sikhi?

I have noticed on here in recent times that some people claim to be Sikh and yet do not believe in a conscious creator, but instead personally interpret Gurbani to be instruction on how to live in harmony with nature / creation and compare Sikhi to Athiesm. But they do not believe in a conscious creator / deity. Others, personify Waheguru as being conscious of creation.  I thought this was a good debate… Personally I believe in a conscious creator, not just because of the obvious intelligent design that to me could not just happen by chance, but also from quotes in Gurbani that seem to support ONE supreme conscious creator, from which everything exists in a state of duality from that ONE.

So let’s look at how the creator is described in Gurbani, starting with the Mool Mantra, where it clearly states qualities such as Ik Onkar - ONE God/Creator (Non Duality).  Some people chose to translate Onkar as ‘ultimate truth’ and take any persona out of it, however the follow on statements seem to point to a persona: Without Fear, Without Hate for example, while stating the absence of something ‘could’ mean reference to something inanimate, but then why state them at all?  You could continue on forever with statements of things that an inanimate universe does not possess. (without jealousy, without anger, without passion, etc ---- without CONSCIOUSNESS)  So why use specifics such as ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ if the creator is unconscious??  It doesn’t make sense to me.  The only way it makes sense is to say ‘without fear’ … as to specify fearlessness… ‘without hate’ … as to specify loving / compassionate --- these are qualities of a conscious persona, not an unconscious creation / reality that just ‘happened’ without conscious design. Of course there is MUCH deeper meaning in the Mool Mantra and you can read more here: MOOL MANTRA 

So basically the Mool Mantra describes the creator… some also say creation… and yes you can go as far to say they are one in the same (as I will explain below)  But to say that creation just came about without conscious design doesn’t make sense. And to say that something as abstract as the personal internal world of our consciousness came about as merely an emergent property of an unconscious creation without any intelligent design, just does not make sense! Throw a bunch of golf ***** into a pile and you will only ever have a pile of golf *****... no matter how many you throw there!

In SGGS you will find many references to this reality being a dream. 



> SGGS P, 63
> 
> ਜਿਉ ਸੁਪਨੈ ਨਿਸਿ ਭੁਲੀਐ ਜਬ ਲਗਿ ਨਿਦ੍ਰਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
> 
> ...



The use of the term ‘dream’ is interesting because a dream, which requires consciousness to occur, infers a DREAMER.  If this reality is a dream and we are within the dream as suggested by the above, then WHO is the dreamer?  Certainly not an unconscious creation that just happened on its own!  And if we, conscious within the dream, and are able to question our existence… then the dreamer must certainly be conscious as well!  Just like when you dream at night, you interact as one character, but in reality ALL the characters are really you. And outside of that dream, you exist as a CONSCIOUS dreamer, maybe not aware that you are dreaming when you are within the dream, but once you awaken, you are very conscious of the dream that took place. 

That brings me to another quote:



> SGGS P. 736
> 
> ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
> 
> ...




The above describes the world as a play... similar to a dream.  A play must be created, it can not exist without a writer.  In the above, the actor is also the writer of the play, and also playing all of the characters within it.  This certainly describes a conscious creation to me.  Then it goes on to say that once the costumes are removed, there is only ONE.  But for the above to occur there had to be a consciousness that staged the play.  To me the use of this reference is very supportive of a conscious creator in Sikhi because, a play which was a good comparison in a time before television etc, by its nature is artistic, and requires a mind, an intelligence to create. 

So to summarize,  my belief is that reality is ONE consciousness, and that ONE is all that really exists.  It is formless... pure frequency (as vibration is the basis of everything also supported in science), and is creative and conscious.  This reality, this Universe is as a dream - the dream of the creator.  As a formless, pure point of consciousness, the only tools you would possess to create would be thought - dreams - creativity.  Everything within this creation, being a dream of the ONE universal consciousness, by extension is part of the ONE - everything within the creation IS the ONE.  That means there exists fragmented parts of the ONE consciousness within everything and everyone, which is in agreement with Gurbani.  To summarize my belief I would say that this reality is the expression of the ONE universal conscious creator, to subjectively experience itself, which it is doing through its own creation.  Some people say we are as drops from the ocean that is Waheguru and we need to get back there through discovering the divine within us.  In reality, I don't believe we ever left the ocean... we just forget where we were. 

So what do you guys believe???


----------



## Rory (Mar 25, 2013)

*re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions *

Why are there so many differing views on this? Sikhi seems at best very versatile in terms of the definition of God. The other monotheistic religions have fairly set ideas of what/who God is, at least with much less leverage than in Sikh theology. 
Does it matter a lot whether God is conscious or a force? I think so, and I think the idea that works easiest for most people is that God has at least some kind of thought or consciousness comparable to human thought.. that's what we can relate to easiest.

I find it weird to think that the WaheGuru could have any remotely "human-like" thought process. A God so perfect and untouchable, confident in the constant movement of every atom in the entire universe lightyears across and expanding to infinity, knowing the future and every single detail of the past, the laws of everything in existence, with the power to alter anything at the whim of His hukam - how could such an unimaginably knowledgeable and powerful personality need to consider or think about anything? Surely at the tiniest fraction of a second that a situation occurs, His answer or Hukam is immediately known to Him? And that every decision or action He must carry out from here to infinity is known by Him even since the beginning of time. 

Your mind gets tangled even thinking about it! I don't think we are supposed to comprehend the Guru's infinitely amazing personality at the level of words with our tiny tiny human minds, maybe we are supposed to marvel at the unbelievability of it until we can catch some iota of understanding. Even understanding the tiniest fraction of the Akal Purakh would be enough to fill our mind beyond the brim.

There's no answer that I can give really, how can God be a personality? How can He be a non-emotional force? How would any mix of the two make sense?
..asked every theologian ever.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions *



Rory said:


> Why are there so many differing views on this? Sikhi seems at best very versatile in terms of the definition of God. The other monotheistic religions have fairly set ideas of what/who God is, at least with much less leverage than in Sikh theology.
> Does it matter a lot whether God is conscious or a force? I think so, and I think the idea that works easiest for most people is that God has at least some kind of thought or consciousness comparable to human thought.. that's what we can relate to easiest.
> 
> I find it weird to think that the WaheGuru could have any remotely "human-like" thought process. A God so perfect and untouchable, confident in the constant movement of every atom in the entire universe lightyears across and expanding to infinity, knowing the future and every single detail of the past, the laws of everything in existence, with the power to alter anything at the whim of His hukam - how could such an unimaginably knowledgeable and powerful personality need to consider or think about anything? Surely at the tiniest fraction of a second that a situation occurs, His answer or Hukam is immediately known to Him? And that every decision or action He must carry out from here to infinity is known by Him even since the beginning of time.
> ...


 
Dear Rory, 

Just to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your reply above to Akasha's great first post and thread. 

You have a truly wonderful way of explaining what is beyond words to describe, eyes to see, ears to hear or the mind to conceive. 

You wrote: 



> *Your mind gets tangled even thinking about it!*


 
Exactly. The most we know about God is that we do not know Him as He is in Himself and never can with our merely human intellect. We can only experience Him, His presence in our lives, as we stand, sit, talk, love, play and so on. We have the assurance that we live, move and breathe in Him and He in us. 

In my understanding, God does not have emotions. Why? Emotions signify change, from one emotional state too another. God is not human, nor he is in time. He is in eternity beyond time. In my own tradition this is called _the Eternal Now without before or after. _We cannot envision what it would be like to be such because we are time-bound creatures. 

On a purely personal level, I know God best when I realize that I do not know Him. I am in love with a God I can never comprehend, whose majesty overpowers my finite intelligence and ravishes me with his incomprehensibility. My brain is wracked with desire to grasp him, though he is neither _this nor that _yet paradoxically _within _everything by his grace, power, presence and essence. I must eventually abandon my created knowledge and cleave to God with a simple gaze of loving faith towards Him comprised of an unknowing knowing. I know God most of all as the Unknown who through love and by grace shares Himself with me and calls me to participate in his Divine Nature eternally. 

I like how Ruusbroec put it: 



> "...God contemplates Himself and all things in an Eternal Now that has neither beginning nor end...Pure not-knowing is the light in which one can see God. Those who experience this not-knowing feel as if they are in the desert even though God’s light is there. Pure not-knowing surpasses human understanding but does not suppress it...It is in this unconditional not-knowing that one sees God, but without comprehending what one sees, for what is seen transcends all things...And we learn this truth from His sight: That all we taste, in comparison with that which remains out of our reach, Is no more than a single drop of water compared with the whole sea.... We hunger for God’s Infinity, which we cannot devour, And we aspire to His Eternity, which we cannot attain..."
> 
> *- Blessed Jan Van Ruusbroec (1293 – 1381), The Book of the Twelve Beguines, B.II,*


 

Where He is now, beyond Time, I will be one day, as another mystic puts it: 



> "....Nothing is past, present or future, or even eternal; all is present in this deliriously wonderful sea. When one returns to and in himself, he sees and feels himself to be less than the tiniest jot...The sight of the intuitive and ravishing Beauty of God holds her as if asleep in its delectable bosom. This state surpasses all human definition and comparison..."
> 
> *- Venerable John of St Samson (1571 - 1636)*


----------



## Rory (Mar 25, 2013)

*re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions *

Nice to see you back for a visit Vouthonji! 


> We can only experience Him, His presence in our lives, as we stand,  sit, talk, love, play and so on. We have the assurance that we live,  move and breathe in Him and He in us.


What I like about Sikhism is how the door is opened in this respect - the emphasis is on dealing with people, dealing with life, helping others and doing our best. What I find a little repelling about Protestant or at least "faith-alone" Christianity is the idea that we don't need to do anything in life other than accept Jesus in prayer, and that we'll be fine for the afterlife. 
The Gurus taught people how to live their lives for the WaheGuru, they stressed each desirable trait and taught by example what we can do with our lives even as common people. The Gurus taught people to walk the walk, it's just a shame that a lot of Sikhs don't realize this. We shouldn't spend every day stifled up in Church or Gurdwara sahib or Masjid when there's work to be done in the world!

Anyways, I've added about as much as I can for now.
Your quotes are always thought provoking and relevant Vouthonji.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions *



Rory said:


> Nice to see you back for a visit Vouthonji! .


 
Bless you brother  I will be around for a little while and then take another hiatus. I think that is what I will probably keep on doing, pop in for a few days from time-to-time just to see how your all keeping. 



> What I like about Sikhism is how the door is opened in this respect - the emphasis is on dealing with people, dealing with life, helping others and doing our best.


 
I agree. Sikhism places the immanence of God and the social aspect of loving-kindness too others at the very centre. 



> What I find a little repelling about Protestant or at least "faith-alone" Christianity is the idea that we don't need to do anything in life other than accept Jesus in prayer, and that we'll be fine for the afterlife.


 
I couldn't agree more. Thankfully neither my own church nor the bible supports this. _Faith without works is dead_, as James said in the New Testament. 



> The Gurus taught people how to live their lives for the WaheGuru, they stressed each desirable trait and taught by example what we can do with our lives even as common people. The Gurus taught people to walk the walk, it's just a shame that a lot of Sikhs don't realize this. We shouldn't spend every day stifled up in Church or Gurdwara sahib or Masjid when there's work to be done in the world!


 
Again, my heart warms. Spot on! We can also find God _anywhere _and _everywhere: _





> "...A man may go into the field and say his prayer and be aware of God, or, he may be in Church and be aware of God; but, if he is more aware of Him because he is in a quiet place, that is his own deficiency and not due to God, Who is alike present in all things and places, and is willing to give Himself everywhere so far as lies in Him. He knows God rightly who knows Him everywhere..."
> 
> _*- Meister Eckhart (1260-1329)*_


 



> Anyways, I've added about as much as I can for now.
> Your quotes are always thought provoking and relevant Vouthonji


 
As are your posts as a whole my friend :kaurkhalsaflagred: (_totally meaningless smilie but just had to use it cos this wasn't here last time I was on SPN!!!! lol) _


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2013)

*re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions*

The thread us titled Conscious Creator in Sikhi. However the conversation is taking an interfaith turn. Many visions of a conscious divine are being presented. To co-opt the purpose of the thread makes  the "in Sikhi" part irrelevant. Thread has been moved to Interfaith Dialogs with a title change to Conscious Creator in Sikhi and other Faith Traditions.


----------



## Rory (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

Sorry to Akashaji for somewhat hijacking this thread, tried to keep my replies as relevant to Sikhi as I could.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

I want to apologize to Akasha ji for waylaying the thread into an interfaith discussion. The fault is _solely _my own, I should have took more heed of the title of the thread. 

Please accept my humblest apologies.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

It's ok guys, though my intention was to have the discussion in reference to Sikhi.  But this is ok too...


----------



## findingmyway (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

I have had to contemplate on this topic for a while (who knew housework could be so useful for contemplation!) I don't think it is as simple as conscious versus unconscious. Hate and fear (or ignorance as I have seen in one interpretation) are conscious traits in a life form. However, the next line refers to without death or birth, without form and these are show the opposite to a life form. 

Within creation consciousness means different things. A human obviously is conscious. A rabbit is also conscious but it is of a different nature to human consciousness. A tree is conscious but once again it is of a different nature to human consciousness. When there are different types of consciousness across creation, why try and relate Akaal Purakh's consciousness to human consciousness? 

Gurbani talks a lot about how Akaal Purakh cannot even be imagined and much of the Creator is unknowable and beyond our incomprehensible. So, I think the consciousness of Waheguru is also beyond our comprehension


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

I more than firmly believe that a supreme consciousness exists.
We have part of this consciousness that is absorbed and mixed with the duality we live in.
Once you can break away from the duality and be advait, then the remaining consciousness becomes part of the supreme consciousness.


----------



## Ishna (Mar 25, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

I'm eagre to get into this thread when I have some time (I would like to contemplate it here at work but I don't think my boss would like that!).

Meanwhile, just soundbytes from me.



			
				Findingmyway ji said:
			
		

> A tree is conscious but once again it is of a different nature to human consciousness.



Is a tree conscious?

A tree grows the way it is programmed (by its evolved DNA) to grow. It may appear to be conscious because of the mechanisms within it which are triggered by certain events like day/night and seasons. But I wouldn't call this 'consciousness'.

I know it's impossible to define but if we're to try and talk about the 'consciousness' of the Creator I would say it's closer to a tree's "appearence of consciousness" than to an animal's.

Rehras Sahib is pounding in my brain right about now:
ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
Āsā mėhlā 1. 
Aasaa, First Mehl: 


ਸੁਣਿ ਵਡਾ ਆਖੈ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ ॥
Suṇ vadā ākẖai sabẖ ko▫e. 
Hearing of His Greatness, everyone calls Him Great. 


ਕੇਵਡੁ ਵਡਾ ਡੀਠਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Kevad vadā dīṯẖā ho▫e. 
But just how Great His Greatness is-this is known only to those who have seen Him. 


ਕੀਮਤਿ ਪਾਇ ਨ ਕਹਿਆ ਜਾਇ ॥
Kīmaṯ pā▫e na kahi▫ā jā▫e. 
His Value cannot be estimated; He cannot be described. 


ਕਹਣੈ ਵਾਲੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਰਹੇ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੧॥
Kahṇai vāle ṯere rahe samā▫e. ||1|| 
Those who describe You, Lord, remain immersed and absorbed in You. ||1|| 


ਵਡੇ ਮੇਰੇ ਸਾਹਿਬਾ ਗਹਿਰ ਗੰਭੀਰਾ ਗੁਣੀ ਗਹੀਰਾ ॥
vade mere sāhibā gahir gambẖīrā guṇī gahīrā. 
O my Great Lord and Master of Unfathomable Depth, You are the Ocean of Excellence. 


ਕੋਇ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਤੇਰਾ ਕੇਤਾ ਕੇਵਡੁ ਚੀਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Ko▫e na jāṇai ṯerā keṯā kevad cẖīrā. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
No one knows the extent or the vastness of Your Expanse. ||1||Pause|| 


ਸਭਿ ਸੁਰਤੀ ਮਿਲਿ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਕਮਾਈ ॥
Sabẖ surṯī mil suraṯ kamā▫ī. 
All the intuitives met and practiced intuitive meditation. 


ਸਭ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਪਾਈ ॥
Sabẖ kīmaṯ mil kīmaṯ pā▫ī. 
All the appraisers met and made the appraisal. 


ਗਿਆਨੀ ਧਿਆਨੀ ਗੁਰ ਗੁਰਹਾਈ ॥
Gi▫ānī ḏẖi▫ānī gur gurhā▫ī. 
The spiritual teachers, the teachers of meditation, and the teachers of teachers - 


ਕਹਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਤੇਰੀ ਤਿਲੁ ਵਡਿਆਈ ॥੨॥
Kahaṇ na jā▫ī ṯerī ṯil vadi▫ā▫ī. ||2|| 
they cannot describe even an iota of Your Greatness. ||2|| 


ਸਭਿ ਸਤ ਸਭਿ ਤਪ ਸਭਿ ਚੰਗਿਆਈਆ ॥
Sabẖ saṯ sabẖ ṯap sabẖ cẖang▫ā▫ī▫ā. 
All Truth, all austere discipline, all goodness, 


ਸਿਧਾ ਪੁਰਖਾ ਕੀਆ ਵਡਿਆਈਆ ॥
Siḏẖā purkẖā kī▫ā vaḏi▫ā▫ī▫ā. 
all the great miraculous spiritual powers of the Siddhas - 


ਤੁਧੁ ਵਿਣੁ ਸਿਧੀ ਕਿਨੈ ਨ ਪਾਈਆ ॥
Ŧuḏẖ viṇ siḏẖī kinai na pā▫ī▫ā. 
without You, no one has attained such powers. 


ਕਰਮਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਠਾਕਿ ਰਹਾਈਆ ॥੩॥
Karam milai nāhī ṯẖāk rahā▫ī▫ā. ||3|| 
They are received only by Your Grace. No one can block them or stop their flow. ||3|| 


ਆਖਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਕਿਆ ਵੇਚਾਰਾ ॥
Ākẖaṇ vālā ki▫ā vecẖārā. 
What can the poor helpless creatures do? 


ਸਿਫਤੀ ਭਰੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਭੰਡਾਰਾ ॥
Sifṯī bẖare ṯere bẖandārā. 
Your Praises are overflowing with Your Treasures. 



ਜਿਸੁ ਤੂ ਦੇਹਿ ਤਿਸੈ ਕਿਆ ਚਾਰਾ ॥
Jis ṯū ḏėh ṯisai ki▫ā cẖārā. 
Those, unto whom You give-how can they think of any other? 


ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚੁ ਸਵਾਰਣਹਾਰਾ ॥੪॥੨॥
Nānak sacẖ savāraṇhārā. ||4||2|| 
O Nanak, the True One embellishes and exalts. ||4||2|| 

​This may be getting a bit off-topic but I'd say we can talk and talk and contemplate and ponder but it's only our personal experiences with this 'Creator', our 'intuitive sehaj understanding' that we'll come anywhere close to having an understanding, and then we can't explain it in words anyway, like trying to explain a taste to someone who hasn't tasted something before.

Perhaps we are all indeed on the same page but we just can't express it?


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

The question is are you in CONTROL of your consciousness ???
If you are in complete control, then who are you exactly ??


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



> I have noticed on here in  recent times that some people claim to be Sikh and yet do not believe in  a conscious creator, but instead personally interpret Gurbani to be  instruction on how to live in harmony with nature / creation and compare  Sikhi to Athiesm


I am one of those people Bhenji, allow me to answer as best I can. I have never claimed any expertise on Bani or Sikhism, however, having lived the life I have, I have found the accumulated understanding very close to the teachings of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I personally believe that the best Sikh is the one that forgets about the whole concept of God altogether. When I say God, I mean the personality known as God. If, instead, you embrace the concept of energy, or creative force, it is harder to make deals with it, harder to beg it, to ask it, one need only be aware of it, and aware of what it stands for, and it is capable of. I find personalising God a huge insult to this energy, that it could be so base as being deserving of personality. 



> But they do not believe in a conscious creator / deity


by this do you mean a personality, with conscious thought? I find this is like trying to use basic engine techniques on a computerised electric car, I think such concepts as conciousness cannot do justice to this energy. 



> Some people chose to translate Onkar as ‘ultimate truth’ and take any persona out of it


If I were to state my own feelings on the matter, Ik Onkar, Sat Nam, would translate to me as the sole ultimate eternal Creative energy, whose name is the truth. 



> however the follow on  statements seem to point to a persona: Without Fear, Without Hate for  example, while stating the absence of something ‘could’ mean reference  to something inanimate, but then why state them at all?  You could  continue on forever with statements of things that an inanimate universe  does not possess. (without jealousy, without anger, without passion,  etc ---- without CONSCIOUSNESS)  So why use specifics such as ‘hate’ and  ‘fear’ if the creator is unconscious??  It doesn’t make sense to me.   The only way it makes sense is to say ‘without fear’ … as to specify  fearlessness… ‘without hate’ … as to specify loving / compassionate ---  these are qualities of a conscious persona, not an unconscious creation /  reality that just ‘happened’ without conscious design.


I do not find this Creative energy without consciousness, I would say that this energy is superconscious, in a way that we cannot even imagine. However, I do agree that to give it a state of consciousness akin to what we all know as conscious, is wrong, as we are dealing with concepts that are unknown to us. If you have never  driven a Range Rover before, and I tell you that driving one is similar to driving a Toyota Land Cruiser, then your expectation and your visualisation would be centred around a Land Cruiser. However, if I tell you that driving a Range Rover is like nothing you have ever experienced, then that is more akin to what I am suggesting about the facets of Creator. 



> But to say that creation just came about without conscious design doesn’t make sense


In my belief, that entire conscious design was contained in the first miniscule cell of life. And then the game began. I agree with you, but agree only that this design started everything of, I do not believe that this design, or Creator interferes with life. I do not believe there are special deals for good people, or bad people get punished. The rules of Creation are known, follow them and live happy and in peace, do not follow them and suffer the consequences of Creation. 



> And to say that something as  abstract as the personal internal world of our consciousness came about  as merely an emergent property of an unconscious creation without any  intelligent design, just does not make sense!


No, it does not, and I do not believe this to be the case. We are the end product of centuries of product refining. From the first single cell life, through to monkeys, bear man, pig man, and even wolf man, we have ended up here, with thousands of years of history and development in our brains, but the ultimate source will always be Creator, the ultimate designer will always be Creator, but the history is Creation. 



> *So to summarize,  my belief is  that reality is ONE consciousness, and that ONE is all that really  exists.  It is formless... pure frequency (as vibration is the basis of  everything also supported in science), and is creative and conscious.   This reality, this Universe is as a dream - the dream of the creator.   As a formless, pure point of consciousness, the only tools you would  possess to create would be thought - dreams - creativity.  Everything  within this creation, being a dream of the ONE universal consciousness,  by extension is part of the ONE - everything within the creation IS the  ONE.  That means there exists fragmented parts of the ONE consciousness  within everything and everyone, which is in agreement with Gurbani.  To  summarize my belief I would say that this reality is the expression of  the ONE universal conscious creator, to subjectively experience itself,  which it is doing through its own creation.  Some people say we are as  drops from the ocean that is Waheguru and we need to get back there  through discovering the divine within us.  In reality, I don't believe  we ever left the ocean... we just forget where we were.  *


I agree with everything above, barring the one consciousness. I think what we call conscious pales into insignificance compared with the  true ultimate consciousness of Creator.,


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

 Dear Harry Haller ji 

Now that this is an interfaith discussion (  ) as a result of my own _faux pass _I cannot but be intrigued by your frequent reference to God as _energy. _

For some reason, it seems very _Taoist _to me. That is a good thing by the way, I love _Taoism_. 

The _Tao _is not a personal Creator yet is a kind of benevolent life-force that is the Mother of all creatures and sustains all creation. The _Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao. _The word in Chinese literally translates to mean, "The Way". Living in the _Tao _is living a way of life, _the _way of the cosmos. 

On top of the _Tao _there is _Te _or _Chi _the natural energy coursing through all living things that comes from the _Tao_. 

The _Tao _has no form yet has attributes. Gentleness, benevolence, serenity. 

However the _Tao _is not an omnipotent Being. It guides the universe . The Universe springs from the Tao, and the Tao impersonally guides things on their way, each in their own way according to nature. 



> The Venerable Lord, the Tao, was at rest in open mystery, beyond silent desolation, in mysterious emptiness... Say it/he is there and do not see a shape; say it/he is not there, yet all beings follow him for life.
> 
> <CITE>*Taishang laojun kaitian jing, in Livia Kohn, The Taoist Experience: An Anthology, 1993*</CITE>


 
I see a fascinating linkage too your own comprehension of God. Am I wrong in this? It is merely an observation.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

Vouthonji

good to see you again, have you finished our book yet 

If we accept that God is not in fact some long bearded hippy type sitting on a cloud eating rice pudding and being worshipped, then what else can it be


----------



## Ishna (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



harry haller said:


> I am one of those people Bhenji, allow me to answer as best I can. I have never claimed any expertise on Bani or Sikhism, however, having lived the life I have, I have found the accumulated understanding very close to the teachings of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I personally believe that the best Sikh is the one that forgets about the whole concept of God altogether. When I say God, I mean the personality known as God. If, instead, you embrace the concept of energy, or creative force, it is harder to make deals with it, harder to beg it, to ask it, one need only be aware of it, and aware of what it stands for, and it is capable of. I find personalising God a huge insult to this energy, that it could be so base as being deserving of personality.


 
But is not an energy or creative force... http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/quest...-how-do-you-know-god-exists-3.html#post181615 

*hmph*


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



harry haller said:


> Vouthonji
> 
> good to see you again, have you finished our book yet
> 
> If we accept that God is not in fact some long bearded hippy type sitting on a cloud eating rice pudding and being worshipped, then what else can it be


 
Dear Harry 

As a matter of fact, I have! I enjoyed it as much (if not more) than Siddartha which was my first outing into Hermann Hesse. I saw a bit of myself in both characters, although the one that stayed in the monastery and had a kind of hubris with his holiness, I suppose I might veer more towards him. We should discuss it again some time! I'm also reading a fascinating book ATM by W. Somerset Maugham known as "The Razor's Edge". Its kind of a spiritual quest for knowledge. You should read it! 

I think it depends on whether we try to _understand _God or simply _experience _Him. If we seek the path of knowledge, God will always remain something beyond us, impersonal and unknowable because we cannot reach a level of consciousness beyond time and without human emotions. 

If we seek Him through _experience _then we can love Him and live in Him even though we do not know Him as he His. 

For me God has an impersonal and a personal aspect. If we seek to _know him as He Is _then he will be impersonal because he is not human, nor time-bound, has no emotions, successive thoughts, feelings etc. Anything we understand as _personal. _

_However if we simply love him with unknowing love, then we become his Bride. _

I think the choice boils down to: Love or knowledge? 

As one of my mystics put it (and here I go again, the walking, talking quote database :blush: ) : 




> "...God is an endless force that what it wills attaineth,
> That formless, without goal, still as it is remaineth.
> 
> Indeed, God only is—can neither live nor love
> ...


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



Ishna said:


> But is not an energy or creative force... http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/quest...-how-do-you-know-god-exists-3.html#post181615
> 
> *hmph*


Sisji, 


That is my current understanding, and it is what gets me through the night. Given that my understanding 2 years ago was complete atheism, it is not impossible that my understanding will change, who knows, however, I would rather embrace a concept I understand and am comfortable with, that mirrors my understanding of the SGGS, than accept something just to pay lip service to a concept just for the sake of it. 

Ambarsariaji is much much more knowledgable than myself on these matters, and I consider him to be further down the path, so I take his writings quite seriously, I also know he is not a man to accept concepts blindly, but at this stage in my life, at this time, the concept of God not being a Creative force or energy is not something that I can embrace. It is a personal thing, part of the journey for me,


----------



## Ishna (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

I'm there with ya bro, I was just throwing it out there. For brains such as mine it's difficult to accept plurality of belief about something as central as Ik Onkar but you've explained it nicely.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

Harry Ji, for me it is very difficult to imagine that the Universe and everything we know 'just happened' - for you mention that the creative 'energy' was contained in the first cell of life... so what came before that and 'who' was the designer?? Things don't just 'happen' without a force cauing them to happen, even the big bang. And without 'instructions' the basic building blocks of the Universe coould never have created what we know to exist, including our bodies. Instructions do not write themselves... 

I agree that the universal supreme ONE consciousness is beyond our understanding, but to suggest that it is unconscious of the creation is infathomable to me. 

Sikhs strive to merge back with the creator - (I'll even use the term 'creative force' for you Harry Ji) But why strive to merge with something if it means you cease to exist alltogether? When terms like 'bliss' are used in the description, it doesn't suggest some unconscious merging of your energy after death with the Universe's energy. It suggests a CONSCIOUS existence, because well... you have to be conscious to experience bliss no??? 

I still believe, through what I read in Gurbani, that the base of all existence is ONE pure consciousness and NOT matter at all. You seem to be looking at the Universe from the level of matter as the base... but even scientists are abandoning this because matter dissolves the deeper you look, the stranger it gets and the very basic subatomic particles don't even exist in a set point in space / time without a conscious observer. If you believe that consciousness was manifest FROM matter, this leaves us with a very serious conundrum!!! Since our brains even, are made with those very same sub atomic particles, just WHO observed them into existence!??? Science now points to a field underlying everything and that field is pure consciousness.

I'm not saying that ONE pool of universal consciousness is like our human level of consciousness... because of our separateness, we experience reality in a very fragmented way, just like we can't rule out that plants and minerals are completely unconscious... they are just not as evolved consciously as us (at least in terms of physical consciousness - spiritual is different) You see, the further away from spiritual consciousness we get, the more emersed within physical consciousness. In that way, animals are very much more in tune spiritually than we are. But they have not evolved enough physically conscious to learn... concepts like compassion, we need to experience as human. So that is why I believe we experience 8.4 million (lakh?) births.... we evolve from the very beginning of physical consciousness but still very much in tune with the spiritual... but as human, we are fully emmersed in the physical, learn compassion, etc but are furthest away from spirituality. The real task now is, to take what we have learned as we have evolved spiritually, and merge back with the original ONE consciousness, fully conscious and aware, and possessing everything we have learned on the way. 

In reality though, we are ALL just really the ONE consciousness, experiecing itself subjectively through many eyes (us). In essense, I believe that the ONE universal consciousness is in the process of 'waking up' through its own conscious evolution. There really is NO us. There is only the ONE. 

Now since we got away from just Sikhi I guess I can post a quote from the Emerald Tablet of Hermes, which is said to describe the process of creation (note that the use of certain words like Sun and Moon are symbolism and not the physical sun and moon, and the process is not to turn lead into gold as many believe, but to attain the knowledge of the divine) (my notes are in red):



> 0) When I entered into the cave, I received the tablet zaradi, which was inscribed, from between the hands of Hermes, in which I discovered these words:
> 1) True, without falsehood, certain, most certain. (Ultimate Truth)
> 2) What is above is like what is below, and what is below is like that which is above. To make the miracle of the one. (note: ONE Also, the above 'God' is like the below 'us' and we are as the above... in reality we ARE the ONE collectively. We ALL contain the divine spark! In the same way, we also contain creativity!)
> 3) And as all things were made from the contemplation of one, so all things were born from one adaptation. (contemplation = thought of ONE....ONE supreme and universal 'entity' began to 'think' or contemplate)
> ...


 
Again: Reality is the process of the ONE Universal Consciousness awakening.....becoming aware of itself, subjectively through its own creation.

Now, my belief and understanding step away from dogma / ritual and more into pure mysticism and spirituality. I believe that every religion contains the truth, but hidden beneath the 'stories' and dogma that 99% of adherants believe. For example, the Genesis story is rife with symbolism and mysticism, and one could look at the literal story, which the masses were taught, but the few who knew the symbolism, knew the truth burried in the allegory. (an example, Eve's 'punishment' of pain in childbirth for eating of the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' was not literal like most people believed. It was not a story about an apple and a horrible punishment from God to last every generation from then on in. [Think why would it even make sense to punish one's great great grandchildren for your disobedience?] It is an allegory speaking of the 'birth' of humankind - where 'knowledge' lead to the birth of the human race and gains in technology advancements etc, but at the cost of 'pains' of that birth being poverty, famine, greed, etc.) 

I just believe that Sikhi contains more truth without being wrapped up in so much allegory... (although there is still some when dealing with comparisons etc). Having studied many religions, I can stand back look at the allegory in all of them and I see these similarities!!! And most (if not all) make reference to some sort of process involving unfolding consciousness or birth of awareness through a creative spark, usually in the form of a 'word' or 'sound' (OM/Aum in Hinduism, The Bible says the Word was with God and the word WAS God, Sikhi speaks of 'Celestial Sound Currents' etc.) which point to vibration / frequency. Thought / consciousness too is pure frequency, scientists agree that vibration / frequency is at the base working of the Universe... something to think about!!!


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

I was wondering how would a conscious God 'think'? What would he be aware of?

Will he be able to tell difference between a man and a woman? An adult and a child? Mars and Earth? I guess not.

A conscious God might have his favorites, like Israel over Palestine. This over that. Nope. God is not aware of the difference. Nothing is external, everything is internal to God.

I am afraid God is not conscious the way we want Him to be. God doesn't collect clouds and send it where there is drought. He will not send you food when you are hungry. You might think He has, it will be all indirect, nothing direct.

We are all conscious of ourselves, of our problems. Not of other's problems. We don't fight our problems as one force, but differently. Alone. If God was conscious, would he find the pollution on earth as problem? or the solution? You see, being conscious means you have to take sides. If you are conscious of your weight, you don't like the fat in you. But God doesn't see no difference if there are thousands or billions of humans on Earth. God just exists. By Itself. When the play is finished, there are no characters, only the Actor. And there are plays with just one Actor playing all the parts.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



> I was wondering how would a conscious God 'think'? What would he be aware of?
> 
> Will he be able to tell difference between a man and a woman? An adult and a child? Mars and Earth? I guess not.
> 
> A conscious God might have his favorites, like Israel over Palestine. This over that. Nope. God is not aware of the difference. Nothing is external, everything is internal to God.


 
Kanwaljit Singh Ji, can I pose a question to you?

Suppose you dream one night that you are standing in a field....do you have a preference between one blade of grass and another, even after awakening?


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



> Suppose you dream one night that you are standing in a field....do you  have a preference between one blade of grass and another, even after  awakening?



What if you are the person standing, the grass and the field, do you remember being there and back? You are always there


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



Kanwaljit Singh said:


> What if you are the person standing, the grass and the field, do you remember being there and back? You are always there


 
EXACTLY!!!!! That is how I try and understand how the creator might be 'consciously' aware of creation... by being immersed within it, by BEING it, and also aware of it from outside of it! As a dream... which is mentioned in multiple places in Gurbani:



> Page 482, Line 15
> ਜਗਿ ਜੀਵਨੁ ਐਸਾ ਸੁਪਨੇ ਜੈਸਾ ਜੀਵਨੁ ਸੁਪਨ ਸਮਾਨੰ ॥
> Jag jīvan aisā supne jaisā jīvan supan samānaŉ.
> The life of the world is only a dream; life is *just a dream*.


 
Further to that, the Emerald Tablet I quoted above, states that 'As Above, So Below' meaning we are images of the creator. In fact, all of creation is. Therefore we possess that same creative potential as the creator. So in that way we can on a small scale understand how the creator could be consciously aware of creation.... as an Author named Dr. Asoka Selvarajah (hope I spelled it correct) said in one of his essays, we are the 'little dreamers within the big dream'

Science points to the Universe being fractal... 

Suppose that whatever character you are currently interacting in your dream as, goes to sleep inside the dream, and has a dream within your dream. Think on that concept for a moment....

Now..........ask yourself.......... "*WHO* is the dreamer?"


> Page 86, Line 1
> ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣਿਆ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਪਰਗਾਸੁ ॥
> Gurmaṯī āp pacẖẖāṇi▫ā rām nām pargās.
> Follow the Guru's Teachings, and recognize your *own self*; the *Divine Light* of the Lord's Name shall shine within.



Now to end with a quote from the Oracle at the Temple Of Delphi (again illustrating this concept exists throughout different faiths):

_"*Man, know thyself ... and thou* shalt *know* the gods."_


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



Kanwaljit Singh said:


> I was wondering how would a conscious God 'think'? What would he be aware of?
> .


 The 'thinking' is done with the mind.
The consciousness does not think because it doesn't use the mind.
This is where we confuse ourselves because we attach the mind and brain to everything that needs to make sense to us.
The conscious just 'knows' in the same way GOD 'knows' the Truth.


----------



## Ishna (Mar 26, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

Personally I don't interpret that sentence about the world being a dream literally.

I always thought it was metaphorical.  A dream isn't real because you wake up and it's goes away - it's transitory.  Same as this life, it's all transitory and will cease to exist.  That's not to say it isn't "real".


----------



## Aisha (Mar 26, 2013)

In Islam we have something called "Qadar" (predestination), the belief that Allah swt has control over all things. I am not an expert, but the basic concept is that everything you are going to do, or everything that is going to happen to you in your life, is already known to Allah swt and has been written down, and it will all come to pass. In this sense we can say that Allah swt is conscious, He must be if he is aware of His creation and what is going to happen to it.

I have seen people throw around phrases such as the "hukam of Waheguru Ji" (the Will of God), everything that happens is because God allows it to be so. I believe it is also mentioned in the Japji Sahib, that all are within His command, no one is beyond it.

The above leads me to believe that Waheguru Ji must have some degree of consciousness; He may not intervene in human affairs or give people what they want in exchange for acts of devotion, but it sounds like He is at the very least aware that we exist and has some sort of control over our actions, like He has placed certain limitations over them.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 26, 2013)

Pardon my ignorance, but I have no idea who/what Conscious Creator is or what he/she/it means.
Can someone help me with the help of Gurbani and explain this please?

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 27, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*

Here is where you and I differ Ishna Ji because I ultimately ended up following Sikhi for the fact that there is much less allegory than other religions.  This life really is a dream...

Using the movie Matrix as a guide....

If you were in a dream, and could never wake up (at least until you die), how would you ever know you were dreaming?  Certainly our dreams at night are so real while we are immersed within them, that we don't give a second thought while in there, that it's really a dream??

How do you KNOW for sure that this is real and your dream is not???

Given the fact that the way we experience this reality is through mere electrical signals sent to our brain to tell us this is what is 'out there' but the picture we have of this world is actually internal (visually, its actually at the back of our brain in an area called the occipital region). Now, would you be surprised if I told you that the exact same areas of the brain are stimulated when we dream at night??? 

So then both our dreams AND the way in which we experience reality are the same and are mere electrical signals... brainwave frequencies... measurable on an EEG.   The only thing that is constant is consciousness...




Ishna said:


> Personally I don't interpret that sentence about the world being a dream literally.
> 
> I always thought it was metaphorical.  A dream isn't real because you wake up and it's goes away - it's transitory.  Same as this life, it's all transitory and will cease to exist.  That's not to say it isn't "real".


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

*Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*



Akasha said:


> Here is where you and I differ Ishna Ji because I ultimately ended up following Sikhi for the fact that there is much less allegory than other religions. This life really is a dream...
> 
> Using the movie Matrix as a guide....
> 
> ...


 
Dear Akasha ji eacesignkaur:

Does what you say though not suggest that it is our _perception _of reality that might be limited rather than that reality itself? 

I mean human eyes have evolved to see the world the world in a certain variety of colours. We do not see the same as a dog sees, or an octopus. Thus we see different pigments in our vision, however we _are _looking at the same thing it is merely our perceptions that differ. 

If God views the world from eternity, he will see it in an infinitely deeper and more sublime way than we can imagine; contemplating every event, person, happening throughout history in a single Present Now in which everything and everyone who has lived is as close to Him as this computer and the grey sky I am looking out at is to me right now. 

Nevertheless the world is still real. If I see a dog, that dog is there. It is conscious. I can interact with it. I can have an effect on it, and it can have an effect on me. I may not see the dog the way another animal will see that dog but it is there and can be corroborated on the basis of others agreeing that it is there. 

I, like Ishna, do not regard the world as a dream. This reality is the only one we have known. We have no other reality perceptible to us with which we can compare it to declare it a dream. We can declare a dream a "dream" because your mind is not normally in a sleeping state. We have another reality with which to compare it. In this reality we use our five senses and impact upon and are impacted upon by others, something that does not happen in a dream because it is experienced solely by ourselves, whereas this reality is made up of experiences we share with others, such as the sight of the hypothetical dog that I mentioned. 

No one can declare a dream real because it cannot be corroborated. Only you had your dream. I did not nor ever will dream the same dreams as you. Therefore I will never see what you see and your dream will always remain a figment of your own imagination. 

Our perception may be limited by our human intellect and five senses, however it is real as real as anything can be because we know nothing else and cannot know anything else because we are creatures made out of the building-blocks, atoms and molecules of this reality, with five senses and a physical brain made to interact with this reality. We are part of this reality, whether one likes it or not. This IS it. 

Certain religions hint at a higher reality, a different one beyond this world. Some have claimed too have experienced this higher reality with a hypothetical spiritual, incorporeal part of their being. For them, this reality is even more real than this world because this reality derives its reality from that one, which is the Real that this reality participates in. 

Since none of us - I assume - have experienced this said reality, it is not real for us. Only this world is real for us and holds any meaning.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 27, 2013)

I personally think that to view life as a dream, which intimates zero consequence, is a very dangerous way to live. 

Life is very real, the people around us are very real, and the consequences of our thoughts, actions and speech are very real. 

I have lived life as a lucid dream in my younger years, it is a huge strength, it makes you invincible, but judgement day comes to all who live in this fashion, and there are only two outcomes, retribution or death. 

Creation is beautiful, I am looking out of my shop window and I can see people, trees, dogs, a squirrel, this is not a dream, this is our one and only chance to get enough connection that we can see what should really be seen, hear what should really be heard, speak what should be spoken, and act as one should act. 

Those that live in dreams are those that follow the same desires and needs day in and day out. They are dead, instead of accepting truthful living, they need to validate existence with baubles, false love, pride, ego, they are empty vessels living a dream, and they have no idea what it will take to fill that awful black void that keeps cropping up, that sense of unease that even with all the cars, the sex, the booze, the drugs, something is really missing, something that you cannot buy or steal, something that you cannot use to make others jealous of you, and that is simply the connection one gains through truthful living.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

harry haller said:


> I personally think that to view life as a dream, which intimates zero consequence, is a very dangerous way to live.
> 
> Life is very real, the people around us are very real, and the consequences of our thoughts, actions and speech are very real.
> 
> ...




Harry Haller ji

What you have explained, described is more than your personal opinion. Your words are completely consistent with Gurbani. Life is not a dream and the world is not an illusion. When Guru Nanak says _Oh man you have awakened from a nightmare _he is not saying life is a dream. He is saying that we tend to react to our perceptions of the world (people, events) as if our perceptions and reality itself are the same thing. We act as if the dream is true. We become attached to our perceptions as if they are truthful, when they are false and misleading. When Guru Nanak refers to Maya as _the veil of illusion _he is not saying the world is an illusion. He is rather using "veil" as a powerful analogy for perceptions that distort reality and cause us to react and act wrongly. He says tear away that veil of false perception, because as long as it is there we suffer and cause suffering to others. When Guru Nanak refers to _the terrible world ocean_ he is as much as saying this is a place of fear and suffering that is very real. Only Gurprasaad can save us from it. Therefore open up to that which delivers us and our families from that ocean of fear and suffering. 

The notion that nothing is real and life is an illusion is a nihilistic philosophy which amounts to escapism which does not bring one closer to the sat. If Guru Nanak were saying life is a dream or an illusion,  all of Gurbani would be nonsense. Instead Guru Nanak urges we find the sat in the real world through authentic connections with sangat and with those less fortunate. Our mission is to cross the world ocean and carry others with us.

Thanks for your inspirational example.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 27, 2013)

I think you have mistook how I am equating the word 'dream' ... I am not saying that life is not real.... however, I am also saying is that our dreams could be just as 'real' as this world (just on a deeper level). Certainly from our outside experience looking inward, they are creations in our mind.  But to a conscious creator, could not this world also be seen in the same light?

Again, this points to us being as a mirror of the creator, and possessing (in a smaller degree) the SAME creative potential.  (In fact that idea is supported in MANY spiritual paths - that we are made in the image of the creator... the Emerald Tablet of Hermes I posted above, has been for thousands of years a well known Mystical document that outlines that fact)  That we are the little dreamers in the big dream.  That is not to say the dream is not real.  

Nowhere did I ever imply that the world is not real.  

What I AM saying is that using the analogy of the word 'dream' to compare it to, is interesting because dreams require creativity.  They require a conscious 'dreamer' and so to compare this world to a dream implies that the creator is the 'dreamer' having conscious creative potential.  (When you dream btw you are NOT unconscious... you are just in a different level of consciousness - denoted by a lowered brainwave activity state... but you are still very much 'conscious' and able to create) 

This thread was started to discuss the potential of a 'Conscious' creator of reality... and support for it in Gurbani, which I believe more than supports the idea that the creator is conscious of the creation. It wasn't started to discuss whether or not the word 'dream' means something 'fabricated / fake' or does it mean something 'created / existing on a different level' but I felt it was necessary to clarify that I am not in any way saying I believe the world to be 'fake' as to suggest that we can do whatever we want because it's not real. That's not the case.  

I know spnadmin you and Harry were assuming that's what I meant.  I know I am not exactly in your good books spnadmin, so I thought I should clarify before I get in trouble again.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 27, 2013)

Akasha Bhenji

I understand what you mean, I think we are getting bogged down in semantics, not that I am anti semantic in any way. 

eacesign:


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

Sometimes I feel I must bow my head to the power of the Internet to create confusion.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

A scientific discussion of dreaming versus waking states is a topic for a different thread methinks.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 27, 2013)

Akasha ji, I know what you mean and I know you are just trying to forward an analogy of the dreams example.
We have to remember that when we dream it all seems so real until we wake up.
In the same way, we live this life until our true consciousness really wakes up to the truth.
That's when it will appear as a real illusion.- Trust me !
It is only after being in a coma for over a month that I realised the whole 'real' world is just an illusion and maya. I also understand what my conscious really is, but it's not that easy to explain.

Anyway, a while ago in the lyrics to one of my songs I wrote-
*''Don't dream your life, but live your dreams'*


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> He is saying that we tend to react to our perceptions of the world (people, events) as if our perceptions and reality itself are the same thing. We act as if the dream is true. We become attached to our perceptions as if they are truthful, when they are false and misleading.


 
Very true eacesignkaur:
This actually reminds me of something that Anthony de Mello, a Jesuit priest, once said. He composed a little fictional story about a master talking to his disciple about perception and reality: 



> "What, concretely, is Enlightenment?"
> "Seeing Reality as it is," said the Master.
> "Doesn't everyone see Reality as it is?"
> "Oh, no! Most people see it as they think it is*.*"
> ...


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

Vouthon ji

This may be disrespectful on my part. 

However, is there anything you have noticed in Gurbani yet than cannot be equated to something said by a medieval saint, Christian mystic or Jesuit priest? 

Could there be a reason why Guru Nanak, who was fully aware of Catholic theology in his lifetime, did not simply say to Brahmins and Muslims... just pack it in because that is what I am going to do?  Roman Catholics have got it right. There is really nothing more that I Guru Nanak can offer.

Because Christianity is greater in numbers than Sikhism it is quite possible to sweep Sikhism away by sweeping its teachings into a "friendly" faith with "amenable" thoughts and ideas. Hindus continue to try to  co-opt the teachings of Guru Nanak and Muslims continue to claim him as their own. Until I have a chance to cross-examine Mr. De Mello I with-hold judgement on Jesuits. What about you? Is there anything in Gurbani that does *not* remind you of Catholic teachings?


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Vouthon ji
> 
> This may be disrespectful on my part.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Spn, 

I am not offended in the least. I can completely see where you are coming from, although I asure you that I could compile a list of the differences between Sikhi and Catholic Christianity. I just don't because its a Sikh forum and I don't want to be quoting irrelevant (to Sikhs) Catholic specific teachings that no poster here will reap any benefit from other than me. 

I quote from sources in which I find affinities to Sikh thought within my own tradition. I do this on all the forums I am on, generally my approach has been well received, such as by Baha'is, Buddhists and others I have dialogued with in the past. I know my own tradition best, so its my natural way of posting meaningfully, so to speak but without any dogma or doctrine-specific teachings. Its just my style of posting. 

Of course there are things in Sikhi that do not agree with Catholicism. 

Sikhs do not accept the idea of incarnations of God, virgin births, the resurrection, priesthoods, monastic orders. We also have differing philosophical standpoints, Sikhi in India, Catholicism in Ancient Israel and Greece. To western Catholic mysticism there is no speaking of a "merging" between the soul and God that I have seen in some understandings of Sikhi. A union with distinction or difference, yes but not a "merging" (some of our mystics use the word "merge" in a metaphorical sense but never literally as to mean complete absorption and loss of any independent identity). 

In Sikhi there is no place for asceticism or flight from the world, whereas this is quite prevalent in some sectors of the very broad Catholic spirituality (although others such as Eckhart are critical of asceticism so these things are never cut-and-dried). 

Morally I cannot honestly say that I find much difference but that is only because, I suspect, human nature is one and people in different cultures who are saintly generally reach the same or similar ethical frameworks by a simple use of human reason and a deep insight into our own empathy for others. 

Theologically, philosophically and certainly in terms of structure, there are differences s one would expect. There are also abundant similarities too, however and I have been impressed by how much of the Granth I agree I can attest too without hesitation. 

I never expect Sikhs to believe in any of these distinct things I believe in. 

Sikhi is a distinct religion from Catholicism. That does not mean that we cannot meet on common ground where we do find ourselves to agree. Dialogue between Sikhs and Catholics has been more fruitful than between Sikhs and other Christian denominations. 

There are common areas where we can meet, however, and since my joining this forum I have preferred to focus on them. 

I could create a thread though detailing in quite some depth, our differences. That too is important for dialogue. The reason I have refrained from doing so is that I haven't really seen the need too.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 27, 2013)

> However, is there anything you have noticed in Gurbani yet than cannot  be equated to something said by a medieval saint, Christian mystic or  Jesuit priest?



to be fair to young Vouthonji, almost all the people he quotes are heretics that ended up being tortured. Maybe secretely they were Sikhs!

As such Sikhism is more than happy to offer a home to any other heretics of any religion that are fed up paying lip service and wish to live life by the truth instead.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

harry haller said:


> to be fair to young Vouthonji, almost all the people he quotes are heretics that ended up being tortured. Maybe secretely they were Sikhs!
> 
> As such Sikhism is more than happy to offer a home to any other heretics of any religion that are fed up paying lip service and wish to live life by the truth instead.


 
To live life by the truth:



> "...Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I could keep the truth and let God go..."
> 
> *-  Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic mystic & Dominican priest*


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

I suppose one of my consolations is that often Christian mystics experienced times in life when they thought they were atheists.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> I suppose one of my consolations is that often Christian mystics experienced times in life when they thought they were atheists.



Actually, they did.  A Vajrayana Buddhist online once asked me to explain it to him. He said:


Quote:
I understand that there is a very strong non-theistic tradition even in historical Catholicism, and a number of Catholic (as well as of course Muslim and Jewish) scholars and mystics have discussed the issue of not using the label "God" because it allows us to make our own presumptions about what that is.​
I gave him this:

The most daring forms of Catholic mysticism have emphasized the absolute unknowability of God. They suggest that true contact with the transcendent involves going beyond all that we speak of as God - even the Trinity - to an inner "God beyond God," a divine Darkness or Desert in which all distinction is lost.

This form of "mystical atheism" has [as its] main exponent the Pseudo-Dionysius, who distinguished "the super-essential God-head" from all positive terms ascribed to God, even the Trinity (The Divine Names, chapter 13).

In the West this tradition is first found in Erigena and is especially evident in the Rhineland school. According to Eckhart, even being and goodness are "garments" or "veils" under which God is hidden. In inviting his hearers to "break through" to the hidden Godhead, he daringly exclaimed, "let us pray to God that we may be free of 'God,' and that we may apprehend and rejoice in that everlasting truth in which the highest angel and the fly and the soul are equal" (German Sermons, 52).​

In fact Sam Harris, the famed atheist neuroscientist, admitted last year that he enjoys reading Catholic and Indian mystics and actually "gets" them:


Quote:
"If I open a page of [the 13th-century Catholic mystic] Meister Eckhart, I often know what he’s talking about.”​
And so the modern Catholic mystic (and convert from Atheism), Simone Weil (brought up in a secular Jewish family), explained:


Quote:
"...Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong....That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification...Whenever one tries to suppress doubt, there is tyranny...There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God...At the bottom of the heart of every human being, from earliest infancy until the tomb, there is something that goes on indomitably expecting, in the teeth of all experience of crimes committed, suffered, and witnessed, that good and not evil will be done to him. It is this above all that is sacred in every human being...God is absent from the world, except in the existence in this world of those in whom his love is alive...Their compassion is the visible presence of God...An atheist may be simply one whose faith and love are concentrated on the impersonal aspects of God...I am absolutely sure that God exists, in the sense that my love is not an illusion. I am absolutely sure that God does not exist, in the sense that nothing corresponds to whatever I may think when I utter this name. But what I cannot think is not an illusion..."

- Simone Weil (1909 – 1943), Jewish Catholic mystic & philosopher​
So yes there is a strong sense of mystical atheism, as odd as that may sound.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

Also:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset">"...And on this path God takes back from him everything that he had ever given him. Then and there the person is left so completely to himself that he loses all notion of God and gets into such a disstressful state that he cannot remember whether things had ever gone right for him, *so as not to know any more if he were ever on the right path, whether he has a God or not, nor does he know if God does or does not exist*, or if he is alive or dead and whether he is the same person; and he suffers such incredible pain that this whole wide world is too confining for him. A very strange sorrow comes over him that makes him think that the whole world in its expanse oppresses him. He neither has any feeling for nor knowledge of God..." 

*- Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361), Catholic mystic & Dominican *</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Atheistic doubt is also part of the spiritual journey, in a _negative way _rather than the _positive way _explained prior to the above. It is still natural, a natural part of the journey: 


Catholic mystics underwent periods of de facto atheism when they doubted the existence of God, during a dark night of the soul. Consider Saint Therese of Lisieux: 


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset">*St. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, describes herself as having extreme doubts of God’s existence. She called the atheists of the time her brothers and sisters and imagined herself dining with them. *</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset">Thérèse of Lisieux directly confronted anguish in the face of death. The atheist's questions about the existence of God and of an afterlife became her problem when, in her trial of faith, she was suddenly submerged in an abyss of anguish and there experienced the distress of nothingness. She was deprived of what she calls "the joy of faith"; she could not "enjoy this beautiful heaven on earth."21 She entered a place of deep darkness that surrounded her and threatened to overwhelm her. She seemed to hear the darkness say: "You believe that one day you will walk out of this fog which surrounds you! Advance, advance; rejoice in death which will give you not what you hope for but a night still more profound, the night of nothingness."22
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## Ishna (Mar 29, 2013)

Does the word ਸੈਭੰ  (saibhang) give us any clues about this puzzle?

*P. adj. (from Svayyam-bhū) self-existent (Lord) *[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]When searching for Svayyam-bhu the result is:[/SIZE]
ਦੇਖੋ, ਸੈਭੰ। (2) {ਸੰਗ੍ਯਾ}. ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ.
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]I don't know what the other words mean except the last one is Brahma which is interesting.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Also while we're here I've read something recently about there being the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva trinity which together make us 'Brahman' which some people have said is equal to 'Ik Onkar'.  I never knew there was a difference...  thoughts?
[/SIZE]


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 29, 2013)

Doesn't 'karta purakh' imply that that creator(karta) is purakh (being,conscious,awareness) ???
Would this help understand that there is such a God-conscious or not ??
I may be wrong since I can't find a solid word to equate with 'purakh'.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 29, 2013)

Ishna ji

Are you asking 3 separate questions? Or one question that has in your opinion 3 interconnected parts? I cannot decide what you are asking. If yes, thenI now land in the zone of arm-chair Hindu philosopher. 

Here the issues are reaching back into Hindu metaphysics ... and the danger of delving into that comes from the fact, not the opinion, that there are 3 distinct periods in Hindu philosophy ... with the earliest ideas being more about metaphysics and less about religion. So you can see how moving onto a discussion of Brahma requires trained scholar in Hindu philosophy to keep the hot air index to a minimum. 

Svayyam-bhū actually means the son/progeny of pure consciousness. It can refer to the birth story of Krishna, but it can also refer to the birth of Brahma who is self created and was born from a golden egg in water. Hence Brahma is considered the creative force, in the trinity with Vishnu Sustainer and Shiva Destroyer.

Are you saying that svayyam-bhu was somehow defined by the words following up? The first word ਦੇਖੋ   is dhekho or see, or something you see. ਇਨ ਮੈਂ ਕਛੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਰੇ ਨਾਹਨਿ ਦੇਖੋ ਸੋਚ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥੧॥ In maiŉ kacẖẖ ṯero re nāhan ḏekẖo socẖ bicẖārī. ||1|| none of these is yours to keep. See this, reflect upon it and understand. ||1|| Second word is ਸੈਭੰ। saibhang which means self-created, and is found in the Mool Mantar. So the first 2 words are getting at seeing and self-created being. This is followed by a third word  ਸੰਗ੍ਯਾ that I can't make out but think it is sirgun(a) which refers to visible attributes usually of the divine. All ending with Brahma. 

The embarrassing stretch. I put this together to mean that _Svayyam-bhū_ pure consciousness gives birth to the image or recognition of _saibhang _self-created Brahma when he _dhekho_ is seen _sirguna_  manifest throughout creation. All hot air is mine alone.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 29, 2013)

Vouthon ji 

This is your cue to post something about St. Bonaventure who nearly lost his life for suggesting something just like that seeing the footprints of god manifest throughout creation.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 29, 2013)

I thinkI can see the point being made by adminji here.

But looking at this-


> [SIZE=-1]Also while we're here I've read  something recently about there being the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva trinity  which together make us 'Brahman' which some people have said is equal to  'Ik Onkar'.  [/SIZE]



I think you have to tread very carefully into NOT equating Ik Onkar with 'Omkar' !
As adminji has mentioned and pointed out above, I can gather that 'OM' refers to the sirgun aspects whereas 'Ik onkar' is nirgun and sirgun.
Therefore this trinity correlation may be so with 'OM' but it is not with 'ik onkaar'


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 29, 2013)

Luckysingh ji

I know that many a Sikh scholar makes the point that in   ੴ    the number Ik/one  is placed deliberately first and before Oankaar to stress the idea of ONE ... I agree in Ik Oankaar that all nirgun and sargun are contained in the One.


----------



## Ishna (Mar 29, 2013)

Whoops

Ok firstly my post was 3 separate questions.

1. Does 'Saibhang' give us clues about the consciousness or not of whatever Ik Onkar is.

2. What do the words mean in the Srigranth dictionary when you look up *Svayyam-bhū*

And the third question I made a serious typo in. I said "the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva trinity which together make us 'Brahman' " but I meant "makes UP Brahman". It was a question unrelated to the thread, sorry. But I'd seen some people saying that this "Brahman" isn't "Brahma" but the thing which created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and was equated by these people as Ik Onkar. I don't know jack about Hindu mythology but thought it might be somehow connected to the 'Saibhang' word since 'Brahma' is in the definition of *Svayyam-bhū*

Um... and lastly adminji, about the word 'dhekho', if it means 'see', and it's written into a dictionary entry, does it mean 'refer'? I dunno.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 29, 2013)

Again I am not getting it. 



Ishna said:


> Whoops
> 
> Ok firstly my post was 3 separate questions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 29, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> Doesn't 'karta purakh' imply that that creator(karta) is purakh (being,conscious,awareness) ???
> Would this help understand that there is such a God-conscious or not ??
> I may be wrong since I can't find a solid word to equate with 'purakh'.



Just an observation:

The  two main phrases used by Kathavaachaks and others to describe *Ik Ong Kaar* are *Number 1 and 3:*

1. * ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ-karṯā purakẖ*= Used 14 times in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in different verses

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gu...ch&Param=punjabi&Tier=2&SearchData=ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ


2. * ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ-akāl mūraṯ*= Used 10 times in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in different verses

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gu...ch&Param=punjabi&Tier=2&SearchData=ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ

3. *ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖੁ-akāl purakẖ- The most common word used by the Sikhs is only used ONCE in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.*

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Search&Param=punjabi

One wonders why *Number 3 * is used so often by the Sikhs where it is only used *once* in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji!


----------



## Ishna (Mar 29, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Again I am not getting it.


 
Nevermind then, but thanks for the extra info. eacesignkaur:


----------



## Ishna (Mar 31, 2013)

If there is no God personality, no creator, no energy, no consciousness, then who or what is referred to as "You" in Gurbani? Who or what is referred to as the Husband to whom we are all soul brides?


----------



## Ishna (Mar 31, 2013)

If we take out the Punjabi culture, and if there is no 'higher power' of any kind in Sikhi, then what makes Sikhi different from secular humanism?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 31, 2013)

Ishna said:


> If there is no God personality, no creator, no energy, no consciousness, then who or what is referred to as "You" in Gurbani? Who or what is referred to as the Husband to whom we are all soul brides?



And... just who (or what) are we trying to merge with and end the cycles of birth and death??  It doesn't make sense to me, to merge with an unconscious creation (as some people think when you die your constituent parts break down and merge with creation physically) however, who would actually STRIVE to end their existence, knowing that only their physical parts would survive mixed with the atoms of creation?  Personally, I'd rather be born again over and over  then to forever be in nothingness (without consciousness - which is the part that really makes us who we are). 

It's very odd that a good deal of Sikhs on here are really Athiest and do not believe in a consious creator or anything beyond the physical.  However my entire Sangat would disagree with them.  And why would we even bother to pray, or be told to always remember Waheguru?  If it was just 'nature' or the physical world that we are supposed to remember then why naam simran?  Why look within? (looking within consciously infers something nonphysical) If reality is all about what's 'out there' physically and how to live in harmony with it then why??? Why is not then just a list of how to preserve nature and not take the earth for granted?  Why a 'religion' at all???


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 31, 2013)

Sometimes a majority view is not convincing to everyone. And a 'conscious' creator or life after death in any form is not a need felt by all.

One of the most common explanations for the existence of god in theology is "universal consensus." Consensus means common agreement. As in "everyone or nearly everyone in my ......" believes "x" is true. Obviously a common belief in a conscious creator and/or life after death is not convincing enough, or there would be a consensus.

Consensus is a construct of multiple minds who share a single construct -- i.e., a construct is what the mind creates. Perhaps the many agree to the mental constructions of a single teacher. Such falls into the realm of opinion, as does much of what religions teach.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 31, 2013)

Akasha ji thanks for starting a wonderful thread.


> A conscious creator in Sikhi?


 _Akasha ji beyond Sikhism or Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji we have to ask ourselves questions of logic in how we understand things._

_As human beings we have great deal of difficulty in concepts perpetual, concepts of synergistic co-generation, concepts of synergistic perpetuation._

_Let me cite an example._


> *Example:  *_How do cells live in our body and how does body live from cells?_
> 
> *Answer:  *_Science tells us that in order for body to be living, the cells are living.  In order for cells to stay alive, the body needs to be alive and vice versa.  Who is the source in this instance?  Is body the reason for the cells or the cells reason for the body.  I believe the answer possibly could be that the both co-exist through a truthful relationship that we may not fully understand.   So the essence in this example that stays constant is the “truthful relationship” or the “underlying truths” sustaining this._


_
In this example what would I call as the creative force that never changes and is beyond time or other variables?  I will call it the truth behind our body existence._

_Now if we were to think beyond ourselves we will start to accumulate whole bunch of wisdom that is permanent for how and why things are.  This wisdom would be in the form of ultimate never changing truths.  This truthfulness is what defines creation.  _

_What is the expanse of this truthfulness?  Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji teaches us that such is infinite.  If the truthfulness or such ultimate truths have such infiniteness is it viable for us to define the creator and associate one with such?  Perhaps it is but what functionally do we gain in trying to box in a possible creator of infiniteness.  My belief is that one would be forever making errors in such an effort._

_You simply cannot box infinity._

_What could we possibly call such an infinity?  In love we may call it the creator.  In cherishment and our limitations we may want to personify with attributes we understand with our limits.  As long as we recognize that these are matter of convenience or ways for ourselves to create a manageability towards all this then I believe we shall be good._

_However if we suddenly start to extrapolate in human terms and human understanding the concepts into a God we understand, a creator we understand, then it is guaranteed we would be committing errors and creating falsehoods.  Fundamentally an anti-thesis of creation and creator._

So how does Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and so Sikhism guides us.  An infinite creator and one creation all connected.  Learn as much as you can about the creator (truths that sustain) and creation all around and live happily thereafter.  Sikh for ever learning, for ever seeking and for ever so living with all through truths so discovered.

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *All this business of merging and un-merging has been addressed in other posts.  In essence one merges into the wisdom and it is not a physical merging of bodies, souls, atoms and vapors.
  <!--[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]-->


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 31, 2013)

Ambarsaria ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have the knack of simplifying things in plain and simple words that can be understood easily even by a layman like myself. You untangle so easily the dori of our kites that we all used to fly during the Basant season.

This is exactly Sikhi is all about. It is not about rituals,pilgrimages, fasting etc. etc. It is about being practically good in all aspects in order to make a difference.

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru is the toolbox that our Gurus gave us with lots of blueprints keeping only one objective in mind. We are taught to build projects for the goodness of all and it depends on the individual's quest what and how to build them. In other words, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the *Genome* of the *Munn* and it depends on each of us how we decipher our own with *Its* help.

The references of  *The Husband and soul brides* are just a beautiful poetic way of trying to describe *The Indescribable* with our futile efforts along with our polyglottic talents. Gurbani admits that.

Merging with *The One* for me means, blending  ourselves with the goodness and do our utter best not to ruin the awe and wow factors that surround us, but do the contrary. It is our duty to become the lotuses sprouting out of this cesspool to emit the fragrance in all directions. As the Gurbani says, this is the only life we know. Let's squeeze the last drop of goodness out of it.

Thanks again for simplifying my life.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 31, 2013)

We are the cells of the Celestial.


----------



## Ishna (Mar 31, 2013)

Why bother with the riddles of Gurbani if a science book can tell you eveything you need to know about reality?  I repeat the question - without Punjabi culture, how is this Sikhi different from secular humanism?

How do you reconcile 'constant truths' of physics with the fact that Gurbani tells you the universe too will expire? It's not constant if it's going to end.



			
				Tejwant said:
			
		

> The references of *The Husband and soul brides* are just a beautiful poetic way of trying to describe *The Indescribable* with our futile efforts along with our polyglottic talents. Gurbani admits that.


 
The Indescribable nothing?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 31, 2013)

Isi what will it expire into?


----------



## Ishna (Mar 31, 2013)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Isi what will it expire into?


 
My point exactly veerji.

The answer will depend on who you ask here.  Everyone has a different opinion...


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 31, 2013)

Don't follow opinion ,follow your intuition it's really good,much better than mine.If your intuition is as good as I think it is then you'll know I don't believe the last bit of my opinion lol


----------



## Ishna (Mar 31, 2013)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Don't follow opinion ,follow your intuition it's really good,much better than mine.If your intuition is as good as I think it is then you'll know I don't believe the last bit of my opinion lol


 
*brain explodes*  There, that one's for you SP ji.  :grinningsingh:

On the bright side, at least in Sikhi no one is gonna be shot for their difference of opinion.  eacesignkaur:


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 31, 2013)

I firmly believe.....Infact, I am more than sure that I would bet more than just my life on it that God/creator is a conscious entity.
Ishnaji raises the right questions to anyone that may deny this and I have to agree.
I mean what is the point of 'nothing'???


How can it be God's grace or hukam if he/she is not conscious ??
Akashaji seems to be on my same wavelength as well, in terms of our consciousness being the entity that is part of the God consciousness.

It's seems justified to have references of gurbani as metaphors or as poetic descriptions, but we shouldn't get trapped in this mindset.
Personally, I have learned that some things were not so metaphorical after all !!

'God realisation' only happens with one's own progress, so whatever I say or someone else says, is not going to help or convince another about 'God realisation'.
Therefore, we should accept and take all the views and different angles in to help our own approach and then along the way you will begin to accept and reject with 'God intuition' !


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 31, 2013)

*i never knew there could be so many difference of opinions about the creator in SIKHI itself
ill rather have someone to give me ICE tea or cold coffee
*


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 31, 2013)

Luckysingh ji thanks for your post.





Luckysingh said:


> I mean what is the _*point of 'nothing*'_???


_Luckysingh ji why you equate wisdom, knowledge, truths as nothing?  If the material universe __including ourselves is because of these, why would these not be a reflection of God/creator?  When did you touch the Law of Gravity with your hand?  When did we convert energy to mass ourselves?  If there exists truths that underlies all this, is it not part of the wisdom of God/creator?

Why things have to be physical and touchy-feely?  Why would God/creator be limited to life?  Does God/creator stops existing for non-life without consciousness or ability to recognize consciousness?_


Luckysingh said:


> How can it be God's grace or hukam if he/she is not conscious ??


_Please define consciousness!  If it is other than eternal truths please describe so.  Do you really believe that God/creator watches and manages us personally at micro level or that we are part of a system of truths that govern us and all that is around us.  Just that we don't understand all, perhaps actually very little of the eternal truths in the universe, we look for a physical or life associated or living entity to look as though we could recognize it if we saw it.  What makes anyone think that they have the eyes, ears, the nose, the tongue or hands for testing what God/creator is supposed to look like, sound like, smell like, taste like or feel like?

_Veer ji we are all too limited and we are trying to comprehend the majestics behind everything.  We can only limit the majesty the more we try to make it or restrict to our experiential world.

Of course I am open to or wishing to learn but these are just some of what hear out loud and clear through limited studying or understanding of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Great thread for sure.  

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 31, 2013)

> Luckysingh ji why you equate wisdom, knowledge, truths as nothing?


Just as qualities, body, mind and soul make us what we are then wisdom,knowledge and truths are what make up the God creator.
What amounts to nothing is the defining of God as having no conscious or awareness.

I think that you are assuming that I am talking about some form of a God creator, but having a consciousness is NOT a form, it is still formless. It may be formless, but it is still aware of your actions, it is aware of the exact number of hairs on your head, it is aware of your deep inner thoughts and desires...etc..
I'm not sure whether you agree about this 'All knowing God/creator'' because to say that there is no God conscious is like saying that he is NOT 'all knowing'

The scientific aspects of creation are just a small part of what he created,they are not him.
I'm not sure if you see Creator as being nothing else but creation or you see Creation as a fraction or part of Creator.
Creation is made and destroyed but the God creator isn't.


----------



## Luckysingh (Mar 31, 2013)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Don't follow opinion ,follow your *intuition* it's really good,much better than mine.If your intuition is as good as I think it is then you'll know I don't believe the last bit of my opinion


 
I think the key is the '_Intuition_'.
Once you _'know_' that God Creator is '_All knowing'_, then you are a step closer to the '_realising_' Imho.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 31, 2013)

Ambarsaria said:


> Just that we don't understand all, perhaps actually very little of the eternal truths in the universe, we look for a physical or life associated or living entity to look as though we could recognize it if we saw it.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




You are capturing thoughts that have tapped me on the shoulder on and off all day Ambarsaria ji.

 If the sat is beyond limitations of time and all other human traits, is it important to know whether sat is a conscious creator? Can we know? Will our answer always be limited, up to the limits of what we humans can be conscious of? 

The Mool Mantar speaks not only of a single, timeless and self existent creator, it gives the words "sat naam." These two words have been translated in various ways, but the basic sense of "sat naam" is that the identity of the single, timeless, self-existent creator is "sat." A truth that Japji Sahib ji describes as: aad such, jugaad such, hai bi such, Nanak hosi bi such. The sat was, is and will be the timeless and self-created "sat" ... from the beginning, over the centuries of past time, today, and forever. When this universe is gone, and when this race of humans exists no more, the sat will continue. If we say that the creator is conscious, are we trying to cram a "sat" without limits into the limited spaces of our own minds in order to be on firm ground? 

Why do we cling to the idea that the single, timeless and self-existent creator is conscious the way we humans are 'conscious' or in the way we humans 'understand consciousness'?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 31, 2013)

> Why do we cling to the idea that the single, timeless and self-existent creator is conscious the way we humans are 'conscious' or in the way we humans 'understand consciousness'?



Is it perhaps we want to cling to the un-clingable?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 31, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Is it perhaps we want to cling to the un-clingable?



I don't know. Have to spend some time thinking about this. Spent 50 minutes on the drive up to my mother's house talking to my husband about it. Either we create notions of God or someone creates it for us, and we follow along (religion). But why we do it I don't know. 

Sikhi is not the only path that is open to this kind of debate. That part I beleve is very healthy.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 1, 2013)

Luckysingh ji thanks for your post.





Luckysingh said:


> ....
> I think that you are assuming that I am talking about some form of a God creator, but having a consciousness is NOT a form, it is still formless. It may be formless, but it is still aware of your actions, it is aware of the _*exact number of hairs on your head*_, it is aware of your deep inner thoughts and desires...etc..


_Luckysingh ji I__ am cognizance of what you are stating.  It is no different than what is stated in the video below where it states, "... there is a stamp on each and every grain and destination as to who will consume it!",

_<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oVHRBX_xk5g?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>



> *All songs from this wonderful movie are posted in the following thread for your enjoyment,*
> 
> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/punjabi/37862-guddi-punjabi-1961-a.html


_The all knowing universe all can be explainable including as to the exact number of hair on your head at any given time.__  Unfortunately we are so backward that we cannot even encourage single hair to regrow or from stop dying. Is it defined and known in the greater formation of universe including us?  The answer of course is yes.  Where and how or who possesses this can be called the truths of the universe, the making and goings on of creation, the creator or God that is all knowing.  Is there associated consciousness related to all this or simply unchanging truths.  I believe the answer for me is it really does not matter.  It just is!_​ 


Luckysingh said:


> I'm not sure whether you agree about this 'All knowing God/creator'' because to say that there is no God conscious is like saying that he is NOT 'all knowing'


_Luckysingh ji I simply am not debating he, she or it or nothing to be not "all knowing"._ _I am simply stating that there is so much that underlies what happens and that for us to hypothesize or assign it to some definable form or formless in detail is simply ridiculous.  __We have to be all knowing to be doing so or participating in such an endeavor.  We know a little about little parts of ourselves and us.  __This gives us an inkling of the greater there is but not much more._



Luckysingh said:


> The scientific aspects of creation are just a small part of _*(1)*what he created,they are not him_.
> 
> I'm not sure if you see Creator as being nothing else but creation or you see Creation as a fraction or part of Creator.
> 
> _*(2) *Creation is made and destroyed but the God creator isn't_.


_*(1)  *Luckysingh ji science is simply a knowing tool.  Our Guru ji did so for parts of identifying aspects of creator without science.  We do not need to limit or assign specific disciplines as the only ways.  I believe here is where perhaps Atheists differ from Sikhs with excessive dependency on scientific proof._

_*(2)*  Luckysing ji I hope that you agree at least to the aspect that creation is of the creator as per Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  What happens and when it so happens to creation is only known to the creator.  __It is foolish of us to assign to the creator the quality that creation may die but you must live.  Really let us think about it!_

There is much wisdom in what Scarlet Pimpernel veer ji stated as _" We are the cells of the Celestial."  _Even at that it is perhaps a gross overstatement as to our relationship vis-a-vis the universe.  We are so miniscule brother, but our ego lets us assume the grandeur of understanding or complete knowledge that is way to vast and we are amply warned to not seek or expect to know all per Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  We just keep knocking our head into the wall till we are all bloody (metaphorically), in spite of all the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Just some thoughts for dialog.  I stand corrected as I am in it for learning as much as everyone else.

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *At a strictly mathematical level or logical deduction if Sikhism espouses an infinite creator/God it by such definition implies an undefinable God/creator.  It implies that we will never be able to prove God exists and what is so in a deterministic way.  Hence Sikhism by definition is agnostic towards physical and definable God/creator.  Some Atheists can take it to mean that Sikhism espouses Atheism!


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 1, 2013)

If Sikhi (as some of you have described) is merely describing the unconscious Universe itself as the ultimate truth, and 'matter' being the base of reality, then why not just have a science book to learn and live by?  

I still FIRMLY believe that the underlying 'Truth' to the Universe is consciousness, not matter.  Consciousness does not require space or time (concepts that are part of the physical Universe). How can you quantify how much space your own consciousness takes?  You can't.  And further to that, there is evidence that our own consciousness works on a non-locality principle, like a quantum computer.  If the is evidence that even our own consciousness is not merely an 'emergent' property of the complexity of matter and it very well could exist outside of the confines of the brain, then is it a far stretch to say that there is ONE underlying field to the Universe that is pure consciousness, and we are all a part of it??  Quantum physics seems to be pointing to the fact there IS an underlying field to everything, at the level where matter seems to disappear and dissolve.  And that's not getting into any 'wooo' as spnadmin would say.  

It still does not make sense to me how a physical universe could ever 'just happen' without conscious design.  How everything in the physical universe could just happen without 'someone' guiding it, is unfathomable.  I can throw a bunch of marbles on the floor in a pile, and they will only ever be marbles unless someone arranges them into something more.  In the same way, elementary subatomic particles could not just by chance arrange into complex forms that give way to atoms, etc.  And the very fact that subatomic particles have 'rules' as to what they can and can't do, is evidence to me!  Rules don't write themselves!

For me personally, my own consciousness is evidence that there is more than an Unconscious 'all by chance' Universe.  How something as unconscious as the matter of the brain (which is made of the same basic subatomic particles as everything else in the Universe) could ever give rise to consciousness and the 'personal experience' is mind boggling.  

And  to top it off, personal spiritual experiences should not be discounted.  I know I can't prove it to anyone, but for myself, I deeply feel the ultimate truth to the Universe is ONE universal formless field and that field is consciousness (the creator) and we are part of it.  Matter arises out of consciousness and not the other way round.  THAT is the ultimate truth... that's the only way everything makes sense in SGGS.  

Think how would you resolve the Mool Mantra if the Ultimate truth is just the science to the physical Universe (matter).  Are you trying to say the formless, beyond birth and death, without fear or hate 'ultimate truth' is really science??  Again, science requires rules, and rules need to be written. And how about all of the passages in SGGS talking about everything being ONE.  And why does SGGS tell us in so many pages, that we should contemplate the essential reality?  If the reality we are presented with is all there is, and man has always been firmly seated within the physical realm hence no need for proof - because we can touch it and see it etc.  Then why the instruction to contemplate the essential reality?  Why all the passages that tell us that physical things are not what matters, if the physical reality is all there is?? Why does it tell us to look within, to a place that is by definition nonphysical?  Why does it say that once the 'tenth gate' is opened, this reality will be evident to us?  And that to open it we must go within ourselves... into our consciousness?  It doesn't make sense for all of that to be mere poetry trying to tell us to live by science and in harmony with physical nature.  It just doesn't make sense.    

If instead the ultimate 'truth' is consciousness, there is no need to resolve matter, as consciousness is already formless, it's already beyond birth and death (if we believe that matter is created BY consciousness), there is no fear and hate because ONE underlying ultimate field of consciousness would have nobody to hate or fear, and all of the passages in SGGS talking about everything being ONE make sense.  It makes sense when SGGS is talking about looking within ourselves, to our own consciousness, to find that ultimate truth - no poetry or allegory - and it makes sense when SGGS is telling us that Maya is useless.  The tenth gate makes sense because if you look within deep enough you will escape the confines of the physical world, and see and experience this underlying field of pure consciousness and ONEness.  Everything just makes sense without needing to explain away everything in SGGS as being merely poetry and symbolic meaning to living in the physical world.  

I know I can't ever make anyone else see this truth... but I know deep inside myself that consciousness, and not matter is the basis of the Universe.


----------



## Ishna (Apr 1, 2013)

I'm confused.

Ang 25 gives the label 'All-knowing' to a Tu (You).

<TABLE width="84%"><TBODY><TR><TD>ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ਘਰੁ ੪ ॥
Sirīrāg mėhlā 1 gẖar 4.
Siree Raag, First Mehl, Fourth House:
ਤੂ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਦਾਨਾ ਬੀਨਾ ਮੈ ਮਛੁਲੀ ਕੈਸੇ ਅੰਤੁ ਲਹਾ ॥
Ŧū ḏarī▫ā▫o ḏānā bīnā mai macẖẖulī kaise anṯ lahā.
You are the River, All-knowing and All-seeing. I am just a fish-how can I find Your limit?
ਜਹ ਜਹ ਦੇਖਾ ਤਹ ਤਹ ਤੂ ਹੈ ਤੁਝ ਤੇ ਨਿਕਸੀ ਫੂਟਿ ਮਰਾ ॥੧॥
Jah jah ḏekẖā ṯah ṯah ṯū hai ṯujẖ ṯe niksī fūt marā. ||1||
Wherever I look, You are there. Outside of You, I would burst and die. ||1||
ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ਮੇਉ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ਜਾਲੀ ॥
Na jāṇā me▫o na jāṇā jālī.
I do not know of the fisherman, and I do not know of the net.
ਜਾ ਦੁਖੁ ਲਾਗੈ ਤਾ ਤੁਝੈ ਸਮਾਲੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Jā ḏukẖ lāgai ṯā ṯujẖai samālī. ||1|| rahā▫o.
But when the pain comes, then I call upon You. ||1||Pause||
ਤੂ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ਮੈ ਦੂਰਿ ॥
Ŧū bẖarpūr jāni▫ā mai ḏūr.
You are present everywhere. I had thought that You were far away.
ਜੋ ਕਛੁ ਕਰੀ ਸੁ ਤੇਰੈ ਹਦੂਰਿ ॥
Jo kacẖẖ karī so ṯerai haḏūr.
Whatever I do, I do in Your Presence.
ਤੂ ਦੇਖਹਿ ਹਉ ਮੁਕਰਿ ਪਾਉ ॥
Ŧū ḏekẖėh ha▫o mukar pā▫o.
You see all my actions, and yet I deny them.
ਤੇਰੈ ਕੰਮਿ ਨ ਤੇਰੈ ਨਾਇ ॥੨॥
Ŧerai kamm na ṯerai nā▫e. ||2||
I have not worked for You, or Your Name. ||2||
ਜੇਤਾ ਦੇਹਿ ਤੇਤਾ ਹਉ ਖਾਉ ॥
Jeṯā ḏėh ṯeṯā ha▫o kẖā▫o.
Whatever You give me, that is what I eat.
ਬਿਆ ਦਰੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੈ ਦਰਿ ਜਾਉ ॥
Bi▫ā ḏar nāhī kai ḏar jā▫o.
There is no other door-unto which door should I go?
ਨਾਨਕੁ ਏਕ ਕਹੈ ਅਰਦਾਸਿ ॥
Nānak ek kahai arḏās.
Nanak offers this one prayer:
ਜੀਉ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਸਭੁ ਤੇਰੈ ਪਾਸਿ ॥੩॥
Jī▫o pind sabẖ ṯerai pās. ||3||
this body and soul are totally Yours. ||3||
ਆਪੇ ਨੇੜੈ ਦੂਰਿ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਆਪੇ ਮੰਝਿ ਮਿਆਨ ॥
Āpe neṛai ḏūr āpe hī āpe manjẖ mi▫āno.
He Himself is near, and He Himself is far away; He Himself is in-between.
ਆਪੇ ਵੇਖੈ ਸੁਣੇ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਜਹਾਨ ॥
Āpe vekẖai suṇe āpe hī kuḏraṯ kare jahāno.
He Himself beholds, and He Himself listens. By His Creative Power, He created the world.
ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਸੋਈ ਪਰਵਾਨ ॥੪॥੩੧॥
Jo ṯis bẖāvai nānkā hukam so▫ī parvāno. ||4||31||
Whatever pleases Him, O Nanak-that Command is acceptable. ||4||31||

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Gurbani has this to say in So Dar, ang 6, 5th line from the bottom:

<TABLE width="84%"><TBODY><TR><TD>ਸੋ ਦਰੁ ਕੇਹਾ ਸੋ ਘਰੁ ਕੇਹਾ ਜਿਤੁ ਬਹਿ ਸਰਬ ਸਮਾਲੇ ॥
So ḏar kehā so gẖar kehā jiṯ bahi sarab samāle.
Where is that Gate, and where is that Dwelling, in which You sit and take care of all?
ਵਾਜੇ ਨਾਦ ਅਨੇਕ ਅਸੰਖਾ ਕੇਤੇ ਵਾਵਣਹਾਰੇ ॥
vāje nāḏ anek asankẖā keṯe vāvaṇhāre.
The Sound-current of the Naad vibrates there, and countless musicians play on all sorts of instruments there.
ਕੇਤੇ ਰਾਗ ਪਰੀ ਸਿਉ ਕਹੀਅਨਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਗਾਵਣਹਾਰੇ ॥
Keṯe rāg parī si▫o kahī▫an keṯe gāvaṇhāre.
So many Ragas, so many musicians singing there.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਤੁਹਨੋ ਪਉਣੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਬੈਸੰਤਰੁ ਗਾਵੈ ਰਾਜਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਦੁਆਰੇ ॥
Gāvahi ṯuhno pa▫uṇ pāṇī baisanṯar gāvai rājā ḏẖaram ḏu▫āre.
The praanic wind, water and fire sing; the Righteous Judge of Dharma sings at Your Door.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਚਿਤੁ ਗੁਪਤੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਜਾਣਹਿ ਲਿਖਿ ਲਿਖਿ ਧਰਮੁ ਵੀਚਾਰੇ ॥
Gāvahi cẖiṯ gupaṯ likẖ jāṇėh likẖ likẖ ḏẖaram vīcẖāre.
Chitr and Gupt, the angels of the conscious and the subconscious who record actions, and the Righteous Judge of Dharma who judges this record sing.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਈਸਰੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਦੇਵੀ ਸੋਹਨਿ ਸਦਾ ਸਵਾਰੇ ॥
Gāvahi īsar barmā ḏevī sohan saḏā savāre.
Shiva, Brahma and the Goddess of Beauty, ever adorned, sing.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਇੰਦ ਇਦਾਸਣਿ ਬੈਠੇ ਦੇਵਤਿਆ ਦਰਿ ਨਾਲੇ ॥
Gāvahi inḏ iḏāsaṇ baiṯẖe ḏeviṯi▫ā ḏar nāle.
Indra, seated upon His Throne, sings with the deities at Your Door.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਸਿਧ ਸਮਾਧੀ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਗਾਵਨਿ ਸਾਧ ਵਿਚਾਰੇ ॥
Gāvahi siḏẖ samāḏẖī anḏar gāvan sāḏẖ vicẖāre.
The Siddhas in Samaadhi sing; the Saadhus sing in contemplation.
ਗਾਵਨਿ ਜਤੀ ਸਤੀ ਸੰਤੋਖੀ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਵੀਰ ਕਰਾਰੇ ॥
Gāvan jaṯī saṯī sanṯokẖī gāvahi vīr karāre.
The celibates, the fanatics, the peacefully accepting and the fearless warriors sing.
ਗਾਵਨਿ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਪੜਨਿ ਰਖੀਸਰ ਜੁਗੁ ਜੁਗੁ ਵੇਦਾ ਨਾਲੇ ॥
Gāvan pandiṯ paṛan rakẖīsar jug jug veḏā nāle.
The Pandits, the religious scholars who recite the Vedas, with the supreme sages of all the ages, sing.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਮੋਹਣੀਆ ਮਨੁ ਮੋਹਨਿ ਸੁਰਗਾ ਮਛ ਪਇਆਲੇ ॥
Gāvahi mohṇī▫ā man mohan surgā macẖẖ pa▫i▫āle.
The Mohinis, the enchanting heavenly beauties who entice hearts in this world, in paradise, and in the underworld of the subconscious sing.
ਗਾਵਨਿ ਰਤਨ ਉਪਾਏ ਤੇਰੇ ਅਠਸਠਿ ਤੀਰਥ ਨਾਲੇ ॥
Gāvan raṯan upā▫e ṯere aṯẖsaṯẖ ṯirath nāle.
The celestial jewels created by You, and the sixty-eight holy places of pilgrimage sing.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਜੋਧ ਮਹਾਬਲ ਸੂਰਾ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਖਾਣੀ ਚਾਰੇ ॥
Gāvahi joḏẖ mahābal sūrā gāvahi kẖāṇī cẖāre.
The brave and mighty warriors sing; the spiritual heroes and the four sources of creation sing.
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਖੰਡ ਮੰਡਲ ਵਰਭੰਡਾ ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਰਖੇ ਧਾਰੇ ॥
Gāvahi kẖand mandal varbẖandā kar kar rakẖe ḏẖāre.
The planets, solar systems and galaxies, created and arranged by Your Hand, sing.
ਸੇਈ ਤੁਧੁਨੋ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਜੋ ਤੁਧੁ ਭਾਵਨਿ ਰਤੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਭਗਤ ਰਸਾਲੇ ॥
Se▫ī ṯuḏẖuno gāvahi jo ṯuḏẖ bẖāvan raṯe ṯere bẖagaṯ rasāle.
They alone sing, who are pleasing to Your Will. Your devotees are imbued with the Nectar of Your Essence.
ਹੋਰਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਗਾਵਨਿ ਸੇ ਮੈ ਚਿਤਿ ਨ ਆਵਨਿ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਕਿਆ ਵੀਚਾਰੇ ॥
Hor keṯe gāvan se mai cẖiṯ na āvan Nānak ki▫ā vīcẖāre.
So many others sing, they do not come to mind. O Nanak, how can I consider them all?
ਸੋਈ ਸੋਈ ਸਦਾ ਸਚੁ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਚੀ ਨਾਈ ॥
So▫ī so▫ī saḏā sacẖ sāhib sācẖā sācẖī nā▫ī.
That True Lord is True, Forever True, and True is His Name.
ਹੈ ਭੀ ਹੋਸੀ ਜਾਇ ਨ ਜਾਸੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਰਚਾਈ ॥
Hai bẖī hosī jā▫e na jāsī racẖnā jin racẖā▫ī.
He is, and shall always be. He shall not depart, even when this Universe which He has created departs.
ਰੰਗੀ ਰੰਗੀ ਭਾਤੀ ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਜਿਨਸੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਜਿਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ ॥
Rangī rangī bẖāṯī kar kar jinsī mā▫i▫ā jin upā▫ī.
He created the world, with its various colors, species of beings, and the variety of Maya.
ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਵੇਖੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਪਣਾ ਜਿਵ ਤਿਸ ਦੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ॥
Kar kar vekẖai kīṯā āpṇā jiv ṯis ḏī vadi▫ā▫ī.
Having created the creation, He watches over it Himself, by His Greatness.
ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋਈ ਕਰਸੀ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਨ ਕਰਣਾ ਜਾਈ ॥
Jo ṯis bẖāvai so▫ī karsī hukam na karṇā jā▫ī.
He does whatever He pleases. No order can be issued to Him.
ਸੋ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੁ ਸਾਹਾ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਹਣੁ ਰਜਾਈ ॥੨੭॥
So pāṯisāhu sāhā pāṯisāhib Nānak rahaṇ rajā▫ī. ||27||
He is the King, the King of kings, the Supreme Lord and Master of kings. Nanak remains subject to His Will. ||27||



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So.. who is Tu who is All-knowing without a consciousness, and what remains when the universe no longer remains?

This isn't me speculating or trying to imagine the 'creator' with my puny human brain. I'm just quoting Gurbani. I am reading the right book, yeah?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 1, 2013)

> This isn't me speculating or trying to imagine the 'creator' with my puny human brain



Isi its ok to have a sense of wonder that's natural ,I think God is just a bit worse for wear in another Universe which is totally inhabitated by yeast fermentations and he is now in a semi unconscious stupor or am I projecting my state on him.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 1, 2013)

Ishna said:


> So.. who is Tu who is All-knowing without a consciousness, and what remains when the universe no longer remains?
> 
> This isn't me speculating or trying to imagine the 'creator' with my puny human brain. I'm just quoting Gurbani. I am reading the right book, yeah?




Ishna ji

A 3-part reply

1. You ask about "You" and I would add "He"... Who is Guruji talking to if not to a conscious entity? Could Guruji be talking to a nonhuman entity. Gurbani is poetry and in poetry "personification" is used in many ways, including  addressing "Tu". Human characteristics and names are given to nonhuman ideas so that readers and listeners in sangat can make a strong connection with the ideas that are being presented in a shabad.

From English poetry, John Keats writes in Ode on a Grecian Urn, "Thou still unravished bride of quietness."  "Thou" is the urn and he calls the urn "bride of quietness."

_Personification in poetry is the process of giving human traits or characteristics to a non-human object or idea. The form of poetry generally involves using figurative language — that is, words and phrases with a meaning other than the standard definition — to convey an idea or emotion. Using personification in poetry helps the reader develop a connection between a distant object or idea and feel empathy or sympathy for that idea or object. Poets often use personification to help the reader relate to the concept being presented, and to give a more complete understanding of a difficult concept to comprehend. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-function-of-personification-in-poetry.htm
_

That is part of the true genius of Gurbani. It is great poetry.

On what you are also asking.


2. I think this is the 5th line from the bottom, and the 4th from the bottom which contains the tuk about the universe no longer remains ("which he has created departs").

ਸੋਈ ਸੋਈ ਸਦਾ ਸਚੁ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਚੀ ਨਾਈ ॥
So▫ī so▫ī saḏā sacẖ sāhib sācẖā sācẖī nā▫ī.
That True Lord is True, Forever True, and True is His Name.

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਹੋਸੀ ਜਾਇ ਨ ਜਾਸੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਰਚਾਈ ॥
Hai bẖī hosī jā▫e na jāsī racẖnā jin racẖā▫ī.
He is, and shall always be. He shall not depart, even when this Universe which He has created departs.

In the verse,  "That the True Lord is True, Forever True, and True is His Name" are ideas that follow from the Mool Mantar. Did anyone in the thread so far dispute those ideas? Or are you connecting that verse and creator consciousness? 

3. I don't see the next verse shedding much light on whether the creator is conscious but I included the verse because it raises an interesting issue. The permanence of the creator is asserted in the verse. The "sat" continues even when the universe is no more, when it no longer remains. If there is no one left to ponder, does it even matter whether the creator is conscious?   

Why do we care even now whether the sat is conscious? Is it not more the point in Gurbani that we be conscious of the sat?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 1, 2013)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Isi its ok to have a sense of wonder that's natural ,I think God is just a bit worse for wear in another Universe which is totally inhabitated by yeast fermentations and he is now in a semi unconscious stupor.



SP ji

It has been a personal struggle my entire time on the thread to banish similar/unwanted thoughts from my own consciousness. Brave you!

lol


----------



## Ishna (Apr 1, 2013)

Nevermind the Punjabi classes, I think I need some English ones!  

Adminji

Thanks for your efforts to educate me re. poetry.  I'll ponder on that.

Regarding my quote of So Dar and pointing out the tuk about the end of the universe, that was meant to be in reply to Ambarsaria ji where he said "_It is foolish of us to assign to the creator the quality that creation may die but you must live. Really let us think about it!"_

The problem for me is not the question of whether the creator is conscious or not.  The problem for me is how some can say they are an atheist but also believe in a _creator_ that is not conscious and is not an energy or a force, when the majority of other teachings from Sikhi say there is a creator of some description, and the sacred text is poetry that continually alludes to some form of higher power.

But that's my problem to work out.  It's all very complicated.


----------



## Ishna (Apr 1, 2013)

Where does Guru fit into this picture?  If there is no difference between Guru and 'creator' then where the heck does prasad come from?  Gah, shoot me now.  :realangrymunda:


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 1, 2013)

Isi I think Guru is the enabler,prasad is the potentiality,maybe everything we can think of will be less than a cell of God, but still it's in essence him,we can extrapolate from this and our sense of self awareness some thing of his.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 1, 2013)

ishna ji

Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Apr 1, 2013)

I heard this Shabad and it got me thinking, it is like a puzzle with a missing piece:

<table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td>  ਧਨਾਸਰੀ  ਮਹਲਾ  ੫  ॥ 
Dhanaasaree, Fifth Mehl: 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਪਾਨੀ  ਪਖਾ  ਪੀਸਉ  ਸੰਤ  ਆਗੈ  ਗੁਣ  ਗੋਵਿੰਦ  ਜਸੁ  ਗਾਈ  ॥ 
I carry the water, wave the fan, and grind the corn for the Saints; I sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord of the Universe. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਸਾਸਿ  ਸਾਸਿ  ਮਨੁ  ਨਾਮੁ  ਸਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਾਰੈ  ਇਹੁ  ਬਿਸ੍ਰਾਮ  ਨਿਧਿ  ਪਾਈ  ॥੧॥ 
With each and every breath, my mind remembers the Naam, the Name of the Lord; in this way, it finds the treasure of peace. ||1|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਤੁਮ੍ਹ੍ਹ  ਕਰਹੁ  ਦਇਆ  ਮੇਰੇ  ਸਾਈ  ॥ 
Have pity on me, O my Lord and Master. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਐਸੀ  ਮਤਿ  ਦੀਜੈ  ਮੇਰੇ  ਠਾਕੁਰ  ਸਦਾ  ਸਦਾ  ਤੁਧੁ  ਧਿਆਈ  ॥੧॥  ਰਹਾਉ  ॥ 
Bless me with such understanding, O my Lord and Master, that I may forever and ever meditate on You. ||1||Pause|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਤੁਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਰੀ  ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ  ਤੇ  ਮੋਹੁ  ਮਾਨੁ  ਛੂਟੈ  ਬਿਨਸਿ  ਜਾਇ  ਭਰਮਾਈ  ॥ 
By Your Grace, emotional attachment and egotism are eradicated, and doubt is dispelled. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਅਨਦ  ਰੂਪੁ  ਰਵਿਓ  ਸਭ  ਮਧੇ  ਜਤ  ਕਤ  ਪੇਖਉ  ਜਾਈ  ॥੨॥ 
The Lord, the embodiment of bliss, is pervading and permeating in all; wherever I go, there I see Him. ||2|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਤੁਮ੍ਹ੍ਹ  ਦਇਆਲ  ਕਿਰਪਾਲ  ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ  ਨਿਧਿ  ਪਤਿਤ  ਪਾਵਨ  ਗੋਸਾਈ  ॥ 
You are kind and compassionate, the treasure of mercy, the Purifier of sinners, Lord of the world. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਕੋਟਿ  ਸੂਖ  ਆਨੰਦ  ਰਾਜ  ਪਾਏ  ਮੁਖ  ਤੇ  ਨਿਮਖ  ਬੁਲਾਈ  ॥੩॥ 
I obtain millions of joys, comforts and kingdoms, if You inspire me to chant Your Name with my mouth, even for an instant. ||3|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਜਾਪ  ਤਾਪ  ਭਗਤਿ  ਸਾ  ਪੂਰੀ  ਜੋ  ਪ੍ਰਭ  ਕੈ  ਮਨਿ  ਭਾਈ  ॥ 
That alone is perfect chanting, meditation, penance and devotional worship service, which is pleasing to God's Mind. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਨਾਮੁ  ਜਪਤ  ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ  ਸਭ  ਬੁਝੀ  ਹੈ  ਨਾਨਕ  ਤ੍ਰਿਪਤਿ  ਅਘਾਈ  ॥੪॥੧੦॥ 
Chanting the Naam, all thirst and desire is satisfied; Nanak is satisfied and fulfilled.
</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 1, 2013)

*<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->*
Perhaps little off-topic but I believe we need to be using the words like "consciousness" with some precision.  Why should all be just conscious when even for us, the people so modeling God/creator it is not so?





> I abridged the following in part from the link below,
> 
> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->https://processcoaching.com/unconscious.html[/FONT]<!--[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-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
> 
> ...


From this as an analogy to me the "Universal Unconsciousness" is perhaps a closer reflection of our nearness to the creator versus the "consciousness".  Pretty fascinating it all is.

What you think!

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *Folks I am no Psychologist or Psychiatrist I shared the above at the most lay level as I found it interesting.  So be easy lol
<!--[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-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


----------



## arshdeep88 (Apr 1, 2013)

*Ambarsaria sir ji
of all the things u stated in your posts i am sorry i couldn't understand other things as this forum is above my mind to understand 
not only your post but others post too
 but i really really loved the song  "Dhana Pani"
you posted,i really loved it and admire it lot 
thank you for it
:icecreammunda:
*


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 1, 2013)

We are made in the image of God. Likewise, the khalsa is made in the image of Guru Gobind Singh ji.
If/when we are conscious of God, then He too, is conscious of us. Likewise, if we are not conscious of him, then he too is not conscious of us.
When we realise God, then He too, realises us !
''When we are at peace after realisation, then he too, is at peace with us''


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 1, 2013)

Spnadmin ji,

Guru Fateh.

You
 summed it up beautifully.



> Why do we care even now whether the sat is conscious? *Is it not more the point in Gurbani that we be conscious of the sat?*



When we are conscious of the *Satt*, then only we can realise *Its* beauty and grandeur. Only our consciousness of *The One* can help us grow in all aspects. This is the only Miraclegro we have through the SGGS.

Whether Ik Ong Kaar is conscious or not does not even come into the equation. It is us who should not become unconscious(drenched in apathy) of his/her/its omnipresence. This is the ultimate conscious thing we can do to dwell in/with *Satt*.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 1, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> We are made in the image of God. Likewise, the khalsa is made in the image of Guru Gobind Singh ji.
> If/when we are conscious of God, then He too, is conscious of us. Likewise, if we are not conscious of him, then he too is not conscious of us.
> When we realise God, then He too, realises us !
> ''When we are at peace after realisation, then he too, is at peace with us''



As Above, So Below!


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 1, 2013)

Luckysingh ji  

I am wondering about these questions so I can understand your point of view. 



Luckysingh said:


> We are made in the image of God.
> 
> What is that image of us that is like the image of God?
> 
> ...



Many thanks in advance for your answers.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 1, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> We are made in the image of God. Likewise, the khalsa is made in the image of Guru Gobind Singh ji.
> If/when we are conscious of God, then He too, is conscious of us. Likewise, if we are not conscious of him, then he too is not conscious of us.
> When we realise God, then He too, realises us !
> ''When we are at peace after realisation, then he too, is at peace with us''


 
Adminji, I don't think that you quite got my post or the underlying message !!
Sorry for confusing, but I am no serious poet although I was trying to dabble a little here!!0:sippingcoffeemunda:

All the above post was trying to say was- that the only conscious we should be worrying about is our own!!
In other words,* ''We should just focus on being Conscious of Him''* !
:kaurkhalsaflagblue:


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 1, 2013)

Akasha said:


> As Above, So Below!


 
As without, so within.
The expanse and grand of the universe is just as huge and infinite as within. 
Thus we,universe,creator and creation are all One, just like consciousness ! 
What separates us from each other ?
It's certainly not the consciousness from what I gather!


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 2, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> As without, so within.
> The expanse and grand of the universe is just as huge and infinite as within.
> Thus we,universe,creator and creation are all One, just like consciousness !
> What separates us from each other ?
> It's certainly not the consciousness from what I gather!



Luckysingh Ji, you are the only one who thinks like I do on here it seems  oh and Chaz Singh Ji as well!!! That's my point, if everything IS consciousness, then everything is ONE, because consciousness does not occupy space / time / physical locality.  It exists beyond it as formless, all knowing, and it is only ONE. 

We just can't see that we are really ONE from our current vantage point.  I like to think of myself as being like a radio receiver and I am just hard tuned into the physical reality right now.... but in reality just like a radio receives ALL information for all channels all the time, its only that you tune into a specific station that allows you to discern the elements of that 'station' (reality). The trick is we have to learn to detune the physical, and realize ALL channels existing at once as ONE signal. That detuning I believe is what we experience when the tenth gate is opened.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 2, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> Adminji, I don't think that you quite got my post or the underlying message !!
> Sorry for confusing, but I am no serious poet although I was trying to dabble a little here!!0:sippingcoffeemunda:
> 
> All the above post was trying to say was- that the only conscious we should be worrying about is our own!!
> ...



Luckysingh ji

I did not form any conclusions at all about your comments. I simply asked if you would answer my questions. So there is no way I could be confused. We are not at that point yet.  I assumed you gave some thought to your comments before you posted them, and would want to reply. Here they are again, your comments in black and my questions in blue.  

You said: We are made in the image of God.

I asked: What is that image of us that is like the image of God?

You said: Likewise, if we are not conscious of him, then he too is not conscious of us.

I asked: If he is conscious, would not the creator of everything be conscious of his entire creation, not just of us, and whether we were paying attention or not? Or whether any plant or animal or stone was conscious or not?


You said: When we realise God, then He too, realises us !

I asked: Why would the "sat," truth, depend on us in order to realize us? And does not Gurbani say that the same light pervades us all.

"The same Light pervades all.

This Light causes the light to shine within all."

You said: When we are at peace after realisation, then he too, is at peace with us''

I asked: If he is without fear, without enmity, the great giver who keeps on giving, when would he not be a peace, with us and with all he has created? He is pooran, unbroken, perfect. Who or what could disturb his peace? How could he be anything but at peace?

p/s Are you actually agreeing with me? lol 



> All the above post was trying to say was- that the only conscious we should be worrying about is our own!!
> In other words, ''We should just focus on being Conscious of Him''


 Sounds an awful lot like  Why do we care even now whether the sat is conscious? Is it not more the point in Gurbani that we be conscious of the sat? http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...ikhi-other-faith-traditions-2.html#post182182


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 2, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Why do we care even now whether the sat is conscious? Is it not more the point in Gurbani that we be conscious of the sat?
> 
> 
> > But isn't the point of being conscious of the sat, to realize that separateness is an illusion and everyone and everything are really ONE? Gurbani speaks of this ONEness all throughout the SGGS so I won't get into quoting just one line... And if everything is really ONE, then aren't they the same thing? (us and sat) SGGS also has many quotes talking of the divine light within all of us, and recognizing that divine light within ourselves.  There are many quotes I could post where it commands us to realize who we really are.... our 'true self'  And if us / sat are of the same ONE thing, and we are conscious, then sat must also be conscious??
> ...


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 2, 2013)

Akasha ji

as long as we don't say things like "As above, So below" I presume we are not thinking in a dualistic mindset. But someone did http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...-sikhi-other-faith-traditions.html#post182235

On the other hand ... Oneness and the question of the thread "consciousness of creator" are not yet shown to be connected. I think the second is the thread topic.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 2, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Akasha ji
> 
> as long as we don't say things like "As above, So below" I presume we are not thinking in a dualistic mindset. But someone did http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...-sikhi-other-faith-traditions.html#post182235
> 
> On the other hand ... Oneness and the question of the thread "consciousness of creator" are not yet shown to be connected. I think the second is the thread topic.


 
I was trying to show that oneness and consciousness ARE connected... that because of ONEness, it shows us that the creator must be conscious.  Because if everything is ONE (including us) and we are conscious, then doesn't that show that we should all still be conscious when put together collectively... only on a much higher level that we can't fathom? Like being aware of billions upon billions of lives, species, experiences and eons, all at once and being conscious from the point of view of all creation at once.  It's kind of mind boggling... but definitely not unconscious as in dreamless sleep.     

And the as above so below comment was in response to what Lucky Singh Ji said... that we are made in the image of the creator (not physically) but we contain the same spark... the same divine light... which I believe is consciousness itself.  As above so below does imply duality, which is our current condition of separateness.  But it tells us that we posess the same quality (within) as our creator....and in fact we are one in the same. Its only the personal experience or perception that is duality.

As Above So Below is from a purely mystical spiritual tradition (Hermetics), not a steadfast religion, however we broached the topic of 'other faith traditions' in this thread long ago, so I thought it ok to make the comparison which is related to the debate of consciousness...  

not meaning to step on any nerves ji...


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 2, 2013)

For one to be aware of the other's conscious state, then the one has to be conscious of it.
agree or disagree ??
But to whom does it really matter ??


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 2, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> For one _to be aware of the other's conscious _state, then the _one has to be conscious of it_.
> agree or disagree ??
> But to whom does it really matter ??


Veer Luckysingh ji let us revisit the depiction of consciousness,





Experts say it is a continuum and the truest of all relationships or interactions happening at the unconscious level.  You yourself also mentioned intuition.  So too much fetish about consciousness or conscious appears to be misplaced the way I see it.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->Luckysingh ji states the following,





> http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...khi-other-faith-traditions-10.html#post182233
> 
> If/when we are conscious of God, then He too, is conscious of us.
> 
> ...


<!--[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]-->
One other point I want to bring to your attention regarding duality of us and the creator as coupled inter-actors.  Like in if I am seeing the creator then he sees me, if I love the creator such loves me, etc.  How many girls in your younger days that you saw who never saw you the same way, how many puppy loves you had that the other side did not respond to and so on.  I believe the infinite creator does not need to be one on one in a reactive way with us.  If you are suggesting that we are blessed (Gurparsad) and that is why we see and love that is a different and more in line with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Same as loving "Satt" that spnadmin ji has eluded to.

In SGGS it is stated that the creator's attributes towards creation are without dependency, reciprocity, etc.  The one creator of all in all their forms of conscious, unconscious, living, non-living, here one earth, the sun, the moon and the universe.

Regards and Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 3, 2013)

I'm sorry but I don't understand the point above. It's not that I disagree but I can't see an explanation !
I don't think that I've said that the relationship with God is like for like in any way.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 3, 2013)

If the creator is unconscious  then from whom Bhagat Dhanna is demanding all these worldly things?

ਧੰਨਾ ॥ 
धंना ॥ 
Ḏẖannā. 
Dhannaa: 

ਗੋਪਾਲ ਤੇਰਾ ਆਰਤਾ ॥ 
गोपाल तेरा आरता ॥ 
Gopāl ṯerā ārṯā. 
O Lord of the world, this is Your lamp-lit worship service. 

ਜੋ ਜਨ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰੰਤੇ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਕਾਜ ਸਵਾਰਤਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
जो जन तुमरी भगति करंते तिन के काज सवारता ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 
Jo jan ṯumrī bẖagaṯ karanṯe ṯin ke kāj savāraṯā. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
You are the Arranger of the affairs of those humble beings who perform Your devotional worship service. ||1||Pause|| 

ਦਾਲਿ ਸੀਧਾ ਮਾਗਉ ਘੀਉ ॥ 
दालि सीधा मागउ घीउ ॥ 
Ḏāl sīḏẖā māga▫o gẖī▫o. 
Lentils, flour and ghee - these things, I beg of You. 

ਹਮਰਾ ਖੁਸੀ ਕਰੈ ਨਿਤ ਜੀਉ ॥ 
हमरा खुसी करै नित जीउ ॥ 
Hamrā kẖusī karai niṯ jī▫o. 
My mind shall ever be pleased. 

ਪਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀਆ ਛਾਦਨੁ ਨੀਕਾ ॥ 
पन्हीआ छादनु नीका ॥ 
Panĥī▫ā cẖẖāḏan nīkā. 
Shoes, fine clothes, 

ਅਨਾਜੁ ਮਗਉ ਸਤ ਸੀ ਕਾ ॥੧॥ 
अनाजु मगउ सत सी का ॥१॥ 
Anāj maga▫o saṯ sī kā. ||1|| 
and grain of seven kinds - I beg of You. ||1|| 

ਗਊ ਭੈਸ ਮਗਉ ਲਾਵੇਰੀ ॥ 
गऊ भैस मगउ लावेरी ॥ 
Ga▫ū bẖais maga▫o lāverī. 
A milk cow, and a water buffalo, I beg of You, 

ਇਕ ਤਾਜਨਿ ਤੁਰੀ ਚੰਗੇਰੀ ॥ 
इक ताजनि तुरी चंगेरी ॥ 
Ik ṯājan ṯurī cẖangerī. 
and a fine Turkestani horse. 

ਘਰ ਕੀ ਗੀਹਨਿ ਚੰਗੀ ॥ 
घर की गीहनि चंगी ॥ 
Gẖar kī gīhan cẖangī. 
A good wife to care for my home - 

ਜਨੁ ਧੰਨਾ ਲੇਵੈ ਮੰਗੀ ॥੨॥੪॥ 
जनु धंना लेवै मंगी ॥२॥४॥ 
Jan ḏẖannā levai mangī. ||2||4|| 
Your humble servant Dhanna begs for these things, Lord. ||2||4||


----------



## Ishna (Apr 3, 2013)

Uhoh, Dhanna Ji is in trouble cos Guru Arjun Sahib Ji says on Ang 958

ਮਃ ੫ ॥
Mėhlā 5.
Fifth Mehl:
ਵਿਣੁ ਤੁਧੁ ਹੋਰੁ ਜਿ ਮੰਗਣਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਦੁਖਾ ਕੈ ਦੁਖ ॥
viṇ ṯuḏẖ hor jė mangṇā sir ḏukẖā kai ḏukẖ.
To ask for any other than You, Lord, is the most miserable of miseries.
ਦੇਹਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਸੰਤੋਖੀਆ ਉਤਰੈ ਮਨ ਕੀ ਭੁਖ ॥
Ḏėh nām sanṯokẖī▫ā uṯrai man kī bẖukẖ.
Please bless me with Your Name, and make me content; may the hunger of my mind be satisfied.
ਗੁਰਿ ਵਣੁ ਤਿਣੁ ਹਰਿਆ ਕੀਤਿਆ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਿਆ ਮਨੁਖ ॥੨॥
Gur vaṇ ṯiṇ hari▫ā kīṯi▫ā Nānak ki▫ā manukẖ. ||2||
The Guru has made the woods and meadows green again. O Nanak, is it any wonder that He blesses human beings as well? ||2||

Also I'm not sure this discussion can be helped with Gurbani because it doesn't make sense if you read it from the perspective of someone who has faith in a conscious, personal creator. Am struggling. It only starts to fall into place with the borderline atheist perspective.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 3, 2013)

Consiosness is imparted to all beings by the Comscious Creator only.
The Creator has inumerous ascribed qualities and Being Conscious is 
one of the qualities for which the Creator is refered as OMNISCIENT.
other than being refered as OMNIPOTENT and OMNIPRESENT.

Asking material things from the Creator only is one of the many dimensions 
of askings. The message of Bhagat Dhanna ji is directing a common man to even ask for his Basic Needs from the Creator Only.The context of the message is crucial.
for correct understanding  of the messages.
The message of 5th Nanak  can not be equated with context of the messages of Bhagat Dhanna ji.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 3, 2013)

Ishna said:


> Also I'm not sure this discussion can be helped with Gurbani because it doesn't make sense if you read it from the perspective of someone who has faith in a conscious, personal creator. Am struggling. It only starts to fall into place with the borderline atheist perspective.



Ishna Ji, there exist so many places in SGGS that tell us that the creator and the creation are in fact the same thing.  That we need to realize that we are the creator and the creator is us.  "The creation was born of the light, and the light is in the creation" "the actor stages play and plays the parts of all the characters, but when the play is over and he takes off all the costumes there is only ONE" "realize 'He is Me'" etc.  It makes no sense to me to put athiest perspective to it at all...once we realize that one truth.  I AM he and he IS me.  I AM, therefore he IS.  I AM conscious, therefore he is conscious.... because we are in fact, one in the same.


----------



## Ishna (Apr 3, 2013)

Akasha Ji

There is a lot more stuff in the universe that is unconscious in contrast to the stuff that is conscious.  Does that change the picture at all?

I don't think my brain can handle this thread anymore!  I'm going to hang my coat up on this paurhi of Japji Sahib, ang 5.

<TABLE width="84%"><TBODY><TR><TD>ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ.
Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them.
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.
Endless are His Actions, endless are His Gifts.
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਵੇਖਣਿ ਸੁਣਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na vekẖaṇ suṇaṇ na anṯ.
Endless is His Vision, endless is His Hearing.
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਮੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai ki▫ā man manṯ.
His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind?
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai kīṯā ākār.
The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived.
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai pārāvār.
Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
ਅੰਤ ਕਾਰਣਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਬਿਲਲਾਹਿ ॥
Anṯ kāraṇ keṯe billāhi.
Many struggle to know His limits,
ਤਾ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਪਾਏ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
Ŧā ke anṯ na pā▫e jāhi.
but His limits cannot be found.
ਏਹੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥
Ėhu anṯ na jāṇai ko▫e.
No one can know these limits.
ਬਹੁਤਾ ਕਹੀਐ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Bahuṯā kahī▫ai bahuṯā ho▫e.
The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said.
ਵਡਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਊਚਾ ਥਾਉ ॥
vadā sāhib ūcẖā thā▫o.
Great is the Master, High is His Heavenly Home.
ਊਚੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਊਚਾ ਨਾਉ ॥
Ūcẖe upar ūcẖā nā▫o.
Highest of the High, above all is His Name.
ਏਵਡੁ ਊਚਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥
Ėvad ūcẖā hovai ko▫e.
Only one as Great and as High as God
ਤਿਸੁ ਊਚੇ ਕਉ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Ŧis ūcẖe ka▫o jāṇai so▫e.
can know His Lofty and Exalted State.
ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥
Jevad āp jāṇai āp āp.
Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself.
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥੨੪॥
Nānak naḏrī karmī ḏāṯ. ||24||
O Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. ||24||
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


*shrugs*


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 3, 2013)

Ishna Ji, that very quote you posted suggests God 'knows' his position. Knowing = Conscious of.  

Aside from that you mention that some things in the Universe are unconscious... again you are viewing everything from the limited viewpoint that physical matter is the basis of our reality, the Universe.  We have to realize that matter is an illusion of our perceptions and consciousness is the base of reality.  

99.9999% of each and every atom is empty space (if you held a marble and imagined that was the nucleus of an atom, the electron orbiting it would be outside of your current city), that means that 99.9999% of everything you can see and touch is also really empty space (including your brain).  So why does everything feel so solid?  It's only your perceptions that tell you that the Universe has physical form that you can touch, see, hear, smell, taste. In reality, everything is held together by strong electromagnetic fields... So you are actually experiencing something that's not really physical at all.  Your own physical body is included in this.  

Once you realize that the Universe is not really matter (but instead it's energy), that it's just our perception that lets us experience it that way, then you are not limited to thinking in merely physical terms.  Because you see your brain is also made of the same exact basic constituents as say... a rock.  You say a rock is unconscious, but yet your brain is conscious?  Are you sure it's really your brain that's the one who is conscious?  Or is your brain merely a vehicle that you use?  

When you get away from the idea that physical matter is all there is to reality, then it's easy to unsderstand in Gurbani how we can be him, how he can be the creator and the creation, how we can all be really ONE...

When I say that "he is me" and "I am him" and that the ONE is also the characters in his own play etc (which are all quotes from SGGS) I am not even putting physical matter into the equation. I realized the Universe is not what / how we experience it to be.  When I instead think of the Universe as one pool of conscious energy and NOT physical matter, then it makes sense.  Physical form is only an illusion of our perceptions, and is transitory.  So, is a rock really a rock? Is a brain really a brain?  When you look at the electrons and quarks that make them up, they are in fact identical. 

And yes, we can not imagine the limits of his 'mind' which also btw inplies consciousness... a mind must be able to think and contemplate.  We are experiencing everyting as only a fragment of what the whole is.  Each of us contains only a very a tiny piece of the vast puzzle of his consciousness. He is the whole, and we are only a fragment, and we are experiencing from the viewpoint of that fragment.


----------



## Ishna (Apr 3, 2013)

Regardless of how much Nothing is out there, there is also still stuff. Gurbani also says that the creation is True. It's the ego and it's constructs which are the illusion.

Totally off-topic but are you trying to tell me something here...?


> that means that 99.9999% of everything you can see and touch is also really empty space (including your brain).


Think about it lol



> that very quote you posted suggests God 'knows' his position. Knowing = Conscious of.


 
*shrugs* I don't know enough about Gurbani or the source of creation to really be able to comment anymore.

Although I do have a question for you, and please forgive me if you've already answered it elsewhere, but what exactly is 'consciousness' anyway? Does that mean that 'God' consciously makes decisions? If so, what's the scale of the decision making? Does he knowingly allow the rapist to rape and the tsumani to kill thousands? Does he get offended by things? Does he have a personality or his own identity?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 3, 2013)

hahaha opps... I didn't mean YOUR brain... I meant everyone's brain! LOL 

Actually the little bit that's left when you take out all the empty space (the 0.0001%) is basically electrons and quarks (protons and nutrons break down into quarks). Electrons only exist ever in relation to something else and not as a stand alone particle, in fact they behave as either a wave or a particle... and the only way the exist as a particle is if they are measured. So the rest of the time where are they? Same for quarks.... so there dissolves reality. 

I am not saying creation isn't true... (does the word 'true' = 'physical'??? hmmmm) It's obvious creation is true because we are here and we have to abide by the rules that govern it. I am just saying that it's not the hard physical matter that we think it is. It's really just energy in varying states of vibration, and our perceptions are what make us think it's physical matter that we can touch etc. Saying that the basis of the Universe is really consciousness/energy and not matter does not make it somehow 'untrue'. And yes our perception / construct is driven by our ego. So it still makes sense... to me anyway. 

As for the questions about 'his' identity or personality... that's what we can never know because each of us only holds one teeeeeny fragmented piece of the whole.  The best way I can try to resolve it in my own mind is to imagine myself immersed within my own dream, and witnessing a tsunami in that dream.  In reality I created it, and the victims from it, and I was conscious of it from the perspective of the character I played within the dream.... 




Ishna said:


> Regardless of how much Nothing is out there (I'm using Krauss's nothing with a capital N there), there is also still stuff. Gurbani also says that the creation is True. It's the ego and it's constructs which are the illusion.
> 
> Totally off-topic but are you trying to tell me something here...?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ishna (Apr 3, 2013)

Oh!  Oh!  For those members in the 'God is not conscious' camp, what do you think of this passage by respected T. Singh of www.gurbani.org ?



> Thus, the Cosmic Consciousness (_Siva_, Transcendent Reality, _Kartaa Purakh_, _Akaal Purakh_, _Paarbrahm_, Light, _Param Tant_ etc.) and the material energy (_Shakti_) of "the Supreme Essence of the Reality" are inseparable. One can be taken as that which represents the constitutive elements of the universe, while the other can be taken as the dynamic potency which makes these elements vibrate. The entire Universe is perceived as being emanated, penetrated and sustained by the Spiritual Force and material force, which are permanently in a perfect and indestructible union. In other words, God is the Eternal Witness to all that takes form and to all that is formless. This Pure Consciousness is of the nature of Absolute Truth, Beauty and Bliss (_Anand_) — ਸਤਿ ਸੁਹਾਣੁ ਸਦਾ ਮਨਿ ਚਾਉ (sggs 4).


 
From this article:  http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart298.htm

Eagre to hear perspectives if anyone has the brain stamina left to continue with this 'how long is a piece of string' discussion!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 3, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Pardon my ignorance,* but I have no idea who/what Conscious Creator is or what he/she/it means.*
> Can someone help me with the help of Gurbani and explain this please?
> 
> Thanks and regards
> ...



Allow me to repeat the question that I asked  on March 26th on this very thread and unfortunately no one responded to it.

Can someone help me with the question, so I can understand what this thread is all about?

Is there an unconscious creator somewhere in a coma?

Conscious is a word used for the animal world including ourselves.

Was the Asteroid that hit Russia some weeks ago conscious and had its own GPS knowing very well where it was going to hit or was it just a random direction helped by physics?

Are the Faults underneath California and other earthquake prone regions conscious?

How about the Volcanoes spewing lava all over?

The reason of my question is because Ik Ong Kaar is omnipresent. It is interesting to notice how some of us cling to one thing which they are confused about rather than seeking other gems from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru which may help them answer their own question eventually.

Time to move on  to some more interesting investigation of Gurbani, digging some more gems from the within with its help in my opinion.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 3, 2013)

Tejwant Singh ji if I may attempt to contribute. I believe the issue is interpreting what consonant living in creation is.

For example the following threads were started with this in mind,

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:UseFELayout/>   </w:Compatibility>   <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->  *Living in Consonance with Creation*​ http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/36037-living-in-consonance-with-creation.html
​ *One Infinite Creator in Sikhism, What Does it Mean?*
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/38210-one-infinite-creator-sikhism-what-does.html​  <!--[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]-->
<center> 
I believe lot of the circular loops in this thread arise as we try to make the creator look like ourselves.  We are taking liberties in using concepts of consciousness as though it is a fundamental truth in creation versus the fundamental truths espoused about the creator and creation in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

There is nothing wrong in inquisitions as in this thread and may be the creator is conscious, sub-conscious, intuitive, etc., and all of that.  The only difficulty or pitfall is that if it is used as a search for the master key, or the ultimate door (say Dasm dwar/tenth gate) and traded off against consonant living that much is lost.  It leads to massive mis-direction and we become vulnerable to exploitation by Dehras, swamis, pandits, magic makers, yogis, etc.  An anti-thesis of what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji enables us with or teaches us!

By the way all of the following are explainable in reference to concept of consonance with creation and hence living per the creator who creates,


Suffering
Hurricanes
Tsunamis destruction
Sickness
Consciousness with others and the creator
Love
Disparities
Disease
Why innocents may suffer and the probable guilty go Scott free?
etc.
All of the above are contextual within consonant living per the creator's creation.
​ Without trying to hijack this thread I believe we need to redefine and refocus what is it that we are trying to prove or show through "conscious relationships" with the creator versus everything else?

Just some humble thoughts if these help.

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *Tejwant Singh ji's questions, my attempt at answering,



Is there an unconscious creator somewhere in a coma?
_State of creator is undefined in human terms other than being timeless, etc., as eluded to for example in mool mantar_

Conscious is a word used for the animal world including ourselves.


 Was the Asteroid that hit Russia some weeks ago conscious and had its  own GPS knowing very well where it was going to hit or was it just a  random direction helped by physics?
_Acted as per truths in creation?  It was obviously guided by earth's gravitational forces and one wonders what causes earth to attract such to create devastation?  What is the underlying truth of creation for such matters?
_
_Is it consonance that same methodology perhaps zillions of years ago created earth and would do so for zillions of years to come _

3.  Are the Faults underneath California and other earthquake prone regions conscious?

_Part of creation but the question is are we living in consonance when we do the following,_
_Tighten building code to protect against earthquake scenarios (it is in consonance to put the wisdom of creation to use)
_
_Would we own up if we don't calculate correctly given our knowledge as we will never know all?_
_Probably not!  We want to have our cake and eat it too!
_
 
_Isn't destruction and regeneration basic part of consonance even though it can be painful or not the desired outcome from our perspective?_
_Isn't it consonance or our misunderstanding of nature or what surrounds us that Seagulls fly freely over the Tsunami zone in Japan while people perished?_
 
4.  How about the Volcanoes spewing lava all over?

_How else would you create paradise on earth like Hawaii, and other islands so much sought after?_
_Creation has own timetable which does not always line up with our visual horizons or life times
_
 </center>


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 4, 2013)

Ishna ji



> Uhoh, Dhanna Ji is in trouble cos Guru Arjun Sahib Ji says on Ang 958



It seems like that, but Dhanna is not really in trouble. His bani is included by Guru Arjan Dev because it is a testimony to a simple and unwavering faith in the power of the divine. His life story is that of a movement from idol worship to that of finding the magic of creation in every stone and blade of grass. He echoes this verse of Guru Arjan dev, but in his own way.

 ਗੁਰਿ ਵਣੁ ਤਿਣੁ ਹਰਿਆ ਕੀਤਿਆ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਿਆ ਮਨੁਖ ॥੨॥
Gur vaṇ ṯiṇ hari▫ā kīṯi▫ā Nānak ki▫ā manukẖ. ||2||
The Guru has made the woods and meadows green again. O Nanak, is it any wonder that He blesses human beings as well? ||2||

I do however agree with you that  _debate by Gurbani _does not really work very well on this particular  kind of thread. Perhaps this is because the thread is more about a general theological concept that needs to be debated a different way. There is a problem with saying, "So there! This shabad proves my point."  The shabadGuru is not like a stamp of approval from Waheguru, proving the thoughts of individual minds 'true."  The shabadGuru is there to find the "sat" which overcomes the creations of individual minds.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 4, 2013)

Ambarsaria said:


> I believe lot of the circular loops in this thread arise as we try to make the creator look like ourselves.  We are taking liberties in using concepts of consciousness as though it is a fundamental truth in creation versus the fundamental truths espoused about the creator and creation in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



*Thanks. Majestic in its simplicity. *


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 11, 2013)

Akasha said:


> A conscious creator in Sikhi?
> 
> I have noticed on here in recent times that some people claim to be Sikh and yet do not believe in a conscious creator, but instead personally interpret Gurbani to be instruction on how to live in harmony with nature / creation and compare Sikhi to Athiesm.



Sat sri Akaal , Akaasha    ji 

i too waana ask from Athiest Sikhs , who denies Conscious ,Awake Creator  .  how they interpret  following Gurbani ?


<table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td>  ਏਕਾ  ਸੇਜ  ਵਿਛੀ  ਧਨ  ਕੰਤਾ  ॥ 
एका सेज विछी धन कंता ॥ 
Ėkā sej vicẖẖī ḏẖan kanṯā. 
One bed is spread out for the bride and her Husband Lord. 
   </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#BABAC7"><td> ਧਨ  ਸੂਤੀ  ਪਿਰੁ  ਸਦ  ਜਾਗੰਤਾ  ॥ 
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥ 
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā. 
 The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਪੀਓ  ਮਦਰੋ  ਧਨ  ਮਤਵੰਤਾ  ॥ 
पीओ मदरो धन मतवंता ॥ 
Pī▫o maḏro ḏẖan maṯvanṯā. 
The bride is intoxicated, as if she has drunk wine. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਧਨ  ਜਾਗੈ  ਜੇ  ਪਿਰੁ  ਬੋਲੰਤਾ  ॥੨॥ 
धन जागै जे पिरु बोलंता ॥२॥ 
Ḏẖan jāgai je pir bolanṯā. ||2|| 
The soul-bride only awakens when her Husband Lord calls to her. ||2||




http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=54&punjabi=t&id=2202#l2202

Sri waheguru ji ki fateh
 
  </td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 11, 2013)

From Gurbanee it is observed that the Creator is stated to be in ints two States,
One state is VIBRATING STATE and Other STATE is NON VIBRATING STATE.

It is Non Vibrating State of the Creator which can be understood as unconscious State 
like that of Coma..... SUNN 

It is because of Vibrating State ,The Creator can be understood as AWAKEor CONSCIOUS.

One can look at a Quote from Banee Sukhmani Sahib as
SALOK... Sargun Nirgun Nirankaar  Sunn Samaadhi Aapi
             Apan Keeya Nanakaa     Ape hi Phir Jaapi

In the above Salok the reference Meaning of the Word Aapi is very important.
As per my own understanding the reference for the word Aapi is for SABADu GuROO
.THE SOURCE OF NIRANKAAR CREATOR.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Apr 11, 2013)

Simple we get tired but nature doesn't. The galaxies are always in motion 

Who are the Atheist Sikhs? I have not heard of them.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 11, 2013)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> Who are the Atheist Sikhs? I have not heard of them.



It's funny because they haven't heard of themselves either !!:redturban:
They don't even realise that they are atheist !:winkingmunda:


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 11, 2013)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> Who are the Atheist Sikhs? I have not heard of them.



these are  ppl who are trying  to pull "Soul " out of Sikhi .


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 11, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> these are  ppl who are trying  to pull "Soul " out of Sikhi .


harmanpreet singh ji the minute we start creating classes of Sikhs as lesser Sikhs than ourselves, less we become ourselves.  Every true SIkh is a learning machine and almost all Sikhs would have gone through moments of this doubt or that doubt.  

Sikhism is learning and sharing in learning to some extent.  Share your thoughts why Atheists as defined by yourself cannot one day become Sikhs as complete as anyone else.  

Say an Atheist says there is one continuous reality and I call such reality to be creator or God!

Give me soul on a platter and I will give you God on a platter!

Much wisdom is less spoken and more experienced.  eacesign:

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

Respected Ambarsaria ji 


for me anyone who follows or tries to follow Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is SIKH . 

m unable to Understand how a person who have no faith in Guru Granth Sahib ji can be a Sikh . he /she can be good human being , a good Buddhist .. but i have doubt abt his /her Sikhi . 

how can one denies a "conscious creator " . when each and every line of Guru Granth Sahib ji is saying so . 



 <table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td> ਏਕਾ  ਸੇਜ  ਵਿਛੀ  ਧਨ  ਕੰਤਾ  ॥ 
एका सेज विछी धन कंता ॥ 
Ėkā sej vicẖẖī ḏẖan kanṯā. 
One bed is spread out for the bride and her Husband Lord. 
 </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#BABAC7"><td> ਧਨ  ਸੂਤੀ  ਪਿਰੁ  ਸਦ  ਜਾਗੰਤਾ  ॥ 
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥ 
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā. 
 The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake. 
 </td></tr> <tr><td> ਪੀਓ  ਮਦਰੋ  ਧਨ  ਮਤਵੰਤਾ  ॥ 
पीओ मदरो धन मतवंता ॥ 
Pī▫o maḏro ḏẖan maṯvanṯā. 
The bride is intoxicated, as if she has drunk wine. 
 </td></tr> <tr><td> ਧਨ  ਜਾਗੈ  ਜੇ  ਪਿਰੁ  ਬੋਲੰਤਾ  ॥੨॥ 
धन जागै जे पिरु बोलंता ॥२॥ 
Ḏẖan jāgai je pir bolanṯā. ||2|| 
The soul-bride only awakens when her Husband Lord calls to her. ||2||




Bhul chuk muaaf 

sat nam sri wahe guru ji 
</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2013)

harmanpreet ji

You quoted this tuk 

ਧਨ ਸੂਤੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਸਦ ਜਾਗੰਤਾ ॥
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā.
The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake. 

Are you taking "always awake" in the literal sense of "eyes open" always "paying attention"  or "alert?"

The other question I have. Is this your belief? _A person who rejects a conscious creator also rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. A Sikh accepts Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Therefore, that person (who rejects a conscious creator) is not a Sikh. _Did I understand you?


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> harmanpreet ji
> 
> You quoted this tuk
> 
> ...



SPNADMIN ji

ya i feel /believe that anyone who rejects Guru Granth Sahib is not a Sikh .
and Creator (KARTA ) is mentioned in very first line of Guru Granth Sahib ji  (Mool Mantar).

Regarding "always awake " i  mean ,  it is in Sense as thread starter Akaasha ji asked  and m unable to understand from where you are bringing eyes..

fateh


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> SPNADMIN ji
> 
> ya i feel /believe that anyone who rejects Guru Granth Sahib is not a Sikh .
> and Creator (KARTA ) is mentioned in very first line of Guru Granth Sahib ji  (Mool Mantar).
> ...



Thanks harmanpreet singh ji 

I understand that part. I am asking more than that. Are you saying that to reject a conscious creator is to reject Guru Granth Sahib?? What rehat tells us this is true? Or, is this your personal opinion? 


Yes, the second and third part of your argument follow: to reject Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is to reject Sikhi. 

No, the first part of your argument does not follow. It is not automatic that a person who rejects a conscious creator rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 

You are on shaky ground.  This is like saying a person who rejects Dasam Granth rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and is therefore not a Sikh. The statement assumes moral authority that you do not have. Especially when you have not yet given us a full vichaar of the shabad you quote.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

ADMIN ji 

let me put it in simple  way 

1)Do you believe there is Creator ?.
2) is it Conscious  or unconsious ?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> ADMIN ji
> 
> let me put it in simple  way
> 
> ...



Please don't change the subject. You are the one who is setting terms for being a Sikh. Would like to know how you come to your conclusions.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

Admin ji ,

m not trying to change the subject ,my questions are directly related to Subject  and regarding conditions  i feel   Sikh is one who follows or tries to follow Guru Granth Sahib ji .

will you answer my above two simple question s ?

Sri Waheguru ji ki fateh


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Admin ji ,
> 
> m not trying to change the subject ,my questions are directly related to Subject  and regarding conditions  i feel   Sikh is one who follows or tries to follow Guru Granth Sahib ji .
> 
> ...



No one has argued about whether a Sikh follows or tries to follow SGGS. The confusion surrounds the part about the conscious creator. As to your question. Conscious implies its opposite, unconscious! Duality ! That alone makes me suspect that thinking of the creator as conscious is outside of the realm of possibility. How can Akaal be described in terms that imply duality?


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

ADMIN ji 

m unable to get how "conscious" implies its  opposite ie "Unconscious" and how its related to duality  ,can you explain a bit ?

thanks 
harman


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2013)

I will do my best.

_conscious |ˈkän ch əs|

adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
• having knowledge of something; aware : we are conscious of the extent of the problem.
• ( conscious of) painfully aware of; sensitive to : he was very conscious of his appearance.
• concerned with or worried about a particular matter : they were growing increasingly security-conscious.
• (of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional : a conscious effort to walk properly.
• (of the mind or a thought) directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned.

DERIVATIVES
consciously adverb

ORIGIN late 16th cent. (in the sense [being aware of wrongdoing] ): from Latin conscius ‘knowing with others or in oneself’ (from conscire ‘be privy to’ ) + -ous ._


In all these various meanings and in the origin of the word we are looking at human qualities of awake, aware, sensitive, concerned, worried, deliberate, intentional. These meanings all arise from brain, sensation and perception. Munn works in duality. As such the opposing human qualities of not-awake, unaware, insensitive, unconcerned, unworried, not-deliberate, and unintentional are implied. Brain, sensation and perception turned on or turned off. 

How then does any of this apply to the nature of the sat? To think of the sat as continually awake, aware, sensitive, concerned, worried, deliberate and intentional is not that different from using our fingers to make shadow figures of horses and pigs on a movie screen. When we do that we are projecting human characteristics onto the sat - the sat which cannot be described in human terms. 

When Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji describes the sat as "awake," it is an example of how in poetry "personification" is used to make an emotional connection with something that is not human. Taking words like "awake" literally is your choice; it is not a requirement. What about someone who says, "awake" is personification, and does not take it literally? That person  has not rejected Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. That person believes that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is poetry.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

Respected ADMIN ji 


i have no idea why are you making it so complex and confusing .


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Respected ADMIN ji
> 
> 
> i have no idea why are you making it so complex and confusing .



I don't mind simple when simple is believable. I abhor oversimplification when it omits important information. Let me make it very simple.

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is poetry. Poetry uses personification. Much of what you are saying seems to take Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji literally. Based on a literal approach you are pretending to know who rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and who does not. Sometimes that is what simple gets you. Distortions and incomplete understanding. And simple has this odd way of becoming simpleminded.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 12, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Respected ADMIN ji
> i have no idea why are you making it so complex and confusing .


harmanpreet singh ji you are trying to limit the creator through your definitions and characterizations.  Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji advises (if you care to read without an eye to prove or disapprove others) that it is futile to try to characterize and limit the one creator in its completeness.  It is infinite and beyond human characterization.  We can attempt to understand as much as we can and live there by!  Characterizing the creator, defining it, etc., is not a goal set up in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Rather gaining understanding of the creator and creation and living with the ever increasing understanding is the only goal.

Human definitions and applications of the same like conscious, unconscious, etc., simply are an ego trip.  These attempts kind of flag that the person has not understood basics of Sikhi per Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 12, 2013)

> Originally Posted by *harmanpreet singh*
> 
> 
> _Respected ADMIN ji
> ...



I agree, there are so much more important questions to answer, does the Creator like french cooking, does the Creator get confused, or upset, bored maybe.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 12, 2013)

harry haller said:


> I agree, there are so much more important questions to answer, does the Creator like french cooking, does the Creator get confused, or upset, bored maybe.



Only if he is conscious about the French fries' fat content.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 12, 2013)

I can see the argument on both sides of the coin here... and I am in the middle... what I have noticed in this thread:

The people who describe creator as not conscious, associate 'consciousness' as a purely physical function. If that were true, if consciousness was merely created BY matter, then I could see how people could say that it is just something that occurred as part of creation and that the creator may not be.... this is assuming the basis of the Universe is matter and not something else deeper.  This (in my own opinion) is a very closed minded view of the Universe.   

However, where I differ is in the whole concept of the Universe itself.  I believe the basis of the Universe itself is consciousness... NOT matter!  If you dissolve reality (when you see in this way) then consciousness is understood as a base aspect of creation and not merely a product of it. (That's when you start to understand that consciousness as not a human property but a base truth of reality)  You begin to see reality as energy and not matter.  When you see it this way, that Consciousness is the basis of everything, it's easy to understand that the creator is conscious.  There is no duality in this.  Because in reality all that exists IS consciousness.  Everything else is created FROM it.  And there is only ONE consciousness... ONE pool of creative and aware energy.  

I still struggle DEEPLY with the idea that SGGS is all just poetry... then why are we even reading it if there is no meaning to it?  One should not have to decipher the meaning of difficult to interpret and cryptic poetry.  Where does it say in SGGS or Rehet that SGGS is all hidden poetic meanings and never to be taken literally? Is this written down anywhere?

What if it IS very literal!?  (comparisons aside.... like on pg 736 where it describes the world as a 'play' and the creator as both the actor and director but then when he takes off the costumes there is only ONE... obviously using the term 'play' 'actor' etc are comparisons but the message is direct... that there is only ONE in existence... the creator.  And we are also all collectively that ONE creator)  There is much information in SGGS that IS truth... known today... that was not known at the time it was written.  I just can't see it being that complicated.  Yes it's in poetic verse, however I believe that much of it is literal... Things can have literal meaning but still be written in verse.  Reading it as literal, I see MUCH more truth in Sikhi than if I were to try to decipher someone's abstract thoughts. If that's all it were, then how would it be any different than say a poetic work by any other author... how would it be a 'religion'??? We could take any poet's work then and say that it's a non literal spiritual work.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 12, 2013)

I agree Akashji, the consciousness that you are talking about is NOT the opposite of unconscious, it is beyond and above that !!!

Can I define and describe it better ??
Not really, unless you've experienced it to some level and can relate to it !


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 12, 2013)

> I agree Akashji, the consciousness that you are talking about is NOT the  opposite of unconscious, it is beyond and above that !!!




we are but the blind man, in the dark room, trying to kick the black cat


that isn't there.........


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 12, 2013)

harry haller said:


> we are but the blind man, in the dark room, trying to kick the black cat
> 
> 
> that isn't there.........


 
Yeh, that sums it up quite well !
I like it Harryji, you always amuse me !!lol
I like that saying about the blind man in the dark room looking for the cat that is not there...

.....It points to the importance of curiosity and the things or issues that we just don't understand !!!0


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 12, 2013)

Then again "no blind man will use sight or vision as his strength to achieve things".

Ironically some of the best musicians were blind and some Raagi Singhs too.

So fundamental issue in our dialog, curiosity or search here is that,



> *Are we employing the right faculties in our inquisition or even perhaps whether we are even equipped with some such faculties.*



Do have the eyes to see God creator?  Do we have ears to hear the God/creator?  and so on ......

We do know that we do not have a monopoly on connections with God/creator.  

Fundamental in our approach we have to register say the following,



> So how does a billions years + old rock becomes dust, earth, feeds a corn seed, then becomes part of the corn cob, fed to a cow, to turn to milk and steak that we can consume, excrete, live a life and become dust and if left alone may become part of a rock again?


Our level of ignorance versus our level of knowledge have a major disconnect in that how little we know.  SGGS says don't go after to learn it all.  Learn some and as much but more importantly use it to recognize consonance and all around you so that you may know your place to be at peace, happiness, and so on.  Some will say do so to make God/creator proud!  Then again do we fall into the same trap as about consciousness.  Does God/creator even have pride in the creation so created and transforming.  Does the all knowing ever not know the results any way based on what is!

Luckysingh ji I believe lot of such introspection takes spirals one down into a spiritual whirlpool and we may enter a zone of darkness to come out or not.  If we perhaps been in such state by design or accident we perhaps will be cognizance of some underlying nuggets but I have not been even close to it even after taking some pretty very very hard knocks over th years.  But I recognize that you once posted your experiences along such lines and I have always respected that as there really is much unknown.

It is all in good spirit to share and chat even while we share our thoughts at times opposite to each others views.

Sat Sri Akal to all. ​


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 12, 2013)

I think the consciousness that Akashji is talking about is more of an active action or activity so to say.
We know that whilst we are alive and breathing with our heart's ticking we are in a way 'active' or conscious. 
If you look at it like this, and think about how the Universe is 'active' ....ie. the Earth and planets carry on moving or rotating by his Command, the Sun carries on emitting heat, gases and LIGHT...etc..
 Now, with all this happening and the earth spinning on it's axis, we can say that it is also 'active' and conscious.
Therefore, we are aware that there is an ongoing and forever alive 'activity' in the whole universe. 
This is what I kind of understand of the 'conscious' entity of God creator and creation.

How this consciousness or activity is kept active or from going to non-active-unconscious, ONLY HE KNOWS, and it is under HIS Control and Command.

I hope that simplifies it a little !


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 12, 2013)

Akasha said:


> I can see the argument on both sides of the coin here... and I am in the middle... what I have noticed in this thread:
> 
> The people who describe creator as not conscious, associate 'consciousness' as a purely physical function. If that were true, if consciousness was merely created BY matter, then I could see how people could say that it is just something that occurred as part of creation and that the creator may not be.... this is assuming the basis of the Universe is matter and not something else deeper.  This (in my own opinion) is a very closed minded view of the Universe.
> 
> ...




very well said Akaasha ji ,  


"Guru Granth sahib is just Poetry " is most absurd logic  ever  expected .


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 13, 2013)

Not to go off topic here-
But I think that as one advances more into sikhi and spirituality, then one realizes or learns that Gurbani is more literal than previously assumed.
I think it's the literal way that one begins to relate to it.
The Gurbani doesn't contain just ordinary words, but words of the Guru.(GuRoo) :winkingmunda:


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 13, 2013)

i agree  with you lucky ji, only under spiritual bankruptcy  one can claim "Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as mere poetry without literal meaning "


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Respected Ambarsaria ji
> 
> 
> for me anyone who follows or tries to follow Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is SIKH .
> ...



Three possibilities are emerging from the discussion.

a. Some reject the notion that "awake" is personification. They disagree that a conscious creator  is human projection. They must also want to claim that the creator who is "awake" is also a "he" because he is a "husband lord. "

No personification is allowed; only literal meanings apply. We cannot have it both ways. 

b. On the other hand some believe that "husband lord" is poetic language but  "awake" is not poetic language and should be taken literally. It is OK to have it both ways. 

c.  Gurbani is poetry and both "husband lord" and "awake" are poetic language.

Those in groups a and b also believe that  group c obviously cannot see how Gurbani is so much more than poetry. They conclude " only under spiritual bankruptcy one can claim "Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as mere poetry." Therefore group c has  their Sikhi in doubt (harmanpreet ji), and/or have not experienced the real thing (Luckysingh ji). 

So the conscious creator has Sikhs sitting at his right hand ! Wow! I am impressed because the creator also has a right hand!


----------



## akiva (Apr 13, 2013)

Gurbani was written by people who had experienced deep spiritual insights, and whose way of looking at the world, and their experience of the world, was radically different than ours.

Language in unable to completely convey that reality - so the authors resort, when needed, to *metaphor*.

I'd suggest using metaphoric instead of poetic - so "husband" can metaphorically describe a relationship in terms the reader understands while "conscious" describes a state of awareness/intention.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

akiva said:


> Gurbani was written by people who had experienced deep spiritual insights, and whose way of looking at the world, and their experience of the world, was radically different than ours.
> 
> Language in unable to completely convey that reality - so the authors resort, when needed, to *metaphor*.
> 
> I'd suggest using metaphoric instead of poetic - so "husband" can metaphorically describe a relationship in terms the reader understands while "conscious" describes a state of awareness/intention.



akiva ji

I agree. Just as a note. The words metaphor and personification have been used either on this thread and other threads, in addition to "poetic language." Language is unable to convey the reality of the "sat." And thus our Gurusahiban used these poetic devices. Thanks.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 13, 2013)

The dumb mute can't describe or tell us the taste of the sweetness.
But he experiences it and understands it.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 13, 2013)

> Three possibilities are emerging from the discussion.
> 
> a. Some reject the notion that "awake" is personification. They disagree  that a conscious creator  is human projection. They must also want to  claim that the creator who is "awake" is also a "he" because he is a  "husband lord. "
> 
> ...



admjnji

you have left out 

d. those that do not care and see any attempt at understanding Creator as pointless and futile.


----------



## akiva (Apr 13, 2013)

Spnadmin Ji

I meant to quote the following:



spnadmin said:


> c.  Gurbani is poetry and both "husband lord" and "awake" are poetic language.



to suggest that replacing poetic with metaphoric would be both more accurate and possibly more acceptable to all (since "poetic" is a loaded term with it's own meaning.)

Akiva


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

akiva said:


> Spnadmin Ji
> 
> I meant to quote the following:
> 
> ...



Let's see if you are right! I used poetic to begin with because I was not getting anywhere with personification. 

The main issue however is whether the creator is conscious. I am claiming no because the word conscious itself so used is a projection of a human characteristic. In that context, "personification" is the better choice over "metaphor." 

as an aside - both personification and metaphor are types of poetic language. We could get side-tracked.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

harry haller said:


> admjnji
> 
> you have left out
> 
> d. those that do not care and see any attempt at understanding Creator as pointless and futile.




Where do they stand on their Sikhi and their spiritual development? Bankrupt? Thanks for your input.


----------



## akiva (Apr 13, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> The main issue however is whether the creator is conscious. I am claiming no because the word conscious itself so used is a projection of a human characteristic. In that context, "personification" is the better choice over "metaphor."



noted. as an input -- Maimonides said that one can not describe the Creator's positive attributes, but only describe what the Creator is not. I.E. "Not Limited", "Not Physical", "Not Unaware" -- because positive attributes are themselves limited. 

("Creator" here referring to the Abrahamic Creator)



spnadmin said:


> as an aside - both personification and metaphor are types of poetic language. We could get side-tracked.



Agreed. And I acknowledge that SGGS uses both. My point was made because metaphor by definition has a deeper/secondary meaning, whereas "poetic" doesn't require that. So metaphor allows something to be taken "literally" while at the same time being "poetic"


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

akiva said:


> noted. as an input -- Maimonides said that one can not describe the Creator's positive attributes, but only describe what the Creator is not. I.E. "Not Limited", "Not Physical", "Not Unaware" -- because positive attributes are themselves limited.
> 
> ("Creator" here referring to the Abrahamic Creator)
> 
> ...



akiva ji

I do appreciate both comments. Responding to the second one ... that is the way metaphor works. A metaphor draws an analogy either directly or indirectly between the literal meaning and another level of meaning, perhaps emotional or spiritual. 

I am using "poetic" as a class of linguistic structures within which metaphor, simile, personification, etc. can be grouped. Not in the sense of "loaded" language. Of course one could debate endlessly as to whether language is always "loaded" and never literal. Someone else called language the burial ground of _dead _metaphors. That takes us off topic.

How I am using the term: Poetic (relating to or used in poetry) + Language (method of communication either spoken, written, or some other descriptive/expressive mode) = poetic language. 

The words of Maimonides are a true gift! Maimonides needs to be mined, quite literally mined, for the gems of insight, provided for our study and delight over centuries. Always satisfying to encounter and to reflect on.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 13, 2013)

akiva said:


> Gurbani was written by people who had experienced deep spiritual insights, and whose way of looking at the world, and their experience of the world, was radically different than ours.
> 
> Language in unable to completely convey that reality - so the authors resort, when needed, to *metaphor*.
> 
> I'd suggest using metaphoric instead of poetic - so "husband" can metaphorically describe a relationship in terms the reader understands while "conscious" describes a state of awareness/intention.



fully agrees with you Akiva ji ,

ਧਨ ਸੂਤੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਸਦ ਜਾਗੰਤਾ ॥
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā.
The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake.

in the above shabad "bride" is metaphor used for our soul/ Aaatma , "husband" is metaphor used for ParamAaatma/Creator . 

our soul is asleep/unconscious under the influence of MAYA/illusion . but  ParamAatma/CREATOR  is beyond MAYA  ie always AWAKE/ CONSCIOUS .


satnam


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

Someone has changed his point of view. Now accepting the fact of the poetic rather than the literal! Congratulations brother.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 13, 2013)

spnadmin ji, I see why you are arriving your understanding of the creator not being conscious... where we differ is in the belief of what exactly consciousness is.  You place consciousness as a purely physical manifestation, something caused as a result of the physical.  Therefore you believe it is a human only concept. (I still stand by my opinion that this is a very limited view of reality) 

I view consciousness as not a resultant physical manifestation but the other way around.  I view matter as being a manifestation of consciousness. Therefore for me, consciousness is a base truth to reality and hence not merely a human concept.  There really is no 'unconsciousness' in that sense as consciousness is all that really exists. We only experience it as limited, because of our limited perception while stuck in a physical body and having to experience through limited senses. 

For me, it's easy to equate creator as conscious, because consciousness for me is the base truth of reality.  For you it's difficult because you view consciousness as merely an emergent property due to to the complexity of our brains- a purely physical concept.  Because we can't prove either direction at the moment... (even neuroscientists are stumped at where exactly the 'seat' of consciousness lies) then I think we will never be able to pull the other to our court.  

As for Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - I agree there is metaphor used... as in the passage I quoted about reality being compared to a play and the creator is the director and the actors (us)  that is obvious metaphor.  But the meaning is quite literal.... when he takes off the costumes there is only ONE. (p 736 paraphrased) For me, when I look at that one truth... that there is only ONE in existence... then everything else makes sense to me.  If the creator is the only ONE thing in existence, then we must be merely conscious manifestations of that creator.  - If we ARE the creator, and WE ARE conscious... then creator must be conscious - As I wrote above, when I view the base of reality as energy / consciousness rather than matter, then it's easy to see how the creator is conscious because to me that is all that really exists. And then I can look at Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and metaphors aside (which are used to convey literal messages) are easy to understand. 

Since our concept of what consciousness is differs so greatly, I can't see how we can ever merge in our beliefs.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 13, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> The dumb mute can't describe or tell us the taste of the sweetness.
> But he experiences it and understands it.



Lucky Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

With the above verse from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji- *'Gungei de mithai'*, you have answered your own question. It is a personal experience. Period. If *Ik Ong Kaar* were conscious then, he/she/it is conscious in all, which include the organic and the inorganic as the Gurbani says. And if the poetry is literal, then we should all embrace the literal translations which are shown to be distorted because there is more to it than meets the eyes.

The example of  the distorted literal translation is in your own post.



> *The dumb mute *can't describe or tell us the taste of the sweetness.



 A *Gunga* means one who can not speak nor hear, hence *"mute and hearing impaired" *where as a *DUMB* means not having the right mental faculties.

Take your pick.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 13, 2013)

It seems to me that we are all upside down in this discussion. It matters naught if Ik Ong Kaar is conscious or not, but it only matters how conscious we are of Ik Ong Kaar.

Isn't this the whole journey of a Sikh?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 13, 2013)

Let us review in completeness the shabad that Harmanpreet Singh ji has posted in this thread.


> ਸੂਹੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
> Sūhī mėhlā 5.
> ਸੂਹੀ ਪੰਜਵੀਂ ਪਾਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ।
> 
> ...


In summary Guru ji flag how in response to heart’s desire to seek the creator we may do all kind of stuff, wander around, and so.  We continue to be engrossed otherwise as if in a stupor.  When the creator so blesses the doors of knowledge open within our own hearts and the creator is recognized by us to be everywhere.  Our consciousness so awakens to all that is still around the same way as before but that we did not see with the eye of our own consciousness.

  I stand corrected and all errors are mine.

  Sat Sri Akal. 

*PS:  *It goes without saying that we may observe all is transforming all the time.  Some may call what lies behind all as consciousness, transformational, scientific but not well known truths (atheists), etc.  It does not change much other than how it impacts rest of our approach to consonant living in creation.

The rules and truths that lie behind are hardly known to us.  This applies to micro or sub-atomic particle/wave level to the planets and galaxies.  The sciences in exploration of all this all the way from Quantum Physics to astronomy, etc., can best be described as at an infancy or lower level.  Our egos get in the way that every time a little something is observed we get the megaphone out and start declaring to have found the golden key to all.  We should all remember our place in creation,  which is so vast, recognize this in humility including in our talk of the consciousness/unconsciousness, defined creator/God personification, messengers of God/creator, etc.
  <!--[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]-->


----------



## akiva (Apr 13, 2013)

Tejwant Ji



Tejwant Singh said:


> A *Gunga* means one who can not speak nor hear, hence *"mute and hearing impaired" *where as a *DUMB* means not having the right mental faculties.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> In this usage DUMB is an archaic (pre-PC) term for mute.
> ...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 13, 2013)

akiva said:


> Tejwant Ji
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 13, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> akiva said:
> 
> 
> > Tejwant Ji
> ...


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 13, 2013)

Akasha ji just as an example, describe based on your literal understanding the following from the shabad on the previous page (http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...khi-other-faith-traditions-18.html#post183005),



How you physically make a bed in your heart?  (ਏਕਾ ਸੇਜ ਵਿਛੀ ਧਨ ਕੰਤਾ ...)
How you act intoxicated by liquor without drinking liquor?  ( ਪੀਓ ਮਦਰੋ ਧਨ  ....)

How many countries Guru Arjan Dev ji visited besides India?  (ਦੇਸ ਦਿਸੰਤਰ ... )
What is the definition in scientific terms of the door that opens in the mind?  ( ਖੋਲ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਓ ਕਪਾਟੁ ਤਾ ਮਨੁ  ... )
Without  recognizing symbolism and metphoric usage can anyone understand and  explain this shabad in their own words?  I will be delighted to hear  such an interpretation and discourse and would love to learn in case I  am missing something.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 13, 2013)

I believe in my post above you... I have acknowledged the usage of metaphors in order to convey meanings... it's the MEANING of what the metaphor is conveying that I do not believe is just another metaphor or symbolic.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

Akasha said:


> I believe in my post above you... I have acknowledged the usage of metaphors in order to convey meanings... it's the MEANING of what the metaphor is conveying that I do not believe is just another metaphor or symbolic.



A metaphor has 2 parts. The literal and the figurative (non literal). The connection between literal and figurative = the metaphor. The metaphor makes the connection between the literal and the figurative.


The  meaning of what the metaphor is conveying is not "just another metaphor or symbolic (sic)." Behind the metaphor is the lesson, realization, meaning of the metaphor. The metaphor is not the meaning. It conveys a meaning that is hard to get at through literal word usage alone. However, an interpretation of a metaphor should not take one back to literal meaning. The entire reason for metaphor is to get beyond literal meaning.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

Example from Sheik Farid down to the rehao line.


ਆਸਾ ॥
आसा ॥
Āsā.
Aasaa:

ਬੋਲੈ ਸੇਖ ਫਰੀਦੁ ਪਿਆਰੇ ਅਲਹ ਲਗੇ ॥
Bolai Sekẖ Farīḏ pi▫āre alah lage.
Says Shaykh Fareed, O my dear friend, attach yourself to the Lord.

ਇਹੁ ਤਨੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਖਾਕ ਨਿਮਾਣੀ ਗੋਰ ਘਰੇ ॥੧॥
Ih ṯan hosī kẖāk nimāṇī gor gẖare. ||1||
This body shall turn to dust, *and its home shall be a neglected graveyard. ||1||*

ਆਜੁ ਮਿਲਾਵਾ ਸੇਖ ਫਰੀਦ ਟਾਕਿਮ ਕੂੰਜੜੀਆ ਮਨਹੁ ਮਚਿੰਦੜੀਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Āj milāvā Sekẖ Farīḏ tākim kūnjaṛī▫ā manhu macẖinḏ▫ṛī▫ā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
You can meet the Lord today, O Shaykh Fareed, if you restrain your bird-like desires which keep your mind in turmoil. ||1||Pause|| 

Now the metaphor: If you restrain your bird-like desires which keep your mind in turmoil.  To understand the meaning. First get at the *literal sense of *"bird-like desires" to picture what Farid is describing. Then imagine the *non-literal state of mind* that is like bird-like desires. *The connection *is the metaphor:  a mind in turmoil is driven to seek satisfaction, attached to the here and now, in a never-ending pursuit;   just like a bird is driven by instinct to seek its satisfactions endlessly, repetitively in the material world.  Meaning: the bird-like mind is instinctive, attached to the material needs and satisfactions, doomed to never find satisfaction. For a bird that is its destiny. For the mind it is turmoil. So Farid says, Attach to the Lord (allah) in order to end the turmoil


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 13, 2013)

It seems that everyone is banging against different walls.
Can we start defining the poetic and literal messages in gurbani??
- Because I think we all perceive them slightly differently to one another.

It takes the joy out of poetry !
Just think about all those songs and music out there and if they all meant exactly the same thing to everyone, then music would not be as much fun or interesting !
I like to be 'personal' with my music and lyrics and 'personal' with gurbani.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> It seems that everyone is banging against different walls.
> Can we start defining the poetic and literal messages in gurbani??
> 
> I am not sure who is stopping anyone from doing this.
> ...



Except... we are stuck with two realities. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is poetry. And translations can be only so personal before they have taken a wide detour from what is actually being said. It is a classic problem of the close versus the broad translation. Broad can be very personal but also maddening if it barely connects with the words before our very eyes. In other words, you can only go so far with personal inspiration before it is no longer what Guruji says or means.

Also... for some readers of poetry, the message is one part of the joy of poetry, the emotional part. The other joy for them is the discovery of the creative uses of artistic forms like metaphor, uniquely invented by the poet, or the aesthetic part.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 13, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> .....  I like to be 'personal' with my music and lyrics and 'personal' with gurbani.


Luckysingh ji therein lies the answer.  To be personal you cannot be literal.  Specially if you want to share your personal with others as a unique experience or understanding.

Literals are all identical other than minor matching of words in translation.

By the way this is not just SGGS.  In other religious treatises there is the same divide.  The literals become in eyes of many as the orthodox and non-literal start to be classified as modern or renegades.  

In my humble opinion if Guru ji and all others in SGGS wanted to be literal they would not have done poetic style and embedded metaphors for SGGS.  Poetic with metphors is a style to express beyond literals.  

Unfortunately not all have background in language and the environ of the place Guru ji and others composed SGGS.  It is very hard if not impossible for such to go much beyond literals.  It unfortunately is a weakness and not strength or does not make these  more of a Sikh (see Harmanpreet Singh's challenging assertions in this thread) compared to those who go beyond the literals as Prof. Sahib Singh ji has done in his Darpan.  He has described the literals and then stated the essence behind which I keep in my posts along with my personal understandings.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 13, 2013)

I think 'Chitr' keeps an account of the literal translation and 'Gupt' keeps an account of your metaphoric translations.
Maybe 'Dharamraj' does the final edit on all poetry !:winkingmunda::winkingmunda:eacesign:


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2013)

Perhaps some of the difference, and possibly some of the frustration, lies in how close one is to a tradition of poetry, even to one's own tradition of poetry. Punjabi culture celebrates poets and poetry, and the pattern is pronounced in the diaspora which clings to its roots in this way, of many ways.

The tradition keeps one more at ease with poetry as a mode of communication than might be the case in a culture which views poetry as a waste of time, because nothing substantial comes from it.

It is remarkable how poetry readings, poetry contests, poetry columns and more pervade the diaspora cultures. Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus all share this passion. All I have to do to see that is go to the poetry page of Sikh Spokesman or several other Punjabi language newspapers. I don't understand much of it, but the message is unmistakable. And a person doesn't have to have a university degree in creative writing or literature to write poetry as a Punjabi. A family practice doctor soldiering away during the week at medicine might be writing poetry that he/she later presents at a gurdwara event, only to be the feature story in a Punjabi language paper the next day on the poetry page. And that gives permission and comfort in a big way to word play and blending mind, heart and soul.


----------



## akiva (Apr 14, 2013)

Ambarsaria Ji



Ambarsaria said:


> Unfortunately not all have background in language and the environ of the place Guru ji and others composed Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  It is very hard if not impossible for such to go much beyond literals.



Might I humbly add "and spiritual experience/awareness" to the above -- the context from which Gurbani was written. To truly understand the intention of Guru Ji we would need to share that as well.

Without that we are all, to one degree or another, like a blind person striving to understand colour.

Akiva


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 14, 2013)

Ambarsaria said:


> Let us review in completeness the shabad that Harmanpreet Singh ji has posted in this thread.    ਸੂਹੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
> 
> 
> > Sūhī mėhlā 5.
> ...


sat sri akaal and Vaisakhi greetings to all

thanks Ambarsaria ji for bringing entire shabad of Guru Granth Sahib with translation and explanation of Prof Sahib singh ji .

neither me ,nor Akasha ji ,lucky ji or Akiva ji is denying  use of metaphors  in Guru Granth sahib ji  , but   rejecting metaphors as meaningless poetry is nothing less than disrespect of Guru Shabad.


blessings ..


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 14, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> sat sri akaal and Vaisakhi greetings to all
> 
> neither me ,nor Akasha ji ,lucky ji or Akiva ji is denying  use of metaphors  in Guru Granth sahib ji  , but   rejecting metaphors as meaningless poetry is nothing less than disrespect of Guru Shabad.
> 
> ...



harmanprret singh ji

Please tell us where that happened and who said such. This is the second such statement in the thread.  All this looks like a change of canoes in midstream. What is more - it can be taken a different way - as  a deliberate effort to derail the thread once a debate is turning against you. And to engage in more faith-based finger-pointing as before. This time I make a direct request. Consider it also a warning.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 14, 2013)

Admin ji ,

i have no such intentions to derail the thread  and i don;t care if discussion is turning against  me or along me  . 

may i ask you 

whats your understanding of quoted shabad especially "Dhan sutti pir Sad Jaaganta "  ?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 14, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Admin ji ,
> 
> i have no such intentions to derail the thread  and i don;t care if discussion is turning against  me or along me  .
> 
> ...



I recommend you apologize to those members whose respect of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and their nature as Sikhs has been called into question, or at least explain why you formed the impression that they disrespect Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. We can usually depend on the grace and good-will of our loyal members.

Second point. I am not about to do anymore heavy lifting than I already do in the shabad translation department.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 14, 2013)

akiva said:


> Ambarsaria Ji
> Might I humbly add "and spiritual experience/awareness" to the above -- the context from which Gurbani was written. To truly understand the intention of Guru Ji we would need to share that as well.......


Akiva ji thanks for your post.  I believe that your comment is quite valid.  

The actual mixture of what leads us to personal understanding of our Guru ji's teachings through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji I am sure varies from person to person.  Some are blessed to understand by just listening.  Others just by reading.  Many through doing or reading discourses and so on.  There is no perfect way that anyone can dictate to someone else and it is all very personal.

I do believe that it is quite dis-respectful of your fellow Sikhs when people take a word out of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and start manipulating how it is all of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  Same if they take a pangti/line and do that as in some posts here.  One cannot even take a shabad to convey the essence of totality of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  

I humbly suggest that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is indivisible.  There is much to learn by going through more of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji  and as often one can even going over same part many a times.  As the understanding enriches our understanding could also change versus what we may have understood in the first pass.

Prof. Sahib SIngh ji makes some of the points as I listed above in his Darpan.  One of the most important comment that Prof. Sahib Singh ji also makes is that "one does not read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to prove a point or with a motive."  This is a very common pitfall where one can say search srigranth.org for items like,


meat
wine
conscious
light
nectar
...........
          - and come away with global pronouncements.   It is good exercise for self but not a deductive approach to promulgate or make general pronouncements.

I Appreciate your wise posts.

Regards and Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *I do also observe that the one liner, few words, one shabad pushers are cutting Sikhism at its roots by denigrating Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  When one does these things then one starts to initiate that other parts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are somehow redundant or of lesser value/guidance.  

The Dehras and Babeys are notorious in doing so as they become the equivalent of fast food joints for spirituality.  Recall how parchis/notes on paper are dished out at some dehras.  You repeat what is on the paper and you will get a son, you will succeed in business, you will be cured of disease, etc.  Nothing can be further from our Guru ji's teachings in this regard.

Even though one should not judge but rather ask, it is amusing to some times observe how a given poster is pushing the lines of Dehra 1 or Baba 2.  One comes to know or conjecture this by knowing a bit about such dehras and babas.  Perhaps one day such will unshackle themselves and get closer to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  I note that in principle no one is permanently lost as a Sikh from the greater brotherhood per teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as anyone can turn towards Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji any moment in their lives.  One spark can light a fire.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 14, 2013)

akiva said:


> Ambarsaria Ji
> 
> *Might I humbly add "and spiritual experience/awareness" to the above -- the context from which Gurbani was written. To truly understand the intention of Guru Ji we would need to share that as well.
> *
> ...



Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

That is an interesting outlook and a valid one. Could you please elaborate your thought on what is in bold above and its modus operandi?

1.How can one share one's personal experience of one's inner spiritual treasures on the internet to the faceless world?

2. One's awareness in what respect?

3. How does one go about finding our Gurus' intentions and/or of all the other writers of Gurbani in the SGGS?

4. Lastly, how can one use that experience and awareness learnt through Gurbani to enhance one's everyday's life?

Input from all would be highly appreciated.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (Apr 15, 2013)

Tejwant Ji
Guru Fateh

The first "given" is that Spiritual experiences and awareness change how one perceives the world. The degree of that change is proportional to the degree of the experience.

The second given is that Gurbani was written/taught by people who had undergone that change.



Tejwant Singh said:


> Akiva ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



the "quick" answer is that one can't - because in a real sense it's a non-verbal experience. When talking with another person who has shared that experience one can refer to elements using words (hence the personification and metaphor in Gurbani) and the other person will recognise the context you are refering to. 

Hence the importance of Sangat (in it's original intention)

The most we can do to share on the internet (or even in person) is 1) try to describe the experience as simply as possible; 2) more importantly --let the lesson of that experience change us and how we relate/interact with the world/people around us.

(As an aside -- there ARE scientific mappings of the "spiritual experience" space -- Grof is a good place to start.)



Tejwant Singh said:


> 2. One's awareness in what respect?



I used "awareness" in the Zen Buddhist sense - both the "self-awareness" and the awareness of the world outside us, that comes when the veil of illusion is stripped away.

As one progresses in meditation/simran/jap one (should) begin to have flashes of that awareness (by analogy -- outside on a dark night, when a flash of lightning briefly illuminates the world around you). As one progresses that awareness happens more often and for longer periods of time.



Tejwant Singh said:


> 3. How does one go about finding our Gurus' intentions and/or of all the other writers of Gurbani in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji?



The simple answer: by growing in Spiritual awareness. As one grows the meaning of Gurbani will reveal itself.

For those of us without that insight: study and contemplation (which is, itself, a form of meditation/simran/jap) can also reveal insights and meaning.




Tejwant Singh said:


> 4. Lastly, how can one use that experience and awareness learnt through Gurbani to enhance one's everyday's life?



As we grow it should become harder and harder to do the "wrong" act, and easier to do the "right" act.

But it's not automatic -- as long as we are here the temptations of the world/flesh are there as well.

All the best
Akiva


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 17, 2013)

> I do also observe that the one liner, few words, one shabad pushers are cutting Sikhism at its roots



Veer ji ironically our Mool Mantra is a one liner ,a few words and our root. 

Ps I'm biased towards one liners


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Jul 14, 2016)

At the Gurdwara last night I noticed on the screen, some words that would assist in this:

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji P. 940 
This seems to suggest the creator does not only POSSESS consciousness.... but in fact IS CONSCIOUSNESS.  



> ਕਹਾ ਤੇ ਆਵੈ ਕਹਾ ਇਹੁ ਜਾਵੈ ਕਹਾ ਇਹੁ ਰਹੈ ਸਮਾਈ ॥ Kahā ṯe āvai kahā ih jāvai kahā ih rahai samā▫ī.
> Where did we come from? Where are we going? Where will we be absorbed?
> ਏਸੁ ਸਬਦ ਕਉ ਜੋ ਅਰਥਾਵੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰ ਤਿਲੁ ਨ ਤਮਾਈ ॥ Ės sabaḏ ka▫o jo arthāvai ṯis gur ṯil na ṯamā▫ī.
> One who reveals the meaning of this Shabad is the Guru, who has no greed at all.
> ...



and
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji P.997 (I didn't quote the whole thing because there really is no other way to interpret the words 'supreme consciousness' however I put the page so that you can read the whole thing yourself.)



> ਗੁਰ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਮਿਲਾਇ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਮਿਲਿ ਸੁਰਤੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਸਮਾਣੀ ॥ Gur purkẖai purakẖ milā▫e parabẖ mil surṯī suraṯ samāṇī.
> The Guru, the Primal Being, has united me with the Primal Lord God. My consciousness has merged into the *supreme consciousness.*



also

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji P. 1362
Again, it is suggesting that our consciousness can be merged with a 'supreme consciousness'  I don't see how the word consciousness can just be a metaphor in these cases.  It's pretty straight language... and the meaning is pretty straight forward in suggesting that there is a supreme consciousness.  



> ਮਿਤ ਕਾ ਚਿਤੁ ਅਨੂਪੁ ਮਰੰਮੁ ਨ ਜਾਨੀਐ ॥ Miṯ kā cẖiṯ anūp maramm na jānī▫ai.
> The Consciousness of my Friend is incomparably beautiful. Its mystery cannot be known.
> ਗਾਹਕ ਗੁਨੀ ਅਪਾਰ ਸੁ ਤਤੁ ਪਛਾਨੀਐ ॥ Gāhak gunī apār so ṯaṯ pacẖẖānī▫ai.
> One who purchases the priceless virtues realizes the essence of reality.
> ...


----------



## Original (Jul 15, 2016)

Hello Harkiran & Balbir - hope you good n living it to the T !



Harkiran Kaur said:


> I don't see how the word consciousness can just be a metaphor in these cases


..it's difficult to comment without full coverage, but suffice to say, your observation stands it's ground and is further supported by the term *"parm pad".* Parm Pad is a state of consciousness that succeeds the three ordinary states. In other words, *chautha pad*, meaning the fourth state:

ਰਜ ਗੁਣ ਤਮ ਗੁਣ ਸਤ ਗੁਣ ਕਹੀਐ ਇਹ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਭ ਮਾਇਆ ॥ *ਚਉਥੇ ਪਦ ਕਉ ਜੋ ਨਰੁ ਚੀਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੈ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਹੀ ਪਰਮ ਪਦੁ ਪਾਇਆ *
_Raj gun tam gun sat gun kaheeai ih teri sabh maya. Chauthe pad kau jo nar cheenai tin hee param pad paaiaa_ ||2||: *(O Lord) Raajas, Taamas, and Saatav modes are the creations of Your Maya. The man who realizes the Fourth State; he alone obtains the Supreme Status *||2|| [SGGSJ 1123].

Goodnight !


----------



## sukhsingh (Apr 19, 2017)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> A conscious creator in Sikhi?
> 
> I have noticed on here in recent times that some people claim to be Sikh and yet do not believe in a conscious creator, but instead personally interpret Gurbani to be instruction on how to live in harmony with nature / creation and compare Sikhi to Athiesm. But they do not believe in a conscious creator / deity. Others, personify Waheguru as being conscious of creation.  I thought this was a good debate… Personally I believe in a conscious creator, not just because of the obvious intelligent design that to me could not just happen by chance, but also from quotes in Gurbani that seem to support ONE supreme conscious creator, from which everything exists in a state of duality from that ONE.
> 
> ...


Just read this it is a interesting article but I'm not sure I agree.. Would love to explore it further


----------



## namritanevaeh (Jan 6, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> A conscious creator in Sikhi?
> 
> I have noticed on here in recent times that some people claim to be Sikh and yet do not believe in a conscious creator, but instead personally interpret Gurbani to be instruction on how to live in harmony with nature / creation and compare Sikhi to Athiesm. But they do not believe in a conscious creator / deity. Others, personify Waheguru as being conscious of creation.



One thing for sure. If there is a conscious creator, or we are part of the dream of a master pupeteer, then I personally can't view him or her as conscious (ie cognitive), AND omnipotent and yet also all loving. The 3 don't intersect as far as I'm concerned.

If I were to view a single entity god as the "parent" of all humanity, creating everything and controlling everything, that would mean that that entity not only created Sikhs with their philosophies, it also created Hindus and Muslims and Jews and Christians (etc) and given the religious strife in the world, the number of people who die in the name of religion, that can't be all loving.

THATS like a parent pitting their children against each other by giving them differing stories, and sitting back with a bowl of popcorn while they argue and kill each other off in the name of religion. There is no way I can equate that with "all loving" at all.

Therefore, I surmise that any god that could exist is potentially omnipotent in the sense of power that can be unleashed in a tornado. Even the powerful fragility of a butterfly's wings, and yet that being would have to be lacking in cognitive thought. Therefore any arguing over religion and other stuff would be not its "fault".

My other alternatives for gods is either polytheism and they admit their faults or "human like flaws", and a lack of complete omnipotence, or a complete lack of God whatsoever.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Jan 14, 2018)

namritanevaeh said:


> One thing for sure. If there is a conscious creator, or we are part of the dream of a master pupeteer, then I personally can't view him or her as conscious (ie cognitive), AND omnipotent and yet also all loving. The 3 don't intersect as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> If I were to view a single entity god as the "parent" of all humanity, creating everything and controlling everything, that would mean that that entity not only created Sikhs with their philosophies, it also created Hindus and Muslims and Jews and Christians (etc) and given the religious strife in the world, the number of people who die in the name of religion, that can't be all loving.
> 
> ...



I view Creator in a different way. The way you describe above, intimates that Creator is SEPARATE from creation. As in a different entity (meaning both entity as an individual but also entity as an organization). Something away or apart from us. This is not how I see God. 

Is a dreamer capable of being omnipotent (insofar as the dream is concerned?) being master or puppeteer the dreamer is the one who is coordinating the entire dream, creating every element within their own mind. Love is an emotion which implies duality (love vs hate). That means it falls WITHIN the dream and not outside of it (outside the dream there is only one dreamer so how could one either love or hate ‘itself’??? It knows no other and yet ALL others. Therefore human emotion is inconsequatial. The Creator creates, just as the dreamer dreams, the canvas being within themselves. God to me, is not some separate deity sitting ‘somewhere else’ apart from me. Instead, my body, my physical reality, my emotions, my actions are all contained within the dream of the Creator. They ultimately are not real. What IS real, is the I AM behind my body. That conscious awareness of BEING. That I AM just IS. It must originate from outside the dream or else there is nobody to experience the dream. That awareness of being, existing. That is actually the same ONE awareness within ALL beings who exist within the dream. But there is only one dreamer. That dreamer is God. Therefore the awareness in ALL is actually God. So you can see how I view Creator is much different than a separate entity who exists ‘somewhere else’ overseeing things as a parent... 

You can dream tonight that there is a tornado and everyone in X town dies. Now, did YOU the dreamer show a lack of love by creating that tornado in your dream? WHO if anyone are you lacking to show love for? Dream characters? They never truly existed. You created them in your mind. But they DID exist... however YOU were the consciousness who was controlling those characters. They were YOU. All of them! 

Gurbani doesn’t teach that Creation is actually separate from Creator. It teaches they are one and the same. That this world is a dream, an illusion. That Akal Purakh IS the chess board, the pieces, and the player all at once. That Creation emerged from the light (or illumination -> consciousness of God) and that the light (or illumination -> consciousness of God) is within All of Creation. The word ‘jot’ meaning literal ‘light’ can mean light as opposed to darkness which implies duality (and a need for physical eyes to ‘see’ in a physical sense), but can also mean metaphorically ‘knowledge’ or ‘awareness’. We all know and understand the meaning of when someone becomes enlightened, or sees the light. We don’t mean literal light as in opposed to darkness, we mean they have had conscious realization or a new awareness.  When Gurbani speaks about the light of Akal Purakh being within all of creation it’s speaking of the primal knowledge of our true identity. That we are, the dreamer.


----------



## InduBhushanDas (Feb 22, 2018)

Let me explain my view on conscious creator. I am vaishnava (devotee of Krishna), so naturally we accept that "Krishnas tu Bhagavan swayam" - "It is Krishna, but not others, is Supreme Personality of Godhead, creator ". Krishna is primary crator, while there are others.

In sikhism you also use words like Bhagavan, Parabrahman, Paramatma (also in this thread). We believe that long time ago, millions of lifetimes ago we descended (fell down) from Vaikuntha (spiritul world, spiritual eternal planets where Krishna-Narayana lives) - into this samsara, world of reincarnation.

The first life in material world is on level of Lord Brahma. It looks like not every Brahma is devotee of Krishna/Vishnu, but in our universe Brahma is a devotee. Brahma is secondary creator. You say "lord created in his image" - true, Krishna created us to become Lords Brahmas. so, Krishna expands as Balarama/Baladeva, from last expands chaturvyuha - Sankarshana, Pradyuman, Aniruddha and Vasudeva. Fromvyuha expands Narayana. Narayana is the Paramatma or Supersoul of all spiritual world, Vaikuntha. then from Narayan expands second chaturvyuha (four Lords). thn from vyuha expands Maha-Vishnu. Maha-vishnu is a supersoul of all brahmandas which are material universes.

From Mahavishnu when he breathes out expand millions of brahmandas, and into each He enters as Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu. THat Vishnu lies on Garbhodaka ocean, and from navel of Vishnu grows huge lotus (in Bible that is said on 3rd day plants are created - lotuses from Vishnus).

In each lotus there are "seeds of planets/stars", so Brahma, after being born on lotus, takes those seeds, and on 4th day of creation (of Bible), he creates planets, stars, moon etc.

Thus Brahma is 2ndary creator.  yes, he is in golden egg (brahma-anda- egg of Brahma).

Ek omkan is different. that seems to mean nirgun and sagun Brahman.

God is realized in 3 steps: Brahman, then higher level is paramatma, and highest is Bhagavan ...

Omkar is more or less impersonal idea, but still Om is God as person (trimurti - VIshnu, Brahma plus Shiva).
it doesn't ever mean that God was at first impersonal and then becomes a person. never. God is always a person.

The two features of god are person and impersonal rays.

if we call God Brahman or Parabrahman, we mean person - Vishnu, Krishna, Narayana, etc (any avatar of Vishnu).

but impersonal god means just rays of Brahman - brahma(n)jyoti (jyoti means rays).

those who think god is impersonal, they realize only impersonal brahmajyoti rays. they don't know about Goloka -eternal planet of Krishna or about Vaikuntha of Narayana.

but those who realize Paramatma -they realize Vishnu or Narayana, and can reach Vaikuntha.

those who realize Bhagavan Krishna - reach Him, highest planet of Vaikuntha - Goloka Vrindavana.

in sikhism there is aplace for people of all three levels - those who realize Brahman only, and for Paramatma-realized, and for Bhagavan realized (personalists).

realization of Brahman is for jnanis (philosophers, speculators).realization of Paramatma is for yogis. Paramatma is supreme soul in heart/soul of everyone.

and Bhagavan is for bhakti-yogis - devotees of Lord Krishna/Vishnu

see story of Brahma creating universe in Shrimad-bhagavatam:
vanisource.org/wiki/SB_3.8:_Manifestation_of_Brahma_from_Garbhodakasayi_Visnu
vanisource.org/wiki/SB_3.9:_Brahma%27s_Prayers_for_Creative_Energy
vanisource.org/wiki/SB_3.10:_Divisions_of_the_Creation


----------



## Sikhilove (Feb 23, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> A conscious creator in Sikhi?
> 
> I have noticed on here in recent times that some people claim to be Sikh and yet do not believe in a conscious creator, but instead personally interpret Gurbani to be instruction on how to live in harmony with nature / creation and compare Sikhi to Athiesm. But they do not believe in a conscious creator / deity. Others, personify Waheguru as being conscious of creation.  I thought this was a good debate… Personally I believe in a conscious creator, not just because of the obvious intelligent design that to me could not just happen by chance, but also from quotes in Gurbani that seem to support ONE supreme conscious creator, from which everything exists in a state of duality from that ONE.
> 
> ...




Lol yep I agree.

I think we all forgot. I'm just beginning to remember again. 

Satnaam. Naam is the only True Lover. This is what we forgot. 

Your post is in agreement with Gurbani, Gurbani tells us all of this but we fail to accept it. Our beloved Gurus wanted us to remember.


----------



## Sikhilove (May 24, 2018)

Ishna said:


> *Re: A Conscious Creator in Sikhi and Other Faith Traditions ?*
> 
> I'm eagre to get into this thread when I have some time (I would like to contemplate it here at work but I don't think my boss would like that!).
> 
> ...



It depends on whether u believe a tree has a soul, a spiritual heart. And whether this has an affect on how it grows and its appearance, on hukam etc.


----------



## Ishna (May 25, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> It depends on whether u believe a tree has a soul, a spiritual heart. And whether this has an affect on how it grows and its appearance, on hukam etc.



How so?


----------



## Sikhilove (May 26, 2018)

Ishna said:


> How so?



I was referring to the way you said a  tree is programmed by its DNA to grow.

Humans have the ability to change their posture and some argue to even alter their looks with their minds and souls.

Trees have souls, perhaps they are of similar capability. Who knows? God is capable of all things..


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (May 27, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> I was referring to the way you said a  tree is programmed by its DNA to grow.
> 
> Humans have the ability to change their posture and some argue to even alter their looks with their minds and souls.
> 
> Trees have souls, perhaps they are of similar capability. Who knows? God is capable of all things..



It’s proven trees communicate through root systems and have a ‘memory’ of sorts. They can also move to avoid harm and when electrodes applied there was shown they react to pain.


----------



## Ishna (May 27, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> It’s proven trees communicate through root systems and have a ‘memory’ of sorts. They can also move to avoid harm and when electrodes applied there was shown they react to pain.



You can also put them to sleep with ether!


----------

