# Meeting God



## Harry Haller (Mar 18, 2014)

I often read about the desire to meet god, how people wish to finally meet god and spend eternity at his feet bathing them in tears of joy, personally I can think of better ways to spend eternity, but we are all different. 

 I got up at 6 this morning, as I always do, god was lying next to me with a headache, I got god some aspirin, and then noted god was also on the bed scratching himself, so I got god some food and water, I got dressed and went downstairs, behind a huge door was god, 2 gods in fact, I opened the door and hugged god, kissed god, rubbed his nose, I could feel a tear in my eye, god looked so beautiful, I thought about bathing gods feet with my single tear, just to see what it felt like, but I noticed god had something quite disgusting on his foot, which seemed like a good time to leave and go to work. 

 On the way to work, god was driving in front of me, very slowly, and I was driving a very underpowered people carrier, with about as much guts as something very gutless indeed, I started to dislike god, he was making me late, and I had stuff to do, ten minutes later, god finally pulled off and I was able to get back up to speed, although, turning the corner, I noticed god trying to cross the road, so I stopped and let him cross, he gave me a big smile and a cheery wave, I decided to stop for petrol and breakfast, which today is a pasty and lucozade, I stopped to let god go before me, god was wearing a mini skirt and a tight blouse, I tried to remember that it was still god, and successfully did my best brotherly bear routine, I think god likes it when you remember that she is god underneath

 I've met god so many times today, and its only 7.11am.......


----------



## gur_meet (Mar 18, 2014)

harry ji

I would like you to add : Bed too is God , Door is God , Asprin is God , Road is God , Car is God ...

like a fish in water. Does not the beginning in slok mahala 9 point towards this

gurmeet singh


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 18, 2014)

gur_meet said:


> harry ji
> 
> I would like you to add : Bed too is God , Door is God , Asprin is God , Road is God , Car is God ...
> 
> ...



slowly brother, slowly, we do not wish to shock those that have spent all their lives searching for god only to inform them that he has been in front of their noses all along

 yes my friend, everything is god, and that is not just rhetoric, everything is god, and thus maybe instead of yearning for a mysterious set of feet to bathe in tears, we should open our eyes to what is in front of us


----------



## Ishna (Mar 18, 2014)

What about God within you?


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 18, 2014)

Ishna said:


> What about God within you?



maybe Im going mad, actually probably no maybe about it, well I think the God within you is a gift only to humans, I mean, sure everything has God in it, animals, etc, but we seem to be the only species that can connect with that God within, to the point of being God, of carrying out Gods work, of being Gods representative on Earth, an ambassador of God, 

And another thing! A common thought seems to be that once one has met God, well its all hunky dory after that, you are in happiness peace contentment etc etc etc. You just sit there bathing his feet in tears and that's your life, great eh, 

My experience with god is that it is a service, its hard work, its inconvenient, it requires discipline, logic, even maybe wisdom (damn), and you do not sit there and cry tears of happiness, you work, you do, you look, and as soon as you see god in need, you act, to some that's actually heaven, not me, not yet, but to some


----------



## Ishna (Mar 18, 2014)

You help people because you see God in need?

Why not just helping people because it's the right thing to do?

Some people talk about meeting god as you've decribed with sarcasm.  Others interpret meeting god as coming to the realisation of the panentheistic presence of the creative force within and beyond all.  This meeting (realisation) is what we need to keep front of mind (simran) so we can, as Gurmeet Ji has said, be the fish in the water of the creative force; this is where the anand is.  Seeing It in everything, including yourself, and as the cause of everything is darshan.

No one said being a good person was easy.  Just contemplate a panthic Ardaas to be reminded of that.

Who is to say what kind of awareness animals have?  I'm sure we've been over this in a thousand threads already.

Humans have the fortunate position of being able, if we're lucky, to feel good about knowing our place in the universe and making the connection with (getting the perspective of) our creator.

I'm going to find a shabad or two about acknowledging god within yourself, brother.


----------



## gur_meet (Mar 18, 2014)

harry haller said:


> slowly brother, slowly, we do not wish to shock those that have spent all their lives searching for god only to inform them that he has been in front of their noses all along
> 
> yes my friend, everything is god, and that is not just rhetoric, everything is god, and thus maybe instead of yearning for a mysterious set of feet to bathe in tears, we should open our eyes to what is in front of us




AGREED


----------



## Ishna (Mar 18, 2014)

Aside from the obvious aarti in kirtan sohila, I think this paurhi from ang 149 may provide a little food for thought.  Kudos to Bhai Manmohan Singh Ji for the translation:

ਪਉੜੀ ॥ 
Pa▫oṛī. 
Pauri.  

ਚਾਰੇ ਕੁੰਡਾ ਦੇਖਿ ਅੰਦਰੁ ਭਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Cẖāre kundā ḏekẖ anḏar bẖāli▫ā. 
Looking around in four directions I searched my inner-self.  

ਸਚੈ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਅਲਖਿ ਸਿਰਜਿ ਨਿਹਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Sacẖai purakẖ alakẖ siraj nihāli▫ā. 
There I saw the invisible True Lord, the Creator.  

ਉਝੜਿ ਭੁਲੇ ਰਾਹ ਗੁਰਿ ਵੇਖਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Ujẖaṛ bẖule rāh gur vekẖāli▫ā. 
I strayed in the wilderness. The Guru has shown me the way.  

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸਚੇ ਵਾਹੁ ਸਚੁ ਸਮਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Saṯgur sacẖe vāhu sacẖ samāli▫ā. 
Hail unto the True Sat Guru through whom I have remembered the True Lord.  

ਪਾਇਆ ਰਤਨੁ ਘਰਾਹੁ ਦੀਵਾ ਬਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Pā▫i▫ā raṯan gẖarāhu ḏīvā bāli▫ā. 
The Guru has lighted the lamp and within my home I have found the emerald.  

ਸਚੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਸਲਾਹਿ ਸੁਖੀਏ ਸਚ ਵਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Sacẖai sabaḏ salāhi sukẖī▫e sacẖ vāli▫ā. 
The True Persons who praise the True Name remain in peace.  

ਨਿਡਰਿਆ ਡਰੁ ਲਗਿ ਗਰਬਿ ਸਿ ਗਾਲਿਆ ॥ 
Nidri▫ā dar lag garab sė gāli▫ā. 
Awe overtakes them who are without the Lord's fear. They are destroyed by self-conceit.  

ਨਾਵਹੁ ਭੁਲਾ ਜਗੁ ਫਿਰੈ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ॥੨੪॥ 
Nāvhu bẖulā jag firai beṯāli▫ā. ||24|| 
Having forgotten the Name the world is roaming about like a demon.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 18, 2014)

> You help people because you see God in need?


 
 I do! if I am honest, I would rather go and do something else, but I can't. 



> Why not just helping people because it's the right thing to do?


 
 for some reason, the right thing to do, and helping god seem to be entwined, I suppose both, to me are what truthful living is about



> Some people talk about meeting god as you've decribed with sarcasm.


 
 they do, and I cannot understand it, however, sarcasm and humour have good groundings in Sikhi!



> I'm going to find a shabad or two about acknowledging god within yourself, brother


 
 thank you, we can dissect them together


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 18, 2014)

Ishna said:


> Aside from the obvious aarti in kirtan sohila, I think this paurhi from ang 149 may provide a little food for thought. Kudos to Bhai Manmohan Singh Ji for the translation:
> 
> ਪਉੜੀ ॥
> Pa▫oṛī.
> ...



well, sis, I never doubted God to be within me, I just doubted the connection


----------



## SaintSoldier1699 (Mar 18, 2014)

harry haller said:


> well, sis, I never doubted God to be within me, I just doubted the connection



Great way to put it harry Ji!


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 18, 2014)

harry haller said:


> maybe Im going mad, actually probably no maybe about it, well I think the God within you is a gift only to humans, I mean, sure everything has God in it, animals, etc, but we seem to be the only species that can connect with that God within, to the point of being God, of carrying out Gods work, of being Gods representative on Earth, an ambassador of God,



How can we as humans ever say for certain that this is true?? Recently scientists have proven that animals do possess consciousness... even consciousness on the same level as we do.  Just because we can't effectively communicate with them does not mean that they don't have elaborate language... sometimes as sounds, sometimes as body language, where they can communicate with one another in a way more advanced than we ever thought they did! 

Dolphins for example can reason... they have a complex language and call individuals by unique 'names'  India has actually taken the stance that dolphins are considered non-human persons.  Apes can communicate with sign language to us on the level of a human child!  

How can we say for sure than animals do not ponder their own existence?  Until recent history, we assumed animals do not even possess consciousness at all and therefore do not experience pain... that the reactions they exhibit in response to painful stimuli is just a preprogrammed response, and no different than if a computer reacted in a preprogrammed, unconscious way.  But we now know differently!

So I don't think we are unique - and I don't think we are the only ones to possess God within or a way to realize that connection.  Perhaps the difference, we are the ones who doubt the connection while the animals are innately aware of it?? 

Basic reasoning / philosophy:  
Gurbani tells us God is all.  If God is all, then by deduction all is God, because nothing could exist that was not.   

Look to Japji Sahib:



> Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji P.2
> 
> ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥
> Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār.
> ...



(I think that qualifies as the whole verse... remind me again, it's # to # right?  So this is everything between 3 and 4 - so I am not just taking one line out of its context here) 

So here we humans are.... forever looking for God....  Basically, as shown above from Japji Sahib, it does not matter what we offer in order to try to glimpse God, it doesn't matter what we do to try to win God's affections, because if God IS all, then we can never possibly possess anything that isn't already in his possession!  And it doesn't matter because we don't need to offer anything at all because we too are in his possession!  And to find God we only need to contemplate this deep truth and revelation - naan Simran - remembrance. We are not looking for something that exists separate from us.  We are merely 'remembering' who we already are. 

----

Just my take on it, and I am sure others will disagree


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 19, 2014)

Veera 

Imagine you went to town and after a while felt hungry but thought I don't have any money on me and come back home.

On removing your coat you find a long lost note in the inside pocket,so it is with God.

The one who thinks he doesn't have him is hungry, the one who remembers is satisfied.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 19, 2014)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Veera
> 
> Imagine you went to town and after a while felt hungry but thought I don't have any money on me and come back home.
> 
> ...



hungry, satisfied, these words bring me to the very crux of my argument, were the many brave Sikhs who fought in the wars, who watched comrades, wives, children butchered, who stood up to tyranny, not just in the past, but even now, even today, do they care about a hunger for god, were they satisfied with god? No, in my view they were attached to the very command of god, they were more interested in Hukam than god per se. The many translations of the SGGS have done a huge disservice to Sikhism, they have Christianised god, they have used terms that do little justice to the god as described in Mool Mantra, and we search these terms, and read these terms, and we think that we can understand Creator through these, it cannot be done, thank god they left the word Hukam alone, or who knows what Sikhism would be passing for today

Why is it that whenever 'meeting god' is mentioned, one assumes the experience will be pleasant, with nice clothes and nice foods, and pleasures, well to me its not pleasant, its not satisfying, there is work to be done, much work to be done, and it is doing that work, happily, cheerfully, following Hukam, and embracing the truth that does not necessarily bring satisfaction, or pleasure, it just stops the screaming, it just makes life bearable, immersing yourself even deeper, takes you to a point, in my view, of peace, perception, responsibility and love for all Creation. 

meeting god, its a lifestyle, a state of mind, a connection

in my view anyway


----------



## Ishna (Mar 19, 2014)

Does Gurbani not talk about the pain of separation like the songbird pining for the raindrop?  Or the love of connection as the fish loves the water?

What hunger is Guru Nanak talking about that isn't apeased by piling up worldly goods?  Or is that a mistranslation too?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 19, 2014)

harry haller said:


> The many translations of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji have done a huge disservice to Sikhism, they have Christianised god,


 
In your opinion, how have they 'Christianized' God in the translations? From everything I have read, the translations explain the Sikh concept of God as something very different from the Christian concept.  That being:

Christian Concept of God = A personal omnipotent entity that is separate from his Creation

Sikh Concept Of God = God is both creator and creation, nirgun and sargun, God is One / all and can only possibly be expressed by the term 'Sat', the ultimate and timeless 'truth' of reality.  

Thw two seem very different to me!


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 19, 2014)

Ishna said:


> Does Gurbani not talk about the pain of separation like the songbird pining for the raindrop? Or the love of connection as the fish loves the water?
> 
> What hunger is Guru Nanak talking about that isn't apeased by piling up worldly goods? Or is that a mistranslation too?


 
The pain of separation... like the King who falls asleep and dreams that he is a beggar, separated from his riches he hungers for them, not realizing that he had in fact never really lost anything at all?


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 19, 2014)

In your opinion, how have they 'Christianized' God in the translations? 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji P.2 

ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥ 
Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār. 
True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love.
ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥ 
Ākẖahi mangahi ḏehi ḏehi ḏāṯ kare ḏāṯār. 
People beg and pray, "Give to us, give to us", and the Great Giver gives His Gifts.
ਫੇਰਿ ਕਿ ਅਗੈ ਰਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਦਿਸੈ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ॥ 
Fer kė agai rakẖī▫ai jiṯ ḏisai ḏarbār. 
So what offering can we place before Him, by which we might see the Darbaar of His Court?
ਮੁਹੌ ਕਿ ਬੋਲਣੁ ਬੋਲੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਸੁਣਿ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥ 
Muhou kė bolaṇ bolī▫ai jiṯ suṇ ḏẖare pi▫ār. 
What words can we speak to evoke His Love?
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਉ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ 
Amriṯ velā sacẖ nā▫o vadi▫ā▫ī vīcẖār. 
In the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness.
ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥ 
Karmī āvai kapṛā naḏrī mokẖ ḏu▫ār. 
By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.
ਨਾਨਕ ਏਵੈ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਚਿਆਰੁ ॥੪॥ 
Nānak evai jāṇī▫ai sabẖ āpe sacẖiār. ||4|| 
O Nanak, know this well: the True One Himself is All. ||4||


ok lets take something basic, my punjabi is not brilliant, but I do not see any reference to he him his in the original


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 19, 2014)

harry haller said:


> In your opinion, how have they 'Christianized' God in the translations?
> 
> Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji P.2
> 
> ...



The above from Japji Sahib is explaining that we can not possibly offer anything that is not already owned by God.  And that the only thing we can do is contemplate God in order to find God... ok you see how odd it sounds when I do not use gender in English when trying to reference the creator? 

The use of the words he, his, him etc.  are because in English we do not have a gender neutral way of explaining something that is not merely an inanimate object.  To call the creator 'IT' just sounds wrong wouldn't you agree?? They used he, him etc... more to denote that it is not an inanimate object but a creative being.  

I don't think it was an attempt to make the Sikh concept of God sound like a male sky daddy image like in Christianity. And most people understand this... at least I thought so.  Since the very first description of God is in the Mool Mantra plainly states that God is 'formless' 'beyond birth and death' - no form = no gender.  Or perhaps maybe since all is God / God is all... and everything in creation has a male and female aspect, then perhaps God is both male and female?  (And I am not talking about physical gender here... but the male / female principle found in everything in nature) This idea is understood in other religions... most notably Buddhism.  But I am not sure how or if Sikhi relates to this concept at all.  I am still studying the deeper philosophies....  And also it could be in relating to the idea of the 'soul bride' which we all are... and the creator as the 'husband' - again since 'soul' is beyond physical, then we are not talking *****es and vaginas here (as politically correct as I could put it)... instead the reference is to the harmonious relationship between the male and female principles found in everything in existence.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 20, 2014)

> The above from Japji Sahib is explaining that we can not possibly offer anything that is not already owned by God. And that the only thing we can do is contemplate God in order to find God...



I actually find the above quite stunningly beautiful and full of sense. 



> ok you see how odd it sounds when I do not use gender in English when trying to reference the creator?



no



> Since the very first description of God is in the Mool Mantra plainly states that God is 'formless' 'beyond birth and death



actually the very first description of god is that there is only one, yet that does not stop the Vedic Sikh brigade from worshipping every Hindu god mentioned in the SGGS, so that argument just does not work, the more you use the word 'he' the more you consign a personalty to god, the more god becomes your personal jesus, the more people talk of the Creator as a person rather than a Creative force


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 20, 2014)

harry haller said:


> actually the very first description of god is that there is only one, yet that does not stop the Vedic Sikh brigade from worshipping every Hindu god mentioned in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, so that argument just does not work, the more you use the word 'he' the more you consign a personalty to god, the more god becomes your personal jesus, the more people talk of the Creator as a person rather than a Creative force


 

That would be misinterpretation I think... because most of the first Sikhs were traditionally followed Hinduism before that, things were written in a context that they could relate to.

Also this is where you and I differ in though because where you believe God is just another word for the unconscious rules and forces in nature, I believe that that the underlying reality to the universe is actually pure consciousness and not matter. To me, creation happened with conscious INTENT. 

And the usage of 'him' 'he' etc. I think WAS to distinguish God from just an automatic unconcious creative force of some kind. Creation could not have just 'happened'. Rules of nature don't write themselves. The universe could not have just popped into existence complete with rules and laws of nature by itself. At some point, everything had to be set into motion by INTENT. 

The vast majority of Sikhs believe in a conscious creator...though that conscious creator is formless, beyond birth and death... so not the Christian / Jesus image of a human male form. But just pure conscious energy. And since it is plainly stated that God IS all. Then all that really exists... the 'truth' of reality is that everything is really just pure consciousness. Matter is manifest out of consciousness... even quantum physics proves that matter is really energy at a very slow rate of vibration. So what is this energy. They won't come straight out and say it, but the basic underlying reality is conscious energy. One pool... meaning we are all connected. (It IS possible to have a conscious creator without envisioning a human body or any form at all)

In fact I could take you through a little reasoning that would show you that the only thing that is 'real' about you yourself, is your being... your consciousness. (Though only you can be the one to decude this) In fact just for starters, over 99.9999% of your own body is empty space! (that's the empty space in every atom) Remove the empty space of every atom on Earth and you have some electrons and quarks left that will equal a grain of rice. (protons and neutrons break down into quarks). These subatomic particles actually pop into and out of existence at random...and act like waves more often than actual particles. (a wave requires a medium btw and 'empty space' can not be a medium. So this empty space is filled with something...an energy field of some sort) Btw Many people are still stuck on Newtonian physics that everything is only matter and nothing else...even when science has gone past this concept. So...even your brain is made up 99.9999% empty space and a few subatomic particles that pop into and out of existence at random and act like waves in some sort of medium. The majority of what we feel and see to be solid are actually due to electromagnetic forces. Mini force fields... The way we perceive our surroundings is an illusion. (And this is not quantum woo as some suggest...I only mentioned the actual proven science here, not what it is suggesting...)

Again let's look further at what's written in Japji Sahib about the nature of God... 



> ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥
> Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār.
> True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love.
> ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥
> ...


 

Perhaps it would be better to create another translation removing all references to He or Him... and replace them with simply 'God'. But then as I said before there is a reference to the 'soul bride' and the husband being God in a divine marraige. And it's not speaking of physical gender for procreation. Or a physical union. It's speaking of the male and female principle within everything in reality - attributes existing within not only our bodies and nature but also even within our own consciousness... and the marriage as the union between us and the divine.

I have been studying the deeper philosophies to Gurbani... from several sources and this is the common consensus. I see no reference to the Christian concept of God at all in Sikhi.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 20, 2014)

> That would be misinterpretation I think... because most of the first Sikhs were traditionally followed Hinduism before that, things were written in a context that they could relate to.


 
agreed



> Also this is where you and I differ in though because where you believe God is just another word for the unconscious rules and forces in nature, I believe that that the underlying reality to the universe is actually pure consciousness and not matter. To me, creation happened with conscious INTENT.


 
Although my posts may intimate against this, I do happen to  agree that Creation happened with conscious intent



> And the usage of 'him' 'he' etc. I think WAS to distinguish God from just an automatic unconcious creative force of some kind. Creation could not have just 'happened'. Rules of nature don't write themselves. The universe could not have just popped into existence complete with rules and laws of nature by itself. At some point, everything had to be set into motion by INTENT.


 
In the original gurmukhi, there is no he, she or it, I think that was intentional on the part of the Gurus. The distinguishing happened in the translation, that is what I have a problem with. 



> The vast majority of Sikhs believe in a conscious creator...though that conscious creator is formless, beyond birth and death... so not the Christian / Jesus image of a human male form


 
not true, most Sikhs I speak to, when I ask them to visualise god come up with an image not far removed from an old Guru Nanak.



> But just pure conscious energy. And since it is plainly stated that God IS all. Then all that really exists... the 'truth' of reality is that everything is really just pure consciousness. Matter is manifest out of consciousness... even quantum physics proves that matter is really energy at a very slow rate of vibration. So what is this energy. They won't come straight out and say it, but the basic underlying reality is conscious energy. One pool... meaning we are all connected. (It IS possible to have a conscious creator without envisioning a human body or any form at all)


 
I agree with you completely, I disagree that most Sikhs see Creator this way. 




> In fact I could take you through a little reasoning that would show you that the only thing that is 'real' about you yourself, is your being... your consciousness. (Though only you can be the one to decude this) In fact just for starters, over 99.9999% of your own body is empty space! (that's the empty space in every atom) Remove the empty space of every atom on Earth and you have some electrons and quarks left that will equal a grain of rice. (protons and neutrons break down into quarks). These subatomic particles actually pop into and out of existence at random...and act like waves more often than actual particles. (a wave requires a medium btw and 'empty space' can not be a medium. So this empty space is filled with something...an energy field of some sort) Btw Many people are still stuck on Newtonian physics that everything is only matter and nothing else...even when science has gone past this concept. So...even your brain is made up 99.9999% empty space and a few subatomic particles that pop into and out of existence at random and act like waves in some sort of medium. The majority of what we feel and see to be solid are actually due to electromagnetic forces. Mini force fields... The way we perceive our surroundings is an illusion. (And this is not quantum woo as some suggest...I only mentioned the actual proven science here, not what it is suggesting...)


 
Agreed



> ਸਾਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਨਾਇ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥
> Sācẖā sāhib sācẖ nā▫e bẖākẖi▫ā bẖā▫o apār.
> True is the Master, True is His Name-speak it with infinite love.
> ਆਖਹਿ ਮੰਗਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦੇਹਿ ਦਾਤਿ ਕਰੇ ਦਾਤਾਰੁ ॥
> ...


 
Although I agree with your translation, my point is simple, far too many Sikhs are tempted to see it very differently



> I have been studying the deeper philosophies to Gurbani... from several sources and this is the common consensus. I see no reference to the Christian concept of God at all in Sikhi.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


 
you appear to have studied well, much respect for that, perhaps that is why you cannot see it, however, it is there, it can be see, and a million Sikhs would disagree with you

although not me..


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 20, 2014)

> In the original gurmukhi, there is no he, she or it, I think that was intentional on the part of the Gurus. The distinguishing happened in the translation, that is what I have a problem with.



That's my point though... in Gurmukhi, it is not as odd as it may seem to those of us who speak English, to not use a 'gender' when referring to God.  It's because 'it' sounds so impersonal, to call God 'it' would sound like we are comparing the Creator with a rock as far as intelligence/consciousness.  It was only required when translating into English because of that reason.  They could not use 'God' as every few words in sentences or it just sounded odd... repetitive.  

As for your beliefs... I am actually surprised because I remember posts where your thoughts came out seemingly in great opposition to the 'conscious creator' idea when I tried to explain before...

Although I do know a few Sikhs in person who use 'he' or 'him' a lot... they still don't picture a male human form, or any form at all... They know God is formless...  but I am surprised to hear that you know so many who would assign God a 'form' since the very first few lines of SGGS plainly say the opposite.  And the first part up to 'Jap' was spoken by God 'Godself' (does that work better than himself?? lol) to Guru Nanak. Those people are misled when assigning a form to the creator.


----------

