# Sikh Atheism



## skd1709 (Sep 26, 2008)

I am a proud Sikh, proud of our history and what the Gurus have done for us. However, I just cannot believe in the concept of God, who created everything, especially when science has proved otherwise. I feel troubled and divided, but I strongly believe that because Sikhism is a spiritual religion, the idea of God can be seperated from our religion.

Can anyone back me up here?


----------



## H.Singh (Sep 26, 2008)

Dear SKD179,

I understand what you are saying, but the truth is that the concept of waheguru or god is an integral part of sikhism. Sikhism's foundation is on the belief of one creator. You must also understand that science hasn't proved that god doesnt exsist. Science has discovered many things that are still unexplained. Also understand that god cannot be found with our 5 senses, you must connect with waheguru with your soul through nam simran. God is beyond our 5 senses.
I know that doesnt help that much, but it should clear some things up

Everything we precieve about the environment is through our 5 senses. The nerves on our hands, in our ears, eyes, nose,etc all give electrical signals to different parts of our brain. What if this isnt reality, what if we are just brains in a jar controlled by somebody who is just giving electrical signals to different parts of the brain?? Do we exist??. Just something to think about.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 26, 2008)

skd1709 said:


> I am a proud Sikh, proud of our history and what the Gurus have done for us. However, I just cannot believe in the concept of God, who created everything, especially when science has proved otherwise. I feel troubled and divided, but I strongly believe that because Sikhism is a spiritual religion, the idea of God can be seperated from our religion.
> 
> Can anyone back me up here?


I can totally understand what you are going through as I have been there my self. 
Science has not disproved the existence of a Sikh God. Read SGGS the Sikh God is VERY different from other Gods. This God cannot be disproven. :yes: How can He/She/It be disproven when Sikhs relate him to energy, infinity, universal law, etc? 

In Sikhism having a God has a purpose. Sikhi says One God and we all belong to the same God, which is a big step towards unity and equality of mankind. Sikhi says God is served through serving humanity, what better way to make the world a better place. By attributing all our deeds to God and by meditating, we all able to stay away from extreme emotions (the five thieves as some call them). 

God is Sargun (all attributes) meaning all things you see around you. God is also nirgun (no attbutes) meaning nothing around you. So God exists and doesn't, at the same time! What does that tell you? That you can *not believe* in God all you want and still *belive* in him. And you can believe in him all you want and still not believe in him. That kind of makes every Sikh an atheist. So if you are atheist Sikh then be proud! (Although you don't have to call yourself atheist)


----------



## AjitFlora (Sep 26, 2008)

Ek Onkar Gur Prasad
Mr. Bhagat, I can only hope that someday this anxiety which you are going through regarding the concept of GOD would become the very source of your bhagati and therfore making you the Bhagat as you name suggest.

Lets us begin: Irrespective of any religion to whom one may belong everyone of us agree that GOD, that almighty power/being is complete in itself. It doesn't require any external support for its existence.Now we bring in Science as you have mentioned in your post that science has proved otherwise.*Please note here, only when one thing is complete in itself can it be used to evaluate or assess the other.* No subjects wheather, science, history,geography,mathematics, chemistry or any other is complete in itself.As you said, science has proved otherwise but the subject science itself is incomplete. We know laws of physics but we don't know why they exist. Since all of us consider GOD to be complete, then only that person, subject,or material which is complete in itself can evaluate GOD. Since there is nothing independently existing by itself beside GOD, so any evaluation we make or we come up with is in error.
Hope this will clarify your anxiety regarding science.
Regarding the concept of GOD: I would appreciate if you could ask you question in more details. But I would still try.
In Sikhism there is only one GOD who is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world. As a human my goal is to have union with GOD.Please note that as a human I keep it as a goal to have union with GOD but it doesn't mean that I am seperated from GOD. Since we all came from GOD, we have GOD in us. The soul is part of GOD itself.Having union with GOD is like going back to our home from where all these started. Guru is seen as the most important thing in Sikhism as Guru act as a bridge for a Sikh to realize GOD.Three things are very important Nam Japna(Meditating on GOD), Kirat Karna(doing ur actions as they are supposed to be done), Vadka Shakna(Sharing with others).
Again please refer you question in what respect you don't understnad the concept of GOD.
Once again I want to repeat regarding science, Only a complete thing can evaluate another complete thing. How can we use science which is incomplete in itself 
to measure the GOD we all consider complete.
Thanking You.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 27, 2008)

AjitFlora ji, he says 





> However, I just cannot believe in the concept of God


and you are saying 





> Again please refer you question in what respect you don't understnad the concept of GOD.


---------------------------------------------


> Only a complete thing can evaluate another complete thing. How can we use science which is incomplete in itself
> to measure the GOD we all consider complete.


God is sargun. agreed? Sargun is all attributes, therefore God has all attributes. agreed? Therefore, God is both complete and incomplete. and hence, we can use something incomplete to evaluate him/her/it.


----------



## Saint Soldier (Sep 27, 2008)

> I can totally understand what you are going through as I have been there my self.
> Science has not disproved the existence of a Sikh God. Read SGGS the Sikh God is VERY different from other Gods. This God cannot be disproven. :yes: How can He/She/It be disproven when Sikhs relate him to energy, infinity, universal law, etc?


 
hey brother bhagat singh will u plz tell me how is sikh god different from others .guru sahib told every one that god is one:yes: nd ur trying to say that we hav a different god .:inca:


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Sep 27, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> I can totally understand what you are going through as I have been there my self.
> Science has not disproved the existence of a Sikh God. Read SGGS the Sikh God is VERY different from other Gods. This God cannot be disproven. :yes: How can He/She/It be disproven when Sikhs relate him to energy, infinity, universal law, etc?
> 
> In Sikhism having a God has a purpose. Sikhi says One God and we all belong to the same God, which is a big step towards unity and equality of mankind. Sikhi says God is served through serving humanity, what better way to make the world a better place. By attributing all our deeds to God and by meditating, we all able to stay away from extreme emotions (the five thieves as some call them).
> ...



Your post if full of contradictions.

There is a saying " Jaan rah piya jane, Jaan vaah piya jane" you like many in this forum have neither. Just Words. Gallein Yog na hove.

Pehaps you have responded in a hurry?


----------



## Archived_Member4 (Sep 27, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> AjitFlora ji, he says and you are saying ---------------------------------------------
> God is sargun. agreed? Sargun is all attributes, therefore God has all attributes. agreed? Therefore, God is both complete and incomplete. and hence, we can use something incomplete to evaluate him/her/it.


 
There are nether worlds beneath nether worlds, and hundreds of thousands
of heavenly worlds above. The Vedas say that you can search and search for them all, until you grow weary. The scriptures
say that there are 18,000 worlds, but in reality, there is only One Universe. If you try to write an account of this, you will surely
finish yourself before you finish writing it. O Nanak, call Him Great! He Himself knows Himself. || 22 || The praisers praise
the Lord, but they do not obtain intuitive understanding.the streams and rivers flowing into the ocean do not know its
vastness. Even kings and emperors, with mountains of property and oceans of wealth.these are not even equal to an ant,
who does not forget God. || 23 || Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them. Endless are His Actions,
endless are His Gifts. Endless is His Vision, endless is His Hearing. His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His
Mind? The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. Many struggle to
know His limits, but His limits cannot be found. No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there
still remains to be said. Great is the Master, High is His Heavenly Home. Highest of the High, above all is His Name. Only one
as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State. Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself. O​Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. || 24 ||ang 5
 

AASAA, FIRST MEHL: Hearing of His Greatness, everyone calls Him Great. But just how Great His Greatness is.this is known
only to those who have seen Him. His Value cannot be estimated; He cannot be described. Those who describe You, Lord,
remain immersed and absorbed in You. || 1 || O my Great Lord and Master of Unfathomable Depth, You are the Ocean of
Excellence. No one knows the extent or the vastness of Your Expanse. || 1 || Pause *|| All the intuitives met and practiced*
*intuitive meditation. All the appraisers met and made the appraisal. The spiritual teachers, the teachers of meditation, and the*
*teachers of teachers.they cannot describe even an iota of Your Greatness. || 2 || All Truth, all austere discipline, all*
*goodness, all the great miraculous spiritual powers of the Siddhas.without You, no one has attained such powers. They are*
*received only by Your Grace. No one can block them or stop their flow. || 3 || What can the poor helpless creatures do? Your*
*Praises are overflowing with Your Treasures. Those, unto whom You give.how can they think of any other? O Nanak, the*
*True One embellishes and exalts. || 4 || 2* *|| AASAA, FIRST MEHL: Chanting it, I live; forgetting it, I die. It is so difficult to*
*chant the True Name. If someone feels hunger for the True Name, that hunger shall consume his pain. || 1 || How can I*
*forget Him, O my mother? True is the Master, True is His Name. || 1 || Pause || Trying to describe even an iota of the*
*Greatness of the True Name, people have grown weary, but they have not been able to evaluate it. Even if everyone were to*
*gather together and speak of Him, He would not become any greater or any lesser. || 2 || That Lord does not die; there is*
*no reason to mourn. He continues to give, and His Provisions never run short. This Virtue is His alone; there is no other like*
*Him. There never has been, and there never will be. || 3 || As Great as You Yourself are, O Lord, so Great are Your Gifts*. Ang 9

*The One who created the day also created the night. Those who forget their Lord and Master are vile and despicable. O Nanak,*
*without the Name, they are wretched outcasts*. || 4 || 3 || ang 10


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 27, 2008)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Your post if full of contradictions.


COuld you point out my contradictions?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 27, 2008)

SAINT SOLDIER said:


> hey brother bhagat singh will u plz tell me how is sikh god different from others .guru sahib told every one that god is one:yes: nd ur trying to say that we hav a different god .:inca:


There is only one God. But we all percieve him differently. Bible has a different perception, Quran has its own perception, etc etc.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Sep 28, 2008)

tHE BEST ANSWER came from my kiddie student....he is just three and just barely learning the Mool mantar....
His explanation of One "GOD"..yet different GODS....like Allah Jehovah..Christ..Gopal Raam etc etc .......is...
1. Each one of us has ONLY ONE " FATHER".
2. There is only.."FATHER"....
YET each has his own type of FATHER...the one he/she KNOWS BEST....
BUT then again..MY "FATHER" is NOT the same as YOUR "FATHER"....but we BOTH have "FATHER"

Allah/Jehovah/God of Moses..Abraham..Jesus...etc etc etc is "GOD" (FATHER)
But Jehovah is Father/GOD of JEWS..Allah is father/GOD of Muslims..etc etc etc...
BUT the FATHER/GOD of JEWS is NOT THE SAME "FATHER/GOD" of MUSLIMS...HINDUS...

too complicated ?? cant be more simpler than this....if it comes from a 3 year old "GENIUS"

The SGGS discusses/describes..the "FATHER".....as the word applies to ALL....thus ALL FATHERS  ARE "ONE and THE SAME..in CONCEPT....but just as Your FATHER is NOT MY FATHER....Allah of Koran..Jehovah of the Torah..and Lord God of the Bible is NOT WAHEGURU.."allah" ram, gopal, Krishan, etc in SGGS...

JsGyani...


----------



## pk70 (Sep 28, 2008)

”The SGGS discusses/describes..the "FATHER".....as the word applies to ALL....thus ALL FATHERS ARE "ONE and THE SAME..in CONCEPT....but just as Your FATHER is NOT MY FATHER....Allah of Koran..Jehovah of the Torah..and Lord God of the Bible is NOT WAHEGURU.."allah" ram, gopal, Krishan, etc in SGGS...Quote Gyani ji)

*With all due respect Gyani ji,  worldly fathers can be different but the Father of all is not, just they think He is different, I must add this to your statement. The Father is the same, there are some who know their Father to some level, and there are some others who know Him to another level. As we, in this world, many times do not understand our own father completely, same way, people of different faiths don’t understand the Father completely either. Father of Jesus, Abraham, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus etc is ACTUALLY the same Father; their description of the Father is as per their understanding of Him. Here in the following, the One father of all is expressed as the same regardless of different explanation of HIM. They may say their father is different, we Sikhs know, they talk about the same Father. It is my humble opinion in context of Gurbani teachings.*
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=99&punjabi=t&id=3975#l3975
*ਗੁਰਿ ਕਹਿਆ ਸਭੁ* *ਏਕੋ* *ਏਕੋ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਇਗਾ ਜੀਉ **॥**੩**॥(SGGS 99)
**Gur kahi▫ā sab**ẖ** eko eko avar na ko▫ī ho▫igā jī▫o. ||3||
**The Guru has said that He is One-All is the One. There shall never be any other. ||3||
**ਮਃ **5 *
*ਨਾਨਕ* *ਏਕੋ* *ਰਵਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਦੂਜਾ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ **॥**੮**॥**੬**॥(SGGS 57)
**Nānak eko rav rahi▫ā **ḏ**ūjā avar na ko▫e. ||8||6||
**O Nanak, the One is pervading everywhere; there is no other at all. ||8||6||
**ਮਃ **1 *
*ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਮੇਰਾ ਏਕੋ ਹੈ **॥ 
**Sāhib merā eko hai. 
**My Lord is but one. 
**ਏਕੋ ਹੈ ਭਾਈ ਏਕੋ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ **॥ (SGGS 350)
**Ėko hai bẖā▫ī eko hai. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
**He is one alone, O brother. He is one alone. Pause.*


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2008)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> tHE BEST ANSWER came from my kiddie student....


what was the question?


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Sep 30, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> COuld you point out my contradictions?



   You say “ Sikhi says One God and we all belong to the same God,”
  This is an Islamic concept. By this statement we separate ourselves from God. We on one side and God on the other. Sikhism says We are all part of God, the same light. This makes us and everything around us GOD in Sargun Saroop.

God is One. If the existence of God is explained to someone in their language with a concept to suit their intellect, it does then mean that God is now different. It is an individual’s perception based on his intellect and history. Moreover the definition is tailored to suit and individuals mental faculty.  It is like explaining God is to a small child compared to an adult or an uneducated individual compared to the educated. Let us look at the definition of Sargun and Nirgun.

  Sargun = With all attributes of Maya (Visible form – the world around us – in all forms)
  Nirgun = Without attributes of Maya (Invisible form)

  In Nigun form Divine does not become incomplete. It is just that we do have the ability to see Him whilst living in MAYA but we can feel HIM (Sensory mode). In both forms HE is complete.

  Take an example of a Seed. The seed has a large tree hidden inside and the ability to reproduce. It the seed is not sown, all the attributes are hidden. It is still a complete unit. When we sow the seed, it grows into the large tree it was intended to be, bear fruit etc etc and reproduce more seeds. So Divine in Nirgun Saroop in not incomplete. We are incomplete ourselves for not having developed the ability to see beyond.


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 30, 2008)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> You say “ Sikhi says One God and we all belong to the same God,”
> This is an Islamic concept. By this statement we separate ourselves from God. We on one side and God on the other. Sikhism says We are all part of God, the same light. This makes us and everything around us GOD in Sargun Saroop.
> 
> .



This is not an Islamic concept but also a Sikh one. We are part of God, we all belong to God,He/she is around us and within us -  but without God realisation everything is in vane. People walk around with God inside them without realising it, the so called "Manmukhs", and then there are "Gurmukhs" or God willed.

What you have stated is just a play on words, Ekh Musafir, there is nothing wrong with the Bhagat Singh's understanding.


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Sep 30, 2008)

randip singh said:


> This is not an Islamic concept but also a Sikh one. We are part of God, we all belong to God,He/she is around us and within us -  but without God realisation everything is in vane. People walk around with God inside them without realising it, the so called "Manmukhs", and then there are "Gurmukhs" or God willed.
> 
> What you have stated is just a play on words, Ekh Musafir, there is nothing wrong with the Bhagat Singh's understanding.



Looks like you have run out of ice cream here have another one :ice:. Go and play outside.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2008)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> You say “ Sikhi says One God and we all belong to the same God,”
> This is an Islamic concept. By this statement we separate ourselves from God. We on one side and God on the other. Sikhism says We are all part of God, the same light. This makes us and everything around us GOD in Sargun Saroop.


I agee with Randip singh ji, you are playing with words. 
By your definition whaeguru ji ka khalsa is also an islamic concept because khalsa belongs to god is separating khalsa from God.



> God is One. If the existence of God is explained to someone in their language with a concept to suit their intellect, it does then mean that God is now different.


Ok, I agree and i have mentioned that so this is not a contradiction.



> It is an individual’s perception based on his intellect and history. Moreover the definition is tailored to suit and individuals mental faculty.  It is like explaining God is to a small child compared to an adult or an uneducated individual compared to the educated.


exactly.


> Let us look at the definition of Sargun and Nirgun.
> 
> Sargun = With all attributes of Maya (Visible form – the world around us – in all forms)
> Nirgun = Without attributes of Maya (Invisible form)


   Again you play with words! existence is also an attribute of maya (by maya i mean physical things e.g. materials). So nirgun would mean without existence, so God is in existence and not in existence at the same time. Which is very good way of creating unity because anyone could believe God with any attributes (or the lack thereof) and still believe in this nirgun/sargun concept. With this concept we invite all fields of thought together. That was one of the main purposes of Guru Nanak, creating unity.


> In Nigun form Divine does not become incomplete.


again, God has all attributes and no attributes so incomplete is just another one of those attributes. 


> It is just that we do have the ability to see Him whilst living in MAYA but we can feel HIM (Sensory mode). In both forms HE is complete.


Sure if that's what you believe.


> Take an example of a Seed. The seed has a large tree hidden inside


(let me play with words now) NO a seed doesnt not have a tree hidden inside. :rofl!!:The tree grows from the cells and nutrients in the seed and fruit. A seed does not compress a large treee into a tiny space.


> and the ability to reproduce. It the seed is not sown, all the attributes are hidden.


what attributes? do you mean the tree is attributes? but the tree grows from a few cells, it is not hidden. The attributes develop overtime.


> It is still a complete unit. When we sow the seed, it grows into the large tree it was intended to be, bear fruit etc etc and reproduce more seeds.


No that is not always the case, it depends on what type of tree it is and sometimes the tree gets a disease and dies, etc.



> So Divine in Nirgun Saroop in not incomplete. We are incomplete ourselves for not having developed the ability to see beyond.


Nirgun means no attributes so in this case, no coompleteness AND no incompleteness. So God is both incomplete, complete and anything in the middle and beyond.

:ice: I have more ice cream in the fridge.  Anymore "contradictions"?


----------



## BHAGATSINGHDAVEER (Sep 30, 2008)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> tHE BEST ANSWER came from my kiddie student....he is just three and just barely learning the Mool mantar....
> His explanation of One "GOD"..yet different GODS....like Allah Jehovah..Christ..Gopal Raam etc etc .......is...
> 1. Each one of us has ONLY ONE " FATHER".
> 2. There is only.."FATHER"....
> ...




gur fateh jio!
perhaps a simpler way to put this is that yes we all (HINDU SIKH MUSLIM *** ETC)have our GOD / "fathers" we all just refer to him differant such as "POPS", "dad", "PITA JI","Father", "Bapu", "BAAP".

IT IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION AS TO WHAT WE HOLD AKAAL TO BE. TO ME GOD IS THAT WHICH "IS" "WAS" AND WILL ALWAYS BE TRUE (EXISTS) AAD SUCH,JUGAD SUCH, HA BI SUCH, (NANAK) HOSI BI SUCH. FOR THOSE THAT CLAIM SCIENCE CAN  DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, WELL ITS LIKE GRAVITY, YOU KNOW IT EXISTS, CAN YOU SEE IT? NO! BUT WE KNOW ITS THERE.

_"IF YOU AIN'T TASTED SUGAR YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE SWEETNESS" _ 

HUMBLE FATEH JI


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Sep 30, 2008)

Well Aad and Aman ji,

Once more I tried. It is like hitting my head against the wall. You cannot raise ones awareness if it is not in ones Destiny. I do not have time to waste.

"Vishta ka keeda, Vishta mein reha samai"

Randip Singh mandli "Zindabad"

Santa Singh mentality "Zindabad"

Regards

ekmusafir_ajnabi


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 30, 2008)

ekmusafir ji

Please do not hit your head against a wall. The discussion got very technical in the last several posts.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Sep 30, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Please do not hit your head against a wall.


haha, I second that. We all have this self destructive thing (i think hormone) inside that we must keep under control.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 1, 2008)

BHAGATSINGHDAVEER said:


> FOR THOSE THAT CLAIM SCIENCE CAN  DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, WELL ITS LIKE GRAVITY, YOU KNOW IT EXISTS, CAN YOU SEE IT? NO! BUT WE KNOW ITS THERE.
> 
> _"IF YOU AIN'T TASTED SUGAR YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE SWEETNESS" _


The above sentences sound cool on paper but in reality they fall apart. You are forgetting that gravity is measurable. We have defined what it is and it has become a law. 
God on the other hand cannot be described fully (defined).

Now about your tasting sugar analogy. God is not something we can measure, in case of sugar, it was measuring the sweetness. And sugar is NOT the only thing that tastes sweet.

Sugar free gum anyone? :ice:


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 1, 2008)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Looks like you have run out of ice cream here have another one :ice:. Go and play outside.


 
Thanks for the ice cream, but I would rather play here and watch your PLAY on words .  :u):


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 1, 2008)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> Well Aad and Aman ji,
> 
> Once more I tried. It is like hitting my head against the wall. You cannot raise ones awareness if it is not in ones Destiny. I do not have time to waste.
> 
> ...


 
Stop throwing the toys out of the pram....grow up!OMG


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 1, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> haha, I second that. We all have this self destructive thing (i think hormone) inside that we must keep under control.


 

Maybe we have a tree inside? :ice:


----------



## ekmusafir_ajnabi (Oct 3, 2008)

randip singh said:


> Maybe we have a tree inside? :ice:



It is not uncommon for MAYA to put agents to block the TRUTH reaching general public. The business of Maya will collapse otherwise. Gubani says quite clearly
"Koor phirey pardhaan ve Lallo"


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 3, 2008)

ekmusafir_ajnabi said:


> It is not uncommon for MAYA to put agents to block the TRUTH reaching general public. The business of Maya will collapse otherwise. Gubani says quite clearly
> "Koor phirey pardhaan ve Lallo"


 
So you are one of these "Maya" Agents?:}{}{}:


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 3, 2008)

randip singh said:


> So you are one of these "Maya" Agents?:}{}{}:



 No, I am! Please do not try to take away my role in this regard.

Why don't we take a look at the different meanings of atheism and then think of the argument so far from these different points of view.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Oct 3, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> No, I am! Please do not try to take away my role in this regard.
> 
> Why don't we take a look at the different meanings of atheism and then think of the argument so far from these different points of view.


I got one: questioning the exitence of God.


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 6, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> No, I am! Please do not try to take away my role in this regard.
> 
> Why don't we take a look at the different meanings of atheism and then think of the argument so far from these different points of view.



I guess if reading Bani and Truthful Living is our goal then we Sikhs are all defined as agents of Maya by Ekh Musafir


----------



## Archived_member13 (Oct 10, 2009)

First of all science cannot overtake religion SGGS is far superior and most 
advanced scripture in the world. The concept of god is well defined in Sikhi
because Japji Sahib is description of SGGS. The world WAHEGURU is been 
used the day man set the foot on earth.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 4, 2011)

THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF GOD IN SGGS there are reasons to say so
It is important to understand that the BASIC CONCEPT OF SGGS is based on 
the word GURU. and GUR.
Considering the very grammer of the word GOD we would find that the word GOD does not fit anywhere for any reference in Gurbaani.
Secondly the word GOD is not a word of Gurbaani Vocabulary.This is an extra word so its use should confom to the grammer of Gurbaani language which is difficult to justify.

This is a UNIQUE beauty of the language of SGGS that the moment anyone tries to make use of any extra word it should be made according to the grammer of the language of SGGS ji otherwise its use does not convey any meaning of the messages of Gurbaani.

Thus it may be important to consider the above points and see what the word GOD can refer in Gurbaani.
I am not against the sanctity of the word GOD whichmay be one of the important word in some other philosophy but certainly the word GOD may not be reference for anything in SGGS .

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 4, 2011)

> Why don't we take a look at the different meanings of atheism and then think of the argument so far from these different points of view.



prakash s bagga ji

There are real dangers to being armchair philosophers when claiming that Sikhism is atheistic. I would say no it is not -- the idea of  [GOD]  takes on more than one form. The word "GOD" fits western religions, but even western religions in some cases do not espouse the concept of a personal [GOD] and these religions also do *not *claim to  be atheistic.

It is also very frustrating when you return to the Gurbani argument without being explicit regarding "Gur" and other terms that you use. It makes discussion with you impossible because no one knows what you are talking about - you give no definitions.

If one is trying to say that [GOD] in Sikhi is not "God" because the Sat is timeless, formless, and all pervading, then we are treading a slippery slope. I have read this argument Nirankar in Sikhi = Atheism 1000 times. A timeless, formless, all pervading divine principle can be called anything you like, including GURU, GUR or GOD or Sweet Potato,  or be labeled in many other ways -- as is the case in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. A timeless, formless, all pervading divine does not however make Sikhi atheistic. So we all of us really need to move from simplistic labeling and pay more attention to the subtleties of theology and philosophy; otherwise, some truly misleading statements are made. 

Thanks.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 4, 2011)

SPNADMIN Ji,
First of all let me make it clear that the Quote is not mine.
I value your concern a lot and I was expecting your response like this one.I have nowhere tried to esblish any similarity between Sikhism and Athiesm.
I have simply mentioned a concern how correct is the use of word GOD with reference to Gurbaani in SGGS.Nothing more than this.
We are already sharing many views with respect to certain values in Sikhism and you would also realise that many misunderstandings are responsible for certain uncalled for circumstances like that of FAKE GURUS and BABAS.
I have my different viewin this regard .It is important to have greater transpareny
in understanding of our Philosophy of SGGS so that no one can attemt to damage the very concept of Gurbaani.
The point which I have raised should be viewed in right perspectiveand simply outright rejection may not help .Its serious thought might result in better results.
Otherwise why should I have concern if the concerned at large are comfortable withany words
We should clarify the correct reference meaning of the word GUR from our various Academic institutions and let us see what they opine.

You will surprise to know that in INDIA there is prfound use of the word PARMATAMA in interpretation of Gurbaabi.You will notice there is no such word in the whole of Gurbaani.I always try to bring this to the notice of various scholars regarding this too.
There are deliberations going on regarding this also.

Any way if SPN sangat feels uncomfortable with this point of viewThis shall not be raised anytime in future.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 4, 2011)

SPNADMIN Ji,
I seek a very specfic answer for a question from your goodself

What is the need of making use of any word which is not a content of Gurbaani .Are Gurbaani words insuffcient to get the complete and perfect interpretations ?

Pl do resond me to these.I look forward to this.

Thanking you,

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 4, 2011)

skd1709 said:


> I am a proud Sikh, proud of our history and what the Gurus have done for us. However, I just cannot believe in the concept of God, who created everything, especially when science has proved otherwise. I feel troubled and divided, but I strongly believe that because Sikhism is a spiritual religion, the idea of God can be seperated from our religion.
> 
> Can anyone back me up here?



I have come accross thios problem before.

Unfortunately many people confuse the Abrahamic concept of "God" with the Sikh one. Two different concepts.

For example, in the opening line of the Sikh prayer

Ek Onkar is interpreted as One God but Onkar actually means "Constant".


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 4, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> SPNADMIN Ji,
> I seek a very specfic answer for a question from your goodself
> 
> What is the need of making use of any word which is not a content of Gurbaani .Are Gurbaani words insuffcient to get the complete and perfect interpretations ?
> ...



prakash s bagga ji

The answer is: so that people can communicate with one another, from different times, cultures, and from one to another language, language must be used, ordinary language as it is spoken in ordinary ways. So we have to use ordinary words in order to discuss the vocabulary in Gurbani. If we don't then how do we communicate?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 4, 2011)

Randip Singh said:


> I have come accross thios problem before.
> 
> Unfortunately many people confuse the Abrahamic concept of "God" with the Sikh one. Two different concepts.
> 
> ...



Randip Singh ji

If that is true, then why does the mantar begin with the number 1 instead of the word "one." In ekoankar ੴ  * ੧ *implies the unity or oneness of creation.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 4, 2011)

prakash s. bagga ji

Thanks btw for making this clear. I do not feel so isolated and dejected when I read it. 





> I value your concern a lot and I was expecting your response like this one.I have nowhere tried to esblish any similarity between Sikhism and Athiesm.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 5, 2011)

*Aethism:  *Just some thoughts developing out of wiki,

*Atheism*, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.  In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Based on the above Sikhism is in concert with atheism if one God envisioned in Sikhism is not classed a deity, which it cannot be since it is recognized as pervasive and present in everything in the universe known or unknown.  What is present in everything is not a deity concept in the traditional sense.

In extreme summary through  "Mool Mantar" is a definiton of the general scope of Sikh God being,  a _single universal truth pervasive without bounds of fear, animosity and time.  _In a way a very impersonal or extremely fair regardless of consequences (akin to concepts of Universal morality).  We do need to recognize also that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji keeps warning in case we try or attempt the full disclosure of such a truth as that is not achievable.  Hence conversely, a Sikh God if not completely definable and is inconsequential, as long its search is or understanding is carried out with that premise to be in unison with the _single universal truth foundation_.

I think I may have said more than I should and stand corrected/commented.

Sat Sri Akal.


*****************************************************************************************************
Notes:  Some perhaps non-thread related material I will delete if not appropriate or put it under a new thread.

Just some thoughts for consideration, comments and correction as appropriate.  I was trying to understand Prakash S. Bagga ji's repeated references to  "Gur - Guru" so tried to search for myself to clarify in  my mind.



> Work based on the following,
> 
> Professor Sahib Singh ji "Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan",
> ​
> ...


*PS*:  Professor Sahib Singh ji's exposition below may be useful per Randip Singh ji's comment,

<!--[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>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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]-->  <> au~cwrn vyly ies dy iqMn ih`sy kIqy jWdy hn-1, E Aqy > ; ies dw pwT hY ‘iek EAMkwr’[ iqMn ih`sy v`Ko v`Kry au~cwirAW ieauN bxdy hn:-

1-ie`k[ E-EAM[ > -kwr[

‘E’ sMsik®q dw Sbd hY[ Amr koS Anuswr ies dy iqMn ArQ hn:-

(1) vyd Awid Drm-pusqkW dy ArMB Aqy A^Ir ivc, Ardws jW iksy piv~qr Drm-kwrj dy ArMB ivc A`Kr 'EN' piv~qr A`Kr jwx ky vriqAw jWdw hY[
(2) iksy hukm jW pRSn Awidk dy au~qr ivc Awdr Aqy siqkwr nwl ‘jI hW’ AwKxw[ so, ‘EN’ dw ArQ hY 'jI hW'[
(3) EN-bRhm[

iehnW ivcoN ikhVw ArQ ies Sbd dw ie`Qy ilAw jwxw hY-ies ƒ idRVH krn leI Sbd 'EN' dy pihlW '1' ilK id`qw hY[ ies dw Bwv ieh hY ik ie`Qy 'EN' dw ArQ hY 'auh hsqI jo iek hY, ijs vrgw hor koeI nhIN hY Aqy ijs ivc ieh swrw jgq smw jWdw hY['

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--[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>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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]-->  *--------------    so, "<>" dw au~cwrn hY " iek (eyk) EAMkwr" Aqy iesdw ArQ hY "iek Akwl purK, jo iek-rs ivAwpk hY"[ -----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2011)

Ambarasia ji,

 I was referring to Prakash's clarification of where he stood on the issue of Sikhism = Atheism. But also thank you, as I love notes. Thanks a lot. A bit like a peek at your notebook, full of notes on thoughts and  thoughts.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2011)

On the subject of "one" Ek Oankaar, I take the explanation of Bhai Gurdas to mean that the mool mantar is a powerful statement of montheism, and certainly not a stipulation of atheism.

Vaar 3 Pauri 15 Line 1 

ਏਕਾ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ।.
*By writing 1 (one) in the beginning,* it has been shown that Ekankar, God, who subsumes all forms... is only one... 

The part of the verse that pertains to my earlier comments is *"By writing 1 (one) in the beginning* .....Ek Oaankar is only one...

He continues: 
ਊੜਾ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਬਹਾਲਿਆ।
Ura, the first Gurmukhi letter, in the form of Oankar shows the world controlling power of that one Lord.


Whether one agrees with Dr. Jodh Singh's, the translator, decision to use the word [God], or [Lord] for that matter, is another issue. If one always interprets [God] to mean a personal god, then it was a bad choice of words. If one understands that [God] need not be a personal [God]. then I think it is a fair inference that [God] was used for purposes of bridging a translation gap. 

As I said earlier, not every western religion takes [God] to be the old man in the sky with a white beard. Too bad the word [God] has taken on some kind of sticky negative stuff.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 5, 2011)

spnadmin ji I also believe that Sikhism God is actually not a fully definable and describable entity.  Hence it becomes personal as one cannot communicate fully to another.  

So if an atheist says to be not believing in one, it is as valid as one that does believe.  The one that believes cannot fully describe the "being of God" while the non-believer saying not even one God "cannot full describe the non-being of one God" either.

In Sikhism, a study to understand is valid but any studies to fully define or to actually search for one are futile.

On the other hand, we can let atheists go in their merry ways through science to keep doing discoveries to fully define the universe and Einestein says and I kind of paraphrase, "the ultimate truths are simple", we may just find one day in many a zillion years somewhere else that the atheist truth or qualification is what Sikhism God is flagged as, we could have a group hug  kudihug mundahug peacesignkaur
I hope it is not circular argument or exposition.lol

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2011)

Ambarsaria ji

I want to react to two of your comments. 



> I also believe that Sikhism God is actually not a fully definable and describable entity. Hence it becomes personal as one cannot communicate fully to another..



According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and Bhai Gurdas, the reality of Ek Oankaar, cannot be fully grasped. No argument from me on that. And I agree that one's personal and subjective comprehension of [God] is difficult to communicate to someone else. However, to have a personal understanding of [God] is very different from stating that [God] is a "personal God." A personal [God] is a  Christian term actually. It means that [God] is known personally, because he manifested as a person, as Jesus the son of [God]. So "personal God" typically does not have optional meanings. And it is not the same thing as one's personal understanding of [God].



> So if an atheist says to be not believing in one, it is as valid as one that does believe.



I don't think you completely understand what I have been trying to express. The validity of atheism versus the  validity of any religion or system of belief was not really my concern. My concern is about the trend to equate Sikhism with atheism using illogical arguments. The arguments do no justice either to atheism or to Sikhism.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 5, 2011)

Just couple of comments in red if that is Ok,





spnadmin said:


> Ambarsaria ji
> 
> I want to react to two of your comments.
> 
> ...



Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 5, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> Randip Singh ji
> 
> If that is true, then why does the mantar begin with the number 1 instead of the word "one." In ekoankar ੴ  * ੧ *implies the unity or oneness of creation.



I think the answer lies following this

Ek Onkar, Sat Naam

There is but one constant, and truth is its name.

Now some people may wish to percieve that Truth as "God" in the Abrahamic sense.

All I am saying is that teh Sikh concept of "God" is very different from the Abrahamic one.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 5, 2011)

SIGNIFICANCE OF NUMERICAL NUMBER ONE IN THE SYMBOL

I feel that the understanding the correct sinificance of the Numerical number in the SYMBOL may be MASTER KEY for the whole of understanding of Gurbaani.
Again here grammer is important.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2011)

I had been wondering yesterday where I went wrong. How did I come to believe in the first place that Sikhism was a monotheistic religion (path)?  Or that Sikhism *could not be *atheistic. Had I gone wrong? Where had I gone wrong? Had my mind failed me? 

After mulling on this for an hour or so, it suddenly dawned on me that the idea that Sikhism was a monotheistic religion, and not atheist, must have come from Bhai Gurdas. Then I posted about that a few comments back.

Today I discovered this old thread and wanted to share some of it. These are the thoughts of Master Teja Singh on the meaning of the Mool Mantar. At the permalink http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/jap-ji-sahib/2-mool-manter-translation-master-teja-singh.html#post3



> 1k onkar satnam karta purakh nirbho nirvair akal murat ajooni saibhang gur prasad.
> 
> There is but One all embracing and all powerful Divinity, Who manifests Himself first in the shape of the sacred word, and then through the whole created Universe
> Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/jap-ji-sahib/2-mool-manter-translation-master-teja-singh.html
> ...


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 5, 2011)

In Gurbaani the DIVINITYorETERNAL DIVINITY being reffered as CREATOR is not something ONE as  is usually reffered..NOR DIVINITY is male element alone.Had it been so then  DIVINITY could havebeen personified as HE.

The whole DIVIME CONSCIOUSNESS is representation of something which is both MALE as well as Female and this WHOLE CONSCIOUS NESS is being reffered as GUR.

The last words in the MOOL MANTRA  are GUR and PRASAADi. These arre two separate words not the composite one like SATiNAAMu or KARTA PURAKHu .

Thus according to Gurbaani CREATOR is GUR and .THE very first SYMBOL is the AKAL MURARi of GUR and this SYMBOL has been prnounced as EKANKAARu

This is what I have understood from Gurbaani thru the grace of SATiGURu Ji SGGS

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 5, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> In Gurbaani the DIVINITYorETERNAL DIVINITY being reffered as CREATOR is not something ONE as  is usually reffered..NOR DIVINITY is male element alone.Had it been so then  DIVINITY could havebeen personified as HE.
> 
> The whole DIVIME CONSCIOUSNESS is representation of something which is both MALE as well as Female and this WHOLE CONSCIOUS NESS is being reffered as GUR.
> 
> ...


Prakash S. Bagga ji it is perhaps valid to quote the source unless it is yourself.  I find lot of the interpretation offered by you to be in line with Professor Sahib Singh ji.  Do you see any deficiencies in his work as sometimes one wants to read before and after of your quotes?  So I am just trying to seek your suggestion.

Profesoor Sahib Singh ji says for the above,

<!--[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>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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]-->  <!--[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>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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]-->  
gur pRswid— gurU dy pRswd nwl, gurU dI ikrpw nwl, Bwv, auprokq '<>' gurU dI ikrpw nwl (imldw hY) [


​Reference:  Professor Sahib Singh ji, "Sri Guru Granth Sahib darpan", pg. 35/6288 (http://www.gurbanifiles.org/gurmukhi/GuruGranth%20Darpan%20by%20Prof%20Sahib%20Singh.pdf)




Thank you.


Sat Sri Akal.

​


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 9, 2011)

AMBARSARIA Ji,

It is very important to know that how any word in Gurbaani has been classified as SINGULAR or PLURAL.
You will find that gramatically the word GUR is PLURAL whereas the word GURU is SINGULAR,therefore the word GUR should not be equated with the word GURU.
This understanding is the main cause of our misinterpretation of Gurbaani .This should be clarified first.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 9, 2011)

When I say there is no concept of GOD in Sikhism it does not mean that this amounts to Atheism. This is related to the way the word GOD is used in interpretation of Gurbaani.
Any one can verify the fact that gramatically the word GOD is not applicable to any reference of Gurbaani.As a matter of fact this should be looked into.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 9, 2011)

Prakash S. Bagga ji, I thinkg the following may be at ever bit slight variance on your thoughts,

*Awal Allah Noor - Mohinder Singh Bhalla   *

YouTube        - Awal Allah Noor - Mohinder Singh Bhalla

http://www.searchgurbani.com/guru_granth_sahib/ang/1350/line/57717

I am not stating a physical God or such but "the understanding of the creator" which is the essence of the Gurbani.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 9, 2011)

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I made my references according to the DICTIONARY meanings of the word GOD.Even I searched ENCYCLOPEDIA of English Dictionary.There also the meaning of the GOD is given as CREATOR of the UNIVERSE.the word is NOUN and SINGUAR and represents A MAle Element.

I am quite familiar with the composition of the Vedio and I dont see any yariance in my thoughts different from what I have been postiings.
For your information  you may confirm that the word ALLAH also appears in the stated pattern of Gurbaani grammer as ALLAH....ALLAHu....and ALLAHAA  like GUR /GURu and GURU.This pattern is important to understand.

As far as the meaning of the word GOD as "the understanding of the Creator" is not available in any Dictionary.This needs more clarification.

I may bring to your knowledge that even Prof Sahib Singh Ji has taken the word GUR as equal to GURU but I have not accepted this  athough I started my Gurbaani understanding like you only.
Sir,You will have to recapitulate your own knowledge of Grammer of your School study
and this will be more useful.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria (Mar 9, 2011)

prakash s. bagga ji we all have our own styles of study.  

At stage of my life where I am, I don't have the timelines required.  Professor Sahib Singh ji spent 30 plus years including his marvelous upbringing and heritage in Sanskrit, Hindu mythology, Sikh degenerates (it seems many of the same still exist) of the times who created doubt, etc. I humbly submit to his understanding as long as it also makes sense to me.  I don't read blindly as I reason with his darpan when I read it.  

I don't need to be reminded about Gur GURu (ALLAH....ALLAHu....and ALLAHAA)  business as it is pretty simple to me.  It just gets complicated the way you state it and not expose the meanings along the posting for others.  I don't need such for myself but perhaps it might help others if you explain the differences in such citations when you make these (just a humble suggestion).

I still remember my Punjabi lessons from way back and I think it is in my blood!

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 9, 2011)

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I fully agree with your views,
Many thanks for nice interaction on the subject.
Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 10, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> Ambarsaria ji
> 
> I want to react to two of your comments.
> 
> ...


 
Indeed some interesting points and this is exactly what I mean by the difference between the Abrahamic and Sikh concept of "go".

Even the term "God" is Abrahamic in nature and denotes a particular idea of the Ultimate reality. This Ultimate reality is indeed difficult to describe or convey as one understands it. The Sikh concept is within and without.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 10, 2011)

RANDEEP SINGH Ji,
Divine Greetings

I can visualse your concern about the word GOD.My concern is related to the fact that when 'ULTIMATE REALITY" is already being reffered as GUR in Gurbaani then where is the need to refer GUR as GOD which is not a word of Gurbaani Vocabulary at all.
Cant we interprate Gurbaani without using the word GOD.?

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## paul the pipe (Mar 27, 2011)

Hi, SKD 1709,
I am an atheist, and a searcher
As others have mentioned, science has never proved that God does not exist.
Science is simply the study of nature in a rigorous and systematic way.
Sometimes the findings of scientists may cast doubt on the writings of some people,
but if those writings were written in good faith then the writer's wisdom should not be disregarded. For the people who wrote the scriptures of all religions, and yourself, no doubt, God is a very real force and science simply tries to illuminate the world we find our selves in. Don't give up your God to false logic. The existence of God cannot be disproved.
May your God go with you


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Mar 27, 2011)

PAUL THE PIPEJi,
The existence of GOD can not be disapproved.This isabsolutely right.
The im[portant matter of reference is that our GURUs have given the concept of CREATOR but this concept is not reffered as GOD in SGGS.We should first understand 
the way the CREATOR is being reffered in SGGSand then see whether the reference word of the CTEATOR as given in SGGS can be equated with the word GOD or not.
The important consideration is this.
If the word given for CTREATOR in SGGS can be equated with word GOD then only we can say that there is a concept of CREATOR in SGGS and that can also be reffered as GOD otherwise not.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------

