# One God, So Many Religions



## arshdeep88 (Mar 27, 2013)

Why are there so many religions? Isn’t there only one God? Why didn’t  God say the same thing to everyone? 

why Christian ,Muslim ,Hindu and Sikhs says that there religion is the only best and sometimes end up having heated arguments 

please Satsangat ji present  your thoughts  and views about it


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 27, 2013)

*Re: One god,so Many religions*



arshdeep88 said:


> Why are there so many religions? Isn’t there only one God? Why didn’t God say the same thing to everyone?
> 
> why Christian ,Muslim ,Hindu and Sikhs says that there religion is the only best and sometimes end up having heated arguments
> 
> please Satsangat ji present your thoughts and views about it


 
The late Pope John Paul II was once asked the question, "Why are there so many religions?" Here is his response, which should prompt discussion for or against what he says, I think. 

Here's the question and his answer. Its long so I've selected a few relevant sections: 





> "...*Q:* _But if God who is in heaven-and who saved and continues to save the world-is One and only One and is He who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, why has He allowed so many religions to exist?_
> _Why did He make the search for the truth so arduous, in the midst of a forest of rituals, of beliefs, of revelations, of faiths which have always thrived-and still do today-throughout the world?_
> 
> *Pope John Paul II:* You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions.
> ...





> The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern...
> 
> In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions.
> 
> ...


 

So the Pope recognises truth in all religions as stemming from a common source, while still upholding the uniqueness and distinctiveness of his religion and its unchangeable doctrines. He stays firmly within his own Christian tradition while also reaching out, without denying the uniqueness of his own faith.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

One God?

lol I am still struggling with all these threads where there is no agreement whether there is a "god."  Even Sikhs, Jains, Hindus and Buddhists in some quarters make a case that there is no god in their tradition. Some in other quarters say "yes." Yet, others say "it is complicated." 

So on it goes to the questions of idol worship and incarnations.

Then we have seen descriptions of "god" in Christianity, Judaism and Islam that are the antithesis of "god" in dharmic paths. It seems to me that Islam has the least amount of internal debate on this question. Yet, there is debate there too. 

Factor in the question of whether pantheism or panentheism fits into the discussion. Now we are looking at a very long thread.

Last but not least is the question of animism. You would be surprised how much of the Navajo traditions about connections with the divine sound like Sikhi. Leave out the Hero Twins, First Eagle, or Coyote and there are familiar strains about being in harmony with the universe. 

Seems we must first get a grip on who this "god" is supposed to be, before we make sense with one another.

Some say that God created us in his image. Are you sure it is not the other way around?

Some say that if God did not exist, man would have created him? Does this sentence mean more than it says?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 27, 2013)

Sorry! I left out the Higgs-Boson which some call the God particle. My error entirely.


----------



## Navdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

I think as many as there's "personalities" in us, why can't God, who's creation is very Varied, decide that He/she, wants, wanted to & possibly will dabble in different languages, at different times to different people? 

For me, Personally, I think it's Really important to keep nearby that the initial Intent of a Religion or faith was Love, it was Goodness, so when it comes to Like killing other people, or like stoning them to death or something, a Lot of Precaution Must be taken, b/c God doesn't want to kill people (I don't think Primarily anyways), Im pretty sure he sent us here to be good & kind & truthful/


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 28, 2013)

> why Christian ,Muslim ,Hindu and Sikhs says that there religion is the only best and sometimes end up having heated arguments



Why do Sikhs, Sikhs, Sikhs and Sikhs say that their religion is the only the best and sometimes end up having heated arguments...........


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

*lets think from this prospective all the differences in the religions might have came about due to difference in geographical situations ,cultures traditions and interpretation of one's wisdom*
*that's just my personal views *,*what are views of you all on it?

yes spnadmin ji i know it happens as everyone has his /her own defination of GOD

yes navdeep ji basic teaching of love,compassion ,humbleness we should adhere to be it belonging to any religion 

**yes harry ji it too happens ,it happens among sikhs too,some might say their intepretation of GURU shabad is only right while others thin theirs only

do you all think HUMAN interpretation and understanding plays a key role?*


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2013)

arshdeep88 said:


> *do you all think HUMAN interpretation and understanding plays a key role?*


 
I think it plays a key role but not the only one. 




> Cardinal Cusa claimed that God sent a variety of prophets into the world in order to reveal Himself to humanity. To achieve this goal these prophets created a variety of faiths, the customs of which have, over time come to be regarded as immutable truths founded not by prophets, but by God. Since the human person has freewill, and because over time opinions, languages and interpretations undergo change, humanity needs a number of visitations to eliminate the religious errors which inevitably develop. In this manner Cusa gives such figures as Buddha and Muhammad a similar status to that of prophets of the God of Israel whose teachings over time have been distorted. In short there is but one religion, but a diversity of religious faiths. Because of this Cusa does not think that religious diversity need be a source of conflict. For Cusa since the diversity of faiths are merely different ways of articulating the same underlying truth, there is no real basis for mutual attacks over these differences." - _*Ethical implications of unity and the divine in Nicholas of Cusa By David John De Leonardis*_


 


> "Cusa seeks to promote the idea that diverse religious customs (the accidents of religion, if you will) conceal a true or 'ideal' religion. This 'una religio' (one religion) is the unattainable truth about God - of which all existing belief systems are but shadowy reflections. The faithful of all nations and creeds should persevere in their particular expressions of piety in the firm belief that the one true 'religion' is the basis of them all"
> 
> *- 'Religion' and the religions in the English Enlightenment By Peter Harrison*


 


Nicholas of Cusa was a Catholic cardinal of the 15th century.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

arshdeep88 said:


> Why are there so many religions? Isn’t there only one God? Why didn’t God say the same thing to everyone?
> 
> why Christian ,Muslim ,Hindu and Sikhs says that there religion is the only best and sometimes end up having heated arguments
> 
> please Satsangat ji present your thoughts and views about it


 
The *mind\ego* creates the boundaries, assigns the names
the *mind\ego* see's the self and see's also the other...god see's all as one.
*mind\anger* wells up when others say something negative about their religion
*mind\ego* gets inflated when others agree on their religion

religious names and boundaries are a creation of the mind which see's differences. A creation of the mind which got attched to the physical beings that presented the 'truth' to us...rather than the truth that was presented.

beyond the mind there is 'One' Truth...it exists like butter in milk within all so called religions...it is that Truth that matters...all else is nonsense of the corrupt mind.


----------



## SpiritualSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

"Spirituality Unites Religion divides" this has become the sorry state of affairs today.

This is because Religions of today are not what they were when they started. Initially they all had roots in spiritualism. The older a religion more distorted and instutionalized it has become.


Hinduism was once representation of all the forces of nature (in our body and astronomical) but those representations are thought of today as some super natural beings who needs to be worshiped.

Catholic Christianity has become opposite of Original Naustic Christianity and teaches Anti Bible things. Jesus is the story of Krishna which is story of our internal Salvation in story form. Churches have become pedophile society thus degradation .

Sikhism today is engulfed in Castism,ritualism,focusing more on bana than bani loosing spirituality aspect.

If you focus on Spiritual aspect of any religion it won't lead to any disharmony.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 28, 2013)

After studying deeply in the 'mystical' traditions of all the major religions, I can offer a unique perspective... that the outward literal teachings of most religions are allegorical.  And that's why many do not make sense with science etc.  However with most major religions there also exists a 'mystical' side... people who understand the symbolisms hidden in the allegories, and it is these symbolisms the truths... that start to emerge as very (sometimes eerily) similar between major religions that outwardly looked so far apart that nobody would think they were teaching the same thing!  And these teachings agree with science!

Some of these similarities just off the top of my head are: 

ONE creator, which is formless, unknowable, pure consciousness without form.  If we look deep into quantum physics, it is suggesting this Universe at the base, is one Universal field.  That field is not matter, but consciousness.  Quantum physics experiments are showing us that the building blocks of atoms, do not exist physically until 'observed' into existence.  Without observance for example, an electron behaves as a wave and not a particle. Since even our brains are made from the same atoms and electons,  then who observed them into existence?  And since that consciousness is not us individually... it must be something more profound.  

The idea of us being made in the image of the creator - This is not literal as in - we don't LOOK like the creator physically. The idea is, that since we were made from/of the creator, just as any smaller part of a fractal contains the information of the whole, so do we possess the knowledge / information of the creator, and also the same creative potential... but it's hidden within us. And as I tried to explain before, our dreams and creations also possess the same hidden even more deeply. The idea of the Universe being 'fractal' is scientific and can be seen from the largest cosmic events to the smallest of particles.  

The idea that God is within us... not 'out there' on a cloud.  Even Christianity says this. Even Islam says it!  Judaism says it too!  In fact, I don't even know where the whole invisible sky daddy sitting on a cloud idea came from.  I think it was a story to teach children so they could 'picture' their creator in their minds.  

We are here for spiritual evolution.  If you think about it, a whole physical lifetime where the only real constant between any person is that you learn as you grow, would not make sense if that knowledge just disappeared upon physical death. 

Take a look at some of the mystical esoteric traditions and the knowledge they teach and you will start to see the similarities: Kabalah/Qabalah, Sufism, Hermetics, Rosicrucian, Golden Dawn, Freemasonry, Ancient Egyptian Mysticism, etc.  

And try to look beyond the literal words that are written on the pages of the world's religions.  There is 'hidden' knowledge in there... in all of them!

Hmm this video sums up much of what these teachings are (and at the very least gives a different definition of what 'God' is (from a scientific point of view):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF61lhEeGng


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

SpiritualSingh said:


> "Spirituality Unites Religion devides" this has become the story state of affairs today.
> 
> This is because Religions of today are not what they were when they started. Initially they all had roots in spiritualism. The older a religion more distorted and instutionalized it has become.
> 
> ...


 
Well said ji.

In my life i have come across many who have Bana and many who don't.
only a handful knew or cared of the spiritual aspect...and i am greatful to SGGS Ji and the lives of those that breathed it's spiritual aspect.

just being able to 'Be'... to just be as i am...to stop identifying myself with my past (it's all illusion now)... if you have the spiritual aspect ..everything we do on the outside...our interactions with people, the way we dress becomes aligned with the connection we gain inside to our true self.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Quantum physics? or is it Quantum woooooo?


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Quantum physics? or is it Quantum woooooo?


 
From what i'm hearing coming from the quantum physics arena, they are removing the stubborn boundaries of traditional science which is still taught in our schools...

quantum physics and spirituality will all arrive at the same truth...

only difference is...quantum science will 'tell' people what the truth is...but people will have no experience of the 'truth' which is similar to what we already have... SGGS ji telling us what the truth is...how to experience it...and the majority still being blind to it.

in the end, we still need to wash away the illusion and experience the truth for ourselves


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Quantum physics? or is it Quantum woooooo?



Not so long ago people said the same thing about the 'preposterous' idea that the world was round instead of flat!


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

funny thing is...we cant even 'experience the truth'
we already are the 'truth'....who is the one having the experience...thats the existance one needs to get back to...

not the identification with... i am John Smith, 23 years of age...an engineer by trade..2 kids...i had a past that was difficult...and i long for a peaceful future etc etc etc...
this keeps us locked into our limited self...the illusory self...

We already are greater than this...bigger than this...but we've allowed ourselves to get caught up the the 'drama' of this limited creation.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2013)

The Mystic, by Evelyn Underhill - YouTube

A selection of three short extracts from Evelyn Underhill's 1911 book 'Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness', read by Alvin Langdon Coburn in a recording made in the 1960s. 

Evelyn Underhill was an Anglo-Catholic mystic and author. 

Touches on themes raised in this thread. 

The transcript: 



> *'The mystic is "in love with the Absolute" not in any idle or sentimental manner, but in that deep and vital sense which presses forward at all costs and through all dangers towards union with the object beloved.
> 
> Page after page of jewels of mystical literature glow with this intimate and impassioned love of the Absolute, which transcends the dogmatic language in which it is clothed and becomes applicable to mystics of every race and creed.
> 
> The language of human passion is tepid and insignificant beside the language in which the mystics try to tell the splendours of their love. They force upon the unprejudiced reader the conviction that they are dealing with an ardour far more burning for an Object far more real.'*


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Akasha said:


> Not so long ago people said the same thing about the 'preposterous' idea that the world was round instead of flat!



I was  saying:  Quantum physics is about science. When it is misused, which it is continually here at SPN, then it is no longer science, but _wooooo._

I do understand that internet forums invite opinion and often show disrespect for informed opinion by their very nature as forums. The more important thing is that someone, anyone, be forward so that informed readers don't think we are careless and irresponsible.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> I was saying: Quantum physics is about science. When it is misused, which it is continually here at SPN, then it is no longer science, but _wooooo._
> 
> I do understand that internet forums invite opinion and often show disrespect for informed opinion by their very nature as forums. The more important thing is that someone, anyone, be forward so that informed readers don't think we are careless and irresponsible.


 
well said ji...for good debate we need to allow people to grow themselves...to seek the answers they seek...to contemplate...

contemplation cannot be done when one is drilled with a single idea or thought....gurbani asks us to contemplate to get out of the rigidness that our mind creates.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

chazSingh ji

Simply consider my comment as a red pen correction on a high school science paper. I am not deducting points from the final grade. Nothing has been deleted. However, it is my professional responsibility to comment. All sorts of claims in popular culture are made about quantum physics. Serious science treads carefully when making claims, Junk science does not. More later.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> chazSingh ji
> 
> Serious science treads carefully when making claims, Junk science does not. More later.


 
i dont really think it's junk science...some things just cannot be put into charts and tables and analyzed...

quantum physics appears as junk science to some because it's hitting the boundary of what can be written, discected and claimed and proved.

god cannot be proved because it's a personal awakening or realisation to all that is and ever was.

Serious science will have no option but to evolve as the population starts to awaken to their true selves...in fact serious science or any science will probably no longer be required because all answers will be there within.

mankind currently requires science because it requires "someone to tell them what is and what isn't"   the notion of "you tell me" because we are accepting the other as being seperate to oneself...

but if Gurbani is to be lived...then the reality is that there is no 'other' we already know everything ourselves..

just my thoughts

god bless ji


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

chazSingh ji

I don't know what I have said that is not clear. Of course quantum physics is science. Where did you get the idea I said otherwise?  Applying quantum science to religion is not science but junk science. Of course junk science is a lot of fun and forums are here for entertainment as well as learning. I hope that clears things up.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> I don't know what part of what I have said is not clear. Of course quantum physics is science.
> Where did you get the idea I said otherwise. Applying quantum science to religion is not science but junk science. Of course junk science is a lot of fun and forums are here for entertainment as well as learning. I hope that clear things up.


 
i dont see how applying it to religion then makes it junk science?
are they all not just seeking the 'truth'

if i was sat in a lab and one of my experiements suggested there could be some indication of a higher intelligence behind everything...does my science then become 'junk science'?

maybe i'm not understanding what you're saying


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

chazSingh said:


> i dont see how applying it to religion then makes it junk science?
> are they all not just seeking the 'truth'
> 
> if i was sat in a lab and one of my experiements suggested there could be some indication of a higher intelligence behind everything...does my science then become 'junk science'?
> ...




Based on my 30 years of professional experience  I do not think an "experiment" conducted according to accepted methods of science would give an indication of a *higher intelligence behind everything *in the "laboratory." I say this because of the way reputable scientists work. It is also the rare scientist who claims he/she has found the "truth." To tell the truth, in science it is common practice to give the probability of being wrong about one's findings (statistical significance level). It is also common practice to give a complete review of all other explanations for one's findings (rival explanations) that were not controlled in a study. A slow, cautious process, taken in baby steps, that tends to shy away from grandiose explanations, and explorations into topics that cannot be demonstrated with measurable evidence. That is the skeptical side of science which does not mix well with the wooo factor.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Based on my 30 years of professional experience I do not think an "experiment" conducted according to accepted practices of the scientific method would give an indication of a higher intelligence behind everything in the "laboratory." I say this because of the way reputable scientists work. It is also the rare scientist who claims he/she has found the "truth." To tell the truth, in science it is common practice to give the probability of being wrong about one's findings (statistical significance level) as well as give a complete review of all the other explanations for one's findings (rival explanations) that were not controlled in an experiment. A slow, methodological process, taken in baby steps, that tends to shy away from grandiose explanations, and explorations into topics that cannot be demonstrated with measurable evidence. That is the methodical side of science which does not mix well with the wooo factor.


 
i do agree with the above...no experiment can claim to have found the truth...the truth isnt limited to a concept or discovery from my current viewpoint...

but all forms of science / religion / spirituality are studying/seeking an aspect of God, the form and the formless....thats if we are to believe that all is god...i.e. the experience and the experiencer = god
all is in Gods domain. duality makes us think that they are all different.

many would say that a seed becoming a tree is proof enough of a greater intelligence (no experiment required)...i guess where just 'used' to these miracles that surround us. one form of science will look at the 'created' aspect....another form tries to delve into whats 'behind' the created.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Two terms from quantum mechanics invite the wooooo factor. One is the idea of "spooky action" and the other is "entanglement." Both of these are demonstrated with complex mathematical equations but that never bothered anyone in the new age camp who play the wooo factor for all it is worth.

Right now I am taking some personal time to go through leading authors in the realm of quantum physics to see exactly how they discuss their field. Will file my report later. Let me just post two comments from an interview of Tom Seigfried, Editor in Chief of Science News, on the Spookiness of Quantum Theory. The interviewer is Ira Flatow.



> FLATOW: Well, you have some of these new age people who
> believe that since -they use quantum physics to say since anything
> is possible, why can't I be in two places at once, right?
> 
> ...






> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example - it's the core of
> quantum mechanics - doesn't mean that everything is uncertain,
> because Heisenberg's principle is really very certain. So it's easy to
> get carried away and extend it to things where it doesn't really apply.
> ...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 28, 2013)

Chaz Singh ji,

Guru fateh.



> if i was sat in a lab and o*ne of my experiements suggested there could be some indication of a higher intelligence* behind everything...does my science then become 'junk science'?



Pardon my ignorance but can you please expalin what you mean by *Higher Intelligence and what instrument is used to identify that? *

What is the difference between *the Lower Intelligence and the Higher one*?

What is the benchmark for either or both and who decides all this with what kind of *Intelligence*?

And lastly, what  does that have to do with *ONE GOD*, the title of the thread? 

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

*i got new terms   worth learning and wondering
surprisingly the video which Akansha ji put up had one learned person in field of science mentioning very interesting thing
that the universe today is expanding and how one time it was one the size of a pea with all collectively BOUND together
how all which today is expanding around was just collectively ONE
something to do with basic message of religion which says we all are one still we are creating differences among us?
and how the video or the link talks about reality is illusion and about one's own experience about any particular thing 
i think that what religion tells us too if am not mistaken,everything is illusion around  isnt it?

chaaz singh ji you pointed a very good thing about EGO ,it IS the main hurdle which always blinds us and never allow us too see and experiences the deep hidden messages of the respective religions as akansha ji said there are deep hidden messages always 

and yes exactly  religion without SPIRITUALITY is nothing
what use is if we read day and night religious books but not adhere to basic messages and implying them in our daily lives 
i somehow feel religion is lot more that we exactly define sometimes ,my personal view 
how exactly we can define religion?
a state of mind ? or rather just adhering to specific rituals and specific way to TUNE?








*


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 28, 2013)

I realize that some concepts in quantum physics challenge previously accepted notions about the Universe worked.  However, everything I have posted about quantum physics and the experiments I have referenced can be easily searched on Google. (double slit experiment etc)  And I have not referenced any religion specifically... what I have extrapolated from it is spirituality.  The idea that the physical material world we experience, is not in fact what we think it is or how we perceive it to be.  The fact that this on its own merit hints at reality being more than just 'physical matter' and in fact, matter seems to dissolve at the quantum level.... is it a far stretch to apply this to the idea that our existence may not be entirely just physical?? AT least how we have previously understood 'matter' and 'physical' to be?

Even Albert Einstein, one of the most prominent physicists in history came to some conclusions about reality that can't be seen as any other way than spiritual!

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, "Universe," a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to
us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty." = Albert Einstein


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

*Pardon me ji ,sorry i misspelled Akasha ji as Akansha*
,*so sorry for that ji *


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Chaz Singh ji,
> 
> Guru fateh.
> 
> ...


 
Satnaam Ji,

sorry ji...i wasnt claiming that i can form an experiement to prove a higher intelligence...so i cannot comment on any instrument required 
maybe just watching a seed germinate and grown into a tree is enough for someone to connect this to a 'higher intelligence'

i would say lower intelligence is when we relate to ourselves as individual beings. We then identify ourselves to our bodies and mind...we think that is all we are..and are confined to our thoughts which keep us focussed on the outside and limit us to what we 'think' we are capable of.

Higher intelligence would be our 'Real intelligence'...once we reduce the effects of the 5 thieves...and we detach from the mind as being 'Us' and we realise what we are, and always have been...but we 'forgot'.

This higher intelligence, reality...would be the 'truth' and we are all 'ONE' in that aspect...

so this will link to the 'One God' aspect of the question...
even science can be regarded as a religion is some people eyes...just a different path that people are walking on to try and find the 'TRUTH'.

god bless ji


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

an Analogy that i like to use...

the state of being that we are experiencing under the Ego/Mind influence... is like a Block of Ice in the sea...
a clear distinction can be seen between the block of ice and the Sea...each has it's own attributes...

YET IT IS ALL AN ILLUSION....for they are both just water....there is only one thing in existance there...and that is water...

EKONKAAR SATNAAM......the ego just creates the illusion that their is 'another'...but there is only ONE.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

I hate to burst everyone's bubble here. But the video posted by Akasha reports on the thinking of Fred Allen Wolf. He is one of the biggest promoters of quantum woo and a major reason why I am spending as much time as I am on this thread.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 28, 2013)

This article may be of interest then:
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

It looks at the idea from the side of the atheists... that is to say that if everything is material, and just matter in motion (including our minds being essentially a machine made of meat), which also removes free will and thought... then the only result of quantum physics theories would be the Many Worlds Interpretation, where probabilities are never actually resolved and instead all possibilities exist at once... meaning there is an infinite amount of 'you' in different worlds all carrying out the infinite number of different probabilities.  That seems a bit far fetched.... And the author comes to the conclusion that the only way probabilities can be solved or finalized in the equations, is with a 'mind' or consciousness that transcends the material world and becomes a 'conscious observer' since probabilities can not be 'finalized' unless the final result is observed - and it has to be a 'conscious' observer it can't be an inanimate object that measures (a geiger counter is used in the example) because there is still nobody to observe what the geiger counter is measuring.  

That line of thinking is not only one physicist spnadmin ji.... or else it would never be as wide spread as it is. If it were only one physicist, then the video would not have contained that many people taking about the same thing.  There are other videos as well that get into this topic... What The Bleep Do We Know?, Spirit-Space, and others... all by different authors.  

Suffice it to say I am assuming you are Athiest, (I am still struggling how one can interpret Sikhi as Athiesm) and in this case follow the many worlds theory - that everything is just matter in motion and we are nothing more than meat machines that follow 'set in stone' rules of nature. But as Sikhs are we not supposed to search for truth?  We can't possibly claim to know all there is about science right now at this point in time... and for me, if I held my beliefs in line with contemporary physics, ignoring any possible advances and only believing what contemporary science can show me in physical means.... Then why would anyone even need a religion?  Just live life and then die... and cease to exist with no hopes that there is anything more.  Our plight is that we are trying to find proof of what's outside of this 'dream' from within it.  We will only ever have glimpses that 'suggest' or 'hint' that a spiritual existence is possible... it's up to us to either follow those glimpses and find the truth, or believe the results of the experiments that are confined within the illusion, and by extension part of the illusion. 

Not meaning any disrespect.... but I can't as a seeker of truth, just ignore advances that glimpse ideas that could suggest a spiritual existence, and intelligent design.  I feel deep inside me that there is more to existence than this physical world.  I can't fathom just living on this small and meaningless planet, as a fully conscious being, for no reason other than chance, and then just dying and that's it.  

I guess that is why we have the ability to debate these things on a public forum.  But being a religious forum, I find it very odd that only Chaz Singh Ji and myself seem to be in support of a conscious creator God - Waheguru Ji - and a spiritual existence beyond the physical.  I personally do not believe the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is just a manual on how to connect with the physical world we live in, and then we die and that's it.    So I am really struggling with the atheistic interpretation of Sikhi because it means life has no meaning.  It means we are really just 'meat machines' as the article I linked above put it.  

Again, no disrespect... and not trying to get in trouble. Maybe I have the entire wrong idea of Sikhi... but then my entire Sangat has the wrong idea as well!  Is Sikhism really atheism?  (sorry it I seemed to get a bit off topic... it really does deal with the concept of God within Sikhi and crossing to other religions - or antireligion / atheism)


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Reputable science does not take a stand for or against atheism. Nor does it take a stand for or against belief in god. *Misuse of science *takes us in those directions... generally by individuals who have an axe to grind. I think the article makes some basic mistakes for that reason. Uncertainty does not lead to "all things are possible." At least not in Quantum Theory. To say that  "all things are possible" is a truism. Science wants to know what limits the possibilities. It would be a good exercise to take the article and analyze it paragraph by paragraph.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Single tuk posting is not permitted. Please post the entire shabad. In the case of the deleted tuk it is a long one. Then also provide the Ang number along with your personal interpretation.


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 28, 2013)

arshdeep88 said:


> ਏਕੋ ਅਲਹੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥
> एको अलहु पारब्रहम ॥५॥३४॥४५॥
> Ėko alhu pārbarahm. ||5||34||45||
> The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same. ||5||34||45||
> ...


 

Satnaam Arshdeep Ji,

Now that you have removed all doubt on this question ji in your mind (which i had to also) ... where can this one god be experienced...where must one look...or seek?

this is the journey and direction that hopefully your question will be directing you towards...

God bless you ji...


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

spn admin ji i dont know why you deleted my post
ok ill post the entire shabad
this is on ang 897 of sri guru granth sahib g

ok g i accept i am not much of a learner of sikhi

but what does this shabad means ?

<table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td>  ਓ*ੁਂ  ਨਮੋ  ਭਗਵੰਤ  ਗੁਸਾਈ  ॥ 
ओं नमो भगवंत गुसाई ॥ 
Oŉ namo bẖagvanṯ gusā▫ī. 
I humbly pray to invoke the Universal Lord God, the Lord of the World. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਖਾਲਕੁ  ਰਵਿ  ਰਹਿਆ  ਸਰਬ  ਠਾਈ  ॥੧॥  ਰਹਾਉ  ॥ 
खालकु रवि रहिआ सरब ठाई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 
Kẖālak rav rahi▫ā sarab ṯẖā▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
The Creator Lord is all-pervading, everywhere. ||1||Pause|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਜਗੰਨਾਥ  ਜਗਜੀਵਨ  ਮਾਧੋ  ॥ 
जगंनाथ जगजीवन माधो ॥ 
Jagannāth jagjīvan māḏẖo. 
He is the Lord of the Universe, the Life of the World. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਭਉ  ਭੰਜਨ  ਰਿਦ  ਮਾਹਿ  ਅਰਾਧੋ  ॥ 
भउ भंजन रिद माहि अराधो ॥ 
Bẖa▫o bẖanjan riḏ māhi arāḏẖo. 
Within your heart, worship and adore the Destroyer of fear. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਰਿਖੀਕੇਸ  ਗੋਪਾਲ  ਗਵਿੰਦ  ॥ 
रिखीकेस गोपाल गोविंद ॥ 
Rikẖīkes gopāl govinḏ. 
The Master Rishi of the senses, Lord of the World, Lord of the Universe. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਪੂਰਨ  ਸਰਬਤ੍ਰ  ਮੁਕੰਦ  ॥੨॥ 
पूरन सरबत्र मुकंद ॥२॥ 
Pūran sarbaṯar mukanḏ. ||2|| 
He is perfect, ever-present everywhere, the Liberator. ||2|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਮਿਹਰਵਾਨ  ਮਉਲਾ  ਤੂਹੀ  ਏਕ  ॥ 
मिहरवान मउला तूही एक ॥ 
Miharvān ma▫ulā ṯūhī ek. 
You are the One and only merciful Master, 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਪੀਰ  ਪੈਕਾਂਬਰ  ਸੇਖ  ॥ 
पीर पैकांबर सेख ॥ 
Pīr paikāŉbar sekẖ. 
spiritual teacher, prophet, religious teacher. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਦਿਲਾ  ਕਾ  ਮਾਲਕੁ  ਕਰੇ  ਹਾਕੁ  ॥ 
दिला का मालकु करे हाकु ॥ 
Ḏilā kā mālak kare hāk. 
Master of hearts, Dispenser of justice, 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਕੁਰਾਨ  ਕਤੇਬ  ਤੇ  ਪਾਕੁ  ॥੩॥ 
कुरान कतेब ते पाकु ॥३॥ 
Kurān kaṯeb ṯe pāk. ||3|| 
more sacred than the Koran and the Bible. ||3|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਨਾਰਾਇਣ  ਨਰਹਰ  ਦਇਆਲ  ॥ 
नाराइण नरहर दइआल ॥ 
Nārā▫iṇ narhar ḏa▫i▫āl. 
The Lord is powerful and merciful. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਰਮਤ  ਰਾਮ  ਘਟ  ਘਟ  ਆਧਾਰ  ॥ 
रमत राम घट घट आधार ॥ 
Ramaṯ rām gẖat gẖat āḏẖār. 
The all-pervading Lord is the support of each and every heart. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਬਾਸੁਦੇਵ  ਬਸਤ  ਸਭ  ਠਾਇ  ॥ 
बासुदेव बसत सभ ठाइ ॥ 
Bāsuḏev basaṯ sabẖ ṯẖā▫e. 
The luminous Lord dwells everywhere. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਲੀਲਾ  ਕਿਛੁ  ਲਖੀ  ਨ  ਜਾਇ  ॥੪॥ 
लीला किछु लखी न जाइ ॥४॥ 
Līlā kicẖẖ lakẖī na jā▫e. ||4|| 
His play cannot be known. ||4|| 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਮਿਹਰ  ਦਇਆ  ਕਰਿ  ਕਰਨੈਹਾਰ  ॥ 
मिहर दइआ करि करनैहार ॥ 
Mihar ḏa▫i▫ā kar karnaihār. 
Be kind and compassionate to me, O Creator Lord. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਭਗਤਿ  ਬੰਦਗੀ  ਦੇਹਿ  ਸਿਰਜਣਹਾਰ  ॥ 
भगति बंदगी देहि सिरजणहार ॥ 
Bẖagaṯ banḏagī ḏėh sirjaṇhār. 
Bless me with devotion and meditation, O Lord Creator. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਕਹੁ  ਨਾਨਕ  ਗੁਰਿ  ਖੋਏ  ਭਰਮ  ॥ 
कहु नानक गुरि खोए भरम ॥ 
Kaho Nānak gur kẖo▫e bẖaram. 
Says Nanak, the Guru has rid me of doubt. 
   </td></tr> <tr><td>  ਏਕੋ  ਅਲਹੁ  ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ  ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥ 
एको अलहु पारब्रहम ॥५॥३४॥४५॥ 
Ėko alhu pārbarahm. ||5||34||45|| 
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same. ||5||34||45|| 
   </td></tr> <tr></tr></tbody></table>

you ask my perception
from my perception it says god is the same for all relgions be it hindu ,muslim ,sikh or christian


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 28, 2013)

It also seems to me, to be describing a deity... and one who resides everywhere and within everything.  It's also saying the creator... the Lord IS the source of life in the world.  And to me, that also describes a 'knowing' and 'conscious' God.  Because why would one even pray to nature? Nature would be unconscious to anyone's prayers!  

Unless I am missing something and this whole thing is symbolism wrapped up in allegory?? But I became Sikh because I believed that it was the one religion that seemed to get away from so much allegory.  I guess I was looking at it in the perspective of someone who believes in a conscious deity creator God.... that I believe is Waheguru.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Can we take this as far as to say that the Muslim God and the Hindu God Hanuman are one and the same? 

ਏਕੋ ਅਲਹੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥
एको अलहु पारब्रहम ॥५॥३४॥४५॥
Ėko alhu pārbarahm. ||5||34||45||
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same. ||5||34||45||

Is the translation of the tuk correct?

When we read the entire shabad is Guru Nanak stating that all religions worship the same god?

Or, is Guru Nanak describing the characteristics of a god who permeates the universe?

Or, is Guru Nanak referring to a different sense of god, that was not at the time part of the beliefs of either Muslims or Hindus? 

Today would most Muslims agree with Guru Nanak?

Does the shabad help us understand whether god is conscious? Anything about that in the shabad?

Does the shabad help us to understand why there are many religions? Or does the shabad shed light on Guru Nanak's understanding of god?


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

*
one thing is that what Guru Nanak Mahraj said is way above our wisdom 
we can not even think about some things which he has the wisdom to state
we may not infer whole life which he said in bani
i have just taken the the Shabad with translation from one well defined source where translation of guru granth sahib ji is there
if you have some other source where other translation is there you can also put it

its not that i have translated it 
forget about muslims even some sikhs dont agree to certain things in Shabad
its my perception that says to me GOD is one whether be of Muslims or be it of christians or of hindus
i have just posted the page number and shabad with reference to my doubts and the thread title reference
mine doubts have been eradicated which sometimes i too use to wonder whether there are different gods for different religions 
you others may have other perception 
that's why i earlier mentioned our interpretation of things and knowledge around also play a key role


*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 28, 2013)

arshdeep88 said:


> *
> one thing is that what Guru Nanak Mahraj said is way above our wisdom
> we can not even think about some things which he has the wisdom to state
> we may not infer whole life which he said in bani
> ...



Arshdeep ji,

Guru Fateh.

SGGS translations are a dime a dozen all over. But, if we do not interpret the Shabads for our own understanding in order to use Gurbani in our daily lives, they become useless and worthless.

Please share your own understanding of the Shabad and what kind of impact it has had on your personal life, so we call all learn through your Sikhi journey.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 28, 2013)

One of Kabir's Shabads in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji: 

<TABLE cellSpacing=5><TBODY><TR><TD>ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ ॥

प्रभाती ॥ 

Parbẖāṯī. 

Prabhaatee: 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹੁ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥

बेद कतेब कहहु मत झूठे झूठा जो न बिचारै ॥ 

Beḏ kaṯeb kahhu maṯ jẖūṯẖe jẖūṯẖā jo na bicẖārai. 

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮੁਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥

जउ सभ महि एकु खुदाइ कहत हउ तउ किउ मुरगी मारै ॥१॥ 

Ja▫o sabẖ mėh ek kẖuḏā▫e kahaṯ ha▫o ṯa▫o ki▫o murgī mārai. ||1|| 

You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ||1|| 



</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#babac7><TD>ਮੁਲਾਂ ਕਹਹੁ ਨਿਆਉ ਖੁਦਾਈ ॥

मुलां कहहु निआउ खुदाई ॥ 

Mulāŉ kahhu ni▫ā▫o kẖuḏā▫ī. 

O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice? 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਤੇਰੇ ਮਨ ਕਾ ਭਰਮੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

तेरे मन का भरमु न जाई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 

Ŧere man kā bẖaram na jā▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o. 

The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. ||1||Pause|| 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਪਕਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਆਨਿਆ ਦੇਹ ਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਮਾਟੀ ਕਉ ਬਿਸਮਿਲਿ ਕੀਆ ॥

पकरि जीउ आनिआ देह बिनासी माटी कउ बिसमिलि कीआ ॥ 

Pakar jī▫o āni▫ā ḏeh bināsī mātī ka▫o bismil kī▫ā. 

You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay. 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪ ਅਨਾਹਤ ਲਾਗੀ ਕਹੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਕਿਆ ਕੀਆ ॥੨॥

जोति सरूप अनाहत लागी कहु हलालु किआ कीआ ॥२॥ 

Joṯ sarūp anāhaṯ lāgī kaho halāl ki▫ā kī▫ā. ||2|| 

The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed? ||2|| 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਕਿਆ ਉਜੂ ਪਾਕੁ ਕੀਆ ਮੁਹੁ ਧੋਇਆ ਕਿਆ ਮਸੀਤਿ ਸਿਰੁ ਲਾਇਆ ॥

किआ उजू पाकु कीआ मुहु धोइआ किआ मसीति सिरु लाइआ ॥ 

Ki▫ā ujū pāk kī▫ā muhu ḏẖo▫i▫ā ki▫ā masīṯ sir lā▫i▫ā. 

And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque? 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਜਉ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਕਪਟੁ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਹੁ ਕਿਆ ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਇਆ ॥੩॥

जउ दिल महि कपटु निवाज गुजारहु किआ हज काबै जाइआ ॥३॥ 

Ja▫o ḏil mėh kapat nivāj gujārahu ki▫ā haj kābai jā▫i▫ā. ||3|| 

Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca? ||3|| 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਤੂੰ ਨਾਪਾਕੁ ਪਾਕੁ ਨਹੀ ਸੂਝਿਆ ਤਿਸ ਕਾ ਮਰਮੁ ਨ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥

तूं नापाकु पाकु नही सूझिआ तिस का मरमु न जानिआ ॥ 

Ŧūŉ nāpāk pāk nahī sūjẖi▫ā ṯis kā maram na jāni▫ā. 

You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery. 



</TD></TR><TR><TD>ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਭਿਸਤਿ ਤੇ ਚੂਕਾ ਦੋਜਕ ਸਿਉ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੪॥

कहि कबीर भिसति ते चूका दोजक सिउ मनु मानिआ ॥४॥४॥ 

Kahi Kabīr bẖisaṯ ṯe cẖūkā ḏojak si▫o man māni▫ā. ||4||4|| 

Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell. ||4||4|| 



Note the first Tuk: 

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. 

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

Thoughts? Is the translation accurate and if so what does it teach us?


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

*Tejwant singh ji
Gurfateh Ji
i cant say what ever i have interpreted is absolutely 100% right from the Shabad itself 
as i accept my  mind is not 100% perfect to interpret things as they are originally meant to be
 nor i am so much scholar or read guru granth sahib ji often
but yeah when ever i get time i do try to study ,understand and try implying it.
Sometimes i am not able to get things originally from the shabad so i try to get to the original source from where it is with some translation for better understanding
but what i can gather through my understanding is that Creator is the one and only for all people be it of every religion ,i can feel the same God existing everywhere for everyone
some have defined different characteristics of CREATOR some have defined other
for example some may like me for me nature while some may like me for my help
some may like me  for my kindness(just an example it doesn't mean i am kind or helpful) 
the creator who created people whether its muslim ,christian ,sikhs and hindus has to be ONE
i cant imagine god different for muslims ,hindus etc etc
interpretation of god and religions  can be different i agree but the TRUTH has to be pointing out to ONE

as i myself asked one question in the forum that does the way of worshiping gods and differences in religion arose only due to differences in geographical conditions ,traditions ,and one's understanding and one's interpretation

what impact it had on me?
it helps relating myself to all,be he or she of any religion
the person of other religion has been created by the same creator who has created me,so a feeling of we all are alike 
again its just my perception
please sir  i am no one to be learned or to be followed   as i am mere sinner ( i mean it )
everyone learns from his own journey and experiences
Sat sri akal ji

*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 28, 2013)

Vouthon ji,

Guru Fateh.

Note the first Tuk: 



> Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
> Thoughts? Is the translation accurate and if so what does it teach us?



Please share your own understanding about the Shabad.

Secondly,  how does one contemplate the following in the Bible?

1.*"Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. " (*Genesis 19:23-25, 30-36, NKJV)

2. How about condoning  Slavery and inequality between the 2 genders in the Bible?

I can give  you many other verses from the Bible to contemplate on. I am sure you are aware of them.

Please do not quote someone else. That does nothing but clutters the threads. Share your own contemplation with us.

Then you will find what the first line of the Salok means.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

Vouthon ji

It is time now that you also give your understanding of the texts you copy. It is not enough to paste them as if leaving trace evidence of a forgotten truth. Let's hear what you think in your own voice. Thanks


----------



## Ishna (Mar 28, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Vouthon ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
My two cents.. I'm usually hesitant to give my understanding because I'm not very smart and poetry is difficult for me to understand, made more difficult by fumbling with translations.

The shabad appears (to me) to be saying it's no good indulging in rituals and outward displays.  If you'd contemplated Truth you'd know that everything is One and would be pure on the inside, but because many people don't contemplate on the deeper things and instead just follow 'teachings' blindly they become hypocrites and lose. But I'm taking liberties by using my other knowledge of Gurbani to answer the questions raised by Kabir Ji.

With particular regard to the first tuk, it seems to be suggesting that the Truth is in those scriptures too but you've got to dig deep to find it, i.e. contemplate on those texts, to really understand and imbibe the core truths into your being.  This applies to Sikhs too!!  Compare you're typical 'born Sikh' at the Gurdwara who has his hair and hates it to one who is seriously taking time to study and learn and adore.

IMHO.

I would also like to add that the Bible isn't one huge lecture on morality and ethics. It's full of stories and history (real or imaigned I'm not into that debate) which shouldn't be seen as 'teachings on behaviour', for example the incest of Lot's daughters. That was a story, not a teaching recommending daughters to copulate with their fathers.

Further the problem with any sacred text is that it gets stuck in time. They reference things that are valid in a particular time and place, and present solutions to problems there, or ways of living that probably were more workable in that environment at that time but that don't apply now. [excluding the core truths which will last forever, found by contemplation on deeper mysteries]

I think this problem also applies to Gurbani although to a lesser extent because Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mostly poetry in praise of (something, nothing, apparently no one knows anymore), and not stories or examples of history. But there are references to history of the time, for example the shabads referencing Babar's invasion.


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Can we take this as far as to say that the Muslim God and the Hindu God Hanuman are one and the same?



Hanuman?
is that you think god of hindus is?
or is it that most of the HINDUS have made Hanuman to be god?

it is just like if some sikh claim gurus to be god,or muslims to call prophet mohammad to be god
Hindus never refer hanuman as god ,they refer him RAM dhoot,Bhagat of RAM(ram of ayodhya)which is different discussion all together to who actually he was 

i have many hindu friends whom in past i had asked about their perception,what i concluded is that YES majority of them do believe RAM,KRISHNA,SHIVA etc as GODs 
but at the same time dnt even have scriptures or conclusive proof from the  respective hymns to claim where it is written that they are the CREATOR
and yet there are some profound learners who say  ram,krishna etc are not the GODS citing some times Vedas 

Truth can only be found if we read and get deep into their respective religious books
 ,just because few hindus are going Hanuman temple to worship doesnt means the ceator of hindus is Hanuman


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2013)

arsgdeeo 88 ji

Hanuman is one of hundreds. My question asks whether one can substitute Hanuman for Parabrahm. What do you think?

The translator adds "Muslim God" and it is not there. The translator adds "Hindu God" and it is not there. The translator has created the impression that Muslim God Allah = Hindu God Parabrahm. 

To call Parabrahm a Hindu God is a poor translation for Parabrahm because Parabrahm is not exactly a Hindu god in the same way as Vishnu or Shiva or for that matter Hanuman. Parabrahm is an all pervading principle who is also without form. 

The tuk does not mean Muslim God Allah and Hindu God Parabrahm are interchangeable, because the meaning of Parabrahm has been developed throughout the shabad to be something else. We read the shabad and we see what that is.

To answer my own question. Guru Nanak is saying the Parabrahm is immanent within Allah. Did Muslims accept that in Guru Nanak's time or today? Maybe if they were/are Sufis. Allah for Muslims tends always to be transcendent and stands apart from creation. Here Guru Nanak is turning the beliefs that surrounded him around once again. He is saying the Parabrahm pervades even Allah. The translation "they are one and the same" is wrong because it misses what is in the closer translation ...  Allah and the Parabrahm are not the same. It is simply stated in only 3 words   *Ėko alhu pārbarahm*    Allah and Parabrahm are one. 

The question of whether the nirgun is conscious goes unanswered.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 28, 2013)

Ishna ji,

Guru Fateh.

Allow me to respond to this particular part of your post.



> I would also like to add that the Bible isn't one huge lecture on morality and ethics. It's full of stories and history (real or imaigned I'm not into that debate) which shouldn't be seen as 'teachings on behaviour', for example the incest of Lot's daughters. That was a story, not a teaching recommending daughters to copulate with their fathers.



I beg to differ with you. The Bible is full of morals, ethics, dos and do nots by giving examples  through the stories given in it. I can quote many verses from the Bible to elaborate my point if you like.



> Further the problem with any sacred text is that it gets stuck in time. They reference things that are valid in a particular time and place, and present solutions to problems there, or ways of living that probably were more workable in that environment at that time but that don't apply now. [excluding the core truths which will last forever, found by contemplation on deeper mysteries]



Yes, the reason they are stuck in time is because of the subjective truths not due to the objective reality. The case in point is about everything revolving around the Earth. Poor Galileo was sent to "The Devil's Island" because he saw the objective reality. Only in 1992, the Catholic Church admitted the objective reality about the Earth revolving around the Sun. Poor Galileo was long dead to hear that.

Subjective truths  also are called Absolute Truth etched in stone (the 10 commandments). I can quote many other things which are betrayal to the norms of the society of today from different scriptures because of their subjective truths. People are certain that Jesus will return and convert all the non-believers and the ones who do not will be thrown in the cauldron of Hell and the rest will be saved for eternity. One wonders who is going to pay for their health insurance!



> I think this problem also applies to Gurbani although to a lesser extent because Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mostly poetry in praise of (something, nothing, apparently no one knows anymore), and not stories or examples of history. But there are references to history of the time, for example the shabads referencing Babar's invasion.



I beg to differ with you again. Here is my take about it which I mentioned in my speech at the Interfaith Forum and still stand by it:

"The poetry of the Guru Granth is in itself a subject worthy of the highest consideration. Music forms the basis of the rhythms and classification of the hymns. 

This form is not only used to preserve the originality of the composition, as the poetry written in this form is difficult to imitate, but more so to provide the divine experience through the medium of music.

Further, poetry can be left to the culture and the times that follow to best interpret the message".

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...orum-2011-religious-principles-spiritual.html

Babavani is as current and fresh as the freshly picked strawberries. It is all about injustice, abduction and rapes and Guru Nanak stood against all this and urges us today to do the same. These things still happen today. I live in Las Vegas and I am on the Mayor's committee to combat underage/teenage prostitution. I know how hard the unit fights to catch the pimps and save the girls. I have been with these units at night times when they catch these predators. Nothing has changed.

The poetic Gurbani did not stop in time as compared to other scriptures but to the contrary, it refreshes our thought process with the new times.


Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> arsgdeeo 88 ji
> 
> Hanuman is one of hundreds. My question asks whether one can substitute Hanuman for Parabrahm. What do you think?
> 
> ...


you are right we cant substitute hanuman with or be any one of the hundreds with Parbraham which the translator is saying to be with reference to the hindu god
sister ji,hanuman might be the one of the hundreds what hindus mythology believe it to be ,but you and me also know he is not the TRUE creator of hindus ,
if i here define god accordingly to me HE who is the creator of all 
creator of me ,creator of you ,creator of all other people on the forum
here .I may have different view of the creator ,you may have different ,others may have different.
its not like hindus were created by different god ,muslims by different or me by different

and in my views none of the hundreds believed be it shiva ,hindu or vishnu can replace the TRUE one
i am not seeing it from that prospective relating Hindu Creator  to countless gods believed to be in Hindu mythology be it rama ,krishna and shiva or etc 
 i am just trying to see from this prospective the CREATOR who created muslims hindus sikhs or even christians is one and the same


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 29, 2013)

arshdeep ji

Let me start first by saying that I do not believe that god exists. I do believe that Kartar is real. 

You bring up the idea of "Creator" ... Kartar, who is timeless and self-created.  The Sikh idea, and forgive my mistakes, is that Kartar pervades all creation and is beyond all creation, is formless_ nirgun_ and evident in creation _sargun_. Kartar is simple yet mighty, a paradox, who does not give speeches or work miracles through human messengers and prophets. Kartar is here and there, for all time and beyond time. If Parabrahm is the image in the shabad, it is Kartar as the Parabrahm who brings "light" breathes "life" into the universe. Kartar does not need to self-manifest through human or animal avatars or incarnations because Kartar is already present in everything. 

For me it is jarring to hear that this or that god and Kartar are the same when Gurbani does not even say that and the equation doesn't make any sense.  What makes sense to me is that Kartar is not like a god at all but is, in some way, a part of all the visions and versions of god _that humans have imagined_ over centuries. Kartar has always been and will always be Kartar no matter what other gods _are imagined in the future. _

Is Kartar conscious? Maybe next week things will seem different to me. Tonight I do not think consciousness is a necessary condition because the doer of everything is also the creator of consciousness, and therefore beyond consciousness.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 29, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> arshdeep ji
> 
> Let me start first by saying that I do not believe that god exists. I do believe that Kartar is real.
> 
> ...



Spnadmin ji,

Guru fateh.

Very well said.

I want to thank you for untangling this self tangled web of our minds.You have simplified it very eloquently.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ishna (Mar 29, 2013)

Tejwant Ji



Tejwant Singh said:


> I beg to differ with you. The Bible is full of morals, ethics, dos and do nots by giving examples through the stories given in it. I can quote many verses from the Bible to elaborate my point if you like.


 
You don't have to beg with me, you are allowed to differ. 

The Bible does have a lot of morals and instructions, and many are told via stories. But not all of them, or every aspect of them, for example the incest of Lot's daughters.



> Yes, the reason they are stuck in time is because of the subjective truths not due to the objective reality. The case in point is about everything revolving around the Earth. Poor Galileo was sent to "The Devil's Island" because he saw the objective reality. Only in 1992, the Catholic Church admitted the objective reality about the Earth revolving around the Sun. Poor Galileo was long dead to hear that.
> 
> Subjective truths also are called Absolute Truth etched in stone (the 10 commandments). I can quote many other things which are betrayal to the norms of the society of today from different scriptures because of their subjective truths. People are certain that Jesus will return and convert all the non-believers and the ones who do not will be thrown in the cauldron of Hell and the rest will be saved for eternity. One wonders who is going to pay for their health insurance!


 
Are you saying religion can't be cognizant of objective reality?




> Babavani is as current and fresh as the freshly picked strawberries. It is all about injustice, abduction and rapes and Guru Nanak stood against all this and urges us today to do the same. These things still happen today. I live in Las Vegas and I am on the Mayor's committee to combat underage/teenage prostitution. I know how hard the unit fights to catch the pimps and save the girls. I have been with these units at night times when they catch these predators. Nothing has changed.
> 
> The poetic Gurbani did not stop in time as compared to other scriptures but to the contrary, it refreshes our thought process with the new times.


 
If the Babavani can be reading about historical events and learning from them, how is that different to stories of morality that appear in other scriptures?

I'm wary of taking the thread too far off topic with this discussion.


----------



## arshdeep88 (Mar 29, 2013)

*what i have learned from this form is   till now everyone has his her own perception and his /her understanding
and neither no one is right nor  are wrong nor i claim my understanding to be be perfect
i will keep my differences to myself 
i can only talk from my understanding 
 i tried getting views of all on this topic of creator the  TRUE GOD  the same for all because that's till today i understood it to be not just to make warmness  or anything its just my perception allowed me to see things this way
when i see any person around him irrespective of religions i think to myself he has been made by the same creator who has created me
i feel paths are different but proper understanding leads to one source of destination
that's what my view and understanding allows me to infer 
till today my understanding might be wrong 
bhul chuk khima g 
i humbly bow out of this discussion
Sat sri Akaleacesign:


*


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 29, 2013)

Dear Tejwant and Spn, 

Thank you both for your posts. 

My understanding of the Shabad is that Kabir is referring, first of all, to Muslim and Hindu fanatics who declare each others scriptures to be false. He then tells them that, contrary to this understanding, one should view neither the Vedas, the Bible or the Qur'an as "false" but rather should contemplate their overall teachings and moral messages deeply. 

Kabir is trying to enlighten people to see the utter futility of fighting or arguing over the teachings of various "holy books" of the world and not to claim that they are not true or useless to living a wise life. 

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, by including such a poem by Kabir, is suggesting that people should read sacred scriptures - _any sacred scriptures - _with the right frame of mind, a searching, open, respectful, impartial, non-judgemental state of mind and not to form a negative judgement regarding any of the holy books. To comprehend the underlying reality; the fullness of truth conveyed in the philosophy of any faith cannot be achieved by a casual look at a few lines of the holy text quoted out of context, bereft of its historicity, genre or subtext. Some religions require many years of deep investigation to reach a developed, fair and penetrating insight. Hence why in a religion such as Judaism, whose central sacred scripture the passage on Lot is from, has developed exegesis disciplines such as the mystical Kabbalah tradition which expounds verses of the Torah with an informed, spiritualized reading that might not be apparent to the casual reader. In Christianity centuries of church fathers, mystics and theologians such as the scholastics have formed a vast, almost unimaginably huge and diverse exegetical tradition which views the Bible as having "four senses":


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">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Religious people have put great efforts into expounding and understanding various layers in their scriptures. 

Kabir was an ecumenist. He refused to identify himself purely with either the Islam of his birth or the Hinduism he encountered in his teenage years. Rather he formed his own inclusive path: _The Kabir Panth. _

He tried to embody in his new path everything that he saw to be good, holy and true from the deepest reservoirs of Islamic and Vedantic spirituality. He probably was conversant with aspects of the Bible too, meaning that he tried to embody the non-dogmatic, spiritual aspects of Judaic and Christian scripture as well. 

Kabir was therefore praised by all faiths as one of the greatest of all mystics for his clear, un-doctored insight into truth, uncoloured by religious fervour or doctrinal bias. He is one of the most impartial witnesses to spiritual realities that history has known.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 29, 2013)

Vouthon ji

Threads are supposed to engage conversation. You are and have been spamming us with yards of copy  and paste. Please go back and edit these comments so they do not break down the dialog. Make them shorter. Consider the frustrations of a reader who is trying to follow the discussion and has to go back 2 pages to pick up where he left off. Contribute to the dialog. Use the quotes as examples here and there. If yards of gurbani were being pasted into threads the same concerns would be voiced. When Musims discuss by quoting the Quran over and over, the same request is made. Please abide by this request. spnadmin


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 29, 2013)

Dear Spn

I am currently on a train using my phone so I cannot edit the above posts atm. Later I have a Good Friday service to attend. Afterwards however I will edit the posts as you ask. 

Kind regards 

Vouthon


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Mar 29, 2013)

I also think it is now timely for us to wish our Veera Vouthon a very Happy Easter!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 29, 2013)

Ishna ji,

Guru Fateh.



> I'm wary of taking the thread too far off topic with this discussion


 
This is part of the thread and my post was addressed to Vouthon who has never responded to my questions directly but posts contradictory statements from others which have nothing to do with the conversation we are having. I have no idea what his true agenda is. I would call it passive proselytising, to put it mildly. We have many people from other religions who also try to do that rather than having conversation. I hope and "pray" that at least he responds to one of my many posts directed to him with questions rather than copying and pasting some irrelevant stuff.

You chimed in and rightfully so, hence we are having a conversation.



> The Bible does have a lot of morals and instructions, and many are told via stories. *But not all of them, or every aspect of them, for example the incest of Lot's daughters.*



Then what is the meaning or lesson we can draw out from this story? Is there a following verse that condemns this kind of behaviour? After all it is part of the religious scripture and put their for some moral lessons. What is the true and meaningful agenda here which we can learn from?

Ishna ji, please do not take my questions personally. You are helping me to think aloud so I can understand things from others' perspective. I am thankful for that.



> Are you saying religion can't be cognizant of objective reality?


 
I did not say that. In fact, Sikhi according to me is based on objective reality because it did not stop in time as other religions did. The 1429 pages of the poetic Gurbani prove that.

I would request you to give me concrete examples, in this case, from all 3 Abrahamic religions and Hinduism which Kabir ji is talking about for me to grasp any part of objective reality. I gave you the examples  of the subjective truths from them which also include 82 virgins,  Hell, Heaven, Multiple gods,Vengeful angry god/s, Condoning slavery,Caste system, Concubines and many more.

Ishna ji, I am here to learn. Hence, open for that.



> If the Babavani can be reading about historical events and learning from them, how is that different to stories of morality that appear in other scriptures?


 
It may be true if the other verses do not contradict them. Case in point The 10 Commandments. Please give me some concrete examples about the above.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Archived_member15 (Mar 29, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I have no idea what his true agenda is. I would call it passive proselytising, to put it mildly.


 

Dear Tejwant ji, 

I have already replied to your and Spn's request for my general understanding of Kabir's Shabad above. If you are referring specifically to the quotation from the Bible, I was going to reply to that specifically afterwards, although I pretty much agree already with what Ishna has said to you about it being merely a story and so I don't want to be repetitive. I think that it would be unfair to claim that I have avoided answering your questions. On the other thread I answered your question regarding why Dionysius described God as "it" in considerable depth, with a lot of effort put into the post. I could have instead chose to go out digging in the garden getting some fresh air but instead I decided to sit and reply too you. 

You found my answer in your own words to be like "gumbo" and "contradictory" and you could not understand it. That is a perception of what I wrote, it does not mean I didn't reply too you. You asked me a second question and I replied to that too in great depth. Yes I quoted from other sources as part of the post but those sources helped my line of argument and also answered your question. You _liked_ the post and never raised the issue again, so obviously you received a satisfactory answer. What else am I to infer from that? 

The Bible contains various genres: oral history, moral teachings, poetry, religious songs, prophetic writings etc. Not everything has an explicit moral message intended by the authors. The Old Testament is not just a holy scripture but the history of a people, the history of the Jewish people as they saw their own history. The passage in question does not give any moral commentary on the lurid act which his daughters did to him. It is most likely simply a piece of oral history that the sacred authors believed to be something which actually happened to Lot. It is a (purportedly) historical story, it is not a moral teaching and if anything it is warning us against abusing others to achieve ulterior motives, and showing how far some people are willing to go to achieve their goals, even to do the most horrid acts. The Torah, of which the Book of Genesis is a part, condemns incest as one of the gravest evils, hence why the authors could only be disgusted by such an episode like we are today. The two girls in the story got their father Lot drunk and then essentially assaulted him. That is the context of the story in the preceding passage from which the quote is extracted. Nevertheless the story on its own betokens no need for such moral philosophising. 

On the subject of proselytization, I can tell you outright that you will find in me no agenda because I have none. I am not an Evangelical, I don't seek to convert anyone to my worldview. If I did, then I would surely be quoting from the Bible itself rather than from sources without any doctrinal bias towards the Christian faith but rather which exhibit mystical teachings that are often against traditional understandings of Christian beliefs in the popular mindset. The Bible is the sacred scripture of the Catholic Church equivalent to the Sikh Guru Granth Sahib ji, not Catholic mystics. Mysticism is a category of its own. Many Catholics are not in the least mystically-minded. It is a phenomenon in various religions. None of my quotations have anything explicitly to do with Christianity that I can see, with the exception of a rare quote from the Catechism, so I would be interested in learning how I can be proselytising when my quotes have nothing to convince anybody of, except for a subjective individual Catholic's opinions on God, nature or reality received from his own prayers and contemplations. That is not proselytization of a kind I am familiar with. 

When have I ever tried to actively promote a Christian specific teaching? What benefit would I reap from "proselytizing"? I don't believe that any of you are damned or need to believe in Jesus to receive salvation, so I am clearly not motivated by concern for your souls as a Mainline Protestant Christian might legitimately be. I have generally only ever quoted mystics. Mystics - individuals with individual experiences of God. Yes they are Catholic mystics because I know my own tradition best, however if I was as knowledgeable of Sufi Islam to the extent that I could find a quote to fit every need then I would have no qualms about quoting Rumi, Hafez, Saadi, Jami, Al-Ghazzali etc. rather than Eckhart, John of the Cross and Ruusbroec. If you check back my posts from last year you will even find me quoting sometimes from the Sufi writings I am more conversant with. 

With kindest regards, 

Vouthon


----------



## Ishna (Mar 29, 2013)

Tejwant Ji

I think Vouthon has addressed the points raised nicely and I agree with his response so likewise I won't repeat his words.

I'm confident he has no other agenda but to share the treasures he's found along his travels which talk about experiences which can apply generally across most religions.



> I did not say that. In fact, Sikhi according to me is based on objective reality because it did not stop in time as other religions did. The 1429 pages of the poetic Gurbani prove that.


 
In another 1000 years people will be wondering who Babar was. Babar is a character now immortalised because he's an historical figure written into Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.



> I would request you to give me concrete examples, in this case, from all 3 Abrahamic religions and Hinduism which Kabir ji is talking about for me to grasp any part of objective reality. I gave you the examples of the subjective truths from them which also include 82 virgins, Hell, Heaven, Multiple gods,Vengeful angry god/s, Condoning slavery,Caste system, Concubines and many more.


 
I don't have the time or the smarts to find these examples for you, sorry Ji.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 30, 2013)

> In another 1000 years people will be wondering who Babar was



Everyone knows he is an elephant


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 2, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Is Kartar conscious? Maybe next week things will seem different to me. Tonight I do not think consciousness is a necessary condition because the doer of everything is also the creator of consciousness, and therefore beyond consciousness.


 
For the creator to have created consciousness..he would have had to be conscious of it?

for consciousness to exists, it requires something to be conscious of...maybe thats why there is a creation?
and even when there was no creation...god was conscious of himself...how so?

His Shabad, the Word, the vibration was how he was *conscious* of himself...

in the beginning was the word, the word was with god, the word was god.
This is why we experience Him by connecting with the same Shabad within ourselves...

*SGGS 509*
saahib maeraa sadhaa hai dhisai sabadh kamaae ||
My Master is eternal. *He is seen by practicing the Word of the Shabad.
* 
ouhu aouhaanee kadhae naahi naa aavai naa jaae ||
He never perishes; He does not come or go in reincarnation.

sadhaa sadhaa so saeveeai jo sabh mehi rehai samaae ||
So serve Him, forever and ever; He is contained in all.


God bless Ji.


----------



## arshdeep88 (Apr 2, 2013)

Sticking to the topic i still feel the creator is ONE for all
imagine if there are multiple gods 
(initially i was thinking of taking example of wedding of muslim and hindu,though somewhat unrealistic in the scenario of today so i have to change my example)
a sikh boy weds a hindu girl(somewhat realistic )
now according to hindu scriptures creator may be defined differently 
according to sikhi again it might be defined differently
if the couples are sticking to their respective methods of worshiping and attaining Creator ,going by the logic that they have different gods wont now the respective gods be somehow not be pleased 
now after few days baby is born in their homes
now to whom GOD does the baby belongs to,to whom CREATOR does the baby belongs to?
wont the ONE creator sustain the baby ?
or there is agreement between hindu god and sikh god to sustain the baby together? or depending upon which parent worships his her respective Creator more?(hanuman or be whatever whom he/she worships)

i dont know the whole idea of different creator for different religions is really non sense to me
till today i believe paths are different but the destination is the same as the source was when we were born
and i really doubt a true RELIGIOUS person will ever say my path is the best and your path is not ,my path is the only true and your path is not and blha blha
irrespective of whatever religion we adhere to does he stops sustaining us?
NEVER
there are many people who dont even know their parents when they are born forget about knowing the religion 
which god sustains them?
does he stops sustaining an atheist too?irrespective of if he believes in him or not?
no,never 
till today i think this,maybe tomorrow ill see things differently but to me the whole idea of my god your god,that god ,this god is absurd
maybe i am thinking from different prospective


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 2, 2013)

arshdeep88 said:


> does he stops sustaining an atheist too?irrespective of if he believes in him or not?
> no,never
> till today i think this,maybe tomorrow ill see things differently but to me the whole idea of my god your god,that god ,this god is absurd
> maybe i am thinking from different prospective



your way of thinking is the only way of thinking...i can't for the life of me think of any other way


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Apr 2, 2013)

There is only ONE creator.... period.  And we are all trying to explain that same ONE creator thgough our own experiences and understanding. It's only through our separateness, the ideas implanted by the various societies and ethnicities in which we were brought up, that we have such different ideas about who or what that ONE creator is. But there is and only ever will be ONE creator.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 2, 2013)

Akasha said:


> There is only ONE creator.... period. And we are all trying to explain that same ONE creator thgough our own experiences and understanding. It's only through our separateness, the ideas implanted by the various societies and ethnicities in which we were brought up, that we have such different ideas about who or what that ONE creator is. But there is and only ever will be ONE creator.


 

It is not so important to know about the ONE Creator from within Gurbanee.
Are we required to explain the same ONE Creator  thru our own experiences and understanding. I think No.
We must know from our GuRu about the ONE Creator...There will be no confusion in Knowing and understanding 
But are we really going to accept What our GuRu is saying about the ONE Creator?
These are my personal views only.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 2, 2013)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> It is not so important to know about the ONE Creator from within Gurbanee.
> Are we required to explain the same ONE Creator  thru our own experiences and understanding. I think No.
> We must know from our GuRu about the ONE Creator...There will be no confusion in Knowing and understanding
> But are we really going to accept What our GuRu is saying about the ONE Creator?
> ...



Satnaam Prakash Ji,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above? Are you saying we should just read and read and try to intellectually understand in some way about God? Are you saying then that God cannot be experienced in any way at all? even though our gurur Ji says we can?

Should we just read someones experience of travelling australia, or should we endevour to experience for ourselves...?

Guru Ji describes how we 'ourselves' can experience god...how we can turn our lives around so that we are able to receive His grace...

I am certain that we can experience God...but i am also certain that we won't be able to explain God in any way....but then why would we want to explain...?


----------



## arshdeep88 (Apr 2, 2013)

how one can describe HIM with our limited wisdom experiences ?

"fer ki agey rakhiye jis dise darbar, muhon ki Bolan boliye jit sun dharey pyar"
So what offering can we place before Him, by which we might see the Darbaar of His Court?
What words can we speak to evoke His Love?
amrti vele sacha naao vadeaye vichaar
one must ponder about his greatness and utter his name at the early hours before dawn

when one experience his grace we are short of words to explain his grace and the connection with him is itself bliss
that experience and connection cant be described 
words are short to describe love ,no matter how much words we use it will always  be short
amrit vella is perfect time to connect with deep inside and then ponder about his vasteness and greatness majesty ,the time when mind is awake to his grace,when mind is not full of other things ,when mind is free of thoughts
you might experience it with different way ,i might experience it differently
that doesn't means my experience or other experience should be comparred
what works for me  not necessary means work for others
as a matter of fact comparison to anyone's experience is waste

forgive me if something is wrong in my interpretationeacesign:


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Apr 2, 2013)

ChazSingh Ji,
If I am not wrong the basic question of this thread is about the explanation of One Creator not about experiencing of it.
I understand that one is required to experience the One Creator which is vividly explained by GuRu ji in Gurbanee.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 2, 2013)

chazSingh said:


> Satnaam Prakash Ji,
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above? Are you saying we should just read and read and try to intellectually understand in some way about God? Are you saying then that God cannot be experienced in any way at all? even though our gurur Ji says we can?
> 
> ...


 
I think that is a very valid point.
I have only very recently been more aware and 'conscious' of it eacesign:
I feel that gurus message was not just about learning,understanding and contemplating, but about acquiring a desire, strive and yearning to experience/meet the Lord as well.
I think most of us at times including myself, have a lack of dedication and yearning. But instead we want to know just by learning, understanding, interpreting and contemplating Gurbani.
I don't feel that this is the complete picture and that a huge hole still remains unfilled.
Like you mention, we want to study and apply it all from the tour guide without ever going to the actual holiday destination!
Thus, no real learned experience is encountered and the yearning and dedication to spend time at the resort is not really there, since we think we know it all from the tour guide.

In the same way, I think gurbani is meant to inspire us to 'acquire' this yearning. We have to have the urge and thirst to be with, experience and meet our Husband Lord.
If you were in true love in young adulthood (or your first love), then you will remember that All you wanted day and night was to be with your lover. Whatever you did, wherever you walked, whatever you ate, whenever you slept...-You wanted to be doing this ALL with that Loved One.Nothing else mattered and the world seemed empty without the presence of your lover. Wherever you looked and saw beauty or something pleasing you could not help seeing your Lover. You longed and yearned to spend every living moment and breath with this soul.

This is exactly the yearning that I'm talking about for husband/lover God.
I have only recently felt and realised this during meditation and it has inspired me to continue and strive for even more.
I'm sure the Gurus expected us all to have our own personal relationships with our true love and the stonger the strive and yearn is, the more solid the bond.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Apr 3, 2013)

If one lives love he is  lucky otherwise you are just reading a love story.


----------



## chazSingh (Apr 3, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> I think that is a very valid point.
> I have only very recently been more aware and 'conscious' of it eacesign:
> I feel that gurus message was not just about learning,understanding and contemplating, but about acquiring a desire, strive and yearning to experience/meet the Lord as well.
> I think most of us at times including myself, have a lack of dedication and yearning. But instead we want to know just by learning, understanding, interpreting and contemplating Gurbani.
> ...


 
This is just it...
we can study a country like australia all our lives..imagine it...watch documentaries...but nothing compares to being there, breathing the fresh air...talking to the local people...seeing the wildlife.

I went to australia last year...it was amazing...i cannot describe it...the feelings, the emotions...the views, how they made me feel...

nothing i tell you about australia is going to compare with you visiting it yourself and living the experience

and i'm pretty sure your experience would also be very different and unique and personal to you...
all we can do is *inspire* people to make the effort and go there...

keeping to the topic...this is why people shouldn;t argue about which vision or version of their god is correct...they'll all eventually have their very personal and unique experience of god within themselves.

God bless


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 4, 2013)

chazSingh said:


> This is just it...
> we can study a country like australia all our lives..imagine it...watch documentaries...but nothing compares to being there, breathing the fresh air...talking to the local people...seeing the wildlife.
> 
> I went to australia last year...it was amazing...i cannot describe it...the feelings, the emotions...the views, how they made me feel...
> ...



Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have mentioned this thing about Australia in many threads if I am not mistaken but it is totally a wrong analogy I am afraid. People who have visited the same places can share their wonderful experiences with you, albeit in a bit different manner but all have the same reference points.The reason being is  the tangible points do not change although one can have a different perspective about them but not much.

This is not the case in Gurbani where each experience for each person is unique because it is intangible. It can only be felt/experienced and also it may be a life changing one for many, but it belongs to the individual. No one can share that part no matter how much we twist ourselves into a pretzel.

The only thing one can share with others is through the deeds learnt through this intangible Sikh journey of the individual because they are tangible ones and the same.

So, let's not try to mix apples and oranges just to prove a point that can not  be proved.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Luckysingh (Apr 4, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> *This is not the case in Gurbani where each experience for each person is unique because it is intangible. It can only be felt/experienced and also it may be a life changing one for many, but it belongs to the individual. No one can share that part no matter how much we twist ourselves into a pretzel.*
> 
> The only thing one can share with others is through the deeds learnt through this intangible Sikh journey of the individual because they are tangible ones and the same.
> 
> ...


 
You've made me realise some importance with the bolded quote above.
To realise and learn something every day makes me better than I was yesterday and thanks to some wise words from the likes of yourself, I hope to be an even better person tomorrow than today.

I believe the bolded comment holds quite strong for gurbani compared to the analogy of a travel destination.
I think the main point that Chazji makes is about learning and understanding some destination from a book, which is not the same as actually experiencing the place for real.
The magnitude and extent of impact that Gurbani can have for each of us varies much more compared to some vacation experience. That is simply because it's magnitude and strength is untouchable or intangible as you mention.

However, we can't just learn, understand and digest gurbani. We have to keep consuming, digesting as well as apply and live it. Therefore, we must continue to forever experiencing it, and it is never repetitive or reccuring.
Although the Lord is not a character or trait as such but is the nirgun and sargun ''Ik Onkaar'', I feel that we should still envisage a yearn and wanting as if to meet him. (this is just my personal approach).
This could give you a need to serve humanity and do good in the world. A need where you just can't get enough and you keep getting thirstier.
It may also be the longing to remain as gursikh inwardly and outwardly at all times.

I feel this may be of importance since I know there are many gursikhs who have the '''I've done my bit'' attitude. This is simply where they feel that x-amount of seva or donation, or representing sikhs on weekend at gurdwara or other sangat contribution....etc... amounts to what they should do, or what time factor they owe to doing some good. 
This is almost an attitude where you self measure your self service.

As a sikh, I think we learn just how many dangerous boundaries we can so easily step on. To acknowledge and steer from them is itself a lifelong task, but our Guru is there to Help and Guide.
A no good loser like me has to make the Effort to do this and I like to think of it as my earning for Guruji or 'kamayee'. But the main thing is that I don't expect any payback or gifts for this kamayee but only wish that I may forever continue.

BTW Chazji, we are all different in perception of how green the grass is on the other side.
Me and my wife travelled about 4 months a year for many years.We would earn for 2 straight months,then fly off for 1 month vaction, then repeat and do it all over again. We travelled around the whole world, looking for the perfect place to settle. In all honesty, I was rather disappointed with oz and many other places. We finally settled for the North American west coast on the pacific and finally got down to either South California, Seattle or Vancouver.
Here we are in Vancouver, some 5 thousand miles away from the grey skies of UK!!


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 5, 2013)

Luckysingh ji thanks for great contributions in this thread.  I am humbled by your deeper love and living as a Sikh.





Luckysingh said:


> ...
> .
> However, we can't just learn, understand and digest gurbani. We have to keep consuming, digesting as well as apply and live it. Therefore, we must continue to forever experiencing it, and it is never repetitive or recurring.
> .....


_Whereas I don't want to suggest any change to your ways, I am taking note if it is of any further joy to any one and yourself.

_

> I simply visualize the writer (the specific Guru ji or others) sitting under a tree wtih few people around them including oneself.  Then I visualize the Guru ji doing a discourse to the enchanted and bewildered as the Guru ji see such reflections on the faces of the congregation.  Then I see Guru ji coming around to take us to the rhythms of the poetry and the essence of a a given Shabad or composition.
> 
> I don't hesitate to ask Guru ji questions in my mind.  I hear Guru ji talk back in the loving-ness of a teacher, the firmness and crystal persona of brilliance like a diamond.
> 
> ...


    Sorry to be little off topic.

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:*  spnadmin ji feel free to excise or delete my total post if it is out of order for the thread.


*Specific to this thread some of my thoughts:*

In terms of the thread I believe all religions start with wisdom.  The wisdom continues to accumulate till a point of crystallization is reached whereby someone determines it is important to protect what has developed.

This is where initial organization of religion happens.  Just past this organization the concepts of unencumbered growth of the follower base starts to poke its head.  This starts to require resources and then the gathering of monies, gifts, etc., starts to come into play.

The disconnect from the essence of wisdom starts to encroach upon the original intent.  Managers get appointed, committees get formed, regulations start to be established, and so on till the baby no longer can be associated much with the origins of the wisdom.

Sadness and decline thereafter.

For sure at initial wisdom level much synergistic between various streams of wisdom.  Unfortunately later stages little common stays and differences accentuate.  Hence even with the recognition of one God/creator at the start of some wisdom streams, little commonality can now be found other than lip service or humanistic loose talk.

Can all the religions turn back the clock please and reset to their spirituality hour for world peace!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8JE0G6tlP2A?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 5, 2013)

Ambarsaria ji

Your remarks are not off-topic at all in my opinion. I apologize for taking so long to get back to this thread to read it. You describe the connection between science and religion in a very unique way, and it rings a bell in a way I have not heard before, but it is clear.

An example: This is probably what happened with Hinduism. The earliest vedas do not seem like "religious" texts but scientific explanations for the world as the ancestors knew it. Scholars can even strip back layers of later translation and explanation for the later translations. They can document how verses were added to the original to make the more religious points. When the earliest verses stand alone, they are about science of the time. All of course is speculation because thousands of years have passed. Yet your theory is there, science settled and religion took its ideas and made doctrines from them.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 5, 2013)

Also to your point, Ambarsaria ji

A while back, respected forum member jasbirkaleka ji posted this article, Thread Starter for

"The Carvakas and Atheistic Materialism in Ancient India, found at this permalink to the actual post:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gener...tic-materialism-ancient-india.html#post128954

A short excerpt 





> The Carvakas
> 
> It comes as a surprise to many that in ancient "spiritual" India, atheistic materialism was a major force to reckon with. Predating even the Buddhists, the Carvaka is one of the earliest materialistic schools of Indian philosophy, named after one Carvaka, a great teacher of the school. Its other name, Lokayata, variously meant “the views of the common people,” “the system which has its base in the common, profane world,” “the art of sophistry,” and also “the philosophy that denies that there is any world other than this one.” The founder of this school was probably Brhaspati. and .....
> 
> The Carvakas mocked religious ceremonies, saying that they were invented by the Brahmans (the priestly caste) to ensure their own livelihood. When the Brahmans defended animal sacrifices by claiming that the sacrificed beast goes straight to Swarga Loka (a temporary heaven), the members of the Carvaka asked why the Brahmans did not kill their aged parents to hasten their arrival in Swarga Loka.



I have been meaning to post this for days and never got around to it. Hope all find it good reading. It is long and therefore it is rich.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 5, 2013)

Ambarsaria said:


> In terms of the thread I believe all religions start with wisdom. The wisdom continues to accumulate till a point of crystallization is reached whereby someone determines it is important to protect what has developed.
> 
> This is where initial organization of religion happens. Just past this organization the concepts of unencumbered growth of the follower base starts to poke its head. This starts to require resources and then the gathering of monies, gifts, etc., starts to come into play.
> 
> ...


 

Dear Ambarsaria ji 

I just wanted to tell you that I really _truly _appreciate the insight you provide above. It really makes sense to me and in fact I share much the same belief with regards to the birth, growth, consolidation and decline of world religions in relation to the original essence of wisdom, or informed perception into the reality of things, that stands at its core. I think that you have voiced in most clear fashion something that I have tried to say on this and other forums but perhaps not expressed so well: that religions are different, they have developed in different cultural, philosophical and linguistic backgrounds; they have different structures, customs, doctrinal disagreements in areas and their unique evolutionary paths have created a rich diversity of sacred traditions or "wisdom streams" (as you put it). This diversity, this distinctness should be _embraced. _We should not expect people of other faiths, or even within our own faith, to see things exactly how we see it. 

The cuckoo doesn't mock the song of the dove because it sings differently; wood birds singing in the trees each have their own distinct notes yet they sing in _harmony. _My own opinion is that those who seek to create one, uniform religious body, such as Christian evangelists or Islamic missionaries, on a global scale are misguided since it is diversity in creation, cultures and even in religious beliefs that is the language of God who is the unity of opposites, the oneness that embraces plurality. 

While we must and should uphold the unique values of our own faiths, can we not also peel back some layers to find _wisdom, _insight into human nature, creation and life in general that is shared among religious traditions and forms a kind of _common deposit _of sacred knowledge that we can agree on? This does not demean the distinctiveness of our paths, it does not call for a false religious ecumenism that syncretizes religions and destroys their integrity, nor does it mean that we should not take pride in the uniqueness of our own faith and our differences, it simply means that our differences - while recognised - need not be causes for strife. 

All it does is recognise some sort of unity at the heart of the very real religious plurality, that can contribute to peace in the world of faith and allow us to see each other as brothers and sisters working for a common cause, even though we go down different roads to get there. 

Now it is my conviction that the wisdom that is at the heart of all religion, of whatever stripe - even some atheistic, humanistic or secular systems of belief - has its most glorious manifestation in that phenomenon common to most world faiths _*mysticism*. _Now this word, because of its appropriation by the western New Age movement, has developed certain connotations that do not fit at all with its traditional meaning. 

Traditionally and correctly defined, mysticism essentially has to do with the preparation for, experience of and effect of a transformative consciousness of the presence of God, a higher power, law, nature or simply an unconditioned reality however defined, that leads to a change of heart in a person and to a life that has true meaning or enlightenment in other words. 

Scholars have detected such people in all religions, people who are more dedicated than most and more spiritually perceptive as to the wisdom in their own religious traditions. Mystical movements generally arise at a time of trouble, confusion, chaos or decline in the life of a religion and serve to re-focus and re-orient the faith back to its origins while also looking forward. 

To this end I have one question: 

What do you define this _wisdom_ "as"? What is "it"? You mention above that at the level of this basic, pure wisdom there is to use your own words, "*much synergistic between various streams of wisdom*". 

Is wisdom _one_? Or are there many wisdoms just like there are many different perceptions of reality? 

Although I have promised SPNAdmin to _quote _less henceforth and provide more _reflective_, analytical thought in relation to my postings, I do think that with your post above, and given the topic of the thread (not to mention it being in the interfaith section of the forum) that one big quote is of relevance here, one I should add that I have quoted before on SPN - this time just to compare with your thinking above. 

It is from a man called Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, whom you will likely recall from our past discussions Ambarsaria ji. 

Cusa witnessed in his lifetime, in the middle of the fifteenth century, one of the lowest points in interreligious relations. After years of crusades between the Christian and Islamic worlds, Constantinople - the holy city for Eastern Christians - was sacked and conquered by the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine Empire fell apart and was replaced by the Ottoman Empire. 

This turn of events was devastating for Christians to watch. Some called for another crusade against the invading Muslims. However Cardinal Cusa, who at the time was the most powerful cleric in the church after the pope himself and a great Renaissance intellectual, called for mutual understanding and peace between Muslims and Christians. 

He wrote a book called _De Pace Fidei (The Peace of Faith) _which while showing the limits of his age, also exhibits progressive tendencies and a certain openness to other religions. 

He pictures a fictional council in heaven where all the world religions meet, debate and make peace with one another, accepting a unity in diversity rather than creating some false, new syncretistic blend of religions (much like the New Age is doing in our own time). 

I have *bolded* key parts: 




> "...With many groanings I beseeched the Creator of all, because of His kindness, to restrain the persecution that was raging more fiercely than usual on account of the difference of faith between the religions...We praise our God, whose mercy rules over all His works and who alone has the power to bring it about, that such a great diversity of religions would be brought together in one harmonious peace...How should we bring the manifold of religions to one unity, since our people have defended their religion with blood, and they hardly will be willing to accept a new, unified religion?
> 
> Answer: You should not introduce a new religion. But, you should yourselves comprehend, and then show to the peoples, that the true religion is presupposed before all other religions. The unity is before the separation occurs...You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere...Moses had described a path to God, but this path was neither taken up by everyone nor was it understood by everyone. Jesus illuminated and perfected this path; nevertheless, many even now remain unbelievers. Muhammad tried to make the same path easier, so that it might be accepted by all, even idolaters. These are the most famous of the said paths to God, although many others were presented by the wise and the prophets...*Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one, which you call wisdom...There can only be one wisdom. For if it were possible that there be several wisdoms, then these would have to be from one. Namely, unity is prior to all plurality. None of us doubts that it is one wisdom which we all love and because of which we are called philosophers. Through participation in it there are many wise men, although this wisdom remains in itself simple and undivided*. We who have made this profession of philosophy love the sweetness of wisdom by no other way than a foretaste in wonder at the things which are subject to sense. For who would not die for the sake of reaching such wisdom from which all beauty, all sweetness of life and everything desirable emanate? What a power of wisdom shines forth in the creation of man, in his limbs, in their order, in the life infused, in the harmony of the organs, in movement, and especially in the rational spirit, which is capable of wonderful arts and is, so to speak, a sign of wisdom in which the eternal wisdom shines forth above all things in a close image, as truth in a close likeness!......Therefore, do not hide Yourself any longer, O Lord. Be propitious, and manifest Your face; and all peoples will be saved, who no longer will be able to desert the Source of life and its sweetness, once having foretasted even a little thereof. For no one departs from You except because He is ignorant of You. *It is you O God who is being sought in various religions in various ways and named with various names. For you remain as you are to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it then sword jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths*...For infinite wisdom encompasses everything. *See how you, the philosophers of the various religious traditions, agree in the religion of one God whom you all presuppose, in that which as lovers of wisdom you profess. Therefore, all human beings profess with you that there is one absolute wisdom whom they presuppose, and this is the one God. Therefore, for all who are vigorous in intellect there is one religion and worship, which is presupposed in all the diversity of rites*..."
> 
> *- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464), De Pace Fidei, Catholic mystic*


 

Nicholas of Cusa saw the peace of religions as being tied to recognition that there is _wisdom _at the heart of each faith tradition and that this wisdom is _one _- and I would add more apparent to mystics of those faiths than say the those with a more formal, ceremonial, going-through-the-motions kind of attachment to their faith. 

Read: 



> "...[According to Cusa] God is responsible for the plurality of religions. From plurality stems diversity. Add to that the fact that the majority of human beings can afford neither leisure nor time to make use of their free will and to cognize themselves. Consequently – between all their toil and labor – they simply lack opportunity and potential to seek after "the hidden God". Kings and prophets, such continues the narrative, were put in charge of the instruction of simple people. That again backfired because people took the doctrines much too literally, a factor that reveals the true human condition (_humana terrena conditio_), namely, "that longstanding custom, which is regarded as having passed over into nature, is defended as the truth. In this way there arise great quarrels when each community prefers its own faith to another...The fanaticism, as just described, is some form of competition or, to use René Girard's terminology: _mimesis_, a mimetic circle. "For the sake of You, the only one they worship in whatever they adore, exists all this competition (_aemulatio_)." The Good, Truth, Life, and generally Being, those are the real objects of religious strife; for seemingly different interests converge in the object of aspiration. Only conscious return and awareness of the true object will be able to break the circle of violence..."


 


> "...Cardinal Cusa claimed that... a variety of prophets [went] into the world in order to reveal [God] to humanity. To achieve this goal these prophets created a variety of faiths, the customs of which have, over time come to be regarded as immutable truths founded not by prophets, but by God. Since the human person has freewill, and because over time opinions, languages and interpretations undergo change....errors... inevitably develop. In this manner Cusa gives such figures as Buddha and Muhammad a similar status to that of prophets of the God of Israel whose teachings over time have been distorted...Because of this Cusa does not think that religious diversity need be a source of conflict. For Cusa since the diversity of faiths are merely different ways of articulating the same underlying truth, there is no real basis for mutual attacks over these differences."
> 
> - _Ethical implications of unity and the divine in Nicholas of Cusa By David John De Leonardis_


 



> "Cusa seeks to promote the idea that diverse religious customs (the accidents of religion, if you will) conceal a true or 'ideal' religion. This 'una religio' (one religion) is the unattainable truth about God - of which all existing belief systems are but shadowy reflections. The faithful of all nations and creeds should persevere in their particular expressions of piety in the firm belief that the one true 'religion' is the basis of them all"





> - _'Religion' and the religions in the English Enlightenment By Peter Harrison_


 

Now I am sure that there are differences between Cusa and yourself above Ambarsaria ji, however I sense some kind of underlying leaning in a similar direction. Maybe I am wrong. 

I just think it is an interesting comparison, between Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 1400s and Ambarsaria ji on SPN in 2013


----------



## Ambarsaria (Apr 5, 2013)

Vouthon brother thanks for your post and I am not deserving of any felicitations.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa certainly has posed great observations of value to all.  I am sure one can pick on certain aspects like characterization of prophets, etc., as stated to be not core to true wisdom.  We human beings are social animals in the crudest form and not everything we assign to ourselves or others is truly ours or theirs.  There is much that takes place for each based on all their interactions with others.  While it need not be explicitly documented it leads to the rejection of sons or daughters of God sent to deliver a message. I am sure this will not be taken well by Christians and Muslims and perhaps others.  Our Guru ji made an explicit point to ensure that they were not considered prophets or deliverers of a letter or testament from God.  That is quite refreshing at least to me as a Sikh.

Beyond the mechanics of this I do believe the wisdom streams started at various points in human civilization.  Did all such origins had focus about the same aspects of human reality as every other one?  Most likely not.  Hence even though the wisdom streams started to seek soul water to quench incessant thirst within the people of the time, such waters or the thirsts did not necessarily had the same parameters in detail.  So such wisdom streams at times were distinct, partially overlapping with others of the times or later; or totally congruent with some others.  The important part is that none of these were complete within their selves for all and for all ages.  I believe the only universal stream  that could be considered a super-set which in principle may encompass all must have the following underlying it from what I can gather,


Respect of thought
Enabling of one to acquire more and even different or newer wisdom
Beyond the mystics in Catholicism like Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the great Carvaksas (never heard of these great people till spnadmin ji flagged it in this thread),  wonderful many others including Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji representing many from Sikhism, I believe we need to find and bring forth others.  The whole collective perhaps will help us further in pursuit of One and greater understanding of the same.  May the goodness of all be available to all free and clear for their own choosing.

A human enabled .  Sikhism to much extent fits this approach.  But then again I may be partial and also much ignorant of greater other wisdom.

Regards and always great to communicate with you.


----------



## Archived_member15 (Apr 5, 2013)

Ambarsaria said:


> Regards and always great to communicate with you.


 

As it is with you brother Ambarsaria ji 

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my question, in the illuminating and thoughtful manner in which you always do. 

I do agree that the orientation away from the Gurus being seen as prophets or deliverers of a message is specially commendable and refreshing. I would also say that Gautama Buddha did something similar in his time, given that he relied solely upon his own enlightenment experience and observations of reality, rather than on any revelation from above. Like Guru Nanak, the Buddha placed great emphasis upon wisdom. 

The uniqueness of Sikhism in this respect is that it is a _theistic _religion which does not have prophetic deliverers. That is quite unique especially when compared with Abrahamic faiths. 

I should add that I fully agree with you that the _wisdom _we speak of has nothing explicitly to do with prophets. It is a natural wisdom accessible to human searching, rather than a revelation from above like a message to deliver. Prophets or wise men or sages or rishis or sufis, or whatever one calls such men, have discovered wisdom - I believe personally through the Grace of God - and have spread it too others. From this religions have developed over time. 

You have given me something good to chew on mentally now :sippingcoffeemunda:


----------

