# Faith And Sikhism



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

Faith, its a dirty word to me, its like something people use to fill in the blanks, where huge gaps exist, thats ok, we will fill it with faith, and everything will be ok. In my view, Creator and aspects of, are much too important to take on faith, we have Bani, which if anything should be used to replace faith with fact.




 

So I started thinking of when it all began, 1699, Guru Gobind Singhji asked for 5 heads, and 5 men stood up. Was the Guru testing their faith? It all starts to get a bit Abrahamic here, is it a bit like god asking for human sacrifice? Is it a case of 'jump of that cliff and you get a reward for blindly following', I do not really think that anything can seriously be learned from that, and of course, the Guru is not the Creator, and he was very keen for us to remember that, and given the presence of the Guru Granth Sahibji around that time, the tenth master must have realised that a point needed to be made, and in a dramatic way, to ensure that the 11th Guru held firm for eternity.

In my view, it was his word, and ultimately the words contained in the SGGS that he wished us to follow, to trust, not to have 'faith' in, in fact to have no faith at all, but complete and utter confidence, I may have some faith that someone will bring me chocolate today, but I have complete and utter confidence that there is a Creator, only one, that it is timeless, and that it stands for the truth, and in me, for truthful living.

I find those that say they have faith, to be, in essence, admitting that they have blanks in their thinking, any comments appreciated!


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 9, 2015)

faith is required in any walk of life where the end goal has not been achieved or the end goal can not entirely be seen or accountable by our 5 senses...

have you reached the end goal that gurbani described. From your post, all i see is a thesaurus of words...faith can be intermingled with confidence...and also belief...also trust. they are not all mutually exclusive...things aren't that simple and clear cut.

i will post a shabad below...contemplate at first the sorrow felt by guru ji...describing a lost soul searching for vision of Waheguru...and then the joy once it has been found...have you reached that end goal...is how you feel comparable to how Guru Ji describes?

is the unstruck melody vibrating within your home (body)...can you hear it? commune with it? if not...by your words...you believe...have have faith, you have trust and confidence....use all the words...or use just one...it doesn't really matter does it?

why pick on a single word...  you are in essence saying the same thing...

look at this result from a thesaurus:
* Synonyms for faith *
_noun_ *trust in something*

 acceptance 
 belief 
 confidence 
 conviction 
 hope 
 loyalty 
 truth 

 allegiance 
 assent 
 assurance 
 certainty 
 certitude 
 constancy 
 credence 

 credit
 credulity 
 dependence 
 faithfulness
 fealty 
 fidelity 
 reliance 
that's all you have done is use words that mean a very similar thing  ... whats the purpose of this thread?  lol



r*aa*g go*u*rr*ee* shha(n)th mehal*aa* 5

_Raag Gauree, Chhant, Fifth Mehla:_

<> siqgur pRswid ]

ik oa(n)kaar sath*i*g*u*r pras*aa*dh ||

_One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:_

myrY min bYrwgu BieAw jIau ikau dyKw pRB dwqy ]

m*ae*r*ai* man b*ai*r*aa*g bhae*iaa* j*ee*o k*i*o dh*ae*kh*aa* prabh dh*aa*th*ae* ||

*My mind has become sad and depressed; how can I see God, the Great Giver?*

myry mIq sKw hir jIau gur purK ibDwqy ]

m*ae*r*ae* m*ee*th sakh*aa* har j*ee*o g*u*r p*u*rakh b*i*dhh*aa*th*ae* ||

*My Friend and Companion is the Dear Lord, the Guru, the Architect of Destiny.*

purKo ibDwqw eyku sRIDru ikau imlh quJY aufIxIAw ]

p*u*rakh*o* b*i*dhh*aa*th*aa* e*ae*k sr*ee*dhhar k*i*o m*i*leh th*u*jh*ai* o*u*dd*ee*n*eeaa* ||

_T*he One Lord, the Architect of Destiny, is the Master of the Goddess of Wealth; how can I, in my sadness, meet You?*_

kr krih syvw sIsu crxI min Aws drs inmwxIAw ]

kar kareh*i* s*ae*v*aa* s*ee*s charan*ee* man *aa*s dharas n*i*m*aa*n*eeaa* ||

*My hands serve You, and my head is at Your Feet. My mind, dishonored, yearns for the Blessed Vision of Your Darshan.*

swis swis n GVI ivsrY plu mUrqu idnu rwqy ]

s*aa*s s*aa*s n gharr*ee* v*i*sar*ai* pal m*oo*rath dh*i*n r*aa*th*ae* ||

*With each and every breath, I think of You, day and night; I do not forget You, for an instant, even for a moment.*

nwnk swirMg ijau ipAwsy ikau imlIAY pRB dwqy ]1]

n*aa*nak s*aa*r*i*(n)g j*i*o p*iaa*s*ae* k*i*o m*i*l*eeai* prabh dh*aa*th*ae* ||1||

*O Nanak, I am thirsty, like the rainbird; how can I meet God, the Great Giver? ||1||*

iek ibnau krau jIau suix kMq ipAwry ]

e*i*k b*i*no karo j*ee*o s*u*n ka(n)th p*iaa*r*ae* ||

*I offer this one prayer - please listen, O my Beloved Husband Lord.*

myrw mnu qnu moih lIAw jIau dyiK clq qumwry ]

m*ae*r*aa* man than m*o*h*i* l*eeaa* j*ee*o dh*ae*kh chalath th*u*m*aa*r*ae* ||

*My mind and body are enticed, beholding Your wondrous play.*

clqw qumwry dyiK mohI audws Dn ikau DIrey ]

chalath*aa* th*u*m*aa*r*ae* dh*ae*kh m*o*h*ee* o*u*dh*aa*s dhhan k*i*o dhh*ee*re*ae* ||

*Beholding Your wondrous play, I am enticed; but how can the sad, forlorn bride find contentment?*

guxvMq nwh dieAwlu bwlw srb gux BrpUrey ]

g*u*nava(n)th n*aa*h dhae*iaa*l b*aa*l*aa* sarab g*u*n bharap*oo*re*ae* ||

*My Lord is Meritorious, Merciful and Eternally Young; He is overflowing with all excellences.*

ipr dosu nwhI suKh dwqy hau ivCuVI buirAwry ]

p*i*r dh*o*s n*aa*h*ee* s*u*kheh dh*aa*th*ae* ho v*i*shh*u*rr*ee* b*u*r*iaa*r*ae* ||

*The fault is not with my Husband Lord, the Giver of peace; I am separated from Him by my own mistakes.*

ibnvMiq nwnk dieAw Dwrhu Gir Awvhu nwh ipAwry ]2]

b*i*nava(n)th n*aa*nak dhae*iaa* dhh*aa*rah*u* ghar *aa*vah*u* n*aa*h p*iaa*r*ae* ||2||

*Prays Nanak, please be merciful to me, and return home, O my Beloved Husband Lord. ||2||*

hau mnu ArpI sBu qnu ArpI ArpI siB dysw ]

ho man arap*ee* sabh than arap*ee* arap*ee* sabh dh*ae*s*aa* ||

*I surrender my mind, I surrender my whole body; I surrender all my lands.*

hau isru ArpI iqsu mIq ipAwry jo pRB dyie sdysw ]

ho s*i*r arap*ee* th*i*s m*ee*th p*iaa*r*ae* j*o* prabh dh*ae*e sadh*ae*s*aa* ||

*I surrender my head to that beloved friend, who brings me news of God.*

AripAw q sIsu suQwin gur pih sMig pRBU idKwieAw ]

arap*iaa* th s*ee*s s*u*thh*aa*n g*u*r peh*i* sa(n)g prabh*oo* dh*i*kh*aa*e*iaa* ||

*I have offered my head to the Guru, the most exalted; He has shown me that God is with me.*

iKn mwih sglw dUKu imitAw mnhu icMidAw pwieAw ]

kh*i*n m*aa*h*i* sagal*aa* dh*oo*kh m*i*tt*iaa* manah*u* ch*i*(n)dh*iaa* p*aa*e*iaa* ||

*In an instant, all suffering is removed. I have obtained all my mind's desires.*

idnu rYix rlIAw krY kwmix imty sgl AMdysw ]

dh*i*n r*ai*n ral*eeaa* kar*ai* k*aa*man m*i*tt*ae* sagal a(n)dh*ae*s*aa* ||

*Day and night, the soul-bride makes merry; all her anxieties are erased.*

ibnvMiq nwnku kMqu imilAw loVqy hm jYsw ]3]

b*i*nava(n)th n*aa*nak ka(n)th m*i*l*iaa* l*o*rrath*ae* ham j*ai*s*aa* ||3||

*Prays Nanak, I have met the Husband Lord of my longing. ||3||*

myrY min Andu BieAw jIau vjI vwDweI ]

m*ae*r*ai* man anadh bhae*iaa* j*ee*o vaj*ee* v*aa*dhh*aaee* ||

*My mind is filled with bliss, and congratulations are pouring in.*

Gir lwlu AwieAw ipAwrw sB iqKw buJweI ]

ghar l*aa*l *aa*e*iaa* p*iaa*r*aa* sabh th*i*kh*aa* b*u*jh*aaee* ||

*My Darling Beloved has come home to me, and all my desires have been satisfied.*

imilAw q lwlu gupwlu Twkuru sKI mMglu gwieAw ]

m*i*l*iaa* th l*aa*l g*u*p*aa*l t(h)*aa*k*u*r sakh*ee* ma(n)gal g*aa*e*iaa* ||

*I have met my Sweet Lord and Master of the Universe, and my companions sing the songs of joy.*

sB mIq bMDp hrKu aupijAw dUq Qwau gvwieAw ]

sabh m*ee*th ba(n)dhhap harakh o*u*paj*iaa* dh*oo*th thh*aa*o gav*aa*e*iaa* ||

*All my friends and relatives are happy, and all traces of my enemies have been removed.*

Anhq vwjy vjih Gr mih ipr sMig syj ivCweI ]

anehath v*aa*j*ae* vajeh*i* ghar meh*i* p*i*r sa(n)g s*ae*j v*i*shh*aaee* ||

*The unstruck melody vibrates in my home, and the bed has been made up for my Beloved.*

ibnvMiq nwnku shij rhY hir imilAw kMqu suKdweI ]4]1]

b*i*nava(n)th n*aa*nak sehaj reh*ai* har m*i*l*iaa* ka(n)th s*u*khadh*aaee* ||4||1||

*Prays Nanak, I am in celestial bliss. I have obtained the Lord, the Giver of peace, as my Husband. ||4||1||*


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> whats the purpose of this thread?  lol



well you have replied to it, so I would ask what the purpose of your reply is?
you complain when your threads get hijacked, and I have done my utmost to try and ensure this does not happen, yet here you are doing exactly the same.


----------



## Ishna (Jul 9, 2015)

Harry ji, I agree with your sentiments around the word 'faith'.  

To me, it means 'believing in things that are unfounded, or illogical/irrational'.  You have faith in something when you have no solid ground on which to base your reason for believing.

If "Sat" is True, why would anyone need faith?


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 9, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Harry ji, I agree with your sentiments around the word 'faith'.
> 
> To me, it means 'believing in things that are unfounded, or illogical/irrational'.  You have faith in something when you have no solid ground on which to base your reason for believing.
> 
> If "Sat" is True, why would anyone need faith?




the point is...Harry said...he doesnt need Faith...he already has confidence....its the same thing  just a different word lol

both are based on not truely knowing the truth...both have a gap to fill...both live on a belief..both have the same foundation

so unless harry Ji...or yourself...have experienced the truth first hand...then it is still just faith...wrap it with any word you like...trust, confidence...etc etc

he's basically saying " i don't need to have faith that an Orange tastes tangy.....i have full confidence that it is tangy"....both have no subjective certainty to it...there's still a gap there...he won;t know if the orange is tangy unless he picks it up and tastes it...until then, it contains a gap lol


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 9, 2015)

harry haller said:


> well you have replied to it, so I would ask what the purpose of your reply is?
> you complain when your threads get hijacked, and I have done my utmost to try and ensure this does not happen, yet here you are doing exactly the same.



i'm confused at what point you are trying to make with this thread...

people can't use the word faith because it shows there is a gap somewhere that they are trying to fill..

but you're saying that you have confidence....which also still has a gap...as the words portray pretty much the same thing in essence  so the thread is pretty much mute


----------



## Original (Jul 9, 2015)

Ishna said:


> If "Sat" is True, why would anyone need faith?


 *Brother H* - forgive me for revisiting some of the stuff already discussed on other threads. I thought Ishna Ji may find it useful to make sense of loose ends.

Ishna Ji

*"Faith is to believe what you do not see, the reward of this faith is to see what you believe, especially @ AV" *Chaz Singh.

Consider the following:

A King wanted to know what truth was; an elephant was produced into the King's Court along with seven blind men. Asked to describe the animal, each one's perspective varied, based on which feature was close at hand, the slender rope like tail, the mighty tree-like legs, the twisting snake-like trunk, and so forth. Each man's version was wrong, but each one of the men possessed an element of the more complex elephantine truth.

And, so is "sat" - the elephantine in all - just need to have a feel for it.

Our beliefs come in many shapes and sizes, from the trivial, "I believe it will rain today" to the more profound, "I believe in God". Taken together they form a personal guidebook to reality, telling us not just what is factually correct but also what is right n good, and hence how to behave towards one another. One of the long-standing problems with studying beliefs is identifying exactly what we are trying to understand. The general consensus amongst the academia crowd is that belief is a bit like knowledge, but more personal. Knowing something is true is different from believing it to be true; as a result, knowledge is objective and belief is subjective. And, it is the faith of the individual that constitutes belief.  

Thank you for allowing me the time n space to have a say.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> the point is...Harry said...he doesnt need Faith...he already has confidence....its the same thing  just a different word lol



are they the same? 

you have a point, I will edit the above so that it makes my point more succinctly, if you have no objections



chazSingh said:


> both are based on not truely knowing the truth...both have a gap to fill...both live on a belief..both have the same foundation



I have to concede this, thank you for pointing it out


chazSingh said:


> so unless harry Ji...or yourself...have experienced the truth first hand...then it is still just faith...wrap it with any word you like...trust, confidence...etc etc



we are getting warm here though, you are correct, unless I have experienced the truth, so I accept  I am limited to what I know to be true. Of course the question then is that my own truth is obviously subjective. 



chazSingh said:


> he's basically saying " i don't need to have faith that an Orange tastes tangy.....i have full confidence that it is tangy"....both have no subjective certainty to it...there's still a gap there...he won;t know if the orange is tangy unless he picks it up and tastes it...until then, it contains a gap lol



absolutely, I concede fully


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

In my view, it was his word, and ultimately the words contained in the SGGS that he wished us to follow, to trust, not to have 'faith' in, in fact to have no faith at all, but complete and utter acceptance, I may have some faith that someone will bring me chocolate today, but I have complete and utter acceptance that there is a Creator, only one, that it is timeless, and that it stands for the truth, and in me, for truthful living.

thank you chazji for your input


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

Original said:


> Our beliefs come in many shapes and sizes, from the trivial, "I believe it will rain today" to the more profound, "I believe in God". Taken together they form a personal guidebook to reality, telling us not just what is factually correct but also what is right n good, and hence how to behave towards one another. One of the long-standing problems with studying beliefs is identifying exactly what we are trying to understand. The general consensus amongst the academia crowd is that belief is a bit like knowledge, but more personal. Knowing something is true is different from believing it to be true; as a result, knowledge is objective and belief is subjective. And, it is the faith of the individual that constitutes belief.



Taken at face value this can only intimate that Sikhism is a highly personal relationship with Creator, it can only then follow that no two people can have the same relationship or understanding. How many potential answers are there to the question?


----------



## Original (Jul 9, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Taken at face value this can only intimate that Sikhism is a highly personal relationship with Creator, it can only then follow that no two people can have the same relationship or understanding. How many potential answers are there to the question?



Two observers experimenting one phenomenon cannot arrive at identical results. Why ? Because of their vantage point, that is, spaced apart. However, an event can occur at two different locations at the same time. How does this fits in with creator and creation ? Well, in Sikhism the creator and the creation is one, that is, two events occurring at the same time [sargun and nirgun]. It is through personal relationship [sargun] the doorway to Akal Purakh is opened. In other words the sargun [form] culminates into the nirgun [formless]. There is only one answer, one's own "personal".


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

Original said:


> Two observers experimenting one phenomenon cannot arrive at identical results. Why ? Because of their vantage point, that is, spaced apart. However, an event can occur at two different locations at the same time. How does this fits in with creator and creation ? Well, in Sikhism the creator and the creation is one, that is, two events occurring at the same time [sargun and nirgun]. It is through personal relationship [sargun] the doorway to Akal Purakh is opened. In other words the sargun [form] culminates into the nirgun [formless]. There is only one answer, one's own "personal".



let me get your thinking right on this, and it does make sense in some respects, all paths are individual until complete connection and consonance has taken place, after which it is universal?


----------



## Original (Jul 9, 2015)

harry haller said:


> let me get your thinking right on this, and it does make sense in some respects, all paths are individual until complete connection and consonance has taken place, after which it is universal?



..this connection occurs in a very personal way and the consonance [with the formless] is an experience which is described as occurring beyond time and space because it defies the laws of nature. Had the consonance [universe n you becoming one] been captured by science n technology it could have been explained [objectively] but because it hasn't been, its left to individual experience, hence, Chaz crying wolf coz he connects with it on and off.

I've used science, if you like, to show Akal Purakh as "time" being in two places, that is Harry the physical and Harry the spiritual. You only see your physical self at the moment, where as Chaz connects to his spiritual whilst retaining physical [only as a shell during AV]. The beauty of all this is found on page 644 of SGGSJ.

The important observation is, when the time is "right" that consonance will happen, you don't know and I don't know - hence mystical or universal. It is not time bound nor space defined.


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

Original said:


> ..this connection occurs in a very personal way and the consonance [with the formless] is an experience which is described as occurring beyond time and space because it defies the laws of nature. Had the consonance [universe n you becoming one] been captured by science n technology it could have been explained [objectively] but because it hasn't been, its left to individual experience, hence, Chaz crying wolf coz he connects with it on and off.
> 
> I've used science, if you like, to show Akal Purakh as "time" being in two places, that is Harry the physical and Harry the spiritual. You only see your physical self at the moment, where as Chaz connects to his spiritual whilst retaining physical [only as a shell during AV]. The beauty of all this is found on page 644 of SGGSJ.
> 
> The important observation is, when the time is "right" that consonance will happen, you don't know and I don't know - hence mystical or universal. It is not time bound nor space defined.



Originalji, many thanks for the answer, however, the question that is really exciting me 

*all paths are individual until complete connection and consonance has taken place, after which it is universal?*

what do you think?


----------



## Original (Jul 9, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Originalji, many thanks for the answer, however, the question that is really exciting me
> 
> *all paths are individual until complete connection and consonance has taken place, after which it is universal?*
> 
> what do you think?


Forgive me for not being direct, but yes all paths are individual journeys, what you're relationship n experience with Akal Purakh is, is personal. The complete consonance is taken to mean mergence with the "one" and yes, literally universal.

Hope it helps !

Goodnight


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 9, 2015)

Original said:


> Forgive me for not being direct, but yes all paths are individual journeys, what you're relationship n experience with Akal Purakh is, is personal. The complete consonance is taken to mean mergence with the "one" and yes, literally universal.
> 
> Hope it helps !
> 
> Goodnight



would you then say that Chazji is having experiences with Akal Purakh already?, no trap, genuinely curious and enquisitive


----------



## Original (Jul 9, 2015)

harry haller said:


> would you then say that Chazji is having experiences with Akal Purakh already?, no trap, genuinely curious and enquisitive





harry haller said:


> would you then say that Chazji is having experiences with Akal Purakh already?, no trap, genuinely curious and enquisitive



I'm afraid I'm unable to confirm, only Chaz can, but what Gur Ghar describes as Anhad Shabd, [sound] and Anubhav Prakash [light] being within the reach of humans is the domain and abode of AP. Belief being the operative word.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 9, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> faith is required in any walk of life where the end goal has not been achieved or the end goal can not entirely be seen or accountable by our 5 senses...
> 
> have you reached the end goal that gurbani described. From your post, all i see is a thesaurus of words...faith can be intermingled with confidence...and also belief...also trust. they are not all mutually exclusive...things aren't that simple and clear cut.
> 
> ...



Chaz Singh ji,

Would you be kind enough to post the page number and also the original in Gurmukhi as requested by Ishna ji?

Thanks


----------



## Ishna (Jul 9, 2015)

Chaz Ji

I don't have time for a proper reply right now, but I just wanted to say that the noun "faith" has a few meanings.  One is "trust or confidence in a person or thing", (I have faith in your abilities).  Another is "belief that is not based on proof".  These are different meanings of the same word.

I believe Harry Ji is talking about this second definition of faith.

Yours faithfully
Ishna


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 10, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Chaz Ji
> 
> I don't have time for a proper reply right now, but I just wanted to say that the noun "faith" has a few meanings.  One is "trust or confidence in a person or thing", (I have faith in your abilities).  Another is "belief that is not based on proof".  These are different meanings of the same word.
> 
> ...



then i would say harry ji needed to be very clear as to what kind of faith he doesn't like. Do you think when he says he doesn't need faith that he has confidence instead...that that is also a confidence based on 'not requiring any proof'?


i would say for a sikh...faith is used as a precursor...a katapult to seek actual experience...
"i have faith alton towers has fixed all it;s ride issues and is now safe again....but i won't stop there, i will go and check for myself"

after which hope, belief, faith (in its two forms), trust, confidence is no longer required..because you know, have seen, have felt, have heard the truth for yourself...what a feeling that would be....to just know...


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 10, 2015)

Original said:


> ..this connection occurs in a very personal way and the consonance [with the formless] is an experience which is described as occurring beyond time and space because it defies the laws of nature. Had the consonance [universe n you becoming one] been captured by science n technology it could have been explained [objectively] but because it hasn't been, its left to individual experience, hence, Chaz crying wolf coz he connects with it on and off.
> 
> I've used science, if you like, to show Akal Purakh as "time" being in two places, that is Harry the physical and Harry the spiritual. You only see your physical self at the moment, where as Chaz connects to his spiritual whilst retaining physical [only as a shell during AV]. The beauty of all this is found on page 644 of SGGSJ.
> 
> The important observation is, when the time is "right" that consonance will happen, you don't know and I don't know - hence mystical or universal. It is not time bound nor space defined.




are you sure you're not Matthew McConaughey from interstallar..... 

on a serious note..have you watched the film? its now my all time favorite..with terminator sitting just behind..

i've heard two sets of reviews for the film....first set is from people that said "what the hell was the ending about...made no sense at all...was too far fetched;"
and reviews from another set that just 'Got it' was 'inspired by it' and understood it at a deeper level in terms of human evolution to the next stages...multi dimensional...

i could watch that film over n over n over...it actually makes me want to do more Simran!!


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 10, 2015)

harry haller said:


> would you then say that Chazji is having experiences with Akal Purakh already?, no trap, genuinely curious and enquisitive



stop talking about me behind my back...its rude.. [said with a smile]


----------



## Ishna (Jul 10, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> then i would say harry ji needed to be very clear as to what kind of faith he doesn't like. Do you think when he says he doesn't need faith that he has confidence instead...that that is also a confidence based on 'not requiring any proof'?
> 
> i would say for a sikh...faith is used as a precursor...a katapult to seek actual experience...
> "i have faith alton towers has fixed all it;s ride issues and is now safe again....but i won't stop there, i will go and check for myself"
> ...



Chaz Ji

Did you feel that?  It was the earth moving a little bit... I think we actually agree on something!


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 10, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Chaz Ji
> 
> Did you feel that?  It was the earth moving a little bit... I think we actually agree on something!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 10, 2015)

Chaz ji writes in post#5,





> both are based on not truely knowing the truth...both have a gap to fill...both live on a belief..both have the same foundation



By both he means Faith and Belief which according to Chaz ji,* "both are based on not truely knowing the truth".*

I happen to agree with Chaz ji's statement in* bold above.*. *Mool Mantar* describes us *the Objective Truth* about *Ik Ong Kaar* who is also described as *Satnaam. *This is as simple as it gets. There is *no* *Faith nor Belief* involved because *Objective Truth does not need either*.

Original ji writes in post#7 





> *Our beliefs come in many shapes and sizes, from the trivial, "I believe it will rain today" to the more profound, "I believe in God"*. Taken together they form a personal guidebook to reality, telling us not just what is factually correct but also what is right n good, and hence how to behave towards one another. One of the long-standing problems with studying beliefs is identifying exactly what we are trying to understand. The general consensus amongst the academia crowd is that belief is a bit like knowledge, but more personal. Knowing something is true is different from believing it to be true; as a result, knowledge is objective and belief is subjective. And, *it is the faith of the individual that constitutes belief.*



Original ji,

*"I believe it will rain today" *is based on some kind of evidence like clouds or the monsoon season. It is called a weather report. We have been able to make *this belief* more predictable with the help of computer models.* It is not a blind belief/faith.*

In the capital of the state of Amazonia- Manaus in Brasil, it rains everyday at midday for about 30 mins. At Least that was the case in the 70's and 80's. I have no idea if things have changed now due to the climate change. People used to set meetings either before  or after the rain because there was an evidence in the nature about it.



> "I believe it will rain today"* to the more profound, "I believe in God"*



*These two beliefs are poles apart.* *The Belief* *in god requires* *no evidence*, *no questioning,hence all religions call their* *Belief Systems as Blind Faiths.
*
It is not about being more profound but they are apples and oranges. Simply put

In your post#17 





> but what Gur Ghar describes as Anhad Shabd, [sound] and Anubhav Prakash [light] being within the reach of humans is the domain and abode of AP. *Belief being the operative word*.



Let's check what SGGS says about them and how *these two words "Faith and Belief" *are used in the *English translation of our Gurban*i.  *This is also a great experiment to demonstrate  how misleading and incorrect the English Translation is.*

Page 3.

*ਮੰਨੇ *ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
*Manne* kī gaṯ kahī na jā▫e.
*The state of the faithful cannot be described*.
ਮੰਨੇ ਕੀ = ਮੰਨਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਦੀ, ਪਤੀਜੇ ਹੋਏ ਦੀ, ਯਕੀਨ ਕਰ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਦੀ। ਗਤਿ = ਹਾਲਤ, ਅਵਸਥਾ।
ਉਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੀ (ਉੱਚੀ) ਆਤਮਕ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਦੱਸੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ, ਜਿਸ ਨੇ (ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਨੂੰ) ਮੰਨ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ, (ਭਾਵ, ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਲਗਨ ਨਾਮ ਵਿਚ ਲੱਗ ਗਈ ਹੈ)।


*ਮੰਨੈ *ਸੁਰਤਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਮਨਿ ਬੁਧਿ ॥
*Mannai* suraṯ hovai man buḏẖ.
*The faithful *have intuitive awareness and intelligence.
ਮੰਨੈ = ਮੰਨਣ ਕਰਕੇ, ਜੇ ਮੰਨ ਲਈਏ, ਜੇ ਮਨ ਪਤੀਜ ਜਾਏ, ਜੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਵਿਚ ਲਗਨ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਏ।
ਜੇ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਦੀ ਲਗਨ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਏ, ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਦੀ ਸੁਰਤ ਉੱਚੀ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਦੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਜਾਗ੍ਰਤ ਆ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, (ਭਾਵ, ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਚ ਸੁੱਤਾ ਮਨ ਜਾਗ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ)


ਐਸਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
Aisā nām niranjan ho▫e.
Such is the Name of the Immaculate Lord.
ਐਸਾ = ਅਜਿਹਾ, ਇੱਡਾ ਉੱਚਾ। ਹੋਇ = ਹੈ। ਮੰਨਿ = ਸ਼ਰਧਾ ਧਾਰ ਕੇ, ਲਗਨ ਲਾ ਕੇ।
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਬਹੁਤ (ਉੱਚਾ) ਹੈ ਤੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਪਰਭਾਵ ਤੋਂ ਪਰੇ ਹੈ, (ਇਸ ਵਿਚ ਜੁੜਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਭੀ ਉੱਚੀ ਆਤਮਕ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਸਮਝ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ)


ਜੇ ਕੋ *ਮੰਨਿ *ਜਾਣੈ *ਮਨਿ* ਕੋਇ ॥੧੨॥
Je ko man jāṇai man ko▫e. ||12||
Only one who has *faith* comes to know such a state of mind. ||12||
ਮੰਨਿ ਜਾਣੈ = ਸ਼ਰਧਾ ਰੱਖ ਕੇ ਵੇਖੇ, ਮੰਨ ਕੇ ਵੇਖੇ। ਮਨਿ = ਮਨ ਵਿਚ।
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਆਪਣੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਲਗਨ ਲਾ ਕੇ ਵੇਖੇ ॥੧੨॥

Let's talk about the following first

*ਮੰਨੇ *ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
*Manne* kī gaṯ kahī na jā▫e.
*The state of the faithful *

*ਮੰਨੈ *ਸੁਰਤਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਮਨਿ ਬੁਧਿ ॥
*Mannai* suraṯ hovai man buḏẖ.
*The faithful *have intuitive awareness and intelligence.
*
ਮੰਨੇ*-*Manne *and *ਮੰਨੈ*-*Mannai are two different words with different meanings however translated as Faithful in English Translation.

ਮੰਨੇ-Manne means one who accepts. 

ਮੰਨੈ-Mannai means the one who has accepted.
*
ਜੇ ਕੋ *ਮੰਨਿ *ਜਾਣੈ *ਮਨਿ *ਕੋਇ *॥੧੨॥*
Je ko *man *jāṇai* man *ko▫e.* ||12|| 
Only one who has faith comes to know such a state of mind. ||12|| 

ਮੰਨਿ= To accept
ਮਨਿ=Mind
*
One *believes* or has *faith *from the heart but one *accepts* from the mind because the former is* blind belief/faith* whereas *acceptance requires some empirical evidence.*

*On page 267
*
*ਦ੍ਰਿੜੁ* ਕਰਿ *ਮਾਨੈ* ਮਨਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤਿ ॥
*Ḏariṛ kar mānai manėh parṯīṯ. 
He believes them to be permanent - this is the belief of his mind. 
ਦ੍ਰਿੜੁ = ਪੱਕਾ। ਮਨਹਿ = ਮਨ ਵਿਚ। ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤਿ = ਯਕੀਨ।
(ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ) ਅਮਰ ਸਮਝੀ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੈ, ਮਨ ਵਿਚ (ਇਹੀ) ਯਕੀਨ ਬਣਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ;*

*ਦ੍ਰਿੜੁ* ਕਰਿ *ਮਾਨੈ* *ਮਨਹਿ* ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤਿ ॥
*
ਦ੍ਰਿੜੁ = Certainty, Surety. Neither requires Belief although translated as such.

ਮਾਨੈ = To accept

ਮਨਹਿ = Through one's Mind

As mentioned above, one believes/has faith from the heart but one is certain through the MInd.*

We have seen from the above *how* *incorrect and misleading the English Translation is* and more importantly, Sikhi is neither a *blind faith nor a blind belief*  as claimed by Chaz ji and Original ji, but a way of life *based on certainty in a pragmatic manner.
*
One can find inumerous examples like that in the SGGS, our only Guru.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
*
*


----------



## Original (Jul 10, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Chaz ji writes in post#5,
> 
> By both he means Faith and Belief which according to Chaz ji,* "both are based on not truely knowing the truth".*
> 
> ...



Tejwant Singh

The length you go to is commendable, but sadly, not justifiable.

I hope you will forgive me if I was to suggest that your analytical and evaluation process is completely flawed in light of the *scientific method*. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are clearly defined, they have their methodology in considering evidence. General statements from particular statements and vice versa are logic based evaluations. The statements referred to above, "rain" are general to show "god" as particular but not in themselves statements of truth per se.

If you read all my posts from the day I subscribed, I always maintained that "faith-belief" cannot be entertained within the jurisdictions of "rationality" and "empirical observation" because their subject-matter [God] does not fall under "knowledge" but under "belief" which has only "subjectivity" testing.

Forgive me if I've errd otherwise.

Respectfully yours


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 10, 2015)

Original said:


> Tejwant Singh
> 
> The length you go to is commendable, but sadly, not justifiable.
> 
> ...




Original ji,

Guru Fateh.

With due respect, I beg to differ with you. It is rather your method that is totally flawed and is based on HIndutva and other blind dogmatic faiths/beliefs. Sikhi is none of them as per our only GPS, SGGS which I have used to explain the difference between your thinking of a blind faith/belief  which has nothing to do with Sikhi and mine of a Pragmatic way of life which has everything to do with Sikhi as per SGGS.

You write:



> If you read all my posts from the day I subscribed, I always maintained that "faith-belief" cannot be entertained within the jurisdictions of "rationality" and "empirical observation" because their subject-matter [God] does not fall under "knowledge" but under "belief" which has only "subjectivity" testing.



Yes, this is the basic difference in our understanding of Sikhi. You take Sikhi as a blind faith/belief where all kinds of questioning is forbidden  whereas  I take Sikhi  where questioning what surrounds us is the only way to understand, accept and appreciate the Wow and Awe factors of Ik Ong Kaar.

If Sikhi were a blind faith as you accept it as such, then Guru Nanak would not have questioned the meaning of Janieu, would not have thrown water towards his "farm" rather than towards the Sun as Hindus are still doing today. If Sikhi were a blind faith as you believe in then we would fast, go to the pilgrimages, parrot some words repeatedly- some of the Sikhs still do that, sad to say, and many other nonsensical mechanical rituals. The House of Nanak as you lovingly call it freed us from these shackles.

Your examples of "rain" and "god", the latter as a more profound example of rain according to you is like apples and oranges as mentioned in my post. These two are not compatible.

If you do not agree with what Gurbani says in the SGGS, please show your argument/justification based on Gurbani. And also I would urge you to use my post to counter your argument step by step in your response.

Will wait for that.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Original (Jul 10, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Original ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Thank you Tejwant Singh Ji

Yes, may be it is my system that is flawed. 

Goodnight n Godbless


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 11, 2015)

Originalji

maybe all our systems are flawed, but its not about you, or me, its about learning, sharing and growing, for all of us.


----------



## Original (Jul 11, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Originalji
> 
> maybe all our systems are flawed, but its not about you, or me, its about learning, sharing and growing, for all of us.



Thank you H -

You're an expandable asset who has the good sense to use to defuse and neutralise inconducive conditions !

Accordingly, I'm grateful

Enjoy the day !


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 11, 2015)

Original said:


> You're an expandable asset who has the good sense to use to defuse and neutralise inconducive conditions !



is that a polite way of calling me fat?

Originalji

no ability, no personality=minimal engagement
ability, personality=engagement
huge ability, full personality=full engagement

I find you and Tejwantji in the third camp, from your discussions we can learn so much, blame it on the fact that you are both very capable and deep Sikhs, anyway, I am not fat

ok a little bit fat

back to topic gentlemen, please continue,


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 11, 2015)

I have given this matter much thought now, and am ready to come to a few conclusions. It is clear from the evidence available, comparing notes and studies, and after some research on the web, and visiting a few other forums, that I am now ready to accept certain things as fact, as real, as word. 

I find it quite hard in making this statement, but sometimes the evidence is just too strong to ignore, its staring at me in the face, and I cannot ignore it anymore, I guess sometimes we all have to stand up and proclaim what we feel and what we are, I am ready for this now. 

I am fat


----------



## Original (Jul 11, 2015)

harry haller said:


> I have given this matter much thought now, and am ready to come to a few conclusions. It is clear from the evidence available, comparing notes and studies, and after some research on the web, and visiting a few other forums, that I am now ready to accept certain things as fact, as real, as word.
> 
> I find it quite hard in making this statement, but sometimes the evidence is just too strong to ignore, its staring at me in the face, and I cannot ignore it anymore, I guess sometimes we all have to stand up and proclaim what we feel and what we are, I am ready for this now.
> 
> I am fat



...you're a beautiful man, who has the skill to ball n bat succinctly on matters in general, but should in my view, take time out to visit Chaz's camp to strike the right balance [in gest]. Sikhism spiritual starts when thinking stops - and its your God given entitlement, but hey, take the horse to water you can, make it drink or not is down to the horse.

I'm at SPN because I enjoy the banter, otherwise I'm too busy enjoying life and gardening. I see you all as "my" family, who are, by n large fluttering around the "word" of our living Guru, and by definition, seva for me is putting on this forum *my* "wisdom" of the Sikhi to which *I* subscribe, the one passed on to me by my forefathers. The beauty of it is H - I really feel it, I am what my Baba Ji, Dada Ji, Pardada Ji were. And, that thought goes all the way back, unbroken, unmodified, DNA rubber stamped "SinghKing" to the first ape that walked the earth -  [Chaz, for survival sake had to stick my chest out to attract the best Kaur there was].

The argumentative side on the forum [I refrain] is so fundamental, because knowledge grows out of such differences and scholars debate over what could be true, real, or right in their fields. We all use argumentation to put our views across.   An ability to argue convincingly would've been in our ancestors' interest as they evolved more advanced forms of communication. But of course, as you know, since the most persuasive lines of reasoning are not always the most logical, our brains apparent flaw may result from this need to justify our actions and convince others to see our point of view - rightly or wrongly. As a result, one ends up making decisions that look rational, rather than making rational decisions. But hey, that's mapping n shaping our pattern of thought and not society as a whole. 

What Sikhism seeks to address in the wider meaning of the word, is a systematic, well balanced lifestyle. And, I think Baba Nanak went and done it with the three pillars of  vs, kr, and nam jap.

All ethical theories [Sikh] arise because sizeable population are dissatisfied, either with their personal lives or with the world in which they live. If a person is content with his/her disposition and with the situation in which the world finds itself, she/he will not in general seek to change it. What would be the point of trying to do so ?
Nanak found himself amidst undesirable and inequal socio-political/ religious regimes, result of which is Sikhi. His endeavour was to employ this conception as a guide in directing the application of of human intellectual activities to contemporary social problems. Nanak wasn't looking for a reconstruction of an ideology per se, but yes, revaluation of the whole system. We as a result [Sikh, as a social group] have evolved and will continue to do so and will be more likely to survive and reproduce. Our pattern of thought n behaviour [saintly] will be favoured by the process of natural selection [you with a gori today, what next] and believe me, we'll be in demand, so get rid of that fat you're carrying.

Look where we are today on the "altruistic" agenda for human betterment - 

More another time - it's good to talk !

Love n Live


----------



## chazSingh (Jul 13, 2015)

where we are going...all logic, evaluation, reasoning, research, degrees, logistics will shatter at your feet...we cannot always take Gurbani to the level of the mind...and expect results...

only Love can take us to the level of Gurbani.....only Love can transcend all levels of existance...

where we are going...you can only but gasp in awe and wonder and delight...like a mother meeting her long lost child...no words can describe or give justice to the explosion that occur within the hearts of the two...


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 13, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> where we are going...all logic, evaluation, reasoning, research, degrees, logistics will shatter at your feet...we cannot always take Gurbani to the level of the mind...and expect results...
> 
> only Love can take us to the level of Gurbani.....only Love can transcend all levels of existance...
> 
> where we are going...you can only but gasp in awe and wonder and delight...like a mother meeting her long lost child...no words can describe or give justice to the explosion that occur within the hearts of the two...



Can't you just go there and let us know what its like when your there..



in my opinion, this constant bombardment to stop what we are all doing and follow you is approaching spam


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 13, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> where we are going...all logic, evaluation, reasoning, research, degrees, logistics will shatter at your feet...*we cannot always take Gurbani to the level of the mind...and expect results...*
> 
> only Love can take us to the level of Gurbani.....only Love can transcend all levels of existance...
> 
> where we are going...you can only but gasp in awe and wonder and delight...like a mother meeting her long lost child...no words can describe or give justice to the explosion that occur within the hearts of the two...



Chaz Singh ji,

If I take your claim on its face value what is in bold, then please explain why Mind is mentioned 4992 times in SGGS, our only Guru?

Why did our visionary Gurus repeat the word so many times if it means nothing in Gurbani?

Please enlighten the cyber sadh sangat with your Gurmat wisdom so people like me can follow the Gurmat.path you are on.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ishna (Jul 16, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Chaz ji writes in post#5,
> 
> By both he means Faith and Belief which according to Chaz ji,* "both are based on not truely knowing the truth".*
> 
> ...



Tejwant Ji

Thank you for such a quality analysis of the language of Gurbani and the difficulty of accurately translating the words into English.

I was reading _The Name of My Beloved_ by Nikky Guninder Kaur Singh, and I found these passages;

"The walls of egotism can be shattered by following a simple formula found in Guru Nanak's Jap which contains three precepts; _sunia, mania _and _manu kita bhau_, respectively hearing, holding in mind (remembering) and loving.​
Obviously she is getting this from a tuk in the 21st Paurhi:

*ਸੁਣਿਆ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਕੀਤਾ ਭਾਉ ॥*
_Suṇi▫ā mani▫ā man kīṯā bẖā▫o._
Listening and believing with love and humility in your mind,

*ਅੰਤਰਗਤਿ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਮਲਿ ਨਾਉ ॥*
_Anṯargaṯ ṯirath mal nā▫o._
cleanse yourself with the Name, at the sacred shrine deep within.​
She goes on to elabourate the three of them.  This is some of what she writes for _mania_:

"_Mania_ means remembering the One, keeping the One constantly in our mind.  This process is not purely intellectual for it has connotations of trust and faith."

"... Guru Nanak also describes this state of faith in positive terms: through faith, the mind and intellect become more conscious."​Is _mania_ [*ਮੰਨਿਆ*] per above related to manne [*ਮੰਨੇ*] and mannai [*ਮੰਨੈ*] that you described in your post?

Thanks


----------



## Original (Oct 29, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> are you sure you're not Matthew McConaughey from interstallar.....
> 
> on a serious note..have you watched the film? its now my all time favorite..with terminator sitting just behind..
> 
> ...



Hey bro

Specially went out n brought the DVD - classic, maybe we could talk, eh ? For me, amongst others, all time fav is predator.

Speak soon !


----------

