# Is Waheguru Truth?



## Lily Kaur (Aug 1, 2018)

This might be an esoteric question, but it's something I've been thinking about recently. In the Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says _sat naam_ 'the name is Truth', implying that Truth is the signifier by which we know the divine. Yet in the expression _sat sri akaal _'Truth is the Eternal (i.e. Waheguru)', it implies that the divine is one and the same as Truth. What I've been wondering is, does this mean that Truth (_sat_) refers to the _properties_ _of_ Waheguru, or does it mean that Truth is _the same thing_ _as_ Waheguru? It's just a question of semiotics that's been rolling around my head for the last few days, whether Truth is the signifier of Waheguru or the signified itself. I suppose the distinction isn't really of great consequence, since either way, by knowing Truth we come to know Waheguru and vice versa. I hope this question makes at least a_ little_ sense! 

(P.S. I'm still figuring out this forum so let me know if there's a better place to post this)


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 1, 2018)

Lily Kaur said:


> does this mean that Truth (_sat_) refers to the _properties_ _of_ Waheguru, or does it mean that Truth is _the same thing_ _as_ Waheguru?



i think both



Lily Kaur said:


> It's just a question of semiotics


 are you antisemiotic?


----------



## Lily Kaur (Aug 1, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> i think both
> 
> 
> are you antisemiotic?


I don't know what it means to be anti-semiotic, could you clarify?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 1, 2018)

Lily Kaur said:


> I don't know what it means to be anti-semiotic, could you clarify?


err its a joke, its a play on words, you know, like anti semetic , although in the UK we say semantics which is probably a bit more funny, oh well there you go


----------



## Ishna (Aug 1, 2018)

It's a great question, thank you for asking!  I love semantics, although I'm not very good at it!

I'd ask a question before yours.  What is meant by 'Truth'?  I have my own ideas but would like to hear yours first if you don't mind sharing


----------



## Lily Kaur (Aug 1, 2018)

Ishna said:


> It's a great question, thank you for asking!  I love semantics, although I'm not very good at it!
> 
> I'd ask a question before yours.  What is meant by 'Truth'?  I have my own ideas but would like to hear yours first if you don't mind sharing



I'm no gyanan, so I'm sure that my interpretation will be flawed, and many people wiser than me will probably have thoughts on this that are very different from my own. So take this as simply my own imperfect understanding.

To me, I think one of the fundamentals of Sikh philosophy is the distinction between Sat (truth) and Maya (illusion). Maya is the way we understand the world from our own limited perspectives; we are limited to the Man (mind), and to the trappings of our own perceptions and cognitions. Sat, on the other hand, is the nature of reality as it truly is, independent of our own perspectives. By the very nature of Maya, we cannot consciously understand Sat; we are limited to the faculties of language and thought, constructs of the self which operate from the self's flawed and limited perspective. Sat cannot be accessed through language and thought; this is why in Japji Sahib, Nanak says "sochai soch na hovaee je socee lakh vaar" (One thinks, but thought is not obtained, even by thinking a hundred thousand times). This is also why he criticizes the Qazis and Pandits, who for all their knowledge and studies, cannot speak on the nature of Sat. 

This, I think, is why we have the recurrent symbol of music in Sikhi, and why Gurbani is revealed not in prose but in poetry and song. We do not consciously understand music; it is something that we have intuitive knowledge of. We can understand music, but we do it at a level which goes beyond conscious thought and language and strikes instead at our abstract sense of aesthetics and beauty. This is why the Naad (melody) is such an important metaphor for understanding Sat throughout the Granth; it symbolizes the unconscious, intuitive understanding of Sat.

So Sat, to me, is the nature of reality which transcends thought and language and perception, that cannot be truly described, only _experienced_, as the Gurus did; it is reality free from Maya, and free of the mental constructs that the egoistic self has created to make sense of the world, including the very idea of the "self" itself. And this Sat, this Truth, is the very essence of the Divine; only Waheguru truly perceives Truth, because only Waheguru is free from Maya, They are the one and only self that exists, the very essence of this Truth, this Sat. Maybe Waheguru is Sat made self-existent, the one Truth which knows itself. I don't know the answer, and I doubt I ever will!  

I've rambled too long about this  Didn't mean to let it get this long!


----------



## Ishna (Aug 1, 2018)

Wow.  If there was a Sikh Philosophy Network Posts Hall of Fame, that post is going in it!

Wonderful to read, thank you so much.


----------



## Lily Kaur (Aug 1, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Wow.  If there was a Sikh Philosophy Network Posts Hall of Fame, that post is going in it!
> 
> Wonderful to read, thank you so much.


Aww, thank you so much!


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 2, 2018)

Lily Kaur said:


> I'm no gyanan, so I'm sure that my interpretation will be flawed, and many people wiser than me will probably have thoughts on this that are very different from my own. So take this as simply my own imperfect understanding.
> 
> To me, I think one of the fundamentals of Sikh philosophy is the distinction between Sat (truth) and Maya (illusion). Maya is the way we understand the world from our own limited perspectives; we are limited to the Man (mind), and to the trappings of our own perceptions and cognitions. Sat, on the other hand, is the nature of reality as it truly is, independent of our own perspectives. By the very nature of Maya, we cannot consciously understand Sat; we are limited to the faculties of language and thought, constructs of the self which operate from the self's flawed and limited perspective. Sat cannot be accessed through language and thought; this is why in Japji Sahib, Nanak says "sochai soch na hovaee je socee lakh vaar" (One thinks, but thought is not obtained, even by thinking a hundred thousand times). This is also why he criticizes the Qazis and Pandits, who for all their knowledge and studies, cannot speak on the nature of Sat.
> 
> ...



Great post, I really enjoyed reading that. 

The only thing id add or change is that the Gurus taught what you've said above for the purpose of encouraging and enabling us to discover ourselves.

Were also the indescribable and eternal Sat. We're to realize it as God realizes it, we're One.


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 2, 2018)

Lily Kaur said:


> This might be an esoteric question, but it's something I've been thinking about recently. In the Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says _sat naam_ 'the name is Truth', implying that Truth is the signifier by which we know the divine. Yet in the expression _sat sri akaal _'Truth is the Eternal (i.e. Waheguru)', it implies that the divine is one and the same as Truth. What I've been wondering is, does this mean that Truth (_sat_) refers to the _properties_ _of_ Waheguru, or does it mean that Truth is _the same thing_ _as_ Waheguru? It's just a question of semiotics that's been rolling around my head for the last few days, whether Truth is the signifier of Waheguru or the signified itself. I suppose the distinction isn't really of great consequence, since either way, by knowing Truth we come to know Waheguru and vice versa. I hope this question makes at least a_ little_ sense!
> 
> (P.S. I'm still figuring out this forum so let me know if there's a better place to post this)



Truth is the same thing as All of us. We're here to realise and remember it.

It requires the death of the ego/ mind/ false identity as you described


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 3, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> The only thing id add or change is that the Gurus taught what you've said above for the purpose of encouraging and enabling us to discover ourselves.



Spoken like a true wannabe baba! I do hope you have your red light on order
maybe the purpose is to lose ourselves and discover him?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 3, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> Truth is the same thing as All of us. We're here to realise and remember it.


impossible, your truth is not my truth and vice versa


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Aug 3, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> Truth is the same thing as All of us. We're here to realise and remember it.



Which Truth?
Objective Truth or the Subjective one.
Please elaborate it with tangible examples.
Thanks


----------



## IJJSingh (Aug 3, 2018)

According to Gurbani: sat = sach = Permanent existence.  The definition of Sach (Truth) is provided in SGGS immediately after the Mool Mantar (i.e. Aad Sach, Jugad Sach, ..) - Something that was true (meaning existed) before time or creation began, it existed since time began, it exists now, and it will exist even when time ceases to exist.


The only thing that fits the above definition is God or Naam.  According to Gurbani, in fact, there is nothing else other than God.  Everything else one may see, perceive or think is an illusion (exists for a limited amount of time) powered by God.  Behind everything is God.  God is the deceiver, the deception and the deceived.  For example, underneath millions of images you watch on your TV, there is only one screen that powers all images.  Naam is not a word.  The word Waheguru (Gur Mantar) is a mean to get us to Naam.  Naam is the "TV screen" under every image.  It was there before images appeared, and it will be there after images stop appearing.  Once we realize Naam, only then we realize the Truth - the Permanent Existence.  Until then we are only looking at the falsehood something that is temporary. 


So coming back to your question: Does truth signify God?  The answer is that this question is meaningless - its based in illusion.  This question exists only until duality exists (meaning your ego is generating thoughts and is asking this question, and you have a concept of "truth" in your mind, and you are trying to compare God with your concept of "truth").  Its not possible to understand Truth, the only thing that is possible is to become Truth.  Once you arrive at the Truth, you are the Truth, there is no difference left between you and God, all thoughts stop, and you are the only one around, there is nothing that signifies you because nothing else exists that could possibly signify you.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 10, 2018)

IJJSingh said:


> Once you arrive at the Truth, you are the Truth, there is no difference left between you and God, all thoughts stop, and you are the only one around, there is nothing that signifies you because nothing else exists that could possibly signify you.


Nailed it.

St. Aquinas once said that God is the very Essence of Existence. 

That Essence is also known as Truth.



Lily Kaur said:


> In the Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says _sat naam_ 'the name is Truth', implying that Truth is the signifier by which we know the divine. Yet in the expression _sat sri akaal _'Truth is the Eternal (i.e. Waheguru)', it implies that the divine is one and the same as Truth.



Guru Arjun Dev ji says - Satye naam tera paraa poorblaa - 1083.
The Truth is one of God's Primal Names.


----------



## Admin (Aug 10, 2018)

BhagatSingh said:


> The Truth is one of God's Primal Names.



The Truth is one of God's Primal _*Attributes*_.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 10, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> The Truth is one of God's Primal _*Attributes*_.


No. It's his Primal Name.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 11, 2018)

BhagatSingh said:


> No. It's his Primal Name.


are you saying that god does not have truth as an attribute, just as a name?

I suppose that would be consistent, it would appear quite a few Sikhs struggle with truth as an attribute, but call themselves truthful, maybe thats how it should be


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 11, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> impossible, your truth is not my truth and vice versa


There's only One Truth.

Everything else is ego/ maya


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 11, 2018)

BhagatSingh said:


> No. It's his Primal Name.




Everything's Truth. The Bhagat, the sinner, the Angel, the demon, the grass, the tree, the House.

Such a simple Truth, yet we complicate it. All is One. 

We are All One, not one of a kind.


----------



## Admin (Aug 11, 2018)

BhagatSingh said:


> No. It's his Primal Name.



*(SGGS 1083 Rag Maroo M : 5)*

*ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥*

*Kirtam Naam Katheh Terey Jihba ||*

*All the names by which I refer to You are KIRTEM (from the word KIRET – meaning attributes, Your Virtues).*

*ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ ॥*

*Sat Naam Tera Para Poorbala ||*

*Sat is Your most basic Virtue.*

*Note: SAT means “in perpertual existence” This is the MOST BASIC virtue because if we don’t accept the fact that God Exists – then the other virtues of God being fearless (Nirbhau), without enmity (Nirvair) etc become meaningless. We must first accept that God actually exists and exists perpetually (forever) and only then seek to understand His other virtues.*

So the meaning of the above verse is

All the names by which I speak of You are descriptive of Your perceived deeds (KIRT-EM).

Reference: Sikhi - Realization: The True Path Of  Sikhi - The Meaning Of Naam


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 12, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> *(SGGS 1083 Rag Maroo M : 5)*
> 
> *ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥*
> 
> ...



Potato potato

Gods virtues are Him. His names are Him. Everything is Him. He is Truth, Truth is Him.

Different names, same being.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Aug 12, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> Potato potato
> 
> Gods virtues are Him. His names are Him. Everything is Him. He is Truth, Truth is Him.
> 
> Different names, same being.



I am sorry to disappoint you that your comment has nothing to do with Sikhi. In Sikhi god is not a being as per your claim. Ik Ong Kaar is Energy.


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 14, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I am sorry to disappoint you that your comment has nothing to do with Sikhi. In Sikhi god is not a being as per your claim. Ik Ong Kaar is Energy.



I wouldnt just describe God as energy..

He is Truth, we are Truth. Like I've said in many posts, we are One


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Aug 14, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> I wouldnt just describe God as energy..
> 
> He is Truth, we are Truth. Like I've said in many posts, we are One



Once again you are describing Ik Ong Kaar as a deity like the dogmatic religions do which has nothing to do with Sikhi. Sikhi has no deity.

It matters naught to me what your belief system is.


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 15, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Once again you are describing Ik Ong Kaar as a deity like the dogmatic religions do which has nothing to do with Sikhi. Sikhi has no deity.
> 
> It matters naught to me what your belief system is.



Lol. We are all Truth. So I'm describing everyone in creation, the creation itself and beyond as a deity?

Ok.

The reality is that there's Nothing. As I've said before. No image, no form. Only True Unconditional Love. Truth.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Aug 15, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> Lol. We are all Truth. So I'm describing everyone in creation, the creation itself and beyond as a deity?



The question mark begs me to respond that your guess is as good as mine. Please check your post #22 where you said, “Different names, same being.”

Being means a deity.


----------



## Sikhilove (Aug 16, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> The question mark begs me to respond that your guess is as good as mine. Please check your post #22 where you said, “Different names, same being.”
> 
> Being means a deity.



In limited language perhaps.  We are One. What does that mean to you..

Tejwant Singh, Sikhilove, Wahguru. Different names, same being. Whether the ego likes it or not, we are all One.

Ocean in the drop, drop in the ocean


----------



## Ishna (Mar 19, 2020)

Tejiwant, Sikhilove, Ishna - transient illusory puppets animated by the the only timeless reality, Waheguru.


----------



## swarn bains (Mar 27, 2020)

there is difference between truth and true. Truth is a noun and true is adjective the attribute to truth.
Truth stands alone on its credibility such as someone speaks truth therefore truth cannot be God. it can represent Godlike  qualities, but it is not God.
on the other hand true as an attribute to God represents that it is true there is God


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Apr 22, 2020)

Ishna said:


> Tejiwant, Sikhilove, Ishna - transient illusory puppets animated by the the only timeless reality, Waheguru.


Hi

Of course. It’s beyond logic though Ishna. We always try to rationalise things by using worldly logic, but is there logic in Love?

We are One, that’s it, we are all just pure unconditional Love. The whole of Gurbani is a song of love. The pain, the pleasure, everyone everything everywhere. The reality is Love, and not the one you see in movies. Unconditional.


----------

