# What's Wrong With God?



## Ishna (Oct 21, 2018)

In another thread someone said that the meaning of _Waheguru _is complicated and cannot be reduced to the term 'god' and that it is wholly inadequate.

I use the term 'God' when talking about the Ik Onkar, because it's natural language for me to use.  I'm usually not very confident using other terms because I don't always know what they mean, exactly, and have run into trouble with other users by accidentally 'inventing' new terms.

So, what actually is the problem with referring to the Ik Onkar with the word 'God'?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2018)

Ishna said:


> In another thread someone said that the meaning of _Waheguru _is complicated and cannot be reduced to the term 'god' and that it is wholly inadequate.
> 
> I use the term 'God' when talking about the Ik Onkar, because it's natural language for me to use.  I'm usually not very confident using other terms because I don't always know what they mean, exactly, and have run into trouble with other users by accidentally 'inventing' new terms.
> 
> So, what actually is the problem with referring to the Ik Onkar with the word 'God'?


to me, the abrahamic connection, God will always to me be the God I read about in the bible, an angry jealous fellow.


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 22, 2018)

i think it depend from person to person, i generally use  "Eternal Entity" or "God".
I dont think if anything is wrong in that cuz WHen you talkin' to someone abt Eternal then you gotta use terminology that evrybdy knows......
There is nothing wrong with "GOD" IMO.
people who object they'll never be satisfied with anything XD.
btw " KUCH TO LOG KAHENGE, LOGO KA KAAM HAI KEHNA" if you know wht it means XD


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> i think it depend from person to person, i generally use  "Eternal Entity" or "God".
> I dont think if anything is wrong in that cuz WHen you talkin' to someone abt Eternal then you gotta use terminology that evrybdy knows......
> There is nothing wrong with "GOD" IMO.
> people who object they'll never be satisfied with anything XD.
> btw " KUCH TO LOG KAHENGE, LOGO KA KAAM HAI KEHNA" if you know wht it means XD



Would you say then that Allah, Ram, God all encapsulate fully the meaning of Waheguru?


----------



## Ishna (Oct 22, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> Would you say then that Allah, Ram, God all encapsulate fully the meaning of Waheguru?



I know you're not asking me, but I would say those names are used in Gurbani.

I also note that both "God" and "Waheguru" are not personal names.


----------



## Ishna (Oct 22, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> i think it depend from person to person, i generally use  "Eternal Entity" or "God".
> I dont think if anything is wrong in that cuz WHen you talkin' to someone abt Eternal then you gotta use terminology that evrybdy knows......
> There is nothing wrong with "GOD" IMO.
> people who object they'll never be satisfied with anything XD.
> btw " KUCH TO LOG KAHENGE, LOGO KA KAAM HAI KEHNA" if you know wht it means XD



A kind person in a Sikh chat room translated for me - "People will say what they feel like, that's what their job is."

To express doing what you do without caring what others say, or that someone will have a negative opinion regardless of what you do.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2018)

Ishna said:


> I know you're not asking me, but I would say those names are used in Gurbani.
> 
> I also note that both "God" and "Waheguru" are not personal names.



Yes these names are used in Gurbani, but are they there for reference and context, or are they there for description?


----------



## Ishna (Oct 22, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> Yes these names are used in Gurbani, but are they there for reference and context, or are they there for description?



Well, the names are used differently depending on what the author is trying to get across with the broader message of each shabad, but there are plenty of examples where the names Allah and Raam are used in conjunction with other attributes we associate with "Waheguru".  There is usually a caveat to the shabads, which goes along the lines of something like Allah and Raam are infinite and dwell in the heart of the devotee.  The names are used but the focus is changed.

Does this ultimately mean it doesn't matter which name you use to describe That which resides deep within our hearts?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 22, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Well, the names are used differently depending on what the author is trying to get across with the broader message of each shabad, but there are plenty of examples where the names Allah and Raam are used in conjunction with other attributes we associate with "Waheguru".  There is usually a caveat to the shabads, which goes along the lines of something like Allah and Raam are infinite and dwell in the heart of the devotee.  The names are used but the focus is changed.
> 
> Does this ultimately mean it doesn't mean which name you use to describe That which resides deep within our hearts?


in my opinion, it does matter, the Allah the muslims worship is a god that most muslims understand to be the giver of bliss and provider of happiness, the Ram the Hindus worship is a god that most Hindus are able to manifest in any manner of beings and objects, and the God the Christians worship has all manner of personality traits that are very human like, so in a sense, is an imperfect being, none seem to ably describe Waheguru


----------



## Ishna (Oct 22, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> in my opinion, it does matter, the Allah the muslims worship is a god that most muslims understand to be the giver of bliss and provider of happiness, the Ram the Hindus worship is a god that most Hindus are able to manifest in any manner of beings and objects, and the God the Christians worship has all manner of personality traits that are very human like, so in a sense, is an imperfect being, none seem to ably describe Waheguru



I get what you're saying on the one hand, but then there are shabads like the one below, and many others.  Are you suggesting that this shabad is simply using the word 'Allah' in the last tuk not to mean the Muslim Allah, but as a word that a (perhaps simple?) audience would understand to mean "Allah" but actually orients the listener towards (for lack of better language) Waheguru within?

Like if I can use the "Who Moved My Cheese?" metaphor for example, Kabeer suggests the listener to reflect upon the cheese hidden in each and every heart, but he doesn't actually mean cheese (Allah), he means that if you reflect on cheese hidden in each heart you will hopefully connect with Waheguru?

ਆਸਾ ॥ 
Āsā. 
Aasaa: 

ਰੋਜਾ ਧਰੈ ਮਨਾਵੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਸੁਆਦਤਿ ਜੀਅ ਸੰਘਾਰੈ ॥ 
Rojā ḏẖarai manāvai alhu su▫āḏaṯ jī▫a sangẖārai. 
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure. 

ਆਪਾ ਦੇਖਿ ਅਵਰ ਨਹੀ ਦੇਖੈ ਕਾਹੇ ਕਉ ਝਖ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥ 
Āpā ḏekẖ avar nahī ḏekẖai kāhe ka▫o jẖakẖ mārai. ||1|| 
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1|| 

ਕਾਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਏਕੁ ਤੋਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰਾ ਸੋਚਿ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਨ ਦੇਖੈ ॥ 
Kājī sāhib ek ṯohī mėh ṯerā socẖ bicẖār na ḏekẖai. 
O Qazi, the One Lord is within you, but you do not behold Him by thought or contemplation. 

ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਕਰਹਿ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਜਨਮੁ ਅਲੇਖੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
Kẖabar na karahi ḏīn ke ba▫ure ṯā ṯe janam alekẖai. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
You do not care for others, you are a religious fanatic, and your life is of no account at all. ||1||Pause|| 

ਸਾਚੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਨਾਰਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥ 
Sācẖ kaṯeb bakẖānai alhu nār purakẖ nahī ko▫ī. 
Your holy scriptures say that Allah is True, and that he is neither male nor female. 

ਪਢੇ ਗੁਨੇ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਛੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜਉ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥ 
Padẖe gune nāhī kacẖẖ ba▫ure ja▫o ḏil mėh kẖabar na ho▫ī. ||2|| 
But you gain nothing by reading and studying, O mad-man, if you do not gain the understanding in your heart. ||2|| 

ਅਲਹੁ ਗੈਬੁ ਸਗਲ ਘਟ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਲੇਹੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥ 
Alhu gaib sagal gẖat bẖīṯar hirḏai leho bicẖārī. 
Allah is hidden in every heart; reflect upon this in your mind. 

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹੂੰ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੈ ਕਹੈ ਕਬੀਰ ਪੁਕਾਰੀ ॥੩॥੭॥੨੯॥ 
Hinḏū ṯurak duhū▫aŉ mėh ekai kahai Kabīr pukārī. ||3||7||29|| 
The One Lord is within both Hindu and Muslim; Kabeer proclaims this out loud. ||3||7||29||​


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 22, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> Would you say then that Allah, Ram, God all encapsulate fully the meaning of Waheguru?


and i dont think even Waheguru defines it all......... Again guru sahib did'nt gave us any new word and said " THIS IS THE NAME OF THE GOD "
For me, if you have any idea of what god is , like gurus had, they found bliss in every name.......... 
Now if someone is describing thee true nature of god to me, ill say "WAHH" regardless if he used the word ALLAH or AKAAL PURAKH or IK ONKAAR....


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 23, 2018)

Ishna said:


> I get what you're saying on the one hand, but then there are shabads like the one below, and many others.  Are you suggesting that this shabad is simply using the word 'Allah' in the last tuk not to mean the Muslim Allah, but as a word that a (perhaps simple?) audience would understand to mean "Allah" but actually orients the listener towards (for lack of better language) Waheguru within?
> 
> Like if I can use the "Who Moved My Cheese?" metaphor for example, Kabeer suggests the listener to reflect upon the cheese hidden in each and every heart, but he doesn't actually mean cheese (Allah), he means that if you reflect on cheese hidden in each heart you will hopefully connect with Waheguru?
> 
> ...




In my own opinion this shabad makes it quite clear that there is a marked difference between Allah and Waheguru, fasting in Sikhism is not the done thing, yet the first line states that 

You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure. 

so in this context Allah bears no relation to Waheguru, as one would not keep fasts to please Waheguru


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 23, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> and i dont think even Waheguru defines it all......... Again guru sahib did'nt gave us any new word and said " THIS IS THE NAME OF THE GOD "
> For me, if you have any idea of what god is , like gurus had, they found bliss in every name..........
> Now if someone is describing thee true nature of god to me, ill say "WAHH" regardless if he used the word ALLAH or AKAAL PURAKH or IK ONKAAR....



For the moment we are focusing on the major religions, what about the other religions, what about Abraxas? If your point is solid then surely they would have found bliss in the name of Abraxas, or the plethora of greek gods,

Given that anyone can start a religion, and anyone can nominate their own qualities of the God of this religion, it is not a given that automatically, the Gurus would find bliss in it, even if we stick to the Abrahamic, Would the Gurus find bliss in a God that encouraged folks to kill their own sons just to prove they loved him?

Each God has its own facets and personality, EkOnkar also has these, as stated in Mool Mantra, they are not the same facets that other names of God hold, sure respect all Gods, respect all interpretations, but to lump them all together as one, given the clearly different facets seems odd to me.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 23, 2018)

Abraxas, would the Gurus find bliss in this?





or this?

and even if they could, as all is indeed one, would they worship the above as they worship Waheguru?


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 23, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> For the moment we are focusing on the major religions, what about the other religions, what about Abraxas? If your point is solid then surely they would have found bliss in the name of Abraxas, or the plethora of greek gods,
> 
> Given that anyone can start a religion, and anyone can nominate their own qualities of the God of this religion, it is not a given that automatically, the Gurus would find bliss in it, even if we stick to the Abrahamic, Would the Gurus find bliss in a God that encouraged folks to kill their own sons just to prove they loved him?
> 
> Each God has its own facets and personality, EkOnkar also has these, as stated in Mool Mantra, they are not the same facets that other names of God hold, sure respect all Gods, respect all interpretations, but to lump them all together as one, given the clearly different facets seems odd to me.



C'mon prince harry i said "if someone is describing THR TRUE NATURE OF GOD TO ME -_-. 
Ya dont have to come at everything, Sir


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 23, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> C'mon prince harry i said "if someone is describing THR TRUE NATURE OF GOD TO ME -_-.
> Ya dont have to come at everything, Sir



The true nature of God is hugely subjective, You will find Mool Mantra describes the nature of God as per Sikhi, but other religions also maintain that they have the true nature of God, and it differs to the Sikhi nature, 

I am not coming at everything, just passing time before the petrol station opens down the road so i can get some breakfast...


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 23, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> The true nature of God is hugely subjective, You will find Mool Mantra describes the nature of God as per Sikhi, but other religions also maintain that they have the true nature of God, and it differs to the Sikhi nature,
> 
> I am not coming at everything, just passing time before the petrol station opens down the road so i can get some breakfast...



Then ofcourse you'll point something as true nature if it aligns to your GranTh, right ?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 23, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> Then ofcourse you'll point something as true nature if it aligns to your GranTh, right ?



the only thing that aligns fully to the SGGS is the SGGS, if you could name something else that aligns fully to the SGGS, I am all ears. Note that it has to fully align, a few similarities is not enough, it either aligns or it does not. 

6am! breakfast time!


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 23, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> the only thing that aligns fully to the SGGS is the SGGS, if you could name something else that aligns fully to the SGGS, I am all ears. Note that it has to fully align, a few similarities is not enough, it either aligns or it does not.
> 
> 6am! breakfast time!



Okay XD......


----------



## Ishna (Oct 23, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> In my own opinion this shabad makes it quite clear that there is a marked difference between Allah and Waheguru, fasting in Sikhism is not the done thing, yet the first line states that
> 
> You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder other beings for pleasure.
> 
> so in this context Allah bears no relation to Waheguru, as one would not keep fasts to please Waheguru



You and I seem to be reading the shabad differently, brother.

You're focused on the first line, which to my mind talks about a kind of hypocrisy; if not literally fasting and murdering, then metaphorically illustrating the futility of a hollow ritual to please Allah while simultaneously committing bad deeds.

Kabeer ends by saying Allah is hidden within every heart and implores the Qazi to search there, within himself, to find Allah / the "One Lord".

I think if a bhagat like Kabeer was addressing Christians, he or she might say that God is hidden within every heart and that the Christians should search there instead of eating the bread and drinking the wine to please God one moment and then murdering for pleasure in the next.

But is the Allah within that Kabeer refers to the same as the Allah described by Islam?  Probably not.  But the word is to a degree transferrable.  Just like the word "God".


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 23, 2018)

One cannot discuss the nature of God meaningfully because that nature is ineffable.  The Mul Mantar does it as well as it can be done with words. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Sikh. There are many other things to be that aren't nearly as troublesome. I could be a banker or a firefighter or even a (gulp!) barber.  The nature of God," whatever that is, must encompass action that cannot be realized in static words. I apologize that this is so big. I didn't mean it to be. But it's 0614 and I'm too tired to redo it now, so live with it.,





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1713621828747531


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Oct 25, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> in my opinion, it does matter, the Allah the muslims worship is a god that most muslims understand to be the giver of bliss and provider of happiness, the Ram the Hindus worship is a god that most Hindus are able to manifest in any manner of beings and objects, and the God the Christians worship has all manner of personality traits that are very human like, so in a sense, is an imperfect being, none seem to ably describe Waheguru



Are you sure? Or perhaps is that how THEY imagine our Creator / Source to be? Just because a certain group of people ascribe certain (mostly human) traits to something / someone they can’t fully understand doesn’t mean that entity actually fits their interpretation. 

I would say it’s more logical that ALL humans are really having the same entity / creator in mind (the source of all) however they will ascribe traits as per their experiences, culture and understanding. Where Gurbani is different is that it straight out says we can’t ever understand fully. However I don’t think at the core of it all, they are ‘different’ entities that each culture are worshipping... 

Hope that made sense...


----------



## Ishna (Oct 25, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Are you sure? Or perhaps is that how THEY imagine our Creator / Source to be? Just because a certain group of people ascribe certain (mostly human) traits to something / someone they can’t fully understand doesn’t mean that entity actually fits their interpretation.
> 
> I would say it’s more logical that ALL humans are really having the same entity / creator in mind (the source of all) however they will ascribe traits as per their experiences, culture and understanding. Where Gurbani is different is that it straight out says we can’t ever understand fully. However I don’t think at the core of it all, they are ‘different’ entities that each culture are worshipping...
> 
> Hope that made sense...



I think this position is supported by Gurbani and is the most logical.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 25, 2018)

I agree with what bhainji Harkiran Kaur wrote, but it'll be a "cold day in hell" when others see this. 

I remember a discussion I had with an evangelical Christian. I was translating the Mul Mantar. She actually agreed with me until I explained the meaning of _nirvair_.
"So your God doesn't hate _anything_?"
"Our belief is that the Creator doesn't hate period."
"Your God hates only sin, right?" 
"We believe the One hates nothing, not even sin."
She exploded.
"YOUR GOD ISN'T RIGHTEOUS. YOUR GOD IS NOT THE SAME AS OURS. AND YOU ARE *WRONG."*
"sigh.* End of discussion.
*
*


----------



## Ishna (Oct 25, 2018)

I was reading So Dar last night, and some things stood out to me.  It's just my understanding, yours might be different.

Where _*are *_You?
So many people and things *h*_*int *_at You.
All of creation is a symphony of *notes *in the song that is You.
Everyone *says *how great You are
But only people who've _*heard the Song*_ actually know you.
And no one can transmit the hearing of the Song to anyone else.
They have to hear it for themselves.
And it's priceless.​Also, the metaphor of the blind people and the elephant comes to mind.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 29, 2018)

Ishna said:


> You and I seem to be reading the shabad differently, brother.
> 
> You're focused on the first line, which to my mind talks about a kind of hypocrisy; if not literally fasting and murdering, then metaphorically illustrating the futility of a hollow ritual to please Allah while simultaneously committing bad deeds.
> 
> ...



possibly, but is to a degree enough when your talking about the ultimate power of the universe? is to a degree enough to lump them all into one?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 29, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Are you sure? Or perhaps is that how THEY imagine our Creator / Source to be? Just because a certain group of people ascribe certain (mostly human) traits to something / someone they can’t fully understand doesn’t mean that entity actually fits their interpretation.
> 
> I would say it’s more logical that ALL humans are really having the same entity / creator in mind (the source of all) however they will ascribe traits as per their experiences, culture and understanding. Where Gurbani is different is that it straight out says we can’t ever understand fully. However I don’t think at the core of it all, they are ‘different’ entities that each culture are worshipping...
> 
> Hope that made sense...


yes it makes perfect sense, however, it only validates the point that each entity, and each interpretation is different and therefore to group them together and use a common word for all of them is incomprehensible,


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 29, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> I agree with what bhainji Harkiran Kaur wrote, but it'll be a "cold day in hell" when others see this.
> 
> I remember a discussion I had with an evangelical Christian. I was translating the Mul Mantar. She actually agreed with me until I explained the meaning of _nirvair_.
> "So your God doesn't hate _anything_?"
> ...


but she is correct, her god is not the same as our god,


----------



## Ishna (Oct 29, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> possibly, but is to a degree enough when your talking about the ultimate power of the universe? is to a degree enough to lump them all into one?



If a Muslim goes looking for Allah within and finds Waheguru, then what is the problem?

More specific to the title of this thread, the word 'God' predates Christianity in northern Europe.  Technically speaking it shouldn't apply to the Christian God, whose name is Yahweh.  Technically speaking the word 'God' has etymology in what may have meant something like 'invoked idol', but the history of the word is vague.  The word 'God' is flexible and usually the audience can figure out just which conception of the divine the speaker is referring to.

Perhaps I should use 'god' with a lower case 'g'.

I struggle to pronounce 'Waheguru'.


----------



## Ishna (Oct 29, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> possibly, but is to a degree enough when your talking about the ultimate power of the universe? is to a degree enough to lump them all into one?



Also, what do you think of all the examples of other God names used in Gurbani?  Obviously Gurbani isn't singing the praises of those god-characters.  So why does it use them at all?


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 29, 2018)

_Ishna wrote: (Sorry, I'm not getting the quote thingy working correctly.)
Also, what do you think of all the examples of other God names used in Gurbani? Obviously Gurbani isn't singing the praises of those god-characters. So why does it use them at all?_​
I have asked myself that many times and still don't have a satisfactory answer beyond thinking "maybe Star Trek was right." Maybe they do exist as created beings, possibly extraterrestrial aliens, but certainly not as gods of any sort. Maybe the weight of so many minds of so many people believing in them for so long has given them some sort of existence. I told Yamraj something like that when he showed up in my NDE a few years ago. Or maybe, just maybe...

Maybe they are poetic metaphors that the people of that time and place would understand and relate to.


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> Maybe they are poetic metaphors that the people of that time and place would understand and relate to.


agree


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

well to my mind its quite simple, most religions offer a detailed explanation on the character of God, Allah, Ram, whatever, Sikhism is the only religion to my mind that on the whole says, 'I just don't know', so a Muslim looking for Allah within would not be satisfied with the huge blanks in Sikhism, what he is looking for has definitive traits, Waheguru does not have definitive traits, it has unknown traits


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> ... Waheguru does not have definitive traits, it has unknown traits


I think the Mul Mantar is as close as we come to a description.

ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ 
 Ik▫oaŉkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaŉ gur parsāḏ. 
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace ~ 

ਜਪੁ ॥ 
 Jap. 
Chant And Meditate: 

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥ 
 Āḏ sacẖ jugāḏ sacẖ. 
True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. 

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥ 
Hai bẖī sacẖ Nānak hosī bẖī sacẖ. ||1|| 
True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True. ||1||

(Some would leave off the lines starting with "Jap." I refuse to argue about this.)

The one word "Nirvair" separates Sikhi forever from the Abrahamic religions. They view God as always being angry about - hating - one thing or another, most often about the sinfulness of us humans. "Nirvair is translated here as "no hatred." I have most often seen it translated as "No enmity." 

I wonder if "No Negativity" might work. Those whose Punjabi exceeds mine, please comment.


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> well to my mind its quite simple, most religions offer a detailed explanation on the character of God, Allah, Ram, whatever, Sikhism is the only religion to my mind that on the whole says, 'I just don't know', so a Muslim looking for Allah within would not be satisfied with the huge blanks in Sikhism, what he is looking for has definitive traits, Waheguru does not have definitive traits, it has unknown traits



Sure, compared to a god-character like Allah, Yahweh or Thor, the description of god in Sikhi is not very personal.  Although Gurbani can be very personal about it when it talks about the Husband Lord.  Guru Sahib sung about god being his Beloved.  He sung about the light within everything.  Gurbani itself says to look for Allah within - Gurbani's words, not mine.  I think, if you're told there's treasure here, even if you think that treasure is going to be a big gold trophy, and you start digging, and you find diamonds, it's was definitely worth digging for the trophy, because you found something so much better.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Sure, compared to a god-character like Allah, Yahweh or Thor, the description of god in Sikhi is not very personal.  Although Gurbani can be very personal about it when it talks about the Husband Lord.  Guru Sahib sung about god being his Beloved.  He sung about the light within everything.  Gurbani itself says to look for Allah within - Gurbani's words, not mine.  I think, if you're told there's treasure here, even if you think that treasure is going to be a big gold trophy, and you start digging, and you find diamonds, it's was definitely worth digging for the trophy, because you found something so much better.



but were not those words directed at the Qazi?


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> but were not those words directed at the Qazi?



The particular shabad you posted earlier, by Bhagat Kabeer ji, yes, it was addressed to the Qazi.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Ishna said:


> The particular shabad you posted earlier, by Bhagat Kabeer ji, yes, it was addressed to the Qazi.



maybe its telling him that the true Allah can be reached by following the shabad?


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> maybe its telling him that the true Allah can be reached by following the shabad?



Yes, I think it might be.  I think that's what Gurbani is getting at whenever it uses the names of other gods.

Here's another one ang 885:

ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ 
Rāmkalī mėhlā 5. 
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehl: 

ਕੋਈ ਬੋਲੈ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਕੋਈ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥ 
Ko▫ī bolai rām rām ko▫ī kẖuḏā▫e. 
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'. 

ਕੋਈ ਸੇਵੈ ਗੁਸਈਆ ਕੋਈ ਅਲਾਹਿ ॥੧॥ 
Ko▫ī sevai gus▫ī▫ā ko▫ī alāhi. ||1|| 
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allah'. ||1|| 

ਕਾਰਣ ਕਰਣ ਕਰੀਮ ॥ 
Kāraṇ karaṇ karīm. 
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord. 

ਕਿਰਪਾ ਧਾਰਿ ਰਹੀਮ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
Kirpā ḏẖār rahīm. ||1|| rahā▫o. 
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause|| 

ਕੋਈ ਨਾਵੈ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਕੋਈ ਹਜ ਜਾਇ ॥ 
Ko▫ī nāvai ṯirath ko▫ī haj jā▫e. 
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.| 

ਕੋਈ ਕਰੈ ਪੂਜਾ ਕੋਈ ਸਿਰੁ ਨਿਵਾਇ ॥੨॥ 
Ko▫ī karai pūjā ko▫ī sir nivā▫e. ||2|| 
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2|| 

ਕੋਈ ਪੜੈ ਬੇਦ ਕੋਈ ਕਤੇਬ ॥ 
Ko▫ī paṛai beḏ ko▫ī kaṯeb. 
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran. 

ਕੋਈ ਓਢੈ ਨੀਲ ਕੋਈ ਸੁਪੇਦ ॥੩॥ 
Ko▫ī odẖai nīl ko▫ī supeḏ. ||3|| 
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3|| 

ਕੋਈ ਕਹੈ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਕੋਈ ਕਹੈ ਹਿੰਦੂ ॥ 
Ko▫ī kahai ṯurak ko▫ī kahai hinḏū. 
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. 

ਕੋਈ ਬਾਛੈ ਭਿਸਤੁ ਕੋਈ ਸੁਰਗਿੰਦੂ ॥੪॥ 
Ko▫ī bācẖẖai bẖisaṯ ko▫ī surginḏū. ||4|| 
Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. ||4|| 

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਪਛਾਤਾ ॥ 
Kaho Nānak jin hukam pacẖẖāṯā. 
Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, 

ਪ੍ਰਭ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕਾ ਤਿਨਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਜਾਤਾ ॥੫॥੯॥ 
Parabẖ sāhib kā ṯin bẖeḏ jāṯā. ||5||9|| 
knows the secrets of his Lord and Master. ||5||9||​


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Yes, I think it might be.  I think that's what Gurbani is getting at whenever it uses the names of other gods.
> 
> Here's another one ang 885:
> 
> ...



its saying we are all the same and all hanker after the same thing, and rather than go for heaven or paradise just accept and do your best?


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> its saying we are all the same and all hanker after the same thing, and rather than go for heaven or paradise just accept and do your best?



Actually I'm not sure the full meaning of this shabad.  It's very interesting that again my initial take on it is different to yours.  You've read the line about paradise and heaven as pointing to people wanting that.  I've read it as the Hindu and the Muslim wanting to get to their own versions of the afterlife (the particular afterlifes being the focus of the line, rather than the desire to get there).

Big disclaimer, this is just my first impression:  Reading more into the shabad just totally off the cuff, I think it picks up your earlier point about the Sikh version of god being 'empty' or without characteristics.  You call God this name or that, but (rahao) god is the cause of causes.   You both follow the peculiarities of your religion and want to arrive at your separate versions of a wonderful afterlife.  But there's this reality of hukam, and if you only knew that, you'd get to the actual truth that exists behind all the trappings of two different religions that people are convinced about.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Actually I'm not sure the full meaning of this shabad.  It's very interesting that again my initial take on it is different to yours.  You've read the line about paradise and heaven as pointing to people wanting that.  I've read it as the Hindu and the Muslim wanting to get to their own versions of the afterlife (the particular afterlifes being the focus of the line, rather than the desire to get there).
> 
> Big disclaimer, this is just my first impression:  Reading more into the shabad just totally off the cuff, I think it picks up your earlier point about the Sikh version of god being 'empty' or without characteristics.  You call God this name or that, but (rahao) god is the cause of causes.   You both follow the peculiarities of your religion and want to arrive at your separate versions of a wonderful afterlife.  But there's this reality of hukam, and if you only knew that, you'd get to the actual truth that exists behind all the trappings of two different religions that people are convinced about.



in that case, given what you have said, God, Allah, RAM, are not all the same as Waheguru in that case, they are Waheguru lite?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

also Allah clearly approves of all that is in the Koran, God approves of what is in the Bible, and Ram approves of what is in the Vedas, all these things make the respective Gods happy or sad, angry or loving, Waheguru does not give a damn one way or another, so are they even Waheguru lite? They are clearly separate entities period?


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

how do you know " these things make Allah, Ram, Bible " Happy or sad ?


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> also Allah clearly approves of all that is in the Koran, God approves of what is in the Bible, and Ram approves of what is in the Vedas, all these things make the respective Gods happy or sad, angry or loving, Waheguru does not give a damn one way or another, so are they even Waheguru lite? They are clearly separate entities period?



I don't have an answer yet about their existence as separate entities.  I think Gurbani may say that gods have transient existence in Maya just like we do, but I have no examples at my fingertips and haven't thought about it enough from this POV yet.

Stop asking difficult questions!   (that's 100% a joke. don't stop - you're wonderful  )


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> how do you know " these things make Allah, Ram, Bible " Happy or sad ?


I don't personally know myself, but there is plenty material on how to make each individual God happy, and its all different depending on the God, or substance..

What makes Allah very happy? -  		 		Ummah.com - Muslim Forum

Four Ways To Make God Happy


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/06/why-ketamine-makes-you-happy


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

[An aside.] Have any of you read LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny? It has a very different take on Hindu gods and goddesses. I'm amazed if this book hasn't been banned in India. [/close aside]

Now go back to your discussion.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

I will give that a read!


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

how 


Harry Haller said:


> I don't personally know myself, but there is plenty material on how to make each individual God happy, and its all different depending on the God, or substance..
> 
> What makes Allah very happy? -                   Ummah.com - Muslim Forum
> 
> ...


how do you know that they actually make them happy ?


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> how
> 
> how do you know that they actually make them happy?


How do you know that they actually exist? That is necessary before you get concerned with making them happy.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> how
> 
> how do you know that they actually make them happy ?


I have already stated I have no idea, and personally could not give a toss, however, according to the respective religions, there is much material on what each individual God expects to make him happy according to the respective devotees, this is also applies to whether they exist, again, no idea, could not give a toss, all we have to go on is what the respective followers believe, not what I believe


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> How do you know that they actually exist? That is necessary before you get concerned with making them happy.


i dont believe in RAM..... but i think ALLAH and WAHEGURU is same...... Muslims just have diff perspective


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

well depends which RAM we're talking


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

I think we should include Har. That's used a lot in Siri Guru Granth Sahib.


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

i think " RAM, ALLAH, HAR, GOD ( christian )," they all the same.... evrybdy just have different definitions according to their own limit of knowledge .... Some definitions are right, Some are partially right, and some definitions are false.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> i dont believe in RAM..... but i think ALLAH and WAHEGURU is same...... Muslims just have diff perspective


I see, so in your opinion as a Sikh, Waheguru are the same, but the Muslims who actually follow and worship Allah have a different 'perspective'? do you think you should tell them?


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I see, so in your opinion as a Sikh, Waheguru are the same, but the Muslims who actually follow and worship Allah have a different 'perspective'? do you think you should tell them?


i think if someone wants to learn they'll find out on their own


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> i think if someone wants to learn they'll find out on their own



do you not think it arrogant that you consider your truth to be more  truthful than what the entire Muslim nation believes?


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> do you not think it arrogant that you consider your truth to be more  truthful than what the entire Muslim nation believes?


hahaha.......... i never studied islam its just you were saying that ALLAH is not same as WAHEGURU.


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> hahaha.......... i never studied islam its just you were saying that ALLAH is not same as WAHEGURU.



Then by what logic have you determined that Allah and Waheguru are the same?


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

I wonder if I am arrogant. I am a Sikh partly because I believe Sikhi has more of the truth than other religions. If I didn't Sikhi is the best, I wouldn't be a Sikh; I would go be something else.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> do you not think it arrogant that you consider your truth to be more  truthful than what the entire Muslim nation believes?


I wonder if I am arrogant. I am a Sikh partly because I believe Sikhi has more of the truth than other religions. If I didn't believe Sikhi is the best, I wouldn't be a Sikh; I would go be something else.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> hahaha.......... i never studied islam its just you were saying that ALLAH is not same as WAHEGURU.


sorry im confused, I too never studied Islam, but a quick cursory glance at the Koran and what Muslims expect from their faith reveals quite clearly that Allah has quite different qualities to Waheguru, so it is quite easy to formulate an opinion on such, if you have never Islam, what exactly qualifies you to make the statement you have made, other than it is just your opinion?


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> hahaha.......... i never studied islam its just you were saying that ALLAH is not same as WAHEGURU.


sorry im confused, I too never studied Islam, but a quick cursory glance at the Koran and what Muslims expect from their faith reveals quite clearly that Allah has quite different qualities to Waheguru, so it is quite easy to formulate an opinion on such, if you have never Islam, what exactly qualifies you to make the statement you have made, other than it is just your opinion?


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Ishna said:


> Then by what logic have you determined that Allah and Waheguru are the same?


i think its just diffferent names....
Guru Sahib says if you want to find Akaal purakh.... look inside yourself....
Same thing Gurus says about ALLAH to Muslims......
there cant be different gods in diff. people.......


----------



## Ishna (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> i think its just diffferent names....
> Guru Sahib says if you want to find Akaal purakh.... look inside yourself....
> Same thing Gurus says about ALLAH to Muslims......
> there cant be different gods in diff. people.......



I refer to my earlier post about looking for the buried trophy but finding diamonds instead.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> i think its just diffferent names....
> Guru Sahib says if you want to find Akaal purakh.... look inside yourself....
> Same thing Gurus says about ALLAH to Muslims......
> there cant be different gods in diff. people.......



ah but the Gurus were not Muslim prophets, surely its what Mohammed said that is relevant to the Muslims, not what Sikh Gurus said, we are looking it from the Muslim perspective, not the Sikh


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> sorry im confused, I too never studied Islam, but a quick cursory glance at the Koran and what Muslims expect from their faith reveals quite clearly that Allah has quite different qualities to Waheguru, so it is quite easy to formulate an opinion on such, if you have never Islam, what exactly qualifies you to make the statement you have made, other than it is just your opinion?


Im a SIKH and Im just telling you my perspective, i think ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same and they are just different names.....


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> Im a SIKH and Im just telling you my perspective, i think ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same and they are just different names.....


oh ok, sorry, I was expecting opinions based on fact or research rather than personal perspective, well, in that case, I think that the tooth fairy and Waheguru are also the same!


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> oh ok, sorry, I was expecting opinions based on fact or research rather than personal perspective, well, in that case, I think that the tooth fairy and Waheguru are also the same!


then why does guru sahib tells Qazi to "Find ALLAH in yourself"


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> then why does guru sahib tells Qazi to "Find ALLAH in yourself"



I would imagine it was for Muslims of the time to accept Waheguru or see Allah as different to the accepted notion, whats your point?


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

my point is that they said same things to people of different religions, just used a different name..... i think they too felt the same bliss when someone praised ALLAH in front of gurus.
SIkhi and ISLAM may be different..... BUT ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same for me.... JUST NAMES, imo


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> my point is that they said same things to people of different religions, just used a different name..... i think they too felt the same bliss when someone praised ALLAH in front of gurus.
> SIkhi and ISLAM may be different..... BUT ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same for me.... JUST NAMES, imo



well it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it makes no sense to me

according to wikki

*The first sura of the Quran is repeated in daily prayers and in other occasions. This sura, which consists of seven verses, is the most often recited sura of the Quran:[1]

Praised be God, Lord of the Universe, the Beneficent, the Merciful and Master of the Day of Judgment, You alone We do worship and from You alone we do seek assistance, guide us to the right path, the path of those to whom You have granted blessings, those who are neither subject to Your anger nor have gone astray."[68]*

To my knowledge, Waheguru has no anger, perhaps you can help me out here as your making no sense whatsoever


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> well it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it makes no sense to me
> 
> according to wikki
> 
> ...


XD, give me time, ill be back with some sense in my answer.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 30, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> I wonder if I am arrogant. I am a Sikh partly because I believe Sikhi has more of the truth than other religions. If I didn't Sikhi is the best, I wouldn't be a Sikh; I would go be something else.


Im a Sikh because its the only religion that would have me....


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 30, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> Im a Sikh because its the only religion that would have me....


Did you try Anton LeVey's group? But that wouldn't work either because you're definitely not a hedonist.

You might try Discordianism. Take a look at their sacred text, especially if you haven't read it in a while. Principia Discordia, Principia Discordia - Page -6


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 31, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> Did you try Anton LeVey's group? But that wouldn't work either because you're definitely not a hedonist.
> 
> You might try Discordianism. Take a look at their sacred text, especially if you haven't read it in a while. Principia Discordia, Principia Discordia - Page -6



I quite like Abraxas personally..


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 31, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I quite like Abraxas personally..


Cthulu! 
Really, though, do check out Principia Discordia.


----------



## Ishna (Oct 31, 2018)

[Also an aside...]

The Stoics back in Greece and Rome 2000 years ago left some interesting writing.  In it they often used the name 'Zeus' interchangeably with "the Whole", "the One", "universal reason", "world-soul", "Nature", "Providence" and "Logos".  They used the name 'Zeus', but not usually to mean the Zeus-character.  They used it for something even greater than that.  An impersonal God.

From https://www.iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/

_"The first sense of the definition [of "Nature"] is living in accordance with nature as a whole, i.e. the entire cosmos. Cosmic nature (the universe), the Stoics firmly believed, is a rationally organized and well-ordered system, and indeed coextensive with the will of Zeus, the impersonal god. Consequently, all events that occur within the universe fit within a coherent, well-structured scheme that is providential. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics' metaphysical determinism further dictated that this cosmic Nature is identical to fate. Thus at this level, "living in agreement with nature" means conforming one’s will with the sequence of events that are fated to occur in the rationally constituted universe, as providentially willed by Zeus."_​So there is a precedent for using a god-name to mean something other than the god-character.

Incidentally, the classic Stoics also had a bit to say about the positive existence of other gods (including the god-character Zeus), their place within nature and their subservience as tools of Providence.  But their focus was always on living in agreement with Nature, i.e. the will of the impersonal Zeus.

If anyone wants to know more about this idea of God which I personally think is very much similar to the idea put forward in Gurbani, you can listen to the podcast or read the transcription here The Stoic God – Episode 3

[/aside]


----------



## Sikhilove (Nov 1, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> One cannot discuss the nature of God meaningfully because that nature is ineffable.  The Mul Mantar does it as well as it can be done with words. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Sikh. There are many other things to be that aren't nearly as troublesome. I could be a banker or a firefighter or even a (gulp!) barber.  The nature of God," whatever that is, must encompass action that cannot be realized in static words. I apologize that this is so big. I didn't mean it to be. But it's 0614 and I'm too tired to redo it now, so live with it.,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nanak blessed us with the gyan of who God is and now we have to apply it and discover it ourselves. 

Hes Truth, and so are we, drops In the ocean.


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 2, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> Nanak blessed us with the gyan of who God is and now we have to apply it and discover it ourselves.
> 
> Hes Truth, and so are we, drops In the ocean.


How can we discover God when nanak himself says that God is AGAMM, APAAR meaning UNREACHABLE, UNTHINKABLE.

should we even try to reach to GOD ? Shouldn't we just live a Truthful life while praising God ?


----------



## Sikhilove (Nov 2, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> How can we discover God when nanak himself says that God is AGAMM, APAAR meaning UNREACHABLE, UNTHINKABLE.
> 
> should we even try to reach to GOD ? Shouldn't we just live a Truthful life while praising God ?



God IS Truth. U don't have to Try and be Truth, u just Be it, its what u already are. We need to accept it. It requires the surrender of the ego to Truth.


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 3, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> How can we discover God when nanak himself says that God is AGAMM, APAAR meaning UNREACHABLE, UNTHINKABLE.
> 
> should we even try to reach to GOD ? Shouldn't we just live a Truthful life while praising God ?


define truthful life


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 3, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> define truthful life


For me its Doing a job/ buisness, without screwing anybody ( at least not intentionally ), Helping people, Not harming anybody, not cursing, spreading love..... and yes most important...... keep educating yourself and your surrounding people and trying to make the world a better place to live in, seems pretty truthful living to me


----------

