# Free Will?



## versus (May 26, 2006)

This is something that has always conufsed me:

If God knows everything. Then He must know what is going to happen and decides everything for us. If that is true then how do we have any choices of our own? Even if we do the wrong thing isnt it what God wanted us  to do anyways?


----------



## Anoop (May 27, 2006)

Actually, there is no need for god to know whats going to happen to us, since everything is god. We humans have free will, and we dont know ourselves what will happen as the world is not going in the divine way. But as long as we have love for god everything is ok. There is a plan and it is working well. We are hear for our souls to grow. Our souls on earth are here to grow by discovering the worst and the good. Whatever happen is a reason. But the reason has to happen with us having a free will. We will and always heal ourselves, as we are part of god. 

Nothing is bad in life. Its just the way god intended it to notice. Whatever bad happens our soul learns from it. This earth planet is for us to learn from.

Versus sorry if i have misunderstood you, but i was like someone who wsa so concerned in life and didnt actually know much but was so interested to find out. I admit, i was one where confidence was lacking, and i had feared alot of things. 

But as i have used the internet so much, i think god wanted me to learn something from life. The internet was my gateway to gods knowledge.

The thing is, you are right on one hand, god knows us. We have lived before in another creation or another life somewhere. Our soul is going through different stages each time it has ended one life and goes to the enxt. Everyones soul on the planet earth is on this planet to grow with love and god realisation. We are at the moment learning from another past experience. All things that happen such as war's crime etc, is natural. Nothing is bad, of course it would be bad for us because we are not fully into god. It depends on the soul if it has to take the fear in order to strengthen. We are learning right now many different situations in life, and we will continue to do so. We will live forever in god. God loves us in different ways as there are different levels for people. As long as we reach to god the way we should be, everything is kool. But once we have passed the adventure of life, we will know the truth, and everything in the first place was perfect to begin with.

I may have some fear, and thats ok, because i am not 100% in line with god. God made us who we are, and its ok. Aslong as you love and pray to god, make the most the way you can esly, everything is ok. There is no bad religion or anything like that.

Religions occur in each part of the world for people to live the way they should and belive in god, no matter what way it is. No religion is bad, it is about how much faith you have to god, god will accept it.

And yes, fear and love are the 2 main forces in this life. Fear is the boundary between you and god. Love is what drives you towards god. 

Everything works with love. Love is what holds everything together in this world. So dont feel dissapointed if your not a sikh, or your from a different religion. There is always a reason why things happen, at the end everything is in gods hand, you are in god, you are part of god. This journey is in the hands of god.

Goodluck and best of wishes~!

God is supporting all religions that belive in one god, and will help them out. The thing is, we must remember, we are not here to make an identity for a religion, we are here to make an realise god.


----------



## Humble_Gursevak (May 27, 2006)

Sat Sri Akaal Anoop Veer ji I really enjoyed reading your brilliant thoughts on God but came up with a question in the last line. 


"God is supporting all religions that believe in one god, and will help them out,” ........Anoop veer Ji how can one prove that God only support all religions that believe in one God and will only help them out.

“Everything works with love. Love is what holds everything together in this world. So don’t feel disappointed if your not a Sikh, or your from a different religion. There is always a reason why things happen, at the end everything is in gods hand, you are in god, you are part of god. This journey is in the hands of god.”……….

Veer ji here and in the whole post your thoughts are just praiseworthy and commendable ji 

And you also wrote 

......”since everything is god”.......


Here my understanding is that God also made religion where God has many incarnations. And will support them too.  We should not judge whom God is supporting and whom God is not supporting ji. 

Bhull Chuk maff kerna Ji

Regards.


----------



## Anoop (May 28, 2006)

Sat sri akal brother humble Gursevak,

thanks for the comments, i appreciate it, to tell you the truth, half of the information i have gathered came from near death experience websites. It may sound suprising, but actually, what the people mention is about a bright light, that never can be described and is fll of love and comfort, and other things. It uses communication through thoughts. It is related alot with sikhism as the feedback the people had got from their near death ecperiences shows that god has given them information about truth, that love is what exists and shall always exists. I even sometimes thought that how could these people actually be the ones with the god experience. But come to think about it, it is possible. Because what Guru Nanak dev ji had experienced, guru ji had witnessed gods light. These people may have some good points to their experience, as it shows similar responese to the guruji's words in guru granth sahib ji.

For example, it mentions in sikhism, that we have lived before and we are in the cycle of birth and deaths, so does the near death experiencers say that. Its linked!


----------



## Satjot Kaur (Feb 25, 2008)

Yes, everything is caused, but much better things are usually caused by our false perception of free will. This false perception gives motivation and energy to us to achieve. It takes a very strong character to continue to achieve while fully recognizing that there is neither credit nor blame in any of our actions - only cause and effect.

May this post be a cause for someone to be able to recognize the truth without becoming disheartened by it, and can be caused to continue to achieve, and to "choose" happiness.


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 25, 2010)

Hi

 I am not Sikh and I am knew here. Basically, I am looking for answers to better understand your faith. I find it very interesting. There are certain things that at first view I disagree with, but I  am supposed to inform myself before I make choices , that comes from the Ethical Perception I hold. So I am here to find  answers to my questions from you guys.

 However, it seems to me, that the question of free will cannot be disputed.  If there is no free will there cannot be right or wrong. But, bedsides that,  experientially we have mountains of proof that there is free will. For example, I have chosen to join these boards. I have chosen to write on this subject, etc. No one else determined that I do so, but me.

 This is common sense and, while, there are obvious limits to free will and some things like inheritance may be partially determined, there cannot be denied that, experientially we all know free will exists. The arguments against the existence of Free Will, with all due respect and without intending offense, amount, IMO, to sophistry.

 But what I really want to know is what, if anything,  do your scriptures say about Free Will and predetermination. For example, does the Wonderful Teacher (a great and Beautiful name for God, by the way) give us free will or has he predetermined all or part of our lives and to what extent?

 Radiant light and happiness for All

Curious


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 25, 2010)

curious seeker ji

In my own view The Great and Wonderful Teacher is just that: a great and wonderful teacher. So how does a wonderful teacher respond to his students. As a puppet master? Or he one who sets before students a goal, path, and a map? One who permits his students to make mistakes, but who never punishes. One who persists with the most limited minds, and never leaves the room before the class is over? One who only responds to the best and the brightest, or one who stays after class to clear doubts and confusion? 

In Sikhism there is a phrase "hukam" which is mistaken to mean "God's Will." Hukam refers to His governance of all creation, not to His need to micromanage and control. He has written the script, and He delights in His play. He never makes demands or requires proof of our loyalty and love, so there is never a chance that commands not followed will be followed with his enmity, vengeance or spite. 

Your question is a big question. So I will stop here. But only with this last thought. There are no modern philosophical systems to speak of that that support the notion of unconditional free will. Yes, without free will, ethical action makes no sense whatsoever. That is another long story.

The philosophy of Guru Nanak is based on the idea that there is free will, that free will is conditional, and is not based on blind faith (blind following). Nonetheless the parameters of our freedom are known only to Him.He is after all the Doer of Everything. Without Him we are nothing.


----------



## Caspian (Feb 25, 2010)

Hah  I dealt with this in one my first posts a long long time ago (glad to see the problem is still kicking strong). Evantually the thread came to the conclusion that we have no free will and everything runs according to gods plan. (not a fan of that position but since the Sikh god does not punish like the Christian god, I have no problem with it, although it does make the "cycle of death and rebirth" seem like a rather arbitrary event for God's viewing pleasure?) 

In real life though (if you take out God from the picture) our free will is not absolute. We are more likely to do one thing as opposed to other things . If given the choice between 5 dollars and 500 dollars, almost anyone would choose the 500 dollars and if repeated another time, they will probably choose the 500 dollars again. Does this mean they lack the free will to choose the 5 dollar bill ? Well, no, not really... but the probability of choosing the 5 dollar bill is lower then the probability of choosing the 500 dollars. Probabilistic Free Will (I like to call it ) but the important thing is, without God in the picture... there is some sort of Free Will. 

The problem of Free Will (along with other logical problems) is only a problem for Abrahamic Religions that give their God such impossibly perfect characteristics as All powerful and All knowing. Does the Sikh religion attribute this same "impossible perfection" that the Abrahmic religions attribute to their God?

If not, then their is no problem but god cannot see into the future or create a plan that everyone must abide by. Moreover, god must abide by the laws of logic, math, and some scientific assertions (like the law of conservation of energy for example but not the theory of gravity ). So on so fourth. But this god is ultimately pointless. 

If yes, then free will is the least of your problems. Apparntly a "perfect god" can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to. This god is illogical at best. Consequently, a belief in this god is as illogical.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 25, 2010)

Caspian ji 

This is a common view

*"Evantually the thread came to the conclusion that we have no free will  and everything runs according to gods plan.*"

And in my opinion it is not a correct view in Sikhi. But I too have read it over and over here and elsewhere on Sikh web sites. 

Scholar and theologian, Daljeet Singh, does not agree that we have no free will in Sikhism, and his article, which I have attached had an enormous influence on my thinking at the beginning of my journey. Before I took that step I hardly ever thought about free will at all. 

Dharam - we choose to walk there or we ignore it.


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 25, 2010)

From Guru Amar Das ji

There is an inter-play between the influence of the Divine on us and the choices we make.

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="ggs">ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਸੈ ਮਨਿ ਆਇ ॥੨॥ 
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="subhead">guramukh naam vasai man aae ||2||
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="shlok">The Naam, the Name of the Lord,  comes to dwell within the mind of the Gurmukh. ||2||
</td></tr><tr><td class="rmenuheader">

</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffec"><td class="ggs">ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਕਰਮ ਧਰਮ  ਸਚਿ ਹੋਈ ॥ 
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffec"><td class="subhead">guramukh  karam dhharam sach hoee ||
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffec"><td class="shlok">Through karma andDharma, good  actions and righteous faith, the Gurmukh becomes true.
</td></tr><tr><td class="rmenuheader">

</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="ggs">ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੁ  ਜਲਾਏ ਦੋਈ ॥ 
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="subhead">guramukh  ahankaar jalaaeae dhoee ||
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="shlok">The Gurmukh burns away egotism and duality.
</td></tr><tr><td class="rmenuheader">

</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffec"><td class="ggs">ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਮਿ  ਰਤੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਈ ॥੩॥ 
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffec"><td class="subhead">guramukh  naam rathae sukh hoee ||3||
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffec"><td class="shlok">The Gurmukh is attuned to the Naam, and is at peace. ||3||
</td></tr><tr><td class="rmenuheader">
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="ggs">ਆਪਣਾ ਮਨੁ  ਪਰਬੋਧਹੁ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਸੋਈ ॥ 
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="subhead">aapanaa man parabodhhahu boojhahu soee ||
</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffecec"><td class="shlok">Instruct your own mind, and  understand Him.</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to this shabad when we turn our face to the Divine, we burn away ego, we instruct our own mind, we understand Him. We become true. These verbs, burn, instruct, understand, become are not in the passive voice. They are not things or states of being that happen to us. They are actions that we choose. And when the Naam comes to dwell in our mind, then we make those choices. This bit of a shabad describes a  relationship that is about being connected, and being aware of that connecton.

That strikes a chord with me in a way that other explanations do not.


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 26, 2010)

Blessing Naranjot

 Wow this a great answer you have given Indeed I agree God is the Knower and he doesr know the limits f our fre will. I also aagree that a Wonderful Teacher cannot be a puppet master He must want hs pupols to learn by themselves to experience and to choose and want to do so.

You state:

¨In Sikhism there is a phrase "hukam" which is mistaken to mean "God's Will." Hukam refers to His governance of all creation, not to His need to micromanage and control. He has written the script, and He delights in His play. He never makes demands or requires proof of our loyalty and love, so there is never a chance that commands not followed will be followed with his enmity, vengeance or spite¨

This is just the way I have come to see God. He guides, He teaches (actually I see God as S-He that is personal but beyond gender) He discplines but does not punish. He gives one his due  but he does not condemn. He is truly loving and All Good His justice is not harsh but kind and compassionate. He is neither vengeful nor spoteful

 I have never understood a Kills, or oders others to be killed Genocide is a horrible crime How coud God order it. How can he send illness or disatersand willfully cause the suffering of the innocent?


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi Caspian

 I do not agree that Free will is only a problem for Abrahamic religions. I also agree that God is limited by His own nature. That is, He cannot deny Himself. Neither can He go against the physical  and ethical laws He Himself has established. 
But His is limits  are infinite in to relation to our own finiteness. So I guess one can say that we have to define what perfect is. I have come to think that truth, right perfection justice, et all,  ultimately are just what God says they are, no more or no less. Therefore it is He that defines perfection not us.

But could you please elaborate on why do you think Free Will is a problem with the Abrahamics and not with others? I am, after all, curious

May we learn how to find contentment and peace in He who is tranquility itself!
Curious


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 26, 2010)

Hello Versus

 The fact that one knows what is going to happen does not necessarilly mean he will determine it.  It is said God knows the beginning from the end but if he does not interfere,  then, regardless of the fact your choice was known to him before hand , it is still yours, hopefully free and informed. 

Blessings!
Curious


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

*But could you please elaborate on why do you think Free Will is a problem with the Abrahamics and not with others? I am, after all, curious
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





*Simple. If you are a jew, christian or muslim. And the god you believe in has characteristics that defy "free will." Then you have to accept the fact that people are pre-destined to go to either heaven or hell. Free will (choice) is the basis for such punishment and reward—without free will, there is no basis for either punishment or reward. Everything becomes rather arbitrary (Arbitrary is beginning to be a favourite word of mines in this group )

If Sikhism has similar characteristics for their god. And if the sikh god "punishes and rewards." Then we have a problem.

If the sikh god has those characteristics yet doesn't punish or reward. Then we have no problem. Yes we may have no free will—but wat good is free will anyway if god doesn't punish or reward.


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi Again Naranjanyot

 Thank you for the attachment. It's  eerily similar to what I believe myself, althoug I tend to give more importance to Free Will and I believe that God self limits himself in the sense that he does not violate or negate His nature. In any case thanks! You have been  very illuminating. By the way I have 2 questions.  Ji it means dear right?  And what does gurfateh mean?

Blessings and Light
Curious


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Versus ji,

Ahh the old determination negates free will argument huh!

I do not personaly buy into this one.  Free Will is simply the ability to make choices.

That God knows prior to your choice what choice you make does not mean that you get no choice.

Look upon it this way.  God has granted us all free will to choose to seek God or not.  If not then we are mere robots, if we truely have no choie in whether to quest for God or not, then there is no point in religion, no point in any scripture which teaches us about God and Gods plans for us, no point in Guru to guide our ways.  The fact that theer are such things as Guru and scripture and differant faiths and  differing interpretations of what God is and what Gods plans for us are is (in my mind) evidance that we do indeed have the freedom of choice that I talk about.

Try this experiment also.

Go to the kitchen make two sandwiches, and choose which one of them to eat.  Make one you like and one you do not, choose to eat the one you do not like despite not liking to do so.  Or choose to eat niether or perhaps both, or even choose not to perform the experiment at all.

Some may repond to this with the argument that such choices are illusionary, to this I would say as a parent watching your child grow you get a sense of what that child may do under some given circumstances, when you then witness them perform the action you have predicted of them (because you know the childs 'mind') has you prior knowledge then in any way forced them to such action?

In essance then Gods prior knowledge does not negate your abilty to choose.


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi Caspian

Xianity claims to have Free Will. Although, it seems to me that when they say obey or burn in hell for eternity, its a very peculiar type of free will I am not so sure  with Islam but I believe I read somewhere that they posit a limited Free Will as well but, again, the same thing applies. 

Now, maybe you or some one else can tell me. If there is a hell in Sikhism , which I believe there is, how does that relate to free will and is it not putting pressure on Free Will when one is threatened with hell?

 Blessings and Light
Curious


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

> Ahh the old determination negates free will argument huh!
> 
> I do not personaly buy into this one.  Free Will is simply the ability to make choices.
> 
> That God knows prior to your choice what choice you make does not mean that you get no choice.


The argument is old for a reason (it makes sense). Let me put you in a position akin to God for the sake of argument so you can understand this dilemma better. You are watching a film for the second time. You know exactly wats going to happen to the main chracter at a pivotal moment in the film. Main character has some choice to make and you know wat choice he is going to make. Does the main character of the film have any free will? Nope, he is destined to make that choice no matter how many times u watch him going through the process. Similarily, if life works according to "Gods Plan" then when god observes us, he is watching his "film" unfold. He sees me or you about to make a choice and he knows wat choice were going to make. We dont have that knowledge available to us (the knowledge of gods plan, his script) just like how the main character of the film doesnt have knowledge of the movie script (key difference between main character and actor, just mentioning that beforehand). So neither us nor the character has free will if there is an outside perspective that knows wat were going to do beforehand. If you think we still have free will, then why not also believe that movie characters have free will as well (it would be consistant with ur logic atleast).  



> Look upon it this way. God has granted us all free will to choose to seek God or not. If not then we are mere robots, if we truely have no choie in whether to quest for God or not, then there is no point in religion, no point in any scripture which teaches us about God and Gods plans for us, no point in Guru to guide our ways.


That is the logical conclusion one can derive from the "Free Will" argument... actually, thats pretty much wat it suggest. Pointlessness. If you disagree, then by all means attack the logic. However you cant say "well if your right, and we have no free will... then everything is pointless...and that can't be...so you must be wrong!" thats Flawed reasoning. Thats like telling Einstein "well if your right, then time is relative—and that cant be! so your wrong." Just because a conclusion is undesriable, doesnt mean the argument is wrong. 

The other conclusion one can draw is that God does not have the capability to know what your going to do before you do it.



> The fact that ther are such things as Guru and scripture and differant faiths and differing interpretations of what God is and what Gods plans for us are is (in my mind) evidance that we do indeed have the freedom of choice that I talk about.


Thats circular logic if I ever heard it. That's like pointing at a watch and saying "The very fact that there is a watch suggests that there must have been a watch maker"—Even if your right, your reasoning is flawed. I dont think you fully understand the logic behind the issue. You cannot say "because we have choices, means that we must have the free will to choose." To reuse my metaphor. Thats like telling me the character "Sophie" in "Sophie's Choice" (holocaust movie) has free will just because she was presented with a choice. 



> Try this experiment also.
> 
> Go to the kitchen make two sandwiches, and choose which one of them to eat. Make one you like and one you do not, choose to eat the one you do not like despite not liking to do so. Or choose to eat niether or perhaps both, or even choose not to perform the experiment at all.


Doesnt prove anything... but i think this was meant to be taken as a joke right?


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

> Now, maybe you or some one else can tell me. If there is a hell in Sikhism , which I believe there is, how does that relate to free will and is it not putting pressure on Free Will when one is threatened with hell?


No hell in sikhism. There is a cycle of life and death that one tries to break free from and this is dependant upon free will you can say. So without free will, this cycle is arbitrary (as i have said before). However (and this is me just talking casually, philosphy aside). Even if we dont have free will, and there is a cycle of birth and death, I dont really care if i continue this cycle of birth and death because I cannot remember my past life so what difference does it make for my future life lol. Reincarnation itself breaks so many mathamatical laws. I dont believe it exists. The free will argument pretty much destroys the possibility of heaven and hell justifiably existing. So I dont think we can be certain what happens after we die—but logically speaking, we can be certain no heaven, hell, or frog body awaits us after our death (logically speaking again).


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi Caspian

 There is such a thing as hypnotic regression and while this is not accepted as scientific, it does give anecdotal evidence for re-incarnation. Also NDEs tend to either mention re-incarnation or the survivors come to believe in it. Again, these experiences, I grant, are circumstantial and anecdotal

However, it is possible that these memories are in your subconscious. In cases of persons who claim to have experienced other lives, it is usually children, that supposedly have these experiences, so some say that as you grow older you loose your past life's memories.

 But even if you, conscioulsy, have not experienced re-incarnation your soul ,after death, might have , if re-incarnation is true. It could very well be that we bury these experiences , which could be quite traumatic, in our sub-conscious.

Blessings
Curious


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian ji,

That anology does not really work though.  It assumes how Gods prior knowledge works and it assumes that God is stuck within the limits of liner time.

God is largly unfathomable, which means I can't tell you exaclty how Gods prior knowledge works, nobody can tell you that.  So you are making assumptions here and nothing else.

When I say pointless, I mean in the context of religoius dogma.  If we really have no choice in whether first to belive in the existance of God or not, and secondly whether we seek God or not, then what is the point of any scripture aimed at getting us to make the correct choices regarding spirtuality and God?  Also no free will negates the concept of sin, does it not?  As well as personal morality, cultural ethics, and man made laws.

I for one cannot see how the creator of all, can be limited in any way, can you?

No my freind that is not an example of circular logic.  This is though:

'The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is so'

Circular logic is the kind that makes a claim and referances itself to proove that claim.

What I said I have reitarated above.  The proof (to my mind) that we have free will is that we have so many differant holy scripture.  The point of holy scirpture is to persuied us to belive any particular view of God.  If we need to be persuaed we must have freedom of choice.

No my friend that was not a joke at all, it is a serious experiment, why do you think it proves nothing?

If you had two of something, similar but differant, and you choose betwen them, or none of them or both of them, that is three of a posible of three choices that can be made.

Remember right at the very top of my initial post I have said that free will is simpmply the ability to make choices.  This experiment shows that we have such an ablity, and twithin the context of the experiment the choices are arbitaury and quite meaningless, so what has determined you choice in this matter for you?

Also consider this.

When/if you reply to me, you will make many, many choices in doing so.  You will choose the words you prefer to make your point.  In English we know that one word can have subtly differant meanings, so you have a wide (or large, or extensive, or broad, or complex...etc..) set of words to choose from.  Which ever ones you choose to use, can you show how you have been forced into the choice?


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

*To Naranjot* (this will be a bit lengthy, hopefully not as lengthy as the actual PDF )

Okay so I got around to reading the PDF. I can't say I agree with him... and here's why.

The Free Will argument is an "_Empirical Argument_." The author of the PDF begins by saying.



> The question of human freedom and necessity has been a difficult one in all religions and philosophic systems. Empirical logic has failed to resolve this probelm


Now heres my problem with the above quote. It was "Empirical Logic" that first illuminated the problem and despite what the author says, Empirical logic has provided an answer for the problem that is consistent with Empirical Logic (but both situations are undesirable for the Theist). The implications of the FreeWill/Destiny argument is as follows:

1) God has given man no free will (In which case there can be no judgments passed from God)
or
2) God cannot be truly omnicient (In which case the definition of "God" must be redefined)

So when the author says, "Empircal logic has failed to resolve this problem" that's a lie. Empircal logic has provided two answers, both of which are unappreciated by the religious (and rightfully so, they undermine God's ability or denounce the possibility of heaven/hell/judgments but atleast they are empircally consistant).

He then goes on to answer the problem in a very Non-Empircal way. You cannot answer an Empirical Argument/Problem with a Non-Empirical Answer. His answer also has some problems (buts thats cause hes not using logic, he using nice-sounding-language to promote his ideas that seem to make sense but upon "Logical Scrutiny" his assertions have flaws).

For example:



> God is a being who is the master of the ways of his functioning and we do not know them. He is free. He is not determined by the laws of our worls


The above assertion is integral to his argument. And I've heard many people try to use similar arguments. Essentially what he is saying is "God is above logic"

_But when you think about it

_What he is admitting is that: "God is illogical" (and i completely agree that an illogical being can do w/e he wants . But I'm not sure if one would want to believe their god is illogical)

For example, if I was to say: "Bush is above the law" thats akin to saying "Bush is unlawful"

So when someone says "God is above logic" thats akin to saying "God is illogical."

Judging by the above quote, and some assertions in his PDF. He believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. Thats a problem in and of itself. So a consequence of his argument is that the God that he believes in, must be illogical... and if that god is illogical, then no logical argument can be made in favor of his existance. So his entire argument rubs me the wrong way, in his defence, he kind of admitted it was a non-empirical argument from the fore front. But empirical problems demand empirical answers.

*I elaborate on this argument in the below reply.*


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

> I for one cannot see how the creator of all, can be limited in any way, can you?


I have chosen to delete my original post (I didnt think I was being as clear as I wanted to be). But essentially what you saying is "God is above us" and ur using that as ur argument to disregard the logical free will/destiny argument. Your essentially say "God is above human logic" and if I'm correct in that assumption, I would rather you read my new post I just made  its kinda long but in the post I deal with your argument. 

Just because God is above us, doesnt meant that God can do things that violate our logic (for example, he cannot give us free will if it is logically against his characteristics without redefining his characterisitics)

In the post I have created. I don't deal with the logical free will argument, instead I deal with the logical statement: 2+2=4.

So heres the deal:

If you believe god can make 2+2=5 then please read my new thread.

If you dont believe god cant make 2+2=5 then end of discussion. I have just shown u a way in which god can be limited


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Sure I can . My above post touches on this topic, but God cannot directly conflict with logic without becoming illogical. You too (like the author in my above post) make grand statements like the one I have chosen to quote. That god is "above" our logic our math our laws. That god has "created" our logic our math and our laws. But both those statements are a tacit admission of God being "illogical"


 
Hah now that is indeed a grand claim my freind.  How can you show that it is logicaly consistant though and not mere opinion?

Besides even if you can show me such and manage to change my mind(truthfully sir I am full to the brim with 'intelectual honesty' if you can pursead me I may well change my stance), i don;t think it matters at all in the context of this debate.

Saying that God is illogical merely means defiles logics, I have no real problems with that particular concept, indeed I would find it odd for any theist to do so.



Caspian said:


> Like i said above my previous post. You too believe in a god that can make 2+2=5 if he wants to, yet you are trying to argue in a logical manner—this is almost "orwellian" style double think.


 
No I do not think it is.  Of course I am argueing in a logical mannor, would you prefer it if I did not?  I am human, I am not God, we are engaged in a a logical debate on the concept of free will.  Now sir If I was to abandone logical reasoning here in favour of something else, I wonder what your response would be?



Caspian said:


> (Im replacing the original free will/destiny argument with another logical argument 2+2=4. If you cannot see the logic in the free will/destiny argument I don't know what I can do to show you it, so I've simplified the situation)


 
This is exactly the same empasse I reach whenever I engage in this topic. 
My freind can you not see that I have provided you with some sound logical reasoning for my stance, by the very rules of debate you should now use the same to counter my arguments.  That you cannot do so must mean one of two things.  You have not the were-with-all to counter the ideas I have laid down here with your own logical ideas and arguments. Or You can see that I am correct yet your attachement to your own stance overrules your 'intelectual honesty'.

What you post above is tantamount to giving up.  I cannoot as you say see the logic in your argument, if though you have faith in it then you should be able to present me with at least the logical argument that has pureaded you to belive it, no?  If you cannot make me understand then I would suggest that your stance is not strong, nor has your belife in such an unsound stance been reached via a wholly logical procese.



Caspian said:


> A god that can make 2+2=5 is inheritly illogical. Your argument that "God is above logic" or "God created logic" (im paraphrasing) is a moot argument. Heres another example why.
> 
> Humans create robots and computers that operate under a logical set of laws. But a computers logic can be limited compared to its creator, however this does not impair the nature of logic itself. If a computer is given the problem 2+2 and logically deduces 4 then there is nothing in our futher logic (human logic is u prefer) that can outright contradict a computer's logic. Similarily, if a human deduces 4 from 2+2 there is nothing in its creators logic (godly logic this time) that can contradict our logic. If there is something in godly logic that contradicts our logic, and indeed 2+2 can equal 5. Then not only is God above logic (illogical) but god has totally destroyed logic at this point and no argument can be made in favor of his existance.


 
Again my freind this anology does not work well, for many reasons but the most salient one being that despite the nature of logic(or indeed any thing) the creator must be in posetion of more knowledge. The creator of logic can surly transcend logic, as the creator of a new sport will be able to chop and change any rules he likes(his sport, his rules).

Secondly maths is not a good anolgy to make regarding logic at all.  A joke may help show you what I mean.  'What is 1 and 1?'

Now logic dictates the answer should be two, but that is incorrect the real answer is in fact window(think about it).  This is in all seriousness the correct answer to the question I possed, yet you claim that if we give this question to a computer that it would answer 2, and in doing so it would be incorrect.  The computer must work within the limited confines of what it's creator has designed it to be, but another creator(human in this case) can transcend the fixed logics of the creation(the computer) and arive at the correct answer, the creation(the computer) will always answer this question wrong, until such a time that the creator(humans) change it's programing.  So we can see that the limit applys to the creation, but not the creator.




Caspian said:


> Dont get me wrong, I believe we do have free will  but unlike you, I realize then that we must redefine our definition of God and his characteristics to be in line with free will. I know you said that me earlier analogy doesnt work, but the basis of your following argument presupposes that God is above us in every way but I hope I have shown that even if God is above us in every way—he cannot contradict our basic logic without becoming illogical himself.


 
Ahhh then I'm sorry my freind you have not shown me this to any reasonable standard.  Besides that line of my reasoning was not the entirty of it, it was actualy quite a tiny little piece of it.   Heh just one line to be exact.


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

> Secondly maths is not a good anolgy to make regarding logic at all.


Are you kidding me? Math is like the epitome of logic =\. You've single handedly destroyed an entire 1000 years of education with that quote. Math is logic. 



> A joke may help show you what I mean.  'What is 1 and 1?'
> 
> Now logic dictates the answer should be two, but that is incorrect the real answer is in fact window(think about it).


Your frustrating me. Not cuz ur rite. But because your being illogical and you dont even know it. Do you know why what you said is considered a joke? BECUASE ITS ILLOGICAL. Furthermore you seem to have no problem with being illogical. You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5 i have nothing more to say to you. As a matter fact, i can only assume (to be consistant with your logic) that you actually believe 1+1=window. Sure you said it was a joke, but acknowledgin it as a joke means that you acknowledge that 1+1 can only equal 2 so its more consistant for you to actually believe that 1+1= both 2 and "window." I doubt any other member here would succumb to your kind of logic. Yes, I get the joke. But the statement 1+1 equals 2 and only 2 in a mathamatical sense is absolutly true and ur attempt to show otherwise is PURELY ILLOGICAL (thas why its a joke, and by extension, your whole argument becomes a joke [believe it or not  but thats a logical conclusion to draw]). If any other person here agrees that your argument there is logical then pft =S ill shut up? lol

All you have to do is convince one other person your right. 1+1=window. (lol are u going to say "i didnt say 1+1 your putting words in my mouth. I said '1 and 1' its different... its like the 1's in combination with the math symbols can form the shape of a window! dont you get it!). I get it! Its funny! Cuz its an illogical answer to a logical problem!  But yes, just convince 1 other person here  you have the advantage btw, many of these people are religious like you, believe in god, and believe in free will YET i am confident none of them can consider your reasoning to be correct.


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Your frustrating me. Not cuz ur rite. But because your being illogical and claiming to be logical. Furthermore you seem to have no problem with it. You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5 i have nothing more to say to you. As a matter fact, i can only assume (to be consistant with your logic) that you actually believe 1+1=window. Sure you said it was a joke, but acknowledgin it as a joke means that you acknowledge that 1+1 can only equal 2 so its more consistant for you to actually believe that 1+1= both 2 and "window."I doubt any other member here would succumb to your kind of logic. Yes, I get the joke. But the statement 1+1 equals 2 and only 2 in a mathamatical sense is absolutly true and ur attempt to show otherwise is PURELY ILLOGICAL. If any other person here agrees that your argument there is logical then pft =S ill shut up? lol


 

Ahh my freind, I'm sorry but what you mean is you do not get what I mean.  This is fine, rest assured my logic in this matter is sound.  However I would like to resolve this if we can, so to that end please describe for me where you think my logic fails and we'll see what can be done to enable better understanding between us.

As to the question I posed, again sir nope I am not joking, this is I 0take it a serious debate we have going here?  So then any thing I have to say on the matter I am being serious about.

1 and 1 = window.  Why?

1 and 1, you take one 1 and turn it so that it looks thus: - you put the other 1 across it so that together they look thus: + just like the four divinding panes of a window, so clearly the correct answer to the question I asked is window.

You may call this illogical if you like, it is not so.  You can clealry see the logical structure underlying the answer.

Sir if you really do not wish to talk further then this is also fine, sad but fine.  If this is the case though can I ask you to believe that you do so not because my logic is at fault (it is not) but because you have not yet understood my arguments?


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

No believe me, I get the joke :| I kinda pre-emptively edited my last post because I knew you were going to try to describe the joke. rest assured, i get it.



> 1 and 1 = window.  Why?
> 
> 1 and 1, you take one 1 and turn it so that it looks thus: - you put the other 1 across it so that together they look thus: + just like the four divinding panes of a window, so clearly the correct answer to the question I asked is window.
> 
> You may call this illogical if you like, it is not so.  You can clealry see the logical structure underlying the answer.


I still find it funny that you try to justify your logic with a illogical joke and then try to justify the logic behind the joke.

but there is nothing to imply your "logical structure." You did not say "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" you said "what is 1+1 and from that you derived a window which was illogical and thas why its considered a joke. had you actually said: "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" then yes you have a right to claiming that there is a "logical structure" to your window but that is not wat you said. 




> Sir if you really do not wish to talk further then this is also fine, sad but fine. If this is the case though can I ask you to believe that you do so not because my logic is at fault (it is not) but because you have not yet understood my arguments?


Your logic is at fault. I wish i could make like a little "voting thingy" and go "is his logic at fault" and see wat it says. Cuz i can garentee that everyone would agree ur logic is at fault. I have no idea where u aquired your philosophy from but wow. I can go on, I have nothing further to say to you (thats true) but that doesnt mean this is the end of the discussion. it just means I'm going to be repeating wat im saying over and over again to any of your posts trying to explain "your logic." Basically telling u over and over again that your being illogical


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

> 1 and 1 = window.  Why?
> 
> 1 and 1, you take one 1 and turn it so that it looks thus: - you put the other 1 across it so that together they look thus: + just like the four divinding panes of a window, so clearly the correct answer to the question I asked is window.
> 
> You may call this illogical if you like, it is not so. You can clealry see the logical structure underlying the answer.


BTW, you dont have to turn the 1's horizantly or else...hld on, i think you got your own joke wrong. You havent even created a window, u created a plus sign. I think it would be *more logical* to keep the 1's verticle so they make the sides of the window and keep the equal sign horizantle to make the top and bottom of the window and the adition symbol is the + four dividing panes to have a complete enclosed window (thats how i was shown the joke as a little kid)... i cant believe im explainin this to you though. Im teaching you your own joke and by extension ur own flawed logic. Lol, So _clearly _even your _logical structure _is subject to question  

At the very least, even if "window" is the correct answer, you have proven for me how you can reach a correct answer incorrectly. And using ur above quote as my "new analogy" now—Its not the conclusion that matters in this case, its your reasoning. And with your entire argument (and the joke itself!) your reasoning and your logic has been flawed. Wow... I cannot possibly go further without sounding unintentionally rude (and if it sounds like im being condescending, im not trying to be, im sure the feeling is mutual as you must consider my logic to be illogical as well) and for that I apologize. I deeply apologize if i have offended u in any way already by now. But i am going to end this discussion right here, perhaps we can butt heads over a different topic in the future. 

*But like i said: The whole reason why it is a joke—is becuase its illogical!*


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian said:


> but there is nothing to imply your "logical structure." You did not say "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" you said "what is 1+1 and from that you derived a window which was illogical and thas why its considered a joke. had you actually said: "what object can you get by combining two "1's" with an addition and equal symbol" then yes you have a right to claiming that there is a "logical structure" to your window but that is not wat you said.


 
In actual fact sir the questuion I posed was this:  'What is 1 and 1?'

Admitedly it is a bit of trickery, but not one that is illogical.  The application of some 'deductive reasoning' does indeed render the correct answer.  Or do you maintian that all riddles are illogical?

The porpouse of it was to counter your claim which paraphrasing was esensitaly that a creators logic cannot contradict the logic of it's creation.  I have show here with this question that it is all a question of knowldege.  In pure maths the question what is 1 and 1, the computer can only answer 2.  This is because the creator(humans) of the computer have not yet programed it with the relevant knowledge to understand the concept of 'latteral thought'.  In this example we can clearly see that the creators(human) knowledge and logic is greater than the created(computer), and so it shows your initial premis to be false.(this is the logical way in which to debate logical points is it not?)

Do you agree that this is indeed a logicaly sound answer to your acertion?



Caspian said:


> BTW, you dont have to turn the 1's horizantly or else you would have to turn the equal sign vertically. I think it would be *more logical* to keep the 1's verticle so they make the sides of the window and keep the equal sign horizantle to make the top and bottom of the window and the adition symbol is the + four dividing panes to have a complete ... i cant believe im explainin this. Im teaching you your own joke.


 
Sir I made no mention of an = sign in my initial question.



Caspian said:


> Your logic is at fault. I wish i could make like a little "voting thingy" and go "is his logic at fault" and see wat it says. Cuz i can garentee that everyone would agree ur logic is at fault. I have no idea where u aquired your philosophy from but wow. I can go on, I have nothing further to say to you (thats true) but that doesnt mean this is the end of the discussion. it just means I'm going to be repeating wat im saying over and over again to any of your posts trying to explain "your logic." Basically telling u over and over again that your being illogical


 
Sir in the field of logical debate there is a term for the response of attacking the person and not the argument, this is called(as I'm sure you know) the fallcy of ad homine.  It is well regarded as a sign of weakness of argument.

I have asked you to highlight for me the exact parts of my arguments you find illogical so that we can move forward, would you care to do that?

In an effert to do exactly that(move forward) let me offer you this on your original anogly of the silver screen.

Yes I would expect a film to run exactly the same on each viewing as the film is merley a recording of the actions that have already taken place.

You are lucky sir I work in the TV industry and know a little about the filming proces, so perhaps it would be a better anolgy if we equate the director with God.

During the filming of the scene the director will tell his actors what result he wants, the actors my ask him for further direction 'what is my motivation?' for example, and the director will answer in such a way so as to enable the actor to do his job and give the director the reukst he reqiures.  In all of this the actor is still free to ply his craft how he sees fit, the director has not the power to tell the actor his job, only what he wants the end result to be.

The turn of the lip, the body language, the way the actor looks into camera, the inflection on the spoken words, the minute facecial work to convey emotions, these are all real time choices that the actor makes, and in reality the director may film the scene several times, each time the actor acts in a sutbly differant way.  The scene is finished and ultimatly when the editing begins the diector also has the choice on just which version of the scene to keep in and which to leave out.

In this anology it is clear to see that actor has choices.  The director is interested in the end result, how the actor gets it is up to the actor.


----------



## Caspian (Feb 26, 2010)

I've highlighted the parts of ur argument that i consider to be illogical. I explained why i think there illogical. But you contend they are perfectly logical. So before we continue

Can someone else tell me there's nothing wrong with his logic? Or is there something wrong with my logic? (No offence, but i need that to be settled first before I move on in this discussion. Because if i'm being illogical, that would kill me inside... and i need to see the error of my ways in that case so I can continue)


----------



## spnadmin (Feb 26, 2010)

Another take on this topic is attached.


----------



## Lee (Feb 26, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I've highlighted the parts of ur argument that i consider to be illogical. I explained why i think there illogical. But you contend they are perfectly logical. So before we continue
> 
> Can someone else tell me there's nothing wrong with his logic? Or is there something wrong with my logic? (No offence, but i need that to be settled first before I move on in this discussion. Because if i'm being illogical, that would kill me inside... and i need to see the error of my ways in that case so I can continue)


 

Caspian ji,

The truth of the matter as I see it not one of either of us failing logicaly, I do not think you understand my points that is all.

You have indeed higlighted a few points for me, but those that you did where more about your misreading of my words.  Your 1+1, instead of my intial 1 and 1 for example.  

Please my freind do not let a little thing like your perception that you may be ilogical ruin you day, hah we can all be wrong sir, there is no shame in it.  The bigger shame is to know you are incorrect and still stick to a line of thought that you know is now wrong.  This is intectual dishonesty, a far greater crime than being wrong.(in my opinion), and as I say I don't find you illogical at all, you and I merely have a differance of opinion, this is a freindly place and I am in fact a freindly person.

I would love to move forward with this, as I'm certian you would also, lets not forget we can of course wholehartedly attack the idea, without this meaning an attack on the person having the idea.


----------



## curious seeker (Feb 27, 2010)

Boys boys!!!!!

Perhaps I can help let me frame  the argument a little differently.  What is TRUTH? Nanak said God is TRUTH. Zarathushtra said God's law (Asha ) is TRUTH and RIGHT. The Buddha Said Impermanence and Suffering are TRUTH, Jesus , supposedly said I am the TRUTH

 But, if we impartially analyze these sayings, we can  hopefully agree tha TRUTH in the sense of what is proven to be correct  can be reached by examining the circumstances of life with our mind (The Buddha reached his TRUTH that way) or we can device empirical  experiments, whose end result, will prove something to be TRUE . These experiments, to be credible, have to follow a series of principles.This system is called the Scientific Method. It requires several things including that these experimenst are repeatble and falsifiable

Thus it seems to me  That the Buddha (And I am talking only what can be considered the proven part of his philosophy, the rest while meritorious is not proven) basically reached a self evident conclusion in that the reality that we can know IS impermanat and involves suffering. It also seems to me that Asha which is cognate with Vedic Rita and means roughly the same , is at least in the physical sphere,  the Physical laws of the Cosmos as well as being God's Law. Moreover Nanak and Zarathushtra are truly of one accord because while Nanak calls God TRUTH Zarathushtra says that TRUTH is an Essence of God's nature , that is, TRUTH IS GOD or a Part of God's Nature

 Setting asides Jesus' claim (If he ever truly made it since, at best, we have only third hand accounts of what he supposedly said) We can then go on. If TRUTH is God and God is either, the LAWS of the Cosmos, (partly) which is what Zarathushtra says, or God  has made them out of His essence. (emanation) We can see that from this TRUTH we can conclude that God's will and purpose must be reflected by these laws and their results.

 Since evolution has resulted in a critical thinking and Ethically Endowed being, (an in this planet) then we can also assume that this is God's will and that He has also endowed man with the attributes that make him the ETHICAL animal that he is. Thus soul, ethical perceptions critical and logical minds and will are all divine endowments in man.

 Furthermre more this then means that God is an Ethical and Logical  Being, (or entity if you prefer) as well, and He also has a will. Being ethical  and TRUTH means God can neither lie nor violate his nature . Thus God cannot be illogical He is limited by His nature

Blessings 
Curious


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Boys boys!!!!!
> 
> Perhaps I can help let me frame the argument a little differently. What is TRUTH? Nanak said God is TRUTH. Zarathushtra said God's law (Asha ) is TRUTH and RIGHT. The Buddha Said Impermanence and Suffering are TRUTH, Jesus , supposedly said I am the TRUTH
> 
> ...


 

Curious Ji,

That is very nice my freind.  A little question just to clarify though.  God is limited by God's nature, yet could it not also be the case, that whenever we encounter seemigly illogical actions or words from God that it appears so due to our own lack of knowledge?

The rest fits nicley with my own belifes though.


----------



## Caspian (Mar 1, 2010)

> God is limited by God's nature, yet could it not also be the case, that whenever we encounter seemigly illogical actions or words from God that it appears so due to our own lack of knowledge?


This is a "cop-out." Im not sure if ur familiar with phrase but essentially what I mean to say is that when you come across illogical actions from god—justifying them by saying "we just dont understand and we may never" is not giving an answer and its stemming the process of thought to try and understand. So to provide u with an answer—"Yes, that could be the case" but that could be the case for almost anything (we just dunt understand anything  ). And if thats the case, then well get no were—no progression of thought. I respect the previous poster for atleast providing an asnwer—i dont have too much time to dwell on cases like "well wat if we just dunt understand" or "god did everything." SO I would agree with the previous poster, that god is "limited" but where me and him differ is that he believes god has limited himself through "gods nature" —i believe god is limited to logic, math, and scientific laws (and if i was a more poetic man, a more religious man, i would probably says "God's very nature _IS TO BE _logical, mathamatical and sciencetific).


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 1, 2010)

Lee said:


> Curious Ji,
> 
> That is very nice my freind.  A little question just to clarify though.  God is limited by God's nature, yet could it not also be the case, that whenever we encounter seemigly illogical actions or words from God that it appears so due to our own lack of knowledge?
> 
> The rest fits nicely with my own belifes though.



HI Lee

Sure, it could be that some times our lack of knwledge coud cause us to see some of God's acts as illogical. However, just to give an example, in Judaism God was pictured as ordering genocide, infanticide  and giving fathers the right to kill disobedient children, (Of course now a days they do not practice any of these monstruosities)  It is thus illogical to believe that this part of Hebrew scripture could possible be true  since it would be illogical to believe that the God of Love, Wisdom, the Marvelous Teacher, would ever order such a thing.

Blessings


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian said:


> This is a "cop-out." Im not sure if ur familiar with phrase but essentially what I mean to say is that when you come across illogical actions from god—justifying them by saying "we just dont understand and we may never" is not giving an answer and its stemming the process of thought to try and understand. So to provide u with an answer—"Yes, that could be the case" but that could be the case for almost anything (we just dunt understand anything  ). And if thats the case, then well get no were—no progression of thought. I respect the previous poster for atleast providing an asnwer—i dont have too much time to dwell on cases like "well wat if we just dunt understand" or "god did everything." SO I would agree with the previous poster, that god is "limited" but where me and him differ is that he believes god has limited himself through "gods nature" —i believe god is limited to logic, math, and scientific laws (and if i was a more poetic man, a more religious man, i would probably says "God's very nature _IS TO BE _logical, mathamatical and sciencetific).


 
I'm sorry you see it as a cop out.  It is not and let me try to explian why.

Can you remember whan you was a little kid?  Did you always understand the adult stuff that your dad did?

I can tell you I certianly didn't.  Not until I got older anyhow.  What does a child know about paying taxes, or how an internal combustion engine works?  What do you know about balistics or the 7 layered OSI model?

The point is that as a Sikh we are trying to undergo a proces of turning from one thing to another.  Manmukh to Gurmukh.  Can you tell me for sure what knowledge and what intuitive understandings occour once a person is Gurmukh?

I don't you see but then I have some knowldege about many things and as the old adage rings, the learned man knows he knows nothing.

I know nothing my freind, I have a tiny little amount of knowledge, why then would I even think that my understanding on what God is is compleat?  Not a cop out mate, a realisatuion of just how much I do not know.

Can you really say that you are differant?


What you appear to be after is to reduce all asspects of spirtuality into the realm of logic.  It wont work my freind, the mere fact that it is matters of sprit that we discuss means that such things are hidden from our 'matter' based scientific reasources. No measuring machine made of 'matter' can measure spirt, there is in fact only one thing capable of doing so, that is us.


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

Caspian said:


> This is a "cop-out." Im not sure if ur familiar with phrase but essentially what I mean to say is that when you come across illogical actions from god—justifying them by saying "we just dont understand and we may never" is not giving an answer and its stemming the process of thought to try and understand. So to provide u with an answer—"Yes, that could be the case" but that could be the case for almost anything (we just dunt understand anything  ). And if thats the case, then well get no were—no progression of thought. I respect the previous poster for atleast providing an asnwer—i dont have too much time to dwell on cases like "well wat if we just dunt understand" or "god did everything." SO I would agree with the previous poster, that god is "limited" but where me and him differ is that he believes god has limited himself through "gods nature" —i believe god is limited to logic, math, and scientific laws (and if i was a more poetic man, a more religious man, i would probably says "God's very nature _IS TO BE _logical, mathamatical and sciencetific).


 
I'm sorry you see it as a cop out. It is not and let me try to explian why.

Can you remember whan you was a little kid? Did you always understand the adult stuff that your dad did?

I can tell you I certianly didn't. Not until I got older anyhow. What does a child know about paying taxes, or how an internal combustion engine works? What do you know about balistics or the 7 layered OSI model?

The point is that as a Sikh we are trying to undergo a proces of turning from one thing to another. Manmukh to Gurmukh. Can you tell me for sure what knowledge and what intuitive understandings occour once a person is Gurmukh?

I don't you see but then I have some knowldege about many things and as the old adage rings, the learned man knows he knows nothing.

I know nothing my freind, I have a tiny little amount of knowledge, why then would I even think that my understanding on what God is is compleat? Not a cop out mate, a realisatuion of just how much I do not know.

Can you really say that you are differant?


What you appear to be after is to reduce all asspects of spirtuality into the realm of logic. It wont work my freind, the mere fact that it is matters of sprit that we discuss means that such things are hidden from our 'matter' based scientific reasources. No measuring machine made of 'matter' can measure spirt, there is in fact only one thing capable of doing so, that is us.


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 1, 2010)

Hi Caspian

 The reason I believe God is limited by His nature is that thoose things you mention as limiting him, are His nature or part of it. He is Truth and the ONE proof of Truth we can eempirically know is the one proved by the Scientific Method and framed by His Laws. Besides being IN all He is in the Laws, the Science (Which as you know means knowledge) and definitely in the math which is the languague of logic. What I am saying is what you are saying , just take it one step further and realize His nature ARE HIS LAWS, think about it. The Laws of Science discover Truth, God  is Truth.

Blessings
Curious


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 1, 2010)

Lee said:


> I'm sorry you see it as a cop out. It is not and let me try to explian why.
> 
> Can you remember whan you was a little kid? Did you always understand the adult stuff that your dad did?
> 
> ...




Hi Lee 

Great post! I am curious. Pardon my ignorance but I was looking at  what I presume is your picture and I did not see a turban, yet I see you say you are Sikh , I thought it was a requirement  to wear the turban, am I wrong?

Blessings
Curious


----------



## Lee (Mar 1, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hi Lee
> 
> Great post! I am curious. Pardon my ignorance but I was looking at what I presume is your picture and I did not see a turban, yet I see you say you are Sikh , I thought it was a requirement to wear the turban, am I wrong?
> 
> ...


 

Hey Curious,

Yes sir you are correct, I hardly don the turban, I do when I go to Gurdwara but not all of the time.

It is a rather sticky one for me personaly, Kesh is the thing, Guru ji clearly tells his Khalsa that kesh must be kept.  Turban I'm thinking of as an Indian/Punjabi cultural thing and as yet I have found nowhere that Guru ji tells us non Khalsa Sikhs to wear one.

It is more likely a cultural decisition for me as although I do wear it when I go to Gurdwara, it makes me feel quite uncomfatable to do so, not physicaly you understand, but culturaly.  According to my own culture it is a mark of respect for God to take off anything covereing the head when entering a house of God.


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 2, 2010)

Lee said:


> Hey Curious,
> 
> Yes sir you are correct, I hardly don the turban, I do when I go to Gurdwara but not all of the time.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Lee

 Please forgive my ignorance but kesh is  the doctrine of not cutting the hair, right? I cannot opine on whether or not to done the turban for religious reasons. I definiotely think, that in the West it may hamper conversion. However if ots a matter of faithf, its a matter of faith.  Perhaps some one will give some arghuments for wearing the Turban? I mean bioth from scrtipture and from  tradition.

Blessings
Curious


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

Nah the point is to keep your hair not to wear the turban (you can wear a turban without hair if you wanted to lol). The turban is culturally specific as Lee said, its as good as a head-scarf, chuni, baseball cap, etc.

Lol out of curiousite. Lee have you ever tried going into a gurwara with a baseball cap? I think it would work wouldnt it? Theres nothing technically wrong with a baseball cap.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 2, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hi Lee
> 
> Please forgive my ignorance but kesh is  the doctrine of not cutting the hair, right? I cannot opine on whether or not to done the turban for religious reasons. I definiotely think, that in the West it may hamper conversion. However if ots a matter of faithf, its a matter of faith.  Perhaps some one will give some arghuments for wearing the Turban? I mean bioth from scrtipture and from  tradition.
> 
> ...



curious seeker ji

I honestly wonder if dastar does/will hamper conversion in the West. Converts to Sikhism in the US represent a small but steady and growing stream of new faces. And dastar is pretty common among them. Honestly someone in dastar stands out -- so of course someone in dastar will be noticed. And someone who does not wear a turban is likely to be overlooked. So judging by appearances may not be the best approach. But there are no statistics to go on. Interesting and puzzling.


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 2, 2010)

Hi Naranyanjot

Well it can only be addressed by surveys I guess. I would say that where it might be detrimental , would be among those who may ask themselves something a long the lines of: 'Why would be the Creator of untold billions of stars, suns and planets, one who is TRUTH and does not seem, in the GGS, to require other 'forms', but rather to be concerned with substance, be requiring men to not cut their hair? '  

 I do not know enough about the GGS and the Gurus, to answer that question. How would you answer it; Narayanjot. How would other Sikhs? I am curious


----------



## Caspian (Mar 2, 2010)

Even when i use to consider myself a sikh. I found this issue to be unanswerable in light of the SGGS. Sure, there are answers, but there no logically satisfying answers (IMO). Other sikhs choose to keep there here for the following reasons:

1) The guru's told them too
2) God gave us hair so we should respect it and not cut it
3) To be unique and easily identifiable as a sikh
etc


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Even when i use to consider myself a sikh. I found this issue to be unanswerable in light of the SGGS. Sure, there are answers, but there no logically satisfying answers (IMO). Other sikhs choose to keep there here for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) The guru's told them too
> 2) God gave us hair so we should respect it and not cut it
> ...


 

Hi Caspian

Well, the argument from authority is not my favorite, is too Abrahamic. The second, with all due respect, does not really seem like an answer. I mean the Wonderful Teacher is seen, at least theologically from what I have read, preocuppied with the substance of things not with ordinances that are only forms, with little meaning, after all God has also given us nails, should we then not cut them?. However, the third 'answer' could be acceptable. Does the GGS adress the why of the command or guidance?

Blessings
Curious


----------



## Embers (Mar 3, 2010)

One perspective is that Kesh is the result (or preperation) of the surrender of our free will. When our will is no longer seen as equal or more than Hukam of Akal then we "do" what our envionrment (nature) dictates of us. Doing is no longer done by the individual, althought it is witnessed just as before by the body, mind and senses. Instead doing is done and all that is done is the best it can be. It is the best it can be as it is His hukam. That isn't to imply that we will all have kesh or that kesh is because we have overcome egoism, however it does imply the question no longer arises of "is Kesh for me" but we walk with our head held high in the way of His will (Hukam).


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 3, 2010)

Ambers said:


> One perspective is that Kesh is the result (or preperation) of the surrender of our free will. When our will is no longer seen as equal or more than Hukam of Akal then we "do" what our envionrment (nature) dictates of us. Doing is no longer done by the individual, althought it is witnessed just as before by the body, mind and senses. Instead doing is done and all that is done is the best it can be. It is the best it can be as it is His hukam. That isn't to imply that we will all have kesh or that kesh is because we have overcome egoism, however it does imply the question no longer arises of "is Kesh for me" but we walk with our head held high in the way of His will (Hukam).



 Hi Ambers

 I see! It is a a wonderful yet subtle and nuanced point, and it does make sense. Now, I myself, prefer the argument  that goes along the lines that, this is telling the world that you are Sikh, that you are different, that you march to the beat of a different drummer, that you look at the world from a different point of view. I guess I preffer it because I have  acquired such an aversion to submitting myself to what men say is the will of God.  I mean it could be God's will and again ... Generally, if its something that makes no sense in the light of what God's has  revealed of His nature in the context of the whole of scripture I just cannot accept it

Please do not consider this disrespectful, but, I have belonged to religious traditions that insist on teaching things that lead to all sorts of problems , just on the basis of an authority ascribed to men or their interpretations of sacred books. I also look at the world with clear eyes and can see what such blind obedience can lead to, after all, the ultimate act of blind obedience is strapping a bomb to your body and blowing yourself up or flying a jet liner into a building.

 Its a matter of both faith and the type of faith you hold. I need to be convinced in my heart and mind. I cannot just shut off my critical reasoning, because it is a gift from the Creator and Lover of the Cosmos. Thus, when I look at a scripture , like say, the Proverbs in the Bible and It reads: 'Son, do not lean on your own understanding ... '  I remember that God  does not lie but men do and just dare not accept such statements as coming from the True One,  unless they are corroborated by revelations of God's nature. (In this case such would have to be,that He does not want us to think or understand, which of course is NOT what God's nature has been revealed as.)  

 Thus I can see why it would be useful to have, (what is the term?) Kesh, as a statement and also as a way of personal commitment, I can also see where a willing acceptance of God's guidance and-or will is eminently desirable, its just that I am very weary of leaning only on that, if. in any way such requirement requires of us, or if God to say or do something against His nature.  

 On a lighter note, I see what I believe is a Spanish Flag as your location. Am I right? If that is so, do you speak Spanish and can you point me to a Spanish version of  the GSS? Many thanks for your insporing answer.

Blessings
Curious


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 3, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hi Ambers
> 
> I see! It is a a wonderful yet subtle and nuanced point, and it does make sense. Now, I myself, prefer the argument  that goes along the lines that, this is telling the world that you are Sikh, that you are different, that you march to the beat of a different drummer, that you look at the world from a different point of view. I guess I preffer it because I have  acquired such an aversion to submitting myself to what men say is the will of God.  I mean it could be God's will and again ... Generally, if its something that makes no sense in the light of what God's has  revealed of His nature in the context of the whole of scripture I just cannot accept it
> 
> ...




Curious,

Guru Fateh.

You make very excellent points.

Some years ago I wrote something about it on this forum which was something like this," As we stand out, it is our obligation to be outstanding".

I would like to request the administrators to locate this thread/post.


Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 3, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hi Ambers
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The digital version of SGGS in Spanish is available on line. It is a 1.9 MB file -- too large for me to upload as an attachment. You can also search SGGS using a Gurbani search tool at SikhiToTheMax SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge in Spanish.

Line for the SSGS in Spanish

http://www.mrsikhnet.com/index.php/2008/11/01/spanish-translation-of-siri-guru-granth-on-sttm/
*Spanish  Translation of Siri Guru Granth on STTM*



  Today there is exciting news for the Spanish Speaking people of the  world! You can now view Spanish translations of Gurbani when doing a  search for a shabad on SikhiToTheMax.com.


 Recently before his passing, Singh Sahib Babaji Singh Khalsa finished  translating the Siri Guru Granth Sahib into Spanish after 30 years  of work and multiple bouts of cancer he completed this seva. *With digital versions of this spanish translation *


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 3, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> The digital version of SGGS in Spanish is available on line. It is a 1.9 MB file -- too large for me to upload as an attachment. You can also search SGGS using a Gurbani search tool at SikhiToTheMax SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge in Spanish.
> 
> Line for the SSGS in Spanish
> 
> ...


 
 Dear Narayanjot

 How can I thank you? This is a great treasure, indeed! I think in English and speak English, but Spanish is so very close to the hearst Besides there are 400 million Spanish speakers that I know need something like this. Thank you, thank, you, thank you!

In comparing English to Spanisn versions, it reminded me that you once gave a definition for hukam. I believe that it was something like His general universal will or plan. I get the feeling that is more than that even. Are there some studies on this point that delve into the phylology/etymology and the deeper meanings implied in the term. I want to see if I can get a better grasp of it.

You are not only blessed, you are a blessing

Curious


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 3, 2010)

curious seeker ji

I will check on other resources regarding hukam. However that e -book discusses this in depth. Many things on the web give a very superficial explanation.

You can also check Sikhism - Reflections On Gurbani for explanations that are linked to tuks from SGGS. I rely on that site a lot.

<center> *"HUKAM"* 


HUKAM

Everyone is subject to the Divine Hukam; no one is beyond  His Hukam.
O Nanak, one who understands His Hukam does  not speak in ego (sggs 1).
<><><><> 
</center>   In simplistic      terms, "_Hukam_"  simply means Divine Command, Divine Will,      Eternal Law, Cosmic Order, _ Divine Dandaa_ (or _Danda_)  etc. Other aspects of the Divine    "_Hukam_" as revealed in the Gurbani include 1) It is all  prevailing;      2) It is beyond any mundane description; and 3) It is driven by  one's_ Karma_,      4) and therefore, we are urged to submit to the Divine "_Hukam_".       But how can one do God's "_Hukam_" or Will ("_Bhaanaa  Mannanaa_"      )? To be abided in "_Hukam_" is accepting life as it presents      to oneself. It is simply saying "Yes, I accept". In other words, it      is just accepting one's all joy and suffering as God's Will.or _Bhaanaa_.   
The thought of Divine "_Hukam_" is very essential part of the  teachings  of the Gurbani (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, SGGS) or _Gurmat_.  Accordingly, Baabaa  Nanak made it very clear in the outset of the SGGS that everything and  everybody  is subject to this Divine "_Hukam_". And whosoever understands  this Truth will be freed from the false ego-sense (_Haume_).​

ਹੁਕਮੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਹੁਕਮ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ  ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥:  Hukamai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na koi. Nanak hukamai je bujhai ta  houmai  kehai na koi: Everyone is subject to the Divine Hukam; no one is beyond  His Hukam.O  Nanak, one who understands His Hukam, does not speak in ego (sggs 1).
ਹੁਕਮੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਹਿ ਬਪੁੜੇ ਭੂਲੇ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਗਵਾਰ ॥  ਮਨਹਠਿ ਕਰਮ ਕਮਾਵਦੇ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਹਿ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਾਂਤਿ ਨ ਆਵਈ ਨਾ ਸਚਿ ਲਗੈ ਪਿਆਰੁ  ॥੬॥: Hukam na jaanahi bapure bhoolahi phirahi gavaar ...:      The wretched fools do not know God's Hukam or Will; they wander  around making      mistakes. They go about their business stubborn-mindedly; they are  disgraced      forever and ever. Inner peace does not come to them; they do not  embrace love      for the True God ||6|| (sggs 66).
ਹਉਮੈ ਵਿਚਿ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਨ ਬੁਝਿਆ ਜਾਇ ॥:  Haumai vich bhagati na hovaee hukam n bujhiaa      jaayi: In egotism, devotional service can not    be performed, and the Hukam (Will or Command) cannot be understood  (sggs 560).
 During "_Sidh Gosti_" (also spelt _Sidh Gost_  etc.), _Sidhas_ posed many questions to Baabaa Nanak (ਰਾਮਕਲੀ  ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ਸਿਧ ਗੋਸਟਿ, 938-946). Specifically, he was asked "Who are you?".  His answer was,    "I came from the Celestial Lord; I go wherever He orders me to go. I  am Nanak,      forever under His Will."​

ਸਹਜੇ ਆਏ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਿਧਾਏ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਦਾ ਰਜਾਏ ॥: Sahaje aaye hukam  sidhaaye Nanak  sadaa rajaaye: I came from the Celestial Lord; I go wherever He orders  me to  go. I am Nanak, forever under His Will (sggs 938).
Article continues at HUKAM


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 4, 2010)

Hello Narayanjot

WOW! My heart is melting! Once again thanks! I do not want to ascribe to my opinions some sort of discernment, since obviously I do not know enough to discern the gloriously deep meanings of the GGS conceptions, but, may I say, that IF as the  GGS is saying the Hukam is, 'driven by our karma , then its technically not God's will (I say technically, because in a greater sense EVERYTHING is God's will) Rather it seems to be that it is God's Eternal Law , a deeper more profound Asha which is a also a profound concept in and of itself, in Zoroastrianism and stands both for physical laws and ethical ones as well as Truth and Right. To be an Ashavan (literally a lover of Asha) is to be seeking righteousness and trurfulness , to be seeking God's Eternal Law, its somewhat like being aGurmukh.

I am .. heck, I do not know howIi really feel , the concept is so incredibly deep there is nothing that can describe it enough. I mean Asha is a complex and deed concept but this ... Asha is like as complex as a children's riddle compared to do this. I mean I always thought that Zarathushtra was the greatest human mind in the last 3500 to 4000 years but this , this is ... am at a lost for words, something not easy for me since as you may have noticed I am always expressing myself But this ... gee, this is DIVINE

Where has this been all my life? How come this is not better known? I mean even obtuse teachings are fairly well known, but this, this ocean of spirituality, is not better known? I can't believe it? Narayanyot this has to be shouted from the roof tops whispered in the ears, broadcasted over all the radios and TVs of the world! This, and I HAVE BEEN STUDYING RELIGIONS ALMOST 24/7 FOR 29 YEARS NOW, HAS NO EQUAL AND I AM NOT EXAGGERATING, WHICH OF COURSE YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE SINCE I AM SHOUTING, BUT I CANNOT HELP MYSELF:happy:

Can I ask you a question and is serious, more serious than you may think. Has any one considered translating, into the vernaculars of different peoples, all those terms like naad, gurmukh, hukam etc , I mean there must we hundreds, that are in GGS English and Spanish version alone, so that non-Punjabi speakers and those not familiar with this truly amazingly and wonderful faith get to better understand the message at first impression?

You, all of you, Narayanjot, Mai, Lee, Caspian and the others have truly been a blessingg to me I hope, that I can keep on learning. I am just scratching the surface and .. again all I can say is WOW!

Be Blessed!
Curious, 
Who is becoming more and more curious


----------



## Embers (Mar 4, 2010)

Lovely post Curious.
Here are a few (personal) ideas which can be picked up or dropped as wished... like leaves on an autumn's day 

The seeking is the last barrier to be dropped. The mind needs answers before it can "let go" and become one with God. Consequently there is one idea to be kept in mind until that moment, which is that all religions point to the same source i.e. God/Vahreguru. All words and ideas only point to (or away from) that source. Hence it is useful to satisfy the minds doubts with answers first, in my experience. Then those answers will come when the mind doubts arises. Ultimately you, the Self, will be known as That which watches the mind and its thoughts dance. That is (what I consider) to be the first step into His Mansion. 

Ik man ek ḏẖi▫ā▫ī▫ai man kī lāhi bẖarāŉṯ.
With one-pointed mind, meditate on the One Lord, and the doubts of your mind will be dispelled.

Nām niḏẖān saḏ man vasai mahlī pāvai thā▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.
The Treasure of the Naam abides forever within the mind, and one's place of rest is found in the Mansion of the Lord's Presence. ||1||Pause||

Nij gẖar mahal pāvhu sukẖ sėhje bahur na ho▫igo ferā. ||3||
Within the home of your own inner being, you shall obtain the Mansion of the Lord's Presence with intuitive ease. You shall not be consigned again to the wheel of reincarnation. ||3||


----------



## Lee (Mar 4, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hello Narayanjot
> 
> WOW! My heart is melting! Once again thanks! I do not want to ascribe to my opinions some sort of discernment, since obviously I do not know enough to discern the gloriously deep meanings of the GGS conceptions, but, may I say, that IF as the GGS is saying the Hukam is, 'driven by our karma , then its technically not God's will (I say technically, because in a greater sense EVERYTHING is God's will) Rather it seems to be that it is God's Eternal Law , a deeper more profound Asha which is a also a profound concept in and of itself, in Zoroastrianism and stands both for physical laws and ethical ones as well as Truth and Right. To be an Ashavan (literally a lover of Asha) is to be seeking righteousness and trurfulness , to be seeking God's Eternal Law, its somewhat like being aGurmukh.


 
Curious Ji,

Yes indeed there is agreat truth here of you can see it.  I have been thinking for the last several years about Free Will and Hukam.

As far as I can see the point of religion in general is to pursaude one to give over his or indeed her will, in favour of the will of God.

That is God asks us to strive to get closer to God, by surrendering our own will and saying instaed, 'Not my ohh lord but yours'.  Of course for us to do this, then we must have ownership of our will in the first place.

Much of religion leads me to this conclusion and much of Sikhi ensures it for me.


----------



## Embers (Mar 4, 2010)

Lee said:


> Curious Ji,
> 
> Yes indeed there is agreat truth here of you can see it. I have been thinking for the last several years about Free Will and Hukam.
> 
> ...


I share your perspective Lee  I see all religions, even the "godless" ones leading to giving up free will, even if the term "free will" doesn't arise in their scripture. I do differ on one point, my perspective is that once His will is accepted, then it became clear there was no free will before, rather desire and repulsion which lead "me" before.


----------



## Lee (Mar 4, 2010)

Ambers said:


> I share your perspective Lee  I see all religions, even the "godless" ones leading to giving up free will, even if the term "free will" doesn't arise in their scripture. I do differ on one point, my perspective is that once His will is accepted, then it became clear there was no free will before, rather desire and repulsion which lead "me" before.


 

Hey Ambers,

Yes I'm sorta still wresting with that one, the whole concpet of duality does suggest that you might be right.  It don't quite 'feel' correct to me though.

If as you suggest it is desire and repulsion then then the obvious question to ask must be 'Who is it which feels these compulsions?'

Or put another way 'What is the Self?'

As Sikhs we learn that if we try hard enough, if we practice our faith as Guru ji has told us, then at some point' intuitive understanding' occours.
I belive such a state can only come with God's grace (take a step towards God and God will take a 1000 towards you).  Perhaps what you suggest is part of such 'understanding' perhaps not?  Hah I guess there really is only the one way to find out for sure.


----------



## Embers (Mar 4, 2010)

Lee said:


> Hey Ambers,
> 
> Yes I'm sorta still wresting with that one, the whole concpet of duality does suggest that you might be right. It don't quite 'feel' correct to me though.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely! Who is having these thoughts? And where is the limit to the Self? 

In nondualism the limits are still within the divine, even if we watch the waves the waves are still the ocean. We limit ourselves to the body-mind or to our nationality or background, but at the ultimate level are as much a part of the human race as we are a part of the universe itself. Without limits! It is overcoming the limitations, often self created by the mind in its attempt to understand our sensual data. This higher pespective helps to arrive at the nondual perspective, and I find my Self closer to Him than I ever imagined possible. Who am I? Once I questioned all the preconceptions e.g. nationality, likes-dislikes etc, I find I am no less than a part of the sum from one angle and the sum itself from the other extreme. It is liberating yet unknown in its depth.

Regarding our intuitive understanding, my understanding is that there are different paths which lead to the goal. The path we follow as Sikhs is a Bhakti (devotional) path. Some describe this as slower or "emotiontial" as we arrive at the goal without relying heavily on intellect. The other path is Jñana or the Intellectual Path, which is more difficult but quicker in theory. All of this is debatable of course and debate is a distraction. What is useful is that we know the goal and understand our way (or combination of them to help still our mind). Personally I think we do what comes naturally (intuitively), be it prayer, worship or kirtan then that is our way, if we find we go to the scriptures, or a mixture, then so be it too, it is the inner guru which leads us from darkness, is it not. Again, it is doing what is natural (hukam) rather than what we think looks good to others (egoism).


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 4, 2010)

Lee said:


> Curious Ji,
> 
> Yes indeed there is agreat truth here of you can see it.  I have been thinking for the last several years about Free Will and Hukam.
> 
> ...



 Hi Lee

The thing that as far as my spiritual experiences  have shown me . What the Lover wants is for us to give up Free Will as an act of Free Will!!!  Think about it. 

 It is the hardest thing a human can do and yet if you experience the presence of the Guru, it can be the easiest thing at least for a time.. The struggle comes when you try to remain surrendered ALL the time..

 Zarathushtra tried rather successfully, conceptually speaking, to simplify the struggle by reducing it to good words, good thoughts, good deeds. It is thorough  but, in practice, requires iron discipline to submit the mind. He recommended tushnami (silent meditation)  Bit that went way with him.

 Indeed, the one weak link in Zoroastrian teaching, is that after Zarathushtra  we never hear about meditation, prayer was the lone spiritual weapon. Well that and the fact that it has gotten more and more cerebral and is busy now condemning mysticism on grounds that seem bogus to me.

Blessings
Curious


l


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 4, 2010)

Ambers said:


> I share your perspective Lee  I see all religions, even the "godless" ones leading to giving up free will, even if the term "free will" doesn't arise in their scripture. I do differ on one point, my perspective is that once His will is accepted, then it became clear there was no free will before, rather desire and repulsion which lead "me" before.



Blessings, Ambers

I will have to offer friendly disagreement. Free will is not  only a given it is a necessity, In fact you surrender willingly or its not a true surrender. Besides you need  to act with free will even to harmonize  your actions to what you perceive to be God's will.  It seems to me, unless I am misunderstanding you, that you are mixing the desires and aversions that influence free will in those who , in Xian terms , are not 'born again', and in Z terms in those that have not chosen New Life (Navjote.)

 Once you have become a ham kar or fellow worker , according to Z or a disciple according to J then your conscience is awakened in Xianity. To Zarathushtrians Your hearing of the Voice of God, Seraosha, is turned on. And you immediately know when you are doing wrong and are convicted and feel remorse.

However, it must be said that unless you strive to remain in God's will constantly and successfully, your desires will overcome your surrendered will and you will fall-Sin, in Xianity or Err in Zism. My experience has been that as long as you remain in the Presence of  and Communion with the Wondrous Teacher you CANNOT sin or err. I mean your heart melts, you are in bliss and cannot but be benevolent and take all things in stride

 What is truly new and interesting for me  is that in these few days that I have been getting familiar with Sikhism and doing some reading and studying I am getting REAL POWERFUL EXPERIENCES OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD. I MEAN OVERPOWERING ,STRONGER THAN ANY OTHER I HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED. AND  BELIEVE YOU ME, I HAVE BEEN IN VERY EXTREME SPIRITUAL PLACES. 

 The thing is, Amber, that the more I examine these experiences, the more exited and enthusuastic I get. You see whenever I had strong spiritual experiences , (almost always involving, the Presence of  God) I have done so when in praising and worshiping in a congregational setting. But with the the GGS I am having far stronger and deeper experiences and I am merely READING about  your theology. If past experience foretells the strength of the experience that is coming if I ever get involved in the equivalent of a Sikh praise or revival meeting, I am going to pass out  from bliss, I tell you.

 Man, you must think I am nuts! O well, there is nothing I can do about that!!

 A ton of blessings to you!
Curious


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 4, 2010)

''I find I am no less than a part of the sum from one angle and the sum itself from the other extreme. It is liberating yet unknown in its depth.''

Hi Ambers

Hmm, you do know that whole is greater than the sum of its parts? That your hand depends on you and not you on your hand and that you are not your hand, correct? I believe that it is quite obvious that God has infused PART of his substance into what He has created and in that sense everything is God in that its, made of God.

 I am just not so sure that we ARE god, but I do not see us creating a cosmos any time soon that is the same as. Not only is the whole greater than the sum of its parts, BUT  God has gone to an incredible trouble not to make two things , exactly alike . Neither men nor animals, not even drops of water are the same. They may look alike but they are individuals. I think that this type of individuality tells me that God is all about creating and preserving variety and individuality

 I do believe THAT WE DO go to GOD , IN FACT WE DO MERGE WITH GOD TO A TO A POINT BUT QUALITATIVELY WE WILL NEVER BE  GOD. nEVER WE WILL HAVE hIS POWER ,  AND WISDOM. WE WILL NEVER CREATE A COSMOS. THE WHOLE, TRULY IS, IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS

 Blessongs
Curious


----------



## Embers (Mar 5, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> ''I find I am no less than a part of the sum from one angle and the sum itself from the other extreme. It is liberating yet unknown in its depth.''
> 
> Hi Ambers
> 
> ...


Hello Curious
Thanks for the interesting replies  This is a topic I have had to consider.

The limitaiton or division between us and God arises with identification with the body and mind. We take ourselves to be the body and the mind without question. It is essentially materialism (maya) which stops us from seeing the message of the Gurus. This leads to us missing the nondual Being.

Here are a few lines from the SGGS, although I am posting in the interfaith as a nondualist:

Man ṯan ṯerā ṯū ḏẖaṇī garab nivār same▫o. ||3||
Mind and body are Yours; You are my Master. Please rid me of my pride, and let me merge with You. ||3||

Jẖūṯẖ samagrī man vasī pārbarahm na jānā. ||2||
The false material world abides in his mind, and he does not understand the Supreme Lord God. ||2||

Parpancẖ cẖūkai sacẖ samā▫e. ||1||
Then, the illusion of the material world is shattered, and one merges in Truth. ||1||

Sakṯī kinai na pā▫i▫o fir janam bināsā.
Through the material universe of Shakti, no one has ever found the Lord; they continue to be born and die in reincarnation.


It is because we consider ourselves to be seperate individuals, by bone, blood and mind, that the belief that we have freewill arises. It arises as we believe we are the actor, responsible for both the action and the results. 

There is more than one way to arrive at God, but whilst we take ourselves to be the body-mind material organism then we will face the riddle of freewill and with it the desire and repulsion that comes with being the body-mind. With this limitation too comes the limit of power which you speak of above. God has the ability to limit Himself it seems, as He experiences His creation (the sensual world) through His creation (mankind). He is both limited and limitless and we can know Him as both.

Hope this is ueful


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Mar 5, 2010)

Dear Anoop ji,what does the soul of a one year old child who dies of cancer, learn from his life on earth.
Anoop Veerji, you are also a great believer in the Cycle of Birth and Death.Could you pls enlighten me why the population on earth increasing so fast.


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 5, 2010)

Ambers said:


> Hello Curious
> Thanks for the interesting replies  This is a topic I have had to consider.
> 
> The limitaiton or division between us and God arises with identification with the body and mind. We take ourselves to be the body and the mind without question. It is essentially materialism (maya) which stops us from seeing the message of the Gurus. This leads to us missing the nondual Being.
> ...



Hi Amber

 I think we have semantical, interpretative and extentional differences, in our outlooks and interpretations. So lets take then one by one and point for point.

 1. You say above:
    '' The limitaiton or division between us and God arises with identification with the body and mind. ''. 

I do not believe for one moment, that any idea of true physical separation could apply to God and man. Not only is god, in essence, not physical but He (or S-He since after all God must surely transcend sex)  indwells or is immanent Creeation, at least partially since He also Transcends it) Thus there cannot be  true separation from God. This is a Semantic difference.

 However while it is true that we identify ourselves as different from all others, i.e. as individuals , basically because we identify ourselves as a body an a mind, there is also no question that, PHYSICALLY.(whether physicality is also a perception or not is immaterial for practical purposes) we ARE individuals. Thus we must assume that PHYSICALLY we have been created as individuals. Please understand that I am not endorsing a dualism of realities, a physical and a non'material one, but I AM saying that the one reality has different dimensions or planes. (Please refer to String Theory and the curvature of the Cosmos) In any case assuming that we are created  as individuals, physically speaking, we will be individuals, as long as, we are physical. This is, I perceive , and Interpretative difference in our positions?

But there is another interpretative difference, that I perceive in our positions. To simplify, I believe, and understand that Sikhi agrees, the Creator to be both Transcendent and Immanent. Therefore as Immanent He is in us and we are Him in as Non-Physical Essences , that is in spirit. BUT as Transcended He is OTHER from His creation, outside of it, so to speak. 

 So when the GGS says , to quote you quoting the Guru, that:

'' Then, the illusion of the material world is shattered, and one merges in Truth. '' 

 The Guru is saying that (according to my conclusion) we are both merging into God (Truth) and into the truth that He is both the SAME and DIFFERENT than us. So to what extent can we then truly merge with Him? The answer, again in my opinion, involves what I call the  extentional difference in our positions. We merge TOTALLY with God but since He is Greater and other as well as the same is Spirit with us we are still  individuals vi a vis HIM. He therefore DOES NOT , cannot really, merge totally with us.  In other words to the EXTENT (from where I get Extentional) that HE is in us and we are in Him we are merged To the extent that HE is OTHER than us, we remain individuals vis a vis Him. That is why I say that we will never be totally Him. Specifically, His CREATIVE qualities and powers are  His PRIOR TO  creation and are thus Transcendent and thus Other than and from Creation

 Free Will is not a riddle, it is the Gift of God to man so that he can choose on his own the Wahe Guru and merge with Him spirit to spirit and achieve salvation and liberation. That man, ignorant and blinded by illusion and the illusionary world, does not know this and does not know the purpose and use for his free will , is something different from denying the Free Will, that is both a  God given Gift of Grace and the Tool for man to willingly Choose to surrender to God. The problem is IGNORANCE and ILLUSION not Free Will

 Finally, I would like to emphasize that even though the Wahe Guru is Transcendent and Immanent He is not dual as a BEING. Uniformity is not Oneness, variety and nuances in the divine person do not change His nature,  He has been, is and for ever will be ONE! His character has different dimensions and qualities , yet He is One and Forever the same! He is the Blessed Blesser, the Desired of All Hearts and Souls for All the Ages!

 Be Blessed!
 Curious


----------



## Sophia_Lauren (Mar 5, 2010)

Hi...well, I landed on this site when I was researching some stuff on Islam, which I find pretty fascinating.

However, am surprised that this religion of yours...Sikhi, i guess is what it's called (from what I could infer in this thread), is very intresting. I'm wondering why there's so less awareness about it in my part of the world. If your religion is an example of the way you guys conducted yourself on this thread, I'm pretty impressed. You seem so open to even those thoughts that arnt in congruence with your philosophy. That's great, I must say.

I read this thread on Free Will and it always was the topic I had some queries on...but the way u guys discussed it, I'm really thankful (though, the last couple of posts went dancing above my head  ). 

The only reason I registered was to be able to express my gratitude towards you folks for explaining it so beautifully. I'm sorry this post of mine doesnt contribute to take the discussion forward :{-...but I had to let you guys you know that you are doing an awesome job and the philosophy you follow must be equally great.

Keep it up!

Sophia.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2010)

Sophia_Loren ji

:welcome:

Yes this thread to date has been exemplary of the way that a serious discussion regarding an important and core belief in philosophy and religion can be discussed without enmity and with openness.

The Sikh religion is anchored in the Mool Mantar sung by our first Guru Nanak Dev ji - who said that "God" who is Truth is the Doer of Everything is without hatred or enmity. We have that as a standard for our conduct in life. This is a God who dwells within and is not separate from His Creation. When we realize this then enmity is not longer relevant. It is a hard path.

So I am very happy that strains of this theme have made their way into this thread. That you have remarked on it.

Please do come back soon and participate. Glad that you found us in your search.

P/S There is a small community of Sikhs in Guatemala. However Sikhism is not broadly represented throughout Central and South American. They are they, gurdwaras can be found throughout both regions, but the region is vast and geographically challenging, making it hard to make contact. I am unable to locate a Gurdwara in Guatemala.  However,


For Mexico this link S I K H C E N T E R

For Ecuador this link Kalwant's Homepage

For Panama also this link http://www.gurdwarapanama.com


For Uruquay this contact information  
 

Sikh Dharma Bhaibandi- Mision Sikh Hispanoamericana
 Tahim 964 - Montevideo - (005982)3551299 - movil 094597223


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 5, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Sophia_Loren ji
> 
> :welcome:
> 
> ...



 Hi Narayanjot

Thanks for the links!! I have to point out though , that the SikhCenter.mexico.org  in its web site . Does not once mention Sikh religion per se except it is pushing Kundalini Yoga which I do not know if that is considered as part of Sikhi. It does not mention SSGS , or the any of the Gurus ONCE . The Panama web site is down. Hmm! Maybe I could start a Spanish Sikh web site? ... Thinking about it


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hi Narayanjot
> 
> Thanks for the links!! I have to point out though , that the SikhCenter.mexico.org  in its web site . Does not once mention Sikh religion per se except it is pushing Kundalini Yoga which I do not know if that is considered as part of Sikhi. It does not mention SSGS , or the any of the Gurus ONCE . The Panama web site is down. Hmm! Maybe I could start a Spanish Sikh web site? ... Thinking about it



curious seeker ji

:happykaur: You are welcome. The SikhCenter in Mexico, if I am not mistaken, is a combined sangat and kundalini center which is sponsored by followers of Yogi Bhajan.  The centers can serve multiple purposes. Now here is where it gets complicated.

Kundalini yoga is practiced, has been practiced, in India for generations. Yogi Bhajan, who was a practitioner of kundalini yoga, came to North America, starting out in Canada, and then moved on to Los Angeles, where he introduced kundalini yoga. His original intent was not to convert people to Sikhism. Long story...However, now across the US, Europe, South and Central America, there are Gurdwaras that were begun by his followers. Members of 3HO, which is primarily devoted to teaching and research along with kundalini yoga,  are very careful to separate the religious experience of Sikhism from the practice of yoga. The religious branch of Yogi Bhajan's followers is called Western Dharma International. However there is a lot of over-lap of people if not of operations. 

Sometimes but not always, a sangat begun by followers of Yogi Bhajan, is found at a Gurdwara named after Guru Ram Das. Sometimes not. I can check to see if there are other gurdwaras. However, the Mexico City sangat that I know of are followers of Yogi Bhajan. 

A final note -- there are times when a gurdwara has a like the xxx Sikh Society. And unless you have experience with this phenomenon you might not realize that it is a gurdwara. 

Let me check on sangats in Mexico and get back to you.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2010)

According to my further searching "there is only one gurdwara in Mexico." This may be wrong, and it does not seem correct.  After searching, things start to become a bit contradictory. 

There is an interesting article which does in fact report that religion and yoga are a dual focus of the sangat. Part of it is posted below.

Futher searching indicated that the Shunia Yoga Life Center and the SikhCenter that I reported on above have different addresses. We can make the inference that kundalini and Yogi Bhajan are the connecting links, and that there must be more than one gurdwara/kundalini yoga center at this time. But the article explains why the yoga/Sikhi distinction is hard to draw in Mexico. 

See below
 ==========================
*SIKHS IN MEXICO
Sikhism and yoga           have found a new home in Mexico, reports Ajit           Jain*


*I*F           you visit the Shunia Yoga Life centre in the s{censored} Polanco  district of           Mexico City, don’t let the owner’s name, Jai Hari Singh,  mislead           you. He is Francois Valuet, a French national who has lived in  Mexico           City for over 30 years, converted to Sikhism and changed his  name.

Why? "It  (Sikhism)           is a way of life. More than anything else, it teaches  discipline in           life. It is based on the simple belief of one god. And god is  inside           you," Jai Hari answers. "When there’s one god Khalsa, when           you live on simple beliefs, you begin to see a lot of things  that make           life enjoyable."

The change in  his           religious and social thinking came slowly after he started  learning           yoga from Harbhajan Singh Khalsa — better known as Yogi Bhajan  — a           renowned Sikh yoga teacher who came to America in the late  1960s and           who died in October 2004. Like his teachers, Jai Hari teaches           Kundalini yoga. "After I started practicing Kundalini yoga, my           life changed a lot. I became healthier, I was able to control  my           emotions and my family life became better," he says. "I           became a vegetarian. I stopped drinking and smoking."

*There is only  one           gurdwara in Mexico City.* And Arjan Singh, an Indian and a  granthi from           India, who came to Mexico City in 1976, looks after it. He is  also a           Yogi Bhajan disciple, and runs a yoga centre. "There’s           reference to Kundalini yoga in Gurbani," says Arjan. The  students           at his centre start sadhana (prayer) at four in the morning.  "We           teach devotion, meditation. Kundalini yoga gives you strength  of mind           and body. We can control strength through devotion."

He says there  are about           50 yoga centres in Mexico and a number of people have  converted to           Sikhism. Jai Hari and Arjan are married to Mexican women, who  are also           Sikhs. The women wear white turbans. Arjan Singh’s 20-year-old  son           also practices Sikhism and after spending four years India is  now back           in Mexico.

More at this link

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050515/spectrum/main1.htm


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 5, 2010)

We also want to keep the thread on topic. So further discussions regarding sangats in South and Central America, or Yogi Bhajan, can be dealt with if we open a new thread.


----------

