The original Concept of Akalpurakh - Dr. Gurbhagat Singh

Ishna · #10 (**permalink**) 20-May-2012, 15:00 PM

Harry bhaji

I feel that calling Sikhi monotheistic is the first nail in it's Abrahamical coffin. It is a term more suited to a 'One God over there and me and the world over here' point of view.

If you would humour me, I put forward that Sikhi is in fact a kind of Panentheism:

Panentheism

I may come to regret that assertion.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine exists (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism is differentiated from pantheism, which holds that the divine is not a distinct being or beings but is synonymous with the universe.[1]
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/38519-original-concept-akalpurakh-dr-gurbhagat-singh.html

Simply put, in pantheism, the divine is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in the divine. This means that the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God.[2] Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3]
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519

What do you think? And yes I'm tempted to delete the last line of the above snippit but I won't!

The Panentheistic worldview makes more sense when trying to consider the Akaal Purakh idea in the initial post.

Luckysingh · #11 (**permalink**) 21-May-2012, 06:40 AM

What's the problem with the last line ?

The panantheistic view is probably very close.
But what about physical and spiritual matter ?
I sense it disregards that because it classes a God that is within and beyond the universe in terms of a presence.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519
But we regard atma and parmatma or spiritual presences alongside physical.
As sikhs we try to build on both- Miri-Piri-.

Waheguru

Ishna · #12 (**permalink**) 21-May-2012, 09:27 AM

The problem with the last line is people might say Sikhi is not panentheistic because a lot of Hindu thought is characterised by panentheism and Sikhi isn't Hinduism... I thought it might cause an argument.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519

Lucky asked: But what about physical and spiritual matter ?

The introduction from Wikipedia says:

the divine exists ... [and] interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it.

To me that encompasses physical and spiritual. Akaal Purakh is indeed within and beyond matter (the universe) because Gurbani says It will continue to exist even when the universe It has created is destroyed.

bscheema, as the thread starter, do you have any comments?

harry haller · #13 (**permalink**) 21-May-2012, 14:58 PM

Sis,

I happen to agree with you,

Quote:

The problem with the last line is people might say Sikhi is not panentheistic because a lot of Hindu thought is characterised by panentheism and Sikhi isn't Hinduism... I thought it might cause an argument.

I think the difference in Sikhi is that we had flesh and blood human Gurus to guide and teach us, they were realistic believable human beings just like you and me. In Hinduism there are a myriad of characters that possibly never existed, I am sure they represent real people, but I find them more characters in a story designed to come to the same conclusions as Sikhi.

Just like Sikhi has now become so distorted that people think the point is to seek enlightenment and mukti, when in my view, concentrating on just being a good person, with love in your heart, sharing what you have, and being a crutch for the needy is actually what Sikhi is about, through that you gain Mukti, and even then, as a side effect, not as a goal. Hinduism has had a longer time to veer away from what it possibly set out to achieve and what it has. Who is to say, if things go on the way they are that in another 2000 years, the depictions of the Gurus we are so familiar with become lost, and they end up being depicted with several arms/faces, animal heads, etc. Time is a funny thing, the only thing that stands the course of time is the truth, and I see very little of that in present day Sikhi and its leaders.

Parma · #14 (**permalink**) 22-May-2012, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harry haller

Sis,

I happen to agree with you,

I think the difference in Sikhi is that we had flesh and blood human Gurus to guide and teach us, they were realistic believable human beings just like you and me. In Hinduism there are a myriad of characters that possibly never existed, I am sure they represent real people, but I find them more characters in a story designed to come to the same conclusions as Sikhi.

Just like Sikhi has now become so distorted that people think the point is to seek enlightenment and mukti, when in my view, concentrating on just being a good person, with love in your heart, sharing what you have, and being a crutch for the needy is actually what Sikhi is about, through that you gain Mukti, and even then, as a side effect, not as a goal. Hinduism has had a longer time to veer away from what it possibly set out to achieve and what it has. Who is to say, if things go on the way they are that in another 2000 years, the depictions of the Gurus we are so familiar with become lost, and they end up being depicted with several arms/faces, animal heads, etc. Time is a funny thing, the only thing that stands the course of time is the truth, and I see very little of that in present day Sikhi and its leaders.

Harry ji

I agree with most of what you wrote there only a point I would like to add

Just like Sikhi has now become so distorted that people think the point is to seek enlightenment and mukti, when in my view, concentrating on just being a good person, with love in your heart, sharing what you have, and being a crutch for the needy is actually what Sikhi is about, through that you gain Mukti, and even then, as a side effect, not as a goal

Some people maybe seeking just enlightenment from sikhi and that brings them peace, some people may only want mukhti everyone comes to god with there own needs. The real end total I guess is peace and what helps you achieve that. I guess god is so diverse that god caters for every need in everyway if you just want to be happy in the present moment then it gives advice on that if your seeking akal purakh then it gives advice on that it is the source of all guidance that is why it is the Guru Granth Sahib

Luckysingh · #15 (**permalink**) 22-May-2012, 07:11 AM

Some people may be seeking enlightenment in the sense that their main and biggest goal or achievement is liberation or mukhti. For such, I think that is fine, it just depends how they go about it.
What you say Harryji is the logical way of achieving this. I can't feel that I can say if it is distorted to go one way or the other, but the main thing is to try to achieve whats right and why the lord has put you here.

On a day to day basis, the goal should be to do what is right and beneficial for all.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519
Sikhi is a way of life and this way it helps you achieve that.
It is difficult for someone to say that they are a good sikh and deserve enlightenment but on a day to day basis they don't go out of their way to help the needy, share or love.
As a way of life, sikhi teaches us to be that way inclined in character, to do seva.

A point I will make here is that I find some sikhs feel that seva is just helping with langar or similar at the gurdwara for a few hours a week. I've seen a few who will do this regularly and feel that their duty of seva is fulfilled and completed. But they will then go out of the gurdwara and leave and walk past a homeless and totally ignore him/her.-I have seen this a number of times. -To me, this is not seva, (like I say, to me only), but I don't like to judge, as I don't truly know what the thoughts are when the person walks past the homeless.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519

Here in Vancouver some gurdwaras are far out for some people. There are limited bus services etc in some areas and I notice some elders travelling great lengths to be at the gurdwara. A few times I have noticed that these elders will have devoted hours of seva in the general maintenance and will humbly request a ride from general sangat to get back home especially when dark or late. It is quite sad, that I have seen them ask a number of members of general sangat and be given some excuse, especially the youngsters. This is even worse when the member declining has himself just been serving langar. Does this person feel that their duty is fulfilled and over, and it is someone elses turn ??

We shouldn't allocate times and slots to WHEN we do seva, like many of us do. It should be like a service that we are always willing to offer no matter where or when.

God is watching ALL the time, not just when we want him to.
He can test us any time, but we shouldn't test him.

harry haller · #16 (**permalink**) 22-May-2012, 15:16 PM

Luckyji

absolutely agree, one should be a Sikh 24/7

bscheema · #17 (**permalink**) 30-May-2012, 20:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5K07_Z6aVM

http://youtu.be/S5K07_Z6aVM

Kanwaljit Singh · #18 (**permalink**) 30-May-2012, 23:30 PM

Some more interesting points from the etymology of Universe:

The word universe derives from the

Old_French

word Univers, which in turn derives from the

Latin

word universum.[10] The Latin word was used by

Cicero

and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern

English_language

word is used.[11] The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by

Lucretius

in Book IV (line 262) of his

On_the_Nature_of_Things

(On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus', or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").[11

An alternative interpretation of unvorsum is "everything rotated as one" or "everything rotated by one". In this sense, it may be considered a translation of an earlier Greek word for the universe, περιφορά, (periforá, "circumambulation"), originally used to describe a course of a meal, the food being carried around the circle of dinner guests.[12] This Greek word refers to

Celestial_spheres

, an early Greek model of the universe. Regarding Plato's

Metaphor_of_the_sun

,

Aristotle

suggests that the rotation of the sphere of

Fixed_stars

inspired by the

Primum_movens

, motivates, in turn, terrestrial change via the Sun. Careful

Astronomy

and physical measurements (such as the

Foucault_pendulum

) are required to prove the Earth rotates on its axis.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38519

A term for "universe" in ancient Greece was τὸ πᾶν (tò pán,

The_All

, Pan (mythology)). Related terms were matter, (τὸ ὅλον, tò ólon, see also

Hyle

, lit. wood) and place (τὸ κενόν, tò kenón).[13][14] Other synonyms for the universe among the ancient Greek philosophers included κόσμος (

Cosmos

) and φύσις (meaning

Nature

, from which we derive the word

Physics

).[15] The same synonyms are found in Latin authors (totum, mundus, natura)[16] and survive in modern languages, e.g., the German words Das All, Weltall, and Natur for universe. The same synonyms are found in English, such as everything (as in the

Theory_of_everything

), the cosmos (as in

Cosmology

), the world (as in the many-worlds hypothesis), and

Nature

(as in

Natural_law

or

Natural_philosophy

).[17]