Ambarsaria Ji, with respect..
I think I will have to approach this differently, As i detect some contradictions.
Lets deal with the most obvious first so we don’t get bogged down by too many avenues of attention.
If that’s o.k?.
I will mark each of your postulations with a number for ease of reference.
Then we can establish the statements congruence within Gurbani and within your
1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”
2)“Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all. Know ever more but not all”
3)“In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.”
4)“Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding. Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator”
So lets look at one…
1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”
This is very explicitly stating that there is a difference between the Knower and the Known.
You are stating here quite explicitly that knowledge of Waheguru and creation is limited for that creation; therefore there is a difference between God and creation!
If Waheguru is no different from his creation (unity, single, one) and his creation is limited then by definition Waheguru is subject to the same imitations!
You are rejecting the unity of God here!
You are saying certain aspects are limited, whereas other aspects are not.
You are saying something is the same but different……how?
This therefore implies that God has different qualities to his creation!
If they have different qualities are they not separate?
Lets see if that statement is congruent with your others here;
Statement 2) is in agreement as it clearly says there is a difference between the knower and the known.
Statement 3) is also congruent as it clearly implies that infinity and perfect knowing are not qualities that certain parts of creation can have!
4) This is also congruent with the former statement although I do not want to do you a disservice here and make a false assumption. A Sikh who follows the Guru’s by destroying the ego and the five poisons and becoming one with Waheguru is called what in Gurbani?
So I think we can clearly see that the above statements from one to four are in agreement (although I will concede statement four is far from clear)
They all reject the unity of God!
So if we move to the puari from Japji next, lets see if that is congruent with 1 to 4?
I will mark the puari lines from 1a to 7a.
| http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gur...1&p=1&fb=0&k=1 |
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.
Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them. Endless are His Actions, endless are His Gifts.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ) ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਗਿਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ (ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ। (ਗਿਣੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ)। ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਤੇ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ।
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਵੇਖਣਿ ਸੁਣਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਮੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na vekẖaṇ suṇaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na jāpai ki▫ā man manṯ.
Endless is His Vision, endless is His Hearing. His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind?
ਵੇਖਣ ਤੇ ਸੁਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਪਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕੀਦਾ। ਉਸ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਹੜੀ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਦਾ ਭੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ।
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai kīṯā ākār. Anṯ na jāpai pārāvār.
The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਜਗਤ (ਜੋ ਦਿੱਸ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ) ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਉਰਲਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰਲਾ ਬੰਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ।
ਅੰਤ ਕਾਰਣਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਬਿਲਲਾਹਿ ॥ ਤਾ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਪਾਏ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
Anṯ kāraṇ keṯe billāhi. Ŧā ke anṯ na pā▫e jāhi.
Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found.
ਕਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਲੱਭਣ ਲਈ ਤਰਲੈ ਲੈ ਰਹੇ ਸਨ, ਪਰ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨੇ ਲੱਭੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ।
ਏਹੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਕਹੀਐ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Ėhu anṯ na jāṇai ko▫e. Bahuṯā kahī▫ai bahuṯā ho▫e.
No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਇਹ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ (ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਜੀਵ ਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ) ਕੋਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕਦਾ। ਜਿਉਂ ਜਿਉਂ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਆਖੀ ਜਾਵੀਏ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਤਿਉਂ ਤਿਉਂ ਉਹ ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ, ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ ਪਰਤੀਤ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਵਡਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਊਚਾ ਥਾਉ ॥ ਊਚੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਊਚਾ ਨਾਉ ॥
vadā sāhib ūcẖā thā▫o. Ūcẖe upar ūcẖā nā▫o.
Great is the Master, High is His Heavenly Home. Highest of the High, above all is His Name.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰੱਖ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਦਾ ਟਿਕਾਣਾ ਉੱਚਾ ਹੈ। ਉਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਮਣਾ ਭੀ ਉੱਚਾ ਹੈ।
ਏਵਡੁ ਊਚਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਤਿਸੁ ਊਚੇ ਕਉ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Ėvad ūcẖā hovai ko▫e. Ŧis ūcẖe ka▫o jāṇai so▫e.
Only one as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State.
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਉਸ ਜੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਹ ਹੀ ਉਸ ਉੱਚੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਕਿ ਉਹ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ)।
ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥੨੪॥
Jevad āp jāṇai āp āp. Nānak naḏrī karmī ḏāṯ. ||24||
Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself. O Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. ||24||
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ। ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਹਰੇਕ) ਦਾਤ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੨੪॥
I think it may be best to deal with this line by line in relation to your four initial postulations regarding the separate nature of the creator and his creation.
Line 1a) It Regards the attributes of God, as it does not relate to unity, there is no incongruence with your statements nor with mine.
2a) Now here is the rub “His limits cannot be perceived” and I am presuming this is the crux of you argument.
However it is on rather shaky ground, does this statement mean God has no limits?
As how could you perceive that which does no exist?
Or does it mean man cannot see/ understand/know his limits?
Personally I agree with the rest of Gurbani and read it as the former that god has no limits!
I think maybe we need to contextualise this both linguistically and philosophically (I will revisit this)
3a) Here we have a repeat in theme The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived.
Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
One has to ask the obvious question again, does it mean man is separate (has different qualities) from his creator thereby negating both the mul mantar and the vast majority of Shabads relating to God’s unity or would a more consistent and logical deduction be that these limits cannot be perceived because they do not exist?
One has to look at the Guru Granth Sahib ji as a whole for this answer and one would (with all faith in Gurbani’s infallibility) conclude it would not contradict itself as you suggest!
4a)Again in this line are you suggesting that the reason people struggle is because they have separate qualities from god and creation or because the limits do not exist?
I would conclude that the limits do not exist and refer you to the observations above vis-ŗ-vis consistency, logic and infallibility of Gurbani!
5a)How can one know a limit that does not exist? How can language a finite structure explain the infinite?
Again considering Gods infinite nature how could a limit be known?
That would be illogical, inconsistent and contradictory. As would suggesting a difference between the creator and the created!
6a)I think this line like the first is neither contentious nor directly relevant to this particular debate.
7a)I don’t see how this line could imply difference in qualities between creator and created in light of the previous contextualisation however if you have any thoughts I am most happy to address them.
8a)I think this line can hold no water for you when considered again in context rather than implying a separation, a difference in quality it affirms his unity!
We then move on to another section of similar postulations. I will again for ease of reference mark them with numbers from 5 to 12.
5)“Wholeness of creation and creator could be taken as synonymous from my understanding”.
In statement 1) you very clearly say that not all knowledge or truth can be known and we have dealt with the implications of that statement above. Yet here you say that creator and creation are the same, have the same qualities. This is a direct and blatant contradiction.
They have the same qualities, they are one. Yet they have different qualities, one is infinite and the other limited. Do you not see the problems here?
In statement 2) pretty much the same contradiction occurs again making a clear division between knower and known.
In statement 3) Again contradictory, you say perfect knowledge is infinite so it can not be known! Clearly saying man has an inability to deal with the infinite. Man has different qualities to God. If man is different how is he synonymous with God?
In statement 4) I think you really need to either accept the description of Gurmukh in Gurbani or offer an alternative interpretation that is consistent and logical. If we take your interpretation, you again proscribe different qualities to creator and created. You insist on the duality of God.
6)“Any part of creation cannot be taken as representation of creator’s wholesome”
Is this statement consistent with your other statements? Yes apart from god being synonymous with creation.
Is it contradictory to your other statements? No apart from from god being synonymous with creation.
You are placing a reference on creation that I am not!
It is you suggesting that a different bit of creation has a different quality from the rest! The whole point is that one does not take parts of creation; creation is one as is its creator. It is you creating the false division!
As creation in reality does not have parts, it is!
The creator and all creation are one! How would you suggest one separates God from his creation? If you accept the unity of God how do you then suggest one creates disunity to look at whether all the component parts are of the same quality.
That is ridiculous.
How would you take any part of creation?
When it does not have a part but a whole!
However this statement is absolutely consistent with all other statements except 6!
So the difference in qualities and abilities etc that you insist on in statement 1 to 7 (except 6) are all irrelevant now?
7)“So the separateness is man made and non-existent otherwise if you have right vision to see all as one then there is no separation between creator and creation”
Because of one contradictory statement separateness is non-existent?
So now you agree with me creator and creation have no fundamental difference they are one? So I refer you to all my previous refutations regarding your insistence on qualitative difference, duality and disunity of God and creation?
8)“complete knowledge is beyond knowing the pauri I quoted describes it with many metaphors and aspects”
I dealt with that above, however in relation to your other posts it contradicts non apart from 5 and 7 when considered within your dualistic perspective.
9)“Gurmukh is on the perfect path. The qualities shown by a Gurmukh are representative of the perfect path”
You really need to either accept what Gurbani says about Gurmukhs non differential with all creation or offer another direct quote that explicitly says different.
If that is the case that Gurbani contradicts itself then we need to decide what is the name we give to a human who has achieved union with God?
10)“Depending on the stage of understanding of such Gurmukh the level of understanding of Gurmukh will vary and not be complete”
See my answer to 7) above. If it is a general term for one on the path please give me reference from Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
11)“Sikhism does not have a separation for a Gurmukh to have an understanding and living without the understanding. True Gurmukh lives with the true understanding to the level acquired and to greater level of understanding over time. One creator, one creation and living in consonance with all, all the time”
In the first line I have no idea what you mean? How does one have an understanding and live without it? You imply that Gurmukh is a process that never reaches non dual experience
If that is the case what is one called who does? Can I have a reference from Gurbani?
12)“You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”
13)“This Samadhi business is mixing oil and water where a Sikh needs no Samadhi stuff. In living wide awake and aware is Sikh living, Sikhi path and way to continuously gain more understanding as one traverse per the Sikhi path guided in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”
If it is mixing oil and water please blame the Guru responsible for writing it!
If a Sikh does not need Samadhi why is it in the Guru Granth Sahib ji are you suggesting it is a mistake or irrelevant?
If parts of the Guru granth Sahib ji are mixing oil and water or irrelevant why are you suggesting being guided by it?