Is God a Universal Principle?

Dear Saad Ji,

You do not have to be xenophobic. The omnipresent God created the cosmos including the world but man made the world in to countries and various religions. Theological God (HaShem) is rather an elusive conception and it becomes difficult in discussing this question, to know what one is discussing? It is an Absolute Principle and It applies to every thing (Sargun) and some thing in terms of itself, which cannot be defined (Nirgun). One must set aside personal prejudices or bias and keep an open mind to understand the Principle. God and spirit are both out side the limitations of time and space. Prejudiced individuals see only what fits those prejudices.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/24983-is-god-a-universal-principle.html

Q. Do you believe in God?

A. It depends what you mean by the term.

One must keep an open mind and be receptive despite what issues arise?

The absolute Principle (God) is not a, thing, sound or vibration, not divisible, not diluted or augmented, has no partner or complement, has no form or qualities as enumerated in Sikh Mool Mantar(First lines of AGGS). Guru Arjan in the mode of Suhi says;
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983

deleted single line of Shabad based on forum guidelines.

Akal Purkh is every where(ਨਿਰੰਤਰ) all the time (Immanent & Transcendent) and forever with out any relation to time and space. One can communicate to the One God through prayer. The wording of the prayer does not matter and can be individualized by the petitioner. It is the sincerity of the prayer, which matters. It is the motive that makes difference between true and false prayer. Only the prayer coming from the depths of the heart is accepted at the door of the Creator.Prayer is the constant yearning to know the Truth and be worthy of it. It is the striving of the mind towards its parent Divinity the Universal Spirit. Outwardly prayer should express it- self in actions by which we strive to manifest, which is best in us.

Regards.

Virinder

Moderator's note: These posts were moved from Introducing Myself as the discussion is off-topic. aad0002

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

It is an Absolute Principle and It applies to every thing (Sargun) and some thing in terms of itself, which cannot be defined (Nirgun). One must set aside personal prejudices or bias and keep an open mind to understand the Principle. (VSGrewal Ji)
Respected VSGrewl Ji
With all due respect I must state that you would not stop beating your drums to claim God as a principle even after failing badly to answer so many questions raised by many forum members, if you are so sure why don’t you dare to answer the questions I put to you repeatedly on other threads? I asked you those questions after giving you illustration of God by Gurus contrary to yours
Or please admit it that its sheer your own Budh Gyan, Please don’t bring Gurbani into it,
God and spirit are both out side the limitations of time and space. Prejudiced individuals see only what fits those prejudices.
Sir now from principle you are coming to spirits, one God and other spirit, how will you define it? I haven’t notice so deleted thought for a while
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
What it has to do with the word “prejudice”, May I ask you, are you prejudiced towards Gurus because Gurus don’t illustrate Him as a principle? Why don’t you be open to understand what they say instead of quoting below one liner (and I shall prove you that Guru goes beyond what you say).

Q. Do you believe in God?

A. It depends what you mean by the term.
Why don’t you define your own God by leaving quoting of Gurbani aside that doesn’t support you?

One must keep an open mind and be receptive despite what issues arise?
Open mind to understand your Busdh gyan? Or to understand God through Gurbani!!!

The absolute Principle (God) is not a, thing, sound or vibration, not divisible, not diluted or augmented, has no partner or complement, has no form or qualities as enumerated in Sikh Mool Mantar(First lines of AGGS). Guru Arjan in the mode of Suhi says;

ਬਰਨੁ ਚਿਹਨੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਮੁਖੁ ਨ ਮਾਸਾਰਾ ॥
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983


Baran cẖihan nāhī mukẖ na māsārā.

Akal Purkh has no color, no sign, no mouth and no beard -----Guru Arjan, Raag Suhi, AGGS, Page, 746-10
Here is the complete Shabad that goes all over about God from formless to with forms; you picked one line to satisfy your own concept of God as per your habit. Obviously it’s your deliberate attempt to mislead people by quoting Gurbani, it’s of course a pathetic approach as it has been challenged numerous times without any answer from your side ever. Here is the complete Shabada, prove me if in this Shabad any slightest reference is given to your own coined God
ਸੂਹੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ ਰਾਸਿ ਮੰਡਲੁ ਕੀਨੋ ਆਖਾਰਾ ॥ ਸਗਲੋ ਸਾਜਿ ਰਖਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Sūhī mėhlā 5.Rās mandal kīno ākẖārā.Saglo sāj rakẖi▫o pāsārā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
In Essence: God has made this world as an arena ( to play) all is his created expansion(pause)
ਬਹੁਬਿਧਿਰੂਪਰੰਗਆਪਾਰਾ॥ਪੇਖੈਖੁਸੀਭੋਗਨਹੀਹਾਰਾ॥ਸਭਿਰਸਲੈਤਬਸਤਨਿਰਾਰਾ॥੧॥
Baho biḏẖ rūp rang āpārā.Pekẖai kẖusī bẖog nahī hārā.Sabẖ ras laiṯ basaṯ nirārā. ||1||
In Essence: He has made many infinite forms and colors, He beholds all and enjoy never to getting tired of. While enjoying still He remains separate (immaculate.)
ਬਰਨੁਚਿਹਨੁਨਾਹੀਮੁਖੁਨਮਾਸਾਰਾ॥ਕਹਨੁਨਜਾਈਖੇਲੁਤੁਹਾਰਾ॥ਨਾਨਕਰੇਣਸੰਤਚਰਨਾਰਾ॥੨॥੨॥੪੫॥
Baran cẖihan nāhī mukẖ na māsārā.Kahan na jā▫ī kẖel ṯuhārā.Nānak reṇ sanṯ cẖarnārā. ||2||2||45||
In Essence: He has no color, sign, mouth or beard, its hard to explain your play Oh God! Nanak seeks humbly your refuge
Tell me where in this Shabad God is described as principle? Can your open- mind point out God as a principle here? As I stated earlier, it’s all your own coined philosophy about God and has nothing to do with Gurbani. Gurbani doesn’t express God as you do. I am stunned at your deliberate attempt to preach about God contrary to Gurbani: In your quoted one liner, it is about NIRGUN but in "sabh Ras Lait" Vaak indicates "His being in SARGUN form", then again it is said "His being separate from that". It absolutely not fits into your coined God as "Principle"
By the way, this thread is to welcome people not to serve your own “kind of religion” sermons!!!!


With regards
G Singh

Private debate with another forum member has been deleted. aad0002
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983

To call someone's thoughts deleted when one is discussing Gurbani no matter how much one disagrees is uncalled for in my opinion.

I wish the Moderators would see that demeaning someone in this manner can not elevate anyone in any spectrum no matter how much one claims to understand Gurbani.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983

Tejwant Singh

Dear All,

This may be my last post. Here is thje sabd to some questions;

The Absolute Principle is TRUTH-which Guru Nanak calls God. Here Guru Angad refers to that Absolute Principle of Truth in Raag Malar;

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸੁ ਦੇਵ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ਬ੍ਰਹਮੇ ਦਿਤੇ ਬੇਦ ਪੂਜਾ ਲਾਇਆ ॥ਦਸ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਆਇਆ ॥ਦੈਤਾ ਮਾਰੇ ਧਾਇ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਬਾਇਆ ॥ਈਸ ਮਹੇਸੁਰੁ ਸੇਵ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ਸਚੀ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਪਾਇ ਤਖਤੁ ਰਚਾਇਆ ॥ਦੁਨੀਆ ਧੰਧੈ ਲਾਇ ਆਪੁ ਛਪਾਇਆ ॥
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
Barahmā bisan mahes ḏev upā▫i▫ā. Barahme ḏiṯe beḏ pūjā lā▫i▫ā. Ḏas avṯārī rām rājā ā▫i▫ā. Ḏaiṯā māre ḏẖā▫e hukam sabā▫i▫ā. Īs mahesur sev ṯinĥī anṯ na pā▫i▫ā. Sacẖī kīmaṯ pā▫e ṯakẖaṯ racẖā▫i▫ā. Ḏunī▫ā ḏẖanḏẖai lā▫e āp cẖẖapā▫i▫ā.

Then Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and the deities were created. Brahma was given the Vedas, and enjoined to worship God. The ten incarnations, and Rama the king, came into being. According to Akal Purkh’s Will, they quickly killed all the demons. Shiva serves It, but cannot find Its limits. Akal Purkh established Its throne on the principles of Truth. Setting creation to various tasks, Akal Purkh has concealed It self and Its Primal Ordinance gives direction for righteous action. -----Guru Angad, Raag Malar, AGGS, Page, 1279-19

Cordially,

Virinder

virinderji

AKAA PURAKH THE SAT NAM, WHO IS THE DOER OF EVERYTHING DOES NOT INCARNATE. PLEASE DO NOT SAY HE DOES EVEN IN A SUGGESTIVE WAY.


thank you,
Antonia

de⋅lu⋅sion

    –noun 1. an act or instance of deluding. 2. the state of being deluded. 3. a false belief or opinion. 4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Origin:
1375–1425; late ME < L dēlūsiōn- (s. of dēlūsiō), equiv. to dēlūs(us) (ptp. of dēlūdere; see delude ) + -iōn- -ion

Related forms:
de⋅lu⋅sion⋅al, de⋅lu⋅sion⋅ar⋅y, adjective

Synonyms:
1. deception. See illusion.


Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source |
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
Link To delusional


de·lu·sion (dĭ-lōō'zhən)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
n.

1. 1. The act or process of deluding.
   2. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

IMHO..the wrong meaning of delusion was taken..and objected to...and deleted.
The meaning used was in context of No. 3 on first para and No. 2 in Second Para.
and YES the Beliefs expressed are FALSE and based on ones own opinion..not FACT.
The GOD TRUTH does not incarnate.is the FACT that is being denied via false belief...hence the correct meaning of DELUSIONAL applies correctly.

This is not derogatory ...or disrespectful...conclusion based on my own english language knowledge.
no offense meant or taken.

Gyani ji,

Gur Fateh.

I beg to differ with you, not about the meaning of the word delusional but its usage in any context in the forum where we are all to interact and learn from each other. One can object to the same thought which one disagrees with in a different manner like Antonia ji has done above. It conveys the same meaning in a meaningful manner not in a derrogatory way. The objective of the Leaders is to encourage others in a positive manner so all can benefit from this forum. Please correct me If I am wrong.

So for me this word delusional used in any way or form when we are discussing Gurbani is disrespectful, derrogatgory and brings nothing positive to the discussion. To the Contrary. It rather shows the traits of a person who uses these kinds of words to denegrate others. If one claims to study Gurbani and understands it, then one can find different vocabulary to incentivate others so they can take the same Gurmat path where LOVE and KINDNESS towards ALL is the foremost.

No offence intended.

Tejwant Singh

Dear Aad Ji,

Before commenting please go and read about the mythological references about 10 incarnations. Please go and read again my articles where it has been repeatdly stated that God does not incarnate. I think we are on different pages of discussion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983

Cordially,

Virinder

TO SPN Sangat Ji
I am glad, very experienced and respected member of SN Gyani Jarnail Singh JI conveys the truth in context of the word “delusion” used in context of a (false)thought not a person,( my sincere thanks to him for laying out the truth). It is crystal clear; if it were used in context of a person, it could have been suspected as derogatory. When our respected member Gyani Ji tries to pass on the fact, his leadership is questioned which actually is more disrespectful behavior. Whenever VSGrewal’s own coined views in context of God or panj Kakkar are questioned, some came into his rescue without any valid reason and supporting answer. Even when Mystique-Void in his post in “God is wonderful” stresses that on a forum when someone expresses views, in disagreement, it’s fair to question and the question should be answered, sadly he was also questioned for merely saying so. This is a tendency of some people who bent upon defending VSGrewal any way so that they can discourage others to question VSgrewal. This kind of behavior also shows the traits of such persons regardless of the usage of the words like” Gurmat” and “learning” in their posts.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24983
No intention to offend anyone.
Regards
G Singh