Who is God in Sikhism?

harry haller · #55 (**permalink**) 04-Aug-2011, 16:30 PM

Bhagatsinghji,

Ok, yes, he was honest, unless I am being hugely stupid, I would take his answer in the positive to the question asked. I do not think that was the huge issue, I think the huge issue was with the disregard for forum rules, and the constant reference to spelling,(which as gyaniji points out is quite a valid issue)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8536-who-is-god-in-sikhism.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536

I couldnt care less whether he came from the order of the smurfs, but I felt he was holding something back, a hidden agenda, which did not sit too well with me, but he could have clarified that, without ambiguity, and we could have all moved on

BhagatSinghji, if I asked you that question, I would imagine you would give me a frank and speedy answer, and I think that is all that was required, not a huge beating round the bush

BhagatSingh · #56 (**permalink**) 04-Aug-2011, 17:08 PM

Hmm...
So so are you telling me that as soon as I have questioned your specificity, I have admitted my own ambiguity?

When I questioned his honesty. I have immediately admitted my own dishonesty. I can never know whether he is honest so my questioning is dishonest.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536
First you thought he was being dishonest then you thought he was being honest, while looking at the exact same set of words.

This is all relevant to the thread even though it does not appear relevant. So to make it clear (or less so):
Just as specificity and ambiguity manifest simultaneously.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536
Just as honesty and dishonesty manifest simultaneously.
Just as relevance and irrelevance manifest simultaneously.

The One and Many also manifest simultaneously.

That is the meaning of Ik Oankar.

harry haller · #57 (**permalink**) 04-Aug-2011, 17:24 PM

Bhagatsinghji

you are certainly an enlightened fellow, much much more than me , I am just a fool who gets by on the few scraps of knowledge I have picked up over the years, I have no benefit of the understanding of gurbani, nor the ability to find wisdom in shabads, I accept what you are saying in your post, but sometimes you accuse me of thinking too much, I would say that your last post encourages just that, thinking too much,

Sometimes when I read, I get a real feel for what is trying to be said, rather than what is being said, when that feeling gets shared by others, you cannot but sense hidden agendas, which is what I feel has happened here regarding prakashji, I am afraid that is all I am able to say that best describes my feelings.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536

If you read my first paragraph again, is it sarcasm? is it sincere? it can be translated in a number of fashions from a huge complement to a minor insult, as it happens, it is sincere, and it is meant as a compliment, but you cannot read it without a slight tinge of imperfection, it is not a perfect statement, I hope you understand my point

BhagatSingh · #58 (**permalink**) 04-Aug-2011, 17:59 PM

If you truly consider yourself a fool, then realize that you are the wisest of them all. Maybe it should be written like so "the wise who wrangle". Those who think they are wise, wrangle. Those who think they are wise are fools.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536

Only you know yourself. And to know yourself, you come to know others. "It takes one to know one."

One sensed hidden agenda then responded with posts that had a hidden agenda to reveal the other's hidden agenda. How strange? But does either one contain a hidden agenda?
And if not what were we trying to do in the first place?

We were trying to be. We are being when we try to be. You are being. I am being.

In being, resides doing. The being does. (No reason to explain or judge or evaluate what it does, you cannot. it simply does what it does)

All beings do, and in this the Ultimate Being comes to be.

Every sort of doing is named. It is given a name. Every being is given a name. The Ultimate Being is given a Name (e.g. waheguru). Name-calling is a human doing, hence a human being.

Through the Name the Ultimate Being, the ultimate nature of being, is realized.

I just realized how there is a ring to being and doing.

'ing'

Does that not sound like 'Ong'?
'Ong' is the sound of the universe. Onnnnnnnng is a meditation, not a Name, and yet it is very much a Name, a symbol, representation of the universe.

Ong is continuous since Ong is the sound of the universe. But who is making this sound while meditating?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536

Could it be that you are the sound of the universe? Is the universe a fool?

In the imperfection of being, lies perfection of the Ultimate Being.

Thanks for meditating along with me.

harry haller · #59 (**permalink**) 04-Aug-2011, 18:09 PM

I have had to read it several times, but I understand what you have written, and I agree with it in full, just when I think you are heading for the sky again, I actually realise you are bringing everything back to basics, I cannot disagree with you
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536

My final word on this?

If I lived with you, I would hate to ask you to put the rubbish out!

(see this rotten strawberry, that looks a bit like a pugh.......)

Ambarsaria · #60 (**permalink**) 05-Aug-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Ambarsaria ji,

As I see it, Vichar is a contemplation. There is no need to state one's ancestry, lineage, origin, set of beliefs, or anything else, when it comes to contemplation.

As I see it, Prakash ji actually gave a response out of the 4 responses that we limited him to. But what was the purpose of limiting the responses that the other can give? We know how powerful the mind is, it hardly has any limitations when it comes to generating responses.

What was the purpose of the limiting him to what I would do? He is Prakash Singh ji and I am Bhagat Singh. What is the meaning of "If asked I would have done that"?

What is the purpose of limiting him to what I think he should do? Perhaps he should write more. Perhaps he should write it like this, or like that. But Prakash ji is an individual with his own personality that expresses itself in a certain way, sometimes it is fewer words.

Notice how quickly I take away the freedom of others.

As I contemplate the question posed, I realized it is inherently a meaningless question.

This was the question? (Is it a question?)
If this was stated in a racial context it would be seen a racist remark. Let us explore the hidden racism.
If you are a member of a black community it would be better to say so up front so that readers do not mistake your comments for white community's ideas.

Even if the man was white, should he be entertaining himself with such questions?

Look how by asking someone that, I have pushed myself to the label of a racist. And if he answers, he has pushed his views to be seen from a specific skin colour, coming from a white man or a black man or in our context of either Snatan Samparda or Gurmat Vichar. Both parties have pushed themselves in a narrow context, to see, to listen, to share from a narrow context.

And if the purpose is to continue to see things in a narrow context, why do I ask people to do Vichar with me?

And when I contemplate that question deeply, I find myself asking: If the purpose of my existence is to limit myself to my own context, then why do I even begin to exist?

Bhagat Singh ji as you know I have same status if not lower than Prakash.s.bagga ji being a newer member. I have tried to help him sometimes when he repeatedly posts incomplete Shabads (Tuks, transliterations, phonetics, etc., against spn TOS). I have offered many times to do that in case he has limits of access in India or does not want to use (srigranth.org, again has been flagged to him manytimes and he refuses). He refuses to post Punjabi words from Gurbani and uses his own English phonetics which most cannot relate to (may be I am thick in this area). Lastly let us remember what the context of his post is in this case,

Quote:

Sikh Philosophy Network » Sikh Philosophy Network » Sikh Sikhi Sikhism » Who is God in Sikhism?
A Sikhism part of Forums at spn and him making comments in this context.

I did not restrict him to four choices I only suggested to him if it would help quickly resolve and thread could move forward. Anyone is open to add more or delete some to help.

A Sikh has a right to ask a Sikh questions or comment if they believe posting of confusing and not linking with Gurbani the right way per spn TOS (very very minimal requirement, post complete shabad and stay on topic) are taking place. We all make mistakes and once is ok, twice is ok, many times over is not my issue (I am no moderator here just a member) but it hurts if the comments are virtually spamming with words that are inaccurately conjured up and consistently prove to be sabotaging focused contributions.

I have apologized to Prakash.s.bagga ji before and if I am considered wrong, I will apologize again.

My comments are strictly how possibly some of the bad will impact perhaps younger readers or the hijacking of threads with proven approach that has been clearly flagged by spnadmin ji in the past many times. Nothing more nothing less.

Sat Sri Akal.

prakash.s.bagga · #61 (**permalink**) 05-Aug-2011, 19:20 PM

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I feel humbled at your gesture.I dont think you have done anything wrong.You have made me realise my shotcomings for participating in the forum.I shall try my best to improve my style to meet Forums requirement.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536
So there is no need to feel apologetic.Since English is not our language and we are likely to be misundrstood just for nothing.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8536
I have full regards to your invovement from time to time.And there is nothing in my heart as we come from the same unknown source to make the journey of our life as directed by the CREATOR.
Thanking you,
Prakash.s.Bagga

Gyani Jarnail Singh · #62 (**permalink**) 06-Aug-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prakash.s.bagga

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I feel humbled at your gesture.I dont think you have done anything wrong.You have made me realise my shotcomings for participating in the forum.I shall try my best to improve my style to meet Forums requirement.
So there is no need to feel apologetic.Since English is not our language and we are likely to be misundrstood just for nothing.
I have full regards to your invovement from time to time.And there is nothing in my heart as we come from the same unknown source to make the journey of our life as directed by the CREATOR.
Thanking you,
Prakash.s.Bagga

And I too am glad you didnt leave the Forum paraksh Singh Ji...We are all Brothers in Learning here....each has his/her own special role and place...no offense shuld be taken even if it was "meant/supposedly meant"..etc becasue we DONT KNOW for sure...so give the benefit of the doubt generously..and continue to share with all. GURU forgives all..so why not we try to walk in HIS Footsteps...even if inadequately...and our tiny feet canb NEVER hope to fit His GIANT "shoes"...we can always try and keep on trying to emulate HIM...Thanksswordfight

peacesignkaurpeacesignjapposatnamwaheguru: welcomemunda