☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Burden Of Proof ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="snavneet" data-source="post: 4042" data-attributes="member: 334"><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong><span style="color: red">Sat Sri Akaal Pyareyo</span></strong>,</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I'm enjoying this conversation. Let's carry on! Others please join us. (Waiting for your reply to my previous post too!)</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Dear Veerji, firstly we are not talking about a legal case when we are trying to prove/disprove the existence of God. No jury is going to decide who is right between the both of us. We will have to keep debating unless we reach some agreement. Neither am I committing a crime by saying that God exists and nor are you by saying that He does not exist. So, don't compare it to legal cases. And, you did not reply on the other point I made based on sociology, according to which, the burden would lie on the group with the lesser number of supporters. Now that is what usually happens in real-time debates, like we had during our school time. Both groups would put forth their points during a debate, which were later judged by the audience through voting. We never needed supporting documents during a debate. This is quite different from a legal case, isn't it? Nobody is being incriminated over here. Nobody's morality or right character is being questioned here. Hence, it cannot be compared to a legal case. After a debate ends and the voting phase is over and if a candidate wins, it is because (s)he has more supporters. In case 51% of humanity supported my viewpoint that God exists and 49% supported your viewpoint then you would be under a larger burden to gather more support by whatever means possible. No jury can decide who is right amongst the two of us. I hope you understand. This is the precise reason that George Bush has been elected to be the president of America for the second term because he has more support. Even if you don't like his policies, he is still your president. No panel of juries decided whether his policies are right or wrong. He was elected by the people of America. The American society acted as the jury. So, while proving the existence of God, we are looking for such a support. We cannot take our argument to court because this has nothing legal or illegal in it. There is no law that stops someone from believing in something or the other. In the end, every human being has the right to believe in whatever (s)he wants. So, please don't compare this argument with legal ones. They do not fall in the same category. Now, let's consider a legal case, where person 1 has murdered person 2. In this case, only the law interferes. If person 1 can be associated with the crime, (s)he will be taken to court. In that case, the people who believe that person 1 did not commit the crime will have to come up with their supporting points. Even legal cases are not settled by dealing only with one party involved in the case. There is no question of burden of proof there. One group supporting person 1 might come out with a proof of his innocence following which the party incriminating him will have to bring forth a follow-up proof. In the end, the decision is taken based on who has more valid supporting proofs. That's the reason we have a prosecutor and a defender and both parties go looking for adequate support. It is not just one party that looks for proofs. And, you know, every legal case doesn't end with the right decision. Sometimes, this murderer who should be punished might be set free. So, our legal system is not perfect. You know when the decision was first made to crucify Jesus Christ, he was compared with a criminal called Barabbas, who had committed many heinous crimes. The authorities decided to ask the people as to who should be released from prison based on their policy of releasing one person every year, if the public desired. They asked, "Should Jesus who just calls himself the king of the Jews be released?" or "Should Barabbas, who committed so many heinous crimes be released?" Now, since majority of the Jewish priests hated Christ, they'd already convinced their followers that Christ should be crucified for JUST SAYING that he was their king! They could have easily considered him to be a crazy person like Herod did, but they decided to crucify him anyway. Now, I ask you, and please do answer. Who would you have selected to be released? I'm sure you wouldn't have supported Barabbas because he had murdered 100s of people and could harm society once again. Jesus was just saying something and had to suffer such immense torture due to what he said. Finally, it was the people that decided who should be released even though logic suggests that Barabbas shouldn't have been released in any case. Even though I felt that the incrimination of Jesus was wrong, I wouldn't have been able to save him because there wasn't enough support on my side. The democracies of today are not very different either, here every single person's vote counts. I vote for whichever candidate I like. Nobody can ask me to justify my decision. Nobody can ask me for proofs as to why I selected one candidate over another. Legal cases require physical proofs, social issues do not. And the belief in the existence of God is a social issue. That's the reason I keep saying that proof will not come from outside, it will come from within you. Our Gurus have told us that when the 9 doors of the body close, the 10th door opens, which reveals the whole Truth. Our Gurus have also explained to us about how we can find God. They have clearly stated that external quests will never reveal the soul and God. Now, when there is a method given by them, why don't we try to follow that too, to discover for ourselves if God exists or not. Don't be the person who sits at the edge of a river and keeps saying that the river is too shallow for my boat to float. Instead jump into it to find out for yourself. And, if you find that the riverbed is very shallow then forget it, carry on only with your science and live this life fully because you feel that we get to live only once. Who is forcing you to believe in God? What if the riverbed is really deep, you could then jump in with your boat and reach your ultimate destination. We should look at the argument from both perspectives by gaining enough knowledge of both. If we just keep learning more and more about science and compare it with our basic knowledge of religion then how could this comparison be considered fair? We should learn equally about both. You said earlier that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is of enormous value, but have you really explored it in the way you've explored or learnt about science. Our schools don't teach us much about religion and if they do, it's in a very shallow manner. But we keep learning science for 16 to 20 years of our education. It is natural that our views will be less biased towards God and religion. Even parents these days don't have enough time to learn about religion and teach their children any religious concepts. This is very very unfair towards religion. We are fools to let such a great library of knowledge fall into the hands of a few religious hypocrites and fanatics, who've created a very wrong impression of religion all over our modern world. Actually, as you already know, religion is meant to heal the world, it teaches you how to live your life completely. What is wrong in learning more about it? And, over that, you might get the bonus of discovering something more than what the world can give you. There's a chance that you could discover your soul and God. We've traded the most precious gem(religion) for stones(worldly knowledge).</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I've already answered to this in the above paragraph. Firstly, the quest for God is not a criminal proceeding. And secondly, if the prosecution does come up with one proof that incriminates the defendant then the defendant too has to come up with something to disprove the prosecutions claims. A legal case ends when one group fails to support its claims or when there is not enough viable evidence from both the groups. The final decision is taken by considering proofs from both groups. Now, let's consider your earlier statement about "Pink bunnies orbiting pluto". By using present day science, I could easily deceive you. Using image processing technology I could easily come up with photos of realistic bunnies orbiting pluto. Now, since I've the photos, you've no right to ask me how I got them. Now, it would be your turn to gather proofs against me. To disprove my claim, you would have to show the jury that making such photos is a sleight of hand and that you could do it too using computers. But, tell me, what if I've actually taken the photos of those bunnies? How will I ever be able to prove that they exist if science is easily able to create duplicates and refute my claims. Even if I brought photos and videos and hair samples of the bunnies you would still continue to refute my claims saying that it is easy to generate such proofs using present day science. To actually convince you that pink bunnies orbit pluto I will have to take you to that place. You will definitely not be convinced just with my proofs. So, to know if God exists, you will have to follow the techniques that our Satgurus have taught us. You will have to go to that place! You will never get convinced otherwise. Now, even if I could somehow ask Guru Nanak Dev Ji to appear in front of your eyes and talk to you and convince you about God, you will try your best to prove all that to be false. You will not even believe your senses. This is the reason that God does not reveal Himself to every Tom, {censored} and Harry. No offense meant, I can assure you I'm one of these too! But, since I can't trust even my senses, I've to reach that level of perfection where a new sense is revealed to me. A sense that cannot be deceived. The sense that comes through our souls. Let me give you a crude and earthly example. Now, suppose you like watching movies and are very eager to see the next Matrix movie. And suppose I saw it before you and spoiled everything for you by telling you the story, then you would not really look forward to watch it with the same zeal and enthusiasm. Instead, if you experience it for yourself firsthand, without knowing anything about it, you'll enjoy it a lot more, won't you? So, if I just told you that the movie is really good and you should watch it for sure then nothing is spoilt for you. You'll still have to go to the theatre or rent a video to watch it and get convinced on your own. In the same way, our Satgurus have told us everything about how good the final revelation is and how to get there, but they did not tell us what we would sense or feel once we reach there. That would spoil everything for us. Experiencing something firsthand is something totally different. And, infact in the case of God, the experience is different for everyone and the bliss never ends. We enjoy in every which way and that too for eternity! Now, what are you seeking in this world - satisfaction, happiness, enjoyment, peace, end of suffering, etc. Our Satgurus have told us that we all deserve this and we could get it forever and ever! Then what is wrong in giving it a shot. What is wrong in believing them for once and walking the path. You already believe that their knowledge can heal humanity. Then, why not actually walk the path. Why not do Simran and Meditate and follow their suggestions and attain that perfect state of bliss? To me all this is very exciting. And I wish that you too start feeling the same way. I haven't reached there, but I know that it is my ultimate destination. Then why not get on with it right now, Veerji! For once, just forget all that reasoning about science and religion. No need to compare them. Use science for survival and use religion to reach the ultimate bliss. I don't see anything wrong in that.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">How can anyone come up with a theory and proclaim it to the world without something to support the claims?! If I came up with a new theory and wanted the world to know about it, I wouldn't come forward without any basic proofs. And, if you talk about Mathematics and Science, I can assure you that I can come up with any theory I want and I can challenge you to disprove it with only some basic points to support my claim. That is how science has progressed so far. Isaac Newton came up with his theory on gravity and challenged his peers to disprove it. Nobody could firmly disprove it and they decided to accept it for the time being. Then Einstein could challenge it and disprove it 200 years later so now we've got to learn Einstein's theory of Gravitation! Funny, isn't it? Look at all of us ordinary humans, we just assume that some theory is right if we can't disprove it! My dear, if Einstein hadn't disproved it by taking the burden of disproving the earlier theory on himself, we wouldn't be flying such highly precise robotic missions to Mars and beyond. During my school days, I remember proving many theorems in geometry by assuming that what the theorem states is wrong and then trying to prove it wrong. If I failed to prove it to be wrong then it had to be right. In science or math, many theories have been proved by trying to prove first that what they say is wrong! And, if you ask me I remember many such simple theories.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">No one will say that without some justification. If I were to claim something like that then I would have some supporting argument. I might atleast have to tell them that I overheard a reliable Chinese official saying something like this. Let's leave that to the spies. They are meant to gather proof for the government. And, these days it is not safe to deny even such small claims. With people like Osama, hellbent on attacking so many nations, it is our duty to explore even the smallest of clues. I'm sure if you made the above claim in front of your government, they would not reject it outright. First they will check your background and then they will do some basic research, contact various departments to find out if anything like this has been reported. In a democracy, like that of America, every vote counts and so does every voice. I read something from a report on 9/11, which stated that some officials in the defense department had actually raised the doubt about those horrible attacks a couple of months before they happened. But, not enough was done to disprove those claims. Now, see what happened due to that. So, these days it is extremely important for both parties to generate enough evidence to be really certain of a situation. We just can't deny something because we are not willing to disprove it. That's much like medieval autocracy. In the above case, if the person reporting is somewhat reliable but does not have enough proof then the authority hearing the claim of this person should not totally ignore his claim, but should go around trying to gather proof for either viewpoint. If the authority just keeps denying claims with less proof then things could easily go out of hand.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Well, I don't know anything about how this entire incident happened in that book or how many people actually swore to have seen such a thing happen. Without knowing all this, it is hard to comment on it. Moreover, proving that God exists is not some kind of burden on anyone of us. I don't spend sleepless nights thinking about how to prove it to the world. It's a personal quest. It is about proving it to yourself. And once that is done, you can tell the world about it. And, if they don't want to believe you, it's their problem. Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji never forced anyone to believe in God or His Baani.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Well, if I've more people backing my argument and you've less number to support your claim then I suppose you will bear the burden about proving His non-existence. That is how society works. The vice versa could also be true. If the entire human race supports your argument then I'll be under a lot of pressure to prove otherwise. But, that won't budge me from my position. I'll continue with my quest and will first prove His existence to myself. Once that is done, I'll share it with the rest of humanity. And, I'll leave it to them to decide whether I'm right or wrong because I would have got what I wanted. That's the reason why Satgurus don't quarrel over the existence of God because they've already united with Him. Now, if I win a lottery worth a million dollars and someone is not ready to believe that I did then that's not my problem. I've the lottery and that is what matters. I can just keep insisting you to at least try to walk the path to God. Then again, it is upto you to actually walk this talk. It reminds me of that dialogue from "The Matrix", when Morpheus tells Neo, "I can only show you the door, you are the one who has to walk through it." This is something that our Satgurus have been telling us for ages and we could never follow them. I was quite surprised to hear the philosophy of the great Saints in a hollywood movie! And, I guess very few of us would have attributed that statement to those great Saints.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Yes, ordinary humans like us are indeed imperfect. But our Satgurus were not ordinary humans. You might refer to them as the awakened ones. It's true that our Gurus were born as humans. How else could they come and communicate with you? If they came as apparitions to address humankind then half of humanity would get frightened and go into hiding! If they came in animal bodies, they wouldn't be able to communicate with us like normal humans do. See, when you want to talk to a little baby and grab its attention then a good way is to actually talk like the baby does. If you talk like an adult with a little baby then it'll probably not understand what you're saying. Try it some time. I've tried it many times with my nephews! And the communication is much better when I talk to them with their style and their level of understanding. Every Satguru has to be born as a human and then prove to humans that even being a human one can attain the state of eternal bliss. That's the reason why our Satgurus stressed on the fact that there is no need to leave human society to find God. One can partake in society and can also walk the path that leads to God. Now, let's talk about the great Saakhi of our Satguruji that you mentioned. The Sikh that Satguruji addressed was Bhai Kanhaiyaaji who was a great devotee of God and a follower of Satguruji. Satguruji did not meet him in the battlefield while he was giving water to wounded muslims. It was the other Sikhs on the battlefield who went and complained to Satguruji that Bhai Kanhaiyaaji had lost his mind and was feeding wounded muslims with water that was meant for wounded Sikh soldiers. That pleased Satguruji a lot and he summoned Bhai Kanhaiyaaji later on. The other Sikhs were thinking that Satguruji would oppose what Bhai Kanhaiyaaji did, but they were thinking like all of us ordinary humans. Our Satguruji was a superhuman. I call Him that because he was a perfect mind and soul within a human body. He questioned Bhai Kanhaiyaaji NOT because He failed to understand what Bhaiji did. He questioned Bhaiji to confirm that Bhaiji's charitable act did not cause his ego to swell. Bhaiji responded by saying that every human being deserved an equal service from him, be it Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or anyone else. This humble submission of Bhaiji pleased Satguruji and he embraced Bhaiji and blessed him. He also gave Bhaiji a first-aid kit, so that he could serve every wounded soldier by also treating their wounds, apart from feeding them water. Do you now think that this was an idea that Satguruji didn't know of? This is what Satguruji taught all his followers, but only someone as humble as Bhai Kanhaiyaaji could grasp it to the core. Of course, Satguruji might not have told him to go and serve water to wounded muslims, but Satguruji definitely preached His Sikhs to serve all of humanity by setting many examples. The first example was already set by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, when he considered Bhai Mardaana (a Muslim) and Bhai Baala (a Hindu), both to be his brothers and that is how he always addressed them. He didn't even call them His disciples, that is how we refer to them. And the Rabbi Jyot in Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji is same as that of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji! Bhai Kanhaiyaaji had the discerning wisdom to implement Satguruji's teachings. That's the reason Satguruji was very pleased with Bhaiji. I feel proud to proclaim that the foundation of the Red-Cross was laid down by Bhai Kanhaiyaaji under the guidance of Satguru Gobind Singh Ji! This is how history records what happened. The way you've mentioned it might give a totally different meaning to it. According to your description, Bhaiji came up with a new idea, which Satguruji was not aware of. Infact, Bhaiji was a true disciple who could apply Satguruji's wisdom in his day-to-day life. No, we can't go beyond our Satgurus, we can definitely become like our Satgurus because they have already reached that state of perfect bliss. They already know everything that has to be known. It is just that they don't flaunt it like many scientists would because Satgurus don't have an ego. They don't consider themselves to be different from the Creation. They consider themselves part of the whole, which is God. The above Saakhi does not in any way prove that our Satguruji was imperfect as you interpreted it. Veerji, I hope you now understand the above Saakhi in the right context. I feel you need to learn more about Gurbani and Sikh history without the mindset to prove something or someone as imperfect.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Again you've come up with the same argument in a different way. Firstly, I never said that perfection is consistent in space and time. I actually said that a perfect phenomenon or machine is consistent in space and time, which means that the phenomena that occur in nature based on universal laws are always consistent and that the machines we make are dead things which are subject to the same laws and hence even they function the way they are meant to. And I asked you to compare such perfect phenomena with ourselves. I wanted you to know that we ordinary humans are not perfect because our behavious keep changing in space and time, due to which they are not really predictable. Now, consider this, scientists are able to predict a total solar eclipse many many years before it actually occurs becuase they understand the perfect behaviour of various heavenly bodies, whose positions they are able to extrapolate and determine an exact time when the eclipse will happen. Now, can they predict how you're going to behave tomorrow morning or next month or an year later? In the case of ordinary humans like us, our behaviours are very unpredictable. Our stances keep changing every now and then. That's the reason I called ordinary humans imperfect. If you read everything about the lives of our Satgurus, you will never find even a single instance when their behaviour would have become haywire or out of control. I could confidently say that whatever the case, our Satgurus will never change and will always remain that same fountain of mercy. Indeed, they could surprise us by setting new examples, but their behaviours will always remain consistent, not controlled by the vagaries of the mind. And that defines a perfect human. Hence, I refer to our Satgurus as perfect humans or superhumans. I hope you understand. Now, you say that our Satgurus were born and they died and that they were subject to the perfect laws of nature and science like every other human being. So, how does that prove that they were imperfect? They came to show us that death of the body is not the end. That there is another reality which we are totally unaware of. Okay, tell me, how do you learn to play a musical instrument. Suppose you go to a master who can play the Tabla. Would you be able to play it if he just keeps giving you verbal instructions or writes something down on a book? If he does that then you'll not accept him as your master, isn't it? You'll first want your master to play the Tabla and show you that it is possible even for you to play it if you follow his advice. This will make you confident and you'll think to yourself, "If my master can do it being a human like me, even I can try to achieve the same feat." Similarly, if Satgurus were to just announce in our dreams that we've to do this and this and behave in a certain manner and do certain things that will reveal to us the ultimate reality then we wouldn't be convinced. That's the reason they take birth as humans and are affected by the elements just like we are, and set examples through consistent behaviour throughout their lives. This encourages even ordinary humans to try the same things. And during their lives they tell people that death is not the end and there is a way out. They teach people all the practices that would reveal to them the ultimate reality even while they are in their human form. And, do you know that this awakening of the soul within the human body happens only while we are alive. Once we are in the awakened state then death cannot affect us. We will observe death destroying our body like a third person! But, it is very important to become truly awake to the other reality before we die. Now, death can only take our bodies and not our soul. Other activities apart, all we have to do in life is to realize our soul, that's all. Now, another thing I want to tell you is that there is nothing imperfect about death. It is a perfect phenomenon. It is consistent and happens to every living being some time or the other. Because Satgurus take up a human body they've got to leave it too. I don't see how that makes them imperfect. They were here to convince us that being imperfect humans there is a possibility for us to become perfect. And they proved this by taking up the human form and living and dying just like we do, but being consistent all the time. And, no, proving of God's existence does not rely just on faith. I've explained it many times before to you that there is a path that our Satgurus have laid down for us. If we walk it then we will definitely find all the proofs. Just because some great thinker did not find God in his lifetime, doesn't mean that God does not exist. I have told you before that it is a personal quest. Nobody can write down some proof on a piece of paper that would convince you about the existence of God. That would be foolish. Okay, how does it matter if Darwin didn't find God or Bertrand Russel didn't find God? I ask you a simple question, would you want to know God if He exists? Well, if you do then you must follow your Satgurus. Put all your bias in a locker for some time and try to walk their path. There is nothing to lose in it. You would atleast have lived a good life based on a great set of principles.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Dear Veerji, again, I do not ask you to believe in God without a proof. I am just asking you to prove it to yourself. Nobody can prove it to you. It is just not possible. Persist on the path of the Satgurus and the divine fruits will be revealed. And I can promise you that if you live your life based on the principles of Satguruji then your entire life will be very fruitful and your mind will not be in turmoil. One way to prove a theory is to assume that it is right first and then find out things to support our assumption. Similarly, for now, just simply assume that God exists, don't believe it, nobody is forcing you to. And then using the means that our Satgurus have provided you, try to prove God's existence to yourself. That's all! Your life will NEVER turn into a mess. There are many people across the world who practice Meditation, Simran and Yoga without first believing in God. That is not an entry criteria into the religious/spiritual fold. If somebody says that to you then (s)he is utterly wrong. Don't believe such people. And don't believe anyone blindly, please don't. It is not required. Just try to understand and follow the instructions of our Satgurus with an unbiased mind, that's all. You will automatically metamorphosize into a better human being and God will just come as a bonus from Satguru (Gur Parsaad). No blind faith will be required!</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Indeed there are more militant skeptics in the world than people who would try to convince you of something without being militant. Whoever said that probably met only those ordinary humans who understood their Satgurus teachings only vaguely and became militant whenever (s)he raised a doubt against those theories. If this person had met Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed or Satguru Nanak Dev Ji things would have been totally different for her/him! Well, I can assure you that I don't toss and turn around all night thinking about proving God's existence to others. I know the path and I'm walking it. Things are being revealed slowly and silently. And, I'm happy to start at an early age, when my body is more supportive of my meditative efforts. Now, even Gautam Buddha had problems meditating at the age of 80 due to severe back pain. But it didn't matter to him because He had already attained Nirvana when he was 28! The body's state didn't matter at all after everything was attained! And, frankly, I don't intend to intensify my quest at that age, I already have back problems and I don't know what will transpire with me if I happen to live to that ripe old age! So, I'm making the most of the present.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Anyway, I hope I've advanced this conversation in a positive manner.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Bhul Chuk Dee Khima Mangdey Hoe...</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="snavneet, post: 4042, member: 334"] [size=2][b][color=red]Sat Sri Akaal Pyareyo[/color][/b], I'm enjoying this conversation. Let's carry on! Others please join us. (Waiting for your reply to my previous post too!) Dear Veerji, firstly we are not talking about a legal case when we are trying to prove/disprove the existence of God. No jury is going to decide who is right between the both of us. We will have to keep debating unless we reach some agreement. Neither am I committing a crime by saying that God exists and nor are you by saying that He does not exist. So, don't compare it to legal cases. And, you did not reply on the other point I made based on sociology, according to which, the burden would lie on the group with the lesser number of supporters. Now that is what usually happens in real-time debates, like we had during our school time. Both groups would put forth their points during a debate, which were later judged by the audience through voting. We never needed supporting documents during a debate. This is quite different from a legal case, isn't it? Nobody is being incriminated over here. Nobody's morality or right character is being questioned here. Hence, it cannot be compared to a legal case. After a debate ends and the voting phase is over and if a candidate wins, it is because (s)he has more supporters. In case 51% of humanity supported my viewpoint that God exists and 49% supported your viewpoint then you would be under a larger burden to gather more support by whatever means possible. No jury can decide who is right amongst the two of us. I hope you understand. This is the precise reason that George Bush has been elected to be the president of America for the second term because he has more support. Even if you don't like his policies, he is still your president. No panel of juries decided whether his policies are right or wrong. He was elected by the people of America. The American society acted as the jury. So, while proving the existence of God, we are looking for such a support. We cannot take our argument to court because this has nothing legal or illegal in it. There is no law that stops someone from believing in something or the other. In the end, every human being has the right to believe in whatever (s)he wants. So, please don't compare this argument with legal ones. They do not fall in the same category. Now, let's consider a legal case, where person 1 has murdered person 2. In this case, only the law interferes. If person 1 can be associated with the crime, (s)he will be taken to court. In that case, the people who believe that person 1 did not commit the crime will have to come up with their supporting points. Even legal cases are not settled by dealing only with one party involved in the case. There is no question of burden of proof there. One group supporting person 1 might come out with a proof of his innocence following which the party incriminating him will have to bring forth a follow-up proof. In the end, the decision is taken based on who has more valid supporting proofs. That's the reason we have a prosecutor and a defender and both parties go looking for adequate support. It is not just one party that looks for proofs. And, you know, every legal case doesn't end with the right decision. Sometimes, this murderer who should be punished might be set free. So, our legal system is not perfect. You know when the decision was first made to crucify Jesus Christ, he was compared with a criminal called Barabbas, who had committed many heinous crimes. The authorities decided to ask the people as to who should be released from prison based on their policy of releasing one person every year, if the public desired. They asked, "Should Jesus who just calls himself the king of the Jews be released?" or "Should Barabbas, who committed so many heinous crimes be released?" Now, since majority of the Jewish priests hated Christ, they'd already convinced their followers that Christ should be crucified for JUST SAYING that he was their king! They could have easily considered him to be a crazy person like Herod did, but they decided to crucify him anyway. Now, I ask you, and please do answer. Who would you have selected to be released? I'm sure you wouldn't have supported Barabbas because he had murdered 100s of people and could harm society once again. Jesus was just saying something and had to suffer such immense torture due to what he said. Finally, it was the people that decided who should be released even though logic suggests that Barabbas shouldn't have been released in any case. Even though I felt that the incrimination of Jesus was wrong, I wouldn't have been able to save him because there wasn't enough support on my side. The democracies of today are not very different either, here every single person's vote counts. I vote for whichever candidate I like. Nobody can ask me to justify my decision. Nobody can ask me for proofs as to why I selected one candidate over another. Legal cases require physical proofs, social issues do not. And the belief in the existence of God is a social issue. That's the reason I keep saying that proof will not come from outside, it will come from within you. Our Gurus have told us that when the 9 doors of the body close, the 10th door opens, which reveals the whole Truth. Our Gurus have also explained to us about how we can find God. They have clearly stated that external quests will never reveal the soul and God. Now, when there is a method given by them, why don't we try to follow that too, to discover for ourselves if God exists or not. Don't be the person who sits at the edge of a river and keeps saying that the river is too shallow for my boat to float. Instead jump into it to find out for yourself. And, if you find that the riverbed is very shallow then forget it, carry on only with your science and live this life fully because you feel that we get to live only once. Who is forcing you to believe in God? What if the riverbed is really deep, you could then jump in with your boat and reach your ultimate destination. We should look at the argument from both perspectives by gaining enough knowledge of both. If we just keep learning more and more about science and compare it with our basic knowledge of religion then how could this comparison be considered fair? We should learn equally about both. You said earlier that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is of enormous value, but have you really explored it in the way you've explored or learnt about science. Our schools don't teach us much about religion and if they do, it's in a very shallow manner. But we keep learning science for 16 to 20 years of our education. It is natural that our views will be less biased towards God and religion. Even parents these days don't have enough time to learn about religion and teach their children any religious concepts. This is very very unfair towards religion. We are fools to let such a great library of knowledge fall into the hands of a few religious hypocrites and fanatics, who've created a very wrong impression of religion all over our modern world. Actually, as you already know, religion is meant to heal the world, it teaches you how to live your life completely. What is wrong in learning more about it? And, over that, you might get the bonus of discovering something more than what the world can give you. There's a chance that you could discover your soul and God. We've traded the most precious gem(religion) for stones(worldly knowledge). I've already answered to this in the above paragraph. Firstly, the quest for God is not a criminal proceeding. And secondly, if the prosecution does come up with one proof that incriminates the defendant then the defendant too has to come up with something to disprove the prosecutions claims. A legal case ends when one group fails to support its claims or when there is not enough viable evidence from both the groups. The final decision is taken by considering proofs from both groups. Now, let's consider your earlier statement about "Pink bunnies orbiting pluto". By using present day science, I could easily deceive you. Using image processing technology I could easily come up with photos of realistic bunnies orbiting pluto. Now, since I've the photos, you've no right to ask me how I got them. Now, it would be your turn to gather proofs against me. To disprove my claim, you would have to show the jury that making such photos is a sleight of hand and that you could do it too using computers. But, tell me, what if I've actually taken the photos of those bunnies? How will I ever be able to prove that they exist if science is easily able to create duplicates and refute my claims. Even if I brought photos and videos and hair samples of the bunnies you would still continue to refute my claims saying that it is easy to generate such proofs using present day science. To actually convince you that pink bunnies orbit pluto I will have to take you to that place. You will definitely not be convinced just with my proofs. So, to know if God exists, you will have to follow the techniques that our Satgurus have taught us. You will have to go to that place! You will never get convinced otherwise. Now, even if I could somehow ask Guru Nanak Dev Ji to appear in front of your eyes and talk to you and convince you about God, you will try your best to prove all that to be false. You will not even believe your senses. This is the reason that God does not reveal Himself to every Tom, {censored} and Harry. No offense meant, I can assure you I'm one of these too! But, since I can't trust even my senses, I've to reach that level of perfection where a new sense is revealed to me. A sense that cannot be deceived. The sense that comes through our souls. Let me give you a crude and earthly example. Now, suppose you like watching movies and are very eager to see the next Matrix movie. And suppose I saw it before you and spoiled everything for you by telling you the story, then you would not really look forward to watch it with the same zeal and enthusiasm. Instead, if you experience it for yourself firsthand, without knowing anything about it, you'll enjoy it a lot more, won't you? So, if I just told you that the movie is really good and you should watch it for sure then nothing is spoilt for you. You'll still have to go to the theatre or rent a video to watch it and get convinced on your own. In the same way, our Satgurus have told us everything about how good the final revelation is and how to get there, but they did not tell us what we would sense or feel once we reach there. That would spoil everything for us. Experiencing something firsthand is something totally different. And, infact in the case of God, the experience is different for everyone and the bliss never ends. We enjoy in every which way and that too for eternity! Now, what are you seeking in this world - satisfaction, happiness, enjoyment, peace, end of suffering, etc. Our Satgurus have told us that we all deserve this and we could get it forever and ever! Then what is wrong in giving it a shot. What is wrong in believing them for once and walking the path. You already believe that their knowledge can heal humanity. Then, why not actually walk the path. Why not do Simran and Meditate and follow their suggestions and attain that perfect state of bliss? To me all this is very exciting. And I wish that you too start feeling the same way. I haven't reached there, but I know that it is my ultimate destination. Then why not get on with it right now, Veerji! For once, just forget all that reasoning about science and religion. No need to compare them. Use science for survival and use religion to reach the ultimate bliss. I don't see anything wrong in that. How can anyone come up with a theory and proclaim it to the world without something to support the claims?! If I came up with a new theory and wanted the world to know about it, I wouldn't come forward without any basic proofs. And, if you talk about Mathematics and Science, I can assure you that I can come up with any theory I want and I can challenge you to disprove it with only some basic points to support my claim. That is how science has progressed so far. Isaac Newton came up with his theory on gravity and challenged his peers to disprove it. Nobody could firmly disprove it and they decided to accept it for the time being. Then Einstein could challenge it and disprove it 200 years later so now we've got to learn Einstein's theory of Gravitation! Funny, isn't it? Look at all of us ordinary humans, we just assume that some theory is right if we can't disprove it! My dear, if Einstein hadn't disproved it by taking the burden of disproving the earlier theory on himself, we wouldn't be flying such highly precise robotic missions to Mars and beyond. During my school days, I remember proving many theorems in geometry by assuming that what the theorem states is wrong and then trying to prove it wrong. If I failed to prove it to be wrong then it had to be right. In science or math, many theories have been proved by trying to prove first that what they say is wrong! And, if you ask me I remember many such simple theories. No one will say that without some justification. If I were to claim something like that then I would have some supporting argument. I might atleast have to tell them that I overheard a reliable Chinese official saying something like this. Let's leave that to the spies. They are meant to gather proof for the government. And, these days it is not safe to deny even such small claims. With people like Osama, hellbent on attacking so many nations, it is our duty to explore even the smallest of clues. I'm sure if you made the above claim in front of your government, they would not reject it outright. First they will check your background and then they will do some basic research, contact various departments to find out if anything like this has been reported. In a democracy, like that of America, every vote counts and so does every voice. I read something from a report on 9/11, which stated that some officials in the defense department had actually raised the doubt about those horrible attacks a couple of months before they happened. But, not enough was done to disprove those claims. Now, see what happened due to that. So, these days it is extremely important for both parties to generate enough evidence to be really certain of a situation. We just can't deny something because we are not willing to disprove it. That's much like medieval autocracy. In the above case, if the person reporting is somewhat reliable but does not have enough proof then the authority hearing the claim of this person should not totally ignore his claim, but should go around trying to gather proof for either viewpoint. If the authority just keeps denying claims with less proof then things could easily go out of hand. Well, I don't know anything about how this entire incident happened in that book or how many people actually swore to have seen such a thing happen. Without knowing all this, it is hard to comment on it. Moreover, proving that God exists is not some kind of burden on anyone of us. I don't spend sleepless nights thinking about how to prove it to the world. It's a personal quest. It is about proving it to yourself. And once that is done, you can tell the world about it. And, if they don't want to believe you, it's their problem. Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji never forced anyone to believe in God or His Baani. Well, if I've more people backing my argument and you've less number to support your claim then I suppose you will bear the burden about proving His non-existence. That is how society works. The vice versa could also be true. If the entire human race supports your argument then I'll be under a lot of pressure to prove otherwise. But, that won't budge me from my position. I'll continue with my quest and will first prove His existence to myself. Once that is done, I'll share it with the rest of humanity. And, I'll leave it to them to decide whether I'm right or wrong because I would have got what I wanted. That's the reason why Satgurus don't quarrel over the existence of God because they've already united with Him. Now, if I win a lottery worth a million dollars and someone is not ready to believe that I did then that's not my problem. I've the lottery and that is what matters. I can just keep insisting you to at least try to walk the path to God. Then again, it is upto you to actually walk this talk. It reminds me of that dialogue from "The Matrix", when Morpheus tells Neo, "I can only show you the door, you are the one who has to walk through it." This is something that our Satgurus have been telling us for ages and we could never follow them. I was quite surprised to hear the philosophy of the great Saints in a hollywood movie! And, I guess very few of us would have attributed that statement to those great Saints. Yes, ordinary humans like us are indeed imperfect. But our Satgurus were not ordinary humans. You might refer to them as the awakened ones. It's true that our Gurus were born as humans. How else could they come and communicate with you? If they came as apparitions to address humankind then half of humanity would get frightened and go into hiding! If they came in animal bodies, they wouldn't be able to communicate with us like normal humans do. See, when you want to talk to a little baby and grab its attention then a good way is to actually talk like the baby does. If you talk like an adult with a little baby then it'll probably not understand what you're saying. Try it some time. I've tried it many times with my nephews! And the communication is much better when I talk to them with their style and their level of understanding. Every Satguru has to be born as a human and then prove to humans that even being a human one can attain the state of eternal bliss. That's the reason why our Satgurus stressed on the fact that there is no need to leave human society to find God. One can partake in society and can also walk the path that leads to God. Now, let's talk about the great Saakhi of our Satguruji that you mentioned. The Sikh that Satguruji addressed was Bhai Kanhaiyaaji who was a great devotee of God and a follower of Satguruji. Satguruji did not meet him in the battlefield while he was giving water to wounded muslims. It was the other Sikhs on the battlefield who went and complained to Satguruji that Bhai Kanhaiyaaji had lost his mind and was feeding wounded muslims with water that was meant for wounded Sikh soldiers. That pleased Satguruji a lot and he summoned Bhai Kanhaiyaaji later on. The other Sikhs were thinking that Satguruji would oppose what Bhai Kanhaiyaaji did, but they were thinking like all of us ordinary humans. Our Satguruji was a superhuman. I call Him that because he was a perfect mind and soul within a human body. He questioned Bhai Kanhaiyaaji NOT because He failed to understand what Bhaiji did. He questioned Bhaiji to confirm that Bhaiji's charitable act did not cause his ego to swell. Bhaiji responded by saying that every human being deserved an equal service from him, be it Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or anyone else. This humble submission of Bhaiji pleased Satguruji and he embraced Bhaiji and blessed him. He also gave Bhaiji a first-aid kit, so that he could serve every wounded soldier by also treating their wounds, apart from feeding them water. Do you now think that this was an idea that Satguruji didn't know of? This is what Satguruji taught all his followers, but only someone as humble as Bhai Kanhaiyaaji could grasp it to the core. Of course, Satguruji might not have told him to go and serve water to wounded muslims, but Satguruji definitely preached His Sikhs to serve all of humanity by setting many examples. The first example was already set by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, when he considered Bhai Mardaana (a Muslim) and Bhai Baala (a Hindu), both to be his brothers and that is how he always addressed them. He didn't even call them His disciples, that is how we refer to them. And the Rabbi Jyot in Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji is same as that of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji! Bhai Kanhaiyaaji had the discerning wisdom to implement Satguruji's teachings. That's the reason Satguruji was very pleased with Bhaiji. I feel proud to proclaim that the foundation of the Red-Cross was laid down by Bhai Kanhaiyaaji under the guidance of Satguru Gobind Singh Ji! This is how history records what happened. The way you've mentioned it might give a totally different meaning to it. According to your description, Bhaiji came up with a new idea, which Satguruji was not aware of. Infact, Bhaiji was a true disciple who could apply Satguruji's wisdom in his day-to-day life. No, we can't go beyond our Satgurus, we can definitely become like our Satgurus because they have already reached that state of perfect bliss. They already know everything that has to be known. It is just that they don't flaunt it like many scientists would because Satgurus don't have an ego. They don't consider themselves to be different from the Creation. They consider themselves part of the whole, which is God. The above Saakhi does not in any way prove that our Satguruji was imperfect as you interpreted it. Veerji, I hope you now understand the above Saakhi in the right context. I feel you need to learn more about Gurbani and Sikh history without the mindset to prove something or someone as imperfect. Again you've come up with the same argument in a different way. Firstly, I never said that perfection is consistent in space and time. I actually said that a perfect phenomenon or machine is consistent in space and time, which means that the phenomena that occur in nature based on universal laws are always consistent and that the machines we make are dead things which are subject to the same laws and hence even they function the way they are meant to. And I asked you to compare such perfect phenomena with ourselves. I wanted you to know that we ordinary humans are not perfect because our behavious keep changing in space and time, due to which they are not really predictable. Now, consider this, scientists are able to predict a total solar eclipse many many years before it actually occurs becuase they understand the perfect behaviour of various heavenly bodies, whose positions they are able to extrapolate and determine an exact time when the eclipse will happen. Now, can they predict how you're going to behave tomorrow morning or next month or an year later? In the case of ordinary humans like us, our behaviours are very unpredictable. Our stances keep changing every now and then. That's the reason I called ordinary humans imperfect. If you read everything about the lives of our Satgurus, you will never find even a single instance when their behaviour would have become haywire or out of control. I could confidently say that whatever the case, our Satgurus will never change and will always remain that same fountain of mercy. Indeed, they could surprise us by setting new examples, but their behaviours will always remain consistent, not controlled by the vagaries of the mind. And that defines a perfect human. Hence, I refer to our Satgurus as perfect humans or superhumans. I hope you understand. Now, you say that our Satgurus were born and they died and that they were subject to the perfect laws of nature and science like every other human being. So, how does that prove that they were imperfect? They came to show us that death of the body is not the end. That there is another reality which we are totally unaware of. Okay, tell me, how do you learn to play a musical instrument. Suppose you go to a master who can play the Tabla. Would you be able to play it if he just keeps giving you verbal instructions or writes something down on a book? If he does that then you'll not accept him as your master, isn't it? You'll first want your master to play the Tabla and show you that it is possible even for you to play it if you follow his advice. This will make you confident and you'll think to yourself, "If my master can do it being a human like me, even I can try to achieve the same feat." Similarly, if Satgurus were to just announce in our dreams that we've to do this and this and behave in a certain manner and do certain things that will reveal to us the ultimate reality then we wouldn't be convinced. That's the reason they take birth as humans and are affected by the elements just like we are, and set examples through consistent behaviour throughout their lives. This encourages even ordinary humans to try the same things. And during their lives they tell people that death is not the end and there is a way out. They teach people all the practices that would reveal to them the ultimate reality even while they are in their human form. And, do you know that this awakening of the soul within the human body happens only while we are alive. Once we are in the awakened state then death cannot affect us. We will observe death destroying our body like a third person! But, it is very important to become truly awake to the other reality before we die. Now, death can only take our bodies and not our soul. Other activities apart, all we have to do in life is to realize our soul, that's all. Now, another thing I want to tell you is that there is nothing imperfect about death. It is a perfect phenomenon. It is consistent and happens to every living being some time or the other. Because Satgurus take up a human body they've got to leave it too. I don't see how that makes them imperfect. They were here to convince us that being imperfect humans there is a possibility for us to become perfect. And they proved this by taking up the human form and living and dying just like we do, but being consistent all the time. And, no, proving of God's existence does not rely just on faith. I've explained it many times before to you that there is a path that our Satgurus have laid down for us. If we walk it then we will definitely find all the proofs. Just because some great thinker did not find God in his lifetime, doesn't mean that God does not exist. I have told you before that it is a personal quest. Nobody can write down some proof on a piece of paper that would convince you about the existence of God. That would be foolish. Okay, how does it matter if Darwin didn't find God or Bertrand Russel didn't find God? I ask you a simple question, would you want to know God if He exists? Well, if you do then you must follow your Satgurus. Put all your bias in a locker for some time and try to walk their path. There is nothing to lose in it. You would atleast have lived a good life based on a great set of principles. Dear Veerji, again, I do not ask you to believe in God without a proof. I am just asking you to prove it to yourself. Nobody can prove it to you. It is just not possible. Persist on the path of the Satgurus and the divine fruits will be revealed. And I can promise you that if you live your life based on the principles of Satguruji then your entire life will be very fruitful and your mind will not be in turmoil. One way to prove a theory is to assume that it is right first and then find out things to support our assumption. Similarly, for now, just simply assume that God exists, don't believe it, nobody is forcing you to. And then using the means that our Satgurus have provided you, try to prove God's existence to yourself. That's all! Your life will NEVER turn into a mess. There are many people across the world who practice Meditation, Simran and Yoga without first believing in God. That is not an entry criteria into the religious/spiritual fold. If somebody says that to you then (s)he is utterly wrong. Don't believe such people. And don't believe anyone blindly, please don't. It is not required. Just try to understand and follow the instructions of our Satgurus with an unbiased mind, that's all. You will automatically metamorphosize into a better human being and God will just come as a bonus from Satguru (Gur Parsaad). No blind faith will be required! Indeed there are more militant skeptics in the world than people who would try to convince you of something without being militant. Whoever said that probably met only those ordinary humans who understood their Satgurus teachings only vaguely and became militant whenever (s)he raised a doubt against those theories. If this person had met Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed or Satguru Nanak Dev Ji things would have been totally different for her/him! Well, I can assure you that I don't toss and turn around all night thinking about proving God's existence to others. I know the path and I'm walking it. Things are being revealed slowly and silently. And, I'm happy to start at an early age, when my body is more supportive of my meditative efforts. Now, even Gautam Buddha had problems meditating at the age of 80 due to severe back pain. But it didn't matter to him because He had already attained Nirvana when he was 28! The body's state didn't matter at all after everything was attained! And, frankly, I don't intend to intensify my quest at that age, I already have back problems and I don't know what will transpire with me if I happen to live to that ripe old age! So, I'm making the most of the present. Anyway, I hope I've advanced this conversation in a positive manner. Bhul Chuk Dee Khima Mangdey Hoe... [/size] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Burden Of Proof ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top