• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Sikhi Does Waheguru Intervene?

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
continued from previous post as I ran out of 3000 characters.

ਜਲ ਤੇ ਊਠਹਿ ਅਨਿਕ ਤਰੰਗਾ
जल ते ऊठहि अनिक तरंगा ॥
Jal ṯe ūṯẖėh anik ṯarangā.
Countless waves rise up from the water.
(Here again, it's refering to something solid... physical... so it's speaking about form and not states of mind. It`s also using water as an analogy. The ocean is the truth just as one pool of conscious energy... out of which countless waves rise up. But the waves are still all the ocean, even though they seem separate from each other they are all of the same source, the ocean. You can`t point at a wave and say ``that is not the ocean``.)
ਕਨਿਕ ਭੂਖਨ ਕੀਨੇ ਬਹੁ ਰੰਗਾ
कनिक भूखन कीने बहु रंगा ॥
Kanik bẖūkẖan kīne baho rangā.
Jewels and ornaments of many different forms are fashioned from gold.
(But they are still the gold from which they were created...again it outright stated earlier that the source, or what remains after these different characters or forms are gone, is Ik Onkar not our mind or maan)
ਬੀਜੁ ਬੀਜਿ ਦੇਖਿਓ ਬਹੁ ਪਰਕਾਰਾ
बीजु बीजि देखिओ बहु परकारा ॥
Bīj bīj ḏekẖi▫o baho parkārā.
I have seen seeds of all kinds being planted -
ਫਲ ਪਾਕੇ ਤੇ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੨॥
फल पाके ते एकंकारा ॥२॥
Fal pāke ṯe ekankārā. ||2||
when the fruit ripens, the seeds appear in the same form as the original. ||2||
(Here we are seeing description of reflection or expression of the source. It is a common belief in ALL spiritual paths that creation is a direct reflection of the creator. As Above so Below, Made in God's 'image', etc. is not referring to a literal physical copy - as physical is not the base of the Universe but energy is. So what is being reflected as the source? Creative potential / Consciousness... as humans we posses creative potential as the Creator. Just as seeds contain the creative potential of the parent plant. They grow and become as the original, eventuially creating their own seeds which again repeat the creative process. But as we have seen above we are only reflections... we are merely characters being played by the ONE we are not the source but just a reflection of that source. All is as a play where the same one actor is playing ALL the parts, and has created the play. --Gurbani also equates it to a chessboard, where *he* is the board, and also all the pieces AND the players!)
ਸਹਸ ਘਟਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਆਕਾਸੁ
सहस घटा महि एकु आकासु ॥
Sahas gẖatā mėh ek ākās.
The one sky is reflected in thousands of water jugs,
ਘਟ ਫੂਟੇ ਤੇ ਓਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਗਾਸੁ
घट फूटे ते ओही प्रगासु ॥
Gẖat fūte ṯe ohī pargās.
but when the jugs are broken, only the sky remains.
(Again, you can see many skies reflected in different forms, but only ONE sky exists... it's another comparison to show us how there is only ONE. I can't see how this is speaking of only states of mind...)
ਭਰਮ ਲੋਭ ਮੋਹ ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਕਾਰ
भरम लोभ मोह माइआ विकार ॥
Bẖaram lobẖ moh mā▫i▫ā vikār.
Doubt comes from greed, emotional attachment and the corruption of Maya.
(Doubt about this truth to reality, comes from our attachment to that which is not real... the material physical world and our attachment to these false identities as the characters)
ਭ੍ਰਮ ਛੂਟੇ ਤੇ ਏਕੰਕਾਰ ॥੩॥
भ्रम छूटे ते एकंकार ॥३॥
Bẖaram cẖẖūte ṯe ekankār. ||3||
Freed from doubt, one realizes the One Lord alone. ||3||
(So... after it tells us about ONEness and how the characters are false, and that there is only One actor, God... it tells us that freed from doubt we will realize the One *Lord* alone. The usage of the word Braham is very specific that it's speaking of knowledge of Creator here and not our mind or maan. If we were to take your meaning and apply states of mind and meism to the whole shabad, then what is it that it is saying we are realizing?? Ourselves alone?? But it's using a term understood to mean God / Creator - Bahram. To me that STILL points to us collectively being the Creator!)
ਓਹੁ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਬਿਨਸਤ ਨਾਹੀ
ओहु अबिनासी बिनसत नाही ॥
Oh abẖināsī binsaṯ nāhī.
He is imperishable; He will never pass away.
(The truth behind ALL of us - the characters - is the same ONE consciousness God, who is imperishible, lives beyond the characters, will never die even when the 'costumes are removed')
ਨਾ ਕੋ ਆਵੈ ਨਾ ਕੋ ਜਾਹੀ
ना को आवै ना को जाही ॥
Nā ko āvai nā ko jāhī.
He does not come, and He does not go.
(Whereas the characters are transient, the actor is not)
ਗੁਰਿ ਪੂਰੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਲੁ ਧੋਈ
गुरि पूरै हउमै मलु धोई ॥
Gur pūrai ha▫umai mal ḏẖo▫ī.
The Perfect Guru has washed away the filth of ego.
(Ego is the false sense of identity of these characters, we know it's speaking of the character identities because that's the whole point of the shabad.. these false 'forms' we are associating with.. we remove the Ego, and recognize the actor underneath is really the ONE and is the same ONE for ALL as stated in the previous lines freed from doubt we realize the ONE Lord alone, which we were told earlier was the actor playing ALL the characters (us or even if you want to interpret it as meisms or states of mind - they still lead to the same conclusion) and the word used was a word which was understood to mean Creator Braham, and not a word used to mean `mind` such as maan... so to me - and many scholars - it`s not speaking about mere states of min... its speaking about God. The word haumai, means literally selfishness, and no matter which way you look at it, selfishness is caused by separation of yourself from the ONE, or connectedness from the whole... duality. Because it`s this thinking that we are spearate from each other that creates greed - this I am better than you, I want etc. But we are told in this shabad that it`s the same ONE actor, beneath all of us. It wouldn`t make sense to apply it to a single entity and mere states of mind, as then the whole idea of ONEness doesn`t even make sense! In fact removing meisms and false states of mind, you would still be left with just YOU - no connection to all others... thusactually reinforcing this isea of ME ME ME as something separate! The way to removethe filth of ego or haumai is to realize we are not separate entitiethat is what is false! Duality is false. I can`t conceive how it would be speaking only about us as individuals and our states of mind, without recognizing that we are all ONE. Especially since it uses strong words to describe what remins after we get rid of the ego, the characters... Ik Onkar and Bahram - words used to describe the Creator!)
ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੇਰੀ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੪॥੧॥
कहु नानक मेरी परम गति होई ॥४॥१॥
Kaho Nānak merī param gaṯ ho▫ī. ||4||1||
Says Nanak, I have obtained the supreme status. ||4||1||
(The supreme status being realization of the above)
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Also my understanding of the relationship of observer to universe comes from Quantum Physics, and an insaitable appetite for the weird things in science, but when I read Gurbani I can easily see how it is referring to the same principles!

This article might give a better understanding than I can explain (http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse)... I am not a science writer, so it`s difficult to explain the implications of the double slit experiment, and even more, the results of a more comprehensive experiment that suggests we also shapwhat happened in the pastby obseation! I always had this feeling that we create as we observe. It actually crossed my mind long before I was into quantum physics that `what if`when we had primitive measuring devices, and could only see limited stars and no galaxies as of yet, that those galaxies didn`t actually exist until we looked a`observed them? Kind of like again yes a dream... when Itravel down a road in my dream, is what`s at the other end of the road already created or do I create it as I g while I am dreaming it? I always kind of put that thinking to the Univserse as well so when quantum physics seems to agree with it, its a bit awe inducing! What the experiments showed were that photons received from a distant quasar, when measured showed the same behaviour... collapse of the wave function... as the double slit experiment. The thing is, these photons from the quasar would have had to `decide`to pass through one lens or the other (galaxies in between which acted as lenses focusing them) which were many many light years away! This means the photons had to decide LONG before we set up the experiment, in some cases long before humans would have been on earth! And without observation, every time they behaved as waves... this is significant! It means that our conscious observation caused something to occur thousands of years in the past... that is, whther the photons acted as waves or particles!! So the big question is did the quasar even exist at all until we observed it?? The suggestion and implication of the experiment is no it did not! And this is from prominent physicists!

In fact the idea is that the whole universe is existing as merely this big pool of infinite probabilities, until it`s observed into existence by a conscious observer. Yes this even implies that when you look away from something, it collapses into its wave function! Creepy and weird! So then, if observation is required for reality to even exist, then who is doing the observing?? Remember that the physical brain is part of this! WHO is observing your brain into being, so that your emergent property consciousness can exist at all?? This to me is strong evidence against the emergent property theory!!

Ishna Ji, if ALL is being observed into existence by ONE observer, then ALL is being continually influenced by that observer!
 

swarn bains

Poet
SPNer
Apr 8, 2012
774
187
God or the soul watches everything one does, but does not interfere. God bestowed everything one deserves and then on Hwe or She gave freedom to every being at birth and then on you get what you do. he is carefree (nirbhau) , he does not look over anyone's shoulders
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Harkiran ji,

We, as Sikhs should learn to agree to disagree rather than trying to impose our will with tooth and nail.

And I have said that before, I respect your Sikhi Path. I urge you to make an effort to respect others'.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Tejwant Ji you were the one who asked me to post the full shabad and explain in my understanding... so I was only responding to what you asked me to do. Otherwise I would not have spent so much time typing it up!
 

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,192
Harkiran Ji

Something I only just noticed, is your understanding of the word "Bẖaram".

The word in Gurmukhi is spelt with a bhabhaa () as in ਭਰਮ or ਭ੍ਰਮ and means as it says in the dictionary provided by www.srigranth.org.

Your definition "The usage of the word Braham is very specific that it's speaking of knowledge of Creator here and not our mind or maan. " would apply to the word "Brahm" ਬਰਮਾ which is with a babaa ਬ not a ਭ.

Unless I'm confused, which is quite likely. :)
 

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,192
Repeating the above shabad from Panna 736 with a different translation for variety more than anything:

ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ ਮਹਲਾ ਘਰੁ
Rāg sūhī mėhlā 5 gẖar 1
Rag Suhi. 5th Guru.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯgur parsāḏ.
There is but One God. By the True Guru's grace, He is obtained.

ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ
Bājīgar jaise bājī pā▫ī.
As an actor stages a play,

ਨਾਨਾ ਰੂਪ ਭੇਖ ਦਿਖਲਾਈ
Nānā rūp bẖekẖ ḏikẖlā▫ī.
and appears in many characters and guises,

ਸਾਂਗੁ ਉਤਾਰਿ ਥੰਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰਾ
Sāʼng uṯār thamiĥa▫o pāsārā.
similarly the Lord when He abandons His guise and ends His play,

ਤਬ ਏਕੋ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
Ŧab eko ekankārā. ||1||
then the one alone remains, the One alone.
For me the allegory of actor/characters is about form and formless - Nirgun and Sargun. Broader than people.

ਕਵਨ ਰੂਪ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿਓ ਬਿਨਸਾਇਓ
Kavan rūp ḏaristi▫o binsā▫i▫o.
How many characters appeared and disappeared?

ਕਤਹਿ ਗਇਓ ਉਹੁ ਕਤ ਤੇ ਆਇਓ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ
Kaṯėh ga▫i▫o uho kaṯ ṯe ā▫i▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Whither have they gone and whence did they come? Pause.
This is the Rahao verse. It opens my mind up, wondering from where everything comes and goes.

ਜਲ ਤੇ ਊਠਹਿ ਅਨਿਕ ਤਰੰਗਾ
Jal ṯe ūṯẖėh anik ṯarangā.
Good many waves arise in the water.

ਕਨਿਕ ਭੂਖਨ ਕੀਨੇ ਬਹੁ ਰੰਗਾ
Kanik bẖūkẖan kīne baho rangā.
Out of gold are made ornaments of many kinds.

ਬੀਜੁ ਬੀਜਿ ਦੇਖਿਓ ਬਹੁ ਪਰਕਾਰਾ
Bīj bīj ḏekẖi▫o baho parkārā.
I have seen seeds of many sorts being sown.

ਫਲ ਪਾਕੇ ਤੇ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੨॥
Fal pāke ṯe ekankārā. ||2||
When the fruit ripens, the seed appears in the same one form.
This verse expands upon the oneness of creation and Creator; that all forms come from one Source. We read this exact same message nightly on Panna 12: ਵਿਸੁਏ ਚਸਿਆ ਘੜੀਆ ਪਹਰਾ ਥਿਤੀ ਵਾਰੀ ਮਾਹੁ ਹੋਆ ॥ The seconds, minutes and hours, days, weeks and months, ਸੂਰਜੁ ਏਕੋ ਰੁਤਿ ਅਨੇਕ ॥ and the various seasons originate from the one sun; ਨਾਨਕ ਕਰਤੇ ਕੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਵੇਸ ॥੨॥੨॥ O Nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator. ||2||2||

ਸਹਸ ਘਟਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਆਕਾਸੁ
Sahas gẖatā mėh ek ākās.
In the thousand water-pots one sky is reflected.

ਘਟ ਫੂਟੇ ਤੇ ਓਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਗਾਸੁ
Gẖat fūte ṯe ohī pargās.
On the bursting of the water-pots, the sky pageant alone is left.

ਭਰਮ ਲੋਭ ਮੋਹ ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਕਾਰ
Bẖaram lobẖ moh mā▫i▫ā vikār.
Doubt is caused by the sins of avarice, worldly love and wealth.

ਭ੍ਰਮ ਛੂਟੇ ਤੇ ਏਕੰਕਾਰ ॥੩॥
Bẖaram cẖẖūte ṯe ekankār. ||3||
Freed from the illusion, the mortal assumes the one Lord's from.​

Burst your water-pots, cast off the illusion created by your vices, and recognise everything as One. In this state of mind, you assume the Lord's form, because you recognise here and now that you are completely and entirely One with Creator and creation everything is the Creator, including the creation, and including the illusion that you think of as 'yourself'.

Late edited addition: I really like what you said: (Doubt about this truth to reality, comes from our attachment to that which is not real...)

ਓਹੁ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਬਿਨਸਤ ਨਾਹੀ
Oh abẖināsī binsaṯ nāhī.
He, the Lord is imperishable and perishes not.

ਨਾ ਕੋ ਆਵੈ ਨਾ ਕੋ ਜਾਹੀ
Nā ko āvai nā ko jāhī.
He neither comes, nor does He go.

ਗੁਰਿ ਪੂਰੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਲੁ ਧੋਈ
Gur pūrai ha▫umai mal ḏẖo▫ī.
The perfect Guru has washed away the filth of my self-conceit.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੇਰੀ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੪॥੧॥
Kaho Nānak merī param gaṯ ho▫ī. ||4||1||
Says Nanak, I have obtained the supreme salvation.​

Haumai is the sense of "I/me" as being separate from the One. I think the term "ego" is problematic because it is a loaded term with a variety of meanings. Self-conceit is better. Washing away the sense of separateness brings the realisation of Oneness.

My understanding of the shabad is simple. Much like me, really. Haha

I crossed out a section above instead of deleting it as you may be reading it at the moment, bhainji, sorry!! I realised I hadn't expressed my thought clearly enough.
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Harkiran Ji

Something I only just noticed, is your understanding of the word "Bẖaram".

The word in Gurmukhi is spelt with a bhabhaa () as in ਭਰਮ or ਭ੍ਰਮ and means as it says in the dictionary provided by www.srigranth.org.

Your definition "The usage of the word Braham is very specific that it's speaking of knowledge of Creator here and not our mind or maan. " would apply to the word "Brahm" ਬਰਮਾ which is with a babaa ਬ not a ਭ.

Unless I'm confused, which is quite likely. :)

No you are right... I missed the extra a. Ik Onkar is the reference to God, while Bahram is what was causing the doubt... consequently the meaning of braham with a (vice brham) is skepticism (doubt) so that line was translated properly I just missed which word was pointing to God... I missed the Ik Onkar at the end... so it was saying skepticism or doubt is what is keeping us from realizing God. Freed from this skepticism, we find God/Creator alone. I found another meaning of that word also... as it's used in Hindi and Urdu both as well. And that is 'that illusion which keeps us from reality' so the meaning is either skepticism / doubt or that illusion which keeps us from reality, when that is removed, we see God alone. Which still makes perfect sense. I was typing all this at 7 am rushing before work, and thought I saw Brahm not Braham. But it doesn't really change the overall meaning... It's still saying when we remove the characters costumes / when we remove the doubt and skepticism, all that remains is Ik Onkar.... not our maan or mind. So to me, if the shabad were speaking merely about states of mind, then when we remove them what would remain it would not be saying Ik Onkar is what we would find but it would say that our true mind would be what was left would it not??
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Regarding you assesment of the first part meaning Nirgun / Sargun, yes you are right it is broader than people... it's ALL forms. The animals, the plants, the rocks etc too! Even the galaxies, the stars etc. The characters don't refer to just humans. God plays ALL of the characters... meaning everything. So we are in agreement. The formless (having no attributes) gives rise to ALL forms. Since the only thing in existence (Oneness) is Ik Onkar... Waheguru, Akal Purakh... then all these forms must be that one.

It's not saying assume the lord's form as the lord has no form... ultimate reality is formless, Oneness. But yes, we are supposed to remove our doubt about this illusion. The real illusion btw is not the Universe itself as it IS Creation therefore it must be real. It's our perception of it which is false. The underlying truth to reality is ONEness... just like quantum physics suggests that ALL is merely energy... the same energy, out of which all matter arises. So too does SArgun form (attributes) arise out of Nirgun, formless (having no attributes). This is why I associate that energy / base truth to consciousness - not consciousness in the way that we experience it... because we would automatically assume wakefullness in a physical sense... but that's not what I am trying to convey. It's more the awareness of this base energy of its own creation. There is intent, and design to creation. Our own awareness goes beyond physical wakefulness... there is a 'doer' there... the eyes behind the eyes - the thoughts behind the thoughts... it's very difficult to put into words because our words don't adequately convey it. Just that if everything IS ONE, then there is no 'like' God. To use the word 'like' something to be like something... automatically implies separateness from it! In reality there is ONEness and this is agreed upon by science. Our experience as a separate individual is what the illusion is. It's more than parroting words, or agreeing that there is ONEness, the key is actually experiencing it. So merely casting off certain behaviours etc won't do it. You might be acting in accordance with what we are told is 'Like' God or acting with 'Godliness', but we are still acting as a separate being. In truth, we are not separate. IT's the difference between believing and knowing. I can act like a Queen, but it will never make me one. If I always WAS a Queen, and just playing the part of a beggar and had amnesia while I was pretending to be the beggar, and then somehow realized / remembered that I was the Queen. That is more like what I am trying to say and what I believe the Shabad is trying to say. Only it's using characters instead of beggar, and God instead of Queen... and we can only forever go on and on using analogies taken from things we know / perceive in this existence as separate beings... so none will 100% accurately convey the message.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
"Harkiran Kaur, post: 204530, member: 18224"]I am sorry Tejwant Singh Ji, no matter how many times I read this I just don't see that it can be speaking only of states of mind or as yo put it 'meism'...
Not sure if this is the whole thing or not I think it is... because another ||1|| is after this... I am still confused on how to tell where one beghins and another ends etc

Harikiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is OK for you not to see what I do in the Shabad because Gurbani is a prism. We, at times look at its different angles. This is the beauty of Gurbani Poetry whose meaning expands like the Universe within due to age, persistence,personal experiences and by practicing the message of our visionary Gurus. The latter for me is The Physical Living Spiritually. How can one do that if one distances oneself from one's other half which is PIri, the way you claim?

Please allow me explain my way of studying Gurbani. I study a couple of Shabads before and after to understand the theme first because SGGS is divided into themes using different metaphors but the interesting part is that it is only One Theme, which is how to become a better person and live the Miri- Piri Life at its fullest. This is perhaps the reason the word Mind is mentioned 4992 times as per SriGranth.org.

After studying about four Shabads relating to the Shabad above, I came to realise it has nothing to do with what you claim.

This Soap Opera of life as you claim it to be is not mentioned in any of the Shabads before or after but they do give us the clue what this Shabad is all about.

As I mentioned before that Bajighar does not mean Player but a magician/confidence trickster and that is what the Shabad is talking about "having different costumes" among many other things. Player, when translated from English to Punjabi only means the one who is involved in athletics.

This is the reason our Guru purposely used the word.,Bajighar rather than a 'Khilari' which actually means a Player in Punjabi.

Please read just two Shabads the one before and the one after the following one and share the linkage and the theme with us from your perspective.

In fact, Bhajighar only comes twice in the SGGS, our only Guru.Please read the relating Shabads on Page 1061 and check the difference between the meanings of the same word-Bajighar.

ਪੰਨਾ 736, ਸਤਰ 11
ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
बाजीगरि जैसे बाजी पाई ॥
Bājīgar jaise bājī pā▫ī.
The actor stages the play,
ਮਃ 5 - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok
ਪੰਨਾ 1061, ਸਤਰ 18
ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਇਕ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
बाजीगरि इक बाजी पाई ॥
Bājīgar ik bājī pā▫ī.
The Juggler has staged His juggling show.

Even the same translator has used two different words/meanings for Bajighar in the above Shabads.

After that, if you still insists, then I will give my understanding of the following Shabad.


Thanks for the great, positive interaction.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Whether or not you use juggler or actor... or I have also seen it as 'director' its still speaking about Creator and not the individual. While you are looking at it from a physical only standpoint, which I am not dico{censored}ing can also work since I believe it does work on several different layers. But you are not also looking at it from the perspective of the creator. So while I am acknowledging that possibly it can also be speaking about psychology of humans, its also speaking about creation and God. You have not addressed how this part of the shabad can be speaking about us on a personal level (as in psychology or the mind).

ਸਾਂਗੁ ਉਤਾਰਿ ਥੰਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰਾ
Sāʼng uṯār thamiĥa▫o pāsārā.

ਤਬ ਏਕੋ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
Ŧab eko ekankārā. ||1||

If its speaking about just our limited human physical life and our mind... then why is Ik Onkar when is left when all these (multiple personalities?) are removed? Even if you take it as multiple personalities etc. then when you remove them Ik Onkar is left. If you are saying this is merely about human on personal level and no meaning with Creator at all.. then its still saying that once we remove all these guises we are Ik Onkar. So... we each individual our true identity is Ik Onkar...

Also, 'maan' or mind is not used once in this shabad. If it were speaking only about the mind, wouldn't the word mind be used at least once???

The Actor, Juggler whatever meaning you want to attach to that word, it is speaking about Creator, and not the individual. I just can't see how it can... I have also consulted a Gyani I know for his input, and he does not see this being on a purely human and physical level at all. He interprets it as speaking of Waheguru playing all of the characters (all forms - and not just human). He is SMC trained if that makes a difference... I am also taking the SMC two year study via correspondence.
 

ravneet_sb

Writer
SPNer
Nov 5, 2010
864
326
52
Also my understanding of the relationship of observer to universe comes from Quantum Physics, and an insaitable appetite for the weird things in science, but when I read Gurbani I can easily see how it is referring to the same principles!

This article might give a better understanding than I can explain (http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse)... I am not a science writer, so it`s difficult to explain the implications of the double slit experiment, and even more, the results of a more comprehensive experiment that suggests we also shapwhat happened in the pastby obseation! I always had this feeling that we create as we observe. It actually crossed my mind long before I was into quantum physics that `what if`when we had primitive measuring devices, and could only see limited stars and no galaxies as of yet, that those galaxies didn`t actually exist until we looked a`observed them? Kind of like again yes a dream... when Itravel down a road in my dream, is what`s at the other end of the road already created or do I create it as I g while I am dreaming it? I always kind of put that thinking to the Univserse as well so when quantum physics seems to agree with it, its a bit awe inducing! What the experiments showed were that photons received from a distant quasar, when measured showed the same behaviour... collapse of the wave function... as the double slit experiment. The thing is, these photons from the quasar would have had to `decide`to pass through one lens or the other (galaxies in between which acted as lenses focusing them) which were many many light years away! This means the photons had to decide LONG before we set up the experiment, in some cases long before humans would have been on earth! And without observation, every time they behaved as waves... this is significant! It means that our conscious observation caused something to occur thousands of years in the past... that is, whther the photons acted as waves or particles!! So the big question is did the quasar even exist at all until we observed it?? The suggestion and implication of the experiment is no it did not! And this is from prominent physicists!

In fact the idea is that the whole universe is existing as merely this big pool of infinite probabilities, until it`s observed into existence by a conscious observer. Yes this even implies that when you look away from something, it collapses into its wave function! Creepy and weird! So then, if observation is required for reality to even exist, then who is doing the observing?? Remember that the physical brain is part of this! WHO is observing your brain into being, so that your emergent property consciousness can exist at all?? This to me is strong evidence against the emergent property theory!!

Ishna Ji, if ALL is being observed into existence by ONE observer, then ALL is being continually influenced by that observer!

Sat Sri Akaal,

Is this "Sikhism" about
Or What is preached or has reached masses?? or Practice of blind "Ritual"

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
 

ravneet_sb

Writer
SPNer
Nov 5, 2010
864
326
52
Harikiran ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is OK for you not to see what I do in the Shabad because Gurbani is a prism. We, at times look at its different angles. This is the beauty of Gurbani Poetry whose meaning expands like the Universe within due to age, persistence,personal experiences and by practicing the message of our visionary Gurus. The latter for me is The Physical Living Spiritually. How can one do that if one distances oneself from one's other half which is PIri, the way you claim?

Please allow me explain my way of studying Gurbani. I study a couple of Shabads before and after to understand the theme first because SGGS is divided into themes using different metaphors but the interesting part is that it is only One Theme, which is how to become a better person and live the Miri- Piri Life at its fullest. This is perhaps the reason the word Mind is mentioned 4992 times as per SriGranth.org.

After studying about four Shabads relating to the Shabad above, I came to realise it has nothing to do with what you claim.

This Soap Opera of life as you claim it to be is not mentioned in any of the Shabads before or after but they do give us the clue what this Shabad is all about.

As I mentioned before that Bajighar does not mean Player but a magician/confidence trickster and that is what the Shabad is talking about "having different costumes" among many other things. Player, when translated from English to Punjabi only means the one who is involved in athletics.

This is the reason our Guru purposely used the word.,Bajighar rather than a 'Khilari' which actually means a Player in Punjabi.

Please read just two Shabads the one before and the one after the following one and share the linkage and the theme with us from your perspective.

In fact, Bhajighar only comes twice in the SGGS, our only Guru.Please read the relating Shabads on Page 1061 and check the difference between the meanings of the same word-Bajighar.

ਪੰਨਾ 736, ਸਤਰ 11
ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
बाजीगरि जैसे बाजी पाई ॥
Bājīgar jaise bājī pā▫ī.
The actor stages the play,
ਮਃ 5 - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok
ਪੰਨਾ 1061, ਸਤਰ 18
ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਇਕ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
बाजीगरि इक बाजी पाई ॥
Bājīgar ik bājī pā▫ī.
The Juggler has staged His juggling show.

Even the same translator has used two different words/meanings for Bajighar in the above Shabads.

After that, if you still insists, then I will give my understanding of the following Shabad.


Thanks for the great, positive interaction.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Sat Sri Akaal,

"Bajigar" is "Organizer" and is always winner

"Heads" one wins and "Tails" One loose

"Bajigar" holds both and organise all that show,

all others are winners or loosers.

Plus and Minus are part of Nature and to Mind of Human.

Above that one understands "ONE"

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
 

ravneet_sb

Writer
SPNer
Nov 5, 2010
864
326
52
Sat Sri Akaal,

Even the basic energy
"Light" and "Sound" has "BIRTH" and so do "DEATH" ,
but the source of
"LIGHT" and "SOUND" is

"PRIMORDIAL ENERGY"

WITHOUT DEATH AND BIRTH ALWAYS PRESENT AND OMNIPRESENT

Pritham Bhagauti Simar Ke
Guru Nanak Lai Dhiyay

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
 

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,192
Sat Sri Akaal,

Is this "Sikhism" about
Or What is preached or has reached masses?? or Practice of blind "Ritual"

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

How does this post relate to the subject of the thread?

It would help if you were much more descriptive with your questions instead of just quoting a block of text, as your questions really have no context.
 

ravneet_sb

Writer
SPNer
Nov 5, 2010
864
326
52
How does this post relate to the subject of the thread?

It would help if you were much more descriptive with your questions instead of just quoting a block of text, as your questions really have no context.
Sat Sri Akaal,

This is out of context.
Was putting a question to "SELF" it came on this thread.
Regret for that.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
 

ravneet_sb

Writer
SPNer
Nov 5, 2010
864
326
52
Sat Sri Akaal,

"PRIMORDIAL ENERGY" "EK" in "ONKAR"
Though all other energy forms are through one form but perception and receiver changes.

Electromagnetic Energy Receiver "MIND" Intellect
Light Energy Receiver "EYES"
Sound Energy Receiver "EARS"
Physical Energy (States of Atom)
GAS Perception through Five Senses
/LIQUID Perception through Five Senses
/SOLIDS Perception through Five Senses

Electromagnetic Light Sound
In nature theses states can be interpreted through developed intellect.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
Beyond creating and bestowing Grace, does "God" (Guruji, Ik Onkar, Akaal Purakh, Waheguru) intervene in human affairs or natural events?
Ishna ji thanks for your post. Of course God intervenes with a caveat. When things happen many are pretty deterministic. At times many deterministic may not pan out as expected. For me the reason for this is that we are far short of understanding creation and creator as to how all is. The concept of player and a director all in one as a manifestation of the creator I believe is referred to in the SGGS and the teachings of our Guru ji. Where we may not understand how things happen, we may say God intervened. At other times where our knowledge and activities are reasonably predictable, we may say God does not intervene. But we must always remember that we are never alone and always part of all that is around us.

Let us look at a situation. Someone jumps into a pool but does not know how to swim. In one case the person did so after the lifeguard left and others had left who could have helped. If such person drowns should we say God did not intervene! In converse scenario, the person jumps but the life guard having forgotten a belonging comes to get it and sees a struggling person and pulls them out and so saves such a person. Should we say God intervened in the second case! It may seem like that but the base reason may be that we are not in control of everything and life and consonance is a bunch of coincidences ultimately guided by permanent truths which we may never fully understand.

From what I know we as Sikhs understand that we are a part of the creator like everything else all around and such may be called interveners by others or experience intervention ourselves but which at some scale is related to the creator and the creation of the same.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited:

Sherdil

Writer
SPNer
Jan 19, 2014
438
874
Problems arise when we use terms like God or even Waheguru, which unfortunately has also assumed Abrahamic connotations for the One, i.e. a bearded man in the sky.

IMO, Universe is a much safer term. We are part and parcel of this Universe. Our actions are the Universe's actions. Our decisions are the Universe's decisions. The question of interference doesn't even arise. It is based on a false dualistic paradigm.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
While Universe is part of or a reflection of Creator the Creator is not limited by what we term the Universe but surpasses that. Creation is the creator but creator is not merely creation...
 

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top