☀️ 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
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Does Waheguru Intervene?
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="Harkiran Kaur" data-source="post: 204523" data-attributes="member: 18224"><p>Okay so let me ask you, do you believe that the physical is all there is and that our awareness / consciousness is only limited to this physical life and this physical life is all we have / will ever have? And that the awareness behind the mind, is limited to only this life (ie the emergent property argument)? As in, do you believe that SGGSJ is merely a psychology manual for living a physical life with nothing existing beyond this physical life? (Basically atheistic in belief)? I think based on your rejections of anything beyond the physical, this is what you believe? If not, then please explain because it seems that way. </p><p></p><p>I am sorry, I can not nor will I ever have this line of thinking. I very much do believe in the ONEness of everything and that ONEness is consciously aware. In fact, I believe the base to the physical Universe is consciousness. This is based on science, philosophy, and religion in synthesis... and this idea of Sikhi being the same thing as Atheism is very very new to me, and limited only to several people on this forum. I am taking the two year course from Sikh Missionary College and they do not teach this thinking at all! </p><p></p><p>My understanding of consciousness, or the awareness... the 'I AM' that is behind the physical body - I very much understand. The reason its difficult to put into words to convey to others, is that any attempt to do so would rely entirely on physical only references. (Language can only go so far!) So for example if I say this world is like a dream (of the Creator) you will accuse me of saying this whole reality is just a literal dream, when instead I am using it as a reference point (as does Gurbani) because it's at least a physical reference that we can use to try and comprehend the nonphysical. </p><p></p><p>Using the dream analogy... when I dream at night, I am fully immersed within the character I am playing in the dream. I am fully conscious of the dream character body, and I am unaware of any existence beyond that. Let's say I was a doctor in the dream. The persona of being the doctor, is not real.. it's false. But it's all I know while in the dream. However, the consciousness operating through the doctor is not really a doctor at all. That doctor character, that ego is false. When I wake up I realize I was never the doctor at all. The doctor didn't 'die' when I woke up because the doctor was never real to begin with. Just like the shabad on Ang 736 describes it as a play. When I wake up I realize that the doctor was not real. It was still my consciousness that was operating as the doctor however, and not just the doctor but in fact EVERYTHING in the dream was really being controlled by me. Even though everything seemed separate it was not. It was all one thought... So though I am not trying to say that this reality is a literal dream... as 'Creator' would have no need for a dream in our physical sense... but it gives us a frame of reference to understand how consciousness can be something separate from the identity and the physical body. And how everything can really be within one consciousness. </p><p></p><p>So, you ask me to explain in my own understanding... but if I do, you accuse me of limiting things to the references I have used. But I can only use physical references to try to explain! This is the plight of trying to explain something which exists beyond the physical, having only physical references to use! No matter how we try to explain, our explanation can not adequately covey it, even if we understand the concepts. </p><p></p><p>For me, matter / physical = false. It's illusion in a very real sense. All that exists is the base energy from which everything arises. (We can agree on the energy thing yeah?) And if matter is really just this energy at a very slow vibration, then our bodies are also false. Can we agree on this? So, where we disagree is where our awareness comes from. Since quantum physics has shown, not in theory but through reproducible experiments, that consciousness affects whether electrons behave as either a wave or a particle, and since without conscious observation electrons behave as a wave... something not physical in itself but instead is energy moving through a medium, and since our *physical* brains are made of the very same electrons, which make up atoms, which make up... etc. etc. Then consciousness at least A consciousness must have existed to observe us into existence! Not just us but ALL matter... so either our consciousness is something separate from the consciousness which observed the universe into existence (if you believe the emergent property theory) or our consciousness is part of the ONE primal (existing before the physical) consciousness. Since Gurbani IS very clear on ONEness... there must only be one consciousness. And by the way those experiments have shown that human consciousness DOES affect the outcome of the experiment... it collapses the quantum wave function - mere observation, by a conscious observer. I realize its complicated... and doesn't fit the idea of a God in say an Abrahamic sense. But to me, this makes MUCH more sense, agrees with Gurbani without having to reduce Gurbani to a mere psychology book. And makes much more sense than limiting existence to only matter and limiting our consciousness to being just an emergent property of the complexity of our brains, and trying to say that all this complexity just 'happened' without guidance or conscious design at all. To me, that view is very limited. </p><p></p><p>To me Gurbani can be applied to both physical life, and also spiritual (that part of us which exists beyond physical) both Miri and Piri... temporal and spiritual. </p><p></p><p>It is not my wish to argue with anyone or change their beliefs. Just that to say that Sikhi does not teach spiritual aspect at all, is wrong. Or to say that Sikhi does not teach about a conscious creator... is also wrong because whether or not that creator has form, or is seen as an entity / being as we label beings etc. does not matter... there is still conscious and creative design to the Universe and even if we can't put in words or even if someone can not comprehend it, doesn't mean there isn't or that the creator is not 'God'. (btw the term God does not have to mean having form or a body etc. or even be a personal deity as many religions have - it's simply a word for the creative consciousness which gave rise to the Universe).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harkiran Kaur, post: 204523, member: 18224"] Okay so let me ask you, do you believe that the physical is all there is and that our awareness / consciousness is only limited to this physical life and this physical life is all we have / will ever have? And that the awareness behind the mind, is limited to only this life (ie the emergent property argument)? As in, do you believe that SGGSJ is merely a psychology manual for living a physical life with nothing existing beyond this physical life? (Basically atheistic in belief)? I think based on your rejections of anything beyond the physical, this is what you believe? If not, then please explain because it seems that way. I am sorry, I can not nor will I ever have this line of thinking. I very much do believe in the ONEness of everything and that ONEness is consciously aware. In fact, I believe the base to the physical Universe is consciousness. This is based on science, philosophy, and religion in synthesis... and this idea of Sikhi being the same thing as Atheism is very very new to me, and limited only to several people on this forum. I am taking the two year course from Sikh Missionary College and they do not teach this thinking at all! My understanding of consciousness, or the awareness... the 'I AM' that is behind the physical body - I very much understand. The reason its difficult to put into words to convey to others, is that any attempt to do so would rely entirely on physical only references. (Language can only go so far!) So for example if I say this world is like a dream (of the Creator) you will accuse me of saying this whole reality is just a literal dream, when instead I am using it as a reference point (as does Gurbani) because it's at least a physical reference that we can use to try and comprehend the nonphysical. Using the dream analogy... when I dream at night, I am fully immersed within the character I am playing in the dream. I am fully conscious of the dream character body, and I am unaware of any existence beyond that. Let's say I was a doctor in the dream. The persona of being the doctor, is not real.. it's false. But it's all I know while in the dream. However, the consciousness operating through the doctor is not really a doctor at all. That doctor character, that ego is false. When I wake up I realize I was never the doctor at all. The doctor didn't 'die' when I woke up because the doctor was never real to begin with. Just like the shabad on Ang 736 describes it as a play. When I wake up I realize that the doctor was not real. It was still my consciousness that was operating as the doctor however, and not just the doctor but in fact EVERYTHING in the dream was really being controlled by me. Even though everything seemed separate it was not. It was all one thought... So though I am not trying to say that this reality is a literal dream... as 'Creator' would have no need for a dream in our physical sense... but it gives us a frame of reference to understand how consciousness can be something separate from the identity and the physical body. And how everything can really be within one consciousness. So, you ask me to explain in my own understanding... but if I do, you accuse me of limiting things to the references I have used. But I can only use physical references to try to explain! This is the plight of trying to explain something which exists beyond the physical, having only physical references to use! No matter how we try to explain, our explanation can not adequately covey it, even if we understand the concepts. For me, matter / physical = false. It's illusion in a very real sense. All that exists is the base energy from which everything arises. (We can agree on the energy thing yeah?) And if matter is really just this energy at a very slow vibration, then our bodies are also false. Can we agree on this? So, where we disagree is where our awareness comes from. Since quantum physics has shown, not in theory but through reproducible experiments, that consciousness affects whether electrons behave as either a wave or a particle, and since without conscious observation electrons behave as a wave... something not physical in itself but instead is energy moving through a medium, and since our *physical* brains are made of the very same electrons, which make up atoms, which make up... etc. etc. Then consciousness at least A consciousness must have existed to observe us into existence! Not just us but ALL matter... so either our consciousness is something separate from the consciousness which observed the universe into existence (if you believe the emergent property theory) or our consciousness is part of the ONE primal (existing before the physical) consciousness. Since Gurbani IS very clear on ONEness... there must only be one consciousness. And by the way those experiments have shown that human consciousness DOES affect the outcome of the experiment... it collapses the quantum wave function - mere observation, by a conscious observer. I realize its complicated... and doesn't fit the idea of a God in say an Abrahamic sense. But to me, this makes MUCH more sense, agrees with Gurbani without having to reduce Gurbani to a mere psychology book. And makes much more sense than limiting existence to only matter and limiting our consciousness to being just an emergent property of the complexity of our brains, and trying to say that all this complexity just 'happened' without guidance or conscious design at all. To me, that view is very limited. To me Gurbani can be applied to both physical life, and also spiritual (that part of us which exists beyond physical) both Miri and Piri... temporal and spiritual. It is not my wish to argue with anyone or change their beliefs. Just that to say that Sikhi does not teach spiritual aspect at all, is wrong. Or to say that Sikhi does not teach about a conscious creator... is also wrong because whether or not that creator has form, or is seen as an entity / being as we label beings etc. does not matter... there is still conscious and creative design to the Universe and even if we can't put in words or even if someone can not comprehend it, doesn't mean there isn't or that the creator is not 'God'. (btw the term God does not have to mean having form or a body etc. or even be a personal deity as many religions have - it's simply a word for the creative consciousness which gave rise to the Universe). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Does Waheguru Intervene?
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