☀️ 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
Hard Talk
Is There A God?
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="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 123452" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Curious ji,</p><p></p><p>After a few days I didn’t expect any response and have therefore been away from here. </p><p></p><p>Thank you for your post; I appreciate you giving thought and the time to explain your position.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You said: </p><p><<Creation is central to theism and its validity. If there is a creator, then the whole ethical situation changes radically, we are placed in subordinate position to an entity that must be greater than us, and that, clearly, its greater in power and and knowledge…….. >></p><p></p><p></p><p>I should have thought about this even though I had another reason for asking my question, but I won’t go into that now especially since it is directed to both sides of the discussion. Unlike others my intention wasn’t to discuss theism. I brought up the question of ‘truth’ but even this wasn’t something I really wished to get into a debate about. What I was trying to lead to was highlighting the importance of ‘good’ as distinct mental qualities that should be known for what they are and thereby encouraged. </p><p></p><p>You said:</p><p><<If there is creator then ethics has an objective and absolute aspect and life would have some sort of ultimate purpose, independent of our will and our desires.>></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this something that is taught or something arrived at by your own reasoning?</p><p></p><p>As I understand it, Sikhism does teach about Karma and the fact of it leading to going around in the cycle of birth and death experiencing sometimes good results and sometimes bad. This is law; of cause and effect, one which I believe, if not understood / accepted, would lead to no good results. ;-)</p><p></p><p>There is no need to recourse to any other explanation for the one who knows and sees that good is good because it is. To go about looking for reason to justify why one should be friendly, have compassion, truthful, be moral etc. and why greed, hate, pride, envy and so on are wrong, other than the fact of their being intrinsically good and bad, is to not really ‘know’. These are *causes* leading to their corresponding results, and they can be recognized as such from studying their nature as and when they arise. Indeed it is when we don’t know this that need arises to seek justification outside of the reality itself and rest satisfied with one explanation or the other.</p><p></p><p>Being dependent on reference points outside of the reality itself as motivation to do good and avoid evil, although this can be maintained for some good time, in truth however there is so much room for being mistaken and down the road going altogether wrong. </p><p></p><p>For example, the attachment that we have in a day for family and friends is often mistaken for loving kindness. Encouraging this we end up invariable also encouraging aversion, after all this latter is consequence of the former when failing to satisfy. On the other hand, if true kindness was known for what it is, it’s “rightness” would be apparent when faced with the otherwise arising of attachment. And rather than leading to aversion being encouraged, this very aversion would then be seen rightly as opposite in nature to the kindness, and therefore to be discouraged. Likewise in the case of what we usually experience as sadness / pity, which in reality is a form of aversion, but since the concern appears to be directed to the other person, we mistakenly take this to be compassion. The difference however, is that while one is characterized by restlessness and accompanied by unpleasant feelings, the other is actually calm. </p><p></p><p>Besides, when not inclined to study the actual nature of these mental realities, most people are left with approximating the value of their actions by outward appearance, and this again is quite misleading. For example, giving money to help someone (forget charity, that’s mostly self serving in more ways than one), in being focused on the outward action and related stories about the whole situation, one often ends up falling prey to attachment, aversion, conceit and the like, creating an overall effect of more bad than good being done. Plus, not knowing that this is what took place, one ends up also with more and more ignorance. </p><p></p><p>There are many other ways in which we cheat ourselves into believing that what we do is good and right, when in fact it isn’t. In some religions, such as in Christianity where karma isn’t taught, the religion itself encourages these, for example ‘guilt’. The person who knows otherwise, to him it is clear that this is restlessness of mind which then conditions aversion, and that both these are causes which down the road lead to bad results. But for the follower, it is something that should happen in order that in the future one will not repeat the kind of deed. Perhaps conditions are such that such a deed won’t indeed be repeated, however a host of other unwanted states, most particularly those that arise from ‘self-concern’ do invariably arise as consequence.</p><p></p><p>Finally, whether one is Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim and whether or not karma is taught there, one phenomena common to followers of all, is attachment to their own religion resulting often in a strong need to defend it. This again feels good and right, and just because the harm in the mental reality of attachment has yet to be appreciated enough. </p><p></p><p>In conclusion, I think if someone here truly wishes to follow his religion, let him consider very seriously this teaching on Karma. Let this in fact be such that one is then not swayed by other laws put forward, such as those by science, which in my opinion, amounts to nothing more than “stories” about this and that. Of course the reason why we feel inclined to this is in fact because it more or less matches with the kind of observations we usually make and upon which we rely. The person of science therefore stands as one who happens to be more informed; indeed the situation is that of one blind being lead by another more interesting one.</p><p></p><p>I’ve gone on and on quite a bit Curious ji, but I hope you didn’t mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 123452, member: 586"] Curious ji, After a few days I didn’t expect any response and have therefore been away from here. Thank you for your post; I appreciate you giving thought and the time to explain your position. You said: <<Creation is central to theism and its validity. If there is a creator, then the whole ethical situation changes radically, we are placed in subordinate position to an entity that must be greater than us, and that, clearly, its greater in power and and knowledge…….. >> I should have thought about this even though I had another reason for asking my question, but I won’t go into that now especially since it is directed to both sides of the discussion. Unlike others my intention wasn’t to discuss theism. I brought up the question of ‘truth’ but even this wasn’t something I really wished to get into a debate about. What I was trying to lead to was highlighting the importance of ‘good’ as distinct mental qualities that should be known for what they are and thereby encouraged. You said: <<If there is creator then ethics has an objective and absolute aspect and life would have some sort of ultimate purpose, independent of our will and our desires.>> Is this something that is taught or something arrived at by your own reasoning? As I understand it, Sikhism does teach about Karma and the fact of it leading to going around in the cycle of birth and death experiencing sometimes good results and sometimes bad. This is law; of cause and effect, one which I believe, if not understood / accepted, would lead to no good results. ;-) There is no need to recourse to any other explanation for the one who knows and sees that good is good because it is. To go about looking for reason to justify why one should be friendly, have compassion, truthful, be moral etc. and why greed, hate, pride, envy and so on are wrong, other than the fact of their being intrinsically good and bad, is to not really ‘know’. These are *causes* leading to their corresponding results, and they can be recognized as such from studying their nature as and when they arise. Indeed it is when we don’t know this that need arises to seek justification outside of the reality itself and rest satisfied with one explanation or the other. Being dependent on reference points outside of the reality itself as motivation to do good and avoid evil, although this can be maintained for some good time, in truth however there is so much room for being mistaken and down the road going altogether wrong. For example, the attachment that we have in a day for family and friends is often mistaken for loving kindness. Encouraging this we end up invariable also encouraging aversion, after all this latter is consequence of the former when failing to satisfy. On the other hand, if true kindness was known for what it is, it’s “rightness” would be apparent when faced with the otherwise arising of attachment. And rather than leading to aversion being encouraged, this very aversion would then be seen rightly as opposite in nature to the kindness, and therefore to be discouraged. Likewise in the case of what we usually experience as sadness / pity, which in reality is a form of aversion, but since the concern appears to be directed to the other person, we mistakenly take this to be compassion. The difference however, is that while one is characterized by restlessness and accompanied by unpleasant feelings, the other is actually calm. Besides, when not inclined to study the actual nature of these mental realities, most people are left with approximating the value of their actions by outward appearance, and this again is quite misleading. For example, giving money to help someone (forget charity, that’s mostly self serving in more ways than one), in being focused on the outward action and related stories about the whole situation, one often ends up falling prey to attachment, aversion, conceit and the like, creating an overall effect of more bad than good being done. Plus, not knowing that this is what took place, one ends up also with more and more ignorance. There are many other ways in which we cheat ourselves into believing that what we do is good and right, when in fact it isn’t. In some religions, such as in Christianity where karma isn’t taught, the religion itself encourages these, for example ‘guilt’. The person who knows otherwise, to him it is clear that this is restlessness of mind which then conditions aversion, and that both these are causes which down the road lead to bad results. But for the follower, it is something that should happen in order that in the future one will not repeat the kind of deed. Perhaps conditions are such that such a deed won’t indeed be repeated, however a host of other unwanted states, most particularly those that arise from ‘self-concern’ do invariably arise as consequence. Finally, whether one is Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim and whether or not karma is taught there, one phenomena common to followers of all, is attachment to their own religion resulting often in a strong need to defend it. This again feels good and right, and just because the harm in the mental reality of attachment has yet to be appreciated enough. In conclusion, I think if someone here truly wishes to follow his religion, let him consider very seriously this teaching on Karma. Let this in fact be such that one is then not swayed by other laws put forward, such as those by science, which in my opinion, amounts to nothing more than “stories” about this and that. Of course the reason why we feel inclined to this is in fact because it more or less matches with the kind of observations we usually make and upon which we rely. The person of science therefore stands as one who happens to be more informed; indeed the situation is that of one blind being lead by another more interesting one. I’ve gone on and on quite a bit Curious ji, but I hope you didn’t mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Is There A God?
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