Apologies for the late reply, I had an unexpected personal matter which needed attending to. Hopefully you’re still active and will see this.
From what I've read the follower of Guru Nanak is must concede that god is a creator. Guru Nanak referred to god as Sat-Kartar if i am not mistaken and the first Sikh prayer any child learns tells us that the god of the Sikhs is KIRTA PURAKH, the creator of all...
According to this reference: http://dict.hinkhoj.com/words/meanin...n-english.html
"Karta" means "Doer".
According to Dr. Santokh Singh (Sikh scholar) in 'English Transliteration and Interpretation of Nitnaym Baanees, Sikh Prayers for English Speaking Sikh Youth', "Purakh" means "all-pervasive".
"Karta Purakh" literally means "all-pervasive Doer". Guru Nanak, in the Guru Granth Sahib, says "Your All-pervading creative nature cannot be estimated." I have always taken "Karta Purakh" to mean that Ik Oankar is the amalgamation of the creative forces which flow through the Universe and beyond.
If the person reading it is pre-disposed to believe in a supernatural creator, then to them, Karta Purakh will give the impression of a supernatural creator. But “all-pervasive Doer” does not demand the existence of a God which operates outside the confines of nature.
I'd like to make a little aside here, alot of people on SPN deal with the atheists by likening Sikhism to Atheism, it's odd but quite often sikhs respond with something like:
"Silly atheist, you are confusing the Sikh god with the Abrahamic god, no of course we don't believe in the magical man in the sky with a beard who we must submit ourselves to! our conception of God is much deeper, much more complex and your atheist arguments, while relevant in a christian, Jewish or Islamic debate bears NO credence in a debate of Sikh philosophy..."
I don't like these responses, these are just words but to me a lot of sikh history, practice and philosophy does indicate a God whose existance can be debated using the same arguements Atheists use in discussions with christians, jews and muslims.
I disagree with the notion that Sikh philosophy rests on the existence of a supernatural creator. I have been an ardent atheist since breaking away from my birth religion and I have yet to come across anything in the Guru Granth Sahib which is useless/meaningless without a supernatural creator in the picture.
I'm glad you put the God I believe in, because a sound proof the existence of the god who possesses such a nature you detail would intrest me very much.
You don't "
believe in" nature?
the God you believe in has always existed, my knowledge of the different forms of the cosmological argument is even less than my knowledge of sikhi but (i paraphrase) Carl Sagan (and i'm sure philosophers before him), have persuaded me that an initial uncaused cause does not necessarily have to be God, Perhaps the initial uncaused cause was the universe itself, it has always existed (although maybe we cant make the claim that it always will). Alot of SPN users liken the universe and god as a single entity "God is the universe" they say. Again they say one thing but to me sikh history and practices really indicate the other.
An issue of semantics, is it not? Replace the word “God” with “entity”. If the universe has always existed, then that’s God for me. The thing is though, with recent advancements in quantum mechanics, our understanding of physics itself is on the verge of collapse. The universe may be God, but the universe isn’t a boring sea of gas, liquid and solid. The matter which makes it up is not solid- at a fundamental level, everything is energy and this changes everything, because it opens the door to a whole host of possibilities which have never been considered in the past. God could very well be the universe because we aren’t even close to understanding what the universe is and how it operates (at a fundamental level).
Quantum theories are now suggesting that outer space may not actually be a vacuum. One theory suggests that it borrows/conserves energy from surrounding areas and forms anti-matter. The most radical theory suggests that it is full of a living, pulsating essence that science is only beginning to understand.
It is so new that scientists have yet to agree on a single term. Some are calling it a ‘quantum hologram’- very technical sounding name, but the gist of the theory is that the universe is a dream and everything around you is a projection. It sounds extremely bizarre and would have been dismissed a long time ago, had it not been for one fact: the Mathematics works. Calculations performed by Japanese researcher Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University back up the theory and are actually simpler than other models of quantum mechanics. If this is confirmed, then it means that reality as we know it may be the result of processes occurring on some other plane or surface.
What could that other plane/surface be? Well, one of the most popular suggestions is that consciousness is the base of all reality. That we are all essentially the same consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively.
Dr. Edgar Mitchell, a former NASA astronaut, is calling it “nature’s mind”. Stephen Hawking calls it “the mind of God”.
I
n 1944, the father of quantum physics, Max Planck, identified the existence of this underlying field and he called it “the matrix” (that’s where the name of that movie comes from). He said that underlying everything we see (our bodies included), everything we see around us in the world, underneath it all there must be the existence of a “conscious and intelligent mind” (his own words). He said that this mind is the matrix of all matter.
Now, I’m not claiming that this is it and we've got it all figured out, that there is a conscious mind underlying everything we see in the universe. Au contraire, my point is that advancements in quantum mechanics have all but shattered our understanding of reality and physics, and the possibility of the universe being God itself is perfectly valid.
If quantum physics has taught us anything, it's that the universe is much more bizarre than we could have ever imagined.
If God from a sikh perspective is the embodiment of the universe (as apposed to the abrahamic man in the clouds) why do sikhs meditate on the universes name? buddhists enjoy the benefits of meditation by concentrating on their breath rather than a man made word for god...
I have no idea, I find it strange as well, considering that none of the Gurus even used the word “Waheguru”in the SGGS.
Tbh, the more I’ve read the SGGS, the more and more I have become convinced that the Gurus would not have approved of Sikhs sitting around chanting “Waheguru”, or at the very least using it as the only form of meditation.
Gurbani is pretty clear that Akaal-Purakh has an endless number of names. I don’t understand what makes“Waheguru” more special than the others.
Actually, the funny thing is that Gurbani states on numerous occasions that this “chanting” on the Lord’s name is supposed to be with the soul and heart, without any sound from the mouth. I get the impression that a lot of Sikhs have turned “Waheguru” into a magic mantra, which is ironic, because the Gurus did not believe in magic mantras lol.
The thing with Gurbani is, every line needs to be interpreted in the context of the Shabad from which it originates, and every Shabad needs to be interpreted in conjunction with the rest of the poetry in SGGS. Single lines are very easy to twist and often times, even entire Shabads may be misleading if you don’t take into account the rest of the Bani of the Gurus. I equate SGGS to a puzzle; you only get a clear image of the Gurus’ message if you put all the pieces together and look at the bigger picture.
I am vehemently opposed to chanting “Waheguru” over and over again. I have no problem if individual Sikhs like doing it, I just disagree with the proposition that it is an essential part of Sikhi. You can be a Sikh and never chant “Waheguru” in your life. I have experience with Buddhism, I looked into it before discovering Sikhi and I prefer the Buddhist form of meditation over the chanting of “Waheguru”.I don’t think it makes me any less of a Sikh...
Oh, but I do think “Waheguru”is an interesting word. It breaks up into this:
Wah-Guru. From what I’ve been told, “Wah” is used as an exclamation of awe and wonder in the Punjabi language. The English equivalent would be “Wow”. Waheguru literally means “Wondrous Guru”.
As I’ve already mentioned in my last post:
"Salvation is not reached in an ethereal sense (i.e. "do this and you'll be rewarded" sense), but rather an inner peace and tranquility of humbling oneself against the greater universe is an experience that allows one to come to terms with their own diminutive stature with regards to the universe. Once we have broken those foundations of ego and pride, then we can begin to build ourselves back up."
Einstein said:
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
This is the foundation of Sikhism. If you read through the SGGS, you will encounter profound humility from the Gurus and the Bhagats that leaves them in awe ("wah") of the ultimate teacher/universe ("guru").
With this in mind, meditating on “Waheguru” may not actually be such a bad thing, provided that it invokes feelings of humility and awe and isn’t just done for ritualistic purposes. It's like, most science students, especially the ones in physics, are arrogant jerks in freshman year, but towards their senior years and eventually graduate school, they realize how insignificant everything really is and tend to humble out. Some of the humblest people you will encounter are scientists because they see the world in a similar way how non-scientist Sikhs see it.
Why in an Ardas do Sikhs ask "the universe" for things
Ardas is not present in the SGGS and it has evolved over time in order for it to encompass the feats, accomplishments, and feelings of all generations of Sikhs within its lines.
For this reason, I don’t view Ardas as “asking” God for what I want. I see it as a time to remember and reflect upon the achievements of Sikhs in the past, to not forget the sacrifices they made for the Panth and stand in solidarity with my fellow Sikhs. Ardas is not in the SGGS and so it is not a part of Sikh philosophy, if the Gurus thought that God granted wishes then they would have put the Ardas in SGGS. Why leave out something so important? To me, it is a show of unity.
Why do we need to be good people? why can't i go around killing, torturing, stealing and doing other bad things... is "the universe" going to judge us?
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein).
Are you really telling me that you'd start "killing, torturing, stealing and doing other bad things" without a celestial dictator monitoring your every move? If so, then why are you so opposed to the idea of a sky god? If the old man abrahamic god in the sky is what it would take to keep you in line, then surely, his existence is a good thing. If you need the threat of punishment to treat other people with kindness and respect, then may I suggest you look into Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
to me the sikh god is the man in the clouds, the creator and the judge.
I beg to differ.
I don't understand how a being that you do not know the gender/nature of can be the objective truth of the universe (using your statment: Whatever He/She/It may be). To me the truth that "All batchelors are unmarried" is quite an objective truth. My knowledge of logic is even more lacking than my knowledge of sikhism and philosophy but this definition of god as being "truth" seems quite flimsy, poetic and just not very robust to me, it sounds very nice, it would make a nice sing or a poem but i really don't understand what this means...
“All bachelors are unmarried.” As long as the definition of all those words remains the same, so too will the validity of the statement.
2 + 2=4 As long as the value of those numbers and the meaning of the plus and equal signs remains the same, so too will the validity of that statement.
“God is Truth.” What is “Truth”? The above examples give us insight into this question. Truth= eternal and everlasting. It does not change. You can’t be a bachelor and married at the same time. 2 + 2 will never equal 5.
We are cyclic and undergo births and deaths (like human life, solar systems, universes, etc). We do not last forever. The Gurus tell us that God is ajooni or acyclic, beyond these cycles of birth and death. To say that God is Truth is a simpler way of saying that God is eternal/ timeless, beyond any cycle of birth and death. This is explained in various part of the SGGS...
you propose one model of intelligence, but then make a number of assumptions,
1) that there are indeed beings in the universe that are more intelligent than us (by this model)
Please don’t tell me you think it is a baseless assumption/a large stretch for me to suggest that there exists life in the universe which exceeds our intelligence (on the scale of the arbitrarily defined measure of intelligence). The sheer size of the universe means there is a greater chance of you winning the jackpot a trillion times in a row than there is of us being the most ‘intelligent’ life forms in the universe.
In any case, if you are still not convinced, then perhaps Neil deGrasse Tyson will be able to change your mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeJoVeKSsyA
He is an award-winning astrophysicist and cosmologist, one of the most respected members of the scientific community; hopefully you give some weight to his opinion...
And as for weather or not you claim these beings to be God:
2) why would these super intelligent beings be interested with us, when we build hospitals we don't care about destroying anthills...
if these super intelligent being did exist why would he care about how we live our lives?
What? If God exists, then He/She/It has to be the most advanced entity in existence. My point was that such an advanced entity (if it is sentient) isn't going to give a damn about something like sexual orientation.
I don't think God cares how you live your life...
anyway your analogy of super intelligent beings evokes the "Man in the clouds" abrahamic image of God again...
No, this is nothing like “man in clouds abrahamic image of God”. My background is Abrahamic and my parents practice their religion very strictly. I was raised to have belief in that God, I mean this with all due respect but I think I am in a bit of a better position to know what is and isn’t like the man in the clouds version of God.
this is a defeatist attitude... i'm sure the thought that I could send messages to someone on the other side of the planet was a preposterous thought in the 11th century...
Alright, don’t take my word for it. Maybe Stephen Hawking will be able to change your mind:
"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html
You call it “defeatist”, I call it realistic.
I think most sakhis would have us believe that Guru Nanak spoke to God and recited Japji to him in Sultanpur?
In my experience, most Sakhis are hogwash. I’ve heard at least 4 separate accounts of how Guru Gobind Singh died. You’d think that there’d be a clear historical account for something so important, but alas, I suppose it is too much to ask.
Also, if Guru Nanak did actually speak with God, why is it not in the SGGS? Keep in mind that there are important historical events preserved in the SGGS- Siddh Gosht, Oankaar, Babur’s invasion of India etc... Surely, if Guru Nanak had actually (literally) been summoned to the ‘Court of the Lord’, something of such significance would surely have been mentioned in the SGGS. You don't just speak with the Creator of the universe and then not write anything about it...
Well, considering that Guru Nanak's own writing is preserved in the Guru Granth Sahib (the
only authentic source of Nanakian philosophy), would you mind showing me where in the GGS he claimed to have spoken with God? I must have missed that part...
I don't know much about debating and arguing so i can't think of a technical term but the phrase "Win-Win" comes to mind.
Let's imagine 2 scenarios, one in which god exist's and one in which god does not.
The atheist and theist debate: the atheist claims god does not exist, the theist claim's that god is so complex that you cannot prove his existence with modern science, philosophy, maths or logic.
in both scenarios, the one in which god exists and the one in which god does not the theist can make same statement... which scenario do we live in?
Who is claiming that God’s existence cannot be proven with modern Science and Mathematics? Modern Science and Mathematics are probably the most powerful tools we have to able to properly define what ‘God’ is.
If ‘God’ is present in creation (as the SGGS says), then why cannot we not further our understanding of God by furthering our understanding of the reality of our universe?
The answers of the world aren't contained in a zero-sum proposition. Science is a useful rational tool. The SGGS is my ethical and spiritual authority. My desire to understand my place in reality encourages me to investigate the majesty of the universe. I can use scientific methods to do this as well. This is embracing the capability of being a human, the best shot we get at reaching oneness with Waheguru. You make it sound like science and Sikhi are at odds with each other. I think they go hand-in-hand. Sikhi is a science of the mind and realization of the self, the two fill distinct niches in my life.
“Incomprehensible” and “inaccessible” are used to make a different point in the SGGS.
“Incomprehensible” implies an inability to fully comprehend and appreciate just how vast the cosmos really are (especially if our Universe is but one in an ocean of multiverses), along with the forces which govern the entire thing. This concept is briefly touched upon in Japji Sahib, in which Guru Nanak mentions how you could spend your entire life trying to fathom the wonders of Ik Oankar and creation but it would all be in vain, you wouldn't even come close. The only way to understand Ik Onkar is to "walk in the way of His Will" (which is just a fancy way of saying that you should live in consonance with your fellow creation).
This is not to say that science can't help us out; it just means that our human brains will never be able to fully appreciate the majesty of our universe. In my experience, this is true. The vastness of the universe really is incomprehensible. Ask a scientist, if you don't believe me.
“Inaccessible" is used to downplay the notion of prophet hood and 'chooseness'. These beliefs are fundamental pillars of Abrahamaic theology and thought. But the idea of God (literally) sending down messengers to spread a message or that one group of people is favored over the rest is the antithesis of Sikh philosophy. According to the Guru Granth Sahib, every individual has spiritual potential and can connect with God without having to follow someone else's rules and regulations. Yes, we can all realize Akaal-Purakh in our lives (this is why Guru Nanak says he "knows God but cannot describe Him", because it is an individual experience), but we don't believe Akaal-Purakh communicates with humans and tells them to write little rule books (= "inaccessible").
If the Guru's weren't perfect or Divinely chosen then the book the wrote (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) wasn't perfect or divinely chosen, why should it be so central to our lives?
Alright, I can only speak for myself here. I don’t think you should ‘believe’ in the SGGS for the sake of believing, in fact I think blind faith is responsible for a lot of the problems the world faces in the 21stcentury, particularly blind faith in religions.
I’m a social worker; I find working with people to be extremely rewarding. I've been volunteering at nursing/senior centers for years and love listening to their life stories. People near the end of their lives and who have seen the world for what it really is have so much to share, but most youths these days are too busy playing video games, getting drunk and going clubbing. I swear you'd learn more about life in one day spent with a senior who has traveled the world than you would in 5 years of High School.
Spending time with them and listening to their stories is one of the major reasons I decided to become a Sikh. The wisdom the Gurus put into the Granth is very similar to what you'd hear from most wise seniors. The teachings of the Gurus are pragmatic and have real-world value. My favorite question to ask is "if you could go back in time to when you were 18 and do everything all over again, what would you do differently?" And the responses are always very similar. There is a reoccurring theme. The overwhelming amount of responses are along the lines of "I wish I had spent more time with my family and loved ones, I wish I had had more confidence in myself and spent less time trying to please others, I wish I had not valued money and material goods as much as I did, I wish I had had a more positive outlook on life and wasn't so negative", and the biggest one of all, "I wish I had spent more time making the world a better place." Reading the Guru Granth Sahib ji, I have found that this is EXACTLY what the Gurus encouraged us to do.
At the end of life, nobody cares about how many sexual partners they've had, how large their house was, how fancy their car, how much money they had, only the little things seem to matter. Being with loved ones (the Gurus encouraged family/community life), having a positive attitude (chardikala), having inner-strength/confidence and not trying to please others (finding God within) and doing good for others (vand chakko/the 3 pillars of Sikhism), that is what matters and this is all found within the Guru Granth Sahib.
Buuuuut, I think everybody needs their own reason for practicing Sikhi. That is part of mine. I do not believe in blind faith so I don't think you should take my word for it. Read the Guru Granth Sahib for yourself and make up your own mind. And if in the end you decide that it isn't for you, that this is not how you want to live your life, then fair play good man, you have every right to leave Sikhi if it will make you happier. I assure you that there's no punishment waiting for apostates in the afterlife.
Im reading japji, im only starting but... to claim that the philosophy of the Guru Granth Sahib does not depend on the existence of god seems crazy to me...
There is one god
his name is true
he is without fear etc etc...
are you really going to claim that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not depend on the existance of god?
Yes, I am. The relevancy of Nanakian philosophy does not depend on the existence of a supernatural creator.
If you want, you can type out the Mool Mantar and tell me which part(s) of it are invalid without a supernatural deity. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning.
if god didn't exist then Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is really pointless...
Once again, I completely disagree. I don't think this is really even up for debate, I am living proof that your statement is false. I do not believe in God but that doesn't take away from the relevancy of Guru Granth Sahib one bit for me. I've also come across quite a few other Sikhs who do not believe in God but still practice Sikhi because they have also come to the conclusion that GGS is not dependent on God's existence.
As you stated above the Gurus who wrote Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji were not perfect. I'm not going to accept that question of the existence of god cannot be resolved by the human brain simply because a book written by imperfect Gurus said so.
This has already been addressed. Of course we can resolve the issue of whether a supernatural god exists or not with science. Science can even tell us the most likely nature of god. Nowhere in the GGS does it state otherwise.
I think that's quite defeatest.
Once again, it is realist, not defeatist...
So I didn't respond to all of your post, but alot of what i read on SPN really bothers me, SIkhs are adamant that their god isn't abrahamic, but it many ways the sikh god is...
I disagree. I was raised to believe in the abrahamic god, and Waheguru is completely different.
Please be patient with my lack of Sikh knowledge, I have been locked in a Sikh family all of my life, my beard, my turban and my family's control over my life are starting to bother me to the point where i have only now just started to look into why i actually do these things. If i have the family pressure to follow a traditional life style I may aswell see where these traditions have arisen... I Say this because this has brought my attention to Sikh History and has motivated my reading Gurbani.
I have limited knowledge of Sikh history, philosophy and Gurbani so please excuse any errors and correct mistakes where I have made them.
Most Sikhs today would have us believe that in our age of science, technology, drugs and logic we are living in Kaljug, the only pain in my life is that which has come from a 300 year old relgion that makes me keep a beard.
I am sorry to hear about your situation, and I completely understand where you are coming from. I was raised in a religious household with very strict parents. During my early teenage years, I began questioning my birth religion and after years of research and deliberation, I ended up leaving it. I kept it a secret from my parents for a very long time (years) and I understand your frustration, that feeling of them breathing down your neck and making you do things that your heart isn't completely set on doing, only someone who has experienced it first hand knows just how bad it can be and I symphasize with you 100%.
I mean this with no disrespect intended, but I think your parents were completely wrong in their treatment of you. You should not be forced to wear a turban or grow your beard if that is not what you want to do. Likewise, the fact that (as you stated) you have limited knowledge of Sikh philosophy and Gurbani leads me to believe that your family are mainly just cultural/ritualistic Sikhs. I think most are these days, as long as the kids wear turbans, grow their hair, go to Gurdwara a few times a month, they think everything is all good. Very few families seem to bother teaching their kid the philosophy behind it all and so I understand your frustration at having to wear a turban/keep a beard when you don't really understand the point of doing it.
And even if you had been taught the philosophy, it still should have been your choice to cut your hair, if that is what you wanted to do. The Gurus called Sikhi "the game of love." There is no love involved when you are forced to do things against your will.
Since this is a big decision, I will suggest that you really delve into Sikh philosophy (as enshrined in Guru Granth Sahib) before deciding what to do. Forget about everything your parents or anybody else may have taught you about Sikhi. Don't believe in God? Well there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't make you a bad person and I assure you, you're not the only Sikh who does not believe in a supernatural creator.
The interesting thing is that the more I learn about science, the more I learn about Sikhi. I'm a big science geek and it has shaped my understanding of Sikhi more than anything else. Read the Guru Granth Sahib with your own heart and see if there is something in there for you.
Good luck my friend.
