☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
One God, So Many Religions
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_member15" data-source="post: 182465" data-attributes="member: 17438"><p>Dear Ambarsaria ji <img src="/images/smilies/sikhsmileys/munda_hug.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":mundahug:" title="Munda Hug :mundahug:" data-shortname=":mundahug:" /></p><p> </p><p>I just wanted to tell you that I really <em>truly </em>appreciate the insight you provide above. It really makes sense to me and in fact I share much the same belief with regards to the birth, growth, consolidation and decline of world religions in relation to the original essence of wisdom, or informed perception into the reality of things, that stands at its core. I think that you have voiced in most clear fashion something that I have tried to say on this and other forums but perhaps not expressed so well: that religions are different, they have developed in different cultural, philosophical and linguistic backgrounds; they have different structures, customs, doctrinal disagreements in areas and their unique evolutionary paths have created a rich diversity of sacred traditions or "wisdom streams" (as you put it). This diversity, this distinctness should be <em>embraced. </em>We should not expect people of other faiths, or even within our own faith, to see things exactly how we see it. </p><p> </p><p>The cuckoo doesn't mock the song of the dove because it sings differently; wood birds singing in the trees each have their own distinct notes yet they sing in <em>harmony. </em>My own opinion is that those who seek to create one, uniform religious body, such as Christian evangelists or Islamic missionaries, on a global scale are misguided since it is diversity in creation, cultures and even in religious beliefs that is the language of God who is the unity of opposites, the oneness that embraces plurality. </p><p> </p><p>While we must and should uphold the unique values of our own faiths, can we not also peel back some layers to find <em>wisdom, </em>insight into human nature, creation and life in general that is shared among religious traditions and forms a kind of <em>common deposit </em>of sacred knowledge that we can agree on? This does not demean the distinctiveness of our paths, it does not call for a false religious ecumenism that syncretizes religions and destroys their integrity, nor does it mean that we should not take pride in the uniqueness of our own faith and our differences, it simply means that our differences - while recognised - need not be causes for strife. </p><p> </p><p>All it does is recognise some sort of unity at the heart of the very real religious plurality, that can contribute to peace in the world of faith and allow us to see each other as brothers and sisters working for a common cause, even though we go down different roads to get there. </p><p> </p><p>Now it is my conviction that the wisdom that is at the heart of all religion, of whatever stripe - even some atheistic, humanistic or secular systems of belief - has its most glorious manifestation in that phenomenon common to most world faiths <em><strong>mysticism</strong>. </em>Now this word, because of its appropriation by the western New Age movement, has developed certain connotations that do not fit at all with its traditional meaning. </p><p> </p><p>Traditionally and correctly defined, mysticism essentially has to do with the preparation for, experience of and effect of a transformative consciousness of the presence of God, a higher power, law, nature or simply an unconditioned reality however defined, that leads to a change of heart in a person and to a life that has true meaning or enlightenment in other words. </p><p> </p><p>Scholars have detected such people in all religions, people who are more dedicated than most and more spiritually perceptive as to the wisdom in their own religious traditions. Mystical movements generally arise at a time of trouble, confusion, chaos or decline in the life of a religion and serve to re-focus and re-orient the faith back to its origins while also looking forward. </p><p> </p><p>To this end I have one question: </p><p> </p><p>What do you define this <em>wisdom</em> "as"? What is "it"? You mention above that at the level of this basic, pure wisdom there is to use your own words, "<strong>much synergistic between various streams of wisdom</strong>". </p><p> </p><p>Is wisdom <em>one</em>? Or are there many wisdoms just like there are many different perceptions of reality? </p><p> </p><p>Although I have promised SPNAdmin to <em>quote </em>less henceforth and provide more <em>reflective</em>, analytical thought in relation to my postings, I do think that with your post above, and given the topic of the thread (not to mention it being in the interfaith section of the forum) that one big quote is of relevance here, one I should add that I have quoted before on SPN - this time just to compare with your thinking above. </p><p> </p><p>It is from a man called Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, whom you will likely recall from our past discussions Ambarsaria ji. </p><p> </p><p>Cusa witnessed in his lifetime, in the middle of the fifteenth century, one of the lowest points in interreligious relations. After years of crusades between the Christian and Islamic worlds, Constantinople - the holy city for Eastern Christians - was sacked and conquered by the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine Empire fell apart and was replaced by the Ottoman Empire. </p><p> </p><p>This turn of events was devastating for Christians to watch. Some called for another crusade against the invading Muslims. However Cardinal Cusa, who at the time was the most powerful cleric in the church after the pope himself and a great Renaissance intellectual, called for mutual understanding and peace between Muslims and Christians. </p><p> </p><p>He wrote a book called <em>De Pace Fidei (The Peace of Faith) </em>which while showing the limits of his age, also exhibits progressive tendencies and a certain openness to other religions. </p><p> </p><p>He pictures a fictional council in heaven where all the world religions meet, debate and make peace with one another, accepting a unity in diversity rather than creating some false, new syncretistic blend of religions (much like the New Age is doing in our own time). </p><p> </p><p>I have <strong>bolded</strong> key parts: </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Nicholas of Cusa saw the peace of religions as being tied to recognition that there is <em>wisdom </em>at the heart of each faith tradition and that this wisdom is <em>one </em>- and I would add more apparent to mystics of those faiths than say the those with a more formal, ceremonial, going-through-the-motions kind of attachment to their faith. </p><p> </p><p>Read: </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Now I am sure that there are differences between Cusa and yourself above Ambarsaria ji, however I sense some kind of underlying leaning in a similar direction. Maybe I am wrong. </p><p> </p><p>I just think it is an interesting comparison, between Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 1400s and Ambarsaria ji on SPN in 2013 <img src="/images/smilies/sikhsmileys/munda-bhangra.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":mundabhangra:" title="Munda Bhangra :mundabhangra:" data-shortname=":mundabhangra:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member15, post: 182465, member: 17438"] Dear Ambarsaria ji :mundahug: I just wanted to tell you that I really [I]truly [/I]appreciate the insight you provide above. It really makes sense to me and in fact I share much the same belief with regards to the birth, growth, consolidation and decline of world religions in relation to the original essence of wisdom, or informed perception into the reality of things, that stands at its core. I think that you have voiced in most clear fashion something that I have tried to say on this and other forums but perhaps not expressed so well: that religions are different, they have developed in different cultural, philosophical and linguistic backgrounds; they have different structures, customs, doctrinal disagreements in areas and their unique evolutionary paths have created a rich diversity of sacred traditions or "wisdom streams" (as you put it). This diversity, this distinctness should be [I]embraced. [/I]We should not expect people of other faiths, or even within our own faith, to see things exactly how we see it. The cuckoo doesn't mock the song of the dove because it sings differently; wood birds singing in the trees each have their own distinct notes yet they sing in [I]harmony. [/I]My own opinion is that those who seek to create one, uniform religious body, such as Christian evangelists or Islamic missionaries, on a global scale are misguided since it is diversity in creation, cultures and even in religious beliefs that is the language of God who is the unity of opposites, the oneness that embraces plurality. While we must and should uphold the unique values of our own faiths, can we not also peel back some layers to find [I]wisdom, [/I]insight into human nature, creation and life in general that is shared among religious traditions and forms a kind of [I]common deposit [/I]of sacred knowledge that we can agree on? This does not demean the distinctiveness of our paths, it does not call for a false religious ecumenism that syncretizes religions and destroys their integrity, nor does it mean that we should not take pride in the uniqueness of our own faith and our differences, it simply means that our differences - while recognised - need not be causes for strife. All it does is recognise some sort of unity at the heart of the very real religious plurality, that can contribute to peace in the world of faith and allow us to see each other as brothers and sisters working for a common cause, even though we go down different roads to get there. Now it is my conviction that the wisdom that is at the heart of all religion, of whatever stripe - even some atheistic, humanistic or secular systems of belief - has its most glorious manifestation in that phenomenon common to most world faiths [I][B]mysticism[/B]. [/I]Now this word, because of its appropriation by the western New Age movement, has developed certain connotations that do not fit at all with its traditional meaning. Traditionally and correctly defined, mysticism essentially has to do with the preparation for, experience of and effect of a transformative consciousness of the presence of God, a higher power, law, nature or simply an unconditioned reality however defined, that leads to a change of heart in a person and to a life that has true meaning or enlightenment in other words. Scholars have detected such people in all religions, people who are more dedicated than most and more spiritually perceptive as to the wisdom in their own religious traditions. Mystical movements generally arise at a time of trouble, confusion, chaos or decline in the life of a religion and serve to re-focus and re-orient the faith back to its origins while also looking forward. To this end I have one question: What do you define this [I]wisdom[/I] "as"? What is "it"? You mention above that at the level of this basic, pure wisdom there is to use your own words, "[B]much synergistic between various streams of wisdom[/B]". Is wisdom [I]one[/I]? Or are there many wisdoms just like there are many different perceptions of reality? Although I have promised SPNAdmin to [I]quote [/I]less henceforth and provide more [I]reflective[/I], analytical thought in relation to my postings, I do think that with your post above, and given the topic of the thread (not to mention it being in the interfaith section of the forum) that one big quote is of relevance here, one I should add that I have quoted before on SPN - this time just to compare with your thinking above. It is from a man called Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, whom you will likely recall from our past discussions Ambarsaria ji. Cusa witnessed in his lifetime, in the middle of the fifteenth century, one of the lowest points in interreligious relations. After years of crusades between the Christian and Islamic worlds, Constantinople - the holy city for Eastern Christians - was sacked and conquered by the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine Empire fell apart and was replaced by the Ottoman Empire. This turn of events was devastating for Christians to watch. Some called for another crusade against the invading Muslims. However Cardinal Cusa, who at the time was the most powerful cleric in the church after the pope himself and a great Renaissance intellectual, called for mutual understanding and peace between Muslims and Christians. He wrote a book called [I]De Pace Fidei (The Peace of Faith) [/I]which while showing the limits of his age, also exhibits progressive tendencies and a certain openness to other religions. He pictures a fictional council in heaven where all the world religions meet, debate and make peace with one another, accepting a unity in diversity rather than creating some false, new syncretistic blend of religions (much like the New Age is doing in our own time). I have [B]bolded[/B] key parts: Nicholas of Cusa saw the peace of religions as being tied to recognition that there is [I]wisdom [/I]at the heart of each faith tradition and that this wisdom is [I]one [/I]- and I would add more apparent to mystics of those faiths than say the those with a more formal, ceremonial, going-through-the-motions kind of attachment to their faith. Read: [FONT=Century Gothic][/FONT] Now I am sure that there are differences between Cusa and yourself above Ambarsaria ji, however I sense some kind of underlying leaning in a similar direction. Maybe I am wrong. I just think it is an interesting comparison, between Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 1400s and Ambarsaria ji on SPN in 2013 :mundabhangra: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
One God, So Many Religions
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