☀️ 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
Sikhism And Atheism: A Philosophical Discourse
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="Astroboy" data-source="post: 113912" data-attributes="member: 4990"><p><a href="http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/wanted-a-religion-that-reflects-reality.html" target="_blank">http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_o...s-reality.html</a></p><p></p><p><strong>Wanted: a religion that reflects reality</strong></p><p></p><p> Well, already there's a seeming contradiction in this blog post -- the title. Because if a religion truly reflected reality, it'd be part of the scientific world view, not religiosity.</p><p>So what I mean by "religion" is something more like a philosophy, poetic vision, or statement of what life is about. A meaning-dimension that adds depth to the everyday here and now while remaining consistent with the consensual truths about the cosmos known to science.</p><p>Traditional religions come up <em>way short</em> in this regard, along with most non-traditional faiths.</p><p>Consider some of the facts (open to alteration, of course) that a reality-based religion would have to mesh its teachings with:</p><p>-- Our universe is some fourteen billion years old, having gotten its beginning in a " <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big%20Bang" target="_blank">big bang</a>" that produced a still-happening (and accelerating) expansion of time and space.</p><p>-- Over the history of the universe, originally formless matter and energy have congealed into increasingly complex conglomerations that bear no imprint of having been formed by anything but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws%20of%20nature" target="_blank">laws of nature</a>.</p><p>-- Those laws led to life <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php" target="_blank">arising</a> on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago. Evolutionary principles such as natural selection guided the appearance (and disappearance) of species. Now <em>Homo sapiens</em> is capable of pondering how and why we're here.</p><p>There doesn't seem to be room for a personal creator God in this realistic view of reality. Thus it's difficult, though not impossible, to be a scientifically-minded Christian, Jew, or Muslim (to do this, you have to embrace a non-fundamentalist conception of your religion).</p><p>Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism fit better with modern science, but by no means completely. Reincarnation or rebirth, for example, are tough to reconcile with the extremely limited (some would say <em>nonexistent</em>) evidence that human consciousness survives death in some fashion.</p><p>I didn't like the singer or the music much, but her <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/nice_psalm.php" target="_blank">churchless lyrics</a> are appealing. Sample (with some misspellings corrected):<p style="margin-left: 20px">Don't need no Hare Krishna Hare Krishna,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Hail Mary, Hail Mary god.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Got no yen for zen, Bhagavad-Gita or Gurdjieff.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">No Mormon, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist god,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no absolutes beyond refute,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no reverential preferential Judaic Messianic god.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">No Bibles, no Mahayanas, Dalai Lama</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">instant dharma gods.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Don't need no spiritual suicide or</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">prefrontal lobotomizing god.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Don't need no stoic sexless</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">antiseptic god.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Don't need no neon crucifix,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no jade Buddhas, no Vedas or Upanishads,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no camels or needles or Papal decrees,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no mail-order ikons, Korans or Mandalas,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no Sri Chimnoys, Meha Babas, or Ayatollahs,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no Gautamas, no Manitou, Ouspensky or Marx,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no yin/yang, no tao, no tarot or incense,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no sacred mushrooms</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no dianetics,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no Tibetan prayer mats</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">no "Immortal invisible gods only wise".</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>That said, I still feel there's a place -- even more, a necessity -- for awe and a sense of mystery in my personal world view. </p><p>For many people, religion fulfills the same need. Their faith leads them to look beyond the narrow confines of everyday existence toward the limitless horizon of <em>whatever</em>.</p><p>However, as a video (see below) of religious fakery says, believing in dogma is like eating invisible food. You think you're getting some sustenance, but it's all empty calories.</p><p>I feel the most satiated when I dive into a hearty meal of ultimate awe -- ignoring unsatisfying tid-bits of religious, spiritual, mystical, or philosophical speculation. </p><p><em>The universe is. I am.</em></p><p>Holy freaking amazingly obvious yet also astoundingly mind blowing. </p><p>Often it's said that the ultimate <a href="http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/07/18/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing.htm" target="_blank">question</a> is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I used to agree. However, now I prefer to dump the question mark plus the first word, and transpose the next two. </p><p><em>There is something rather than nothing.</em></p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok" target="_blank">Grok</a> that. </p><p>When I do, or make a honestly-aweful attempt, I'm left with what feels like the closest I can come to reality-based "religion" (using that word as I defined it above). </p><p>Science tells us a lot about what the something is that surrounds us, and is us. But neither science, nor religion, nor anything or anyone else can penetrate the mystery of <em>There is</em>... .</p><p>Is just is. Always was, always will be. Praise <em>is</em>. </p><p>No need to call it "God." Too much garbage associated with that word. I want to keep my awe clear and simple. Focused on the <a href="http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/03/deepening_the_m.html" target="_blank">mystery of existence</a>, not on what exists within <em>is</em>.</p><p>Reality is. Unreality isn't. Nothing more to say (for now).</p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/wanted-a-religion-that-reflects-reality.html" target="_blank">http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/wanted-a-religion-that-reflects-reality.html</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Astroboy, post: 113912, member: 4990"] [URL="http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/wanted-a-religion-that-reflects-reality.html"]http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_o...s-reality.html[/URL] [B]Wanted: a religion that reflects reality[/B] Well, already there's a seeming contradiction in this blog post -- the title. Because if a religion truly reflected reality, it'd be part of the scientific world view, not religiosity. So what I mean by "religion" is something more like a philosophy, poetic vision, or statement of what life is about. A meaning-dimension that adds depth to the everyday here and now while remaining consistent with the consensual truths about the cosmos known to science. Traditional religions come up [I]way short[/I] in this regard, along with most non-traditional faiths. Consider some of the facts (open to alteration, of course) that a reality-based religion would have to mesh its teachings with: -- Our universe is some fourteen billion years old, having gotten its beginning in a " [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big%20Bang"]big bang[/URL]" that produced a still-happening (and accelerating) expansion of time and space. -- Over the history of the universe, originally formless matter and energy have congealed into increasingly complex conglomerations that bear no imprint of having been formed by anything but the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws%20of%20nature"]laws of nature[/URL]. -- Those laws led to life [URL="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php"]arising[/URL] on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago. Evolutionary principles such as natural selection guided the appearance (and disappearance) of species. Now [I]Homo sapiens[/I] is capable of pondering how and why we're here. There doesn't seem to be room for a personal creator God in this realistic view of reality. Thus it's difficult, though not impossible, to be a scientifically-minded Christian, Jew, or Muslim (to do this, you have to embrace a non-fundamentalist conception of your religion). Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism fit better with modern science, but by no means completely. Reincarnation or rebirth, for example, are tough to reconcile with the extremely limited (some would say [I]nonexistent[/I]) evidence that human consciousness survives death in some fashion. I didn't like the singer or the music much, but her [URL="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/nice_psalm.php"]churchless lyrics[/URL] are appealing. Sample (with some misspellings corrected):[INDENT]Don't need no Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Hail Mary, Hail Mary god. Got no yen for zen, Bhagavad-Gita or Gurdjieff. No Mormon, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist god, no absolutes beyond refute, no reverential preferential Judaic Messianic god. No Bibles, no Mahayanas, Dalai Lama instant dharma gods. Don't need no spiritual suicide or prefrontal lobotomizing god. Don't need no stoic sexless antiseptic god. Don't need no neon crucifix, no jade Buddhas, no Vedas or Upanishads, no camels or needles or Papal decrees, no mail-order ikons, Korans or Mandalas, no Sri Chimnoys, Meha Babas, or Ayatollahs, no Gautamas, no Manitou, Ouspensky or Marx, no yin/yang, no tao, no tarot or incense, no sacred mushrooms no dianetics, no Tibetan prayer mats no "Immortal invisible gods only wise". [/INDENT]That said, I still feel there's a place -- even more, a necessity -- for awe and a sense of mystery in my personal world view. For many people, religion fulfills the same need. Their faith leads them to look beyond the narrow confines of everyday existence toward the limitless horizon of [I]whatever[/I]. However, as a video (see below) of religious fakery says, believing in dogma is like eating invisible food. You think you're getting some sustenance, but it's all empty calories. I feel the most satiated when I dive into a hearty meal of ultimate awe -- ignoring unsatisfying tid-bits of religious, spiritual, mystical, or philosophical speculation. [I]The universe is. I am.[/I] Holy freaking amazingly obvious yet also astoundingly mind blowing. Often it's said that the ultimate [URL="http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/07/18/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing.htm"]question[/URL] is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I used to agree. However, now I prefer to dump the question mark plus the first word, and transpose the next two. [I]There is something rather than nothing.[/I] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok"]Grok[/url] that. When I do, or make a honestly-aweful attempt, I'm left with what feels like the closest I can come to reality-based "religion" (using that word as I defined it above). Science tells us a lot about what the something is that surrounds us, and is us. But neither science, nor religion, nor anything or anyone else can penetrate the mystery of [I]There is[/I]... . Is just is. Always was, always will be. Praise [I]is[/I]. No need to call it "God." Too much garbage associated with that word. I want to keep my awe clear and simple. Focused on the [URL="http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2007/03/deepening_the_m.html"]mystery of existence[/URL], not on what exists within [I]is[/I]. Reality is. Unreality isn't. Nothing more to say (for now). [URL]http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/wanted-a-religion-that-reflects-reality.html[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Sikhism And Atheism: A Philosophical Discourse
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