☀️ 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
Why Did God Create Universe?
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: 174328" data-attributes="member: 586"><p><strong>Re: why did God create universe</strong></p><p></p><p>skeptic.freethinker ji,</p><p></p><p>I couldn't write earlier, one reason being that my desktop computer main board broke down and the notebook hasn't come back from the repairs. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually no, if I don't understand something immediately, I avoid thinking further about it. It is burdensome for me to work things out for long. Also I'm easily distracted and therefore my posts are usually not written in one sitting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And my comment was directed more at others than at you. ;-)</p><p></p><p>People confuse morally evil / unwholesome / disadvantageous states for being good / wholesome / advantageous. Attachment towards one’s religion is perceived as something positive and identification with it is encouraged. Pride, which otherwise is judged as undesirable, becomes a good thing when it is about one's own religion. While faith / confidence is based rightly on understanding the value of good states such as morality, kindness, generosity and so on, this becomes replaced by belief in a projected idea, where these good states are then referred to without any understanding. Indeed to refer to something outside of one's moment to moment experience as basis for right conduct is a case of wrong thinking motivated by ignorance, attachment, and in the case of God, wrong understanding about the way things are.</p><p></p><p>Regarding this particular matter, my intention was to draw the attention to the fact that fighting in battle with an intention to kill one’s enemy, rather than an act of bravery, is the product of strong attachment to self (and one's ideals). It is aversion in the form of fear and anger which drives a person to kill any living being. In battle, one may wield a sword or shoot an arrow, but aimed only at intimidating and never to hurt or kill. Knowing that if the enemy finds out about one's intention; one's own life is at risk, yet willing to face the consequence. *This* is bravery, which is result of understanding the value of and having confidence in, morally good action, while seeing the harm in and disadvantage of, immoral action. </p><p></p><p>If one's values are distorted then the actions which follow can't be right. If one *believes in* wrong which is mistaken for right, much wrong must follow. One misperception leads to misperception in other areas. An Islamic terrorist for example, is one who mistakes what is evil for good and then allows his thoughts to proliferate like mad.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why do you think that I am not moved by what science tells me? It is because I know that science deals with concepts and not with reality. That you consider science as providing evidence is because you too fail to make the reality vs. concept distinction. </p><p></p><p>While the scientist is going about his daily activities including when working with his theories and trying to prove them, he is ignorant of the mental and physical phenomena that make up his moment to moment experience. He does not understand any of what goes on as extremely fleeting and impersonal phenomena, but instead takes consciousness, feelings, perception and all actions through body, speech and mind as belonging to me, as mine and as I, lasting in time. Instead of understanding reality, he takes concepts for real.</p><p></p><p>I used to compare this situation with that of a child learning to draw geometrical objects perfectly and being able to use them creatively without a need to understand their mathematical properties. In the same way, a scientist is someone who has learnt to work with concepts, although he does not understand them for what they are. How he perceives the world is basically no different from how anyone else does. </p><p></p><p>Now, I man not suggesting that concepts be dismissed. Thinking is part of who we are and concepts are means by which we function at all. The problem is taking concepts for reality and thinking that in studying them, one comes closer to the Truth. This is wrong understanding at work and encouraging in fact, of further ignorance and attachment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I consider all religions except one, to be wrong when it comes to statement about the Truth. But neither does science touch upon the Truth! Both are dealing only with the conventional world, the objects of which are concepts. So yes, I would refer to science and not to religion when trying to understand and work with a particular aspect of the conventional world. </p><p></p><p>The main objective of religion however, wrong though it is about conventional reality, is to guide a person towards a moral and therefore more fruitful life. And I consider this much more important than the ability to predict the weather, produce food, inventing a computer, using the Internet, radio, telephone, the air- conditioner or even electricity and penicillin. Without any of these things, but with understanding, life becomes more meaningful. With all these things but no inclination towards morality and wisdom, life is not worth living.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it doesn't. But neither is it open to the possibility of being completely ignorant about reality / Truth. It believes its perceptions to be correct and that it is moving towards better understanding of reality. But this is not so. In fact science relies on agreed upon convention as basis for confidence in what it does, and this is no different from “belief”. And while a scientist goes about his daily task, including telling everyone else what he believes is reality, he'd do well to take some lessons from religion so that his life does not go too off track.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nothing new is ever learnt! What happens is the creation of new concepts as a result of a particular kind of observation / study. It is akin to seeing what one likes to see. The only “new” are the realities which rise and fall away as part of one's moment to moment experience. The rest is just concepts based on other concepts experienced in the past, some of which happen to give the impression of something “new” happening. </p><p></p><p>Indeed the very idea of “looking for answers” reflects a lack of appreciation with regard to the reality “now” as the only valid object of true knowledge.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To rely on religion for knowledge about the conventional world is foolish. </p><p>To rely on science for knowledge and understanding with regard to the Truth is also foolish.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, when thinking in terms of concepts such as human physiology and the universe, science is what one should turn to for a more reliable knowledge. Religion should not attempt to say anything about such things.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 174328, member: 586"] [b]Re: why did God create universe[/b] skeptic.freethinker ji, I couldn't write earlier, one reason being that my desktop computer main board broke down and the notebook hasn't come back from the repairs. Actually no, if I don't understand something immediately, I avoid thinking further about it. It is burdensome for me to work things out for long. Also I'm easily distracted and therefore my posts are usually not written in one sitting. And my comment was directed more at others than at you. ;-) People confuse morally evil / unwholesome / disadvantageous states for being good / wholesome / advantageous. Attachment towards one’s religion is perceived as something positive and identification with it is encouraged. Pride, which otherwise is judged as undesirable, becomes a good thing when it is about one's own religion. While faith / confidence is based rightly on understanding the value of good states such as morality, kindness, generosity and so on, this becomes replaced by belief in a projected idea, where these good states are then referred to without any understanding. Indeed to refer to something outside of one's moment to moment experience as basis for right conduct is a case of wrong thinking motivated by ignorance, attachment, and in the case of God, wrong understanding about the way things are. Regarding this particular matter, my intention was to draw the attention to the fact that fighting in battle with an intention to kill one’s enemy, rather than an act of bravery, is the product of strong attachment to self (and one's ideals). It is aversion in the form of fear and anger which drives a person to kill any living being. In battle, one may wield a sword or shoot an arrow, but aimed only at intimidating and never to hurt or kill. Knowing that if the enemy finds out about one's intention; one's own life is at risk, yet willing to face the consequence. *This* is bravery, which is result of understanding the value of and having confidence in, morally good action, while seeing the harm in and disadvantage of, immoral action. If one's values are distorted then the actions which follow can't be right. If one *believes in* wrong which is mistaken for right, much wrong must follow. One misperception leads to misperception in other areas. An Islamic terrorist for example, is one who mistakes what is evil for good and then allows his thoughts to proliferate like mad. Why do you think that I am not moved by what science tells me? It is because I know that science deals with concepts and not with reality. That you consider science as providing evidence is because you too fail to make the reality vs. concept distinction. While the scientist is going about his daily activities including when working with his theories and trying to prove them, he is ignorant of the mental and physical phenomena that make up his moment to moment experience. He does not understand any of what goes on as extremely fleeting and impersonal phenomena, but instead takes consciousness, feelings, perception and all actions through body, speech and mind as belonging to me, as mine and as I, lasting in time. Instead of understanding reality, he takes concepts for real. I used to compare this situation with that of a child learning to draw geometrical objects perfectly and being able to use them creatively without a need to understand their mathematical properties. In the same way, a scientist is someone who has learnt to work with concepts, although he does not understand them for what they are. How he perceives the world is basically no different from how anyone else does. Now, I man not suggesting that concepts be dismissed. Thinking is part of who we are and concepts are means by which we function at all. The problem is taking concepts for reality and thinking that in studying them, one comes closer to the Truth. This is wrong understanding at work and encouraging in fact, of further ignorance and attachment. I consider all religions except one, to be wrong when it comes to statement about the Truth. But neither does science touch upon the Truth! Both are dealing only with the conventional world, the objects of which are concepts. So yes, I would refer to science and not to religion when trying to understand and work with a particular aspect of the conventional world. The main objective of religion however, wrong though it is about conventional reality, is to guide a person towards a moral and therefore more fruitful life. And I consider this much more important than the ability to predict the weather, produce food, inventing a computer, using the Internet, radio, telephone, the air- conditioner or even electricity and penicillin. Without any of these things, but with understanding, life becomes more meaningful. With all these things but no inclination towards morality and wisdom, life is not worth living. No, it doesn't. But neither is it open to the possibility of being completely ignorant about reality / Truth. It believes its perceptions to be correct and that it is moving towards better understanding of reality. But this is not so. In fact science relies on agreed upon convention as basis for confidence in what it does, and this is no different from “belief”. And while a scientist goes about his daily task, including telling everyone else what he believes is reality, he'd do well to take some lessons from religion so that his life does not go too off track. Nothing new is ever learnt! What happens is the creation of new concepts as a result of a particular kind of observation / study. It is akin to seeing what one likes to see. The only “new” are the realities which rise and fall away as part of one's moment to moment experience. The rest is just concepts based on other concepts experienced in the past, some of which happen to give the impression of something “new” happening. Indeed the very idea of “looking for answers” reflects a lack of appreciation with regard to the reality “now” as the only valid object of true knowledge. To rely on religion for knowledge about the conventional world is foolish. To rely on science for knowledge and understanding with regard to the Truth is also foolish. Yes, when thinking in terms of concepts such as human physiology and the universe, science is what one should turn to for a more reliable knowledge. Religion should not attempt to say anything about such things. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Why Did God Create Universe?
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