☀️ 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
A Speech On Spirituality By Javed Aktar
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="GPSB" data-source="post: 219409" data-attributes="member: 22275"><p>I have seen Akhtar in debates and otherwise, but oftentimes it appears to me that he has his own version of atheism, and he also has some metaphysical ideas which won’t conform to say the atheism of a logical positivist. I can give some anecdotes for the same,</p><p></p><p>1. His reference to potentiality for nobleness, happiness etc having limits. This may be based on some psychological readings, but there is no gold standard as if someone has for eg 1000 credits of nobility in life, and he may consume 800 on devotional worship etc. this is so because we can reasonably presume a person who is noble all throughout, eg Bhagat Puran Singh, or on the other hand someone who isn’t noble at all, like say Kim Jong Un or Joseph Stalin etc. So yes while he can be against spirituality from this metric, it certainly doesn’t flow from pure and applied reason and his thesis of potential utilisation of certain abilities (as if we know that a certain object or worship would expend X credits of nobility like calories is his own metaphysical creation.</p><p></p><p>2. He refers that there is a certain place in the mind, while talking to sadhguru where poetry comes in. It seems he has amassed himself stature through intellectual activity, yet he fails to establish his position on the mind, is he a materialist? Epiphenomenalist etc? If he is an atheist and if I may presume also a materialist, then he must acknowledge that the self is a profound illusion generated by random flow of electrons in the cranium and the CNS, and his works thus emanating from such space are not creative genuine but a flux of that randomness, and so is the vast body of knowledge of the sciences and even the premise of reason. But he sounds very firm on the ability of man to causatively determine actions in the material world as is evidenced in this article for hinting at devotion to be non productive, and thus he must explain how does he establish man’s causative nature, will etc if he assumes himself to be a materialist.</p><p></p><p>3. If he presumes the non materialist position and says intellect is something obscure, yet materially determined or some weird combination in the arrangement of things causes it, it requires further explanation, and it is certainly an epistemological problem to explain subjective experience with and objective tool kit.</p><p></p><p>4. I personally think he has not come to grips with a logical positivist derivation of atheism. This is the problem with all humanists, while they chide religion, they stand up for humanely things (which is what I like) however they too are irrational in doing so or may I call act extra-rationally like the spiritual, as reason (the logical positivist type) is teeming to tell that the cosmos will eventually die out, the big freeze etc etc, so I think if he chides the spiritualists in some way as above, the argument applies to him as well. Atheism of the logical positivist type leaves no room for cosmic optimism And cannot be divorced from nihilism. It requires a transgression of reason, call it irrationalism or extrarationalism to create meaning whether existentially or transcendentally.</p><p></p><p>My perspective on this from what I know from Gurmat-</p><p></p><p>1. Spirituality or practice is a way of living, it is not a matter of reason, just as ethics follow a different kind of reason so does spirituality, which is the inherent human need to be at peace.</p><p></p><p>2. Spirituality is confined to the subjective and experiential, not to the objective world (only as a practice rid of metaphysical notions)</p><p></p><p>3. The purpose of life according to gurmat is to find Waheguru, the nirankar, Akal within life and the living, and instil the emotion of humility and compassion derived from Simran outwardly to the world in the herein rather than sit as a recluse (As is evidenced by the life of the gurus, and the Sikhs, kirt, naam, and Vand) Thus our spiritual practice is not a way of spending nobility like credits, but actually cultivating and creating it. Basically like earning a salary of the said virtue.</p><p></p><p>4. The corollary of nihilism is that life as all meaning possible, if life has no meaning, it has all the meaning possible. Similarly if there is no God, and all is an endless void, all is God as the impersonal immanent yet transcendent through creation. Thus the divide between theism and atheism is trivial for the Sikh as parmatam is sargun and Nirguna, formless and of all forms. What is important is to realise the falsehood of the ego. To be silent, to be nimana, realise one’s triviality to the grandeur of creation, which being synonymous with Waheguru exists for itself, creates life for itself through itself and will at some future stage remain by itself. (Not very different from modern cosmological views about the future of the universe and its ultimate state)</p><p></p><p>5. Akhtar sounds atheistical only to generate noise it seems, he has himself developed some metaphysics of his own in life and I respect him for that, it can be a way for him realising the highest inner potential within all.</p><p></p><p>6. Notions and assumptions that everything must conform to reason are yet again philosophical assumptions, we can’t reasonably say that all knowledge is what we can see through reason, that’s why the body of science as a system establishes ‘methodological naturalism’ not metaphysical naturalism, and I must quote metaphysical naturalism or monism or materialism are what they are, assumptions just taken, and hence are metaphysical views. (But only methodological first steps for science as that is what one requires to do it). It is science to test falsifiable assumptions through evidence and subsequent theorisation in a process that appears dialectical in the long run, but it is ‘not science’ to claim that all knowledge comes through science or that all knowledge should conform to the scientific process of falsification as this statement is in Metaphysics or aesthetics rather than a statement derived from science, ie it is itself non falsifiable(Karl Popper’s gold standard for science). This is where I feel atheism is more an aesthetic and philosophical position and this is what I reiterate to people espousing similar views that they are not ‘holier’or wiser than equally informed people who may make metaphysical assumptions different from them.</p><p></p><p>7. Akhtar as his case is, oftentimes brings or shows this holier than thou in his views and critiques of the spiritual. But I have seen many atheists who are honest that deep down they too like the spiritualists make a metaphysical assumption on asserting that everything must conform to empiric reason, as this statement is not evidenced in the scientific method but an aesthetic or metaphysical position which itself cannot be falsified. This is where the Granth Sahib is right that irrespective of our views, we all are the same.</p><p></p><p>8. I agree with his critique on modern day spirituality in its sociological dimensions, but when it comes to craft an admixture of the sociological with the metaphysical and a claim for a holier than thou, I believe he should be put back to his place.</p><p></p><p>9. Akhtar should be mindful of what FW Nietzsche has said, “we the godless anti metaphysicians of today take the same fire from the thousand year old faith, which was also of plato, that God is Truth and Truth is divine.” It is here Nietzsche is intellectually honest by saying that even atheism;</p><p></p><p>Or anti metaphysics requires a metaphysical position at the first place, and so does any body of knowledge. Yes, Akhtar can claim to be holier on grounds moral, aesthetic, utilitarian etc, but he cannot claim to be rid of metaphysics for that statement too is metaphysical and the other categories can espouse for their superiority over other world views through the various grounds enumerated above.</p><p></p><p>I personally don’t find this cosmic pessimism accompanying his worldview pleasing, liberating or useful. It cheapens life and kills love for me. It maybe the other way around for others, but I don’t want their evangelism. For my metaphysical assumption is “ਮਨ ਤੂੰ ਜੋਤ ਸਰੂਪ ਹੈ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੂਲ ਪਛਾਣ।।”</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GPSB, post: 219409, member: 22275"] I have seen Akhtar in debates and otherwise, but oftentimes it appears to me that he has his own version of atheism, and he also has some metaphysical ideas which won’t conform to say the atheism of a logical positivist. I can give some anecdotes for the same, 1. His reference to potentiality for nobleness, happiness etc having limits. This may be based on some psychological readings, but there is no gold standard as if someone has for eg 1000 credits of nobility in life, and he may consume 800 on devotional worship etc. this is so because we can reasonably presume a person who is noble all throughout, eg Bhagat Puran Singh, or on the other hand someone who isn’t noble at all, like say Kim Jong Un or Joseph Stalin etc. So yes while he can be against spirituality from this metric, it certainly doesn’t flow from pure and applied reason and his thesis of potential utilisation of certain abilities (as if we know that a certain object or worship would expend X credits of nobility like calories is his own metaphysical creation. 2. He refers that there is a certain place in the mind, while talking to sadhguru where poetry comes in. It seems he has amassed himself stature through intellectual activity, yet he fails to establish his position on the mind, is he a materialist? Epiphenomenalist etc? If he is an atheist and if I may presume also a materialist, then he must acknowledge that the self is a profound illusion generated by random flow of electrons in the cranium and the CNS, and his works thus emanating from such space are not creative genuine but a flux of that randomness, and so is the vast body of knowledge of the sciences and even the premise of reason. But he sounds very firm on the ability of man to causatively determine actions in the material world as is evidenced in this article for hinting at devotion to be non productive, and thus he must explain how does he establish man’s causative nature, will etc if he assumes himself to be a materialist. 3. If he presumes the non materialist position and says intellect is something obscure, yet materially determined or some weird combination in the arrangement of things causes it, it requires further explanation, and it is certainly an epistemological problem to explain subjective experience with and objective tool kit. 4. I personally think he has not come to grips with a logical positivist derivation of atheism. This is the problem with all humanists, while they chide religion, they stand up for humanely things (which is what I like) however they too are irrational in doing so or may I call act extra-rationally like the spiritual, as reason (the logical positivist type) is teeming to tell that the cosmos will eventually die out, the big freeze etc etc, so I think if he chides the spiritualists in some way as above, the argument applies to him as well. Atheism of the logical positivist type leaves no room for cosmic optimism And cannot be divorced from nihilism. It requires a transgression of reason, call it irrationalism or extrarationalism to create meaning whether existentially or transcendentally. My perspective on this from what I know from Gurmat- 1. Spirituality or practice is a way of living, it is not a matter of reason, just as ethics follow a different kind of reason so does spirituality, which is the inherent human need to be at peace. 2. Spirituality is confined to the subjective and experiential, not to the objective world (only as a practice rid of metaphysical notions) 3. The purpose of life according to gurmat is to find Waheguru, the nirankar, Akal within life and the living, and instil the emotion of humility and compassion derived from Simran outwardly to the world in the herein rather than sit as a recluse (As is evidenced by the life of the gurus, and the Sikhs, kirt, naam, and Vand) Thus our spiritual practice is not a way of spending nobility like credits, but actually cultivating and creating it. Basically like earning a salary of the said virtue. 4. The corollary of nihilism is that life as all meaning possible, if life has no meaning, it has all the meaning possible. Similarly if there is no God, and all is an endless void, all is God as the impersonal immanent yet transcendent through creation. Thus the divide between theism and atheism is trivial for the Sikh as parmatam is sargun and Nirguna, formless and of all forms. What is important is to realise the falsehood of the ego. To be silent, to be nimana, realise one’s triviality to the grandeur of creation, which being synonymous with Waheguru exists for itself, creates life for itself through itself and will at some future stage remain by itself. (Not very different from modern cosmological views about the future of the universe and its ultimate state) 5. Akhtar sounds atheistical only to generate noise it seems, he has himself developed some metaphysics of his own in life and I respect him for that, it can be a way for him realising the highest inner potential within all. 6. Notions and assumptions that everything must conform to reason are yet again philosophical assumptions, we can’t reasonably say that all knowledge is what we can see through reason, that’s why the body of science as a system establishes ‘methodological naturalism’ not metaphysical naturalism, and I must quote metaphysical naturalism or monism or materialism are what they are, assumptions just taken, and hence are metaphysical views. (But only methodological first steps for science as that is what one requires to do it). It is science to test falsifiable assumptions through evidence and subsequent theorisation in a process that appears dialectical in the long run, but it is ‘not science’ to claim that all knowledge comes through science or that all knowledge should conform to the scientific process of falsification as this statement is in Metaphysics or aesthetics rather than a statement derived from science, ie it is itself non falsifiable(Karl Popper’s gold standard for science). This is where I feel atheism is more an aesthetic and philosophical position and this is what I reiterate to people espousing similar views that they are not ‘holier’or wiser than equally informed people who may make metaphysical assumptions different from them. 7. Akhtar as his case is, oftentimes brings or shows this holier than thou in his views and critiques of the spiritual. But I have seen many atheists who are honest that deep down they too like the spiritualists make a metaphysical assumption on asserting that everything must conform to empiric reason, as this statement is not evidenced in the scientific method but an aesthetic or metaphysical position which itself cannot be falsified. This is where the Granth Sahib is right that irrespective of our views, we all are the same. 8. I agree with his critique on modern day spirituality in its sociological dimensions, but when it comes to craft an admixture of the sociological with the metaphysical and a claim for a holier than thou, I believe he should be put back to his place. 9. Akhtar should be mindful of what FW Nietzsche has said, “we the godless anti metaphysicians of today take the same fire from the thousand year old faith, which was also of plato, that God is Truth and Truth is divine.” It is here Nietzsche is intellectually honest by saying that even atheism; Or anti metaphysics requires a metaphysical position at the first place, and so does any body of knowledge. Yes, Akhtar can claim to be holier on grounds moral, aesthetic, utilitarian etc, but he cannot claim to be rid of metaphysics for that statement too is metaphysical and the other categories can espouse for their superiority over other world views through the various grounds enumerated above. I personally don’t find this cosmic pessimism accompanying his worldview pleasing, liberating or useful. It cheapens life and kills love for me. It maybe the other way around for others, but I don’t want their evangelism. For my metaphysical assumption is “ਮਨ ਤੂੰ ਜੋਤ ਸਰੂਪ ਹੈ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੂਲ ਪਛਾਣ।।” [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
A Speech On Spirituality By Javed Aktar
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