☀️ 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
Concept Of Evil Spirits In Sikhism
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="muddymick" data-source="post: 187166" data-attributes="member: 14492"><p>Ambarsaria Ji, with respect..</p><p></p><p>I think I will have to approach this differently, As i detect some contradictions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Lets deal with the most obvious first so we don’t get bogged down by too many avenues of attention.</p><p></p><p>If that’s o.k?. </p><p></p><p>I will mark each of your postulations with a number for ease of reference.</p><p>Then we can establish the statements congruence within Gurbani and within your </p><p>posts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So lets look at one…</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is very explicitly stating that there is a difference between the Knower and the Known.</p><p></p><p>You are stating here quite explicitly that knowledge of Waheguru and creation is limited for that creation; therefore there is a difference between God and creation!</p><p></p><p>If Waheguru is no different from his creation (unity, single, one) and his creation is limited then by definition Waheguru is subject to the same imitations!</p><p></p><p>You are rejecting the unity of God here!</p><p></p><p>You are saying certain aspects are limited, whereas other aspects are not.</p><p></p><p>You are saying something is the same but different……how?</p><p></p><p>This therefore implies that God has different qualities to his creation!</p><p></p><p>If they have different qualities are they not separate?</p><p></p><p>Lets see if that statement is congruent with your others here;</p><p></p><p>Statement 2) is in agreement as it clearly says there is a difference between the knower and the known.</p><p></p><p>Statement 3) is also congruent as it clearly implies that infinity and perfect knowing are not qualities that certain parts of creation can have! </p><p></p><p>4) This is also congruent with the former statement although I do not want to do you a disservice here and make a false assumption. A Sikh who follows the Guru’s by destroying the ego and the five poisons and becoming one with Waheguru is called what in Gurbani?</p><p></p><p>So I think we can clearly see that the above statements from one to four are in agreement (although I will concede statement four is far from clear)</p><p></p><p>They all reject the unity of God!</p><p></p><p>So if we move to the puari from Japji next, lets see if that is congruent with 1 to 4?</p><p>I will mark the puari lines from 1a to 7a.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it may be best to deal with this line by line in relation to your four initial postulations regarding the separate nature of the creator and his creation.</p><p></p><p>Line 1a) It Regards the attributes of God, as it does not relate to unity, there is no incongruence with your statements nor with mine.</p><p></p><p>2a) Now here is the rub “His limits cannot be perceived” and I am presuming this is the crux of you argument.</p><p>However it is on rather shaky ground, does this statement mean <span style="color: lime">God has no limits?</span></p><p>As <span style="color: lime">how could you perceive that which does no exist?</span></p><p>Or does it mean man cannot see/ understand/know his limits?</p><p>Personally I agree with the rest of Gurbani and read it as the former <span style="color: lime">that god has no limits!</span> </p><p>I think maybe we need to contextualise this both linguistically and philosophically (I will revisit this)</p><p></p><p>3a) Here we have a repeat in theme The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. </p><p>Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.</p><p>One has to ask the obvious question again, does it mean man is separate (has different qualities) from his creator thereby negating both the mul mantar and the vast majority of Shabads relating to God’s unity or would a more consistent and logical deduction be that <span style="color: Lime">these limits cannot be perceived because they do not exist?</span></p><p>One has to look at the Guru Granth Sahib ji as a whole for this answer and one would (with all faith in Gurbani’s infallibility) conclude it would not contradict itself as you suggest!</p><p></p><p>4a)Again in this line are you suggesting that the reason people struggle is because they have separate qualities from god and creation or because the limits do not exist?</p><p>I would conclude that the limits do not exist and refer you to the observations above vis-à-vis consistency, logic and infallibility of Gurbani!</p><p></p><p>5a)<span style="color: lime">How can one know a limit that does not exist?</span> <span style="color: lime">How can language a finite structure explain the infinite?</span></p><p>Again <span style="color: lime">considering Gods infinite nature how could a limit be known?</span> That would be illogical, inconsistent and contradictory. As would suggesting a difference between the creator and the created!</p><p></p><p>6a)I think this line like the first is neither contentious nor directly relevant to this particular debate.</p><p></p><p>7a)I don’t see how this line could imply difference in qualities between creator and created in light of the previous contextualisation however if you have any thoughts I am most happy to address them.</p><p></p><p>8a)I think this line can hold no water for you when considered again in context rather than implying a separation, a difference in quality it affirms his unity!</p><p></p><p>We then move on to another section of similar postulations. I will again for ease of reference mark them with numbers from 5 to 12.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In statement 1) you very clearly say that not all knowledge or truth can be known and we have dealt with the implications of that statement above. Yet here you say that creator and creation are the same, have the same qualities. </p><p><span style="color: lime">This is a direct and blatant contradiction.</span></p><p>They have the same qualities, they are one. Yet they have different qualities, one is infinite and the other limited.</p><p><span style="color: lime">Do you not see the problems here?</span></p><p></p><p>In statement 2) pretty much the same contradiction occurs again making a clear division between knower and known.</p><p></p><p>In statement 3) Again contradictory, you say perfect knowledge is infinite so it can not be known! Clearly saying man has an inability to deal with the infinite. Man has different qualities to God. If man is different how is he synonymous with God?</p><p></p><p>In statement 4) I think you really need to either accept the description of Gurmukh in Gurbani or offer an alternative interpretation that is consistent and logical. If we take your interpretation, you again proscribe different qualities to creator and created. <span style="color: lime">You insist on the duality of God.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this statement consistent with your other statements? Yes apart from god being synonymous with creation.</p><p>Is it contradictory to your other statements? No apart from from god being synonymous with creation.</p><p></p><p>You are placing a reference on creation that I am not!</p><p>It is you suggesting that a different bit of creation has a different quality from the rest!</p><p><span style="color: lime">The whole point is that one does not take parts of creation; creation is one as is its creator.</span></p><p><span style="color: lime">It is you creating the false division!</span></p><p>As creation in reality does not have parts, it is!</p><p>The creator and all creation are one!</p><p><span style="color: lime">How would you suggest one separates God from his creation?</span></p><p><span style="color: lime">If you accept the unity of God how do you then suggest one creates disunity to look at whether all the component parts are of the same quality.</span></p><p>That is ridiculous.</p><p>How would you take any part of creation?</p><p>When it does not have a part but a whole!</p><p>However this statement is absolutely consistent with all other statements except 6!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: lime">So the difference in qualities and abilities etc that you insist on in statement 1 to 7 (except 6) are all irrelevant now?</span> Because of one contradictory statement separateness is non-existent?</p><p></p><p>So now you agree with me creator and creation have no fundamental difference they are one?</p><p></p><p><span style="color: lime">So I refer you to all my previous refutations regarding your insistence on qualitative difference, duality and disunity of God and creation?</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I dealt with that above, however in relation to your other posts it contradicts non apart from 5 and 7 when considered within your dualistic perspective.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You really need to either accept what Gurbani says about Gurmukhs non differential with all creation or offer another direct quote that explicitly says different.</p><p>If that is the case that Gurbani contradicts itself then we need to decide what is the name we give to a human who has achieved union with God?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See my answer to 7) above. If it is a general term for one on the path please give me reference from Guru Granth Sahib Ji.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In the first line I have no idea what you mean? How does one have an understanding and live without it?</p><p><span style="color: lime">You imply that Gurmukh is a process that never reaches non dual experience</span>?</p><p>If that is the case what is one called who does? Can I have a reference from Gurbani?</p><p></p><p></p><p>12)“You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”</p><p></p><p>Reference please?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If it is mixing oil and water please blame the Guru responsible for writing it!</p><p>If a Sikh does not need Samadhi why is it in the Guru Granth Sahib ji are you suggesting it is a mistake or irrelevant?</p><p>If parts of the Guru granth Sahib ji are mixing oil and water or irrelevant why are you suggesting being guided by it?</p><p> </p><p>Many Thanks </p><p></p><p>:interestedmunda:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="muddymick, post: 187166, member: 14492"] Ambarsaria Ji, with respect.. I think I will have to approach this differently, As i detect some contradictions. Lets deal with the most obvious first so we don’t get bogged down by too many avenues of attention. If that’s o.k?. I will mark each of your postulations with a number for ease of reference. Then we can establish the statements congruence within Gurbani and within your posts. So lets look at one… This is very explicitly stating that there is a difference between the Knower and the Known. You are stating here quite explicitly that knowledge of Waheguru and creation is limited for that creation; therefore there is a difference between God and creation! If Waheguru is no different from his creation (unity, single, one) and his creation is limited then by definition Waheguru is subject to the same imitations! You are rejecting the unity of God here! You are saying certain aspects are limited, whereas other aspects are not. You are saying something is the same but different……how? This therefore implies that God has different qualities to his creation! If they have different qualities are they not separate? Lets see if that statement is congruent with your others here; Statement 2) is in agreement as it clearly says there is a difference between the knower and the known. Statement 3) is also congruent as it clearly implies that infinity and perfect knowing are not qualities that certain parts of creation can have! 4) This is also congruent with the former statement although I do not want to do you a disservice here and make a false assumption. A Sikh who follows the Guru’s by destroying the ego and the five poisons and becoming one with Waheguru is called what in Gurbani? So I think we can clearly see that the above statements from one to four are in agreement (although I will concede statement four is far from clear) They all reject the unity of God! So if we move to the puari from Japji next, lets see if that is congruent with 1 to 4? I will mark the puari lines from 1a to 7a. I think it may be best to deal with this line by line in relation to your four initial postulations regarding the separate nature of the creator and his creation. Line 1a) It Regards the attributes of God, as it does not relate to unity, there is no incongruence with your statements nor with mine. 2a) Now here is the rub “His limits cannot be perceived” and I am presuming this is the crux of you argument. However it is on rather shaky ground, does this statement mean [COLOR="lime"]God has no limits?[/COLOR] As [COLOR="lime"]how could you perceive that which does no exist?[/COLOR] Or does it mean man cannot see/ understand/know his limits? Personally I agree with the rest of Gurbani and read it as the former [COLOR="lime"]that god has no limits![/COLOR] I think maybe we need to contextualise this both linguistically and philosophically (I will revisit this) 3a) Here we have a repeat in theme The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. One has to ask the obvious question again, does it mean man is separate (has different qualities) from his creator thereby negating both the mul mantar and the vast majority of Shabads relating to God’s unity or would a more consistent and logical deduction be that [COLOR="Lime"]these limits cannot be perceived because they do not exist?[/COLOR] One has to look at the Guru Granth Sahib ji as a whole for this answer and one would (with all faith in Gurbani’s infallibility) conclude it would not contradict itself as you suggest! 4a)Again in this line are you suggesting that the reason people struggle is because they have separate qualities from god and creation or because the limits do not exist? I would conclude that the limits do not exist and refer you to the observations above vis-à-vis consistency, logic and infallibility of Gurbani! 5a)[COLOR="lime"]How can one know a limit that does not exist?[/COLOR] [COLOR="lime"]How can language a finite structure explain the infinite?[/COLOR] Again [COLOR="lime"]considering Gods infinite nature how could a limit be known?[/COLOR] That would be illogical, inconsistent and contradictory. As would suggesting a difference between the creator and the created! 6a)I think this line like the first is neither contentious nor directly relevant to this particular debate. 7a)I don’t see how this line could imply difference in qualities between creator and created in light of the previous contextualisation however if you have any thoughts I am most happy to address them. 8a)I think this line can hold no water for you when considered again in context rather than implying a separation, a difference in quality it affirms his unity! We then move on to another section of similar postulations. I will again for ease of reference mark them with numbers from 5 to 12. In statement 1) you very clearly say that not all knowledge or truth can be known and we have dealt with the implications of that statement above. Yet here you say that creator and creation are the same, have the same qualities. [COLOR="lime"]This is a direct and blatant contradiction.[/COLOR] They have the same qualities, they are one. Yet they have different qualities, one is infinite and the other limited. [COLOR="lime"]Do you not see the problems here?[/COLOR] In statement 2) pretty much the same contradiction occurs again making a clear division between knower and known. In statement 3) Again contradictory, you say perfect knowledge is infinite so it can not be known! Clearly saying man has an inability to deal with the infinite. Man has different qualities to God. If man is different how is he synonymous with God? In statement 4) I think you really need to either accept the description of Gurmukh in Gurbani or offer an alternative interpretation that is consistent and logical. If we take your interpretation, you again proscribe different qualities to creator and created. [COLOR="lime"]You insist on the duality of God.[/COLOR] Is this statement consistent with your other statements? Yes apart from god being synonymous with creation. Is it contradictory to your other statements? No apart from from god being synonymous with creation. You are placing a reference on creation that I am not! It is you suggesting that a different bit of creation has a different quality from the rest! [COLOR="lime"]The whole point is that one does not take parts of creation; creation is one as is its creator.[/COLOR] [COLOR="lime"]It is you creating the false division![/COLOR] As creation in reality does not have parts, it is! The creator and all creation are one! [COLOR="lime"]How would you suggest one separates God from his creation?[/COLOR] [COLOR="lime"]If you accept the unity of God how do you then suggest one creates disunity to look at whether all the component parts are of the same quality.[/COLOR] That is ridiculous. How would you take any part of creation? When it does not have a part but a whole! However this statement is absolutely consistent with all other statements except 6! [COLOR="lime"]So the difference in qualities and abilities etc that you insist on in statement 1 to 7 (except 6) are all irrelevant now?[/COLOR] Because of one contradictory statement separateness is non-existent? So now you agree with me creator and creation have no fundamental difference they are one? [COLOR="lime"]So I refer you to all my previous refutations regarding your insistence on qualitative difference, duality and disunity of God and creation?[/COLOR] I dealt with that above, however in relation to your other posts it contradicts non apart from 5 and 7 when considered within your dualistic perspective. You really need to either accept what Gurbani says about Gurmukhs non differential with all creation or offer another direct quote that explicitly says different. If that is the case that Gurbani contradicts itself then we need to decide what is the name we give to a human who has achieved union with God? See my answer to 7) above. If it is a general term for one on the path please give me reference from Guru Granth Sahib Ji. In the first line I have no idea what you mean? How does one have an understanding and live without it? [COLOR="lime"]You imply that Gurmukh is a process that never reaches non dual experience[/COLOR]? If that is the case what is one called who does? Can I have a reference from Gurbani? 12)“You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji” Reference please? If it is mixing oil and water please blame the Guru responsible for writing it! If a Sikh does not need Samadhi why is it in the Guru Granth Sahib ji are you suggesting it is a mistake or irrelevant? If parts of the Guru granth Sahib ji are mixing oil and water or irrelevant why are you suggesting being guided by it? Many Thanks :interestedmunda: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Concept Of Evil Spirits In Sikhism
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