☀️ 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
Do You Believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji Became MUKT/”got Salvation”?
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: 175822" data-attributes="member: 17438"><p><strong>I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....</strong></p><p></p><p>My dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug</p><p> </p><p>I truly must thank you in all sincerity for the wealth of information that you have given to me in your last post. I had never heard of the Dvaita (Indian dualism) tradition before and I must say, I find it utterly fascinating! I am very much impressed by <span style="color: black">Shri Madhvacharya's courage in stating outright his beliefs about the nature of reality. His ideas are compelling. </span></p><p> </p><p>I must ask you, nonetheless, something about Sikhi. You say that the Gurus adhered to a "qualitative non-dualism" and that when one merges with Waheguru, there remains nothing of the soul's identity left, absolutely everything becomes lost in the abyss of deity, with no distinction on any level between the Godhead and the soul. </p><p> </p><p>This, however, has not been my understanding from the Granth and the books I have read on Sikhi do not state this either. Rather I see a position much similar to the Catholic mystics, teaching an identity in difference ie that we become God and perceive no difference between ourselves and Him, yet we retain some measure of creatureliness, a small "point" to which we can return after an ecstatic loss of all self-awarenes and still being an independent "I" experiencing God as the Beloved, while also feeling that the knower and the known are one without any difference, at the same time. It is a paradox and for me it fits because God is infinite and is the coincidence of opposites. We can only be either "this or that", black or white, male or female, gay or straight etc. God however is not "this or that". He can both transcendent and immanent. And when we unite with him, we go beyond "this and that", and can be at once completely One with him without any distiction and also separate. This is identity in difference, it is paradoxical, contradictory and yet I see it as reality. For me Non-Dualists emphasis their essential Unity with God without any awareness of self, whereas Dualists emphasise their distinction from him as the Lover, caught up in the embrace of the Infinite Beloved. I do not see them as necessarily at odds, rather I see the Catholic mystics - and actually Sikhi too - as a <em>via media</em>, a <em>middle path</em> between both. </p><p> </p><p>Let me use the example of the Western mystic Arthur Koeslter. Koestler writes that, "<em>The "I" ceases to exist because it has . . . been dissolved in the universal pool</em>." But he goes on to say that when the "I" thus ceases to exist he experiences "<em>the peace that passeth all understanding</em>." Who experiences this peace? If there is absolutely no distinction between God and Koestler, how can there be an "experience" of peace? Yet Koestler says that there is no duality between himself and Creator, the "I" of his independent, separate selfhood has utterly ceased to exist. On some level, "I" remain "I", even when "I" have been totally absorbed in God and have had my individuality annihilated in Infinite Being. Identity in difference is plainly expressed here. Inasmuch as I have been dissolved in the Infinite Being and have ceased to exist as myself, I have become identical with that being and I mean "identical" with absolutely no distinction and no awareness of any duality; but inasmuch as I still feel that I, Koestler, experience a peace or blessedness, I still remain distinct from the Infinite Being. </p><p> </p><p>Scholars call this, "the Pantheistic Paradox" and it is what the Catholic mystics adhere too and tbh, I discern it in Sikhi as well (although I admit that I may be wrong). </p><p> </p><p>As an example, consider what these scholars write of Sikhi: </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In fact, I expressed myself incorrectly earlier on. Catholic mystics do teach that we unite with the Essence of God. In the third book of his "Espousals", Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck (1293 – 1381) speaks in rapturous terms of the soul's vision of God and of its absorption into the divine essence. He drives the point home with an exciting metaphor: as a drop of wine fallen into the ocean becomes the ocean itself, so the lost soul in God becomes God. "We are beatified in His <strong>Divine Essence</strong>," says Ruysbroeck, and this is the attainment of the Kingdom of those who love God. Some other mystics:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">And Tauler tells us:</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Courier'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Courier'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">So the Catholic mystics do say that we unite with the Essence of God. Yet according to them because God is inifinite, we <em><u>never </u></em>fully comprehend the Essence or pass wholly out of our creaturehood because we have a created soul. Its like trying to fill a jug with all the water in the Pacific Ocean. It would burst. This is what Saint Faustina described: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p style="text-align: left">Instead of trying to contain the infinity of God, which is impossible because God is infinite and transcedent, we simply "surrender" our independent identity to Him and dissolve in Him. </p><p></p><p style="text-align: left">Read: </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I am not convinced that Sikhi teaches the full non-dualism of Hindu Vedanta. Sikhi, to my mind, teaches something completely distinct, an identity in difference, a middle way between the extremes of Non-Dualism and Dualism. </p><p> </p><p>I do not think that any of the Catholic or Sufi mystics would have had the slightest problem with the Granth's description of union with God. In fact, they probably would have thought the Gurus were fellow Catholic/Sufi mystics if one didn't tell them that they were of a different faith! :grinningkaur: </p><p> </p><p>Catholic mysticism and Sufi mysticism are the primary exponents of deep spirituality in Christianity and Islam and are "siblings" to one another. They essentially teach the same or at least very similar mystical doctrines. What is true for Sufism is generally speaking true for Catholic mysticism and vis-a-versa. I would place Sikhi in the same category as Sufism and Catholic mysticism as teaching an identity-in-difference "the Pantheistic Paradox", rather than Vedantic Non-Dualism. That is not to say that Non-Dualism is in error, far from it, it is right and true but in its own way, focusing - like the dualists - on one aspect of the bigger picture whereas Sufism, Catholic mysticism and Sikhi can see it from two different, paradoxical perspectives. </p><p> </p><p>Just my humble two cents, I admit that I may be totally wrong gingerteakaur</p><p> </p><p>Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as always.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member15, post: 175822, member: 17438"] [b]I believe in the "Pantheistic Paradox", Identity in difference....[/b] My dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug I truly must thank you in all sincerity for the wealth of information that you have given to me in your last post. I had never heard of the Dvaita (Indian dualism) tradition before and I must say, I find it utterly fascinating! I am very much impressed by [COLOR=black]Shri Madhvacharya's courage in stating outright his beliefs about the nature of reality. His ideas are compelling. [/COLOR] I must ask you, nonetheless, something about Sikhi. You say that the Gurus adhered to a "qualitative non-dualism" and that when one merges with Waheguru, there remains nothing of the soul's identity left, absolutely everything becomes lost in the abyss of deity, with no distinction on any level between the Godhead and the soul. This, however, has not been my understanding from the Granth and the books I have read on Sikhi do not state this either. Rather I see a position much similar to the Catholic mystics, teaching an identity in difference ie that we become God and perceive no difference between ourselves and Him, yet we retain some measure of creatureliness, a small "point" to which we can return after an ecstatic loss of all self-awarenes and still being an independent "I" experiencing God as the Beloved, while also feeling that the knower and the known are one without any difference, at the same time. It is a paradox and for me it fits because God is infinite and is the coincidence of opposites. We can only be either "this or that", black or white, male or female, gay or straight etc. God however is not "this or that". He can both transcendent and immanent. And when we unite with him, we go beyond "this and that", and can be at once completely One with him without any distiction and also separate. This is identity in difference, it is paradoxical, contradictory and yet I see it as reality. For me Non-Dualists emphasis their essential Unity with God without any awareness of self, whereas Dualists emphasise their distinction from him as the Lover, caught up in the embrace of the Infinite Beloved. I do not see them as necessarily at odds, rather I see the Catholic mystics - and actually Sikhi too - as a [I]via media[/I], a [I]middle path[/I] between both. Let me use the example of the Western mystic Arthur Koeslter. Koestler writes that, "[I]The "I" ceases to exist because it has . . . been dissolved in the universal pool[/I]." But he goes on to say that when the "I" thus ceases to exist he experiences "[I]the peace that passeth all understanding[/I]." Who experiences this peace? If there is absolutely no distinction between God and Koestler, how can there be an "experience" of peace? Yet Koestler says that there is no duality between himself and Creator, the "I" of his independent, separate selfhood has utterly ceased to exist. On some level, "I" remain "I", even when "I" have been totally absorbed in God and have had my individuality annihilated in Infinite Being. Identity in difference is plainly expressed here. Inasmuch as I have been dissolved in the Infinite Being and have ceased to exist as myself, I have become identical with that being and I mean "identical" with absolutely no distinction and no awareness of any duality; but inasmuch as I still feel that I, Koestler, experience a peace or blessedness, I still remain distinct from the Infinite Being. Scholars call this, "the Pantheistic Paradox" and it is what the Catholic mystics adhere too and tbh, I discern it in Sikhi as well (although I admit that I may be wrong). As an example, consider what these scholars write of Sikhi: In fact, I expressed myself incorrectly earlier on. Catholic mystics do teach that we unite with the Essence of God. In the third book of his "Espousals", Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck (1293 – 1381) speaks in rapturous terms of the soul's vision of God and of its absorption into the divine essence. He drives the point home with an exciting metaphor: as a drop of wine fallen into the ocean becomes the ocean itself, so the lost soul in God becomes God. "We are beatified in His [B]Divine Essence[/B]," says Ruysbroeck, and this is the attainment of the Kingdom of those who love God. Some other mystics: [LEFT]And Tauler tells us:[/LEFT] [LEFT][FONT=Courier][SIZE=1][FONT=Courier][SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]So the Catholic mystics do say that we unite with the Essence of God. Yet according to them because God is inifinite, we [I][U]never [/U][/I]fully comprehend the Essence or pass wholly out of our creaturehood because we have a created soul. Its like trying to fill a jug with all the water in the Pacific Ocean. It would burst. This is what Saint Faustina described: [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT] [LEFT]Instead of trying to contain the infinity of God, which is impossible because God is infinite and transcedent, we simply "surrender" our independent identity to Him and dissolve in Him. [/LEFT] [LEFT]Read: [/LEFT] I am not convinced that Sikhi teaches the full non-dualism of Hindu Vedanta. Sikhi, to my mind, teaches something completely distinct, an identity in difference, a middle way between the extremes of Non-Dualism and Dualism. I do not think that any of the Catholic or Sufi mystics would have had the slightest problem with the Granth's description of union with God. In fact, they probably would have thought the Gurus were fellow Catholic/Sufi mystics if one didn't tell them that they were of a different faith! :grinningkaur: Catholic mysticism and Sufi mysticism are the primary exponents of deep spirituality in Christianity and Islam and are "siblings" to one another. They essentially teach the same or at least very similar mystical doctrines. What is true for Sufism is generally speaking true for Catholic mysticism and vis-a-versa. I would place Sikhi in the same category as Sufism and Catholic mysticism as teaching an identity-in-difference "the Pantheistic Paradox", rather than Vedantic Non-Dualism. That is not to say that Non-Dualism is in error, far from it, it is right and true but in its own way, focusing - like the dualists - on one aspect of the bigger picture whereas Sufism, Catholic mysticism and Sikhi can see it from two different, paradoxical perspectives. Just my humble two cents, I admit that I may be totally wrong gingerteakaur Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as always. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Do You Believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji Became MUKT/”got Salvation”?
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