- May 9, 2006
Beyond creating and bestowing Grace, does "God" (Guruji, Ik Onkar, Akaal Purakh, Waheguru) intervene in human affairs or natural events?
Harkiran Kaur ji,Respected Tejwant Singh Ji... can you please define how you are using the word Diety? Because depending on how you define it, affects whether or not Sikhi has one!
We don't have a 'diety' in the sense of a bearded guy sitting on the clouds...but Sikhi does teach us about the Creator... right from Mool Mantra! ... Timeless, Immortal, Formless being, ONE who posseses creative, conscious potential (Nirgun) from whom ALL forms arise, and permeates everything (Sargun) which is reflection of the Nirgun. Referred by numerous names in Gurbani but most commonly, Akal Purakh / Waheguru. Some may still refer to Akal Purakh as a 'diety' under the meaning, of 'Creator' being. So I guess it depends on how you define the word 'diety' do you mean an entity having form as in an 'avatar' or idol?? Or do you mean 'diety' as in a general term for creator? Because it's two different meanings... We don't have Gods / Godesses as in avatars, having form etc. But we DO have the ONE creator who is formless, and encompasses ALL = Waheguru / Akal Purakh.
Albert Einstein “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
Nikola Tesla "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
I guess my answer to the original question is, that since ALL is really the ONE, then depending on how you look at it LOL. If our identity is as characters in a play being played by the same one actor (Waheguru) then you could say that EVERYTHING is being orchestrated by Waheguru, our separate (ego) identity is false. Possibly why we are told its only through Waheguru's 'Grace' that we can wake up from this amnesia to the truth.
Harkiran ji,See above post which quotes the shabad on Ang 736 though it's from an article my thinking and understanding is the same as the author from reflections on Gurbani. No need to re type the exact same thing.
Harkiran ji, this is just a theory and one does not have to go to the 'magic tricks' based on quantum values of physics to understand and hence have a Sikhi living. Then it ceases be a universal message for all humanity where anyone and everyone can feel bliss which a Sikh has a duty to put into practice.As I mentioned in another post, when we zoom in on anything we consider to be 'matter' we literally see it dissappear into nothingness. The article I referenced mentions a coin, you can hold it in your hand, you can feel it... see it etc. But zoom in to it's subatomic structure, and you see that there really is nothing there... there is no coin.... all that exists are invisible energy vortices.
A Creator is a Being no matter how you twist it which has nothing to do with Ik Ong Kaar, hence nor with Sikhi.So Sikhi DOES believe in a 'Creator'
Ishna ji,What about "karta purakh" in our Mool Mantar?
I honestly can't fathom how the probably the most important verse in all of SGGSJ would be merely something to rope people in and mislead them... or misdirect them by using misleading terminology. Was that what Guru Nanak Dev Ji was about??? We are told when he disappeared for three days in the river, and he stated he was in the court of the divine during that time, this is when he was revealed the truth which was written in the Mool Mantra. The base truth that we are told everything else in SGGSJ reflects upon is supposedly summed up in the Mool Mantra. So I find is very difficult to think that it was just a ploy designed to trick people or deceive them into following Sikhi.Ishna ji,
Karta Purakh comes 4 times in the SGGS. As Guru Nanak started this long march which took more than 2 centuries, to change the paradigm of the Psyche of the dwellers of India because of the atrocties by the Mughals and other invaders, in my opinion, the phrase was used then for people to gravitate towards what Ik Ong Kaar is because all believed in the Creator Being.
According to Mahan Kosh Encyclopedia Purakh does not mean a person but 'the one that is omnipresent'.
Guru Nanak being a wordsmith used this term for the weaklings to connect to something they were familiar with, who were lost in their own religious dogmas with nonsensical rituals when it was actually time to change not just the mind but the mindset of the people so they become capable of defending all the down trodden and outcast.
Harkiran ji,"Harkiran Kaur, post: 204523, member: 18224"]Okay so let me ask you, do you believe that the physical is all there is and that our awareness / consciousness is only limited to this physical life and this physical life is all we have / will ever have? And that the awareness behind the mind, is limited to only this life (ie the emergent property argument)? As in, do you believe that SGGSJ is merely a psychology manual for living a physical life with nothing existing beyond this physical life? (Basically atheistic in belief)? I think based on your rejections of anything beyond the physical, this is what you believe? If not, then please explain because it seems that way.
I am sorry, I had no idea someone was forcing you into this line of thinking or is it the other way around? How you live your life is your goal, no one else's. I never said,"this idea of Sikhi being the same thing as Atheism". Judging others is your right but how right you are about others, you have no inkling.I am sorry, I can not nor will I ever have this line of thinking. I very much do believe in the ONEness of everything and that ONEness is consciously aware. In fact, I believe the base to the physical Universe is consciousness. This is based on science, philosophy, and religion in synthesis... and this idea of Sikhi being the same thing as Atheism is very very new to me, and limited only to several people on this forum. I am taking the two year course from Sikh Missionary College and they do not teach this thinking at all!
That is your understanding and it should be respected as you should respect others' understanding.My understanding of consciousness, or the awareness... the 'I AM' that is behind the physical body - I very much understand. The reason its difficult to put into words to convey to others, is that any attempt to do so would rely entirely on physical only references. (Language can only go so far!) So for example if I say this world is like a dream (of the Creator) you will accuse me of saying this whole reality is just a literal dream, when instead I am using it as a reference point (as does Gurbani) because it's at least a physical reference that we can use to try and comprehend the nonphysical.
I am sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about with your dream analogy. As far as Shabad on page 736 is concerned, it does not describe this world as play but it is about me-ism and how we play different roles and fool ourselves in them. I would urge you to study the whole shabad. Please focus a bit on Rahao pankti. It has nothing to so with the topic being discussed as mentioned earlier. The same goes for the one liners posted in the articles. If you want, post one shabad at a time with your own understanding in a different thread and we can learn from each other's understanding.Using the dream analogy... when I dream at night, I am fully immersed within the character I am playing in the dream. I am fully conscious of the dream character body, and I am unaware of any existence beyond that. Let's say I was a doctor in the dream. The persona of being the doctor, is not real.. it's false. But it's all I know while in the dream. However, the consciousness operating through the doctor is not really a doctor at all. That doctor character, that ego is false. When I wake up I realize I was never the doctor at all. The doctor didn't 'die' when I woke up because the doctor was never real to begin with. Just like the shabad on Ang 736 describes it as a play. When I wake up I realize that the doctor was not real. It was still my consciousness that was operating as the doctor however, and not just the doctor but in fact EVERYTHING in the dream was really being controlled by me. Even though everything seemed separate it was not. It was all one thought... So though I am not trying to say that this reality is a literal dream... as 'Creator' would have no need for a dream in our physical sense... but it gives us a frame of reference to understand how consciousness can be something separate from the identity and the physical body. And how everything can really be within one consciousness.
Please stop being judgmental. I have disagreed with you many times like now but I have never accused you of anything. Let's be honest when we are having this kind of discussion.So, you ask me to explain in my own understanding... but if I do, you accuse me of limiting things to the references I have used. But I can only use physical references to try to explain! This is the plight of trying to explain something which exists beyond the physical, having only physical references to use! No matter how we try to explain, our explanation can not adequately covey it, even if we understand the concepts.
Please provide some Shabads with your understanding of your claim.For me, matter / physical = false. It's illusion in a very real sense.
Please elaborate what is in bold with concrete examples, if you do not mind.All that exists is the base energy from which everything arises. (We can agree on the energy thing yeah?) And if matter is really just this energy at a very slow vibration, then our bodies are also false. Can we agree on this?
No, we do not disagree on that. You claim to know and I claim to Not Know. Simply put.So, where we disagree is where our awareness comes from.
Can you please post the URL's of the above for my better understanding. Quantum Physics and its working is still a fetus with a potential to become a baby one day.Since quantum physics has shown, not in theory but through reproducible experiments, that consciousness affects whether electrons behave as either a wave or a particle, and since without conscious observation electrons behave as a wave... something not physical in itself but instead is energy moving through a medium, and since our *physical* brains are made of the very same electrons, which make up atoms, which make up... etc. etc.
.Then consciousness at least A consciousness must have existed to observe us into existence! Not just us but ALL matter... so either our consciousness is something separate from the consciousness which observed the universe into existence (if you believe the emergent property theory) or our consciousness is part of the ONE primal (existing before the physical) consciousness
I agree with the former but have not the faintest about the latter. Is the latter your personal conclusion? If it is, then what part of Gurbani is it based on?Since Gurbani IS very clear on ONEness... there must only be one consciousness.
Before, you claimed that,"or our consciousness is part of the ONE primal (existing before the physical) consciousness". If this is your opinion then where does the above in quotes fit in?And by the way those experiments have shown that human consciousness DOES affect the outcome of the experiment... it collapses the quantum wave function - mere observation, by a conscious observer.
I am fine with whatever you think. After all it is your personal journey.I realize its complicated... and doesn't fit the idea of a God in say an Abrahamic sense. But to me, this makes MUCH more sense, agrees with Gurbani without having to reduce Gurbani to a mere psychology book. And makes much more sense than limiting existence to only matter and limiting our consciousness to being just an emergent property of the complexity of our brains, and trying to say that all this complexity just 'happened' without guidance or conscious design at all. To me, that view is very limited.
Your above statement seems self contradictory. Spiritual does not exist beyond physical. If it did, then the concept of Miri Piri would not exist. Sidh Gosht by Guru Nanak explains it very eloquently, how to mix this "water and oil" in a perfect blend.To me Gurbani can be applied to both physical life, and also spiritual (that part of us which exists beyond physical) both Miri and Piri... temporal and spiritual.
.It is not my wish to argue with anyone or change their beliefs. Just that to say that Sikhi does not teach spiritual aspect at all, is wrong. Or to say that Sikhi does not teach about a conscious creator... is also wrong because whether or not that creator has form, or is seen as an entity / being as we label beings etc. does not matter... there is still conscious and creative design to the Universe and even if we can't put in words or even if someone can not comprehend it, doesn't mean there isn't or that the creator is not 'God'. (btw the term God does not have to mean having form or a body etc. or even be a personal deity as many religions have - it's simply a word for the creative consciousness which gave rise to the Universe)
Harkiran ji,I honestly can't fathom how the probably the most important verse in all of SGGSJ would be merely something to rope people in and mislead them... or misdirect them by using misleading terminology. Was that what Guru Nanak Dev Ji was about??? We are told when he disappeared for three days in the river, and he stated he was in the court of the divine during that time, this is when he was revealed the truth which was written in the Mool Mantra. The base truth that we are told everything else in SGGSJ reflects upon is supposedly summed up in the Mool Mantra. So I find is very difficult to think that it was just a ploy designed to trick people or deceive them into following Sikhi.
Harkiran JiIshna Ji:
Kartaa means 'Doer' as I understand it and Purakh refers to reality. So Kartaa Purakh means the Doer (creator, the one who puts into motion) reality.
The words used to describe Creator / Creation as ONE are Omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time), Omnipotent (unlimited universal power), and Omniscient (intelligent, conscious, aware, perceiving).
So even if we understand Creator to be pure energy underlying the Universe. Then that energy must be aware / perceiving the creation. But to answer your question about praying to anything? To me, it doesn't make sense because the ultimate truth is ONEness right? So everything IS the creator... who would be praying to who??
That sentence gave me shivers when I read it.Then that energy must be aware / perceiving the creation.