General Is There A God?

[jasi]

SS AKAL JI

SEEKER 3K


I meant between me n jaspi. not with others.

Dear seeker9,

You did not answer my question. Who created God?

God can not be supposed or created BUT its exist is felt in every creations.
MITHIA NA JAI, KEETA NA HOI , APE AP NIRANJAN SOI GURU NANAK DEV JI

THAT IS ANSWERS TO ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS. SCIENCE CAN NOT DISCOVER THE REALIZATION OF CREATOR ONLY YOUR SOUL IF IT DETERMINED TO SEEK REALIZATIONS OF ONKAR. .
Science is about 500 year old. The religions are thousands year old. In thousands the religion could not give any answers and we want the science to give the answer in 500 years?

Without religion or spiritual teaching ,we still will be living like animals without any human empathy .Many prophets brought all kinds of philosophy which kept society still intact living in harmony. Where as science has been pioneer to good discoveries to improve human life but also also discovered the most destructive arms to end the civilizations.

What ever science is saying it will come true. What ever religion says nothing has happened yet.

It is not science tell you the truth but it discover more knowldge day by day todiscover new discoveries. Like H2O means 2 parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen was discovered when scientist experimented by passing electric current through water. What ever truth came out it was there but more study led scientist to new discoveries. knowledge.
If you can explain who created and what was there before God then maybe science can explain.
It is quite a common sense to understand it was God or Creator who created all this universe .Guru Nanak Dev ji very much explained in Jap ji Sahib Ji . Please read you will have all the answers to you questions about God's existances.
Big bang can not be explain here in 2-3 pages. It is only in theory yet. Going back 13 trillion years back it not easy task. If u can wait few thousand years you can know what you are asking

Just read the Jap Ji Sahib Ji not like doing path but understand each and every Pauris then you will find every answers to you questions .

God bless you.
Jaspi

seeker3k

 

[BhagatSingh]

Jaspi ji

If you don't mind ... I thought I'd pull these out of your replies because they seem pretty related to the thread. No justification has been provided for them and they are good points for discussion.

Without religion or spiritual teaching ,we still will be living like animals without any human empathy

Soul continue to desire to seek Creator but...

The whole universe is created by the Creator. Joyt comes from jyot and emerges in Jyot

Every person is born with belief of Creator

 

[jasi]

SS AKAL Ji
BHAGAT SINGH JI

Thanks .

As all human beings are born with wired in EMPATHY is also born with faith of the Creator.

When we are born we are told about our our mother and father which become our blind faith . Similarly we are blessed with so many prophets,Saint,Avtars to wake up our faith to remember the Creators of this Universe.

The one who are blessed with LAGAN to realize His presence in one's heart are too many to count.

Jaspi

 

[polpol]

I'm having fun with this topic. I can't help imagining God laughing at atheist arguments. No offence but I see atheists like children that cannot yet grasp the subtilities of life. I see them like a child who goes to see a movie and spends all the time saying "she is not really dead, she's just an actress...that's not real blood, it's just paint...he didn't really fall off the cliff, etc...we just feel like telling him to shut up and try to follow the story! It's not that his reasoning is false, it's just out of context.
I'm sure God likes atheists like a father cherishes a child that is not very bright; I'm sure they amuse him with their excessive and rigid rationality.
For one thing, science and religion are not opposite, exclusive to one another, otherwise how can we explain that great scientists are often also beleavers. There is no proof that Einstein did not beleave in a personal God, (we know he beleaved in "God")... who say's he didn't keep his most personal beleafs to himself; granted he did not like institutionalised religions.
For some atheists, science is their religion. They blame religion for everything but we see now that it is not religion but our blind faith in science and especially thechnology that
has caused the mess we are all in, economically and ecologically. And we still here the same mantra "science will solve the problems it creates"...yeah, right!
As for myself, I can't help but to beleave in God because He showed me time and time again that he beleaves in me.
I often say to atheists that it is easy to not beleave in God, we don't see him, we don't touch him, we don't hear him, but the most difficult is to not beleave all the other stuff...the media, the latest "scientific" discovery (remember the 2000 bug? scientists made complete fools of themselves).
For sure atheism brought some progress to humanity because of too much oppression from the clergy of most religions, particularly the Catholic Church and the Vatican. But now people have the freedom to seek spiritual elevation for real.

The comparison of God to the tooth fairy or to Santa Claus is reduntant among some atheists that just "don't get it". It vexes me because I don't see why atheists concentrate on God's non-existance, they don't go around telling kids the tooth fairy
does not exist, so why focus so much on God if he doesn't exist? This shows that some atheists have an unsolved existential problem or else they would just let go like anything else as ridiculous as beleaving in Santa Claus. This idea comes from a christian saint and philosopher who said that for someone who doesn't exist, God surely gets a hell of a lot of attention!
I think, though I have no scientific proof, that atheists generally have a problematic relation with their father. God being the father "par excellence" they cannot accept that, probably because they have not succeed to symblolically "kill the father" in order to become a man.

It pleases me to have God in my life. I sometimes need to say
"Thank You" to someone grater than myself.

Atheists beware: when you don't beleave in God you tend to think you are God and since you're not, than trouble starts with your loved ones.:blinkingkaur:

 

[Archived_member14]

Jaspi ji,


You wrote:
As all human beings are born with wired in EMPATHY is also born with faith of the Creator.

When we are born we are told about our our mother and father which become our blind faith . Similarly we are blessed with so many prophets,Saint,Avtars to wake up our faith to remember the Creators of this Universe.

------------
I don’t see any connection between empathy and faith / belief in a Creator, but no need to respond to this as I’d like to express another point.

There is another explanation as to why both, the belief in God as well as the taking seriously of the arguments of science, is so common. And you’ll admit that our statements about our beliefs reveal more our present inclination of mind than anything else. What we can also appreciate is the fact of habit of thought and any attachments associated arisen in the present, to be accumulating and hence increasing the probability of similar states arising again in the future. With this we can then also accept that we come into this world with all that we have accumulated in past lives. And given that we have been going around in the cycle of birth and death for an endlessly long time and with some glimpse into the nature of mind now, in particular how it lands one moment here and another there, attracted by this view of things and that, we can see that we must have accumulated the tendency to follow almost any line of thought / belief.

I may be wrong, especially given that I have only read scattered and haphazardly here and there. One impression I got however, is that both Science and believers in God perceive the ‘world’ in terms of diversity of objects and beings and an underlying need to find some unifying reality. What differentiates the two and particularly in relation to the perception of beings being born and then dying, is that while science perceives annihilation even when talking about such things as transformation of matter into energy , theists perceive lastingness generally manifested as a belief in a soul.

This in my opinion is why there is so much fuel for discussion between the two sides, yet they can’t come to an agreement without one or both sides having distorted to a little or larger extent, the basic beliefs each hold.

Sukinder

 

[spnadmin]

Jaspi ji,


I may be wrong, especially given that I have only read scattered and haphazardly here and there. One impression I got however, is that both Science and believers in God perceive the ‘world’ in terms of diversity of objects and beings and an underlying need to find some unifying reality. What differentiates the two and particularly in relation to the perception of beings being born and then dying, is that while science perceives annihilation even when talking about such things as transformation of matter into energy , theists perceive lastingness generally manifested as a belief in a soul.


Sukinder

Sukinderji

Though you have directed your questions to Jaspi, may I pose one of my own. I am curious why it not possible to hold both points of view: science perceives annihilation even when talking about such things as transformation of matter into energy, whereas, theists perceive lastingness generally manifested as a belief in a soul?

The universe of discourse is different for science and theism. And has anyone been able to show they are mutually exclusive? Need there even be a logical hierarchy that unifies them? For example, adherence to belief that the theory of natural selection is the best scientific explanation of evolution need not be mutually exclusive with the view that there is one formless creator God? That is ironically the official view of Roman Catholicism. Could these concepts not be co-extensive, among other coextensive universes of discourse?

 

[jasi]

SS AKAL Ji

All SAD SANGAT JI.

ATHIEST JI.

BHUL GHUK MOAF HOI.

With simple example some one put a question to flowing river WITH X NAME and noises with thunders if he knows how ocean look like or you heard about ocean how big or small by size.


River will not be able to explain or guess about the ocean and looses which also
losses worldly identification (NAME) by emerging into ocean like thousands of small or larger rivers.other rivers..

Similar way we are passing our life journey with all kinds hoopla and thunder can not assume if the GOD is existing or not.

This thread must stop here because no one knows about how ONKAR looks like but It is very well explained in Jap Ji Sahib Ji.

 

[spnadmin]

This thread can remain open indefinitely for any respected forum members who have ideas they wish to add.

 

[Archived_member14]

Narayanjot ji,

Sukinderji

Though you have directed your questions to Jaspi, may I pose one of my own. I am curious why it not possible to hold both points of view: science perceives annihilation even when talking about such things as transformation of matter into energy, whereas, theists perceive lastingness generally manifested as a belief in a soul?

The universe of discourse is different for science and theism. And has anyone been able to show they are mutually exclusive? Need there even be a logical hierarchy that unifies them? For example, adherence to belief that the theory of natural selection is the best scientific explanation of evolution need not be mutually exclusive with the view that there is one formless creator God? That is ironically the official view of Roman Catholicism. Could these concepts not be co-extensive, among other coextensive universes of discourse?

---------
You must be having the impression more or less that I’m well read / educated in philosophy or something! I’ve never before heard about ‘universe of discourse’ and just looked up the dictionary and from that only got a vague idea as to the meaning but absolutely no idea regarding the implications. When I at one time was interested in philosophy, one of the things that put me off from pursuing the subject was because the concepts were becoming too complex for my slow mind. Yes, I do have some learning difficulties, particularly when it comes to language. Don’t be fooled by my writings here, I spend hours to write a post and English is the only language I can communicate in writing. I don’t have the capacity to learn another language for this purpose.

In school I’d fail badly in Hindi and just manage to pass in English. Indeed the learning difficulty goes deeper, reflected in the fact that I’d sometimes come up with my own roundabout way to solve a mathematical problem since I can’t remember some of the equations. I’d do well in biology because I was good at drawing diagrams and learnt from them. Physics was my favourite subject, and I’d learn this from always going to the basics and apply the knowledge to things observed. But all this didn’t work well enough when in college, which is one reason why I ended up dropping out. So you’ll understand it when I say that my head spun on reading what you wrote above. I’ve learnt to ignore such kinds of expressions, but you wrote expecting a response from me......

I’m going to guess what it is that you are asking, but mainly I’ll just elaborate on what I wrote in my last post.

You are asking whether the theory of natural selection held by the scientist can coexist with a belief in a formless creator God...? I think it depends on the understanding. If formless is understood in relation to form as in something that can be perceived through the senses and therefore itself is something that cannot, but then the reference is not to the knowing faculty which is consciousness, this is one situation. The other is that consciousness being in fact the main reality, since without this nothing is known. And since the most important attribute of God is this knowing faculty, after all he did consciously create what he did and one of his creations is man who is then expected not only to “know” him, but also to develop qualities such as kindness and morality all of which are mental realties. The meaning of formless here would then be based on the understanding of what consciousness is and not seen simply as something standing opposite to form, which I think is an incorrect distinction to make in this case. This is another situation.

The theory of evolution and natural selection on the other hand is grounded on a scientific materialistic outlook and engenders further adherence to the same. We are smarter than cows because we are more evolved. We kill in order to survive. The worst aspect of all this is in the identification as “we” as part of an evolved group. But that aside, already one can see very opposing views here. With reference to moral values, religion encourages kindness, compassion, sense restraint etc. Evolution on the other hand must justify killing all done with the aim to satisfy one’s passions, by animals down the chain if man is to be seen as a worthy end product. Religion would have it that killing is wrong, period, but evolution will at best end up talking about the undesirability of killing only because there is no need for it.

With reference to the quality of mind, the cause for the difference between man and beast according to some religions is not evolution, but due to the particular karma good and bad, arisen just before the dying consciousness of the previous life. And this is such that a very intelligent man could die and be reborn a bird and a monkey dies and is reborn a dim-witted man. And both could then die and be reborn in hell which is a realm no one following the scientific line of enquiry could believe in.

The reason I got involved in this thread is because I wanted to steer people inclined to religion away from the influence of science. I’ve noted some corrupting effects including attempts by believers to describe God in a way which would satisfy the scientist. Of course I don’t really care to tackle this, but when morality and other good and wholesome qualities too begin to be seen more or less as means to an end, here I try to do something about.

I proliferated much further and started writing more, but I think I should just stop here. ;-)

Thanks for allowing me to express myself.

Sukinder

 

[spnadmin]

Narayanjot ji,


confused ji

Guru Fateh!

---------
You must be having the impression more or less that I’m well read / educated in philosophy or something!

Yes I did think you had formal training in philosophy. You seem to be holding your own in that regard.




I’ve never before heard about ‘universe of discourse’ and just looked up the dictionary and from that only got a vague idea as to the meaning but absolutely no idea regarding the implications.

I apologize.

When I at one time was interested in philosophy, one of the things that put me off from pursuing the subject was because the concepts were becoming too complex for my slow mind. Yes, I do have some learning difficulties, particularly when it comes to language. Don’t be fooled by my writings here, I spend hours to write a post and English is the only language I can communicate in writing. I don’t have the capacity to learn another language for this purpose.

You are the second person I have known who has told me how difficult language is and how hard - it was a she - you struggle to find work-arounds. Yet the results are impressive.

In school I’d fail badly in Hindi and just manage to pass in English. Indeed the learning difficulty goes deeper, reflected in the fact that I’d sometimes come up with my own roundabout way to solve a mathematical problem since I can’t remember some of the equations. I’d do well in biology because I was good at drawing diagrams and learnt from them.

This was also her strength. She drew pictures of everything including all the difficult ideas in her doctoral dissertation. Today she teaches adolescents with learning difficulties to work in the same way. She devised a method that is dependent on imagery. And has written a book about it.

-)



The meaning of formless here would then be based on the understanding of what consciousness is and not seen simply as something standing opposite to form, which I think is an incorrect distinction to make in this case. This is another situation. Yes that is where I was headed (LOL)

The theory of evolution and natural selection on the other hand is grounded on a scientific materialistic outlook and engenders further adherence to the same. We are smarter than cows because we are more evolved. We kill in order to survive. The worst aspect of all this is in the identification as “we” as part of an evolved group. But that aside, already one can see very opposing views here. With reference to moral values, religion encourages kindness, compassion, sense restraint etc. Evolution on the other hand must justify killing all done with the aim to satisfy one’s passions, by animals down the chain if man is to be seen as a worthy end product. Religion would have it that killing is wrong, period, but evolution will at best end up talking about the undesirability of killing only because there is no need for it. I would reply that is one conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution, but not always one that scientists themselves can or do draw.

With reference to the quality of mind, the cause for the difference between man and beast according to some religions is not evolution, but due to the particular karma good and bad, arisen just before the dying consciousness of the previous life. And this is such that a very intelligent man could die and be reborn a bird and a monkey dies and is reborn a dim-witted man. And both could then die and be reborn in hell which is a realm no one following the scientific line of enquiry could believe in. And one but not the only inference to make about karma and past lives.

The reason I got involved in this thread is because I wanted to steer people inclined to religion away from the influence of science. I’ve noted some corrupting effects including attempts by believers to describe God in a way which would satisfy the scientist. Of course I don’t really care to tackle this, but when morality and other good and wholesome qualities too begin to be seen more or less as means to an end, here I try to do something about.

I proliferated much further and started writing more, but I think I should just stop here. ;-)

Thanks for allowing me to express myself.

Sukinder

Sukinder ji

What I am trying to piece together comes from my personal acquaintances with many scientists who are deeply religious and deeply spiritual, who have no problem with theism as a personal matter. There are more of them than this or other threads on atheism in this forum would lead a person to believe. They are at ease with the contradictions between science and theism. Being at ease with contradiction IMHO is an indicator of a mind that admits its own limitations. Admitting to intellectual limitations is again IMHO the hallmark of good science. Arguing that nothing is true unless it can be explained by science is only one level of explanation - the level at which there is understanding material truths. They do not confuse that with theoretical explanations, mathematical explanations, and logical explanations -- andthey humbly admit that they may be masters in one realm of truth but not others. Enough from me also.

 

[spnadmin]

Narayanjot ji,


confused ji

Guru Fateh!

---------
You must be having the impression more or less that I’m well read / educated in philosophy or something!

Yes I did think you had formal training in philosophy. You seem to be holding your own in that regard.




I’ve never before heard about ‘universe of discourse’ and just looked up the dictionary and from that only got a vague idea as to the meaning but absolutely no idea regarding the implications.

I apologize.

When I at one time was interested in philosophy, one of the things that put me off from pursuing the subject was because the concepts were becoming too complex for my slow mind. Yes, I do have some learning difficulties, particularly when it comes to language. Don’t be fooled by my writings here, I spend hours to write a post and English is the only language I can communicate in writing. I don’t have the capacity to learn another language for this purpose.

You are the second person I have known who has told me how difficult language is and how hard - it was a she - you struggle to find work-arounds. Yet the results are impressive.

In school I’d fail badly in Hindi and just manage to pass in English. Indeed the learning difficulty goes deeper, reflected in the fact that I’d sometimes come up with my own roundabout way to solve a mathematical problem since I can’t remember some of the equations. I’d do well in biology because I was good at drawing diagrams and learnt from them.

This was also her strength. She drew pictures of everything including all the difficult ideas in her doctoral dissertation. Today she teaches adolescents with learning difficulties to work in the same way. She devised a method that is dependent on imagery. And has written a book about it.

-)



The meaning of formless here would then be based on the understanding of what consciousness is and not seen simply as something standing opposite to form, which I think is an incorrect distinction to make in this case. This is another situation. Yes that is where I was headed (LOL)

The theory of evolution and natural selection on the other hand is grounded on a scientific materialistic outlook and engenders further adherence to the same. We are smarter than cows because we are more evolved. We kill in order to survive. The worst aspect of all this is in the identification as “we” as part of an evolved group. But that aside, already one can see very opposing views here. With reference to moral values, religion encourages kindness, compassion, sense restraint etc. Evolution on the other hand must justify killing all done with the aim to satisfy one’s passions, by animals down the chain if man is to be seen as a worthy end product. Religion would have it that killing is wrong, period, but evolution will at best end up talking about the undesirability of killing only because there is no need for it. I would reply that is one conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution, but not always one that scientists themselves can or do draw.


With reference to the quality of mind, the cause for the difference between man and beast according to some religions is not evolution, but due to the particular karma good and bad, arisen just before the dying consciousness of the previous life. And this is such that a very intelligent man could die and be reborn a bird and a monkey dies and is reborn a dim-witted man. And both could then die and be reborn in hell which is a realm no one following the scientific line of enquiry could believe in. And one but not the only inference to make about karma and past lives.

The reason I got involved in this thread is because I wanted to steer people inclined to religion away from the influence of science. I’ve noted some corrupting effects including attempts by believers to describe God in a way which would satisfy the scientist. Of course I don’t really care to tackle this, but when morality and other good and wholesome qualities too begin to be seen more or less as means to an end, here I try to do something about.

I proliferated much further and started writing more, but I think I should just stop here. ;-)

Thanks for allowing me to express myself.

Sukinder

Sukinder ji

What I am trying to piece together comes from my personal acquaintances with many scientists who are deeply religious and deeply spiritual, who have no problem with theism as a personal matter. There are more of them than this or that atheism thread at SPN would lead a person to believe. They are at ease with the contradictions between science and theism. Being at ease with contradiction IMHO is an indicator of a mind that admits its own limitations. Being honest about intellectual limitations is again IMHO the hallmark of good science. Arguing that nothing is true unless it can be explained by science is only one level of explanation - the level of material truths. Good science asserts that understanding material truths is always subject to revision. Good science does not confuse material truths with theoretical explanations, mathematical explanations, and logical explanations -- and good scientists humbly admit that they may be masters in one realm of truth but not others. Enough from me also.

 

[polpol]

Sukinder ji

What I am trying to piece together comes from my personal acquaintances with many scientists who are deeply religious and deeply spiritual, who have no problem with theism as a personal matter. There are more of them than this or other threads on atheism in this forum would lead a person to believe. They are at ease with the contradictions between science and theism. Being at ease with contradiction IMHO is an indicator of a mind that admits its own limitations. Admitting to intellectual limitations is again IMHO the hallmark of good science. Arguing that nothing is true unless it can be explained by science is only one level of explanation - the level at which there is understanding material truths. They do not confuse that with theoretical explanations, mathematical explanations, and logical explanations -- andthey humbly admit that they may be masters in one realm of truth but not others. Enough from me also.

Very well put, Narayanjot, Confrontation is avoided and it's nice to see different minds coming together to create better understanding. I love it! I'm so happy to have found this site full of respectful and inspired people.

 

[Archived_member14]

Narayanjot ji,


Quote:
<<S: You must be having the impression more or less that I’m well read / educated in philosophy or something!

N: Yes I did think you had formal training in philosophy. You seem to be holding your own in that regard.<end quote>


Suk: It does come out this way doesn’t it? The truth is that I’d never have arrived at the statements I make without the exposure to the Buddha’s teachings, although I do end up proliferating with ignorance and craving and therefore can’t truly be said to be representing those teachings. There is also that in a different situation such as when discussing with friends who know where I come from, I’d be expressing myself quite differently from how I do here. Besides, as I think you would have noted, I’d avoid certain issues and this invariably causes some things to be compromised, indeed often it feels unfair that I do not provide much needed background and the result more or less is of ideas being tossed around.
------------------

Your concluding note:
Quote:
What I am trying to piece together comes from my personal acquaintances with many scientists who are deeply religious and deeply spiritual, who have no problem with theism as a personal matter. There are more of them than this or that atheism thread at SPN would lead a person to believe. They are at ease with the contradictions between science and theism. Being at ease with contradiction IMHO is an indicator of a mind that admits its own limitations. Being honest about intellectual limitations is again IMHO the hallmark of good science. Arguing that nothing is true unless it can be explained by science is only one level of explanation - the level of material truths. Good science asserts that understanding material truths is always subject to revision. Good science does not confuse material truths with theoretical explanations, mathematical explanations, and logical explanations -- and good scientists humbly admit that they may be masters in one realm of truth but not others. Enough from me also.


Suk: From one perspective it would be right to leave it at this. On the other hand since I am not sure about the general sentiment and where exactly you come from, I think it won’t hurt that I get to express perhaps, the last word.

It is said that to know the degree of a person’s morality, one would have to live in close association with him or her for a long time and obviously, must oneself have good morals too. To know the extent of someone’s correct understanding, this is revealed through discussions and here again; one must oneself know what it is that wisdom understands. You Narayanjot ji, may know truly the extent of your friends morality and wisdom; this I accept. I also believe that generally people can be moral and kind in spite of their otherwise mistaken views. And it may be due to the way I have ended up expressing my views that it seems that I think otherwise.

I may have been quite vague occasionally due to the particular circumstance and due to a lack of wisdom and courage, unable to always stick to the truth regardless. But being vague is not something I’d ever want to encourage but rather increased precision of understanding and thought. When I talk about views and morality, I mean this in terms of momentary arisings distinguishing good and bad causes. That someone would act kindly in spite of generally being unkind or act wisely, in spite of being generally foolish is beside the point. And it may be that someone does not believe in karma, yet be motivated often to good actions through body, speech and mind, of this I have no doubt.

But good and bad causes are what they are and although momentary, these have consequence. Indeed by conditions particularly those accumulated from long past, so much good can manifest in a person in spite of his disbelief in any religion, that it could lead outside observers to conclude that religion is quite superfluous and unnecessary. So obviously, this is not the level of consideration I’d be interested to go into.

As I said, I point to causes and conditions that are momentary and which I believe should not be overlooked. It is said that an arrow pointing in the wrong direction even if this is very slight, leads in the long run to be further and further away from the mark. And the mark is the only worthy goal to approach, everything else is just plain wrong. The way it works is that right understanding accumulates and develops and has the power to clear away any murkiness caused by accumulated wrong. Wrong on the other hand adds to the darkness and if one hasn’t had any right understanding any good accumulated gradually fizzles out (of course this would take many lifetimes) but if fuelled particularly by “wrong understanding”, the process is hastened.

Take for example, someone who believes in annihilation. Such a person will not believe in karma or if he does, will have a wrong understanding about it. He will not be inclined to consider his present action through body, speech or mind as being cause which must bear fruit. If for some reason he does believe in the idea, because of the myopic vision, he’d make judgements about cause and effect based on conventional observations thus far, influenced by the idea that it all becomes null at the end of this life anyway. The kind of thinking may serve his purpose as long as he can keep talking himself into doing what he does, but surely he’d be quite deluded with regard to the truth and would in fact be accumulating the wrong causes.

When reborn even if as a human in a following lifetime, because he’d have accumulated the tendency of the need to ‘talk himself’ into doing good, his situation is indeed so very fragile. He’d easily be influenced by all sorts of arguments regarding what is in fact right and what is wrong and very likely mistake one for the other, as in the case of a recruit Muslim for suicide bombing. On the other hand, someone who has at least seen the value of studying the reality of the present moment, whose object is sometimes a material reality and sometimes a mental one, he’d have seen the unreliability of ‘thinking oneself into’ taking this or that course of action. He’d know that good is developed by virtue of studying its characteristic, function and proximate cause and have increased faith in the path of development even when lead to conclude that it would likely takes a zillion years to fully understand. In other words better one right small step than none at all, not to speak of wrong steps.


True even if we have come upon the correct path, we’d still be stumbling and falling for a long, long time to come. Also I absolutely have no problem about the possibility of being a good scientist and developing right understanding at the same time. As you said, he would know theoretical explanations, etc. for what they are. What I can’t help coming away with however, is a sense of your having overlooked the importance of developing ‘right understanding’. Your remark about my belief in karma and rebirth as being just one of the many possible conclusions came across as belng of little consequence to you. And if I may be blunt, when you said, “Good science does not confuse material truths.......” and “good scientists humbly admit that they may be masters in one realm of truth....”, this according to me is reflection of a failure at understanding what truth / reality really are. Science according to my understanding does not touch even superficially, at any kind of material truth. They’d be involved with what I called in an earlier post, shadows of reality or in other words, conventional manifestations, and the conclusions they make will only ever be mere stories....

Sorry for the length of the post, but I’ll end here. ;-)

Sukinder

 

[diamonds]

great question. thanks for posting.

 

[spnadmin]

Sukinder ji

It is in your last paragraph that I finally get the distinction made by many scholars of Sikhism regarding Guru Nanak's view of the material world. It was not the Buddhist view. It was not the positivist view either.

 

[harbansj24]

Yes Narayanjot ji,

Guru Nanak's view is very simple and honest. That is discussing about God and trying to understand Him is beyond the capability of human mind. Instead of wasting time on it, it is desirable that one should engage in good things such as Kirit, vand chak and Naam jap. In fact he very emphatically and confidently states that Naam jap is the key to evolution of the soul towards complete purity. Such confidence can come only from personal "kamai"

 

[spnadmin]

Yes Narayanjot ji,

Guru Nanak's view is very simple and honest. That is discussing about God and trying to understand Him is beyond the capability of human mind. Instead of wasting time on it, it is desirable that one should engage in good things such as Kirit, vand chak and Naam jap. In fact he very emphatically and confidently states that Naam jap is the key to evolution of the soul towards complete purity. Such confidence can come only from personal "kamai"

harbansj24

Indeed I am often too intimidated by learned people to say just that. Guru Nanak was clearing the soul's marg of impediments. Our journey does not have to be complicated. Yes - engage our soul's energy rather than study it. You are right.

 

[seeker3k]

Dear Harbansj24 ji,

You are right the life is very simple. But we human think it should be complicated.
The 3 things you pointed out are the pillars of humanity.
By doing naam jap, there are added benefit that comes with naam jap. With naam jap we can understand our self. You are right humans can not understand God. But if we do naam jap then we can know our self. When we know our self we know God.
The problem comes when we are trying to understand God and know nothing about our self.
​

 

[polpol]

The problem comes when we are trying to understand God and know nothing about our self.

That is very good, my dear freind. You began by questioning God and this brought you to question yourself. When we know the self, we can become free of the ego and start seeking God for real, with the help of the Gurus of co{censored}. Blessings! You are very honest in your search for truth.
​

[/QUOTE]

 

[seeker3k]

I never question the God. I question the way people believe in God. I am against the rituals. I believe in formless the problem start when people are making God same as man.
I have been jap naam for over 40 years.
If I tell what I know people will not believe and it is not my intention to make any one to believe in me. I just want them to know them self. Never mind the God. The almighty can look after him/her self with out our self.