General Is There A God?

Satyaban ji,


You responded:

There is no "what" it just "is".

Reading again, I gather that you wanted to state that Karma is law of cause and effect and that values regarding good and bad are due to human misperception. So I guess I’ll need to ask you about your definition / understanding of Karma then:

In this law of cause and effect what according to you is cause and what is effect?


And when you say:

“Everything you mentioned is perceived in the veil of maya.”

As an initial question I’ll need to ask, what is your definition of maya?


And in light of the above two, I’d like to ask with regard to your following statement:

“Certainly it is good to recognize kind acts…..”

Why is it good to be able to recognize kind acts?


And finally, the whole statement:

“Certainly it is good to recognize kind acts but suppose I gave you so money how would it be perceived by someone I didn't give money to?”

Where is this leading and what is your point?


Thanks in advance.
 
Dear Curious Ji,

Finally I've got some time to respond to your intriguing post.

Atheism means without God, it does not mean you KNOW that we are without God. You cannot KNOW we are without God

You are absolutely correct. We cannot KNOW that something does not exist, and god falls into this category. It would be unscientific to simply say that we are 100% positive there is no god. At the same time, however, we cannot KNOW that the pink unicorn does not exist, right? We cannot prove negatives like that. We can prove positives (I can prove that some apples are green), disprove positives (I can disprove the claim that all apples are red), disprove negatives (I can disprove the claim that green apples don't exist), but when it comes to proving negatives, things get much more tricky. Proving that god does not exist is impossible. But, proving that the unicorn does not exist is equally impossible.

So, technically ALL OF US are AGNOSTIC in terms of the unicorn right? Because we cannot disprove the unicorn's existence. But in practice, we are all a-unicornists. You don't waste time or energy trying to disprove the existence of the unicorn even though there is an extremely small chance it exists. So, in practice, you are an a-unicornist. Similarly I am technically agnostic with respect to god, but for me the likelihood of god existing is equal to the likelihood of the unicorn existing - very low and close to but not equal to 0. So in practice I am an a-unicornist and an atheist to the same extent.

Thus being without physical proof we humans all, atheist, agnostics and theists, must function by evidentiary systems of -proof- but these are not absolute , and we end up with possibilities , probabilities , opinions and, whether you like it or not, beliefs. So in the end yours is a belief system, You believe that there is nothing outside the physical and thus no God , or a lot other things, but the point is that when you say you do not belief, that atheism is not a belief, you mean that you do not believe in God, but you do belie in materialsm so yoiurs is a belief system.

Right - it would be a belief if I told you "There is 100% no chance that god exists" - where is my proof of that claim? I have none. Now I can't regurgitate the entire chapter, but Richard Dawkins, in his book in chapter 4, explains "why there almost certainly is no god." Again, not 100% proof, but again we can't disprove the cookie monster either. Suppose N% is the percentage chance that I will give the cookie monster of existing (very very VERY low but not 0%). The likelihood of god existing is also N%.

I cannot prove God physically, you cannot disprove Her/Him physically.

Agreed.

to say you do not need to prove what you do not believe in does not deny the fact that your opinion , i.e. that God does not exist, cannot be proven.

Lots of negatives in that one, let me see if I get it right. You are saying that: if I claim I do not need to prove the thing I don't believe in, it still means that my opinion can be proven. Is that what you're saying? But it cannot be proven, as above, we cannot prove that something doesn't exist, and that includes the cookie monster, unicorns, and tooth fairies.

You must hold opinions that to you make the possibility of a creator implausible.

Not implausible, but highly unlikely. Again, just as unlikely as the cookie monster or leprechauns.

But you see the Theists , at least some theists, have proof of the existence of a Creator that, to them, leaves no doubt and that proof is a personal and earth shaking experience with the Creator.

Yes that's true, and originally this is why I believed in god too. But some people have similar experiences with unicorns and for them that is no doubt proof and they may see it as an earth shaking experience with the unicorn. But that is not very likely to impress you (at least I hope it doesn't). The argument from personal experience only goes as far as the person who is having the experience. If we give too much credit to that, then anyone with a personal experience in leprechauns would then suggest that leprechauns exist.

It is very hard when you are man centered, to even consider the possibility of a Creator with an open mind. I know this very well as I used to be an atheist , and in fact used many of your own arguments and logic. But if you keep your mind open and do not prejudge , you will with an impartial study of all the evidence get to a point where you will have to concede the POSSIBILITY of a Creator.

I can be equally woman centered too. Women after all have the ability to give birth (unless you're a seahorse). Is there a possibility of a Creator? Sure...just not a very high one. I do not prejudice, in fact in another post I am trying to show people that the SRM is prejudiced against disabled people, claiming that their laws are more "practical" - as if the point of living is being practical. Like I said there, life is not about being practical, it's about doing the right thing - but that's a separate forum.

I would like to think that I do have an open mind. So if there is some good evidence, I am totally willing to see it. After all, if the mormons are right, I want in.

If the Creator is then possible, that is, he is no longer in the realm of the Pink Unicorn, or the all present Cookie Monster, you can then suspend judgment and seek personal experiential proof .

The creator is possible, but the pink unicorn and cookie monster are equally possible. I am open to personal and experiential proof, and am curious to know what other people's proofs are, which is why I started the forum.

You must do this with a totally open mind and in total sincere honesty. Just take the Mool Mantra and the Jap ji and realize that in order to first experience the spiritual you must suspend the self by putting your will under the Hukam of God's will, Surrender your will to the Creator's command, put yourself under Orders, recognize Our Superior. Then ask the Creator to show you His Grace and Presence . If you are able to do this in sincerity it is my belief, and certainly my own personal experience, that you will have a meeting of the God kind, a meeting that will change your life

I am open to it, I have done "paath" (however you spell it) before. I have performed kirtan, played the tabla, and immersed myself in the kirtan of Ragis or even my mom or the community. There is no better poetry than Guru Gobind Singh's "Tav Parsad Saveya" (forgive my spelling). It is so eloquently written and Bhai Dya Singh sung it as if Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself were to sing it. And it carries such an amazing message - if it were true. I have spent many hours of my life contemplating this and trying to immerse myself in the deep spiritual realm of Sikhi. But so far...an empty well.

Will it physically prove God exists? No You will, however, KNOW that S/He exists and you will not need proof for His existence , any more than you need to prove yourself that there is a sun , or an ocen or flowers or any other thing that is, because you will KNOW HE IS and IS in every thing

So is god to you a personal god, a pantheistic god, both of those, or something totally different?

Be true to yourself and try it, with all sincerity and humility, you have nothing to loose and everything to gain

I am still open to it. If god reveals himself to me, you will be one of the first to know. As a pseudo-scientist I try to be open-minded to all possibilities, because our puny little brains know very little, so we have no choice but to be open minded to the vastness of the universe, because you never know what you might find. So far though, I have not found god, tooth fairies, or cookie monsters.

:)

Atheist Ji

Well now is my time to apologize for he delay, I had a lot of work done to my apartment and a result I lost my PC and phone for nearly 3 weeks although I was able to post to SPN , (I am addicted:)) using my daughter's PC when I was able togo to her place and she was not using it.

anyway I am back and very happy to see that you did answr me. Frankly, however, I am not too happy with ceratin things in your post. First my frien, the usual Pink unicoirns, yada, yada yada, references are unbecoming a serious discussion. Why is it that Atheists are always attempting to put down Theists? Oh well!

Lets get down to he issues. The PINK UNICORN , the SPAGHETTI MONSTER, the COOKIE MONSTER And all he utterly ridiculous attempts at put downs you guys use, are designed to offend. However, they just make you sound silly and ridiculous as you try to seriously make the case for cartoon characters and caricatures being equivalent. IN ANY WAY, to the MAKER of the COSMOS and, laughably, try to address as possibly being real. NUMBER ONE None of this have billions of believers. No one is willing to die for their belief in them, and certainly NO ONE has EVER had a religious experience with any of them , no matter how much you insist otherwise. Experiences with the Creator span the realm of belief and number in the billions, experiences with the Spaghetti Monster and its ilk are non-existent outside the overheated and want to be sarcastic imaginations of atheists that end up making themselves look silly and ridiculous by using such 'analogies'

Then I will like to point out that whether or not you care unable to disprove something a 100 % or 1 % (The % does not matter) the fact IS that if you posit something that X does not exist and that statement is something you cannot proof, then you are holding onto a belief not a fact , its an opinion and you, my friend, are a believer

As to the Unicorn or whatever would be put down you attempt to use. No I am NOT agnostic vis a vis them in this context. For I am a convinced Theist Convinced , because to me God is a FACT , just as sure as milky way, electricity and that sea waves crash on the shore. While the flying Spaghetti Monsters et al, are just a lame attempt at a put down. Besides, you cannot equate the two as I demonstrated above. They are not equivalent on the amount of circumstantial evidence alone. To quote Hawkins is meaningless. Has he ever open his mind enough to consider that he might be wrong? NO. Has he ever experience his heart melt at the overwhelming presence of God? No.

Has he ever been enveloped by love so other wordly and deep that he has fallen down and been physically unable to get up for hours. Crying for joy until he had no more tears? No. I am no physicist and my supposed IQ would be no match to Genius Dawkins , but not only have I had these experiences with my maker I have personally seen people barely able to read and write undergo similar experiences and have seen, and give witness to their changed lives, let alone mine.

Also I am sorry if you do not understand my negatives, but what I am saying is that even if you try to say that a negative cannot be proven, you still are holding to a belief and the fact that you acknowledge that you cannot disprove it, just confirms that you hold your position ON FAITH not fact

As a matter of fact , Atheist have Greater Faith than believers. You hold on to a belief that what we see has no creator that is no cause when EVERYTHING that we can see, hear, smell, etc AND TEST has a cause! You hold to your belief in causeless chance evolution even though it would need for it to be true the self creating of everything , the self arrangement of that self creations by laws that were not created yet and thus could not have existed, or must have formed, a priori of the chemical, physical and biological reactions necessary to have them come into being . You would further posit, as other atheists do, that living matter sprang out of dead inert matter (Abiogenesis) when there is no scintilla of scientific evidence that this ever occurred or could occur, and you would need to belief that all these chance random occurrences all fortuitously resulted in an ordered cosmos ruled by laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

You lost me at Causation!! Yes your atheistic faith is much greater than mine, for I believed only that God was possible. The rest of my conviction comes from very tangible internal evidence and from the changed lives of believers, in other words from what I feel and what I see. And by the way, implausible means highly unlikely and plausible highly likely so implausible does mean highly unlikely. Which is precisely where atheist, it seems to me, go wrong since it seems that you are positing the existence of a whole reality without a cause and from the evidence of causation we have in every thing we can experience and test, it would seem to me that the probabilities of there being a cause is are so overwheming as to render the opposite view astronomically unlikely, but go figure.

No , 'some people' don't have experiences with non-existent monsters and unicorns , mainly because , if they are sane, have no evidence, or experiences with cartoon charcters and make believe monsters. While the believers have evidences, the experiences with deity, the changes in their lives and and others and answered prayer. The day I see the Spaghetti Monster changing lives that is the day I could grant an equivalency between a cartoon character and God, needless to say I am not waiting standing up for that day. NO MY DEAR aTHEIST JI , THE DAY SOME ONE CLAIMS A SPIRITUAL LIFE CHANGING EXPERIENCE WITH LEPRECHAUNS YOU AND ME BOTH WILL CALL THE PADDY WAGON AND SEND HIM OR HER TO THE FUNNY FARM But you cannot send Billions of people to the funny farm and their lives are indeed changed.

Man centered refers manmukh (yeah I know is not the best translation of the term) and as you very well know it does not reffer to man the sex but to man as the race of man, which includes women whom, as you also very well know, were treated as equals by all the Gurus and are treated the same way in the SGGS. True others might not be quite so illumined, but hey that is why Sik Dharma is the best:)

You want good evidence? Is there any better evidence than the one you can experience, by yourself? That was my proposal to you. Put away the put downs, recognize the possibility of God, suspend judgment and seek Him out, honestly, sincerely with a mind free of pre-judgments and stereo types (that is what I mean by open mind)

You say that you are an empty well. I said to you what a Jewish Rabbi said many years ago: ''God has springs of water in the dessert!'' You have to give up your God given free will, put it under the Hukam of God's Perfect Will, like a soldier puts himself under the command of his general . Seek not your will but His. submerge yourself in it. THAT IS WHY A MANMUKH CANNOT DO IT, THAT IS WHY IASKED YOU TO BE HONEST AND SINCERE WITH YOURSELF . ONLY YOU CAN KNOW WHAT YOU TRULY TREASURE IN YOUR HEART. ALL I AM ASKING YOU IS TO DO AN EXPERIMENT AND TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. IF YOU DO IT THE RIGHT WAY WITHOUT LYING TO YOURSELF, AND GOD DOES NOT COME TO YOU, THEN YOU WILL KNOW IT IN YOUR HEART AND THAT IS IT. OF COURSE, I WILL NEVER BELIEVE IT. BUT YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, WILL NOT NEED MY APPROVAL YOU WILL KNOW , ABSOLUTELY KNOW, THERE IS NO GOD

So what about it? I mean I am not going to keep answering you point by point, It does not matter what matters is that you are a son of the living God, the Wahe Guru, or you are not and there is only one way YOU , not me BUT YOU can find out for yourself.

May you be true to yourself!

Curious
 
Last edited:
Curious ji,

You wrote:
<<Well it seems to me that it was you who asked about a creator. >>


My question was about ‘creation’ and not creator. And this was placed along with the question about ‘origin of the universe’. And as I said, that I had another reason in mind for asking this, but had I remembered to think in terms of the ‘creator’, I’d probably not have put forward the question.

You said:
<<Then you say above about whether a Creator would have a purpose and IF ETHICS WOULD HAVE AN OBJECTIVE VALUE SOURCE if a creator was posited:

"Is this something that is taught or something arrived at by your own reasoning?"

A Creator chooses to Create and thus S/He? would have a purpose and since we exhibit all the characteristics of ethically cognizant and aware beings we must also assume that we were 'wired ' that way and that we are expected to be ethical . Therefore ethics would have an Objective standard other than a subjective only standard.>>


And I was trying to show that the law of cause and effect which is Karma is as real and absolute as anything can be. It can be understood now at this very moment, though only at an intellectual level at first. The reference point however is not an abstraction, but such things as seeing, feelings and thinking that is happening for example, while you are reading this response.

I’ll just leave it here though, as I said in my first response in this thread, the truth is not something one can hope to achieve in time, but is something that’s either understood now to any extent, or not at all.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Confused JI

Well from one that supposedly has not understood May I say do not leave us 'hanging' and let us know exactly why (Faith would seem to be out of the question since you claim not to belief) you said:

'' ... I was trying to show that the law of cause and effect which is Karma is as real and absolute as anything can be. It can be understood now at this very moment, though only at an intellectual level at first. The reference point however is not an abstraction, but such things as seeing, feelings and thinking that is happening for example, while you are reading this response. ''

In other words why are you certain of Karma, not that I disagree but I would like to know your opinion.

Be Blessed
Curious
 
Curious Seeker ji,
Firstly, I am not trying to put you down.
What is the difference between a Flying Spaghetti Monster and God?
There's really only one difference when it comes to belief. (The definitions of course MAY well be different)
Here's a similarity:
You say FSM doesn't exist, but you can't prove it...
Atheists say God doesn't exist, but they can't prove it...

The difference lies in he fact that Billions of people believe in God. While only a minority of people believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). This has social implications. People will be more likely to say that the former is MORE likely to exist than the latter, just because they are so familiar with it. Also if you believe in a God, you are always being reinforced ("rewarded") because you can be part of HUGE gatherings. Whereas, if you believe in the FSM you are pretty much by yourself. This leads to the point I want to make. The reason why no one would die for his belief in FSM is because no one takes it seriously. Noon takes it seriously because its not widely propagated and further reinforced by large congregations.

With that said, FSM has just as much capacity as God in providing religious experiences. Why do I say this?
Do you agree that people have had religious experiences in the past? I am pretty sure that they have.
Well, here's a list of who might have provided them with such an experience.
Thor, Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Ra, Hathor, Sekhmet - Do you believe in them?
Before the Greek and Egyptian Gods, and other God(s) you have, simple phenonmenon of Nature providing the experience (evidence comes to Hunter-gatherer societies today)
Like fire, lightning, tornado, thunderstorm - These maybe Gods in prehistoric times. - Do you believe that these forces are supernatural?
(Natives of North America believe in spirits in Nature, those are the source of their religious experience.)

The key is in numbers. The Gods I have mentioned had large numbers of believers so they all took it seriouly and had religious experiences. All FSM followers have to do is propagate their belief in God.

So you see now that having religious experience does not validate the existence of anything. FSM is just an example used to illustrate that to theists, its not a put-down.
 
Curious Seeker ji,
Firstly, I am not trying to put you down.
What is the difference between a Flying Spaghetti Monster and God?
There's really only one difference when it comes to belief. (The definitions of course MAY well be different)
Here's a similarity:
You say FSM doesn't exist, but you can't prove it...
Atheists say God doesn't exist, but they can't prove it...

The difference lies in he fact that Billions of people believe in God. While only a minority of people believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). This has social implications. People will be more likely to say that the former is MORE likely to exist than the latter, just because they are so familiar with it. Also if you believe in a God, you are always being reinforced ("rewarded") because you can be part of HUGE gatherings. Whereas, if you believe in the FSM you are pretty much by yourself. This leads to the point I want to make. The reason why no one would die for his belief in FSM is because no one takes it seriously. Noon takes it seriously because its not widely propagated and further reinforced by large congregations.

With that said, FSM has just as much capacity as God in providing religious experiences. Why do I say this?
Do you agree that people have had religious experiences in the past? I am pretty sure that they have.
Well, here's a list of who might have provided them with such an experience.
Thor, Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Ra, Hathor, Sekhmet - Do you believe in them?
Before the Greek and Egyptian Gods, and other God(s) you have, simple phenonmenon of Nature providing the experience (evidence comes to Hunter-gatherer societies today)
Like fire, lightning, tornado, thunderstorm - These maybe Gods in prehistoric times. - Do you believe that these forces are supernatural?
(Natives of North America believe in spirits in Nature, those are the source of their religious experience.)

The key is in numbers. The Gods I have mentioned had large numbers of believers so they all took it seriouly and had religious experiences. All FSM followers have to do is propagate their belief in God.

So you see now that having religious experience does not validate the existence of anything. FSM is just an example used to illustrate that to theists, its not a put-down.


Bhagat Singh Ji

Are you serious!! Come on! Only people in insane asylums and little kids that have not reached the age of reason, believe in the FSM, the PU and the CM and all other inventions of atheistic minds. The only reason to come up with these, to quote Zarathushtra, ''Products of senseless thinking'' is to: A) Try to find an abstract entity to equate to God AND:
B) Try to get some one's goat

Actually this is kind of pathetic. Atheists can't find anything to compare to God within reason, so they go outside of reason and make up outrageous entities. What do these contribute to the dialog? Zero! Why introduce them? These are both intellectually bankrupt and to that extent so are the atheists that use them, in the sense they cannot come up with a credible alternative and they want to try and ridicule the opposition. Its really a timeless tactic, you can't answer your opponent? Demonize him, or better, ridicule him. Its a tactic of the ones that have no argument, not of the supposedly intellectually superior and enlightened. It really makes a mockery of the atheist position, yet they can't see that they are undercutting their own credibility. I truly wish they would not debase their argument.

As to being rewarded by numbers. Just to show how preposterous this is, I will give myself as an example I was an atheist. I became a believer not because they are more believers, but because I was totally convinced by the experience with Deity. I did not stop seeking truth nor rejecting what could not past the validity test, because one thing is to believe in God and another to believe in what men say about God. In fact precisely because of the, frankly, nonsense of much of Abrahamic theology I became associated with distinctively minority religions like Zoroastrianism and Sikhism. If I were to be seeking validation in numbers I would have remained a Xian or become a Muslim.

The point of numbers I made referred to the evidence of the existence of God . In that sense numbers matter, in fact its totally acceptable to deny the validity of claims for a theory based on the fact that the opposite postulate is overwhelmingly self evident, thus making the possibility of the validity of the opposing theory, infinitesimally small. Thus the theory of the equivalency between the FSM and his ilk and God fails on the grounds of the infinitesimal evidentiary support for it, versus, the overwhelming support, in the the form of experiential evidence, for God.

Atheists, in fact, have to reject experiential evidence out right or their atheism cannot stand. But that is not even the question. In fact, the whole argument with the FSM, etc. is spurious because the fact that no one, who is sane, has ever had a life changing experience with these constructs of atheistic sophism, and they never will, because they are fake and the experience with God is overwhelmingly and undeniably real.

As to past experiences and other Gods. First you cannot even equate these names of God to the FSM, etc. These being simply other names of the same God, would indeed generate some sort of experiences to the extent that the believer would meditate and contemplate on the true natuure and name of God. For atheists totally misunderstand this point, not surprisingly since as atheists they cannot help but not be, naturally, open to deity. The names men use for God have no necessary relationship with the real essence of God. That ought to be obvious to those familiar with Sikhism, the Gurus and the SGGS. Second the fact that people, who have acquired more knowledge, now realize that ancients represented God in ways that were limited by their own understanding does not reflect on God, but in the extent of human ignorance. God is a knower by nature, He knows. This is precisely the opposite of human condition, man needs knowledge, he is ignorant.

When man, in his ignorance, fails to describe God accurately , how is that reflecting on the reality of God? When the ancients described the the Earth as the center of the universe, flat, etc, did that mistaken description changed the truth of what the Earth and/or the Universe or the Sun were and are? NO

Nanak looked at all the different religions of his day and said: 'There is no Hindu there is no Muslim.' He and all the Gurus repeatedly accepted that God could not be grasped and understood fully by the human mind. But they also equally asserted that He could be experienced as a very real father, a mother, a relative, a friend. That He has always been and will forever remain true, that is, real. And that the experiences that corroborates Him are found through meditation , contemplation and study on, and of, His name and nature. Furthermore, that the Truth thus acquired would manifest in selfless service to humanity and the changed lives of the believers.

All these things are patently true and can be experienced, and, have in fact been recorded in history. Thus the question is clear. The Theist who meditates on God and centers his life on Him will acquire the experiential knowledge of God and has proven to himself that God is real. Any one who can accept even the possibility of God and of His accessibility through experience and, puts aside his ego and surrenders his will as an act of trust, in sincerity, honesty and humility, can experience God and KNOW that He IS. In fact, such a person has put away the illusions and delusions of his or her ignorance and awaken to reality. He or she is now in the light.

So your arguments on Gods and their number to try to equate them to the One is a total misunderstanding of, both, the human and the divine condition. There are no numbers of God, there is but ONE perceived in a number of different ways by ignorant mankind. Mankind cannot loose its ignorance of God until they experience Him, and they cannot experience Him until they are willing to accept that He IS, willingly put their free will under the authority of God's order and meditate and ponder on His Name and nature.

Just as men need to acquire knowledge of the physical world, (and by the way, this also knowledge of the God that is in the physical) they need to acquire knowledge of God. We acquire knowledge of the physical through physical methods and we acquire knowledge of the spiritual through spiritual methods.

Spiritual experience is the ONLY way to knowledge of the spiritual. Just as you cannot gain knowledge of physics without studying physics, with the help of your God Given mind, you cannot gain knowledge of God without having through your meditation (with your mind, the same one whose analytical functions you use to gain knowledge of the physical) experience God. Mistakenly arguing that because man names the One God with different names there are many sources of this spiritual experiences its an argument that has no validity, because its first and central assumption is False. There is One God, not many, and the many names and ideas ascribed to God by different men are just misconceptions born of their natural lack of understanding, and their attachment to the illusions of the physical way.

Just because some refuse to give up their self centeredness for God centeredness, and they remain cut away and separated from the Divine, can we then deny the experiences of untold billions throughout human history? No!! In any case the challenge to the humans will forever stand. In the end there are no atheists, nor believers, no men, nor women. We are not a race, or a class, or a nationality, we are all one thing: Human! And this is the challenge: Cast out your preconceptions, surrender your will in trust, with sincere honesty, and come to the One and you will Know that He IS through the experience of His nature. Is up to each of us to decide. Those who take the challenge without lying to themselves will never regret it.

Be Blessed
Curious
 
Last edited:
Confused JI

Well from one that supposedly has not understood May I say do not leave us 'hanging' and let us know exactly why (Faith would seem to be out of the question since you claim not to belief) you said:

'' ... I was trying to show that the law of cause and effect which is Karma is as real and absolute as anything can be. It can be understood now at this very moment, though only at an intellectual level at first. The reference point however is not an abstraction, but such things as seeing, feelings and thinking that is happening for example, while you are reading this response. ''

In other words why are you certain of Karma, not that I disagree but I would like to know your opinion.


Curious ji,

I’ve written a couple of responses on the topic addressed to Atheist ji, have you read them? I ask because I’d like to avoid repeating if I can. And although I could add something to what I’ve already written, I think it would be good if you could give some comment, perhaps what you agree with so far and what you don’t?

Thanks.
 
Confused JI

Well from one that supposedly has not understood May I say do not leave us 'hanging' and let us know exactly why (Faith would seem to be out of the question since you claim not to belief) you said:

'' ... I was trying to show that the law of cause and effect which is Karma is as real and absolute as anything can be. It can be understood now at this very moment, though only at an intellectual level at first. The reference point however is not an abstraction, but such things as seeing, feelings and thinking that is happening for example, while you are reading this response. ''

In other words why are you certain of Karma, not that I disagree but I would like to know your opinion.


Curious ji,

I’ve written a couple of responses on the topic addressed to Atheist ji, have you read them? I ask because I’d like to avoid repeating if I can. And although I could add something to what I’ve already written, I think it would be good if you could give some comment, perhaps what you agree with so far and what you don’t?

Thanks.

Hello Confused Ji

No I do not normally read every post on a thread, I have skimmed over, I confess, some of your exchanges with Atheist Ji. :) However its not that earthshakingly important for me to have you repeat them.

Basically I agree with Re'incarnation because I believe in the spiritual evolution of man and in he justice and fairness of God. But I do not , at present. consider it a dogma unless I am other wise convinced. If I could be convinced it would certainly round out my beliefs more. So please tell me why are you so sure about re-incarnation .

One point that I wander is about the soul has recollection of past lives in its subconscious. Obviously most of us do not have such, although, many of us have that feeling of deja vu, of having been at a place before and even of having met some one before, from time to time.

Blessings
Curious
 
Curious ji,

Before I proceed, I just want to make clear my comment regarding understanding.
When I stated that one either understands or not, this was originally made with reference to the fact of ‘seeking truth’. What I was at the time pointing out was the error of the attitude, namely that one can’t arrive at the truth by ‘seeking’ it or projecting that it is something one will come to realize down the road. Therefore the statement, ‘either there is understanding or there isn’t’ meant as a judgment.


You said:
<<No I do not normally read every post on a thread, I have skimmed over, I confess, some of your exchanges with Atheist Ji. However its not that earthshakingly important for me to have you repeat them. >>


But for me it is important that you do come to know the basics with regard to my understanding of Karma. Since as far as I am concerned, that which is held by most people is at best vague, often mixing cause and effect and those of others are in fact quite mistaken. So please if you can find the time, do read those responses before you go any further with this one. ;-)

You said:
<<Basically I agree with Re'incarnation because I believe in the spiritual evolution of man and in he justice and fairness of God.>>


Firstly, I’ll need to know what you mean by reincarnation. The way that this is normally used, is not how I see the matter. What I refer to is ‘rebirth’, and this is quite different from reincarnation. The latter is connected to the idea of a ‘soul’ which is something that is more or less permanent and can’t exist according to my understanding of way things are, including that of karma itself. Rebirth on the other hand refers to a particular kind of consciousness which arises and falls away instantly after performing the particular function at conception. It is the result of volitional consciousness / karma (cause), the one which arose just before the dying consciousness of the previous life and which beside being the cause for rebirth, is also cause for what is called life-continuum (a kind of consciousness) and the death consciousness of the new life. (There are also the related material realities which I don’t think I need to go into here.)

What this last volitional consciousness will be, this can’t ever be predicted. Indeed it is just like *now*, what kind of consciousness has arisen and already fallen away, is not within anyone’s will to determine. But due to some past conditions most notably, ‘accumulated tendencies’, upon the experience through any of the sense doors (which is resultant and not cause, and again not within control), attachment or aversion and / or ignorance on one hand or their opposites on the other, will condition the following consciousness. This latter depending on the strength, can then act as cause or karma for some resultant in the future.

So I don’t subscribe to such beliefs as ‘spiritual evolution’, in fact if anything, I find evidence everywhere pointing to the opposite direction. Such as that between 2500 years ago and now, the number of enlightened people for example, from what was at one time, numbering in thousands now appears to approach zero. The distorted and *******ed sense of morality existing today, something which does not even require very deep understanding, is another reflection of where we are actually moving toward. Moreover the beliefs, more particularly interpretations of ancient texts are quite wild now. Look at the various sects of the different religions!!

But then again, I don’t wish to encourage this kind of thinking. First, it is quite useless to think in terms of others’ level of understanding and this actually comes from seeing the uselessness of thinking along the same lines with regard to our own. Second, such thoughts as human race and so on is reflection of wrong focus and in a way encourages division into groups, particularly separating humans from animals. Third, and this is how I understand the situation to be, is that we are all caught up in what is called the cycle of birth and death which is repeated over and over precisely because we have yet to see the way out.

You can compare this latter to someone lost in an almost endlessly large and thick forest with no sense of direction and no help from any kind of instrument. It won’t be such that just because he keeps trying to get out, that he will one day manage to do so. The fact is that he will die and before he knows it, be reborn with ignorance which has been accumulated even more, and so again continues to struggle in the same way, repeating the same pattern. If however he has done some good and has any tendency to understand, he may meet some wise man who shows him the way and begin then to walk in the right direction. But even then, it takes aeons over aeons (according to my estimation ;-)) to finally come out of all that.

You said:
<<But I do not , at present. consider it a dogma unless I am other wise convinced. If I could be convinced it would certainly round out my beliefs more. So please tell me why are you so sure about re-incarnation .>>


Firstly, the kind of answers sought may need to be examined to see whether it is valid.

What most people seek is ‘evidence’. But this as you may know can at best only cause one to begin questioning one’s own preconceptions, but not necessarily to investigate so as to understand. When for example someone seeks evidence for past lives by such things as testimony or even one’s own recollection, is this what is required in order that doubt is lessened? I don’t think so. The kind of evidence when got depends on memory, which then acts as the basis for a new idea set against other ideas and weighed. Any explanations, even seemingly logical ones, and depending on any attachment and ignorance based on the experience of the moment, serves simple to justify holding to the particular idea / belief.

What in fact is required is the study of the mind, and this won’t happen while we continue with our old attitudes seeking evidence which don’t really help. It requires a good deal of wisdom to see the need to investigate the mind when we first hear about such things as karma and rebirth. But of course this is not to be expected, since it is more natural for us to be caught up in concepts about this and that and to seek explanations so as to then rest satisfied. Moreover, karma as is presented to us normally is such that we either believe in it or we don’t.

True for those who do believe, this may in fact be tied with the kind of faith related to seeing advantage in good and harm in evil. And when it comes to those who are truly inclined to live a moral life, this is better than in the case of those whose life is not based on the kind of belief. But this being still dependent on ‘belief’, goes only so far.

On the other hand if wisdom came in to study the variegated nature of mind, it will begin to appreciate the differences between states that are cause and those that are result. So although in the beginning some degree of ‘belief’ and faith in morality is involved, gradually this becomes a matter more of knowing and seeing. And while the one does nothing to reduce doubt the other works to build faith of a kind which is confidence and which leads to the lessening of doubt.

So do I feel certain about rebirth? No.
However, I see less and less reason to doubt, having to some extent come to appreciate what it would be like at the end of life by way of studying my life as it is now. Indeed this would include having also some understanding of belief as belief and doubt as doubt.

I’ll have to stop here Curious ji, as it is time for me to get ready and go somewhere, and I want to post this now and not later. Although I’ve not said all that I had in mind, I’ll wait for you to respond and see how I should respond.
 
Curious ji,

Before I proceed, I just want to make clear my comment regarding understanding.
When I stated that one either understands or not, this was originally made with reference to the fact of ‘seeking truth’. What I was at the time pointing out was the error of the attitude, namely that one can’t arrive at the truth by ‘seeking’ it or projecting that it is something one will come to realize down the road. Therefore the statement, ‘either there is understanding or there isn’t’ meant as a judgment.


You said:
<<No I do not normally read every post on a thread, I have skimmed over, I confess, some of your exchanges with Atheist Ji. However its not that earthshakingly important for me to have you repeat them. >>


But for me it is important that you do come to know the basics with regard to my understanding of Karma. Since as far as I am concerned, that which is held by most people is at best vague, often mixing cause and effect and those of others are in fact quite mistaken. So please if you can find the time, do read those responses before you go any further with this one. ;-)

You said:
<<Basically I agree with Re'incarnation because I believe in the spiritual evolution of man and in he justice and fairness of God.>>


Firstly, I’ll need to know what you mean by reincarnation. The way that this is normally used, is not how I see the matter. What I refer to is ‘rebirth’, and this is quite different from reincarnation. The latter is connected to the idea of a ‘soul’ which is something that is more or less permanent and can’t exist according to my understanding of way things are, including that of karma itself. Rebirth on the other hand refers to a particular kind of consciousness which arises and falls away instantly after performing the particular function at conception. It is the result of volitional consciousness / karma (cause), the one which arose just before the dying consciousness of the previous life and which beside being the cause for rebirth, is also cause for what is called life-continuum (a kind of consciousness) and the death consciousness of the new life. (There are also the related material realities which I don’t think I need to go into here.)

What this last volitional consciousness will be, this can’t ever be predicted. Indeed it is just like *now*, what kind of consciousness has arisen and already fallen away, is not within anyone’s will to determine. But due to some past conditions most notably, ‘accumulated tendencies’, upon the experience through any of the sense doors (which is resultant and not cause, and again not within control), attachment or aversion and / or ignorance on one hand or their opposites on the other, will condition the following consciousness. This latter depending on the strength, can then act as cause or karma for some resultant in the future.

So I don’t subscribe to such beliefs as ‘spiritual evolution’, in fact if anything, I find evidence everywhere pointing to the opposite direction. Such as that between 2500 years ago and now, the number of enlightened people for example, from what was at one time, numbering in thousands now appears to approach zero. The distorted and *******ed sense of morality existing today, something which does not even require very deep understanding, is another reflection of where we are actually moving toward. Moreover the beliefs, more particularly interpretations of ancient texts are quite wild now. Look at the various sects of the different religions!!

But then again, I don’t wish to encourage this kind of thinking. First, it is quite useless to think in terms of others’ level of understanding and this actually comes from seeing the uselessness of thinking along the same lines with regard to our own. Second, such thoughts as human race and so on is reflection of wrong focus and in a way encourages division into groups, particularly separating humans from animals. Third, and this is how I understand the situation to be, is that we are all caught up in what is called the cycle of birth and death which is repeated over and over precisely because we have yet to see the way out.

You can compare this latter to someone lost in an almost endlessly large and thick forest with no sense of direction and no help from any kind of instrument. It won’t be such that just because he keeps trying to get out, that he will one day manage to do so. The fact is that he will die and before he knows it, be reborn with ignorance which has been accumulated even more, and so again continues to struggle in the same way, repeating the same pattern. If however he has done some good and has any tendency to understand, he may meet some wise man who shows him the way and begin then to walk in the right direction. But even then, it takes aeons over aeons (according to my estimation ;-)) to finally come out of all that.

You said:
<<But I do not , at present. consider it a dogma unless I am other wise convinced. If I could be convinced it would certainly round out my beliefs more. So please tell me why are you so sure about re-incarnation .>>


Firstly, the kind of answers sought may need to be examined to see whether it is valid.

What most people seek is ‘evidence’. But this as you may know can at best only cause one to begin questioning one’s own preconceptions, but not necessarily to investigate so as to understand. When for example someone seeks evidence for past lives by such things as testimony or even one’s own recollection, is this what is required in order that doubt is lessened? I don’t think so. The kind of evidence when got depends on memory, which then acts as the basis for a new idea set against other ideas and weighed. Any explanations, even seemingly logical ones, and depending on any attachment and ignorance based on the experience of the moment, serves simple to justify holding to the particular idea / belief.

What in fact is required is the study of the mind, and this won’t happen while we continue with our old attitudes seeking evidence which don’t really help. It requires a good deal of wisdom to see the need to investigate the mind when we first hear about such things as karma and rebirth. But of course this is not to be expected, since it is more natural for us to be caught up in concepts about this and that and to seek explanations so as to then rest satisfied. Moreover, karma as is presented to us normally is such that we either believe in it or we don’t.

True for those who do believe, this may in fact be tied with the kind of faith related to seeing advantage in good and harm in evil. And when it comes to those who are truly inclined to live a moral life, this is better than in the case of those whose life is not based on the kind of belief. But this being still dependent on ‘belief’, goes only so far.

On the other hand if wisdom came in to study the variegated nature of mind, it will begin to appreciate the differences between states that are cause and those that are result. So although in the beginning some degree of ‘belief’ and faith in morality is involved, gradually this becomes a matter more of knowing and seeing. And while the one does nothing to reduce doubt the other works to build faith of a kind which is confidence and which leads to the lessening of doubt.

So do I feel certain about rebirth? No.
However, I see less and less reason to doubt, having to some extent come to appreciate what it would be like at the end of life by way of studying my life as it is now. Indeed this would include having also some understanding of belief as belief and doubt as doubt.

I’ll have to stop here Curious ji, as it is time for me to get ready and go somewhere, and I want to post this now and not later. Although I’ve not said all that I had in mind, I’ll wait for you to respond and see how I should respond.

Confused Ji

Thanks for your answer. I will go back and read your exchanges with Atheist JI. However I can see right now that there is little hope for us to agree or even learn from each other. I come from a totally different position and experience I am a confirmed theist I believe in the Self-Soul and its transcending death and, frankly, the Buddhist paradigm does not do it for me. So I will just add here a question. What about origins, beginnings and/or pre-beginning? Is there in your opinion a Creation and, thus, either a self creation or a Creator? I think it behooves all of us to offer up an answer (tentative as it might be) on this question of beginnings, of genesis if you will. Even if only for our own benefit, we ought to face up to this question. IMHO

Blessings
Curious
 
Curious ji,


You said:
<<What about origins, beginnings and/or pre-beginning? Is there in your opinion a Creation and, thus, either a self creation or a Creator? I think it behooves all of us to offer up an answer (tentative as it might be) on this question of beginnings, of genesis if you will. Even if only for our own benefit, we ought to face up to this question. IMHO>>

:) So we are coming back to this.

I haven’t read any literature, but the impression I got from the little that I have gathered here and there, is that the stress has been on the cyclic nature of existence. I remember hearing about world systems coming into existence, aging and finally vanishing and another one arising, aging and falling away.

There is, and you may have heard about this, the Dependent Origination. This describes the cycle of repeated birth and death which we are all caught in, beginning with ‘ignorance’. It consists of 12 links the second of which is mental formations or ‘karma’ which in turn gives rise to consciousness (rebirth), and this to mind and matter and so on till birth, aging and death to form a cycle. So one might ask with regard to this, when did ‘ignorance’ first come to be? The response would be that it does not matter, as there is ignorance *now* and karma is being performed now, and so too the results in the form of experiences through the five senses are arising and falling away as we speak.

With this understanding, the question about first cause becomes then irrelevant. In other words, seeing the harm of ignorance and attachment, there is a sense of urgency aimed at understanding the present moment rather than be concerned about where anything came from, no matter this be the first cause or what happened in past lives or even the mind moment preceding this one.

Ignorance is said not only to be the cause for bad results, but also good ones. For without wisdom, all good deeds are the stuff of continued being lost in the cycle of existence as much as are the bad deeds. When the extent of the harm of ignorance is understood, the interest is aroused to understand the present moment rather than being fascinated with anything else, including philosophizing.

I see the question of creation and first cause as falling into this category.

I wish to add that, the world as is understood (intellectually) by me is not the conventional world consisting of people, things, places and actions happening in time, but rather the momentary world of one mind moment being conditioned to arise to experience either one physical reality or one mental reality or else a ‘concept’. This happens in an instant and falls away before we know it. In other words, in such a world where cause and effect occurs and is seen to any extent, it is not necessary to seek answers outside of this.

But I do understand that when there is instead of this, the perception of and belief in the world out there as consisting of people, other beings, various objects, places and events, it does behoove (;-) I’m using the word for the first time), to then think about finding meaning within this, including where it all came from. And if I may be outright here, this need to find out comes not only from not knowing any better, but is also propelled by a degree of fascination / attachment with all that goes on.....

I’d rather not continue with this particular discussion Curious ji. My intention initially was to encourage people here to see the value in good deeds because what I perceive is that most people, Sikhs in particular which forms part of my world (conventional to be sure), are lost in silly pursuits, the most obvious and grossest being that of amassing wealth. Money making machines is what I call them. And if some do to some extent see this, the alternative would be yet another worldly pursuit. This to me is the world of Maya in which people are trapped in, one form or another.

When analyzed, in the end what they struggle towards is the four desirable of the eight ‘worldly conditions’ namely, gain / loss, fame / disgrace, praise / blame and pleasure / pain. These are conditioned not only by good or bad deeds done in the past, but also one’s present attitudes towards them when they occur. So it’s like a losing battle that all people are engaged in. For while they are pleased whenever the positive ones occur, the very attachment is cause for bad results later on, and so too when the negative ones happen, the aversion brings bad results. So why not just do good?! :)

Curious ji, this has been a chance for me to think about these things in a way I otherwise don’t usually do. So thank you very much for engaging me in the discussion.
 
Satyaban ji,


You responded:

There is no "what" it just "is".

Reading again, I gather that you wanted to state that Karma is law of cause and effect and that values regarding good and bad are due to human misperception. So I guess I’ll need to ask you about your definition / understanding of Karma then:

In this law of cause and effect what according to you is cause and what is effect?

By what is the cause I gather you mean the cause of karmic law which is The Creator, I use the name Shiva but it really doesn't matter. The effect is that the law expresses and maintains the unity of creation: karma, the web of cause and effect; samsara, the cycle of birth and death; moksha, the spiritual liberation that is life's supreme goal. (quoted from the introduction to Eknath Easwaran's "The Bhagavad Gita."


And when you say:

“Everything you mentioned is perceived in the veil of maya.”

As an initial question I’ll need to ask, what is your definition of maya?

I define maya to be the misperception of reality of this temporal world we live in caused by our sense of sight, taste, feel, hearing etc. Maya gives the world form and substance. The Upanishads underscore maya's captivating nature, which blinds souls to the transcendent Truth.


And in light of the above two, I’d like to ask with regard to your following statement:

“Certainly it is good to recognize kind acts…..”

Why is it good to be able to recognize kind acts?

Because it enables us to get along in this world with others and foster serenity which is fertile ground from which to meditate and find God within us.


And finally, the whole statement:

“Certainly it is good to recognize kind acts but suppose I gave you so money how would it be perceived by someone I didn't give money to?”

Where is this leading and what is your point?

It is really quite self explanatory isn't it, regarding individual perceptions?


Thanks in advance.

This is what I believe and I hope it helps in your understanding of that. If you have greater interest I suggest you research the subject.

Peace
Satyaban
 
Satyaban ji,


This is what I believe and I hope it helps in your understanding of that. If you have greater interest I suggest you research the subject.


Thank you for your efforts in trying to explain your understanding to me.
As Curious ji has concluded, the difference in our position is much too great, so it may be good that we don't try to convince each other of what we understand.
 

jasi

SPNer
SSAKAL JI.

The question is answered clearly by Sat Guru Nanak Dev JI that no one can suppose or creat God or know HIS world because HE is all around us like air but you can not see except feels . He is sitting right next to your heart . To see it is matter of your sincer longing and which will make you realize his presence . The Bhagats or Saints who recieved the realiazations became eternal and big time dedicated to HIS Glory..

Second thing is your KARMA . That will feed you back what you sow.you will not be spared the resilts form your Karmas.

"KARNI APO APNI ,KE NERE KE DOOR"

We, all simply do not even follow the basic preachings on which the whole sikhism is standing.

Oneness.

In today society GURU Nanak'teachings is preached by hundereds of groups under their own banners ,even getting worshipped instead of redirecting the masses to one Akal Purkh.

That has been existing in Hinduism with many gods yet the all got power from one GOD.

You have to study that than worring about if the GOd exist or not.Read the Japji saheb Ji ,you will realizes your self than asking this kind of questions which were answered by Guru nanak Dev Ji.

May sat guru Ji blessed with you more understandings.

Jaspai



Satyaban ji,


This is what I believe and I hope it helps in your understanding of that. If you have greater interest I suggest you research the subject.


Thank you for your efforts in trying to explain your understanding to me.
As Curious ji has concluded, the difference in our position is much too great, so it may be good that we don't try to convince each other of what we understand.
 
Jaspi Ji,


SSAKAL JI.

You have to study that than worring about if the GOd exist or not.Read the Japji saheb Ji ,you will realizes your self than asking this kind of questions which were answered by Guru nanak Dev Ji.

Thank you for trying to help. But I think that you may have forgotten that this thread was started by Atheist ji, and the question about whether God exists or not is from there. I came in the middle of the discussion to talk about Karma which is all that I wish to talk about here.
 

Atheist

SPNer
Now that I got some time to get back onto this forum (at least for the while), I just wanted to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts and ideas. It was quite enlightening! If anyone feels I did not respond to a question they posed me, please let me know and I will look into it.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Last edited:
Every person in this world has different views on GOD. Some believe while others don't. I can tell you about myself. I believe in God. With his believe I exist, if there was no God I would no be here as well. Let me give you a simple and true example; Atheist parents have a child. They raise him with ideas similar to their own, stating there is no God. The father finds his son secretly praying to God. Where does the child's belief come from? Why does a child who is raised with atheist perspective prays and belives in God?

As we the people because more and more knowledgeable and accomplish major things we are leaning toward the idea that there is no God. No matter how many lies we may tell to cover a truth, the truth will always be present. You are here asking this questions and you have reason for it. Do you fully believe there is no God or are you not sure? Those who are true have no doubt in their mind about being wrong. I have faith in God therefore I have no doubt at all on his existence. You on the other hand are asking this question "Is there A god?", Why? Because you know that there is God but you do not want to believe it.
 

jasi

SPNer
SS AKAL Confusion Ji.

I apologize for addressing the wrong thread of athiest.

Indeed Jap Ji Sahib has all the answers one get by reading every morning.

We wonder some time people get blessed with wisdom to understand Wahe Guru JI and bring life long JAGRITI into their lives.

Thanks

Jaspi


Jaspi Ji,


SSAKAL JI.

You have to study that than worring about if the GOd exist or not.Read the Japji saheb Ji ,you will realizes your self than asking this kind of questions which were answered by Guru nanak Dev Ji.

Thank you for trying to help. But I think that you may have forgotten that this thread was started by Atheist ji, and the question about whether God exists or not is from there. I came in the middle of the discussion to talk about Karma which is all that I wish to talk about here.
 
Every person in this world has different views on GOD. Some believe while others don't. I can tell you about myself. I believe in God. With his believe I exist, if there was no God I would no be here as well. Let me give you a simple and true example; Atheist parents have a child. They raise him with ideas similar to their own, stating there is no God. The father finds his son secretly praying to God. Where does the child's belief come from? Why does a child who is raised with atheist perspective prays and belives in God?

As we the people because more and more knowledgeable and accomplish major things we are leaning toward the idea that there is no God. No matter how many lies we may tell to cover a truth, the truth will always be present. You are here asking this questions and you have reason for it. Do you fully believe there is no God or are you not sure? Those who are true have no doubt in their mind about being wrong. I have faith in God therefore I have no doubt at all on his existence. You on the other hand are asking this question "Is there A god?", Why? Because you know that there is God but you do not want to believe it.

gursikhi. jeevan ji,
Most probably,it is the child"s wishful thinking and fear psychosis and more importantly,peer-pressure, that is most likely. make him pray to God.
It is not that he has had a sudden vision of God.
 
gursikhi. jeevan ji,
Most probably,it is the child"s wishful thinking and fear psychosis and more importantly,peer-pressure, that is most likely. make him pray to God.
It is not that he has had a sudden vision of God.
In addition:
even then the sudden vision doesn't necessarily mean that the cause of the Vision is God.

During brain surgeries, patients often report the "white light" or something similar. Does that mean its heaven or God?
Edit: (After the brain surgery, patients report visions during the surgery)
 
Top