Is Waheguru Truth? | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Is Waheguru Truth?

Currently reading:
Is Waheguru Truth?

Lily Kaur

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
6
Likes
6
Age
22
This might be an esoteric question, but it's something I've been thinking about recently. In the Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says sat naam 'the name is Truth', implying that Truth is the signifier by which we know the divine. Yet in the expression sat sri akaal 'Truth is the Eternal (i.e. Waheguru)', it implies that the divine is one and the same as Truth. What I've been wondering is, does this mean that Truth (sat) refers to the properties of Waheguru, or does it mean that Truth is the same thing as Waheguru? It's just a question of semiotics that's been rolling around my head for the last few days, whether Truth is the signifier of Waheguru or the signified itself. I suppose the distinction isn't really of great consequence, since either way, by knowing Truth we come to know Waheguru and vice versa. I hope this question makes at least a little sense! :LOL:

(P.S. I'm still figuring out this forum so let me know if there's a better place to post this)
 
Last edited:

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
5,761
Likes
8,152
Age
50
I don't know what it means to be anti-semiotic, could you clarify?
err its a joke, its a play on words, you know, like anti semetic , although in the UK we say semantics which is probably a bit more funny, oh well there you go
 

Ishna

Enthusiast
Writer
SPNer
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,185
It's a great question, thank you for asking! I love semantics, although I'm not very good at it!

I'd ask a question before yours. What is meant by 'Truth'? I have my own ideas but would like to hear yours first if you don't mind sharing :)
 

Lily Kaur

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
6
Likes
6
Age
22
It's a great question, thank you for asking! I love semantics, although I'm not very good at it!

I'd ask a question before yours. What is meant by 'Truth'? I have my own ideas but would like to hear yours first if you don't mind sharing :)
I'm no gyanan, so I'm sure that my interpretation will be flawed, and many people wiser than me will probably have thoughts on this that are very different from my own. So take this as simply my own imperfect understanding.

To me, I think one of the fundamentals of Sikh philosophy is the distinction between Sat (truth) and Maya (illusion). Maya is the way we understand the world from our own limited perspectives; we are limited to the Man (mind), and to the trappings of our own perceptions and cognitions. Sat, on the other hand, is the nature of reality as it truly is, independent of our own perspectives. By the very nature of Maya, we cannot consciously understand Sat; we are limited to the faculties of language and thought, constructs of the self which operate from the self's flawed and limited perspective. Sat cannot be accessed through language and thought; this is why in Japji Sahib, Nanak says "sochai soch na hovaee je socee lakh vaar" (One thinks, but thought is not obtained, even by thinking a hundred thousand times). This is also why he criticizes the Qazis and Pandits, who for all their knowledge and studies, cannot speak on the nature of Sat.

This, I think, is why we have the recurrent symbol of music in Sikhi, and why Gurbani is revealed not in prose but in poetry and song. We do not consciously understand music; it is something that we have intuitive knowledge of. We can understand music, but we do it at a level which goes beyond conscious thought and language and strikes instead at our abstract sense of aesthetics and beauty. This is why the Naad (melody) is such an important metaphor for understanding Sat throughout the Granth; it symbolizes the unconscious, intuitive understanding of Sat.

So Sat, to me, is the nature of reality which transcends thought and language and perception, that cannot be truly described, only experienced, as the Gurus did; it is reality free from Maya, and free of the mental constructs that the egoistic self has created to make sense of the world, including the very idea of the "self" itself. And this Sat, this Truth, is the very essence of the Divine; only Waheguru truly perceives Truth, because only Waheguru is free from Maya, They are the one and only self that exists, the very essence of this Truth, this Sat. Maybe Waheguru is Sat made self-existent, the one Truth which knows itself. I don't know the answer, and I doubt I ever will! :)

I've rambled too long about this :LOL: Didn't mean to let it get this long!
 

Ishna

Enthusiast
Writer
SPNer
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,185
Wow. If there was a Sikh Philosophy Network Posts Hall of Fame, that post is going in it!

Wonderful to read, thank you so much.
 

Sikhilove

Writer
SPNer
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
608
Likes
160
I'm no gyanan, so I'm sure that my interpretation will be flawed, and many people wiser than me will probably have thoughts on this that are very different from my own. So take this as simply my own imperfect understanding.

To me, I think one of the fundamentals of Sikh philosophy is the distinction between Sat (truth) and Maya (illusion). Maya is the way we understand the world from our own limited perspectives; we are limited to the Man (mind), and to the trappings of our own perceptions and cognitions. Sat, on the other hand, is the nature of reality as it truly is, independent of our own perspectives. By the very nature of Maya, we cannot consciously understand Sat; we are limited to the faculties of language and thought, constructs of the self which operate from the self's flawed and limited perspective. Sat cannot be accessed through language and thought; this is why in Japji Sahib, Nanak says "sochai soch na hovaee je socee lakh vaar" (One thinks, but thought is not obtained, even by thinking a hundred thousand times). This is also why he criticizes the Qazis and Pandits, who for all their knowledge and studies, cannot speak on the nature of Sat.

This, I think, is why we have the recurrent symbol of music in Sikhi, and why Gurbani is revealed not in prose but in poetry and song. We do not consciously understand music; it is something that we have intuitive knowledge of. We can understand music, but we do it at a level which goes beyond conscious thought and language and strikes instead at our abstract sense of aesthetics and beauty. This is why the Naad (melody) is such an important metaphor for understanding Sat throughout the Granth; it symbolizes the unconscious, intuitive understanding of Sat.

So Sat, to me, is the nature of reality which transcends thought and language and perception, that cannot be truly described, only experienced, as the Gurus did; it is reality free from Maya, and free of the mental constructs that the egoistic self has created to make sense of the world, including the very idea of the "self" itself. And this Sat, this Truth, is the very essence of the Divine; only Waheguru truly perceives Truth, because only Waheguru is free from Maya, They are the one and only self that exists, the very essence of this Truth, this Sat. Maybe Waheguru is Sat made self-existent, the one Truth which knows itself. I don't know the answer, and I doubt I ever will! :)

I've rambled too long about this :LOL: Didn't mean to let it get this long!
Great post, I really enjoyed reading that.

The only thing id add or change is that the Gurus taught what you've said above for the purpose of encouraging and enabling us to discover ourselves.

Were also the indescribable and eternal Sat. We're to realize it as God realizes it, we're One.
 

Sikhilove

Writer
SPNer
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
608
Likes
160
This might be an esoteric question, but it's something I've been thinking about recently. In the Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says sat naam 'the name is Truth', implying that Truth is the signifier by which we know the divine. Yet in the expression sat sri akaal 'Truth is the Eternal (i.e. Waheguru)', it implies that the divine is one and the same as Truth. What I've been wondering is, does this mean that Truth (sat) refers to the properties of Waheguru, or does it mean that Truth is the same thing as Waheguru? It's just a question of semiotics that's been rolling around my head for the last few days, whether Truth is the signifier of Waheguru or the signified itself. I suppose the distinction isn't really of great consequence, since either way, by knowing Truth we come to know Waheguru and vice versa. I hope this question makes at least a little sense! :LOL:

(P.S. I'm still figuring out this forum so let me know if there's a better place to post this)
Truth is the same thing as All of us. We're here to realise and remember it.

It requires the death of the ego/ mind/ false identity as you described
 
Last edited:

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
5,761
Likes
8,152
Age
50
The only thing id add or change is that the Gurus taught what you've said above for the purpose of encouraging and enabling us to discover ourselves.
Spoken like a true wannabe baba! I do hope you have your red light on order
maybe the purpose is to lose ourselves and discover him?
 

IJJSingh

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
6
Likes
4
Age
59
According to Gurbani: sat = sach = Permanent existence. The definition of Sach (Truth) is provided in SGGS immediately after the Mool Mantar (i.e. Aad Sach, Jugad Sach, ..) - Something that was true (meaning existed) before time or creation began, it existed since time began, it exists now, and it will exist even when time ceases to exist.


The only thing that fits the above definition is God or Naam. According to Gurbani, in fact, there is nothing else other than God. Everything else one may see, perceive or think is an illusion (exists for a limited amount of time) powered by God. Behind everything is God. God is the deceiver, the deception and the deceived. For example, underneath millions of images you watch on your TV, there is only one screen that powers all images. Naam is not a word. The word Waheguru (Gur Mantar) is a mean to get us to Naam. Naam is the "TV screen" under every image. It was there before images appeared, and it will be there after images stop appearing. Once we realize Naam, only then we realize the Truth - the Permanent Existence. Until then we are only looking at the falsehood something that is temporary.


So coming back to your question: Does truth signify God? The answer is that this question is meaningless - its based in illusion. This question exists only until duality exists (meaning your ego is generating thoughts and is asking this question, and you have a concept of "truth" in your mind, and you are trying to compare God with your concept of "truth"). Its not possible to understand Truth, the only thing that is possible is to become Truth. Once you arrive at the Truth, you are the Truth, there is no difference left between you and God, all thoughts stop, and you are the only one around, there is nothing that signifies you because nothing else exists that could possibly signify you.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
2,921
Likes
1,643
Once you arrive at the Truth, you are the Truth, there is no difference left between you and God, all thoughts stop, and you are the only one around, there is nothing that signifies you because nothing else exists that could possibly signify you.
Nailed it.

St. Aquinas once said that God is the very Essence of Existence.

That Essence is also known as Truth.

In the Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says sat naam 'the name is Truth', implying that Truth is the signifier by which we know the divine. Yet in the expression sat sri akaal 'Truth is the Eternal (i.e. Waheguru)', it implies that the divine is one and the same as Truth.
Guru Arjun Dev ji says - Satye naam tera paraa poorblaa - 1083.
The Truth is one of God's Primal Names.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
5,761
Likes
8,152
Age
50
No. It's his Primal Name.
are you saying that god does not have truth as an attribute, just as a name?

I suppose that would be consistent, it would appear quite a few Sikhs struggle with truth as an attribute, but call themselves truthful, maybe thats how it should be
 

Sikhilove

Writer
SPNer
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
608
Likes
160
No. It's his Primal Name.

Everything's Truth. The Bhagat, the sinner, the Angel, the demon, the grass, the tree, the House.

Such a simple Truth, yet we complicate it. All is One.

We are All One, not one of a kind.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Latest posts

Top