One God, So Many Religions

[chazSingh]

chazSingh ji

Serious science treads carefully when making claims, Junk science does not. More later.

i dont really think it's junk science...some things just cannot be put into charts and tables and analyzed...

quantum physics appears as junk science to some because it's hitting the boundary of what can be written, discected and claimed and proved.

god cannot be proved because it's a personal awakening or realisation to all that is and ever was.

Serious science will have no option but to evolve as the population starts to awaken to their true selves...in fact serious science or any science will probably no longer be required because all answers will be there within.

mankind currently requires science because it requires "someone to tell them what is and what isn't" the notion of "you tell me" because we are accepting the other as being seperate to oneself...

but if Gurbani is to be lived...then the reality is that there is no 'other' we already know everything ourselves..

just my thoughts

god bless ji

 

[spnadmin]

chazSingh ji

I don't know what I have said that is not clear. Of course quantum physics is science. Where did you get the idea I said otherwise? Applying quantum science to religion is not science but junk science. Of course junk science is a lot of fun and forums are here for entertainment as well as learning. I hope that clears things up.

 

[chazSingh]

I don't know what part of what I have said is not clear. Of course quantum physics is science.
Where did you get the idea I said otherwise. Applying quantum science to religion is not science but junk science. Of course junk science is a lot of fun and forums are here for entertainment as well as learning. I hope that clear things up.

i dont see how applying it to religion then makes it junk science?
are they all not just seeking the 'truth'

if i was sat in a lab and one of my experiements suggested there could be some indication of a higher intelligence behind everything...does my science then become 'junk science'?

maybe i'm not understanding what you're saying

 

[spnadmin]

i dont see how applying it to religion then makes it junk science?
are they all not just seeking the 'truth'

if i was sat in a lab and one of my experiements suggested there could be some indication of a higher intelligence behind everything...does my science then become 'junk science'?

maybe i'm not understanding what you're saying

Based on my 30 years of professional experience I do not think an "experiment" conducted according to accepted methods of science would give an indication of a higher intelligence behind everything in the "laboratory." I say this because of the way reputable scientists work. It is also the rare scientist who claims he/she has found the "truth." To tell the truth, in science it is common practice to give the probability of being wrong about one's findings (statistical significance level). It is also common practice to give a complete review of all other explanations for one's findings (rival explanations) that were not controlled in a study. A slow, cautious process, taken in baby steps, that tends to shy away from grandiose explanations, and explorations into topics that cannot be demonstrated with measurable evidence. That is the skeptical side of science which does not mix well with the wooo factor.

 

[chazSingh]

Based on my 30 years of professional experience I do not think an "experiment" conducted according to accepted practices of the scientific method would give an indication of a higher intelligence behind everything in the "laboratory." I say this because of the way reputable scientists work. It is also the rare scientist who claims he/she has found the "truth." To tell the truth, in science it is common practice to give the probability of being wrong about one's findings (statistical significance level) as well as give a complete review of all the other explanations for one's findings (rival explanations) that were not controlled in an experiment. A slow, methodological process, taken in baby steps, that tends to shy away from grandiose explanations, and explorations into topics that cannot be demonstrated with measurable evidence. That is the methodical side of science which does not mix well with the wooo factor.

i do agree with the above...no experiment can claim to have found the truth...the truth isnt limited to a concept or discovery from my current viewpoint...

but all forms of science / religion / spirituality are studying/seeking an aspect of God, the form and the formless....thats if we are to believe that all is god...i.e. the experience and the experiencer = god
all is in Gods domain. duality makes us think that they are all different.

many would say that a seed becoming a tree is proof enough of a greater intelligence (no experiment required)...i guess where just 'used' to these miracles that surround us. one form of science will look at the 'created' aspect....another form tries to delve into whats 'behind' the created.

 

[spnadmin]

Two terms from quantum mechanics invite the wooooo factor. One is the idea of "spooky action" and the other is "entanglement." Both of these are demonstrated with complex mathematical equations but that never bothered anyone in the new age camp who play the wooo factor for all it is worth.

Right now I am taking some personal time to go through leading authors in the realm of quantum physics to see exactly how they discuss their field. Will file my report later. Let me just post two comments from an interview of Tom Seigfried, Editor in Chief of Science News, on the Spookiness of Quantum Theory. The interviewer is Ira Flatow.

FLATOW: Well, you have some of these new age people who
believe that since -they use quantum physics to say since anything
is possible, why can't I be in two places at once, right?

Mr. SIEGFRIED: Well, it is open to those kinds of interpretations.
And at one level, it is weird enough to say there are some strange
things out in the world that we don't understand. But the people who
know quantum physics the best will also tell you that it does not give
you a license to speculate wildly about all kinds of things without
limits.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example - it's the core of
quantum mechanics - doesn't mean that everything is uncertain,
because Heisenberg's principle is really very certain. So it's easy to
get carried away and extend it to things where it doesn't really apply.
But I think keeping it within the realm of physics is still very much
weird and fun enough.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Chaz Singh ji,

Guru fateh.

if i was sat in a lab and one of my experiements suggested there could be some indication of a higher intelligence behind everything...does my science then become 'junk science'?

Pardon my ignorance but can you please expalin what you mean by Higher Intelligence and what instrument is used to identify that?

What is the difference between the Lower Intelligence and the Higher one?

What is the benchmark for either or both and who decides all this with what kind of Intelligence?

And lastly, what does that have to do with ONE GOD, the title of the thread?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[arshdeep88]

i got new terms worth learning and wondering
surprisingly the video which Akansha ji put up had one learned person in field of science mentioning very interesting thing
that the universe today is expanding and how one time it was one the size of a pea with all collectively BOUND together
how all which today is expanding around was just collectively ONE
something to do with basic message of religion which says we all are one still we are creating differences among us?
and how the video or the link talks about reality is illusion and about one's own experience about any particular thing
i think that what religion tells us too if am not mistaken,everything is illusion around isnt it?

chaaz singh ji you pointed a very good thing about EGO ,it IS the main hurdle which always blinds us and never allow us too see and experiences the deep hidden messages of the respective religions as akansha ji said there are deep hidden messages always

and yes exactly religion without SPIRITUALITY is nothing
what use is if we read day and night religious books but not adhere to basic messages and implying them in our daily lives
i somehow feel religion is lot more that we exactly define sometimes ,my personal view
how exactly we can define religion?
a state of mind ? or rather just adhering to specific rituals and specific way to TUNE?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I realize that some concepts in quantum physics challenge previously accepted notions about the Universe worked. However, everything I have posted about quantum physics and the experiments I have referenced can be easily searched on Google. (double slit experiment etc) And I have not referenced any religion specifically... what I have extrapolated from it is spirituality. The idea that the physical material world we experience, is not in fact what we think it is or how we perceive it to be. The fact that this on its own merit hints at reality being more than just 'physical matter' and in fact, matter seems to dissolve at the quantum level.... is it a far stretch to apply this to the idea that our existence may not be entirely just physical?? AT least how we have previously understood 'matter' and 'physical' to be?

Even Albert Einstein, one of the most prominent physicists in history came to some conclusions about reality that can't be seen as any other way than spiritual!

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, "Universe," a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to
us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty." = Albert Einstein

 

[arshdeep88]

Pardon me ji ,sorry i misspelled Akasha ji as Akansha
,so sorry for that ji

 

[chazSingh]

Chaz Singh ji,

Guru fateh.



Pardon my ignorance but can you please expalin what you mean by Higher Intelligence and what instrument is used to identify that?

What is the difference between the Lower Intelligence and the Higher one?

What is the benchmark for either or both and who decides all this with what kind of Intelligence?

And lastly, what does that have to do with ONE GOD, the title of the thread?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Satnaam Ji,

sorry ji...i wasnt claiming that i can form an experiement to prove a higher intelligence...so i cannot comment on any instrument required
maybe just watching a seed germinate and grown into a tree is enough for someone to connect this to a 'higher intelligence'

i would say lower intelligence is when we relate to ourselves as individual beings. We then identify ourselves to our bodies and mind...we think that is all we are..and are confined to our thoughts which keep us focussed on the outside and limit us to what we 'think' we are capable of.

Higher intelligence would be our 'Real intelligence'...once we reduce the effects of the 5 thieves...and we detach from the mind as being 'Us' and we realise what we are, and always have been...but we 'forgot'.

This higher intelligence, reality...would be the 'truth' and we are all 'ONE' in that aspect...

so this will link to the 'One God' aspect of the question...
even science can be regarded as a religion is some people eyes...just a different path that people are walking on to try and find the 'TRUTH'.

god bless ji

 

[chazSingh]

an Analogy that i like to use...

the state of being that we are experiencing under the Ego/Mind influence... is like a Block of Ice in the sea...
a clear distinction can be seen between the block of ice and the Sea...each has it's own attributes...

YET IT IS ALL AN ILLUSION....for they are both just water....there is only one thing in existance there...and that is water...

EKONKAAR SATNAAM......the ego just creates the illusion that their is 'another'...but there is only ONE.

 

[spnadmin]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble here. But the video posted by Akasha reports on the thinking of Fred Allen Wolf. He is one of the biggest promoters of quantum woo and a major reason why I am spending as much time as I am on this thread.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

This article may be of interest then:
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

It looks at the idea from the side of the atheists... that is to say that if everything is material, and just matter in motion (including our minds being essentially a machine made of meat), which also removes free will and thought... then the only result of quantum physics theories would be the Many Worlds Interpretation, where probabilities are never actually resolved and instead all possibilities exist at once... meaning there is an infinite amount of 'you' in different worlds all carrying out the infinite number of different probabilities. That seems a bit far fetched.... And the author comes to the conclusion that the only way probabilities can be solved or finalized in the equations, is with a 'mind' or consciousness that transcends the material world and becomes a 'conscious observer' since probabilities can not be 'finalized' unless the final result is observed - and it has to be a 'conscious' observer it can't be an inanimate object that measures (a geiger counter is used in the example) because there is still nobody to observe what the geiger counter is measuring.

That line of thinking is not only one physicist spnadmin ji.... or else it would never be as wide spread as it is. If it were only one physicist, then the video would not have contained that many people taking about the same thing. There are other videos as well that get into this topic... What The Bleep Do We Know?, Spirit-Space, and others... all by different authors.

Suffice it to say I am assuming you are Athiest, (I am still struggling how one can interpret Sikhi as Athiesm) and in this case follow the many worlds theory - that everything is just matter in motion and we are nothing more than meat machines that follow 'set in stone' rules of nature. But as Sikhs are we not supposed to search for truth? We can't possibly claim to know all there is about science right now at this point in time... and for me, if I held my beliefs in line with contemporary physics, ignoring any possible advances and only believing what contemporary science can show me in physical means.... Then why would anyone even need a religion? Just live life and then die... and cease to exist with no hopes that there is anything more. Our plight is that we are trying to find proof of what's outside of this 'dream' from within it. We will only ever have glimpses that 'suggest' or 'hint' that a spiritual existence is possible... it's up to us to either follow those glimpses and find the truth, or believe the results of the experiments that are confined within the illusion, and by extension part of the illusion.

Not meaning any disrespect.... but I can't as a seeker of truth, just ignore advances that glimpse ideas that could suggest a spiritual existence, and intelligent design. I feel deep inside me that there is more to existence than this physical world. I can't fathom just living on this small and meaningless planet, as a fully conscious being, for no reason other than chance, and then just dying and that's it.

I guess that is why we have the ability to debate these things on a public forum. But being a religious forum, I find it very odd that only Chaz Singh Ji and myself seem to be in support of a conscious creator God - Waheguru Ji - and a spiritual existence beyond the physical. I personally do not believe the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is just a manual on how to connect with the physical world we live in, and then we die and that's it. So I am really struggling with the atheistic interpretation of Sikhi because it means life has no meaning. It means we are really just 'meat machines' as the article I linked above put it.

Again, no disrespect... and not trying to get in trouble. Maybe I have the entire wrong idea of Sikhi... but then my entire Sangat has the wrong idea as well! Is Sikhism really atheism? (sorry it I seemed to get a bit off topic... it really does deal with the concept of God within Sikhi and crossing to other religions - or antireligion / atheism)

 

[spnadmin]

Reputable science does not take a stand for or against atheism. Nor does it take a stand for or against belief in god. Misuse of science takes us in those directions... generally by individuals who have an axe to grind. I think the article makes some basic mistakes for that reason. Uncertainty does not lead to "all things are possible." At least not in Quantum Theory. To say that "all things are possible" is a truism. Science wants to know what limits the possibilities. It would be a good exercise to take the article and analyze it paragraph by paragraph.

 

[spnadmin]

Single tuk posting is not permitted. Please post the entire shabad. In the case of the deleted tuk it is a long one. Then also provide the Ang number along with your personal interpretation.

 

[chazSingh]

ਏਕੋ ਅਲਹੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥
एको अलहु पारब्रहम ॥५॥३४॥४५॥
Ėko alhu pārbarahm. ||5||34||45||
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same. ||5||34||45||

Ang 897,Guru Granth Sahib

so that somehow put light to this that the creator has to be one for all religions

Satnaam Arshdeep Ji,

Now that you have removed all doubt on this question ji in your mind (which i had to also) ... where can this one god be experienced...where must one look...or seek?

this is the journey and direction that hopefully your question will be directing you towards...

God bless you ji...

 

[arshdeep88]

spn admin ji i dont know why you deleted my post
ok ill post the entire shabad
this is on ang 897 of sri guru granth sahib g

ok g i accept i am not much of a learner of sikhi

but what does this shabad means ?

<table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td> ਓ*ੁਂ ਨਮੋ ਭਗਵੰਤ ਗੁਸਾਈ ॥
ओं नमो भगवंत गुसाई ॥
Oʼn namo bẖagvanṯ gusā▫ī.
I humbly pray to invoke the Universal Lord God, the Lord of the World.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਖਾਲਕੁ ਰਵਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਰਬ ਠਾਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
खालकु रवि रहिआ सरब ठाई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Kẖālak rav rahi▫ā sarab ṯẖā▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o.
The Creator Lord is all-pervading, everywhere. ||1||Pause||
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਜਗੰਨਾਥ ਜਗਜੀਵਨ ਮਾਧੋ ॥
जगंनाथ जगजीवन माधो ॥
Jagannāth jagjīvan māḏẖo.
He is the Lord of the Universe, the Life of the World.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਭਉ ਭੰਜਨ ਰਿਦ ਮਾਹਿ ਅਰਾਧੋ ॥
भउ भंजन रिद माहि अराधो ॥
Bẖa▫o bẖanjan riḏ māhi arāḏẖo.
Within your heart, worship and adore the Destroyer of fear.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਰਿਖੀਕੇਸ ਗੋਪਾਲ ਗਵਿੰਦ ॥
रिखीकेस गोपाल गोविंद ॥
Rikẖīkes gopāl govinḏ.
The Master Rishi of the senses, Lord of the World, Lord of the Universe.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਪੂਰਨ ਸਰਬਤ੍ਰ ਮੁਕੰਦ ॥੨॥
पूरन सरबत्र मुकंद ॥२॥
Pūran sarbaṯar mukanḏ. ||2||
He is perfect, ever-present everywhere, the Liberator. ||2||
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਮਿਹਰਵਾਨ ਮਉਲਾ ਤੂਹੀ ਏਕ ॥
मिहरवान मउला तूही एक ॥
Miharvān ma▫ulā ṯūhī ek.
You are the One and only merciful Master,
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਪੀਰ ਪੈਕਾਂਬਰ ਸੇਖ ॥
पीर पैकांबर सेख ॥
Pīr paikāʼnbar sekẖ.
spiritual teacher, prophet, religious teacher.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਦਿਲਾ ਕਾ ਮਾਲਕੁ ਕਰੇ ਹਾਕੁ ॥
दिला का मालकु करे हाकु ॥
Ḏilā kā mālak kare hāk.
Master of hearts, Dispenser of justice,
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਕੁਰਾਨ ਕਤੇਬ ਤੇ ਪਾਕੁ ॥੩॥
कुरान कतेब ते पाकु ॥३॥
Kurān kaṯeb ṯe pāk. ||3||
more sacred than the Koran and the Bible. ||3||
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ਨਰਹਰ ਦਇਆਲ ॥
नाराइण नरहर दइआल ॥
Nārā▫iṇ narhar ḏa▫i▫āl.
The Lord is powerful and merciful.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਰਮਤ ਰਾਮ ਘਟ ਘਟ ਆਧਾਰ ॥
रमत राम घट घट आधार ॥
Ramaṯ rām gẖat gẖat āḏẖār.
The all-pervading Lord is the support of each and every heart.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਬਾਸੁਦੇਵ ਬਸਤ ਸਭ ਠਾਇ ॥
बासुदेव बसत सभ ठाइ ॥
Bāsuḏev basaṯ sabẖ ṯẖā▫e.
The luminous Lord dwells everywhere.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਲੀਲਾ ਕਿਛੁ ਲਖੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥੪॥
लीला किछु लखी न जाइ ॥४॥
Līlā kicẖẖ lakẖī na jā▫e. ||4||
His play cannot be known. ||4||
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਮਿਹਰ ਦਇਆ ਕਰਿ ਕਰਨੈਹਾਰ ॥
मिहर दइआ करि करनैहार ॥
Mihar ḏa▫i▫ā kar karnaihār.
Be kind and compassionate to me, O Creator Lord.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਭਗਤਿ ਬੰਦਗੀ ਦੇਹਿ ਸਿਰਜਣਹਾਰ ॥
भगति बंदगी देहि सिरजणहार ॥
Bẖagaṯ banḏagī ḏėh sirjaṇhār.
Bless me with devotion and meditation, O Lord Creator.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰਿ ਖੋਏ ਭਰਮ ॥
कहु नानक गुरि खोए भरम ॥
Kaho Nānak gur kẖo▫e bẖaram.
Says Nanak, the Guru has rid me of doubt.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਏਕੋ ਅਲਹੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥
एको अलहु पारब्रहम ॥५॥३४॥४५॥
Ėko alhu pārbarahm. ||5||34||45||
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same. ||5||34||45||
</td></tr> <tr></tr></tbody></table>

you ask my perception
from my perception it says god is the same for all relgions be it hindu ,muslim ,sikh or christian

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

It also seems to me, to be describing a deity... and one who resides everywhere and within everything. It's also saying the creator... the Lord IS the source of life in the world. And to me, that also describes a 'knowing' and 'conscious' God. Because why would one even pray to nature? Nature would be unconscious to anyone's prayers!

Unless I am missing something and this whole thing is symbolism wrapped up in allegory?? But I became Sikh because I believed that it was the one religion that seemed to get away from so much allegory. I guess I was looking at it in the perspective of someone who believes in a conscious deity creator God.... that I believe is Waheguru.

 

[spnadmin]

Can we take this as far as to say that the Muslim God and the Hindu God Hanuman are one and the same?

ਏਕੋ ਅਲਹੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥
एको अलहु पारब्रहम ॥५॥३४॥४५॥
Ėko alhu pārbarahm. ||5||34||45||
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same. ||5||34||45||

Is the translation of the tuk correct?

When we read the entire shabad is Guru Nanak stating that all religions worship the same god?

Or, is Guru Nanak describing the characteristics of a god who permeates the universe?

Or, is Guru Nanak referring to a different sense of god, that was not at the time part of the beliefs of either Muslims or Hindus?

Today would most Muslims agree with Guru Nanak?

Does the shabad help us understand whether god is conscious? Anything about that in the shabad?

Does the shabad help us to understand why there are many religions? Or does the shabad shed light on Guru Nanak's understanding of god?