• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

One Infinite Creator In Sikhism, What Does It Mean?

Your link to one infinite Creator, what is the search directed at?

  • I am looking for and believe in one infinite Creator as being some specific form.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I am trying and want to get in touch with one infinite Creator.

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • I want to fully understand all about one infinite Creator.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I live with the ever increasing understanding of one infinite Creator.

    Votes: 10 45.5%
  • Not Sure...

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Total voters
    22
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
Prakash.S.Bagga ji what you don't realize is the extent of infinity.

Let us take the favorite of yours, Ram. Infinite implies, infinite numbers of Rams. Infinite number of Baggas, and so on. So Ram, Bagga, Harry, etc., are just part of the infinite. Neither can be linked directly to define the ultimate infiniteness. The extrapolative logic of finite to bigger finite and so on fails in limit to infinity. This destroys the concept of a specific finite having any meaning in the concept of infinite to the extent of defining the vastness of the infinite.

In the concept of Infinite, the finite the way you approach or state is meaningless. Aunkud stuff is OK. You are not catching the essence and vastness of expression that is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. You are minimizing it to your narrow mindset consistent with Hindu deities, Sanatanism leanings, concepts, etc. Sorry, but only you can unshackle yourself from small to see big that is Sikhism espoused through Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Sikhism is not a hierarchy of Gods or deities no matter how it is presented or postulated in upfront or devious ways.

Sat Sri Akal.

I dont think you have clear concept of what actually infinite means.
Once you can get the understanding of real meaning of infinite you will automatically understand how there can be so many refered RAM .
Prakash.s.Bagga
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
Somebody has to have the last word about infinity otherwise every reason can be
met with another one and there can be no end to it.The last word is fromthe GuRu as expressed in SINGULARITY of infinite thru a SINGULAR NAAMu as RAM NAAMu/HARi NAAMu or GUrmati RAM NAAMu.
Some feel and consider AUKAD as stuff and we have such a respect for Gurbanee words which we consider the most DIVINE and ULTIMATE.

Prakash.S.Bagga
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
One should always understand that all the references in SGGS are for the infinite CREATOR.
So it is obvious that any NOUN word is not reference for ant Person Any person can be refered by SINGULAR word but any person can not be refered by PLURAL WORD.
Singular and Plural Noun word references can be only for infinite CREATOR only.

Further it should be understood that CREATOR is smallest of the smalls and greatest of the great as the whole space is filled with CREATOR only.
SINGULAR reference is for the smallest of smalls and PLURAL reference is for Greatest of the greats.
This is the real character of the concept of any infinity.
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
Sorry Prakash.S.Bagga ji I diasgree on the following,
Further it should be understood that CREATOR is smallest of the smalls and greatest of the great as the whole space is filled with CREATOR only.
Veer ji you are confusing creation versus creator.

Creator has created
the smallest of the small and greatest of the great in creation. Creator is not physically embedded into the smallest of the small or the greatest of the great in creation.
Sat Sri Akal.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
Vouthon ji thanks for your post. Couple of comments if I may.
I am as yet an infant in knowledge of the Guru Granth but could one not read the above as indicating, as does current scientific theory, that the Universe will probably be destroyed in a "Big Crunch"? The currently accepted theory for the creation of the universe is the Big Bang theory which states that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primeival 'singularity event' of enormous density and temperature.

What I find amazing is that the Granth seems to support this theory - hundreds of years before it was theorized!

Brother you are making good observations and at times of pride to Sikhism as some will see how Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a book of Science. There is no question about great wisdom of the times being mentioned or referred, the true message of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is to equip us not in detail of Science but in acumen so we may with ever greater abilities understand and live in the understanding using ever changing capabilities of Human kind, including advances in Science.

There has been attempts by some Sikhs (usually the younger crowd) to start comparing to other scriptures and not be left behind how much Science, theories, etc., are in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. This kind of a reactive knee jerk to Koran (quite actively espoused by many followers to be a book of Science in addition to other stuff). Similarly in Hindu Shastryas (treatises).

Let us consider some from Hinduism. A classic is fables about Hanuman (monkey God) floating in the Air and Air Travel as to a claim about Aeronautics. Elephants thrown by strong men that are still circling the earth as the origination of Space Science.

I don't know about such stuff in the Bible or belief along same lines.

And the key part is that it says God did this many times:


“...In so many ways, He has unfolded Himself. So many times, He has expanded His expansion. Forever and ever, He is the One, the One Universal Creator...”

- Guru Granth Sahib, p.276
.......

Perhaps though this is the transformative change you speak of ie not into nothingness but into a new form of existence etc .

However it looks to me that it might be more in line with brother Prakash's theory.

Again Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not a book of theories so we need to watch what and how we get the message. Another trap of misreading Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
Regards.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
If we understand NAAM from SGGS then there can be nothing misleading.
We are required to know various concepts being conveyed in SGGS so that we are not trapped by others .
THe concept of NAAM as envisaged in SGGS is so unique which no where else can be acquired .
That is why we can say DHAN DHAN SRI GUROO GRANTH SAHIB Ji...........................

Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
Prakash.S.Bagga ji some comments.
If we understand NAAM from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji then there can be nothing misleading.
Veer please give us your understanding of NAAM! I have little hope of an answer but got to ask anyway for the benefit of all!

We are required to know various concepts being conveyed in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji so that we are not trapped by others .
Please explain specifically. May be give example of one specific concept in detail. I don't understand who you believe is trapped in what!

THe concept of NAAM as envisaged in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is so unique which no where else can be acquired .
Veer describe uniqueness so we can share and learn.

That is why we can say DHAN DHAN SRI GUROO GRANTH SAHIB Ji...........................

Prakash.S.Bagga
Sat Sri Akal.
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
Prakash.S.Bagga ji some comments.
Sat Sri Akal.

Basically this all is based on grammatical considerations of Gurbanee words. I have earlier tried my best in this regard you know what is the outcome.You royrself do not accept the ri=ules of grammar as given in the script of SGGS .
Unless we come forward to understand the significance of grammatical indications it is just not possible to understand the true meanings of the messages.
You can verify yourself a fact that the Gurmukhi script is credited to 2nd GuRoo ANGAD DEV Ji. This script existed earlier also but was not so popular in usage.
Earlier language had no VOWEL SOUNDs and which had to be imagined or construed by the reader in order to decipher the writings.
Therefore there was need for a script which could faithfully reproduce the hymns of GuRu so that true meanings a messages of GuRu could not be misconstrued or misinterprated by the reader to suit his own purpose and prejudices
Thus the devicing of Gurmukhi script proved to be essential stepin order to maintain the purity of the doctrine and exclude all possibilities of misunderstandind and misconstruction by interested persons.
Unfortunately by avoiding this important aspect of Gurbanee language and its script we are basically back to imagination misconstuction level of Gurbanee understanding.

Prakash.S.Bagga
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
62
Thailand
Vouthon,

You'd probably not want to hear the kind of response, but please don't mind that I give it.

Quote:
What I find amazing is that the Granth seems to support this theory - hundreds of years before it was theorized! And the key part is that it says God did this*many*times:*
“...In so many ways, He has unfolded Himself.*So many times, He has expanded His expansion. Forever and ever, He is the One, the One Universal Creator...”*<end quote>


Except for the idea that there is something which stands apart from and is responsible for such happenings, similar ideas have been expressed in Buddhist cosmology more than two thousand years ago and I believe also some other Indian texts. But is such knowledge relevant, and if so how?

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine who is a PhD in Science and teaches science education at a local university, commented, how amazing it is that science has come so close to what the Buddha understood and taught. He then gave the example of quantum physics and how at that level, for example the fact that what seems like solid surface was in reality mostly space, science was saying the same thing ancient Buddhist commentaries have said so long ago. I of course was not impressed and said that this is because realities are what they are at the ultimate level, that the shadows must reflect this. But working with shadows is what scientists have been and always will be doing and they will never actually make a statement about “reality”. To this my friend agreed.

But then when I said that when Buddhist texts make the kind of statements, that they too were walking in the territory of science and not the Truth and that I found it unhelpful, this he disagreed strongly with. A week later however, when we discussed further in the presence of our teacher, he saw to some extent, the point that I was making and agreed.

During this and all other discussions there is however one thing that we both are in full agreement, namely that the shadows of reality or conventional truth, can be reminder about the nature of ultimate realities experienced from moment to moment through one of the five senses and the mind. And that it is these that form the foundation of true knowledge. Indeed it has been pointed out that the “world” in the real sense is just that one instance of experience at a time and that it has the nature of rising and disintegrating. This means that if anything is perceived as lasting over time, this must be the product of wrong understanding.

What the above implies is that even if one had all the knowledge available in all the books ever written, but no understanding with regard to the moment to moment experiences, it is not only worthless, but in fact harmful. How? Because ignorance grows and accumulates and with this come the horde of attachment, wrong understanding, aversion and so on. In other words, not understanding reality, whatever one thinks about must be with ignorance and attachment and this is is never good.

This is why I am not particularly impressed by the kind of comments in the Buddhist commentaries which talks about space between particles of matter and such things as birth and disintegration of world systems. If I am fascinated by the kind of knowledge, this would be due to lack of understanding and the presence of attachment and ignorance. One is the foundation for true knowledge, which usually does not appeal (to ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding), whereas this other comes with extensive conceptual knowledge (and appealing to craving), but which has nothing to do with understanding, only the illusion of knowing.

Does all this mean that one can't work as a scientist and at the same time develop understanding about the truth? Of course one can. Understanding the limits within which science works one can use the models and postulates without being fooled by them. This is because the truth that is here and now, this remains the same for each individual regardless of the situation he is in, what interests he has and what work he does. So I’m not saying, throw out science, only understand what it is and not be taken in by what it says.
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon ji thanks for your post. Couple of comments if I may.Regards.


My dear brother Ambarsaria peacesignkaur

Thank you for your comments! The Bible has many scientific inaccuracies in it because its not a book of science, but one of faith, to guide us spiritually. It was revealed too people 2,000 - 3,000 years ago in a less advanced culture and society. However it contains perrenial divine truths. Much of the Bible speaks in allegories and metaphors. For example there never was a real "Adam and Eve" and the fall of man (eating of the fruit) can be understood as a metaphorical understanding of the change from a hunter gatherer society to a settled agricultural one, which transformed human existence ever more. The Church Fathers of the first three centuries AD interpreted the Bible not scientifically like modern 'bible-bashers' amidst Protestantism but allegorically.

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen - a church father - opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.


Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences back in the 80s on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:
Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one attains to [the state of] heaven
In terms of the Granth, I agree with everything you say, and I would read it in the same manner as espoused by Blessed Pope John Paul II above. My only point was that I was deeply impressed at how the Gurus seemed to touch upon - in their own language and within the boundaries of their time and culture - truths about the nature of the universe that were later confirmed by science. I am well aware that Sr Guru Granth Sahib ji is not a science textbook, but a book of timeless spiritual wisdom to help us grow towards union with God and properly understand our relationship with both the divine and creation, in this day and age.

To me this demonstrates quite clearly that divine inspiration underlies the authorship of the Adi Granth, its spiritual and moral wisdom that is, although the cosmological truths later confirmed by science - which I would rather class as 'cosmological' truths rather than scientific to avoid the kind of interpretations you have just outlined to me - certainly do come as a pleasant surprise and I very much appreciate the far-sightedness of the Gurus, which I can only attribute to God working through them. Cosmology is the discipline that deals with the nature of the Universe as a whole. Since the Granth does deal with the nature of the Universe, I should have said 'cosmological' rather than 'scientific'.

I recognise though that it isn't the Origin of the Species by Darwin but a book of infinte spiritual wisdom! (No pun intended peacesign) I was merely saying that the cosmology expounded by the Gurus in those passages is perfectly aligned with modern scientific consensus, and that this consensus seems to suggest that the rapid expansion of space by dark energy will eventually reverse in on itself, resulting in the collapse of our present universe which will then end in a 'black hole singualrity'.

In saying this I was not suggesting that the Guru Granth be read as a science textbook. That kind of literalism is an abuse of every sacred scripture and misrepresents their true purpose.

In terms of "theories", I also know that the Holy Granth isn't a book of theories. I was simply referring to brother Prakash's interpretation of the Granth in that one instance, which to my mind, actually agreed with the portions of the sacred text I had read in terms of the creation and ultimate fate of this temporal universe.

I think that I have led you to misunderstand my meaning in this second regard because of my use of the word 'theory' rather than 'interpretation' which is what I meant, for which I apologize!

I do not understand his views on 'Rama' though peacesign Perhaps he could explain them to me in a clearer fashion.

Much love to you brother, your wisdom and guidance will always find a listening and appreciative ear in me :whatzpointkudi:
 
Last edited:

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
Vouthon ji thanks for your detailed post. Some comments and thoughts to share.
My dear brother Ambarsaria peacesignkaur
.....
Much of the Bible speaks in allegories and metaphors. For example there never was a real "Adam and Eve" and the fall of man (eating of the fruit) can be understood as a metaphorical understanding of the change from a hunter gatherer society to a settled agricultural one, which transformed human existence ever more. ....

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen - a church father - opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story.

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.

That is what we keep explaining and emphasizing that Hinduism references like Rama, Shama, Prabhu, etc., are a way to connect to the people that Guru ji were interacting with and just mention of these and all such other did not prove their existence or Guru ji's belief in reality of any.

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.

Again same needed to understand Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in spite of some hankering on linguistic and grammar onslaught. Most scholars that one uses to understand Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji had a mastery of such as a given, for example Prof. Sahib Singh ji in Punjabi-to-Punjabi exposition of SGGS, and one always does that as basic part of reading poetry that SGGS is.

.......

In terms of the Granth, I agree with everything you say, and I would read it in the same manner as espoused by Blessed Pope John Paul II above. My only point was that I was deeply impressed at how the Gurus seemed to touch upon - in their own language and within the boundaries of their time and culture - truths about the nature of the universe that were later confirmed by science.

Vouthon brother as Confused brother (brilliant writer and thinker) has also mentioned about Buddhism, we say sparks of unfettered and unencumbered observations and thoughts of the great people in Jesus, Guru jis, Buddha and others. Such great people attracted wisdom like flowers attract bees and butterflies. The writings demonstrate such confluences and likenesses in flashes of WOW when we read. Even though the great people would not have possibly considered it wow, but just common sense if thought and expressed deeply.

To me this demonstrates quite clearly that divine inspiration underlies the authorship of the Adi Granth, its spiritual and moral wisdom

Divine inspiration in a sense using to the fullest all the faculties that the divine/creator has equipped us with. Absolutely.

However in Sikhism Guru ji and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji shies away from any I call "Big Bat of God" statements. Namely God told me so; I am the exclusive son/daughter who will take you there; trust what I say because it is the word of God; hold my hand and I will take you to God; if you don't believe me or go along you will suffer or go to Hell; etc.
lol

.... I very much appreciate the far-sightedness of the Gurus,

I don't want to classify this as any sightedness and simply what the thought and reasoned within self.

...... modern scientific consensus, and that this consensus seems to suggest that the rapid expansion of space by dark energy will eventually reverse in on itself, resulting in the collapse of our present universe which will then end in a 'black hole singualrity'.

It could have been straight observational. Dr. Hawkings visualizes and perhaps much wisdom of like type existed with the Guru ji's or the company they kept.

That kind of literalism is an abuse of every sacred scripture and misrepresents their true purpose.

Some people in this thread need to take note of this lol mundahug

I do not understand his views on 'Rama' though peacesign Perhaps he could explain them to me in a clearer fashion.

We have a lot of so called "Sanatanism" or like driven spners. They try to re-link what Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji de-linked us from and unshackled Sikhism from. Basically Hinduism mythologies, scriptures, beliefs and the hierarchical living and control systems. You will start to see it in short time just keep the eyes open as subtle but devious are the ways including complementing people and then taking them on a well planned tangent that has little to do with Sikhism or Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Much love to you brother, your wisdom and guidance will always find a listening and appreciative ear in me :whatzpointkudi:
Vouthon ji, your posts and thoughts are very well articulated and your effort in creating and sharing shows up loud and clear.

You are always welcome too.

Regards. mundahug
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
I am sure if Mr VOUTHON comes to know about how important is the grammar of words in Gurmukhi script of SGGS ,He can become an excellent inteprater .But I think Mr VOUTHON is following english version of SGGs and we all know how correct english versions are.

Prakash.s.Bagga
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
72
A single piece of anything can be considered as infinite.Even the smallest particle of matter can be an infinite because infinite is related with the concept of being as single unit of anthing under consideration.
That is why we can know 0/1 or 1/o both are infinite in mathematical terms.
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
A single piece of anything can be considered as infinite.Even the smallest particle of matter can be an infinite because infinite is related with the concept of being as single unit of anthing under consideration.
That is why we can know 0/1 or 1/o both are infinite in mathematical terms.
Prakash.S.Bagga
Prakash.S.Bagga ji this is not Math 101. But you are making mistakes perhaps we can talk privately. For example, 0/1 is Zero per math 101. Rule is 0 divided by anything or multiplied by anything is 0.

Sat Sri Akal.
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Feb 20, 2012
1,644
1,643
EXAMPLE 2: Getting in touch with one creator.
OBSERVATION 2: There is often talk of contact with the creator in Sikhism believers as well as others.

It is not uncommon to hear Sikh people say,

  • Doing Darshan/Visualization of the creator
  • Merging one self with the creator
It may relate to other religions in the concepts of resurrection, direction towards Hell or Heaven, and so forth.

None of this is plausible, achievable or worth targeting. The one infinite creator is not available by the very concept of infinity and all such are forms of illusions, misguided pursuits or false promises unchecked.

Sat Sri Akal.

Satnaam ambarsaria Ji,

This all depends on how you look at SGGS Ji.

One Infinate Creator God
Many people perceive SGGS Ji as a 'This is your life book'...a set of guidlines, assistance that enables all of us Filthy Sinners to purify ourselves...pray for the grace of god, and commune with him, and experience him.

First of all before anything...everyone (including myself) needs to understand that everything all around us including us are all God...nothing exists other than God. God was 'alone' in deep meditation and created the creation to understand and experience himself. If nothing other than god exists, then the creation exists within himself...he is the creation and he is also beyond the creation. So what are we? are we not also Him?

apae mothee oojalo aapae bhagath baseet(h) ||
You Yourself are the perfect pearl; You Yourself are the devotee and the priest.

thoo(n) aapae jal meenaa hai aapae aapae hee aap jaal ||
You Yourself are the water, You Yourself are the fish, and You Yourself are the net.

My own addition to the above:
you yourself are the forum creator, you yourself are the lost/confused souls replying to the threads.

Just two examples out of many :)

Therefore, just by helping an old lady cross the street - you are experiencing and helping god.
By feeding someone who is hungry, you are feeding and helping god.
By wiping someones tears...you are wiping gods tears.

If you 100% believe this when you do your daily seva, your Seva becomes profound and beautiful like you wouldn't imagine. you are experiencing God through every action and evry breathe you take...full stop :)

Can we Merge / Meet God?

jae ho jaanaa aakhaa naahee kehanaa kathhan n jaaee ||
Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words. Jap 2

Guru Nanak Dev Ji couldnt even describe god...we shouldnt even bother trying ourselves...
BUT Guru Nanak Dev has made many references to meeting, communing, merging, etc etc with the Lord creator. Now personally i don't think he did this to make us all Jelous :)

Make Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji your life story. thats our focus and directrion.

Stage 1: Sinner
aparaadhhee mathiheen niragun anaathh neech ||
I am a sinner, devoid of wisdom, worthless, destitute and vile. Raag Aasaa 458

Stage 2: Seeker
maerae raam ham paapee saran parae har dhuaar ||
O my Lord, I am a sinner; I have come to Your Sanctuary, and fallen at Your Door, Lord.

Stage 3: Guru Ji's Grace
kirapaa karae jis paarabreham hovai saadhhoo sa(n)g ||
The Supreme Lord showers His Mercy, and we find the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy. Siree Raag
71


Stage 4: Simran/Bhagti/Seva
saevee sathigur aapanaa har simaree dhin sabh rain ||
I serve my True Guru, and meditate on Him all day and night. Raag Maajh 136

sathigur saevee bhaao kar mai pir dhaehu milaae ||
I serve my True Guru with love, that He may lead me to Union with my Husband Lord. Siree Raag
38


Stage 5: Union :)
miliaa th laal gupaal t(h)aakur sakhee ma(n)gal gaaeiaa ||
I have met my Sweet Lord and Master of the Universe, and my companions sing the songs of joy. Raag Gauree 247

niragun miliou vajee vadhhaaee ||1|| rehaao ||
I have met the Absolute Lord, and congratulations are pouring in. ||1||Pause|| Raag Aasaa
392


None of the above stages are mutually exclusive...they'll overlap each other, apart from the last stage i would imagine.

I really don't think Guru Ji has written this down to Brag to us :)

None of us know what Merging/meeting/ will entail or feel like...just Like Guru Nanak Said...don;t even waste time trying to think about it...
Go find it and experience it for yourself.

In my understanding, God created Ego, Desire, Anger, etc etc in-order to create an opposite mental environment to himself, so that we can understand Love, compasion, kindness, humility I.E HIM.
He had to create a way for him to be able to experience himself. To give the sense of being seperate. to make many when really there is only just ONE.


Our minds have become the slaves of the 5 thieves (ego, anger, attachment, desire, greed)...we have forgotton that we are Him.
When we remove the polution of the mind and regain control...we become our SOUL...the part of us inside which is also infinate :)

I imagine that god willing when we hit this stage, that we will be connected to all of the universe, feel the universe and feel all of that which lies beyond...because we will have realised the beauty and magnitude of what we are a part of...will i then be able to describe that to you... I think not.

We are dismissing the whole essence of gurbani if we think we cannot acheive this...always do ardaas asking for his grace...and HE WILL GRANT IT...if it truely comes from your heart.


God bless all....
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,655
Wow, this is awesome! Thanks for sharing Vouthon ji.

This is my all time favourite descrition of God's Unknowable Essence from St John of the Cross (1542 – 1591).


The Song of the Soul that Delights in Reaching the Supreme State of perfection, that is, the union with God, by the path of spiritual negation


- Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation



I entered where there is no knowing,

and unknowing I remained,

all knowledge there transcending.

I

Where no knowing is I entered,
yet when I my own self saw there

without knowing where I rested

great things I understood there,

yet cannot say what I felt there,

since I rested in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

II

Of peace and of holy good

there was perfect knowing,

in profoundest solitude

the only true way seeing,

yet so secret is the thing

that I was left here stammering,

all knowledge there transcending.


III


I was left there so absorbed,

so entranced, and so removed,

that my senses were abroad,

robbed of all sensation proved,

and my spirit then was moved

with an unknown knowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


IV


He who reaches there in truth

from himself is parted though,

and all that before he knew

seems to him but base below,

his knowledge increases so

that knowledge has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.


V


The higher he climbs however

the less he’ll ever understand,

because the cloud grows darker

that lit the night on every hand:

whoever visits this dark land

rests forever in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


VI


This knowledge of unknowing

is of so profound a power

that no wise men arguing

will ever supersede its hour:

their wisdom cannot reach the tower

where knowing has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

VII


It is of such true excellence

this highest understanding,

no science, no human sense,

has it in its grasping,

yet he who, by self-conquering

grasps knowing in unknowing,

goes evermore transcending.





VIII



And in the deepest sense,

this highest knowledge lies,

of the divine essence,

if you would be wise:

his mercy so it does comprise,

each one leaving in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

Its source I do not know because it has none.
And yet from this, I know, all sources come,
Although by night.

"I know that no created thing could be so fair
And that both earth and heaven drink from there,
Although by night.

Its radiance is never clouded and in this
I know that all light has its genesis,
Although by night.
......................

The current welling from this fountain's source
I know to be as mighty as its force,
Although by night. " (John of the Cross)
 

Scarlet Pimpernel

We seek him here,we sikh
Writer
SPNer
May 31, 2011
1,001
1,095
In the Self
Religion 101 states that it does not matter if you pray to a mythological entity or metaphysical one,it is the hearts intention that God checks,he never checks the postal address of prayer,post it anywhere, they all go to same P.O. box.
He does not have time (being outside it )to check the letters grammar or translation quality and by the way he only cares for personal letters not 'mass' mail, if your not a poet that is still ok because he just weighs the love inside it.

P.O stands for Postal Overlord.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
My dear brothers Ambarsaria and Prakash peacesignkaur

Peace and joy to both of you!


It is true that I cannot read Gurbani, and so therefore my understanding of the Granth is sadly limited to English translations that often, naturally, reflect the thinking of the translator. This is why it is useful to discuss linguistic issues with others to get a broad understanding of different perspectives on a given text.

I believe that the Gurus did not believe in the literal existence of Rama or any other of the Hindu deities. Sikhism broke away from the caste system of Hinduism, its idols, its many gods etc.

'Dharam' or 'Dharma', for example, in Sikhism retains its Sanskrit origin but takes on a very different significance and emphasis within Sikhi from dharam in Hinduism where it generally equates to the quadruple (fourfold) societal division of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras - to us, the castes. The Guru Granth uproots this whole understanding of 'dharam' and replaces it with one single universal 'dharam' for all human beings irrespective of class, race, gender or religion. I'm no scholar of Gurbani - I cannot read the language - but I do know from my reading of the Granth and commentaries on it that Guru Nanak taught one dharam:

"...eko dharam (one caste?)..."
- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p1188

"...be they Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Shudras or Vaishyas, the injuction is shared by people of all complexions..."
- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p 747

"...[Dharam suceeds] when the whole earth becomes one colour [equal]..."

- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p663


In the same way as Nanak used 'dharam' - a concept and word already in use within Indian philosophy - to connect to the people but gave it a new meaning, I think that the Granth makes use of an already existent belief with people of that culture, that of the names of common Hindu deities, to connect to the people as Ambarsaria says and express spiritual truths to them - without thereby granting approval or demonstrating belief in these multiple gods.


In this respect I agree fully with Ambarsaria. Any time I have seen Rama or Krishna referred to, the Gurus have seemed to sublimate and counter the prevalent Hindu notion of these being actual immortal beings, or incarnations of God.

The references to Hindu deities in the Guru Granth Sahib are metaphorical, not literal:

"...Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider. Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction. One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself..."



- Sri Gru Granth Sahib ji, p1374


I am interested to know brother Prakash, what is your thoughts in this regard? Do you as brother Ambarsaria suggest hold a differing opinion? If so, I ask simply to hear you out as well and consider. Are you a Sanatan Sikh? I know very little about anything of this sort but my understanding (and please do correct me) is that Sanatanism is an attempt to situate Sikhism within Sanatana Vedanta (Hinduism) with the Granth as a fifth Veda? We have the evidence of a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest called Fr Jerome Xavier, who was a contemporary of Guru Arjan and wrote about his execution and of Sikhi back in the early 1600s, and Sikhi is clearly not depicted as a form of Hinduism or even is Hinduism depicted as a coherent, uniform religious tradition. Sikhism, from its very origins, has been recognised as an independent world religion and is such.


On the other hand, in terms of cosmology, I would place myself with brother Prakash in believing that the Granth does teach that this Universe is finite and will come to an end - with God alone being the only Infinite. I do not see the Granth as teaching about an infinite Universe in time. It does appear to teach about an infinite Universe in expanse or size as in:

"...There are planets, solar systems and galaxies.
If one speaks of them, there is no limit and no end. There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation. As He commands, so they exist..."

- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p8

Now, I would dearely like a scholarly minded person to give me a straight translation of this verse from the Gurbani. One reading this could think, "Without end" in time BUT that is not what the Granth says it is speaking about infinity, limitlessness in size, breadth or expanse.

In time, the Granth tells us - to my humble mind - that this Universe is temporal, finite and has an end just as it had a beginning in God. It will return to Him just as it came from/emerged from Him.

"...The entire creation came from God. As it pleases Him, He creates the expanse. As it pleases Him, He becomes the One and Only again...”

- Guru Granth Sahib, p.294

“...Nothing of the color and the form of the creation shall remain; the entire expanse is transitory...”

- Guru Granth Sahib, p.999


The use of the word 'transitory' is very important. God is the only Constant. Everything else is ephemeral, fleeting, changeable, prone to decay, like breath, transient, bounded by time and space, existing only to die. Indeed no scripture could have expressed this more adamantly than the Granth for it states quite clearly:


"...The world is born to die and is ever destroyed; one becomes eternal (only) by clinging to the Guru's Presence..."

- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p448


It thus goes without saying that one can either trust in transitory things or trust in God, one can either follow the will of one's own fleeting, changeable desires or find satisfaction in the unchanging Will [Hukam] of God.


And so I find myself for the moment in a kind of 'bardo realm' or 'limbo' between brothers Ambarsaria and Prakash. I appear to agree with both and disagree with both.

I think that both of you have expressed valid, wise and excellent points. I esteem both of you. I disagree, in certain aspects, with both of you.

I pray that all of us can reach some kind of concord and hopefully love each other despite our differences of opinion. Unity in Diversity? If we Love, then we are "All born of God and know God". That is the most important thing.

We have a similar problem in Christianity in that people interpret the biblical text without taking regard of the context and time-period in which the Bible was revealed or posses any true knowledge of the original languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. To this end they come up with all sorts of wacky views such as 'creationism' and 'predestination' and indeed a literal place called 'hell'.

In fact 'hell' translates into English from a variety of words, one of which is 'gehenna' which in the original text referred to the Valley of Gehonnom, a dumping ground outside the city of Jerusalem which was empty of any life and where in ancient times pagans used to sacrifice people to the gods by burning them with fire. In Jesus' day it was an empty wasteland with nothing but fire and corpses in it.

And so when Jesus is speaking about 'hell', he is not actually speaking about a place where the souls of deceased people are sent to suffer in terrible torments, but was using the metaphor of an actual earthly place known to his listeners to teach about the emptiness of our lives without God - which he said leads us to a state of mind like unto the Valley of Gehonnom, spiritual deadness, emptiness without desire for God and his Will. This becomes clear when you learn some Koine Greek and actually read the text rather than biased translations.

As Louis Charles explains:

"...Hell is a myth...There is absolutely no word for Hell ever written in the original Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew languages found anywhere in the Bible. There are, however, mistranslations into the English language of different words...The sheol and hades, wrongly rendered hell, actually mean, 'common grave of mankind - the unseen where men go upon death of the physical body - the state of the dead'. Another word mistranslated as Hell is the greek word 'Gehenna' and it was well known in Jesus' day as the Valley of Hinnom (a former place of idol worship turned trash dump outside the City of Jerusalem). Gehenna is indeed a literal place but one that exists on Earth and was used by Jesus to convey a spiritual principle. If we were to visit the region of Gehenna today (which one can), we would not find a Devil or anyone suffering fiery torment. Gehenna - or hell as its wrongly translated - is thus a suffering state of mind due to incorrect thinking..."

Compare: the disciples ask Jesus “When will the Kingdom of Heaven come?” To which Jesus replies:


“...It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘here it is’ or ‘there it is.’ Rather, the kingdom of heaven is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it...”

- Jesus Christ


And finally

"...Theories of a final judgement and eternal punishment in flames came from Persian religions like Zoroastrianism. This theory of a place called hell with eternal punishment and fiery torture seeped little by little from Persia into the Jewish culture and belief systems. So by the time we reach the period between the Old and New Testaments, hell had grown in popularity and closely resembles our traditional views today. Jesus would have known about these popular ideas and spoken of them because they were famaliar to the people at the time. But what did Jesus mean when he spoke about 'hell'? When Jesus spoke of hell he actually used the word 'Gehenna'. We translate it as hell in our English translations of the Bible. The word 'gehenna', used twelve times in the New Testament, comes from the Valley of 'Gehinnom'...The Valley saw much bloodshed, beginning with the Caanite worship of the gods Moloch and Baal. These gods demanded the sacrifice of children by passing them through the fire and into the hands of the gods...During times of war, soldiers piled dead bodies in the valley, where they burned...Because of all this, the people referred to Gehenna as the abyss or the accursed valley...Well before the time of Jesus, the Valley was also used as a refuse heap. The people in the surrounding areas dumped their trash in Gehenna, where it burned day and night...When Jesus spoke of gehenna his hearers would think of this valley...The passages that mention or allude to hell are in figurative language or parable form. Jesus uses parables as teaching tool to make his main points..."

- Sharon L Baker

Given that I am continually struggling against misinterpretations and mistranslations of my own scripture, I really sympathise. It is fascinating to me how this would appear to be a universal problem.

Much love peacesignkaur
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Religion 101 by SP states that it does not matter if you pray to a mythological entity or metaphysical one,it is the hearts intention that God checks,he never checks the postal address of prayer,post it anywhere, they all go to same P.O. box.
ps He does not check the letters grammar or translation quality and by the way he only cares for love letters, the rest is just junk mail ,oh and P.O stands for Postal Overlord.

My dear sister Scarlet peacesignkaur

That is beautiful and very true!

God looks at the dispsition of our Will, and at the place of our Heart. He does not see as mortals see.

I firmly believe that what is crucial is our desire for the Good (God) and our hunger for righteouesness.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" and "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteouesness, for they shall be filled".

I think you have it in one! peacesignkaur

To this end even an atheist who, to the best of his ability, sincerely thirsts for and hungers after the good known to him through the dictates of his conscience, is on the right path.
 
Last edited:

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

Top