☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
One Infinite Creator In Sikhism, What Does It Mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 162483" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Vouthon,</p><p></p><p>You'd probably not want to hear the kind of response, but please don't mind that I give it.</p><p></p><p>Quote:</p><p>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:*</p><p>“...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></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 162483, member: 586"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
One Infinite Creator In Sikhism, What Does It Mean?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top