harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
these are ppl who are trying to pull "Soul " out of Sikhi .
A Conscious Creator In Sikhi And Other Faith Traditions?
- Thread starter Harkiran Kaur
- Start date
- Replies 194
- Reads 40K
-
- Tags
- conscious creator faith sikhi traditions
these are ppl who are trying to pull "Soul " out of Sikhi .
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
harmanpreet singh ji the minute we start creating classes of Sikhs as lesser Sikhs than ourselves, less we become ourselves. Every true SIkh is a learning machine and almost all Sikhs would have gone through moments of this doubt or that doubt.
Sikhism is learning and sharing in learning to some extent. Share your thoughts why Atheists as defined by yourself cannot one day become Sikhs as complete as anyone else.
Say an Atheist says there is one continuous reality and I call such reality to be creator or God!
Give me soul on a platter and I will give you God on a platter!
Much wisdom is less spoken and more experienced.
eacesign:Sat Sri Akal.
harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
Respected Ambarsaria ji
for me anyone who follows or tries to follow Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is SIKH .
m unable to Understand how a person who have no faith in Guru Granth Sahib ji can be a Sikh . he /she can be good human being , a good Buddhist .. but i have doubt abt his /her Sikhi .
how can one denies a "conscious creator " . when each and every line of Guru Granth Sahib ji is saying so .
<table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td> ਏਕਾ ਸੇਜ ਵਿਛੀ ਧਨ ਕੰਤਾ ॥
एका सेज विछी धन कंता ॥
Ėkā sej vicẖẖī ḏẖan kanṯā.
One bed is spread out for the bride and her Husband Lord.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#BABAC7"><td> ਧਨ ਸੂਤੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਸਦ ਜਾਗੰਤਾ ॥
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā.
The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਪੀਓ ਮਦਰੋ ਧਨ ਮਤਵੰਤਾ ॥
पीओ मदरो धन मतवंता ॥
Pī▫o maḏro ḏẖan maṯvanṯā.
The bride is intoxicated, as if she has drunk wine.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਧਨ ਜਾਗੈ ਜੇ ਪਿਰੁ ਬੋਲੰਤਾ ॥੨॥
धन जागै जे पिरु बोलंता ॥२॥
Ḏẖan jāgai je pir bolanṯā. ||2||
The soul-bride only awakens when her Husband Lord calls to her. ||2||
Bhul chuk muaaf
sat nam sri wahe guru ji
</td></tr></tbody></table>
for me anyone who follows or tries to follow Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is SIKH .
m unable to Understand how a person who have no faith in Guru Granth Sahib ji can be a Sikh . he /she can be good human being , a good Buddhist .. but i have doubt abt his /her Sikhi .
how can one denies a "conscious creator " . when each and every line of Guru Granth Sahib ji is saying so .
<table cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td> ਏਕਾ ਸੇਜ ਵਿਛੀ ਧਨ ਕੰਤਾ ॥
एका सेज विछी धन कंता ॥
Ėkā sej vicẖẖī ḏẖan kanṯā.
One bed is spread out for the bride and her Husband Lord.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#BABAC7"><td> ਧਨ ਸੂਤੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਸਦ ਜਾਗੰਤਾ ॥
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā.
The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਪੀਓ ਮਦਰੋ ਧਨ ਮਤਵੰਤਾ ॥
पीओ मदरो धन मतवंता ॥
Pī▫o maḏro ḏẖan maṯvanṯā.
The bride is intoxicated, as if she has drunk wine.
</td></tr> <tr><td> ਧਨ ਜਾਗੈ ਜੇ ਪਿਰੁ ਬੋਲੰਤਾ ॥੨॥
धन जागै जे पिरु बोलंता ॥२॥
Ḏẖan jāgai je pir bolanṯā. ||2||
The soul-bride only awakens when her Husband Lord calls to her. ||2||
Bhul chuk muaaf
sat nam sri wahe guru ji
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Last edited by a moderator:
harmanpreet ji
You quoted this tuk
ਧਨ ਸੂਤੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਸਦ ਜਾਗੰਤਾ ॥
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā.
The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake.
Are you taking "always awake" in the literal sense of "eyes open" always "paying attention" or "alert?"
The other question I have. Is this your belief? A person who rejects a conscious creator also rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. A Sikh accepts Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Therefore, that person (who rejects a conscious creator) is not a Sikh. Did I understand you?
You quoted this tuk
ਧਨ ਸੂਤੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਸਦ ਜਾਗੰਤਾ ॥
धन सूती पिरु सद जागंता ॥
Ḏẖan sūṯī pir saḏ jāganṯā.
The bride is asleep, while her Husband Lord is always awake.
Are you taking "always awake" in the literal sense of "eyes open" always "paying attention" or "alert?"
The other question I have. Is this your belief? A person who rejects a conscious creator also rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. A Sikh accepts Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Therefore, that person (who rejects a conscious creator) is not a Sikh. Did I understand you?
Last edited:
harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
SPNADMIN ji
ya i feel /believe that anyone who rejects Guru Granth Sahib is not a Sikh .
and Creator (KARTA ) is mentioned in very first line of Guru Granth Sahib ji (Mool Mantar).
Regarding "always awake " i mean , it is in Sense as thread starter Akaasha ji asked and m unable to understand from where you are bringing eyes..
fateh
Thanks harmanpreet singh ji
I understand that part. I am asking more than that. Are you saying that to reject a conscious creator is to reject Guru Granth Sahib?? What rehat tells us this is true? Or, is this your personal opinion?
Yes, the second and third part of your argument follow: to reject Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is to reject Sikhi.
No, the first part of your argument does not follow. It is not automatic that a person who rejects a conscious creator rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
You are on shaky ground. This is like saying a person who rejects Dasam Granth rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and is therefore not a Sikh. The statement assumes moral authority that you do not have. Especially when you have not yet given us a full vichaar of the shabad you quote.
harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
ADMIN ji
let me put it in simple way
1)Do you believe there is Creator ?.
2) is it Conscious or unconsious ?
let me put it in simple way
1)Do you believe there is Creator ?.
2) is it Conscious or unconsious ?
Please don't change the subject. You are the one who is setting terms for being a Sikh. Would like to know how you come to your conclusions.
harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
Admin ji ,
m not trying to change the subject ,my questions are directly related to Subject and regarding conditions i feel Sikh is one who follows or tries to follow Guru Granth Sahib ji .
will you answer my above two simple question s ?
Sri Waheguru ji ki fateh
m not trying to change the subject ,my questions are directly related to Subject and regarding conditions i feel Sikh is one who follows or tries to follow Guru Granth Sahib ji .
will you answer my above two simple question s ?
Sri Waheguru ji ki fateh
Last edited:
No one has argued about whether a Sikh follows or tries to follow SGGS. The confusion surrounds the part about the conscious creator. As to your question. Conscious implies its opposite, unconscious! Duality ! That alone makes me suspect that thinking of the creator as conscious is outside of the realm of possibility. How can Akaal be described in terms that imply duality?
harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
ADMIN ji
m unable to get how "conscious" implies its opposite ie "Unconscious" and how its related to duality ,can you explain a bit ?
thanks
harman
m unable to get how "conscious" implies its opposite ie "Unconscious" and how its related to duality ,can you explain a bit ?
thanks
harman
Last edited:
I will do my best.
conscious |ˈkän ch əs|
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
• having knowledge of something; aware : we are conscious of the extent of the problem.
• ( conscious of) painfully aware of; sensitive to : he was very conscious of his appearance.
• concerned with or worried about a particular matter : they were growing increasingly security-conscious.
• (of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional : a conscious effort to walk properly.
• (of the mind or a thought) directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned.
DERIVATIVES
consciously adverb
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (in the sense [being aware of wrongdoing] ): from Latin conscius ‘knowing with others or in oneself’ (from conscire ‘be privy to’ ) + -ous .
In all these various meanings and in the origin of the word we are looking at human qualities of awake, aware, sensitive, concerned, worried, deliberate, intentional. These meanings all arise from brain, sensation and perception. Munn works in duality. As such the opposing human qualities of not-awake, unaware, insensitive, unconcerned, unworried, not-deliberate, and unintentional are implied. Brain, sensation and perception turned on or turned off.
How then does any of this apply to the nature of the sat? To think of the sat as continually awake, aware, sensitive, concerned, worried, deliberate and intentional is not that different from using our fingers to make shadow figures of horses and pigs on a movie screen. When we do that we are projecting human characteristics onto the sat - the sat which cannot be described in human terms.
When Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji describes the sat as "awake," it is an example of how in poetry "personification" is used to make an emotional connection with something that is not human. Taking words like "awake" literally is your choice; it is not a requirement. What about someone who says, "awake" is personification, and does not take it literally? That person has not rejected Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. That person believes that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is poetry.
conscious |ˈkän ch əs|
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
• having knowledge of something; aware : we are conscious of the extent of the problem.
• ( conscious of) painfully aware of; sensitive to : he was very conscious of his appearance.
• concerned with or worried about a particular matter : they were growing increasingly security-conscious.
• (of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional : a conscious effort to walk properly.
• (of the mind or a thought) directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned.
DERIVATIVES
consciously adverb
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (in the sense [being aware of wrongdoing] ): from Latin conscius ‘knowing with others or in oneself’ (from conscire ‘be privy to’ ) + -ous .
In all these various meanings and in the origin of the word we are looking at human qualities of awake, aware, sensitive, concerned, worried, deliberate, intentional. These meanings all arise from brain, sensation and perception. Munn works in duality. As such the opposing human qualities of not-awake, unaware, insensitive, unconcerned, unworried, not-deliberate, and unintentional are implied. Brain, sensation and perception turned on or turned off.
How then does any of this apply to the nature of the sat? To think of the sat as continually awake, aware, sensitive, concerned, worried, deliberate and intentional is not that different from using our fingers to make shadow figures of horses and pigs on a movie screen. When we do that we are projecting human characteristics onto the sat - the sat which cannot be described in human terms.
When Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji describes the sat as "awake," it is an example of how in poetry "personification" is used to make an emotional connection with something that is not human. Taking words like "awake" literally is your choice; it is not a requirement. What about someone who says, "awake" is personification, and does not take it literally? That person has not rejected Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. That person believes that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is poetry.
harmanpreet singh
SPNer
- Nov 14, 2008
- 283
- 419
Respected ADMIN ji
i have no idea why are you making it so complex and confusing .
i have no idea why are you making it so complex and confusing .
I don't mind simple when simple is believable. I abhor oversimplification when it omits important information. Let me make it very simple.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is poetry. Poetry uses personification. Much of what you are saying seems to take Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji literally. Based on a literal approach you are pretending to know who rejects Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and who does not. Sometimes that is what simple gets you. Distortions and incomplete understanding. And simple has this odd way of becoming simpleminded.
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,387
- 5,690
harmanpreet singh ji you are trying to limit the creator through your definitions and characterizations. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji advises (if you care to read without an eye to prove or disapprove others) that it is futile to try to characterize and limit the one creator in its completeness. It is infinite and beyond human characterization. We can attempt to understand as much as we can and live there by! Characterizing the creator, defining it, etc., is not a goal set up in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Rather gaining understanding of the creator and creation and living with the ever increasing understanding is the only goal.
Human definitions and applications of the same like conscious, unconscious, etc., simply are an ego trip. These attempts kind of flag that the person has not understood basics of Sikhi per Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
Sat Sri Akal.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
Originally Posted by harmanpreet singh
Respected ADMIN ji
i have no idea why are you making it so complex and confusing .
I agree, there are so much more important questions to answer, does the Creator like french cooking, does the Creator get confused, or upset, bored maybe.
Only if he is conscious about the French fries' fat content.
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
I can see the argument on both sides of the coin here... and I am in the middle... what I have noticed in this thread:
The people who describe creator as not conscious, associate 'consciousness' as a purely physical function. If that were true, if consciousness was merely created BY matter, then I could see how people could say that it is just something that occurred as part of creation and that the creator may not be.... this is assuming the basis of the Universe is matter and not something else deeper. This (in my own opinion) is a very closed minded view of the Universe.
However, where I differ is in the whole concept of the Universe itself. I believe the basis of the Universe itself is consciousness... NOT matter! If you dissolve reality (when you see in this way) then consciousness is understood as a base aspect of creation and not merely a product of it. (That's when you start to understand that consciousness as not a human property but a base truth of reality) You begin to see reality as energy and not matter. When you see it this way, that Consciousness is the basis of everything, it's easy to understand that the creator is conscious. There is no duality in this. Because in reality all that exists IS consciousness. Everything else is created FROM it. And there is only ONE consciousness... ONE pool of creative and aware energy.
I still struggle DEEPLY with the idea that SGGS is all just poetry... then why are we even reading it if there is no meaning to it? One should not have to decipher the meaning of difficult to interpret and cryptic poetry. Where does it say in SGGS or Rehet that SGGS is all hidden poetic meanings and never to be taken literally? Is this written down anywhere?
What if it IS very literal!? (comparisons aside.... like on pg 736 where it describes the world as a 'play' and the creator as both the actor and director but then when he takes off the costumes there is only ONE... obviously using the term 'play' 'actor' etc are comparisons but the message is direct... that there is only ONE in existence... the creator. And we are also all collectively that ONE creator) There is much information in SGGS that IS truth... known today... that was not known at the time it was written. I just can't see it being that complicated. Yes it's in poetic verse, however I believe that much of it is literal... Things can have literal meaning but still be written in verse. Reading it as literal, I see MUCH more truth in Sikhi than if I were to try to decipher someone's abstract thoughts. If that's all it were, then how would it be any different than say a poetic work by any other author... how would it be a 'religion'??? We could take any poet's work then and say that it's a non literal spiritual work.
The people who describe creator as not conscious, associate 'consciousness' as a purely physical function. If that were true, if consciousness was merely created BY matter, then I could see how people could say that it is just something that occurred as part of creation and that the creator may not be.... this is assuming the basis of the Universe is matter and not something else deeper. This (in my own opinion) is a very closed minded view of the Universe.
However, where I differ is in the whole concept of the Universe itself. I believe the basis of the Universe itself is consciousness... NOT matter! If you dissolve reality (when you see in this way) then consciousness is understood as a base aspect of creation and not merely a product of it. (That's when you start to understand that consciousness as not a human property but a base truth of reality) You begin to see reality as energy and not matter. When you see it this way, that Consciousness is the basis of everything, it's easy to understand that the creator is conscious. There is no duality in this. Because in reality all that exists IS consciousness. Everything else is created FROM it. And there is only ONE consciousness... ONE pool of creative and aware energy.
I still struggle DEEPLY with the idea that SGGS is all just poetry... then why are we even reading it if there is no meaning to it? One should not have to decipher the meaning of difficult to interpret and cryptic poetry. Where does it say in SGGS or Rehet that SGGS is all hidden poetic meanings and never to be taken literally? Is this written down anywhere?
What if it IS very literal!? (comparisons aside.... like on pg 736 where it describes the world as a 'play' and the creator as both the actor and director but then when he takes off the costumes there is only ONE... obviously using the term 'play' 'actor' etc are comparisons but the message is direct... that there is only ONE in existence... the creator. And we are also all collectively that ONE creator) There is much information in SGGS that IS truth... known today... that was not known at the time it was written. I just can't see it being that complicated. Yes it's in poetic verse, however I believe that much of it is literal... Things can have literal meaning but still be written in verse. Reading it as literal, I see MUCH more truth in Sikhi than if I were to try to decipher someone's abstract thoughts. If that's all it were, then how would it be any different than say a poetic work by any other author... how would it be a 'religion'??? We could take any poet's work then and say that it's a non literal spiritual work.
I agree Akashji, the consciousness that you are talking about is NOT the opposite of unconscious, it is beyond and above that !!!
Can I define and describe it better ??
Not really, unless you've experienced it to some level and can relate to it !
Can I define and describe it better ??
Not really, unless you've experienced it to some level and can relate to it !
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
we are but the blind man, in the dark room, trying to kick the black cat
that isn't there.........
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
