A Conscious Creator In Sikhi And Other Faith Traditions?

[Luckysingh]

we are but the blind man, in the dark room, trying to kick the black cat


that isn't there.........

Yeh, that sums it up quite well !
I like it Harryji, you always amuse me !!lol
I like that saying about the blind man in the dark room looking for the cat that is not there...

.....It points to the importance of curiosity and the things or issues that we just don't understand !!!0

 

[Ambarsaria]

Then again "no blind man will use sight or vision as his strength to achieve things".

Ironically some of the best musicians were blind and some Raagi Singhs too.

So fundamental issue in our dialog, curiosity or search here is that,

Are we employing the right faculties in our inquisition or even perhaps whether we are even equipped with some such faculties.

Do have the eyes to see God creator? Do we have ears to hear the God/creator? and so on ......

We do know that we do not have a monopoly on connections with God/creator.

Fundamental in our approach we have to register say the following,

So how does a billions years + old rock becomes dust, earth, feeds a corn seed, then becomes part of the corn cob, fed to a cow, to turn to milk and steak that we can consume, excrete, live a life and become dust and if left alone may become part of a rock again?

Our level of ignorance versus our level of knowledge have a major disconnect in that how little we know. SGGS says don't go after to learn it all. Learn some and as much but more importantly use it to recognize consonance and all around you so that you may know your place to be at peace, happiness, and so on. Some will say do so to make God/creator proud! Then again do we fall into the same trap as about consciousness. Does God/creator even have pride in the creation so created and transforming. Does the all knowing ever not know the results any way based on what is!

Luckysingh ji I believe lot of such introspection takes spirals one down into a spiritual whirlpool and we may enter a zone of darkness to come out or not. If we perhaps been in such state by design or accident we perhaps will be cognizance of some underlying nuggets but I have not been even close to it even after taking some pretty very very hard knocks over th years. But I recognize that you once posted your experiences along such lines and I have always respected that as there really is much unknown.

It is all in good spirit to share and chat even while we share our thoughts at times opposite to each others views.

Sat Sri Akal to all.
​

 

[Luckysingh]

I think the consciousness that Akashji is talking about is more of an active action or activity so to say.
We know that whilst we are alive and breathing with our heart's ticking we are in a way 'active' or conscious.
If you look at it like this, and think about how the Universe is 'active' ....ie. the Earth and planets carry on moving or rotating by his Command, the Sun carries on emitting heat, gases and LIGHT...etc..
Now, with all this happening and the earth spinning on it's axis, we can say that it is also 'active' and conscious.
Therefore, we are aware that there is an ongoing and forever alive 'activity' in the whole universe.
This is what I kind of understand of the 'conscious' entity of God creator and creation.

How this consciousness or activity is kept active or from going to non-active-unconscious, ONLY HE KNOWS, and it is under HIS Control and Command.

I hope that simplifies it a little !

 

[harmanpreet singh]

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 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 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 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or Rehet that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 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 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 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.

very well said Akaasha ji ,


"Guru Granth sahib is just Poetry " is most absurd logic ever expected .

 

[Luckysingh]

Not to go off topic here-
But I think that as one advances more into sikhi and spirituality, then one realizes or learns that Gurbani is more literal than previously assumed.
I think it's the literal way that one begins to relate to it.
The Gurbani doesn't contain just ordinary words, but words of the Guru.(GuRoo) :winkingmunda:

 

[harmanpreet singh]

i agree with you lucky ji, only under spiritual bankruptcy one can claim "Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as mere poetry without literal meaning "

 

[spnadmin]

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 .

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.

Three possibilities are emerging from the discussion.

a. Some reject the notion that "awake" is personification. They disagree that a conscious creator is human projection. They must also want to claim that the creator who is "awake" is also a "he" because he is a "husband lord. "

No personification is allowed; only literal meanings apply. We cannot have it both ways.

b. On the other hand some believe that "husband lord" is poetic language but "awake" is not poetic language and should be taken literally. It is OK to have it both ways.

c. Gurbani is poetry and both "husband lord" and "awake" are poetic language.

Those in groups a and b also believe that group c obviously cannot see how Gurbani is so much more than poetry. They conclude " only under spiritual bankruptcy one can claim "Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as mere poetry." Therefore group c has their Sikhi in doubt (harmanpreet ji), and/or have not experienced the real thing (Luckysingh ji).

So the conscious creator has Sikhs sitting at his right hand ! Wow! I am impressed because the creator also has a right hand!

 

[akiva]

Gurbani was written by people who had experienced deep spiritual insights, and whose way of looking at the world, and their experience of the world, was radically different than ours.

Language in unable to completely convey that reality - so the authors resort, when needed, to metaphor.

I'd suggest using metaphoric instead of poetic - so "husband" can metaphorically describe a relationship in terms the reader understands while "conscious" describes a state of awareness/intention.

 

[spnadmin]

Gurbani was written by people who had experienced deep spiritual insights, and whose way of looking at the world, and their experience of the world, was radically different than ours.

Language in unable to completely convey that reality - so the authors resort, when needed, to metaphor.

I'd suggest using metaphoric instead of poetic - so "husband" can metaphorically describe a relationship in terms the reader understands while "conscious" describes a state of awareness/intention.

akiva ji

I agree. Just as a note. The words metaphor and personification have been used either on this thread and other threads, in addition to "poetic language." Language is unable to convey the reality of the "sat." And thus our Gurusahiban used these poetic devices. Thanks.

 

[Luckysingh]

The dumb mute can't describe or tell us the taste of the sweetness.
But he experiences it and understands it.

 

[Harry Haller]

Three possibilities are emerging from the discussion.

a. Some reject the notion that "awake" is personification. They disagree that a conscious creator is human projection. They must also want to claim that the creator who is "awake" is also a "he" because he is a "husband lord. "

No personification is allowed; only literal meanings apply. We cannot have it both ways.

b. On the other hand some believe that "husband lord" is poetic language but "awake" is not poetic language and should be taken literally. It is OK to have it both ways.

c. Gurbani is poetry and both "husband lord" and "awake" are poetic language.

admjnji

you have left out

d. those that do not care and see any attempt at understanding Creator as pointless and futile.

 

[akiva]

Spnadmin Ji

I meant to quote the following:

c. Gurbani is poetry and both "husband lord" and "awake" are poetic language.

to suggest that replacing poetic with metaphoric would be both more accurate and possibly more acceptable to all (since "poetic" is a loaded term with it's own meaning.)

Akiva

 

[spnadmin]

Spnadmin Ji

I meant to quote the following:



to suggest that replacing poetic with metaphoric would be both more accurate and possibly more acceptable to all (since "poetic" is a loaded term with it's own meaning.)

Akiva

Let's see if you are right! I used poetic to begin with because I was not getting anywhere with personification.

The main issue however is whether the creator is conscious. I am claiming no because the word conscious itself so used is a projection of a human characteristic. In that context, "personification" is the better choice over "metaphor."

as an aside - both personification and metaphor are types of poetic language. We could get side-tracked.

 

[spnadmin]

admjnji

you have left out

d. those that do not care and see any attempt at understanding Creator as pointless and futile.

Where do they stand on their Sikhi and their spiritual development? Bankrupt? Thanks for your input.

 

[akiva]

The main issue however is whether the creator is conscious. I am claiming no because the word conscious itself so used is a projection of a human characteristic. In that context, "personification" is the better choice over "metaphor."

noted. as an input -- Maimonides said that one can not describe the Creator's positive attributes, but only describe what the Creator is not. I.E. "Not Limited", "Not Physical", "Not Unaware" -- because positive attributes are themselves limited.

("Creator" here referring to the Abrahamic Creator)

as an aside - both personification and metaphor are types of poetic language. We could get side-tracked.

Agreed. And I acknowledge that SGGS uses both. My point was made because metaphor by definition has a deeper/secondary meaning, whereas "poetic" doesn't require that. So metaphor allows something to be taken "literally" while at the same time being "poetic"

 

[spnadmin]

noted. as an input -- Maimonides said that one can not describe the Creator's positive attributes, but only describe what the Creator is not. I.E. "Not Limited", "Not Physical", "Not Unaware" -- because positive attributes are themselves limited.

("Creator" here referring to the Abrahamic Creator)



Agreed. And I acknowledge that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji uses both. My point was made because metaphor by definition has a deeper/secondary meaning, whereas "poetic" doesn't require that. So metaphor allows something to be taken "literally" while at the same time being "poetic"

akiva ji

I do appreciate both comments. Responding to the second one ... that is the way metaphor works. A metaphor draws an analogy either directly or indirectly between the literal meaning and another level of meaning, perhaps emotional or spiritual.

I am using "poetic" as a class of linguistic structures within which metaphor, simile, personification, etc. can be grouped. Not in the sense of "loaded" language. Of course one could debate endlessly as to whether language is always "loaded" and never literal. Someone else called language the burial ground of dead metaphors. That takes us off topic.

How I am using the term: Poetic (relating to or used in poetry) + Language (method of communication either spoken, written, or some other descriptive/expressive mode) = poetic language.

The words of Maimonides are a true gift! Maimonides needs to be mined, quite literally mined, for the gems of insight, provided for our study and delight over centuries. Always satisfying to encounter and to reflect on.

 

[harmanpreet singh]

Gurbani was written by people who had experienced deep spiritual insights, and whose way of looking at the world, and their experience of the world, was radically different than ours.

Language in unable to completely convey that reality - so the authors resort, when needed, to metaphor.

I'd suggest using metaphoric instead of poetic - so "husband" can metaphorically describe a relationship in terms the reader understands while "conscious" describes a state of awareness/intention.

fully agrees with you Akiva ji ,

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.

in the above shabad "bride" is metaphor used for our soul/ Aaatma , "husband" is metaphor used for ParamAaatma/Creator .

our soul is asleep/unconscious under the influence of MAYA/illusion . but ParamAatma/CREATOR is beyond MAYA ie always AWAKE/ CONSCIOUS .


satnam

 

[spnadmin]

Someone has changed his point of view. Now accepting the fact of the poetic rather than the literal! Congratulations brother.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

spnadmin ji, I see why you are arriving your understanding of the creator not being conscious... where we differ is in the belief of what exactly consciousness is. You place consciousness as a purely physical manifestation, something caused as a result of the physical. Therefore you believe it is a human only concept. (I still stand by my opinion that this is a very limited view of reality)

I view consciousness as not a resultant physical manifestation but the other way around. I view matter as being a manifestation of consciousness. Therefore for me, consciousness is a base truth to reality and hence not merely a human concept. There really is no 'unconsciousness' in that sense as consciousness is all that really exists. We only experience it as limited, because of our limited perception while stuck in a physical body and having to experience through limited senses.

For me, it's easy to equate creator as conscious, because consciousness for me is the base truth of reality. For you it's difficult because you view consciousness as merely an emergent property due to to the complexity of our brains- a purely physical concept. Because we can't prove either direction at the moment... (even neuroscientists are stumped at where exactly the 'seat' of consciousness lies) then I think we will never be able to pull the other to our court.

As for Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - I agree there is metaphor used... as in the passage I quoted about reality being compared to a play and the creator is the director and the actors (us) that is obvious metaphor. But the meaning is quite literal.... when he takes off the costumes there is only ONE. (p 736 paraphrased) For me, when I look at that one truth... that there is only ONE in existence... then everything else makes sense to me. If the creator is the only ONE thing in existence, then we must be merely conscious manifestations of that creator. - If we ARE the creator, and WE ARE conscious... then creator must be conscious - As I wrote above, when I view the base of reality as energy / consciousness rather than matter, then it's easy to see how the creator is conscious because to me that is all that really exists. And then I can look at Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and metaphors aside (which are used to convey literal messages) are easy to understand.

Since our concept of what consciousness is differs so greatly, I can't see how we can ever merge in our beliefs.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

The dumb mute can't describe or tell us the taste of the sweetness.
But he experiences it and understands it.

Lucky Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

With the above verse from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji- 'Gungei de mithai', you have answered your own question. It is a personal experience. Period. If Ik Ong Kaar were conscious then, he/she/it is conscious in all, which include the organic and the inorganic as the Gurbani says. And if the poetry is literal, then we should all embrace the literal translations which are shown to be distorted because there is more to it than meets the eyes.

The example of the distorted literal translation is in your own post.

The dumb mute can't describe or tell us the taste of the sweetness.

A Gunga means one who can not speak nor hear, hence "mute and hearing impaired" where as a DUMB means not having the right mental faculties.

Take your pick.

Tejwant Singh