Atheism Atheism - What Happens When We Die?

[Harvir007]

All the above can be modified, edited and changed. Hence nothing concrete about them to claim what you have about Sikhi. Only studying the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji can teach one about Sikhi. The rest is self manufactured babble which is insulting to the self.

What is your own viewpoint based upon? What have you studied deeply to reach to your conclusions about Sikhi? Please share.

First and foremost, Sikhi is the journey of the individual. It is NOT a religion. That is why there is no clergy, no rituals like fasting, pilgrimages etc. etc. These things are must to form/define any religion. It is all mentioned in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

What did you study to reach to the conclusion that Sikhi is dogmatic? Please give concrete examples with references about your studies in Sikhi for your above determination.

Are you aware that Guru Nanak talked about billions of Galaxies and Planets 500 years ago without the help of any telescope. It is in Jap which starts on page 1 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji after Mool Mantar. He said it while looking at the awe and wow factors that we are surrounded by and being bewildered in this blissful ecstasy called the nature bursting with Energy.

One more important thing to point out, Sikhi does not believe in prophets nor in any prophecies which are considered snake oil salesmen and snake oil rubs respectively. Nothing dogmatic about that. Would n't you agree?

I'm glad you admit that, the Rehat Maryada is one of the things which drove me away from Sikihism in the first place.

My viewpoint is based on the tenants of the Sikh faith. But apparently they're wrong so everything I've read is wrong. Do let me know if this source is wrong in any way too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/

Hmmm, when you say there's no clergy, I see the SGPC as exactly that. They are composed of officials elected in open conclaves held at Harimandir Sahib, right? Religion can be defined as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." It does sound like Sikhism, there are many who believe in a particular set of beliefs, namely following the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib.

My viewpoint on dogma is the Sikh religion is based on experience upon meeting many devout Sikhs. Not deep research in which I have carried out polls.

Guru Nanak may have talked about it, but it doesn't attract me.

Oh yeah, Sikhism is light-years ahead of other theisms. I accept that. It's such a good thing that Sikhs don't practice these things. A shame that a tiny minority do however.

 

[Harry Haller]

I'm glad you admit that, the Rehat Maryada is one of the things which drove me away from Sikihism in the first place.

The SRM is written and compiled by people, for people. Which people, remains a mystery, but there you go.

My viewpoint is based on the tenants of the Sikh faith. But apparently they're wrong so everything I've read is wrong. Do let me know if this source is wrong in any way too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/

now your really getting the hang of it! yes, everything you have read, and heard is wrong! You have been spending too much time being convinced that Sikhism is some sort of 'religion' with 'Gods' and traditions and rituals. If you are interested in what Sikhism stands for, simply forget everything you have learned to date, and start from scratch.

Hmmm, when you say there's no clergy, I see the SGPC as exactly that. They are composed of officials elected in open conclaves held at Harimandir Sahib, right? Religion can be defined as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." It does sound like Sikhism, there are many who believe in a particular set of beliefs, namely following the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib.

The SGPC is not a clergy, they have a hugely important job doing hugely important things. What these things are is a huge secret, but very important.

Sikhs do not have any beliefs, Sikhs accept the truth. For instance, Christians believe in a personal God, heaven and hell, and a devil. Sikhs however are more interested in finding and learning about the truth. Gravity is a good truth, it cannot be doubted, it is not a belief, it can be 100% proven and understood. Having understood gravity, that knowledge can be used to further understanding. There are many many truths that can be observed, studied, and learned from. Beliefs and practices are for religious types...

My viewpoint on dogma is the Sikh religion is based on experience upon meeting many devout Sikhs. Not deep research in which I have carried out polls.

Lucky you! I am 44 and I can count the number of devout Sikhs i have met on one hand. You would have probably had better luck with polls! lol

Guru Nanak may have talked about it, but it doesn't attract me.

So why are you posting on this forum, to learn more? or perhaps you wish to share your wisdom and convert us?0

 

[Harvir007]

So why are you posting on this forum, to learn more? or perhaps you wish to share your wisdom and convert us?0

I'm posting on this forum because this topic is called 'Atheism- what happens when we die?' A question to which I gave my answer. And also because I was asked questions, I would be rude not to reply.

 

[Harry Haller]

Allow me to furnish you with another thread, it is the one that convinced me I was a Sikh and not an Atheist.

Oh and btw Antitheism is fully compatible with Sikhi lol

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/atheism/35294-is-atheism-the-ultimate-sikhi.html#.UUmAtqyDs7o

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

Hmmm, when you say there's no clergy, I see the SGPC as exactly that. They are composed of officials elected in open conclaves held at Harimandir Sahib, right? Religion can be defined as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." It does sound like Sikhism, there are many who believe in a particular set of beliefs, namely following the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib.

If we go by literal full form of SGPC, they are just the management committee of all Gurudwaras in India (only).

We don't have a clergy. We don't have a bhai ji or granthi ji that we have to report to every week. We don't go and confess when we sin. We don't have to ask anyone to lead our prayers. Ours is a very personal relationship with the Creator and Creation (which is One, if you hate term God so much).

 

[Aisha]

Believing in ''god'' is a claim which requires evidence to back it up.

Harvir Ji, I just picked up my new Samsung Galaxy S4 (lol) the other day, I will be sure to snap a pic of God and send it to you as soon as possible.

Just like I don't have to disprove the existence of Santa, common sense prevails because I'm not the one making the claim for his supposed existence.

Oh come on now, that isn't true. I myself lean towards the proposition that our Universe is one of many billions in an ocean of Universes, which guarantees that somewhere out there, anything that can exist does exist, yes, even a fat old Canadian in a red suit delivering presents to the entire world in a single night. So how do you know for sure that he isn't in ours, on our planet? :grinningkaur:

On a more serious note, I have read your replies and you sound like a very intelligent, very mature young man. I am curious to know what exactly you constitute as evidence for God's existence. I mean, you could go onto a Jewish, Christian or Islamic forum and (sarcastically) ask that they show you a picture of the God they are worshiping, but even that demand makes no sense on here, considering the nature of Waheguru.

And then you go and say something like this:

Your God is a celestial dictator.

and it makes me question just how much you really know about Sikhi. I am not Sikh myself, but have not come across any content in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji or this on this website that has led me to formulate such an opinion. What is the reasoning behind your statement?

 

[Harvir007]

Oh come on now, that isn't true. I myself lean towards the proposition that our Universe is one of many billions in an ocean of Universes, which guarantees that somewhere out there, anything that can exist does exist, yes, even a fat old Canadian in a red suit delivering presents to the entire world in a single night. So how do you know for sure that he isn't in ours, on our planet? :grinningkaur:

I am curious to know what exactly you constitute as evidence for God's existence.

And then you go and say something like this:

What is the reasoning behind your statement?

Have you heard of Bertrand Russell's flying teapot analogy? While what you're saying COULD be true, it is scientifically unfalsifiable. And thus, the burden of proof is on you. And I quote the great man Russell himself: "If he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong."

Well, very good question. I always pictured some really old guy with a white flowing beard to shine his light upon me and say "I EXIST." Haha, well I really am not sure. So that's my answer.

Hmm, maybe that is a grammatical error on my part. Perhaps it is better to say that I perceive the idea of an unchallengeable rule-setter, as rather dictatorial. But I could be wrong as my idea of god in Sikhism could contradict another's perception. "What is the Creator's purpose in creating the universe? It is not for man to inquire or judge the purpose of His Creator." -Guru Arjan Dev. I'm sorry, but I feel as though I have the right to inquire the purpose of the creator.

Thanks.

 

[spnadmin]

Have you heard of Bertrand Russell's flying teapot analogy? While what you're saying COULD be true, it is scientifically unfalsifiable. And thus, the burden of proof is on you. And I quote the great man Russell himself: "If he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong."

Well, very good question. I always pictured some really old guy with a white flowing beard to shine his light upon me and say "I EXIST." Haha, well I really am not sure. So that's my answer.

Hmm, maybe that is a grammatical error on my part. Perhaps it is better to say that I perceive the idea of an unchallengeable rule-setter, as rather dictatorial. But I could be wrong as my idea of god in Sikhism could contradict another's perception. "What is the Creator's purpose in creating the universe? It is not for man to inquire or judge the purpose of His Creator." -Guru Arjan Dev. I'm sorry, but I feel as though I have the right to inquire the purpose of the creator.

Thanks.

Harvir007 ji

It may be that I am not able to decode your last few sentences. However, I don't understand why you would challenge Aisha ji or any other forum member to respond to your question, "What is the Creator's purpose in creating the universe? It is not for man to inquire or judge the purpose of His Creator." I am stuck on how Guru Arjan Dev figures into the debate with Aisha. All Aisha ji can do is give her sense of what Nanak V might have meant. The best that would come of it: Aisha's hypothesis of a possible meaning of a dead person who is not here to provide his own explanation. In the exegesis of sacred texts theologians do this all the time. However, if you want a scientific explanation it seems like a lame request.

Among the rules of induction that govern science, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That proposition might almost work in a discussion of the "existence" of "god.' Yet, rules of induction have little to do with religious discourse. Asking Aisha ji to channel Guru Arjan Dev ji will not get you there. Insisting that rules of induction should be part of religious discourse seems "dictatorial" to me.

Neither Aisha ji nor Guru Arjan Dev are under any intellectual or moral obligation to provide explanations that suit science. Only scientists are under the obligation to behave like scientists. Therefore, I need some clarification of the 2nd and 3rd to last sentence in the last paragraph in order to be sure that my own response/reaction is tempered by understanding. I also need to know why Guru Arjan Dev is coming under the scan of "the scientific method." He really never made any scientific claims, nor pretended to do so. He did compile a sacred text. How relevant do you figure he is to this discussion?

 

[Ishna]

Harvir

It may have been asked earlier in the thread and I missed it, but where is the quote attributed to Guru Arjun Ji from? I can't find it in Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

To me, asking 'what is the purpose of the Creator?' is like asking 'what is the purpose of the Universe?' It just is, because it is, right?

It would be like a cell of the body asking what is the purpose of it's host. Doesn't really make sense.

The universe is a rather dictatorial rule-setter because I can't fly.

Oh well, all hail FSM. :wahkaur:

 

[jasbirkaleka]

What happens to us when we die?
The same that happens to countless living things like bacteria, virus, a carrot. an ant, an elephant.

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

The same that happens to countless living things like bacteria, virus, a carrot. an ant, an elephant.

Superb point veerji! Reading Gurbani we think that all men get glory after death, while forgetting the glory is living a Gursikh Jiwan!

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

What is the Creator's purpose in creating the universe? It is not for man to inquire or judge the purpose of His Creator.

I guess the lines you refer are these:

ਜਿਸ ਕੀ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸੁ ਕਰਣੈਹਾਰੁ ॥
He is the Creator Lord of His world.
ਅਵਰ ਨ ਬੂਝਿ ਕਰਤ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
No one else understands Him, although they may try.
ਕਰਤੇ ਕੀ ਮਿਤਿ ਨ ਜਾਨੈ ਕੀਆ ॥
The created cannot know the extent of the Creator.
ਨਾਨਕ ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਵਰਤੀਆ ॥੭॥
O Nanak, whatever pleases Him comes to pass.

There is a theory in physics that to predict every event in a system, you should be able to observe it from the outside. The Creator is within the Creation and you cannot observe everything, you cannot go outside of the Creation. That is why it is unfathomable, it is not as if some teacher is restricting you from reading an extra chapter.

Everyone knows that Earth goes around the Sun. Is there a purpose to that? Is there a reason for the seasons? Is there any need for so many breeds? People would 'like to think' there is and not find any. Things are just the way they are and what will be, will be.

Well, very good question. I always pictured some really old guy with a white flowing beard to shine his light upon me and say "I EXIST." Haha, well I really am not sure. So that's my answer.

We have paintings of Guru Nanak showing His face in Light. It is an artistic representation of the Light of Truth, the one which whence it shine on you, shall taketh away all Darkness. But there was no photons emitting from His face. And it was not as if Guru Nanak always stood with His back to the sun.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I have to chime in on this because I am not becoming confused... Harry Ji, you have 'Sikh' listed as your religion, however you say you don't believe in a conscious creator? This has me confused because, doesn't the very first part of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji - the Mool Mantra - describe a diety?? The very first words of "ONE GOD"???

Up until I read some responses from some people on this thread, I thought I had a fairly good grasp of the core beliefs of Sikhi but now not so sure. Some Sikhs believe in a conscious creator, and now I am seeing that some only believe in creation itself (big bang theory... science... but no conscious creator). Some Sikhs believe consciousness exists outside of the physical body, but now I see that some believe that the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is just a manual on how to live life while here and connect with nature as it were, but no belief in merging back with the creator. Some believe in ardas / prayer and rembrance of God/Creator/Waheguru, but there exist those like you Harry where you just claimed you do not pray to any deity... I can even go further as to say that some believe in reincarnation after death (with the ultimate goal being merging back with the creator and escaping the cycles of birth / death) but others I have read on other threads on here claim that Sikhs do not believe in reincarnation at all...

What then is the refrence to the cycle of 8.4 million births?? Why does it say that human life is 'rare' if we never experience birth as lower life forms? Why does it specify in the Mool Mantra that 'God' is without births and deaths? (why would it even mention that if there was only 'creation' and not a 'creator'??) Why does it not just say that we have this one life and that is it, then nothing at all??? Why does it make so many references to this reality being an illusion? If its an illusion then just what IS our reality?? Why so many references to merging with the 'creator'...or to the ONE if there is really not a creator?? Why does it make reference to the creator being the one who stages the play (this reality) and also plays the part of all the characters (meaning us) ( p 736 SGGS) if there really is no conscious creator to 'create' the play to begin with?? How can an unconscious creation that 'just happened' also be all of the 'conscious' characters??? How can something as formless as consciousness be created from the very basic particles of matter? Knowing that EVERYTHING once broken down is basically quarks and electrons - every electron and every quark are the same as each other. If you don't believe consciousness (soul) exists apart from matter, then this creates a very difficult to fathom scientific quandry.

So.... what is the consensus? Does Sikhi believe in a 'Conscious Creator' of creation? (call it whatever you want... deity, God, Waheguru, universal consciousness) Do Sikhs believe in reincarnation or not??? If not, then why is it even mentioned??? And if no reincarnation, and no heaven / hell, then does Sikhi just believe in blackness and nothingness after death? And if THAT is true.... then why the goal of merging back 'CONSCIOUSLY' with the creator???

Personally, I have read SGGS (english translation) and I DO believe in ONE universal CONSCIOUS creator God, who I refer to as Waheguru. There is way too much creative design seen down to the tiniest of matter to the largest of cosmic events to say everything 'just happened'. I have also had several spiritual experiences where I have actually felt that presence within me. I believe that our consciousness is a small part of the ONE consciousness but there really is only ONE - our separateness is an illusion, meaning we are still all really just ONE and don't realize it. (this is backed in Gurbani) and I believe that we experience many births and deaths... I do believe in reincarnation... because I believe that spiritual evolution is the reason we are here in theis 'illusion' - to learn... and I don't think that is possible with just one birth. However having said that, I also believe that time and space are also part of the illusion. The only real ultimate reality is the ONE universal consciousness and everything else is the dream of the creator (also in SGGS).

So please tell me that Sikhi is NOT 'just like Athiesm'!!! or my whole concept of reality just came tumbling down!!!

Harvirji




I am as atheist as you. I do not believe in a supernatural creator deity, I do not pray to it, neither do I worship it. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a complete works to enable us to find something higher, a purpose if you will, a place in the world. You are either a part of Creation, or you are just existing. It is easy to exist, however, to really live takes knowledge and wisdom. To instantly know what is right and what is wrong, to live by the truth, in all aspects of your life, and to use that knowlege and wisdom for Creation is the only worship I understand. To help as many people, to be kind, considerate, helpfull, understanding, to rise above anger, to embrace empathy, that is the only prayer I know.

I do not believe in a God, surely that makes me an Atheist. I do however attempt to submit to the will of the truth, and I believe the ten Gurus knew the truth, and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a record of such that should be respected as the ultimate authority. I accept the concept of ultimate eternal truth as 'God'.

For a Sikh to show respect to the spiritual side of Sikhism is to ultimately accept the look of a Sikh. This comes with love, it has to be earned, to be wanted, for a Sikh to even question any element of the physical facets is to betray a Sikh who is not ready to be recognised as such.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I guess the lines you refer are these:

ਜਿਸ ਕੀ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸੁ ਕਰਣੈਹਾਰੁ ॥
He is the Creator Lord of His world.
ਅਵਰ ਨ ਬੂਝਿ ਕਰਤ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
No one else understands Him, although they may try.
ਕਰਤੇ ਕੀ ਮਿਤਿ ਨ ਜਾਨੈ ਕੀਆ ॥
The created cannot know the extent of the Creator.
ਨਾਨਕ ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਵਰਤੀਆ ॥੭॥
O Nanak, whatever pleases Him comes to pass.

There is a theory in physics that to predict every event in a system, you should be able to observe it from the outside. The Creator is within the Creation and you cannot observe everything, you cannot go outside of the Creation. That is why it is unfathomable, it is not as if some teacher is restricting you from reading an extra chapter.

Everyone knows that Earth goes around the Sun. Is there a purpose to that? Is there a reason for the seasons? Is there any need for so many breeds? People would 'like to think' there is and not find any. Things are just the way they are and what will be, will be.



We have paintings of Guru Nanak showing His face in Light. It is an artistic representation of the Light of Truth, the one which whence it shine on you, shall taketh away all Darkness. But there was no photons emitting from His face. And it was not as if Guru Nanak always stood with His back to the sun.

If Harvir ji got this one liner from the above, which is an insult to one own's wisdom; then he has missed the mark of understanding again. He should have read the whole 16th Ashtpadi (page 285) and the starting Salok of the 17th. In fact it is a must to study the whole Sukhmani in order to get the inkling. One liners are like a dot on an immense canvas which has nothing abstract about it.

Guru Sahib is talking about the awe and wow factors of The Source- The Creative Energy- and is challenging us to find the answers yet we do not know about this wonder that surrounds us. This is the reason our observation tool, aka science keeps on moving the goal post when it has observed some more and learned from it. This is the beauty and the difference between the revelation and the investigation. Sikhi is all about the latter.

And mind you, our Gurus did not make the use of any telescopes. They did not have to. They left that to us. The only telescope they gave us with the help of Gurbani is the inner one, the Dasam Duar, so we can look out from the within.

Great post, Kanwaljit Singh ji!

Tejwant Singh

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

It is not for man to inquire or judge the purpose of His Creator.

I was wrong earlier, those lines were interpreted by this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Sikhism

Again the problem with translations!

 

[Ishna]

Thanks Kanwaljit Ji, it isn't a quote of Guru Arjan at all then.

What is the Creator's purpose in creating the universe? It is not for man to inquire or judge the purpose of His Creator. To quote Guru Arjan again, "The created cannot have a measure of the Creator; what He wills, O Nanak, happens" (GG, 285). For the Sikhs, the Creation is His pleasure and play "When the showman beat His drum, the whole creation came out to witness the show; and when He puts aside his disguise, He rejoices in His original solitude" (GG, 174, 291, 655, 736).

The first sentence is a statement, not a quote.

 

[Ishna]

I have to chime in on this because I am not becoming confused... Harry Ji, you have 'Sikh' listed as your religion, however you say you don't believe in a conscious creator? This has me confused because, doesn't the very first part of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji - the Mool Mantra - describe a diety?? The very first words of "ONE GOD"???

Up until I read some responses from some people on this thread, I thought I had a fairly good grasp of the core beliefs of Sikhi but now not so sure. Some Sikhs believe in a conscious creator, and now I am seeing that some only believe in creation itself (big bang theory... science... but no conscious creator). Some Sikhs believe consciousness exists outside of the physical body, but now I see that some believe that the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is just a manual on how to live life while here and connect with nature as it were, but no belief in merging back with the creator. Some believe in ardas / prayer and rembrance of God/Creator/Waheguru, but there exist those like you Harry where you just claimed you do not pray to any deity... I can even go further as to say that some believe in reincarnation after death (with the ultimate goal being merging back with the creator and escaping the cycles of birth / death) but others I have read on other threads on here claim that Sikhs do not believe in reincarnation at all...

What then is the refrence to the cycle of 8.4 million births?? Why does it say that human life is 'rare' if we never experience birth as lower life forms? Why does it specify in the Mool Mantra that 'God' is without births and deaths? (why would it even mention that if there was only 'creation' and not a 'creator'??) Why does it not just say that we have this one life and that is it, then nothing at all??? Why does it make so many references to this reality being an illusion? If its an illusion then just what IS our reality?? Why so many references to merging with the 'creator'...or to the ONE if there is really not a creator?? Why does it make reference to the creator being the one who stages the play (this reality) and also plays the part of all the characters (meaning us) ( p 736 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) if there really is no conscious creator to 'create' the play to begin with?? How can an unconscious creation that 'just happened' also be all of the 'conscious' characters??? How can something as formless as consciousness be created from the very basic particles of matter? Knowing that EVERYTHING once broken down is basically quarks and electrons - every electron and every quark are the same as each other. If you don't believe consciousness (soul) exists apart from matter, then this creates a very difficult to fathom scientific quandry.

So.... what is the consensus? Does Sikhi believe in a 'Conscious Creator' of creation? (call it whatever you want... deity, God, Waheguru, universal consciousness) Do Sikhs believe in reincarnation or not??? If not, then why is it even mentioned??? And if no reincarnation, and no heaven / hell, then does Sikhi just believe in blackness and nothingness after death? And if THAT is true.... then why the goal of merging back 'CONSCIOUSLY' with the creator???

Personally, I have read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (english translation) and I DO believe in ONE universal CONSCIOUS creator God, who I refer to as Waheguru. There is way too much creative design seen down to the tiniest of matter to the largest of cosmic events to say everything 'just happened'. I have also had several spiritual experiences where I have actually felt that presence within me. I believe that our consciousness is a small part of the ONE consciousness but there really is only ONE - our separateness is an illusion, meaning we are still all really just ONE and don't realize it. (this is backed in Gurbani) and I believe that we experience many births and deaths... I do believe in reincarnation... because I believe that spiritual evolution is the reason we are here in theis 'illusion' - to learn... and I don't think that is possible with just one birth. However having said that, I also believe that time and space are also part of the illusion. The only real ultimate reality is the ONE universal consciousness and everything else is the dream of the creator (also in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji).

So please tell me that Sikhi is NOT 'just like Athiesm'!!! or my whole concept of reality just came tumbling down!!!

Akasha bhenji, I would like to see your post as a new thread, something like 'A Conscious God in Sikhism?'

I understand your confusion. Althought I haven't been blessed to read the entire Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji yet (I'm working on it), but I think there is a lot to be said about getting a bum steer from the English translations. We can't possibly get the subtelty of the Gurbani with a nice, concise English translation without a big glossary at the front re-defining English words like 'God' so they can better reflect the concepts that another language which had it's own purpose-built words for certain concepts outside the Western psyche (i.e. words like Onkar which I understand Guru Nanak coined himself to express an unfamiliar concept in India, where the concept of 'God' had been thoroughly explored inside and out already yet he couldn't find an existing word to explain his understanding!).

Please read this post by Randip who explains his understanding of Ik Onkar, as this is the first stumbling block to understanding for us goriaan.

It's true that lots of Sikhs you find here are in a minority. It can be very confusing.

 

[spnadmin]

very good suggestion, Ishna ji. I went back and re-read Randip Singh's comments. They are thought-provoking and provide a different but very reasonable slant.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Akasha bhenji, I would like to see your post as a new thread, something like 'A Conscious God in Sikhism?'

I can start it and I would like to explore that idea... because I just can't fathom (through science) how something as abstract as the 'personal experience' of consciousness could ever be created from a pile of electrons and quarks randomly stuck together through unconscious coincidence... it baffles even neuroscientists and they study the brain! And if our consciousness comes from somewhere outside of the physical universe we know, then I have to believe that the creator of everything is also conscious of the creation.

I'll start a new post..