Concept Of Evil Spirits In Sikhism

[muddymick]

Ambarsaria Ji,

nice one! thanks very much!:happysingh:


Sat Sri Akal.

 

[muddymick]

With respect I have read the Shabad to try and contextualise the quote kindly offered by Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji

None of the Mogals went blind, and no one performed any miracle. ||4||

however I still fail to understand how it indicates that phenomena beyond our ability to explain does not exist?
I don't think it does.

unless some one could explain this to me?

I am fully aware of the argument that nothing happens outside the natural laws.

However it is a slightly problematic argument when one considers that no one knows what those laws are, we have some ideas, however they are constantly changing and being refined!

So to make a judgement by that yard stick infers one understands the entirety of the laws governing creation.

I don't!

eacesign:

 

[Ambarsaria]

muddymick ji you make valid comments. I have some comments from my understanding of Sikh Guru ji's teachings and SGGS.

With respect I have read the Shabad to try and contextualise the quote kindly offered by Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji however I still fail to understand how it indicates that phenomena beyond our ability to explain does not exist?

Guru ji first and foremost are teachers in Sikhism. They had wisdom and insights that challenged observationally or simple truth oriented being denied by the religions and so led masses of the day. Their teaching style was example and common events or occurrences. They used this to debunk and also to free people so exploited or misled. So whereas the so called magic makers made all kind of statement Guru ji in this shabad discuss how it was all irrelevant. Was a common person so enabled to challenge the religious muftis/pundits, etc., of the day? The answer clearly would be no. As such people would simply tell the followers that they really did not follow directions or had other faults so the magic did not happen. It happens today in India as much as perhaps in other religious guidance.

Sikhism does not shy away from stating so and hence a thorn in the behind of Islam and Hinduism of the times and even perhaps to this day.

However it is a slightly problematic argument when one considers that no one knows what those laws are, we have some ideas, however they are constantly changing and being refined!

muddymick ji indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known. But with every passing moment one is encouraged to seek more and live so. Sikhism does not believe that anyone knows all or has monopoly over that. I am sure Guru ji were quite familiar with Buddhism and it would apply to Buddha as much as the prevalent religion regimes of the day. They were not trying to demean but simply stated what the insights they had.

So to make a judgement by that yard stick infers one understands the entirety of the laws governing creation.

Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all. Know ever more but not all. The more important part being to live with ever knowing more. It could mean corrections from day one to day one hundred but that is living as Sikh.

Hope it provides input for clarification or dialog.

Regards.

 

[muddymick]

Ambarsaria Ji,

Thanks for the reply.

So whereas the so called magic makers made all kind of statement Guru ji in this shabad discuss how it was all irrelevant. Was a common person so enabled to challenge the religious muftis/pundits, etc., of the day? The answer clearly would be no. As such people would simply tell the followers that they really did not follow directions or had other faults so the magic did not happen. It happens today in India as much as perhaps in other religious guidance.

Sikhism does not shy away from stating so and hence a thorn in the behind of Islam and Hinduism of the times and even perhaps to this day.

I think this is laudable!

muddymick ji indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known. But with every passing moment one is encouraged to seek more and live so.

I think we concur provisionally on this!

As my previous post indicated

it is a slightly problematic argument when one considers that no one knows what those laws are, we have some ideas, however they are constantly changing and being refined!

I only agree provisionally because I agree that that is usual, what I disagree with is that...

fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known.

I will explain below, I think the Guru ji's gave us guidance to achieve perfect knowledge, non-dual awareness through the Guru Grant Sahib Ji.

I am sure Guru ji were quite familiar with Buddhism and it would apply to Buddha

With respect I would rather avoid addressing either Lord Buddha or Buddhism in this particular arena ( I have not brought it up) as I would not want my comments to a) Derail the thread from Sikhi or b) be misconstrued. Thanks

They were not trying to demean but simply stated what the insights they had.

Don’t worry I perceived nothing demeaning in this!

Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all.

again I disagree"

The more important part being to live with ever knowing more. It could mean corrections from day one to day one hundred but that is living as Sikh.

I find no fault with this.

However Gurbani does suggest that a Gurmukh has perfect knowledge of the natural world!
How could one who is no longer estranged by duality not know that which he is?

Stanza 42
The gurmukh attains the pure naam
The gurmukh burns the ego with shabad
The gurmukh sings the praises of the Truth
Through the true naam the gurmukh is honored
Nanak says: The gurmukh is aware of the mysteries of the world

From what I have read (which is negligible) Gurmukh is usually a noun, signifying one who is Guru-facing or enlightened. But the word 'gurmukh' in these stanzas appears with a “sihari” which renders it a preposition.
a preposition is - a word that links or shows a relationship between a noun and pronoun to another word in the sentence. "Above", "by" and "through"are some examples.By this logic, Gurmukh becomes, “by facing the Guru,” or “by turning to the Guru.” Where 'Guru' is the noun and “by facing” or “by Turning” are the prepositions.The question then is: is 'gurmukh' a person or a process? I would presume a process. What process? Of shaking away the delusion of duality.

He possesses all qualities (SARGUN);
He transcends all qualities (NIRGUN);
He is the Formless Lord.
He Himself is in Primal Samaadhi.
Through His Creation, O Nanak, He meditates on Himself. ||1||
(SGGS 290)

With respect!

 

[muddymick]

Tejwant Singh ji,

I am sorry about addressing this so late in the proceedings. I have only just read through the thread in its entirety and I am a little unsure as to your meaning here

It can be a slippery slope for anyone without any gripping to hold on to.

Let me stop before I get into a trance.

Could you illuminate me?

Many thanks

eacesign:

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh ji,

I am sorry about addressing this so late in the proceedings. I have only just read through the thread in its entirety and I am a little unsure as to your meaning here

My Quote:
It can be a slippery slope for anyone without any gripping to hold on to.
Let me stop before I get into a trance.

Could you illuminate me?
Many thanks

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

The above segment belongs to the whole post in response to what you had written. It was regarding the self created "demons" of our minds.

The trance part was tongue in cheek related to that, a common thing in "demon based" cults like Voodoo, Macumba,Candomblé - the latter two are common in Brasil and are very similar to Voodoo and all these are African religious traditions.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[muddymick]

Tejwant Singh ji,

aaaah many thanks.

 

[Ambarsaria]

muddymick ji thanks for your reply and succinct style. I have some comments.

I will explain below, I think the Guru ji's gave us guidance to achieve perfect knowledge, non-dual awareness through the Guru Grant Sahib Ji.

Guru ji give us guidance that the most positive path to accumulating understanding that increases with every moment and living thereof is to recognize one creator (Gur) and one creation thereof. In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.

With respect I would rather avoid addressing either Lord Buddha or Buddhism in this particular arena ( I have not brought it up) as I would not want my comments to a) Derail the thread from Sikhi or b) be misconstrued. Thanks

muddymick ji I mentioned this simply to flag as you have shown your adherence as Buddhist. There have been some posts with Buddhist adherence where the concept of perfect knowledge gained and imparted by Buddha has been implied or postulated. Sikhism does not recognize this to be possible or to be privy to one.

However Gurbani does suggest that a Gurmukh has perfect knowledge of the natural world!

muddymick ji Gurbani recognizes a Gurmukh to be on the fundamental right path. Right path, the travel to destination, the time to travel final destination are as little known to a Gurmukh as anyone else. Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding. Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator.

How could one who is no longer estranged by duality not know that which he is?

Your reference to “sargun” (all qualities) and “nirgun” (no qualities) needs to be in context. The definition of all is not given as creation is beyond humans and their understanding too. Similarly no may be taken in human terms and the definition of nothingness eludes brightest of minds. Again nothingness for humans as part of creation may have totally different meaning for other parts of creator’s creation. So this duality is like “infinity” and “zero”.

The question then is: is 'gurmukh' a person or a process? I would presume a process. What process? Of shaking away the delusion of duality.

The process part is turning towards (one creator and one creation). Many derivations for one who has turned, language describing it (Gurmukhi), and so on.

I conclude by citing a pauri out of Japji Sahib that further elaborates context of Sargun and creator,

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=5&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&fb=0&k=1
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.

Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them. Endless are His Actions, endless are His Gifts.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ) ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਗਿਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ (ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ। (ਗਿਣੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ)। ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਤੇ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ।

ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਵੇਖਣਿ ਸੁਣਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਮੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na vekẖaṇ suṇaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na jāpai ki▫ā man manṯ.
Endless is His Vision, endless is His Hearing. His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind?
ਵੇਖਣ ਤੇ ਸੁਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਪਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕੀਦਾ। ਉਸ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਹੜੀ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਦਾ ਭੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ।

ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai kīṯā ākār. Anṯ na jāpai pārāvār.
The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਜਗਤ (ਜੋ ਦਿੱਸ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ) ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਉਰਲਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰਲਾ ਬੰਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ।

ਅੰਤ ਕਾਰਣਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਬਿਲਲਾਹਿ ॥ ਤਾ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਪਾਏ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
Anṯ kāraṇ keṯe billāhi. Ŧā ke anṯ na pā▫e jāhi.
Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found.
ਕਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਲੱਭਣ ਲਈ ਤਰਲੈ ਲੈ ਰਹੇ ਸਨ, ਪਰ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨੇ ਲੱਭੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ।

ਏਹੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਕਹੀਐ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Ėhu anṯ na jāṇai ko▫e. Bahuṯā kahī▫ai bahuṯā ho▫e.
No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਇਹ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ (ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਜੀਵ ਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ) ਕੋਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕਦਾ। ਜਿਉਂ ਜਿਉਂ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਆਖੀ ਜਾਵੀਏ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਤਿਉਂ ਤਿਉਂ ਉਹ ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ, ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ ਪਰਤੀਤ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਵਡਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਊਚਾ ਥਾਉ ॥ ਊਚੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਊਚਾ ਨਾਉ ॥
vadā sāhib ūcẖā thā▫o. Ūcẖe upar ūcẖā nā▫o.
Great is the Master, High is His Heavenly Home. Highest of the High, above all is His Name.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰੱਖ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਦਾ ਟਿਕਾਣਾ ਉੱਚਾ ਹੈ। ਉਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਮਣਾ ਭੀ ਉੱਚਾ ਹੈ।

ਏਵਡੁ ਊਚਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਤਿਸੁ ਊਚੇ ਕਉ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Ėvad ūcẖā hovai ko▫e. Ŧis ūcẖe ka▫o jāṇai so▫e.
Only one as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State.
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਉਸ ਜੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਹ ਹੀ ਉਸ ਉੱਚੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਕਿ ਉਹ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ)।

ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥੨੪॥
Jevad āp jāṇai āp āp. Nānak naḏrī karmī ḏāṯ. ||24||
Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself. O Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. ||24||
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ। ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਹਰੇਕ) ਦਾਤ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੨੪॥

I hope this leads to mutual understanding/dialog.

Regards.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have used the word duality in many of your posts.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate it in practical and pragmatic terms in the world we live in and deal with on daily basis.?

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[muddymick]

Ambarsaria ji.
Many thanks for the reply. I hope my ‘succinct style’ does not appear rude? That is not my intent!

Guru ji give us guidance that the most positive path to accumulating understanding that increases with every moment and living thereof is to recognize one creator (Gur) and one creation thereof. In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.

Are you suggesting that recognising the one creator as separate?

And thereby imparting separateness with creation?

If the path is perfect must it not lead to perfection?

Is complete perfect knowledge beyond knowing, because if it is you are suggesting a dichotomy between Waheguru and the created?

He possesses all qualities
He transcends all qualities
He is the Formless Lord.
He Himself is in Primal Samaadhi.
Through His Creation, O Nanak, He meditates on Himself. ||1||
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji 290)

muddymick ji I mentioned this simply to flag as you have shown your adherence as Buddhist. There have been some posts with Buddhist adherence where the concept of perfect knowledge gained and imparted by Buddha has been implied or postulated. Sikhism does not recognize this to be possible or to be privy to one.

I don’t recall posting anything regarding perfect knowledge imparted or gained by Lord Buddha. I also don’t recall implying such or postulating such? If you would be kind enough to show me you will have my sincere apologies.
I also have to add I think the knowledge of my use of Buddhism is a lens through which my words are often judged by others.
I often ride a bicycle to work, but sometimes I catch the bus and even more rarely I ride my motorcycle.
I am not only a cyclist! Or a passenger! Or a Biker!

Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator.

Are you suggesting that the destination of perfect path is not Gurmukh?

What is it then called in Gurbani?

Is the Shabad quoted incorrect, or more rightly is my understanding incorrect?

Can then one not possess all qualities, transcend all qualities, be the formless Lord in primal Samadhi?
If this dichotomy between creator and created is as your postulation insists then does not the very Mool Manter become nonsensical?

Your reference to “sargun” (all qualities) and “nirgun” (no qualities) needs to be in context. The definition of all is not given as creation is beyond humans and their understanding too. Similarly no may be taken in human terms and the definition ofnothingness eludes brightest of minds. Again nothingness for humans as part of creation may have totally different meaning for other parts of creator’s creation. So this duality is like “infinity” and “zero”.

I am sorry but can you put this another way as I am finding it difficult to grasp your meaning?

Do you not think that the pauri out of Japji Sahib has a very different context?
Especially considering it’s position in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji?

Thank You.

 

[Luckysingh]

Not wanting to go off-topic here, but I feel that Nirgun and Sargun BOTH make up the formless Nirankaar.
It seems a little incorrect to say that sargun is a physical manifestation or is a 'Form' whereas Nirgun is completely 'Formless'
I think they both represent the formless.
You could say that the effect of nirgun or some confined result of it is what makes sargun.
Another way of looking at it is the Antarjami or the inner knower and doer within us all.
This can be called the God or creator within us.
But since this formless Nirankaar is 'confined' within our own physical manifestation therefore it is a Sargun roop.


There has been some comments made about duality with regards to jinns and evil spirits...etc..
With reference to these or to simplify, I would also say that such things only exist whilst there is a duality.
In simple terms the duality exists because of the maya illusion and presentation of the physical world.
As long as this will remain, so will Ego and so will the belief of ghost and spirit existence.

We could say or another way of simplifying it for understanding is to think that- In the beginning or before any creation there was just God or the formless creator.
ie. No duality or 'Advait'
Once a creation or world was created, then the duality also came into existence.
This separateness of creation and us to the God creator is what creates the duality.

 

[Ambarsaria]

muddymick ji thanks for your post. Some comments follow.

Are you suggesting that recognizing the one creator as separate? And thereby imparting separateness with creation?

Wholeness of creation and creator could be taken as synonymous from my understanding. Any part of creation cannot be taken as representation of creator’s wholesome. So the separateness is man made and non-existent otherwise if you have right vision to see all as one then there is no separation between creator and creation.

If the path is perfect must it not lead to perfection?

One could be developing perfect understanding on a perfect path and there is no issue. However the perfect path does not imply acquisition of complete perfect knowledge as measured in terms of human life times and the vastness of creation.

Is complete perfect knowledge beyond knowing, because if it is you are suggesting a dichotomy between Waheguru and the created?

Yes complete knowledge is beyond knowing the pauri I quoted describes it with many metaphors and aspects.

I don’t recall posting anything regarding perfect knowledge imparted or gained by Lord Buddha. I also don’t recall implying such or postulating such? If you would be kind enough to show me you will have my sincere apologies.

muddymick ji I did not flag you as posting so but a person I respected did so a while ago. I believed he had quite a bit of purity in following Buddhism and I had respect for him.

Are you suggesting that the destination of perfect path is not Gurmukh?

Gurmukh is on the perfect path. The qualities shown by a Gurmukh are representative of the perfect path. Depending on the stage of understanding of such Gurmukh the level of understanding of Gurmukh will vary and not be complete.

What is it then called in Gurbani?

Sikhism does not have a separation for a Gurmukh to have an understanding and living without the understanding. True Gurmukh lives with the true understanding to the level acquired and to greater level of understanding over time. One creator, one creation and living in consonance with all, all the time.

Is the Shabad quoted incorrect, or more rightly is my understanding incorrect?

You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Can then one not possess all qualities, transcend all qualities, be the formless Lord in primal Samadhi?

This Samadhi business is mixing oil and water where a Sikh needs no Samadhi stuff. In living wide awake and aware is Sikh living, Sikhi path and way to continuously gain more understanding as one traverse per the Sikhi path guided in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

If this dichotomy between creator and created is as your postulation insists then does not the very Mool Manter become nonsensical?

You need to state specifics I do not respond to such language. Well I can but it is not very productive. Search for mool mantar review at spn and then provide how you have deduced what you have.

Do you not think that the pauri out of Japji Sahib has a very different context? Especially considering it’s position in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji?

I do not see differences in guidance be it at the beginning, middle or later parts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Such observations are simply divisive and not scholarly.

Regards.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

 

[muddymick]

Ambarsaria Ji, with respect..

I think I will have to approach this differently, As i detect some contradictions.


Lets deal with the most obvious first so we don’t get bogged down by too many avenues of attention.

If that’s o.k?.

I will mark each of your postulations with a number for ease of reference.
Then we can establish the statements congruence within Gurbani and within your
posts.

1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”

2)“Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all. Know ever more but not all”

3)“In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.”

4)“Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding. Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator”

So lets look at one…

1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”

This is very explicitly stating that there is a difference between the Knower and the Known.

You are stating here quite explicitly that knowledge of Waheguru and creation is limited for that creation; therefore there is a difference between God and creation!

If Waheguru is no different from his creation (unity, single, one) and his creation is limited then by definition Waheguru is subject to the same imitations!

You are rejecting the unity of God here!

You are saying certain aspects are limited, whereas other aspects are not.

You are saying something is the same but different……how?

This therefore implies that God has different qualities to his creation!

If they have different qualities are they not separate?

Lets see if that statement is congruent with your others here;

Statement 2) is in agreement as it clearly says there is a difference between the knower and the known.

Statement 3) is also congruent as it clearly implies that infinity and perfect knowing are not qualities that certain parts of creation can have!

4) This is also congruent with the former statement although I do not want to do you a disservice here and make a false assumption. A Sikh who follows the Guru’s by destroying the ego and the five poisons and becoming one with Waheguru is called what in Gurbani?

So I think we can clearly see that the above statements from one to four are in agreement (although I will concede statement four is far from clear)

They all reject the unity of God!

So if we move to the puari from Japji next, lets see if that is congruent with 1 to 4?
I will mark the puari lines from 1a to 7a.

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gur...1&p=1&fb=0&k=1
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.

Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them. Endless are His Actions, endless are His Gifts.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ) ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਗਿਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ (ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ। (ਗਿਣੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ)। ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਤੇ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ।

ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਵੇਖਣਿ ਸੁਣਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਮੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na vekẖaṇ suṇaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na jāpai ki▫ā man manṯ.
Endless is His Vision, endless is His Hearing. His limits cannot be perceived. What is the Mystery of His Mind?
ਵੇਖਣ ਤੇ ਸੁਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਪਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕੀਦਾ। ਉਸ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਹੜੀ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ, ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਦਾ ਭੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ।

ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai kīṯā ākār. Anṯ na jāpai pārāvār.
The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਜਗਤ (ਜੋ ਦਿੱਸ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ) ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਉਰਲਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰਲਾ ਬੰਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ।

ਅੰਤ ਕਾਰਣਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਬਿਲਲਾਹਿ ॥ ਤਾ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਪਾਏ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
Anṯ kāraṇ keṯe billāhi. Ŧā ke anṯ na pā▫e jāhi.
Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found.
ਕਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਲੱਭਣ ਲਈ ਤਰਲੈ ਲੈ ਰਹੇ ਸਨ, ਪਰ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨੇ ਲੱਭੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ।

ਏਹੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਕਹੀਐ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Ėhu anṯ na jāṇai ko▫e. Bahuṯā kahī▫ai bahuṯā ho▫e.
No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਇਹ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ (ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਜੀਵ ਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ) ਕੋਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕਦਾ। ਜਿਉਂ ਜਿਉਂ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਆਖੀ ਜਾਵੀਏ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਤਿਉਂ ਤਿਉਂ ਉਹ ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ, ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ ਪਰਤੀਤ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਵਡਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਊਚਾ ਥਾਉ ॥ ਊਚੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਊਚਾ ਨਾਉ ॥
vadā sāhib ūcẖā thā▫o. Ūcẖe upar ūcẖā nā▫o.
Great is the Master, High is His Heavenly Home. Highest of the High, above all is His Name.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰੱਖ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਦਾ ਟਿਕਾਣਾ ਉੱਚਾ ਹੈ। ਉਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਮਣਾ ਭੀ ਉੱਚਾ ਹੈ।

ਏਵਡੁ ਊਚਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਤਿਸੁ ਊਚੇ ਕਉ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Ėvad ūcẖā hovai ko▫e. Ŧis ūcẖe ka▫o jāṇai so▫e.
Only one as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State.
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਉਸ ਜੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਹ ਹੀ ਉਸ ਉੱਚੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਕਿ ਉਹ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ)।

ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥੨੪॥
Jevad āp jāṇai āp āp. Nānak naḏrī karmī ḏāṯ. ||24||
Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself. O Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. ||24||
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ। ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਹਰੇਕ) ਦਾਤ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੨੪॥

I think it may be best to deal with this line by line in relation to your four initial postulations regarding the separate nature of the creator and his creation.

Line 1a) It Regards the attributes of God, as it does not relate to unity, there is no incongruence with your statements nor with mine.

2a) Now here is the rub “His limits cannot be perceived” and I am presuming this is the crux of you argument.
However it is on rather shaky ground, does this statement mean God has no limits?
As how could you perceive that which does no exist?
Or does it mean man cannot see/ understand/know his limits?
Personally I agree with the rest of Gurbani and read it as the former that god has no limits!
I think maybe we need to contextualise this both linguistically and philosophically (I will revisit this)

3a) Here we have a repeat in theme The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived.
Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
One has to ask the obvious question again, does it mean man is separate (has different qualities) from his creator thereby negating both the mul mantar and the vast majority of Shabads relating to God’s unity or would a more consistent and logical deduction be that these limits cannot be perceived because they do not exist?
One has to look at the Guru Granth Sahib ji as a whole for this answer and one would (with all faith in Gurbani’s infallibility) conclude it would not contradict itself as you suggest!

4a)Again in this line are you suggesting that the reason people struggle is because they have separate qualities from god and creation or because the limits do not exist?
I would conclude that the limits do not exist and refer you to the observations above vis-à-vis consistency, logic and infallibility of Gurbani!

5a)How can one know a limit that does not exist? How can language a finite structure explain the infinite?
Again considering Gods infinite nature how could a limit be known? That would be illogical, inconsistent and contradictory. As would suggesting a difference between the creator and the created!

6a)I think this line like the first is neither contentious nor directly relevant to this particular debate.

7a)I don’t see how this line could imply difference in qualities between creator and created in light of the previous contextualisation however if you have any thoughts I am most happy to address them.

8a)I think this line can hold no water for you when considered again in context rather than implying a separation, a difference in quality it affirms his unity!

We then move on to another section of similar postulations. I will again for ease of reference mark them with numbers from 5 to 12.

5)“Wholeness of creation and creator could be taken as synonymous from my understanding”.

In statement 1) you very clearly say that not all knowledge or truth can be known and we have dealt with the implications of that statement above. Yet here you say that creator and creation are the same, have the same qualities.
This is a direct and blatant contradiction.
They have the same qualities, they are one. Yet they have different qualities, one is infinite and the other limited.
Do you not see the problems here?

In statement 2) pretty much the same contradiction occurs again making a clear division between knower and known.

In statement 3) Again contradictory, you say perfect knowledge is infinite so it can not be known! Clearly saying man has an inability to deal with the infinite. Man has different qualities to God. If man is different how is he synonymous with God?

In statement 4) I think you really need to either accept the description of Gurmukh in Gurbani or offer an alternative interpretation that is consistent and logical. If we take your interpretation, you again proscribe different qualities to creator and created. You insist on the duality of God.

6)“Any part of creation cannot be taken as representation of creator’s wholesome”

Is this statement consistent with your other statements? Yes apart from god being synonymous with creation.
Is it contradictory to your other statements? No apart from from god being synonymous with creation.

You are placing a reference on creation that I am not!
It is you suggesting that a different bit of creation has a different quality from the rest!
The whole point is that one does not take parts of creation; creation is one as is its creator.
It is you creating the false division!
As creation in reality does not have parts, it is!
The creator and all creation are one!
How would you suggest one separates God from his creation?
If you accept the unity of God how do you then suggest one creates disunity to look at whether all the component parts are of the same quality.
That is ridiculous.
How would you take any part of creation?
When it does not have a part but a whole!
However this statement is absolutely consistent with all other statements except 6!

7)“So the separateness is man made and non-existent otherwise if you have right vision to see all as one then there is no separation between creator and creation”

So the difference in qualities and abilities etc that you insist on in statement 1 to 7 (except 6) are all irrelevant now? Because of one contradictory statement separateness is non-existent?

So now you agree with me creator and creation have no fundamental difference they are one?

So I refer you to all my previous refutations regarding your insistence on qualitative difference, duality and disunity of God and creation?

8)“complete knowledge is beyond knowing the pauri I quoted describes it with many metaphors and aspects”

I dealt with that above, however in relation to your other posts it contradicts non apart from 5 and 7 when considered within your dualistic perspective.

9)“Gurmukh is on the perfect path. The qualities shown by a Gurmukh are representative of the perfect path”

You really need to either accept what Gurbani says about Gurmukhs non differential with all creation or offer another direct quote that explicitly says different.
If that is the case that Gurbani contradicts itself then we need to decide what is the name we give to a human who has achieved union with God?

10)“Depending on the stage of understanding of such Gurmukh the level of understanding of Gurmukh will vary and not be complete”

See my answer to 7) above. If it is a general term for one on the path please give me reference from Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

11)“Sikhism does not have a separation for a Gurmukh to have an understanding and living without the understanding. True Gurmukh lives with the true understanding to the level acquired and to greater level of understanding over time. One creator, one creation and living in consonance with all, all the time”

In the first line I have no idea what you mean? How does one have an understanding and live without it?
You imply that Gurmukh is a process that never reaches non dual experience?
If that is the case what is one called who does? Can I have a reference from Gurbani?


12)“You may have missed out the aspect in the pauri regarding the beyond approach aspects of complete description, understanding of creator as defined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”

Reference please?

13)“This Samadhi business is mixing oil and water where a Sikh needs no Samadhi stuff. In living wide awake and aware is Sikh living, Sikhi path and way to continuously gain more understanding as one traverse per the Sikhi path guided in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”

If it is mixing oil and water please blame the Guru responsible for writing it!
If a Sikh does not need Samadhi why is it in the Guru Granth Sahib ji are you suggesting it is a mistake or irrelevant?
If parts of the Guru granth Sahib ji are mixing oil and water or irrelevant why are you suggesting being guided by it?

Many Thanks

:interestedmunda:

 

[spnadmin]

apnadmin ji,

Thank you however he was not alone in his sardonic implications.:yellingmunda:
Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

I have in no way mislead anyone I am aware of?
I take dishonesty very seriously.

My advice would be to put this behind us and pick up where you left off with Ambarsaria ji.

I will delete everything in between as off topic and distracting.

 

[muddymick]

Harry ji or Tejwant ji,

I have now looked at these posts from archivedmember10 (not a lot to look at really) unless there are some I have missed.
Apart from the inclusion of an admittance to being Buddhist (although I suspect with good evidence from entirely different traditions and lineages) there the likeness ends.

As I have stated earlier I sometimes travel to work by bicycle, sometimes by bus and train, sometimes by motorcycle and sometimes I walk. It is not fair to define me exclusively by those actions. I am not exclusively a cyclist nor a passenger nor a biker nor a walker.

I am not sure what the issue is here?

There seems to be an issue with my Buddhism?

If there are assumptions about it, worries about, dislike of it, or just distrust then ask me to clarify or discuss, unless I am informed what can I do about it?

People on here seem to give it much more consideration in these discussions than I do!
I am not sure why?

I think it may be useful to ask yourselves honestly that if I had come on here without professing my religious affiliations using a smattering of Panjabi with a name Like Manjit Singh would your pre-judgements and judgements have been different?

I was hoping that with your history and scripture you would be open to honest,robust discussion and debate regardless of my religious, racial or goodness knows what incidentals.

If I am wrong, it is with a touch of regret.

However I would prefer honesty, I will still contribute (I am to old to take my bat home) but at least I will be aware.

Thank you

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Harry ji or Tejwant ji,

I have now looked at these posts from archivedmember10 (not a lot to look at really) unless there are some I have missed.
Apart from the inclusion of an admittance to being Buddhist (although I suspect with good evidence from entirely different traditions and lineages) there the likeness ends.

As I have stated earlier I sometimes travel to work by bicycle, sometimes by bus and train, sometimes by motorcycle and sometimes I walk. It is not fair to me define exclusively by those actions. I am not exclusively a cyclist nor a passenger nor a biker nor a walker.

I am not sure what the issue is here?

There seems to be an issue with my Buddhism?

If there are assumptions about it, worries about, dislike of it, or just distrust then ask me to clarify or discuss, unless I am informed what can I do about it?

People on here seem to give it much more consideration in these discussions than I do!
I am not sure why?

I think it may be useful to ask yourselves honestly that if I had come on here without professing my religious affiliations using a smattering of Panjabi with a name Like Manjit Singh would your pre-judgements and judgements have been different?

I was hoping that with your history and scripture you would be open to honest,robust discussion and debate regardless of my religious, racial or goodness knows what incidentals.

If I am wrong, it is with a touch of regret.

However I would prefer honesty, I will still contribute (I am to old to take my bat home) but at least I will be aware.

Thank you

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let me say something as a starter, Sikhi is based on revelation through investigation. Hence questioning anything is must as you may have noticed the same in your own posts. No body accused you of anything. I just asked you a simple YES and NO question.

I would like you to relax, agree, disagree, explain the latter and move on. This is the only learning process a Sikh, a learner a seeker knows.

Spnadmin ji did the right thing as an administrator to delete the unneeded posts.

Enjoy your interaction with Ambarsaria ji who is a very keen and open-minded Sikh and we have all learnt from him.

Lastly, I would add that a Sikh would not be a Sikh if he/she were not honest.

Relish your journey and I apologise for any misunderstandings.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Harry Haller]

Harry ji or Tejwant ji,

I have now looked at these posts from archivedmember10 (not a lot to look at really) unless there are some I have missed.
Apart from the inclusion of an admittance to being Buddhist (although I suspect with good evidence from entirely different traditions and lineages) there the likeness ends.

As I have stated earlier I sometimes travel to work by bicycle, sometimes by bus and train, sometimes by motorcycle and sometimes I walk. It is not fair to define me exclusively by those actions. I am not exclusively a cyclist nor a passenger nor a biker nor a walker.

I am not sure what the issue is here?

There seems to be an issue with my Buddhism?

If there are assumptions about it, worries about, dislike of it, or just distrust then ask me to clarify or discuss, unless I am informed what can I do about it?

People on here seem to give it much more consideration in these discussions than I do!
I am not sure why?

I think it may be useful to ask yourselves honestly that if I had come on here without professing my religious affiliations using a smattering of Panjabi with a name Like Manjit Singh would your pre-judgements and judgements have been different?

I was hoping that with your history and scripture you would be open to honest,robust discussion and debate regardless of my religious, racial or goodness knows what incidentals.

If I am wrong, it is with a touch of regret.

However I would prefer honesty, I will still contribute (I am to old to take my bat home) but at least I will be aware.

Thank you

Mickji

Apologies, it just tickled me that your writings were so similar to Confusedji, I had a few debates with him in the past and I found them both enjoyable but also very deep, perhaps too deep for me.

Your Buddhism is hugely relevant, it defines who you are, everything you see is through Buddhist tinted lenses, just as everything I see is through Sikh tinted ones, so our backgrounds act as a foundation for every challenge we come across in life, it is the first reference point that guides us.

How can you not say that is relevant

 

[muddymick]

Harry ji,
I am probably a little to straight forward at times. I thought my honesty and motivation was in question. If it was not then apologies are not needed. I have in a few posts been unfairly accused of placing a Buddhist slant on the thread or referring to Buddhism. When in fact I was trying to avoid just that without being rude when others had brought it up.

My Buddhism is partially relevant (but again being mindful that I do not de-rail the thread or be perceived as proselytising) I will contextualise this briefly. I have practiced many forms of discipline both secular and religious. I know that I could experience the ineffable utilising many of them (I have to greater and lesser extents, mostly lesser truth be told) I have studied and practised Advaita Vedanta, Christian contemplation, Sufi discipline, more esoteric forms of both western and eastern mysticism and some disparate forms of Buddhism (in this country and abroad). They are all relevant to me! They all define me in varying degrees. But just like I studied Karate first, then Jeet Kune Do, then Kick boxing, then Lee family poison hands kung fu before settling with Ip chung Wing Chun Kung Fu. They inform me! They are vehicles to take me to an objective. Is my journey or my destination that of a Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Sikh? In a fight will I be wing chun or karate or both or neither. If I win or lose what has lost me or the style?
Travelling on a motorcycle to Blackpool, is my journey only characterised by my motorcycle or if I travel by Robin Reliant (goodness forbid) is it characterised by that?
My Buddhist practice is just that a vehicle to reach a destination. Does it preclude other vehicles? No.
I am not partisan about it, I have no interest in gaining converts or even proving it’s worth to others. I am secure enough to know that at this time and at this place it is a useful vehicle for me.
Do I still admire other vehicles, do I still share journeys, will I eventually share the same destination…yes.
To say I am a Buddhist is an arbitrary label it doesn't define me or my journey it just tells you my preferred mode of transport.
One that in the final destination I will leave behind like some old useless socks!

 

[Ambarsaria]

Muddymick ji some clarifications. I will not try to extend the length of your reply as it is not very tenable in the forum style format. Instead I have taken the four numbered items and tried to flag what stares us within the quoted Gurbani.

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gur...1&p=1&fb=0&k=1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3)“In my understanding, a perfect path - yes, perfect knowledge -no. As complete or perfect knowledge is infinite and beyond any knowing.”
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਕਰਣੈ ਦੇਣਿ ਨ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Anṯ na sifṯī kahaṇ na anṯ. Anṯ na karṇai ḏeṇ na anṯ.

Endless are His Praises, endless are those who speak them. Endless are His Actions, endless are His Gifts.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ) ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਗਿਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਭੀ (ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ। (ਗਿਣੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ)। ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਤੇ ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈ ਸਕਦਾ।
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
………………………..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2)“Sikhism rejects that you will know all or even should expect to or seek to know all. Know ever more but not all”
ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਕੀਤਾ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਪੈ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰੁ ॥
Anṯ na jāpai kīṯā ākār. Anṯ na jāpai pārāvār.
The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived.
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਜਗਤ (ਜੋ ਦਿੱਸ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ) ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਉਰਲਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰਲਾ ਬੰਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ।
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

…………………………
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1)“Indeed the fundamental tenet in Sikhism is that such knowledge or truths cannot be all known”
ਏਹੁ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਕਹੀਐ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Ėhu anṯ na jāṇai ko▫e. Bahuṯā kahī▫ai bahuṯā ho▫e.
No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said.
(ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਦਾ) ਇਹ ਹੱਦ-ਬੰਨਾ (ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਜੀਵ ਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ) ਕੋਈ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕਦਾ। ਜਿਉਂ ਜਿਉਂ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਆਖੀ ਜਾਵੀਏ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ, ਤਿਉਂ ਤਿਉਂ ਉਹ ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ, ਹੋਰ ਵੱਡਾ ਪਰਤੀਤ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…………………
4)“Gurmukh simply is on a path which is positively accumulative in understanding. Being a Gurmukh you do not take all attributes of the creator or understand all there is to know about the creator”
ਏਵਡੁ ਊਚਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਤਿਸੁ ਊਚੇ ਕਉ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
Ėvad ūcẖā hovai ko▫e. Ŧis ūcẖe ka▫o jāṇai so▫e.
Only one as Great and as High as God can know His Lofty and Exalted State.
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਉਸ ਜੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਹ ਹੀ ਉਸ ਉੱਚੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਕਿ ਉਹ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ)।

ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਦਾਤਿ ॥੨੪॥
Jevad āp jāṇai āp āp. Nānak naḏrī karmī ḏāṯ. ||24||
Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself. O Nanak, by His Glance of Grace, He bestows His Blessings. ||24||
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਕੇਡਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਹੈ। ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਹਰੇਕ) ਦਾਤ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੨੪॥
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Muddymick ji I don’t know if you understand or know Punjabi and can read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for yourself. If you do then this is one of the simplest shabads for translation and understanding. It does address the four items for me that you marked.

There is not much more I can add.

Sat Sri Akal.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

 

[muddymick]

Ambarsaria ji,

I don't want to repeat my refutations of your methodology or of the conclusions you have come to regarding this Shabad. I think I was fairly explicit in my last post.

I fail to see how reposting the original arguments that were logically refuted whether in tandem with the Shabad or not constitutes either an argument, refutation or fresh postulation.

Unless I am missing something repeating does not constitute analysis or argument.

I am at tad of a loss here.

Why haven'y you addressed the points in my refutation?

:11:

Is there some confusion with my refutation?
I will be happy to explain the methodology and logic again if you so wish?
Please if there are points that you do not understand or could do with re-phrasing let me know?