• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

One Infinite Creator In Sikhism, What Does It Mean?

Your link to one infinite Creator, what is the search directed at?

  • I am looking for and believe in one infinite Creator as being some specific form.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I am trying and want to get in touch with one infinite Creator.

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • I want to fully understand all about one infinite Creator.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • I live with the ever increasing understanding of one infinite Creator.

    Votes: 10 45.5%
  • Not Sure...

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Total voters
    22
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Randip Singh ji and Vouthon ji I appreciate your posts. I have learnt some more.

Great interactions.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: Vouthon ji I relate to your citations and these are very wonderful indeed. I wholeheartedly can relate to Saint Catherine of Genoa and Meister Eckhart. I have slight questioning of Cardinal Nicolas Musa' s statement but I defer it to the other two being more of the essence.

My personal favorite past time from middle school onwards was to read "Books of Phrases and Proverbs". Great candy for the mind. I much like your posts where you bring out some exceptionally well written passages of conciseness and beautiful minds so creating these.

Thank you again.


My dear brother Ambarsaria ji peacesignkaur

Thank you very much for your reply!


I am overjoyed that you like my citations and can relate to them!


Anything by Father Eckhart or Saint Catherine touches me at a deep level.


Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa was a very deep person. He spoke about the possibility of alien life 600 years ago, proposed a heliocentric universe 200 years before Galileo and nearly became Pope (missed out by two votes I think!).

As a result, he is often very cryptic and paradoxical. He's not the easiest thinker to get to grips with (I struggle a lot - and I'm familiar with his writings!). Hopefully I can help you, if not please do explain to me what qualms you have with him.

His whole idea is basically this: God is unknowable and incomprehensible in Essence. We cannot approach God through concepts, and we cannot expect to find the "Face" of God because God is utterly without Form. God can, however, be "seen" in every face - in every person. To see another human being, and to see yourself, is in Cusa's understanding to see God because man is made in His Image. Therefore, Cusa suggests that we must look within ourselves and in "mystic silence" go into a state of "darkness", where we realize that we can never fully "comprehend" God. We approach what Cusas called a state of "Learned Ignorance" (yes - he's utterly PARADOXICAL!).

We arrive at the knowledge of the reality (God), and hence of unity and the infinite, only by means of a third activity of the spirit, the faculty of intellect, which is supra-rational understanding, mystical intuition. This faculty, overcoming all differences and multiplicity, presents the reality (God) as perfect unity, in which all differences are reconciled in the infinite life, the "coincidence of opposites." The principle of coincidence is for Nicholas of Cusa a new one on which logic must be based in order to arrive at the knowledge of reality.

Hence the title of Nicholas' work De Docta ignorantia, which indicates the limitation of human understanding (reason) as opposed to the knowledge of God that is free of all such limitation (supra-rational).

It was Cusa who actually came up with the idea of God as being, the "Absolute". The word "absolute" derives from the Latin absolutum and it first occurs as a noun in the writings of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who, in his De docta ignorantia ( On Learned Ignorance, 1440), used absolutum to refer to God, as the being which is not conditioned by, limited by or comparable to anything else. It was Nicholas of Cusa (often called Cusanus) who actually coined the word "Absolute" and used it in referece to the Divine. It has since become one of the most common ways to refer to God in his incomprehensibility.

Read this extract:


Quote:
His central issue, as discussed in his main work, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance), was the problem of the knowledge of God or of the Absolute Infinite. Nicholas held that the Absolute Infinite cannot be conceived by finite thought. Hence, in theology, only negations can be assumed as true. Although positive theological statements are inevitable in order to think about God, they are inadequate. Paradoxically, one can reach the incomprehensible God only by knowing his incomprehensibility. This is the meaning of the term “learned ignorance.” In the end, both negative and positive theology must be dissolved into inexpressibility; God is ineffable beyond all affirmations and negations. More exactly, human beings cannot touch God through knowledge at all, but at the very most only by our yearning for Him.

Nicholas of Cusa calls infinity “absolute,” as it must be understood in a full and unrestrained sense. Hence, the sphere of an independent and self-sufficient finite cannot exist beside it, otherwise infinity itself would actually be finite and restricted. “There cannot be an opposite to the ineffable Infinite,” says Nicholas. “It is also not the whole, to whom a part could be opposed, nor can it be a part… The Infinite is above all that.” (De Visione Dei, VIII[1]) Above all opposites, the Infinite—God—is beyond all multitude as well. Thus, Nicholas calls Him the “Absolute Unity and Oneness,” which is prior to all and includes all. In this sense, he speaks of God as the “coincidence of opposites.” Everything is enveloped in God and developed in the universe. “You, O God, are the antithesis of opposites, because you are infinite; and because you are infinite, you are infinity. In infinity, the antithesis of opposites is without antithesis… Infinity does not tolerate any otherness beside itself; for, as it is infinity, nothing is external to it. The Absolute Infinite includes all and encompasses all.” (De Visione Dei, VIII)

I hope that helps! peacesignkaur
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Here's another passage from his writings:


"...The absolute, Divine Mind, is all that is in everything that is... Divinity is the enfolding and unfolding of everything that is. Divintiy is in all things in such a way that all things are in divinity... There is only one mirror without flaw: the Divine, in whom what is revealed is received as it is. For this mirror is not essentially different from any existing thing. Rather in every existing thing it is that which is: it is the universal form of being...The human mind is the all of its dreams... Mind itself supposing itself to encompass, survey and comprehend all things thus concludes that it is in everything and everything is in it... whatever is found in creatures is found in the Divine...We are, as it were, a human deity. Humans are also the universe, but not absolutely since we are human. Humanity is therefore a microcosm, or in truth, a human universe. Thus humanity itself encloses both God and the universe in its human power... Humanity will find that it is not a diversity of creeds, but the very same creed which is everwhere proposed... There cannot but be one wisdom....”

- Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, (1401 – 1464) Catholic mystic
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
Brother Vouthon some thoughts on my reading of Cardinal Cusa's writing. I mean no dis-respect or any mal-intent just trying to learn with questions and discourse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...In all faces, the Face of faces is veiled as a riddle. Howbeit unveiled it is not seen, until, above all faces, a man enter into a

certain secret and mystic silence,

How could secret and mystic silence be identifiable in the first place as referenced and secondly stated or expressed!

where there is no knowing or concept of a face.

You cannot enter complete darkness or enter complete brightness. Those are death and life for me without any ifs or butts about these. If you enter you cannot leave or if you are outside you cannot enter.

This mist, cloud, darkness or ignorance, into which he that seeketh thy Face entereth, when he goeth beyond all knowledge and concept, is the state below which Thy Face cannot be found, except veiled;

Here the respectful cardinal found a way to come out of the hollow and write about it. He is trying to describe which he could not possibly if he experienced.

but that very darkness revealeth Thy Face to be there beyond all veils.

Very darkness to me seems just dusk or twilight described and as infinitely away from the end as when so from the beginning.

Hence I observe how needful it is for me to enter into the darknesss and to admit the coincidence of opposites, beyond all grasp of reason, and there to seek the Truth, where Impossibility meeteth us..."

Again in all humbleness the Cardinal is just trying to illustrate twilight and dusk and extrapolating to darkness and what it beholds!

- Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, (1401 – 1464) Catholic mystic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Regards.

PS: Somehow this reminded me of these songs,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmT8AeU2xKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8Pa9x9fZBtY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hOMd7CSt0KU
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Brother Vouthon some thoughts on my reading of Cardinal Cusa's writing. I mean no dis-respect or any mal-intent just trying to learn with questions and discourse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My dear brother Ambarsaria peacesignkaur

None taken at all! Its better to discuss than to take at face value - as always I invite your thoughts, critiques, questionings and ideas enthusiastically - since it helps broaden my own understanding.

"...In all faces, the Face of faces is veiled as a riddle. Howbeit unveiled it is not seen, until, above all faces, a man enter into a

certain secret and mystic silence,

How could secret and mystic silence be identifiable in the first place as referenced and secondly stated or expressed!

Great point! First a better translation:


Even unveiled your face is not seen,
until we enter into a certain secret and
mystic silence where there is no knowledge
or concept of face.

- Nicholas of Cusa -


Read this commentary brother and give me your thoughts:


"...Nicholas's secret and mystic silence sounds more exotic, more unattainable than it is. He is simply saying that until we leave behind any notion that we can know and understand God, we will not understand or accept the informed ignorance that lies at the heart of faith.
Such faith will elude us until we enter into and embrace that silence where we can summon up the courage and humility to say; "I don't know because I can't know."
In that same silence we will no longer seek to see what cannot be seen. We will leave behind our temptation to settle for a divine face fashioned to our specifications and enter into a space where the very concept of face is not known.
Nicholas is not putting God beyond our reach. He is in fact closing a distance cluttered with false Gods, clearing our way into that prayerful silence where we need not speak when we have nothing to say, where we wait in silence to be spoken to. He is leading us into that prayerful silence where we need not put on our best face..."

where there is no knowing or concept of a face.

You cannot enter complete darkness or enter complete brightness. Those are death and life for me without any ifs or butts about these. If you enter you cannot leave or if you are outside you cannot enter.

Once more I direct you to the commentary on this:

"...

Our search for God is not some kind of spiritual game of hide-and-seek.
God does not veil his face to hide from us to play with our deepest desires, to make us look ridiculous - the butt of some humiliating divine sense of humor that leads us to think that he will be visible just beyond the next turn of an unending maze.
"Sorry. You must have blinked. Better luck next time!"
We have not been tricked into playing peek-a-boo with God because God, in fact, does not veil his face at all.
What seems to us to be a veil covering his face is not a veil, but our own humanity. With limited eyes we cannot see what is without limits. With words that are our creation we cannot describe what is uncreated. With only the light of the world at our disposal we cannot pierce what is for our humanity an impenetrable darkness.
But our blindness is sight. Because of it we cannot mistake God for images of our own creation, cannot forget that it is faith alone that allows us to live beyond the veil.
Let me embrace the darkness of night,
all that I cannot see,
all for which I have no words.
Let me treasure you beyond everything
that I know and see,
and find my rest in letting go of my desire
and my need to know. -adapted from Raw Faith: Nurturing the Believer in All of Us by John Kirvan, p 158-9 ..."

This mist, cloud, darkness or ignorance, into which he that seeketh thy Face entereth, when he goeth beyond all knowledge and concept, is the state below which Thy Face cannot be found, except veiled;

Here the respectful cardinal found a way to come out of the hollow and write about it. He is trying to describe which he could not possibly if he experienced.

Nicholas obviously made the greatest discovery of all ,,, that to see the divine countenance is to see OneSelf and to recognize the ultimate truth. Ponder this whenever a new face arises in Awareness.
wpsf-img.php
The commentary icecreamkaur (lol - i know AGAIN):



Here is the mystery and the irony: The face that cannot be seen is visible wherever we look.
In all faces is seen the Face of the unseen. In all voices is heard the Voice of the voiceless.
But it takes faith to penetrate the veil of our own blindness to glimpse the features of God in the face of our neighbor and to hear her voice whenever and wherever the voiceless struggle exists.
We see the unseeable God when we see each other. We hear the silence of God when we hear each other. But we miss the face of God when we look without seeing, and we miss her voice when we listen without hearing.
"When did I see you hungry and did not feed you?"
"When did I see you naked and did not clothe you?"
"When did I see you homeless and did not shelter you?"
"Look again. It is my face in the faces you see."
I pray that you silence my soul until I can hear
the voices that I was deaf to this day.
When did you call out to me?
When did I see you?
Here in the dark of the night let me see the faces I passed by.
Let me see in them
your face.
Let me hear in their voices

your voice.
-adapted from Raw Faith: Nurturing the Believer in All of Us by John Kirvan, p 164-5


but that very darkness revealeth Thy Face to be there beyond all veils.

Very darkness to me seems just dusk or twilight described and as infinitely away from the end as when so from the beginning.

Hence I observe how needful it is for me to enter into the darknesss and to admit the coincidence of opposites, beyond all grasp of reason, and there to seek the Truth, where Impossibility meeteth us..."

Again in all humbleness the Cardinal is just trying to illustrate twilight and dusk and extrapolating to darkness and what it beholds!

- Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, (1401 – 1464) Catholic mystic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards.

PS: Somehow this reminded me of this song,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXfVjBTwSI


Hope that helps! And great songs btw - never heard them before!
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
This will probably confuse and complicate the issue more lolBut here goes:


"...You who are all in all...O Depth of riches, how incomprehensible you are! So long as I conceive a creator creating, I am still on this side of the wall. And so long as I imagine a creatable creator, I have not yet entered, but I am at the wall. But when I see you as absolute infinity to whom is suited neither the name of creating creator nor that of creatable creator, then I begin to behold you in an unveiled way. For you are not anything that can be named or conceived but are absolutely and infinitely superexalted above all such things. You are not, therefore, creator, but infinitely more than creator, although with you nothing is made or can be made. To you be the praise and the glory through all eternity...Accordingly, when I am lifted up to the highest, I see you as infinity. For this reason you cannot be approached, comprehended, named, multiplied, or seen. Whoever, therefore, approaches you must ascend above every end, every limit, and every finite thing...My God you are absolute infinity itself, which I perceive to be the infinite end, but I am unable to grasp how an end without an end is an end. You, O God, are your own end, since you are whatever you have; if you have an end, you are an end. You are, therefore, an infinite end, because you are your own end, for your end is your essence….When, therefore, I assert the existence of the infinite, I admit that darkness is light, ignorance knowledge, and the impossible necessary..."

- Nicholas of Cusa
 
Oct 29, 2010
167
175
81
prakash.s.bagga Ji,

"So for a Gursikh NAAM is everything."
If that is the case please explain following in Granth Sahib.
ਗੁਰ http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.dictionary?Param=ਗੁਰਬਿਨੁ [/FONT]ਕਿਨੈ [/FONT] [/FONT]ਪਾਇਓ [/FONT]ਕੇਤੀ [/FONT]ਕਹੈ [/FONT]ਕਹਾਏ [/FONT][/FONT] P420
Without the Guru, no one has obtained Him, although many may claim to have done so


The question here is NAAM but it seems more is necessary.
Guru here does not seem to indicate God so it must be a teacher.
Him must mean the Lord God.
It would seem to me that NAAM is a vehicle but the guidance is still required from ‘Guru’ (I believe it should be ‘guru’ without capital G so that it is not confused with God).
This Guru could be Guru Nanak, but from Sikhi belief we do not consider it to be valid. So who is Guru?
 

Luckysingh

Writer
SPNer
Dec 3, 2011
1,634
2,758
Vancouver
prakash.s.bagga Ji,

"So for a Gursikh NAAM is everything."
If that is the case please explain following in Granth Sahib.
ਗੁਰਬਿਨੁਕਿਨੈਪਾਇਓਕੇਤੀਕਹੈਕਹਾਏ P420
Without the Guru, no one has obtained Him, although many may claim to have done so


The question here is NAAM but it seems more is necessary.
Guru here does not seem to indicate God so it must be a teacher.
Him must mean the Lord God.
It would seem to me that NAAM is a vehicle but the guidance is still required from ‘Guru’ (I believe it should be ‘guru’ without capital G so that it is not confused with God).
This Guru could be Guru Nanak, but from Sikhi belief we do not consider it to be valid. So who is Guru?

The true word of the shabad.
The Guru granth sahib ji, is in this case what I interpret as the guru.
 
Oct 29, 2010
167
175
81
chazSingh Ji,
Thanks for your comments. I think we may possibly be on the same page however my attainment may not be closer to yours. I have been through the link you posted and take note. I do not do simaran but find solace in chanting or ‘vibrating’ the name Har Har as per our gurus as and when I find it necessary. I find disturbing thoughts take over when I am getting tired and this helps.
This does one main thing for me that it tends to limit number of things that bother me at that time and secondly I believe it acts as a breathing exercise that actually helps your body.
ਬਿਨਵੰਤਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਇਆ ਸਦਾ ਭਜੁ ਜਗਦੀਸਰੈ ॥੪॥੧॥੩॥
Prays Nanak, the True Guru has taught me this, to vibrate and meditate forever on the Lord of the Universe. ||4||1||3||
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
chazSingh Ji,
Thanks for your comments. I think we may possibly be on the same page however my attainment may not be closer to yours. I have been through the link you posted and take note. I do not do simaran but find solace in chanting or ‘vibrating’ the name Har Har as per our gurus as and when I find it necessary. I find disturbing thoughts take over when I am getting tired and this helps.
This does one main thing for me that it tends to limit number of things that bother me at that time and secondly I believe it acts as a breathing exercise that actually helps your body.
ਬਿਨਵੰਤਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਇਆ ਸਦਾ ਭਜੁ ਜਗਦੀਸਰੈ ॥੪॥੧॥੩॥
Prays Nanak, the True Guru has taught me this, to vibrate and meditate forever on the Lord of the Universe. ||4||1||3||

You are very very close what should be known from Gurbanee.Well apprecited views. Only rare can say and accept what you have stated.
Ypu wanted to know the meaning of "GuR".As I understand GuR is refered to GuR JoTi.
It is GuR which is SATiGuR and is giver of NAAM (HARi.HARi> what you mention .
Thanks for nice post.
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
It is all "NAAM" as infinite CREATOR.
NAAM can be known from Gurbanee so is CREATOR.
Prakash.s.Bagga
Prakash.S.Bagga ji can you please elaborate as what you state is in in conflict with Gurbani. Naam i smost usage is a designator but not a descriptor of the creator.

Its usage is like when addressing a question about the creator. "What is your Naam/Name?" My Naam/name is ਸਤਿ / saṯ and so flows the understanding below,
[/quote]
ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ

सति नामु करता पुरखु निरभउ निरवैरु अकाल मूरति अजूनी सैभं गुर प्रसादि ॥

Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.


Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa:
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace ~



Bhai Manmohan Singh:
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੇਵਲ ਇਕ ਹੈ। ਸੱਚਾ ਹੈ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ, ਰਚਨਹਾਰ ਉਸ ਦੀ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਅਮਰ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਸਰੂਪ। ਉਹ ਨਿਡਰ, ਕੀਨਾ-ਰਹਿਤ, ਅਜਨਮਾ ਤੇ ਸਵੈ-ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਵਾਨ ਹੈ। ਗੁਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਦਯਾ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਉਹ ਪਰਾਪਤ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ।

Prof. Sahib Singh:
ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਇੱਕ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ 'ਹੋਂਦ ਵਾਲਾ' ਹੈ ਜੋ ਸ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟੀ ਦਾ ਰਚਨਹਾਰ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਸਭ ਵਿਚ ਵਿਆਪਕ ਹੈ, ਭੈ ਤੋਂ ਰਹਿਤ ਹੈ, ਵੈਰ-ਰਹਿਤ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਸਰੂਪ ਕਾਲ ਤੋਂ ਪਰੇ ਹੈ, (ਭਾਵ, ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਸਰੀਰ ਨਾਸ-ਰਹਿਤ ਹੈ), ਜੋ ਜੂਨਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਉਂਦਾ, ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਤੋਂ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਜੋ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦਾ ਹੈ।
Ambarsaria my understanding:
God/creator is one and is known as the eternal, is the creator of all, present everywhere, without fear, without animosity, is timeless, is not guided by life cycles, is a self creation and is realized through its own (God/creator) blessing.

Humble Suggestion: Please note that each and every word of mool mantar (including ) is discussed in separate threads at SPN and before posting as sundry on items please help and participate in the following threads at spn rather than repeat arguments on those threads,

Code:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37225-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-ik.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37240-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-sa.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37251-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-kar.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37256-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-nirb.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37260-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-nirvair.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37272-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-ak.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37273-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-aj.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37274-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-gur.html

Prakash.S.Bagga ji their is also association of implied or otherwise with the word "Name". Can you elaborate if you assign it any of the meanings from the following for "Name" in English as a word,

name (n
amacr.gif
m)
n.1. A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others.
2. A word or group of words used to describe or evaluate, often disparagingly.
3. Representation or repute, as opposed to reality: a democracy in name, a police state in fact.
4. a. A reputation: has a bad name.
b. A distinguished reputation: made a name for himself as a drummer.

5. An illustrious or outstanding person: joined several famous names for a photograph. See Synonyms at celebrity.

tr.v. named, nam·ing, names 1. To give a name to: named the child after both grandparents.
2. To mention, specify, or cite by name: named the primary colors.
3. To call by an epithet: named them all cowards.
4. To nominate for or appoint to a duty, an office, or an honor. See Synonyms at appoint.
5. To specify or fix: We need to name the time for our meeting.

adj. Informal Well-known by a name: a name performer.

Idioms: in the name of1. By the authority of: Open up in the name of the law!
2. For the reason of; using as a reason: grisly experiments performed in the name of science.

to (one's) name Belonging to one: I don't have a hat to my name.

[Middle English, from Old English nama; see n
obrevema.gif
-men- in Indo-European roots.]
Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
My understanding is that the meaning of the word NAAM is not as NAME.
For NAME there is a distict word in Gurbanee and that is Naa-u.

Actually it is NAAM which is exclusive descriptive for the CREATOR.
One should know after all why NAAM is more significant.

Is NAAM not omnipresent according to Gurbanee? If you can prove so giving any quote from Gurbanee then I may change my views and agree to what you say.

Moreover you know it very well I do not agree to the interpretation of the very first line as given in your post.

Prakash.S.Bagga
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
Prakash.S.Bagga ji can you please elaborate as what you state is in in conflict with Gurbani. Naam i smost usage is a designator but not a descriptor of the creator.

Its usage is like when addressing a question about the creator. "What is your Naam/Name?" My Naam/name is ਸਤਿ / saṯ and so flows the understanding below,
Prakash.S.Bagga ji their is also association of implied or otherwise with the word "Name". Can you elaborate if you assign it any of the meanings from the following for "Name" in English as a word,

Sat Sri Akal.[/QUOTE]

I dont believe in abstracts .I believe in specifics.

Prakash.S.Bagga
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
Prakash.S.Bagga ji their is also association of implied or otherwise with the word "Name". Can you elaborate if you assign it any of the meanings from the following for "Name" in English as a word,

Sat Sri Akal.

I dont believe in abstracts .I believe in specifics.

Prakash.S.Bagga
Prakash.S.Bagga ji Explain the specific meaning of the following as there is nothing abstract about it in the mool mantar,

ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ

ਸਤਿ (Eternal)
Note: Translated as Truth by Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa ji and Bhai Manmohan Singh ji

ਨਾਮੁ (name, of)
(One creator)

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
Prakash.S.Bagga ji Explain the specific meaning of the following as there is nothing abstract about it in the mool mantar,

ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ

I understand this as "A specific NAAM" which is ETERNAL

ਸਤਿ (Eternal)
Note: Translated as Truth by Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa ji and Bhai Manmohan Singh ji

ਨਾਮੁ (name, of)
(One creator) For One Creator the words in Gurbanee are as IKu EKANKAAR .You can see that the SYMBOL does not conform to the words of One Creator.

Sat Sri Akal.

Therefore the the meanings given by your goodself are abstract as I understand.

Prakash.s.Bagga
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
Prakash.S.Bagga ji I disagree and protest as described below,
Therefore the the meanings given by your good self are abstract as I understand.

What is abstract about "one eternal creator"? I suppose you want to give it a name. Did this "one eternal creator" not exist when the word "Naam" was not in any vocabulary?

This fetish on assigning a name is Hinduism or Abrahmanic thoughts and not Sikhism as in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The Guru ji used lot of metaphors understood by the populace to convey teachings. The mis-use of such metaphors in any shape to convey justification of Hinduism Deities or idols being recognized or alluded to in Sikhism is a great dis-service to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from what I understand.


(One creator) For One Creator the words in Gurbanee are as IKu EKANKAAR .
You can see (Sorry I don't see any other than you putting words into my mouth)

that the SYMBOL does not conform to the words of One Creator
(you have not given one iota of interpretation to refute the complete description of
given by Prof.Sahib Singh ji.
(see,
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37225-sri-guru-granth-sahib-review-ik.html)

Sorry to disappoint you but almost all disagree with your interpretation in that thread. They also disagree with your continuous attempts to link the two parts in as covered in the same thread.

These all being driven towards the Hindu creator concepts to be brought in later once you establish IKu EKANKAAR as a specific named builder/creator. Here comes Prabhu, Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna, Ram, etc. Your insistence on this is a great dis-service even though it has no effect on me. I only raise it as a concern that your propositions could form the basis of mis-guidance for the younger and future generations.
Prakash.s.Bagga
Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 29, 2010
167
175
81
prakash.s.bagga ji,
Your contribution on ‘Gur’ - I did not understand your help - in any case I was trying to differentiate between ‘guru’ and ‘Guru’. Use of ‘Guru’ is limited to the Lord and ‘guru’ to the teacher of any level but born human.
The second point in your comments about 'NAAM' is related to Indian culture/religions and how we respect pious gurus/individuals for their help to link us to the Lord. All people who have attained the highest accolade in religions (including Sikhi) have sought the help of gurus to take then over the last barrier.
In Sikh religion and even before guru Nanak, anyone who wants to attain sublime peace, get out of the 84 circle, and attain God, had to secure help of a guru. It is also mentioned in the Granth Sahib. This in itself is not available to all (even though it may be well known word), one has to attain a level of purity worthy of it, I note below how after a number of attempts Kabir finally resorted to spending days in the hope that his guru may ‘trip’ over him.
Kabir, was man of God, had great difficulty finding a guru one because he was brought up in Moslem tradition and second he was seeking a Hindu guru. He eventually sought the most prominent at that time, Swami Ramanand, by lying in his path days on end. Lord intervened and one day on his way up the steps Swami Ji’s feet touched Kabir and Swami Ji touched him by the shoulder and said “auTo bytw rwm kho”
This (RAM) was the NAAM that Kabir needed to be liberated and as Bhai Gurdas writes “it was like philosopher’s stone touching iron to make gold”.
Granth Sahib has a number of quotes for you to learn more but I add one from guru Arjan:
Page 46, Line 7
ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਿ ਮੇਲਿਆ ਦੀਆ ਅਪਣਾ ਨਾਮੁ
In His Mercy, God unites us with Himself, and He blesses us with the Naam.
There are examples of recent people who have made the grade also obtained the NAAM and pursued their missions. This NAAM is then used by the individuals to chant and live by thereon. If I understand you correctly they would possibly chant ‘NAAM’ as it is the ‘name of God’ as you understand it - which is not the case.[/FONT]
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
prakash.s.bagga ji,
Your contribution on ‘Gur’ - I did not understand your help - in any case I was trying to differentiate between ‘guru’ and ‘Guru’. Use of ‘Guru’ is limited to the Lord and ‘guru’ to the teacher of any level but born human.
The second point in your comments about 'NAAM' is related to Indian culture/religions and how we respect pious gurus/individuals for their help to link us to the Lord. All people who have attained the highest accolade in religions (including Sikhi) have sought the help of gurus to take then over the last barrier.
In Sikh religion and even before guru Nanak, anyone who wants to attain sublime peace, get out of the 84 circle, and attain God, had to secure help of a guru. It is also mentioned in the Granth Sahib. This in itself is not available to all (even though it may be well known word), one has to attain a level of purity worthy of it, I note below how after a number of attempts Kabir finally resorted to spending days in the hope that his guru may ‘trip’ over him.
Kabir, was man of God, had great difficulty finding a guru one because he was brought up in Moslem tradition and second he was seeking a Hindu guru. He eventually sought the most prominent at that time, Swami Ramanand, by lying in his path days on end. Lord intervened and one day on his way up the steps Swami Ji’s feet touched Kabir and Swami Ji touched him by the shoulder and said “auTo bytw rwm kho”
This (RAM) was the NAAM that Kabir needed to be liberated and as Bhai Gurdas writes “it was like philosopher’s stone touching iron to make gold”.
Granth Sahib has a number of quotes for you to learn more but I add one from guru Arjan:
Page 46, Line 7
ਕਰਿਕਿਰਪਾਪ੍ਰਭਿਮੇਲਿਆਦੀਆਅਪਣਾਨਾਮੁ
In His Mercy, God unites us with Himself, and He blesses us with the Naam.
There are examples of recent people who have made the grade also obtained the NAAM and pursued their missions. This NAAM is then used by the individuals to chant and live by thereon. If I understand you correctly they would possibly chant ‘NAAM’ as it is the ‘name of God’ as you understand it - which is not the case.[/FONT]

Well I dont know your familiarity of Gurbanee words related to GuR.
I agree that even before NANAK dev ji people were living with the concept that GuRu was needed to attain the union with Ultimate Lord.
GuRu NanAk ji made it clear to the people who the real GuRu is.
It is not the person in Human Form that is must to attain the union with Lord. If it were so then till date we should be having GuRu in Human Form.

From Gurbanee we can learn that it is BANEE which is GuRu or Sati GuRu which is the medium for Union with the Lord.This is important to understand. This concept of BANEE as GuRu is the Unique of Sikh Philosophy.This never existed before NANAK ji.

With respect of the word RAM for KABIR would you please take a note of the point that ultimately it is RAM NAMMu for attainment of real liberation.
GuRu NANAK and all our GuRu also talk of this RAM NAAMu in the whole of Gurbanee.
It should be surprise for you to know that RAM NAAMu of Gurbanee is not at all related to the word RAM whereas RAM NAAMu of Hindu Philosophy is definitely is refered with the word RAM.

The RAM NAAMu in Gurbanee is refered as Gurmati RAM NAAMu. So pl try to understand this aspect of Gurbanee..

I have just presented you few points for your consideration.This needs a careful interaction on the whole concept of RAM NAAMu of SGGS

Prakash.S.Bagga
 
We have in Guru Granth Sahib the word. Guru, which i understand as Supreme teacher, then we have the word. Akalpurakh, which is infinite invisible unfathomable and ever present. The Akalpurakh in the form of Atma resides in every human being. At thousands of places in GuruGranth Sahib it says search Akalpurakh in urself not anywher outside.
This is my humble interpretation.I may be totally wrong. I beg tomplease correct me
Rrspectfully
Dr. Harbhajan Singh Seth
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top