Phantom Noises Heard In The Morning

[Original]

Riders n Runners

Cor' I thought I had a sad life ? How wrong ! Looking at you all 'sigh'... I'm not alone ! But hey, special thanks go to Sherdil for the migration.

On a serious note, I'm sure we've killed to death the same in a another thread [amrit vela], did we not ?

Never mind, moving on to the real deal, one can comfortably conclude that there are certain truths beyond the comprehension of the human toolbox. For example, proof of the existence of God. Philosopher, Rene' Descartes had said 'that God had existence in the same way as the triangle has three sides'. Logicians moved in and said, 'okay, if you have a triangle then it must have three sides, but what if you don't have a triangle, then what ? Rene Descartes [scratches head] hmmmmmmmm? ' Logicians continue 'you see ..then you nether have the three sides nor the three angles'.

Conclusion ! Ultimate reality is just not mathematics but a lot more. Sikhism holds that Ekonkar [Anhad Shabd] exists and need no proof for verification since existence is not a predicate but an existence independent of qualitatively, quantitatively and without property.

Evidently it cannot be proven, arguably it could. And the decisive factor is belief, which in turn is held together by faith. Faith as we all know is one's personal disposition. Some believe some don't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some experience it one way, whilst, others another way, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Then to label it xyz is sufficient to show existence thereof but insufficient to pin point it particular for its an experience which is transcendence. Then, if Chaz Singh, Original Singh, King Singh and Queen Kaur make claims of something unexplainable happenings, grant it, on account them "mad" for that's what it is until one has it oneself.

Let us try not to decode the experiences Gur Ghar speaks about for they'd be holy n divine to some. Just as Jesus's resurrection and ascension to heaven, is for millions of people a special event, so are the expressions of the writers of Gurbani a special message and, just as none of those people can really know what happened 2000 years ago, nether can we know what happened at Sultan Pur Lodhi. And, just as the Christians believe their versions of events are true, so do we believe that "anhad shabd" [unstruck melody] Gur Ghar speaks about is true and is beyond the calculation of human intellect.

So, what do we have ?

Philosopher's have on account it being a personal experience [anhad shabd] deemed it subjective and held that it can never be objectively tested, therefore a yes to the claimants and a yes to the refuter.

 

[Harry Haller]

No, you said that the first Sikhs were too simple to understand anything complicated. That's what I was referring to... not YOU. LOL

I really do not think I did, you drew that conclusion yourself, I stated that they would, and I, struggle with the vedic spirituality aspect of Sikhism, early stories indicate a certain direction of exposure and attempted understanding rather than inclusion and acceptance

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I really do not think I did, you drew that conclusion yourself, I stated that they would, and I, struggle with the vedic spirituality aspect of Sikhism, early stories indicate a certain direction of exposure and attempted understanding rather than inclusion and acceptance

Just because two different faiths might cross over in some ideas does not mean those ideas belong to one faith or the other. For example the idea of a creator. You can't say that every religion which has God of some sort is practicing Christianity. Or that any religion with idea of gender equality is following pagan spirituality. (Pagans were first I think to do so but its just to illustrate a point). So just because some ideas might be similar to some things in Vedic philosophy doesn't mean we are following Vedic philosophy. Nor do they hold a monopoly on everything. Truth is truth and there will be some cross over because one religion can not hold a monopoly on truth. So please stop calling certain things Vedic. The sky is blue... I'm sure Vedic taught that too.. Does it mean Gurbani mention of blue skies is Vedic?? Nope... Blue skies is a basic truth to existence. Same idea...

You had actually said that simple farmers would not understand complicated ideas. Leave the Vedic thing... I give them much more credit as humans. But Sikhi is more action oriented anyway, meaning even if you can't understand something you can still do it. But the truth is there and some of us are drawn to deeper truths in our reality. You may be happy just doing while i am happy doing and understanding or at least trying to understand but in the end both of us have equal chance to attain liberation.

 

[Harry Haller]

ust because two different faiths might cross over in some ideas does not mean those ideas belong to one faith or the other

What about when one of those faiths wishes to proclaim something new, and feels the need to distance itself from the philosophies of the time? As for belonging, well lets see, Hinduism gets karma, which we like to borrow, reincarnation, which we also like to borrow, Diwali, poorenmashi, idol worship, and lots of mythical spirituality, nothing wrong with all that, if that did it for me, I would be a Hindu, I believe that when the SGGS talks of Vedic practices, the tenth gate, the anhaad naad, etc, it speaks as a point of reference, not a validation.

For example the idea of a creator. You can't say that every religion which has God of some sort is practicing Christianity

I can actually, God, the bearded sandal wearing chap is a Christian Abrahamic concept shared by Muslims and Jews. Ek Onkar is not God, Ek Onkar does not wear sandals, or have a beard.

Or that any religion with idea of gender equality is following pagan spirituality

If the pagans called their equality a special pagan name, say they called it Munchkinism, and I followed a religion that constantly referred to its own equality as Munchkinism, rather than just plain equality, then I would say that religion is following pagan spirituality. Concepts of course cross over, names and terms are particular to the religion.

So just because some ideas might be similar to some things in Vedic philosophy doesn't mean we are following Vedic philosophy.

Ah but we are not talking about similar, we are talking about wholesale thefts of Vedic concepts with Vedic names, its not similar, its exactly the same.

Nor do they hold a monopoly on everything. Truth is truth and there will be some cross over because one religion can not hold a monopoly on truth.

I see, does that include Sikhism?

So please stop calling certain things Vedic.

sure, if you please stop using Vedic philosophies with Vedic names, I will probably stop calling them Vedic.

The sky is blue... I'm sure Vedic taught that too..

No, that belongs to science, I am actually surprised you said that.

Blue skies is a basic truth to existence. Same idea...

actually the sky is not even blue so your argument serves no other purpose than to dilute your own point.

You had actually said that simple farmers would not understand complicated ideas.

Hmmm this is the second time now in the same thread you have misquoted me, its not hard, see that number 1 at the bottom, if you click on it, it goes to the first page of the thread, where you will find my post, which actually states

given that Sikhism was a religion that was supposed to represent the common sons and daughters of the Punjab, those soil toiling, hard working fol would have been able to appreciate the simplicity that is Sikhism.

Why are you misquoting me? Where have I used the word simple? I mentioned the words 'hard working', I work hard, I know what it feels like to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, and know what? I have not the time for the deep reflection that you carry out, and I wager those same hard working folk felt the same. That is why we need simplicity, its easy to live by, easy to understand.

but in the end both of us have equal chance to attain liberation.

If liberation is the end goal, I assume you mean spiritually liberated, where nothing touches you and walk around with fish eyes? Hmm keep it, your welcome to it, I am already free, we all are,other than those tied to a concept of eventual liberation.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Hmm I have already addressed your comments before on these. Though your ideas are atheistic so I could easily say you are borrowing atheism and using it as Sikhi.

So tell me why some concepts can not cross over in all religions? And please show me where it says that every concept in Sikhi must be entirely new or different than any other religion, and how can it be if truth is truth, then truth always existed. Certainly some of the other previous religions at least held SOME of that truth? Including Hinduism? And who cares by what words we call something anyway? Guess what, Hinduism is not the only religion to say we have been here before... Buddhism, Jainism, etc also do. And there have also been religions to say that we do not come back and are here only once... Christianity, Jewish etc. So you are trying to get away from Hinduism saying Sikhism doesn't believe in reincarnation (actually the word is more transmigration) but okay, so are you saying we are borrowing Christian theology then of only being here once born? How about Atheism? You want to say there is nothing past death.... that's what Atheists believe. Are you trying to hijack Atheist beliefs and put them on Sikhi? There's only a few options... once born and nothing after death, once born and something after death, transmigration (multiple births and deaths) with eventual liberation, transmigration (forever) Thats only 4 options... choose one, no matter which one you choose guess what? Another religion has already had that concept. You are using somewhere between Christianity and Atheism (and to make Gurbani fit those concepts you have to really pick it apart... when concepts of transmigration, liberation are pretty clear).

And by the way, the word God is not referring to a bearded guy. It's just the english word to refer to a Creator - the ONE Creator. Not to a bearded sandal guy. Here is the Webster Dictionary meaning of the word:

"the supreme or ultimate reality:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

That sounds pretty generic to me...the supreme or ultimate reality. Seems more Sikh like than Christian! No bearded guy there! Anyway we debated this before and only argued. You say God has to mean Christian, obviously the English dictionary disagrees.

 

[chazSingh]

I can actually, God, the bearded sandal wearing chap is a Christian Abrahamic concept shared by Muslims and Jews. Ek Onkar is not God, Ek Onkar does not wear sandals, or have a beard.

From a Sikh perspective...Waheguru Does....wear sandals and have a beard...
But he also, has a shaved head, and a mustache...

Waheguru is also a fisherman, and the boat, and the fish being caught...
He is also Black, white, brown...he is also the blue flower, the yellow flower the green flower...
the sky the moon and the earth...
and everything beyond...

Its all a manifestation of Waheguru.... the Shabad...the many from the one...

 

[Sherdil]

If perception of sound is subjective then why use it as an indicator of Divine experience? By nature of it being subjective, it is derived from the point of view of ego, which is the very thing we are meant to overcome. The fact that we are latching on to perceived sensory stimuli indicates that illusion of duality isn't dissipated as there is still an "I am" that is witness to it all. You still feel that it is happening to you. You aren't therefore dying in the Shabdh.

My tip to you all is to not get carried away with what you perceive. It will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing this sound or that vision. The real trick is how much of yourself you can surrender and let go. Nothingness isn't perturbed by any sensation produced by the senses or mind. Nothingness just is.

That's my take, but if you feel that these apparitions benefit you emotionally and spiritually, then by all means continue.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

If perception of sound is subjective then why use it as an indicator of Divine experience? By nature of it being subjective, it is derived from the point of view of ego, which is the very thing we are meant to overcome. The fact that we are latching on to perceived sensory stimuli indicates that illusion of duality isn't dissipated as there is still an "I am" that is witness to it all. You still feel that it is happening to you. You aren't therefore dying in the Shabdh.

My tip to you all is to not get carried away with what you perceive. It will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing this sound or that vision. The real trick is how much of yourself you can surrender and let go. Nothingness isn't perturbed by any sensation produced by the senses or mind. Nothingness just is.

That's my take, but if you feel that these apparitions benefit you emotionally and spiritually, then by all means continue.

I don't think perception = ego. Why does it have to be associated with ego? Ego or haume is the built up identity we have 'become' in this life - Harkiran Kaur is is false identity. But the consciousness behind Harkiran Kaur is not. That consciousness is what is experiencing... the consciousness is what perceives. In fact the point I was trying to make is that everything we experience, is internal. What and how we experience as reality.... isn't the whole picture. Behind our haume / ego identity exists consciousness - the experiencer. That identity does not exist as separate from anything else. But it CAN perceive! It's only job is to perceive! Consciousness just IS.

If we go by your idea, then consciousness (the primal consciousness behind every being - that is the same ONE consciousness) is not really conscious of anything at all / and or everything is all part of duality. That doesn't make sense!

Why can't anhaad naad - the unstruck sound, be consciousness itself? The very same conscious energy from which everything emanates?? And for a moment in deep meditation, why can't the haume / ego identity move to the background temporarily and allow the experiencer to actually experience itself??

 

[Sherdil]

I don't think perception = ego. Why does it have to be associated with ego? Ego or haume is the built up identity we have 'become' in this life - Harkiran Kaur is is false identity. But the consciousness behind Harkiran Kaur is not. That consciousness is what is experiencing... the consciousness is what perceives. In fact the point I was trying to make is that everything we experience, is internal. What and how we experience as reality.... isn't the whole picture. Behind our haume / ego identity exists consciousness - the experiencer. That identity does not exist as separate from anything else. But it CAN perceive! It's only job is to perceive! Consciousness just IS.

If we go by your idea, then consciousness (the primal consciousness behind every being - that is the same ONE consciousness) is not really conscious of anything at all / and or everything is all part of duality. That doesn't make sense!

Why can't anhaad naad - the unstruck sound, be consciousness itself? The very same conscious energy from which everything emanates?? And for a moment in deep meditation, why can't the haume / ego identity move to the background temporarily and allow the experiencer to actually experience itself??

Universal consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality in order to do that. The notion of a perceiver bearing witness to Universal Consciousness indicates that ego has not been dissipated. Perception is a part of Haumai (I am). As long as perception exists, your experience will be purely subjective and unique to you and no one else will be able to convince you otherwise because they cannot see through your perspective. Haumai is not limited to your identity as Harkiran Kaur. It also involves your perception as a distinct witness. If one cannot transcend their finite viewpoint, then they have not achieved the infinite. They haven't died.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Universal consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality in order to do that. The notion of a perceiver bearing witness to Universal Consciousness indicates that ego has not been dissipated. Perception is a part of Haumai (I am). As long as perception exists, your experience will be purely subjective and unique to you and no one else will be able to convince you otherwise because they cannot see through your perspective. Haumai is not limited to your identity as Harkiran Kaur. It also involves your perception as a distinct witness. If one cannot transcend their finite viewpoint, then they have not achieved the infinite. They haven't died.

That does not make sense. What you are saying is that outside of this life, there is no perception at all. Meaning what is the point of merging with Creator, if it means there is no existence at all (no perception at all)? That is the same thing as saying that this life is all we have, and then we cease to exist (and no I don't mean in sense of ego identity... but ceasing to exist at all). Basically without coming out and straight up saying it, you are agreeing with atheism... that is, there is nothing beyond this human life and when we die that's it. We cease to exist at all. I don't think this is what Sikhi is teaching... at all.

The whole purpose of existence is spiritual progression, what's the point of any spiritual progression, if the end result is ceasing to exist? What did we do all this for? I refuse to believe that our ultimate destination is just ceasing to exist (ceasing all awareness). And I don't think this is what Guru Nanak Dev Ji experienced, or taught. Or the rest of the Gurus.

But yes, obviously duality is needed to progress... a quote I read somewhere made most sense of it:
"Creation is the act of the ONE Creator, become self aware, through its own creation."

Once that awareness happens, then does it all go black and that's it? Do we just keep coming back as different ego identities forever? Since you are saying that's the ONLY way to exist and have awareness.

But... we are told Waheguru exists also OUTSIDE of the creation, not just inside it. How then do you explain that?

I believe Gurbani IS saying there is perception beyond our limited viewpoint. Instead of the view you give where there is NO perception at all outside of the illusion, I believe it's more like a perception of everything all at once. The complete opposite of your view.

 

[Sherdil]

That does not make sense. What you are saying is that outside of this life, there is no perception at all. Meaning what is the point of merging with Creator, if it means there is no existence at all (no perception at all)? That is the same thing as saying that this life is all we have, and then we cease to exist (and no I don't mean in sense of ego identity... but ceasing to exist at all). Basically without coming out and straight up saying it, you are agreeing with atheism... that is, there is nothing beyond this human life and when we die that's it. We cease to exist at all. I don't think this is what Sikhi is teaching... at all.

But that is what Sikhi says. We as individuals don't exist. We are transient and illusory, stuck in a paradigm of duality. Although we will cease to exist, Existence will continue. Existence will exist forever. We are Existence.

The whole purpose of existence is spiritual progression, what's the point of any spiritual progression, if the end result is ceasing to exist? What did we do all this for? I refuse to believe that our ultimate destination is just ceasing to exist (ceasing all awareness). And I don't think this is what Guru Nanak Dev Ji experienced, or taught. Or the rest of the Gurus.

There is nothing in it for us. We don't exist. We are puppets played by the One Actor. The purpose of this play is for the One Actor to understand itself. We are tools to achieve this end. As I stated earlier, Universal Consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality to do that. We are a means to that end.

Once that awareness happens, then does it all go black and that's it? Do we just keep coming back as different ego identities forever? Since you are saying that's the ONLY way to exist and have awareness.

I don't think it's a one time event. You have work to maintain the divine relationship as you would with anything else. The waves come and go but the Ocean is permanent. The waves never stop being the Ocean. Then why should the waves ask what is in it for them?

But... we are told Waheguru exists also OUTSIDE of the creation, not just inside it. How then do you explain that?

I believe Gurbani IS saying there is perception beyond our limited viewpoint. Instead of the view you give where there is NO perception at all outside of the illusion, I believe it's more like a perception of everything all at once. The complete opposite of your view.

Universal Consciousness is everywhere, but it can only perceive itself through creation. If there is perception, then there is a perceiver who hasn't died. Perception is a part of creation. It comes from Haumai.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

But that is what Sikhi says. We as individuals don't exist. We are transient and illusory, stuck in a paradigm of duality. Although we will cease to exist, Existence will continue. Existence will exist forever. We are Existence.



There is nothing in it for us. We don't exist. We are puppets played by the One Actor. The purpose of this play is for the One Actor to understand itself. We are tools to achieve this end. As I stated earlier, Universal Consciousness cannot perceive itself. It requires the illusion of duality to do that. We are a means to that end.

... but we ARE that Universal Consciousness!

You are not getting what I am saying... we as individuals yes are illusion. But the CONSCIOUSNESS behind ALL of us is the SAME ONE CONSCIOUSNESS, and THAT CONSCIOUSNESS won't cease to exist because it has ALWAYS EXISTED and ALWAYS WILL EXIST. The awareness behind all of us, IS THAT AWARENESS. When the haume ceases to exist it won't all go black - you will find you still have awareness, but just not as the you that you are now, but as the REAL you - that Universal Consciousness! And that is what we can glimpse though meditation etc. or in cases of Brahamgianis live detached while still in this life.

I don't think it's a one time event. You have work to maintain the divine relationship as you would with anything else. The waves come and go but the Ocean is permanent. The waves never stop being the Ocean. Then why should the waves ask what is in it for them?

The waves ARE THE OCEAN!!!! They were never separate from the ocean, only the perspective was separate. In fact we are NOT actually separate from the ONE. We CAN experience as the true identity. Waheguru is not dormant, and unconscious of creation.

Universal Consciousness is everywhere, but it can only perceive itself through creation.

(how do you know? Have you asked and received the answer? Have you experienced beyond duality such that you can say this for sure? If the basis of the entire existence is pure *formless* consciousness then how can it not be aware??)

If there is perception, then there is a perceiver who hasn't died. Perception is a part of creation. It comes from Haumai.

(I disagree - perception of the illusion sure... but not perception of itself, or perception of the illusion, from a perspective outside of it - Gurbani does say that Creator DOES exist outside of the creation. Creation was born OF the light... meaning the light had to exist first. And in turn the light is in the creation - Meaning that everything exists WITHIN Waheguru. But Waheguru does exist beyond Creation - as that light. And that light is self illuminated, and self aware.

When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc. Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far?? When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world. It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?

This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator. But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go! In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.

 

[chazSingh]

If perception of sound is subjective then why use it as an indicator of Divine experience? By nature of it being subjective, it is derived from the point of view of ego, which is the very thing we are meant to overcome. The fact that we are latching on to perceived sensory stimuli indicates that illusion of duality isn't dissipated as there is still an "I am" that is witness to it all. You still feel that it is happening to you. You aren't therefore dying in the Shabdh.

My tip to you all is to not get carried away with what you perceive. It will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing this sound or that vision. The real trick is how much of yourself you can surrender and let go. Nothingness isn't perturbed by any sensation produced by the senses or mind. Nothingness just is.

That's my take, but if you feel that these apparitions benefit you emotionally and spiritually, then by all means continue.

sherdil ji...

there is a process from ego to non ego state...might happen to some in an instant and wooosh they're one with waheguru....for others it takes a lifetime...whatever is in that persons destiny...

so maybe right up until that point of one-oness and ego-less state...the ego will still exist to some extent...and he sikh, seeking, and the destination appear as seperate a long with the experiences in between...realms, dimensions, awakenings...ego is still there in the Game of love...some thing loving some thing else and sacrificing everything in the process for that love..

read the Shabads in SGGS ji? even though one-ness has been achieved...they are still almost writing from an ego point of view...because they have to use language...poetry to describe something not describable...they are describing how duality gets to oneness...

so there's no weight in your above argument...or at least i don;t see any

 

[chazSingh]

When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc. Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far?? When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world. It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?

This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator. But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go! In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.

love this...
god bless

 

[Sherdil]

Harkiran ji,

When the haume ceases to exist it won't all go black - you will find you still have awareness, but just not as the you that you are now, but as the REAL you - that Universal Consciousness!

You are still describing an idea of Universal Consciousness that you aspire to. The real me is already here, but it exists underneath a layer of identity. Perception is tied to this identity, because there is still an “I am” that is perceiving. Even an experience of Universal Consciousness will still be had from the perspective of “I am”, as in “I am having this experience”. True death leaves no room "I am”.

(how do you know? Have you asked and received the answer? Have you experienced beyond duality such that you can say this for sure? If the basis of the entire existence is pure *formless* consciousness then how can it not be aware??)

You are confusing perception with awareness. Perception requires a subjective point of view. Awareness doesn’t have to be confined by such restrictions.

Unbeknownst to you, maybe I have been meditating. The experience of Nothing is more in line with the discussion of dying in the Shabdh that Gurbani discusses. Why should my experience be any less valid than yours?

I disagree - perception of the illusion sure... but not perception of itself, or perception of the illusion, from a perspective outside of it

Perception can only exist within the illusion. Awareness knows no bounds.

When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc. Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far?? When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world. It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?

This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator. But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go! In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.

This isn't a point of contention. Are you sure you have understood what I have written?

 

[Admin]

Dear All, Congrats on a Very Good Discussion!

Off topic note: Instead of using colors in the posts, we must use Quotes... otherwise it gets very confusing as to who is posting what... I have made a few edits in the last two posts to highlight the necessity of using Quotes and how easy it becomes for a reader like me to comprehend. Red/Orange/Green are exclusive Colors to be used to give special remarks/notes by mods/admins. Avoid using colors in your posts as a matter of habit.

Thank you. Please carry on...

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

If there is only ONE, and that one is Conscious, then I AM still holds true. Even if that I AM is ONE. Just because there is ONE does not mean that ONE must not be able to recognize that it is aware. Therefore I AM very much does hold true.

Okay so maybe we are just caught up in terminology.... if you agree with the doctor scenario (which holds true for Ang 736 shabad speaking of the director staging the play and playing the part of all the characters). My point was, your awareness (if you prefer) will not cease to exist when you shed your identity as Sherdil. You will only recognize that Sherdil was merely a character you were playing. Same as the dreamer recognizes the dream character was only a character and the dreamworld was false.

Going back to the OP, there is no reason the Dreamer (in this case the BIG dreamer) there is no reason the dreamer can not 'awaken within the dream' - much the same as we can experience lucid dreaming in our own dreams. We are still inside the dream world but we recognize that its a dream and that our identity in the dreamworld is false (we remember who we are in the waking world). In this case, we are still experiencing the false reality, but we see it for what it is, and we know who we are. Since science is pointing to pure frequency being at the very base of the Universe, then why couldn't we perceive it when in that 'awakened within the dream' state?? Going back to lucid dreaming, its possible when lucid in a dream that elements (sounds etc) from outside in the waking world, can find their way into the dreamworld... once I had a lucid dream, my cat was meowing at me to wake up to feed her and low and behold, since I was aware of her nearby and heard her, she entered the dream!

 

[Harry Haller]

Hmm I have already addressed your comments before on these

HMMMMMMMM actually to my knowledge I do not think you have satisfactorily explained anything I have asked of you, just essays and essays of rhetoric.

Though your ideas are atheistic

my ideas that god does not wear sandals makes me an atheist?

So tell me why some concepts can not cross over in all religions? And please show me where it says that every concept in Sikhi must be entirely new or different than any other religion, and how can it be if truth is truth, then truth always existed. Certainly some of the other previous religions at least held SOME of that truth? Including Hinduism? And who cares by what words we call something anyway? Guess what, Hinduism is not the only religion to say we have been here before... Buddhism, Jainism, etc also do. And there have also been religions to say that we do not come back and are here only once... Christianity, Jewish etc. So you are trying to get away from Hinduism saying Sikhism doesn't believe in reincarnation (actually the word is more transmigration) but okay, so are you saying we are borrowing Christian theology then of only being here once born? How about Atheism? You want to say there is nothing past death.... that's what Atheists believe. Are you trying to hijack Atheist beliefs and put them on Sikhi? There's only a few options... once born and nothing after death, once born and something after death, transmigration (multiple births and deaths) with eventual liberation, transmigration (forever) Thats only 4 options... choose one, no matter which one you choose guess what? Another religion has already had that concept. You are using somewhere between Christianity and Atheism (and to make Gurbani fit those concepts you have to really pick it apart... when concepts of transmigration, liberation are pretty clear).

you missed one of the options, the very one that I favour, and that one is, 'I don't know'.

I know this is a concept you may be unfamiliar with.

And by the way, the word God is not referring to a bearded guy. It's just the english word to refer to a Creator - the ONE Creator. Not to a bearded sandal guy. Here is the Webster Dictionary meaning of the word:

"the supreme or ultimate reality:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

That sounds pretty generic to me...the supreme or ultimate reality. Seems more Sikh like than Christian! No bearded guy there! Anyway we debated this before and only argued. You say God has to mean Christian, obviously the English dictionary disagrees.

there are many different meanings of god in many different dictionaries, I found several that are not pretty generic, I, however, favour making my own arguments rather than trawling the internet for appropriate justifications.

but just for a giggle, here is one from the Oxford english

(god)(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:

Anyway we debated this before and only argued.

repeating the same rhetoric over and over again does not constitute an argument, its just boring.

 

[Harry Haller]

From a Sikh perspective...Waheguru Does....wear sandals and have a beard...

and he also does not....

But he also, has a shaved head, and a mustache...

and he also does not....

Waheguru is also a fisherman, and the boat, and the fish being caught...

and he also is not....

so what's your point?

Does god have herpes, is he a sexual deviant, does he like a snort and look like a pig?

yes or no?

 

[Original]

... but we ARE that Universal Consciousness!

You are not getting what I am saying... we as individuals yes are illusion. But the CONSCIOUSNESS behind ALL of us is the SAME ONE CONSCIOUSNESS, and THAT CONSCIOUSNESS won't cease to exist because it has ALWAYS EXISTED and ALWAYS WILL EXIST. The awareness behind all of us, IS THAT AWARENESS. When the haume ceases to exist it won't all go black - you will find you still have awareness, but just not as the you that you are now, but as the REAL you - that Universal Consciousness! And that is what we can glimpse though meditation etc. or in cases of Brahamgianis live detached while still in this life.



The waves ARE THE OCEAN!!!! They were never separate from the ocean, only the perspective was separate. In fact we are NOT actually separate from the ONE. We CAN experience as the true identity. Waheguru is not dormant, and unconscious of creation.




(how do you know? Have you asked and received the answer? Have you experienced beyond duality such that you can say this for sure? If the basis of the entire existence is pure *formless* consciousness then how can it not be aware??)



(I disagree - perception of the illusion sure... but not perception of itself, or perception of the illusion, from a perspective outside of it - Gurbani does say that Creator DOES exist outside of the creation. Creation was born OF the light... meaning the light had to exist first. And in turn the light is in the creation - Meaning that everything exists WITHIN Waheguru. But Waheguru does exist beyond Creation - as that light. And that light is self illuminated, and self aware.

When you go to sleep tonight, you may dream you are a doctor in the middle of a surgery trying to save a patient's life. You are operating through the false sense of duality as the doctor... separated from the other characters in the dream. While immersed in the dream world, you think you are the doctor (the ego self, haume) living in separation from the Creator (the dreamer).Its only when you wake up the next morning (the doctor dies), that you realize you were not just the doctor, but in fact you were also the patient, and the nurses, and even the operating table, the instruments, etc. Because EVERYTHING in the dream were really all your mind.... with me so far?? When you woke up, you did not cease to exist, the doctor ceased to exist, but the consciousness that was playing the part of the doctor (which is YOU) exists beyond the doctor. This world is just another dream... and we are currently operating through these characters, but when we wake up (when these separate identities cease to exist) "I" will not cease to exist (and "I" is the same I for ALL) There is only ONE consciousness operating in this entire world. It's the SAME Universal Consciousness. Harkiran will one day die and cease to exist... but I WILL NOT. I will wake up, and realize Harkiran was a part I was playing... make sense?

This ability of indwelling existence has been referred to in many religions, As Above, So Below. We as characters retain qualities of the Creator. But conscious awareness there is only ONE, no matter how many levels deep you go! In my dream scenario above, it's not YOU who is the dreamer. You are just another character in THIS dream. But when the dreamer awakens, YOU AWAKEN.

Harkiran Ji

Your contributions within the spiritual dimension of the word contribution is beyond calculation. I wonder at times whether there'd be probative value in all that you endeavour to substantiate. I sincerely hope so.

However, as regard on-going discussion, I say as follows: we are considering organic relationships with the mind-set of formal logic. Rather than resolutions we end up with paradoxes. It's like saying, "I'm the bud, the bloom, the flower and the fruit; no wait ? I'm not, I'm all of them".

Hence, sub main jyot, jyot ha soi tis te chanan sub main chanan hoi [kitan sohila, p 13 SGGSJ, meaning, one light many lamps]. Looking at the same thrThe paradox Indeed it's reality as a whole insofar, the observer is sitting outside, but not true, insofar, experience of the individual regards experience by liner- causal chain of events where conscious activity is a prerequisite to confirm individuality an existence.Yes, sargun-nirgun applicable as a concept but experience requires "conscious agent" to determine actual existence.

Consciousness has always been a source of mystery. Philosophers and Scientists have succeeded in demystifying it to a degree, but still it slips through the net one might cast with words. And, hence, "vaddaa sahib oucha thoua oucha uppar oucha nauaoo, evad oucha hovaa koi tis ouch kau jaana soi" [Japji Sahib, meaning, no one knows the limit. The more we try to describe it the more it deludes description....only by becoming as high as He can one know that exalted Being].

You're a Gurmukh Sikh, meaning, obeying an external authority that corresponds and coordinates with an inner "being" [God]. What you experience is by the grace of God and not everyone evolves to merit such an accommodation for its a karmic accumulation [Sikh Theology] and not laboriously generated. All human endeavours consciously or subconsciously are directed to that end as a matter of course and not of choice.

Thank you for your continuous illuminstions of the spiritual within the physical.

But that is what Sikhi says.

..reference would be appreciated !

But that is what Sikhi says. We as individuals don't exist. We are transient and illusory, stuck in a paradigm of duality. Although we will cease to exist, Existence will continue. Existence will exist forever. We are Existence.

..not quite ! You see, this is where Nanak comes into rescue [renaissance] the soul because people had fallen into all sorts of mix n match ideologies prevalent at the time. He completely changed the trend of religious life in India. Against the world being regarded as Maya [illusion], or a place of doom n gloom [suffering etc], he called it real and meaningful. Against withdrawal from life, he recommended life affirmation as full and virtuous participation in the everyday affairs of life [kirit kar]. Against celibacy and the inequality of women, he recommended a householder's life and equality to women. And indeed, as you know this being the physical dimension of the human condition, the spiritual [meditation] dimension is equally recommended for the purpose of human birth is supplanted to an ultimate end, that is, experience of the Higher Being [Gobind milan ki eah teri bariyaa p12 SGGSJ].

As regards "existence"; these are philosophical treatises [Ontology] and can only take you to the door [so dar] of the Being, experience thereafter is independent. The human toolbox, that is, perception n conception cannot enter. Says who ? SGGSJ, page 340. But why ? Because it is beyond time n space. The experience is transcendence, meaning, where ordinary consciousness is confined to the parameters of time n space, the transcendent consciousness [chautha pad, parm pad, p1123 SGGSJ] is beyond. This then from an academic reasoning is metaphysical a dialectic, meaning, that which exists beyond matter, time n space. That as a result, rules out "nothingness" by definition of it being transcendence for it has certain inherent properties, such as, dark matter, space and time.

Harkiran Kaur has been trying to [bless her], articulate something that is beyond articulation but not beyond validation. And, she is doing a wonderful exposition to show what we call an "organic relationship"