Sikh Atheism

[spnadmin]

Ambarasia ji,

I was referring to Prakash's clarification of where he stood on the issue of Sikhism = Atheism. But also thank you, as I love notes. Thanks a lot. A bit like a peek at your notebook, full of notes on thoughts and thoughts.

 

[spnadmin]

On the subject of "one" Ek Oankaar, I take the explanation of Bhai Gurdas to mean that the mool mantar is a powerful statement of montheism, and certainly not a stipulation of atheism.

Vaar 3 Pauri 15 Line 1

ਏਕਾ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ।.
By writing 1 (one) in the beginning, it has been shown that Ekankar, God, who subsumes all forms... is only one...

The part of the verse that pertains to my earlier comments is "By writing 1 (one) in the beginning .....Ek Oaankar is only one...

He continues:
ਊੜਾ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਬਹਾਲਿਆ।
Ura, the first Gurmukhi letter, in the form of Oankar shows the world controlling power of that one Lord.


Whether one agrees with Dr. Jodh Singh's, the translator, decision to use the word [God], or [Lord] for that matter, is another issue. If one always interprets [God] to mean a personal god, then it was a bad choice of words. If one understands that [God] need not be a personal [God]. then I think it is a fair inference that [God] was used for purposes of bridging a translation gap.

As I said earlier, not every western religion takes [God] to be the old man in the sky with a white beard. Too bad the word [God] has taken on some kind of sticky negative stuff.

 

[Ambarsaria]

spnadmin ji I also believe that Sikhism God is actually not a fully definable and describable entity. Hence it becomes personal as one cannot communicate fully to another.

So if an atheist says to be not believing in one, it is as valid as one that does believe. The one that believes cannot fully describe the "being of God" while the non-believer saying not even one God "cannot full describe the non-being of one God" either.

In Sikhism, a study to understand is valid but any studies to fully define or to actually search for one are futile.

On the other hand, we can let atheists go in their merry ways through science to keep doing discoveries to fully define the universe and Einestein says and I kind of paraphrase, "the ultimate truths are simple", we may just find one day in many a zillion years somewhere else that the atheist truth or qualification is what Sikhism God is flagged as, we could have a group hug kudihug mundahug peacesignkaur
I hope it is not circular argument or exposition.lol

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[spnadmin]

Ambarsaria ji

I want to react to two of your comments.

I also believe that Sikhism God is actually not a fully definable and describable entity. Hence it becomes personal as one cannot communicate fully to another..

According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and Bhai Gurdas, the reality of Ek Oankaar, cannot be fully grasped. No argument from me on that. And I agree that one's personal and subjective comprehension of [God] is difficult to communicate to someone else. However, to have a personal understanding of [God] is very different from stating that [God] is a "personal God." A personal [God] is a Christian term actually. It means that [God] is known personally, because he manifested as a person, as Jesus the son of [God]. So "personal God" typically does not have optional meanings. And it is not the same thing as one's personal understanding of [God].

So if an atheist says to be not believing in one, it is as valid as one that does believe.

I don't think you completely understand what I have been trying to express. The validity of atheism versus the validity of any religion or system of belief was not really my concern. My concern is about the trend to equate Sikhism with atheism using illogical arguments. The arguments do no justice either to atheism or to Sikhism.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Just couple of comments in red if that is Ok,

Ambarsaria ji

I want to react to two of your comments.



According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and Bhai Gurdas Ek Oankaar, cannot be fully grasped. No argument from me on that. And I agree that one's personal and subjective comprehension of {God] is difficult to communicate to someone else. However, to have a personal understanding of [God] is very different from stating that [God] is a "personal God." (sorry I did not include the word "understanding" though I meant that and not "personal God". This "personal God" pre-occupation is very foreign to my thought processes when all is the same in the Sikhism beliefs and it is only a degree of understanding that is different) A personal [God] is a Christian term actually. It means that [God] is known personally, because he manifested as a person, as Jesus the son of [God]. So "personal God" typically does not have optional meanings. And it is not the same thing as one's personal understanding of [God] (my belief is personal understanding and not personal God).



I don't think you completely understand what I have been trying to express. The validity of atheism versus the validity of any religion or system belief was not really my concern. My concern is about the trend to equate Sikhism with atheism using illogical arguments. The arguments do no justice either to atheism or to Sikhism. I don't try to make arguments just share my understanding as it develops so I am not sure if you see issues with my statements/understanding. I will like to be corrected, no problem and it is appreciated as I can learn better going forward.

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Randip Singh]

Randip Singh ji

If that is true, then why does the mantar begin with the number 1 instead of the word "one." In ekoankar ੴ ੧ implies the unity or oneness of creation.

I think the answer lies following this

Ek Onkar, Sat Naam

There is but one constant, and truth is its name.

Now some people may wish to percieve that Truth as "God" in the Abrahamic sense.

All I am saying is that teh Sikh concept of "God" is very different from the Abrahamic one.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

SIGNIFICANCE OF NUMERICAL NUMBER ONE IN THE SYMBOL

I feel that the understanding the correct sinificance of the Numerical number in the SYMBOL may be MASTER KEY for the whole of understanding of Gurbaani.
Again here grammer is important.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[spnadmin]

I had been wondering yesterday where I went wrong. How did I come to believe in the first place that Sikhism was a monotheistic religion (path)? Or that Sikhism could not be atheistic. Had I gone wrong? Where had I gone wrong? Had my mind failed me?

After mulling on this for an hour or so, it suddenly dawned on me that the idea that Sikhism was a monotheistic religion, and not atheist, must have come from Bhai Gurdas. Then I posted about that a few comments back.

Today I discovered this old thread and wanted to share some of it. These are the thoughts of Master Teja Singh on the meaning of the Mool Mantar. At the permalink http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/jap-ji-sahib/2-mool-manter-translation-master-teja-singh.html#post3

1k onkar satnam karta purakh nirbho nirvair akal murat ajooni saibhang gur prasad.

There is but One all embracing and all powerful Divinity, Who manifests Himself first in the shape of the sacred word, and then through the whole created Universe
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/jap-ji-sahib/2-mool-manter-translation-master-teja-singh.html

He is the One-in-all and the All-in-one. He is the Eternal Reality, and His name Satnam is also Eternal. He is the Creator, and has the power of independent self - creation. He permeates the whole creation. He is the only male element in the Universe and all else is female. He is above all fear, and is free from all thoughts of enmity. He is immortal, free from birth and rebirth, and can be realised in every created thing.

He is self - existent. The whole universe is dependent for its existence on Him but He is self - existent; the Generator of all, without any one to generate Him.

He can be realised through the grace of the Guru-The Teacher who is God conscious, and sees Him both within and without.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

In Gurbaani the DIVINITYorETERNAL DIVINITY being reffered as CREATOR is not something ONE as is usually reffered..NOR DIVINITY is male element alone.Had it been so then DIVINITY could havebeen personified as HE.

The whole DIVIME CONSCIOUSNESS is representation of something which is both MALE as well as Female and this WHOLE CONSCIOUS NESS is being reffered as GUR.

The last words in the MOOL MANTRA are GUR and PRASAADi. These arre two separate words not the composite one like SATiNAAMu or KARTA PURAKHu .

Thus according to Gurbaani CREATOR is GUR and .THE very first SYMBOL is the AKAL MURARi of GUR and this SYMBOL has been prnounced as EKANKAARu

This is what I have understood from Gurbaani thru the grace of SATiGURu Ji SGGS

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

In Gurbaani the DIVINITYorETERNAL DIVINITY being reffered as CREATOR is not something ONE as is usually reffered..NOR DIVINITY is male element alone.Had it been so then DIVINITY could havebeen personified as HE.

The whole DIVIME CONSCIOUSNESS is representation of something which is both MALE as well as Female and this WHOLE CONSCIOUS NESS is being reffered as GUR.

The last words in the MOOL MANTRA are GUR and PRASAADi. These arre two separate words not the composite one like SATiNAAMu or KARTA PURAKHu .

Thus according to Gurbaani CREATOR is GUR and .THE very first SYMBOL is the AKAL MURARi of GUR and this SYMBOL has been prnounced as EKANKAARu

This is what I have understood from Gurbaani thru the grace of SATiGURu Ji Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji

Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash S. Bagga ji it is perhaps valid to quote the source unless it is yourself. I find lot of the interpretation offered by you to be in line with Professor Sahib Singh ji. Do you see any deficiencies in his work as sometimes one wants to read before and after of your quotes? So I am just trying to seek your suggestion.

Profesoor Sahib Singh ji says for the above,

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[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-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

gur pRswid— gurU dy pRswd nwl, gurU dI ikrpw nwl, Bwv, auprokq '<>' gurU dI ikrpw nwl (imldw hY) [



​

Reference: Professor Sahib Singh ji, "Sri Guru Granth Sahib darpan", pg. 35/6288 (http://www.gurbanifiles.org/gurmukhi/GuruGranth%20Darpan%20by%20Prof%20Sahib%20Singh.pdf)




Thank you.


Sat Sri Akal.


​

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSARIA Ji,

It is very important to know that how any word in Gurbaani has been classified as SINGULAR or PLURAL.
You will find that gramatically the word GUR is PLURAL whereas the word GURU is SINGULAR,therefore the word GUR should not be equated with the word GURU.
This understanding is the main cause of our misinterpretation of Gurbaani .This should be clarified first.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

When I say there is no concept of GOD in Sikhism it does not mean that this amounts to Atheism. This is related to the way the word GOD is used in interpretation of Gurbaani.
Any one can verify the fact that gramatically the word GOD is not applicable to any reference of Gurbaani.As a matter of fact this should be looked into.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

Prakash S. Bagga ji, I thinkg the following may be at ever bit slight variance on your thoughts,

Awal Allah Noor - Mohinder Singh Bhalla

YouTube - Awal Allah Noor - Mohinder Singh Bhalla

http://www.searchgurbani.com/guru_granth_sahib/ang/1350/line/57717

I am not stating a physical God or such but "the understanding of the creator" which is the essence of the Gurbani.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I made my references according to the DICTIONARY meanings of the word GOD.Even I searched ENCYCLOPEDIA of English Dictionary.There also the meaning of the GOD is given as CREATOR of the UNIVERSE.the word is NOUN and SINGUAR and represents A MAle Element.

I am quite familiar with the composition of the Vedio and I dont see any yariance in my thoughts different from what I have been postiings.
For your information you may confirm that the word ALLAH also appears in the stated pattern of Gurbaani grammer as ALLAH....ALLAHu....and ALLAHAA like GUR /GURu and GURU.This pattern is important to understand.

As far as the meaning of the word GOD as "the understanding of the Creator" is not available in any Dictionary.This needs more clarification.

I may bring to your knowledge that even Prof Sahib Singh Ji has taken the word GUR as equal to GURU but I have not accepted this athough I started my Gurbaani understanding like you only.
Sir,You will have to recapitulate your own knowledge of Grammer of your School study
and this will be more useful.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

prakash s. bagga ji we all have our own styles of study.

At stage of my life where I am, I don't have the timelines required. Professor Sahib Singh ji spent 30 plus years including his marvelous upbringing and heritage in Sanskrit, Hindu mythology, Sikh degenerates (it seems many of the same still exist) of the times who created doubt, etc. I humbly submit to his understanding as long as it also makes sense to me. I don't read blindly as I reason with his darpan when I read it.

I don't need to be reminded about Gur GURu (ALLAH....ALLAHu....and ALLAHAA) business as it is pretty simple to me. It just gets complicated the way you state it and not expose the meanings along the posting for others. I don't need such for myself but perhaps it might help others if you explain the differences in such citations when you make these (just a humble suggestion).

I still remember my Punjabi lessons from way back and I think it is in my blood!

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I fully agree with your views,
Many thanks for nice interaction on the subject.
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Randip Singh]

Ambarsaria ji

I want to react to two of your comments.



According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and Bhai Gurdas, the reality of Ek Oankaar, cannot be fully grasped. No argument from me on that. And I agree that one's personal and subjective comprehension of [God] is difficult to communicate to someone else. However, to have a personal understanding of [God] is very different from stating that [God] is a "personal God." A personal [God] is a Christian term actually. It means that [God] is known personally, because he manifested as a person, as Jesus the son of [God]. So "personal God" typically does not have optional meanings. And it is not the same thing as one's personal understanding of [God].



I don't think you completely understand what I have been trying to express. The validity of atheism versus the validity of any religion or system of belief was not really my concern. My concern is about the trend to equate Sikhism with atheism using illogical arguments. The arguments do no justice either to atheism or to Sikhism.

Indeed some interesting points and this is exactly what I mean by the difference between the Abrahamic and Sikh concept of "go".

Even the term "God" is Abrahamic in nature and denotes a particular idea of the Ultimate reality. This Ultimate reality is indeed difficult to describe or convey as one understands it. The Sikh concept is within and without.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

RANDEEP SINGH Ji,
Divine Greetings

I can visualse your concern about the word GOD.My concern is related to the fact that when 'ULTIMATE REALITY" is already being reffered as GUR in Gurbaani then where is the need to refer GUR as GOD which is not a word of Gurbaani Vocabulary at all.
Cant we interprate Gurbaani without using the word GOD.?

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[paul the pipe]

Hi, SKD 1709,
I am an atheist, and a searcher
As others have mentioned, science has never proved that God does not exist.
Science is simply the study of nature in a rigorous and systematic way.
Sometimes the findings of scientists may cast doubt on the writings of some people,
but if those writings were written in good faith then the writer's wisdom should not be disregarded. For the people who wrote the scriptures of all religions, and yourself, no doubt, God is a very real force and science simply tries to illuminate the world we find our selves in. Don't give up your God to false logic. The existence of God cannot be disproved.
May your God go with you

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

PAUL THE PIPEJi,
The existence of GOD can not be disapproved.This isabsolutely right.
The im[portant matter of reference is that our GURUs have given the concept of CREATOR but this concept is not reffered as GOD in SGGS.We should first understand
the way the CREATOR is being reffered in SGGSand then see whether the reference word of the CTEATOR as given in SGGS can be equated with the word GOD or not.
The important consideration is this.
If the word given for CTREATOR in SGGS can be equated with word GOD then only we can say that there is a concept of CREATOR in SGGS and that can also be reffered as GOD otherwise not.
Prakash.S.Bagga