Atheism Sikhism And Atheism: A Philosophical Discourse

[spnadmin]

Thanks for the Mull Mantra Bhagat ji - Why is Ek Oankar missing?

 

[Archived_member13]

Re: Why Sikhism?

I think u have misunderstood the verses of SGGS regarding the concept of god in Sikh religion as whole well this is only scripture where the qualities of
god are well defined. Japji Sahib is the explanation of Guru Granth Sahib and
many names have been given to god like hari, nam, but it doesn't mean that
whole scripture is out of context. Waheguru have been used time since immorial. Guru Nanak dev ji was the first prophet or Guru in human form was in
this world before Adam and Eve. Now if u have any questions regarding Sikhi
u can post ure message and let the truth spread.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

gurveen1 ji - :welcome: I appreciate your comments. Please continue to share your views so there we have some insight into your thinking.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Science does not claim to be a discipliine that seek to prove. Science tries to describe, predict, explain natural phenomena, and demonstrate. So looking to science or the scientific method, in which inferences are made based on material evidence, is a rather futile field of inquiry, if we are looking for reasonable arguments that God exists.

I would like to propose that philosophers are reasonable since reason is their mode of argument. I also propose that Guru Nanak was both a reasonable and a rational man. And further that he over and again in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj made what philosophers, from the time of Anselm the Doctor viewed as a "ontological claims," for the existence of God.

Ontology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the reality of objects both tangible and abstract. An ontological proof is not dependent on scientific inference, but on intuitive and/or formal logical argument

A Definition of "Ontology"
Ontology is the theory of objects and their ties. Ontology provides criteria for distinguishing various types of objects (concrete and abstract, existent and non-existent, real and ideal, independent and dependent) and their ties (relations, dependences and predication).

Here is a section from raag Asa
Guru Nanak

ਤੂੰ ਘਟ ਘਟ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਰਬ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਜੀ ਹਰਿ ਏਕੋ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਸਮਾਣਾ ॥
thoon ghatt ghatt anthar sarab niranthar jee har eaeko purakh samaanaa ||
You are constant in each and every heart, and in all things. O Dear Lord, you are the One.

ਇਕਿ ਦਾਤੇ ਇਕਿ ਭੇਖਾਰੀ ਜੀ ਸਭਿ ਤੇਰੇ ਚੋਜ ਵਿਡਾਣਾ ॥
eik dhaathae eik bhaekhaaree jee sabh thaerae choj viddaanaa ||
Some are givers, and some are beggars. This is all Your Wondrous Play.

ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਦਾਤਾ ਆਪੇ ਭੁਗਤਾ ਜੀ ਹਉ ਤੁਧੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥
thoon aapae dhaathaa aapae bhugathaa jee ho thudhh bin avar n jaanaa ||
You Yourself are the Giver, and You Yourself are the Enjoyer. I know no other than You.

ਤੂੰ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੇਅੰਤੁ ਬੇਅੰਤੁ ਜੀ ਤੇਰੇ ਕਿਆ ਗੁਣ ਆਖਿ ਵਖਾਣਾ ॥
thoon paarabreham baeanth baeanth jee thaerae kiaa gun aakh vakhaanaa ||
You are the Supreme Lord God, Limitless and Infinite. What Virtues of Yours can I speak of and describe?

ਜੋ ਸੇਵਹਿ ਜੋ ਸੇਵਹਿ ਤੁਧੁ ਜੀ ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਤਿਨ ਕੁਰਬਾਣਾ ॥੨॥
jo saevehi jo saevehi thudhh jee jan naanak thin kurabaanaa ||2||
Unto those who serve You, unto those who serve You, Dear Lord, servant Nanak is a sacrifice. ||2||

ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਵਹਿ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਵਹਿ ਤੁਧੁ ਜੀ ਸੇ ਜਨ ਜੁਗ ਮਹਿ ਸੁਖਵਾਸੀ ॥
har dhhiaavehi har dhhiaavehi thudhh jee sae jan jug mehi sukhavaasee ||
Those who meditate on You, Lord, those who meditate on You-those humble beings dwell in peace in this world.

ਸੇ ਮੁਕਤੁ ਸੇ ਮੁਕਤੁ ਭਏ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਜੀ ਤਿਨ ਤੂਟੀ ਜਮ ਕੀ ਫਾਸੀ ॥
sae mukath sae mukath bheae jin har dhhiaaeiaa jee thin thoottee jam kee faasee ||
They are liberated, they are liberated-those who meditate on the Lord. For them, the noose of death is cut away.

ਜਿਨ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਜੀ ਤਿਨ ਕਾ ਭਉ ਸਭੁ ਗਵਾਸੀ ॥
jin nirabho jin har nirabho dhhiaaeiaa jee thin kaa bho sabh gavaasee ||
Those who meditate on the Fearless One, on the Fearless Lord-all their fears are dispelled.

ਜਿਨ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਿਨ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਜੀ ਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਸਮਾਸੀ ॥
jin saeviaa jin saeviaa maeraa har jee thae har har roop samaasee ||
Those who serve, those who serve my Dear Lord, are absorbed into the Being of the Lord, Har, Har.

ਸੇ ਧੰਨੁ ਸੇ ਧੰਨੁ ਜਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਜੀ ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਤਿਨ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਸੀ ॥੩॥
sae dhhann sae dhhann jin har dhhiaaeiaa jee jan naanak thin bal jaasee ||3||
Blessed are they, blessed are they, who meditate on their Dear Lord. Servant Nanak is a sacrifice to them. ||3||

ਤੇਰੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਭੰਡਾਰ ਜੀ ਭਰੇ ਬਿਅੰਤ ਬੇਅੰਤਾ ॥
thaeree bhagath thaeree bhagath bhanddaar jee bharae bianth baeanthaa ||
Devotion to You, devotion to You, is a treasure overflowing, infinite and beyond measure.

ਤੇਰੇ ਭਗਤ ਤੇਰੇ ਭਗਤ ਸਲਾਹਨਿ ਤੁਧੁ ਜੀ ਹਰਿ ਅਨਿਕ ਅਨੇਕ ਅਨੰਤਾ ॥
thaerae bhagath thaerae bhagath salaahan thudhh jee har anik anaek ananthaa ||
Your devotees, Your devotees praise You, Dear Lord, in many and various and countless ways.

ਤੇਰੀ ਅਨਿਕ ਤੇਰੀ ਅਨਿਕ ਕਰਹਿ ਹਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਜੀ ਤਪੁ ਤਾਪਹਿ ਜਪਹਿ ਬੇਅੰਤਾ ॥
thaeree anik thaeree anik karehi har poojaa jee thap thaapehi japehi baeanthaa ||
For You, many, for You, so very many perform worship services, O Dear Infinite Lord; they practice disciplined meditation and chant endlessly.

ਤੇਰੇ ਅਨੇਕ ਤੇਰੇ ਅਨੇਕ ਪੜਹਿ ਬਹੁ ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ ਜੀ ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਿਆ ਖਟੁ ਕਰਮ ਕਰੰਤਾ ॥
thaerae anaek thaerae anaek parrehi bahu simrith saasath jee kar kiriaa khatt karam karanthaa ||
For You, many, for You, so very many read the various Simritees and Shaastras. They perform rituals and religious rites.

ਸੇ ਭਗਤ ਸੇ ਭਗਤ ਭਲੇ ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੀ ਜੋ ਭਾਵਹਿ ਮੇਰੇ ਹਰਿ ਭਗਵੰਤਾ ॥੪॥
sae bhagath sae bhagath bhalae jan naanak jee jo bhaavehi maerae har bhagavanthaa ||4||
Those devotees, those devotees are sublime, O servant Nanak, who are pleasing to my Dear Lord God. ||4||

ਤੂੰ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਅਪਰੰਪਰੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਜੀ ਤੁਧੁ ਜੇਵਡੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥
thoon aadh purakh aparanpar karathaa jee thudhh jaevadd avar n koee ||
You are the Primal Being, the Most Wonderful Creator. There is no other as Great as You.

ਤੂੰ ਜੁਗੁ ਜੁਗੁ ਏਕੋ ਸਦਾ ਸਦਾ ਤੂੰ ਏਕੋ ਜੀ ਤੂੰ ਨਿਹਚਲੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਸੋਈ ॥
thoon jug jug eaeko sadhaa sadhaa thoon eaeko jee thoon nihachal karathaa soee ||
Age after age, You are the One. Forever and ever, You are the One. You never change, O Creator Lord.

ਤੁਧੁ ਆਪੇ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋਈ ਵਰਤੈ ਜੀ ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਕਰਹਿ ਸੁ ਹੋਈ ॥
thudhh aapae bhaavai soee varathai jee thoon aapae karehi s hoee ||
Everything happens according to Your Will. You Yourself accomplish all that occurs.

ਤੁਧੁ ਆਪੇ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸਭ ਉਪਾਈ ਜੀ ਤੁਧੁ ਆਪੇ ਸਿਰਜਿ ਸਭ ਗੋਈ ॥
thudhh aapae srisatt sabh oupaaee jee thudhh aapae siraj sabh goee ||
You Yourself created the entire universe, and having fashioned it, You Yourself shall destroy it all.

ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵੈ ਕਰਤੇ ਕੇ ਜੀ ਜੋ ਸਭਸੈ ਕਾ ਜਾਣੋਈ ॥੫॥੧॥
jan naanak gun gaavai karathae kae jee jo sabhasai kaa jaanoee ||5||1||
Servant Nanak sings the Glorious Praises of the Dear Creator, the Knower of all. ||5||1||

In my post to follow there are several ontological proofs for the existence of God put forward by well known philosophers. It would be interesting to cull out of their proofs ideas that are consistent with the revelations of Guru Nanak. We should find a few.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Ontological proofs in history for the existence of God. These are roughly in chronological order. Please keep in mind that these are not the arguments of religionists. They are not statements about whether God is vengeful or forgiving. They are philosophical arguments. In the case of at least one of these philosophers, there was a personal belief in God, though not any faith in a particular religion.

Anselm the Doctor

Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He reasoned that, if "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" existed only in the intellect, it would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", since it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm, that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in reality. The bulk of the Proslogionis taken up with Anselm's attempt to establish the identity of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" as God, and thus to establish that God exists in reality.

Acquinas

Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the "Five Ways."

Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:

• God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
• God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
• God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
• God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
• God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence.

In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

Descartes

Version A: The intuitive argument

• Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
• I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
• Therefore, God exists.

The rule for truth appears here in the guise of the first premise, but it is more naturally read as a statement of Descartes' own alternative method of "demonstration" via clear and distinct perception or intuition. In effect, the first "premise" is designed to instruct the meditator on how to apply this method, the same role that the analogy with a geometric demonstration serves in passage

Descartes sometimes uses traditional arguments as heuristic devices, not merely to appease a scholastically trained audience but to help induce clear and distinct perceptions. This is evident for example in the version of the ontological argument standardly associated with his name:

Version B: The ontological argument

• I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
• Necessary existence is a perfection.
• Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.

Descartes is aiming a deeper point, namely that there is a conceptual link between necessary existence and each of the other divine perfections. …Because our mind is finite, we normally think of the divine perfections separately and "hence may not immediately notice the necessity of their being joined together" (First Replies, AT 7:119; CSM 2:85). But if we attend carefully to "whether existence belongs to a supremely perfect being, and what sort of existence it is" we shall discover that we cannot conceive any one of the other attributes while excluding necessary existence from it (ibid.).

Kant

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[49] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).


Godel using modal reasoning

The first version of the ontological proof in Gödel's papers is dated "around 1941".

• Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
• Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
• Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
• Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
• — a positive property is positive
• Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
• Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
• Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
• Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
• Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
• Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
• Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
• Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Sources are Wikipoedia and also the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy As I read through these arguments, there were many times when I remembered lines from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj that seemed eerily similar. How could that be? (irony)

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Now many of the ontological proofs of the existence of God have as their source the reasoning of Aristotle. The world of science, the field of Physics in particular, has thoroughly trounced Aristotelian logic regarding the Unmoved Mover. However, we are not asking for a "scientific proof for God." The question was, is there a reasonable way to argue that there is a God.

Here is what Artistotle had to say about God.


[Et vita autem] And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.

[Quicumque autem putant] Those who suppose, as the Pythagoreans and Speusippus do, that supreme beauty and goodness are not present in the beginning, because the beginnings both of plants and of animals are causes, but beauty and completeness are in the effects of these, are wrong in their opinion. For the seed comes from other individuals which are prior and complete, and the first thing is not seed but the complete [73a] being; e.g. we must say that before the seed there is a man,-not the man produced from the seed, but another from whom the seed comes.

It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things. [Ostensum autem est] It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude, but is without parts and indivisible (for it produces movement through infinite time, but nothing finite has infinite power; and, while every magnitude is either infinite or finite, it cannot, for the above reason, have finite magnitude, and it cannot have infinite magnitude because there is no infinite magnitude at all). [m63 73a 11] But it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable; for all the other changes are posterior to change of place.

Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 12 (Lambda) chapters 6-10

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Concept of God in Sikhism by Daljeet Singh, from globalsikhstudies

See the attachment

 

[BhagatSingh]

Thanks for the Mull Mantra Bhagat ji - Why is Ek Oankar missing?

Seems as if you have edited your previous comment... if you didn't I must have missed the question. You may put Ek oankar in, I don't care. Kartapurakh was enough to illustrate the flaw in the Creative Energy argument and so I quoted that bit. No other reason.

For anyone who doesn't know the Mool Mantar:
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 ~

EDIT: Just because something is logically concievable doesn't mean it exists.

 

[spnadmin]

Seems as if you have edited your previous comment... if you didn't I must have missed the question. You may put Ek oankar in, I don't care. Kartapurakh was enough to illustrate the flaw in the Creative Energy argument and so I quoted that bit. No other reason.

For anyone who doesn't know the Mool Mantar:
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 ~

EDIT: Just because something is logically concievable doesn't mean it exists.

Yes, later that night I recalled that I did not see One Universal Creator God, and came back to ask why.

"Just because something is logically conceivable doesn't mean it exists," is not the claim being made philosophically. The future exists as a reality even though we haven't seen it yet. Compassion exists even though it can not be sensed with our 5 senses. We infer it from its effects.

A proof of the "existence" or "reality" of God is not dependent on scientific reasoning, at least a nice sized group of philosophers did not think so. Rather it comes alive through philosophical reasoning. To repeat the definition of "ontology" where these discussions occur:

Ontology is the theory of objects and their ties. Ontology provides criteria for distinguishing various types of objects (concrete and abstract, existent and non-existent, real and ideal, independent and dependent) and their ties (relations, dependences and predication).

So within the realm of ontology, a logical proof can demonstrate that something "exists."

 

[BhagatSingh]

"Just because something is logically conceivable doesn't mean it exists," is not the claim being made philosophically. The future exists as a reality even though we haven't seen it yet. Compassion exists even though it can not be sensed with our 5 senses. We infer it from its effects.

Let's tackle each part serparately. How do you define future?
To me future is time that has yet to come. We know the universe isn't going to collapse any moment soon so from that knowledge, infering that we still might see the future, isn't a bad idea. Obviously, we can't "see" the "future", but the future doesn't always exist, the universe will soon collapse (by soon I mean some billion years)... time began when the universe expanded so future will cease to exist when it collapses.

"Compassion exists even though it can not be sensed with our 5 senses. We infer it from its effects." Yes, and the effects are sensed by our senses. We can see people being compassionate.
If that isn't enough, when they are doing compassionate things, we can futher use MRI and other techniques to get a picture of their brain. Adding to our existing images of other emotions and thoughts, giving us an idea of what part of the brain is responsible for what.

BTW where is your logically coherent proof for compassion??

A proof of the "existence" or "reality" of God is not dependent on scientific reasoning, at least a nice sized group of philosophers did not think so. Rather it comes alive through philosophical reasoning. To repeat the definition of "ontology" where these discussions occur:

Ontology is the theory of objects and their ties. Ontology provides criteria for distinguishing various types of objects (concrete and abstract, existent and non-existent, real and ideal, independent and dependent) and their ties (relations, dependences and predication).

So within the realm of ontology, a logical proof can demonstrate that something "exists."

I think what you mean is that it is logically sound but may or may not exist.

Again just because something is logically coherent, doesn't mean it exists. Funny thing is that these philosophers who will say that are not following any organized religion, they won't be the ones indoctrinating the young into all sorts of dreadful things. They won't be the ones resisting stem cell research...

 

[spnadmin]

Bhagat ji,

I have presented the thinking of several major philosophers. They explain that is possible to come up with a reasonable "proof" that a concept (let's say of the reality of God in this case) is "real" if it can be conceived of in mind or thought. Agreed - The concept or entity or object can be undescribable in ordinary language (as in the case of Waheguru), and therefore it cannot be proved in the scientific sense. These philosophers say that a concept like God or future "exists" or it would not have been "in thought" to begin with. So now it is up to you to evaluate the ontological arguments according to the rules of ontology or you have not addressed issues that I have raised. Resorting to questions that required answers from empirical (based on sense) and physical experience does not work inside of the framework that I have presented to you.

 

[Archived_member13]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Well that's not the way of my thinking because if u look at the first human beings on the
planet were Adam and Eve. It's just bunch of stories nothing else if u read SGGS human
body is made of clay and there's soul which never dies so the soul goes to God's court
it has to answer for you're actions. The Following verse says

By His Command, bodies are created; His Command cannot be described.

By His Command, souls come into being; by His Command, glory and greatness are obtained. PAURI 2

Regarding Sikhi well let me tell u one more thing Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists
are all Sikhs because they are given deffirent names due to their prophets, gods and
goddess why Guru Nanak Dev Ji referred to us as Sikhs due to fact that when u become
disciple of humanity u rise above caste, colour or religion and Sikhi is beyond states or
boundaries that is the meaning of Sikh. I hope u got little insight or anyone who has any
questions they can leave their posts or email me at gurveen45@hotmail.com I would
be more than happy to answer. Thanks:star:

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

respected gurveen 1 ji,

Just a kind tip -- please when you disagree, state who or what you disagre with. I say this because it is hard to follow your idea if we can't figure out where you disagree.

There are two places where I agree with you.

Well that's not the way of my thinking because if u look at the first human beings on the
planet were Adam and Eve. It's just bunch of stories nothing else if u read SGGS human
body is made of clay and there's soul which never dies so the soul goes to God's court
it has to answer for you're actions. The Following verse says

By His Command, bodies are created; His Command cannot be described.


By His Command, souls come into being; by His Command, glory and greatness are obtained. PAURI 2


Regarding Sikhi well let me tell u one more thing Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists
are all Sikhs because they are given deffirent names due to their prophets, gods and
goddess why Guru Nanak Dev Ji referred to us as Sikhs due to fact that when u become
disciple of humanity u rise above caste, colour or religion and Sikhi is beyond states or
boundaries that is the meaning of Sikh. I hope u got little insight or anyone who has any
questions they can leave their posts or email me at gurveen45@hotmail.com I would
be more than happy to answer. Thanks:star:

Thanks so much :happy: because now I feel as if I have some back-up and someone that I can back up too. This world does not seem so lonely. That is what Guruji says to me -- that there is am Ek Oankar, in my mind "One Transcendent and Immanent" entity or Being (I am not suggesting a personal devta) who is aad such, jugaad such, hai bi sach, hosi bi sach. Can we not begin a "philosophical discourse" the way philosophers would do - with ideas that we can conceive -- even if we cannot touch, smell, see, hear, in the ordinary sense. That is -- if we want to have a "philosophical discourse."

 

[Archived_member13]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Lets have philosophical discourse or talk on religion on know for that fact that
the things i have talked about would difficult to swallow believe or not that's
the truth of Sikh religion :happy:

 

[Astroboy]

What is OSHO talking about ?YouTube - OSHO: God is Not a Solution - But a Problem

 

[spnadmin]

What we have in the above video is a charlatan -- a rich one at that -- with a huge corporate operation. You cannot even avail yourself of his destination, self-realization, holiday spa/ashram without money and a lot of it. What part of his message is not tainted by his agenda to lure the sophisticates (in their own minds)? These are ones who have too much money and time on their hands, and are basically paying OSHO to figure out their relationship to "God" for them.

Hah Hah

 

[Tejwant Singh]

What we have in the above video is a charlatan -- a rich one at that -- with a huge corporate operation. You cannot even avail yourself of his destination, self-realization, holiday spa/ashram without money and a lot of it. What part of his message is not tainted by his agenda to lure the sophisticates (in their own minds)? These are ones who have too much money and time on their hands, and are basically paying OSHO to figure out their relationship to "God" for them.

Hah Hah

Narayanjot ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well said. No one could have put it better and let's not forget these OSHO people wanted to poison the water system of a whole city in Oregon and murder some people over there. Luckily they were caught and some were sent to jail and Rajneesh was deported back to India as a plea bargain deal.

Regards


Tejwant Singh

 

[JimRinX]

SPN jis
I think the problem - or should I say 'confusion' - here, lies in the mash-up of the Deistic and Theistic points of view on the nature of God.
I am a fusion of Diest and Theist - and I see this as being the case for Guru Nanak as well, whenever I read him being quoted.
Most people want God to be a Theistic God - one who answers every prayer, heals you when your sick, will make you rich if you 'believe in Him', etc.; but that's not why we're here, in Mortal form, in a Samsara-type realm of Karma and Dharma; I mean, what would be the POINT, if God was going to do everything for you?
Though personal experience has brought 'proof' tha God does, sometimes, do things to help you or to bolster ones faith, for the most part we're like "wind them up - and let them go toys".
Also through personal experience, I can tell you the The Great Formless One - exactly as the Guru Granth Sahib describes it - IS/WAS the Diety Entity that made me so sure of it's existence; as I have walked - though I had no legs; seen - though I had no eyes; and heard - though I had no ears, while 'visiting' two different levels of the Formless Realm, during one of two totally life-altering meditational episodes.
Believe, my friends - BELIEVE; just don't expect a 'hand-up' every time you need one.
Adversity builds character; and that's what it's all about - developing us into 'Good Characters', through our various experiences in the Mortal Form.

 

[jasbirkaleka]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Narayanjot Kaur ji, Pls. could you answer one simple question. Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Why Sikhism?

Narayanjot Kaur ji, Pls. could you answer one simple question. Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

jasbirkaleka ji

Which theory are you asking about? There are several.

And what do you mean by "believe?" Belief is a complex subject in both psychology and in philosophy. Do scientists believe in science?