What Use Is It To Believe Everything?

[Ambarsaria]

Bhagat Singh ji one comment.

A stance comes naturally when both sides are understood. This kind of stance is very different from a stand where the person thinks they have understood both sides but have not. Just look at Ambarsaria ji's post above. His stance comes from ignorance of what I'm saying. Whereas you are here, tackling my post, perhaps trying to understand better or convince me of something, etc, he has already dismissed it as nonsense.

Bhagat Singh veer ji I apologize for any indiscretion. I sought Admin help to delete the post as it did not add to the discourse. I have little personal interest in this thread so I will limit my interactions here in this thread.

One has to watch out when one pretends to be a perfectly objective presenter on both sides of a discussion while also being implicated in a preferred outcome. This generally is a conceited way to present one's preferred position in most situations in life. It is projected as looking at both sides but it really never is. It happens all the time in real life, courts, politics, relationships, etc. Sorry for rambling.

Regarding Hukam one may want to interact or self study the Sabad in the following,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sukhm...ni-sahib-astpadi-14-sabad-1-a.html#post162971

This is not the only place in SGGS regarding Hukam but thought it may be of interest.
Sat Sri Akal. peacesign

 

[Luckysingh]

Parmaji and Harryji I understand both your points of view and from these I realise that hukam is actually not very easy to describe. One persons undertsanding is not the others.
It is simply the 'will of God'- however, how each one of us perceives it will be varied. I think that most seem to think that if we live our daily lives abiding with the truth, then whatever paths that get paved for us in the future are in accordance with hukam or God's command. This can get complicated as one will define truth and what is righteous differently to another, so acts of hukam will be different.
I don't think we should be debating on here what hukam is for each of us, but I think it deserves to be a thread of it's own. ( I haven't checked if there is one already.)
As far as Parma ji's concerns, I understand the angle they are coming from as well as Harry ji's expressions. They both have a standing.

Waheguru
Lucky Singh

 

[Ambarsaria]

Luckysingh ji a comment on your post.

I don't think we should be debating on here what hukam is for each of us, but I think it deserves to be a thread of it's own. ( I haven't checked if there is one already.)

The following is a thread,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/37532-hukam-what-does-it-mean.html

Sat Sri Akal

 

[Harry Haller]

Parmaji,

I have had the wonderful chance to give this matter some thought whilst suffering from food poisoning over the last 2 days. In between expelling liquids from all orifices, you have been on mind quite a lot!

The truth is this is something I cannot explain, all I know is that I have probably made every mistake a man could make, and suffered nearly every consequence a man could suffer, which has brought some understanding to me about my actions, the consequences of my actions, and my education. Call it practical education in Bani if you will, all I know is that now I find myself agreeing with Bani not out of lip service, but out of sheer conviction.

I can understand how it may seem I am lauding Manmukh, but in fact I am lauding Gurmukh, the problem arises as to differentiating between the two. Your point is that Hitler et all, all thought they were carrying out Gods will, Well I cannot speak for them, only myself and my personal experiences.,

However, as I have stated many many times this Hukam must be in line with the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which I believe answers your Hitler question.

Regards

 

[Harry Haller]

A stance comes naturally when both sides are understood. This kind of stance is very different from a stand where the person thinks they have understood both sides but have not. Just look at Ambarsaria ji's post above. His stance comes from ignorance of what I'm saying. Whereas you are here, tackling my post, perhaps trying to understand better or convince me of something, etc, he has already dismissed it as nonsense.

When we understand both sides of the argument, what is it that compells us to choose one over the other? Is it ignorance of the other? Or an understanding of both?

I have found that when I truly understand both sides, my stance is with both and neither. I see how they are right in their own frame e.g Ambarsaria ji's is right in his own frame. It is like the person who holds the elephant's trunk and describes him as a tree trunk, where as the one who is hold the tail describes him as a snake. When you understand both fully you know they are describing the elephant. Why then would you take a stance against one or the other?

But the funny thing is when you are called to describe (hold) the elephant you describe (hold) e.g. his leg (because the entire thing cannot be held/cannot be described) and then the other two turn towards you... Now if they see the elephant then they smile, and if they do not well...

There is your stance.

Now it is true that you can also describe the elephant as a trunk with complete conviction. You can describe the elephant as a tail with complete conviction as well. He can say that "my deepest conviction is that there is an elephant being described as the trunk and tail. I cannot describe the whole thing but trunk and tail seem to be describing it."

This might become your stance, and it will arise of it's own accord. A Sikh might say through God's grace.

One who knows only the trunk can only describe the trunk with complete conviction. And if this is what you call conviction and if this is the only thing you will call conviction then I have to say your definition of conviction is very flawed. It leaves no room for actual growth. Growth is where you expand your mind and start to see more and more of the elephant.

We are all for what is right. But if you see how someone is right in their own way, then do you accept it or reject it? All you can say is they are right in their own way. You might not hold the same frame as them but you know their frame.

We are all very similar so 99% of the time, if you think someone is completely wrong, they are actually right in their frame., you just haven't understood what their frame is. You might then reject their frame but I think the better way to go about life is understand the other's frame, to incorporate it into your own and then to transcend both, repeat as you encounter other frames. This is growth. And in growth lies happiness.



Here's a clearer picture of what I am saying.
Imagine a ruler (15 centimetres). Everything on this ruler is useful as it comes in handy when making measurements. This ruler is ego.

Now imagine that the one who has the ruler, one day realizes that the ruler that he uses to measure stuff, works great, yes but is not the only scale of measurement. There is the metre stick, there is the tape measure, in fact, his ruler is just a series of numbers in a much larger tape measure. Although, he cannot use this tape measure because being a human he is restricted to his human scale, the 15 centimetre ruler, he can however, then see his own scale in perspective, realizing there are bigger and bigger scales.

How significant is the ego from this perspective of kilometres and kilometres of tape measure? You cannot know until you have that perspective.

Since he cannot intellectually grasp the tape measure, he can only grasp 15 cm of it, all he can do is simply be aware of the grand scale of things. He cannot speak of them. Thus knowing everything is not really a knowing but a pure awareness of everything. It is knowing nothing in the sense that our normal way of knowing comes in the way of this larger knowing.

Whereas ego is holding onto the 15 cm ruler, anti ego is letting go and expanding the scale. To go deeper into the 15 cm and to go outwards to metres and kilometres.

Both are necessary.

Like a tree you must expand your branches above ground (in the world) and expand your roots below ground (in the divine). Expand only your stem and branches, your ego with whom you interact with the world, and you risk a weak grounding in reality. You risk being toppled over easily. Expand only your roots, your touch with divine, and you risk losing touch with the world. You cannot be toppled over, you are virtually immortal but you have no effect on the world, you are dead to the world.

Both are necessary.

Religions try and get you to go both ways. Lots of rituals, lots of structure but guidance on transcending rituals and structure.

Both are necessary.

PS following Hukam is the same as knowing your Self, your centre. Just to clear the confusion.

Bhagatsinghji

I actually agree with everything you have written in the above, which is a rarity!

It is possible that this is due to the fever which is currently absorbing me, but I cannot argue with the content of your post.

I would like to think my veer Ambarsariaji chooses to post what he does to encourage debate and thinking, in fact, I am sure of this fact. He is, in his own way, a vital tool for us all , if he were on the titanic, saving himself would be his last thought, he is the man with the torch and the directions.

Your goodself is the counsellor on the ship, easing worries, keeping morale up,explaining the situation to those that do not understand,

However to use the elephant analogy, it, in this circumstance does not quite do justice as an analogy for the simple reason a) we are all different and b) we have a living Guru that tells us which parts of the elephant are useless.

So lets take something pretty definitive, belief in multiple Gods that once lived, Bani tells us that this is a waste of time, and there is only one timeless God free of birth and death, now, to me, this must take precedent over reality, although I would never mock another, or ask another to yield to my thinking, for me, it is a moot subject. Bani has already saved me the thinking in the matter, I accept that this may be the elephants leg, and I can understand and debate why another could believe in it, but privately, it is a non starter.

Let us take an extreme, say someone who believes in killing of females, abortion, it is widespread, many do it, for lots it is a definitive part of the elephant, again, I can understand why people do it, and to some extent, I have some sympathy, but personally I would rather chop my hand off.

Let us go further, honour killings, you see at what point do we say, that is repulsive, that does not belong in civilised society, well its very simple, we must be guided by Bani, it is all we have to guide us.

 

[Parma]

I have had the wonderful chance to give this matter some thought whilst suffering from food poisoning over the last 2 days. In between expelling liquids from all orifices, you have been on mind quite a lot!

I'm not all that bad then, Good to know I make you feel better! mundahugkudihug

However, as I have stated many many times this Hukam must be in line with the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which I believe answers your Hitler question.
I dont think you understand the concept of sikhism harry, sikhism is not a demand on humanity, it is an individual option. Hitler wanted to create a suprior race, sikhism was created not as a race but as a concept of love for each other, to look at each other as humans, and help each other to be better with each other, not with hate, if you then call that a race because to define that love you take up the name sikh, then that is your opinion on it, but that is not a race it is called a religion. Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his whole family for the sake of humanity. His father for the Hindu's, he sacrificed a whole lot for the muslims as well, that's why Muslims helped him look like a Muslim Pir when he tried to escape from battle, due to an order from his 5 beloved.

Humanity is what all gods men have ever loved. You may say how come he was battling if he loved humanity, because other men do not love humanity they wish to kill love, like romeo and juliet's story, their families hate for each other "killed" their own children.
If romeo had stuck up for his love, would he have been able to get by without a fight? Truth is NO! So they both commited suicide, when romeo thought juliet was dead he took a dagger and killed himself, then she does the same when she awakes to find him dead when their love story's ended which was everything to them their lives ended they had nothing to live for, a bit selfish, well maybe.
Now Guru Gobind Singh had love for humanity, humanity did not die, humanity had not ended and humanity had not prevailed to be able to love each other and God without prejudice! (as in romeo and juliets case it had ended). So he had to fight for that, fight for people to be able to fight for the love of god, that is within ourselves as well as within each other. Now you might say fight for love? Romeo and Juliet died for love, and they never recieved it, Guru Gobind Singh Sacrificed everything he had for love so that we all can recieve it, undescribable love. Ultimate Love for Humanity. Imagine a world without love, you can see what it did to Romeo and Juliet, Imagine if that happened to humanity!

p.s. As you want to emulate god, I think you want to start your own religion............

So my Best of Regards to you!

please dont respond to me I think your insane no offence! Then again maybe you could become something great! Thanks

Mr Harry ji

 

[Archived_member15]

This is something I read in one of vouthons previous posts so sorry, i did try finding it through one of his previous posts, I dont have it to hand but maybe vouthon would like to elaborate further? Anyway just to show I am not lying!

My dear brother Parma :whatzpointkudi:

Yes you are completely correct! Catholics believe that God is the coincidence of opposites, and that he is Superessential Nothingness (No-thing-ness) and yet is the ground of Being (isness) that is everywhere, in all things, the very root of their ISNESS. Ultimately God and Man, pleasure and pain, success and failure, are ultimately all one in God. The nothingness of the godhead is, in a non-objective manner, the soul's very own ground. Hence the soul, in order to return to its original ground, must break out into the nothingness of the godhead.




"...A man may go into the field and say his prayer and be aware of God, or, he may be in Church and be aware of God; but, if he is more aware of Him because he is in a quiet place, that is his own deficiency and not due to God, Who is alike present in all things and places, and is willing to give Himself everywhere so far as lies in Him. He knows God rightly who knows Him everywhere...We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in everything...Now rejoice, all ye powers of my soul, that you are so united with God that no one may separate you from Him. Love God, and do as you like, say the Free Spirits. Yes; but as long as you like anything contrary to God's will, you do not love Him..."

- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest



"...To guage the soul we must guage it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. Thou must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-person, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality, sundered from all twoness, and in whom we must eternally sink from nothingness to nothingness. Separate yourself from all twoness. Be one in one, one with one, one from one. When is a man in mere understanding? When a man sees one thing separated from another. And when is a man above mere understanding? When a man sees All in all, then a man stands beyond mere understanding..."


- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest



"...God is everything, yet nothing...God is Truth and wherever we find the truth we find our God, who is Truth...If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. I say that God is neither a being nor intelligent and He doesn’t ‘know’ either this or that. God is free of everything and therefore He is everything. I pray God to make me free of God, for [His] unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions. He is beyond being. He is a nothingness beyond being. God is pure oneness, being free of any accretive multiplicity of distinction even at a conceptual level...When the soul enters the light that is pure, she falls so far from her own created somethingness into her nothingness that in this nothingness she can no longer return to that created somethingness by her own power..."



- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest





"...God is infinite in his simplicity and simple in his infinity. Therefore he is everywhere and is everywhere complete. He is everywhere on account of his infinity, and is everywhere complete on account of his simplicity. Only God flows into all things, their very essences. Nothing else flows into something else. God is in the innermost part of each and every thing...The One descends into everything and into each single things, yet remaining the One that unites what is distinct...God is the being of all beings...All things are contained in the One, by virtue of the fact that it is one. for all multiplicity is one, and is one thing, and is in and through the One. . . The One is not distinct from all things. Therefore all things in the fullness of being are in the One by virtue of its indistinction and unity...When we know creatures in God, then that is called a 'morning knowledge,' and in this way we see creatures without any distinctions, stripped of images and likeness in the Oneness which God himself is...Blessedness consists primarily in the fact that the soul sees God in herself . . . Only in God's knowledge does she become wholly still. There she knows nothing but essence and God. Between that person and God there is no distinction, and they are one. . . Their knowing is one with God's knowing, their activity with God's activity and their understanding with God's understanding...Therefore it is in Oneness that God is found and they who would find God must themselves become One. . . And truly, if you are properly One, then you shall remain One in the midst of distinction, and the multifold will be One for you and shall not be able to impede you in any way...There are people who enjoy God in one way but not in another. They only want to possess God in one way of devotion and not in another. I will say no more about this, but it is nevertheless quite wrong. Whoever wants to receive God properly must receive him equally in all things, in oppression as in prosperity, in tears as in joy. Always and everywhere He is the same..."


- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest

 

[Archived_member15]

Some more short quotes:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...For those who look with their physical eyes, God is nowhere to be seen. For those who contemplate Him in spirit, He is everywhere. He is in all, yet beyond all...." [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Saint Symeon the Stylite (c. 390 – 459), Catholic mystic[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...What does God do all day long? He gives birth. From the beginning of eternity, God lies on a maternity bed giving birth to all. God is creating this whole universe full and entire in this present moment...The one work we should rightly undertake is eradication of the Self. Could you completely forget yourself even for an instant, you would be given everything...God is closer to me than I am to myself...When the soul has lost her nature in the Oneness, we can no longer speak of a 'soul' - but of immeasurable Being...I AM can be spoken by no creature but by God alone. I must become God and God must become me, so completely that we share the same 'I' eternally. Our truest 'I' is God...While she (thy soul) lacks union she has never really loved God, for actual love lies in union, if thou lovest God as God, as spirit, as Person or as image, that must all go. "Then how shall I love him?" Love him as he is: a not-God, a not-spirit, a not-Person, a not-image; as sheer, pure, limpid unity, alien from all duality. And in this one let us sink down eternally from nothingness to nothingness..." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest



"...If your heart is straight with God, then every creature will appear to you as a mirror of life and a sacred scripture. No creature is so small and insignificant so as not to express and demonstrate the goodness of God...I discovered myself to be nothing but nothing; an unweighable substance; a sea that cannot be sailed. In You and by You, I find that I exist as nothing but nothing..."



- Blessed Thomas Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (c. 1380 – 1471), Catholic mystic



[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...It is greater worship to God to see Him in all things, than in any special thing...God said to me in the depths of my soul: '[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am that which is highest. I am that which is lowest. I am that which is All'..." [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Blessed Julian of Norwich (1342 –1416), Catholic mystic[/FONT]


"...God presents himself in the inmost depths of my soul. I understand not only that he is present, but also how he is present. I have seen the One who is, and how He is the Being of all creatures. God is present in everything that exists, in a devil and a good angel, in heaven and hell, in good deeds and in adultery and murder, in the beautiful and the ugly. Therfore, while I am in this Truth, I take as much delight in seeing and understanding his presence in a devil and the act of adultery as I do in an angel and a good deed. The world is pregnant with God...He who loves with not only a part of himself, but the whole, transforms himself into the thing beloved..."

- Blessed Angela of Foligna (c. 1248 – 1309), Catholic mystic



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...God inhabits every soul, even those of the greatest sinners in the world. There is always this union between God and His creatures, for through it He preserves their being. If it were not so, these souls would instantly cease to be..." [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Catholic mystic[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"...Our essential nature is uncreated, never-born and free in and for itself. It is found in all creatures, but is not restricted to them; it is outside all creatures, but not excluded from them...." [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- The Cloud of Unknowing, written in the 14th century (Classic text of Catholic mysticism)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"....Man, if thou something love, True love thou dost not know;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God is not this or that, So let the something go...." [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), German Catholic mystic and convert from Protestantism[/FONT]

 

[Astroboy]

I do not seek enlightenment, if I were to be enlightened I would not find this state of mind undesirable.Personal development and enlightenment are not mutually inclusive, I am not sure where you have made this judgement on regarding personal development. Hukam comes from the essence of Creator within, we all know what the right things to do or think are, the idea is to trust that Hukam. I never said I was happy with the situation, however I do think it is not Sikh like to want anything, only to do your best at what you know to be right and proper, that we can find from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Questions upon questions have been asked and answered in SGGS. One such is to accept yourself as connected with our Creator like as if he was the bridegroom and we the soul-brides.
See Page 1284 Line 14 to 19.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Questions upon questions have been asked and answered in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. One such is to accept yourself as connected with our Creator like as if he was the bridegroom and we the soul-brides.
See Page 1284 Line 14 to 19.

One can also undestand the classification of Soul brides as per character
as

KUCHAJi,

SUCHAJI and

GUNWANTEE

The above classification is well defined in SGGS pp763

Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash.S.Bagga