Mekhane'ch Jannat

consciousness, soul, spirit What do you mean by these terms? They have become so vague as to be able to express a wide variety of different concepts. My belief is that Consciousness is inherent in everything to differing degrees. So we cannot create Consciousness we are gifted with a potentiality of developing more Consciousness in ourselves, this is our duty to God. To make machines which are called 'intelligent' or 'conscious' is B*llocks. It is an insult to equate a man made machine to a God-made Human. Humans cannot rival God in the creation of conscious entities, they can only serve. The proof of the things you talk about can only be found within a human being through introversion. Subjective experience is not accepted as proof by modern science. But like external proofs of phenomena can be false or true so also internal proofs of phenomena can be true or false. Modern science does not recognise and consider internal phenomena and the experiencer of internal phenomena. It regards experience as orginating from external things, which set in motion other things in a Human being which is seen as an inert robotic receiver of external phenomena, which he is powerless not to be influenced by (well, in a nutshell, this is the case) So asking for proof of the soul and spirit from the viewpoint of modern science is not a good idea. Firstly because you may cause insult to certain concepts which have been introduced into human life for the benefit of all humanity, these concepts are a gift and should be approached with veneration and awe, they are not items that can be purchased from the shelf of a local Tesco by anybody and they are not matters for idle curiosity. A rigorous pattern of discipline purity and cleanliness should be followed whence doing vichaar over these concepts.

laalsingh you are mistaken. The image of Krishna or Shiva is a Sanketa - a sign signal or gesture- that indicates something else. Much like the word Akaal is a Sanketa of something else, the word itself is not what is signified by 'Akaal'. It is not the symbols - (be they words or images) - in themselves that are firstly important, but the meaning assigned to the symbols, what they signify. Unless a person has a direct experience of what the symbol signifies then we have to recourse to tradition in order to interpret the symbol. No, one symbol can be said to be better than another, only more apt to use in prevelant societal conditions. It may be of value for Sikh youth to consider how far the Signs or Sanketa they use have become divorced from what they are meant to signify.

Chatanga, the word planet is greek for wanderer, in sanskrit the equivalent is graha which means grasper or denotes a grasping grabbing action. The nine 'planets' include rahu and ketu the nodes of the moon and also the sun and moon which aren't strictly planets. In sanskrit they would all be called graha's, so actually only five of the navgraha are actually planets.

There are many interesting theories of communication out there, at the moment. Interestingly enough a return to a more primordial 'caveman grunting' may be a more precise way of communicating than in the way we do now. An interesting development, caused by the ambigiousness of words used in English, is the relation of thoughts or thought-forms to actual words. The meaning of each word may be different for each individual, depending on internal experiences and associations linked to this word, which when evoked, triggers memories. So as the meaning of one and the same word may be different for seperate individuals, how can there be any possibility of communication between two such individuals? To be truly educated and literate, a different mode of communication between people is needed, so that people understand one another. An example is the technical language of some sciences which create a specific meaning, understandable to the specific scientific community, for certain words and terms in order to facilitate mutual understanding.

Not Gurbani, but something to ponder over none the less.

Sat(i) originates from the Sanskrit root As which means To be. It is a past participle form so Sati can be correctly translated as Being.

we are all servants, free will is choosing who you wish to serve. but to choose you have to know and to know first we have to understand.

The word Bir may be derived from veer or veerya, which means heroic. Veerya also means semen, which is the essence of strength and power. Raas is taste, flavour or emotion. Emotions cause chemical changes within the body so raas is also a 'juice' which flows in the body when certain emotions are triggered by external influences. The raas of Veerta gives power to a man and enables him to do heroic acts. The raas of Rudra would be krodh which destroys, a warrior with a lot of bir raas would be able to employ rudra raas to destroy his enemies because he has enough money in his account to pay for it, as it were. But one thing to bear in mind is the Rudra of today is not the same Rudra of Guru Gobind SInghs time. The power transmitted through the medium of the symbol Rudra has no vivifying or energising power, it has become an empty lifeless word for scholars to dispute over. I would have thought that if this symbol were a living reality the detrimental effect of using krodh would be mitigated by raising it to a trans-personal level, thus attempting to bypass the false ego with, of course, varying degrees of success. Needless to say such things as krodh if unsuccessfully transcended through non-identifying, can have disastorous effects on the health of the body as an unpleseant -taste- may be created.

In Sanskrit Rudra is derived from the root meaning to cry or wail, i am not sure about destroy. But i think the name may have been extended to mean some loss or destruction because on these occasions people cry. Rudra in the Veda, shares similarities with Agni and is seen as a type of 'fire' that is identified with 'krodh'. But this krodh in my opinion is celestial krodh not human anger or rage. Human anger destroys the human but celestial anger destroys the human in another way - in order to be reborn -

The thought that underlies the economic model of development, the one being promoted, does not give any value to so called spiritual ideals or dharmic ideals. It only values profit, everything is subordinated to the creation of 'wealth'. Wealth is defined as profit maximisation. In this system everything has a price, trees, rivers etc. are not sacred but equivalent to a certain amount of 'money'. All nature all sacred ideals are reduced to meaninglessness as they are equated with a price. The sense and aim of existence under this system is to secure material 'wealth' as this system does not recognise anything of value that cannot be equated with money. If you cannot buy it, it is of no importance. Likewise peoples' well being is not equated with spiritual and moral evolution but with the 'reduction of poverty' and other empty ideas that come under the collective title of social responsibility. Which is but a smokescreen of the economic system an 'appearence' of morality. In reality there is no division between spiritual and worldly economic ideals, whilst we live in this world. An abstract wishy washy notion of spirituality or of Sikhi is an avoidance of the real issues and corrupt economic system we live under. While most Sikhs cosy up to the centres of power and talk rubbish about social responsibility, the world is going towards Hell because of the very system many Sikhs arselick.

"Isn't it evolution?" No i would say words and languages are tools like spades and hammers. They are imposed upon a form, so as to better manipulate it. So evolution in the spiritual sense of return is in a way opposed to words and languages. Which is why fire, uncontrolled becomes a destroyer, but when harnessed to send oblations towards heaven purifies and sanctifies language and speech. Language and words must be continually sacrificied so that they do not stray too far from the essence or true form of things. When they do they can burn uncontrollably(instead of transubstantiation we have consubstantiation) which is what is happening with language now it is consuming people or rather those heading towards their destruction are pulling language with them.

Words are not the only way in which we mentate, there are also forms of things. Naam and Roop, the roop or essence of a thing has a name imposed upon it. This can be a means of communaly recognising a certain form when the faculty for direct perception of form becomes atrophied. Words are an abstraction of reality and anyone who has studied a language such as Sanskrit will realise that modern english has become abstract to the point of absolute meaningless.

Its also good to remember "Malice is the nourishment of the world"

I have not read much of the prior posts, because i am lazy. But it may be useful to consider that the way in which the word 'Hindu' is being used. Are words such as -Brahman-, hindu? Is the word -Parameshvar- a Hindu word. Also what is the concept that underlies the word Brahman? If Brahman represents the oneness of ultimate reality then is Brahman a synonym for Tawheed, if used in the same sense. Brahman is also taken to mean a mantra or verse from the Rk Veda for example the Raudra Brahman. It is misleading to compare two traditions that use the same terminology without pointing out the underlying concepts. Is the Brahman of Shankaracharya the same as the Brahman of the Yoga Vasishtha? It obviously is not. Is Shiva as represented by kashmiri shaivism the same Shiva for the Shaiva Siddhantins of south india, again no they have different conceptions. Thus the foundation of the unity of modern hinduism is based upon not firm ground but a sea of shifting sands. There is nothing like what people call hinduism, these days. Apart from the neo-vedanta espoused by Vivekananda, which is somewhat wishy-washy, it is a vague adherence to something called 'Sanatana Dharma' a hotchpotch of ideas picked up from a variety of traditions mixed up together. Also as a warning i'd like to state that we in the modern world do not appreciate the value of ideas. Each idea can be considered a living being or a form of consciousness. Certain ideas be they part of what is known as hinduism or sikhism are put into this world for the freedom and upliftment of all humanity, they have a certain maryada attached to them and we must be very delicate how we use these conceppts and for what purpose. Certain beings sent from above embody these ideas without any admixture we on the other hand are formed of multifarious ideas and conflicting concepts, we are required to fix in ourselves the ideas of whatever path we choose. All religion is ultimately subjective, debates about what outer denomination these ideas belong to is in my opinion devaluing the universality of these ideas.

I think it is a big problem when mysticism or GOD-inspired utterances take the place of social institutions and rituals as a means to live in the world. The obliteration of things such as caste jaat social rituals time honoured customs and traditions is also a project being carried out by modern secularism and look where this is leading us. There is a fine line between the void of nihilsm-total destruction and the void that is a plenum, a fullness. Imposing sayings of mystical oneness on a community as a means of living, without the substructure of traditions and culture, which gradually lead people to this truth is likely to create psychopaths. There is a gap created by modern secularism, a gap which was filled by 'tradition', this gap cannot just be bridged by a militant form of strict Advaita. There has to be a 'conveyer belt' of society and culture that grooms people to access the pure truths of oneness, without the conveyer belt individuals who are not sufficently prepared for these truths may poison there systems by imbibing a nasha that they cannot digest. I am sorry to say the form of Sikh religion in the west has abstracted itself from the realities of the surrounding society thus becoming disharmonious, i do not mean the essence of Sikhi but the form it has assumed in the 21st century.

THEREFORE I WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT GOD DOESN'T HAVE FOUR ARMS AS YOU SEEM TO THINK, AND GOD ISN'T SOME CHARIOTEER LIVING IN KURUKSHETRA - THIS SHABAD IS A METAPHOR, You are making a prior assumption that the Hindus before the Guru's did not understand the metaphorical significance of their own religious images. And the Guru's came along and showed them the true 'metaphorical' meaning of their images that they were ignorantly worshipping. Does the arrogance of this stance not strike you? To presume hindus knew or understood nothing of the deeper meanings relating to the One reality hidden in their religious images and icons? I prefer to think that, as i have said before, that the Gurus came to renew the old tradition and invest it with its original, primordial significance. They did not aim to create anything new but to make available to humanity the original primordial revalation. Which has to be made in accordance with the psyche of the society then existing.

you think that gurmat is "human thought"? No, but how do you access Gurmat? you can only conceive of the concepts created by the Guru's by your thought. What I am saying is that this conception or ability to conceive ideas began to change. Which was reflected in Sikhi by the refutation of falsely worshipping idols. Which, at that time were not appropriate, as the psyche or the means of conceiving ideas, of mankind was changing. during the moghal empire did idol worship stop? The efficacy of idol worship began to stop, that is why the Gurus talked against it. Because the outer was not in harmony with the inner. The Gurus endeavoured to align mans inner world with the outer, to create harmony. This is why the world is false as the inner diverges sharply from the outer.

If I may stick my oar in, I hope you do not mind, into the muddy waters. Consider that a sentence composed of words has a body. A subject, object and verb are the frame and on this frame or skeleton are added adjectives participles etc. Also there are tenses and whatnot that are parts of this body. So would it not be absurd to say that a sikh who worships Shabad-Guru is worshipping this body of words? We look at the meaning concealed within this body. It is the same with an image of Ma Durga. But as humans have 'evolved' the pattern of mentation has changed from conceiving forms and images to a more word orientated thought patterns. This is why it is not recommended to worship images by later religions like ISlam and Sikhi because human thought changed and began to conceive the world less as pictures and more abstractedly. There is a correct form of worship for each time and place, in accordance with the psyche of Human Beings, which is not static.

I remember reading his book germs guns and steel a while back. He seemed to me to reduce everything down to geographic reasons. Another instance of bottom up aristotleian logic being used to explain phenomena instead of the top down Platonic approach that explains the emanation of the many from the one - which is in line with Gurbani's teaching.

The Devi is a symbolic representation of an impersonal or trans-personal force. What you call metaphysics, symbolism and myth is something that should not be seperable from everyday life. The purpose of worshipping weapons is to sanctify them, in order that they be used in harmony with the one reality. Durga or the Devi is a means by which a war and weapons can be sanctified and brought into harmony with cosmic and dharmic principles. Without this 'metaphysics and symbolism' than any war or weapon becomes a tool of the personal ego and not in harmony with surrounding environment and the cosmos. First a war if it is to be fought dharmically must be authorised from 'above' it has to be in harmony with universal principles. One way of harmonising yudh is through propitating the Devi who is assigned by Akaal for this specific duty. The Gurus never dis-believed in the Devas and Devis but emphasised that the one reality supports them and pulls their strings. This is why it is not possible to fight a dharmic yudh in this day and age because there is no way of harmonising the weapons of mass destruction we possess to the one reality, there is no metaphysic in place that enables these weapons to be sanctified, to be dharmic.

This link may interest you. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/020403_de_Media_Century.html

The problem here results from the emotions that are ignited by the fire of spirituality, being projected onto the profane world of outer occurences and into politics. Essentially true Islam is the same as true Sikhi and true Hinduism. Anyone who disputes this point is a fool and not worth talking with. The only difference lies in how people have distorted the pure religious teachings for their worldly ends. As has been discussed prior, myths and parables are open to a variety of diverse interpretations, those who wish to do injustice will readily twist these malleable ideas to create justification for their injustices. Let us focus on either (1) concentrating on spiritual matters and aim to forge a set of ideas that do not exclude any race or faith and aim to find the unity behind all religious traditions OR (2) Concentrate on worldly matters of injustice against communities perpetrated by other communities who use their religious tradition as a method of securing or expanding physical and cultural boundaries. Finding the truth in all religious ideas is the real Sanatana Dharma."reincarnation, karma, dharma, bhakti, kirtan, mukti, nirgun, sargun, yoga, meditation, brahmgyan, dasam duar, deva lokas" All these words I have seen analogous ones in Islam and some other tradtions i Have been lucky enough to study. But this requires the ability to look at the essence of what the word represents and not just the outer meaning of the word. The Sanatana Dharma that emphasises that Hinduism is the best thing since sliced bread is the fruit of the tree planted by the british. It uses stresses values such as unity and all-inclusiveness and then regards Islam as a religion created by the Devil himself. And some fanatics of Sanatana Dharma even promote using a nuclear bomb on Pakistan! What love and what unity! With regard to people 'disrespecting' hinduism by interpreting myths in a crude way, let them, people have always done this. It is better to be honest and say what you think about these myths. I think many hindus probably think the same, but out of fear they don't say anything. On the face of it the characters of Hindu myths seem like maniacs, look at Durvasas Rishi who curses anyone who looks at him funnily. What difference is this to the Prophet saying curses to the unbelievers in the Quran? To the uninitiated both will seem like maniacs. But those partial to Hinduism will defend its form and those partial to Islam its form. but the essence is the same.

The world Sikhi originated in consisted of Hindus and Muslims. Sikhi presented the truth in a way that was acceptable to both sides. Sikhi was about unity and using common language to transcend differences instead of reinforcing difference. These Hindu fanatics attempt to erase any islamic influence from Sikhi. Their peculiar brand of unity is merely a tool of political hinduism and politics only causes division and suffering. Instead of uniting under a common umbrella of core values and beliefs, these Hindu Fanatics and also Islamic fanatics, are hell bent on preserving their own seperate identity, due to as always a sense of ontological insecurity. I say you can find the truth in anything you perceive it is not limited to a particular culture religion or beleif.

What Laalsingh says is what a true mythology should be history and everything combined. History is only an ingredient in the mythologization process. The west is obsessed with history, you can see this in what Dalsingh says he gives primacy to the value of history - myth becomes a derogatory term. Also what Mithar says shows that people equate myth with falsehood. I see the opposite, historical records are false and quite dead. They have no power to affect living people here and now. Whereas something like the Ramayana still gives people something to this day. Also this ties in with the view of time. Gurbani recognises that time is cyclical, things repeat in ever decreasing circles. Western thinking recognises linear time, which is in its essence nihilistic anything banished into a linear history becomes non-existent a nothing. It is interseting as to how many Sikhs are infected with malicious ideas of modern scientific rationalism, and being thus influenced they want to seperate and 'preserve' the community, what a joke.

I read somewhere Chess was originally played with dice, the dice determining what pieces are moved.