Nature Of God

[Charles Murphy]

I have always assumed that if there was a God, then there is only one God. So I am a strict monotheist. I have always believed that worshipping that one God is the correct thing to do. Inherently, I've always believed in a simple distinction between creator and creation. I do not believe they mix. But of course, this is all just my own belief.

The sikh belief is somewhat different in the nature of God although it agrees in the oneness of God. I have not read extensively into the sikh belief concerning the nature of God. So I would like someone to kindly explain the sikh belief regarding the nature of God, the nature of creation(if there is such a distinction) and the relationship between the two.

Thank you

[drawrof]

Welcome to the board Charles Murphy,

I will give you the understanding that I have come to. Initially, I had a belief that there was one god, and that god created creation, and we worship that god (whether it was out of duty or love, or to ask for 'things').

This made me delve into Sikhism and learn more about this.

I am not sure if you have seen the first letter of guru granth sahib

it is ik oankgar (ik onkar)....if you go to www.sikhs.org, you will see it on the main page.

Well, I have started off trying to understand that.

Here is my understanding.

ik (1)- it literally means one= god which was there before creation was developed. This is/was/and will be the ever existing god which is beyond our concept of time space etc.

oangkar- god created creation, out god, and there is an underlying substratum. The human soul is a part of this substratum.

as a sikh, I believe we can realise that element of god within ourselves, but in realising that...we will be in nothing but awe and complete devotion,because we'll perceive that god is everything and beyond everything. (this is the element of god that is elusive, unfathomable, unreachable)

The best way for me to string this together is to look at an ice cube. In extreme cold it is solid, if you add heat, it melts into water...and if you keep heating it up...it turns to gas.....it is still the same composition but it changes.

So the issue for me as a human is this. Why aren't I at peace with myself? it is because I 'sense' something greater...what is stopping me from my end? ego, lust, anger, attachment, and greed....the way to overcome these is through loving devotion to god, and it is through god's grace (gurparsaad) that we will see/utter/realise that god is beyond creation, god is there working in creation, god is here now, and god will always be there.

regards

[Charles Murphy]

thankyou drawrof,

but what is the nature of God. I know that sikh's believe in one God. But what is the nature of this God. i.e His attributes, the nature of creation and the relationship between the two.

Or did i miss something in your response? (apologies in advance.)

The link you gave me talked very vaguely on the nature of God and did not mention much about creation nor the relationship between God and creation.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

See the link below

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=1

and das will give some more things withing a few mintues.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

For the few das das was after mammon too much so was bit away from thought of the God but got the chance describe our God.

Das wants to start that what das is saying is to be find in Holy Vedas,Holy Bible and Holy Kuran also.

We are not pan thism but Pan Deipotencism.

Our God is potant to salvage one God wants.And worship be it of Allah,be it Jesus,be it Krishan Bhagwan all goes to our God has that is in all of them.

Linage of worship of our God as follows.

Vedic Brahmins(they were forced to idloatroy and forced to forgo thier God by Budhists(Sau Sakhi)

Jews(Part of these Brahmins who left nation but stuck tho thier God)

Christians

Muslims

Sikhs.

Term Yehove is from Om or Oankar only.Alter buring ,sacrifse,clubb of hairs on head are mnay things which makes Jews neaere to Vedas more then so called Hindus themsleves.

Coming from past to future

Das will try to use quantum theroy to let you understand this,Same is there in holy Bible also.

Well you know that when object is obtained to have speed of light then we may have wieght or mass and time in negative.So far is it is hypothaical in labortaries.

But when revelations were made in scriptures future was told.That means something took them in future.

Anwer is peninal gland(Sahasdal Kamal) just in top middle of the head,where thoughts are faster then speed of light.Till it is withing mid that energy works within but when more powerfull it goes outside that also.

We could give scintific reason for revival of lazarus by lord Jesus by this way only when state of life was restored defying apparant physical laws.

but are laws at all firm.

Answer is big NO?

How?

Well physical matter is based upon three main units,Time,Space and Mass.

And all other things are based upon them.Fraction of enrgy in some form can come in the same framework.

So far due to limited mind we behold deep scerets of Vedas and Kateebs just under such things.

This is more true for Wahbis and protestants.Sufis,Shias,Orthodox Church,Roman Catholic among few others like william worsdwith

and TS Illiot did understood about truth.

Say in timtern Abby did Wroidswith wrote unider all contradiction lies a conformiy.TS Illiot wrote that Soul,Body and God all are one.

So how is it true?

Is space or disctance true?

Well to have one disctnce we need to have one at least one object of mass or matter to show distance from it ie Relative to it.

If no matter or objects exists then no distance or space can exists.

Then Time,to feel time we again need to have some matter which decays or changes and that only gives us preception of time.Say if our nrevous receptors stop to take note of sign of change we will be in Coma and til then no time for us.

Say if all universe stops to move and to act then we will have no time.

Das hopes that falacity of time could be proven by now.

Lastly comes the mass or the matter.

On mass does rest two units depends.

What is mass

See the eqation below

E=MC*C

E is energy,M is mass and C is planks constant.

We see in various parts of universe that Energy making mass and mass getting converted to energy in atomic or nuclaer reactions.Fission and fusion both may have change in mass due to production of energy.

Mass there can be created or destroyed but Energy cannot be created or destroyed but changes from one form into another.

You need to understand that by energy in the form of electrons and further fusion we get Hydrozen and then heluim is amde and verous other atoms are made.

We as in scince can only describe them,to exaplain them we need to see the scriptures of faith.

If you read Sikh scritptures like Japu Sahib mentioned above,God is termed as Amit(undestrcutable) Ouj(energy) which makes all of us.

You and I and all are made of of one energy,which due to all such qualties which we ahve and other also has to be a thinking thing.

That is our God only.Akal Bless.

[Charles Murphy]

I found reading your post extremely difficult. I couldn't make out all the words or phrases you were trying to say. It seems like you speak German because you keep saying "das". (Am I right?) Please forgive me if I ask someone else to also respond on this topic.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

Sikhism is absolute theism, meaning the nature of the ultimate(God) in Sikhism is that he pervades his creation and transcends it.

The transcendental aspect of God in unknowable, our minds cannot grasp it through mere knowing. It is beyond all mental functions.

This aspect of God is Nirgun (without attributes) Manifestation of the universe occurs when God wants to perceive himself. Out of himself he seperates the immanent (Sargun) aspect of his godhead - myriad universes. Just as the potentiality of a tree is contained in its seed in an unmanifest form, so all manifestation resides in an unmanifest form in the transcendental aspect of God. Another useful but limited metaphor for understanding, is, the creative urge of an artist. Imagine an artist is about to create a painting. First there is an urge within him to create, this urge is not nameable. The next stage is the creative urge is brought into the mental realm and put into thought forms, but it is still unmanifest. Then finally the artist will use paints to paint the picture now it has become manifest in its gross form - existence.

The aim of Sikhism is to reunite the soul with God realised through one pointed awareness and loving devotion towards the name of God. Knowledge of God in Sikhism is not possible, Baba Nanak says one will receive many slaps on his face if he thinks he can describe Gods doings, he is unknowable. Only through intuition can he be realised.

Creation/manifestation is said to be false in relation to the transcendental aspect of God. We are not world renouncers, but, sikhs believe in having correct knowledge about nature. This does not make nature/creation bad and god good, but it is just the way of things. Another way to think of it is like knots in a rope, but imagine only the knots are visible. The knots are individual consciousness, but the rope is universal consciousness.

[Charles Murphy]

Thank you.

I would like to clarify a few things I was unsure of.

Sikhism is absolute theism, meaning the nature of the ultimate(God) in Sikhism is that he pervades his creation and transcends it.

Do you mean that creation is Him (as was posted in the other thread) at the fundamental level? (i.e when you touch a book, you are very literally touching God) Or do you mean that there is a definite distinction between Him and creation but the two are side by side at the fundamental level? (i.e for each atom of creation, lies next to it an atom of God)

Sikhism is absolute theism, meaning the nature of the ultimate(God) in Sikhism is that he pervades his creation and transcends it.(i.e. transcends creation)

(brackets are mine)

In what sense, did you mean by transcend? This depends on your meaning of pervade of course. Did you mean in the "surpassing" sense? (i.e God is greater than creation) Or did you mean in the "independant" sense? (i.e. God exists above and is independant of creation)

I didn't want to guess so I just want to clarify the matter.

The transcendental aspect of God

Forgive me for being a layman. I think your saying: "The unmanifest form of God"

Out of himself he seperates the immanent () (Sargun) aspect of his godhead - myriad universes.

You have to remember that this is the first time I am learning about this faith. So please clarify this for me.

What I understood from the 3rd paragraph and what I know already is:

God has two forms. A manifest form and an unmanifest form. Parts of him are manifest (creation) and and the other parts are unmanifest. The unmanifest forms already know what they will become when they become manifest because this is hardwired into the individual parts of God. When God wants to perceive parts of himself, these parts of God become manifest. Did I understand correct?

The aim of Sikhism is to reunite the soul with God

What is the soul? What role does it play? I presume it is part of creation (otherwise it would just be an unmanifested part of God and thus not a soul.) I may have some follow-ups to this.

Knowledge of God in Sikhism is not possible

I disagree. We know that God has 2 forms. We know that God is made up of many many parts (i.e. every atom in universe). We know a lot about (most of) the manifest forms of God through science. We know that the unmanifest form already contains knowledge of its future manifestation (if there is one). We know that God controls this manifestation by when he wants to perceive himself. So we know this much already about God. And like you said,

Only through intuition can he be realised

(bold is mine) And if he can be realised then he can be known. Or what did you mean by realisation? (Did I presume too much?)

The knots are individual consciousness, but the rope is universal consciousness.

What is universal conciousness?

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Das means slave as writer Vijaydeep Singh does not use first person and this is tradtion of Sikhs never to mention term me or my as it may increase our ego.

Das means slave (of God).In fact das sees God in you asking us question and same does answer.

[Charles Murphy]

Well i reread your post. i couldn't understand all the words such as "mammon" or "Pan Deipotencism". But I understood a bit more of what you were saying. However, it seemed a little off the point. I was asking about the nature of God. Towards the end, i got the impression that you were saying God = Energy = Mass. Correct? But from what Mekhane'ch Jannat said Mass is just the manifest form of God. So did you mean Manifest God = Energy = Mass?

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

By answering one of your last questions i may be able to clarify some of the others.

The unmanifest or transcendental aspect of God cannot be conceived by the sensory organs of perception i.e the mental apparatus, and the five senses. In this sense God cannot be "known". He is beyond thought concepts. Everything in this world is made understood through the process of thinking, e.g. this is a computer. When we see a computer this thought pops into our head. We cannot perceive or feel God and say "that is God" This refers to the transcendental aspect of God.

The individual soul is in Sikhism a limited form of divinity. Like the metaphor i used in my previous post of the knots on the rope. God (transcendent) is the rope (underlying substratum) and we are contractions of the rope. A similar metaphor is that the soul is a wave arising from the sea and God (transcendent) is the sea.

God has two forms. A manifest form and an unmanifest form. Parts of him are manifest (creation) and and the other parts are unmanifest. The unmanifest forms already know what they will become when they become manifest because this is hardwired into the individual parts of God. When God wants to perceive parts of himself, these parts of God become manifest. Did I understand correct?

You have to stop thinking in terms of God as an entity limited by time space relativity causality (if you wish to understand the Sikh point of view), he is beyond these limitations. The transcendental and immanent aspect of God both occur at the same time, at different times, but in reality at no time. These aspects cannot be understood through knowledge, only through an undescribable experience.

With regards to creation, for every event there is a perceiver, the perceived and the act of perceiving. Now only the subject in this triad the perceiver is sentient, the perceived object is insentient, like a jar. therefore things are created by us perceiving them. So we are all made in Gods form, as we can create the world we live in. BUT this creating ability is limited by the contraction of God that occurs when he manifests. And false identification with the Ego and body prevents us seeing this. We believe we are thrown about by the world and by God, but this is a trick, no one does anything, we create our own world we live in, through mental ideas, nothing else. The aim of sikhism is to go past these covering sheaths of ideas about things and realise our inherent divinity, through concentration and devotion to the name of God. The name of God is not to be taken literally, it has an esoteric multi faceted beautiful meaning, which i wish i could understand.

[Charles Murphy]

This was a very difficult post for me to completely understand. Not because of the way it was written but because of its content. In fact, i have decided to just enquire about the first half of your post while i reconcile the second half of your post in my mind.

To begin with, i need to make it clear to you that I am approaching Sikhsm from a no-assumptions, Atheistic viewpoint (i may make assumptions later). That means I am only using logic to piece together everything I have been told until I have a complete and coherent picture of what's going on. Therefore it is entirely unhelpful to me to give me metaphors and analogies. I don't want that. I want the real thing - the explanation!

Up till now, I am still unclear as to what the soul is in Sikhsm. I have for the moment assumed it is just another part of creation like a chair is.

The unmanifest or transcendental aspect of God cannot be conceived by the sensory organs of perception i.e the mental apparatus, and the five senses. In this sense God cannot be "known". He is beyond thought concepts. Everything in this world is made understood through the process of thinking, e.g. this is a computer. When we see a computer this thought pops into our head. We cannot perceive or feel God and say "that is God" This refers to the transcendental aspect of God.

This is what I like - a very clear explanation of what you meant by "unknowable" in your earlier post. i was very happy with this.

I understood that the unmanifest form of God (which exists entirely at the same time with the manifest form of God) cannot be perceived by sensory organs. Thank You.

You followed up with:

Like the metaphor i used in my previous post of the knots on the rope. God (transcendent) is the rope (underlying substratum) and we are contractions of the rope. A similar metaphor is that the soul is a wave arising from the sea and God (transcendent) is the sea.

I think you are saying that two manifested parts of God (you and me for instance) are somehow connected by the entire unmanifested God. Correct? How are they connected?

I said:

God has two forms. A manifest form and an unmanifest form. Parts of him are manifest (creation) and and the other parts are unmanifest. The unmanifest forms already know what they will become when they become manifest because this is hardwired into the individual parts of God. When God wants to perceive parts of himself, these parts of God become manifest. Did I understand correct?

Are you saying that my entire understanding is wrong or just part of it? What was wrong in what I said?

The transcendental and immanent aspect of God both occur at the same time, at different times, but in reality at no time.

"no time" - i understand to mean "does not happen". If something occurs at no time, i understand that to mean it did not happen if it is an event. In this context, i can only understand it as implying that God does not occur at all (i.e there is no God) which is clearly not what you meant so please elaborate on this.

You have to stop thinking in terms of God as an entity limited by time space relativity causality

As for the unmanifested God, I will place no such limits (Have I done so? How?) But as for the manifested God, it is creation and creation obeys the scientific laws.

I need to think about the rest of your post.

[Dynamic_Banda]

i learnt a new word a while back while messing around with a plugin for google desktop ..

and I think it may help in this describing the nature of God thread.

The word is..

Ineffable

IMHO (which means In my Humble opinion (learnt that from google desktop too) the nature of God is truelly ineffable, one can contemplate and concider those elements of God which are percievable by our concious our senses our beings, these include all the saugun (manifested) aspects, wether it be the compassion felt in ones heart, the images seen in ones mind, the sounds from ones mouth, the actions of ones life.

You could see a book and say thats God. sure but whats not there is also God and whats not that book yet part of that book such as the energies which effect that book well they are God.. and bla bla etc etc so hes everything in the creation. (using the term He or even the label God is kinda stupid because it promotes that whole entity idea)

Just listening to a shabad (quote from gurbani - spiritual textual guidance form of God ) I came across these words:

*Before I attempt to provide my very basic and weak translation please if someone has access to a better more authentic and academically approved translation then please do provide it. "

Nirgun Niroop ho, ke Sundar Saroop ho.

translated: The unmanifested without a form, yet the most beautiful form (which would imply manifested )

A friends words come to mind while writing the above,

"Just fall into the beautiful lotus feet, of the one who has no feet" took me a while to understand that one..

Lol sounds confusing and like there isnt a definate answer, now you know why we called Sikhs (students learners)

So if still confused then all I can say is Bruv you want the nature of God, look in Jaap Sahib, if still lost then Akaal Ustat,

Its paradoxical nope nope correction its .. infinadoxical. ! Its INEFFABLE

[Dynamic_Banda]

Got me thinking this one. !

To know the nature of God is to understand the requirments we must meet to obtain God, for example if I know that saying God save me is pleasing to God then I can just do that a million times and God has to like me.

But in Sikhi there is this tendancy to push towards one can only be pleasing to God if it is his desire, and by his grace makes our lives sound abit pointless,

But makes the whole experiencing God less like a brothel (raise the money pay the fees, have the pleasure) and more like true love, (fall into something you have no idea how, pay nothing and recieve everything), maybe thats where we going wrong, coz the religions (by religions I refer to the man made organisations not the spiritual awareness graced by the founders) have turned this whole Know God idea into a franchise?

Maybe someone should make a religion based supersize me. !

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Dear Charlses read it as

God>Enrgy>Mass

Ie All energy lies in God and all masses is composed of energy(but enrgy can be outisde mass ie Vaccum also).

Then Mamon is the world used in Angeel where, it is to do with worldly attractions.

Pandeipotneancism can be more of three world Pan(all) Die(God) Potency(capability).

Das would like to say that as per our Faith instead of aproving all the faiths we do approve the power of God of all the Faiths which follow Veda or Kateeb(Holy Bible and Holy Kuran).Das hopes you god it.

[Charles Murphy]

With regards to creation, for every event there is a perceiver, the perceived and the act of perceiving. Now only the subject in this triad the perceiver is sentient, the perceived object is insentient, like a jar. therefore things are created by us perceiving them. So we are all made in Gods form, as we can create the world we live in. BUT this creating ability is limited by the contraction of God that occurs when he manifests. And false identification with the Ego and body prevents us seeing this. We believe we are thrown about by the world and by God, but this is a trick, no one does anything, we create our own world we live in, through mental ideas, nothing else. The aim of sikhism is to go past these covering sheaths of ideas about things and realise our inherent divinity, through concentration and devotion to the name of God. The name of God is not to be taken literally, it has an esoteric multi faceted beautiful meaning, which i wish i could understand.

Having read this slowly, i feel that i pretty much understand what you were saying here. But I was little unsure about what you meant by "So we are all made in Gods form" and "BUT this creating ability is limited by the contraction of God that occurs when he manifests". However, I don't really want to pursue this much more. But feel free to clarify if you wish.

The idea of things existing only when they are perceived is a school of thought even amongst non-religious persons. The classical argument being for instance, "if a camel is in a field but no-one is perceiving it then how do we know it is there?" On the other hand, there are classical arguments against such as: "A person reasons that since right now no-one is perceiving his brain, therefore his brain doesn't exist. But how did he reason without a brain? So his brain must exist even though he doesn't perceive it."

Or: "If I leave my house in the morning and come back in the evening and find that the house is burnt down. I am told by fire experts that the fire was probably caused by an electric spark. Now no-one was around to perceive the fire yet we all witnessed the result of the fire. But by the rule of neccessary perception (basically what you have described) the fire could not have taken place. But we know it did from the evidence of the burnt house. So a fire did exist without the need for its perception."

But there are also arguments supporting your view as well. :wink:

it has an esoteric multi faceted beautiful meaning, which i wish i could understand.

I respect your admiration for the name of God. Please tell me what the name of God is.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

As All names are owned by God so all Names are of God and God is Anam(Namelss).

One Name is Yehove derived from Oankar or Om.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

Up till now, I am still unclear as to what the soul is in Sikhsm. I have for the moment assumed it is just another part of creation like a chair is.

My understanding about the soul is that it is the same as the subtle body. In very simple terms "what you think yourself to be." E.g. after drinking too much alcohol, the next morning your head will feel very heavy and probably hurt a lot, even though physically it is the same as before. This is one aspect of the subtle body, another aspect of it is your desires. Sexual desires, material desires etc. are all deposited in the subtle body. Then we get into the idea of Karma, where a persons unfulfilled desires in this life cause him to take birth, after his death, in a body where he can fulfill his desires. So we as individuals have karmas from previous births which pre-dispose us to act in a certain way, this is an extremely simple way of putting it, but im trying to give you an idea.

Our desires impel us to do actions. The aim of Sikhism is to release an individual from the incessent rounds of births and deaths. To do this he must purge the subtle body of desires. But here's the catch how do you get the desire to purge your desires and unite with the formless lord. The answer is grace of the guru/god. (this is a vast topic of discussion on its own)

Getting back to the point of the soul in relation to the nature of god from my amateur understanding it is just another part of creation albeit more subtler than something like a chair. Maybe someone else can clarify the nature of the jiva in relation to paramatma.

The transcendental and immanent aspect of God both occur at the same time, at different times, but in reality at no time.

"no time" - i understand to mean "does not happen". If something occurs at no time, i understand that to mean it did not happen if it is an event. In this context, i can only understand it as implying that God does not occur at all (i.e there is no God) which is clearly not what you meant so please elaborate on this.

Sorry for this cryptic statement, what i mean is that only creation is subject to time. When manifest reality emerges from unmanifest god it goes through a series of stages. i can't explain this more, i don't know it, look at the post of the tattva's (thatnesses) in kashmiri shaivism for an understanding of the unfolding of manifestation.

In sikhism all this logical explanations and philosophical discussions take a back seat, the emphasis is on devotion to the name of God. The name of God is not something logically explainable. I think it carries different connotations for everyone. Whilst all sikhs recite "Waheguru" the meaning of this word encompasses all the individual person associates with it. It is remarkably powerful. If you concentrate on it day and night and gradually refine your "understanding" of it through reading holy scriptures, it makes for a transformation of consciousness, where an individual associates with the divine being. Rather than logic chopping, sikhism (in my interpretation) says go and experience this for yourself do something. Although logic does play an important role in understanding the nature of things, to me, it is secondary.

[drawrof]

Mekkane,

I find your insight interesting,

you said that the grace of the guru/god is very interesting. would you be able to expand....what is the difference between guru/god and how does one get the grace of the guru?

looking forward to your reply

[Iron-Singh]

In sikhism all this logical explanations and philosophical discussions take a back seat, the emphasis is on devotion to the name of God. The name of God is not something logically explainable. I think it carries different connotations for everyone. Whilst all sikhs recite "Waheguru" the meaning of this word encompasses all the individual person associates with it. It is remarkably powerful. If you concentrate on it day and night and gradually refine your "understanding" of it through reading holy scriptures, it makes for a transformation of consciousness, where an individual associates with the divine being. Rather than logic chopping, sikhism (in my interpretation) says go and experience this for yourself do something. Although logic does play an important role in understanding the nature of things, to me, it is secondary.

Very profound and important point just made.

[Charles Murphy]

In sikhism all this logical explanations and philosophical discussions take a back seat, the emphasis is on devotion to the name of God. The name of God is not something logically explainable. I think it carries different connotations for everyone. Whilst all sikhs recite "Waheguru" the meaning of this word encompasses all the individual person associates with it. It is remarkably powerful. If you concentrate on it day and night and gradually refine your "understanding" of it through reading holy scriptures, it makes for a transformation of consciousness, where an individual associates with the divine being. Rather than logic chopping, sikhism (in my interpretation) says go and experience this for yourself do something. Although logic does play an important role in understanding the nature of things, to me, it is secondary.

I respect this position but as someone from the outside it would be totally unrealistic to disregard logic or make it secondary because otherwise I would have to also experience every other faith as well. But I guess, if you believe in reincarnation, you should have enough time to do such a thing.

One thing I am certain of, is that this is certainly my first life - i don't know about the rest of you so if (or when) i am reincarnated, i'll be able to filter out many of the other faiths as man-engineered falsehoods. And I guess, the "try it out" method wouldn't be so unrealistic. But as it is, i might die tomorrow and if the truth is in the traditional faiths, then I do not want to go to hell. Or do you expect me to declare myself a believer in every faith out of safety?

If I were to use your "trial and error" approach, it would be more wise to adopt a faith that warns of hell than one that simply says "you'll go back to earth and live a more miserable one". But personally, I don't want to do that. I choose my beliefs based on what I think is true from what is false. And I believe that God has drawn that line for me. It is called logic.

Gurfateh

As All names are owned by God so all Names are of God and God is Anam(Namelss).

One Name is Yehove derived from Oankar or Om.

What do you expect me to think when I read something like this? I almost feel that you are mocking me here. Or do you think I don't understand the meaning of 'nameless'? So either this is some kind of metaphor or it is outright self-referentially refuting. I don't think the problem here needs explaining - it is self-evident.

Mechhane Jannat, i will read the rest of your post slowly and i try to understand all that you have said - thank you for your time and patience.

[Iron-Singh]

Charles,

Just thought I'd clarify, the concept of reincarnation does not give the individual soul a "trial and error" approach to human life. Human life is a one time deal. If you fail in this life to realize God, then it's back to 8.4 million life cycles of reincarnation.

Hell and heaven are also not alien concepts to Sikhism, they have their place as well (hope this doesn't confuse you further).

[Charles Murphy]

Charles,

Just thought I'd clarify, the concept of reincarnation does not give the individual soul a "trial and error" approach to human life. Human life is a one time deal. If you fail in this life to realize God, then it's back to 8.4 million life cycles of reincarnation.

Hell and heaven are also not alien concepts to Sikhism, they have their place as well (hope this doesn't confuse you further).

I think the more important question is: Does it confuse you?

I guess this deserves a whole topic on its own. If you wish to explain how heaven and hell (presumably in the traditional sense, or is it some other sense?) fit into the picture when we already have reincarnation and 'realisation' then please start a new topic.

The truth is I can already see some trememendous problems with the idea of 'hell' in sikhsm.

If we assume that creation is divisible (which we can't!), then wouldn't God just be sending himself to hell? In fact, God would be sending himself to God? (as vijaydeep would say) And what does this mean?

If we say creation is indivisible, well 'hell' is a creation right? And so it is incorrect to treat it as a separate entity from the rest of creation and thus it is meaningless to say one is going to hell.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

I respect this position but as someone from the outside it would be totally unrealistic to disregard logic or make it secondary

That is a shame, because i'd rather feel something and do domething with my life than just bandy about words. Like I said before logic is a means of understanding something, it is not understanding in itself.

I would have to also experience every other faith as well

This statement shows why you cannot understand sikhism 100%. To understand 100% you have to part of the Sikh tradition. Viewing the tradition from outside objectively, will only give you a small insight into the tradition.

But I guess, if you believe in reincarnation, you should have enough time to do such a thing.

This comment seems illogical. From the first two sentences in your statement you talk about your own view which acceptable. Then you, change the context and impose your own view on other members of this forum who believe in reincarnation "But I guess, if you believe in reincarnation, you should have enough time to do such a thing" Maybe you should kill yourself. (Egoically)

One thing I am certain of, is that this is certainly my first life - i don't know about the rest of you so if (or when) i am reincarnated, i'll be able to filter out many of the other faiths as man-engineered falsehoods. And I guess, the "try it out" method wouldn't be so unrealistic. But as it is, i might die tomorrow and if the truth is in the traditional faiths, then I do not want to go to hell. Or do you expect me to declare myself a believer in every faith out of safety?

Too many assumptions. Their is no "try it out method" Sikhism believes all faiths are true, no faiths are "man-engineered falsehoods" I really do not understand where you are coming from in this statement, your previous posts were the essence of clarity and openess, but there seems to be some underlying sentiment pervading this paragraph, which has not been made clear in your discourse. Let it out, we don't take offence, here.

The truth is I can already see some trememendous problems with the idea of 'hell' in sikhsm.

If we assume that creation is divisible (which we can't!), then wouldn't God just be sending himself to hell? In fact, God would be sending himself to God? (as vijaydeep would say) And what does this mean?

If we say creation is indivisible, well 'hell' is a creation right? And so it is incorrect to treat it as a separate entity from the rest of creation and thus it is meaningless to say one is going to hell.

You are confused with regards to sikh theory. Because you do not understand that from stages of creation there are different views. In the state of God as transcendent there is no manifestation it just is (I cannot explain further). As manifestation unfolds viewpoints change. So to say god is sending himself to hell is true from an absolute viewpoint but not from an individual limited viewpoint. Logic is limited to an individual subject's discrimination, if you believe in god do you think he is limited as you and has to follow logic?

The idea of hell is tied up in the idea of reincarnation. There are many hells. One hell i read about is that a soul/Jiva is continiously "reborn" as a sperm.

I don't like you saying "The truth is I can already see some trememendous problems with the idea of 'hell' in sikhsm." You do not have much knowledge of Sikhism, i don;t know if you done research outside of this forum. But you have only talked to a few people on this forum, and they do not represent Sikhism in its entireity. So to make this statement shows that you are more concerned with making assumptions about Sikh Theory then seriously researching Sikh Theory.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

you said that the grace of the guru/god is very interesting. would you be able to expand....what is the difference between guru/god and how does one get the grace of the guru?

Drawrof Maharaj, the first question you put forth, is difficult for me to answer, i need to mull it over and look to the guru for guidance. The second question i'll enjoy answering as it gives me a chance to get things straight in my head.

For me grace is tied up with karam. Karam occurs when we self identify with our actions e.g. if i write a cheque for $1000 and don't sign it, its not valid, once I associate with an act in effect i'm signing the cheque. So every action has a reaction every cause has an effect. I believe that actions are tied up with desires, people act (do something) because they believe they (the Ahamkara or "I") will get something, this is in effect a creation of a desire. Creation of desire pushes us from life to life, it creates, or, it is karam. Grace of the guru/god occurs when we say "i've had enough, i desire to know/see God" This desire to know/see god is the grace of the guru/god. Without his grace we wouldn't have the inclination to seek him. So being born into a Sikh family and being directed towards the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, and doing shabad vichar, is his grace only by his grace we have the inclination to do this. Our Karams steer us in this direction. The "I" principle does nothing, there is no free will. Or to say it another way because a person controls his desires and performs less karams he becomes more receptive to the grace of god. But controlling his desires is the grace of the guru/god. It all comes back to Him.

I know this might sound like "I should not do anything" philosophy, in a way it is, internally you have to aim to be actionless. But its the game of getting there which is fun or just downright terrifying, when you begin to lose identification with the body. Getting there involves manipulation of the I ness.

Please note these are only my ruminations, im just "thinking aloud" please feel free to criticize, if only as a favour to keep my ego under control.