Is God created or eternal?

[amardeep]

Sath shri Akaal jee..

do we sikhs belive in an eternal God that has been forever like the muslims, or do we belive in a God that created himself,in other words, have a beginning..

aapay aap upaa-i-an aap keemat paa-ee.

He Himself created Himself, and He Himself evaluates Himself.

Page 786, Line 9

becuase this next verse says that He is eternal and other says that He has been there forever and since the beginning.

too sadaa salaamat nirankaar. ||16||

You, Eternal and Formless One! ||16||

Page 4, Line 11

how are these verses to be understood.

can someone shed light on this, or recomend articles about the "creation" of God.

Sath Shri Akal.

[Guest Javanmard]

Vâhigurûjîkâkhâlsâ Vâhigurûjîkîfateh

I am very happy that our brother Amardeep Singh has come up with this mst fundamental subject which I am sure is teh result of his discussion with his Shi'a friends about the unicity (tawhîd) of God. The correct understanding of the concept of divine unicity is the basis for any correct understanding of the path that leads us back to Akâl Purakh. Without this understanding any religion just becomes idolatry and tribalism.

There is no doubt that Akâlu Purakh, as described ,in gurbâni is eternal. The Mûlmantar itself clearly states this. Let us look at two very important words in it. There is first of all Ajûnî.

In order to understand this concept correctly let us look at the origin of the word. It is constituted of the privative partice "a-" and the adjective "jûnî". This adjective derives from the Sanskrit "yoni" which means "womb, matrix, uterus". (This word plays and important role in the Shakta-Tantrik vision of the Feminine Divine.) In its philosophical application it refers to the notion of cause. Akâl Purakh has no cause, no origin otherwise (S)He could not be the absolute. Interestingly enough the Holy Qur'an uses similar language in Surah al-Ikhlâs (112) verse 3:

-Lam yalid wa lam yûlad

He did not beget and he was not begotten

The word "lam" is a particle of negation whilst "yalid" and "yûlad" derive

from the Arabic root "W-L-D" which means "to give birth, to beget".

It is interesting to notice that the Mûlmantar and Surah al Ikhlâs use language related to birth.

It is also necessary to remind that the word "ajûnî" implies a rejection of the doctrine of incarnation but that it is NOT a rejection of the concept of theophany (avatâr, mazhar) which totally different from that of incarnation.

Another very important word in the Mûlmantar is that of "saibham". The etymology of the word is the following:

-sai derives from the reflexive pronoun svayam: oneself

-bham: derives from the Sanskrit root BHÛ: to exist to become

Saibham hence means "self-existing" from the Sanskrit adjective "svayambhû".

As is quite clear from the word itself the word does not refer to the Divine Essence represented by "Ik" as it is pure absolute, nirguna, non-manifested Being whilst saibham refers to the revealed aspect of Divinity, saguna, pure Existence. Saibham answers to the questions related to the notion of Kartâ Purakhu: Creative Person. It this clearly states that the creative aspect of Divinity is NOT created but derives from the very necessity inherent to the very essence of the Divine. It is not an external Mâyâ that creates the world but the manifested aspect of Divinity, the totality of Perfect Attributes.

Akâl Purakhu is hence NOT created.

On the other hand the verse that Amardeep Singh refers to is interesting as the word "upâiâ" derives from the causative form of the Sanskrit verb ut-PAD: utpâdayati which means literally "to make come out" and then only by extention "to create, to cause".

One can look at the verse from different angles:

a. as tautological reply to a pointless question:"What created the Absolute?" As the Absolute cannot by definition be created asking this question is pointless and offering a tautological answer destroying discursive logic is the only appropriate answer.On this note I would like to mention a famous hadîth of Imâm Alî (as) on this question:

A man came to Imâm 'Ali (as) and asked him: "Who created God?"

Imâm 'Ali responded:"Before I answer your question can you reply to my question?" The man: "Which question?" Imâm 'Ali (as): " Was there ever a time when God did not exist?"

b. On a more philosophical note one can take that verse as a refernce to the Othering process of Ikomkâr. The Divine others Himself through creation in order to manifest Himself. As Allah (swt) beautifully says in this most sweet and precious hadîth ul qudsî:

"I was a hidden treasure that was not known, so I loved to be known. Hence I created the creatures and I made Myself known to them, and thus they came to know Me."

I hope it helps.

[amardeep]

Sath shri Akal and thanks for taking time to answar my question.

so let me see if i have understood your reply. when it says "God Created Himself" it means that he made himself known to people so that there was someone to worship him?

on sikhphilosophy someone says that it has to do with creation.. "i created myself" means that he created the universe as he is within all and everything..

ਆਪਣਾ ਆਪੁ ਉਪਾਇਓਨੁ ਤਦਹੁ ਹੋਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥

आपणा आपु उपाइओनु तदहु होरु न कोई ॥

aapnaa aap upaa-i-on tadahu hor na ko-ee.

He created Himself - at that time, there was no other.

ਮਤਾ ਮਸੂਰਤਿ ਆਪਿ ਕਰੇ ਜੋ ਕਰੇ ਸੁ ਹੋਈ ॥

मता मसूरति आपि करे जो करे सु होई ॥

mataa masoorat aap karay jo karay so ho-ee.

He consulted Himself for advice, and what He did came to pass.

ਤਦਹੁ ਆਕਾਸੁ ਨ ਪਾਤਾਲੁ ਹੈ ਨਾ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਲੋਈ ॥

तदहु आकासु न पातालु है ना त्रै लोई ॥

tadahu aakaas na paataal hai naa tarai lo-ee.

At that time, there were no Akaashic Ethers, no nether regions, nor the three worlds.

ਤਦਹੁ ਆਪੇ ਆਪਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੁ ਹੈ ਨਾ ਓਪਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥

तदहु आपे आपि निरंकारु है ना ओपति होई ॥

tadahu aapay aap nirankaar hai naa opat ho-ee.

At that time, only the Formless Lord Himself existed - there was no creation.

ਜਿਉ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਿਵੈ ਕਰੇ ਤਿਸੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥੧॥

जिउ तिसु भावै तिवै करे तिसु बिनु अवरु न कोई ॥१॥

ji-o tis bhaavai tivai karay tis bin avar na ko-ee. ||1||

As it pleased Him, so did He act; without Him, there was no other. ||1||

but here it says that there was nothing when he created himself..and that creation first took place later on..so who did he "show" himself to?

but as it is, sikhs belive in a God without beginning, and without end?

[Guest Javanmard]

Dear Amardeep Singh

you are looking at the problem from a diachronic point of view whilst we're are discussing non-temporal issues here. But yes in Sikhi, like in Islam, Akâl Purak is without beginning nor end.

[amardeep]

okay..well i will thank you for your reply, and u have shed some light over something that has actually bugged me for a long time..

thanks

[Guest Javanmard]

No need to thank me. Thank Maharaj!

[unbreakable]

.

[Guest Javanmard]

Oh stop it unbreakable!!! tut tut tut