Jump to content

Is God In Sikhism Personal?


Recommended Posts

Confused Singh Ji,

Please have a look at my post which talks about the personal relationship with God in terms of asking 'for' things and conversing with him.

It really depends on what you mean by 'personal relationship'.

If you mean having a conversation, then Bani does not support this. There are various examples of Bani where (Bhagats especially) are quoted as speaking directly to God, but noticeably, there is never a response, God does not speak back and have a conversation. There is always a self-reached conclusion.

If we leave out the conversation aspect:

'God' in Sikhi is not the same as the concept of an Abrahamic style 'God'. Unlike in Christianity, where one has a personal relationship with an Abrahamic style 'God' and converses with them on a daily basis, just as you and I are having this conversation now, I'm not aware of a theological concept of being able to hold a personal conversation with 'God'. Mul mantar is meant to be how 'God' is defined- from this and from the concept of union with Him, I derive the conclusion that Waheguruji is a force that we can reach on a higher level of consciousness (through enligtenment). You may argue that Union with God is the ultimate personal relationship.

Various references (there are loads, search for 'God'):

God permeates the inner beings of the Gurmukhs.

God knows the suffering of her mind.

The Dear Lord God is my Best Friend. In the end, He shall be my Companion and Support.

From whom are you trying to hide your actions? God sees all;

O Nanak, God's Flavour is sweet to the minds and bodies of those who have such blessed destiny written on their foreheads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

god is god, and he is as personal as we wish to make him to us. fact is, god is closer than close to us.. all we have to do, is accept that he is personal to us. guru G says, har naame naal galla..

hir nwvY nwil glw hir nwvY nwil msliq hir nwmu hmwrI krdw inq swrw ] har naavai naal galaa har naavai naal masalath har naam hamaaree karadhaa nith saaraa || My conversation is with the Lord's Name, and my counseling is with the Lord's Name; the Lord's Name always takes care of me.

so, since naam and god are the same, (because in asa di vaar god created himself then nam, then SECOND place is kudrut. so naam and god are one of the same. and naam, and the one that jups naam, are the same too.

so hu says u cant talk to god. blatently u can.

we make god personal to us, with sharda / bhavna. and the extent we have this, governs the extent that he is personal to us.

god is formless. but he is also the saroop (form) of everything that he has creatd. nirgun aap, sarsun bhi orrhi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

god is god, and he is as personal as we wish to make him to us. fact is, god is closer than close to us.. all we have to do, is accept that he is personal to us. guru G says, har naame naal galla..

hir nwvY nwil glw hir nwvY nwil msliq hir nwmu hmwrI krdw inq swrw ] har naavai naal galaa har naavai naal masalath har naam hamaaree karadhaa nith saaraa || My conversation is with the Lord's Name, and my counseling is with the Lord's Name; the Lord's Name always takes care of me.

so, since naam and god are the same, (because in asa di vaar god created himself then nam, then SECOND place is kudrut. so naam and god are one of the same. and naam, and the one that jups naam, are the same too.

so hu says u cant talk to god. blatently u can.

we make god personal to us, with sharda / bhavna. and the extent we have this, governs the extent that he is personal to us.

god is formless. but he is also the saroop (form) of everything that he has creatd. nirgun aap, sarsun bhi orrhi.

Some valid points, I agree that 'God' is closer than close and it boils down to recognising that.

My point about conversation, was that it's not in the sense of a conversation with words in any language, it would appear to be one of unspoken emotions and feelings that convey a sense of purpose, meaning, strength etc in response to humans talking in words or conversing in terms of naam ('My conversation is with the Lord's Name').

I know plenty of Christians who claim to have, quite literally, a conversation in English with 'God', they chat, they laugh, they are best buddies. I am yet to hear of a Sikh who has claimed to have experienced this. You only hear of feelings and emotions and ultimately, the truth (God's true nature) being conveyed in some mystical manner, during enlightenment. Guru Nanak ji has not written, 'and a voice boomed from the clouds in response to my prayer and we talked about the meaning of life'.

Now whether we can communicate with God (at a deep level) is a more apt expression, surely why not, SGGSji is all about communicating with Him so to speak. I put my name down as one who has experienced such personal communication, a humbling and highly emotional experience indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ yes but self reflection can also be classed as schitzophrenia, by people that understand nothig about self reflection..

aaaand,

to each theory own experience.. some hear a voice.. literally. but only in a specific mind state. loads of sikhs have said this.

and just cuz u can talk to god with emotions, it dont mean god cant talk to u literally... he can.. and he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God does talk back, not necessarily through a voice, maybe actions. Also i think through voice too, as we say god is everywhere in all. The doctor that saves a life, or treats a patient, the poor person that gets help from somebody, the child that plays, when they speak, could be god speaking for all we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Part of the problem is the hostilities between India and Pakistan. If the border were open, Amritsar would easily become a huge trading city. Secondly, the National Highways Authority of India is constructing a new 6-lane expressway from Kashmir, through Amritsar/Jalandhar/Ludhiana to Dehli which will be part of the Ludhiana-Delhi-Kolkatta Industrial Corridor.  Maps of the New Silk Road show Kolkata as a key part of the "road". The Punjab to Kolkata expressway and rail connections will fulfill the ability to hook up to the New Silk Road.  In addition, while crossing to Pakistan via AH1 (Asian Highway 1) is difficult, India does connect to AH1 on the other side, towards the East. Finally, Punjab can trade with the world via Mundra port in Gujurat. Rail to Mundra, then sea onwards. Dubai is very close with a free port. If you send products to Iran, there are ground links onward to Europe.
    • Yeah, that's one possibility. Another I initially thought is that it's a Muslim trying to gather info. But then, you might ask, how does he know about Sikh textual sources. Well, you'd be surprised at their resourcefulness. A final possibility is he's a weak Sikh who was asked a question by a non-Sikh and now he's suddenly feverishly wondering where it's "written" that you can't marry a young child. To the latter, I would say, you're looking in the wrong spot. Gurbani isn't a 1428 page rulebook, like Leviticus or the Vedas: ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਪੁੰਨ ਪਾਪ ਬੀਚਾਰਦੇ ਤਤੈ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੀ ॥ ਤਤੈ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਾਝਹੁ ਤਤੈ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੀ ॥ The Simritis and Shastras discriminate between charity and sin, but know not the essence of the Real Thing. Without the Guru, they know not the essence of the Reality, know not the essence of the Reality. Anand Sahib.
    • You're confusing two different things: One is merely adding starch to a turban to get a certain feel to the fabric. The other is tying your turban once and taking it off like a hat. It is this that people have a problem with. What's wrong with it is that Rehit says to tie your turban afresh every time. If you ask, "Where is that written?", it's written in Bhai Nand Lal ji's Rehitnama. @ipledgeblue didn't just make it up. Umm, no, bro. We're not evangelical Christians like President George W Bush of the US claiming to "talk to God" who told him to invade Iraq. "Speaking to him directly" basically ends up being doing whatever you feel like with the excuse that Guru ji told you to do it. If you still want to take your turban off like a hat, feel free to do so, but don't claim that it's Rehit.
    • You don't need to wear either a pag or dumalla in the gym. You can simply wear a meter or 1.5m small turban (gol pagg or round turban). It doesn't come off.
    • The reason you don't see anything wrong with it is because like a fish in water, you grew up in Western culture and imbibed it fully. It's very difficult to for parents to inculcate traditional culture while in the West. The reason there is a problem is because a kiss between a man and wife is a sexual act (I didn't say it's coitus, but it's still sexual.) By contrast a kiss between a mother and a child, for example, is not sexual. And in our culture, sexual acts are not allowed in public. Goras do allow it. And that's also the reason they have gay pride parades now with people walking around naked with children in attendance and so forth.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use