Brahman's Name

[ajay0]

Ah okay, that's interesting. So you're saying there's three layers to the Brahma/n pie? Nirguna Brahman, Sarguna Brahman, and then personal deities?

Yes, Nirguna Brahman is impersonal and omnipresent, while Saguna Brahman as in Shiva as an incorporeal entity of light is personal and not omnipresent. The creator and creation are considered distinct in this regard.

In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalinga as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation.

And no, in Sikhi Waheguru is not a personal god. The Ik Onkar is impersonal creative force. Sikhi is panentheistic and not monotheistic and cannot abide a creator that is separate and distinct from the creation such as Allah, for example.

Well, I have read articles by Sikh scholars to the contrary.

 

[Treks]

Same thing.

That's not what Islam teaches.......

I am fairly certain monotheism and panentheism are not the same.

Edit, as I see you are a Shai Muslim: Can you tell me more about what Islam teaches in this regard, then? Is Islam not monotheistic according to the ordinary meaning of the term? Does Islam teach that God and the creation are the same, that only God truly exists?

 

[Treks]

Well, I have read articles by Sikh scholars to the contrary.

I am interested to see such articles because in all my time as a Sikh I did not encounter such teaching. And in all my reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji I have never understood that God is anything but the essential reality, the providential universal creative force, and definitely not a personal god. If you have resource expressing other views please share them.

 

[Firemorphic]

I am fairly certain monotheism and panentheism are not the same.

What specifically makes you say so?

Edit, as I see you are a Shai Muslim: Can you tell me more about what Islam teaches in this regard, then? Is Islam not monotheistic according to the ordinary meaning of the term? Does Islam teach that God and the creation are the same, that only God truly exists?

Islam teaches that God is the active single point of absolute Unity that the universe is emanated from. The universe is illusion (maya), containing falsehood, as it is a temporal material state.
The role of prophets are therefore to give irfan/gnosis, to keep mankind aware of the divine nature of existence and of God.
God is eternal, all-pervading and formless (not like anything in the universe and not a deity) but likened to an infinite light.
It is the microcosm and the macrocosm (outer and inner) but is not the universe itself - as it is transcendent and (again) emanated this universe (which has existed before).
Everything comes from and returns back to God (a key, reoccurring message in the Qur'an), but ourselves are not "God" itself, well not in the sense Hinduism's atman identifying itself with the brahman.
Because of God's absoluteness, things like speech are irrelevant to it's being. The metaphysical role of Angels and Theophanies (which are never God itself manifesting because that would contradict God's perfect Unity) are the bridge between us and God, in the sense that the Divine Will emanates the Logos, which manifests as revelation (to the aforementioned prophets).
Taken further, in respect to that, the universe itself (as an emanation) could be in some sense be also seen as Theophany (which would connect in a way to the Brahman+Atman realization, both of humans as much as space itself) but the distinguishing quality of God's active nature and Divine Will manifestation upon it's emanation, disqualifies any notion on Pantheism.

 

[ajay0]

I am interested to see such articles because in all my time as a Sikh I did not encounter such teaching. And in all my reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji I have never understood that God is anything but the essential reality, the providential universal creative force, and definitely not a personal god. If you have resource expressing other views please share them.

I read it in an article many years back. I got the impression that the Sikh scholar wanted Waheguru to have a identity identity from Nirguna Brahman who he felt to be cold and impersonal. I considered his points valid.

As Firemorphic suggested , Waheguru seems to be having the qualities of Saguna Brahman as in being personalised and involved in creation, protecton and granting of grace, while having the qualities of Nirguna Brahman as in being omnipresent and not separate from the creation. A balance of both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman is seen in Waheguru.

This is an interesting philosophical doctrine, quite valid in its own right.

 

[Treks]

What specifically makes you say so?

I said "I am fairly certain monotheism and panentheism are not the same." Commonly (although I'm aware there are broader definitions), monotheism is understood to be belief in one god which is not equatable with creation, as distinct from pantheism which posits that God and the universe\creation are the same. Panentheism I suppose is what happens if you smoosh monotheism and pantheism together. God is the universe but also greater than the universe, and timeless.

Islam teaches that God is the active single point of absolute Unity that the universe is emanated from. The universe is illusion (maya), containing falsehood, as it is a temporal material state.
The role of prophets are therefore to give irfan/gnosis, to keep mankind aware of the divine nature of existence and of God.
God is eternal, all-pervading and formless (not like anything in the universe and not a deity) but likened to an infinite light.
It is the microcosm and the macrocosm (outer and inner) but is not the universe itself - as it is transcendent and (again) emanated this universe (which has existed before).
Everything comes from and returns back to God (a key, reoccurring message in the Qur'an), but ourselves are not "God" itself, well not in the sense Hinduism's atman identifying itself with the brahman.
Because of God's absoluteness, things like speech are irrelevant to it's being. The metaphysical role of Angels and Theophanies (which are never God itself manifesting because that would contradict God's perfect Unity) are the bridge between us and God, in the sense that the Divine Will emanates the Logos, which manifests as revelation (to the aforementioned prophets).
Taken further, in respect to that, the universe itself (as an emanation) could be in some sense be also seen as Theophany (which would connect in a way to the Brahman+Atman realization, both of humans as much as space itself) but the distinguishing quality of God's active nature and Divine Will manifestation upon it's emanation, disqualifies any notion on Pantheism.

Thanks for explaining this. It's pretty complicated so I don't know if I understand it all, but it's fascinating.

You've said that the universe is an illusion\emanation and that it is not equatable with pantheism. So, is it accurate to say then that Allah and the creation are separate, if the notion of pantheism is disqualified? Or in fact is Islam panentheistic? Or perhaps there is no western belief label that can adequately describe it.

I note that Wikipedia suggests that some Sufis held beliefs that could be considered panentheistic. There is a little bit of Sufi poetry in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which is nice.

Everyone has their own understanding. It's hard to talk about what a religion teaches when even adherents within a religion tend to disagree.

 

[Firemorphic]

I said "I am fairly certain monotheism and panentheism are not the same." Commonly (although I'm aware there are broader definitions), monotheism is understood to be belief in one god which is not equatable with creation, as distinct from pantheism which posits that God and the universe\creation are the same. Panentheism I suppose is what happens if you smoosh monotheism and pantheism together. God is the universe but also greater than the universe, and timeless.

I don't really see a difference between Monotheism and Panentheism, your answer doesn't really provide me one either.
Both Monotheism and PanENtheism pose the Ultimate Reality (Allah) as being an all-pervading transcendent formless thing. Every encyclopedia entry I've seen for PanENtheism describes the same thing as Monotheism. I think that that it's more that people tend to associate the word "monotheism" with the Abrahamic tradition for some reason. Not to mention that these terms are later terms are coined "post" their respective religions.

Pantheism, I equate with Atheism - that the material universe is all there is. Except within pantheism, it amplifies a state of quality of the unity of the universe being collectively "divine" but ultimately is a form of atheism. It's more like Atheistic idealism.

Thanks for explaining this. It's pretty complicated so I don't know if I understand it all, but it's fascinating.

You've said that the universe is an illusion\emanation and that it is not equatable with pantheism. So, is it accurate to say then that Allah and the creation are separate, if the notion of pantheism is disqualified? Or in fact is Islam panentheistic? Or perhaps there is no western belief label that can adequately describe it.

I note that Wikipedia suggests that some Sufis held beliefs that could be considered panentheistic. There is a little bit of Sufi poetry in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which is nice.

Everyone has their own understanding. It's hard to talk about what a religion teaches when even adherents within a religion tend to disagree.

It's that the "creation" (emanation) is lesser than the "creator". The universe is temporal, whereas The Ultimate Reality (Allah) is eternal and "uncreated".
All things (the universe) comes from The Ultimate Reality (Allah) and all things (the universe) returns back to The Ultimate Reality (Allah).
The Universe (just as with PanENtheism) can be seen as coming out of the Ultimate Reality.

Sufi's explore what the Qur'an and the Ahl Bayt (family of Prophet Muhammad) teach. They are not just making stuff up or projecting their own ideas onto the Qur'an.
But your statement also begs the same question I said above, what is the difference between Monotheism and panENtheism?

 

[Treks]

I read it in an article many years back. I got the impression that the Sikh scholar wanted Waheguru to have a identity identity from Nirguna Brahman who he felt to be cold and impersonal. I considered his points valid.

As Firemorphic suggested , Waheguru seems to be having the qualities of Saguna Brahman as in being personalised and involved in creation, protecton and granting of grace, while having the qualities of Nirguna Brahman as in being omnipresent and not separate from the creation. A balance of both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman is seen in Waheguru.

This is an interesting philosophical doctrine, quite valid in its own right.

The grace element of Ik Onkar is a bit of a mystery to me and I'm still mulling it over it will probably remain so for my whole life. I think also that some people want God to be more personal and active in their lives, and others want God to be more abstract and philosophical.

Regarding the nigun and sargun aspects of the Ik Onkar, it gets more complicated since Gurbani makes extensive use of metaphor and the poetic device of personalisation. Such can be seen when some Sikhs hold a belief that God is male, because he is referred to as the Husband Lord in Gurbani, etc.

 

[Treks]

But your statement also begs the same question I said above, what is the difference between Monotheism and panENtheism?

It's a question that's been asked on RF before. You can browse those threads. My own understanding is similar to nazz's here: Monotheistic PanENtheism?

 

[Willamena]

Is it OK if i take the Lord's name in vain, or exclusively as mine?

<snort>

It's okay. I'm sure the Nameless doesn't mind.

 

[Jedster]

It's okay. I'm sure the Nameless doesn't mind.

Indeed.
I have heard it said that 'the name of game is the game of the name.'

 

[Valjean]

pure consciousness isn't an unconditional loving spirit?

Nope. You're anthropomorphizing it.

 

[Fool]

Nope. You're anthropomorphizing it.

the word "pure" anthropomorphizes" it


with love, with God all things are possible because tat tvam asi, ahmi yat ahmi, ahea ashur ahea, puk nu puk

love is the cause of the spirit and the spirit, or the consciousness, is possessed by love
love is the cause of the personal but itself is impersonal
love is the result of itself


only love is good


Whose Name naught but the Silence can express.

Her. God, therefore, is not Mind, but Cause that the Mind is; God is not Spirit, but Cause that Spirit is; God is not Light, but Cause that the Light is. Hence should one honour God with these two names [the Good and Father]—names which pertain to Him alone and no one else.

 

[Firemorphic]

It's a question that's been asked on RF before. You can browse those threads. My own understanding is similar to nazz's here: Monotheistic PanENtheism?

The difference in the linked post there is very slim.
Essentially, it is an unclear distinction between the material and immaterial. In the monotheist/panENtheist view, what that post basically states (which is more in the realm of speculative) is that The Ultimate Reality is the same "material" in panENtheism but is distinctly different from it in Monotheism. I think this perceived difference is fundamentally false.

Really, I think the two overarching worldviews are:

Monotheism/PanENtheism (transcendent force beyond, which pervades the entire universe)
and
Atheism/Pantheism/agnosticism/apatheism/etc (the material universe is all these is)

Polytheism is a kind of grey area, depending on the tradition it comes from but tends to be a personified version of Pantheism.

 

[Treks]

The difference in the linked post there is very slim.
Essentially, it is an unclear distinction between the material and immaterial. In the monotheist/panENtheist view, what that post basically states (which is more in the realm of speculative) is that The Ultimate Reality is the same "material" in panENtheism but is distinctly different from it in Monotheism. I think this perceived difference is fundamentally false.

Really, I think the two overarching worldviews are:

Monotheism/PanENtheism (transcendent force beyond, which pervades the entire universe)
and
Atheism/Pantheism/agnosticism/apatheism/etc (the material universe is all these is)

Polytheism is a kind of grey area, depending on the tradition it comes from but tends to be a personified version of Pantheism.

I am myself a panentheist and I don't separate God from the universe (and for clarity, I believe God extends beyond the universe, timelessly and infinitely, putting the 'en' in 'panENtheism'). Here is some Gurbani that describes my beliefs. Does this fit your "monotheism/panentheism" overarching worldview category?

Please don't feel obliged to read it or respond if you don't want to.

In the one and in the many, He is pervading and permeating; wherever I look, there He is.
The marvelous image of Maya is so fascinating; how few understand this. ||1||
God is everything, God is everything. Without God, there is nothing at all.
As one thread holds hundreds and thousands of beads, He is woven into His creation. ||1||Pause||
The waves of the water, the foam and bubbles, are not distinct from the water.
This manifested world is the playful game of the Supreme Lord God; reflecting upon it, we find that it is not different from Him. ||2||
False doubts and dream objects - man believes them to be true.
The Guru has instructed me to try to do good deeds, and my awakened mind has accepted this. ||3||
Says Naam Dayv, see the Creation of the Lord, and reflect upon it in your heart.
In each and every heart, and deep within the very nucleus of all, is the One Lord. ||4||1||
​

(SGGSJ ang 485)

 

[Treks]

I read it in an article many years back. I got the impression that the Sikh scholar wanted Waheguru to have a identity identity from Nirguna Brahman who he felt to be cold and impersonal. I considered his points valid.

As Firemorphic suggested , Waheguru seems to be having the qualities of Saguna Brahman as in being personalised and involved in creation, protecton and granting of grace, while having the qualities of Nirguna Brahman as in being omnipresent and not separate from the creation. A balance of both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman is seen in Waheguru.

This is an interesting philosophical doctrine, quite valid in its own right.

Ah, I see I miread your earlier post explaining the difference between Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. Sorry about that! You were explaining how Nirguna Brahman has no qualities. None. Zip, zero, nada. It actually takes an extra moment to process exactly what that means.

 

[Fool]

So, I am monotheistic according to some definition, polytheistic according to the modern common idea of the words.

you're a monotheist with dualistic thinking?

 

[Valjean]

Ah, I see I miread your earlier post explaining the difference between Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. Sorry about that! You were explaining how Nirguna Brahman has no qualities. None. Zip, zero, nada. It actually takes an extra moment to process exactly what that means.

Discussion of Nirguna Brahman is hampered by the fact that it has no qualities to latch on to, nothing can really be said about it but "not this!" As soon as you ascribe any qualities to it, like love, consciousness or even the popular "sat-chit-ananda" you've ascribed it gunas.

 

[Fool]

Discussion of Nirguna Brahman is hampered by the fact that it has no qualities to latch on to, nothing can really be said about it but "not this!" As soon as you ascribe any qualities to it, like love, consciousness or even the popular "sat-chit-ananda" you've ascribed it gunas.

distinctionless, or without distinction, means that it has no contrast to differentiate it from something else because it is everything, it is omnipresent

only things that have contrast can be differentiated one from the other; so being the ALL it has no other to be contrary to. it contains all the contrasts; which neutralizes each other, so as you stated, "it is not this".

all pluralities arise from the singularity

in the silence I AM free

 

[Fool]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question with relation to Brahman. Can you please rephrase?

To "take the Lord's name in vain" I believe means to swear an oath to Jehova, or invoke Jehova, inappropriately.

vanity is to stroke one's ego. in other words if i claim to be the one and only brahman and claim you're not, then i take the name in vain.

self-aggrandizing as it were