Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chatanga1

Lord Singh's email on Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib

Recommended Posts

Dear All,

 

I have received this email from a group called "Sikhs helping Sikhs." It is a statement purported to be written by Lord Indarjit Singh. If it is true and it is his own statement, then this is one guy we need to keep an eye on. He is "up there" in government and had a lot of influence on Sikh matters in the UK, upto the point of being involved in formulating Sikh religious studies syllabus.

If this is still the case, we should not have people like him in such positions.

The email:

 

To the Gurdwara
Boards East Africa & other Sikhs concerned about recent pronoucements
of Sikh Jathedhars on the Dasam Granth 
I humbly
request you to consider the points mentioned below:  
Thanks
Indarjit
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
A.
Please state which, if any, of the following statements is
incorrect:
1. There were many challenges to the Gurus and
their teaching during the lifetime of the Gurus.
2. When Guru Gobind
Singh added the compositions of Guru Teg Bahadhur to the Adi Granth, he
deliberately excluded any verses that he may have written himself.
3.
Guru Gobind Singh, aware of the danger of different sants, babas and cults
diverting or distorting the Gurus’ teachings, decreed that the Adi
Granth with the addition of Guru Teg Bahadhur’s verses,were complete
in themselves and would henceforth be referred to as the Guru Granth
Sahib,
4. In 1708, Guru Gobind Singh formerly installed the Guru
Granth Sahib as complete and sole guidance for all Sikhs. [Guru manio
Granth]
5. In a verse following our Ardas, the above sentiment is put
as an edict, or hukum, binding on all Sikhs.
6. To accord other
writings or scriptures equal reverence to the Guru Granth Sahib, would be a
betrayal of the above mentioned hukum. 
7. The opening words of the
Guru Granth Sahib remind us that there is only one Supreme Being. This is a
clear rejection of the Hindu belief in a of a pantheon of gods and
goddesses.
8. More than one third of the writings of the Dasam Granth
involve the exploits and praise of various Hindu deities.
9.
Another third of the Dasam Granth involves the denigration of women and
the ‘wiles’ of women, often in stark pornographic terms-in
complete contradiction of Sikh teachings of dignity and complete
equality.
10. The Dasam Granth was compiled by Hindu Brahmins from a
variety of writings at least 50 years after Guru Gobind Singh.
11. A
small proportion of the verses in the Dasam Granth are in general
consonance with the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and could be lost
writings of Guru Gobind Singh.
12. In 1930’s and early
1940’s, a committee of renowned Sikh scholars, after much
consultation and analysis, agreed that these banis, listed in the 1945 Sikh
Reyat Maryada, should be included in Sikh worship. The rest of the
misleadingly and mischievously titled Dasam Granth was unceremoniously
rejected as wholly contrary to Sikh teaching.  

Authority in
Sikhism
As per Guru Gobind Singh’s hukum, all
religious guidance is vested in the Guru Granth Sahib alone. No person has
any authority to issue any edict or hukum that is not in consonance with
the Gurus teachings as contained in the Guru Granth Sahib. 
Origin of
Jathedhars. 
During the Missl period, leaders of the groups or Jathas
would meet at the Akal Takhat or other venue, to agree policies to meet
common external threats. The leaders or spokespeople, had no spiritual
authority. All decisions had to be in consonance with the Gurus’
teachings.
In the 20s, the newly formed SGPC appointed managers of the
main centres of Sikhism(Takhts) who became known as Jathedhars. Before
their appointment the Secretary of the SGPC would only test their
proficiency in reading the Guru Granth Sahib.
Todays Jathedhars
In recent years, the SGPC has itself become politicized and controlled by
people who show again and again, a greater un-Sikh-like devotion to the
pursuit of wealth and power than to living and promoting the Gurus
teachings.
Today’s Jathedhars are appointed for their loyalty to
political masters rather than to the Gurus teachings. The title Jathedhar
appears to have gone to the heads of some. In a visit to England, one
repeatedly asked me to introduce him as ‘the Pope of the Sikhs.
Something I refused to do. Another wrote to the British Museum insultingly
stating that Sikh teachings were superior to others. All too often, they
use Catholic terminology like ‘excommunication’, (literally
banned from drinking communion wine!), to threaten those that disagree with
them. There are other examples.  
Recent ‘Edicts’
against the Global Sikh Council (GSC)
The GSC has rightly
expressed its concerns over attempts to dilute and distort Sikh teachings
by the BJP by the introduction of the Dasam Granth into Sikh theology, with
its eulogising of Hindu gods and goddesses and its denigration of women, as
described above. Sikhs should ask themselves what was the Punjab
Governments motive in producing and distributing thousands of copies of the
Dasam Granth at a cost of crores of rupees?


Suggestion
Jathedhars who promote the Dasam Granth,
and even absurdly seek to place it on a par with the Guru Granth Sahib, at
best display a gross ignorance of Sikhism, or worse, are enemies of the
Panth and should be exposed as such by all Sikhs, along with their
political paymasters.  
---------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wake Up

The points he raises are points which need to be brought up lest our entire theology will be changed to that of Hindu mat. Blind Dasam Granth followers, being led astray you don't even realize your beautiful religion is being stolen from you to turn you back to Hindu fold with praise of Hindu deities and denigration of women. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hugh Hefner

But did it ever occur to you that Sri Dasme Paathshah wrote the sexually erotic stories in Charitropakhiyan in order to encourage people as sex sells and my empire proves that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Guest Wake Up said:

Blind Dasam Granth followers, being led astray you don't even realize your beautiful religion is being stolen from you to turn you back to Hindu fold with praise of Hindu deities and denigration of women. 

Only those ignorant of Dasam Granth could say something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

Only those ignorant of Dasam Granth could say something like this.

Daas would like to add - People who are ignorant of the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee will say nonsense like the above (Guest wake up's statement).

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-09-25 at 7:09 PM, Guest Wake Up said:

The points he raises are points which need to be brought up lest our entire theology will be changed to that of Hindu mat. Blind Dasam Granth followers, being led astray you don't even realize your beautiful religion is being stolen from you to turn you back to Hindu fold with praise of Hindu deities and denigration of women. 

This is from Guru Granth Sahib -

 ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
By The Grace Of The True Guru:

ਧਨਿ ਧੰਨਿ ਓ ਰਾਮ ਬੇਨੁ ਬਾਜੈ
Blessed, blessed is that flute which Ram plays.

ਮਧੁਰ ਮਧੁਰ ਧੁਨਿ ਅਨਹਤ ਗਾਜੈ ਰਹਾਉ
The sweet, sweet unstruck sound current sings forth. ||1||Pause||

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਮੇਘਾ ਰੋਮਾਵਲੀ
Blessed, blessed is the wool of the sheep;

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਓਢੈ ਕਾਂਬਲੀ
blessed, blessed is the wool blanket worn by Shri Krishna. ||1||

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਤੂ ਮਾਤਾ ਦੇਵਕੀ
Blessed, blessed are you, O mother Devaki;

ਜਿਹ ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਰਮਈਆ ਕਵਲਾਪਤੀ
into your home the Husband of Kamla, Vishnu, was born. ||2||

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਬਨ ਖੰਡ ਬਿੰਦ੍ਰਾਬਨਾ
Blessed, blessed are the forests of Vrindavan;

ਜਹ ਖੇਲੈ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਨਾਰਾਇਨਾ
where Shri Narayana plays. ||3||

ਬੇਨੁ ਬਜਾਵੈ ਗੋਧਨੁ ਚਰੈ
He plays the flute, and herds the cows;

ਨਾਮੇ ਕਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਆਨਦ ਕਰੈ
Nam Dev's Master plays happily. ||4||1||

ਮੇਰੋ ਬਾਪੁ ਮਾਧਉ ਤੂ ਧਨੁ ਕੇਸੌ ਸਾਂਵਲੀਓ ਬੀਠੁਲਾਇ ਰਹਾਉ
O my Father Vishnu , Husband of my Mother (Maya), blessed are You, You long-haired, dark-skinned, Veethala (Marathi name for Vishnu). ||1||Pause||

ਕਰ ਧਰੇ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਬੈਕੁੰਠ ਤੇ ਆਏ ਗਜ ਹਸਤੀ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਉਧਾਰੀਅਲੇ
You hold the steel chakra in Your hand; You came down from Vaikunth (nirvana, sach khand, the place where only Shri Hari Vishnu resides), and saved the life of the elephant (who was attacked, and was trapped in the tight jaws of a crocodile when he went to take a drink in a pool).

ਦੁਹਸਾਸਨ ਕੀ ਸਭਾ ਦ੍ਰੋਪਤੀ ਅੰਬਰ ਲੇਤ ਉਬਾਰੀਅਲੇ
In the court of Duhshasan, You (Krishan ji) saved the honor of Dropadi, when her clothes were being removed. ||1||

ਗੋਤਮ ਨਾਰਿ ਅਹਲਿਆ ਤਾਰੀ ਪਾਵਨ ਕੇਤਕ ਤਾਰੀਅਲੇ
You (Ram Chandra ji) saved Ahalya (who was turned to stone), the wife of Gautam; how many have You purified and carried across?

ਐਸਾ ਅਧਮੁ ਅਜਾਤਿ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਤਉ ਸਰਨਾਗਤਿ ਆਈਅਲੇ
Such a lowly outcaste as Nam Dev has come seeking Your Sanctuary. ||2||2||

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wake Up

Bhagat Singh Ji I am sorry if you can't understand the difference between metaphor and worshipping actual deities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lord Singh hates Sikhi

Guru Gobind Singh Ji spent fully seven years of their life writing the wonderful sexual stories in Charitropakhyan which are works of art. Guru Sahib take erotica to a new literary level in a way to educate the Khalsa too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Concerned Singh

s a work of art to educate the Khalsa? How about condemning females to position of temptresses who will deceive men? How about the condining of men doing adulterous activity while condemning the wife for doing the same after he deceived her first? How about saying that God regretted creating the female gender? How about condoning beating of women and then blaming the woman for killing her abusers? How about condoning idea of wives must be obedient while men get to do what they want? And men being condemned not for their deceit or adultery but for trusting the woman! How about telling husbands to keep secrets from wives? How about treating women like objects to look at and valuing on their beauty only? That's all in there! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guest Wake Up said:

Bhagat Singh Ji I am sorry if you can't understand the difference between metaphor and worshipping actual deities. 

Are you saying that a Vaishnav Guru from Maharashtra, known as Nam Dev ji, who was and is famous for his intense devotion to Vishnu, and his avtaars, Ram and Krishna, who is the founder of the modern-day Varkari religion, is not worshipping Vishnu and his avtaars?

Is that what you are saying? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wake up is  flagged for using multiple guest id- concerned singh to post. Please stop playing silly games. Just because we allow guest posting does not mean you guys abuse guest posting feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Are you saying that a Vaishnav Guru from Maharashtra, known as Nam Dev ji, who was and is famous for his intense devotion to Vishnu, and his avtaars, Ram and Krishna, who is the founder of the modern-day Varkari religion, is not worshipping Vishnu and his avtaars?

Is that what you are saying? lol

BhagatSingh Ji are you saying you believe in actual Hindu deities?  Then what of the very first words in Mool Mantra? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JasperS said:

BhagatSingh Ji are you saying you believe in actual Hindu deities?  Then what of the very first words in Mool Mantra? 

The Mool mantra is great because meditation on this mantra reveals the mystery behind the deities, not just HIndu deities but also Greek ones, Norse ones. Guru Sahib have given us the master key to unlock the hidden treasure within the stories of our ancestors.

Using the key Guru ji gave me, I unlocked the deep mysteries of the Gods, for myself. And I am here to share that knowledge now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎26‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 8:27 PM, paapiman said:

Daas would like to add - People who are ignorant of the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee will say nonsense like the above (Guest wake up's statement).

 

Bhul chuk maaf

u r right. Almost all Sikhs say that sggsjm is the living guru but only rare one actually believe sggs to be the guru/ god. The people that r against dasm granth don't even read it with concentration and say it is not bani after listening to people.

I recommend u guys watch: Our alien connect by bapuji. It is great it made me believe that guru granth sahib it truly god. It's on youtube. Try it.

one of the questions asked to bapuji that made me look at sggs in new light:

Q: Why do aliens come to visit earth?

A: Because at this very moment nirankar ji is on earth. They come to have darshan of him.

it is obvious from the answer that aliens come to visit sggsjm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

The Mool mantra is great because meditation on this mantra reveals the mystery behind the deities, not just HIndu deities but also Greek ones, Norse ones. Guru Sahib have given us the master key to unlock the hidden treasure within the stories of our ancestors.

Using the key Guru ji gave me, I unlocked the deep mysteries of the Gods, for myself. And I am here to share that knowledge now.

Yu say "Gods" so you do not believe that there is only ONE? What of nirgun / sargun? Ultimate reality is ONEness. There is only ONE. Not many Gods. Only one, made more apparent by use of "Ik". Everything else which exists within the creation arises out of that ONE and is, ultimately, illusion, or as a dream. All form is sargun (manifest) from the ONE nirgun (unmanifest). Nothing which exists within the creation (which exists within the ONE) can wholly be the ONE. Yet Gurbani tells us, the light of that ONE is inherently in ALL forms equally. And by extension everything and everyone who exist within said creation are ontologically equal (because ultimately all are the same ONE living only through a sort of amnesia caused by duality, and the forms are only illusion).  So I am surprised that you believe in Hindu deities and other "Gods" as in plural as actual entities. If they existed, they were not 'Gods' but only other forms which like us, share the divine light equally, but never on their own could be considered "God". A character in the play can NEVER be equal to the actor because once the play ends, the character is no more and only the actor exists. It is wrong to teach that any character within this creation, which is within Akal Purakh, could ever BE a God and is against Sikh philosophy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JasperS

I believe there is only one God, but he has multiple names. However when you have different names for God, different names for the Oneness, ignorance comes in and sees the different names as different Onenesses/Gods. So the reality of Gods is Oneness with different names but people perceive them as multiple Gods.

What happens is that any time anyone gives a description of God, that description becomes an object of consciousness, ie a character in the creation. Any description you give is a character in the creation.

So when you have multiple descriptions of God, in multiple different religions, they all seem like different Gods, different characters in creation. They may even be called different Gods, however these are descriptions of the same thing. These are descriptions of the same supreme reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

@JasperS

I believe there is only one God, but he has multiple names. However when you have different names for God, different names for the Oneness, ignorance comes in and sees the different names as different Onenesses/Gods. So the reality of Gods is Oneness with different names but people perceive them as multiple Gods.

What happens is that any time anyone gives a description of God, that description becomes an object of consciousness, ie a character in the creation. Any description you give is a character in the creation.

So when you have multiple descriptions of God, in multiple different religions, they all seem like different Gods, different characters in creation. They may even be called different Gods, however these are descriptions of the same thing. These are descriptions of the same supreme reality.

Right then, you are basically agreeing that the characters are man made then. The different images held by different peoples throughout history, were all to try and explain the same ONE supreme Creator. So they never actually existed as actual entities which could interact with humans. They only exist as ideas. Ideas within human thought, that were given form through human imagination, to help humans try to visualize something which can not be visualized. That something is the ONE creator which is formless and beyond description. 

But to say that Krishna for example actually existed as a deity WITHIN this Creation is wrong. If Krishna existed WITHIN this creation as an actual entity capable of interacting with humans, then he would be no more a God than we are because his form is ultimately illusion the same as ours. 

Do you see what I am getting at? 

Saying humans created imagery within their imagination to help them try to visualize a Creator which is beyond all description and calling those ideas different names, is different than teaching that actual entities existed which interacted with humans, and could be considered 'Gods'. Only God can be considered God and God exists outside of Creation as ONE.  ALL else are within and part of God, but ALL individually are NOT God wholly. (Otherwise you have to say that we too are Gods for the same reason that we also possess the same divine light, even though we exist within this creation as separate entities because of duality.) 

However, there are Sikhs who actually believe in all kinds of different Gods and Goddesses and Demi Gods and Demi Goddesses as ACTUAL entities, meaning having form in a physical sense and not only in idols or imagination as ideas.

In that sense I get what the guest was saying the shabad is not mentioning actual separate deities but using metaphor. The shabad you quoted is speaking of the IDEAS of them. Like if I wrote a book and created a new character that everyone loves like Harry Potter. Now, someone else writes a book or a poem and says Harry Potter even does this or that. My poem is referencing a character but not a real entity. In one way Harry Potter is real. Someone created the character. But Harry Potter is not a real entity in his own right. I hope I got my point across.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JasperS

No you misunderstood me.

I am saying Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Zeus, Wodin, etc are all names of God.

If you read  some of ancient spiritual texts, you will come across people referring to the Formless Lord as Shiva. In Bhagvad Gita, the Universal Consciousness is referred to as Krishna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

@JasperS

No you misunderstood me.

I am saying Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Zeus, Wodin, etc are all names of God.

If you read  some of ancient spiritual texts, you will come across people referring to the Formless Lord as Shiva. In Bhagvad Gita, the Universal Consciousness is referred to as Krishna.

Yes I got that you said they are names of God, the SAME ONE God. What I am saying is that means they did not exist as separate entities WITHIN this creation. And the form given to them in descriptions were only imagined. For example, Krishna's descriptions having him as beautiful (in a physical sense), playing a flute, having dark grey complexion like clouds, wearing peacock feathers in his curly hair. You know what I mean. If Krishna is only a name FOR the ONE God, the SAME ONE God we call Waheguru, and not a separate entity within this creation within God, then the above description existed only within the minds of those worshipping him, and not in reality. And how do you explain multiple deities existing at one time worshipped by the same people? If they knew they are in fact worshipping the same ONE why then the need to visualize separate forms? They must have had concept of entities existing separately from God, and in that case, they all can't be seen as the same ONE or else their visualizations and worship to separate idols would be redundant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JasperS
What you are saying applies to Vishnu (and Shiva, etc,) but not with his avtaars such as Ram and Krishna.

The image of Vishnu ji with the dark skin, with four-arms, holding Shankh, Chakra, Gada and Padam and the jewelry is a symbolic representation of Vishnu ji, who is formless.

Referring to Vishnu ji, Guru Arjun Dev ji says -
ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥
You are the wielder of Shankh, Chakra, Gada, you are the charioteer of your saints.

He adds that Vishnu ji is formless -

 ਨ ਸੰਖੰ ਨ ਚਕ੍ਰੰ ਨ ਗਦਾ ਨ ਸਿਆਮੰ ॥
You have no shankh, no chakra, no gada, no dark-skin.

ਅਸ੍ਚਰਜ ਰੂਪੰ ਰਹੰਤ ਜਨਮੰ ॥
Your form is wonderful, it does not take birth.

ਨੇਤ ਨੇਤ ਕਥੰਤਿ ਬੇਦਾ ॥
The Vedas says you are neti neti, not this not that (formless).

 

Shankh (vibratory form) Chakra (omnipresence) Gada (protective/destructive power) are his symbols. Ultimately, he is 'not this, not that', that is, he is Absolute Consciousness.

 

But when we are talking about Krishna, we are talking about a God in the flesh. Like how Christians refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is God is but also a historical person.

Krishan ji is an avtaar of God/ Vishnu ji. He is a historical person, who was dark-skinned, who played the flute, who kept long hair, and fought battles, and became the Guru of Parth Arjun. However when Krishan ji was speaking to Arjun, he was not speaking of a physical body, he was speaking about his real self, that is Universal Consciousness / Param Atma.


Nam Dev ji is saying "Krishna (God), you are great. Blessed is mother Devki who gave birth to your physical body. Blessed are the blankets that kept you cozy. Blessed are forests where you played. You played the flute and herded the cows."

He is talking about the Universal Consciousness, Vishnu, the Creator, assuming a physical form to interact with humans. He says "You have come from Vaikunth, the realm of absolute truth, absolute consciousness, to the realm of physicality and saved the Elephant, saved Dropadi, saved Gautam's wife Ahalya" and he says "I am come to your sanctuary, meaning, I immerse my consciousness in yours".

ਕਰ ਧਰੇ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਬੈਕੁੰਠ ਤੇ ਆਏ ਗਜ ਹਸਤੀ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਉਧਾਰੀਅਲੇ
You hold the steel chakra in Your hand; You came down from Vaikunth (nirvana, sach khand, the place where only Shri Hari Vishnu resides), and saved the life of the elephant (who was attacked, and was trapped in the tight jaws of a crocodile when he went to take a drink in a pool).

ਦੁਹਸਾਸਨ ਕੀ ਸਭਾ ਦ੍ਰੋਪਤੀ ਅੰਬਰ ਲੇਤ ਉਬਾਰੀਅਲੇ
In the court of Duhshasan, You (Krishan ji) saved the honor of Dropadi, when her clothes were being removed.

ਗੋਤਮ ਨਾਰਿ ਅਹਲਿਆ ਤਾਰੀ ਪਾਵਨ ਕੇਤਕ ਤਾਰੀਅਲੇ
You (Ram Chandra ji) saved Ahalya (who was turned to stone), the wife of Gautam; how many have You purified and carried across?

ਐਸਾ ਅਧਮੁ ਅਜਾਤਿ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਤਉ ਸਰਨਾਗਤਿ ਆਈਅਲੇ
Such a lowly outcaste as Nam Dev has come seeking Your Sanctuary. ||2||2||
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

@JasperS
What you are saying applies to Vishnu (and Shiva, etc,) but not with his avtaars such as Ram and Krishna.

The image of Vishnu ji with the dark skin, with four-arms, holding Shankh, Chakra, Gada and Padam and the jewelry is a symbolic representation of Vishnu ji, who is formless.

Referring to Vishnu ji, Guru Arjun Dev ji says -
ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥
You are the wielder of Shankh, Chakra, Gada, you are the charioteer of your saints.

He adds that Vishnu ji is formless -

 ਨ ਸੰਖੰ ਨ ਚਕ੍ਰੰ ਨ ਗਦਾ ਨ ਸਿਆਮੰ ॥
You have no shankh, no chakra, no gada, no dark-skin.

ਅਸ੍ਚਰਜ ਰੂਪੰ ਰਹੰਤ ਜਨਮੰ ॥
Your form is wonderful, it does not take birth.

ਨੇਤ ਨੇਤ ਕਥੰਤਿ ਬੇਦਾ ॥
The Vedas says you are neti neti, not this not that (formless).

 

Shankh (vibratory form) Chakra (omnipresence) Gada (protective/destructive power) are his symbols. Ultimately, he is 'not this, not that', that is, he is Absolute Consciousness.

 

But when we are talking about Krishna, we are talking about a God in the flesh. Like how Christians refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is God is but also a historical person.

Krishan ji is an avtaar of God/ Vishnu ji. He is a historical person, who was dark-skinned, who played the flute, who kept long hair, and fought battles, and became the Guru of Parth Arjun. However when Krishan ji was speaking to Arjun, he was not speaking of a physical body, he was speaking about his real self, that is Universal Consciousness / Param Atma.
 

This analogy only works if Creation is something separate from Creator. Since Creation IS essentially Creator (Creation is born of the light, and the light is in the Creation) also (The director stages the play and plays the part of all the characters, but when the play is done, and the costumes are removed we see there is only ONE). Meaning, that ANY form that appears WITHIN the Creation are ALL equally God. If I dream at night, no single character in my dream can be any more me than another. Because they are ALL WITHIN me. And I control ALL of them! I am the driving force behind all the characters in my dreams. Yet you are claiming somehow that a single form within Creation is God in the flesh, in reality ALL FORMS are God in the flesh! ALL forms contain the divine light, because ultimately there is nothing BUT that light! All else is transitory and illusory. 

Now Christians believe that creation is something entirely separate from the Creator, not something inseparable from God. So in that belief system, they can have God take birth as a form, while still having the rest of the forms be of a lower existence. 

In other words, you can't claim that ALL are within God (which Gurbani is explicit on) while saying that some forms within the Creation are "God in the Flesh" while discounting all the other forms which are also God in the flesh, because God is all there truly is! If the same ONE actor is the driving force and consciousness behind ALL forms, and it's that same ONE which is now "in the flesh" as you say in one specific form, then by deductive reasoning, you have to say that all other forms are NOT God. But since Sikhi teaches that God is all there is and all else is illusion caused by duality, then ALL forms are really God. So ALL forms, must be "God in the flesh".

Now where I can agree with you is in the sense that individual forms within the Creation can become aware, can awaken to the TRUTH, which is ONEness. In this case, there becomes no difference between them and the ONE, because they realize the form is false. The Gurus realized this truth and that's how they "conquered death while alive" because they understood there really is no death at all and that ALL are ONE. But you can't have it both ways. If Krishna was a FORM like physically tangible and walking the earth, then you can't say he was any more God than the rest of us, because ALL forms are actually God. We are all actually God in the flesh. Most just don't realize that truth. When that truth is realized, there is no more me vs God, But just God as you become ONE. (Merge) back to ONEness. 

So if Krishna existed as a human form, then that form was no more God than any other form WITHIN the creation.
God is the ONLY truth. ALL else is illusion. Our separateness is illusion. The same ONE God is the consciousness behind ALL forms.
ALL form arises from the ONE formless supreme reality. Therefore, ALL are truly God. So one form within that creation can not be 'more' God than another. 
The separate ego identities act as a barrier to realization of ONEness. Some can surpass this barrier and truly realize that ONEness. It still doesn't make them 'more' God, because God is still ALL. 

Its like if I dream I am a surgeon, working on a patient. I have my nurses and anesthesiologist beside me. Though I am focused on being the surgeon, in reality I am ALL the above. I am the patient, I am the nurses, I am the anesthesiologist, and even the operating table and instruments etc! Now, if I awaken within the dream (lucid dream), and realize while playing the surgeon, that it is just a dream, it still doesn't change the fact that nurses, the patient, and anesthesiologist are still also me! The truth is the dreamer, not the characters. Now, in the dream you might say the surgeon was me in the flesh (or a God) in the dream. But so were the rest. I as the dreamer was only focused through the surgeon consciously at that moment, but ALL of them were really me all the time. At no point did they cease to be me as everything took part in MY dream. There really is only me and ALL of those characters were false. 

If this Creation is WITHIN the Creator, and the Creator is ONE and ultimate reality is ONEness. Then our separate identities are all also false. Meaning, no individual character is any less or more than another. As the only thing that actually exists is the Creator - aka the dreamer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

@JasperS

Do you think Guru Nanak is God?

Absolutely! There is no doubt! 

And so is everything else in Creation! Because God is all there truly is. All the trees, the sky, the animals, all humans. 

The difference between Guru Nanak Dev Ji and us, is that the veil we operate through, which keeps us from realizing the truth has been lifted. He and God were ONE and the same. The body however was still part of the creation. But the consciousness was God fully realized. How does one realize that death is false and conquer it while alive? By realizing the body is NOT the identity. The doer, the awareness which animates us all, is God and only God. I believe this is what the Gurus were teaching us, how to realize this truth.

The truth that He IS Me. And to recognize your own self:

ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਨ ਊਪਜੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਮੈਲੁ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
Bin gur parīṯ na ūpjai ha▫umai mail na jā▫e.
Without the Guru, love does not well up, and the filth of egotism does not depart. 

ਸੋਹੰ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਭੇਦਿ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥
Sohaʼn āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai sabaḏ bẖeḏ paṯī▫ā▫e.
One who recognizes within himself that, "He is me", and who is pierced through by the Shabad, is satisfied.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਅਵਰ ਕਿ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਇ ॥੯॥
Gurmukẖ āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai avar kė kare karā▫e. ||9||
When one becomes Gurmukh and realizes his own self, what more is there left to do or have done? ||9||

ਮਿਲਿਆ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਮੇਲੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਮਿਲੇ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥
Mili▫ā kā ki▫ā melī▫ai sabaḏ mile paṯī▫ā▫e.
Why speak of union to those who are already united with the Lord? Receiving the Shabad, they are satisfied.

ਮਨਮੁਖਿ ਸੋਝੀ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਵੀਛੁੜਿ ਚੋਟਾ ਖਾਇ ॥
Manmukẖ sojẖī nā pavai vīcẖẖuṛ cẖotā kẖā▫e.
The self-willed manmukhs do not understand; separated from Him, they endure beatings. (by not understanding they remain in the illusion of separation)

 

I have seen lately however that a lot of young Singhs want to apply Abrahamic lens on Sikh philosophy and they are not compatible.  Abrahamic teaching is that God is separate from creation, therefore, humans are something separate from God. Gurbani tells us that God is not something separate from us sitting on a cloud. God is within ourselves, and everything and everyone else too! There is only one supreme consciousness and its the same one behind every set of eyes. If there is only ONE, then logic dictates that there can't be 'others'. In fact the idea of a soul is even been distorted because in reality there are no separate souls. There is only ONE. Its like we are characters in a big dream. But there is only the ONE dreamer. But it is possible for the characters to become aware who they really are, and awaken within the dream. But if there is only ONE dreamer, then everything in the dream must actually be the dreamer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-09-28 at 9:06 AM, JasperS said:

The difference between Guru Nanak Dev Ji and us, is that the veil we operate through, which keeps us from realizing the truth has been lifted. He and God were ONE and the same. The body however was still part of the creation. But the consciousness was God fully realized. How does one realize that death is false and conquer it while alive? By realizing the body is NOT the identity. The doer, the awareness which animates us all, is God and only God. I believe this is what the Gurus were teaching us, how to realize this truth.

...

Gurbani tells us that God is not something separate from us sitting on a cloud. God is within ourselves, and everything and everyone else too! There is only one supreme consciousness and its the same one behind every set of eyes.

That's it.

I thought you would disagree that Guru Sahib is not God and so I came prepared to say "agree to disagree. bye" lol. But you have surprised me, I agree that this is what Guru Granth sahib teaches. You are knowledgeable on this topic. I can't see if you have experienced it, but I can see you have studied the worldview.

So this understanding you have given in your post, apply it to the Poets in Guru Granth Sahib. This is how the Poets viewed Ram Chandra ji and Krishan ji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2016 at 10:05 PM, BhagatSingh said:

That's it.

I thought you would disagree that Guru Sahib is not God and so I came prepared to say "agree to disagree. bye" lol. But you have surprised me, I agree that this is what Guru Granth sahib teaches. You are knowledgeable on this topic. I can't see if you have experienced it, but I can see you have studied the worldview.

So this understanding you have given in your post, apply it to the Poets in Guru Granth Sahib. This is how the Poets viewed Ram Chandra ji and Krishan ji.

Thanks bro. Lets just say I have my reasons why I believe in what I do, but I prefer not to become the next focus of paapiman's accusations of ego. LOL 

I did originally think you were promoting deities as in separate entities who were considered gods (separate from Waheguru) within the physical realm. But what I was trying to get across was the fact that everyone (including all humans) and everything inside this physical reality are in fact the same one God, even though most don't realize it. I thought you were in disagreement with that. So I guess we just misunderstood each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×