Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Is Sikhism a religion

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, angy15 said:

Look  I am not going in for silly argument with you for first two question

What's silly about it? Are we or we not having a "healthy discussion"?

You said "

On 11/18/2018 at 3:36 PM, chatanga1 said:

Accepted form

Jup : Imbibe/Understand (Vicharna)

ਆਜੁ ਕਾਲਿ ਮਰਿ ਜਾਈਐ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਪਿ ਰਿਦੈ ਧਿਆਈ ਹੇ ॥੫॥

O mortal, thou shall die today or tomorrow.imbibe the philosophy of Guru  in your  heart. 


I am asking you, where the word "Guru" is, in the orginal gurbani sentence.


11 hours ago, angy15 said:

Its crystal clear what i have said


And my question to you is crystal clear. Where is the "Guru" in the orginal gurbani sentence?


On 11/18/2018 at 3:36 PM, chatanga1 said:

How would the understanding of the word "mother" change from 4 thousand years ago.


The above question still stands. Healthy discussion.....


22 hours ago, angy15 said:

You believe Science cannot  not prove or understand  God.(It depends what kind of God you are referring to )

a. So let me know through you What is Nanak definition  or understanding of God?


I have given the Guru Sahib's definition of God as in the Mool Mantar. I am asking you to use science and logic to prove that definition of God as in the Mool Mantar.



11 hours ago, angy15 said:

Regarding Mool Mantar  where does Science  conflicts with  Mool Mantar?


I haven't mentioned the word "conflict" at all. I never said there was any conflict. You asked for a definition of God which I gave. I am asking you to use science and logic to prove that definition of God as in the Mool Mantar.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems some members who were debating "Science conflict with Guru Nanak philosophy  did not reply with  any evidence how does it? 

This is my understanding of Concept of God both in terms of Gurbani Science and this also reply to @ chatanga  from where this misunderstanding  originated.

On 11/18/2018 at 9:06 PM, chatanga1 said:

OK, so what is human knowledge of God based on science and logic.

You seem really scared to answer this question.

Lets  conceptualize the God of Guru Nanak:

1. God was created by itself from Sunn and exists forever

2.Then he created the Nature(Laws of Nature,Laws of Universe) and pervades in it

3.Every action and reaction in the universe and in the living beings is happening under  the LAws of NAture 

4. God is Agam(Inaccessiable) and Agochar (Unfathomable)

5. Their is no effect of time and space on God.


Therefore from above points we can see God of Guru Nanak is Transcendant Entity (beyond our comprehension) that means God is Nirgun and also Sargun in respect of it being laws of Nature 

Famous cosmologist and mathematicians Stephen Hawkings  defined God as:

"Yes,If God is meant the  the emoidment of the 'laws of the universe'"

Great  philospher Baruch Spinoza said 

God is nature .Nature is the true expression of God.And each of us are part of it

When above quote was posed to Albert Einstein  do you believe in God? His answer

I believe in God of Spinoza

It is clear that modern scientists and philosopher are thinking about God in the same line as conceptulized by Guru Nanak .


An interesting article  on Science and Philosophy of Guru Nanak


Science ਸਾਇੰਸ ਨੇਂ ਤਾਂ ਅਸਲੀ ਧਰਮ ਦੀ, ਵਿਆਖਿਆ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ **Is the saying “religion begins where science ends” actually valid?** **A powerful discussion on the validity of the so-called “Science Vs Religion” debate** Contrary to popular belief, can it be that science has in actual fact explained and interpreted TRUE RELIGION? The cover-up of true religion with hocus-pocus magic has been fashioned through distorted interpretations by self-proclaimed “God-men”, people who had created their own religion or had desired their own following. What has happened is that another’s product has been re-branded as one’s own. It is man which has altered himself to become a part of a man-made religion. How can one be branded as a Muslim or a Hindu or a Christian etc when the product source is the same, when the creator is one? Religion itself cannot be made by man. The true religion is that which is already made by the Creator God. It is universal. One cannot make religion, one can only become religious. A religious person is that person who follows the laws of God. Worshipping God is following the laws of God. If one walks into fire, they will burn. That is the law of the universe. One cannot defy the law of gravity, a law which is applicable to all beings on the planet Earth. The laws of God are applicable to all, it’s only the laws of man which are applicable to their own sect. That person which understands these true laws of God is indeed religious. Science has interpreted many of God’s laws. Whereas some have waited for magic planes to fly them to the heavens, science has allowed hundreds of people sitting in an aircraft to fly through the skies across the world. Science has done this by understanding the laws of God. Perhaps religion is God’s laws, and science does not go outside of those laws? In fact, it would be impossible for science to go outside of such universal laws, the laws of God. Then science is that which explains the laws of true religion, i.e. not the laws of a religion made by man, but THE religion of God? Science cannot go against such laws. Science will understand that it’s the ear which hears the sound, then after understanding that law of God it will invent hearing-aids. Science will interpret the laws, then it will develop remarkable creations like the flying passenger aircraft, mobile telephone communication, cameras, sound systems etc. Then why is it some people have said science is wrong, that science and religion cannot mix? Science is an explanation of God’s religion, not a religion made by man. The saying “religion begins where science ends” is perhaps not a notion which necessarily sits well with the philosophy of the Sikh Guru’s.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 1:59 PM, tva prasad said:

Of course you are going to say something about Brahm Kavach, since Dhadri (whom you devotedly follow)

I don't know what dhadri might have said but i do definitely  know what my Gurus have said abt reciting bhram kavach both in SGGS and Dasam Granth .Let me quote you one shabad from Dasam Granth


ਭੂਜੰਗ ਪ੍ਰਯਾਤ ਛੰਦ ॥

  ਬਿਨਾ ਸਰਨ ਤਾ ਕੀ ਨ ਅਉਰੈ ਉਪਾਯੰ ॥ ਕਹਾ ਦੇਵ ਦਈਤੰ ਕਹਾ ਰੰਕ ਰਾਯੰ 

Without coming under His Refuge, there is no other measure for protection, may be a god, demon, pauper or a king. 

ਬਿਨਾ ਸਰਨ ਤਾ ਕੀ ਨ ਕੋਟੈ ਉਪਾਯੰ ॥੭੬॥

May be the Sovereign and may be the courtiers, without coming under His shelter, millions of measures for protection will be useless. 76. 

  ਜਿਤੇ ਜੀਵ ਜੰਤੰ ਸੁ ਦੁਨੀਅੰ ਉਪਾਯੰ ॥ ਸਭੈ ਅੰਤ ਕਾਲੰ ਬਲੀ ਕਾਲ ਘਾਯੰ ॥

All the creatures created by Him in the world will ultimately be killed by the mighty KAL. 

 ਬਿਨਾ ਸਰਨ ਤਾ ਕੀ ਨਹੀ ਔਰ ਓਟੰ ॥ ਲਿਖੇ ਜੰਤ੍ਰ ਕੇਤੇ ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਕੋਟੰ ॥੭੭॥

There is no other protection without coming under His shelter, even though many Yantras be written and millions of Mantras be recited.77. 


Choice is yours whom to follow Gappi Thakur or Guru Gobind Singh .


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Reader said:

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.

We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.

We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 

Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.

The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.

I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 

shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?

Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page :) you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.

Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt

I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.

What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.

No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.

no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 

In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Major Burnnnnnnnnnn

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