Was Guru Nanak God himself?

[Mystical]

1.The word incarnation derives from the latin incarnatio derived from the prefix in: in and caro, carnis: flesh. So incarnation literally means "enfleshment". In Christianity it refers to Jesus as incarnation of God the Son NOT God the Father. To say that God can become incarnate means that God becomes flesh.

2. He word avatara derives from the Sanskrit prefix ava:: designating a descending movement and the root TR, tarati: which means to cross. The avatara is literally the one who crosses from above down, the one who descends.

Differences:

The concept of incarnation emprisons the Divine in the flesh, thus limiting the Divine and compromising its Pure Essence. The concept of avatara is that of theophany, Divine manifestation: the saguna aspect of the Divine manifests itself in a pure sinless and perfect being.

To clarify the difference let us read a famous passage from Ibn Arabi's Fussus al Hikam on Jesus:

source:

Carney, ‘Abd al-Hakeem.2005. . Imamate and Love: The Discourse of the Divine in Islamic Mysticism in Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73, 705-730.

Regarding the position of the Guru in Sikhi we find a similar situation.

We have passages such as these:

The Guru is Govind, and Govind is the Guru, O Nanak; there is no difference between the two, o brother.||4||1||8||AGGS 442

There is no difference between the Supreme Lord and the Guru. ||4||11||AGGS 1142

So Mathura speaks: there is no difference between God and Guru; Guru Arjun is Hari himself manifested.||7||19||AGGS 1409

None of these passages talk of God incarnating, rather we see that they refer to the concept of theophany or avatara.

The bhattan de svayye clearly state that the Guru manifested himself as previous avataras as well. Yet at the same time we have a very clear warning from the Gurus themselves:

Let that mouth burn that says that the Lord (Thakur) takes birth. He is not born, nor does he die. He does not come and go (through the cycle of rebirths). AGGS 1136

This statement clearly condemns the concept of incarnation.

Guru Gobind Singh is even clearer:

Those who call us the Supreme Lord (Paramesar) shall all fall in the realm of hell. Know me as his servant and do not think of any difference between me and Him. BN VI: 32

Hence to say that Guru Nanak is God's incarnation is a grave heresy but to say that he is a theophanic manifestation or avatara is correct. The problem is that many people translate avatara as "incarnation" which is wrong and causes not only confusion but also false beliefs.

Thats lovely.

[Xylitol]

"Guru Gobind Singh is even clearer:

Those who call us the Supreme Lord (Paramesar) shall all fall in the realm of hell. Know me as his servant and do not think of any difference between me and Him. BN VI: 32 "

Giani Takhur Singh ji, in his katha, said that this was a test of faith. Many times in Gurbani the Gurus are called God very directly by successors. It is crystal clear. It would make no sense that the Tenth Guru would then go and say this unless it was a test of faith.

[Guest Javanmard]

Re-read my post clearly and attentively and you'll notice that I am not contradicting you.

Or even better re-read this passage by replacing Jesus by Guru and you'll understand:

The statement that Jesus is God is not blasphemy. It is, in fact correct. al-Qaysarī writes explicitly that the statement that Jesus is God is correct and true insofar as Jesus is a specific epiphanic manifestation of the Divine Being (al-haqq). And the statement that he is the son of Mary is true without any doubt. The act of disbelief, according to Ibn ‘Arabī, is the union of the two statements, i.e. that Jesus the son of Mary (meaning his nasut) is God. It is the confusion of the human nature of Jesus (symbolized by referring to him as the son of Mary) and the Divine that is the source of the problem, not the idea that Jesus as a theophanic being is identical to God. Carney 2005:717

The Guru as an epiphanic manifestation (avatara) of the Divine is God, but to say that the Guru is God incarnate is blasphemy.

Guru Gobind Singh's statement is a warning against the confusion of the concept of avatara and incarnation.

[SAadmin]

Great debate guys, i agree fully with javanmard, i think Guru avtar phrase is more appproriate to describe our beloved Guru Patsah's instead of incarnation.

Kam bro, i think i heard taksal katha, they usually beleive guru patsah being avtars and highest one which is shared by many samparda's, no where i heard the word incarnation to describe our Guru's. I think word incarnation of God itself does not do any justice to Vahiguroo attributes, we are limiting Vahiguroo's attributes when we use incarnation word to describe our Guru's.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

(although I'm sure it full of errors) I have written a chapter on this issue of Avatarvad and Sikhi in the forthcoming (a year on...) translation of Pandit Gulab Singh's bhavrasamrit I've done. I also found Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's steek very useful and totally in accordance with the earliest Nirmala granths (including Pandit Gulab Singh's) which describe the Gurus as avatar. It is also worth noting that Sant Gurbachan Singh also utilises the works of Pandit Tara Singh Narotam to describe the characteristics of Guru Avatar.

It is important to really understand the teaching of the Gurus on this issue. That cannot be done by pulling out (as many writers in english seem to do) one or two quotations that support their argument.

As Bahadur Singh ji has stated, to begin you must start with a complete understanding of the nature of avatar. Then progress to the source materials of Bhai Gurdas' Varan, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Dasam Granth, etc.

One thing is clear however. The Guru states very clearly in Bachittar Natak that God cannot be born. This is a standpoint held by many traditional scholars on the nature of avatar, which made the whole Ayudhya riots such a farce. If anyone feels the entirety of Parbrahm can be born into a physical form, afflicted by gunas, karm and kaal, then they are in reality idol worshippers. All of the major traditional vaishnav modifications of Vedant such as Vashsitadvaita, shudhadvaita, dvaitadvaita reject this idea. In Sri Dasam Granth we see the above quotation demarking the concept of Avatar, and later in Ramavatar section of Chaubis Avatar bani the Guru uses similar terms and style from Jaap Sahib to describe Raam's essential nature.

On the question of who are the Guru's praising then? That goes back to the question of with what purpose did the Gurus manifest? To teach the true marg to brahmgyan, and part of that is the idea (with strong parrallels to Kashmiri Shaivism) of self-reflection and understanding.

[SAadmin]

some great discussion guys, i encourage everyone to read these details.

I learnt a lot from it.

[Kam1825]

This reply took me a lot of time and thought.

Reading the views of all the people on this page stating that Guru Nanak Dev were not God brought great skeptacism to what i have been taught. I had thought that the sermons from Sant like;

Sant Ishar Singh Ji Rara Sahib, SAnt Gurbachan Singh Ji Bhindrawalae, Sant Kartar Singh Ji Bhindrawalae, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindrawalae, Sant Mudhsudan Singh Ji Bedi, Sant Sarbjot Singh Ji Bedi, Sant Hari Singh Randhawae Walae, Sant Hardev Singh Ji Lulo Walae, Sant Amar Singh Ji Barundi Walae, Sant Nahar Singh Ji Sunheran Walae, Sant Jagjeet Singh Ji Harkhowalae, Sant Avtar Singh Ji Badni Kalan Walae, Sant Baljinder Singh Ji Rara Sahib Walae, Sant Partap Singh Ji Rara Sahib Walae, Sant Sukhchen Singh Ji Dharampur Walae, Sant Baljeet Singh Ji Dadu Walae, Sant Seva Singh Ji Rampur Khera Walae, Sant Jaswant Singh Ji Ludhiani Walae, etc

could not have been false, as these are the people who bring people to this path and educate them. But reading replies from the likes of NEO, Javanmard and Tsingh my faith in these sermons was shaken.

I almost got to the point where i actually believed what was being written in response to what i put towards this post.

However yesterday i got an opportunity to ask this question. In Leicester yesterday in my friends house i had the following three Sants to pose this question to while they were together. The Sants were, Sant Sukhchen Singh Ji Dharampur Walae, Sant Hari Singh Randhawae Wale, Sant Jaswant Singh Ji Ludhiana Wale.

When i asked them this question they were shocked that i would ever

pose such a concept that Guru Nanak Dev Ji were not God. I ended up being talked through this question

:shock:

Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji started to explain about Guru Nanak Dev Ji. All three stated that GOD was Guru Nanak DEv Ji. Then i showed them this web page which shocked at the view expressed on here.

Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji went on to explain why Guru Nanak Dev Ji were God.

First of all they stated that the Bhatts have stated in their bani that the Guru's were of the same Jot and that started with Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Bhatts (bhatt Mathura) states that Guru Arjan Dev Ji were God. Other also calls the Guru's Nirankar and Narayan.

I then asked when Guru Nanak Dev Ji were talking about God why were they talking in the form of a second person. They replied that Guru Nanak Dev Ji were using the form seen by Mardana like we use a TV to spread a message. They were actually the formless God.

I then asked how could they be formless when they had a form. God is Nirankar.

Baba Ji went on to state a story of Guru Nanak Dev Ji when they went to Achal Sahib where the Sidh Gosht took place. The Sidhs asked Guru Nanak Dev Ji why they were called ' Nirankari Nanak' when they could see that they were not formless. Guru Nanak Dev Ji asked them to them take a scarfe and tie it around the waist of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Sidhs tried to do so but the scarf would just create a knot in itself and go through Guru Nanak Dev Ji. They found tha their form was actually like that of a supposed ghost where it was not of flesh.

I then asked why did Guru Nanak Dev Ji go back to heaven for three days. If they were God what was the need?

Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji replied God needed to go back home in order to collect what they needed in order to teach tthe world. Tehy went home to make sure all that was required was collected. Such as Gurbani and the mool and waheguru incantations.

I then asked about the

Let that mouth burn that says that the Lord (Thakur) takes birth. He is not born, nor does he die. He does not come and go (through the cycle of rebirths). AGGS 1136

Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji agreed with this quote and said that this is correct. The Lord doesn't take birth. Neither did the Guru's

According to Bhai Gurdas Di Varan it states,

Satgur Nanak Pargatiya, Mitti Dhund Jag Chanan Hoa

Guru Nanak Dev Ji along with the other Gurus did not take birth but manifested onto the earth. This can be backed up by the Gurbilas Patshahee 6. In which Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji state the Guru's played a trick on the earth. The mother would feel as if they were pregnant and their womb would fill with air. At the time of birth due to the pain they would lose cosciousness. When this happened the Guru's would manifest in their form and the womb would go back to its normal shape. The mother would then think they have given birth when it was a trick all along.

They said this stuff about the Avtars that Javanmard has put on the net is not correct or according to Gurmat. One should not use the semitic concepts when talking about Sikhi as their beliefs are different such as the talk of an afterlife or reincarnation.

All three Sants went on to convince me even more and the talk continued until my daughter got tired and wanted me to go home.

last but not least i quoted

Those who call us the Supreme Lord (Paramesar) shall all fall in the realm of hell. Know me as his servant and do not think of any difference between me and Him. BN VI: 32

The Sants said to state the truth it is worth going to hell. They said they have no fear of it.

Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji are going to do an audio recording for me in the next few days. I will put it onto Gurmatveechar when i have time so you can all listen to why Guru Nanak Dev Ji were God.

I am not bothered if you all call me a heratic or kick me off this discussion page

The quote from the charittar pakhyan on the opening page of www.sarbloh.info describes the reason why i have wrote this.

to the person whowrote this thread i conclude according to my understanding that God and Guru Nanak Dev Ji are one and the same. May faith has been restored in the words of the saints

[Guest Javanmard]

Gurfateh

I need to reply in the most energetic way to what Kam1825 has just written:

a.

I had thought that the sermons from Sant like;

Sant Ishar Singh Ji Rara Sahib, SAnt Gurbachan Singh Ji Bhindrawalae, Sant Kartar Singh Ji Bhindrawalae, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindrawalae, Sant Mudhsudan Singh Ji Bedi, Sant Sarbjot Singh Ji Bedi, Sant Hari Singh Randhawae Walae, Sant Hardev Singh Ji Lulo Walae, Sant Amar Singh Ji Barundi Walae, Sant Nahar Singh Ji Sunheran Walae, Sant Jagjeet Singh Ji Harkhowalae, Sant Avtar Singh Ji Badni Kalan Walae, Sant Baljinder Singh Ji Rara Sahib Walae, Sant Partap Singh Ji Rara Sahib Walae, Sant Sukhchen Singh Ji Dharampur Walae, Sant Baljeet Singh Ji Dadu Walae, Sant Seva Singh Ji Rampur Khera Walae, Sant Jaswant Singh Ji Ludhiani Walae, etc

could not have been false, as these are the people who bring people to this path and educate them. But reading replies from the likes of NEO, Javanmard and Tsingh my faith in these sermons was shaken.

I have NEVER claimed that these were false. What I clearly and firmly condemned was YOUR use of the "incarnation" which THEY do NOT use for the word they use is avatar NOT incarnation. I have not challenged THEIR views but YOUR false understanding of things due to a lack of consistency in your use of language. This is nothing but caricature of my statementsand sheer intellectual dishonesty.

b.

When i asked them this question they were shocked that i would ever

pose such a concept that Guru Nanak Dev Ji were not God.

I have NEVER claimed that Guru Nanak was not God's manifestation or his saguna aspect. Your statement is hence incorrect and invalid. All I have done is warning you of dangerous use of language which would lead people to think that there is :confusion between the divine and human natures of Guru Nanak and confusion of the Veiled Essence with the Existential Manifestation.

c.

First of all they stated that the Bhatts have stated in their bani that the Guru's were of the same Jot and that started with Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Bhatts (bhatt Mathura) states that Guru Arjan Dev Ji were God. Other also calls the Guru's Nirankar and Narayan.

This is totally correct and we have never denied this sacred truth!

d.

Baba Ji went on to state a story of Guru Nanak Dev Ji when they went to Achal Sahib where the Sidh Gosht took place. The Sidhs asked Guru Nanak Dev Ji why they were called ' Nirankari Nanak' when they could see that they were not formless. Guru Nanak Dev Ji asked them to them take a scarfe and tie it around the waist of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Sidhs tried to do so but the scarf would just create a knot in itself and go through Guru Nanak Dev Ji. They found tha their form was actually like that of a supposed ghost where it was not of flesh.

I then asked why did Guru Nanak Dev Ji go back to heaven for three days. If they were God what was the need?

Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji replied God needed to go back home in order to collect what they needed in order to teach tthe world. Tehy went home to make sure all that was required was collected. Such as Gurbani and the mool and waheguru incantations.

Gurbani needs to be commented through gurbani and analysis. Quoting sakhian to illustrate a point is valid but using them as an argument does NOT count. Anyone familiar with exegesis knows that. The idea that God has a home and that he somehow needs to take stuff from home back to earth is nothing short of anthropomorphism. It's Santa Clausing God! It may perhaps work with children but it does NOT stand in the field of theology and exegesis! Guru is Bani and Bani is Guru. No need for the Face of God, Guru Nanak to travel up "home" to take some incantations back when they are with him already as they are him and he is them.

Rather the three days dissappearance of Guru Nanak is a proof to the world of his divinely appointed mission. It is his miracle to the world, showing the seal of divine blessing on his mission. Guru Nanak was neither ET nor Santa Claus!

e.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji along with the other Gurus did not take birth but manifested onto the earth. This can be backed up by the Gurbilas Patshahee 6. In which Baba Sukhchen Singh Ji state the Guru's played a trick on the earth. The mother would feel as if they were pregnant and their womb would fill with air. At the time of birth due to the pain they would lose cosciousness. When this happened the Guru's would manifest in their form and the womb would go back to its normal shape. The mother would then think they have given birth when it was a trick all along.

This is indeed a correct view corroborated by the fact that other Prophets and Avatars were born this way. The Gurus are pure Nur-Jot and their birth is of divine nature. Hence why the term incarnation (en-fleshment) is highly offensive.

f. "

They said this stuff about the Avtars that Javanmard has put on the net is not correct or according to Gurmat. One should not use the semitic concepts when talking about Sikhi as their beliefs are different such as the talk of an afterlife or reincarnation.

This is a gross mistake. Avatar is an Indian word which has nothing to do with semitic religions in the first place. Semitic concepts do exist in gurbani such as Hukam and Razai (Arab. Ridha). In fact these Sants should know very well that any proper scholar of Sikhi needs to learn Arabic and Farsi besides Sanskrit and Braj in order to comment and understand gurbani correctly. Parroting someone else's commentary is NOT scholarship! Bhai Addan Shah as well as Shahid Baba Deep Singh studied these languages and in fact in the Sevapanthi sampradaya Islamic Sufi works are part of the curriculum of ant serious student. Surely these Sants would know about that. Their counter argument is invalidated by the fact that:

1. My use of Ibn Arabi did NOT refer to the after life

2. That Sufism and mystical Shi'ism also accept reincarnation (tanasukh) as part of their doctrines

g.

last but not least i quoted

Quote: ‹ Select ›

Those who call us the Supreme Lord (Paramesar) shall all fall in the realm of hell. Know me as his servant and do not think of any difference between me and Him. BN VI: 32

The Sants said to state the truth it is worth going to hell. They said they have no fear of it.

Even though I respect their opinion, I have to admit that their commentary cannot be logically deduced from this line of gurbani.

h. Lastly I wish to reiterate the following:

I have never said that Guru Nanak is not God! He is the manifested aspect of God no doubt and in this sense and in this sense only he is God. to confuse the Existential manifestation and the the Veiled essence is indeed a dangerous step to undertake for this is what Christians have done with Jesus and Vaishnavas with Krishna.

Kam1825 has persisted in using the word "incarnation" which is plain wrong whilst all the Sikh sampradayas use the term avatar which is correct in form and concept.Finally I would encourage Kam1825 to engage in study of languages, grammar, logic, history, comparative literature and hermeneutics in order to understand gurbani correctly instead of just asking people who might themselves not have done the same effort. Nevertheless as a person having a parampara of ustads going back to Bhai Dharam Singh I salute my fellow sampradaic brothers and offer them my salutes and respect even though I may disagree on some issues with them.

my apologies if anyone got hurt

[Guest]

kam veer ji, i just read your post. I think you have taken somewhat what is written in this thread as insult to sri guru nanak dev ji not being "Nirankar". That's what i think you felt when you read the whole thread.

However, it was no one intentions to break someone sharda towards guru nanak dev ji or devalue our beloved guru's.

Correct me if i m wrong but you think-

Sargun saroop of paratma is somehow separated from Nirgun saroop of Paratma or has less value ?

If that's a case then that is wrong mindset bro.

Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji in akar( either on asthool or sukhsam form) is sargun form of God, that sidh goost sakhi is all true, i have no disagreement with that sakhi. It no where debunks the whole argument that when Vahiguroo decided to take a form, he transcedent most of his attributes in sargun form - Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

Now when Nirgun Vahiguroo was in aad before even this creation came into being, there was nothing at all, all the thoughts, imagination, bhrama, vishnu, vish, ongkar, sargun form eg- asthohol element, subtle elements . Therefore, they were no subtle elements which cannot be seen then there was no jot either.. there was nothing at all.

Look no further, mool Mantar talks about Nirgun form of Vahiguroo- "ik" "kar" , Akaal Moorat, Ajooni(this term is not limited or bound to only physcial birth) and gurbani talks about terms like agam, agochar. Please listen to gyani thakur singh ji damdami taksal audio katha of japji sahib which was translated. Listen to audio katha files from- 1 to 10 on gurmat veechar.

Sakhi of sidh goost you told the sangat, shows that sri guru nanak dev ji was jot form came to this earth and it appeared to people that sri guru nanak dev ji had a akar(physical form) which he didnt, as sakhi shows. I have no doubt in that sakhi. But when guru ji came to this earth even in jot body form. It still was in subtle element(shaksum sirar) which has form that we cannot see with his physical eyes but subtle eyes. It still has some form, that form came from Nirgun Vahiguroo when Nirgun Vahiguroo decided to make the creation by sakalap(thought), which lead Nirgun Vahiguroo to transcedent most of his attributes into sargun form. Nirgun form decided to have thought(sakalp) that now I should become from ek to anek still ek.

Ek hai pher bhi anek hai, anek hai pher bhi ek hai. Jaap Sahib talks about it clearly. There is no difference between anek(sarugn) and ek(nirgun) they are connected with each other. However, you cannot deny ek(nirgun) form of Vahiguroo was orginal, sargun came from nirgun not vice versa. You cannot deny when sargun form of God came from Nirgun there was no change(upadhi) because there was a change, change which lead this whole creation.

[Guest SAdmin]

I learned a lot from this topic. Please try to produce these great discussions. They help a lot. Thanks

[tSingh]

Gurfateh!

I'm slightly insulted that you so badly misinterpreted my posts and then conveyed it incorrectly to mahapurush! I've just written a book in which I spend a whole subsection explaining the nature of Guru as Avatar! And for my post I used Pandit Gulab Singh ji, Pandit Tara Singh Narotam, Baba Surjit Singh Sevapanthi, Baba Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale, Pandit Nihal Singh Thoha Khalsa, Baba Jagjeet Singh Herkhowal etc, etc. The beginning premise is Pandit Gulab Singh's repeated proclomation that the Guru is 'Puran Hari Avatar' and there is then a long explanation of what this means.

My issue with what you stated initially was an important one over translating avatar into ENGLISH as 'incarnation' which it is not. OF COURSE Guru Nanak Dev is parmeshvar. Bhai Gurdas states it, the bhatts state it, Gurbani states it. Nirmalay, Udasis, Sevapanthis state it. What was challenged was a mistranslation of the word 'incarnation'. In countless places in Gurbani, the Guru emphasises the fact that Ram Avatar, Krishna Maharaj, etc all were (seemingly) plagued by human emotions, Bhagat Namdev very clearly states that the fool mistakes the PHYSICAL FORM FOR THE ESSENTIAL ESSENCE. If we accept that the human sareer is not our true roop, then the human sareer that the Guru poses is not their true roop also. Incarnation implies that the divine becomes contained within that physical form. In Sikhi updesh it isn't. I would NEVER EVER state that Guru Nanak Dev was anything but parmeshvar! The physical/material (flesh and bones) incarnation in trehguna however was not PARMESHVAR. The abiding JOT essence of the Guru in that was PARMESHVAR. Trehgunas are the product of maya (which in a larger sense is nothing but parmeshvar's hukam), Guru Maharaj takes on the gunas to be avatar. I hope that is clearer.

[happy]

Mod's Note: Please take your personal grudge over the pm or email. We will not allow any personal attacks. Consider this your first formal warning.

[Guest Javanmard]

Here is my parampara from the Jgadur up-sampradaya of the Nirmala order :

1. Guru Gobind Singh

2. Bhai Dharam Singh

3. Sant Pheru Singh

4. Sant Panjab Singh

5. Sant Thakar Rocha Singh

6. Sant Thakar Bala Singh

7. Sant Ram Singh

8. Sant Hardit Singh

9. Baba Sant Singh

10. Sant Sher Singh

11. Ustad Bahadur Singh (javanmard: I am neither a sant nor a badmash: just a teacher)

What's your parampara happy?

[happy]

hey moderator why dis you take off my original message it wasnt even offensive whats youre problem...... :D :D

[das]

http://www.gurmatveechar.org/audio/katha/S...hkhand.Jana.mp3

All the following questions are answered in the above mentioned deewan.

Questions:

1. Was Guru Nanak Dev Ji Nirankar Himself?

2. If yes, why Guru Nanak Dev Ji went to Sachkhand (and NOT heaven) for 3 days?

3. Why Guru Nanak Dev Ji started major preaching ONLY AFTER coming from Sachkhand. What GURU was waiting?

4. According to Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Guru is must in order to merge with GOD. Then who was the GURU of Guru Nanak Dev Ji?

5. What Nirankar said to Guru Nanak Dev Ji?

6. Mool-mantar is till "Gurparshad" OR till "Nanak Hose bhe Sach"?

1. YES, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was Nirankar suroop Himself.

2. Because there are certain things that Nirankar in Guru roop has to fulfill.

3. Because there are certain things that Nirankar in Guru roop has to fulfill.

4. Even though Guru Nanak Dev Ji was Nirankar suroop Himself, there was NO need to have Guru, BUT there are certain rules that has to follow.

5. Mool-mantar is till "Gurparshad" that Nirankar himself given to Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

The above answers are very short, but for detail listen to Baba Ji's said deewan starting from 30 minutes.

NOTE: According to Sant Baba Isher Singh Ji: Mool-mantar is till "Gurparshad", BUT Mahatma/Sant/Brahmgyanis ask people to receite it till "Nanak Hose bhe Sach" because of the betterment of people. I do NOT remember the deewan name where Sant Baba Isher Singh Ji mentioned this.

[amardeep]

Examples of this are written about in the Gopal Tapnee Upanishad, Surtee Parmaan & the Bhagvat Da Parmaan.

Another example to show that Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji are commonly regarded as God is written about in the Bhavishat Puran. Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s arrival on earth was predicted by Rishi Ved Vyas who wrote in the Bhavishat Puran 12 saloks in the 24th Adhayi (stanza). In this text it is written that in the Dark Age Guru Nanak Dev Ji will be the saviour of the world. These can be found from salok 33 to 44.

could someone please provide translations of these puran texts mentioning Maharaj.. thank you in advance

[amardeep]

tsingh wrote:

(although I'm sure it full of errors) I have written a chapter on this issue of Avatarvad and Sikhi in the forthcoming (a year on...) translation of Pandit Gulab Singh's bhavrasamrit I've done.

is it possible to buy this book somewhere? it sounds very interesting

[Mystical]

I actually got a copy of Pandit Gulab Singh's Bhavrasamrit, its a good book.

[Niranjana]

This thread highlights the point I was making elsewhere about how adopting a particular worldview results in fundamental errors over our understanding of terms such as Guru and Gurbani.

This is the underlying issue over the debate relating to Dr Pashaura Singh and why I find his treatment at the hands of several Sikh 'scholars' unacceptable given the implications it raises in view of the above thread.

[ipledgeblue]

the problem i see with these translations is that they r probably based off the ones the chrtistain missionaires made during the british raj

so due to the protestant influence, words like har get directlytranslated to god or lord, whereas they don;t exactly mean the same god as christian god. the translations are trying to portray crhistian god, but the bani is saying har.

[Guest]

the problem i see with these translations is that they r probably based off the ones the chrtistain missionaires made during the british raj

so due to the protestant influence, words like har get directlytranslated to god or lord, whereas they don;t exactly mean the same god as christian god. the translations are trying to portray crhistian god, but the bani is saying har.

Do you have anything else add to this discussion instead of christian influence?

It's funny ultra extermist sikhs like to it blame everything on bhramins and ultra snatan nihang off shot like to it blame everything on christian missionaries.

Do i see similar mindset of insecurity, paranoia here?

[Niranjana]

"so due to the protestant influence, words like har get directlytranslated to god or lord, whereas they don;t exactly mean the same god as christian god. the translations are trying to portray crhistian god, but the bani is saying har"

Er, no. This is the type of issue that ex-3HOer Kamalla Rose Kaur Khalsa likes to raise and then looks to appease her Universalist Universal Friends!

The issue with the Christian schooling and Government during the Raj is that it brought with a certain methodology of viewing things - of particular importance to us here is the nature of God, Guru and Gurbani. Leaving aside other issues people may have with the individual formerly known as Bahadur Singh (!), his comments above are worth reading again insofar as this subject is concerned.

TSingh has summed up the matter quite nicely - however, it is still common to hear stories about the Guru Nanak Dev Ji being a 'prophet' who had divine revelation upon his disappearence for 3 days, it is common to hear that he went to 'sachkhand' and returned with the true Guru for Kalyug - Shabd Guru Avtar (i.e. the 10 Gurus were merely messengers).

These type of stories whether said directly or implied by the Kathakar are rampant across the Sikh world, yet are far from supported by traditional Sikh teachings.

This is precisely why the issue that Pashaura Singh faced is ridiculous, since those charging him with blasphemy are themselves failing to understand appropriately what God, Guru and Gurbani are as per Sikhi.

[Mithr]

I once read an English book about Sikhism a couple of years ago. The author tried his best in trying to portray Sikhi as part of the Semitic group of religions. For example, he claimed when Guru Nanak Dev Jee disappeared for three days, he had met Angel Gabrial who began revealing purpose of his mission in life, sort of like what happened to Mohammad in the cave.

[Niranjana]

Mithr,

That probably is an extreme example, however even (Sikh) authors from the 20th century, many of whom are well respected and not necessarily seeking to make Sikhi appear as an offshoot of Christiantiy or any ‘Abrahamic’ tradition, but owing to their educational and cultural surroundings end up explaining things in this manner. This is only natural in part, since we all do this – I come from a certain form of schooling further to which have developed a certain form of analysis and behaviour, owing to effectively my sex, social class and employment which will influence my take on things – I am sure in the future (which remains unknown, no matter what we make think otherwise) people will find my outlook amusing.

What is important here is to understand the position of Gurmat Sidhant and what Sikh writers steeped in the Sikh tradition produced in their understanding of Sikh scriptures. The notions of God, Guru and Gurbani are of paramount importance, unfortunately many sermons delivered in Gurdwaras fail to adequately describe these for us.

[Mithr]

I don't have the book on me right now. But the Author is a Sikh from the UK and is a school teacher. The book was written to teach the basics of Sikhi. I think the problem is that alot of Sikhs have a Hindu phobia because of which they try their best in distencing Sikhi from Indic religions while trying their best to portray Sikhi as an off shoot of Semitic religions.

They will always point out to the story of Guru Nanak Dev Jee going to Hardwar and telling off the Pandits, yet when they talk about Guru Nanak Dev Jee going to Mecca, they will not mention how Guru Nanak Dev Jee also told off the Mullahs and Qazis. Instead they will try to portray Guru Nanak Dev Jee as going to Mecca on a Hajj almost like a pilgrim. This watered down version of historical events of Sikhi has led to many Muslims thinking that Guru Nanak Dev Jee was a Muslim.