CdnSikhGirl

Paapiman is having trouble answering your question because he refuses to acknowledge that everything and everyone are really the Creator. And he is viewing things in a very Abrahamic light... that Creation is somehow separate from Creator. It's almost simple when you think of it as ONE dreamer. ONE dream. Every character within that dream is really the ONE. You can dream at night and create an entire universe within your dream. And every character you create is really you. And you can keep adding characters too! There is no lineup of ghosts etc waiting for bodies etc... because ALL souls are from the ONE primal soul. Think of it another way... you write a play. You also decide that you will play ALL of the characters within it on stage. You can add as many characters as you want but ALL of them are really YOU under the costume.

His question is not off topic. We have shown that Guru = God and also that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING = God. (Using the same proof that you did we also have proven that ALL of us are also collectively God). So he was merely asking follow on question from that. That if everyone are God, then if someone does Evil, is that still God doing that evil? The answer is that EVERYTHING happens because he wills it. Gurbani tells us this. Page 5, Line 1 ਵਡਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਵਡੀ ਨਾਈ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਕਾ ਹੋਵੈ ॥ vadā sāhib vadī nā▫ī kīṯā jā kā hovai. Great is the Master, Great is His Name. Whatever happens is according to His Will. We may not understand it... but without evil, we can never know true meaning of good, without sorrow we can never know the true meaning of happiness. There are many spiritual paths (including Sikhi) that believe this Universe is the act of the ONE Creator, subjectively experiencing itself through many different eyes. As the ONE it can not do this....from that perspective there is only itself, and so no way to gain that subjective experience. So the Creator alone and ONE, contemplated its own existence, thus bursting forth in thought, the Creation. And just like a dreamer is within its own dream, so to is the Creator within its own creation. Some dreams are bad... some dreams are good... they all serve a purpose. But when the dreamer awakens, it was a moot point, because it was all just a dream all along. So too is this reality! And within this reality, it takes evolution of the Creation (through many lifetimes) to get to the point where the many can now consciously understand (sentience) and ask the most important question of 'who am I and why am I here?'. We are told this human life is rare that we have been given after so many births and deaths. We are told THIS is our chance to understand God: ਭਈ ਪਰਾਪਤਿ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਦੇਹੁਰੀਆ ॥ Bẖa▫ī parāpaṯ mānukẖ ḏehurī▫ā. This human body has been given to you, ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਮਿਲਣ ਕੀ ਇਹ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਰੀਆ ॥ Gobinḏ milaṇ kī ih ṯerī barī▫ā. This is your chance to meet the Lord of the Universe. In previous lifetimes as other species, we have not reached this level of consciousness where we can truly contemplate reality, God, ourselves etc. Though they served a purpose in spiritual development, it is not until we are human that we can truly understand and contemplate these things. But remember, ALL are really God and ALL always have been God. So collectively, the Universe is in a process of awakening. This has been so well explained in the Emerald Tablet (Tabula Smaragdina) (Hermetica) which is said to contain the secret of Prima Materia.... interesting is how it states: So you can see that other spiritual traditions also believe that everything came from ONE, and that everything is merely the process of the ONE subjectively experiencing through its own creation... (btw Sikhi doesnt say that Sikhs have a monopoly on the truth. Guru Nanak Dev Ji said anyone can find the truth... Yes, there is bad in this dream... just like there is good. But just like the bad dreams we have, to the Creator's perspective, where the dreamer KNOWS it's all a dream, the evil, the sorrow was only transient... just like these physical bodies. And bad dreams usually serve to teach the dreamer something... And through experiencing cruelty, hate, greed, division.....we learn compassion, love, temperance, unity

Lucky you said the same thing as I did, just in different words! I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp???

Reread my post I added the exaplanation that casts doubt on your clear evidence... You just replied before I could edit it.... Please know, that I am just trying to get you to read Gurbani for yourself and study it and the deeper meaning, instead of just parroting what someone else told you and taking single tuks to suit your needs. And yes Gurus were God... and so are we... and so is everyone. The difference is that the Gurus KNEW this and we have to still wake up within the dream.

Are you sure this could also mean something else... remember that metaphor is used heavily in Gurbani... When one becomes Brahmgiani (and realizes their OWN SELF), they realize the truth about reality and reflect God through their every thought and action. We are told in Gurbani that every one of us IS God and we have just forgotten that fact by this enticement called Maya. We have become immersed in this Ego identity and the 'rules' of this world of Maya. So have become consumed by greed... lust.... anger.... attachment... desire.... but it IS within us to surpass this and 'remember' who we are (simran/remembrance). The above tuk could just as easily have been saying that Guru Arjun was reflecting the qualities of God through his every thought and action, so that there was no *distinguishable* difference between him and God. It doesn't have to be a literal meaning that he was physically God as in an incarnation. When so much metaphor is used in other shabads, it wouldnt make sense that this one is literal by itself. I think we have to be careful about not taking everything literal and look for the deeper meaning... Again, if God is formless and that is the ultimate realizty and everything exists WITHIN God, then no single thing WITHIN a WHOLE could ever = that whole.... If you have a pie, and it's filled with cherries, no single cherry would ever be the whole of the pie. In your dream at night, every character is really you, but no single character in that dream could equal the WHOLE of you. They are just a character being played by you for the duration of the dream. N30 and I have already pointed out the shabad that explains this very clearly on Ang 736. Further... we are told: Page 60, Line 13 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|| Page 97, Line 3 ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਘਰ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ Parabẖ abẖināsī gẖar mėh pā▫i▫ā. I have found the Immortal Lord within the home of my own self. ALSO (Ang 106): ਘਟ ਘਟ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਵਰਤੈ ਨੇਰਾ ॥ Gẖat gẖat anṯar varṯai nerā. Deep within each and every heart, He dwells near and close at hand. ਸਦਾ ਅਲਿਪਤੁ ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਦਾਤਾ ਕੋ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ਜੀਉ ॥੨॥ Saḏā alipaṯ jī▫ā kā ḏāṯā ko virlā āp pacẖẖāṇai jī▫o. ||2|| He is always detached; He is the Giver of souls. How rare is that person who understands his own self. ||2|| ਪ੍ਰਭ ਮਿਲਣੈ ਕੀ ਏਹ ਨੀਸਾਣੀ ॥ Parabẖ milṇai kī eh nīsāṇī. This is the sign of union with God. This meaning is more evident when you take the meaning of that actual shabad you posted the single tuk from.....in context: ਨਿਰਮਲ ਭੇਖ ਅਪਾਰ ਤਾਸੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਈ ॥ Nirmal bẖekẖ apār ṯās bin avar na ko▫ī. He is the Pure, Immaculate Form of the Infinite Lord; except for Him, there is no other at all. (We are told there is no other at all... only God) ਮਨ ਬਚ ਜਿਨਿ ਜਾਣਿਅਉ ਭਯਉ ਤਿਹ ਸਮਸਰਿ ਸੋਈ ॥ Man bacẖ jin jāṇi▫a▫o bẖa▫ya▫o ṯih samsar so▫ī. Whoever knows Him in thought, word and deed, becomes just like Him. (However those who reflect Gods qualities in their thoughts, words and deeds become JUST LIKE HIM. This is important because its immediately leading up to the tuk you quoted) ਧਰਨਿ ਗਗਨ ਨਵ ਖੰਡ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਸ੍ਵਰੂਪੀ ਰਹਿਓ ਭਰਿ ॥ Ḏẖaran gagan nav kẖand mėh joṯ savrūpī rahi▫o bẖar. He is totally pervading the earth, the sky and the nine regions of the planet. He is the Embodiment of the Light of God. ਭਨਿ ਮਥੁਰਾ ਕਛੁ ਭੇਦੁ ਨਹੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਅਰਜੁਨੁ ਪਰਤਖ੍ਯ੍ਯ ਹਰਿ ॥੭॥੧੯॥ Bẖan mathurā kacẖẖ bẖeḏ nahī gur arjun parṯakẖ▫y har. ||7||19|| So speaks Mat'huraa: there is no difference between God and Guru; Guru Arjun is the Personification of the Lord Himself. ||7||19|| (Doubly important is the lead off: So speaks Mathurra... there is no difference between God and Guru. In other words, because of the preceeding lines which state those who reflect Gods qualities in thought word and deed become LIKE GOD, then there is NO DIFFERENCE between God and Guru as Guru has reflected these qualities fully.) AHA!!!!!!! So when taken in context, this shabad seems to be saying that Guru, who knows God and has become pure in their every thought word and deed, has become just like him because they are reflecting all the qualities of God, and hence there is no difference bewteen them... they are indistinguishable. Hence Guru is the personification of God. Okay... so then some will ask why then does it say in the same shabad: ਜਗ ਅਉਰੁ ਨ ਯਾਹਿ ਮਹਾ ਤਮ ਮੈ ਅਵਤਾਰੁ ਉਜਾਗਰੁ ਆਨਿ ਕੀਅਉ ॥ Jag a▫or na yāhi mahā ṯam mai avṯār ujāgar ān kī▫a▫o. In the great darkness of this world, the Lord revealed Himself, incarnated as Guru Arjun. Well, we have to be careful on translations. The word -Avtar- does not mean incarnation but the deliberate descent of a soul into a physical form (any soul). In the original Gurmukhi, it does not contain the words for -reveal himself- or even mention the Lord at all. ਜਗ jag - World ਅਉਰੁ aor ਨ na - from ਯਾਹਿ yahi - also ਮਹਾ maha - great ਤਮ tam - darkness ਮੈ mai - within ਅਵਤਾਰੁ avtar - descent of soul into physical form ਉਜਾਗਰੁ ujagar - ਆਨਿ an - brought ਕੀਅਉ ॥ kiao This seems to simply be saying that in a time of darkness a great soul was descended into physical form. There is no direct translation stating -the Lord revealed himself incarcated as Guru Arjun- So it also suggests that Guru...knowing Gods qualities and reflecting them fully in thoughts words and deeds came as a light who descended to earth in a time of darkness. But the caveat is that THERE IS NO OTHER AT ALL! And that we are all just characters being played by the same ONE Creator. So in that sense, the Gurus ARE God.............and so are we, and so is everyone and everything. The difference is that unlike the Gurus we have still yet to wake up within this dream and realize it!! But we are told that we CAN and that is why we are to also try and reflect those qualities in our thoughts words and deeds. And do Simran... (remembrance). Additionally... trying to state physical incarnations, as something separate from us, gives a very Abrahamic twist to the meaning in Gurbani. Gurbani is much deeper spiritually and tells us that we too can have this same personal connection with God. God is not something separate from us. Its not like Abrahamic religions which teach that God is separate and oversees creation as a separate entity from creation itself. We are told Creation and Creator are one in the same! So you cant look at it in same light as the story of Jesus. Paapiman??

My point was in reference to the OP... extremism in any religion is bad.

It may state that the punishment should be the same, however in practice the men are rarely punished or punished as harshly. Also "nless four male eyewitnesses each saw," BAsically a man could rape a woman with 4 other women there seeing it and their testimony would not be taken into consideration. Okay maybe your right maybe we should just light everyone on fire who we think has committed some crime against Sikhi.... Should we also establish a religious police like Islam? DO we arm them with flame throwers??

The snow caps give an idea of elevation... This was the landscape all around us 360 degrees when we were driving from Sonamarg to Leh. It was surreal...

Only for men who fear losing their superior position over women... TRUE feminism wants to see EQUAL status for both women AND MEN. No heirarchy, unlike patriarchalism which establishes a heirarchy with men at top and women subordinate. Feminists are not trying to establish some domination over men! LOL. They are only wanting that every human be treated equally and receive equal opportunity! Let me explain it in easy to understand terms..... women do not wish to have someone telling them what they can and cant do based on their gender, any more than men would!!! Why can't men understand this?? Anyway this is off topic... and I dont know why you even brought it up! We were talking about capital punishment and torture for crimes... and my point was that without 100% certainty, you will end up with innocent people being killed. I only used Sharia as an example because it happens a lot there.

ALL of Kashmir is a photographer's paradise The Valley is lush and green, lots of trees etc. While Ladakh is cold desert landscape like in the photo above, all the mounatins are bare and brown. Sonamarg is beautiful as is Gulmarg. I will be living in Kashmir half the year once married Lucky me!!!!

Except that... under Sharia, women require 4 witnesses to prove their innocence. If it comes down to the woman vs the man, the man will win because his one statement is worth that of 4 women. Also, it's a well known fact that although the punishments may be harsher, the men are rarely ever punished, vs the high amount of women who are. (There was a recent case where a woman was raped, and she was the one punished... with 900 lashes... also put in prison for illicit sex, while he was not punished at all, even though if they are saying she slept with him willingly, then he too was guilty was he not??) And I think death is pretty harsh ...especially by stoning etc. (don't you think??) And mostly it's carried out by vigilante justice (honor killing etc). Sharia is also harsh on the men... public lashings for being late to Friday prayer at the Mosque is one example. My statement earlier was not specifically about women - just that was a well known example... my statement was for both men and women who might be wrongly accused. We have to be careful to be 100% absolutely sure they are guilty before dishing out capital punishment. Otherwise, we are doing worse crime by killing an innocent. What if that rapist you condem to death by burning was framed by the woman for example? This is why we have to be careful. For BOTH women and men... for humanity. Capital punishment can not happen without 100% certainly of guilt. Even a signed confession is not enough as there have been many many confessions signed under duress and torture.

Speaking of Landscape... this is one of my fav shots I ever took. It's in Kashmir, India (somewhere in Ladakh region). I didn't want to bring the SLR so I picked up a Fuji HS50 EXR which operates and feels exactly like an SLR (even has phase detect combo with contrast for autofocus), but the lens is fixed but it covers effective 24-1000 mm range! It's a great cam for travelling with. Obviously not as clear and crisp as dedicated lenses, but I didn't want to carry 20 Lbs of gear everywhere plus if I happened to lose or break this cam the total loss would only been ~ 450 CDN.

That doesn't change the fact that vigilante justice is never right. And killing people when you can never 100% be certain about the criminal... I don't think I was pointing fingers... Sharia HAS seen many many women killed (and men) for crimes they 'supposedly' committed but really didn't. What high horse??? I don't believe in capital punishment unless and until there is a way to be 100% sure that person committed the crime. Because killing an innocent person (even worse, torturing them, burning them to death etc) is far worse a crime than letting a guilty person live (behind bars). And there is no current way to be 100% sure. And btw I consider that term 'whitey' as racist... how rude... I was quite taken aback by your post!

Who gets to decide if someone is a rapist or pedofile? Is it purely taken on the victim's word? What if there is no definite evidence, only circumstancial? Capital punishment has resulted in many many deaths of innocent people who were convicted of purely circumstancial evidence throughout history. Who truly should get to decide someone's fate like that? Are we really qualified as humans? What if you killed a person only to then find out they were wrongly accused? Then you have effectively murdered someone... should you then also suffer the same fate? Look at Sharia Law.... MANY MANY innocent girls and women are wrongly killed for supposed crimes they never committed merely on suspicion or accusations from a male family member. Once they are dead, its too late to say sorry for wrongful accusation... Do we want to be seen in this light? This is why capital punishment has been abolished in majority of civilized countries... I say civilized because I don't really consider USA to be civilized anymore (if they ever were, I think it was an illusion) just look at daily news from there! And this too speaking purely of organized law... vigilante justice is a whole different can of worms...

With nature photography, its all about the lens... if you plan on shooting wildlife, you will need something like Canon L glass to really get professional shots. You will need at least 500 mm to get close enough to wild animals. Having said that, you can get pretty good shots with some of the lower end Canon lenses. But my recommendation is go with Canon body, and use third party lenses which are compatible like Sigma or Tamron. You can usually save some on the lenses that way and they work just as well. (I am a photographer and degree graphic artist, prior to getting in the military thats what I studied in school)

ChzS1ngh said it perfectly in a different post...

This would suggest Creatorion is separate from Creator... same as Christianity, Islam etc teaches. However I have not found one single tuk in Gurbani which suggests Creation and Creator are separate. And yes our job is to merge back with Creator... however... we are not separate so merging is not a good word to use really. We only have the illusion of being separate. Hence, it's not actual merging we need to do... what we need to do is lift the veil of the illusion so we realize we were never separate to begin with. It's the realiztion of that connection that we have lost... not the connection itself. Yes, Bhagat Singh JI, we are plagued and riddled with Ego, born of the five evils... these things exist because we are immersed in this illusion and forgot who we are. This identity we have of 'I' is not real. We are only experiencing the 'I' because we are cut off from experiencing the 'ALL' as ONE. The 'I' is merely a character... all of the precepts of this reality that this 'I' has built in this lifetime, which shaped who the 'I' is... this is all false. Behind these precepts of reality which were defined through life experience as the 'I', there exists the actual 'Experiencer' - the ONE doing the observing, the 'Doer'. This is the true identity. It exists even after all of the precepts, personality, that the 'I' had built in it's lifetime, have been completely removed. It has always existed, and will always exist. Remove all of the notions that define you as who you are in this lifetime... there still exists a consciousness who is the one who is experiencing. That is the real you. And it's the same Doer or Experiencer in ALL of us, who is subjectively experiencing itself through many many of these characters who call themselves 'I'. The problem is that we have gotten so caught up in playing the acracter, we have forgotten we were only acting in our own play.

Exactly! That same light is within us... Just like them we too are not the physical shell... the physical shell was 'given to us' in order to interact with the physical world so we can realize God. So our true nature is also not human, but spiritual. It's like we are all living immersed within this illusion and we forgot that it's actually an illusion. We forgot who we really are. But in reality, there is only ONE anyway and all else (separate identities) are illusion.

I am not talking about any state of any of us... I am talking about what gurbani says is reality.... that there is only ONE in existence. ALL of us are merely characters being played by that same ONE actor. Brahamgyanis have just realized this fact and experienced it. I have had a small glimpse... through out of body state, I have experienced the spiritual nature of reality and a feeling of connectedness of everything. These experiences happened to me without my trying at all (so it wasn't something I did) at age 8 it just happened for the first time. I had no idea what it was... but I view it as a gift, a glimpse beyond the veil of this reality.

There are also many gurbani Turks which say we are all God as well. There is only ONE in existence... God.

Your answer to 1. seems just your thoughts on the subject. Please provide actual references where you got that theory... Just as a side note, from a neurologist friend of mine, consciousness does not form in any infant until the 6th week. Prior to that time everything is autonomic anyway and there is no capacity for memory. So in that way we are no different as we too are essentially 'not present' in the baby body until six weeks after the birth has happened. So while the body took birth, we weren't there in any meaningful capacity until six weeks later. (This has actually created a stir among pro life activists because of the implications). But anyway it means that no human is really born going by your definition. We all enter later... Gurbani repeatedly refers to God as 'Formless' so aside from the Mool Manar stating God is beyond birth and death, we are told unequivocally, that God has no form. If God is formless (in addition to being beyond birth and death), then how can God have (only one) form? It's easy to understand how ALL forms are God because we are told EVERYTHING happens WITHIN this formless God. But not if ALL of God were suddenly WITHIN God in only ONE form - then how could all other forms still exist? What would they then be existing within? Since everything happens only within God, there would be nothing left 'outside' of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, in order to sustain everything else. Your answer to number 3. doesn't address question 2. If Guru Nanak were already ALL of God incarnated, then why would he need to disappear for 3 days at the river and be brought into Divine presence and revealed the truth about reality and God which he later wrote as Mool Mantar? If he was ALL of God would he not have known the nature of God already? Again please provide references where your explanations can be found in Gurbani. You can easily find the references for what I have wrote above... If I become fully conscious within my dreams at night... even remembering who I am as the dreamer, it's still not ALL of me within the dream. I can be conscious that I am the dreamer, but I am still really existing outside of the dream. (This is called lucid dreaming btw and its possible to experience!) The characters within the dream (aside from the character I am fully conscious within) are still going about their lives unaware that I am really fully conscious of being the dreamer. But... it's a moot point anyway! Because even though the rest of the characters are seemingly unaware of who is the dreamer, and are seemingly acting independently, they are still all me! It's MY mind who is creating all of them! NONE of them were really born and none of them really die. Sure, the characters are gone when I (the dreamer) awaken in the morning. But they were never a separate entity from me anyway. So my take on birth and death are that they are both illusion. They are moot... certainly from within the dream they are real, but there is really only ONE dreamer and ONE dream all along. This is why I quote Ang 736 so much. It puts it into terms so easily understood. But gurbani mentions this world is a dream many times over. It also uses other metaphors like "He is the chessman and he is also the board" (He is also the player) He is the Director of the play AND ALL of the characters, and the play itself! We are told straight out that there "IS NO OTHER" at all. So Ego is just attachment to this false dream character we are playing right now...

You mean... Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh

But majority was given the right to make decision of the panth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. You can't claim that just because you disagree with the majority, that it's wrong and ignore it. Since there are so many groups involved with differing opinions, some were bound to be upset. But the fact is that Sikhi was given ability to evolve through panthic decision. There will never be 100% in any decision. But majority does win out. Sometimes you are in the group who's views win, other times maybe not. But you have to respect that authority which was given. Nowhere have I been told leading up to wedding soon that since I am close to 40 and have less chance to have children, that my spouse and I can not be intimate. In fact they made it a point to say that Sikhi stays out of the bedroom of properly married couples so to speak. What happens there is between them. To say its only for procreation means that emotional, bonding, love, and spiritual connection between spouses would only be allowed if a child were conceived which makes no sense. MArriage is between two partners and the chold comes later, but even after the child grows and leaves the home the marriage is between the couple and a healthy loving relationship is fine between them. They dont need to start living as a brother and sister after the kids move out and they can no longer have children. If you personally want to live like that and feel that will bring you closer to God then go ahead. But dont finger point at those who actually LIVE life in balance. (not rencouning things but also not indulging). As for homosexuality it goes against nature. I very highly doubt that Sikhi will ever allow two men or two women to be married for the simple reason that Sikhs respect our bodies how they were meant to be. Homosexual sex is unnatural and goes against that because of well... Biology! Having said that I have nothing against LGBT but to be Amritdhari they would have to be celebite for simple reason they can't marry via Anand Karaj and amritdhari can not have sex outside marriage. And Anand Karaj is only recognized way of marriage in religious sense.

BhagatSingh Ji I didn't miss it I put it at the end because thats the ultimate reason why... was trying to say it slightly sarcastic. Yes it's sad I truly believe we already have the cure for cancer and other major diseases plaguing humans. But since drug companies make far more off 'treating' ailments, than they would ever make off curing someone, we will never see them. In fact I believe these secreats are highly guarded among the world's elite. They would rather people pay all their lives to maintain a chronic illness, go broke treating something long term, possibly die. They would not make any money if they handed out the cure. This is the sad world we live in, where money and power runs everything.