truthseeker546

@ Ragmaala Thanks brother. I am quit logically minded. I'm studying comparative theology so I guess I have to be logical. I ask questions that challenge certain concepts or beliefs to try and get a better understanding. I'm just trained like this. Anyone who has studied theology/philosophy in the west will be familiar with this. I do this on all religions, on their own forums - with concepts I'm not sure about - not just Sikhism. It's just Sikhism was on my lists of religions I needed to know more about. (Got a few left) Your right, I don't think you'll be able to answer my questions logically. I'm thinking of maybe to disconnecting from this account and just read some more books by Sikh academics. You said for example: Guru Har Krishan needed an excuse to leave this world. That only raises more questions in my head. Why would a Guru or God in Guru form, need to come into the body of a 5 year old child only to "need an excuse" to leave 2 years later (via smallpox) in order only to come again as another Guru. Why not just go to Guru Teg Bahadur to begin with. ​You'll obviously say we can't know this logically, this is either Leela from God or something we cannot understand. which I respect. ​As a non Sikh I don't believe in the Guru's being divine, or inspired by God. Although I admire the message from Guru Gobin Singh very much. I see this historically and logically as maybe political decisions in which the Gurus were chosen, hence some of the internal problems that arose then and after within Sikhism. I was simply trying to understand how Sikhs themselves view things about the Gurus and and their belief in God. This thread however opened something new for me. Immaculate births of the Guru's - never heard of that before. or then the questions that raises on their children. Still would like to have some scriptural proof if there is any, if I cite this in an essay then I can't say MrSingh101 from Sikh-awareness said so. Thanks anyway brother, much appreciated.

@ N30 S!ngh Thanks for the reply. Some of your answers I’ve just answered in the previous post. (About relative and absolute realities) “ 1. Gurbani fragments absolute reality further into relative realities-sargun/ sargun avtars etc to help seeker understand divine or transcendent in stages. Bhrahma,Vishnu, shiv are part of relative realities, they don't really exist in absolute reality-truth - Mool mantra points out absolute truth which is God is only one expressing itself via creation, destruction, preservation. It's shift of perception of seeker or shift of consciousness for seeker its not theological matter, it’s experiential. Looking at this from theological point of view, its fundamental profound mistake as thats not how it meant to be looked at.” Your argument that God can have forms in this relative reality, temporarily - still states God can have forms. Although he creates a temporary reality, and comes for only a short time, but he does it nevertheless. So what your saying is: God can have forms, live in time and space, be born and die – but in another reality. (ours) – a reality which he creates and controls. But in his own reality he is one. Although, how can a being that is beyond space and time bring himself into space and time is still beyond me. Like I said before, to me this is similar to say Christianity, were God comes as Jesus in this reality, (as a human) so that people may know him. Well not the real him but a version of him. And feel him via the Holy Ghost, a different incarnation of him. And when people go to heaven they are in the real true reality and they see him as Jehovah. Same parallel can be given with Brahma (the one God in the true reality – not knowable to humans but trinity can be in this worldly reality. Also Christians, Jews and Muslims have God as omnipresent and transcendent. They don’t believe God sit’s on his thrown without interacting with his creation. I’ve noticed on this forum Sikhs (not all of them) have very limited or in some cases completely incorrect knowledge of other religions. Some interesting points from Bijla Singh article: Before I answer them, I would point out here that this is a Q&A section on Sikhism, not Islamic theology. I came here to learn about Sikhism not defend Islam, showing contradictions in Islam or other faiths. Showing contradictions in other faiths doesn’t prove Sikhism or its point. The only point that is remotely relevant to this topic of 24 forms of a formless God, is the starting of Bijla Singh’s article, when he says “To Muslims this simple yet so elegant concept is hard to grasp since Allah in Quran has love only for selected individuals and hates “disbelievers”. This is a non sequitur argument, he is starts by making a comparison between God is within creation and beyond (omnipresent and transcendent) and makes the conclusion Muslims can’t understand this because God in Islam hates disbelievers??? Out of the 14 random points of contradiction in Islam, everything from Alcohol to divorce and everything else, nothing is on topic here. If the Koran had 24 forms of Allah then I’d see the point of mentioning this here. Like I said I’m not here to defend Islam, if I have questions about Islam’s contradictions I go to the Islamic forums and talk to Muslims. I suggest you do the same or at least put these in the Islam section of the forum so Muslims on the forum can answer them for you. As a side note, I’m not a scholar on Islamic theology, however I can tell from some of these questions Mr Bilja Singh doesn’t know much about Islam either. Just to take his first two questions: as far as I believe Muslims don’t drink alcohol because it’s intoxicating and harmful. In paradise they believe it’s not intoxicating or harmful but pure, hence allowed. The second question is about the Christian belief of original sin but aimed at Muslims? Slightly on topic, compassion between God in the Abrahamic faiths and Sikhism, ALL of them believe in God as transcendent and omnipresent (Zahir and Batin in Islam, Sargun and Nirgun in Sikhism) however they all– like the oneness of God, differ on what that really means. I suggest you go to some Islamic, Christian and Jewish forums to ask them what they believe. For myself, I’m going to look more into the Sikh concept of Sargun and Nirgun to try and understand more about the 24 forms of God in Sikhism in compassion to the Mool Mantra. Can someone explain this verse to me, I’ve never come across it before and I’m intrigued. Thanks for posting it. nira(n)kaar aakaar aap niragun saragun eaek || He Himself is formless, and also formed; the One Lord is without attributes, and also with attributes. (Ang 250) Thanks.

@ Harsharan000 Thank you for your reply brother. Maybe you’re right, maybe I didn’t quite understand what some of the people were trying to tell me. I’ve been studying religion for a while now and I see the same arguments, maybe worded differently but the same deep down. I also understand this is a forum, and not everyone is a scholar here, although people are very knowledgably about their faith. I did mention this in my last post. Yes I’ve had answer from people, but they don’t really answer my questions, at least I don’t feel they do. Thanks for all of you who at least tried to. I think some of my points were not being fully understood either or answered. (I can understand not everything I ask will be answered. – that’s fine) For example I didn’t say Sikki is the same as Hinduism or Christianity, rather Sikhism uses the same rational to try and prove God being one and many at the same time. For example, you said Wahiguru is one. Similar to Hindus and Christians who would say God is one – but then we get into how the one can become more or take forms (temporarily or otherwise.) So when you say when God comes here for a definite purpose and for a limited time, (I’ll add relative reality to that) for me this is problematic to fathom. Because: – If God is said to be absolute in the Adi-Granth beyond time and space, beyond form, beyond gender, beyond life and death etc and then we say well he can temporarily exist in a relative reality and be in space and time, be born and die (at least be perceived to die in physical form), have gender, etc. to me that’s still contradictory. Essentially you’re saying God can go against his own reality as described in the Mool Mantra - still trying to square the circle. If God as described in SGGS is beyond time, then how can he exist temporarily? Temporality is a human perception because, as humans are finite, limited to time and space. God is not, there is no temporary world for him. How can he then come into existence in a form and go into non existence, (even if it’s in a non real world for a short time). Also if God came in Physical form, as Manu, Vishnu etc so that people would “know” him. How could they possible know Him as WahiGuru if the form he came down in was completely contradictory to what wahiguru really is? Let me put it simply like this in this way (please note I’m not making fun of any religion, but this is how I see the arguments put simply) … God comes down as a Vishnu, born and raised, although different from everyone else. When he says to a person: I’m God, but I’m neither born nor die, I don’t have a gender, I am beyond space and time ect. Person says: umm I can see you, you look male, you were born, I know your mom, umm you age like the rest of us, in fact your 15 years old etc … God in Vishnu form: well this is not me...well it’s me, but it’s not me. Man: So this is not you? You’re not real? God in Vishnu form: No I am real, and it’s me, but it’s not me. The real me doesn’t is not like this, I don’t have a form. Man: I can see you, you have a form, you look like a man, and you’re dressed in clothes. God in Vishnu form: OK Look, this world is not real, it doesn’t last and I’m only here like this a small while. The real, true me doesn’t have a form, and I stay in the ‘real’ world, which is forever. Man: So how am I supposed to know the real you, when you have come to me as completely opposite of what you say you are? God in Vishnu form: Don’t think about it or try to understand instead try to feel the ‘real’ me, not this me, but the real me. Man. That’s kind of hard when you are standing right there. And we do this 24 times with different version of not the true God, but a temporarily different one. It doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.

@ harsharan000 and N30 S!NGH OK - all the answers that say " we can't understand God logically" are easy get out clauses, all religions have them. I'll take them as you can' answer the question, which is fair enough. I'll move on to other questions. "Not really, its our own lack of understanding. If from ocean various waves arises spontaneously effortlessly, why cannot from God (creator of whole creation) various forms arises and subsides effortlessly spontaneously just like waves are arisen from ocean and subsides in ocean quite effortlessly spontaneously" This is a Hindu argument, when they try to justify God being one but having 3 forms (Brahma, Vishnu and Vishnu) 3 forms but of One God. Also in Christianity where Jesus, the father and the holy spirit/ghost are one God but 3 forms. They use arguments like well if water can have 3 forms; vapour, ice and water and still be the same, then why can't God. Hindu's also then take it further and say the One God can have as many forms as he wants (not restricted to any number) so they have over 360 million forms/deities in India. In fact most polytheistic religions have the same belief and logic. One God, many forms. The problem is when you explicitly define God as ONE, FORMLESS, transcendent . and then contradict yourself by saying he can have multiple forms, then that problematic. well, for me at least. Also I've recently learn't that the Guru's in Sikhism are seen as God as well. ( not sure if by all Sikhs but defiantly by some) Not producing children via sexual intercourse but miraculously similar to the birth of Jesus. Which leaves Sikhism with more problems then Christianity. as Christians only have one human formed God, Sikhs have 10. (or more depending on your sect) Let me give you a theological argument : if we define a triangle as: a shape having 3 sides. Then that's what makes a triangle is by definition. That's it's essence. you can't say then, well sometimes a triangle can have 4 sides, it's a triangle still because the 3 sides are there, but sometimes it can have one extra, it doesn't change the triangle - but it has 4 sides. This is a illogical argument. A four sided shape will always be known as a square. When you define God as; ONE, IK ONKAR SAT NAAM, KARTA PURAK NIRBOU, NIRVAIR, AKAAL MURAT, ANJOONI SAIBANG GURPRASAD. being the essence of what God or WahiGuru is. That's how you define him. That's his essence. Then we you go into Guru's being God, or 24 incarnations of God, or Chand Di var etc etc your are 'Squaring the triangle' so to speak. It defies logic or common sense for me at least. I had thought Sikhs belief in one God as similar to Jewish or Islamic belief in an absolute oneness, however it's clear it's more like the Hindu/Christian belief of Oneness. Thanks for your replies.

@ Ragmaala Guru is God. He is not physical like us. Normal rules do not apply Really ? Is this belief held by all Sikhs or only certain sects? Are all 10 Gurus God? Then how do you explain their deaths, being overpowered, or being sick etc? (8th Guru) Any proof from the texts themselves on this? Also for the Namdharis (if there are any on this forum), do they believe this also? If so does that mean the Gurus that came after Guru Ghobin Singh are divine also? Is the current living Guru also seen as God? This is called leela, the play of God. Only God knows why. Weak argument - but fair enough if you don't know. It means that there is not personal favors in Sikhi. Only those who follow the hukam of Guru attain Gurus happiness. This answer would make some sense, IF you didn't believe that the guru's produced immaculate births from all their children. which should mean their children are not normal, they have a purer light and connection to God then say ordinary people. Also saying there are no favours in Sikki was only true at the beginning of Sikhism, after the 3rd Guru it became pretty much a family affair, hence the infighting. But that's a different topic I won't go into here. We all have divine light, why are we all corrupt. Again this is Gods leela or play, to create Dram or to impart teachings. OK - but would you say that light is the same as the children of the Guru's ? especially if you believe that the Guru's were God, then that would make their children, "the children of God. right? How can they be corrupt? surely you don't believe the children of the Guru's are exactly the same as ordinary people? Again, it shows how jealousy can take hold of the best of people even when they were born in Gurus home. Only with Gurus grace and following his hukam, one can conquer negative feelings. refer to above answer - what is the Sikh belief on the children of the Gurus then, if the Gurus were themselves God? with textual proof please. Again in Sikhi, a Sikh cannot understand why his Guru did this or that. He is to follow the instructions of Guru without questioning them. In order to succeed in Sikhi, a Sikh is to totally surrender mentally, physicall and emotionally to Guru. It is a play of total submissiveness. OK - not an answer but if you don't know fair enough. On a slightly different angle, if the Gurus were God, they how can this 8th Guru die of smallpox? something modern medicine can cure? Obviously his death caused a lot of problems, as so many from the family of the Guru's claimed guruship after. But it's interesting Teg Bahadur was already living at the time of the 8th Guru. so does that mean God was in 2 bodies at the same time ? (if you believe that the Guru's were God) This really doesn't make any sense to me.but thanks for replying anyway.

OK I thought joining this forum would help me better understand Sikhism, however I've ended up more confused. Whenever I ask a logical question on God's oneness and his 24 forms, or reincarnation, or the Guru's being born without sexual intercourse, the only answer I get is, we can't logically understand this, you have to submit. This is the same answer EVERY religion gives when you question them. I do understand that questions on Gods essence can be difficult to understand, but still its not a get out card for every problem. Simply say Leela of God, who knows. The whole point of human beings having intellect is so that we can rationally understand God also. Not entirely but at least know what he defiantly is and isn't. Seeking the truth is not simply bowing down to what you were told as children to be true, its searching and knowing the truth. Also it's becoming apartment to me is a lot of Sikh theology was not dealt with by the Gurus themselves. or the main scholars that came after/around the 10 Guru (Bhai Gurdas etc) - so now we have individual interpretations without scriptural backing. Some people obviously taking "inspiration" from other faith to try and explain certain concepts within Sikhism, which obviously doesn't work. But being far, and not to be offensive to anyone - I am asking questions on a public forum, I don't know how well people are versed in Sikhism. Maybe I should take the time to go into the nearest Gudwara and ask the main person there. Anyway at least I have some interesting answers back. Thanks.

@ PAL 07 Thanks for replying. You gave short "answers" to my questions, however you didn't answer any of them. Maybe you could read my questions on what I'm actually asking and try again. your answer to question 4 was interesting, you said there are trillions of Ghosts waiting to take human form? According to Sikhism where are these Ghosts waiting? Are they here on earth, so that hows Sikhs explain the paranormal? or are they some place else. Is there any scriptural proof for this? Also you said souls that reach the higher level, they either go to heaven to become Deva (which is what exactly, God type deity? or become one with God himself. what do you mean, they join his essence? become one with the divine conscious?, please explain.

@Ragmaala Thanks for the reply. Is this a view held by all sikhs, as Satkirin Kaur points out not all Sikhs are aware of this view. This radically changes my view of how Sikhs view their Gurus. I'd like to see some scriptural proof of what you are saying please. So some more questions, if the Gurus like you suggest were born without male participation, so all their wives of the Gurus and indeed the Gurus themselves were all virgins? If the births were all divinely ordained, then why did the Gurus have more then one child, and some more then one wife? Guru Nanak didn't pass on the Guruship to his sons, (which is why Siri Chand started his own version of Sikhism - (Udaisi sikhs come from this) - does this mean children born with divine favour were still not as good as someone born normally ie Bhai lena. Also Guru Ram Das had 2 children, Arjun and Prithi Chand. Not being chosen for the Guruship, Prithi Chand tried to poison the 6th Guru Hargobind, Guru Arjuns only child. How did he have such a character if he was born with divine light? He also caused a lot of other problems which I won't go into. Furthermore Guru Har Rai had also 2 sons, Ram Rai and Har Krishan. Ram rai joined the Mughals and according to some sources had the 9th Guru Tegh Bahadur killed ( by convincing Aurengzeb ). Also to briefly mention Guru Tegh Bahadur nephew Dhir Mall, who had problems with him and the 10th Guru. In short there was lots of infighting, corruption with the masnad system , etc. If all these children of the Gurus were born with Gods grace, then how do you explain their conduct, behaviour. And why did the Guru's have numerous children and wives if they only needed to pass on Guruship to one male? Also in the case of the 8th Guru, Har Krishan. who became a Guru at 5 and died at 7 from smallpox. How do explain this if all the Guru's were divinely convinced? Thanks for your reply.

@ N30 S!NGH Thanks for replying N30, looking forward to your reply. I'll answer you points when you give me answers to the above questions. Also I'd to ask another one. Do Sikhs believe in Karma. So if something bad happens to anyone now, it was due to something bad they must have done in a past life? Thanks

I have some questions on the concept of reincarnation. My knowledge on reincarnation is mainly from Buddhism and Hinduism, this may not be accurate when it comes to Sikhism, so I'll ask some questions that I found to be problematic with the aforementioned religions and maybe with Sikhism. 1) If one does not remember his/her past life, then how is reincarnation fair/just as a system of purification of the soul. A person does not know what mistakes they made so they can correct them. 2) Animals (maybe natural objects ie. rocks???) have souls that move up to higher forms, ending up as human beings. How do these animals become "good" in order to move up this hierarchy? What makes a good/bad rock, or a whale worthy so it deserves to become human. 2b) And also can animals/inanimate objects make concious decisions that justify them being human? 3) If all souls were created at the beginning, some ended up as animals, some as humans ? on what criteria were some given a head start by being the higher form? 4) It's a scientific fact that the human race is increasing in size due to modern medicines, and governance. The human population has gone from less then 200 million to over 7 billion in the last 2 centuries alone. Does this mean Sikhs believe a lot of animals suddenly became good and turned to human beings? 4b) Also as human beings progress to higher forms, shouldn't that mean the human population should be getting less? not increasing? If you say well most humans are not achieving a higher form, then surely the animal kingdom should be drastically increasing, but more and more animals are becoming extict, there numbers are decreasing also, over fishing, global warming, poaching etc. 5) once a human being is "good" enough to move to a higher form, then what happens to his/her soul in Sikhism? 6) Is it only via Sikki that a soul can reach the higher form? or can someone following a different religion achieve this? If a good Muslim, Hindu, Christian can achieve this higher form of the soul, then whats the point of Sikki? If they can't then what about all those people that were there before Guru Nanak. After all Sikhism has only been around for about 700 years, humans existence is over thousands of years old. That's all for now. Thanks

@ N30 S!NGH You main argument " All of these may seem paradoxical because we are try study sikhi with conceptual mind. However, sikhi needs to be experienced, needs to be looked at from one spiritual development." Is the same as most religions when they get stuck when answering a difficult question. Christians say the same thing when they can't explain the trinity. 'God is beyond the mental, he is love, we don't understand how he is 3 and 1 but just believe.' I'm seriously not impressed with these types of arguments. And your justifications for God being transcendent and paradoxically having physical forms by looking at God through different realities is a bit weak. If it is in the essence of God to be one, and formless, then he can't have incarnations. Your arguments are again the same as some Hindu beliefs. And why is it God only came to manifest himself in 24 forms that are all from Hindu theology? Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Ahraham, Zoroaster etc are mentioned. If he was to show manifestations of himself to humanity, then these 24 incarnations from a global pool. I know sikhs believe there is truth in all religions, but I'm asking why does the Dasam granth only focus on Hindu deities? @harsharan000 " You see, the forms that Absolute Truth assumes when manifested in this part of creation are just temporary, not permanent,it comes for a particular purpose, to remind the astrayed souls of their true essence, and guide those souls, back Home." Umm this causes more problems then answers questions. So an internal, everlasting God can have temporary forms? apart from other philosophical problems of God in that statement, (which I won't go into ) you have admitted God can have "human" forms. So Sikhism is similar to Christianity in its view of God. However rather then stopping at 3, we have 24. And we have more exotic forms of God, Manu the fish, 4/6/8 armed blue alien looking deities, both male and female forms, animals forms etc, I thought the trinity was difficult to understand, Sikhism is even more complicated. Sorry I don't have time to go through all your answers but non of them make sense. non of the things you said are a) from the granth or dassam granth that show there is no contradictions, if fact anyone that quotes dassam/adi granth ends up showing more contradictions. Your jumping from one idea to the next, my question was simple, in Sikhism - because that's the religion I'm trying to understand, can God have a form - to which the answers is now I see is obviously yes. So there is a fundamental contradiction in what Sikhs believe to be the attributes of God. " no, there is no contracdiction in the teachings of our Guru Sahibans, who are the embodiment of wisdom and Truth. Akal Moorat, is just a descrption of that Ik Onkar." I think we have established there IS a contradiction. Thanks for your replies, I'm getting a better idea of God in Sikhism. @Kuttabanda2 "The Guru has made it clear from the above Tukk that God does not reincarnate/ go through the cycle of birth and death. So how could these Avtars be his direct Incarnations? " yeah that's my point, on one hand you have the above verse, and on the other, you have chaubees avtar, chand di vaar. It seems to me that these texts were written by different people who had different ideas about who or what God is, hence the contradictions. As for your point of the avtaar being famous people, this is a weak attempt to try and reconcile the problem. If they were infamous/famous people then why are they mentioned in the chapter of 24 incarnations (of God), there were many famous people throughout history. why are these Hindu Gods mentioned? "Chaubees Avtar was written so that the Sikhs did not have to rely Brahmins/Pandits. " umm so you have most of the dassam granth devoted to these deities. ? that makes a lot of sense. ? All these Avtars were written by the 10th Guru and the absolute oneness of God was written by the first Guru - either they had very different ideas on God or these books were tampered or changed. One person gives me an answer these were only famous people not deities, another says no, they are temporary states of God on earth. That's just to point out one contradiction. Is this because some of the people here belong to Tat Kalsa (akali, Nihung) and the others to Sanatan Sikh sabah (nirmalas, namdhari) ??? Thanks for your replies, I hope I don't offend anyone by asking these questions.

@Ragmaala Firstly I'd like to apologise if I caused offence, this wasn't my intention. I'm simply trying to learn more about Sikhism. Now you said the Gurus never had sex. This is news to me, is this a orthodox sikh view? This is the first I'm hearing of it. Do Sikhs believe all 10 gurus were born without sexual intercourse? so all were miraculous conceptions similar to Jesus? If this is true then how do you explain charitropakhyan? If this topic is a bit sensitive for sikhs then I won't ask any further questions on it, I'm just trying to understand Sikh beliefs? Thanks

Hi, I'm a theology student. Interested in all religions. Joined this group to better understand Sikhism and ask questions. Enjoy reading, swimming, travelling, keeping fit, sailing, eating out and relaxing with friends. Nice to meet you all.

Interesting topic, just to throw a slightly different angle on this. If sex for pleasure is so bad, then why did some of the Gurus have multiple wives? Surely their first wives were not barren, Also reading charitropakhyan, it doesn't seem like having sex for fun was a sin to some people at least. Also I believe the original question was about homosexuality in Sikhism, not sex in Sikhism. I see how the conversation became about sex as procreation has been citied by some as the primary goal of marriage. How lets say for example, there are 2 females who are barren. For some medical reason they can't have children. They fall in love with each other, can they get married according to Sikhism? Having children is not an option for them anyway. So are they allowed to love each other? Is that valid form of love according to Sikki? Thanks

wow ! wasn't expecting so many responses. Thanks guys. Still not happy with the answers, however too tied to go through all your answers and then reply. will do so tomorrow. This is quite interesting for me. As a quick note (for now), it's interesting how Hindu deities are being reinterpreted as famous people in the past that were turned into deities. The Dassam garnth doesn't claim this, in chaubees avtaar or chand di var. Seemingly Hindu accounts of ancient deities are given instead where words like Lord, Devi etc are used to describe them. again when you then say: "They who leave Akaal Purkh, and start to worship Hindu deities, They will wander through birth after birth, and will never find true peace. They who do idol worship and do not treat another Sikh with respect. That person is forever without a Guru, and is destroyed by the Lord of the world." This further gives evidences of contradiction. (for me at least) I found similar arguments from Christians defending the bible. Thanks for now, I'll give a more detailed reply tomorrow.

OK firstly thanks for the replies. @ Bhagat Singh Umm not sure how that answers my question. If you take looking at the creation of God as a sign of him, ie by looking at sand, sea, stars etc. that does not explain the 24 incarnations of God. Unless your asserting that God literally is one with his creation. This is not a new belief, its present in many ancient civilisations and religions, ie Druidism, pre-islamic Arabia, native Indian religions, old Turkic beliefs in God etc. These beliefs are generally referred to under pantheism. However I was under the impression Sikhism is not pantheistic. As Guru Nanak said " everything is false except God" sorry don't know citation. Also Sikhs believe everything is being re-created, recycled. The cosmos in a constant state of being created and destroyed, this is not true for God. So how can God literally be one with his creation if he is eternal, unchanging? If you were trying to say God can be understood through his creation, his presence can be felt in the created world, this view is present in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism also. But this can't be used to prove God can have forms. @harsharan000 OK - you say God has come in many forms, " there have been many Parlays and Mahaparlays. In whatever form that Supreme Power, namely Wahiguru Akal purukh may have come," and " there is another form - Sat Naam" so he has many forms and only one form at the same time. humm? seems like the same thing as the trinity (3 and 1) argument to me. So what your saying is God can have a form in Sikhism? So where does that leave the Mool Mantra? Isn't the Mool Manta recited after every couplet in Jap Je to emphasis the core belief is Sikki? Quoting other parts of the Adi Granth or Dassam Granth just shows there are contradictions in the texts. Your other arguments are similar to some Hindu theologians, that say God is in fact one. Endless, timeless, shapless etc however he manifests himself in many forms (Kali, Braham, Vishnu etc), which is not his true form but manifestation of him. Saying God is absolutely one - Iki Onkar , and Akaal Murat and then saying he has this forms, and manifestations just goes to prove there are fundamentally contradictory ethoses in Sikki? The arguments to try and resolve these two opposing beliefs seems weak to me, or maybe I'm not fully understanding Sikki view on this? Thanks again for your replies, much appreciated.

As a student of theology, I have studied many religions. Many claim God to be one. However more detailed study would show that in fact there are many interpretations of what "one" means. Take Christianity for example, they claim that God is one, however then say he has 3 forms, The father, son and holy ghost. The trinity is somehow one and three. Other religions (Judaism, Hinduism) have similar concepts in at least some branches of their faith. Sikhism (from what I know) also falls in this category. Guru Nanak ji in his Mool mantra lays out a very monotheistic view of God, Ik onkar ... and Akaal Murat. One creator/God/being and without form. However when we take a deeper look at the Dasam Granth by the 10th Guru Gobin Singh Ji, the chavi avtar we learn that God came in no less then 24 forms on earth. Some include: a fish, 4 armed Hindu Gods, Animals etc. Also Chand di vaar has references to other deities, giving them forms, gender, and plurality. How do Sikhs reconcile the absolute monotheism proposed by the first Guru and the polytheistic beliefs of the 10th, (since I'm lead to believe they were both divinely inspired).