JasperS

I would say that is just common sense. If your spouse is doing adultery, then do not engage in sexual relations with them. One very practical reason would be that they could bring home some disease! (This could go both ways) The other of course is that their love is not focused on you anymore, so the spiritual energy that is affected during intimacy is lost and tangled with others and it can have a serious effect on your progression. Some people are actually energy thieves and drain that spiritual energy from others by sleeping around (spiritual vampirism). They actually have a big negative field around them.

Well then that has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. People are 'cool' in different ways. For example she can do some things that I would never be able to. She KNOWS I look up to her on those things. (and they are not typical women things either before you assume). There are other things I do that she looks up to me for. If she had to look up to me for everything I know she would feel inferior and not be happy. I think we have everything very balanced out and neither see each other as less cool in any way. However this has nothing to do with who is in control or authority in the marriage. And it has nothing to do with who should get more respect. Both should equally respect each other. And in reality, the above that you described is only semantics in the end, because in reality, you are telling me to see her as equal (a goddess corresponding to her seeing me as a god) and then telling me to not let her know I see her that way. In reality I still see her that way! So why hide my feelings? Isn't that the same as just being emotionally cold? Anyway we agree then, that this has nothing to do with who has last say, who is in authority, or who is better than who - or who is leader and who is follower. Its just about personal views (and apparently hiding them on one side). However my issue with taksal maryada is that the way that is worded, sounds like its dictating authority and hierarchy. That the husband is in authority over the wife. Because her instruction is to see him as God while his is not to see her as goddess but instead to see her as something more akin to a follower. I can't do that. Gurbani tells me to see her as my equal, that the differences in physical bodies are false, and that's how I see things. I can't ever change that. By the way veer ji I never suggested that you treat your wife like shit. I hope you didn't take it that way. But I was getting a strong feeling that you do believe in hierarchy when it comes to authority and subjection or obedience, and serving being only one direction. That is where we have to disagree. I serve my wife all the time. I make her dinner, I serve it to her, I do laundry, I do my part around the flat. And I don't feel in any way emasculated by doing so. I changed our daughter's diapers. Even the shitty ones. I remember once taking my daughter out when she was 1 and a half. And I had to change her in the men's room in the shopping centre. Though I got some looks from other men who were also likely Fathers, it didn't bother me one bit because in the end, I am the one who wins out, I get to have a strong bond with my daughter by actually interacting with and caring for her.

And you are saying a husband should not serve his wife on the terms of love respect loyalty etc? And yes, I agree no human should worship another human. That is reserved for Waheguru alone. Point blank, husband and wife serve each other. There is no rule saying women must do so while its optional for men. It goes both ways. And yes that service can be the same type and ways also. Mutual service. If both spouses see God in each other it works. The wording in the taksal maryada however, makes it sound like women are actually instructed to do that while men are told a different instruction more akin to seeing their wife as a follower. It only works if both see each other as God. Or else you have a hierarchy. Exactly. Glad you agree! As I said this love respect and honour goes BOTH ways. Not only one. The husband also is to look at their wife as God as well. Thats the actual truth to reality. Because God IS ALL! Every human is actually a character God playing in this grand play! But I am glad you acknowledge it has nothing to do with authority or hierarchy in the relationship. Many Singhs think it does. And they think it goes only one way. Again we agree this is cultural alone. Its not in all cultures, nor is it an imperative. And Sikhi surpasses culture. If its to truly be a universal religion then it has to surpass Punjabi culture. It's simply referencing what was the norm in that time. Heck its not even the norm all the time now in Punjabi families! We actually don't live with my parents, so the whole idea of her being given away to go to MY home is moot. Its OUR home. Both our parents are living in different areas away from us. My wife was not bonded to me like some slave. Rather, we both agreed to travel this path together as ONE. Hence the pala linking us. Who cares who it was given to or by? I have known marriages where the pala was given by a female family member. And lavaans are circular. Nobody is in front. What matters is we are the same distance from Guru Ji. So we as ONE are travelling around Guru Ji both at the same distance from Guru Ji. The symbolism is clear about equality in Guru Ji's eyes, the only eyes which matter! From the sangat persepctive sure I might have led us into the circle but if we are supposed to be ONE and recognize that its WAHEGURU in BOTH of us, then there is no male or female. Just ONE soul in two bodies. Ik Jot Due Murti. It was Waheguru who led us as ONE together. There is no implication of who gets last say in the marriage or who is in charge or who is above the other. Which you already acknowledged above anyway! That doesn't mean that same pleasure can't be had by a husband serving his wife. Or that the husband serving the wife is not allowed. Its also not saying my wife has to serve me either. In reality we both serve each other. I am pretty sure in these days with both spouses working, a wife would get pretty tired of always being the one serving a husband who never reciprocates! And I would have to be a pretty selfish person to never want to serve her in return. I also see her as God. This is what gurbani tells me to do! I don't know what kind of women you have been around, but this is a load of absolute and complete bollocks. No woman actually wants to be treated that way! My wife certainly doesn't want to be my inferior or for me to see her or treat her as lesser than me! That would actually break her heart and make her see me in a lower way! Not a higher way! And by the way we can both be the coolest together! I am not attracted to subservient women. I am attracted to self confident women who are sure of themselves and what they want in life. And most women do not want to be treated like a lesser being. If that works for you and you found a woman who is fine with being a submissive, then whatever. But please dont say that is how it is for everyone! In general, knowing someone sees you as lesser than them actually hurts. Women going for successful men is programmed. The only reason it wasn't reciprocated until recently, is because women were saddled with pregnancies etc before and unable to become successful in the society. Now, with women working as well and having their own lives and careers outside the home, and with the advent of birth control to plan families better, men are also choosing women who are more successful rather than less successful in society. Have a look at the matrimonial sites and you will see women feel the need to list their degrees and career accomplishments just as much as men. Its because the men are also looking for successful women. And if you are successful yourself you have better chances of landing a successful spouse. I actually know very few Singhs nowdays who would marry a housewife who has no education or career.

BhagatSingh Ji, the issue is in stating that one gender must look at the other gender as being in a higher status over them enough so to see them as God. While as I said before seeing God in everyone is the whole point, telling one gender outright in a maryada, they have to see the other AS God while not the other way around is the issue. The way its written implies authority of one over the other, which is wrong thinking. Otherwise women are basically marrying themselves into bonded subjection. That doesn't agree with Gurbani. As for who does what in a marriage, leave it up to the couple to decide. For some that may mean the husband works and she stays at home, but it is agreed upon by both, not forced on either. For others it might mean both working and both sharing in the housework. Still, some couples the woman works while the man stays at home for various reasons (medical, loss of job, or simply choice because she was making more). If it works for them, its unfair to teach that Gurbani says it must be the woman doing all the cooking and serving the man. Service goes both ways, and yes that service can entail the husband cooking and cleaning for too, and I am not afraid to practice what I preach either.

Where can I get the full version?

Chatanga, veerji Who is rearranging Gurbani? I was simply pointing out that things people knew in that time and culture were used as a reference so people could understand. Take for instance, the reference of marriage used as allegory to explain our soul merging with Akal Purakhs. It's not actually meaning a marriage right? It simply uses human marriage as a reference because as in this human form, the closest we can get to understanding a union with another is marriage. Its not saying that we actually marry Waheguru. So that verse you used is using reference point of the time, that loving wife would be devoted to her husband. It does not mean that a loving husband would not also be devoted and serve his wife, and it also is not saying that woman must do all the cooking and always serve men. To read into it that it is somehow saying women must always be servants of men as some form of karmic punishment, is very wrong thinking. If that verse were written today, maybe a different reference would be used because as I said, most couples share in the menial work now. Possibly, something like: Just like a teenager is devoted to his video games, and makes time for them every day, so too the devotees... you get the point. Also, I thought I explained before why I use this instead of my real name (and I would hazard a guess chatanga is not your real name either). I was on a hike with a nephew when he was younger and we were picking rocks because he was always interested in geological things. We found some jasper, and I told him what it was and he made a big day of calling me jasper because it is close to my name. No I dont call myself jasper in real life, and he is now older, but this is a forum and most people do not use their real name online for fear of internet dangers. In reference to your quote No you are still thinking wrong. There is only ONE soul within ALL. There is no they or you or me in reality. The forms are all part of the illusion. Since the Gurus were fully God realized, meaning they were literally ONE in consciousness with God, without Ego, then they understood from their point of view that there is no gender and that every other human regardless of what outer shell, are actually the same one entity. Lets say you have a play and there are different costumes for the characters. But the catch is the entire play is being played out by only ONE actor (who also happens to be the writer and director). Sure several characters might be on stage at once, but through a trick of camera work or something, its still the same one actor. So the costumes can be removed when the play is over, and we can see that it was really one entity the whole time. So from the point of view of WHO is doing things, since it's the same ONE doing ALL, there is no he vs she, vs they, vs you, vs me. Now the problem is, while playing the characters, a sort of amnesia happens and the ONE actor forgets they are an actor and instead thinks they are the character. But at any time, if they remember who they are, they realize the costume is a facade. (ggsj ang 736) Gender is only part of the costume. It doesn't matter. It only comes into play in the play itself. Once the character awakens to the fact that they are the actor, not the character, then they realize that they are the same actor in all the other actors. There can be no limitations placed on others. So essentially in the larger picture, there is no difference between any other humans and the Gurus, whether male or female because everyone are the same one universal consciousness, we are all Waheguru. And this is not metaphor. This is a base reality of the physical universe. I really hope you can start to see this truth, because once you do, it will do much for your spiritual progress. And the whole point is for us to awaken within the dream. They were male costumes only because of the scene for the play at that moment, and the need for the culture within that era and place. As God fully realized they told us all humans are equal and deserve equal treatment. But its Ego (the costume, character identity) which prevents us from applying it. I wish you well bro and really hope you ponder what I have written. Also regarding paapiman, I assumed he was taksali because his every post is taksal this taksal that and his views are very narrow-minded that he obviously only supports their ideology and nobody else's. If he is not taksal himself he certainly idolizes them to the point of disregarding (and disrespecting) anyone else, which frankly given the sheer number of his almost spamming posts on this site, make this site seem to alienate any other Sikhs beside them. Though I agree taksal have done a lot for the panth, especially in 1980s, I do not agree with their full ideology because of the above what I have come to understand through Gurbani and some of the things they do speak more to Brahmanical ideology than Sikhi when put to test of what is written in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Maybe they began with different ideology and this stuff crept in later I don't know. But all I know is that I support Sikh Rehat Maryada because when put to test with Gurbani it agrees most closely. I really feel deeply on this.

Chatanga you do realize that the verses are not an imperative, but are instead using a known situation in the culture of the time, as allegory, as often is done in Gurbani. Situations and ideas from that time which people understood were used to illustrate things which can't easily be illustrated. The ideas being used as comparisons however are not imperatives, but are just examples of known cultural ideas. Case in point is the fact that many ideas presented as comparisons in Gurbani were actually not condoned by our Gurus. Practice of sati for example was used as a comparison of total surrender of soul bride to Waheguru. But the Gurus definitely did not condone or instruct anyone to actually practice sati. Quite the opposite. So while women doing the housework was common in that time, and there is nothing wrong with it if the woman likes serving her husband, there is no imperative saying that housework must be a woman's job. So to say it's her dharam is wrong. In modern society, most couples both spouses work. And both share the housework. Its only fair. You can't expect a wife who also works full time, to also do all the housework while you sit on your duff after you get home from your job. So no its not discrimination. It would be discrimination if it said "women must do all the housework and cooking and serve the men". But the way its written does not preclude men from serving their wives and cooking / cleaning for them as well. It just wasn't common in that time culturally. You have to understand, that while yes we have gender for procreation, anything that our Creator would preclude someone from, would be evident because for example if women were never meant to do leadership roles, then no woman would have leadership ability. And we know that's wrong because many women are more than capable leaders when given the chance. Some excel at it! If our Creator meant for women to never to do seva as Punj Pyaras, then all women would not be capable of performing the amrit sanchar physically, or mentally. But again, we know this is wrong, because women have acted in this role and have done well. The limitations you classify as dharam, as already pointed out are cultural. They were created and they can also be destroyed. Once you realize that divine light in everyone as Guest Wake Up said, its the same one soul in every person. Therefore, its a bit redundant to say that only men can do it. In reality the same one universal consciousness is in both the male and female. The body is part of maya. Only the consciousness is true. This is why we are supposed to see god in everyone. As soon as you say that someone is not allowed to do something simply by virtue of what body they are in, you destroy this idea of oneness and perpetuate duality. Its only yourself you will hurt in the end because its you who cant see the truth, that she is you and you are ultimately god. Actually guest ji summed it up really well! And I think Bhagat Singh Ji also understands based on his other post. You know its funny, that as men we are told our limitations are only derived from our physical or mental abilities alone. So if we can't do something its because we cant physically do it, or we aren't smart enough. Most can be rectified by working harder, or studying etc. But we think its ok to tell women they can't do things simply because we say they are not allowed, instead of it being based on their actual ability. There is a big difference there. And thats my main issue with taksal maryada. Men are not limited in any way, while women are. That IS discrimination. I know you feel that because in 1980s taksal did not force their maryada when at darbar sahib, means they wont now. But if user paapiman is any indication of what this generation of taksalis are, Id say there is a good chance they would try to shove their maryada down everyone's throats. And I dont mean that in a disrespectful way but todays taksalis are very narrow minded, believe only in their own interpretations and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them - very fervently at that!

I have read a lot of his work actually! Here is the article for benefit of others. I have not seen that movie but you have me interested so I shall now look it up. The Sleeper Awakens When we awaken from dreams, we realize that they were not real, but entirely of our own creation. In a dream, you are the participant as well as the creator of all the other characters and the settings. In like manner, everyday reality can also be viewed from this dream perspective; a dream from which each of us will one day awaken to realize that this too was an illusion of earthly consciousness. Yet, many things in everyday existence do have apparent reality. There are many things we can all independently agree upon. So, if this is the case, who is doing the dreaming? The answer may be that we all are - collectively. If we are the Universe, as well as essentially being spiritually One - indivisibly part of the Source/God/Creator of all - then we can conclude that we co-create the joint dream-reality we all participate in and perceive around us. It is our spiritual life task to gradually awaken within the dream. At this point, we will be fully spiritually aware, seeing things as they really are and not with distorted perceptions. Then, if we participate in this world of forms and shadows, it will be through conscious choice; a full awareness that make our best present efforts resemble deepest slumber. But what is the purpose of this complex interwoven dance we call life? Why did we manifest in this manner? The stories of esoteric spiritual teachings can help here. For example, the Garden of Eden story teaches that through tasting the apple of the knowledge of Good and Evil, we lost sight of the Divine Consciousness, and were sent into exile from true reality into this world of dreams. What is the symbolic significance of the apple of the knowledge of Good and Evil? It represents the choice to live through misperception, and to view life from the standpoint of Duality and Division; Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Life and Death, etc. Instead of participating in Unity consciousness, we choose Duality and are thus exiled from the divine spiritual perspective into this confusing world of ever moving shadows. We live in the world of Effects, without ever seeing the world of Causes. Division entered and this was the Fall. We divided off from the divine part of ourselves and have ceased to even know it. Instead, we live in the world of shadows, obsessed with duality, and seeing no further than our senses permit. The way back is guarded by an angel with a flaming sword, because the attainment of eternal life is impossible as long as we remain mired in temporal earthly things. Nothing mired in an earthly consciousness can have any share in eternity. At yet another level, the reality we see around us is the direct result of our individual karma, the group karma of our race and nation, as well as the collective karma of humanity. Life is a huge learning arena, set into play by ourselves for ourselves in order to stimulate our own awakening. However long it takes for this to occur is precisely how long it WILL take for each and every one of us. Does this mean that the universe does not exist and is totally a creation of our minds? From an earthly perspective, it clearly does exist and possesses certain objective truths that we can agree upon that can be measured. Yet, even at the earthly level, the universe can be rightly called illusory in the sense that all is not as it appears. It may exist but it is certainly not the way we think it is. For example, the everyday objects we judge as solid are mostly empty space. Our senses do perceive and make sense of what is "out there" beyond our own bodies, but do not define it. A map is NOT the territory. A cat, a fly, a bird and a human may look upon the same scene and sense entirely different realities. Which is right? In truth, all are nothing more than interpretations of the unknowable shifting realm "out there". So, from an earthly perspective, the world does have many elements of objective reality, whilst also simultaneously having many illusory sides to it. Ultimately, we may find it is composed of nothing at all except pure Thought and Mind. The universe is increasingly giving this impression at present, as our scientific techniques become ever more refined, and our instruments probe ever deeper in search of the essence of truth. Spiritually, it definitely does appear that we participate and co-create in what we see around us. It is primarily our duality-oriented vision that causes us to see only in terms of right/wrong, good/evil, civilized/ignorant, life/death. From the undivided perspective of pure divine consciousness, all is as it should be. Nothing ever really dies, but merely changes state. Indeed, death is a necessary part of life itself. Life itself would be impossible without death. Seeing them as opposites or antagonists is the classic example of dualistic thinking. Your purpose then should be to work within the world system, and the lessons it presents, in order to liberate your thinking and achieve the consciousness that sees all things as they really are. Deep pondering can assist this. Meditation will also break down the barriers. A willingness to perceive people and reality as they really are, without any judgments or dualistic notions, will definitely speed up your awakening. In addition, refusal to participate in unhelpful attitudes or behavior will not only help you, but will subtly alter the fabric of the world we are all co-creating. If you see war outside of yourself, but do not see it in your very heart, you are truly blind to causes. If you see it within and eradicate it, then you make it easier to eradicate without. World change starts with personal change, and a correct perspective on "What Is"; willingness to change what you can and wisdom to let be what is beyond your control. What is within you is definitely within your power to control and master. Copyright 2000, Asoka Selvarajah. All Rights Reserved. Author's Bio: Dr. Asoka Selvarajah is an active writer/researcher on personal development and esoteric spirituality. Asoka's work helps people achieve their full potential, deepen their understanding of mystical truth, and find joy in their true soul's purpose.

I found this when I searched awhile back but its obviously not the original, but a manuscript.

If Brahma is Waheguru (one in the same just different names) how can Brahma be bound by time? Time is part of construct of physical reality only (and its proven by science, go into black hole and time will stand still. Time also varies according to the observer. It's not something static and linear like we experience it.) Isn't Gurbani explicit on this, that Akal Purakh is ONE. In order for everything to exist in a state of ONEness there can not be change. Time implies change, therefore it's only experienced from within the illusion / dream. Think of it like this: If a book is laid on a table, it contains all of the information for the entire story all at once (looking at it from outside perspective) but as you read it, you become immersed within it and experience the time passing in the story. Well, Waheguru is more the book itself. Containing all the information, all the characters, all time, all at once. Its only through experiencing the story from within it, that time has any bearing. But @tva prasad don't worry because you are actually the same one consciousness that is dreaming. You won't ever cease to exist. The character you are playing right now will, but the conscious awareness that is YOU, will never cease. It can't. That is precisely what the base truth to existence actually is.

Thanks bro. Lets just say I have my reasons why I believe in what I do, but I prefer not to become the next focus of paapiman's accusations of ego. LOL I did originally think you were promoting deities as in separate entities who were considered gods (separate from Waheguru) within the physical realm. But what I was trying to get across was the fact that everyone (including all humans) and everything inside this physical reality are in fact the same one God, even though most don't realize it. I thought you were in disagreement with that. So I guess we just misunderstood each other.

Wow, veils for women, multiple wives. Sounds like Islam, not Sikhi.

How exactly would one write a code of conduct (a list of rules) in poetry form? Writing in poetic form, is great for using allegory and metaphor to instil hidden meaning you wish to convey, but not everyone will get that deeper meaning. Which is why it would have made no sense to write a code of conduct or commands in poetry form, as you want as many people as possible to understand, and follow it!

Maybe so, but at least they are for the most part, upholding the panthic maryada which actually agrees with gurmat principles. Taksals maryada (the current one) goes against principles of equality. And corruption is everywhere, including in Damdami Taksal, you are naive if you don't think so.

No groups can trace all the way back. Claims don't make it so. And Taksal maryada discriminates against females. Sikhi sees all humans as equal. I think the closest we have to a maryada to time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji is his 52 Hukams. I have recently been made aware of content of Bhai Daya Singh JI's rehetnama as well. Neither discriminate against anyone, and they both espouse gurmat principles and agree with Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Actually I wish that were true, but those who follow this rehet maryada very much see it as it sounds, that a husband is seen in a position of authority over his wife and her position is one of subordination to her husband, expected to obey and follow her husbands lead just as Jaikaara explained. However this has no place in Sikhi. The term 'faithful Singhni' sounds more like 'follower' while to see someone as God implies commanding and power over. In fact, if you do some searching on this site you will see certain members emphasizing this by suggesting a gurmukh wife should even bow to her husband to acknowledge that authority, and they will use the anand karaj and the fact that the male is in front for the lavaans as justification showing that women are inferior and are to follow while the husband leads. However they are not getting the metaphor in the lavaans (that the bride is not the physical bride but instead is just a symbol for ALL humans following Waheguru, our true husband). In a human marriage neither spouse is over the other, and to suppress the wife into a subordinate role, one of obedience (following her husband's will at the cost of giving up her own entirely) is completely against Sikhi. Sikhi teaches ALL humans are equal and ALL humans have right to personal expression and authority over their own lives. Husband and wives are supposed to work together as a team of equals, and see God in each other. The correct corresponding idea, if Pati Parmeshwar is to be explored, is Patni Parmeshwari (as also pointed out by Guest Guest) because that agrees with Gurbani and seeing the divine in each other, and not a one way thing where one person sees the other AS God but herself is seen as a subordinate or inferior in return. You are right, women in Sikhi are armed just like men and expected to defend not only themselves but also others, the same as men. There is no difference in obligations when one takes amrit. There is only one amrit, and only one code of conduct. (Yes I disagree with only males tying turbans in Sikh Rehet Maryada actually) I understand why it was done, but I think same code of conduct should be for both. My wife ties a turban and would not have it any other way. But for all else I support Sikh Rehet Maryada, and definitely not Taksal maryada for the main reason we are now discussing among others like discriminating against women when it comes to seva, and seeing them as impure and dirty during their menses (a natural biological function). It seems to me to be lot of Hindu mat crept into their thinking. Dont get me wrong I dont disrespect taksal though as I think they do some good as well, but I wish they would apply some of these ideas to litmus test of Gurbani and actually ask if they are compatible.

tva prasad ji, have a look around this site for some very eye opening comments by certain members which will give you a hugely different perspective on that.

Absolutely! There is no doubt! And so is everything else in Creation! Because God is all there truly is. All the trees, the sky, the animals, all humans. The difference between Guru Nanak Dev Ji and us, is that the veil we operate through, which keeps us from realizing the truth has been lifted. He and God were ONE and the same. The body however was still part of the creation. But the consciousness was God fully realized. How does one realize that death is false and conquer it while alive? By realizing the body is NOT the identity. The doer, the awareness which animates us all, is God and only God. I believe this is what the Gurus were teaching us, how to realize this truth. The truth that He IS Me. And to recognize your own self: ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਨ ਊਪਜੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਮੈਲੁ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ Bin gur parīṯ na ūpjai ha▫umai mail na jā▫e. Without the Guru, love does not well up, and the filth of egotism does not depart. ਸੋਹੰ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਭੇਦਿ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥ Sohaʼn āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai sabaḏ bẖeḏ paṯī▫ā▫e. One who recognizes within himself that, "He is me", and who is pierced through by the Shabad, is satisfied. ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਅਵਰ ਕਿ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਇ ॥੯॥ Gurmukẖ āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai avar kė kare karā▫e. ||9|| When one becomes Gurmukh and realizes his own self, what more is there left to do or have done? ||9|| ਮਿਲਿਆ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਮੇਲੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਮਿਲੇ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥ Mili▫ā kā ki▫ā melī▫ai sabaḏ mile paṯī▫ā▫e. Why speak of union to those who are already united with the Lord? Receiving the Shabad, they are satisfied. ਮਨਮੁਖਿ ਸੋਝੀ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਵੀਛੁੜਿ ਚੋਟਾ ਖਾਇ ॥ Manmukẖ sojẖī nā pavai vīcẖẖuṛ cẖotā kẖā▫e. The self-willed manmukhs do not understand; separated from Him, they endure beatings. (by not understanding they remain in the illusion of separation) I have seen lately however that a lot of young Singhs want to apply Abrahamic lens on Sikh philosophy and they are not compatible. Abrahamic teaching is that God is separate from creation, therefore, humans are something separate from God. Gurbani tells us that God is not something separate from us sitting on a cloud. God is within ourselves, and everything and everyone else too! There is only one supreme consciousness and its the same one behind every set of eyes. If there is only ONE, then logic dictates that there can't be 'others'. In fact the idea of a soul is even been distorted because in reality there are no separate souls. There is only ONE. Its like we are characters in a big dream. But there is only the ONE dreamer. But it is possible for the characters to become aware who they really are, and awaken within the dream. But if there is only ONE dreamer, then everything in the dream must actually be the dreamer.

This analogy only works if Creation is something separate from Creator. Since Creation IS essentially Creator (Creation is born of the light, and the light is in the Creation) also (The director stages the play and plays the part of all the characters, but when the play is done, and the costumes are removed we see there is only ONE). Meaning, that ANY form that appears WITHIN the Creation are ALL equally God. If I dream at night, no single character in my dream can be any more me than another. Because they are ALL WITHIN me. And I control ALL of them! I am the driving force behind all the characters in my dreams. Yet you are claiming somehow that a single form within Creation is God in the flesh, in reality ALL FORMS are God in the flesh! ALL forms contain the divine light, because ultimately there is nothing BUT that light! All else is transitory and illusory. Now Christians believe that creation is something entirely separate from the Creator, not something inseparable from God. So in that belief system, they can have God take birth as a form, while still having the rest of the forms be of a lower existence. In other words, you can't claim that ALL are within God (which Gurbani is explicit on) while saying that some forms within the Creation are "God in the Flesh" while discounting all the other forms which are also God in the flesh, because God is all there truly is! If the same ONE actor is the driving force and consciousness behind ALL forms, and it's that same ONE which is now "in the flesh" as you say in one specific form, then by deductive reasoning, you have to say that all other forms are NOT God. But since Sikhi teaches that God is all there is and all else is illusion caused by duality, then ALL forms are really God. So ALL forms, must be "God in the flesh". Now where I can agree with you is in the sense that individual forms within the Creation can become aware, can awaken to the TRUTH, which is ONEness. In this case, there becomes no difference between them and the ONE, because they realize the form is false. The Gurus realized this truth and that's how they "conquered death while alive" because they understood there really is no death at all and that ALL are ONE. But you can't have it both ways. If Krishna was a FORM like physically tangible and walking the earth, then you can't say he was any more God than the rest of us, because ALL forms are actually God. We are all actually God in the flesh. Most just don't realize that truth. When that truth is realized, there is no more me vs God, But just God as you become ONE. (Merge) back to ONEness. So if Krishna existed as a human form, then that form was no more God than any other form WITHIN the creation. God is the ONLY truth. ALL else is illusion. Our separateness is illusion. The same ONE God is the consciousness behind ALL forms. ALL form arises from the ONE formless supreme reality. Therefore, ALL are truly God. So one form within that creation can not be 'more' God than another. The separate ego identities act as a barrier to realization of ONEness. Some can surpass this barrier and truly realize that ONEness. It still doesn't make them 'more' God, because God is still ALL. Its like if I dream I am a surgeon, working on a patient. I have my nurses and anesthesiologist beside me. Though I am focused on being the surgeon, in reality I am ALL the above. I am the patient, I am the nurses, I am the anesthesiologist, and even the operating table and instruments etc! Now, if I awaken within the dream (lucid dream), and realize while playing the surgeon, that it is just a dream, it still doesn't change the fact that nurses, the patient, and anesthesiologist are still also me! The truth is the dreamer, not the characters. Now, in the dream you might say the surgeon was me in the flesh (or a God) in the dream. But so were the rest. I as the dreamer was only focused through the surgeon consciously at that moment, but ALL of them were really me all the time. At no point did they cease to be me as everything took part in MY dream. There really is only me and ALL of those characters were false. If this Creation is WITHIN the Creator, and the Creator is ONE and ultimate reality is ONEness. Then our separate identities are all also false. Meaning, no individual character is any less or more than another. As the only thing that actually exists is the Creator - aka the dreamer.

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

Right then, you are basically agreeing that the characters are man made then. The different images held by different peoples throughout history, were all to try and explain the same ONE supreme Creator. So they never actually existed as actual entities which could interact with humans. They only exist as ideas. Ideas within human thought, that were given form through human imagination, to help humans try to visualize something which can not be visualized. That something is the ONE creator which is formless and beyond description. But to say that Krishna for example actually existed as a deity WITHIN this Creation is wrong. If Krishna existed WITHIN this creation as an actual entity capable of interacting with humans, then he would be no more a God than we are because his form is ultimately illusion the same as ours. Do you see what I am getting at? Saying humans created imagery within their imagination to help them try to visualize a Creator which is beyond all description and calling those ideas different names, is different than teaching that actual entities existed which interacted with humans, and could be considered 'Gods'. Only God can be considered God and God exists outside of Creation as ONE. ALL else are within and part of God, but ALL individually are NOT God wholly. (Otherwise you have to say that we too are Gods for the same reason that we also possess the same divine light, even though we exist within this creation as separate entities because of duality.) However, there are Sikhs who actually believe in all kinds of different Gods and Goddesses and Demi Gods and Demi Goddesses as ACTUAL entities, meaning having form in a physical sense and not only in idols or imagination as ideas. In that sense I get what the guest was saying the shabad is not mentioning actual separate deities but using metaphor. The shabad you quoted is speaking of the IDEAS of them. Like if I wrote a book and created a new character that everyone loves like Harry Potter. Now, someone else writes a book or a poem and says Harry Potter even does this or that. My poem is referencing a character but not a real entity. In one way Harry Potter is real. Someone created the character. But Harry Potter is not a real entity in his own right. I hope I got my point across.

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

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

That would be horrible as many things in their maryada disagree with the panthic maryada. As I said before, this sexist line is in their Maryada: Taken directly from their own website. Since all humans are to see God in each other, the above makes no sense and is very sexist. I know you said before that it was not always in there, but the fact is, it is in there now. And I know many Singhs would love the idea to have a subordinate wife. But not me and I don't believe this agrees with gurmat principles. If their maryada was forced on the whole panth, women would have a very low position in Sikhi indeed. There are also other disagreements like meat (not prohibited outright, but only ritualistic killing as in the Muslim way is prohibited) and gurbani even says "who is to say what is meat and what is green vegetables, and what leads to sin?", jewelry makeup etc are prohibited in Taksal maryada, while its only piercing in panthic maryada for reason of the history of piercing being associated with slavery but rest is ok. They also limit most seva to men, and treat women as being impure during menses which again is against gurmat principles. Even Taksals own Sant, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is quoted as saying that Taksal Maryada is only for Taksals and not everyone else.

Let's not become so fundamentalist that we can't talk about what we do in this life. Sikhi is not about that. While its bad to build yourself up by talking about something just as a means to get others to praise you, it's similarly bad to do make statements that because you dont talk about those things making suggestion that its somehow makes you better. Its not wrong to talk about what volunteer work you do. Just don't let it go to your head. And you paapiman should not care about what others do o do not do. Instead of policing everyone else, just focus on your own spiritual progression. You come across as the Sikh Taliban on here sometimes.