Jump to content

Sikh Answers

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sikh Answers

  1. Second Part I disagree with this point. Idol is idol regardless of what one believes or thinks. This is about the truth not about perception. Hindus can justify their idol worship by saying that they don’t believe Waheguru is limited to their idol but it doesn’t change the fact..”Pahan Mein Parmeshar Nahin”. Pictures are not different either. Creation gives no gyan only the eternal Shabad does. Waheguru’s saroop is Shabad. Gurbani is the true saroop of Waheguru because it will never die and is above maya. My point was to highlight the fact that Shabad is not sargun but nirgun
  2. Neo Singh, your last post made some things clearer for me to understand your viewpoint. However, I disagree with some points while agreeing with other points. This post should make it clear for you what my viewpoint is. This would be a true statement only if Gurbani proof was provided. Stating that sargun is saroop of Waheguru does not prove that sargun must be worshipped. I would also like to see where in Gurbani it is stated that first stage is sargun pooja and then one moves on to nirgun. Also, when one rises to nirgun pooja, what happens then? How does one do ustat of Akal Purakh a
  3. Here is the last portion of the post. For some reason it won't allow the entire post. We both agree that Jot of Waheguru is everywhere and within everyone. I understand you do not negate Nirgun and call it the ultimate goal in Gurmat. I disagree and I call it the only goal in Gurmat. You propagate that worship of anything that has Jot of Waheguru is sargun pooja and acceptable in Gurmat as long as one also does nidhaasna. Then please answer these questions. 1) What is the proof that Jot of Waheguru is in stones? Dasam Granth says otherwise and in Zafarnama Guru Sahib calls Himself “idol
  4. Sargun pasara and sargun worship are two different things. While sargun pasara is accepted in Gurbani (in fact only Satguru preached this during that time), sargun pooja is not supported. I would appreciate you providing some Shabads which advocate sargun pooja. Word Sargun is defined as ਸਰਗੁਨ - ਗੁਨ ਸਹਿਤ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਰਜੋ ਤਮੋ ਸਤੋ ਤਿੰਨੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਗੁਣ ਹੋਣ । Those who worship sargun will never rise above the maya because they are worshipping the creation (maya) and not nirgun. One cannot rise above something they are worshipping. It is irrational to assume that one worshipping creation will ha
  5. My posts are not showing up? If I am under moderation then for what reason?
  6. I could have misunderstood. You wrote in your post If a bhagat does bhagtee of a devta in a form of an idol thinking it is his ishtdev or waheguru, would he not get brahmgyan according to you? Sargun worship always involves some type of form or idol. Sargun refers to maya or the creation which means sargun worship is worship of anything that is within maya. So anyone worshipping maya will never be able to rise above it. The creation is temporary and an illusion in a sense. Also, what is “bout pooja”? I took it as idol worship or “butt parasti”. Idol worship is idol worship. It
  7. Neo Singh quotes from Akal Ustat to justify that sargun worship is also acceptable but the pankti itself only supports prema bhagti. Next paragraph makes it clear what is not acceptable. The Shabad is: ਕਾਹੂ ਲੈ ਪਾਹਨ ਪੂਜ ਧਰਯੋ ਸਿਰ ਕਾਹੂ ਲੈ ਲਿੰਗੁ ਗਰੇ ਲਟਕਾਇਓ ॥ ਕਾਹੂ ਲਖਿਓ ਹਰਿ ਅਵਾਚੀ ਦਿਸਾ ਮਹਿ ਕਾਹੂ ਪਛਾਹ ਕੋ ਸੀਸੁ ਨਿਵਾਇਓ ॥ ਕੋਊ ਬੁਤਾਨ ਕੋ ਪੂਜਤ ਹੈ ਪਸੁ ਕੋਊ ਮ੍ਰਿਤਾਨ ਕੋ ਪੂਜਨ ਧਾਇਓ ॥ ਕੂਰ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਉਰਝਿਓ ਸਭਹੀ ਜਗ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗਵਾਨ ਕੋ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਓ ॥੧੦॥ In Shabad Hazaray, Guru Sahib says: ਕਹਾ ਭਯੋ ਜੋ ਅਤਿ ਹਿਤ ਚਿਤ ਕਰ ਬਹੁ ਬਿਧਿ ਸਿਲਾ ਪੁਜਾਈ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਥਕਿਓ ਪਾਹਨ ਕਹ ਪਰਸਤ ਕਛੁ ਕਰ ਸਿਧ ਨ ਆਈ॥1॥ Clearly, idol worship is rejected by
  8. He became Shaheed in 1704 therefore he must have completed it prior to his shaheedi. Also, no one has raised any objection to it nor declared it work of later time. I bet you had probably never even heard of it before I mentioned it. It includes eye witness account of Shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and so many other events that are not found anywhere else. Yes but no scholar believes that rehatnamas found today are the original ones or copies of the original. Rehatnamas of Bhai Chaupa Singh was huge in size but today we only get small portion of it. So unless you can provide an origi
  9. Answers, rebuttals and debates can be found here http://searchsikhism.com/islam.html On this forum the debate took place around December 2006. Umar isn't active anymore.
  10. I will keep it short and to the point to save my time. False. This is a Granth called Siri Gur Katha which also includes eye witness account of Shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and physical description of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is not simply a rehatnama. It was completed before 1704. Chaupai Sahib was completed in 1696. Who is “us”? You and who else? Why not get a copy yourself. Surely I can scan but will you accept it just by reading those few lines? I don’t think so. Here is the link which gives little more info. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=38445&hl=
  11. This topic is about Bhagauti not Chrittars or Akal Ustat. So what exactly did you prove by quoting him? Nothing. Stick to the topic. I never got mad at him. I don’t need to run to the mods for anything. Do you have any fact to back up your claims? Your statement has nothing to do with this topic. Ever wonder why you are getting warnings from mods on this forum? Once again, this topic is about Bhagauti but you choose to jump around and never stick to the topic. Reminds me of the debate Singhs had with Noormahal’s chela who kept changing the topic and never addressed the points. Pathetic
  12. Go here http://www.sikhmarg.com/your-view.html Post by Surjeet Singh dated June 1, 2009 has all the names but mine is not listed. His statement has no link, no official proof and he did not include any email to support his allegations. Anyone can fabricate a statement and put any names in it. I know Inder Singh and some of PW members and they are not RSS. Regardless, stick to the topic and stop making up lies. I am not ignoring anything. You stated his name first so it is your obligation to defend your position. You hid behind his name and when presented with contradictory evidence
  13. I am pretty sure you have read it. He stopped responding and did not address my single question. Instead he started citing his favorite stories from charittars in a shameful manner. A Sikh posts his favorite sakhi. Funny, as I have not seen it myself. I do not know anyone from RSS. You must be on their guest list as you receive their program agenda. Do you have any facts or just hypothesis? Comment on the post and stick to the topic. Present evidence that Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha twisted facts in his book. I posted direct quote from Gurmat Martand. Also see an article by a missionar
  14. Here is what Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha writes in Gurmat Martand part 2 on page 567 ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ-ਲੋਕ ਪ੍ਰਸਿੱਧ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਦਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ, ਜਿਸਦਾ ਸੰਖੇਪ ਨਾਮ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਹੈ, ਉਸਦੀ ਅਸਲਿਯਤ ਇਹ ਹੈ-ਕਾਵਯ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਵੀਰ ਰਸ ਆਦਿਕ ਰਸ ਪੂਰਤ ਮਨੋਹਰ ਰਚਨਾ ਆਪ ਲਿਖਦੇ ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਰਬਾਰੀ 52 ਕਵੀਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਨਿਰੰਤਰ ਲਿਖਵਾਇਆਂ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਨ…ਸੰਮਤ 1778 ਵਿਚ ਮਾਤਾ ਸੁੰਦਰੀ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰ ਦੇ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਹਰਿਮੰਦਰ ਦਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੀ ਥਾਪਿਆ, ਭਾਈ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਸੇਵਾ ਉਤਮ ਰੀਤਿ ਨਾਲ ਨਿਭਾਹੀ ਅਰ ਇਸ ਸਮੇ ਕਈ ਪੁਸਤਕ ਲਿਖੇ…ਇਸਤੋਂ ਭਿੰਨ ਇਕ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਦਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਲਿਖਿਆ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਵਿਦਿਆ ਸਾਗਰ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੇ ਕੁਛ ਭਾਗ,ਜੋ ਯਤਨ ਕਰਕੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਵੀਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਹੱਥ
  15. Bhai Kanh Singh Nabha says cleary in Mahan Kosh under the entry for this 'rehitnama' that this was not written by Bhai Mani Singh and that Guru Gobind Singh would not have given such hukams. Please see Mahan Kosh for the entire entry. Macleod also agrees that this does not seem authentic.
  16. Kavi Santokh Singh hasn't given any description of the Pothis that matches the pothis Dr. Mann is looking at. You know that as well as I do. If I accept that the Pothis existed, I certainly don't have to accept that THESE are the same pothis. As for being "original", I'm sure the Koran's reliance on all previous Semitic mythology is very original. Oddly, Moslems don't see that as a problem but a strength of the Koran. If God hasn't been original for the Sikhs (as you contend) then he certainly wasn't any more original for the Moslems.
  17. Tabriz, Are you really that ignorant or are you just feigning for the sake of debate? You and I both know that Kavi Santokh Singh's work has a lot of things that aren't accepted by Sikh scholars. The story of how the extra material was added is also known. In my earliest debates I've always maintained my position with regards to any work: I don't take historical Granth as authoritative on every subject. I take a point, cross reference with other sources and if it is supported by multiple writers, and proof I accept it. Once again though, Kavi Santokh Singh never said that the Poth
  18. Sword/Lalleshwari/Bahadur, etc. etc, always resorts to the same tactic when he has nothing left to say or add: Go read. Here's news: I read the original book way back in 2000 or so. Kavi Santokh Singh: NO Sikh scholar accepts everything Kavi Santokh Singh has to say unquestioningly. At any rate, Kavi Santokh Singh isn't saying that THESE pothis are the real Goindval ones. Just Dr. Mann and you. Pritam Singh's book was indeed published by a University so I think according to your own twisted rules the "not-authentic" side now can't be deemed as baseless. You haven't answered an
  19. Tabriz/Bahadur/Lalleshwari/etc., etc., You haven't explained it all that convincingly. If Baba Mohan crossed out the Ghulam Sada Sevak hymns, then why were they not included in the Kartarpuri Bir? If Baba Mohan didn't like them, certainly Guru Arjan must have appreciated them? The more perplexing question is if these are Pothis to collect the works by the Gurus and prepared by a Guru, why do they have works of Ghulam Sada Sevak in them? He was no Guru and they weren't accepted and added to Sri Aad Granth afterwards. Who added this and why? In fact, all the Shabads under M: 4
  20. Tabriz/Bahadur/Lalleshwari etc. etc., You used the example of G. Gurdit Singh to say that other sources "prove" that Guru Ram Das used the pen name of Ghulam Sada Sevak but conveniently forgot to note that G. Gurdit Singh reached this conclusion by saying "the Goindval Pothis say so". He really went too far in concluding that these are the real Goindval Pothis since he had no real experience/study to suggest so. His purpose was only to show that Bhagats were disciples of Guru Nanak, as they were, and the fact that these Pothis, along with janamsakhis, etc. acknowledge it should have been
  21. Tabriz is basing his entire argument on his belief that the Goindval Pothis are authentic. He says "Giani Gurdit Singh in 1991 in his Itihas Sri Guru Granth Sahib (published by the SGPC) clearly states and proves that gulam mast is Guru Ramdas’ penname before he became Guru. " Giani Gurdit Singh relied on the Goindval Pothis only to show that the Bhagats are described as devotees of Guru Nanak. His assertion that Ghulam Sada Sevak, etc. are pen names of Guru Ram Das is based on the Pothi and not on any independent information. Using this assertion to prove the Goindval Pothis is ri
  22. Bhai Gurdas called Guru Nanak "Zaahar Pir Jagat Gur Baba". Not just Pir. In fact he starts off, "Satgur sacha paatshaah beparvaah atha sahaaba". True to form, Bahadur Ali finishes off just as he started: twisting and telling half-truths. Anyways, it's time to let our friend Lalleshwari/Javanmard/Shamsher/Bhadur Singh Nirmala/Bahadur Ali move on. Good luck to him. At the same time we should take note and learn a lesson: this individual used to regularly write that such and such people aren't Sikhs and others are bemukh and still others are "Ram Raiyas". It's nothing less than ironi
  23. I'd like to thank you Javanmard for sacrificing your sleep and amrit vela to educate us. I'm sure your actions will bear the appropriate fruit for you. 1) Yes. Guru Nanak's sandal could be worshipped in Mecca, violating every Islamic rule but he certainly couldn't have entered without proving he was a Muslim. Like I said, who is born that could stand in the way of my Satguru? 2) A prophet of Arabia who made people accept circumcision. It doesn't take a genius to tell you who that is. 3) Nothing worth commenting on here. I don't care about Islam. You haven't said anything wo
  24. 1) Though I may not be an expert in Islam it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Guru Nanak's shabads are blasphemous to the caretakers of the Kaabaa. I don't deny that Guru Nanak went to Mecca. There's no doubt. I believe however that he did not need to convince anyone to be allowed entry ANYWHERE. Where the doors of Sachkhand were open to my Satguru who was born that could close the doors to him anywhere else? It shows your lack of faith to believe otherwise. Bhai Gurdas tells us, "Dharee neeshanee kous dee Makkay andar pooj karaiee." So where Guru Nanak's wooden sandals becam
  25. 1) So let's accept for a moment that they checked Guru Sahib throughly (I don't accept the Janamsakhis as authoritative and don't know any scholar who does. In fact, you haven't given any references to WHICH Janamsakhi you're referring to). Despite the fact that Satguru jee's Pothi was Gurbani, how could it have been acceptable to the caretakers of Mecca? It would have been blasphemy. Your story just falls apart Javanmard. 2) There is no Ninda of Ramanand. The Path Ramanand was on before adopting Gurmat was not "tat". There is no ninda in stating that. As for you points about usi
×
×
  • Create New...