HarjasDevi

Bhenji Harjas Kaur,

How about the mention of Semetic introduced personalities such as the Angel of Death - Azrael?

ਅਜਰਾਈਲੁ ਫਰੇਸਤਾ ਤਿਲ ਪੀੜੇ ਘਾਣੀ ॥੨੭॥

How does this reconcile with our theory that Sikhi fits squarely into Snaatan Dharma?

How about Gurbanis usage of the many names of God in Islam...

Does this not tell us that Sikhi holds a unique position - different from previous 'pure' Snaatn Margs?

I am not saying Sikhi has not utilised 'Snaatan' concepts and culture, but it has also utilised many Semetic based concepts and cultures... this has less to do with Sikhi fitting into the Snaatan/Hindu structure and more to do with the continuation of truth - in its most pure form (unadulterated due to time and political factor) - a truth which unlike before, has broken geographical/linguistic/religious bounderies in every way and encompassed all.

Just some thoughts.

Incorporating things like names of angels or names of qualities of God doesn't have any effect on the philosphical concepts and beliefs of the Nanakian system now does it? There is still Guru and shishyas, and reincarnation and Mukti and Naam japo and Ida, pingala and shushmana nadis, dasm duara, chitr and gupt. Sanatana Dharma doesn't disappear because historical associations add new elements. Buddhism has far more radically new concepts than Sikhi, yet every school of Buddhism accepts that Buddhism is a Sanatan philosphy. Tibetan Buddhism for one admits large body of Manichean Christian symbology which is "Semitic." But it doesn't change that it is still a sanatan philosphical structure.

Rather then merely incorporating Names of qualities of God, Gurbani describes the actual Gods Krishna with blue skin, flute, gopis in Vrindaban, Vishnu with 4 arms, conch shell, mace, lotus, chakr, etc.

These are Sanatan teachings. Some words from Arabic and Farsi, an emphasis on Nirguna, some names of Angels or qualities, some poetry perhaps? Is a beautiful thing. But the overall belief structure is completely Sanatan. Not one thing has changed. The path of salvation for a Sikh is exactly the same as for a Hindu.

Can you show me anything within Gurmat which is like a practice or philosophy unique to Islam which would fundamentally alter the beliefs and teachings of the "religion" of Sikhism and make it "unlike" Hindu religion?

Why in the world would the Dal Panth copy SGPC Maryada? Do you know what they call the SGPC?

In fact, I think the SGPC one doesn't have those parts.

Here, from the Buddha Dal Gutka Sahib:

h. Devi - Devtey - Moorti pooja, Marhi - Masaani - Math - pooja, Shagan - apshagan, Tirath-Bart rakhney , Sootak - Patak, CChho - CChaat, Sraadh karney , Chhaiaa, puchheaa, Jantar-Mantar-Tantar aadh bharam karan to sada nirlep rehna, eh nahi mananney.

Because the SRM didn't exist until the Singh Sabha Scholars of the SGPC complieled it and the Panth accepted it. It doesn't matter what they call it or what their attitude toward them is. There were huge political changes influencing modern Sikhism and one of them is the creation of the Sikh Rehit Maryada. And it does have the parts you mentioned. I quoted them all the time. It's additional Singh Sabha political commentary tucked in together with the rehits.

SRM isn't a Gurmat source.

Matheen, I have already shown Bhenji some of the earliest (pre-India domination) literary sources concerning Sufism.

How old is this? It's older than Islam by a couple thousand years. Kashmiri Shaivism and Tantric Buddhism are related mystical schools which were predominant in the region for generations before there was a Mohammed.

Inside this container which looks to an average Hindu to be a yoni, are pieces of black stone from the Kaaba.

Here is Mohamed with what clearly appears to the average Hindu to be a black linga. Can you accept that non-Muslims will not necesarily share a Muslim interpretation of Muslim beliefs? When I see Kaaba, I see Shiva linga. To a religious Muslim, he will not see that. I can accept that a Muslim doesn't accept that. But it doesn't change my belief. And I mean no disrespect to Islam or Islam's prophet Mohamed to share my belief. from a Hindu viewpoint, a linga is sacred and contains energies of the God.

Kaaba was ancient even in Mohammed's time.

It's absurd to believe a religion thousands of years old had no influence on independent new religious movements. Everybody want's to be unique. But language isn't even unique. Linguists can trace root words that connect across the globe. Why is this? because human societies migrated from one original source and can trace back to an original Mother Tongue.

The original Mother Tongue of religions is called Sanatana Dharma.

Is Islam different and unique? Without question. But is it completely free of any earlier associations or influences? Not even possible. Is it unique? Yes. Is it entirely independent? No way.

"The Budha Dal Rehat Maryada is on-line if you search, and want to see what they say about engaging in Hindu/ Muslim worship or visiting Hindu mandirs."

The Sikh Rehit Maryada was first compiled in 1950. It is NOT purataan. You are talking about the SGPC Rehit Maryada. Budha Dal just copied those Singh Sabha parts to theirs. All the Sikh Jathas did that.

Means that the Singh Sabhia anti-Hindu, anti-Sanatan interpretation of "Gurmat" was a political imposition with the development of a new document SRM which didn't even exist before that. Means it's NOT Gurmat. It's Singh Sabha/SGPC Mat.

"He was shot by people from the Ravidasia community! Check their names, the only thing is that they were Amritdhari. Have you heard some of the things Ramanand said about Guru Gobind Singh Ji?"

So you are saying the shooting was justified? And Sikhs should go around killing people from other sampradayas for political reasons or because they get upset at different interpretations of Sikhism?

You think if someone could cut off Durga Ma's nose and Guru Ji wouldn't be upset about it because Durga Ma can take care of Herself, that Guru Ji is going to be so upset that someone says something about Him? That Singhs should play judge, jury and executioner and shoot someone to death over words?

What actions did the Tat Khalsa community take to publically educate the Ravidasi sangat or filmed meetings of Gyani Ji's to teach something before this outrageous act of thuggery?

And this is a justification for terrorizing a sangat and murdering an unarmed old man? Because of hearsay? Because someone said he said? And just like the rumors about Darshan Das that grow like Pinocchio's nose. Anyone can say anything.

Shooting unarmed people when they have no chance and don't expect it is the act of cowards. To shoot an unarmed old man and act like bullies enforcing the will of God and terrorizing a sangat is demonic. Why justify that?

"That is not the answer. I repeat, Hukam is first step in Sikh's journey. Living Guru and Chela relationship is not Hukam. First understand Hukam and then we can talk. Long posts do not mean anything."

The Sikhs were never "living Gurus?" Why would you think the concept of living Gurus so foreign to Sikhi when there were 10 physical bodies of Guru which were served in worship puja including pada puja also known as washing and drinking the foot wash of a Guru, a sanatan tradition.

Sikhi and hukam were never about Guruji's hukam?

Guru shishya relationship is not the first step of Sikhi, but hukam is, even before diksha/dheekya? Without acceptance of the Guru, how can there be a Guru ji's hukam?

Dheekya and bathing in the dust of Guru's feet IS submission to the Guru's Will.

Clearly BEFORE Hukam, is "falling at the Guru's feet" (prapatti) and accepting Dheekya (initiation).

And what is dheekya intiation in Gurbani?

"Living Guru and Chela relationship is not Hukam. First understand Hukam and then we can talk."

Do you have a concept of what Gurbani actually says? there is no COMMAND of DIVINE WILL to follow if there is no connection/initiation/dheekya which establishes you as a shishya in the first place.

It is the surrendering of the mind to a Guru which is the beginning of obedience. This and this alone is what it means to be a slave/das of a Satguru. And that obedience is established through prapatti (throwing oneself down) and Raja pada (at the feet of the Guru Master). This IS the essence of "Hukam Raja-ee chalna."

Without it you don't even have a Guru and you aren't even a Sikh, shishya, chaylaa.

"I repeat, Hukam is first step in Sikh's journey. Living Guru and Chela relationship is not Hukam."

Guru Chela relationship is the only boat of mukti. Dheekya and commitment is the first step, which charan pahul was replaced by Guru Gobind Singh Ji with Khande Ki Pahul. FIRST STEP OF A SIKH OR HE ISN'T EVEN A SIKH! Hukam proceeds from it and dictates the sadhana/discipline/rehit and sacrifice required of a chela. Without diksha, a chela has no obligation to fulfill rehit/sadhana of a Guru, because there is no bond/commitment.

"Diksa (Sanskrit: dīkṣā, "preparation or consecration for a religious ceremony") is the giving of mantra or initiation by the guru in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Diksa is given in a one-to-one ceremony, and typically includes the taking on of a serious spiritual discipline. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root dā ("to give") plus kṣi ("to destroy") or alternately from the verb root dīkṣ ("to consecrate")." Diksha

"Guru Ji themselves say that it is the third panth. How can his Sikhs say otherwise?

Show me where exactly with citation so that I can go look it up to read."

"Khalsa rehat", from Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji, from a saroop found at Hazoor Sahib, well away from the influence of Singh Sabha.

That is not a citation I can independently verify. Is a copy of this separate swaroop of Shri Dasm Granth available which is preserved from Singh Sabha influence? Because it would be very interesting, many scholars would like to know.

Did you read this yourself? Take photos of the swaroop? Or is it just word of mouth no one can verify?

And we need to look at interpretation. A Panth is a path or way of religious practice and applies to separate sects and sampradayas, not a religion. Guru Nanak Panth has been a spiritual unity between the warring Hindustanis and Thuraks, which is why only these 2 conflicting paths to God are being mentioned. Outside of this context, a "Third Religion" is meaningless since there are hundreds of different religions. But I would be very interested to know about a volume of Shri Dasm Granth bani preserved from tat Khalsa corruption, absolutely. And especially to make side by side comparisons of any differences, distortions or deliberate omissions on part of the SGPC.

"Calling Guru Ji 'a joke' is not an ideological difference!"

Every opinion of some person posting is not a reflection of the perspective of the Sikh-Hindu Unity efforts. People here on this thread were not bashing rude or silly comments but the ideal of Sikh-Hindu unity by insulting as cow piss drinkers, mo fos and turds? And I have heard plenty of disrespect of Hindu religion from Sikhs on many threads on many forums. But that is also not the point.

The point is not tit for tat, "he said, she said."

The point is Why is Sikh-Hindu Unity considered "anti-Sikh?" And why do Sikhs react to sanatan ideology as if it were something disgusting?

"Who do you consider to be 'sanatan Sikhs'? Jathedar Akali Surjit Singh Ji, Buddha Dal has said Sikhi is not Sanatan, many Nirmalas believe the same. Furthermore, where have you seen insults to any puratan Sikh sampardas?"

Nihang Jatha, Nanaksar, Nirankaris, Nirmalay, Seva-panthis, Ravidasis, Udasis, Radhasoamis, Namdharis, Ramgarias, Sikligers.

Buddha Dal is not sanatan? Well Hazoori Sahib Singhs do tilak of shastars following jhatka of a black goat. And they keep aarati. These are sanatan traditions originating from Kali puja. Insults? Yes, Dal Khalsa issued a statement in April of this year that Sikhs should have no tolerance for sanatan sects or sampradayas which had tradition of dedhari gurus or baba sants and threatened they should be dealt with by any force necessary. And shortly after this, the Ravidasi baba was gunned down.

Need I hunt down the many insulting and crude posts fanatic Sikhs have made about ANYONE and ANY SECT which does not conform to their narrow interpretation of "Sikh religion?" And what exactly would that prove? If you want to fight, you will deny the obvious. And I suppose you didn't see the incredible hate addressed to the Chamar community following the shooting of baba Ramanand due to Chamar-Jatt hostility either?

Why are different Sanatan sects being threatened with violence and treated to insults? Why are Hindus being called cow piss drinkers, turds and mo fos? And you and I both know how tame these comments are compared to the many outside this forum. Let's not be naive.

Nirmalay are not sanatan, and yet they are traditional Mahants who kept murthis in Gurdwaras and were the Vedic scholars of the Panth. Okay, reinvent reality if it suits you.

This thread is about the website in question - where it has been shown that they insulted Sikhi and our Guru. Let's keep the rest of the discussion in the Gurmat and gita thread.

The thread is entitled Hindu-Sikh Unity, and thereby includes issues from that forum. And how Sikh fanatics are misconstruing simple ideological differences as forms of disrespect while at the same time heaping disrespect on Hindu's, Hindu religion, and Sanatan Sikhs.

"you said "Sikhi came from hindumat"

I highly disagree with that statement. Let me ask you where does hindumat came from? Origin of truth cannot be binded with hindumat only.

Hindu Mat linguistically only means the teachings which originally came from region of Hindustan and are collectively known as Sanatana Dharma, which means universal responsibility to the Truth. And those teachings form the core basis of Sruti which is the utterances of the Rishis and written in the Vedas. Devanagari script is said to come from higher realms of the devas. So the origin of Sanatana Dharma is ancient.

Buddhism is very unique in comparison with Hinduism. Yet no one disputes it's derivation from Hindu Mat. Not even Buddhists. Sikhism is also unique. But the question is, is Sikhism unique enough to stand independently from Hindu concepts and philosophies? It is my sincere opinion that it does not stand independent of those concepts but utilizes them.

For example, Gurbani teaches reincarnation and transmigration. Gurbani teaches heavenly realms and hell realms, bhutas, jams, and a Jama Dhuta.

Are these unique concepts?

No. They are all found within the body of sanatan scriptures.

Gurbani teaches that you must have a Satguru to obtain mukti. It teaches about jivan mukta.

Is these concepts unique only to Sikhi? No. They are derived from Hindu scriptures.

Gurbani describes a Guru Shishya/chela relationship and deeksha by charan pahul and Gurmantara to achieve liberation. Is this a unique concept?

No. It is derived from Hindu scriptures.

Gurbani describes mukti and samadhi and the fourth state of consciousness, also known as Turiya. It believes in the sound current of the Nada, the Shabda, the anehad Shabad, and Naam Japna.

Are these unique concepts?

No. they all derive from Hindu scriptures.

Gurbani describes the panj bhootas: kam, krodh, lobh, moh, ahankar. Are these unique concepts?

No. They all derive from Hindu scriptures.

Gurbani describes becoming a sacrifice and surrendering your head to Guru. Is this a unique concept

No. It is derived from Hindu scruptures.

The Singh surname, the martial tradition, the wearing of dastar, the keeping of kesas and dhari, gatka. Are these unique traditions?

No. they are derived from Shaiva Rajput traditions.

The Akali Nihang roop, is it a unique tradition?

No. It is derived from Shiva Ji's roop including wearing of Shiva linga and Chandi yoni.

The tying of jura over the dasm duar. Is this a unique concept?

No. it is derived from Shaiva Sutras.

Gurbani talks about the three gunas, nirgun-sargun, and concept of Maya. Are these unique concepts?

No. they are all derived from Hindu scriptures.

Gurbani talks about the all-pervading Oneness of God and duality. Are these unique concepts?

No. They are arising out of Hindu scriptures.

So my question, if Sikhism, which means disciple-ism and hence no Sikh Guru could ever be His own shishya, if Sikhism is entirely new and entirely distinct, then why is it so blatantly Sanatan?

If it is sanatan in it's concepts, world-view and teachings, then it is clearly a sect within Sanatana Dharma. It doesn't have any teaching which is utterly so unique as to be unheard of within other sects of Hinduism.

"Hindus are conditioned to regard Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism as panths or sects. Says celebrated columnist Varsha Bhosle, "Hinduism is a generic name given to all the faiths which have roots in India and believe in Parmatma (God), Prarthana (prayer), Punerjanma (reincarnation), Purushartha (Karma) and Prani Daya (kindness to all living beings)." Sikhism believes in all of these.

Bhosle cites the speech of one of the greatest modern Sikh leaders, Master Tara Singh, at a meeting in Bombay on August 19, 1964, who declared: "Sikhs and Hindus are not separate. Sikhs will survive only if Hindus survive. Sikhs are part and parcel of the Hindu Society. Guru Govind Singhji brought in Gurumukhi the wisdom and philosophy from our scriptures and Puranas. Are we going to give up this heritage?" Sikh-Hindu Similarity

Shiva's linga and Chandi's yoni worn over the agni chakr, third eye.

"Again distortion here. Read whole shabad and try to understand. Here krishna is a metaphor for maya."

Krishna is NOT a metaphor for Maya. For one thing Maya is feminine Shakti and Krishan is male. But you are entitled to your opinion. I don't believe that every sanatan reference in Gurbani is a mere metaphor to invalidate it's legitimacy as the concept it clearly presents.

If the creation is dancing because of Krishna, it's not as symbolism of Shakti, but because of His flute to entice, and since He is a Vishnu avatar and symbolic of preservation of creation, He represents that aspect which is life-bringing as opposed to the traditional image of Shiva Nataraj dance of destruction. But the point it, Gurbani illustrates Krishna as the power of God in the tuuk.

It's not a war of personalities. God is God, and He is all pervading His creation. So it doesn't matter if you call God as Krishna or Ram or Allah or Durga. God is still the same God. Only our concepts are limited in understanding exactly what God is. Gurbani would make no reference to Krishna at all if the Guru Sahibaan were against Him or disrespected His symbolism as worthless, let alone describe Him as the very God, metaphor or not. You simply can't erase Krishna from Gurbani. And there He is, representing Sanatan world-view and philosophical systems.

You removed Khalsa from your name and became a Shakta now?

No, actually Khalsa is still legally my name. I haven't used Khalsa on forums for awhile because it tends to pit Khalsas versus Sehajdharis and I don't promote that kind of conflict. Everyone is a child of God and we should do our best to encourage people to get close to the Divine in the best way we can without putting ourselves up on a pedestal looking down at them.

How do you know I am a Shakta?

please quote Gurbani where it is written

1) That krishna is an avtar and avtar of whom?

Trinity of brahma , vishnu and mahesh has not same status in sikhism as in hinudism.

In Hinudism they are supreme and there is no power above them.

in sikhism they are creation of akal purakh.

Vasudeva Niranjana

"The cult of Krishna Vāsudeva (IAST kṛṣṇa vāsudeva "Krishna, son of Vasudeva") is historically one of the earliest forms of worship in Krishnaism and Vaishnavism. It is believed to be a significant tradition of the early history of the worship of Krishna in antiquity. This tradition is considered separately to other traditions that led to amalgamation at a later stage of the historical development. Other traditions are Bhagavatism and Cult of Gopala, that along with Cult of Bala-Krishna form the basis of current tradition of monotheistic religion of Krishna."Vasudeva

Why is Gurbani describing The Beloved as Bala Krishna with dark skin, flute, cows, gopis, etc and also as perfect Guru and creator?

Hari.

"In Hinduism, Hari (Sanskrit: हरि) is another name of Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa, and appears as the 650th[1] name in the Vishnu sahasranama of Mahabharata. In Sanskrit "Hari" sometimes refers to a colour, yellow, or fawn-coloured/khaki (it is the colour of the Sun and that of Soma)." Hari

"The ten most famous descents of Vishnu are collectively known as the "Dasavatara" ("dasa" in Sanskrit means ten). This list is included in the Garuda Purana (1.86.10"11) and denotes those avatars most prominent in terms of their influence on human society.[3]

The first four are said to have appeared in the Satya Yuga (the first of the four Yugas or ages in the time cycle described within Hinduism). The next three avatars appeared in the Treta Yuga, the eighth descent in the Dwapara Yuga and the ninth in the Kali Yuga. The tenth is predicted to appear at the end of the Kali Yuga in some 427,000 years time.[4]

1. Matsya, the fish, appeared in the Satya Yuga.

2. Kurma, the tortoise, appeared in the Satya Yuga.

3. Varaha, the boar, appeared in the Satya Yuga.

4. Narasimha, the half-man/half-lion appeared in the Satya Yuga.

5. Vamana, the dwarf, appeared in the Treta Yuga.

6. Parashurama, Rama with the axe, appeared in the Treta Yuga.

7. Rama, Ramachandra, the prince and king of Ayodhya, appeared in the Treta Yuga.

8. Krishna (meaning "dark coloured" or "all attractive") appeared in the Dwapara Yuga along with his brother Balarama. According to the Bhagavata Purana, Balarama is said to have appeared in the Dwapara Yuga (along with Krishna) as a descent of Ananta Shesha. He is also counted as an avatar of Vishnu by the majority of Vaishnava movements and is included as the ninth Dasavatara in some versions of the list which contain no reference to Buddha.

9. Gautama Buddha (meaning "the enlightened one") appeared in the Kali Yuga (specifically as Siddhartha Gautama).

10. Kalki ("Eternity", or "time", or "The Destroyer of foulness"), who is expected to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, the time period in which we currently exist, which will end in the year 428899 CE."Das Avtara

ਅਚੁਤ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ॥

achuth paarabreham paramaesur antharajaamee ||

The Supreme Lord God is imperishable, the Transcendent Lord, the Inner-knower, the Searcher of hearts.

ਮਧੁਸੂਦਨ ਦਾਮੋਦਰ ਸੁਆਮੀ ॥

madhhusoodhan dhaamodhar suaamee ||

He is the Slayer of demons, our Supreme Lord and Master.

ਰਿਖੀਕੇਸ ਗੋਵਰਧਨ ਧਾਰੀ ਮੁਰਲੀ ਮਨੋਹਰ ਹਰਿ ਰੰਗਾ ॥੧॥

rikheekaes govaradhhan dhhaaree muralee manohar har rangaa ||1||

The Supreme Rishi, the Master of the sensory organs, the uplifter of mountains, the joyful Lord playing His enticing flute. ||1||

ਮੋਹਨ ਮਾਧਵ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ੍ਨ ਮੁਰਾਰੇ ॥

mohan maadhhav kirasa muraarae ||

The Enticer of Hearts, the Lord of wealth, Krishna, the Enemy of ego.

ਜਗਦੀਸੁਰ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਅਸੁਰ ਸੰਘਾਰੇ ॥

jagadheesur har jeeo asur sanghaarae ||

The Lord of the Universe, the Dear Lord, the Destroyer of demons.

ਜਗਜੀਵਨ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਘਟ ਘਟ ਵਾਸੀ ਹੈ ਸੰਗਾ ॥੨॥

jagajeevan abinaasee thaakur ghatt ghatt vaasee hai sangaa ||2||

The Life of the World, our eternal and ever-stable Lord and Master dwells within each and every heart, and is always with us. ||2||

ਧਰਣੀਧਰ ਈਸ ਨਰਸਿੰਘ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ॥

dhharaneedhhar ees narasingh naaraaein ||

The Support of the Earth, the man-lion, the Supreme Lord God.

ਦਾੜਾ ਅਗ੍ਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮਿ ਧਰਾਇਣ ॥

dhaarraa agrae prithham dhharaaein ||

The Protector who tears apart demons with His teeth, the Upholder of the earth.

ਬਾਵਨ ਰੂਪੁ ਕੀਆ ਤੁਧੁ ਕਰਤੇ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਸੇਤੀ ਹੈ ਚੰਗਾ ॥੩॥

baavan roop keeaa thudhh karathae sabh hee saethee hai changaa ||3||

O Creator, You assumed the form of the pygmy to humble the demons; You are the Lord God of all. ||3||

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਰਾਮਚੰਦ ਜਿਸੁ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਰੇਖਿਆ ॥

sree raamachandh jis roop n raekhiaa ||

You are the Great Raam Chand, who has no form or feature.

ਬਨਵਾਲੀ ਚਕ੍ਰਪਾਣਿ ਦਰਸਿ ਅਨੂਪਿਆ ॥

banavaalee chakrapaan dharas anoopiaa ||

Adorned with flowers, holding the chakra in Your hand, Your form is incomparably beautiful.

ਸਹਸ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਹੈ ਸਹਸਾ ਇਕੁ ਦਾਤਾ ਸਭ ਹੈ ਮੰਗਾ ॥੪॥

sehas naethr moorath hai sehasaa eik dhaathaa sabh hai mangaa ||4||

You have thousands of eyes, and thousands of forms. You alone are the Giver, and all are beggars of You. ||4||

ਭਗਤਿ ਵਛਲੁ ਅਨਾਥਹ ਨਾਥੇ ॥

bhagath vashhal anaathheh naathhae ||

You are the Lover of Your devotees, the Master of the masterless.

ਗੋਪੀ ਨਾਥੁ ਸਗਲ ਹੈ ਸਾਥੇ ॥

gopee naathh sagal hai saathhae ||

The Lord and Master of the milk-maids, You are the companion of all.

ਬਾਸੁਦੇਵ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਦਾਤੇ ਬਰਨਿ ਨ ਸਾਕਉ ਗੁਣ ਅੰਗਾ ॥੫॥

baasudhaev niranjan dhaathae baran n saako gun angaa ||5||

O Lord, Immacuate Great Giver, I cannot describe even an iota of Your Glorious Virtues. ||5||

ਮੁਕੰਦ ਮਨੋਹਰ ਲਖਮੀ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ॥

mukandh manohar lakhamee naaraaein ||

Liberator, Enticing Lord, Lord of Lakshmi, Supreme Lord God.

ਦ੍ਰੋਪਤੀ ਲਜਾ ਨਿਵਾਰਿ ਉਧਾਰਣ ॥

dhropathee lajaa nivaar oudhhaaran ||

Savior of Dropadi's honor.

ਕਮਲਾਕੰਤ ਕਰਹਿ ਕੰਤੂਹਲ ਅਨਦ ਬਿਨੋਦੀ ਨਿਹਸੰਗਾ ॥੬॥

kamalaakanth karehi kanthoohal anadh binodhee nihasangaa ||6||

Lord of Maya, miracle-worker, absorbed in delightful play, unattached. ||6||

ਅਮੋਘ ਦਰਸਨ ਆਜੂਨੀ ਸੰਭਉ ॥

amogh dharasan aajoonee sanbho ||

The Blessed Vision of His Darshan is fruitful and rewarding; He is not born, He is self-existent.

ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਕਦੇ ਨਾਹੀ ਖਉ ॥

akaal moorath jis kadhae naahee kho ||

His form is undying; it is never destroyed.

ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਅਬਿਗਤ ਅਗੋਚਰ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਤੁਝ ਹੀ ਹੈ ਲਗਾ ॥੭॥

abinaasee abigath agochar sabh kishh thujh hee hai lagaa ||7||

O imperishable, eternal, unfathomable Lord, everything is attached to You. ||7||

ਸ੍ਰੀਰੰਗ ਬੈਕੁੰਠ ਕੇ ਵਾਸੀ ॥

sreerang baikunth kae vaasee ||

The Lover of greatness, who dwells in heaven.

ਮਛੁ ਕਛੁ ਕੂਰਮੁ ਆਗਿਆ ਅਉਤਰਾਸੀ ॥

mashh kashh kooram aagiaa aoutharaasee ||

By the Pleasure of His Will, He took incarnation as the great fish and the tortoise.

ਕੇਸਵ ਚਲਤ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਰਾਲੇ ਕੀਤਾ ਲੋੜਹਿ ਸੋ ਹੋਇਗਾ ॥੮॥

kaesav chalath karehi niraalae keethaa lorrehi so hoeigaa ||8||

The Lord of beauteous hair, the Worker of miraculous deeds, whatever He wishes, comes to pass. ||8||

ਨਿਰਾਹਾਰੀ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਸਮਾਇਆ ॥

niraahaaree niravair samaaeiaa ||

He is beyond need of any sustenance, free of hate and all-pervading.

ਧਾਰਿ ਖੇਲੁ ਚਤੁਰਭੁਜੁ ਕਹਾਇਆ ॥

dhhaar khael chathurabhuj kehaaeiaa ||

He has staged His play; He is called the four-armed Lord.

ਸਾਵਲ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਵਹਿ ਬੇਣੁ ਸੁਨਤ ਸਭ ਮੋਹੈਗਾ ॥੯॥

saaval sundhar roop banaavehi baen sunath sabh mohaigaa ||9||

He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed. ||9||

ਬਨਮਾਲਾ ਬਿਭੂਖਨ ਕਮਲ ਨੈਨ ॥

banamaalaa bibhookhan kamal nain ||

He is adorned with garlands of flowers, with lotus eyes.

ਸੁੰਦਰ ਕੁੰਡਲ ਮੁਕਟ ਬੈਨ ॥

sundhar kunddal mukatt bain ||

His ear-rings, crown and flute are so beautiful.

ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥

sankh chakr gadhaa hai dhhaaree mehaa saarathhee sathasangaa ||10||

He carries the conch, the chakra and the war club; He is the Great Charioteer, who stays with His Saints. ||10||

ਪੀਤ ਪੀਤੰਬਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਧਣੀ ॥

peeth peethanbar thribhavan dhhanee ||

The Lord of yellow robes, the Master of the three worlds.

ਜਗੰਨਾਥੁ ਗੋਪਾਲੁ ਮੁਖਿ ਭਣੀ ॥

jagannaathh gopaal mukh bhanee ||

The Lord of the Universe, the Lord of the world; with my mouth, I chant His Name.

ਸਾਰਿੰਗਧਰ ਭਗਵਾਨ ਬੀਠੁਲਾ ਮੈ ਗਣਤ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਸਰਬੰਗਾ ॥੧੧॥

saaringadhhar bhagavaan beethulaa mai ganath n aavai sarabangaa ||11||

The Archer who draws the bow, the Beloved Lord God; I cannot count all His limbs. ||11||

~SGGS Ji ang 1082

"Jagannath is derived from Jagannātha[1] a Sanskrit name used to describe a form of Krishna. The term means 'master, lord' (nātha) of the 'World, Universe' (jagat)."Jagannath

"Gopala Literally, Sanskrit for "Cow herder"/GOPAL, Child form of KRISNA, the Cowherd Boy who enchanted the Cowherd Maidens with the sound of his flute"

"Keshava (Sanskrit: केशव) is a name of Krishna from within Hindu tradition. (Keshav is the Hindi pronunciation). Keshava appears as the 23rd and 648th names in the Vishnu sahasranama." Keshava

Vishnu-Hari the four armed Lord and Lord of Lakshmi, holding symbols of power: conch, mace, chakr and lotus.

According to various Purana, Vishnu is the ultimate omnipresent reality, is shapeless and omnipresent. However, a strict iconography governs his representation, whether in pictures, icons, or idols:

* He is to be depicted as a four-armed male-form: The four arms indicate his all-powerful and all-pervasive nature...

Vishnu is always to be depicted holding the four attributes associated with him, being:

1. A conch shell or Shankha, named "Panchajanya", held by the upper left hand, which represents Vishnu's power to create and maintain the universe. The Panchajanya represents the five elements or Panchabhoota - water, fire, air, earth and sky or space. It also represents the five airs or Pranas that are within the body and mind. The conch symbolizes that Vishnu is the primeval Divine sound of creation and universal maintenance. it also represented as Om. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna avatara states that of sound vibrations, 'He is Om'.

2. The chakra, a sharp-spinning discus-like weapon, named "Sudarshana", held by the upper right hand, which symbolizes the purified spiritualized mind. The name Sudarshana is derived from two words - Su, which means good, superior, and Darshan, which means vision or Sight; together, it is "Superior Vision". The chakra represents destruction of one's ego in the awakening and realization of the souls original nature and god, burning away of spiritual ignorance and illusion, and developing the higher spiritual vision and insight to realize god.

3. A mace or Gada, named "Kaumodaki", held by the lower left hand, symbolizes Vishnu's divine power is the source all spiritual, mental and physical strength. It also signifies Vishnu's power to destroy materialistic or demoniac tendencies called anarthas; within the person's consciousness that hinders them from reaching god. Vishnu's mace is the power of the Divine within us to spiritually purify and uplift us from our materialistic bonds.

4. A lotus flower or Padma, held by the lower right hand, represents spiritual liberation, Divine perfection, purity and the unfolding of Spiritual consciousness within the individual. The lotus opening its petals in the light of the Sun is indicative of the expansion and awakening of our long dormant, original spiritual consciousness in the light of god. The lotus in Vishnu's hand symbolizes that god is the power and source from which the universe and the individual soul emerges. It represents Divine Truth or Satya, the originator of the rules of conduct or Dharma, and Divine Vedic knowledge or jnana. The lotus also symbolizes that Vishnu is the embodiment of spiritual perfection and purity. Also that He is the wellspring of these qualities and that the individual soul must seek to awaken these intrinsic Divine qualities from Vishnu by surrendering to and linking with Him."Vishnu

Is there any question that Gurbani is calling as Parabrahm and Ajooni the 10 avatars of Vishnu which includes Krishna as also being Satguru and Yuga avatar for Dwapara Yuga?

Why does Gurbani call the Lord Jagannatha Gopaal? Hari? Govind? With flute, dark skin, in Vrindavan with gopis? Vasudeva? Keshava? With four arms?

Because clearly the Nirguna is pervading the sargun forms. While that which has form fades in time, the essence of it which is Niranjana remains Ajooni.

That krishna is an avtar and avtar of whom?

Trinity of brahma , vishnu and mahesh has not same status in sikhism as in hinudism.

In Hinudism they are supreme and there is no power above them.

in sikhism they are creation of akal purakh.

SB 8.6.7:When Lord Brahmā, along with Lord Śiva and the other demigods, thus saw the form of the Lord, they all immediately fell to the ground, offering their obeisances.

SB 8.6.8: Lord Brahmā said: Although You are never born, Your appearance and disappearance as an incarnation never cease. You are always free from the material qualities, and You are the shelter of transcendental bliss resembling an ocean. Eternally existing in Your transcendental form, You are the supreme subtle of the most extremely subtle. We therefore offer our respectful obeisances unto You, the Supreme, whose existence is inconceivable.

Maybe the problem here is your misunderstanding of what Hinduism teaches. Srimad Bhagavatam says the demi-gods prostrate before the inconceivable nirgun Lord. Not that they are the Supreme with no power above them.

Is there something here which contradicts Gurbani? Then as an older writing, Gurbani is repeating the truth of a Hindu Purana. The Purana says the three Maha Devas of the three gunas are born from Parabrahm (Brahm KAL) and Maya-Shakti (Pakriti Durga) and that they will perish.

Nothing in Gurbani is contradicting Hindu thought. What is contradictory are the Singh Sabha misrepresentations of Hindu thought in order to create the appearance of contradiction, for example in promoting the idea that all Hindus worship the demi-gods as the Supreme and believe in nothing higher. But where did the Nanakian conception of three gunas arise from? It came from Hindu Mat. Where did Nanakian conception of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva caught in time and Maya and perishable come from? It came from Hindu Mat.

"Shri Shiv Mahapuran, Rudra Sanhita “In this way, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiv, the three gods have qualities, but Shiv (Brahm-Kaal) is said to be beyond qualities.”

What is the difference between Shiv of the three gunas, and Shiv of the Brahm Kal? Same difference as the Vishnu of the three gunas and the Vishnu Niranjana who is Maha Vishnu, above the gunas. When you read the qualities of the demi-gods, they are caught in time and materiality and subject to delusion of Maya and disease of haumai. But they are also sargun manifestations of an underlying nirgun unity which pervades them.

The formless Lord takes on millions of forms, and operates through the sansaar of three gunas, three fundamental forces or emanations, energies. Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu represent qualities of the Divine. So the Divine is pervading in those qualities. The niragun is also sargun. But the sargun is not niragun. The infinite pervades the finite. But the finite can't fathom the limits of the limitless. This is ancient Hindu teaching. It is not unique to Guru Nanak Panth.

Even the concepts of nirgun and sargun, where do they come from? Hindu Mat.

sri-parikshid uvaca

brahman brahmany anirdesye

nirgune guna-vrittayah

katham caranti srutayah

sakshat sad-asatah pare

sri-parikshit uvaca -- Sri Parikshit said; brahman -- O brahmana (Sukadeva); brahmani -- in the Absolute Truth; anirdesye -- which cannot be described in words; nirgune -- which has no qualities; guna -- the qualities of material nature; vrittayah -- whose scope of action; katham -- how; caranti -- function (by referring); srutayah -- the Vedas; sakshat -- directly; sat -- to material substance; asatah -- and its subtle causes; pare -- in that which is transcendental.

TRANSLATION

Sri Parikshit said: O brahmana, how can the Vedas directly describe the Supreme Absolute Truth, who cannot be described in words? The Vedas are limited to describing the qualities of material nature, but the Supreme is devoid of these qualities, being transcendental to all material manifestations and their causes. ~Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.1

Does this mean that the demi-gods are Supreme? No. But it does mean that the Supreme operates through the demi-gods which reflect His Divine qualities even though imperfectly because in order for nirguna to have form, manifest, it must operate through the pakriti, three gunas empowered by shakti, Maya, and hence suffers from the limitation of being 1. finite and thus deluded by limiting perceptions and, 2. requiring an ego to function in this dimension, haumai.

So rather than creation being a failure, or the devas being some kind of evil forces, Gurbani is exploring the vast mystical teachings of Sanatana Dharma which explain the relationship between the limitless and the limited and the only way to be freed from material bondage, 1. a Satguru 2. Gurmantar Naam.

And where did these Nanakian concepts of Satguru and Gurmantar Naam come from? They came from Hindu Mat.

Are you implying that ਰਜਾਈ from ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ is taken from Sanskrit?

Rajaa-ee is an Arabic word from Raza meaning by the Divine Will. In the usage as it relates to Divine Will in relation to command and Rulership of Hukam. And as the question was posed regarding Vaishnavs who had close mystical relationship to Sufi bhaktas and overlapping of teachings, Raza as Divine Will has relationship to Raja as Lord and King. So there is a relationship, although not origin. It is an Arabic word, not Sanskrit. I was trying to show relationship to concepts leading to Guru's charan which in Sanskrit have relationship to the word Raja. As in the phrase "Raja pada" as used for submission and surrender to will of a Guru.

ਰਜਾਈ

Rajai

ਰਾਜਿ and also ਰਾਜ

Raaj

clearly in Gurbani there is a relationship to the Kingship of God and His Divine Will, Raja-ee. So there may be a relationship in the sound similarity of the Arabic and Sanskrit words. Relational meanings notwithstanding. I made no claim that Rajai meant Raja. The closest I could come to a Sanskrit equivalent for Hukam in this context was Prapatti, which is Self-surrender or submission (to a Divine Will).

The exact Sanskrit equivalent for Hukam would be "adesa"

mat-ādeśa — according to my instruction; SB 4.12.42

ādeśa — orders; SB 10.68.34

And has relationship to "Adeesha" or Ruler/King. But this doesn't quite fit the phrase "Hukam Rajai chalna." Which implies submission to the Order of the Divine Will. Sanskrit equivalents with Vaishnavism which is based on surrender to the Guru Shishya relationship is the closest to submission to Divine Will. So "Prapatti" (surrender by throwing oneself under submission) and "Raja pada" (the Lord's feet) reflect the closest association from Vaishnav teachings to the tuuk "Hukam Rajai Chalna Nanak Likiya Nal."

~Bhull chak maaf karni ji

Journey starts with accepting Hukam. I don't know about Vaishnavs. What do they say about Hukam and Razai?

I am not a Vaishnav. But Gurbani is clearly supporting the Vaishnav practices of keeping Naam Simran. Bhair Gurdas Ji vaaran teaches us that Vaheguru Gurmantra comes from beej syllables V for Vishnu, Vasudeyva, H for Har Krishan, G for Gobind, R for Raam. These are the Naams which the Vaishnav sampradayas jap to carry across the ocean of suffering and have mukti in the Kalyuga.

Hukam is from Arabic word Hukm, meaning order or command. In Punjabi it means the Order or command of Vaheguru's will. It also means submission and living in harmony with the Divine will.

Rajai comes from Sanskrit as there were Rajput rulers who gave commands as Kings.

Sanatana Dharma gave the world the tradition of Gur-chela. The word of the Guru is the will of God. His words are pure command for the chela's life. You think there is no following the commands and orders of the Guru as submitting and keeping harmony with God's will in sanatan sampradayas? Where do you think the term "das" came from? Where do you think the tradition of touching feet came from, or drinking charan pahul? It came out of this same heritage and tradition which the Vaishnav's also keep, and which the Sikhs also keep. Or are you implying radical distinction on the basis of simple terminology of an Arabic word?

In Sanskrit the word Prapatti means "to throw oneself down." It means to seek refuge at the Guru's feet, self-surrender to Guru's will. You must have prapatti before you can have bhakti. It means submission to the Divine Will.

This forum's members tend to be more concerned wiht the essence of Gurmat (as far as that goes on discussion forums) than other forum members. People here are (mostly) interested in learning more about Gurmat, which is quite simply what the Guru's taught, and not what politicians or 'reformers' tried to make Sikhi into.

That did not come across on this thread calling as mo fo's, turds, and cow piss drinkers. The point again is why are you all judging Hindu's for being Hindus? Of course Hindu understanding of Sikhi is coming from a different perspective. Whether or not you personally believe Gurmat is in a neat little box where everyone can understand the same thing, the point remains that if Sikh Jathas can't even agree among themselves what Gurmat is, why bash Hindu's for not having your same opinion?

Even Sikh Nirmalay read Gurbani with the same kind of Vedic interpretations. This isn't something new to the Panth, new like a political, RSS struggle. I don't belong to RSS. RSS is like the most over-used attack Sikhs make against anyone who posts from a Hindu perspective. It is the mentality of the perceiver to attack suspiciously or degradingly any Hindu who has a sanatan viewpoint. Yet, sanatan interpretations abound in Janam Sakhis, in Dasm Granth which has translated portion of Devi Mahatmyam, in Prem Sumarag, in Sanatan Sampradayas and their preserved traditions.

What are you going to do bash everybody who doesn't read Gurmat with YOUR understanding? With the understanding of YOUR sangat? Of YOUR Tat Khalsa brethren? If you are all so interested in learning about Gurmat, why do you people disrespect it in calling degrading names those Devatay who appear in Gurbani? Did Guruji degrade the Devatay? Is it the Dharm of a Sikh to degrade Devas and disrespect Hindus? Because that is the point of my posting here, in this section:

Anti-Sikh propaganda -- Hindu Sikh Unity.

So is this what you all believe? Hindu's are the devil, every Hindu perspective, viewpoint and opinion is anti-Gurmat and anti-Sikh? Does this justify you being anti-Hindu or promoting acts of violence and assassination against Hindu dera leaders because in your eyes they are "anti-Sikh?"

You see, it is a concern.

Because what, he is a dedhari guru in a sanatan sampradaya? Because he is Chamara? Because he accepts traditional gestures of respect such as matathek? Because you believe Hindus and Sanatan Sikhs have no right to have Guru Granh Sahib in their mandirs and Gurdheras? For this you are greater than God to judge without trial and assassinate?

Why do you people hate so much?

Your questions above can mostly be answered quite simply. The primary gunn for a sikh is nimarta according to Bhai Gurdass ji. The primary aim for a Sikh is surrender.

Oh really? This trashing Hindus and sanatan Sikhs all the time is hatred. It certainly isn't nirmata. Maybe there's a disconnect between what the ideal is and what the actuality is.

Why do we keep beards, we do we keep kakkaars, why do we remain distinct???

I also keep kesas. And the Kakkars come from the Rajputs. So does surname of Singh. You aren't distinct at all. Shaivas and some Shaktas also keep kesas. It's an ancient yogic tradition to tie jura over the dasm duaara to form a mudra/seal and do Naam simran japo to vibrate the Gurmantra to raise the praan through the shushumna nadi, pierce the chakrs and open the third eye/brahmgyan, and open the tenth gate, sahasrara chakra to have darshan of the Divine.

No distinctiveness at all, except most modern Sikhs have lost understanding of WHY they keep their traditions.

"Herein lies the problem. You, and the rest of the Sikhs here who see life through rose-tinted spectacles, are convinced that the interpretation of a handful of Sufis is somehow more correct than the rest of the Islamic world who do not feel the need to resort to kitman and taquiyyah to spread their doctrines."

I see Sufism as an offshoot of Sanatana Dharma and not anything like fundamentalist Islam, so I have no problem with them. Sufism is the continuation of Sant Mat in those communities of Hindus who were forcibly converted by the Moghuls, and a large body of brilliant Kaula tantra Shaivite mysticism exists in it's symbolism. Sufis are the sons and daughters of people like Bhai Mardana, and often had Shaiva and Vaishnavite Gurus and became their own lineage. Of course there are deluded and abusive people in every religious sect. But I accept Sufism as related to Sanatana Dharma and generally more open minded.

Sufi Enneagram is related to the gupt teachings of the chakrs and the yogic methods for opening them.

Sufi Dhikkr is very similar to pranayam Naam Simran, and certain Sufi sects have bhakti trance practices where they become wajd very similar to Namdharis. The relationship is due to the historical intermingling of communities during the Mughal invasions. Unlike traditional Muslims, Sufi's are actually very mystical and yogic in orientation. for that they are persecuted by traditionalist Muslims. During the times of the Guru Sahibaan, people would go into samadhi and mastana states due to the power of the Raag Kirtan and Naam Simran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIns9cbvsUc

"The earliest recorded history of Kashmir by Kalhan begins at the time of the Mahabharata war. In the 3rd century BC, emperor Ashoka introduced Buddhism in the valley. Kashmir became a major hub of Hindu culture by the 9th century AD. It was the birthplace of the Hindu sect called Kashmiri 'Shaivism', and a haven for the greatest Sanskrit scholars...

...suffered a reversal during the Muslim rule of Kashmir beginning from the 14th centuryAD. It continued for the next 500 years, during which successive Muslim rulers of Kashmir indulged in wanton destruction of Hindu temples, cruel suppression of Hinduism and massacre of Hindus. During this period of aggressive Islamic intolerance, the growing influence of Sufism was the only ray of hope for the Hindus.

Now correct me if I'm mistaken, Devatas kill the demons. So who would be boasting about killing devatay hmmm? Just a thought.

"...selectively quoting tuks to propagandise your Hindumat-inspired opinions is not equivalent to what Gurbani says."

But anyone can clearly read the Gurbani when it's quoted isn't it so? Propaganda is claiming falsely that Gurbani says something and no one can find it. With respect different people have different mentalities and will understand things differently. Can you please show me in Gurbani where the Devas are evil, mythological, or something to ridicule? Thank you. And this is not the same as part of the gunas of material manifestation which is overrun by Maya. Because that has a symbolism which relates to our own nature in sansaar and delimited by time and suffering from bondage to the three gunas which leads to haumai.

The traditional sanatan view is that the devas exist within the human body, just as different devatas exist in musical raags. So on one level you are dealing with concepts of the creation yet misconstruing them to mean devatas are some kind of demons against the Lord, when the opposite is true. There are millions upon millions of uncountable worlds. And there are millions of devatay for them. Because devatay exist in sansaar and are part of the creation, they will have an end, a limit. Even the Brahmaloka will end. But that which is beyond Time is the nirguna. It cannot be perceived by the human intellect or human senses. This is why the perceivable aspect of the Divine is sargun, just as Gurshabda comes to our reality from the anehad Naad, from nirguna.

Devatas and avataras also come from the Divine Light and Sound and have different roles. Of course where is the corpse of Ramachandra? And Krishna is dust like a mere worm. This is speaking to the finite nature. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's body also turned to dust. Guruji said, "Whoever calls me as God will burn in hell." Where is the physical form of Guruji? It is long gone. Whoever is yearning for it will pass away with it. That is my interpretation of what Guruji means.

But this is a world of duality and things can have two meanings. Just as there can be a Shiva who is different from Sadashiva, a Brahma who is different from Parabrahma, a Vishnu who is different from Mahavishnu...

So the physical sargun swaroop is not the totality. It is part of the world of the gunas, of manifest forms, it is finite. It will die. To worship the limitation is the equivalent of worshipping stones. But Guruji is exhorting us to worship that which is beyond time, beyond failure, beyond disintegration. A Satguru has the quality of being merged in his consciousness with the God. So it isn't the physical swaroop of Guruji we worship but the Jyothi Jyot, and the Shabada, the Divine Presence. Because these sargun forms of the Divine vibrate from the nirguna and this is what has the ability to lead us to Mukti. That's why Naam is so critical. Nama Japa has the capability of raising our consciousness to Turiya state because we become attuned with the Sound-Light vibration.

Look closely at this quote from the Shiva Sutras about the Divine manifestations. this is exactly what is described in Gurbani as being able to change the consciousness of man through the power of Gurmantra.

It is just like in physics which speaks of wave-particle duality. A particle is less than the dust. It is nothing, less than a worm. But the subatomic particle has a dual nature. It is more than meets the eye. It is also a vibrating wave of energy which is infinite in all directions.

Can you see a parallel with Gurbani definitions of the devatas as subordinate to the nirguna examining the Sanskrit terms from Srimad Bhagavatum? But none of it is disrespectful of Devatas, even while acknowledging these shining ones are not the Highest Light. But they do come from the Highest Light.

So are you saying this thread is closed? The discussion is over? Everything that you think needs to be said has already been said? That doesn't seem right. My posts are going through. Maybe you're wrong veer ji.

Tell me something, what would I gain reading "Hum Hindu Nahin" the famous Singh Sabhia tract? It is a political interpretation. Guru Nanak Dev Ji said, "I am not a Hindu, I am not a Mussalman." But He also did not say "I, the Guruji am a Sikh." When Guruji said this, He was speaking from Turiya consciousness which is beyond the duality of divisions. He was speaking from being merged in God-consciousness, where He has no need for external rituals or religious acts because He is already One with the Divine!

But it is NOT saying, "I, Guru Nanak Dev Ji have started a whole new religion because I thought this world needed another one."

Dasam Granth in particular is very clear about the difference between Akal and his creations (which include Krishan, Hanuman, and the other 33 crore minus 2 deities.

Can you explain please the difference between Mahesh and Maheshvara? Or Brahma and Parabrahma?

Krishan is an avatar, not a deva. Hanuman is neither a deva nor an avatar. So you are confusing apples and oranges.

Krishan, as an avatar, is Satguru for the age of Dwapara Yuga according to Gurbani. And as Satguru, He is merged in consciousness with the nirgun Totality which is called by many names and qualities but is Ajooni Saibhung.

A deva may only be a demi-god. But an Avatar is One with the Divine nirgun Lord Himself. According to Gurbani, Bhagavan Krishna is Satguru for the age of Dwapara Yuga. How can any Sikh disrespect Him?

are you the same Harjas Kaur who used to post on tapoban forum?

Yes

"The truth is that the Akhalis were a mixture of Knights Templar/Waffen-SS/SAS, if we had to compare them to western equivalents. Now is that a bad thing they were fanatics?"

Wow. I find it pretty offensive that you would compare Akali Nihang Singhs with the Waffen SS. Thats about the most Adharmic group imaginable. Are you saying you really believe the Akali Nihang were like them?

Waffen SS cutting the beard of an elderly Jewish man.

The Waffen SS left a legacy of horror and repulsion by butchering millions. Are you saying fanatical intolerance is NOT a bad thing? How is this a good thing?

The problem with fanaticism is that it's blind. It's cultic, regimented, unthinking, unfeeling, blind obedience to evil authority creating unspeakable oppression. Is this what you think a sant-sipahi is? Someone who butchers entire racial and religious groups because they are different? Is that a quality of "strength?"

That's a very sad definition of strength. One of the greatest qualities of strength is it's ability to be gentle, to be just and fair and decent. Butchering people is an act of weakness, not strength. There is no military victory in atrocities.

Guru Ji themselves say that it is the third panth. How can his Sikhs say otherwise?

Show me where exactly with citation so that I can go look it up to read. Is it from Sarbloh Granth or Dasm Granth Sahib Jis? Again, please show me the citation. And the problem arises since Panthically, neither Sarbloh Granth nor Dasm Granth have full Panthic acceptance and so are not accepted as Gurmat by all Sikhs. So you are wrong to impose that All the Guru's Sikhs believe this. For certain this statement does not exist in Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Again, it is most likely an interpretation imposed on the bani. Sikhs of the Guru will follow "true spirituality" found in all religious paths but not follow a "corrupted religious path." There can't even be a third religion since Hinduism and Islam are simply 2 forms of religion and their are hundreds. Hinduism isn't even one Path by itself but probably includes dozens.

Sikhs claim belief in panj kakkars as coming from hukam of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I don't personally disagree. But someone else could easily challenge, where is the proof of that? Where is it written?

It is clearly written in Sri Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth, not to mention the oral tradition of puratan sampardas.

And as I already stated, not all Sikh Jathas accept Shri Dasm Granth and Shri Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani. please show me the page numbers and citations. Oral tradition is prone to distortion.

ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਹੀਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਨਹਿ ਹੋਈ, ਰਿਹਤਵੰਤ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋਈ ॥

Those who never depart his/her arms, they are the Khalsa with excellent rehats.

– Rehatnama Bhai Desa Singh

This is the rehitnama given for the kirpan. I don't dispute it, but it's not at all clear that it is a kakkar, or that it is part of panj kakkars. So this is the problem with rehitnamay, some of which list only 3 kakkars. The point being, there is a lot of room for discussion and interpretation. You made wild claims about what a neat package Sikhism is in, then just base it on "you say."

Show us all where the citations and authority is please and we can continue this discussion. Otherwise you simply prove my point that different people will have different opinions and that having opinions is not "disrespecting."

Sikhs claim Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Khalsa His roop. Where is the proof? Because a bunch of Tat Khalsa Singhs have always said so? Where is it written? And in fact, it is in Shri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji.

You answer your own question.

Don't be smart. Not every Sikh accepts Shri Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani. So the question of Khalsa roop as being Guru's roop is not even accepted by all Sikh Jathas, why do you complain if Hindu's or sanatan Sikh Jathas disagree and have another opinion? To have another opinion isn't showing you disrespect. This isn't a point of contention for me personally, I believe in the panj kakkars and in the Gurbani of Shri Sarbloh Granth and Shri Dasm Granth. but I was giving an example that not everyone shares the same INTERPRETATION of Sikhism and that different opinions ARE NOT disrespect.

It is additions like this which have political interpretations against Hindu practices as being at odds with Sikhism which is the Singh Sabhia ideology. The traditional Sanatan Sikhi has no problem with it,..

Guru Ji had a problem with it, as demonstrated by the harsh words in Sri Dasam Granth against various Hindu practices. A few examples are given in another thread - "Gurmat and the Gita".

All Vaishnav sampradyas had a problem with brahminism. Not just Guru Sahibaan. When Guruji is speaking out against hypocrisy of religious practice is it not the same thing as condemning ALL religious practice. So this is a matter of interpretation. Guru Sahib had a problem with hypocrites and evil people. He did not have harsh words anywhere for sincere people who practice differently. You think Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji sacrificed his life for hypocritical rituals? No! He sacrificed his life to defend Dharama and for people to be free of the curse of forced conversion and forced beliefs. So I believe you misinterpret the Gurbani when you say Guru Sahib had harsh words for "Hindu" practices.

Here Gurbani is using Hindu as meaning nationality, not religion. It is comparing with nationality of Turks who are not a religion.

Here Gurbani is differentiating between Hindu's and Turks. Why then would it mention Bhattis and Thakurs as separate from Hindu religion? Because the usage of Hindu in Gurbani is interchangeable with nationality of Hindustan as well as religion of the people of Hindustan.

It's wrong to over-generalize that Gurbani is against Hindu nationality and Hindu Dharma because it criticizes and corrects corrupted spiritual practices.

There is nothing wrong with civilised discussion, but that is not what was happening on that site. For unitym there must be respect and tolerance, like there was in the days before "Hindu-ism".

And in this thread calling as mo fo's, cow piss drinkers and turds is civilized? There was no religion before Sanatana Dharama.

Are you a student of Rishi Handa by any chance?

I have never heard of him.

there is nothing wrong with hndu sikh unity on equal terms. I respect their religion but if I talk about Sikhi as a sepreate religion then they will either say im a singh sabhia or a pakistani agent. then they will deliberately misquote gurbani which contain the words RAM etc to try and prove that Gurus worshiped Vishnu etc .

It is the teaching of the Singh Sabhia Tat Khalsas that Sikhism should be separated from association with Hindu ideologies. Modern Tat Khalsa Sikhs who adhere to the basic institutions of modern Sikhism, such as SGPC and Akal Takhat political pre-eminance, who reject as "Hindu ritualism" such sanatan practices as Nihang Jatha and Hazoori Jatha practice of jhatka, or aarati, or prakash of all 3 Granths, or placing blood tilak on shastars, etc. are in fact espousing Singh Sabhia ideology and beliefs. These are political beliefs interjected into the Sikh Panth within the last 100 years and have no purataan parallel.

Moreover, if you hadn't noticed there has been an escalating conflict between Pakistan and India since the partition. China has been trying to claim Kashmir and arming the Pakistani intelligence agencies, who in turn arm the Islamic mujahideen. The fact remains that Pakistan and China have infiltrated the Punjab region in their efforts to break Indian National Unity. The Sikh militant organizations which sought refuge in Pakistan have long been working together with the Islamic Mujahideen and Pakistani National interests.

Even an old clip of Operation Bluestar shows the weapons of the Sikh Militants were of Chinese manufacture implying Chinese government manipulation to support civil war to divide the Indian state. As we from today the rising Maoist Naxal insurgency actually threatens civil war. So these political considerations are serious and continuing. What is to be gained by breaking Indian National Unity and strengthening terrorist threats and enemy foreign governments? How does that benefit Indian citizens which includes Sikhs? So when analyzing the real forces which are behind the Sikh-Hindu disunity efforts, it doesn't take very long to find the criminal hand of Pakistan and China.

Most Hindu's and Sanatan Sikhs believe current political situation is a gross manipulation of holy Sikh religion by hostile forces.

And as for the naive assertion that the "weapons were planted by the Indian government," yeah, right.

For example Simranjit Singh Mann, former head of Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar videotaped shouting "Pakistan Zindabad" and praising their propaganda to achieve alliance with Sikhs and recognition of Khalistan together with his arrest for treason paint the picture that some radical Sikhs groups are actively collaborating with Pakistan.

So when Sikhs begin to post hate speech against Hindu's and Hinduism and justify the murder of Sanatan Sikh dera leaders and trash Sikh-Hindu Unity efforts while many times promoting aims of the Pakistani Intelligence forces, then yes, it is reasonable to assume some people will believe you are acting in the interests of Pakistan to further divide India as a sovereign country and to spread the kind of hate and disunity which leads to violence. Is there a spiritual purpose behind it? See, many Sanatan Sikhs believe these political manipulations and corruptions defile Sikhi and don't represent it at all.

What you are talking about are a collection of individuals with a collection of opinions, not one of which represents Hindu Dharma or even a particular sanatan Sikh sect. If you have a problem with those opinions, write you're rebuttal. But analyzing some of the issues under debate, can you explain WHY someone would believe the panj kakkars are "useless" from a spiritual perspective?

Can you please tell me in a decent way how wearing Kacchera makes someone modest? You see, it's a symbolic representation to remind someone of modesty. Now, if you believe, as I do, that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave hukam that Khalsa were to keep the panj kakkars on their person at all times, you will disagree with other opinions. But other opinions have no authority to challenge your faith. There's no reason to lose peace or get angry because Namdharis don't believe in kirpan, for example. Do you want to eliminate all Namdharis to punish them for a different belief?

Does a dhaari really make anyone holy? Haven't we known kesdhari and even amritdhari people who fail to live up to Khalsa ideals, who maybe are sharaabis or beat their wife and kids? So the criticism isn't entirely false. Just having hairs doesn't make anybody spiritual. But it's the commitment to a spiritual ideal which should be behind the practice of keeping kakkars. So what, are you going to do, condemn the world for having an opinion? What exactly have you done to live up to the Khalsa ideal which would persuade anyone that disbelieving in panj kakkars is wrong?

Now, you are mixing apples with oranges in this phrase:

There is a difference between caste "discrimination" and believing in the caste-varna-jati system. So here again, we're back to the issue of differing opinions and not "disrespect of teachings."

It can easily be interpreted from the sanatan perspective that the Guru Sahibaan believed in the varna system because Gurbani says the Lord Himself created the people with differences in nature and temperament along which the varna exists. But this is not the same thing as the hateful, racism which the British Raj insinuated into the Varna system. Many Sanatan Sants and Bhagats had spoken against abuses and corruption of the Vedic caste system.

Vaishnav sants initiated a caste based reform hundreds of years before Guru Nanak Dev Ji was even born. And these teachings of spiritual evolution and equality are what appear in Vaishnav bhagat bani. These teachings are based on the Srimad Bhagavatum which teaches that a persons gunas, his temperament, not his birth determine his true varna, and that everybody is intended to be a brahmana, servant and devotee of God. So in the original Vedic system, even the lowly Shudra can be a brahmin, and a born brahmin a shudra based on his mentality. And it is this Vaishnav reform philophy which is found in Sikh Gurbani.

You do not find ANYWHERE in Gurbani, rejection of the caste-varna system. You do not find ANYWHERE promotion of caste discrimination. But the issue comes down to a matter of different opinions and different knowledge people bring to these discussions. Simply to read the Gurbani literally and believe the Vedic Vaishnav reform in the Varna system, together with the historical fact that not a single Guru Sahibaan ever married out of his caste and that Guru Granth Sahib records Guru caste surnames, or that historical pothis record what caste the panj piare were reflects that complete "rejection" of the caste-Varna system did NOT occur, although rejections of the CORRUPTIONS of it did.

there is a mo-fo on that site called sant. this is what that turd of a person posted:

"Guru Harkishen was a 6 year old guru, whose only QUALIFICATION for becoming guru was the fact that he was Guru Har Rais son.

He passed on when he was 11 and made no contribution to the granth sahib, so does he deserve to be reverred as a guru?"

now harjas this is the tip of the iceberg. there is a lot more. So plz dont giv that rubbish that you didnt read anything bad.

It sounds like a foolish opinion of someone who doesn't know any better. But I don't read anything "bad" into it. Not even every Sikh understands the passing of the Jyoth from one Guru to another, why would you expect eveyone to have the same undertsanding as you do? Instead of calling him names, why don't you share that gyaan which you gain from dhyaan with him instead? If you can't do Sikhi parchaar why drop to the level of insults in the name of defending Sikhi?

You should know that not every Hindu is a Vaishnav. And the people who have different opinions about the meaning of Gurbani or the historical relationships and stories withing different Sikh sampradayas are not all going to agree on things. But your comment about "holy devotees of Vishnu" following calling as mo fo's and turds is "disrespectful" of Gurbani.

Gurbani calls a Vaishnav as Gurmukh.

Gurbani calls the Vaishnav who worships Gopaal, name of Har Krishna as attaining the liberation. Nothing anywhere in Gurbani rejects or disrespects Vaishnavism or Har Krishana. Neither should you.

Gopala Literally, Sanskrit for "Cow herder"/GOPAL, Child form of KRISNA, the Cowherd Boy who enchanted the Cowherd Maidens with the sound of his flute, attracting even Madan, Cupid. Historically one of the earliest forms of worship in Krishnaism. It is believed to be a key element of the early history of the worship of Krishna. This tradition is considered separately to other traditions that led to amalgamation at a later stage of historical development. Other traditions are Bhagavatism and Cult of Bala Krishna, that along with Cult of Krishna-Vasudeva form the basis of current tradition of monotheistic religion of Krishna.Gopal

There is no problem with Sikh-Muslim, Sikh -Hindu or Sikh - any other religion unity, as long as there is mutual respect. The problem is with that particular website and their attempt to portray Sikhi as a sect of Hinduism. That is their idea of unity.

As stated earlier by 'Kaljug':

Did you miss all that?

First of all do you accept that not every Sikh Jatha believes that Sikhism is a new Panth? There are traditional Jathas which have always been a part of Hinduism. So the dividing line which separates "Hindu religion" from "Sikh religion" does not exist for some as it exists for others. But why would anyone get emotionally hostile about a belief?

Different people and sects are going to have different views. So is the conclusion to be "intolerance of differect sects?" Or even supporting and justifying "attacks and assassinations" of different sect leaders? But simply to have the interpretation that Sikhism is a continuation of the Sant Mat of the past which is reflected in Bhagat bani of Vaishnav Bhagats and fitting within the umbrella of sanatana Dharma philosophy is no "insult" or "threat to Sikh identity." It's a viewpoint.

"denigrating Sikhi to a sect of Hinduism"

Denigration in this usage is in the interpretation of the perceiver. There's no denigration, for example, to show that Buddhist teachings originate from Shaiva Tantra. It's not "denigrating" something to show relationship or origination.

People who use inflammatory words like "denigration" in context of a "discussion of belief systems" and "personal interpretations" invent a conflict where there is none in an effort to intimidate other viewpoints and cast aspersions on them.

So rather than conscientious discussion of spiritual topics, it becomes SLANDER of Hindu religion and of beliefs of Sanatan sects. Simply to point out that Sikh philosophy and spiritual teachings originate and derive from Sanatana Dharma is not "denigrating" them.

"disrespecting Guru Sahiban, their Sikhi, Sikh Rehat5 Maryadas"

Merely to make an accusation without proving it is another slander. Did you get all that?

What you falsely attribute as "disrespect" is NOT the same as disbelief or disagreement. Traditional Sikh sects have not held the exact same views even among themselves. Traditional Sikh undertstandings which have long been at odds with Singh Sabhia views.

But that is NOT "disrespect" to hold different opinions.

Sikhs claim belief in panj kakkars as coming from hukam of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I don't personally disagree. But someone else could easily challenge, where is the proof of that? Where is it written? Because in fact, several rehitnamay talk about 3 kakkars only. So traditionally, there is not the hard and fast doctrinalism of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia.

To speak of this, or make questions along this line on a discussion forum is NOT "disrespect."

Sikhs claim Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Khalsa His roop. Where is the proof? Because a bunch of Tat Khalsa Singhs have always said so? Where is it written? And in fact, it is in Shri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji.

But is different mainstream Sikh Jathas do not even accept Sarbloh Granth Sahib as bani, and there are bitter debates whether even Shri Dasm Granth Sahib Ji is bani.

Why are the Hindu's and Sanatan Sikhs singled out as "disrespecting" what they do not agree with, or who discuss these issues from their viewpoints? But when Tat Khalsas do the same thing, it's not "disrespect" it's "discussion?"

Explain please about the Sikh Rehat Maryada being "disrespected?" No rude comments are written from the perspective of Sikh-Hindu Unity. Although some individuals may be disrespectful, just as some Tat Khalsas are disrespectful of Hinduism, calling perjorative names and insults. Even violating the very same SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada which says:

It isn't "disrespect" to question or challenge the authority of something from an ideological perspective. It is challenging the authority and political interpretations of the SGPC, not Guru Sahib.

"The word 'Guru' in Sanskrit means teacher, honoured person, religious person or saint. Sikhism though has a very specific definition of the word 'Guru'. It means the descent of divine guidance to mankind provided through ten Enlightened Masters. This honour of being called a Sikh Guru applies only to the ten Gurus who founded the religion starting with Guru Nanak in 1469 and ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708; thereafter it refers to the Sikh Holy Scriptures the Guru Granth Sahib." SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada definitions

We see here a perfect example of how the SGPC imposes an interpretation which various sects within Sikh tradition disagree with.

Take for example the simple interpretation of the word "Guru."

The Sanskrit does not confer the meaning of Guru as a teacher and an honored person. Guru means the one who is beyond the qualities of rajo-sato-tamo gunas and is thus a Divine Being able to confer brahmgyan on a chela because He has attained the God Realization.

Also, the SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada goes so far as to interpolate political interpretations into RULES for amritdhari Khalsas in the name of living in consonance with the Guru's tenets. But they are not the Guru's tenets at all, they are INTERPRETATIONS of the Singh Sabhias codified into a set of rules.

"Most, though not all, rituals and ritual or religious observances listed in this clause are hindu rituals and observances. The reason is that the old rituals and practices, continues to be observed by large numbers of Sikhs even after their conversion from their old to new faith and a large bulk of the Sikhs novices were Hindu converts. Another reason for this phenomenon was the strangle hold of the Brahmin priest on Hindus' secular and religious life which the Brahmin priests managed to maintain even on those leaving the Hindu religious fold, by the his astute mental dexterity and rare capacity for compromise." Living in Consonance with Guru's Tenets (Gurmat Rehni)

It is additions like this which have political interpretations against Hindu practices as being at odds with Sikhism which is the Singh Sabhia ideology. The traditional Sanatan Sikhi has no problem with it, only the Tat Khalsas make it a problem and then invent a rulebook making sanatan Sikh observances "wrong," or worse, "anti-Gurmat," "anti-Sikh."

So the traditional Sikh practices are what is being attacked and what is being criticized by Tat Khalsas. Political opinions interpolated into the Sikh Rehat Maryada is a point of INTERPRETATION and NOT GURMAT. To challenge that is a viewpoint, not denigration or disrespect.

What exactly is the problem with Sikh-Hindu unity? Can someone please explain to me in a decent manner?

RSS Hindus promoting unity between Sikhs and Hindus by denigrating Sikhi to a sect of Hinduism and disrespecting Guru Sahiban, their Sikhi, Sikh Rehat5 Maryadas, and well .. pretty much everything in Sikhi that does not accord with their warped religious and political ideology.

I read through the site. I didn't read disrespect of Guru Sahiban or their Sikhi. Perhaps someone could kindly make it clear besides making juvenile insults about cow piss drinkers, which is clearly disrespect. Thank you.

~Om Namah Shivayah