HarjasDevi

In thread #35 Kalyug writes:

"From a strictly historical point of view, it's pretty clear that the devas like Indra and Durga are originally nothing more than deities of natural events and places, the Indian cognates to the Greek Zeus and Athena or the Roman Jupiter and Bellona.

Are you saying that worship of any of the deities of any pantheon will grant similar results to worship of Nirguna Parbrahma? If not, and this only applies to the deities of the Hindu mythological pantheon, why do they deserve such an honour?"

Gurbani teaches:

I would like to ask if Kaljug is Randip Singh from SPN, and if you disbelieve in the reality of devas which Gurbani teaches about as a mythology of made up stories, do you believe in God? And believing in God, but not in avataras do you believe in a Satguru?

Because if the Divine we call God is a splendor of glory, paragas, and devas are shining spiritual beings why believe in one but not the other? Also if an avatar is the Divine Presence descending into sansaar, how is this different from the definition of Satguru which is the Divine Truth which is Light which shines in darkness fundamentally different?

You believe in the Light-Sound which can't be perceived, Nirguna Parabrahma, yet you disbelieve in the Light-Sound which can be perceived, the sargun swaroop. Does this make any sense? If the Divine is all pervading the creation, and is formless and yet has uncountable forms why would you disbelieve in manifestations of millions of Jyots of varying degrees of brightness, including not only devas but every single atma? If Guru is that being which proceeds from what is beyond perception vibrating Shabda/Spanda from the Primal Nada/Omkara into this sansaar as Shabda/Naam/Gurmantra, how is that a different definition than an avatar?

There is no difference.

But if you are saying these beings and definitions are mythology and made up stories, then what is your opinion of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which teaches them to us as Gurmat? Do you bow your hairs to Guru Granth Sahib because you believe it is filled with made up stories and false definitions? Or do you not believe in Gurbani?

Shiva Sutras teach:

Sargun manifestation can be described as as Divine Light, Divine Sound, Divine Form, Divine Taste (rasnaa). If the God, Parmeshvar is all-pervading, how can there be a mythology of His manifestations? The difference between the perjorative use of "mythology" as opposed to "symbolism" is to deny the validity of something. But in this case it is denying the validity of concepts taught in Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If a person, who is an atma can be embodied as human, die and be embodied as a pig, a dog, or be a bhoot. Why disbelieve in devas? Gurbani speaks of devas and avatars. If these are all mythological or metaphorical concepts, then what is God?

Is God also a mythological concept? If the Eko Brahman pervades the sansaar we call that Parabrahm because it's the unity of the finite and the infinite. So it is no longer Brahma of sargun swaroop symbolic of the three gunas of created matter. It pervades to include the infinite as well and becomes Parabrahm. But without the gunas of the Mahadevas: Brahma, Mahesh, Vishnu, there is no brain, no materiality with which to perceive the God. The Totality is the total of all reality, manifest AND unmanifest. If these things are mythological, then God is mythological.

On post #43 of this thread Kaljug writes:

"There is nothing in Gurbani to suggest that Krishna or any of the avatars are worthy of worship or have the avastha of Guru Nanak Dev Ji."

Gurbani says:

Gurbani says:

Gurbani says:

Gurbani says:

It is my humble benti that Gurbani clearly describes Krishna and the Yuga avatars of Vishnu, Narasimha, Ramachadra, Vamana the dwarf, as being Parabrahm and Akal and Jagadeshvar.

So you may have an opinion, but what is the truth of what Gurbani says?