Gurmat and the Gita

[shaheediyan]

"I do not say other religions are 100% false (meaning have no truth) but they are not complete and cannot give muktee."

I didn't know religions gave mukti.

[Kaljug]

tSingh:

Fateh!

Firstly, thanks for clarifying your views, and my apologies for misunderstanding your words.

To your first question...no. You have misunderstood what I have written. Continuity with earlier avatars does not mean that our dharam is the same as earlier dharam. I tried to explain to you in simple terms why there is a need to think and clarify where we stand in relation to vaishnavs.

What is your poinion as to where we stand in relation to Vaishnavs? What is the explanation for some describing the Gurus as being avatars of Visnu and the general Sikh view that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was sargun form of nirguna brahman?

Secondly, there are a number of errors in your post. Firstly Sikhs are not 'beyond the gunas'. This is to become something termed gunateet and is an indicator of one who has obtained brahamgyan. The antahkaran is inherently shaped by the influence of the three gunas, so to be removed of the three gunas is an indicator of what is called manonash, the end of the modifications of the mind. A Sikh is undertaking the teaching and practice of the Guru to achieve that state. To achieve this one has to first remove the blemishes within the mind and that means keeping it fixed in satoguna. Then even this has to be removed.

I should have chosen my words more carefully, I think. My point was that, where many Hindu Saadhus seem to consider Satogun worthy of their attention to the exclusion of the other two, the majority of Sikhs live in gristhi jeevan where it is not possible to live a Sattvic lifestyle in its entirety, especially if one has a very active job. How is a Sikh supposed to be Sant-Sipahi and live a Sattvic lifestyle, in your opinion?

Your reference to 'hindu sadhus' is by proxy also a reference to the majority of the brahamgyanis who have manifested through the Guru Panth, because if you read of their jivans you find that they all usually undertook intensive sadhana and austerity to achieve brahamgyan. This teaching is found in the very khalsa mehima section written by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself on the nature of the khalsa.

I'm not sure what your point is here. A Sikh is supposed to practice bhakti and sadhana to achieve brahamgyan, that was never a question. I just don't believe that one who lives a tamoguni lifestyle (e.g., Nihangs) are incapable of achieving this, though it may involve extra effort that is not neccesary for a behangam Saadh

Therefore what you find among Nihangs, Nirmale, Sevapanthis, Udasis, Gyanis of the last few centuries is a recognition that when Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the khalsa panth he recognised the svabhaav of his different Sikhs and instituted differnet practices for different natures. At its most intense the shaastardhari yudh Khalsa - those great warriors constantly engaged in battle, constantly focused on the need to kill effectively - are to follow practices different from others, and vice versa, those who followed the sant roop were to follow different practices. The sant path is satoguni, the soorbir path is either said to be tamoguni or rajo-satoguni depending on which nihangs you speak to. I have yet to meet a pukka Nihang in the UK or India who rejects the place of Udasis and Nirmale in the Panth as Guru instituted orders.

My point was this: who among the many Sant Mahapurukh of today preach this recognition of different practices? In my experience it is no one. You even said yourself that one of the head Mahants of the Udasi order (many of whom are now Shaivites rather than Sikhs) looks down upon Nihangs for continuuing their warrior traditions. How many Mahapurush today tell us anything other than the usual Hindu Saadh/Sattoguni/Vaishnav/whatever mat of living like a hermit?

Lets not get too technical but bhang means cannabis which is the key ingredient in sukhnidhaan!

OK, but FYI cannabis is also used medicinally in ayurveda. I is usually taken with calamus or black pepper and other herbs to prevent the soporific effects of bhang, i.e. the tamoguni effect is counterbalanced with herbs of a non-tamoguni nature.

This hatred that many Western Sikhs have for sukhnidaan is rare in India where some at least consider it acceptable for it to be used medicinally or for those engaged in great spiritual disciplines or extremely physical pursuits (wrestling etc). Just for the record also, I do not take sukhnidaan and do not believe that it should be consumed except for by those Nihangs living a life of seva or by Singhs involved in war. I believe that it requires discipline to take sukhnidaan that the majority of Sikhs just do not have.

You state you have spoken to a number of Nirmale about this. Could you tell me who you have spoken to? Who exactly do you mean by Nirmale? The reason I ask is because I'm surprised that you think Nirmale are killing off the sant-sipahi tradition among Sikhs because Nirmale are numerically small and have marginal influence these days. Plus the Nirmale I know and the Nirmale who over the last two centuries have written on this don't agree with eating meat for themselves but accept that it is one path that exists. The reference to the Udasi mahant is because you stated that i) all sants have been influenced by the nirmale and ii) influenced by the supposed vaishnav dietary habits adopted by nirmale. Udasis are quite distinct from Nirmale and are certainly not vaishnav.

Sant Baba Jagjit Singh Harkhowale is the most recent Nirmala-influenced Sant I have spoken to. He is dead-set against jhatka and sukhnidaan for any reason.

Perhaps I should have just said Hindu rather than Vaishnav, though I believe that the idea of vegetarianism as a path for all in Hinduism is an idea that is not found in the Vedas and became popular after the writing of Mahabharat.

I'm surprised that from reading your post you do not see a place for satoguni sants in your definition of Sikhs. A couple of questions for you:

1) What are your feelings about Bhai Kanhaiya, Sant Sundar Singh Bhindranwale, Sant Nand Singh, Sant Attar Singh, Sant Ishar Singh Rarewale..to name a few? They were not Sikhs right?

2) From your reading of Gurbani what is the means of gaining moksh with regards to spiritual practice?

I see a place for them all, I do not believe that this is the only way of being a good Sikh. Sant Ishar Singh is one of the most beautiful human beings I have ever seen.

Regards,

K.

[das]

I agree with Neo and tSingh in the context that I always place Puran Brahmgyanis above modern day so called scholars. The important difference is: Scholars need to research something based upon the their own bhud; whereas Puran Brahmgyani does NOT research anything, in-fact everything comes directly from HIM (GOD) because "There is no difference between WAHEGURU and Brahmgyani".

I do not say other religions are 100% false (meaning have no truth) but they are not complete and cannot give muktee.

Saying that other religions cannot mukti is false. In-fact NO religion can give mukti, ONLY True Guru can give mukti and True Guru is NOT bounded by any religion. Another fact is that: From all the religions, Sikhism is the religion where one has the very easy access to True Guru (Guru Granth Sahib Ji) but in other religions one has to find True Guru himself. So, it's somewhat hard to get mukti (because search of True Guru is required) in other religions but IT IS very much possible.

e.g If there is a cemented staricase going to the top of building and also there is a rope hanging from top of building....using both one can reach top of the building. We cannot say that rope is incomplete because it cannot take you to the top of the building.

What is the explanation for some describing the Gurus as being avatars of Visnu and the general Sikh view that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was sargun form of nirguna brahman?

See in all yugas before Kalyug, it is agreed that there were avatars and those avatars were actually of Vishnu. We say that in those yugas GOD took birth to propagate Naam, destroy evil etc., IT was GOD who took birth (with limited powers) but used Vishnu a carrier to tranform to earth. Same way, in Kalyug, Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a Puran/Guru avatar or say HE was Nirgun HIMSELF, but on the lower level we can say that Vishnu was used as a carrier of Nirgun/Sargun and therefore Vishnu took the avatar.

e.g There is one Sakhi as follows:

- There was a person who was eligible to get mukti because of his previous birth's bhagti. Once Vishnu and Narad came to that person and asks him that If you need mukti, then I can give it to you. That man refused saying that he has to take care of his children; that man died thinking of his children and became dog; again Vishnu asks the same question; and that man responds that he wants to guard his house from thiefs. Now, he again died of dog and took birth as a "Gande da Kera" and again Guru Nanak Dev Ji asks the same question to that kera, that kera responds that NO, I want to eat the gand of my home. Then Guru Nanak Dev Ji gave him mukti. After getting mukti, that man asked if is this mukti, he should get it long time back. So, here the point is that Vishnu and Guru Nanak Dev Ji inter-changed the roles. I do NOT know how to put this words, but Guru Ji was Nirgun HIMSELF, used Vishnu as carrier, and Vishnu is NOT Nirgun.

Waheguru --> Kaal and Maya --> Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv. In Vaisnavi traditions, the one GOD is Vishnu and is NOT the one from TriDev.

[Kaljug]

Waheguru --> Kaal and Maya --> Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv. In Vaisnavi traditions, the one GOD is Vishnu and is NOT the one from TriDev.

Fateh!

This is the only problem that I have with what you have written. Gurbani clearly states that the Devi/Devatay are not the Supreme Being, Dasam Bani even claims that these are all failed beings who made their devotees to worship themselves instead of Akal Purakh. Vishnu referring to himself, or his devotees referring to him, as the Supreme is still not in line with Gurbani. My point is that Gurbani refers to Waheguru as Hari, Gopal, Ram - but that does not make Hari (Vishnu), Gopal (Krishna/Vishnu) or Ram of Ayodhya Akal Purakh.

By the way, Shaivites also refer to Shiva as Supreme, Shaktas call Devi Supreme, etc etc, but they are still referring to their respective idols.

K.

[Bijla Singh]

Yes Bijla Singh I'm referring to the last line of pauri 47...which is entirely contextualised by the following pauri using the same term 'jugi' in the context of earlier avatars and the term sat jugi, kaljugi. It also reads like a direct paraphrase of the Gita regarding 'yada yada'. The following pauri directly draws parallels between avatars in earlier 'jugi's and the historical 'Satiguru'. That is the interpretation of Pandit Narayan Singh also. The two plus two interpretation I find a little odd and inconsistent with references elsewhere in Gurbani. plus I think we are all aware of Dr. Veer Singh Ji's agenda as seen in his editing sakhis out of Prachin Panth Prakash (see elsewhere). There was no way on earth that he would be willing to accept that line as it is.

So now Bhai Veer Singh had an agenda? Is it the only excuse left for you to use when you desperately want to justify your opinions? Every word has multiple meanings and your interpretation makes no sense at all because it doesn’t fit the context. Jug means jora or pair. Satguru does take birth in every yug. Go through the pauri line by line first.

By the way it is pauri 49. Have you even read Giani Hazara Singh’s veechar on this pauri? Pandit Tara Singh Nirotam and Kartar Singh Dakha also interpreteted it the same way. Vasudev did not even exist in Satyug. Waheguru is not simran of Vishnu in Satyug. When taken literally the interpretation would be contradictory to Gurbani, rest of the Vaars and history. Correct meanings are:

ਵ – ਵਾਸਦੇਵ – ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਵਾਸਾ ਹਰ ਥਾਂ ਤੇ ਹੈ

ਹ – ਹਰੀ – ਪ੍ਰਾਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ

ਗ – ਗੋਬਿੰਦ – ਸਰਬ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲਕ

ਰ – ਰਾਮ – ਜੋ ਹਰ ਕਿਤੇ ਰਮਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ

[das]

Fateh!

This is the only problem that I have with what you have written. Gurbani clearly states that the Devi/Devatay are not the Supreme Being, Dasam Bani even claims that these are all failed beings who made their devotees to worship themselves instead of Akal Purakh. Vishnu referring to himself, or his devotees referring to him, as the Supreme is still not in line with Gurbani. My point is that Gurbani refers to Waheguru as Hari, Gopal, Ram - but that does not make Hari (Vishnu), Gopal (Krishna/Vishnu) or Ram of Ayodhya Akal Purakh.

By the way, Shaivites also refer to Shiva as Supreme, Shaktas call Devi Supreme, etc etc, but they are still referring to their respective idols.

K.

I guess you mis-read my post. I NEVER claim or said that Devi/Devatay are supreme being. In-fact when I write:

Waheguru --> Kaal and Maya --> Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv.

It means that Waheguru created Maya and Kaal, then Maya along with Kaal created 3 devtas: Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva. and then these 3 deities created other 33 crore devte. Where I said that these devta are supreme being?

The ONLY being and Supreme Being is Waheguru Himself. HE is the only Sach/Truth.

[Kaljug]

I guess you mis-read my post. I NEVER claim or said that Devi/Devatay are supreme being. In-fact when I write:

Waheguru --> Kaal and Maya --> Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv.

It means that Waheguru created Maya and Kaal, then Maya along with Kaal created 3 devtas: Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva. and then these 3 deities created other 33 crore devte. Where I said that these devta are supreme being?

The ONLY being and Supreme Being is Waheguru Himself. HE is the only Sach/Truth.

Fateh!

Sorry, veera, I should have been a little more clear. I wasn't talking about you but there seems to be a definite theme in some traditional schools of Sikhi that seem to consider beings like Mahavisnu or Krishna forms of Akal or quivalent to Akal.

I hope you didn't take offence as none was intended. :-)

Regards,

K.

[das]

not a problem bhaji.....but GOD/WAHEGURU is ONE........whether we call HIM Ram, Hari, MahaShiva or MahaVishnu etc......Why can't Waheguru be refered as Maha-Vishnu.....Maha means higher .....therefore higher than Vishnu.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Bijla Singh, relax, there is no need to get emotional! I don't desperately try to justify anything. We're discussing Gurmat here not football so we should do so in a calm and respectful manner.

To answer your question, yes I have read the pauri line by line!

I was contextualising Bhai Veer Singh Ji's interpretation of 'jugi jugi', not the meaning of the four names referred to from the four yugas. I was not being disrespectful to Bhai Sahib but pointing out that if a scholar is willing to edit sections out of a text to fit his understanding of Gurmat, you will not find him giving credence to an interpretation that does not accord with his particular view. I think his act of editing amply illustrates how strongly he felt about the correctness of his own stance on such issues.

Yes I have Vaheguru Mantrarth by Pandit Tara Singh Narotam Ji, and yes I concur with you that the interpretation of each constituent of the Vaheguru mantra you have given is that of Pandit Tara Singh Narotam Ji, with slight differences of expression. It might be worth pointing out that Pandit Ji uses this interpretation to justify his argument (which is not accepted among the majority of Nirmale) that Sargun Braham is therefore Vishnu Bhagvan! Mahant Ganesha Singh Ji, Pandit Narayan Singh Ji and others on the other hand accepts the three earlier names as reference to the mantras from earlier yugas.

So yes I agree with you that there are differences in the interpretation of the constituent parts of Vaheguru mantra...but on jugi jugi, it is my view that it makes more sense to accept that the answer to the question is that in 'Kaliyug' the remaining guru avatars will be of 'sodhi' vans as described by Guru Maharaj at the beginning of Bachitar Natak, which is a suryavanshi lineage of kshatriyas. As for future yugas, then Satiguru-Bhagvan will again manifest. As we all know Sri Guru Maharaj states in Bachitar Natak 'jab jab hot arisht apaaraa, tab tab deh dharat avtaaraa'.

With respect I have read you arguments on this before so no need to repeat yourself.

t

Edited August 11, 2009 by tSingh

[Bijla Singh]

I am calm and relaxed. My take is that if one wants to disagree with something then they must provide rational reasons rather than mere excuses.

In my understanding Bhai Veer Singh’s interpretation is correct on “jug jug” as it fits better into the context of the pauri. Darshan of six Mahals have been seen and how many more will there be? Answer is four more. Saying "Satguru will come in every yug" is completely out of context and contradictory to Gurbani. Context of Bachittar Natak is different as it talks about avtars coming in human form and eventually getting engulfed by Kaal. From this it is clear that avtars cannot give mukti. Only Satguru can. It also states that many Kishan, Bishan, Raam, Shiv etc have come and gone but nowhere does it state that Guru Sahib is in the same cycle or if Satguru comes and goes. Bachittar Natak promotes Kaal as the supreme whereas Vaars promote Guru Sahib (saroop of Akaal) as the supreme. Since Satguru Granth Sahib Ji is already here in partakh, there is no need for any avtar to come. When these avtars failed and were “apni apni urjhana” by not preaching “Satnam”, “Aap Naryan Kaaladhar” manifested as Satguru and “Satnam Da Chakkar Firaya”. Fog and darkness was dispelled and Satguru stayed here forever. Gurbani is jugo jugo atal and will still be here when the next yug comes. Its message will still be the truth. Avtars may come but they will not win over Kaal and will not be equal to or above Guru Granth Sahib. Khalsa is Kaal Purakh Ki Fauj and therefore does not need any future avtars.

[Kam1825]

Right Sampardai Arths as per Sant Gurbachan singh Ji and Sant Mohan Singh Ji Bhindrawalae is that in pauri 46 of Vaar 1 the Sikhs asked Sri Guru Hargobind Ji about how many more sargun avtars they would take. They used the words Jug Jug to state that they would take only 2 + 2 = 4 more avtars. The Sikhs then asked who will be the Guru after that to Guide the sikhs through the ages. At that point they repeated the last line and explained that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji will be given the gurgaddi and will the Guru 'jug jug' throughout the ages to follow that. I also have sant hari singh jis katha of this pauri which i will post in a couple of months!

[SAadmin]

Bijla Singh,

Before we start another vichar on all the points you mentioned, its important to sort of break them down in different categories. So far points you mentioned that needs to be discussed in sequence are-

1. Interpretation of word- jug jug and whole tukh jug jug satgur dharie avtar can only binded into 2 + 2 and sakhi above.

2. Satguru kitab/label only limited to akaal purkh and sri guru nanak dev ji.

3. Vedas or different religious text in this case- gita does not preach mukhti nor follower of vedas/vedant/gita can get mukhti from understanding and abhyaas of tatgyan listed in vedas.

I think best suitable point for this particular topic- gurmat and gita would be number three. I will just quickly touch on your point 3 context of satguru you raised and point 1 is already addressed by tsingh but point three would be best suitable for this thread and should be focus of this topic. Therefore, i ll create a different thread to discuss context of satguru in depth on later date.

Bijla Singh you wrote:

I respect Sant Ji but he was not god. He was a human and did make mistakes in interpreting Gurbani. Just pick up Gurbani Paath Darpan and see it yourself. He used to say that Gurbani has no limits then why should we limit the interpretation to him only. Have you studied Gurbani from viyakaran perspective? How about interpretation of Bhai Kahan Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh, Bhai Veer Singh, Prof. Sahib Singh, Prin. Teja Singh etc? Giani Gurdit Singh spent more than 30 years in researching about Bhagats and their banis. His work cannot be matched by anyone else and facts he has brought forward cannot easily be ignored. I do not say other religions are 100% false (meaning have no truth) but they are not complete and cannot give muktee. They will give gyan, may help one progress spiritually but salvation is only in the house of Guru Nanak Sahib. Gurbani gyan is not as same as gyan of Vedas or other books. Daya Nand stated that Gurbani is “vedan da saar” and your statement is not any different if gyan is the same. Vedas are full of hypocritical stories and karam kaand whereas Gurbani is not. This is a long topic but Gurbani says that Vedas cannot give muktee even if one reads them for four yugs. Vedas are not Guru. Only Poora Guru gives muktee and Gurmat does not give status of Guru to anyone but Guru Nanak Jot.

Your understanding of Gurbani is very limited. So I suggest you study Vaars first in proper context and also study bhagat bani. Do not simply limit yourself to a certain sant and take his words to be absolute truth. Study with reasons and disagree with reasons. Once again I can only do veechar as it leads to Sikhs learning from each other by keeping their personal opinions below the authority of Gurbani. Veechar is done with an open mind and if at the end two people disagree, it does not end with frustration and personal attacks but with happiness and joy.

Bijla Singh,

I don't think anywhere i implied that i limit myself to certain sant in my post where i simply quoted what sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale said regarding comparison between gurmat and other mats. How this different from you quoting bhai veer singh ji to prove your point in this thread. In the past I have quoted not only from sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale but from bhai kahn singh nabha, faridkot teeka along with other scholary work.

Now going to your claim based on your understanding and research -

1. I do not say other religions are 100% false (meaning have no truth) but they are not complete and cannot give muktee. They will give gyan, may help one progress spiritually but salvation is only in the house of Guru Nanak Sahib.

2. Gurbani says that Vedas cannot give muktee even if one reads them for four yugs.

3. Only Poora Guru gives muktee and Gurmat does not give status of Guru to anyone but Guru Nanak Jot.

Disclaimer so that no one takes me out of context:

First of all, this is what i have discovered soo far though my understanding and research in path of sikhi, gurmat is nirole marg and gurbani have parchand tat gyan of vahiguroo free from all the karam kaands, thats why its soo unique. I consider gurmat also to be purushutam marg just like bijla singh and everyone else here. But with that being said, I also beleive other mats also have tat gyan of vahiguroo nirgun and have bhramgyan, all though sometimes clouded with karam kaands sometimes complex to understand because of linguistic barriers. If jaigaso of other mats is dedicated to get bhramgyan or kaival mukhti via dhikr, simran of vahiguroo, regardless of whichever jugs/yugas they are in, they were and will be graced with kaival mukhti/bhramgyan he/she does not have to go through gurmat or gurmat naam intiation/ khanda batta da amrit/naam dridtha as gurbani/gurmat sidhant of sikhism never promoted monoply over vahiguroo ji.

Bijla singh , I will now address your points again, its already addressed before:

1. Biggest example how other dharams are able to provide mukhti is just look at the bhagats life belong to different dharams and how they were jeven mukht.

True bhagats which are included in sri guru granth sahib ji didnt follow socio-religious boundaries of their own dharam (ie- islam, hinduism) but they belong to mystical orders of their dharam ie- sufi, shaivism, vaishnav as(tsingh posted), advait vedanta at higher stages.

Here are examples from sri guru granth sahib ji and sri dasam granth sahib ji:

Here sri guru arjan dev ji is saying see bottom- out of all religions, sraist is the one who meditates on vahiguroo.

ਸਰਬ ਧਰਮ ਮਹਿ ਸ੍ਰੇਸਟ ਧਰਮੁ ॥

sarab dhharam mehi sraesatt dhharam ||

Of all religions, the best religion

ਹਰਿ ਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਿ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਕਰਮੁ ॥

har ko naam jap niramal karam ||

is to chant the Name of the Lord and maintain pure conduct.

Obviously based on your theory, sri guru nanak dev ji gave deliverance of gurmat naam to all bhagats then they got mukht but only 0.1% in the panth beleives in such theory. Whilst, I don't deny sri guru nanak dev ji physically meeting ravidas, bhagat kabir and others but giving stories of sri guru nanak dev ji giving all the bhagats gurmat naam in gupt or agupt form and then they got mukht seems contradictory with gurbani. It just does not sit well sakhiya of ganka papan, ajamal, sain, dhru, parlad, jaidev bhai gurdas ji talks about.

You are simply replacing nirgun vachak of satguru in gurbani with satguru nanak dev ji of sargun or shabad form of vahiguroo in the varan and bhagata di bani to make Sikhi monopoly over naam and satguru word. It does not take genious to find out, at each and every step gurbani contradicts that mindset of using sargun/shabad form of vahiguroo in gurbani meaning where in fact it's dedicated to nirgun form of vahiguroo. There are places where satguru nanak dev ji is labeled as satguru nanak in gurbani, if sri guru nanak dev ji gave gurmat naam to all the bhagats then i m sure gurbani would have explicit about it and sakhiyas of previous bhagats' guru giving bhagats naam mentioned in bhai gurdas ji varan and gurbani wouldn't be even mentioned.

Also to say satguru in gurbani all along refers to sri guru nanak dev ji whether in sargun deh or shaabad form is pretty inconsistent with mahalla 1 where sri guru nanak dev ji themselves mentioned nirgun bhram as their satguru/guru and where sri guru gobind singh ji himself said:

Aad ant ekie avtara soi guru samjheo hamara ||

Avtar is from aadi nirgun bhram, consider that is my guru.

If guru gobind singh ji can call nirgun parbhram vahiguroo as guru from aadi kaal, then why satguru shabad in bhagata di bani cannot refer to nirgun parbhram vahiguroo??

Here is another one, look at whichever way you can, bring any teekar you like, this shababd exactly what it appears/explicit to be:

ਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕੋਊ ਰਾਫਜੀ ਇਮਾਮ ਸਾਫੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਬੋ ॥

हिंदू तुरक कोऊ राफजी इमाम साफी मानस की जाति सबै एकै पहिचानबो ॥

Someone is Hindu and someone a Muslim, then someone is Shia, and someone a Sunni, but all the human beings, as a species, are recognized as one and the same.

ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰੀਮ ਸੋਈ ਰਾਜਕ ਰਹੀਮ ਓਈ ਦੂਸਰੋ ਨ ਭੇਦ ਕੋਈ ਭੂਲਿ ਭ੍ਰਮ ਮਾਨਬੋ ॥

करता करीम सोई राजक रहीम ओई दूसरो न भेद कोई भूलि भ्रम मानबो ॥

Karta (The Creator) and Karim (Merciful) is the same Lord, Razak (The Sustainer) and Rahim (Compassionate) is the same Lord, there is no other second, therefore consider this verbal distinguishing feature of Hindusim and Islam as an error and an illusion.

ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਏਕ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਜੋਤ ਜਾਨਬੋ ॥੧੫॥੮੫॥

एक ही की सेव सभ ही को गुरदेव एक एक ही सरूप सबै एकै जोत जानबो ॥१५॥८५॥

Thus worship the ONE LORD, who is the common enlightener of all; all have been created in His Image and amongst all comprehend the same ONE LIGHT. 15.85.

ਦੇਹਰਾ ਮਸੀਤ ਸੋਈ ਪੂਜਾ ਔ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਓਈ ਮਾਨਸ ਸਬੈ ਏਕ ਪੈ ਅਨੇਕ ਕੋ ਭ੍ਰਮਾਉ ਹੈ ॥

देहरा मसीत सोई पूजा औ निवाज ओई मानस सबै एक पै अनेक को भ्रमाउ है ॥

The temple and the mosque are the same, there is no difference between a Hindu worship and Muslim prayer; all the human beings are the same, but the illusion is of various types.

ਦੇਵਤਾ ਅਦੇਵ ਜੱਛ ਗੰਧ੍ਰਬ ਤੁਰਕ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨਿਆਰੇ ਨਿਆਰੇ ਦੇਸਨ ਕੇ ਭੇਸ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਉ ਹੈ ॥

देवता अदेव ज्छ गंध्रब तुरक हिंदू निआरे निआरे देसन के भेस को प्रभाउ है ॥

The gods, demons, Yakshas, Gandharvas, Turks and Hindus… all these are due to the differences of the various garbs of different countries.

ਏਕੈ ਨੈਨ ਏਕੈ ਕਾਨ ਏਕੈ ਦੇਹ ਏਕੈ ਬਾਨ ਖਾਕ ਬਾਦ ਆਤਿਸ ਔ ਆਬ ਕੋ ਰਲਾਉ ਹੈ ॥

एकै नैन एकै कान एकै देह एकै बान खाक बाद आतिस औ आब को रलाउ है ॥

The eyes are the same, the ears the same, the bodies are the same and the habits are the same, all the creation is the amalgam of earth, air, fire and water.

ਅਲਹ ਅਭੇਖ ਸੋਈ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਅਉ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਓਈ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਭੈ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਬਨਾਉ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥੮੬॥

अलह अभेख सोई पुरान अउ कुरान ओई एक ही सरूप सभै एक ही बनाउ है ॥१६॥८६॥

Allah of Muslims and Abhekh (Guiseless) of Hindus are the same, the Puranas of Hindus and the holy Quran of the Muslims depict the same reality; all have been created in the image of the same Lord and have the same formation. 16.86.

2. I think you have only taken one pakh(angle) of gurbani where gurbani criticized karam kaands in vedas and puran, quran and people around that time, but you have ignored other pakh of gurbani where gurbani acknowledges vedas is also supported by naam and naam is main objective(Tat) in vedas.

Gurbani says the following:

http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/darpan2/0284.html

ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਸਗਲੇ ਜੰਤ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਖੰਡ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੰਡ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਸੁਨਨ ਗਿਆਨ ਧਿਆਨ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਆਗਾਸ ਪਾਤਾਲ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਸਗਲ ਆਕਾਰ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੇ ਧਾਰੇ ਪੁਰੀਆ ਸਭ ਭਵਨ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਕੈ ਸੰਗਿ ਉਧਰੇ ਸੁਨਿ ਸ੍ਰਵਨ ॥ ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਜਿਸੁ ਆਪਨੈ ਨਾਮਿ ਲਾਏ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਚਉਥੇ ਪਦ ਮਹਿ ਸੋ ਜਨੁ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਏ ॥੫॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 284}

The Naam is the Support of all creatures. The Naam is the Support of the earth and solar systems. The Naam is the Support of the Simritees, the Vedas and the Puraanas. The Naam is the Support by which we hear of spiritual wisdom and meditation. The Naam is the Support of the Akaashic ethers and the nether regions. The Naam is the Support of all bodies. The Naam is the Support of all worlds and realms (sggs 284).

Here is another one:

ਜੀਅਹੁ ਮੈਲੇ ਬਾਹਰਹੁ ਨਿਰਮਲ ॥

jeeahu mailae baaharahu niramal ||

Inwardly polluted, and outwardly pure.

13 Raamkalee Guru Amar Das

ਬਾਹਰਹੁ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਜੀਅਹੁ ਤ ਮੈਲੇ ਤਿਨੀ ਜਨਮੁ ਜੂਐ ਹਾਰਿਆ ॥

baaharahu niramal jeeahu th mailae thinee janam jooai haariaa ||

Those who are outwardly pure and yet polluted within, lose their lives in the gamble.

13 Raamkalee Guru Amar Das

ਏਹ ਤਿਸਨਾ ਵਡਾ ਰੋਗੁ ਲਗਾ ਮਰਣੁ ਮਨਹੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿਆ ॥

eaeh thisanaa vaddaa rog lagaa maran manahu visaariaa ||

They contract this terrible disease of desire, and in their minds, they forget about dying.

14 Raamkalee Guru Amar Das

ਵੇਦਾ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਉਤਮੁ ਸੋ ਸੁਣਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਜਿਉ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ॥

vaedhaa mehi naam outham so sunehi naahee firehi jio baethaaliaa ||

In the Vedas, the ultimate objective is the Naam, the Name of the Lord; but they do not hear this, and they wander around like demons.

ਕਹੈ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਜਿਨ ਸਚੁ ਤਜਿਆ ਕੂੜੇ ਲਾਗੇ ਤਿਨੀ ਜਨਮੁ ਜੂਐ ਹਾਰਿਆ ॥੧੯॥

kehai naanak jin sach thajiaa koorrae laagae thinee janam jooai haariaa ||19||

Says Nanak, those who forsake Truth and cling to falsehood, lose their lives in the gamble. ||19||

I know you personally love the bhai kahn singh nabha interpertation of this shabad in hum hindu nahin based on your previous post on this shabad but personally speaking that interpertation is simply knee jerk reaction in insecurity in response to rss propaganda specially after looking at the fact all the teekas including bhai vir singh ji along with sampardaie teekas agrees with above interpertation.

Since you have mentioned bhai vir singh ji few times in this debate just to be consistent. If you read bhai sahib's teek in his panj granthi you will see he also interperted the tuk as pretty same as one above:

http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?book...ge&page=919

vaedhaa mehi naam outham so sunehi naahee firehi jio baethaaliaa ||

In the Vedas, the ultimate objective is the Naam, the Name of the Lord; but they do not hear this, and they wander around like demons.

3. I totally agree with you when you said only poora guru can give mukhti. But as i said earlier you are replacing nirgun vachak of satguru/guru in gurbani with sargun saroop of satguru nanak dev ji or shabad form-vahiguroo in the varan and bhagata di bani to make Sikhi monoply over naam and satguru word.

Here is another example:

Here bhai gurdas ji talking about bhagit kabir ji encounter with his guru ramanand ji. The line in bold, bhai gurdas talks about that the wondrous sargun form of guru- referring to bhagat ramand ji, even turns even animals and ghost into angels. Look at the theme of this shabad, its starts with bhagat kabir encounter with his guru- ramamand, just read just line before the bold one, its talk about in metaphoric language, when iron touches stone becomes gold just like guru- reffering to bhagat ramamand ji samaratha turns even animals and ghost into angels, kabir is after all human, and line after- Meeting the wonderous Guru the disciple wonderfully merges into the great wonderous Lord. the disiple- bhagat kabir and guru being his vidya gurdev. 2nd and 3rd last line distincation is made - meeting wonderous guru and merges into wonderour lord. And last line- after merging- Bhai Gurdas ji says- Ram and Kabir became indentical.

hoe birakath banaarasee rehi(n)dhaa raamaana(n)dh gusaaee||

Being detached from the world, Brahmin Ramanand lived in Varanasi (Kasi).

a(n)mrith vaelae out(h)akae jaa(n)dhaa ga(n)gaa nhaavan thaaee||

He would rise early in the morning and go to the Ganges to bathe.

ago(n) hee dhae jaaeikae la(n)maa piaa kabeer thithhaaee||

Once even before Ramanand, Kabir went there and lay in the way.

pairee(n) ttu(n)b out(h)aaliaa bolahu raam sikh samajhaaee||

Touching with his feet Ramanand awakened Kabir and told him to speak ‘Ram’, the true spiritual teaching.

jiou(n) lohaa paaras shhuhae cha(n)dhan vaas ni(n)m mehikaaee||

As the iron touched by philosopher’s stone becomes gold and the margosa tree (Azadirachta indica) is made fragrant by sandal.

pasoo paraethahu(n) dhaev kar poorae sathigur dhee vaddiaaee||

The wondrous Guru turns even animals and ghosts into angels.

acharaj no acharaj milai visamaadhae visamaadh milaaee||

Meeting the wonderous Guru the disciple wonderfully merges into the great wonderous Lord.

jharanaa jharadhaa nijharahu(n) guramukh baanee agharr gharraaee||

Then from the Self springs a fountain and the words of the gurmukhs shape a beautiful form

raam kabeerai bhaedh n bhaaee ||aa||

Now Ram and Kabir became identical.

[The Khalsa Fauj]

This is an interesting topic. Both sides are basing their arguments based on their understanding of Bhai Gurdas Vaars and Gurbani and Dasam Granth. Both sides are making some valid points but one side has a bit of an advantage than the other side because of using quotes from Gurbani and Dasam Granth.

[shaheediyan]

Bijla Singh,

"Saying "Satguru will come in every yug" is completely out of context and contradictory".

Kindly expand on this with examples, is 'SATGUR not Aad Sach, Jugaad Sach, Hai Bhi Sach and Hosi Bhi Sach? He and his 'Purkh Poorai' have guided man throughout the ages... the same is happeneing to the Panth as what happened to all other faiths, look at all sides of the Panthic coin - i.e. corrupted politics, reformist ideology, extremism, God monopoly... although I sincerely believe Gurbani is a boundless treasure (for different reasons), one cannot put monopoly over God via Sikhi. I know Muslims, Christians and Hindus that are very dedicated, compassionate, read above the lines of their faith, hugely charitable, commit to much public service and universally minded i.e. not greater than thou - may be they are pulling wool over my eyes, but I choose to believe Bhagat Kabir Ji "ਅਵਲਿ ਅਲਹ ਨੂਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕੇ ਸਭ ਬੰਦੇ ॥" and choose to believe that Purkh can find connection and higher meaning with Parmatma through loving inner contemplation - rising above the varying foundations of their faith. The same is true within Sikhi - we have so many different facets - but only a fanatic would argue against the fact we have had Mahapursh or Sants in nearly all order (including modern ones) who have not seen eye to eye on all things.

I find the mentalitiy of many today very disturbing, the hate/paranoia (I'm not talking about you specifically Bijla Singh) spewed towards non-Sikhs, along with 'greater than thou (my faith/God/understanding)' attitude, shows me many Sikhs today are becoming (have become) exactly that which our Gurus spoke against. This past century, Sikhs have attempted and made huge strides in achieving the goal of making 'Sikhism' another 'only' product of salvation, amongst an already bustling shelf. N30 Singh has made a good point re Bhai Gurdas Jis mention of Bhagat Ramanand being Bhagat Kabir Jis (and many other Bhagats Guru). I have made this point many times before as well, with very weak responses...

We have become exactly that which we spend all our time criticising - not surprising, as Gurbani teaches us we become that which we do jaap of...

Seriously, think and reflect on all the Sikhs you nkow (inc yourself) do you really think yourself better than all the non-Sikhs you know...

I certainly don't, i am constantly in awe of the beautiful different dharmic attributes and selfless actions I see in people from all streams of life... there are actions are and can only be inspired by Satgur.

[HarjasDevi]

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:

ਏਕ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨੰ ਸਰਬ ਦੇਵਾ ਦੇਵ ਦੇਵਾ ਤ ਆਤਮਾ ॥

eaek kirasanan sarab

dhaevaa dhaev

dhaevaa th aathamaa ||

The One Lord Krishna is the Divine Lord of all; He is the Divinity of the individual soul.

~SGGS Ji ang 469

Gurbani says:

ਆਪੇ ਗੋਪੀ ਕਾਨੁ ਹੈ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਬਨਿ ਆਪੇ ਗਊ ਚਰਾਹਾ ॥

aapae gopee kaan hai piaaraa ban aapae goo charaahaa ||

The Beloved Himself is the milk-maid and Krishna; He Himself herds the cows in the woods.

~SGGS Ji ang 606

Gurbani says:

ਕ੍ਰਿਸ੍ਨਾ ਤੇ ਜਾਨਊ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਚੰਤੀ ਨਾਚਨਾ ॥੧॥

kirasaa

thae jaanoo har har naachanthee naachanaa ||1||

Know that, through Krishna, the Lord, Har, Har, the dance of creation dances. ||1||

~SGGS Ji ang 693

Gurbani says:

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.

~SGGS Ji ang 1082

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.

ਨਿਰਗੁਨ ਤੇ ਸਰਗੁਨ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਾਰੰ ॥

niragun thae saragun dhrisattaaran ||

From formless, He appeared as form.

~SGGS Ji ang 250

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

[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:

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਵੇਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਈ ॥

guramukh naadhan guramukh vaedhan guramukh rehiaa samaaee ||

The Guru's Word is the Sound-current of the Naad; the Guru's Word is the Wisdom of the Vedas; the Guru's Word is all-pervading.

ਗੁਰੁ ਈਸਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਰਖੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬਤੀ ਮਾਈ ॥

gur eesar gur gorakh baramaa gur paarabathee maaee ||

The Guru is Shiva, the Guru is Vishnu and Brahma; the Guru is Paarvati and Lakhshmi.

ਜੇ ਹਉ ਜਾਣਾ ਆਖਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਹਣਾ ਕਥਨੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥

jae ho jaanaa aakhaa naahee kehanaa kathhan n jaaee ||

Even knowing God, I cannot describe Him; He cannot be described in words.

ਗੁਰਾ ਇਕ ਦੇਹਿ ਬੁਝਾਈ ॥

guraa eik dhaehi bujhaaee ||

The Guru has given me this one understanding:

ਸਭਨਾ ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਇਕੁ ਦਾਤਾ ਸੋ ਮੈ ਵਿਸਰਿ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥੫॥

sabhanaa jeeaa kaa eik dhaathaa so mai visar n jaaee ||5||

there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him! ||5||

~SGGS Ji ang 2

ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh

Truth is One, sages call it by many names, Agni, Yama, Matariswan.

~Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46

ਗਣ ਗੰਧਰਬ ਸਿਧ ਅਰੁ ਸਾਧਿਕ ॥

gan gandhharab sidhh ar saadhhik ||

The servants of God, the celestial singers, the Siddhas and the seekers,

ਸੁਰਿ ਨਰ ਦੇਵ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾਦਿਕ ॥

sur nar

dhaev breham brehamaadhik

||

the angelic and divine beings, Brahma and those like Brahma,

ਚਤੁਰ ਬੇਦ ਉਚਰਤ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤਿ ॥

chathur baedh

oucharath dhin raath ||

and the four Vedas proclaim, day and night,

ਅਗਮ ਅਗਮ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਆਗਾਧਿ ॥

agam agam thaakur aagaadhh ||

that the Lord and Master is inaccessible, unapproachable and unfathomable.

ਗੁਨ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਭਨੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਹਨੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਪਰੈ ਪਰਾਤਿ ॥੨॥੨॥੩੫॥

gun baeanth baeanth bhan naanak kehan n jaaee parai paraath ||2||2||35||

Endless, endless are His Glories, says Nanak; they cannot be described - they are beyond our reach. ||2||2||35||

~SGGS Ji ang 535

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:

अतो विन्दुरतो नादो रूपमस्मादतो रसः।

प्रवर्तन्तेऽचिरेणैव क्षोभकत्वेन देहिनः॥१०॥

Ato vindurato nādo rūpamasmādato rasaḥ|

Pravartante'cireṇaiva kṣobhakatvena dehinaḥ||10||

From this (Unmeṣa) (átaḥ... átaḥ... asmāt átaḥ),

Vindú --divine light

-- (vindúḥ)1,

Nādá --divine sound

-- (nādáḥ),

Rūpá --divine form

-- (rūpám) (and)

Rása --divine taste

-- (rásaḥ) soon (acireṇa evá) appear (pravartante) to an embodied soul (dehinaḥ) as a disturbing factor (kṣobhakatvena)||10||

1 It can also be written "Bindú".

दिदृक्षयेव सर्वार्थान्यदा व्याप्यवतिष्ठते।

तदा किं बहुनोक्तेन स्वयमेवावभोत्स्यते॥११॥

Didṛkṣayeva sarvārthānyadā vyāpyavatiṣṭhate|

Tadā kiṁ bahunoktena svayamevāvabhotsyate||11||

When (yadā) (a Yogī) desiring to see (didṛkṣayā), as it were (iva), all (sárva) objects (arthān), abides (avatiṣṭhate) pervading (vyāpī) (them all), then (tadā), what (is the point) (kim) of saying (uktena) much (about it) (bahunā)? He will perceive or experience (that) (avabhotsyate) by himself (svayám evá)!||11||

Spanda Karika

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.

[Maha Singh]

Right Sampardai Arths as per Sant Gurbachan singh Ji and Sant Mohan Singh Ji Bhindrawalae is that in pauri 46 of Vaar 1 the Sikhs asked Sri Guru Hargobind Ji about how many more sargun avtars they would take. They used the words Jug Jug to state that they would take only 2 + 2 = 4 more avtars. The Sikhs then asked who will be the Guru after that to Guide the sikhs through the ages. At that point they repeated the last line and explained that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji will be given the gurgaddi and will the Guru 'jug jug' throughout the ages to follow that. I also have sant hari singh jis katha of this pauri which i will post in a couple of months!

I have trouble understanding how Jug Jug means 2+2, please explain.

[Matheen]

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

"Kisan Bisan Kabhoo Nah Dhiyaho, Kan Suneh Pehchan Na Thin So....."

Of course devi/devte/bhoot/preyt etc exist. Gurbani tells us there have been millions of Krishnas created and destroyed over time, same with Shiv etc.

The point being made was that the attention of our worship or bhagti is Waheguru/Akaal Purkh as described in Mool Mantar.

Please read the GUrbani tuks below, from Sri Dasam Granth.

ਰਾਮ ਰਸੂਲ ਕਿਸ਼ਨ ਬਿਸ਼ਨਾਦਿਕ ਕਾਲ ਕ੍ਰਵਾਲਹਿ ਕੂਟੇ ॥ ਕੋਟ ਉਪਾਇ ਧਾਇ ਸਭ ਥਾਕੇ ਬਿਨ ਤਿਹ ਭਜਨ ਨ ਛੂਟੇ ॥੫॥੭੯॥

राम रसूल किशन बिशनादिक काल क्रवालहि कूटे ॥ कोट उपाइ धाइ सभ थाके बिन तिह भजन न छूटे ॥५॥७९॥

Ram, Muhammad, Krishna, Vishnu etc., All were destroyed by this sword of KAL; crores of measures, but without the devotion of One Lord, no one achieved redemption.5.79.

ਰਾਮ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਰਸੂਲ ਕੋ ਉਠਿ ਲੇਤ ਨਿਤਪ੍ਰਤ ਨਾਉ ॥ ਕਹਾ ਵੈ ਅਬ ਜੀਅਤ ਜਗ ਮੈ ਕਹਾ ਤਿਨ ਕੋ ਗਾਉ ॥੧੦॥੮੪॥

राम क्रिशन रसूल को उठि लेत नितप्रत नाउ ॥ कहा वै अब जीअत जग मै कहा तिन को गाउ ॥१०॥८४॥

O being ! You always remember the names of Rama, Krishna and Rasul, tell me, are they alive and is there any abode of theirs in the world?10.84

ਸੋਰਠ ॥

सोरठ ॥

SORATH

ਤਾਸ ਕਿਉ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਹੀ ਜੋ ਹੋਹਿ ਹੈ ਅਬ ਹੈ ॥ ਨਿਹਫਲ ਕਾਹੇ ਭਜਤ ਪਾਹਨ ਤੋਹਿ ਕਛੁ ਫਲਿ ਦੈ ॥

तास किउ न पछानही जो होहि है अब है ॥ निहफल काहे भजत पाहन तोहि कछु फलि दै ॥

Why do you not pray to Him, who will be there in future and who is there in the present? You are worshipping the stones uselessly; what will you gain by that worship?

ਤਾਸ ਸੇਵਹੁ ਜਾਸ ਸੇਵਤਿ ਹੋਹਿ ਪੂਰਣ ਕਾਮ ॥ ਹੋਹਿ ਮਨਸਾ ਸਕਲ ਪੂਰਣ ਲੈਤ ਜਾ ਕੋ ਨਾਮ ॥੧੧॥੮੫॥

तास सेवहु जास सेवति होहि पूरण काम ॥ होहि मनसा सकल पूरण लैत जा को नाम ॥११॥८५॥

Only worship Him who will fulfil your wishes; mediate on that Name, which will fulfil your wishes.11.85.

ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨੇ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਯੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਕਹੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਨੈ ਅਵਤਾਰਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਸਾਰ ਸਭੈ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਜੀਅ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੨॥

काहूं ने राम कहयो क्रिशना कहु काहूं मनै अवतारन मानयो ॥ फोकट धरम बिसार सभै करतार ही कउ करता जीअ जानयो ॥१२॥

Someone calls him Ram or Krishna and someone believes in His incarnations, but my mind has forsaken all useless actions and has accepted only the One Creator.12.

ਕਾਹੇ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਮਹੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਭਾਖਤ ਕਾਹਿ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਹੈ ਨ ਰਘ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਜਦ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਰਮਾਪਤਿ ਤੈ ਜਿਨ ਕੌ ਬਿਸ੍ਵਨਾਥ ਪਛਾਨਯੋ ॥

काहे को एश महेशहि भाखत काहि दिजेश को एस बखानयो ॥ है न रघ्वेश जद्वेश रमापति तै जिन कौ बिस्वनाथ पछानयो ॥

Why do you consider Shiva or Brahma as the Lord ? There is none amongst Ram, Krishna and Vishnu, who may be considered as the Lord of the Universe by you;

ਏਕ ਕੋ ਛਾਡਿ ਅਨੇਕ ਭਜੈ ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਪਰਾਸਰ ਬਯਾਸ ਝੁਠਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਸਜੇ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੌ ਬਿਧ ਨੈਕ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੫॥

एक को छाडि अनेक भजै सुकदेव परासर बयास झुठानयो ॥ फोकट धरम सजे सभ ही हम एक ही कौ बिध नैक प्रमानयो ॥१५॥

Relinquishing the One Lord, you remember many gods and goddesses; in this way you prove Shukdev, Prashar etc. as liars; all the so-called religions are hollow; I only accept the One Lord as the Providence.15.

ਕੋਊ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਤ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਕੋਊ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਬਤੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਕੋਊ ਕਹੈ ਬਿਸ਼ਨੋ ਬਿਸ਼ਨਾਇਕ ਜਾਹਿ ਭਜੇ ਅਘ ਓਘ ਕਟੈ ਹੈ ॥

कोऊ दिजेश को मानत है अरु कोऊ महेश को एश बतै है ॥ कोऊ कहै बिशनो बिशनाइक जाहि भजे अघ ओघ कटै है ॥

Someone tells Brahma as the Lord-God and someone tells the same thing about Shiva; someone considers Vishnu as the hero of the universe and says that only on remembering him, all the sins will be destroyed;

ਬਾਰ ਹਜ਼ਾਰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਅਰੇ ਜੜ ਅੰਤ ਸਮੈ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਤਜਿ ਜੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਧਯਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਿ ਹੀਏ ਜੋਊ ਥੇ ਅਬ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਆਗੈ ਊ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥

बार हज़ार बिचार अरे जड़ अंत समै सभ ही तजि जै है ॥ ताही को धयान प्रमानि हीए जोऊ थे अब है अरु आगै ऊ ह्वै है ॥१६॥

O fool ! think about it a thousand times, all of them will leave you at the time of death, therefore, you should only meditate on Him, who is there in the present and who will also be there in future.16.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Matheen

[Kaljug]

Harjas "Kaur",

No, I'm not Randip Singh; and no, selectively quoting tuks to propagandise your Hindumat-inspired opinions is not equivalent to what Gurbani says.

The discussion on what Gurmat thinks of Devatas has already taken place - on this website, and in real life with your RSS ancestors. I suggest you conduct a search or perhaps just start off by reading Hum Hindu Nahin by Kahn Singh Nabha. Your ancestors lost this war of words a long time ago.

Refer specifically to the tuks that Matheen has quoted, and see the tuk that refers to Krishan as a worm.

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.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

K.

[HarjasDevi]

Kaljug: eats chatka Devatay for breakfast

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

ਗੁਰ ਸੇਵਾ ਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਜਾ ਕਉ ਨਦਰਿ ਕਰੇਇ ॥

gur saevaa thae har paaeeai jaa ko nadhar karaee ||

Serving the Guru, the Lord is obtained, when He bestows His Glance of Grace.

ਮਾਣਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਭਏ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਨਾਮੁ ਹਰੇ ॥

maanas thae

dhaevathae

bheae dhhiaaeiaa naam harae ||

They are transformed from humans into angels, meditating on the Naam, the Name of the Lord.

~SGGS Ji ang 90

"...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.

"Refer specifically to the tuks that Matheen has quoted, and see the tuk that refers to Krishan as a worm."

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.

अतो विन्दुरतो नादो रूपमस्मादतो रसः।

प्रवर्तन्तेऽचिरेणैव क्षोभकत्वेन देहिनः॥१०॥

Ato vindurato nādo rūpamasmādato rasaḥ|

Pravartante'cireṇaiva kṣobhakatvena dehinaḥ||10||

From this (Unmeṣa) (átaḥ... átaḥ... asmāt átaḥ),

Vindú --divine light

-- (vindúḥ)1,

Nādá --divine sound

-- (nādáḥ),

Rūpá --divine form

-- (rūpám) (and)

Rása --divine taste

-- (rásaḥ) soon (acireṇa evá) appear (pravartante) to an embodied soul (dehinaḥ) as a disturbing factor (kṣobhakatvena)||10||

1 It can also be written "Bindú".

Spanda Karikas

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.

ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦੀ ਮਨੁ ਰੰਗਿਆ ਰਸਨਾ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਪਿਆਰਿ ॥

gur sabadhee man rangiaa

rasanaa

praem piaar ||

Their minds are imbued with the Word of the Guru's Shabad; the Love of their Beloved is on their tongues.

~SGGS Ji ang 36

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.

ਸਹਸ ਪਦ ਬਿਮਲ ਨਨ ਏਕ ਪਦ ਗੰਧ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਹਸ ਤਵ ਗੰਧ ਇਵ ਚਲਤ ਮੋਹੀ ॥੨॥

sehas padh bimal nan eaek padh gandhh bin sehas thav gandhh eiv chalath mohee ||2||

You have thousands of Lotus Feet, and yet You do not have even one foot.

You have no nose, but you have thousands of noses. This Play of Yours entrances me. ||2||

ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥

sabh mehi joth joth hai soe ||

Amongst all is the Light-You are that Light.

ਤਿਸ ਦੈ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥

this dhai chaanan sabh mehi chaanan hoe ||

By this Illumination, that Light is radiant within all.

ਗੁਰ ਸਾਖੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਪਰਗਟੁ ਹੋਇ ॥

gur saakhee joth paragatt hoe ||

Through the Guru's Teachings, the Light shines forth.

~SGGS Ji ang 13

deva-māyām — diverse energies of the Lord; SB 2.7.42

deva — living energy; SB 3.6.7

deva-māyā — the external energy of the Lord; SB 4.7.2

deva — persons coming from the heavenly lokas; SB 4.21.26

sarva-deva-mayam — the all-pervading Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all the demigods; SB 9.16.20

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.

ਸੁਅਸਤਿ ਆਥਿ ਬਾਣੀ ਬਰਮਾਉ ॥

suasath aathh baanee

baramaao

||

I bow to the Lord of the World, to His Word, to Brahma the Creator.

ਸਤਿ ਸੁਹਾਣੁ ਸਦਾ ਮਨਿ ਚਾਉ ॥

sath suhaan sadhaa man chaao ||

He is Beautiful, True and Eternally Joyful.

~SGGS Ji ang 4

ਗਣ ਗੰਧਰਬ ਸਿਧ ਅਰੁ ਸਾਧਿਕ ॥

gan gandhharab sidhh ar saadhhik ||

The servants of God, the celestial singers, the Siddhas and the seekers,

ਸੁਰਿ ਨਰ ਦੇਵ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾਦਿਕ ॥

sur nar dhaev breham brehamaadhik ||

the angelic and divine beings, Brahma and those like Brahma,

ਚਤੁਰ ਬੇਦ ਉਚਰਤ ਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਤਿ ॥

chathur baedh oucharath dhin raath ||

and the four Vedas proclaim, day and night,

ਅਗਮ ਅਗਮ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਆਗਾਧਿ ॥

agam agam thaakur aagaadhh ||

that the Lord and Master is inaccessible, unapproachable and unfathomable.

ਗੁਨ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਬੇਅੰਤ ਭਨੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਹਨੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਪਰੈ ਪਰਾਤਿ ॥੨॥੨॥੩੫॥

gun baeanth baeanth bhan naanak kehan n jaaee parai paraath ||2||2||35||

Endless, endless are His Glories, says Nanak; they cannot be described - they are beyond our reach.

~SGGS Ji ang 535

The discussion on what Gurmat thinks of Devatas has already taken place - on this website, and in real life with your RSS ancestors. I suggest you conduct a search or perhaps just start off by reading Hum Hindu Nahin by Kahn Singh Nabha. Your ancestors lost this war of words a long time ago.

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.

ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ ਬਾਵਨ ਭਾਇਓ ॥

sathajug thai maaniou shhaliou bal baavan bhaaeiou

||

In the Golden Age of Sat Yuga, You were pleased to deceive Baal the king, in the form of a dwarf.

ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਘੁਵੰਸੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥

thraethai thai maaniou raam raghuvans kehaaeiou

||

In the Silver Age of Traytaa Yuga, You were called Raam of the Raghu dynasty.

ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ਕੰਸੁ ਕਿਰਤਾਰਥੁ ਕੀਓ ॥

dhuaapur kirasan muraar kans kirathaarathh keeou

||

In the Brass Age of Dwaapur Yuga, You were Krishna; You killed Mur the demon and saved Kans.

ਉਗ੍ਰਸੈਣ ਕਉ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਭੈ ਭਗਤਹ ਜਨ ਦੀਓ ॥

ougrasain ko raaj abhai bhagatheh jan dheeou ||

You blessed Ugrasain with a kingdom, and You blessed Your humble devotees with fearlessness.

ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰੁ ਅੰਗਦੁ ਅਮਰੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥

kalijug pramaan naanak gur angadh amar kehaaeiou

||

In the Iron Age, the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, You are known and accepted as Guru Nanak, Guru Angad and Guru Amar Das.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਬਿਚਲੁ ਅਟਲੁ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਓ ॥੭॥

sree guroo raaj

abichal attal aadh purakh furamaaeiou ||7||

The sovereign rule of the Great Guru is unchanging and permanent, according the Command of the Primal Lord God. ||7||

~SGGS Ji ang 1390

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?

[singh2]

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?

Gurbani considers krishna as an avtar of Vishnu. Vishnu per hinduism is one of the supreme Lord. Sikhism rejects that. per sikhism Supreme Lord is akal purakh.

Sikh scriptures describe Krishna as an Avtar of Vihsnu and not of Akal purakh.

Krishna was one of the avtar of vishnu. This what guru sahib says in Dasam granth about God.

ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਕਹੂੰ ਨ ਤਾਹਿ ਲਖਾਯੋ ॥

किनहूं कहूं न ताहि लखायो ॥

None hath been able to comprehend Thee,

ਇਹ ਕਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਅਲਖ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥

इह करि नामु अलख कहायो ॥

Therefore thou hast been called `Alakh` (Incompre-hensible);

ਜੋਨਿ ਜਗਤ ਮੈ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨ ਆਯਾ ॥

जोनि जगत मै कबहूं न आया ॥

Thou dost not take birth in the world;

ਯਾਤੇ ਸਭੋ ਅਜੋਨ ਬਤਾਯਾ ॥੧੩॥

याते सभो अजोन बताया ॥१३॥

Therefore all called Thee `Ajon` (Unborn).13

Chaubis avtar, Dasam granth

ਆਦਿ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਕਹਾਇ ਕਹੋ ਕਿਮ ਦੇਵਕਿ ਕੇ ਜਠਰੰਤਰ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਤ ਨ ਮਾਤ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਤਿਹ ਕਯੋਂ ਬਸੁਦੇਵਹਿ ਬਾਪੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥੧੪॥

आदि अजोनि कहाइ कहो किम देवकि के जठरंतर आयो ॥ तात न मात कहै जिह को तिह कयों बसुदेवहि बापु कहायो ॥१४॥

He ( krishna) is said to be unborn and beginningless, then how did he come into the womb of Devaki ? He , who is considered without any father or mother, then why did he cause Vasudev to be called his father?14.

33 swaiyes , dasam granth sahib

ਜੋ ਚਉਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਕਹਾਏ ॥

जो चउबीस अवतार कहाए ॥

Those who are called twenty-four incarnations;

ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਤੁਮ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਨਿਕ ਨ ਪਾਏ ॥

तिन भी तुम प्रभ तनिक न पाए ॥

O Lord ! they even could not realise thee in a small measure;

ਸਭ ਹੀ ਜਗ ਭਰਮੇ ਭਵ ਰਾਯੰ ॥

सभ ही जग भरमे भव रायं ॥

They became kings of the world and got deluded;

ਤਾ ਤੇ ਨਾਮ ਬਿਅੰਤ ਕਹਾਯੰ ॥੭॥

ता ते नाम बिअंत कहायं ॥७॥

Therefore they were called by innumerable names..

Chaubis avtar , Dasam granth

ਆਦਿ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਕਹਾਇ ਕਹੋ ਕਿਮ ਦੇਵਕਿ ਕੇ ਜਠਰੰਤਰ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਤ ਨ ਮਾਤ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਤਿਹ ਕਯੋਂ ਬਸੁਦੇਵਹਿ ਬਾਪੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥੧੪॥

आदि अजोनि कहाइ कहो किम देवकि के जठरंतर आयो ॥ तात न मात कहै जिह को तिह कयों बसुदेवहि बापु कहायो ॥१४॥

He ( krishna) is said to be unborn and beginningless, then how did he come into the womb of Devaki ? He , who is considered without any father or mother, then why did he cause Vasudev to be called his father?14.

33 swaiyes , dasam granth sahib

Our Gurus did not have different opinions about status of these demigods. Moreover on ang 1082 there are various functional names of God. That does not mean that God came down to this earth as these deities.

[singh2]

Guru sahib on status of these demigods

ਕਯੋਂ ਕਹੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨਿਧ ਹੈ ਕਿਹ ਕਾਜ ਤੇ ਬੱਧਕ ਬਾਣ ਲਗਾਯੋ ॥ ਅਉਰ ਕੁਲੀਨ ਉਧਾਰਤ ਜੋ ਕਿਹ ਤੇ ਅਪਨੋ ਕੁਲ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਯੋ ॥

कयों कहु क्रिशन क्रिपानिध है किह काज ते ब्धक बाण लगायो ॥ अउर कुलीन उधारत जो किह ते अपनो कुल नासु करायो ॥

Krishna himself is considered the treasure of Grace, then why did the hunter shoot his arrow at him ? He has been described as redeeming the clans of others then he caused the destruction of his own clan;

33 swaiye, Dasam granth

Also Guru ji advises us

ਕਹੂੰ ਲੈ ਠੋਕ ਬਧੇ ਉਰ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੌ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਕਹਯੋ ਹਰਿ ਮੰਦਰ ਮੈ ਹਰਿ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਸੀਤ ਕੈ ਬੀਚ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥

कहूं लै ठोक बधे उर ठाकुर काहूं महेश कौ एस बखानयो ॥ काहूं कहयो हरि मंदर मै हरि काहूं मसीत कै बीच प्रमानयो ॥

Someone has tied the stone-idol around his neck and someone has accepted Shiva as the Lord; someone considers the Lord within the temple or the mosque;

ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨੇ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਯੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਕਹੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਨੈ ਅਵਤਾਰਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਸਾਰ ਸਭੈ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਜੀਅ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੨॥

काहूं ने राम कहयो क्रिशना कहु काहूं मनै अवतारन मानयो ॥ फोकट धरम बिसार सभै करतार ही कउ करता जीअ जानयो ॥१२॥

Someone calls him Ram or Krishna and someone believes in His incarnations, but my mind has forsaken all useless actions and has accepted only the One Creator.12.

33 swaiye , Dasam granth

[Maha Singh]

singh2, rather then copy and paste quotes which youve gathered over the years, read what Harjas is saying. The way you try to bat off debate by pitting Gurbani against Gurbani makes it look like the Guru contradicted himself.

You concentrate so much on the names of Gods, you miss the deeper philosophy. This isnt "The War of the Gods".

Edited October 22, 2009 by Maha Singh

[Xylitol]

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."

Gurbani clearly refers to the Sikh panth as distinct. Feel free to look it up.

[singh2]

singh2, rather then copy and paste quotes which youve gathered over the years, read what Harjas is saying. The way you try to bat off debate by pitting Gurbani against Gurbani makes it look like the Guru contradicted himself.

You concentrate so much on the names of Gods, you miss the deeper philosophy. This isnt "The War of the Gods".

Maha singh ji

I have given quotes from Sikh scripture. Please let me know wherein sikh scriptures these Demigods are advised to be worshipped.

Do not rely on harjas kaur only.

We are not a derivative religion.

Have you read Bhai Gurdas ji di vaar

maria sikka jagat vich

nanak nirmal panth chalaya

Edited October 22, 2009 by singh2