Shastarvidiya.Org'S Sanatan Bull*&@!

[Maha Singh]

Singh2 and others, please show a quote on the Shastarvidiya website which promotes the worship and meditation upon anything but Nirgun Waheguroo, Gurbani and Shastar.

[Kaljug]

Singh2 and others, please show a quote on the Shastarvidiya website which promotes the worship and meditation upon anything but Nirgun Waheguroo, Gurbani and Shastar.

Fateh!

Singh, see the first post in this thread and click on the link to the history section of the shastar vidiya website. The author equates Akal and Mahakaal to Shiva. Given that Nihangs worship Nirgun Waheguru as Akal, this is equivalent to saying that Nihangs are worshippers of Shiva.

K.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Kaljug

[shaheediyan]

Kalyug, have you asked the author of the site what he means by Shiva?

I have never heard Nidar Nihang Singh promoting murti pooja or devi-devta pooja. He does have a more depth understandnig of devi/devtai - and they are not the idols - just because images are used on the site, doesn't mean those images are worshipped - they are simply a visual representation of the real meaning behind the God(s) names - i.e. forms of shakti and a lot more.

There is such a thing as Chandi Pooja which occurs in the akhaara, but it doesn't involve a statue of an 8 armed shastardhari Godess... it is actually a highly effective training technique to polish ones close quarter and moving (direction changing) abilities.

At the same time, he is not of one of those people that has a sissy fit anytime Hindu myythology is mentioned.

Neither does he feel the need to defend himself over other peoples speculation - if anyone is seriously interested in his opinions, then they will go and ask him themeselves rather than having theoretical debates on forums where Nihang Singh is not even present.

With all due respect - his students can only present a limited understanding of his knowledge - which is why in cases - it has been taken completely out of context - and Nihang Singh has been quoted for something a student has said!

[Kaljug]

Kalyug, have you asked the author of the site what he means by Shiva?

I have never heard Nidar Nihang Singh promoting murti pooja or devi-devta pooja. He does have a more depth understandnig of devi/devtai - and they are not the idols - just because images are used on the site, doesn't mean those images are worshipped - they are simply a visual representation of the real meaning behind the God(s) names - i.e. forms of shakti and a lot more.

Fateh!

It's a simple matter really. The author equates Akal (Waheguru) with Shiva. If he means anything different to the Devata by that name, he does not make it clear, and in any case his thinking is not in line with Dasam Granth.

Now, he can use Hindu texts to describe Sadashiv as having the characteristics of Akal as described in Mul Mantar, but that makes as much sense as using Hindu texts to describe what Tibetan Buddhists mean when they talk about Mahakaal (the concepts are different to the extent to being contradictary).

Dasam Granth is pretty clear about the differences between Akal Purakh and the Devatas.

K.

[singh2]

The site is also giving the impression as the skill in weaponary is due to Hindu demigods.

The truth is that use of these weapons were mastered by sikhs under the guidance of guru sahib.

Why to bring the names of those who had no role in honing battleskill of sikhs.

These demigods as shown being lacking in fighting skill and will to fight in krishna avtar section of Dasam granth. They are shown in very poor light by Guru sahib.They take to their heels while engaged in combat by kharag singh a character introduced by Guru sahib.

[Mithar]

I think that if Niddar Singh/Teja Singh did not expose their real views out in public then maybe Niddar Singh's martial arts SV could have been much more bigger. Their views have done more of a disservice to their martial art than anyone else could have done.

I believe that the creators of the SV site still have yet to expose more of their real views. They are still holding it back. Gradually they will expose us to their so called puraatan views.

[Xylitol]

.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Xylitol

[Mystical]

Fateh!

It's a simple matter really. The author equates Akal (Waheguru) with Shiva. If he means anything different to the Devata by that name, he does not make it clear, and in any case his thinking is not in line with Dasam Granth.

Now, he can use Hindu texts to describe Sadashiv as having the characteristics of Akal as described in Mul Mantar, but that makes as much sense as using Hindu texts to describe what Tibetan Buddhists mean when they talk about Mahakaal (the concepts are different to the extent to being contradictary).

Dasam Granth is pretty clear about the differences between Akal Purakh and the Devatas.

K.

From my understanding is that there are three gun's, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. Waheguru is Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer, all are espects of Waheguru. According to the different orders of Dharma, each order will associate one particular gun as Waheguru, each are equal, each is Kal/Akal.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Mystical

[Guest caveman]

With all due respect - his students can only present a limited understanding of his knowledge - which is why in cases - it has been taken completely out of context - and Nihang Singh has been quoted for something a student has said!

I 100% agree with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Xylitol]

From my understanding is that there are three gun's, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. Waheguru is Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer, all are espects of Waheguru. According to the different orders of Dharma, each order will associate one particular gun as Waheguru, each are equal, each is Kal/Akal.

Yes, he lives in Bhrama, Vishnu, Shiva, but he also lives in animals, plants, rocks, and germs.

Actually, Waheguru is above and beyond the three gunas. To reach Him, one must reach Turiya Avastha, Chautha Pad, bhramgyan.

[singh2]

chaaray vayd barahmay ka-o dee-ay parh parh karay veechaaree.

You gave the four Vedas to Brahma, for him to read and read continually, and reflect upon.

taa kaa hukam na boojhai bapurhaa narak surag avtaaree. ||6||

The wretched one does not understand His Command, and is reincarnated into heaven and hell. ||6||

jugah jugah kay raajay kee-ay gaavahi kar avtaaree.

In each and every age, He creates the kings, who are sung of as His Incarnations.

tin bhee ant na paa-i-aa taa kaa ki-aa kar aakh veechaaree. ||7||

Even they have not found His limits; what can I speak of and contemplate? ||7||

Ang 423, SGGS

[amardeep]

It should be stated that the Gita also says that the devi devtas has not found his limits.

Another question: Is it even possible for sikhs/the Gurus to know the limits of God? Does'nt Gurbani state that it is not possible for anyone to know the limits of God?

[Maha Singh]

singh2, please read the full Shabad you posted, as you have missed the key element of the Shabad.

On another note, if the Gurus proclaimed that the Devi Devtas had attained the limits of Vaheguroo, they would be contradicting themselves by making Vaheguroos Ant within reach. Even if you became leen/one with Vaheguroo, you would still not be able to find his limits because Vaheguroo himself is Beant. This shabad emphasises and does the mehima of Vaheguroo, that even such Devtas who people started to worship could not even find the limits of god, that is how beant Akaal Purakh is.

The path of spirituality is not an easy one, overcoming dubidha, vikar and understanding hukam is one thing which can be done by saadhna, to try to find the limits of Vaheguroo is impossible.

Or are you proclaiming that Vaheguroo has a limit?

Edited September 11, 2009 by Maha Singh

[singh2]

Or are you proclaiming that Vaheguroo has a limit?

Maha singh ji

I did not say that waheguru has a limit. It is not purpose of a sikh's life to demarcate his limits. That is not possible.Purpose of our life is to realize him or to be one with Him.That can only be done transgressing maya with His grace.

Gurbani says that These demigods were not able to achieve that status. The subject under discussion is status of these demigods in Sikhism.

[amardeep]

Gurbani says that These demigods were not able to achieve that status. The subject under discussion is status of these demigods in Sikhism.

The Guru's did not state anything new when they said that the demigods had'n reached the limits of God. This is even written in the Gita and, if i remember correctly, the upanishads.

If it is not possible to reach the limits of God for ANYONE then i do not think its fair to use the above shabad as a way of showing they are inferior. As Maha Singh has stated, the purpose of the shabad is Mahima of Waheguru and not to show that the demigods were inferior.

[singh2]

The Guru's did not state anything new when they said that the demigods had'n reached the limits of God. This is even written in the Gita and, if i remember correctly, the upanishads.

If it is not possible to reach the limits of God for ANYONE then i do not think its fair to use the above shabad as a way of showing they are inferior. As Maha Singh has stated, the purpose of the shabad is Mahima of Waheguru and not to show that the demigods were inferior.

There is a school of thought who consider these demigods as Supreme. There is no other authority above them. That line of thought has spill over in sikhism also. The shabad debunks that.

[amardeep]

What school of that is that. Does the term "devta" include Ram Chander and Krishna or is it only ganesha, hanuman, shiva etc who are included in the term "devta"..is there a difference between a devi/devta and avatar or are they the same?

Edited September 11, 2009 by amardeep

[singh2]

What school of that is that. Does the term "devta" include Ram Chander and Krishna or is it only ganesha, hanuman, shiva etc who are included in the term "devta"..is there a difference between a devi/devta and avatar or are they the same?

In Hinduism there is trinity Brahma, Vishnu and mahesh who are considered as supreme Gods. One is creator of the universe, second is sustainer and third is destroyer. Sikhism does not accept this.

Avtar means God is incarnating Himself descending to earth. Rama and krishna were avtars of God Vishnu. Gurbani does not accept that.

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

[Guest]

Gurbani accepts avtarvaad:

Please ponder upon following pankitis:

Jab Jab Arsat Hot Sansara

Tab Tab Deh Dharat Avtara ||

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji

Then Bhai gurdas ji mentions:

Jug Jug Satgur Dharie Avatari ||

In each age, the true guru will take avtar - nirgun vahiguroo transcedent its attributes into avtar or another interpretation of that pauri would be align with sakhi of sri guru hargobind sahib advising his sikhs that i will take avtar four more times.

Regardless whichever interpretation one believes in of bhai gurdas ji varan pankiti- Belief that vahiguroo takes avtar in form of sargun saroop is very much integral part of sikhi..!

[singh2]

Regardless whichever interpretation one believes in of bhai gurdas ji varan pankiti- Belief that vahiguroo takes avtar in form of sargun saroop is very much integral part of sikhi..!

We are all God's creation. He manifests in his creation whether good or bad.

He is capable of doing anything. But Gurbani does not support that God takes birth.

janam maran tay rahat naaraa-in. ||1|| rahaa-o.

The Lord is beyond birth and death. ||1||Pause||

so mukh jala-o jit kaheh thaakur jonee. ||3||

Let that mouth be burnt, which says that our Lord and Master is subject to birth. ||3||

janam na marai na aavai na jaa-ay.

He is not born, and He does not die; He does not come and go in reincarnation.

naanak kaa parabh rahi-o samaa-ay. ||4||1||

The God of Nanak is pervading and permeating everywhere. ||4||1||

ang 1136 SGGS

[Guest]

God does not take birth. Incarnation word itself does not do justice to describe avtar, transcedent would be better term to describe avtarvaad. To read more about this subject please read this topic - http://www.sikhawareness.com//index.php?showtopic=8645 . Even spiritual school of thoughts of Hinduism ie- vedanta and others does not believe god actually takes birth.

[singh2]

God does not take birth. Incarnation word itself does not do justice to describe avtar, transcedent would be better term to describe avtarvaad. To read more about this subject please read this topic - http://www.sikhawareness.com//index.php?showtopic=8645 . Even spiritual school of thoughts of Hinduism ie- vedanta and others does not believe god actually takes birth.

The link says that avtar is sargun manifestation of divine. In other words it means when a person has acquired godly virtues by meditation he becomes God like. That means overcome five evils and gone beyond influence of maya.

This is what gurbani says on such persons who aquire these virtues

ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਸੇਵਕੁ ਸੋ ਹਰਿ ਜੇਹਾ

ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਹੁ ਮਾਣਸ ਦੇਹਾ

Har kaa savak so har jaehaa

Bhed n jaanahu maanas daehaa:

God's servant becomes like God.

Do not think that, because of his human body, he is different

ang 1076

But the avtars we are discussing here did not reach that stage. Gurbani says that they were not able to go beyond influence of maya. hence they do not fall in this category of saintly souls.

Edited September 12, 2009 by singh2

[Xylitol]

Gyani Thakur Singh ji in his katha stated that when Waheguru takes sargun form, the body is made in the womb, it is made to kick to keep all others in illusion, but the jyot only enters as it is being born, so the Avtar actually does not take birth.

Avtar does not have to be just of waheguru, avtar could also be of bhrama, vishnu, or shiva. Each manifestation of the demigods is unique, they are different, it is not the same shiva taking joon again and again. Hindus, however, believe that it is the same shiva taking birth again and again. the Sikh belief, according to Sant Jagjit Singh ji, is that the demigods are a shakti of Waheguru (like a limited collection of some of his powers, not pooran waheguru) and it's a fresh incarnation each time. Guru ji, on the other hand, had all of his powers. back to topic please. bhul chuk mwaaf.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Xylitol

[Kaljug]

back to topic please. bhul chuk mwaaf.

LOL

I was going to make the same benti. I didn't recognise the thread when I read it again today.

K.

[singh2]

Per hinduism Krishna and Ram Chander jis were avtars of Vishnu.

This is what Guru Gobind singh sahib writes about them

ਜੌ ਕਹੌ ਰਾਮ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਅਜੈ ਅਤਿ ਕਾਹੇ ਕੌ ਕੌਸ਼ਲ ਕੁੱਖ ਜਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਕਾਲ ਹੂੰ ਕਾਲ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹਿ ਕੌ ਕਿਹਿ ਕਾਰਣ ਕਾਲ ਤੇ ਦੀਨ ਭਯੋ ਜੂ ॥

जौ कहौ राम अजोनि अजै अति काहे कौ कौशल कु्ख जयो जू ॥ काल हूं काल कहै जिहि कौ किहि कारण काल ते दीन भयो जू ॥

If we consider Ram as Unborn, then how did he take birth from the womb of Kaushalya ? He, who is said to be the KAL (destroyer) of KAL (death), then why did get himself engulfed by KAL?

33 swaiyes, dasam granth sahib

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