Do All Religions Lead To God?

[amardeep]

I just wrote a long reply and it was deleted somehow. I'll write it up again later..

[amardeep]

Suryadev: Interesting you use the term Pooran avatar which itself stems from Vedanta.. So you are suggesting that the Gurus merely took over a concept, removed Krishna and Ram Chander and placed themselves within it? According to Taksal and probably the nirmale also Krishna, Ram Chander and the Gurus were Pooran Hari Avatars.

Likewise it is written in the Dasam Granth and even Bhai Gurdaas that Krishna and Ram provided mukhti to their followers in their respective yugas. In this yug Guru Nanak is the Pooran Hari Avatar whose teachings are the most suitable for mukhti.

1. Vedas are incomplete

ਚਾਰੇ ਬੇਦ ਕਥਹਿ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥ ਤੀਨਿ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਕਹਹਿ ਵਖਿਆਨੁ ॥ ਤੁਰੀਆਵਸਥਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਜਾਨੁ ॥੧॥

The four Vedas speak only of the visible forms. They describe and explain the three states of mind, but the fourth state, union with the Lord, is known only through the True Guru. ||1||

ਅਸਟ ਦਸੀ ਚਹੁ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥

The eighteen Puraanas and the four Vedas do not know His mystery.

ਹਰਿ ਨਿਗਮ ਲਹਹਿ ਨ ਭੇਵ ॥

The Vedas do not know the Mystery of the Lord.

Did you even read up on vedant because if you did you would probably undertand what is said in these tuks.. There is no Brahmin who is gonna argue against these tuks as in vedant itself it is stated that the four vedas do not provide mukti! Nor is any Brahmin gonna argue that there is katha on the transcendent nirgun God in the four Vedas as this comes in the Upanishad litterature! Nor is any Brahmin gonna argue against the fact that it is only through a Satguru that mukhti can be achieved (The Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads are clear on this!).

And what litterature knows the mystery of God? Do you think you will be able to grasp the mystery of God by READING Gurbani? Come on, The last tuk is ustat of God and not slander of the 4 vedas..

The Gurus were reittirating what Vedanta itself says.. If you believe these statements are somehow the Gurus' attempts to debunk hinduism you are wrong as these things can be found within the vedic canon itself!

2. Rejecting Hindu and Islamic writings

ਪੰਡਿਤ ਮੁਲਾਂ ਛਾਡੇ ਦੋਊ

ਪੰਡਿਤ ਮੁਲਾਂ ਜੋ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੀਆ ॥ ਛਾਡਿ ਚਲੇ ਹਮ ਕਛੂ ਨ ਲੀਆ ॥੩॥

vedant litterature are of two categories: Sruti and Smriti. Sruti is revealed by God (four vedas upanishads etc) and smriti is man made (puranas, mahabharata, ramayan etc). The tuk says 'that which the pandits have written' clearly meaning the smriti litterature... I dont think any Brahmin will argue that the simriti litterature will provide spirituality nor mukhti to a seeker which is clearly the aim of Baba Kabir in his banis.

3. Greatness of our Guru Granth/Gurbaani

ਪਹਿਲਾ ਆਗਮੁ ਨਿਗਮੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਆਖਿ ਸੁਣਾਏ ਪੂਰੇ ਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਬਚਨੁ ਉਪਰਿ ਆਇਆ ॥

People used to chant and recite the Shaastras and the Vedas, O Nanak, but now the Words of the Perfect Guru have come to be the most exalted of all.

ਪੋਥੀ ਪਰਮੇਸਰ ਕਾ ਥਾਨੁ ॥

This Holy Book is the home of the Transcendent Lord God.

Bani Guru Guru Hai Bani Vich Bani Amrit Saarey

Waho Waho Bani Nirankar Hai Tis Jevad Avar Na Koe

Do a search on this forum for Yug dharma by Tsingh and see the context of how the above tuks should be read.

HYMN XI

An epithalamian charm to ensure the birth of a boy

1 Asvattha on the Sami-tree. There a male birth is certified.

There is the finding of a son: this bring we to the women-folk.

2 The father sows the genial seed, the woman tends and fosters it.

This is the finding of a son: thus hath Prajāpati declared.

3 Prajāpati, Anumati, Sinivāli have ordered it.

Elsewhere may he effect the birth of maids, but here (womb) prepare a boy.

link: http://www.sacred-te.../av/av06011.htm

Again you are just using your mat coming from a culture that hates females to interpret the above. Try to give the lines to a gora english man and tell me if he read any negativity or slander of females into the text??? Where does it say women are inferior or anything? The culture in which the vedas was revealed was based on tribes and such so men were of course the one who hunted and did hard labour so of course men were needed and treasured hence the wish for prayers to have sons... The current crisis in Punjab on hating and killing female babies are mainly based on maya and a growing greedy middle class so stop reading contemporary ideas into an ancient text..

Nowhere in Gurbani does it say that these persons became one with Waheguru by reciting Vedas, Quran or being Hindu/Muslims

.

And no Brahmin is gonna argue that you can become one with God by reciting Vedas.

Another point to note is that Gurbani unites under 1 idea. Meaning all contributors agreed with tuks like Hindu Anna Turku Kaana and Na Hum Hindu Na Musalmaan. Bhagats who met Guru Nanak became Sikhs. Even if you or others might say that they did not meet, we can surely agree that they were not Hindu or Muslim as can be seen from Gurbani.

The hindu anna turk kanna is a description of the majority of people form the two traditions. you think that Guru ARjan thought Mian Meer to have been one eyed?? Or Mansoor? Rumi?? Hafez???

When I say it is possible to for people of other religions to achieve mukhti im not talking about hindus who do pooja of murtis all day and bathe in the ganges all night long, nor muslims who are obsessed with sharia. Im talking about the one's who follow a Guru/pir (ie nirgunvadis and sufis) who care more for union with God than paradise.. Who spend more time working on controling their vices than merely to just stop reacting on their vices etc.in case of christiand then its the gnostics..

Im talking about a specific minority in the two traditions, im not talking about the majority.. Why would I even argue its possible for mainstream muslim and hindus to achieve union with God when their purpose and target is paradise/baikunth??

ਮਾਰਫਤੀ ਮਾਰੂਫ ਲਖ ਹਕ ਹਕੀਕਤ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਮਾਣੇ।

Myriad people have become famous by reaching the last stage of knowledge, the marfati and many in His divine Will have merged into the haqiqat, the truth.

Edited July 24, 2011 by amardeep

[amardeep]

The Bachitar Natak does not make sense if read and interpreted litteraly as it is historically wrong then as well as contradictive to what is written later on in the bachitar natak granth.. Its obviosly to be intepreted allegorically.

Furthermore the Bachitar Natak in many places are word by word sayings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita clearly showing a continuity in teachings... The Guru is the yug avatar reviving ancient teachings...

[Mithar]

The Bachitar Natak does not make sense if read and interpreted litteraly as it is historically wrong then as well as contradictive to what is written later on in the bachitar natak granth.. Its obviosly to be intepreted allegorically.

Furthermore the Bachitar Natak in many places are word by word sayings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita clearly showing a continuity in teachings... The Guru is the yug avatar reviving ancient teachings...

Amongst other things, Sri Dasam Granth is probably the most vocal when it comes to doing khandan of avtarvaad of the Hindus. Shree Guru Gobind Singh Jee clearly makes his stance clear on what his views are on the Avtars of the Hindu and many other Hindu practices. This great Granth is what is preventing Sikhs from being swallowed up by the Hindu faith and keeping the Nyaraapan of the Khalsa alive. That is why Kala Afghanis have been planted to put doubts about Sri Dasam Granth amongst the Sikhs and eventually the line distinguishing the uniqueness of Sikhi will disappear and the eventual absorption of Sikh faith into the Hindu faith will happen.

No Sikh who has firm belief in Sri Dasam Granth can believe in Avtarvaad of the Hindus. Sure Vishnu and his avtars were great entities, but Dasam Banis like Chandi Di Vaar makes it clear that even the many good things that the Avtars of Vishnu did was not Vishnu but Vaheguru, it is Vaheguru's shakti that is working through the avtars, otherwise these Avtars are mere insects(according to Dasam Granth). Bachitar Naatak makes it clear that Vaheguru created Vishnu, but Vishnu began to call himself as God(Bishan Aap ki ko thehraayo). These Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu who were created by Vaheguru but eventually they forgot Vaheguru and began think of themselves as God(Prabh Ko Prabhu kinhoon jana).

Please study Sri Dasam Granth more and see for yourself what opinion Guru Gobind Singh jee holds of avtarvaad and other Hindu practices like idol worshiping.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Mithar

[Kaljug]

Amardeep wrote:

your methodology makes no sense.. IF you wish to prove that Sikhism does'nt believe all paths can lead to God if followed properly then quote Gurbani instead of picking random lines from various scriptures.

Then you said:

When I say it is possible to for people of other religions to achieve mukhti im not talking about hindus who do pooja of murtis all day and bathe in the ganges all night long, nor muslims who are obsessed with sharia. Im talking about the one's who follow a Guru/pir (ie nirgunvadis and sufis) who care more for union with God than paradise.. Who spend more time working on controling their vices than merely to just stop reacting on their vices etc.in case of christiand then its the gnostics..

Im talking about a specific minority in the two traditions, im not talking about the majority.. Why would I even argue its possible for mainstream muslim and hindus to achieve union with God when their purpose and target is paradise/baikunth??

ਮਾਰਫਤੀ ਮਾਰੂਫ ਲਖ ਹਕ ਹਕੀਕਤ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਮਾਣੇ।

Myriad people have become famous by reaching the last stage of knowledge, the marfati and many in His divine Will have merged into the haqiqat, the truth.

All you are really saying is that mukti is available to those who follow a religion like Sikhi, given that there is nothing like the idea of union with parabrahman in the Semitic religions and there is little emphasis on nirgun brahman in common hinduism. You certainly do not make any kind of case for Sikhi teaching that all religions lead to God.

Sufi ideas like fanaa only entered islam much later through muslim scholars coming into contact with Indic philosophy - there is certainly no such thing in the quran. Even the definition of haqiqat varies for different Sufi sects (some do not even have haiqat as the final stage), so you cannot even say all Sufi sects lead one to God.

K.

[amardeep]

Kaljug: Partly yes. .What im saying is that people who practice spirituality (as opposed to ritualism and obsession of rules) they can surely become one with God.

The various sufi tariqas originally was hidden groups who practiced their philosophy in small groups... Then later on they grew into big tariqas yes but the concept of parampara is prevelant among the orders so they trace their lineage back to the prophet or one of the 12 imams.

Mithar: It does'nt make sense to say that the Dasam Granth is what keeps sikhs apart from mering into Hinduism as the Guru Granth Sahib itself makes sure of this. please read on up avatarvaad in Sikhism on this forum it has been discussed many times so no need to take it up again..

[amardeep]

Do people here really think that "Jin prem kio tin hi prabh payo" only applies for Sikhs??? come on people

[Mithar]

Mithar: It does'nt make sense to say that the Dasam Granth is what keeps sikhs apart from mering into Hinduism as the Guru Granth Sahib itself makes sure of this. please read on up avatarvaad in Sikhism on this forum it has been discussed many times so no need to take it up again..

Gurbani from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is pure premabhagti. It is very deep and meaningful, which is partly the reason why so many people misinterpret it. Bani from Sri Dasam Granth is very direct, it is almost like a punch to the face to those who beleive in avtarvaad of the Hindus or Idol worshiping.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Mithar

[amardeep]

People can also just read vedant, that is also a punch in the face to those who believe in idol worship

Sikhi also believes in avatarvaad.. im surprised you dont believe in this since you have been on this forum for so many years

[Mithar]

Sikhi also believes in avatarvaad.. im surprised you dont believe in this since you have been on this forum for so many years

Which is why I differentiated by saying "avtarvaad of the Hindus". Our concept of avtarvaad is not the same. Hindus(Vaishnavite) beleive Vishnu as the supreme Lord. But our Gurus were the manifestation of Gurujyot which existed since the beginning.

[jaikaara]

again what happenes in the hindus worship the avtars as the supreme power , for eg Raja Ramchander ji is a mahapurush in sikhi but not Akaal, he is a servant of Akaal.

The Gurus are avtars not in the same sense as hindus.

[SikhKhoj]

According to Taksal and probably the nirmale also Krishna, Ram Chander and the Gurus were Pooran Hari Avatars.

Says who? As far as I know, Baba Gurbachan Singh said that Guru Nanak were above Avtarvaad.

Did you even read up on vedant because if you did you would probably undertand what is said in these tuks.. There is no Brahmin who is gonna argue against these tuks as in vedant itself it is stated that the four vedas do not provide mukti! Nor is any Brahmin gonna argue that there is katha on the transcendent nirgun God in the four Vedas as this comes in the Upanishad litterature! Nor is any Brahmin gonna argue against the fact that it is only through a Satguru that mukhti can be achieved (The Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads are clear on this!).

Vedas are not the word of God. Show Gurbani tuks to prove otherwise. Vedas don't provide mukti because they have mistakes and are not complete. Do you believe in Bhagvad Geeta? And in Krishan? Krishan was a lustful person who was nothing less than todays spoilt playboys. He advocated ‘chal kapat’ (deceiving on battle field) as seen in the wider text that contains Geeta, the Mahabharat. The Kauravas did Kapat too, but that doesn’t justify the Kapat that Krishan promoted to get Karan killed.

And what litterature knows the mystery of God? Do you think you will be able to grasp the mystery of God by READING Gurbani? Come on, The last tuk is ustat of God and not slander of the 4 vedas..

Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t provide you Mukti? Reading, understanding and implementing are equally important. There are people who read or hear Gurbani for the first time and have amazing experiences, such as being cured from deadly diseases. Altough if we don’t understand Gurbani, we shall end up with the same fate as Hindus and Muslims, but we shall still get some Lahaa from Gurbani. I have had first hand experiences of people reciting Gurbani and benefitting, even though they aren’t that much into Rehat, although that this highly discouraged in Gurbani and Gurmat.

You will never agree that Gurmat rejects Vedas, and will find excuses on every tuk I provide. But show mewhere Gurbani says that if you read and implement Vedas you shall get Mukti?

If Vedas were really complete and from God, Gurus might have aswell retained their Hindu faith and written explanatory granths on Vedas and preached that amongst people. But Gurmat and history show us otherwise.

The Gurus were reittirating what Vedanta itself says.. If you believe these statements are somehow the Gurus' attempts to debunk hinduism you are wrong as these things can be found within the vedic canon itself!

Were Gurus ‘reiterating’ what Vedas said or did they utter messages coming from Dhur in the form of Gurbani? It can’t be both ways, if it was, Gurus would have retained Vedas. So decide wheter Gurus preached Vedas or Dhur Ki Bani.

vedant litterature are of two categories: Sruti and Smriti. Sruti is revealed by God (four vedas upanishads etc) and smriti is man made (puranas, mahabharata, ramayan etc). The tuk says 'that which the pandits have written' clearly meaning the smriti litterature... I dont think any Brahmin will argue that the simriti litterature will provide spirituality nor mukhti to a seeker which is clearly the aim of Baba Kabir in his banis.

Where in Gurbani does it say that God revealed these Vedas and Upanishads? Were Vedas written down by God? If not, they were written by ‘Hindus’ or Pandits right? So that Tuk rightly rejects all Hindu and Muslim literature and says we take inspiration from none. Why do you keep talking from a Brahmin point of view, try watching things from a Sikh perspective.

[SikhKhoj]

Again you are just using your mat coming from a culture that hates females to interpret the above. Try to give the lines to a gora english man and tell me if he read any negativity or slander of females into the text??? Where does it say women are inferior or anything? The culture in which the vedas was revealed was based on tribes and such so men were of course the one who hunted and did hard labour so of course men were needed and treasured hence the wish for prayers to have sons... The current crisis in Punjab on hating and killing female babies are mainly based on maya and a growing greedy middle class so stop reading contemporary ideas into an ancient text..

What an excuse. Gora English will rightly see that they didn’t like having girls so they specifically wrote out ceremonies to do during pregnancies to ensure birth of baby boys, they won’t go and look for unnecessary arguments as they won’t feel the need to defend Hinduism. In the culture in which Gurus came and revealed Gurmat, women were inferior, did that stop the Gurus from going against society? A god sent soul or message doesn’t care for the societal norms as Gods sent message doesn’t need to adapt to the prevalent society.

Purans have many examples of anti-women mindset, but you don’t believe in them, although some Purans are explananations of some Vedas. Lets look at this quote from your ‘holy’ Rig Veda.

“17 Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline,

Her intellect hath little weight.”

If we look at this and then the above ceremony, does it still not give us a tiny feeling that baby girls were unwelcome (according to that society AND the Vedas). Now don’t start looking for ‘oh-look-at-the-context-or-whole-chapter’ kind of arguments as this is an independant line in the chapter and has nothing much to do with the previous line. I have a feeling you might quote from Charitropakhyaan next, but that is understandable as our Sikhs prefer questioning Sikhi rather than questioning other Mats.

And no Brahmin is gonna argue that you can become one with God by reciting Vedas.

They won’t argue because they know Vedas aren’t as holy as you claim them to be.

The hindu anna turk kanna is a description of the majority of people form the two traditions. you think that Guru ARjan thought Mian Meer to have been one eyed?? Or Mansoor? Rumi?? Hafez???

How many Muslims will consider them as puccay Musalmaans? Next you will say Yogi Allah Yaar Khan was a Muslim too. Sikh tradition tells us that Mian Meer used to recite Gurbani and even tell about it to his students. A true Muslim shall never recite prayers besides the Qur’an, if he does you have to question what kind of Muslim he is. He may be a liberal Sufi but not a good Muslim. But yes the Gurus and Bhagats thought the fundamentalist Muslims to be one-eyed.

When I say it is possible to for people of other religions to achieve mukhti im not talking about hindus who do pooja of murtis all day and bathe in the ganges all night long, nor muslims who are obsessed with sharia. Im talking about the one's who follow a Guru/pir (ie nirgunvadis and sufis) who care more for union with God than paradise.. Who spend more time working on controling their vices than merely to just stop reacting on their vices etc.in case of christiand then its the gnostics..

Im talking about a specific minority in the two traditions, im not talking about the majority.. Why would I even argue its possible for mainstream muslim and hindus to achieve union with God when their purpose and target is paradise/baikunth??

Well those people are following a form of Sikhi then, in ‘Sahejdhari’/incomplete form and without being aware of it. I do agree that people in that way (may) get lahaa, as did people before 1469 by having Gurmat-oriented lives.

But most of the people from other faiths don't have this oppertunity as their life is wasted in useless things promoted by those religions themselves. That just shows how Sikhi is superior and the easiest way to get Lahaa.

ਮਾਰਫਤੀ ਮਾਰੂਫ ਲਖ ਹਕ ਹਕੀਕਤ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਮਾਣੇ।

Myriad people have become famous by reaching the last stage of knowledge, the marfati and many in His divine Will have merged into the haqiqat, the truth.

As Kalyug said, this seems to be a latter idea as ‘merging into the truth’ doesn’t seem to be coming from the Qur’an, more a latter Sufi saying. If not, provide quote from the Qur’an.

Partly yes. .What im saying is that people who practice spirituality (as opposed to ritualism and obsession of rules) they can surely become one with God.

Then they are not following their religion properly but following several aspects of Gurmat without knowing it – and then it is sure that they can gain lots of spiritual advancement.

Edited July 26, 2011 by SikhKhoj

[shaheediyan]

"Sufi ideas like fanaa only entered islam much later through muslim scholars coming into contact with Indic philosophy - there is certainly no such thing in the quran."

Ar Rahmân

Surah 55. The Beneficent, The Mercy Giving

55:26 All that is on earth will perish:

Kullu man AAalayha fanin

55:27 But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord,- full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.

Wayabqa wajhu rabbika thooaljalali waal-ikrami

Amardeep, your head seems to have a strange infatuation with brick walls :-)

Here is something to soothe the pain: http://folkpunjab.com/shahida-parveen/hai-ishq-da-jalwa-har-ja/

[Kaljug]

"Sufi ideas like fanaa only entered islam much later through muslim scholars coming into contact with Indic philosophy - there is certainly no such thing in the quran."

Ar Rahmân

Surah 55. The Beneficent, The Mercy Giving

55:26 All that is on earth will perish:

Kullu man AAalayha fanin

55:27 But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord,- full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.

Wayabqa wajhu rabbika thooaljalali waal-ikrami

Are you serious? Your counterargument is that the word fanin is used in the quran? In a context which has nothing at all to do with the subject under discussion?

K.

[shaheediyan]

Read and contemplate the quoted part of the surah, it couldn't be more clear. The word has only been highlighted so you could see where the concept of fanaa arises from in the Quran. If you do a little research, you will find that there are Sufi texts which date back before the influence of India. Surely Rumi Sahib is also one such example. I don't expect you to accept this, it's more for the benefit of the spectators.

I pray Parmatma is keeping you in good health :-)

[Kaljug]

Read and contemplate the quoted part of the surah, it couldn't be more clear. The word has only been highlighted so you could see where the concept of fanaa arises from in the Quran. If you do a little research, you will find that there are Sufi texts which date back before the influence of India. Surely Rumi Sahib is also one such example. I don't expect you to accept this, it's more for the benefit of the spectators.

I pray Parmatma is keeping you in good health :-)

I've read it, thanks, and it is very clear that it has nothing to do with Sufi belief in al-fanaa. All it says is that Allah creates stuff and then destroys stuff.

Anyway, I give up arguing with you about this. You already made it clear in the avataars thread that amardeep quotes in this thread that you have difficulty believing in the unique status of our Gurus and the avataars, and wish to elevate mohammed and other prophets to the same level, out of some peculiar notion of political correctness applied to the spiritual sphere. As such, I am sure that you will continue to ignore any evidence which points to the utterly obvious fact that there is nothing in the semitic scriptures (or in our own) to support your beliefs.

I'm just spiffing thanks. I hope all is well with you and yours. :-)

K.

[amardeep]

Says who? As far as I know, Baba Gurbachan Singh said that Guru Nanak were above Avtarvaad.

I think Baba Gurbachan Singh also places Guru Nanak in the category of pooran hari avatar along Ram Chander and Krishna with Guru Nanak being supreme.

Tirat Singh Nirmala in his bibeksar translation gives a list of nirmale and other works who ascribe to this theory of avatarvaad in sikhi. I do not have the book with me here in the UK unfortunately but you can buy the book online.

Vedas are not the word of God. Show Gurbani tuks to prove otherwise. Vedas don't provide mukti because they have mistakes and are not complete. Do you believe in Bhagvad Geeta? And in Krishan? Krishan was a lustful person who was nothing less than todays spoilt playboys. He advocated ‘chal kapat’ (deceiving on battle field) as seen in the wider text that contains Geeta, the Mahabharat. The Kauravas did Kapat too, but that doesn’t justify the Kapat that Krishan promoted to get Karan killed.

ਕੈ ਸਿਵ ਸਕਤ ਦਏ ਸ੍ਰੁਤਿ ਚਾਰ ਰਜੋ ਤਮ ਸਤ ਤਿਹੂੰ ਪੁਰ ਬਾਸਾ ॥

कै सिव सकत दए स्रुति चार रजो तम सत तिहूं पुर बासा ॥

He created Shiva-Shakti, four Vedas and three modes of maya and Pervades in three worlds.

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=175&english=t&id=70114

ਦਿਸਾ ਬਿਦਿਸਾਯੰ ਜਿਮੀ ਆਸਮਾਣੰ ॥ ਚਤੁਰ ਬੇਦ ਕਥਿਅੰ ਕੁਰਾਣੰ ਪੁਰਾਣੰ ॥੨੪॥

दिसा बिदिसायं जिमी आसमाणं ॥ चतुर बेद कथिअं कुराणं पुराणं ॥२४॥

Thou hast also created the directions, the indivcations, the earth and the sky. Thou hast also related the four Vedas, the Quran and the Puranas.24

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=98&english=t&id=66871

No, vedas do not provide mukhti because only a Satguru can! No one is ever gonna argue that the vedas can provide mukhti. Yes I believe in Bhagavad Gita the philisophy exounded therein is 99 percent that of Gurmat so why would I not believe in it? What are you gonna do now, twist some lines from the Gita? ...

It is interesting that you call Sri Krishna all these things as if he was a bad guy yet most names and epithets of God in Gurbani are titles of Krishna. If it was really true that Krishna was all of the above that you mention dont you feel quite insulted that God is given the names of this lustful player?? Thats like telling your wife that you love her and begin to call her the names of various prostutites throughout history..... as you can see, it is not as simple as what you proscribe.

Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t provide you Mukti?

not by mere reading no... The tuks you provided from Gurbani on Vedas uses the ward parh meaning that God is not achieved by mere reading. This applies to Gurbani as well.

There are people who read or hear Gurbani for the first time and have amazing experiences, such as being cured from deadly diseases. Altough if we don’t understand Gurbani, we shall end up with the same fate as Hindus and Muslims, but we shall still get some Lahaa from Gurbani. I have had first hand experiences of people reciting Gurbani and benefitting, even though they aren’t that much into Rehat, although that this highly discouraged in Gurbani and Gurmat.

Not evidence of anything. Ive heard of people who have same experiences with the bible and quran. these rare incidences are exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself.

You will never agree that Gurmat rejects Vedas, and will find excuses on every tuk I provide. But show mewhere Gurbani says that if you read and implement Vedas you shall get Mukti?

If Vedas were really complete and from God, Gurus might have aswell retained their Hindu faith and written explanatory granths on Vedas and preached that amongst people. But Gurmat and history show us otherwise.

The Gurus preached a timeless eternal truth in the language of the time. They did not invent new theories or anything. Holding on to this belief only makes sense if you limit yourself to your room and refuse to read any Hindu Granths.. Karma, reincarnation, nirgun sargun, brahman, kirtan, 5 vices, brahmgian, simran, jaapa etc. etc. all come from Vedant... what do you make of it then?? obviosly it can be proven that the Gurus did not come up with anything new, this is an objevtive fact.. to believe otherwise will only make sense if you close your eyes and plug your fingers into your ears and make lots of noise refusing to hear or read non-sikh scripture... The Gurus revived Vedant in a form suitable for the age (yug dharma) hereby bringing a new light to the World, more powerfull than the lights before it, however they did not extinguish the earlier lights saying "from now on everyone who does not follow the Satguru will go to hell".. their light was brighter and more beautiful however they did not cancel the teachings before it, though they encouraged people to regocnise the Satguru of the era.. Bhai Nand Lal writes in his sakhi rehit ki

"Idol worship, ritual, wearing the dhoti, and leaving the head bare are duties that were required in previous yugas(not during the present).

During the Kalyuga, the proper duty to observe is that which binds diciple to Guru. Each Yuga has its own Veda. For the Kalyuga it is the Atharva Veda. According to the Atharva Veda he who lives in the kalyuga and obeys the word of the Guru shall find rich fullfilmen, whereas he who does not obey it will sink in the ocean of existence."

-Sakhi Rehit Ki by Bhai Nand Lal (Translated by Mcleod)

In the same way there are different tuks saying each yuga has its own dharam and Guru Nanak is the bringer of dharam in this yuga.. This is explained deeper in Tirat Singh Nirmalas Bhavrasamrit granth.

ਜਤੁ ਸੰਜਮ ਤੀਰਥ ਓਨਾ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਲਿ ਮਹਿ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ॥੨॥

जतु संजम तीरथ ओना जुगा का धरमु है कलि महि कीरति हरि नामा ॥२॥

Jaṯ sanjam ṯirath onā jugā kā ḏẖaram hai kal mėh kīraṯ har nāmā. ||2||

Celibacy, self-discipline and pilgrimages were the essence of Dharma in those past ages; but in this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, the Praise of the Lord's Name is the essence of Dharma. ||2||

ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ ਆਪੋ ਆਪਣਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਸੋਧਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ ॥

जुगि जुगि आपो आपणा धरमु है सोधि देखहु बेद पुराना ॥

Jug jug āpo āpṇā ḏẖaram hai soḏẖ ḏekẖhu beḏ purānā.

Each and every age has its own essence of Dharma; study the Vedas and the Puraanas, and see this as true.

[amardeep]

Were Gurus reiterating what Vedas said or did they utter messages coming from Dhur in the form of Gurbani? It cant be both ways, if it was, Gurus would have retained Vedas. So decide wheter Gurus preached Vedas or Dhur Ki Bani.

They were doing both. THE TRUTH is that the vedas themselves teach that vedas can not provide mukhti without the assistance of the Satguru and God confirmed this truth in his bani to Guru Nanak reminding the hindus of what their own scriptures teaches.. .Ratan Singh bhangu also mentions that Guru Nanak tought the hindus the truth in their own scriptures.

Where in Gurbani does it say that God revealed these Vedas and Upanishads? Were Vedas written down by God? If not, they were written by Hindus or Pandits right? So that Tuk rightly rejects all Hindu and Muslim literature and says we take inspiration from none. Why do you keep talking from a Brahmin point of view, try watching things from a Sikh perspective.

I use the brahmin approach to show you that your argumentation is nonsense.. Imagine that Ram Raheem guy walking around trying to debunk sikhism by saying "your long dara and dastaar will not provide you mukhti"... you think any sikh scholar will dissagree with this?? Ofcourse they wont.. in the same way the Gurus saying the Vedas will not bring mukhti is NOT an attembt to debunk HInduism but rather to remind the pundits of their own teachings, - that God cannot be achieved through mere readings no matter how holy they regard their text to be... In the upanishads it says that the Vedas are the lower form of knowledge and brahmgian is the higher..

If we look at this and then the above ceremony, does it still not give us a tiny feeling that baby girls were unwelcome (according to that society AND the Vedas). Now dont start looking for oh-look-at-the-context-or-whole-chapter kind of arguments as this is an independant line in the chapter and has nothing much to do with the previous line.

This is stupid.. You want to have a proper discussion but refuse to look at such basic things as context and historical circumstances...The hindu tradition has a long and cherished ancient tradition of interpreting scripture, and this whole notion of reading things literally is very recent in world religions and can only be seen in colonial- post-colonial times where every nutcase can pick up a holy scripture and begin to interpret it according to his mat.. in Hinduism they had the brahmins, in islam the ulamah in in sikhi the taksal and nirmale.... this is a long tradtiion of people trained in interpretation... that you just think you can take one line, dislike it and refuse the whole makes no sense.. if you come to the conclusion that raagmala is not bani will you reject the ENTIRE Guru Granth Sahib then?? obviosly not that would be stupid... look at context, historical circumstances etc... if you refuse these basic stuff im just wasting my time on you..

I have a feeling you might quote from Charitropakhyaan next, but that is understandable as our Sikhs prefer questioning Sikhi rather than questioning other Mats.

Im not questioning Sikhi.. it is you who have a "black and white thinking" /vertical thinking meaning that in order to view Guru Nanak as supreme you have to belittle everyone else.. In order for Guru Nanaks light to shine you have to blow out all other lights etc.. I dont have that view..I can still regard Guru Nanak as the supreme godhead without having to belittle everyone else in the process....

How many Muslims will consider them as puccay Musalmaans? Next you will say Yogi Allah Yaar Khan was a Muslim too. Sikh tradition tells us that Mian Meer used to recite Gurbani and even tell about it to his students. A true Muslim shall never recite prayers besides the Quran, if he does you have to question what kind of Muslim he is. He may be a liberal Sufi but not a good Muslim. But yes the Gurus and Bhagats thought the fundamentalist Muslims to be one-eyed.

When was Truth ever a question of numbers?? Do you think present day Sikhs would regard the 18th century khalsa as Sikhs if they found out how what they belived in?? I doubt it... Its funny that you adhere to a minority interpreation of Sikhism (hereby rejecting that of the majority) yet when you look into other religions you take a look at what the majority is doing.. that is not consistent at all.... is it not possible that only a minority of muslims and hindus adhere to their original teachings in the same way as most pepople of this forum would believe only a minority of people today adhere to the original sikhi of the Gurus?? Be consistent bro!

That just shows how Sikhi is superior and the easiest way to get Lahaa.

I agree

As Kalyug said, this seems to

be a latter idea as merging into the truth doesnt seem to be coming from the Quran, more a latter Sufi saying. If not, provide quote from the Quran.

Instead of me providing you stuff go read up on it yourself.. this is stupid that you have no basic knowledge on other religions and yet you keep asking for quotes from here and there.. its like asking for quotes from Plato without knowing anything about greek philosophy..

If the above terms of Sharia Tariqah, marifat and haqiqat do not have divine origins then where do they come from? if the muslims invented these themselves as well as their practice then how come they merged with God (haqiqat) by doing so??? do you believe its possible for people to guess and try and mishmash things and suddenly they do it right and merge with God ? if so, what are the odds that your guess is right??

It is statistically impossible for people to have come up with these things themselves and ended up in merging with God.. its like me trying to create a world map on my own without ever having seen the world apart from the village i live in and evetually getting the entire world map right!!

Amardeep, your head seems to have a strange infatuation with brick walls :-)

Yeah my head begins to hurt now ,(

Edited August 1, 2011 by amardeep

[amardeep]

Were Gurus ‘reiterating’ what Vedas said or did they utter messages coming from Dhur in the form of Gurbani? It can’t be both ways, if it was, Gurus would have retained Vedas. So decide wheter Gurus preached Vedas or Dhur Ki Bani.

They were doing both. THE TRUTH is that the vedas themselves teach that vedas can not provide mukhti without the assistance of the Satguru and God confirmed this truth in his bani to Guru Nanak reminding the hindus of what their own scriptures teaches.. .Ratan Singh bhangu also mentions that Guru Nanak tought the hindus the truth in their own scriptures.

Where in Gurbani does it say that God revealed these Vedas and Upanishads? Were Vedas written down by God? If not, they were written by ‘Hindus’ or Pandits right? So that Tuk rightly rejects all Hindu and Muslim literature and says we take inspiration from none. Why do you keep talking from a Brahmin point of view, try watching things from a Sikh perspective.

I use the brahmin approach to show you that your argumentation is nonsense.. Imagine that Ram Raheem guy walking around trying to debunk sikhism by saying "your long dara and dastaar will not provide you mukhti"... you think any sikh scholar will dissagree with this?? Ofcourse they wont.. in the same way the Gurus saying the Vedas will not bring mukhti is NOT an attembt to debunk HInduism but rather to remind the pundits of their own teachings, - that God cannot be achieved through mere readings no matter how holy they regard their text to be... In the upanishads it says that the Vedas are the lower form of knowledge and brahmgian is the higher..

If we look at this and then the above ceremony, does it still not give us a tiny feeling that baby girls were unwelcome (according to that society AND the Vedas). Now don’t start looking for ‘oh-look-at-the-context-or-whole-chapter’ kind of arguments as this is an independant line in the chapter and has nothing much to do with the previous line.

This is stupid.. You want to have a proper discussion but refuse to look at such basic things as context and historical circumstances...The hindu tradition has a long and cherished ancient tradition of interpreting scripture, and this whole notion of reading things literally is very recent in world religions and can only be seen in post-colonial times where every nutcase can pick up a holy scripture and begin to interpret it according to his mat.. in Hinduism they had the brahmins, in islam the ulamah in in sikhi the taksal and nirmale.... this is a long tradtiion of people trained in interpretation... that you just think you can take one line, dislike it and refuse the whole makes no sense.. if you come to the conclusion that raagmala is not bani will you reject the ENTIRE Guru Granth Sahib then?? obviosly not that would be stupid... look at context, historical circumstances etc... if you refuse these basic stuff im just wasting my time on you..

I have a feeling you might quote from Charitropakhyaan next, but that is understandable as our Sikhs prefer questioning Sikhi rather than questioning other Mats.

Im not questioning Sikhi.. it is you who have a "black and white thinking" /vertical thinking meaning that in order to view Guru Nanak as supreme you have to belittle everyone else.. In order for Guru Nanaks light to shine you have to blow out all other lights etc.. I dont have that view..I can still regard Guru Nanak as the supreme godhead without having to belittle everyone else in the process....

How many Muslims will consider them as puccay Musalmaans? Next you will say Yogi Allah Yaar Khan was a Muslim too. Sikh tradition tells us that Mian Meer used to recite Gurbani and even tell about it to his students. A true Muslim shall never recite prayers besides the Qur’an, if he does you have to question what kind of Muslim he is. He may be a liberal Sufi but not a good Muslim. But yes the Gurus and Bhagats thought the fundamentalist Muslims to be one-eyed.

When was Truth ever a question of numbers?? Do you think present day Sikhs would regard the 18th century khalsa as Sikhs if they found out how what they belived in?? I doubt it... Its funny that you adhere to a minority interpreation of Sikhism (hereby rejecting that of the minority) yet when you look into other religions you take a look at what the majority is doing.. that is not consistent at all.... is it not possible that only a minority of muslims and hindus adhere to their original teachings in the same way as most pepople of this forum would believe only a minority of people today adhere to the original sikhi of the Gurus?? Be consistent bro!

That just shows how Sikhi is superior and the easiest way to get Lahaa.

I agree

As Kalyug said, this seems to

be a latter idea as ‘merging into the truth’ doesn’t seem to be coming from the Qur’an, more a latter Sufi saying. If not, provide quote from the Qur’an.

Instead of me providing you stuff go read up on it yourself.. this is stupid that you have no basic knowledge on other religions and yet you keep asking for quotes from here and there.. its like asking for quotes from Plato without knowing anything about greek philosophy..

If the above terms of Sharia Tariqah, marifat and haqiqat do not have divine origins then where do they come from? if the muslims invented these themselves as well as their practice then how come they merged with God (haqiqat) by doing so??? do you believe its possible for people to guess and try and mishmash things and suddenly they do it right and merge with God ? if so, what are the odds that your guess is right??

It is statistically impossible for people to have come up with these things themselves and ended up in merging with God.. its like me trying to create a world map on my own without ever having seen the world apart from the village i live in and evetually getting the entire world map right!!

Amardeep, your head seems to have a strange infatuation with brick walls :-)

Yeah my head begins to hurt now ,(

[amardeep]

Sorry for the late reply.. i just moved to London and did not have a proper internet connection until now.

[Mr Sardar]

"Hhow many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on Earth" - Rumi

[SikhKhoj]

<p>This will be my last post. You are pretty thick up there LOL </p>

<p>just kidding</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually we just adhere to 2 different belief systems, we have got different approaches or even interpretations of Gurbani. You will never agree, no matter what I say lol<br />

<br />

I am very sure of my opinion, but sadly don't have enough time to keep arguing like this.<br />

<br />

I would like to end the thread with some Gurbani:</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>I have searched many Shastars and Simrtis, they do not show the way to God, but contemplation on God is invaluable.</div>

<div>--</div>

<div>

<div>The Simritee is the daughter of the Vedas, O Siblings of Destiny. She has brought a chain and a rope.</div>

<div>--</div>

<div>The Simritees and the Shaastras discriminate between good and evil, but they do not know the true essence of reality.</div>

</div>

[Genie Singh]

http://en.wikipedia....gious_pluralism

The holy book of the Sikhs (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) says,

"Do not say that the Vedas and the Koran (semetic books i.e. Bible, torah and quran) are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." Guru Granth Sahib page 1350.[21]

As well as;

Some call the Lord 'Ram, Ram', and some 'Khuda'. Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allah'. He is the Cause of causes, and Generous. He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. Some pilgrims bathe at sacred shrines, others go on Hajj to Mecca. Some do devotional worship, whilst others bow their heads in prayer. Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran. Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of his Lord Master." (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Page:885) [22]

"One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth." (SGGS Ang 142)[23]

"The seconds,minutes,and hours,days,weeks and months and various seasons originate from One Sun; O nanak,in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator." Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13

The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir, who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs.This highlights and reinforces the Guru's saying that "peoples of other faiths" can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation.

Additionally the Guru Granth Sahib says;

First, Allah (God) created the Light; then, by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings. From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. So who is good, and who is bad? ||1|| [24]

Edited November 7, 2011 by JatherdarSahib

[laalsingh]

It is not that simple.