Gurus And Gods?

[truthseeker546]

@Satkirin_Kaur

Quote

When we eventually fully merge back with Creator (attain liberation) we will be no different from God!!!  

Quote

Keeping in mind that Sikhism does not believe God is a being separate from us, but in fact that God is everyone and everything, 

 

OK so on one had we are all projections of God to being with (all characters in a dream analogy) and come to "wakefulness" or realisation once we attain freedom from our egos. - not being seperate from the divine as you quoted earlier - "everything is God" - or something to that effect.

On the other hand we will merge with God - this would mean we would have to be separate from him to begin with. At odds slightly with the first idea.

I suppose what I need is a sort of summary on what is actual belief in God within Sikhism - the normal mool mantra isn't actually true ( or it needs a commentary)- God having no form, or being one - as it's obviously at odds with what your saying on this forum.

Can someone put one on here.? 

Edited November 19, 2015 by truthseeker546

[truthseeker546]

@Satkirin_Kaur

Quote

btw ignoring the outward teachings of each faith, there are hidden gnosis / esoteric teachings that are VERY similar in ALL the world's religions!  Jewish Kalaba, Esoteric Christianity, Sufism, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. are all really teaching the same things (if you understand that the stories of the prophets etc are allegorical and not literal - for example, Genesis in the Bible is not a literal account of one male Adam and one female Eve but of the masculine and feminine principle in all of us. Jesus spoke in parables... and only the initiated could understand what he was really saying. Ancient Egyptian mythology... Isis, Osiris, Horus etc.  Same story again but different characters, Ancient Mayans etc. They all were pointing to the same things using different terminology and stories.  Alchemy... I find it very interesting that much of what SGGSJ says matches with the Emerald Tablet as well (Emerald Tablet of Hermes).  I have come across some statements in Gurbani which almost match the lines in Emerald Tablet word for word.

I couldn't agree more ! 

Most religions, as I've alluded to many times, believe in pretty much the same things. However the difference comes in the way they interpret those teachings. All religions believe in one God however that means different things in different faiths.

I'm trying to understand the differences, as more importantly the mechanisms used to define or arrive at those differences.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, truthseeker546 said:

@Satkirin_Kaur

 

OK so on one had we are all projections of God to being with (all characters in a dream analogy) and come to "wakefulness" or realisation once we attain freedom from our egos. - not being seperate from the divine as you quoted earlier - "everything is God" - or something to that effect.

On the other hand we will merge with God - this would mean we would have to be separate from him to begin with. At odds slightly with the first idea.

I suppose what I need is a sort of summary on what is actual belief in God within Sikhism - the normal mool mantra isn't actually true ( or it needs a commentary)- God having no form, or being one - as it's obviously at odds with what your saying on this forum.

Can someone put one on here.?

Okawhen I say merge... remember that Maya is illusion.  We were never separated.  We have just kind of 'forgotten' that fact.  We are separated not literally, but but because we are so engrossed in playing the caharacter in the dream, that we have forgotten our true identity.  This is why we can go within, to find what we are missing.  This is why simran is so important... go within, know thyself, realize the divine within yourself.

SGGSJ Ang 60:
 

ਸੋਹੰ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਭੇਦਿ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥

Sohaʼn āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai sabaḏ bẖeḏ paṯī▫ā▫e.

One who recognizes within himself that, "He is me", and who is pierced through by the Shabad, is satisfied.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਅਵਰ ਕਿ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਇ ॥੯॥

गुरमुखि आपु पछाणीऐ अवर कि करे कराइ ॥९॥

Gurmukẖ āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai avar kė kare karā▫e. ||9||

When one becomes Gurmukh and realizes his own self, what more is there left to do or have done? ||9||

SK @ work

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, truthseeker546 said:

@Satkirin_Kaur

 

OK so on one had we are all projections of God to being with (all characters in a dream analogy) and come to "wakefulness" or realisation once we attain freedom from our egos. - not being seperate from the divine as you quoted earlier - "everything is God" - or something to that effect.

On the other hand we will merge with God - this would mean we would have to be separate from him to begin with. At odds slightly with the first idea.

I suppose what I need is a sort of summary on what is actual belief in God within Sikhism - the normal mool mantra isn't actually true ( or it needs a commentary)- God having no form, or being one - as it's obviously at odds with what your saying on this forum.

Can someone put one on here.?

Okawhen I say merge... remember that Maya is illusion.  We were never separated.  We have just kind of 'forgotten' that fact.  We are separated not literally, but but because we are so engrossed in playing the caharacter in the dream, that we have forgotten our true identity.  This is why we can go within, to find what we are missing.  This is why simran is so important... go within, know thyself, realize the divine within yourself.

SGGSJ Ang 60:
 

ਸੋਹੰ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਭੇਦਿ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥

Sohaʼn āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai sabaḏ bẖeḏ paṯī▫ā▫e.

One who recognizes within himself that, "He is me", and who is pierced through by the Shabad, is satisfied.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਅਵਰ ਕਿ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਇ ॥੯॥

गुरमुखि आपु पछाणीऐ अवर कि करे कराइ ॥९॥

Gurmukẖ āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai avar kė kare karā▫e. ||9||

When one becomes Gurmukh and realizes his own self, what more is there left to do or have done? ||9||


Also, God is formless as per Mool Mantra (Nirgun = formless) but God is also ALL forms (Sargun = form) The dream analogy was used because you can see how something formless (one's consciousness) can create form (the dream) where everything within that dream IS essentially under command of the creator (dreamer) while the dreamer remains outside of the dream as a formless reality (consciousness).   


SK @ work

 

[Guest]

Imagine an actor... playing the part of Hamlet, and for some reason experiences amnesia and forgets that he is really an actor, so he takes the persona of the character of Hamlet.  But this actor is also playing all of the other parts in the play too simultaneously. (for sake of this comparison lets say he has multiple personality disorder) So When playing the part of each character, he forgets that he is also all of the other characters, and that he is really not the character at all, but is the actor.

His whole life will revolve around the persona of Hamlet or which ever other character the costume of whom he is inhabiting.  His whole reality will be Hamlet. He has become separated from his identity as the actor.

In reality, he only has amnesia and has forgotten that he is not really Hamlet or the other characters. So we say he is separated from the actor... but he is not really separated is he?? He has only forgotten his origin as the actor.

Now let's say one of the characters persona, become fully aware that he is really the actor.  The play is now recognized for the false world that it is.  Do you think the character Hamlet now fears death? Of course not, because he has recognized that he is really an actor just playing the part of Hamlet! Hence, death has been conquered while alive.  

To become fully aware as the actor while in the play, the persona of the character must die (Ego) so that one recognizes he/she is really the actor and not the character.  But the character identity is SOOOOOOOOO powerful that it is extremely difficult to grasp being anything but!  And the world in the play has become SOOOOOOO real that the concept of anything existing outside of it, is now seen as impossible or unbelievable. 

One doesn't have to look far to see this even in this physical reality... people who have lost their memory due to amnesia. People who really do have multiple personality disorder, People who have dillusions... try to convince them that the world they have come to know is not real when it's VERY real to them!  People under influence of drugs etc. have jumped out of windows actually believing they can fly.  Their perspective of reality has been completely changed.  So it's easy to see just how easy it is to become so engrossed within Maya that we forget our origin as the 'actor'

And in fact this analogy has been used to explain it in Gurbani... SGGSJ Ang 736.   

SK @ work

[Singh123456777]

I have so many responses but it few like a waste to write it cause satkiran is gonna try proving her point even when she will be proved wrong. I'm not gonna waste my time.

[Singh123456777]

16 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

@Singh123456777

Thanks ! 

This does prove that a verse does state the Guru Nanak is Lord himself - I will state here to other sects within Sikhism that I don't know if the translation is agreed upon by everyone, or the context or meaning or what verses come after that verse etc. I'll take for face value.

OK - I've opened this forum as Gods and Gurus - Gurus being plural as at least all Sikhism sects for the very minimum have 10 Gurus. That gives some evidence towards Gurus Nanaks claim to divinity, what about the others.

Also - If Guru Nanak was God himself, that begs the question - who was he praying to ( his finding God in the river etc) - as far as I know - non of his companions actually prayed to him? 

Also Guru Nanak had a wife and children, how does Sikhism deal with this. - back to the point of did the Gurus have children conventionally (via sexual intercourse) or miraculously - as in the case of Jesus in Christianity?  If conventionally then where does that leave the idea of God in Sikhism.? I compare here to the God of classical theisms as seen in the Abrahamic faiths.

Hey I recommend reading this article. It might sort of clear things up

http://tisarpanth.blogspot.ca/2013/02/sargun-and-nirgun-duality-of-god.html?m=1

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

How is anything I said above wrong??? From the very article you yourself just linked above:

"5.) Bhagat Kabir realised at Maghar that the world is only an expression of God. God in reality is much closer than one's palm and resides in one's own self."

and

"The Sargun form is highly diverse. One can summarise it as being the entire creation. This easily goes hand in hand with Guru Nanak Dev Ji's humanitarian and environmental teachings. Recognise all beings as one, each and every one of them has the Nirgun form of God inside them (the soul) whereas their physical appearance is the Sargun expression of the Nirgun form."

which is exactly what I was saying.... 

Now why is it you want to somehow prove me wrong?? 

What I wrote above was from the website reflections on Gurbani (though I came up with the pilot dream analogy).. And Gurbani came up with the actor / play analogy on Ang 736.

Just curious when these are common concepts Gurbani websites how you think what i wrote above was wrong? Especially since the link you just provided says the exact same thing!!??

I think u are just not happy unless u can try to make me somehow look stupid. But these concepts are well known!! I didn't bloody pull them out of my tush! 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[CdnSikhGirl]

@Singh123456777

 

http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart288.htm

http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart269.htm

And this one about the false ego identities:
http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart242.htm

(quoted from the article though the site says not to quote, only link. But it's just a partial excerpt and I linked so you can read the full article on the site)

Quote

2. Doer or performer:

"With the development of the experiencer, feeler or perceiver aspect of the human personality, the notion "I am the doer" also becomes deeply rooted (false "I"). This is duality (Doojaa Bhaav) the Gurbani so much talks about. In reality we all are just a channel or an instrument of doing; not the doers, for the Doer (Kartaa Purakh) is God alone. However, with the rise of false ego-sense (Haume), we forget this truth and mistakenly take ourselves as the doers."

This is exactly what I was saying... we have become so caugfht up in playing the dream character (the false I) we have forgotten we were only characters in a dream and the doer is ONE - Waheguru. Hence my comparison to being a pilot in the dream.  The pilot persona completely unaware that Harkiran was really the 'doer'. Of course the reality is, that Harkiran is just another false 'I' and the only doer is the same ONE in all of us. Waheguru.  But I was only trying to explain using known references, which is what Gurbani does... since it too compares it to both a dream and a play.

Now please, Singh123456777  tell me how what I wrote above, was wrong.  Unless you are one of these Sikhs who think everything in Gurbani is speaking merely of states of mind, and think Sikhi is only athiesm.  Aside from that, I was only trying to use comparisons to show relationship of Nirgun / Sargun and how everything is really Akal Purakh... if you think that analogy is wrong, then I give up.  And likely many other Sikhs too.  And no I didn't just copy and paste or quote something just because someone else said it either.  I have seriously contemplated this subject.  Oh right... I am a gori who came to Sikhi so I can't possibly comprehend the idea of Nirgun / Sargun, false ego identity, ONEness etc... is that it?
 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[truthseeker546]

OK Thanks - I'm a bit busy at the moment  to read all the above - when I get some time I will read the link, digest the ideas and then reply.

[truthseeker546]

I've been reading around this subject - which has lead me to look at Hindu doctrine about God and his relation to the world and also Sufi thoughts. It seems there are a lot of parallels, it seems Persian and Arab mystics influenced a lot of Hindu and Sikh beliefs - and Hinduism of course having a huge influence on Sikhism.

The sufi idea of monism - unity of existence having influences on say the creed of Shankara, which is as follows:

"God was one an there was no other besides him." God was the only reality, all else was illusion. he was without attributes or qualities. He was not a thinking or knowing being, but thought or knowledge itself"  

Obvious similarities to what was said before.

The poet Kabir, a disciple of Ramananda, and also a follower and a disciple of the Muslim Sufi Shaikh Taqi - proves the link of Sufi thought into Hinuism - Kabir also was a huge influence (along with others sufis) on Bhai Mardana - Guru Nanaks - close friend and travel companion. Who in turn seems influenced Guru Nanak to some degree.

As I need to read more into this relationship of the religions, and refresh my knowledge of Hinduism - and more importantly I was informed that this week is the birth of Guru Nanak ji - I'd rather not discuss this during this period - as I don't want to seem insensitive. 

Hope you all enjoy the festivities. I'll post on here from next week so please don't close the thread.