What Is Bhagauti?

[amardeep]

The differences between aum and oankaar is probably very few. They are most likely the same. However the 'ek' in front makes the distinction. The Siddhs were curious of why Guru Nanak had addede "Ek" in front of oankaar since they were not familiar with it. They were familiar with oankaar only. In the Janam sakhis and Nanak Prakash you can read the Guru's answer to why Ek was added in front.

Bhai Gurdas also writes it out as an attribute (weird translation though):

ਏਕਾ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ।

By writing 1 (One) in the beginning, it has been shown that Ekankar, God, who subsumes all forms in Him is only one (and not two or three).

 

ਊੜਾ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਬਹਾਲਿਆ।

Ura, the first Gurmukhi letter, in the form of Oankar shows the world controlling power of that one Lord.

https://searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/3/pauri/15/line/1

[amardeep]

Line below is intereting:

ਪੰਜ ਅਖਰ ਉਪਕਾਰ ਨਾਮੁ ਸਮਾਲਿਆ।

Five letters (1 Oankar) are altruists; they have in them the power of the person of the Lord.

(ek-O-a-m-kaar=5)

[amardeep]

Check out page 26 on his discussion on ek oankaar you might find it interesting. Kavi in that section also states that Guru Nanak preached the message of the Vedas, - the diffrerence being that he spoke in a vernacular language rather than Sanskrit. The typical Nirmala outlook

Edited March 6, 2016 by amardeep

[amardeep]

Actually the Sidh correspondance from the Janam sakhis seem to have been put into that Ik Oankaar discussion. Check it out.

[BhagatSingh]

Like I said Onkar is One regardless of whether you write 1 in front of it or not. In many places in Guru Granth Sahib, it is written out as Aum, or as Onkar, or as Ekankar.

There are also aesthetic reasons for adding 1 in front of ਓ. It has to do with balancing the symbol. Which an artist or calligrapher can see easily. ;)

 

So Ekankar/Onkar. No difference.

 

32 minutes ago, amardeep said:

ਪੰਜ ਅਖਰ ਉਪਕਾਰ ਨਾਮੁ ਸਮਾਲਿਆ।

Five letters (1 Oankar) are altruists; they have in them the power of the person of the Lord.

(ek-O-a-m-kaar=5)

That's a mistranslation ੴ has 6 letters.
One - 1
A - 2
U - 3
M - 4
K - 5
R - 6

Onkar has 5 letters.
A - 1
U - 2
M - 3
K - 4
R - 5

However, in this Vaar of Bhai Gurdas, this Panj Akhar are talking about Panch Shabad -

ਪੰਚ ਸਬਦ ਧੁਨਿ ਅਨਹਦ ਵਾਜੇ ਹਮ ਘਰਿ ਸਾਜਨ ਆਏ ॥੧॥
Read it like the above. ਪੰਜ ਅਖਰ ਉਪਕਾਰ ਨਾਮੁ ਸਮਾਲਿਆ।

[chatanga1]

On 06/03/2016 at 9:34 PM, amardeep said:

The differences between aum and oankaar is probably very few. They are most likely the same. However the 'ek' in front makes the distinction.

 

On 06/03/2016 at 10:14 PM, BhagatSingh said:

Like I said Onkar is One regardless of whether you write 1 in front of it or not. In many places in Guru Granth Sahib, it is written out as Aum, or as Onkar, or as Ekankar.

 

According to Gyani Thakur Singh (when he was producing katha of some quality) in his Sri Japji Sahib katha, there is a HUGE difference between Aum and Onkar. If I remember correctly Aum was limited to the Tri-Dev whereas Onkar was the Creator of the Tri-Dev.

[chatanga1]

On 03/03/2016 at 5:07 PM, BhagatSingh said:

Yes the black one to the right. Can you see the Chakra and Conch symbols in his hands?

didn't look but what do they mean?

[paapiman]

28 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

According to Gyani Thakur Singh (when he was producing katha of some quality) in his Sri Japji Sahib katha, there is a HUGE difference between Aum and Onkar. If I remember correctly Aum was limited to the Tri-Dev whereas Onkar was the Creator of the Tri-Dev.

You are right brother. One gets darshan of the Tridev (Brahma jee, Vishnu jee and Mahesh jee), by doing Jaap of Aum/Om.

When one does Jaap of Ik Oangkaar, then the Almighty Lord, Waheguru, gives darshan.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

On 02/03/2016 at 11:41 PM, samurai said:

It goes back to the question the 'facts' your saying are pretty much your interpretation/understanding? if not where are these facts derived from?

 

Remember that Bhagat Singh has form for slightly unsual views on this forum.

 

On 03/03/2016 at 5:27 PM, BhagatSingh said:

Lol @ "too far-fetched". No it isn't. This is the base definition of the word.

Meaning
1. Grammatically - ਖੰਡਾ is one who does ਖੰਡਨ or creates ਖੰਡ
ਖੰਡਾ (one who destroys) is one who does the  ਖੰਡਨ (destroying to pieces) or creates the ਖੰਡ (pieces, the destroyed pieces)

 

In Gurbani base definitions of words is not a rule. There are many different uses of words depending on their context. This may be one possible way of looking at it, but I can't see it myself. Nothing was created so nothing was destroyed which means the creating of the khands is not possible.

 

On 03/03/2016 at 5:38 PM, BhagatSingh said:

Congrats. Now you know the meaning behind Shiv ji's Trishul.

Shiv ji who is the ground layer of all being, Supreme God, he divides into Shiv-Shakti - dichotomy/duality of the world. The Trishul is the image of that dichotomy. Shiv ji upholds that dichotomy.

When you personify (make into a person) the above concept, you get a guy holding a Trishul. But remember that that guy holding a trishul is representing some deep concepts. If you forget those deeper meanings then the murti loses all its value.

So relating these concepts to the meaning of Khanda.

Shiv ji who is the ground layer of all being, Supreme God, he divides into Shiv-Shakti - dichotomy/duality of the world. The Trishul is the image of that dichotomy.

Shiv ji (khanda) destroys/divides (khandan) and creates Shiv-Shakti dichotomy (khand).

 

That is Shaivaism. I was watching "Om Namah Shiva" on youtube recently (I really enjoyed watching it on Star Plus first time round) and there it shows the Cretor coming in Panch-Mukh form of Shiv Ji. (5 headed form) and this form of Shiv Ji then creates Shakti (Durga). This is not in line with Gurmat.

 

Ditto for the Khanda.

[Ragmaala]

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

That is Shaivaism. I was watching "Om Namah Shiva" on youtube recently (I really enjoyed watching it on Star Plus first time round) and there it shows the Cretor coming in Panch-Mukh form of Shiv Ji. (5 headed form) and this form of Shiv Ji then creates Shakti (Durga). This is not in line with Gurmat.

I had to watch the first episode too after this. Yeah, it does seem like Shaivism since Shiv is seen as Supreme, and everything else was created from Him. It was corny to watch Shiv & Shiva dancing and creating .

So this is my understanding so far.  In Shavism, Shiv is seen as Supreme. In Shakta, Shakti is Supreme. In Vaishanavism, Vishnu Hari is Supreme.  In the end, they all might be talking about Same Supreme, but different names & forms.  Poor Brahma does not seem to have his own following :(

But I also believe that Shiv, Shakti or Vishnu are also real astral beings with their own dimensions. They are not mere names. I acknowledge this is my belief, and  I could be wrong. But I have no problem, even if I am wrong. It does not alter my path or journey.

In Gurmat, or Sikhism,  the Supreme is Sargun Nirgun Nirankar Guru Nanak. And Sikhs only focus on Sargun Guru Nanak who takes them into Nirgun Nirankar.

The above is only my understanding, and the one I feel most content and happy with.

 

 

 

 

 

[samurai]

7 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Remember that Bhagat Singh has form for slightly unsual views on this forum

chal... it is what it is..

[BhagatSingh]

9 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

In Gurbani base definitions of words is not a rule. There are many different uses of words depending on their context.

Give it a chance bhaji. You gotta trust me on this.

Quote

That is Shaivaism. I was watching "Om Namah Shiva" on youtube recently (I really enjoyed watching it on Star Plus first time round) and there it shows the Cretor coming in Panch-Mukh form of Shiv Ji. (5 headed form) and this form of Shiv Ji then creates Shakti (Durga).

Good!
The panch mukh is a representation of the holistic, supreme, nirankar form.

I'll repeat -

On 2016-03-03 at 0:38 PM, BhagatSingh said:

Notice how this is a different perspective to what you are used to seeing. Everything in Shaiv Religions is described very differently to how you know it, so don't be surprised if it takes a while to contemplate and learn about a new way of seeing

 

I'll repeat again, everything in Shaiv Religions is a different way of seeing than what you are used to.
ReligionS, meaning Shaivism is over-arching philosophy and there are multiple religions or scriptures or traditions who have this philosophy. Shaivism is similar to the term Abrahamic Religions. The same philosophy, however different religions that express it.

 

Quote

This is not in line with Gurmat.

This is a common objection from the Anti-DG crowd towards Pro-DG crowd.

It really depends on what you mean by Gurmat. If only Guru Granth Sahib is Gurmat, then yes this is not in line with Gurmat.

However if you include Bachittar Natak Granth in your definition of Gurmat, then it is exactly in line, on point, bulls-eye, like Robin Hood's 3 arrows on a single dot - Bang Bang Bang.

Now if you don't see that, you just gotta trust me, keep asking questions. I'll keep elaborating. Keep an open mind, because you will need more space there to fit this stuff in.

I'll repeat again, everything in Shaiv Religions is a different way of seeing than what you are used to.
ReligionS, meaning Shaivism is over-arching philosophy and there are multiple religions or spiritual texts who have this philosophy. Bachittar Natak Granth is one of them. It's a separate religion than other Shaiv Religions however it encapsulates Shaiv Philosophy really well.

Quote

This may be one possible way of looking at it, but I can't see it myself.

This is because it requires immense knowledge. One has to study study study, be disciplined and mediate meditate meditate, and maybe this knowledge reveals itself.

It's like chewing iron beads, lohe de chane chabana.

Even explaining this stuff to you guys, feels to me like I am chewing iron beads because I am finding it very difficult to transmit this type of knowledge.
I think it would be much easier in-person. I was able to explain this stuff to my dad, and he understood what I was talking about.

For me it is easier to obtain, harder to give, maybe due to my ahankar, which is in severe 'absorb knowledge' orientation.

[BhagatSingh]

9 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

According to Gyani Thakur Singh (when he was producing katha of some quality) in his Sri Japji Sahib katha, there is a HUGE difference between Aum and Onkar. If I remember correctly Aum was limited to the Tri-Dev whereas Onkar was the Creator of the Tri-Dev.

I must say what I must.

He is right according to his own definition of it. But he is wrong because -
1. Aum/Onkar is not connected to Tri-Dev, that is only true in certain religions.
2. He does not understand what is meant by Tri-Dev.

That's a topic in itself.

For now know that Aum/Onkar is used universally regardless of religion.

ੴ ਨਮੋ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ is a different religion to ੴ ਨਮੋ ਸ਼ਿਵਾਯ is a different religion to ੴ ਨਮੋ ਭਗੌਤੀ

For a discussion on Aum/Onkar, see -

 

[BhagatSingh]

7 hours ago, Gunahgar said:

I had to watch the first episode too after this. Yeah, it does seem like Shaivism since Shiv is seen as Supreme, and everything else was created from Him. It was corny to watch Shiv & Shiva dancing and creating .

Dancing also has a deeper meaning. ;)

"deeper" meaning and deeper meaning haha!

Quote

So this is my understanding so far.  In Shavism, Shiv is seen as Supreme. In Shakta, Shakti is Supreme. In Vaishanavism, Vishnu Hari is Supreme.  In the end, they all might be talking about Same Supreme, but different names & forms.

 

Indeed!  Different names, different philosophies, different stories to convey knowledge and thus different religions.

Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism, are like the term Abrahamic Religions. These terms are not talking about one religion, but rather multiple, perhaps hundreds of religions. They are over-arching philosophies and lore.

Respectively, you have -

1. Shri Kaal/Mahakal from Bachittar Natak Granth.
2. Shri Bhagawati in Chandi Di War and Chandi Charittar.


3. And Shri Hari in Guru Granth Sahib.
Read the stories that are mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib. Remember these are the central characters who are always being talked about in Guru Granth Sahib. So if you can understand these characters you can grasp the theology, spirituality and methods of practice in Guru Granth Sahib pretty well.

Who are the characters in the stories?
Here are the famous ones -
Prehlaad ਪ੍ਰਹਲਾਦ
Dhruv ਧ੍ਰੂ
Ajamal ਅਜਾਮਲ
Sudama ਸੁਦਾਮਾ
Ahilya ਅਹਲਿਆ
Dropadi ਦ੍ਰੋਪਤੀ
Narad ਨਾਰਦ
Ganika ਗਨਿਕਾ
Gaj ਗਜ
Bidar ਬਿਦਰ
etc

(understand the narrative, ask -) Who are these people?

(understand the theology, ask -) Who are they praying to?

(to understand spiritual practice, ask -) How are they praying?

 

 

Quote

Poor Brahma does not seem to have his own following :(

Unfortunately, Parbrahm's followers have passed away.

Parbrahm?
There is Brahma as Supreme God, and then Brahma the character you see in shows and read about in other religions.
This is because once the followers passed away, the "Brahma character", philosophy, religions and lore has been absorbed in unique ways by other religions e.g. Brahma coming out of the navel of the Supreme God, as described in Guru Granth Sahib ;)

But Brahma is Supreme God. His character, philosophy, religions and lore are all referring to the 'Karta Purakh' that you read about in Jap Ji.

It's a way of seeing. That is Philosophy.

Quote

But I also believe that Shiv, Shakti or Vishnu are also real astral beings with their own dimensions. They are not mere names. I acknowledge this is my belief, and  I could be wrong.

Well you are wrong. So correct yourself. Find out what it takes to obtain the correct knowledge.

With me, my ahankar is such that when I am wrong, I automatically correct myself. In this manner, I understand and integrate new knowledge very easily. This is why Bhagat Singh is always right. It's not that I am always right rather that I am often wrong and when I see I that I am wrong, I correct myself and obtain the right knowledge. I am restlessly and intensely seeking GYAN. (That is also ahankar btw so be careful if you end up in this place)

Sometimes to obtain new knowledge, one must create a larger space. It's like if you have a room and it is filled with furniture. How will you add more furniture to it?
1. You must remove wrong info, and add right info. Remove old furniture and add new furniture.
2. Build a bigger room, and add the furniture there.
You do both 1 and 2.

The same is true of mind.
To obtain more Gyan and to obtain God, one must build a bigger room and throw some shit out.

 

Quote

the one I feel most content and happy with.

Be content with your yourself but also improve yourself.

Be content. Don't be content. Find the middle path - As the Buddha said, I believe.

Be careful as to not become content of ignorance. They say "ignorance is bliss" for a reason. There is a trap in ignorance which makes you feel comfortable in that place. But if you become too comfortable, knowledge escapes and the Supreme Purush cannot be obtained.

I am not saying anyone is ignorant, this is true even for those who obtain gyan because there is also ignorance in gyan. One must actively seek out and recognize where there is ignorance and then seek blessings of Supreme Pursh in those areas.

 

Ok that's enough from my foolish self.

[Ragmaala]

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

"deeper" meaning and deeper meaning haha!

haha I know what you mean...I guess the TV show had to keep it PG , so they just limited it to corny dance.

You have said interesting stuff, and in some way it does make sense.

The only thing I can surely disagree with you is about the presence of these three dieties, Shiv , Brahma & Vishnu as astral beings. One story that comes to mind is the following one. Once in Sant Ishar Singh Jis diwan, a being came and sat down. Sant Waryam Singh's wife kept looking in that direction , however no one could see in that being. Sant Waryam Singh could not see him either. Later on, Sant Waryam Singh asked his wife, his wife said there was someone sitting there. Then Sant Ishar Singh Ji told them that it was Shiv Ji who had come to listen to the Diwans.

Another incident, once Sant Jarnail Singh ji was passing by a Mandir. Giani Thakur Singh Ji asked why sant ji was smiling. Sant Ji replied that devi was standing outside the mandir & doing Namaskar, that is why he was smiling.

Another famous Sakhi is of the Devi doing sewa of the Sangatan di charan dhoor, if Devi was not a real astral being, the sakhi would hold untrue.

There are many other similar anecdotes that tell me that these entities or astral being or whatever you want to call them are Real and can be separate from Nirankar. Although, bhagats do use Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti as a Sargun Form of Nirankar to reach somewhere, and I dont think there is anything wrong with it.

Because if they weren't real being why would some people see them differently.

For example, Baba Maharharnam Singh Bhucho wale had darshan of Narsingh Avtar and later on himself became that same form...but when he had the darshana he was told to meditate on Guru Nanak only since he is the Avtar in Kalyuga.  And then the Narsingh Avtar turned into form of Guru Nanak. So I have no problem as using Shiva or Vishnu Krishana as focal points for beginning their journey.

But lets see...time will tell...how my thoughts may change over time.

 

 

 

[BhagatSingh]

@Gunahgar

Ok. That's pretty interesting.
 

I would say it is Supreme God giving them darshan in whatever swaroop they hold most dearly to them, whether or not they know it themselves or not. ;)

I think it is also interpretation. Interpretation in the moment of the vision, and interpretation later on. Keeping in mind the person having the vision and their belief system.

Also - Consciousness can create forms the way a sculptor creates sculptures. I believe you can create astral beings through thought.

 

Anyways, I think these are images of Supreme God, that are designed to convey certain qualities. You cannot put all qualities in all at once in one image -

ਕੇਤੇ ਆਖਹਿ ਆਖਣਿ ਪਾਹਿ ॥
ਕੇਤੇ ਕਹਿ ਕਹਿ ਉਠਿ ਉਠਿ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
ਏਤੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਹੋਰਿ ਕਰੇਹਿ ॥
ਤਾ ਆਖਿ ਨ ਸਕਹਿ ਕੇਈ ਕੇਇ ॥

ਨਾਨਕ ਕਾਗਦ ਲਖ ਮਣਾ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਕੀਚੈ ਭਾਉ ॥
ਮਸੂ ਤੋਟਿ ਨ ਆਵਈ ਲੇਖਣਿ ਪਉਣੁ ਚਲਾਉ ॥
ਭੀ ਤੇਰੀ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਹਉ ਕੇਵਡੁ ਆਖਾ ਨਾਉ ॥੪॥੨॥

But each naam, each saint, each image is fully expressing the Supreme Being.

 

The Antaryami knows what to show up as. He is a trickster. He will play with you, put you in one religion and show you forms that are sacred in another religion (the incidents you described). He might show forms from different religions. He might show all those forms at once (Krishan ji to Bhagt Arjun). He might not show anything and only give intuition. Or he might not do anything at all, and leave you clueless.

 

Although I had never heard of specific incidents like the ones you mentioned (I never really cared about it), I thought about them after one occurred for my self.

I don't personally know those people you mentioned and what they saw and what they thought.
So I'll tell you about myself.
In one of my dreams, Shri Hari mounted on the Sheshnaag, all in black form, came to me. I as soon as I saw him, I woke up thinking WTF, still lying on the bed, eyes closed, body asleep.
And then he pulled me inside him, like a whirlpool, and inside him was nothing. And I found myself in Samadhi for the first time.

More detail in this thread -

So you can say it was an astral being who lead me to God. Like how in Christianity they say angels come and inspire.

Or you can say it was Supreme Being himself who lead me to him.

Since I worship Guru Granth Sahib, I go with the latter, because it talks about the Supreme Being as dark-skinned, resting on the Sheshnaag, you get the picture ;)

 

But again I think these are just images, that are designed to convey certain qualities. So people see different things, and people have all sorts of religions and philosophies and ideas about it.

What is the reality operating underneath this vast ocean of knowledge?

To access that one must let go of all knowledge and beliefs.
Even though I carry big burden when I go collecting knowledge, I must slowly drop that burden in meditation. And let go of it all, as it is ultimately all false, meaning, to go into a state of unknowing (not knowing).
If only for a moment, one must let go of all that they think is true or false and simply be that one who thinks in the first place. That one is Antaryami.

[Guest guest]

On 03/03/2016 at 1:37 PM, dalsingh101 said:

 

 

One (very important!) aspect of our Gurus were their role as teachers and how they conveyed what they wanted people to know. They were trying to enlighten humans. And that too from a wide social base from the privileged and educated to the long term suppressed and uneducated. A little consideration of how they approached this with some measure of rationality isn't anything for you to get schizo about. 

Any form of writing inevitably projects the stances, opinions and predilections of the writer. Anything YOU personally write is not in any way immune from this.  Acting otherwise is just highlighting a complete ignorance of what writing/interpretations actually involve.   

It's no big mystery or secret that people in the diaspora will (and do) have to contextualise Sikh heritage to their children raised in a totally different environment to them, many of whom will be infinitely more proficient in languages outside of Panjabi and other languages used in Sikh religious scriptures/texts.

firstly schizophrenia and paranoia arent necessarily the same thing.  i don't think its good to be throwing those around as 'insults'.  they may be people who suffer from either of these/both of these, or people with family members who do, who are reading this site.  these are biological illnesses/imbalances, not to be ridiculed.    

p.s. i don't have any 'paranoia' about you having any influence or power etc

looking past the 'ad hominem' slurs: does that first paragraph even mean anything?  are you basically tring to say their communicated according to a persons understandoing, as per the buddha famously did.  or are you saying 'it was like people like to children about santa claus. to make them behave'.  seems like the latter.  these are two different things.

and to the second paragraph, yes but you are projecting your own onto the original source.

the third paragraph-  why do you keep phrasing in generalisations?  what is all of that even supposed to mean?  can you give an physical example of having to 'contextualise' in a 'totally different environment'. 

i think posting anonymous is the best thing ever, and a genius move by the creator/aintainer of this site.  because it keeps the focus on the content, not the person.

[dalsingh101]

14 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

firstly schizophrenia and paranoia arent necessarily the same thing.  i don't think its good to be throwing those around as 'insults'.  they may be people who suffer from either of these/both of these, or people with family members who do, who are reading this site.  these are biological illnesses/imbalances, not to be ridiculed.    

p.s. i don't have any 'paranoia' about you having any influence or power etc

looking past the 'ad hominem' slurs: does that first paragraph even mean anything?  are you basically tring to say their communicated according to a persons understandoing, as per the buddha famously did.  or are you saying 'it was like people like to children about santa claus. to make them behave'.  seems like the latter.  these are two different things.

and to the second paragraph, yes but you are projecting your own onto the original source.

the third paragraph-  why do you keep phrasing in generalisations?  what is all of that even supposed to mean?  can you give an physical example of having to 'contextualise' in a 'totally different environment'. 

i think posting anonymous is the best thing ever, and a genius move by the creator/aintainer of this site.  because it keeps the focus on the content, not the person.

Mate, you're boring. 

[Ragmaala]

9 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

@Gunahgar

Ok. That's pretty interesting.
 

I would say it is Supreme God giving them darshan in whatever swaroop they hold most dearly to them, whether or not they know it themselves or not. ;)

I think it is also interpretation. Interpretation in the moment of the vision, and interpretation later on. Keeping in mind the person having the vision and their belief system.

Also - Consciousness can create forms the way a sculptor creates sculptures. I believe you can create astral beings through thought.

 

Anyways, I think these are images of Supreme God, that are designed to convey certain qualities. You cannot put all qualities in all at once in one image -

ਕੇਤੇ ਆਖਹਿ ਆਖਣਿ ਪਾਹਿ ॥
ਕੇਤੇ ਕਹਿ ਕਹਿ ਉਠਿ ਉਠਿ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
ਏਤੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਹੋਰਿ ਕਰੇਹਿ ॥
ਤਾ ਆਖਿ ਨ ਸਕਹਿ ਕੇਈ ਕੇਇ ॥

ਨਾਨਕ ਕਾਗਦ ਲਖ ਮਣਾ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਕੀਚੈ ਭਾਉ ॥
ਮਸੂ ਤੋਟਿ ਨ ਆਵਈ ਲੇਖਣਿ ਪਉਣੁ ਚਲਾਉ ॥
ਭੀ ਤੇਰੀ ਕੀਮਤਿ ਨਾ ਪਵੈ ਹਉ ਕੇਵਡੁ ਆਖਾ ਨਾਉ ॥੪॥੨॥

But each naam, each saint, each image is fully expressing the Supreme Being.

 

The Antaryami knows what to show up as. He is a trickster. He will play with you, put you in one religion and show you forms that are sacred in another religion (the incidents you described). He might show forms from different religions. He might show all those forms at once (Krishan ji to Bhagt Arjun). He might not show anything and only give intuition. Or he might not do anything at all, and leave you clueless.

 

Although I had never heard of specific incidents like the ones you mentioned (I never really cared about it), I thought about them after one occurred for my self.

I don't personally know those people you mentioned and what they saw and what they thought.
So I'll tell you about myself.
In one of my dreams, Shri Hari mounted on the Sheshnaag, all in black form, came to me. I as soon as I saw him, I woke up thinking WTF, still lying on the bed, eyes closed, body asleep.
And then he pulled me inside him, like a whirlpool, and inside him was nothing. And I found myself in Samadhi for the first time.

More detail in this thread -

So you can say it was an astral being who lead me to God. Like how in Christianity they say angels come and inspire.

Or you can say it was Supreme Being himself who lead me to him.

Since I worship Guru Granth Sahib, I go with the latter, because it talks about the Supreme Being as dark-skinned, resting on the Sheshnaag, you get the picture ;)

 

But again I think these are just images, that are designed to convey certain qualities. So people see different things, and people have all sorts of religions and philosophies and ideas about it.

What is the reality operating underneath this vast ocean of knowledge?

To access that one must let go of all knowledge and beliefs.
Even though I carry big burden when I go collecting knowledge, I must slowly drop that burden in meditation. And let go of it all, as it is ultimately all false, meaning, to go into a state of unknowing (not knowing).
If only for a moment, one must let go of all that they think is true or false and simply be that one who thinks in the first place. That one is Antaryami.

Your points are definitely interesting and to think about. At the moment, I don't have personal evidence to prove my point.  But you seem to be going in the right direction, and I don't see anything wrong with your approach.

For myself, I need to dive deeper & deeper, then knowledge will reveal itself :)

[BhagatSingh]

@N30 S!NGH

Bump for N30. Check this out.

Khanda does not mean what you think it means.

[Guest guest]

^what are you basing your idea of the khanda on?

[BhagatSingh]

I went over that in the thread. Start at page 5.

[Guest guest]

what you wrote on page 5 is:
"Btw note that none of this is my interpretation that's just how that is. I have just learned this over time, this is not my original thinking."

???

learned from where?

[BhagatSingh]

20 hours ago, Guest guest said:

what you wrote on page 5 is:
"Btw note that none of this is my interpretation that's just how that is. I have just learned this over time, this is not my original thinking."

???

learned from where?

Well things like definitions and verses that is from srigranth.org
Shri Granth has dictionaries, mahan kosh, Farid Kote wala teeka - all this knowledge loaded into it.

Understanding and making connections between various things, various bits and pieces that are scattered (some which do not seem to fit properly into mainstream sikh understanding)  and seeing the bigger picture, the network of knowledge, the web of ideas, all of that comes from meditation and from Ustad Nar Singh ji Narayan.

[Guest guest]

well, don't you think it could just be an image of the weapons typical of Nihungs- the chakar, the kirpan, and the scimitar?  arranged in a pretty pattern.