sunnyji

Couldn't agree more, as Sikhs we should have the utmost respect for the rest of humanity, regardless of their faith, background, colour, creed etc. Terms like this are totally derogatory and completely go against the Gurus' teachings of humility, respect and love.

Yes, I used "he" because that's the common term used but as I explained Waheguru is not really a he. We seem to be going around in circles here. As I said before, it comes down to interpretation. Interpretation is when you look at something and try and understand the underlying message. My personal understanding is that the Gurus were not Avatars of God since Waheguru is Nirankaar, and his Sargun state is the entire universe (and beyond) - Ik Onkaar - one reality/universe/supreme creation, thus Waheguru is by definition infinity - Akaal Purakh. I respect that you feel differently. WJKK, WJKF

Because "he" isn't really a "he" at all. My understanding is that Waheguru isn't a "person" with any emotions who chooses to do things that "please" or "displease" him, because Waheguru is beyond human feelings and limitations. Waheguru IS his own creation, so I believe he wouldn't choose to come as an avatar because he already IS everything that exists, has existed and will exist - i.e. totally immanent.

I don't believe Krishna was an avatar, I believe Krishna was a man who lived 1000s of years ago, and over time stories were created about him and exaggerated, a bit like Chinese whispers, and eventually those stories became so dramatic that he was considered a "God" or "avatar" by much of India. My personal view is that God is not "human-like" or anthropomorphic, and if He is truly infinite then can't become avatars.

The way I understand it, Akal Purakh's Sargun isn't "jooni", his Sargun is the entire universe and creation. A lot of people misinterpret Sargun to mean an avatar or single physical form, which Waheguru cannot be, since by definition Waheguru is everything and infinite, and cannot be limited to something small and physical.

That's a good point veerji, cremation prevents a physical location which people can go to to "pray" or revere the dead body for example. I guess in that sense, cremation helps people to move on after a loved one's death.

Agreed, I'm not a fan of this magic nonsense which seems to have become so widespread amongst a lot of Sikhs nowadays - it's exactly the kind of rubbish that Guru Nanak broke away from, one of the main reasons he formed Sikhi was to stop people from believing in superstitious rubbish!

You have taken the message at face value without understanding the meaning behind it. If we started doing that with every line from Gurbani we'd all believe in goblins, demons, ghouls and worship the "Lord's Lotus Feet". We have to understand what the philosophy behind the poetry is. Agreed veerji, the Mool Mantar is the key to Gurbani, once you truly understand that the rest of the Guru Granth Sahib follows on naturally. I don't even like to use the word God to be honest, it makes people think of the Abrahamic definition of a man in the sky. Onkaar IS creation and extends timelessly throughout and beyond it. It has no form, is infinite, and beyond birth/death - it is not even remotely human in the slightest. How, then, can the Gurus be avatars of Waheguru? What makes more sense to me is that the Gurus were enlightened in the sense that they truly understood the nature of Waheguru and had completely connected to it; they were an example of the perfect humans.

The Guru's teachings have always told us that, once the soul has moved on, the body has no use, hence Guru Arjan Dev Ji's shabad above. So really, from a religious point of view, does cremation or burial matter? I think it's more of a cultural/traditional thing rather than a religious one, since the person has no use for the body after the soul has left. Not sure whether Maharaja Dalip Singh's burial was according to their wishes or not, but what would it achieve by cremating his body now, all these years later?

Very true indeed veerji, that was just me trying to interpret it and understand it but you're right, the key thing is to focus on now and live your life to the fullest - Kirat Karo, Naam Japo, Vand Chhako!

Hmm, who knows I guess...although I was always under the impression that heaven/hell was used in Gurbani as metaphors to describe state of mind, or other stages of reincarnation: ਕਵਨੁ ਨਰਕੁ ਕਿਆ ਸੁਰਗੁ ਬਿਚਾਰਾ ਸੰਤਨ ਦੋਊ ਰਾਦੇ || ਹਮ ਕਾਹੂ ਕੀ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕਢਤੇ ਅਪਨੇ ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੇ ||੫|| “What is hell, and what is heaven? The Saints reject them both. I have no obligation to either of them, by the Grace of my Guru. ||5||” (Ang 969) E.g. going through the 8.4 million life forms before reaching human is considered a metaphorical "hell": ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਨਰਕ ਨ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਰਸਕਿ ਰਸਕਿ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਈ ਹੇ ||੧੦|| Don’t get to see the 8.4 million hells, if you sing praises of Vaheguru with Anand, Rass (pleasure). And "heaven" is being in a state of total unity and bliss with Akaal Purakh: ਤਹਾ ਬੈਕੁੰਠੁ ਜਹ ਕੀਰਤਨੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਸਰਧਾ ਲਾਇਹਿ ॥੨॥ “That place is heaven, where the Lord’s Praises are sung. You Yourself instill faith into us. ||2||” (Ang 749)

I didn't say reincarnation doesn't exist. Yes, I do believe in the existence of the soul. What I was trying to say is that you can't take everything in Gurbani literally. For example, reincarnation is mentioned in Gurbani. Heaven and hell are also mentioned (by Bhagat Kabir Ji, if I'm not mistaken). Since these two ideas conflict with each other (because you can't have reincarnation AND heaven/hell), one of them must be metaphorical, used to describe a message.

I wasn't talking about literary devices in the specific part of Gurbani you quoted, I was talking generally about the fact that you can't take Gurbani at face value, you have to understand the meaning behind the message. I'm not very good at explaining myself here, but I came across an interesting article which explains what I'm trying to say: http://dailysikhupdates.com/2013/09/22/the-use-of-metaphor-in-gurbani-and-how-to-understand-when-interpreting-shabads/ Furthermore, of course absolute statements are absoute, but re-read what I wrote - who defines what is an absolute statement and what is not? You may think that the line you quoted is absolute, but that is your opinion; personally, I do not think it is absolute. The subjectivity, as I said before, is that you believe it literally means the Guru is God as an incarnation or avatar, but I believe it means that the Guru has the light of Waheguru. Yes, the Singh was speaking about God's form - and God is formless, exactly what I was saying, so it wouldn't make sense that God could be limited to physical boundaries.

Poetry is used to deliver a message in a particular style. Gurbani was written at a time when the most prominent members of society were uneducated, illiterate Hindus and Muslims. These people would not understand Guru Nanak's philosophy as it was, it was so revolutionary and amazing that they simply wouldn't comprehend it all! Thus, metaphors and literacy devices were used to convey the message via poetry. Also, what constitutes an "absolute statement" is subjective. To you, this may an absolute statement, but to me, it is not. I see it as poetic metaphor to describe the fact that Nanak was the most perfectly realised soul - he has soul had totally united with his Creator, the almighty Akaal Purakh. Thus Nanak "was" God in the sense that he had merged with the light of the Akaal, but he was not an incarnation of Waheguru, since Waheguru is beyond limiting physical form - and we realise Waheguru through the grace of the Guru. That's my understanding of it anyway, based on the Gurbani I've read and what I've studied of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's incredible philosophy, teachings, and way of life. EDIT: Just come across the video posted by Basics of Sikhi, illusrates my point quite nicely about God having no form

True words, as a Sikh it's your duty to protect the innocent, whatever form that may be in, and this is one example of that! It would be the morally correct thing to tell her, before things get even more out of hand or she finds out of her own accord further down the line.