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.

You first used the word "he" to describe Waheguru.

How do you know what Waheguru chooses?What if "he" said "I wana come as an avatar"for the hell of it?Remember that Waheguru can do anything "he" wants to do even if "he" wants to come as an avtar as a human.We cannot restrict Waheguru by saying that he does not have feelings etc."He" does and does not have feelings at the same time."He" is everything and nothing at the same time."He" is good and bad at the same time."He" is human and not a human at the same time.Waheguru is too complex to for us to make conclusions.If we tried our minds might explode!The only people who knew were the gurus because THEY WERE THE ONE AND ONLY WAHEGURU.They were no different.Guru gobind singh ji sache patshah even writes specifically that guru Nanak dev Ji maharaj himself was Waheguru.In the tuk there is no other interpretation saying that he was the light of god etc.It says that he was god period!

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

If he is truly infinite then why are you trying to say that he can never come in human form?Thats limiting god.

If he is truly infinite then why are you trying to say that he can never come in human form?Thats limiting god.

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.

Interesting so you feel Sargun isn't avtar. So when god came before dhanna he was sargun but krishna is an avtar.

Interesting so you feel Sargun isn't avtar. So when god came before dhanna he was sargun but krishna is an avtar.

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.

Joni is the opposite of what mool mantar says when it says Ajooni which means beyond birth and death. Gurbani says we have 8.4 joons lifetimes. Akal purkh doesn't have any joons, however akal purkh can be sargun which is with form. Akal purkh being sargun doesn't make akal purkh jooni. So the translation you said implies god can't take avtar, avtars aren't subject to jon either. Krishna isn't said in hinduism to have been subject to many lifetimes of the past, he was a god head. Although hindus celebrate janmashtami (janam=birth) the birth of krishna and god doesn't take birth. The translation you have was said by zakir naik it is done to favour muhammdenism or abrahamics collectively who oppose the ideas of avtar and find that god is to pure to come down to the earth which is polluted with sin rather then an interpersonal god that loves us the idea is propagated of god on the 7th heaven who hates non believers and wishes to be feared- against the god of sikhi. Another thing joon isn't just attributed to humans it applies to animals, some hindus call certain animals also god like cows, monkeys, snakes, rats etc.

Let those mouths burn which say god is subject to birth-death cycle

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.

Yeah, if you're out at sea you can throw the body into the ocean. If you live in a desert, bury the person. Cremation is prefered because it is cultural (in India) and it stops people praying at graveyards to dead bodies.

The body is simply an empty vessel. It returns to where it came from.

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.

Interesting. It's interesting to note Geronimo's remains were stolen by the Skull and Bones Society at Yale, probably has to do with this kaala jadoo nonsense.

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!

Then show me where I have so called twisted (taken out of context) the line. I know for a fact that I have not taken the line out of context. Also Gurbani interpretations are done by interpreting the Gurmukhi and not the english. Just a note in case you start interpreting the shabad.

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.

Jaspreet Bir'ay isn't the Mool Mantar the classic definition of an absolute statement?

Who did Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj exactly pray to (if not Akaal Purakh)?

Why do some Sikhs need to copy the Hindu's and Christians with their false beliefs regarding God appearing in human form as they claim with Jesus, Ram, Krishna etc?

Imho Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj makes an absolute statement that God is beyond human births as a baby that cannot feed itself and human bodies that die.

However, if you choose to believe differently then that does not lessen my respect for you as a fellow brother within a Panth where all of us (myself included) need to focus more on our fundamental Unity rather than our smaller ideological differences.

ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

॥ ਜਪੁ ॥

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥1॥

Transliteration:

Ik oa(n)kaar sath naam karathaa purakh nirabho niravair akaal moorath ajoonee saibha(n) gur prasaadh ॥

॥ jap ॥

aadh sach jugaadh sach ॥ hai bhee sach naanak hosee bhee sach ॥1॥

One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace

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?

Sunny ji

The above quotes stress that in sikhi one should focus on god realization by meditation and should not worry about

afterlife. That is the goal of a sikh.Unlike other religions that play on nerves of their followers by punishment in hell

or reward in heaven, sikhi teaches us to lead our life under will Of god.

It does not reject heaven and hell.They may be there but a sikh is advised to take care of present and remember God.

Do not worry about afterlife reward or punishment.

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!

If you believe in soul then there is reincarnation also unless your soul has blended with supreme soul. Who knows hell and heaven may

be transitional points on our journey to next life.

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)

How do you know that these things do not exist. Do you believe in existence of soul?

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.

Where do i begin. Show me where the literary devices are used in the Gurbani i presented?

ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਹਰਿ ਸੋਇ ॥੪॥੭॥੯॥

Break the line down and show me these literary devices in the above tuk.

Next absolute statements are not subjective. Show me where the subjectivity is in the example I gave you and the Gurbani tuk.

​It will be sunny all day today.

ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਹਰਿ ਸੋਇ ॥੪॥੭॥੯॥

Break it down for me here.

Lastly, the singh in the video is speaking about God's form. We are speaking about Guru is God.

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.

There are poems written on science. These poems on science are all factual. But why use poetic form to write science? Why write any message in poetic form? People with less knowledge would not take these poems written on science at face value. Simply because the facts are written in poetic form. With time i can see a lot more ignorance taking place. As many more people will call science false just because some writers have taken a poetic way to convey a message on science.

Something written in poetic form does not make the whole statement just a metaphor with half truths in it. This is one of the biggest mistakes any person can make when reading Gurbani or science for that matter. Poetry can be used to express the truth as it is used in Gurbani and science. Poetic form delivers the message home a lot quicker and sticks in the mind a lot longer. In Gurbani poetic form is used to instill a true message in a person.

Also absolute statement is a statement which cannot be wrong. Here is an example of an absolute statement:

​It will be sunny all day today.

In this statement there is no uncertainty on how the weather will be today or room for interpretation. The interpretation of this absolute statement is simple as today it will be sunny all day. If a person like you came along and said, "I interpret this absolute statement to say that the writer was saying it will be partially sunny today." Then every person that understands absolute statements will know you disagree with the absolute statement. No one that understands absolute statements will say you interpret it differently because there is only one clear interpretation of such statements.

Here is Gurbani in a absolute statement saying Guru is God:

ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਹਰਿ ਸੋਇ ॥੪॥੭॥੯॥

गुरु नानकु नानकु हरि सोइ ॥४॥७॥९॥

Gur Nānak Nānak har so▫e. ||4||7||9||

Nanak is the Guru; Nanak is the Lord Himself. ||4||7||9|| ang 864

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

Your friends are obviously far too immature to be in relationships. You may have to consider that she may have a pretty good idea and choosing to let it go, so may not be as 'wise' or 'innocent' as you think. Putting all that aside for a moment, tell him something along the lines of the following:

I consider you a friend and you have a responsibility to not hurt and abuse the trust of another person. You are also hurting yourself, but not aware of that at this time. The only proper thing for you to do is tell her yourself and move forward with consequences. I tell you this as a friend. I know this is not easy for you so you have a deadline of one week to tell her. If you want me to tell her for you, I will.

Regardless, everyone has a positive duty to protect innocent people from harm, so if you don't tell her in one week, I will tell her on my own initiative. I will support you but if you choose to break our friendship over this, that is your choice, not mine.

---

At 17 years old, either you must ensure you are well rooted in excellent value system to surround yourself with friends like this and influence them, or find better company. It usually does not mean you have to entirely abandon others. Frankly your friends behavior sounds like that of an immature *** who has much to learn.

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.

If i present you with a line that directly says Guru is God from Gurbani, will you accept it?

Go for it, but as I said before, it comes down to interpretation. There are passages in Guru Ji about reincarnation, and also passages about heaven and hell. Are we take both of these literally? That would conflict with each other, so at least one of them has to be a metaphor or have a deeper meaning behind it. The point I'm trying to make veerji, is don't take Gurbani at face value - it is poetry, the most beautiful poetry ever written, and as with all poetry, uses poetical devices to illustrate its point.

There is research being done about it, some limited research shows sugar might cause inflammation found in autoimmune diseases. Although it's not with absolute proof, and it's a question of diet and how you maintain health. Generally there have been cases were patients have improved their health through better diets, with that the quality of life they had improved and they did go into remission. So some have drawn into conclusion that fatty foods did that to them. However you will find people with balanced diets do suffer from autoimmune illnesses aswell.

Infact let me say this on the record, herbal medicines are likely to do more harm than western medicines are. Simply because western medicines are tested, peer-reviewed, monitored, regulated, constantly tested and are based of empirical evidence not fairy tale mixed in with some true stories. Right now there is absolutely no regulation on herbal medicines so you can literally eat poison.

Yeah, I have seen some stuff on that tbh, but that's in very rare circumstances, and as you say there's no conclusive proof yet, just correlations. I totally agree about herbal medicines - the process that normal medicines go through is very very tightly controlled and regulated. Most people don't know that 99.99% of medicines don't make it to the public market because of this long safety process!

It is not inflammatory as you guessed sunnyji.

and there is nothing wrong with the natural approaches as mentioned by username1 above. :nono:

They are much less likely to do you harm compared to conventional medicines.

One should first look at exactly what your trying to treat and the options available. :biggrin2:

Being a medical student has helped already haha :biggrin2:

A new thing i learnt today from study of Ayurved is that sugar is inflammatory. That would explain the devastation it causes in those who lack insulin (diabetes sufferers). Skin complaint sufferers should completely abstain from sugar. Processed white sugar is especially bad. Crushed Gur or brown sugar is a better option but in moderation

I haven't been able to find any medical references to sugar being inflammatory - the reason it causes devastation in those who lack insulin is...well, because they lack insulin. Insulin is needed for the body to absorb sugar from the blood, so people without insulin have very high blood sugar levels.

Abstaining from sugar altogether is bad, since we need it in our diets, it's a primary source of energy. However, it is sensible to control the amount of sugar you eat, I think the recommended daily allowance is about 90g/day for men.

Well, Christmas is celebrated by Christians as the birth of Jesus, the founder of their faith. I guess you could say the equivalent is the Gurpurabs, the birthdays of the Gurus, the founders of Sikhi (although Jesus is portrayed by Christians as the physical son of God through a virgin mother, whereas we don't believe that about the Gurus).

What I have made bold in the above shows lack of understand of absolute statements. Here is an example, if science says gravity is the force that holds everything in place. You have two choices either to agree with the statement as it is or disagree with it. You cannot change the translation to mean anything else because the statement is completely clear on what it is stating. It is an absolute statement. It did not state science says gravity is LIKE the force that holds everything in place. It says, "is".

More than once Gurbani has said the Guru IS God. But all it would take is one of these lines in Gurbani to show any person that an absolute statement has been made and their is only two ways around it. Either reject it or accept what is being said completely. Being a Sikh, you cannot reject any of Gurbani.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not an absolute statement. With regards to your allegory of gravity, that's different, science is much more objective than Sikhi; but anyway, that's something else altogether.

I'm not rejecting Gurbani, I'm interpreting it. You can't take Gurbani literally, it's riddled with metaphors which allude to different concepts of reality and truth, and you have to interpret it in the best way you can. So as I said before, my understanding of the Guru "being" God means the Guru has the light of God, not that the Guru is an incarnation/avatar of God. As far as I know, Basics of Sikhi's YouTube channel does a better job of explaining this than I do :biggrin2:

that is shabad and Guru Granth Sahib ji is shabad

I know, I'm not disputing that, I'm disagreeing with the statement that the "Guru is God", which is very misleading. In a sense, we are all God as God is everything, but it's wrong to say the Guru is an avatar/incarnation of Waheguru.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

you attain the very form of god when you attain bhramgian by Gurprasaad

other wise we are covered in filth , so the internal jot is of same form of nirankar but this sakar roop we have is covered in filth with our own karams

but Guru Granth sahib ji is Guru

Gurbani is not something Guru's came up with it was told by Akal purakh himself

Jaise Mein Aave Khasam Ki Bani

because those are very words of Akal purak and Guru granth sahib ji is the Saakar roop of that nirankar akal purakh

that is the reason why it is highly respected

Guru Arjan Dev ji,

used to place Adh Granth Sahib ji on bed and he himself used to sleep below it

I see what you're trying to say veerji, but again that's making the Guru out to be an avatar of God, whereas God is nirankaar (formless) and the Gurus explicitly said He is ajooni, outside the cycle of birth and death. The entire creation, the whole universe, everything that has ever existed, human kind and beyond - that is God's roop.

Mere Sahib says

waho waho Bani nirankar hai.

also.

there are many hindu and sufi muslim bhramgiani's who wrote many years before Akal Purak Took sargun saroop in form of Guru Nanak Dev ji

bhavish puran itself has 26 shaloks of Guru Nanaks agman and muslims text too

Same is said in Suraj prakash granth

Guru Granth Sahib ji is sargun saroop of Nirankar Akal purakh

the only avatar ever took by Akal purak

he is god , for it contains shabad

and is living Guru

It is the same court in Sachkhand/Amritpuri

as it is in a Gurudwara where Guru sahib resides

But the Gurus always told us never to worship them, and that Akaal Purakh is formless. If you wanna say Guru is God, then we're all God, in the sense that Waheguru is all-pervading and everything and everywhere. The Gurus achieved the ultimate level of realisation of Truth and Naam, and taught us how to work towards doing the same. This passage from the SikhiWiki website sums it up nicely:

"

He is the teacher who shows the way. He is not an intercessor, but an exemplar and guide. He is no avatar or God’s incarnation, but it is through him that God instructs men. He is the perfectly realized soul; at the same time, he is capable of leading the believers to the highest state of spiritual enlightenment.

The Guru has been called the ladder or the rowboat by means of which one reaches God. He is the revealer of God’s word. Through him God’s word, sabda, enters human history. The Guru is the voice of God, the Divine self-revelation. Man turns to the Guru for instruction because of his wisdom and his moral piety. He indicates the path to liberation.

It is the Guru who brings the love and nature of God to the believer. It is he who brings that grace of God by which haumai or egoity is mastered. The Guru is witness to God’s love of His creation. He is God’s hukam, i.e. Will, made concrete."

Incarnations? Really?

The Mool Mantar also mentions how Ik Oankar is "Ajooni"= without births and deaths, which kinda makes that argument impossible. There is no concept of incarnations in Sikhi because God is not born and God does not pass away. If the Gurus were God-incarnates, then why not Jesus Christ?

Read my post again, I was agreeing with you lol, I said the Gurus weren't incarnations.