The Only Way...

[Singh132]

Before 1469, only select Bhagats were blessed with Naam by Guru Nanak who is the eternal Guru and had not yet taken a physical form. Such Bhagats were like Dhru and Prehlad. Bani tells us that it was Guru Nanak himself who gave them naam. But those that did not, have to be reborn and get naam from Guru Nanak. Doesn't seem unfair to me. After all, WE are probably amongst those that have been around since before 1469 as souls, and we don't seem too bothered by the time it's taken.

It's not a question of respecting others. Sikhi teaches that. It's a given. But it's a matter of acknowledging that Guru Nanak has revealed the Ultimate Path and "Sabh tay Vada Satguru Nanak jin Kal rakhee meri". That's all. Guru N anak has no equal who can give naam and lead one to God.

[Khalsa4ever]

Before 1469, only select Bhagats were blessed with Naam by Guru Nanak who is the eternal Guru and had not yet taken a physical form.  Such Bhagats were like Dhru and Prehlad.  Bani tells us that it was Guru Nanak himself who gave them naam.  But those that did not, have to be reborn and get naam from Guru Nanak.  Doesn't seem unfair to me.  After all, WE are probably amongst those that have been around since before 1469 as souls, and we don't seem too bothered by the time it's taken.

155437[/snapback]

so "Guru Nanak" gave naam to people before he was born... now that means they could have been a part of any faith, and using those faiths, by kirth karna, naam japna, vadh chakna, recieved naam within the aspects of those faiths. (and how do you know that Jesus or Buddha or Moses wasn't at Guru Nanak's level? Ik Onkaar... means there is only one God... and all religions initially started with his divine inspiration. There are plenty of examples of Vaheguroo's blessings upon many early starters of major religions, including in the Guru Granth Sahib (remember the story of Pralad?) and if HE blesses them, you are in no position to say that they are fake)

...and veerjee, you STILL haven't shown that Gurbani says that Guru Nanak is the ONLY Guru (teacher) that can give naam... so while I keep looking, you should keep looking too!

[Singh132]

Veer Khalsa4Ever,

Please read this shabad and let's discuss it.

pauVI ]

scu scw sB dU vfw hY so ley ijsu siqguru itky ]

so siqguru ij scu iDAwiedw scu scw siqguru ieky ]

soeI siqguru purKu hY ijin pMjy dUq kIqy vis iCky ]

ij ibnu siqgur syvy Awpu gxwiedy iqn AMdir kUVu iPtu iPtu muh iPky ]

Eie boly iksY n BwvnI muh kwly siqgur qy cuky ]8]

This Pauri tells us exactly who Satguru is. Satguru according to this Pauri is one and immersed in Vahiguru. That is Satguru Nanak. I asked before and I ask again, is there an equal to Satguru Nanak? Gurbani tells us

sB qy vfw siqguru nwnku ijin kl rwKI myrI

Guru Nanak is the highest. He has no equal. So who could be a Satguru other than him?

Veer, you seem to be misinformed about the other religions. Mohammed as a 50-something year old married and slept with a 9 year old. His followers admit that he allowed Muslims to rape women prisoners. Is he blessed by Vahiguru?

Christ was a good person but on the cross, he cried out, "Lord, Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is in contrast to Guru Arjan who being boiled alive said "your will is sweet to me, Nanak asks for the wealth of your naam." That is the difference between Satguru Nanak's jot and any other religious leader.

If all religions started with God's inspiration, do you say the same about Satanism? How about Scientology? If God inspired them all, why do they have rules that are contrasting? God is one, Truth is one, so how can there be inconsistent rules given by the True One? There is only one God, and his light is in all of us, but not all religions are inspired by him.

You said Prehlad proves that you can be of another faith and be blessed. No. These people who were blessed lived as Sikhs. They didn't do any of the 4 kurehits. They were blessed by Gian by Guru Nanak. I've written a small article on this that I'm pasting below.

At any rate though, Prehlad didn't start any religion. There is NO mention of any founder of any religion being blessed in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. None. Not Jesus or Moses or Mohammed or Buddha. In fact, Buddha is said to be in Gian Khand by Japji Sahib, which is clearly lower than Sach Khand.

My point remains the same. Other religions aren't condemned to hell, but only a Sikh of the Supreme Guru Nanak can find the Ultimate Destination. Please find me quotes or other proof that show otherwise....

>>>>>>>>>

From reading Bhattan Kay Svaiyay, I know that Guru Nanak has existed through the 4 jugs. He revealed Gurmat Naam openly only in Kaljug. I also know from Guru Sahib's bani that Dhru and Prehlad were saved by "Gurmat Naam". Not any naam but only Gurmat Naam. "Dhroo Prehlaad Bidar Dasee Sut, Gurmukh Naam Taray"

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that Guru Nanak used to do kirpa on select bhagats and bless them with Gurmat Naam. Svaiyay M: 5 kay tell us "Siri Guru Sahib Sabh Oopar. Karee Kirpa Satjug jin Dhroo par. Sree Prehlaad Bhagat Udhreeang. Haso kamal mathay par dhareeang." This means that Siri Guru Sahib (this clearly means Guru Nanak since it is the Bhattan Day Saviayay and they are talking about glory of Guru Nanak), does kirpa on everyone. In Satjug he blessed Dhroo. He saved Prehlaad. He put his lotus hands on their forehead (I always take this to mean gave them naam, just like naam is given the same way now by punj pyaaray with their hands on the abhilakhis head).

In the same bandh it says "Gur parsaad prabh paieeai, gur bin mukat na hoi" meaning only by Guru's grace is Vahiguru found and without a Guru no one is mukat." The very next line says "Guru Nanak Nikat basai banvaree" and goes on to talk about Guru Angad, Guru Amardas and Guru Ram Das. This is all the same bandh, not a new one.

It is clear that the Guru is only Guru Nanak. It is clear that without Guru Nanak no one can be saved. And it is clear that Guru Nanak himself did kirpa and gave naam to Dhroo and Prehlaad.

This isn't totally restricted to previous jugs. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh writes about the prisoner in jail for life who wanted naam but knew he could never go to the Punj Pyaaray. Bhai Sahib asked him to do ardaas to Guru Nanak for the gift of naam. Bhai Sahib felt very sympathetic but could not reveal naam alone without the punj pyaaray. Soon after, that prisoner began to jap naam and Bhai Sahib was amazed that Guru Nanak had done kirpa and revealed it to him.

[Jaspaul Singh]

edited :lol:

[Khalsa4ever]

pauVI ]

scu scw sB dU vfw hY so ley ijsu siqguru itky ]

so siqguru ij scu iDAwiedw scu scw siqguru ieky ]

soeI siqguru purKu hY ijin pMjy dUq kIqy vis iCky ]

ij ibnu siqgur syvy Awpu gxwiedy iqn AMdir kUVu iPtu iPtu muh iPky ]

Eie boly iksY n BwvnI muh kwly siqgur qy cuky ]8]

This Pauri tells us exactly who Satguru is.  Satguru according to this Pauri is one and immersed in Vahiguru.  That is Satguru Nanak.

This line tells us that the definition of a Satguru is one who meditates on the lord. It does not exclude anybody.

I asked before and I ask again, is there an equal to Satguru Nanak?  Gurbani tells us

sB qy vfw siqguru nwnku ijin kl rwKI myrI

Guru Nanak is the highest.  He has no equal.  So who could be a Satguru other than him?

This line is often misquoted. If you look at the other lines of bani where Guru Nanak writes his mark at the end, in poetry style it is like this:

Sabh tei Vadha satgur // Nanak jin kal rakhi meri.

That has a very different meaning. It is Guru Nanak Saying that the highest of the high is a Satguru, a True Guru and Nanak says that HE has saved him.

Veer, you seem to be misinformed about the other religions.  Mohammed as a 50-something year old married and slept with a 9 year old.  His followers admit that he allowed Muslims to rape women prisoners.  Is he blessed by Vahiguru?

The followers that you quote might be wrong. How many Raidswamis do we know call themselves Sikh but lie about these things?

Christ was a good person but on the cross, he cried out, "Lord, Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?"  This is in contrast to Guru Arjan who being boiled alive said "your will is sweet to me, Nanak asks for the wealth of your naam."  That is the difference between Satguru Nanak's jot and any other religious leader.

You must not have remembered the story of Guru Nanak, where Babar Shah killed and tortured many people. Guru Nanak himself witnessed this and asked God:

eaethee maar pee kurulaanae thai kee dhurudh n aaeiaa

There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? ||1||

He too asked God why he rained suffering upon them. And Jesus may have asked why there was suffering, but he came back to life. Maybe that was the rebirth that made him a mahapurakh, I don't know. But neither do you.

If all religions started with God's inspiration, do you say the same about Satanism?  How about Scientology?  If God inspired them all, why do they have rules that are contrasting?  God is one, Truth is one, so how can there be inconsistent rules given by the True One?  There is only one God, and his light is in all of us, but not all religions are inspired by him. 

Religions and cults are different things. Religions have been established based on a divine inspiration, cults are out of anger.

You said Prehlad proves that you can be of another faith and be blessed.  No.  These people who were blessed lived as Sikhs.  They didn't do any of the 4 kurehits.  They were blessed by Gian by Guru Nanak.  I've written a small article on this that I'm pasting below. 

What? So by your definition, ANYBODY who reaches GOD must be a SIKH. No wonder you are having trouble understanding what I say. If you start with that kind of definition, it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a reasonable conversation with you, because you have already ended the conversation before it started. Sorry veerjee, but I'm not gonna argue with you if you arn't going to be flexible enough to hear me with an open mind.

Please find me quotes or other proof that show otherwise....

I asked you first :lol:

And finally, you say that Guru Nanak did exist in the past, but only those who are called Sikh can reach Vaheguroo. Well Bhai Gurdaas Jee says:

In Satyug, Visnu in the form of Vasudev is said to have incarnated and ‘V’ Of Vahiguru reminds of Visnu.

sathijug sathigur vaasadhaev vaavaa vishanaa naam japaavai||

The true Guru of dvapar is said to be Harikrsna and ‘H’ of Vahiguru reminds of Hari.

dhuaapar sathigur hareekrishan haahaa har har naam dhhiaavai||

In the the treta was Ram and ‘R’ of Vahiguru tells that rembering Ram will produce joy and happiness.

thraethae sathigur raam jee raaraa raam japae sukh paavai||

In kalijug, Gobind is in the form of Nanak and ‘G’ of Vahiguru gets Govind recited.

kalijug naanak gur gobindh gagaa govindh naam japaavai||

The recitations of all the four ages subsume in Panchayan i.e. in the soul of the common man.

chaarae jaagae chahu jugee panchaaein vich jaae samaavai||

When joining four letters Vahiguru is remembered,

chaaron ashhar eik kar vaahiguroo jap manthr japaavai||

The jiv merges again in its origin.

jehaan thae oupajiaa fir thehaan samaavai ||aa||a||

Once again, I ask forgiveness about the translations, which may not be correct. But the point is still the same, remembrance of Gobind (as Guru Nanak), Raam, Vishnu, or Harikrishna bring one to Vaheguroo (uniting of souls). So one who calls themselves a hindu, but believes that Raam was sent here as a prophet from Vaheguroo, does seva, works hard, meditates on Waheguroo will still succeed.

[Singh132]

Bhai, I feel like I'm debating a Christian missionary. I feel personally shame that our community is so ignorant that they are arguing that Guru Nanak WASN'T special and others were his equal. I can't get my mind around this. Arguing that your Guru WASN'T special.

>>>>

This line is often misquoted. If you look at the other lines of bani where Guru Nanak writes his mark at the end, in poetry style it is like this:

Sabh tei Vadha satgur // Nanak jin kal rakhi meri.

>>>>

No, that is grammatically not the correct meaning. Wherever there is an aunkarh underneat Nanak, it makes it a Noun. Where it is mukta it means "says Nanak". Check it out in other places as well. Here are examples where it clearly refers to Guru Nanak as a Guru (noun) as opposed to "says Nanak": iqqu nwim risku nwnku lhxw QipE jyn sRb isDI ]

or

siqgurU DMnu nwnku msqik qum DirE ijin hQo ]

or

guru nwnku inkit bsY bnvwrI ]

There are many other examples and note that when it is noun Guru Nanak, there is an aunkarh. So it is indeed Satguru Nanak.

Then you said,

>>>>>

The followers that you quote might be wrong. How many Raidswamis do we know call themselves Sikh but lie about these things?

>>>>>

Not likely. These are examples from the Hadiths. The Hadiths are the commentaries by contemporaries of Mohammed. They all concurr on this and Muslims accept them. There is no doubt about it.

Then you quote the folllowing tuk saying Guru Nanak too cried out :

>>>>

eaethee maar pee kurulaanae thai kee dhurudh n aaeiaa

There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? ||1||

>>>>

You are taking the one line out of context. I've seen anti-Sikh people try this before, but this is the first time I've seen a Sikh do it. This one line is then followed by a total submission to Vahiguru's will. It is not a protest at all.

Then you said religions and cults are different. Who decides what a cult is? All religions start off as "cults". All start off as fringe. Is Scientology a religion? If it grew to 200 million would it be one? How about B'hai faith? Is that a divine religion or a cult?

Then you say,

>>>>>

What? So by your definition, ANYBODY who reaches GOD must be a SIKH. No wonder you are having trouble understanding what I say. If you start with that kind of definition, it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a reasonable conversation with you, because you have already ended the conversation before it started. Sorry veerjee, but I'm not gonna argue with you if you arn't going to be flexible enough to hear me with an open mind.

>>>>

Come on. I've given example after example. Even the example YOU provided of Bhai Gurdas says that Hindus and Muslims have no place in Vahiguru's court. YOU found that one. This debate is not going anywhere because you won't address the points I raise and come out with new stuff every time, which I have to go through.

I proved to you that Dhru and Prehlad were Sikhs of Guru Nanak with bani. You still don't accept it. What more can I do??

In the shabad of Bhai Gurdas you pasted, where does it say that reciting Gobind or Vishnu led to Vahiguru? Why did all those mantras have to be erased and replaced by Vahiguru if they all worked? What was the need of the new mantra?

All these mantras were obliterated. Your translation says,

The recitations of all the four ages subsume in Panchayan i.e. in the soul of the common man.

chaarae jaagae chahu jugee panchaaein vich jaae samaavai||

This is once again wrong. It means the 4 mantras were subsumed into the fifth (Panchayan). I have no idea where soul of the common man came from in that translation. Once it was subsumed into the fifth, now what is possible? Bhai Gurdas says, NOW, "The soul merges again in its origin.

jehaan thae oupajiaa fir thehaan samaavai ".

The jeev, NOW can merge. Not with the earlier ones, but only with this mantar. Once again your quote actually supports my argument.

Here's what Bhai Gurdas says about the other religions:

What does Bhai Gurdas think? Here it is (vaar 38, pauri 10)

bhu suMnI SIA rwPzI mzhb min Bwxy]

mulihd hoie munw&kw sB Brim Bulwxy]

eIsweI mUsweIAW haumY hYrwxy]

hoie iPrMgI ArmnI rUmI grbwxy]

kwlI pos klµdrW drvys dugwxy]

guru isK rom n pujnI gur hit ivkwxy ]10]

There are many Sunnis, Shias, Rafazis and (followers of) religions that please their minds.

Many hypocrites become atheists deluded by illusion and go wandering about.

Followers of Jesus (Christians) and Moses (Jews) are confounded by their pride.

They are English, Armenian and Roman, (stuck in) Ego

Some are blackclad recluses and dervishes, of little value.

They are not equal to even a single hair of a Gursikh, who has sold himself to the Guru (by offering his head in return for naam)

[Khalsa4ever]

Waheguroo jee ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo jee kee Fateh!

Once again, I feel like I've hit a brick wall with you... you give quotations from gurbani which is wonderful, but none of them say that EXCLUSIVELY without any other that ONLY a sikh can reach Waheguroo. I've given many examples that say that a Guru is required, and some examples from Guru Granth sahib of others before Guru Nanak's time that have also reached Waheguroo.

So I end my participation in this topic here, as I have made my points, and like I said in the begginning, it does not matter what we THINK the end of the road is, so long as we travel it properly according to the rules that Vaheguroo has laid out for us, we will reach it, and THEN realize what it is.

:TH:

Waheguroo jee ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo jee kee Fateh!

[Singh132]

I feel that I've shown that there is only one Satguru and that is Satguru Nanak and that to reach the Ultimate Destination of Sachkhand, naam is needed from him. I feel that in response to your examples of Prehlad, etc. who existed before Guru Nanak I've given quotes from Guru Granth Sahib that show it was indeed only Guru Nanak (the eternal Satguru) who blessed them and was their Guru.

As I said before, I am convinced of the total supremacy of Guru Nanak and his Panth. Guru Nanak is the only Satguru who can take one to SachKhand. We as Sikhs need to recognise this and realise how priviliged we are and take full benefit of this opportunity we have.

sB qy vfw siqguru nwnku ijin kl rwKI myrI

[Guest Sikhi is Great]

The most depressing thing that I find with Sikh youths I know is how ashamed they are to state their belief in the superiority of their faith.

Their shame to state with full force that Guru Nanak Dev Jee created something special, something unique, something beautiful.

Their complete inability to accept direct quotes from gurbani which state that only with Amrit/Naam can Sach Khand be reached.

People from other faiths can obviously reach very high spiritual levels, levels that most Sikhs will never come close to,

But they can't go all the way,

Not until they take Amrit and Jup Naam.

It says so explicitly in Baanee.

Why are we so arrogant in dismissing baanee when it doesn't fit with our riggid, PC, westernized worldview?

Creating self-doubt about the beauty and primacy of Sikhi is the easiest way to make ourselves feel alright with not following it completely.

"every religion is the same anyway, so what's the big deal if I don't do my nitnem, if I don't do simran, if I don't wear my kakaars or follow any of the hukams that Guru Jee set out for me?"

Once we accept that Sikhi is beautiful, that Guru Nanak Dev Jee brought something so beautiful that it is unparalleled to the world, it is so much easier to carry forward in following the hukams of the Guru, because we come to realize how special the path of Sikhi truly is. We carry forward in awe, in wonder, knowing that we were blessed with the great fortune to be one of the few to experience Sikhi and its greatness.

[Manchester_Sikhi]

Final point to make, seems like some of us on here are leaning towards the Islamic ideas of superiority of Sikhism over all other religions..aka..Sikhism is the only way.

Surely THIS IS EXACTLY what Guru Nanak Ji wanted us NOT TO DO. Didn't his Bhakti-reformation take some of the wonderful aspects of both Hinduism, Islam and other movements, and mould these into Sikhism?

Isn't this acceptance of superiorty of Sikhism thing a little akin to ego?

I'm not saying we shouldnt be proud of Sikhsim. But being proud of Sikhism or proud that Sikhism is the only way....isnt that just ego?

Where will that lead us? It will make out head bigger thinking we are great....

Why not just accept that we are fortunate to be on the Sikhi path and do our duty as Maharaji stated without getting into USELESS discussion on the greatness of Sikhi.

The GREATNESS of Sikhi is a personal issue...we develop the feeling and acceptance of greatness of sikhi within outselfs through our duties as a Sikh.

There is no need to try and persaude other or even waste out time with discussion like this because they DO NOT bring us any closer to Maharaji do they?

All this time me and you and everyone spent debating the greatness of Sikhi (and the greatness of every religion and the greatness of the world and all within it) in the human sense is all wasted. These few precious minutes could have been spent ACTUALLY seeing the greatness of Sikhi via NAAM and SIMRAN....now we have wasted 2 more mintues of our life....

Forgive me if I have offended anyone, but why can't we just stop debating such issues and realise THAT greatness is a person issue and comes from seeing Maharaji within ourselves and within our acceptance of others (non-Sikhs)>>> that IS the greatness of SIkhi!!!