The Only Way...

[Singh132]

>>>>>>>>

how do think jesus,mohammed,ram, etx.. reached god ?? .. answer .. NAAM !

they meditated on naam .. on gods name .. if guru nanak dev ji told us to jap naam and showed us the straight way and not through any other person then why not take that ?

>>>>>>>>>

Have you seen that Jesus, Mohammed and Ram are with God?

Mohammed who consumated his marriage to a 9 year old and told his followers it's ok to sexually violate female prisoners in front of their husbands (direct example from Hadiths that are accepted by Muslims)?

How do you know that they all reached God?

Which Naam did they jap?

Who was their Satguru? Where did they get naam from?

Read the debate above and answer the points given. If naam is only available from SAtguru, and Satguru is only Guru Nanak, then where did they get naam from?

LK,

you said, "Now if Bhagat Dhru and Prehlad were liberated/Sachkhand/salvated (whatever you want to call it) - would they not inspire others? Would they not be able to liberate/salvate others?"

Let's use a current example. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh inspired countless people to come to Sikhi. But he could not liberate or save anyone. He inspired them to go to Satguru Nanak and get naam. He himself did not and could not do this. Dhru and Prehlad are exceptions because they got naam from Satguru Nanak before it was openly availabe.

Please read the arguments above and reply to them. I don't have the desire to repeat this debate a second time.

[Lion(LK)King]

LK,

you said, "Now if Bhagat Dhru and Prehlad were liberated/Sachkhand/salvated (whatever you want to call it) - would they not inspire others? Would they not be able to liberate/salvate others?"

Let's use a current example. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh inspired countless people to come to Sikhi. But he could not liberate or save anyone. He inspired them to go to Satguru Nanak and get naam. He himself did not and could not do this. Dhru and Prehlad are exceptions because they got naam from Satguru Nanak before it was openly availabe.

Please read the arguments above and reply to them. I don't have the desire to repeat this debate a second time.

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I have read above posts, my issues have not been addessed, about Bhagats liberating other people.

It is, in my opinion, not appropreate to compare Bhai Randhir Singh Ji to Bhagat Dhru and Prehlad Ji. Why? Because we can be sure (from Gurbani) that they were indeed complete/pooran porash, complete beings, I can not be sure about the same with Bhai Randhir Singh (although he is a very respected Gurmukh, he CAN NOT be compared to the above mentioned).

The fact that Bhai Randhir Singh could not liberate or save anyone is one of the thing that makes him different from the Bhagats. Bhagat Namdev ji, according to Bhai Gurdas Ji, inspired Bhai Trilochan Ji. Let's have a look how Bhai Gurdas Ji nails it -

drSx vyKx nwmdyv Blky au~T iqRlocn AwvY]

Bgiq krn iml duie jxy nwmdyau hir clq suxwvY]

myrI BI kr bynqI drSn dyKW jy iqs BwvY]

Twkur jI noN puiCEs drSn ikvYN iqRlocn pwvY]

hskY Twkur boilAw nwmdyau noN kih smJwvY]

hQ n AwvY Byt so qus iqRlocn mYN muih lwvY]

hauN ADIn hW Bgq dy phuMc n hMGW BgqI dwvY]

hoie ivcolw Awx imlwvY ]ñò]

dharashan vaekhan naamadhaev bhalakae out(h) thrilochan aavai||

bhagath karan mil dhue janae naamadhaeo har chalath sunaavai||

maeree bhee kar baenathee dharashan dhaekhaa(n) jae this bhaavai||

t(h)aakur jee no(n) pushhious dharashan kivai(n) thrilochan paavai||

hasakai t(h)aakur boliaa naamadhaeo no(n) kehi samajhaavai||

hathh n aavai bhaett so thus thrilochan mai(n) muhi laavai||

hou(n) adhheen haa(n) bhagath dhae pahu(n)ch n ha(n)ghaa(n) bhagathee dhaavai||

hoe vicholaa aan milaavai ||aa||

Trilochan awoke early daily just to have sight of Namdev,

Together they would concentrate on the Lord and Namdev would tell him the grand stories of God.

(Trilochan asked Namdev) “kindly pray for me so that if the Lord accepts, I may also have a glimpse of His blessed vision.”

Namdev asked Thakur, the Lord, as to how Trilochan could have sight of the Lord ?

The Lord God smiled and explained to Naamdev;

“No offerings are needed by me. Out of my delight only, I would make Trilochan to have sight of me. "

I am under the total control of the devotees and their loving claims I can never reject; rather I myself also cannot understand them.

Their loving devotion, in fact, becomes mediator and makes them meet me.”

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/Page.asp?Sour...D=5770&Format=2

Totally concurs with the concept of 'jin prem kiyo tin hi prabh payo'

If Bhagat Dhru Ji and Prehlad Ji were indeed exceptions like you say, surely they must not be the only ones out there. Surely the ones they have 'liberated' 'salvated' must also be mukt, and since they are 'mukt' (one with Vaheguru), surely they too must be able to get others to become mukat.

The reason I don't look for other who are 'mukt' and 'enlightened' myself, is because I've already got a complete/pooran Guru -

AYsy gur kau bil bil jweIAY Awip mukqu moih qwrY ]1] rhwau ]

aisae gur ko bal bal jaaeeai aap mukath mohi thaarai ||1|| rehaao ||

- I am a sacrifice, a sacrifice to such a Guru; He Himself is liberated, and He carries me across as well. ||1||Pause||

Hence I do not need to look for others, But since someone who himself is 'mukat' can 'tarna' others, it means that there are those who did not follow the 'Guru Nanak Dev Ji' we follow today.

Sikhi is tolerant. Vaheguru didn't monopolize merging with him, and limit or 'filter out' anyone who doesn't follow Guru Nanak Dev Ji.. to not be able to meet Vaheguru.

Bhull Chukk maaaf

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[Singh132]

LK,

Your points are once again totally off.

Even on a historical level, (look this up) Trilochan was not Namdev ji's Guru. No where does it say Trilochan gave Namdev jee naam. Meharban Janamsakhi in fact tells us that all the bhagats, including Namdev ji and Trilochan became Sikhs of Guru Nanak at Ayodhya (where a Gurdwara stands to mark the meeting). If they were liberated, why did they need to become Sikhs?

Secondly, the tuk you quoted "aap mukat mohi taarai" is totally inapplicable. Is being mukat a condition precedent or condition subsequent of being a Guru? Being a Guru in this tuk is the thing that precedes and once being a Guru, they can give mukati. By being a Guru, they are default already Mukat. This does not mean someone who becomes mukat (possibly only by Gurparsaad) they become a Guru (equal of their own Guru).

Gursikhs become jeevan mukat. Many Sikhs have been jeevan mukat but none became equal to Satguru and could give mukti. Only Satguru can give naam. Are you suggesting that a Sikh who reaches a certain level can then become the equal of Guru Nanak and Punj Pyaaray and give naam himself? How else would he give mukti according to you?

A Satguru has a lot of properties. He is in Anand, he doesnt' have any enmity, he seeks the "bhalla" of everyone. But having those qualities doesn't, in reverse make someone a Satguru.

[Khalsa4ever]

Are you suggesting that a Sikh who reaches a certain level can then become the equal of Guru Nanak and Punj Pyaaray and give naam himself? 

157972[/snapback]

Yes, that's right.

sqguir myil imlwieAw nwnk so pRBu nwil ]4]17]

sathagur mael milaaeiaa naanak so prabh naal ||4||17||

The True Guru has united me in Union, O Nanak, with that God. ||4||17||

When you become ONE with Waheguroo, you are a SatGuru. Why?

Awpy myil imlwiedw iPir vyCoVw n hoie ]

aapae mael milaaeidhaa fir vaeshhorraa n hoe ||

He Himself unites us in His Union; there is no more separation.

When united, there is NO separation between oneself and Waheguroo's Paramathma.

And finally, you said before that Guru Gobind Singh was brought up to his status by the will of Guru Nanak. But Guru Gobind Singh is the one who in 1699 gave naam to the Panj Pyarai and then took amrit from them. So he is the equal of Guru Nanak.

[Singh132]

Khalsa4Ever,

That's a dangerous and WRONG argument. A Sikh can never be the equal of his Guru. You can be one with God but you do not get Guru-status. Where in the shabad you quoted to me does it say you become one with God and then become a Guru? It says Satguru has united you with God, but it doesn't say you have become Satguru. This is a special status given by Vahiguru only to Guru Nanak.

2ndly, you seem to be arguing Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Nanak were two separate entities. Wrong. Guru Nanak was Guru Gobind Singh. The jot was transferred from one body to another. Only after Guruship was formally given to Guru Gobind Singh and the jot was transferred did he give amrit and naam. The 10 Gurus weren't separate jots. It was Guru Nanak from start to finish. This is a very big mistake to consider them separate.

According to your argument though, a Brahmgyani Sikh like Baba Buddha jee could be a Satguru and give naam. This is impossible.

You guys make up arguments that cut at the roots of Sikhi just to try and make your point "right".

[Pheena]

Khalsa4Ever,

That's a dangerous and WRONG argument.  A Sikh can never be the equal of his Guru.  You can be one with God but you do not get Guru-status.  Where in the shabad you quoted to me does it say you become one with God and then become a Guru?  It says Satguru has united you with God, but it doesn't say you have become Satguru.  This is a special status given by Vahiguru only to Guru Nanak. 

You guys make up arguments that cut at the roots of Sikhi just to try and make your point "right".

Why can't Sikh ever be equal to his Guru? Does the Guru want his Sikh to be always lower then him? Does the Guru not want his Sikhs rising to the Level of oneness with God and themselves becoming a vessel of God? Do you think that by becoming equal to the Guru, there still is a difference between a Sikh and the Guru? Is there a difference between God and his Devotee at that stage?

Veer ji Perhaps you should define who and what Guru is and who is Guru Nanak so we or atleast I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Moorakh's viewpoint:

Guru and Sikh are the same and yet different. They are the same because they act, think, and feel the same...they lose the self and become one with the Almighty. HOWEVER, a Guru introduces and shows the path where a Sikh only follows it. Though the Guru and the Sikh both follow the path, the Guru is the revealer and the Sikh is the follower. That is a very important distinction. Whereas the many Sants and Gursikhs may have been as one with the Almighty as Guru Nanak, it is Guru Nanak who shone light on the path of Sikhi...the Sikh of the Guru does not introduce new paths.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

[Singh132]

mÚ 4 ]

siqguru purKu AgMmu hY ijsu AMdir hir auir DwirAw ]

siqgurU no ApiV koie n skeI ijsu vil isrjxhwirAw ]

siqgurU kw KVgu sMjoau hir Bgiq hY ijqu kwlu kMtku mwir ivfwirAw ]

siqgurU kw rKxhwrw hir Awip hY siqgurU kY ipCY hir siB aubwirAw ]

jo mMdw icqvY pUry siqgurU kw so Awip aupwvxhwrY mwirAw ]

eyh gl hovY hir drgh scy kI jn nwnk Agmu vIcwirAw ]2]

This shabad clearly says that Satguru jee is greatest. It says that he saves all those that follow him. But this very shabad says NO ONE can equal the Guru.

I can find many other tuks from Bani which say that there is no equal to Satguru, but no one can find even ONE that says a Sikh becomes equal to the Satguru.

Take for example

siqgur jyvfu dwqw ko nhI siB suixAhu lok sbwieAw ]

***

AYsw siqguru loiV lhu ijsu jyvfu Avru n koie ]

***

siqgur jyvfu Avru n koie ]

***

siqgur puriK imlwieAw iqsu jyvfu Avru n koie jIau ]1] rhwau ]

***

The last tuk is very important. It says Satguru has united me (with Vahiguru), he has no equal. So after being united with Vahiguru, there is still no equal to Satguru jee. Bani is clear on it.

Guru Sahib unites his Sikhs with Vahiguru, but they never become equal of the Guru. Guru is a very special "padvi" that was given only to Guru Nanak. But the difference between a Satguru and Sikh remains that the Sikh is always the daas of the Satguru. A Sikh cannot give naam. Only Satguru jee can and this is the biggest difference.

As for who is Satguru Nanak; please see the posts above. Guru Nanak is the eternal Guru who has existed since Satjug.

[Khalsa4ever]

Waheguroo jee ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo jee kee Fateh!

It was Guru Gobind Singh himself that said that a Sikh can become equal to a Guru when he asked his panj pyarai to bless him with amrit.

And frankly, are you saying that becoming equal to God is LOWER than a Guru? The whole point of Sikhism is to unite with Waheguroo, because Waheguroo is the highest of the highest. And NOTHING is higher than that.

Waheguroo jee ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo jee kee Fateh!

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

"but no one can find even ONE that says a Sikh becomes equal to the Satguru."

guroo sikh sikh guroo hai eaeko gur oupadhaes chalaaeae ||

The Guru's Sikh, and the Sikh's Guru, are one and the same; both spread the Guru's Teachings.

(Guru Raam Daas Ji, Raag Aasaa, 444).

so guroo so sikh hai bhaaee jis jothee joth milaae ||1||

He alone is the Guru, and he alone is a Sikh, O Siblings of Destiny, whose light merges in the Light. ||1||

(Guru Amar Daas Ji, Raag Sorath, 602).