Jump to content

Does This Mean Sikhs Also Believe In Existence Of Adam ( And Eve ) ?


Guest SarabjeetSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

My problem with these "alternative history" theories that the likes of David Icke, and the fella above, etc., propose is that there is no mention of Sikhi in their theories.

Sikhi is meant to be the light which leads this world towards the Truth, yet none of these people even acknowledge the existence of Sikhi. Predictably, they bung it in with all the other "organised religions" of the world. So how I can believe anything these people say when Sikhi isn't even on the radar of these people?

If they have the answers as they claim they do, then surely at least 1 of them has been told by his inter-dimensional buddies that there is a faith on Earth that is the solution to the world's problems, i.e. Sikhi?

Kaljugi - the other theorist, who are of the same ilk as Icke, would never dare to venture too deep into Sikhi, as then all would be explained to them! Then they would have nothing to 'theorise' over!:BL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaljugi - the other theorist, who are of the same ilk as Icke, would never dare to venture too deep into Sikhi, as then all would be explained to them! Then they would have nothing to 'theorise' over!:BL:

True, true. That's why I'm a bit weary of these kind of theories, because although they make sense in some areas of life and the world, the most important issue (i.e. religion and Sikhi) isn't mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like i said everyone is at different levels on their spirituality. We all the reap the consequences of our past actions. Don't look at theories, look at facts. You may of seen some videos on the internet, but people don't always get a chance to explain their evidence in small video clips. Sikhi is mentioned, but like i said its coming from their own perspective, as remember we are all at different stages on our spirituality right now. You have got to use your heart to distinguish if someone is of pure intent, ask yourself "are they meaning well", "are they trying to get the truth out, that they know of." If you have read alot of David Icke's work you realise many of the things he is saying is just like Sikhi, except he uses his own words to describe things, as really he has no knowledge of Sikhi, because once again everyone is at different levels of their Sikhi, we all know different things. I have a feeling more and more people are going to embrace Sikhi now, they just haven't discovered it yet. And they will be shocked to know, how correct it all is!

e.g. David Icke says, infinite love is the only truth, everything else is an illusion. But we as Sikh's know that infinite love is Waheguru, and everything else is maya. So he basically describing Sikhi from his own point view. But it is the same thing really. People are starting to wake up to Sikhi now. People like Icke may have alot of worldy knowledge but they are only scratching the surface of true spirituality.But don't let that take anything away from the other things they have said, which turned out to be true.But Sikhi is much more deeper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe in evolution however i would never say that gurbani is wrong..

christainity is based on what came before it.. character of virgin mary is based on pagan godess venus.. jesus based on apollo i think?

gurbani talks about hindu gods and godesses.. gurbani also talks about adam and eve.. gurbani doesnt deny any of the beliefs that existed before.. gurbani also talks about jesus christ in chaupai sahibs.. says god is jesus christ of all people not just christains... savior of all..

lot of people say that because guru nanak dev ji said no to the caste and other wrong beliefs.... people say gurbani teaches to question- that is absolutely wrong.. bharam is seen as a really really bad thing..

bhagat dhanna was bholla prayed to a murti (murti didnt have god in it or anything) but his pyar for vaheguroojee is what made vaheguroojee give him his darshan

god is not meant to be understood..guru bani says ... we get god thru innocence "bholle bhaav" not thru chalakian...

because so many pandhits had ridian sidian you can get mukhti.. but u can still not be one with vaheguroo jee..

you can be one with vaheguroojee only through pyar... god can only be experienced not understood because he is beyond our understanding..

the same way when you read bani try to understand what gurbani is saying... its wrong to pick out things and say ... do i believe in it or not..? because then you miss the whole point..

like christanity..takes so much from the pagan religion that existed before it... sikhi talks about the hindu gods and godesses..we cant assume that in sikhi we are supposed to pray to them lot of hindu/muslim..talk about number of times guru ji mention hindu godesses to prove that ...as sikhs we pray to them...

but those that know guru ji.. read bani know very well what we believe in..

http://sikhitothemax...p?ShabadID=4140

it doesnt matter to us what the devi devtas did.. we are not supposed to pray to them..we are not supposed to pray to adam and eve just because they are mentioned in gurbani

we are suposed to know the real essence of shabd..

what is the shbd saying.. ? read it with pyar/ w/o doubt so we could be one with vaheguroojee..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...
On 3/1/2011 at 8:01 AM, Guest SarabjeetSingh said:

ਬਾਬਾ ਆਦਮ ਕਉ ਕਿਛੁ ਨਦਰਿ ਦਿਖਾਈ ॥

He (God) bestowed His Grace on Adam, the father of mankind,

ਉਨਿ ਭੀ ਭਿਸਤਿ ਘਨੇਰੀ ਪਾਈ ॥੨॥

who then lived in paradise for a long time. ||2||

(Guru Granth Sahib : 1161)

I thought it was the belief of only the Abrahamic religions , but maybe I was wrong ?

The uthanka for this pangti is that, an egoistic Brahmin, said that Bhagat Kabir was not entitled to Swarg. The Brahmin claimed entitlement to Swarg based on his ‘higher caste’. He stated that Bhagat Kabir was of a ‘lower caste’, and hence not eligible for Swarg.

Kabir Ji said that he has no desire for Swarg. Kabila Ji says that Behkunt (

paradise) can only be found in Sadh Sangat.

Kabir Ji then goes on to say that, even the likes of Adam were thrown out of Swarg. So what chance do I have!

The sidhant of this shabad or pangti, is that Swarg is worthless, compared to Sat Sangat.

So why did Kabir Ji use Adam as an example? Gurbani uses many examples from sanatan stories. Is SGGS confirming the authenticity of Sanatan scriptures? Is SGGS Just drawing references in order to explain a meaning of a Sidhant?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use