Jump to content

Do Only Khalsa Amritdhari Gursikhs Leave Reincarnation?


Shamshere
 Share

Recommended Posts

atma-paratma and its no where to found in bhramgyani supreme consciousness/vahiguroo as its out of maya realm so there is no perception of maya but world being hari roop but perception of maya is found rather in maya mandal (lack of better word) -plane of existence/in non liberated individual consciousness.

I see what your saying there, but there is Gurbani tell me otherwise.

Please take a look at my last post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In puratan samparda, sikhs-student/learners would also ponder vaaks of gurbani (may seem contradictory to outsider but its not for sikhs when sikhs dwell deeper in it)
For eg-
How do you reconcile vaks of gurbani with each other below which to an outside may seem contradictory?
ਜਿਉ ਸੁਪਨਾ ਅਰੁ ਪੇਖਨਾ ਐਸੇ ਜਗ ਕਉ ਜਾਨਿ ॥
ਇਨ ਮੈ ਕਛੁ ਸਾਚੋ ਨਹੀ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਿਨੁ ਭਗਵਾਨ ॥23॥
ਜੈਸੇ ਜਲ ਤੇ ਬੁਦਬੁਦਾ ਉਪਜੈ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਨੀਤ ॥
ਜਗ ਰਚਨਾ ਤੈਸੇ ਰਚੀ ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੁਨਿ ਮੀਤ ॥25॥
ਜਗ ਰਚਨਾ ਸਭ ਝੂਠ ਹੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਲੇਹੁ ਰੇ ਮੀਤ ॥
ਕਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਥਿਰੁ ਨਾ ਰਹੈ ਜਿਉ ਬਾਲੂ ਕੀ ਭੀਤਿ ॥49॥
Eh Vish sansar tum dekhde eh har ka roop hai har roop nadri aaya || (Anand sahib and rest of anand sahib puari)
Sabh gobind hai sabh gobind hai
Sabh mėh jot jot hai soe.
The light of Parmatma (GOD) is residing in every being.
Ŧis dai chanan sab mėh chanan hoi.
The light shines in every heart with the light of Parmatma.
Zeman zaman kai bhikai samasat ek jot hai
na ghat hai n badh hai na ghat badh hot hai ||
Its not contradictory at all, as these two vaks are gurbani updesh perceived and given to seekeers at different spiritual development stages and are perceived by seeker in its consciouness at different spiritual stages. Lets say person A- who just started sikhi journey- in order to remove attachment of this world- maharaj give updesh of gurbani in shalok nauvan and else where this sansaar is dream/false as its not permanent, no where to found in it non transcedental meditaiton or even deep sleep which we all can relate to.
Same person A after 30-40 years of bhagti/naam simran/seva after guru maharaj kirpa is perceiving now the ultimate non dual/bhramgyan/turiya reality- sargun is nirgun, nirgun is sargun as ~non dual Ik0ngkar ~
Eh Vish sansar tum dekhde eh har ka roop hai har roop nadri aaya ||
Sabh gobind hai sabh gobind hai
Sabh mėh jot jot hai soe.
The light of Parmatma (GOD) is residing in every being.
Ŧis dai chanan sab mėh chanan hoi.
The light shines in every heart with the light of Parmatma.
Zeman zaman kai bhikai samasat ek jot hai
na ghat hai n badh hai na ghat badh hot hai ||
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed 100% with what Bijla paji just said, but isn't it inaccurate to say Sikhs believe in monotheism rather than Ik Onkar?

I believe it's injustice to translate it like that into English without losing some meaning.

Defining Ik Onkar takes too long and Sikhs are lazy. A lot of meaning is lost when translating into English. Many started to understand Gurbani better with English translations as their first language was not Punjabi, but translations have done a lot more harm than good. Only if their is a Gurmukh who knows both languages will we get a better translation of Gurbani. Right now we are stuck with what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Word monotheism refers to belief in One God who has no partners and none other is like Him. IkOankar refers to One God who is Absolute, Transcedent and Ik-Rass (never changing). He is within the creation and outside it meaning that the creation does not contain or confine Him. We can know Him through Gurbani but no one can comprehend Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bijla Singh your post make sense from scholary perspective to discuss with islam among other thoughts.. However, gurmat adhyatam is little bit more deeper, as you are missing key component which is individual human consciousness at different spiritual development stages (progression of it/transcending of it etc) /supreme consciouness (Ik0ngkar), as you cannot separate consciousness (gurmukh bhramgyani experience with reality listed within gurbani) from its reality. Hence, this is very reason gurbani cannot be confined to vikayaran framework.

when Gurbani states that this world is false or jhooth, it does not mean in term of existence but in term of longevity. Truth is always permanent and will always exist but anything else that does not exist eternally is false. This is not to deny its existence but it cannot be called the Truth. Only God is Truth.
According to my understanding when we read gurbani, it connects to human consciousness, so for me when gurbani says world is false i perceived as that in the consciousness during naam simran/during patt- its not permanent therefore does not exist in the consciousness when surti becomes an habitual with that perception it naturally transcedent /deattached from false maya perception of world to ultimate reality of Oneness.
Every human can relate to this as we deep sleep there is no existence of world. Deep non transcedental meditation is just like that but there is pure awareness of supreme consciouness. bhai vir singh ji talks about chaitan/supreme consciousness. The truth which you are talking about is nothing but supreme consciousness awareness bliss which is all pervading in all stages or in all aspects cannot be explained but experienced.

Maha kavi singh santokh writes:
Sat chit Anand saman ikh nirgun sargun mahi.
Gyanadaikh gun esh ki jeev bikhai eh nahi
Knowledge (gian) etc are virtues of The Lord (prabhu) therefore he is in the nirgun form (without quality). These virtues are not within the human, therefore he is sargun form (with qualities, Braham with attributes), but Sat Chit Anand (existence-consciousness-bliss) is permeating in both and to whom I salute.
bhai kavi Bhai Santokh Singh ji.
Jaap sahib says-
Sad sachdanad satran Parnasi
"it does not mean in term of existence but in term of longevity"

Gurmukh during spiritual experience does not care about semantics . Gurmukh spiritual experience during shabad surat and during process of getting rid of dualism is innocent and its not a requirement to be theologically sound to be in it.


When existence of the world is discussed, Gurbani calls it real because God created it and resides in it. God cannot be present in something that has no existence or is illusory. Reality can only exist in reality. Hence, the world’s existence is real.
Reality does exist in reality but our consciousness see the world as illusory as we are in the realm of maya but supreme consciousness see it as ultimately reality- nothing but god everywhere ek jot which does not ghat or bhaad, there is nothing but ek jot through out - individual see it as illusory but bhramgyani supreme consciuoness/perception only perceived as ek jot/hari.!!

World is like a dream because it will vanish one day. It does not mean world at material level does not exist at all. This has nothing to do with spiritual development but simply understanding the context of Gurbani.
From outer sidhant scholary perspective your post make sense but from adhyatam expereince of gurmukh- if it does not exist in the supreme consciouness non transcedental meditation- it does not exist its quite simple as that that itself.Please go over and contemplate 21st ashtpadi of sukhmani sahib nirgun (supreme consciousness) all folded in non transcedental state....perception of maya/material world does not exist at all there.

This world being “Har Ka Roop” means that this world is His and not anybody else’s. No Brahma or maya can make a claim of taking a part in its creation. Only God is the Creator. Word Roop refers to creation because it has a certain materialistic form, color and shape. Word “Ka” refers to God’s property and His dominance in it. It does not refer to world being God’s aspect or God Himself. Just as we say “this pen is his” or “this house is his” we refer to the object being property of that person. Similarly, when Gurbani says this world is His Roop it refers to the Roop (creation) being His (God’s). To state that this world is aspect of God or God’s own image is false and against Gurmat monotheism. Guru Rakha
Yes its vahiguroo all along but he is in sargun, nirgun, shabad- ajap jaap equally at the end its perceived as non dual ikongkar -hence having no room for any dualism in ultimate bhramgyan stage. I think label gurmat "monotheism" has christian connations in it (truth is far away separate from individuals). Gurmat advait (non dual ikongkar-truth is here and now-present) would be little bit more appropriate term.
Rest guru maharaj knows. Anyway this has been long learning vichar. I will let parcharikhs discuss further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence, this is very reason gurbani cannot be confined to vikayaran framework.

An experience itself is not a language but when explained in any language, the words are written according to grammar. There is no language that is without its own grammatical rules. Gurbani has kanna, siharis, aunkars etc. which are part of grammar. Just like Gurbani, its viyakaran too is divine and part of revelation.

According to my understanding when we read gurbani, it connects to human consciousness

Gurbani appeals to mind for it to shed the false consciousness termed as “Ahanbudh” and adopt Bibek Budh which is the true knowledge that gives the ability to discern truth from falsehood. In this state, the world is seen as it is in a real state. Perceiving the world at different levels does not take away its existence.

when gurbani says world is false i perceived as that in the consciousness during naam simran/during patt- its not permanent therefore does not exist in the consciousness

You are simply playing with words. It makes absolutely no sense. Did God create the world? Yes He did. It follows that the world exists regardless of one’s perception. If I assume the world does not exist at one stage of consciousness (which is Vedantic thought rather than Gurmat) then how do you justify the human consciousness and Naam Simran to be real since these very things are part of the world? If the world is false then all actions and perceptions of humans are false as well. When you say world is not permanent it means it is temporary but existing but it does not follow that it is false. What does false mean? If you mean non-existence then how can you claim it is not permanent since it doesn’t exist to begin with? The world has to exist and be real for humans to do something of a value to achieve higher spiritual stage. To claim that the world is false is to claim that human actions including Naam Simran are false as well.

Deep non transcedental meditation is just like that but there is pure awareness of supreme consciouness. bhai vir singh ji talks about chaitan/supreme consciousness. The truth which you are talking about is nothing but supreme consciousness awareness bliss which is all pervading in all stages or in all aspects cannot be explained but experienced.

Deep meditation and higher experience cannot be termed as non-transcendental. A transcendental experience is beyond measure and words but a non-transcendental is its opposite. Chaintana refers to being awake and free from haumai at all times. In this state we gursikhs describe, the world is experienced as being temporary and God is actually seen pervading it. None of the gursikhs ever claim that the world ceases to exist. For example, a person like myself sees the world with haumai and I see no God present in it. This is because I have no spiritual elevation. I can only hold truth what Gurbani states but I myself have not experienced it. But if I were to rise above this state, I will experience and see what Gurbani states. Gurbani’s statements will be experienced. But never will the world cease to exist. Only God is its destroyer and its existence is not subject to human perception.

Knowledge (gian) etc are virtues of The Lord (prabhu) therefore he is in the nirgun form (without quality). These virtues are not within the human, therefore he is sargun form (with qualities, Braham with attributes), but Sat Chit Anand (existence-consciousness-bliss) is permeating in both and to whom I salute.

If this is the correct translation then it makes no sense at all. If knowledge is an attribute of God (and it is) then He cannot be without qualities because He has knowledge. Who is sargun? Is “he” referred to humans or God? If humans then it already says, humans do not have virtues. So humans cannot be sargun. If God then He cannot be without qualities which means He cannot be nirgun in literal sense. God being Sat Chit Anand tells me that He is real and existing. Therefore, there cannot exist a being that has no qualities whatsoever which means God has to have attributes to exist. Having Chit and Anand are attributes. Being Sat means to exist. Something that has no attributes is not real.

Gurmukh during spiritual experience does not care about semantics . Gurmukh spiritual experience during shabad surat and during process of getting rid of dualism is innocent and its not a requirement to be theologically sound to be in it.

Spiritual experience reveals what was hidden before but it doesn’t destroy the existence of the world. We know God is “Oat-Poat” with the world and spiritual experience reveals it to be true but doesn’t take away the existence of the world. Dualism can only occur if I say the world exists separately from God like in Islam.

Reality does exist in reality but our consciousness see the world as illusory as we are in the realm of maya but supreme consciousness see it as ultimately reality- nothing but god everywhere ek jot which does not ghat or bhaad, there is nothing but ek jot through out - individual see it as illusory but bhramgyani supreme consciuoness/perception only perceived as ek jot/hari.!!

I am not sure if you meant to say the bold part. Under the influence of maya we see the world as permanent not as illusory. We do not see God in it. Gursikhs see God pervading it and they see Ik Jot. This does not prove that the world does not exist in their perception. God and God pervading something means there has to be an existing world for God to pervade. God cannot pervade something that does not exist. How can gursikhs say God is present in the world when the world ceases to exist? Gursikhs see the world as temporary and they realize this fact. They see Ik Jot permeating everywhere which affirms Gurbani but the world does not appear as false in term of existence. Your thoughts are imbued in Vedanta of Samkara who was brutally refuted by Vivistadvaita Vedanta.

Please go over and contemplate 21st ashtpadi of sukhmani sahib nirgun (supreme consciousness) all folded in non transcedental state. It perception of maya/material world does not exist at all

By Guru Sahib’s kirpa I have gone over that Asatpadi many times including the entire Sukhmani Sahib and it is a boundless treasure. But in first 6 padas, Guru Sahib describes the state prior to world’s existence. God was all by Himself. This means even brahgyanis and their consciousness did not exist. Then He created the world (bisthaara) in 7th pada. This means world started to exist. It does not state an illusion was created or the world still does not exist. If you can kindly post the relevant verses, perhaps I can contemplate on it but without that it is shooting in dark. Prior to creation, God is referred to as purely transcendent. I personally disagree with this statement but this is what Vedanta and many Sikh scholars state.

Vaheguru is in all but Vaheguru is not all. Monotheism is a general term and every religion has its own definition of it. It is derived from Greek words mono and theos and is not Christian exclusive. I agree existence is non-dual in Gurmat but this does not mean all is God or world has no existence. Guru Rakha

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