Jump to content

Is Guru Granth Sahib Your Teacher / Guide Or Is It A Diety


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For some reason you don't have a "Like This" button, but if you did I would have pressed it. Fully agree with you.

Its a deity if your relation is all about mehar and based on pure emotion wherein most of the time you are imploring guru to fulfil your wishes. Its a guru (literally - dispeller of darkness) - if

Guru Sahib is Sargun saroop of nirgun, 10san patshahiyaan di jot sahib e kamal shah e shehanshaan rajeyaan de raje He is the living Guru , for darshan he is there as in material form but to ha

so mukh jale jit kahe thakur joni .....

Burn shall the mouth that says God comes in human form

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

ਓਹੁ ਜਨਮਿ ਨ ਮਰੈ ਰੇ ਸਾਕਤ ਢੋਰ ॥੨॥

Oh janam na marai re sākaṯ dẖor. ||2||

God is not born, and He does not die, you foolish, faithless cynic! ||2||

ਸਗਲ ਪਰਾਧ ਦੇਹਿ ਲੋਰੋਨੀ ॥

Sagal parāḏẖ ḏėh loronī.

You sing lullabies to your stone god - this is the source of all your mistakes.

ਸੋ ਮੁਖੁ ਜਲਉ ਜਿਤੁ ਕਹਹਿ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਜੋਨੀ ॥੩॥

So mukẖ jala▫o jiṯ kahėh ṯẖākur jonī. ||3||

Let that mouth be burnt, which says that our Lord and Master is subject to birth. ||3||

ਜਨਮਿ ਨ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥

Janam na marai na āvai na jā▫e.

He is not born, and He does not die; He does not come and go in reincarnation.

ਨਾਨਕ ਕਾ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਰਹਿਓ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੪॥੧॥

Nānak kā parabẖ rahi▫o samā▫e. ||4||1||

The God of Nanak is pervading and permeating everywhere. ||4||1|| -

SGGS ANG 1136
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this might be counter-productive however just to add to illustrate Sunny's point of how reincarnation in gurbani could by the use of metaphors is how muhammaden's who believe guru nanak was a muhammden have no problem with the mentions of reincarnation is with this reference to a muhammden named Rumi (1207- 1273) also considered the father of mainstream sufism. Muhammdenism even in it's sufi form rejects reincarnation yet uses mentions of it. Certain writers of muhammadanism describe the use of metaphorical language of reincarnation as a means to easily invite (give dawah) non-believers (kaffirs) into their deen (religion) by the use of common terms (trojan horse).

I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as man,
To soar with angels blest;
But even from angelhood I must pass on
... -

- Rumi (1207- 1273) source from: http://www.adishakti.org/_/reincarnation_in_islam.htm

These ideas are making reference to Al-Ghazali's ( 1058–1111) ideas of human behaviour resembling that of animals. The evolution, growth from one animal form to another till angelic form take place in the finite one life muhammdens make reference to, the idea is of making a bridge to vedic culture which doesn't believe in one life. Just like Rumi was accepted by a small group of muhammdens and rejected by a majority, so was Kabir ji as kabir makes reference to both hell and heaven the ideas in sikhi sidant are in balance by traditional preachers. We have to combine gurbani with janamsakhis, sikh sakhis where the gurus gave revelation to sikhs of their past lifes. Also the number of times reincarnation is referenced is far more then the basics of hell and heaven. Also note the translation of heaven hell are not the islamic equivalents in many cases some aren't bahist or jaannat or jahanam. They make reference to the sanskrit sevarag(heaven) or nerag (hell). Reincarnation on it's own sounds contradictory to sewarg and nerag even from the hindu perspective when you look at it through the lense of western understanding of reincarnation which neglects chitargupt, dharamraj and jamdoots. Judgement is past before reincarnation is ordered.

Ghazali (. 1058–1111) was one of the figures also behind the end of the islamic golden age he took a view against science even though he is attributed as a good social scientist.

First we start by reviewing Al-Gazali's traditional opinions in the human and animal forces of the soul in which he follows previous philosophers like Ibn-Sina. He closely follows the approaches of Ibn-Sina, Al-Farabi, and Aristotle in their claim that there are three souls: the vegetarian, the animal, and the humane. Al-Gazali defines the vegetarian soul as: ''The foremost perfection of a normal mechanical body needed for feeding, growing and reproduction''. The animal soul, however, is: ''The foremost perfection of a normal mechanical body which realizes the particles and moves with the will''. The humane soul is: ''The foremost perfection of a normal mechanical body in the deeds done with mental choice and deduction, and in conceiving matters in general''. It is noticed that Al-Gazali definitions of the soul is similar to those of Al-Farabi and Ibn-Sina who were also influenced with Aristotle. He claims that the soul is ''the foremost perfection'' i.e. not by means of, or through, other perfection. With ''normal body'' he means not artificial; ''mechanical'', however, denotes that it has tools needed for the second and third perfection. Al-Gazali's terminology, however, indicates his influence by Ibn-Sina who uses the same words in his own definitions.
Chapter 2 (The Spirit and The Soul)- The Soul According to Al-Ghazali

source: http://www.quranichealing.net/chp2_p.php?id=18

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I suggest you take your own advice:

quote Gurbani in Gurmukhi before you start preaching your English misinterpretation.

You didn't quote anything in Gurbani; you took a single line out of context and it was in English as well, a poor translation at that (imo)...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you take your own advice:

You didn't quote anything in Gurbani; you took a single line out of context and it was in English as well, a poor translation at that (imo)...

I am not going to bicker with you here as Gurbani was quoted in Gurmukhi. It's on you to say how so called I quoted Gurbani out of context by your understanding. If you give another unproductive reply as above. It shows your lack of abilities at which you are trying to cover up with personal attacks on me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wjkwjkf

Going back to the original thread, for me Guru Ganth Sahib is a friend.

When I have no friend.

Guru ji acts as my friend and guide.

It is a source of immense beauty and contemplation.

It is a bringer of peace and calmness to my mind.

It is a light of God on earth. It is the source of the creator.

It is the embodiment of love of God. Guru Granth Sahib is the only one I will bow too.

It is where I am at ease and at peace.

My Guru gives me acceptance in a world that is hostile.

Without my Guru I would ease to exist

Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your veiw but there really is no difference between guru ji and waheguru ji.For example in Sri sarbloh granth guru gobind Singh ji sache patshah writes that guru Nanak dev ji jagat de malak were god himself.Wouldnt the 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 guru have the same jot so they would all be waheguru.So in my understanding there is no difference.

same, gur parmesar eko jaan

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal view is that God is not "human-like" or anthropomorphic, and if He is truly infinite then can't become avatars. :)

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

My personal view is that God is not "human-like" or anthropomorphic, and if He is truly infinite then can't become avatars. :)

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

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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
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...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I never said anything about life for Sikhs in the UK in the 70s, I was talking about the present day. I understand and respect the struggles that you all went through to get to the position where you are today. But I hope you all don't lose sight of the fact that the freedom and status that Sikhs enjoy in the UK today is very far from the norm. Sikhs in the US today are fighting battles that were settled in the UK decades ago (and without the benefit of a population density that gives Sikhs in the UK at least some visibility and political sway). But forget about the US. You don't have to go that far, you can just cross the English channel and see how precarious the position of Sikhs is in continental Europe. Thanks for giving details about the grooming issue. Do you think this had to do with Labour being more concerned about the Muslim vote (as Muslims former a larger voting block than Sikhs) or political correctness? Or both? I concede that leftists sometimes go to far with political correctness and "canceling" in order to try to show how "fair" and "unbigoted" they are. I am not going to question your take on the whole grooming issue. You know more about that than I do. But that seems to be a very specific situation in the UK. I stand by my general point that left-leaning people are by far the most likely to support the rights of vulnerable minorities (which is the category that Sikhs fall under almost everywhere).   I don't buy your point about a backlash to "wokeness" at all. I don't think that that is what is causing the growing popularity of far-right movements. The way information is shared and distorted today is radically different from what was the norm not very long ago, and that has been the game-changer that has led to today's division and polarization. You seem to think that if the "woke" people would just be quiet, the racists would not have a "rallying cry". That is simply not true. First of all, those people will ALWAYS find something to complain about. (That has certainly been true throughout American history. If it has been less true in UK history, that is probably because the white British majority did not feel threatened by a sizable minority until relatively recently. See my second point.) Second of all, the complaints of the more hardcore right-wing racists increasingly resonate with the more "passive" racists as the majority community diminishes in size and feels more threatened. And third of all, as I alluded to before, today's media/information landscape will allow for any complaints to blow up and go viral.   Any time anyone from the non-majority community asks for anything, no matter how reasonable, there is going to be a backlash from the majority community. And in many instances, the non-majority community doesn't even have ask for anything or complain about anything to provoke a backlash. Their mere existence is enough. This is what history has shown us.
    • Guest free
    • And people want to talk about poverty, look at how India was stripped of wealth. Here 2800 silver bars were taken for ww2 but didn't make it back here. Now that they've found it, look at what they are doing with it. The pillaging is still going on.      Treasure from the deep: Thousands of silver bars that were meant to fund Britain's WWII effort but were sunk by German U-boat FINALLY reach their destination - and will be sold as coins Merchant ship carrying silver from India for the war effort was sunk in 1941 Its cargo of 2,800 bars of silver has sat on the bed of the Atlantic ever since Record-breaking bid to salvage the silver from three miles down a success The Royal Mint is now making the metal into coins to remember the tragedy https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596785/Thousands-silver-bars-sunken-WWII-ship-sold-coins.html
    • I was reading something on the internet and came across this article and thought it may be of some interest to everyone here regarding their perspective on the impact of brutalities of colonisation upon India and its people.  Here is the link:-   https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2019/03/10/atrocities-on-indian-women-and-india-by-british-during-their-rule/     Atrocities on Indian Women and India by British During ... - myIndiamyGlory 10 Mar 2019 — Raped Indian women were forcefully made prostitutes by British Christians. Prostitution houses were set up by the Britishers in 350   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use