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

[panthicunity 229]

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

Burn shall the mouth that says God comes in human form

[jaspreet1 92]

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

Burn shall the mouth that says God comes in human form

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

[username1 30]

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

[username1 30]

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

[AmanSingh1867 55]

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)...

[jaspreet1 92]

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.

[Gurukameet 8]

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

[tuhintuhin 670]

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

[sunnyji 20]

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.

[username1 30]

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.

[sunnyji 20]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[sunnyji 20]

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.

[Guest]

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!

[sunnyji 20]

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