singh1606

Just for your common knowledge the Devas are opposite in nature to asuras

Kal yug daint had two physical incarnations on Earth and ravan was one of them. Kal yug does and has done alot of bhagti on Akal Purakh whether to Shiva Vishnu or whichever form. However Kal yug is a daint, an asura, and he will always use the fruits of his bhagti to fuel his ego. He wants to show himself as the greatest, he does bhagti for the very same reason. However, Akal must award karma it's end fruit, this is why he became so powerful due to his extreme penance on Shiva as an Akali being. However, he used this gained Shakti for selfish reasons, that is his own fault and not Akal purakhs or shivas. It is his own karma. This is also why we living in his Raj today, the Kal yug, he got this Raj and time era as a book from Akal due to his dedicated bhagti on Nam. Akal asked him his wish and he chose Raj. He's done 3 Yugs or more of just bhagti for this Raj.

Swami parm anand was alive about 500-900 years before Guru Nanak took avtar. What we're his belief on God and his forms? His writing is also included in guru grant sahib by guru nanak. They would not include anything that was incorrect.

And shouldn't you ponder the gurbani? Why shouldn't you question it? Why not be critical? When we write essays or analyses in English or whatever we are always critical we are analytical. How is learning done? People criticize Sri Krishna all the time, you criticize him Vishnu Shiva Brahma Devi all the time, but you do not just criticize them you demean, degrade and lower them as lesser beings while some see them as the very form if God as you do Guru Nanak. What is wrong with criticism? Sure to criticize and question is one thing. But to demean someone's belief is another. There are so many Hindu and Brahmin poets in guru grant sahib, all the bhats are high caste brahmin, swami parm anand, guru of bhagat Kabir, dhanna Jatt, Ravi das, sain nai was also Brahmin. How can you tell me for sure that these bhagats denounced Vishnu and did not hold Guru Nanak or Vishnu at the same level?????? There is even a quote in bani where Bhat Kal equates guru nanak with Vishnu. What are you going to do about that?

Of course, inconsistent information is still inconsistent no matter who it comes from. There should be consistency in definitions of words and phrases, you can't just change them whenever you want, you could change anything then. You could change the rules Dharma or anything else. Intellectually definitions should be complete and consistent. This is why we praise Akal, because he is consistent from beginning to end and unchanging, but only his nirankar form, his sargun form is always changing: whether Shiva or Vishnu or Guru Nanak then suddenly guru Angad in an instant of time. And earlier someone said the student bows to the guru not the guru to the student. But when guru Angad dev became guru, guru nanak bowed to him as his student or in simple Punjabi as his sikh. Even guru gobind Singh became "ape gur chayle", the student/sikh and guru/teacher at the same time. But I digress. There should be consistency with words and their definitions, you should not be changing them at any whim.

Yes if you change the meaning of words, you are a liar. It is misleading hence lying. No matter who does it, whether it's a brahm gyani or God Himself, karma is karma.

So a name since the sat yug, Ishar ie ishwara, which has always defined the Shiva component of Akal Purakh, for millennia it seems since older Ved were written; and now all of a sudden in just 500 years time after millennia of 3 Yugs you are going to excise the connection if Shiva to Akal Purakh and claim by yourselves that now Shiva has no connection to Akal at all and it is Akal only?? From an unbiased and impartial intellectual stand point that just seems wrong. Whether it is bani that is doing this or the gurus or the environment and opinion created by certain parchariks with agendas of their own, you can not take a word that has existed for millennia before has had a certain definition for that time period and then suddenly change it to suit your own needs or personal viewpoints. Not seeing this as a "sikh" or "Hindu" but from an impartial and complete intellectual neutrality, looking at the word Isher, or ishwar, or ishwara, in whatever form, Shiva is associated with it's definition as well as Akal Purakh. So one can deduce that Shiva and Akal are projections of each other, due to the word or shabd defining in all it's definitons both Shiva and Akal Purakh. So not only does a single tuk in guru granth sahib have "infinite meanings" as stated by parchariks, but even a single shabd or word. This is where the multiple meanings of single lines comes in to play. Moreover what you are doing by suddenly changing the exact and full meanings of words like these is intellectual dishonesty and even plaigarism. Give us the whole meaning of the word Ishar, not just your version, I personally would want to know the complete and full meaning of words I use and read so I can have it's complete version and knowledge. And I know it's personal, but especially if I were to name my own child such a name, it is only fair that I know the words full meaning and that my child also understands the full context of his or her own name. It's plaigarism because you are taking a word that has existed for millennia with it's various interpretations for millenia and then you take this shabd and alter it yourself excising what you like and discarding what you do not, treating it as though you were the original founder and creator of this word, when you clearly are not. From an unbiased and impartial intellectual standpoint, this does not make sense and is disrespectful to Gyan as well as dishonest in it's nature.

Well apparently sant ji is split 50/50 on the Devas. My hypothesis is that it is to appease the devta haters. Well I have sant Ishar Singh on my side, Rara sahib wale

Even sant bhindran wale gives proper respect to the Devas because he is well versed with who they are and their primal nature as akals first expressions as a sargun form. Sant jarnail Singh bhindran wale gives due respect to Vishnu by calling him Bhagwan, which means sargun form of Akal. Here's the recorded video if you don't believe me around at 50 seconds, if Vishnu is as useless and Maya dhari as you say he is, why did guru gobind Singh ji dedicate an entire section to 24 of his main avtars, Vishnu has had more, but these 24 are his main comings and goings in our dimension. Vishnu lives in another dimension called Vaikunth ie the heavens above us. Video: and I have also listened to Katha of baba Isher Singh Rara sahib wale and he said that once during Katha a lady asked him who were those three immaculate and bright appearing beings who came in the sangat to listen to Katha and then left? sant Ishar Singh saw them too but didn't realize anyone else did, he told her to keep quiet and not to tell anyone else, he then told her that the Tridev Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva had come to visit the sangat and partake in the vichar and vibration of the sadhu sangat. You should also know that Ishar as in his name sant Ishar Singh means shiva, isar is another name for shiva anyway. So even Rara sahib wale mahapurakh is named after Shiva, although you say Shiva is and always will be entangled in Maya. But he's good enough for a mahapurakh I guess. Nanaksar sahib wale mahapurakh after baba nand Singh was also named sant Isar Singh, which like bhole Nath, shambo, bhuteshwara, is another name for Shiva.

No I'm an original poster here. The fact is that your understanding and depth of sikhism is very superficial and shallow at best. You have defined it by the way you see it, you should know for every negative about the dev there is a positive. You ignore the positive and concentrate on their negatives and call yourselves the all knowers. You say there are so many meaning to a single tuk of guru grant sahib but you at every step you try and limit them and try to proclaim only yours as true. Is this not hypocritical?

My understanding and way of thinking of Sikhism is different from yours. Whether it's wrong or right it's my own understanding from my own knowledge.

It was Sri ram chander himself who started the gurmantar Ram...genius. it's even written in Bhai gurdas jis varan, which you yourself told me to read.

My understanding and concept of Sikhism isn't limited to the year 1469, sorry. Yours might be, good for you. But not mine.

So if truth existed in previous yugs, in some form not just Kal yug, according to mool mantar, and dhru prahlaad are stated to be truthful completely in guru granth sahib, and they were first stated in the puranas, this means that they too must be truthful, and therefore the guru granth sahib of that specific yug.

Firstly dhru and prahlaad we're first recorded in the Vishnu puraan, not guru granth sahib. Guru granth sahib is referencing the original source because where their story is originally mentioned if anywhere at all. Therefore the "Hindu" version is the original and most accurate one as to how they achieved brahm gyan.