Gorakh, Brahma, Mother Parbhati........according To Guru Nanak They Are Gurus

[singh1606]

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. 

[jkvlondon]

10 hours ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

before Sat was written down for humans in Kalyug , it was known in satyug fully and people/devta worship only Akal Purakh, as Maya's influence and humans/ control over panj chor lessened and they got enticed by the glamour of their appointed positions. Their focus changed onto themselves and this lack of true devotion to Sat spiralled downwards , when they reached the point where the veds were written , there was open reliance on ridhian sidhian of these people and jantra mantras to go against hukham e.g. Holika...that doesn't sound like the actions of bhagats of Akal Purakh. 

i do not believe there was a total lack of true Bhagats/sikhs of Akal Purakh e.g. prahlad just a steady decrease in their number and quality prior to Guru ji's Prakash

[Kira]

26 minutes ago, singh1606 said:

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

your understanding is about Sikhism is about as good as a  fundamental Christians. You've openly said that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is wrong about Druv, you said that Shiva was a Senior Brahmgyani (lol btw) to Akaal Purkh's light Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Just how much Nindya will you do. 

You're so rooted in your own twisted views you'd even call Guru Gobind SIngh Ji's bani as being incomplete?  He said those people who abandon the Vedas are the ones who found God. 

You're the one calling Guru Sahib inferior to others and seem to think you're a Brahmgyani. I congratulate you.

27 minutes ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

This has to be the stupidest thing you've written thus far, Guru Sahib said the Vedas/all texts should be abandoned. No they were never the whole truth, the ones who left them found god. The ones who didn't remained in Maya's grasp. Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji even stated that Vedas lack Godly qualities. Guru Gobind Singh Ji said those who followed it left the grace of God.  What more proof do you want? Yes the Vedas said name of God is above all but stating it isn't the same as it being the revealed form of the Shabad Guru. I can write that on a piece of paper, am I right about what I wrote? yes. Is that paper the word of God suddenly? nope.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji told sikhs not to follow the Puranas, because they're false. Do you not read Chaupai Sahib? have you not even read Chaubis Avatar?

 

[singh1606]

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. 

[harsharan000]

 

The  Oneness without multiplicity of  the Supreme Eternal Truth  in the Bani tells us:

Ik Oankar Satnam: The One Creator Nam, is the only eternal Truth, hence no gods, no devis, no devtays ......

Ekas bin sabh dandh hae : Without this one Supreme truth, everything else is "koor"

Jug chare  Nam ootam Shabad veechar : Throughout all the 4 yugas, keep in mind, Nam is the highest.

Sach Khand vaseh Nirankar : in the realm of Truth, only the formless Lord resides. (The remaining gods, godesses, devtay, can be found in the mayavee creation at locations such as : Shivpuri, Baikunth, Swarg Lok, etc

Nam or Shabad, is the difference between what Guru Sahiban, the Bhagat Jan proclaim as the only one Truth, to which they tell us to worship and give our devotion, within.

While these other spiritual entities, known as gods....under maya´s influence are mistaken as truths, which is far from real;   as they lead the jeevas to idol worship, rituals and external practices, and thus make them wander in the wheel of 84. They have an important role to keep the creation in motion, but it is only by love and devotion to Wahiguru alone, that also by His apaar kirpa, is the way to merge in Akal Purukh, the Highest, and only One, without any second.

Just a simple example, Ravan, was the biggest devotee of Shiva, yet he could not erradicate the evilness along with the 5 chor within him.

We may ask why?  Because he worshiped not the Nam as stated in Sukhmani Sahib : Prabh(Nam, Shabad, Wahiguru) Ka Simran, man kee mael jaae.

Remember, Ekas(Satnam, Wahiguru Akal Purukh) Bin sabh dandh hae, sabh mithiya moh, maya.

Sat Sree Akal.

[ThunderousDominator]

can mods please check this singh1606 guys ip address pretty sure hes been posting here before under different usernames

[singh1606]

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? 

[ipledgeblue]

Would like to hear explanations from other Mahapurakhs and sampradaiye and also puraatan itihasic granths. Just hearing that Bhai Randhir Singh said this and that makes it very jathebandi centric.

6 hours ago, ThunderousDominator said:

can mods please check this singh1606 guys ip address pretty sure hes been posting here before under different usernames

We should be open to discussions like this, we should not shy away from other views. The more we discuss the more we understand.

[jkvlondon]

9 hours ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

therein lies a huge problem shisha follows the guru not vice versa

[Kira]

http://www.vidhia.com/Bhai Randheer Singh Ji/Unditthi-duniya.pdf

This is Bhai Sahib Ji's words on the topic of the trinity, this is the punjabi translation too.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/276107862/Andithi-Duniya-Randhir-Singh-Punjabi

 

This is also Bhai Sahib Ji's words about how the Vedas lack Divinity too.

http://www.vidhia.com/Bhai Randheer Singh Ji/Is-bowing-to-Guru-Granth-Sahib-Ji-akin-to-idol-worship.pdf

The Punjabi translation is here too.

http://www.gurmatveechar.com/books/Punjabi_Books/Bhai_Sahib_Bhai_Randhir_Singh/Ki.Shri.Guru.Granth.Sahib.Ji.Di.Puja.But.Prasti.Hai.by.Bhai.Randhir.Singh.(GurmatVeechar.com).pdf

 

Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji on the trinity being affected with Maya.

http://www.gurmatveechar.com/audios/Katha/01_Puratan_Katha/Sant_Gurbachan_Singh_(Bhindran_wale)/Guru_Granth_Sahib_Larivaar_Katha/Volume_05_Ang_0347-0462/042--Sant.Gurbachan.Singh.(Bhindran.wale)--Raag.Aasaa--Ang-394%2B395.mp3

 

 

6 hours ago, singh1606 said:

No I'm an original poster here. The fact is that your understanding and depth of sikhism is very superficial and shallow at best. 

 

I've posted Gurbani and words of Mahapurkhs, They're far above the trinity, far above me . Are they wrong and shallow? My depth of Gurbani comes from them. 

IN this thread alone you've made accusations on Guru Gobind Singh Ji being less of a brahmgyani than Shiva (who isn't even one in the first place), You said Gurbani isn't Yugo Yug attal. IN this thread alone you've insulted Guru Sahib more times than anyone, yet you'll level the accusation that we're shallow. By your posts you've never even touched Gurbani yet you have the audacity to call others as being superficial.

Quote

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.

The hell? lmao. So focusing on a non-biased account written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji is suddenly me calling myself all knowing? There's positives in everyone and negatives too. Why should Sikhs ignore the negatives and say they're Divine when that's a load of tosh according to Gurbani.

Quote

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? 
 

I've quoted the Dasam Granth here. Bachittar Natak is history, why would it be in poetic form? Guru Sahib flat out states it in no small words.

That whole argument is ludicrous. NO one's arguing Gurbani isn't vast, but  if you're not even looking at it through a Gurmukh lense then you're basically going to draw the wrong conclusions and provide false arths. An athiest can sit and read Gurbani and say that E-On-ankar refers to Nature and not the Divine supreme. Are you going to argue that Arth is fine and God isn't real? 

You're entire pretext is based on you taking some arths and trying to spin them into Gurbani telling Sikhs something that is not.