Jump to content
one love kaur

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, singh1606 said:

So where swami ram anand get his brahm gyani from??? Guru grant sahub wasn't even close to being in physical form yet. 

ohhh dear ...guru ji doesn't have to be in sargun saroop to exist ...or hadn't occurred to you

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, singh1606 said:

If it was the Vedas, well guess what. It I was written by Brahma. "Vedan Mai Nam utham sune phire nahi jeou baytalya." 

Guru Amar das: the Vedas say that name is the greatest, listening to it one will not run around as though a demon

So since the vedas is authored by brahma, and he had this knowledge of Nam, and stated it, and guru Amar das ji further reinforces it in anand sahib quoting the Vedas, it means that the affect Maya did not last on brahm at least. 

No it wasn't the Vedas. Nice try but Guru Gobind Singh Ji said those who abandoned the Vedas found god.

ਜਿਨ ਮਤਿ ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬਨ ਤਿਆਗੀ ॥

Jin Mati Beda Kateban Tiaagee ॥

जिन मति बेद कतेबन तिआगी ॥

ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੇ ਭੇ ਅਨੁਰਾਗੀ ॥

Paarabarhama Ke Bhe Anuraagee ॥

पारब्रहम के भए अनुरागी ॥

Those who abandoned the path of the Vedas and Katebs, they became the devotees of the Lord.

Quote

Actually Dhruv  took Vishnu as Akali to become brahm gyani. Narad muni was his satguru and he gave him gurmantar om namo bhagvate vasudevaye. Which refers to Vishnu arm of Akal Purakh. Prahlad was saved by NarSimha, which is again avatr of Vishnu. 
 

That's the Hindu version of the story. Why would you believe that? He gained the Gurmantar from Guru Sahib, no one else. He wasn't an adherent of Vishnu, not by a long shot. He worshiped the Primordial Lord, not someone enslaved by Maya, it seems you've spent more time learning from Hindus than Tat Gurmukhs.

Prahlad was saved because God ordered Vishnu to incarnated and save him. Why call the tool that breaks the nut the force behind it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jkvlondon said:

ohhh dear ...guru ji doesn't have to be in sargun saroop to exist ...or hadn't occurred to you

It did :notalk: he said a while ago that Akaal has infinite forms. He's just outed himself as a troll. Either that or he's really thick. I'll go with the former.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, singh1606 said:

So then why is the Hindu version wring and your version right?

because it gives glory to the created not the creator , Waheguru ji ki fateh

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

Guru Sahib already went through them and corrected them, he also said sikhs should follow them so please. Read Dasam Granth, Bhai Sahib Bhai Gurdas Ji already wrote the story and Vishnu isn't the person Druv worshipped. Seems like you enjoy following Puranas over Purtan Sources. What an amazing Sikh who puts more faith in other Granth than his own religions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

hahaha ... Ram japo ji asey asey Dhru Prahlad japio Har jaise....  Ram is not Ram Chander  Har is not Krishna   but the one Akal Purakh who is rameiya in shristi , the one Akal Purakh who makes Atma blossom in Humans

Are you sure you are not Preeto's kid bro?

Edited by jkvlondon
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Edited by jkvlondon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×