Jump to content
one love kaur

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

Recommended Posts

Kira    1,249
3 minutes ago, singh1606 said:

Yes if you change the meaning of words, you are a liar. It is misleading hence lying. 

So Sant Ji were all liars in your book. That's what they did according to you. So what you're doing is calling the Santhiya and Gyan of Guru Gobind Singh Ji as being dishonest?

 

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with the Carbon dated texts dating back to the age of Satyug.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singh1606    4

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. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kira    1,249
38 minutes ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

 

Gurbani is never inconsistent, Mahapurkhs aren't inconsistent. What a load of tosh, who on earth are you to call them liars?  You can't even begin to fathom their knowledge, yet you claim to know more. Gurbani is never inconsistent on anything, it's already stated that Shiva is egotistical, Vishnu is egotistical and Brahma is egotistical. How dare you call Gurbani a lie and then claim to be a Sikh.

Quote

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. 

His Sargun form was Guru Nanak Dev Ji, it was never Shiva or Vishnu. They're part of his creation, a far far smaller aspect of him, in the same category as us.

Quote

There should be consistency with words and their definitions, you should not be changing them at any whim. 

No the definition will change depending on the context. That's the teaching of the Guru, the same people who are now carrying that tradition you are calling Liars. Words have always changed depending on the context that's how Gurbani was written, that's how it always has been taught. The arths spoken by Sant Ji were passed down by Guru Gobind SIngh Ji Maharaj, to insult them is to insult Maharaj himself.

 

 

So I'll ask you once again, last time, yes or no answer please. Are all the Sants and Mahapurkhs wrong when they define the words?  Do you think you know better? Are they all liars?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singh1606    4

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? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singh1606    4

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harsharan000    2,075

 

Following are some Sat Bachans from the Bani of  Dhan Dhan Satguru Sree Guru Nanak Dev Maharaj , to settle for once and all, the issue of that the trinty gods are not at all neither gurus as per the title of this thread, nor are any sargun forms of Wahiguru Akal Purukh.

 

जा तिसु भाणा ता जगतु उपाइआ

jaa this bhaanaa thaa jagath oupaaeiaa |
When He so willed, He created the world.
 
बाझु कला आडाणु रहाइआ
baajh kalaa aaddaan rehaaeiaa |
Without any supporting power, He sustained the universe.
 
ब्रहमा बिसनु महेसु उपाए माइआ मोहु वधाइदा ॥१४॥
brehamaa bisan mehaes oupaaeae maaeiaa mohu vadhaaeidhaa |14|
He created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; He fostered enticement and attachment to Maya. ||14||
 
In this verse above Guru  Jee is clearly saying,  that,  He the Supreme Lord when He so willed, He created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
And not that He manifested Himself through these sargun forms.
 
This also menas, He existed before all these gods, and exists separately from them, just as apart from all of us also, unless we do His bhakti, then we merge in Him, and become one with Him.
 
This His bhakti, is the very unique feature of Wahiguru Akal Purukh, that  whosoever performs it, He makes that jeeva one with Him.
While with the gods, devtays, godesses, one reaches their dimension to reap the fruits of one´s devotion to them, but then, one returns back into the wheel of 84 sooner or later, just as these gods  are the so called children of  mother Maya and father Kal Purukh, the caretakers of the mayavee creation.
 
As stated in a previous example, Ravan was the biggest devotee of Shiva, but even then, he could not rid himself from the panj chor(he was kaamee, krodhi, lobhee, mohee and ahankaree),  thus he died as per his hard earned merits of his wickedness/evilness.
 
Had he done even 1%, the bhakti of Wahiguru with the intensity he did of Shiva, it would have been more than suffice for him, to merge in Wahiguru.
 
Why so ?
 
Because one does not merge in Him by one´s efforts, but by His kirpa alone.
 
No god, no devtay has the power to unite any jeeva with them and make them one with them, because they are not the ultimate truth,  but rather regarding Wahiguru,  the Bani tells us:
 
ਜੀਉ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਸਭੁ ਤੇਰੀ ਰਾਸਿ
Jeeo pind sabh teree raas,
This body and soul are all your belonging,
all the jeev atmas belong to  Him.
 
Among all the divine entities, He is the Highest :
ਊਚੇ ਤੇ ਊਚਾ ਭਗਵੰਤ ॥
Oochay Tey Oochaa Bhagavant ||
the highest of the high, most generous God,
 
then also nobody knows about His infinity
ਕੋਇ ਨ ਜਾਨੈ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਅੰਤੁ ॥
Koe Na Jaanay Tumraa Unt ||
No-one knows your infinite vastness.
 
He alone knows Himself and his grandeur
ਤੁਮਰੀ ਗਤਿ ਮਿਤਿ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਜਾਨੀ ॥
Tumaree Gath Mith Tum Hee Jaanee ||
You alone know your existence and vastness .
 
And it is to this very highest Being, should one offer one´s devotion

ਨਾਨਕ ਦਾਸ ਸਦਾ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ॥੮॥੪॥
Nanak Daas Sadhaa Kurbaanee ||8||4||
Nanak, Your slave, is forever surrendering to you. ||8||4||

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Guru Arjan, Sukhmani, Raag Gauri, Ang 268

Sat Sree Akal.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
singh1606    4

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kira    1,249
7 hours ago, singh1606 said:

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? 

So you're going to sit there, a first grader and try to argue with those who have a PhD? You have no knowledge of the scriptures or any Brahmgyani yet you're challenging the words of an institute that was started and taught by Guru Gobind SIngh Ji. That alone is arrogance and insulting the 10th Master.

 

Quote

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. 

Where have I demeaned them? I stated what's written in Gurbani, Which says their egotistical, which also says they're lost in Maya. Is that Gurbani wrong then? Read Dasam Granth you cretin or even Chaubis Avatar, the first 37 stanzas SAY DIRECTLY that the incarnations are all lost in Maya and got lost in Maya. Guru Sahib refers to Krishna as an insect, oh look guys, I guess now Guru Sahib is demeaning them. He even penned an entire bani (Shabad Hazare Patashe 10) all of which criticises the Devtas and their incarnations.

I've stated what's written in Gurbani, If that's demeaning them then go and argue with Guru Sahib as he's the one who penned it.

ਸਿਵ ਸਿਵ ਕਰਤੇ ਜੋ ਨਰੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ 
सिव सिव करते जो नरु धिआवै ॥ 
Siv siv karṯe jo nar ḏẖi▫āvai. 
That man who chants "Shiva, Shiva", and meditates on him, 

ਬਰਦ ਚਢੇ ਡਉਰੂ ਢਮਕਾਵੈ ॥੨॥ 
बरद चढे डउरू ढमकावै ॥२॥ 
Baraḏ cẖadẖe da▫urū dẖamkāvai. ||2|| 
is riding on a bull, shaking a tambourine. ||2|| 

Quote

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??????

All of them renounced the Devta, that's why their bani is within Guru Sahib. Read the works of Bhai Gurdas Ji as he states they followed the One Primal lord and not egotistical devtas.

Quote

There is even a quote in bani where Bhat Kal equates guru nanak with Vishnu. What are you going to do about that? 

 

He NEVER equates them, He says Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the greatest. You tried this argument with when you stupidily claimed that Guru Gobind Singh Ji worshiped Devi. The Avatars of Vishnu came and did their deeds, but it was God acting through them. Just like it was God acting through various people in ending world war 3 God acting through various people in doing just about everything in the world.

6 hours ago, singh1606 said:

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. 

Kal yug is an age, not a demon. Stop pulling out nonsense from everywhere. There''s only been 2 instances where Kalyug has personified himself, and Ravan isn't one of them.  Shiva's own foolishness resulted in his ego granting Ravan his boons, who wasn't even truly evil btw. He was actually a rather pious person.  Guru Granth Sahib Ji isn't a book, that alone shows you're not a Sikh. No Sikh would call it a book, The Gurbani that came was here to COUNTER Kalyug not because he asked for it. Gurbani hurts him.  Waheguru came down because Kalyug was too powerful, not because he begged for it.

Shiva, an Akali? Guru Sahib calls those who worship Shiva as being donkeys who kick up the dust. Why are you purposely going against the words of Mahapurkhs and Scholars and Gurbani. 

I've posted quotes upon quotes and sources. You have none. In all honesty, all you've done is shown people you're nothing more than a liar who's insulted Guru Granth Sahib JI, insulted Guru Gobind Singh Ji, insulted Sant Jarnail Singh Ji, insulted Bhai Sahib bhai Randhir Singh Ji, insulted Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji and insulted multiple other Bhagats in Gurbani by comparing them to fallible beings like the Devtas.

 

You're free to go and beg Shiva to save you, to love you and make you his slave. No one will stop you, but everyone here will happily follow Guru Sahib to the dot. 

Ok I'm done now. We have someone here claiming that Kalyug is a good person who did Bhagti but that Bhagti didn't do anything for him and he begged for Gurbani. Ok then. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • There is a Sikh girl named Amaya. I would not say that her parents belong to the religious group.  People in our community tend to believe that Sikhi gives you options to choose. Well, God has given all the free will to choose between religion and maya and between specifically which religion you would want to follow. However, God is also the one who makes people forget about him and he is the one who reminds people about his existence too.  Tudh aap vishoreya aap milaya.  We as Sikhs need to understand that God is still in control. Who are we to judge people.  A good example is if you met Jagraj Singh before he was a devoted Sikh, would you have the same to say about him 10 years later? You never know who God is going to choose to become a devoted and blessed Gursikh next.  Apne karam ki ghat mae kya jaanu, says bhagat Ji.  Judging others is wrong. Looking at so and so and criticizing them is wrong. We are supposed to look at our own selves. If we keep looking at others, then we are neglecting ourselves - it is ourselves that we need to improve.  Hum nahi change bura nahi koi. Realise that everybody is at a different level - however we will all get there in the end.
    • http://www.sikhmatrimonials.com/Sikhnet/discussion.nsf/ca32680024ff68b487256a08007e86d8/950014563418440f87256fc00033d318!OpenDocument
      During my visits to the Harimandir Sahib in late 1990s when I was studying at Guru Nanak Dev University in Amritsar, I often came across a very familiar scene – Inside the sanctum sanctorum, sitting opposite to the ‘kirtaniyes’, a man in his 30s, in a sense of extreme gush, mesmerized and actuated by the euphoria of the keertan, physically detached from the World around him, his eyes closed with tears flowing down his cheeks and drenching his black flowing beard.

      Something conspicuously different from what others were doing- hurling their way towards the sanctum sanctorum, making their own space to bow down and offer their respects, very cautious of the positioning of the cameras, telecasting live images around the world. 

      Wow! I used to say every time I saw him. I thought, this is what one needs in order to attain a humane connection with that place and the environment. But I also realized that this was something inveterate, which would only come with time, filled with love for the Guru and Gurbani…

      hau reh na ska bin dekhe preetma mai neer vahe vahe chale jeeo. 
      I cannot survive without seeing my Beloved. My eyes are welling up with tears. 
      (M4; Pg 94; SGGS)

      But I was also a bit puzzled. Why this melancholy? It is said, ‘’how but through a broken heart can Lord enter’’. Was it the environment, the shabad or something else? It was all-in-one I guess. Sitting with crossed legs, closed eyes, listening to the ‘dhur ki baani’ written by our Gurus – this reaction is inevitable if we really concentrate on the shabad, its meaning and environment.

      Also, is melancholy a reflection of the Sikhs’ perception of ‘man neevan’ which they utter daily in their prayer, ‘man neevan; mat uchee’? (humble mind and exalted wisdom). It’s such a unique combination of the ‘man’ (mind) being humble but at the same time the spirits being high.     
    • You're not alone in wondering why people do this. As far as my observations, people who name thier daughters maya don't have a clue what maya is or the concept of maya. These people tend to be Sikh in name only. They do it purely to be modern while keeping an 'indian flavour' to thier childs name.
    • Guest Kaur 2
      VJKK VJKF This question has been eating at me for quite a long time now. I thought that maya what something that distracts us from Vaheguru so why do people call their daughters maya? Do you think it comes from Bollywood? Just a thought. VJKK VJKF  
    • Waheguru ji ka khalsa Waheguru ji ki fateh !! Sangat Ji, Just came across this interesting read while downloading Kirtan from Sikhnet. Thought i should share.. https://www.sikhnet.com/news/why-do-sikhs-celebrate-bandi-chhor-divas-so-much Source: http://americanbornconfusedsikh.blogspot.ca/2017/10/why-do-sikhs-celebrate-bandi-chor-divas.html   P.S  - I do not affiliate or follow 3HO or any related sikh organisations   Waheguru ji ka khalsa Waheguru ji ki fateh !!      
×