Jump to content

Incentive To Be Religious?


Guest C0nfus3d
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest C0nfus3d

@Only five: Wow,

what a shame that it's not possible to have a decent discussion with a fellow sikh..

How arrogant can you get? Of course I do not think that anything is higher than akaalpurakh - why would I try to say that? Re-read the post and you can easily judge what I meant to say was the void emerged from the almighty and not the other way around - as it has been described in gurbani! Why would I say waheguru's emerged from the nothingness and that is his limit? Where in any of my posts have I tried to say waheguru did not create himself. I've read my own posts back and noticed that I have made some grammatical errors - How does that mean that I am a skeptic? Some of our guru sahibs were not sikhs of the almighty for some parts of their human life - and I am a mere lowly manmukh trying to walk on the path of gursikhi!!

Shame on you, instead of trying to help your fellow sikh - you brand him a skeptic all the while feeding your own ego. I hate the fact that you have tried to play with my grammatical errors and then gone on to present me as a skeptic and yourself as the ideal sikh! Anyway - I don't really want to continue any discussion with you as you seem to be full of yourself. Learn to treat others with some respect and try learn some humility whilst your at it please. However, for the benefit of those that are reading this thread, I will answer the points you raise.

I already told you I was happy with your latter statement and had felt that you were making a valid point. You say being created by the lord is not the same as re-immersing into the lord... and I again state that this is a very valid point!! However, if this is the case, then what exactly does mukhti or salvation from reincarnation mean?

From a lot of the katha I hear, the analogy of a "drop into the ocean-waheguru" is used to describe mukhti - if this isn't re-immersing to become one with the almighty then what is? Since you don't believe this to be the case, please explain what mukhti or salvation actually means/does with reference to gurbani. I'd like to know if one continues to exist as a separate entity once released from reincarnation.

I told you before; the issue of existence on different planes/khand's or dimensions also comes into play when thinking about this concept. Re-read my posts to get an understanding of what I'm asking and the sub thoughts that I've had. I have re-phrased the question several times. Finally I request that if you have nothing positive to post or can't post without changing your arrogant and rude tone then please do not reply to the thread, maybe someone else will come along and help me out. Don't you dare call me a skeptic again, I am an amrit-dhari gursikh, that is how I will be addressed. I have no enmity with you and have not personally attacked you or your sikhi at any point in this discussion, you however have done it 3 times.

Gurfateh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest C0nfus3d

I forgot to mention why I have consistently used the terms void/nothingness or naad/sunn (Primal void). In my mind, I use these as interchangeable terms which may cause some confusion. I will attempt to sum up my understand of creation with reference to Gurbani. AFAIK, In the beginning:

The Yogi, the Primal Lord, sat within the celestial sphere of deepest trance (samaadhi) (AGGS, M. 1, p. 685)

In Guru Granth Sahib, Absolute Reality or God is both immanent and transcendental. It is formless, attributeless and hence beyond description :

He possesses all qualities, He transcends all qualities;

He is the formless Lord, He Himself is in Primal trance (samaadhi). (AGGS, M 5, p. 290).

No life or death, no pain or pleasure is felt there.

There is only the primal trance of samaadhi, and hence no duality. (AGGS, Kabir, p. 333)

Absolute Reality or God is omnipresent and exists in the present, past and future. The truth of primordial existence of God before the creation of time and space is also explained by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the mool mantar.

The primordial state of existence of God or aad sach is synonymous with the Sunn phase as explained in Guru Granth Sahib:

Billions of years ago,

There was nothing but utter darkness,

There was neither earth nor sky,

And the will of God prevailed. There was neither day nor night, nor moon nor Sun;

God sat in primal, profound trance (in Sunn). (AGGS, M. 1, p. 1035)

Guru Arjun Dev Ji, describes the primordial trance of God before the creation process starts as a manifestation of God:

For countless days, He remained invisibles.

For countless days, He remained absorbed in Sunn.

For countless days, there was utter darkness, and

Then the Creator revealed Himself. (AGGS, M. 5, p. 1081)

Furthermore, Guru Nanak Dev Ji write in Maru Solhe:

In the Sunn , the infinite Lord assumed his Power.

He Himself is unattached, infinite and incomparable.

From the Sunn, He created air and water.

He created universe and the man in the fortress of body.

I hope this provides some background information as to why I have been referring to the primal void in the way that I have. I should have made this post early on to explain and aid the background of where my thoughts were coming from.

Gurfateh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Only five: Wow,

what a shame that it's not possible to have a decent discussion with a fellow sikh..

How arrogant can you get? Of course I do not think that anything is higher than akaalpurakh - why would I try to say that? Re-read the post and you can easily judge what I meant to say was the void emerged from the almighty and not the other way around - as it has been described in gurbani! Why would I say waheguru's emerged from the nothingness and that is his limit? Where in any of my posts have I tried to say waheguru did not create himself. I've read my own posts back and noticed that I have made some grammatical errors - How does that mean that I am a skeptic? Some of our guru sahibs were not sikhs of the almighty for some parts of their human life - and I am a mere lowly manmukh trying to walk on the path of gursikhi!!

Shame on you, instead of trying to help your fellow sikh - you brand him a skeptic all the while feeding your own ego. I hate the fact that you have tried to play with my grammatical errors and then gone on to present me as a skeptic and yourself as the ideal sikh! Anyway - I don't really want to continue any discussion with you as you seem to be full of yourself. Learn to treat others with some respect and try learn some humility whilst your at it please. However, for the benefit of those that are reading this thread, I will answer the points you raise.

I did help you out. But you chose to call me egotisical instead of thanking me for finding your so called grammatical errors. If they were just grammatical errors then you would have humbled down and just apologized for making them. Instead you take your anger out on someone who is helping you out here. By calling you a skeptic, no ego is being fed. I am just stating what your writing says. Learn to accept it and then move on. If you are attached to your writing then forsure you are a skeptic, if not then no. It's your attachment to classifying Waheguru into nothinginess, is what causing me to call you as a skeptic and dragging this on.

I already told you I was happy with your latter statement and had felt that you were making a valid point. You say being created by the lord is not the same as re-immersing into the lord... and I again state that this is a very valid point!! However, if this is the case, then what exactly does mukhti or salvation from reincarnation mean?

Mukhti means to realize Waheguru completely. To become Waheguru, that one and only. That never dies or decreases, but just is.

From a lot of the katha I hear, the analogy of a "drop into the ocean-waheguru" is used to describe mukhti - if this isn't re-immersing to become one with the almighty then what is? Since you don't believe this to be the case, please explain what mukhti or salvation actually means/does with reference to gurbani. I'd like to know if one continues to exist as a separate entity once released from reincarnation.

I gave you the example of Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji. He is one with Waheguru, but took form here on this earth. Between the two there is no difference and no separation. Once one realizes Waheguru that is the true existence that the soul has realized and now comes no different than Waheguru. A drop of water back into the ocean is not re-immersing, but immersing in the Lord for the first time. Remember we came from Waheguru. Like i explained before if there was re-immersing at the beginning then there is no point to anything. That's why I added that God can destroy, that which he does not immerse in himself.

I told you before; the issue of existence on different planes/khand's or dimensions also comes into play when thinking about this concept. Re-read my posts to get an understanding of what I'm asking and the sub thoughts that I've had. I have re-phrased the question several times. Finally I request that if you have nothing positive to post or can't post without changing your arrogant and rude tone then please do not reply to the thread, maybe someone else will come along and help me out. Don't you dare call me a skeptic again, I am an amrit-dhari gursikh, that is how I will be addressed. I have no enmity with you and have not personally attacked you or your sikhi at any point in this discussion, you however have done it 3 times.

Gurfateh.

A true Amritdhari Gursikh will never proclaim I am a Gursikh. So you really need to re-think who is being arrogant here. Other Khands come into play when we start speaking about what happens if you don't follow something or stay inbetween. But your question was, "what's the point of being religious or not religious in that case? If our soul is the essence of the almighty himself then it will be absorbed into the almighty, irrespective of whether we are good or evil....?"

Here you are only refering to one Khand, which is the highest Khand, Sachkhand. So please don't divert the thread. I shouldn't have to tell you what you are asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest C0nfus3d

Gurfateh Only Five;

I did help you out. But you chose to call me egotisical instead of thanking me for finding your so called grammatical errors. If they were just grammatical errors then you would have humbled down and just apologized for making them. Instead you take your anger out on someone who is helping you out here. By calling you a skeptic, no ego is being fed. I am just stating what your writing says. Learn to accept it and then move on. If you are attached to your writing then forsure you are a skeptic, if not then no. It's your attachment to classifying Waheguru into nothinginess, is what causing me to call you as a skeptic and dragging this on.

I thank you again for your responses (as I have done in the past)... I have only snapped at your because I felt that your are offending my guru by branding me a skeptic and pointing fingers at my belief. I am not attached to my question... it is just that - a question. I acknowledge that you are attempting to resolve the query albeit in your own way. Again - please re-read the refrences I have posted... If I am misunderstanding gurbani please correct me... I am not and have not tried to classify waheguru into nothingness.

From your posts, I have extrapolated the following:

The question was - why should one be religious if at the end of creation everything will re-immerse into the lord creator?

Your response:

- You query my use of the term "re-immerse" and state that one is not re-immersing into the lord but rather immersing for the first time. - Does it make any difference? - We came from him and we will go into him. Anyhow, I am not sure if this is such an important point - but I do see where you're coming from.

- Secondly you state that if you are not worthy of being immersed into your lord you will be destroyed. I guess this is the answer to my core question.

- You sate that Mukhti is the realisation of the lord - I agree however as a result of this realisation of the creator we escape reincarnation and cease to exist in this plane.

A true Amritdhari Gursikh will never proclaim I am a Gursikh. So you really need to re-think who is being arrogant here.

Sorry veer-ji, I understand that a gursikh shouldn't be arrogant about himself or his relationship with his guru, but a gursikh doesn't deny his relationship with his guru. Similarly, I cannot deny that I trying to be a sikh of my guru.

Based on what you have stated, I would like to ask you, so when creation comes to an end - those that still exist on this plane and have not realised the true lord will be destroyed? Are there any references given by our guru sahib ji to this effect? In such a scenario - there will be people alive who DO realise the lord, there will be those who are TRYING to realise the lord but are not quite there and there will be those who are not religious. What will happen to those that are on the path to the lord but are not quite there?

I look forward to your response. I welcome others to join in this great discussion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
why should one be religious if at the end of creation everything will re-immerse into the lord creator?

The long way is one of immense dukh and no freedom.

The short way (dharm marg) is one of effort leading to sukh, freedom, anand, and knowledge of the secrets of the universe. As well as the opportunity to help free your fellow beings from the immense pain of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest C0nfus3d

The long way is one of immense dukh and no freedom.

The short way (dharm marg) is one of effort leading to sukh, freedom, anand, and knowledge of the secrets of the universe. As well as the opportunity to help free your fellow beings from the immense pain of existence.

Gurfateh SunSingh,

Thanks for your straight forward response! :) I too have thought of this, but I think that logically the concept is not complete. Your answer would be logically perfect for me if one could remember the pains of being in chaurasi (which I mentioned in my previous posts). The problem is our chaurasi for us is over in an instant - AFAIK, our soul is fully aware of the pain of chaurasi and the pain of separation from the creator - but the soul is out of reach of almost all human beings! (hence the need for spiritual enlightenment/simran/bhagti) I hope what I am saying makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gurfateh all,

@OnlyFive, I have been waiting for your input!

@others, please offer any comments on the topic being discussed!

How pathetic can you be. You're here to enterain your devil mind. This discusion was over long ago and now Sunsingh just put it in real simple terms for you, but still you want to kick the dirt around. Stop being childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest C0nfus3d

How pathetic can you be. You're here to enterain your devil mind. This discusion was over long ago and now Sunsingh just put it in real simple terms for you, but still you want to kick the dirt around. Stop being childish.

hah! you make me laugh.. I thought we were over the stage where you had tried a personal attack! I didn't think the discussion was over, hence I posted.

Anyhow, don't substitute your lack of knowledge or understanding for a personal attack. There's nothing devilish about asking about one's religion and encouraging one's spiritual development! Anyhow, I'm not here to attack you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hah! you make me laugh.. I thought we were over the stage where you had tried a personal attack! I didn't think the discussion was over, hence I posted.

Anyhow, don't substitute your lack of knowledge or understanding for a personal attack. There's nothing devilish about asking about one's religion and encouraging one's spiritual development! Anyhow, I'm not here to attack you.

Thumbs up dude!!!! double thumbs up dude!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use