Krishna In Sikhism

[osingh]

Gurparsad(i) - In mool mantar we read Gurparsad which mean through thew kirpa of Guru we can meet Akaal Purakh.

So who is Guru reffered to in Gurbani - Guru Nanak Dev ji.

To reach Sachkhand one has to receive kirpa of Guru Nanak Dev ji and receive Gurmat Naam, (this is now done through Amrit Sanchar because the Jot of Guru Nanak Dev ji now resides in Guru Granth Sahib ji.)

So how did sri Krishan ji reach Sachkhand, who was there Guru and what naam did they jap?

Many great avtars, bhagats ...... have reached Sachkhand but only after adopting Guru Nanak as there Guru and receiving Gurmat Naam.

In the end our goal remains the same, milaap with Waheguru and Sachkhand. How to get there, simple, jap Naam all night and all day. I think we can all agree on this.

Indeed, ang 1390 describes the greatness of sri Guru Nanak Dev ji, so many bhagats, avtars......... are singing the praises of sri Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Guru Nanak Dev ji got Gurmat Naam directly from Sachkhand and gave us bania sir bania - the highest bani of all - Gurbani. No other previous avtar can claim this.

[chatanga]

So who is Guru reffered to in Gurbani - Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Isnt Guru the Shabad?

Re Bhagwan Shri Krishan, not even the Hindus who worship him as God, say that he didnt escape Kaal, it is written in the sacred Granths of the Hindus, that Krishan's body expired, so 10th Guru writing it is nothing new, but a reminder, for those (hindus) who worship him as God, to worship none but Akal.

[PAL 07]

What about the fresco image at Gurdwara Baba Atal, Amritsar - it shows pictures of many krishan's and ramas standing at the doors of Sach Khand.

Dasam Granth states this aswell. Is it Ramanand Sagars Ramayan or Mahabharat at the end shows a part where Dharam Raj comes to take one of the avtaars - "he says yourt time is up you must go". So i would say the avtaars were subject to kaal

[JSinghnz]

I am astounded at THE lack of knowledge these pretenders who do not have a clue about

the basics of Sikhi which believes in only one Waheguru.

Guru Gobind Singh is very clear when HE SAYS

"May na Ganesheh pritham manayun!! Kishan Bishan kabhun nah dhyaun!!

[Sherdil]

Hindu devtas aren't god cuz they are plagued by the 5 evils, and cuz they all died. Go back to mool mantar and you will see that no Hindu devta fits the description of what God is.

Gurbani shows us again and again how the devtas are flawed.

Even the Hindu texts state that the devtas are not god, but rather different manifestations of the Supreme Brahman.

My personal opinion is that the devtas were extraordinary people who existed in history, and achieved god-like status with Hindus.

Buddha was a real person, but he is worshipped as an incarnation of Vishnu by some Hindus.

Ravan is described as having 10 heads, making him as smart as 10 people. One can guess how this tall-tale developed.

Sikhi is simple. 10 gurus, 1 guru granth sahib, 1 god. Everything else is irrelevant.

[Sherdil]

So who is Guru reffered to in Gurbani - Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Isn't the guru God? As in waheguru, the ultimate teacher.

In japji guru Nanak refers to himself in third person. He refers to God as guru.

[VanHelsingh]

Ravan is described as having 10 heads, making him as smart as 10 people. One can guess how this tall-tale developed.

Does Gurbani say Ravan had 10 heads? If so then surely we must take that at face value and not consider it to be a tall-tale? If it mentions him without specifying how many heads he had then that's fine I guess.

As for Krishna I always considered it to be a given that he was an avatar of Vishnu. Although during his conversation with Arjuna on the battlefield before the start of the war with the Kauravas some of the things he was saying suggested he clearly thought he was the be-all-and-end-all. Why he said those things only he knew. I suppose it goes back to the conversation Dusht Daman had with Akal Purakh where the Creator said (I paraphrase): "Everyone I sent to earth started their own path and their own religions, and had the people sing their praises...".

[PAL 07]

I am astounded at THE lack of knowledge these pretenders who do not have a clue about

the basics of Sikhi which believes in only one Waheguru.

Guru Gobind Singh is very clear when HE SAYS

"May na Ganesheh pritham manayun!! Kishan Bishan kabhun nah dhyaun!!

Nobody so far has said we should worship Krishna so why are you running up a tantrum, infact we are saying worship only one God, the discussion is about Krishna in relation to Sikhism, nothing wrong has been said everyione is sharing their view point so relax and have an ice cream

[Sherdil]

Does Gurbani say Ravan had 10 heads? If so then surely we must take that at face value and not consider it to be a tall-tale? If it mentions him without specifying how many heads he had then that's fine I guess.

I was thinking of how he is portrayed in the Duserrah festivals.

Legend says that he was as smart and cunning as 10 men. I believe that is why he is portrayed as a demon with 10 heads. Overtime, people really began to believe that he had 10 heads.

[VanHelsingh]

I was thinking of how he is portrayed in the Duserrah festivals.

Legend says that he was as smart and cunning as 10 men. I believe that is why he is portrayed as a demon with 10 heads. Overtime, people really began to believe that he had 10 heads.

Yes, it's a fine line isn't it? Speaking for myself without having studied these Vedantic scriptures in detail - particularly how they are interpreted from a Sikh perspective - a person isn't sure how to comprehend such things. There's been discussions on this site where I've read some people saying the mention of Hindu avatars, etc., are purely metaphorical much like the Ancient Greek and Roman gods, i.e. their legends are used to illustrate a lesson of sorts like a parable. Whilst others have said, without a doubt, that the Hindu avatars mentioned in Gurbani were living and breathing individuals, and their exploits are historical fact and not fictional narrative.

I've been told that a Sikh who has complete faith in his Guru should not have doubt, so the bottom line is if Gurbani says it happened then it happened; the issue is not up for interpretation or debate. I've no problem with that.