Christianity Allah And Parbrahm Are One And The Same

[Astroboy]

I have often wondered on the various terms used in belief systems like the 99 names of Allah and the like, if they were named because of traditional cultures which got blended into the system.

Imagine that if the whole universe was a body called God or any other name, how insignificantly tiny would we be living under HIS HUKAM - dead cells getting flushed out and the reproduced offspring takes over. Whether God is a biological being whose body cells (galaxies) require constant replacement.

Please throw some light and music on the matter.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Allah and Parbrahm are the same?
Well, first you must define how they function, etc then you can see if they are the same.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

imho...the Allah Raam Parbrahm Parmeshwar..Gopal..Krishan etc etc ...mentioned and described in SGGS are one and the same

I am not so sure the Allah of the Koran and that of. SGGS.....Awaal ALLAH noor upaya kudrat ke sabh bandeh are one and the same ???
A cursory reading of the Koran describes a different sort of Allah than the one in SGGS...

Learning..unlearning..and RELEARNING....:yes:
Gyani JS

 

[BhagatSingh]

imho...the Allah Raam Parbrahm Parmeshwar..Gopal..Krishan etc etc ...mentioned and described in SGGS are one and the same

I am not so sure the Allah of the Koran and that of. SGGS.....Awaal ALLAH noor upaya kudrat ke sabh bandeh are one and the same ???
A cursory reading of the Koran describes a different sort of Allah than the one in SGGS...

Learning..unlearning..and RELEARNING....:yes:
Gyani JS

Now we are getting somewhere. This is what we have to compare here, the Gods from different books. We know in SGGS many names are used for God but sometimes the original sense of the name can be VERY different than what our Gurus used.

 

[spnadmin]

imho...the Allah Raam Parbrahm Parmeshwar..Gopal..Krishan etc etc ...mentioned and described in SGGS are one and the same

I am not so sure the Allah of the Koran and that of. SGGS.....Awaal ALLAH noor upaya kudrat ke sabh bandeh are one and the same ???
A cursory reading of the Koran describes a different sort of Allah than the one in SGGS...

Learning..unlearning..and RELEARNING....:yes:
Gyani JS

Jio,

I agree with what you are saying. And am trying to put thoughts into words, but it is taking a while. It is the same thing when we think of the Jehovah of the Testament of Christians and Jews. Jehovah is a very different sort of God compared to Satguruji.

 

[gurvinder_janu]

"Allah Tero Naam Ishwar Tero Naam" a God Prayer. - Related Indian Videos, Bollywood Videos - utube.smashits.com

 

[Astroboy]

Sunta Hai Mera Khuda

YouTube - Saregamapa Challenge 2009 - 9th August 2008 - Part 8 - Sashi Suman - Sunta Hai MeRa Khuda - Join In On Orkut : http://www.orkut.com/Main#Community.aspx?cmm=48955685

 

[Astroboy]

YouTube - Fareed Ahmad - Rabba Rabba - Saregamapa Challenge 2009

 

[pk70]

Parbraham and Allah are the words used for the same one CREATOR, unfortunately, concepts of the Creator has changed depending on the level of enlightenment experience, or possibly distortions by the later on advocates.

 

[spnadmin]

pk70 ji

One way in which IMHO some deep misunderstandings occur -- oftentimes one will miss conceptions of Allah, Jehovah, God, etc. from Christian and Judaic traditions and there is a strong dualistic character to this. A separation of human and God (the I/Thou of the philosopher Martin Buber) that is not consistent with Sikhism's view of God. This view includes the idea of Creator who is self-existent (true in Judaic, Muslim and Christian traditions, as well as Muslim traditions) but these traditions do maintain the sense of separation.

Maybe I am wrong -- but the transcendent Creator -- Waheguru -- is not separate from His Creation -- but also permeates as much as the immanent Creator permeates.

Work needs to be done on the idea of nirguna and sarguna -- because these concepts in Sikhism are not exactly identical to the notions of transcendent and immanent in Judaic, Muslim and Christian traditions. They get translated as if they are the same. But I think some important ideas are missing.

 

[pk70]

pk70 ji

One way in which IMHO some deep misunderstandings occur -- oftentimes one will miss conceptions of Allah, Jehovah, God, etc. from Christian and Judaic traditions and there is a strong dualistic character to this. A separation of human and God (the I/Thou of the philosopher Martin Buber) that is not consistent with Sikhism's view of God. This view includes the idea of Creator who is self-existent (true in Judaic, Muslim and Christian traditions, as well as Muslim traditions) but these traditions do maintain the sense of separation.

Maybe I am wrong -- but the transcendent Creator -- Waheguru -- is not separate from His Creation -- but also permeates as much as the immanent Creator permeates.

Work needs to be done on the idea of nirguna and sarguna -- because these concepts in Sikhism are not exactly identical to the notions of transcendent and immanent in Judaic, Muslim and Christian traditions. They get translated as if they are the same. But I think some important ideas are missing.

aad Jeeo A million dollars point, we should address it, with your help, we would.

 

[ekmusafir_ajnabi]

Reply in the post "Re: Sikh Atheism" reproduced here.

The Islamic concept of God is "We all belong to the same God,”. By this statement we separate ourselves from God. Sikhs and Hindus, on the other side say " We are all part of God, the same light." This makes us and everything around us GOD in Sargun Saroop.

God is One. If the existence of God is explained to someone in their language with a concept to suit their intellect, it does then mean that God is now different. It is an individual’s perception. Moreover the definition is tailored to suit and individuals mental faculty. It is like explaining God is to a small child compared to an adult or an uneducated individual compared to the educated. Let us look at the definition of Sargun and Nirgun.

Sargun = With all attributes of Maya (Visible form – the world around us – in all forms)
Nirgun = Without attributes of Maya (Invisible form)

In Nigun form Divine does not become incomplete. It is just that we do have the ability to see Him whilst living in MAYA but we can feel HIM (Sensory mode). In both forms HE is complete.

Take an example of a Seed. The seed has a large tree hidden inside and the ability to reproduce. It the seed is not sown, all the attributes are hidden. It is still a complete unit. When we sow the seed, it grows into the large tree it was intended to be, bear fruit etc etc and reproduce more seeds. So Divine in Nirgun Saroop in not incomplete. We are incomplete ourselves for not having developed the ability to see beyond.

 

[spnadmin]

Reply in the post "Re: Sikh Atheism" reproduced here.

The Islamic concept of God is "We all belong to the same God,”. By this statement we separate ourselves from God. Sikhs and Hindus, on the other side say " We are all part of God, the same light." This makes us and everything around us GOD in Sargun Saroop.

God is One. If the existence of God is explained to someone in their language with a concept to suit their intellect, it does then mean that God is now different. It is an individual’s perception. Moreover the definition is tailored to suit and individuals mental faculty. It is like explaining God is to a small child compared to an adult or an uneducated individual compared to the educated. Let us look at the definition of Sargun and Nirgun.

Sargun = With all attributes of Maya (Visible form – the world around us – in all forms)
Nirgun = Without attributes of Maya (Invisible form)

In Nigun form Divine does not become incomplete. It is just that we do have the ability to see Him whilst living in MAYA but we can feel HIM (Sensory mode). In both forms HE is complete.

Take an example of a Seed. The seed has a large tree hidden inside and the ability to reproduce. It the seed is not sown, all the attributes are hidden. It is still a complete unit. When we sow the seed, it grows into the large tree it was intended to be, bear fruit etc etc and reproduce more seeds. So Divine in Nirgun Saroop in not incomplete. We are incomplete ourselves for not having developed the ability to see beyond.

Pk70 ji,

This is essentially the point that I was trying to make. Before creation there was the nirgun Creator -- but after creation He is ALSO in his Creation. He is always nirgun. He is sargun as we perceive Him throughout His Creation. Whether we perceive Him or not marks the limits of our fallibility. He is also eternally in His Nirgun Swaroop.

Immanent and transcendent as terms kind of confuse things -- in my humble opinion, they contribute to a dualistic understanding, rather than clarify the matter. They may be concepts that are more at home in western philosophy where I/Thou and Self/Other are relevant to understanding the nature of God. I can be convinced otherwise.

Forgive my errors.

 

[Astroboy]

All outer coverings are provided by Nature for lodging therein something precious, something of intrinsic value. We have at present no idea whatsoever of the higher values of life, and we have not yet been able to separate the grain from the chaff. Ignorant as we are, we act like fools, dazzled by the surface glamour, and are deluded by shapes and forms, colour-designs that meet our gaze, little knowing that we are like bloated bubbles which shine for a while and in the twinkling of an eye vanish like airy nothings into thin air."What is that wisdom or knowledge, by knowing which all else becomes known?" And in the same breath replied: "Self-knowledge or Atmavidya." Know thyself, or Gnothi Seauton, or Nosce Teipsum, has always been advocated by the ancient Greeks and Latins as the highest type of knowledge. It is also termed Paravidya, or the knowledge of the Beyond - something that lies beyond the grasp of gross senses and. the intellect and is the inner science of the soul. In a state of wakeful consciousness, the seat of both the mind and spirit is located behind the center of the two eyebrows. In the dream state of semi-consciousness, this seat is transferred to the place of the thyroid gland in the throat, and in the state of deep slumber, or sushupti (unconscious state), it goes still further down to the navel. Since the Path of the Saints (the science of the spirit) deals with a state of Super Consciousness, the real search begins from the third eye or Nukta-i-Sweda or Divya Chakshu and goes upwards (and not downwards) from stage to stage, until Sach Khand or Muqam-i-Haq, the True Home of our Father, is reached. This body is the temple of God. The Kingdom of God is within us. The whole of the macrocosm is said to be locked up in the microcosm. The true knowledge of the former can only be had with the knowledge of the latter. "A tap inside," is the wonderful dictum of the American philosopher, Emerson. Both the macrocosm and microcosm have been divided into four planes: (i) Pind, or the physical body, (ii) And (mental or astral body), (iii) Brahmand (causal or seedbody) and (iv) Sach Khand (the Eternal abode of Truth or Soul). All the planes below Sach Khand are liable to destruction at the time of Dissolution or Grand Dissolution, as the case may be. The idyllic home of the saints and the Master-souls is located in Sach Khand and realisation of this plane is their ideal. From Sach Khand to Pind, the reflection of the six centers in each of the higher planes may be seen in the corresponding centers of the lower plane, just in the same way as reflection of the sun may be seen in the number of pitchers full of water, and again of the latter, in turn, on a wall nearby. The six ganglionic centers of the body are (i) guda (rectum), (ii) indri (procreative organ), (iii) nabhi (navel), (iv) hirdey (heart), (v) kanth (throat or thyroid), (vi) aggya (behind the eyes).

Saint Matthew, in the Gospel, referred to this state in the following words: "The light of the body is the eye, if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." - Matt. VI:22

Hazrat Moeen-ud-Din-Chisti, a Muslim saint of high order, stated: "Open thy inner eye so that thou witnesseth the glory of God. Close thy ears and thy mouth and become just all Eye so as to behold His glory."

As the spirit transcends the physical plane, it has to pass through various realms characterized by stars, the sun and the moon. There it is greeted by the luminous form of the Master, who takes charge of the spirit, with whom he proceeds by the Sound-current to reach the True Home of our Father. The path of the saints is neither a religion nor a creed. Whosoever, whether a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian, reaches the abode of bliss or Truth, is termed a saint. Everywhere there are two types of Faqirs or orders of holy men of piety:
(1) Those who belong to the lower order, or Darja-i-sifli. They remain attached to ganglionic centers of the Pind, or the physical body, as the yogis do.
(2) Those of the higher order or Darja-i-Ulvi. Their sadhan, or spiritual discipline, begins with the aggya chakar, behind the eyes.
Some of the Muslim Faqirs belonged to the higher order. Hazrat Ibrahim says that he came across the Great Star and continued on his onward journey. Guru Nanak also refers to this Inner Star, which the Master in His grace might show to the aspirants. The wise men of the East also followed a Bright Star which led them to Bethlehem and brought them to Christ. Tulsi Sahib also speaks of the Brilliant Star that meets the spirit at the threshold of Gaggan, or entrance to the astral plane. Hazrat Mohammed tells us that he did Shak-ul-Qamar (struck the moon in twain), which is significant enough and figuratively connotes that a soul went beyond this realm of the moon. Everyone who makes a journey to the spiritual realms has, of course, to do this Shak-ul-Qamar by passing through the moon.

When ultimately the soul at its journey's end reaches the True Home of the Father and sees the splendour of Godhood in the ineffable resplendent light, one begins to see God in everything in the Universe. When Christ and Buddha rose above the body consciousness, they referred to the Way as leading to the Kingdom of God and the Nirvana pad respectively. The Muslims call it Muqam-i-Haq, and the Christians, New Jerusalem. Thereafter, Christ used to say: "Behold the Lord." And Guru Nanak would exclaim: "The Lord of Nanak is visible everywhere." The Sage of Dakshneshwar, Sri Rama Krishna Parmhans, when questioned by young Naren, as Swami Vivekananda was then known, whether he had seen God, replied: "Yes, my child, I have seen Him as clearly as I see you; nay, more than that."

SPIRITUALITY: A Peep Inside

 

[spnadmin]

Nam Jap ji

Given my earlier reluctance to accept immanence/transcendence as good substitutes for the nirgun/sargun nature of Akaal Purakh(u), please forgive my criticism of this article. NOT OF YOU. There is a lot here. Maybe I will tackle it a little bit at a time. Maybe not. But let me react to the last paragraph, and possible work my way backwards, time permitting. I have a number of questions about this paragraph in particular. I think it displays some fundamental contradictions.
When ultimately the soul at its journey's end reaches the True Home of the Father and sees the splendour of Godhood in the ineffable resplendent light, one begins to see God in everything in the Universe.
This sentence implies that a journey taken connects two states that are basically so distinct from one another that a journey is required to get from one place to the other. The idea of connection is not an essential part of this passage, but rather the idea of separation is. And the separation is not resolved. Once the soul makes the journey to and reaches the true home of the father, the first state is left behind.

In Sikhism -- maybe I am mistaken -- the soul does not make a journey from a to b. The separation is not real but perceived. The mind subdued finds something that it never lost to begin with. This realization of an "ineffable and resplendent light" the jyote does not involve a journey, but rather a realization of connected-ness.
When Christ and Buddha rose above the body consciousness, they referred to the Way as leading to the Kingdom of God and the Nirvana pad respectively.
This sentence suggests that Jesus (I cannot speak intelligently about Buddha because my knowledge is lacking) rises above a bodily state into a different state. The statement seems clear to me -- that a transformation of state occured with Christ. And we know that this notion is supported in the New Testament in the stories of the resurrection and later the transfiguration of Jesus of Nazareth. The ressurection story is intended to be understood as saying that Jesus left his physical form and entered into an apparent yet non physical form after his "death." The transfiguration story is understood to mean that Jesus manifested his subtle body as his physical body after his death to his apostles. And the ascension story in turn depicts the subtle (or apparent physical) body of Jesus finally moving to his ultimate spiritual state, joining his father in heaven. Sikhism offers the possibility of finding this ultimate spiritual state without the need for either death or changing from one body to another.
The Muslims call it Muqam-i-Haq, and the Christians, New Jerusalem.
Either can refer to a renewed state of spiritual understanding or to Heaven. But both refer to a state of salvation. But nirvana pad and New Jerusalem are not theologically equivalents. Muqam i Haq might be an equivalent theologically for nirvana pad, but only in some paths of Islam. Not in every one. (And it is important to remember that orthodox Islam is distrustful of mystical practices and interpretations of the Quran.)
Thereafter, Christ used to say: "Behold the Lord." And Guru Nanak would exclaim: "The Lord of Nanak is visible everywhere."
The article seems to see some kind of equivalence between the insight of Guru Nanak and insight of Jesus who says "Behold the Lord." Jesus who is described as resurrecting, transfiguring, ascending, and making a journey to a different realm.) However, I understand Guru Nanak to be describing something entirely different. New Jerusalem is Yes a spiritual state, but changing form or making journeys from one state of being to another are not implicit in the teaching of Guru Nanak. Think about it. In His sargun state He is everywhere. And in our spiritual journey we are not changing form or traveling to another realm nor do we have to in order to "join the Father in Heaven." We may change gunas and evolve to a spiritual state of turiya, but that doesn not require transformations from one body to another. The passage is replete with dualistic ideas that Guru Nanak never accepted. Even the idea that one "joins the Father in Heaven" suggests dualism and separation, again the I/Thou construction of God that is not consistent with Sikhism.

And in truth -- in Christian and Jewish traditions, Jaweh is eternally unknowable. And as such, Jaweh does not take on a sargun form -- but rather must manifest in another sate through prophets, or in the case of Jesus, as the Son of God, in order to contact His Creation, which is always separate from him. This is very different from the idea of nirguna in which the Akaal is undecipherable but is not separated from His Creation in His nirgun state, and who is known by His Creation in His sargun state. Bad wording on my part.
The Sage of Dakshneshwar, Sri Rama Krishna Parmhans, when questioned by young Naren, as Swami Vivekananda was then known, whether he had seen God, replied: "Yes, my child, I have seen Him as clearly as I see you; nay, more than that."
This concluding sentence mystifies me. Not that Swami's words are confusing -- I have a pretty good idea of what he means. What is mystifying is how this particular sentence was chosen to be the last sentence in a paragraph that mixes apples and oranges.

There is a body of writing "out there" that seems to me written by individuals who are passionately dedicated to the cause of crunching spiritual ideas that are unique to various religious traditions because nothing short of "sameness" of traditions will satisfy them. They dabble in religion. They find phrases that sound as if they mean the same thing and mash them all together. They abandon "discernment" and when they do that they mis-educate the public.

Please forgive me if anyone is offended; however I would rather celebrate what is unique and diverse and captures the character of each religion, including Sikhism, rather than be drowned in a swamp of muddy thinking.

 

[BhagatSingh]

I am just gona throw this atheist's take on the Sikh "God" in here (it seems related). reproduced from Sikh atheism.

I am a proud Sikh, proud of our history and what the Gurus have done for us. However, I just cannot believe in the concept of God, who created everything, especially when science has proved otherwise. I feel troubled and divided, but I strongly believe that because Sikhism is a spiritual religion, the idea of God can be seperated from our religion.

Can anyone back me up here?

I can totally understand what you are going through as I have been there my self.
Science has not disproved the existence of a Sikh God. Read SGGS the Sikh God is VERY different from other Gods. This God cannot be disproven. :yes: How can He/She/It be disproven when Sikhs relate him to energy, infinity, universal law, etc?

In Sikhism having a God has a purpose. Sikhi says One God and we all belong to the same God, which is a big step towards unity and equality of mankind. Sikhi says God is served through serving humanity, what better way to make the world a better place. By attributing all our deeds to God and by meditating, we all able to stay away from extreme emotions (the five thieves as some call them).

God is Sargun (all attributes) meaning all things you see around you. God is also nirgun (no attbutes) meaning nothing around you. So God exists and doesn't, at the same time! What does that tell you? That you can not believe in God all you want and still belive in him. And you can believe in him all you want and still not believe in him. That kind of makes every Sikh an atheist. So if you are atheist Sikh then be proud! (Although you don't have to call yourself atheist)

 

[spnadmin]

Jios,

Are Allah and Parbrahm one and the same?

 

[BhagatSingh]

Jios,

Are Allah and Parbrahm one and the same?

It depends on how you define them both. It depends on your perception.
Quran defines Allah to be very different than Allah of SGGS.

BTW what does Jios mean?

 

[spnadmin]

It depends on how you define them both. It depends on your perception.
Quran defines Allah to be very different than Allah of SGGS.

BTW what does Jios mean?

I was hoping you would pick a fight. Why not? Sorry for the digression but :}8-: for a moment took command. "Jios" is Punglish for more than one "ji"

 

[BhagatSingh]

I was hoping you would pick a fight. Why not? Sorry for the digression but :}8-: for a moment took command. "Jios" is Punglish for more than one "ji"

haha, you think I go around picking fights with people? :inca:
well actually... ya I do. ... kidding, I got better things to do

so why were you hoping that I would pick a fight?

Ah i see.
I never quite seen it being used like that
"Jios,

bla bla.."