Sikhi Quasi-Pragmatists And Quasi-Spiritualists, Care To Explain?

[Harry Haller]

TC

top cat?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Original ji,

Guru Fateh

Good morning Harkiran - hope you're well !

".......the shortest distance between a human being and Truth is a story.' "
-- Anthony de Mello. Check out the one below and make connection if you will.

Firstly, I want to thank you for crediting the author Anthony de Mello unlike many other times you repeatedly quoted the authors but did not give them credit. Kant comes to mind whom you quoted many times but no credit was given.

It is our duty as Sikhs to give credit where it is due.

When Nanak met God [Sultanpur Lodhi - Parmeshar ki dargah, meaning god's residence], God gave him nam daan [amrit] with which Nanak was to initiate the uninitiated and educate on the spiritual; remove them if you like, from the hold of the physical, mental and emotional aspects that otherwise are intrinsically fettering. A dialogue between God n Nanak ensued, went something like this :

God: is there something else I can give thee O Nanak ?
Nanak: yes me Lord
God: what would that be ?
Nanak: poverty
God: why poverty ?
Nanak: for what thou hath given n charged me with O God, can only be held in a vessel [meaning body] that is free of the rich, fame and the authoritative human [pauri 38 of Jap Ji Sahib is to this end].

According to your above claim, Ik Ong Kaar talks, which means he/she/it is a Deity and had an interaction with Guru Nanak. This is an Abrahamic school of thought which you are quite delved into as per your posts on SPN.

Allow me to say that Sikhi has no deity which you may or may not be aware of. Hence your self concocted dialogue has no Sikhi value but rather to the contrary.

Please provide proof/s that this dialogue took place between an unknown deity and Guru Nanak as per SGGS, our only Guru.

The relevance here HKR, is to show that whilst the physical body [matter] is no more than a vessel that carries the spirit [amrit] within it, experience of it can only be had NOW, whilst alive n kicking, for all else, including time, space, matter are no more than means to that end, "an experience". In other words, the body is a mean to an ultimate end, which is, an experience of the divine within. Just as a car is a mean to a destination so is the body a vehicle to reunite the separated soul with the true n absolute self, meaning, the spiritual self. The beauty n the immortality of the soul is that it is "alive eternally" , never dies, never born, it exists and is realised within the confines of this so called body, a human being.

First you claim "God gave him nam daan [amrit]" but then you claimed "carries the spirit [amrit] within it"

Which one is it? What is the definition of Amrit as per SGGS, our only Guru?

Please give references from SGGS where it indicates that Spirit is Amrit as per your claim. Post the whole shabad/s for our better understanding.

Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity but Creative Energy as per SGGS. Energy never dies as you may learnt in high school.

HKR Ji - you're an advanced spiritual being, you have always been here [the spirit you], albeit, in different bodies, locations, and different time dimensions. Break free n make this thy final visit and merge permanently with the pure consciousness [Khalsa]. This is what Sikhism professes, consciousness surviving the death of the body and, it is through the practice of meditation [nam simran], which acts as a mean to enter the 4th state of the eternal conscious state of being, leaving behind as it were, the body....."jeevat maryia" [die whilst alive , p 775 SGGSJ]. It is fair to add that meditation is not the exclusive nor the only mean to a teleological enterprise, but a preferred, tested and recommended a doctrine within the meaning theological science of the soul.

Please post the whole Shabad with your own understanding of the one liner you posted above from page 775 of SGGS.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

According to your above claim, Ik Ong Kaar talks, which means he/she/it is a Deity and had an interaction with Guru Nanak.

Allow me to say that Sikhi has no deity which you may or may not be aware of. Hence your self concocted dialogue has no Sikhi value but rather to the contrary.

Not quite the case.

The Supreme Being did have an interaction with with many individuals through out history.

Kabir ji tells us about one such interaction that the Supreme Being had with Bhagat Prahlad ji, where he saved him by assuming a gruesome and frightening form and killing off the king who was about to kill Prahlaad ji

He says -

ਓਇ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇਵਾਧਿ ਦੇਵ ॥ ਭਗਤਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਨਰਸਿੰਘ ਭੇਵ ॥
He is the Supreme Soul, the God of Gods. For His bhagat, He took the form of Narsingh, half man half lion.

ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਕੋ ਲਖੈ ਨ ਪਾਰ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਹਲਾਦ ਉਧਾਰੇ ਅਨਿਕ ਬਾਰ ॥੫॥੪॥
No one can understand His limits. He has saved Prahlaad many times.

page 1194

I can post the whole shabad, but I think you know the story.


Even Bhagat Nam Dev ji describes an incident in Guru Granth Sahib, where God came to him to alleviate his troubles. He spoke about this as interaction between him and God. I can post the full shabad if you like.

Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity but Creative Energy as per SGGS.

Not quite.

1. This is a false dichotomy because a deity can be described as creative energy, for example how Mata Parvati ji is described in Shaktism.

2. I assume by Onkar you mean karta purakh / ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ since Onkar vibration was caused by ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ and I know from your previous posts that you translate ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ as 'creative energy'.

However in Guru Granth Sahib ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ does not mean "creative energy" exactly. ਕਰਤਾ - karta means creator, causal and ਪੁਰਖ - Purakh or Purush means - a conscious entity.

ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ is a creative conscious entity, otherwise known as a deity.

This creative conscious entity, this deity, interacts with his devotees and even saves them as Bhagat Kabir ji and the even the Gurus like Guru Amar Das ji point out in their shabads.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Not quite the case.

The Supreme Being did have an interaction with with many individuals through out history.

So you do admit that Sikhi has a deity as per your claim above. Well, I respect your opinion . Please post the whole shabad of that claim with your own understanding.

Kabir ji tells us about one such interaction that the Supreme Being had with Bhagat Prahlad ji, where he saved him by assuming a gruesome and frightening form and killing off the king who was about to kill Prahlaad ji

He says -

ਓਇ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੇਵਾਧਿ ਦੇਵ ॥ ਭਗਤਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਨਰਸਿੰਘ ਭੇਵ ॥
He is the Supreme Soul, the God of Gods. For His bhagat, He took the form of Narsingh, half man half lion.

ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਕੋ ਲਖੈ ਨ ਪਾਰ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਹਲਾਦ ਉਧਾਰੇ ਅਨਿਕ ਬਾਰ ॥੫॥੪॥
No one can understand His limits. He has saved Prahlaad many times.

page 1194

I can post the whole shabad, but I think you know the story.

Even Bhagat Nam Dev ji describes an incident in Guru Granth Sahib, where God came to him to alleviate his troubles. He spoke about this as interaction between him and God. I can post the full shabad if you like.

Do you claim that they are real stories or parables in Hinduism in the above examples cited by you and used by our Gurus to deflate the myths which Hinduism is filled with, to the people who claimed them to be real because their honchos- The Pundits told them so?

Do you believe in "Narsingh, half man half lion" to be real or just the imagination of one's mind?

Do you also believe the story of Prahlaad to be a real story or one more parable?

Please post the whole Shabad/s with your understanding.

One more parable, Lord Rama taking the help of Hanumaan- half ape/half human and his army of monkeys who threw stones in the ocean to contruct the bridge from the mainland to the island of Sri Lanka so Rama could cross the bridge and defeat Raavan.

Do you also believe the above to be factually true?

Did Raavan have 12 physical heads?

1. This is a false dichotomy because a deity can be described as creative energy, for example how Mata Parvati ji is described in Shaktism.

Please elaborate the above? Does the above also claim the gods/godesses in Hinduism have multiple arms as a factual thing?

2. I assume by Onkar you mean karta purakh / ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ since Onkar vibration was caused by ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ and I know from your previous posts that you translate ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ as 'creative energy'.

However in Guru Granth Sahib ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ does not mean "creative energy" exactly. ਕਰਤਾ - karta means creator, causal and ਪੁਰਖ - Purakh or Purush means - a conscious entity.

ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖ is a creative conscious entity, otherwise known as a deity.

I never said what you claim above. You may check my meaning of Mool Mantar here on SPN.

This creative conscious entity, this deity, interacts with his devotees and even saves them as Bhagat Kabir ji and the even the Gurus like Guru Amar Das ji point out in their shabads.

Please post the whole shabads from Kabir and Guru Amar Das with your own understanding, so we can learn from it.

Thanks

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Tejwant Ji,

I know we got into this subject before, but why exactly do you think that the word 'deity' can not be used to describe Waheguru in Sikhi? The dictionary definition of deity simply means 'God' or 'Creator'. I don't know why you keep going back to Abrahamic description of God (bearded man in sandals) when Christianity does not have the monopoly on the word deity. And the word deity does not have to mean a specific form. It can also mean formless, consciousness, and even pure energy (as long as that energy is creative which implies consciousness). Can you please show us all where in Gurbani it has you convinced that Sikhi can not possibly have a 'deity'?? Because going by the dictionary definition of the word deity, I am sure Waheguru, Akal Purakh, Ik Onkar, can definitely fit in the description of 'Creator of the Universe'.

Also you were quick to lower Bhagat Singh Ji's post to his 'opinion' only while your own post claimed just IS. What I mean is, you were quick to tell him it was his 'opinion' while you stated that Sikhi has NO DEITY as a fact. Therefore, it seems the onus is more on you to show us exactly why, using full shabads, and back up that claim. I have seen statements saying Sikhi doesn't have a Deity for several years now, and nothing, no shabads etc to show why exactly you think that, since the word deity simply means Creator / God.

Also, you have basically in the above post equated Waheguru to what comes out of my light socket. Yes energy is a good description, even creative energy, but the word creative IMPLIES conscious awareness since to be creative, one must draw on imagination and original ideas. For example, a river carves out the land around it over millions of years through erosion. It's creating a new landscape, but the water is NOT creative. This is how in mind you are equating Waheguru? If so, I am sorry I can't agree with you... Can you please show us in full shabads how Waheguru is not conscious and aware of us? It seems to me in nearly all the shabads, there is reference to God's 'Grace' and grace is an aspect of mind, consciousness. Myself, I would go further and say that the creative energy you are referring to, IS ONE universal pure consciousness (formless) or at least must possess conscious awareness to fit both the creative meaning and ability to bestow grace.

 

[swarn bains]

there are God's and guru's devotees and then there are scholars. see which category you fall in and the answer come out accordingly

 

[ravneet_sb]

Sat Sri Akaal,

The chracters created as Ram Laxman Ravan etc are inner program and routine functions of humans and there interactive behaviour.

There is no way software can be explained.
Else by practice.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh