Hard Talk - Taking One Liners Out Of Context From Gurbani To Allow Intellectual Independence? | Page 7 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Hard Talk Taking One Liners Out Of Context From Gurbani To Allow Intellectual Independence?

Currently reading:
Hard Talk Taking One Liners Out Of Context From Gurbani To Allow Intellectual Independence?

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
1,644
Likes
1,639
as usual Chazji, you have completely missed the point being made, and are wasting your time on the surface, it is quite easy to justify pretty much anything using one liners from SGGS, no matter how obvious the meaning.

I am aware of one of the above quotes being used to justify women not partaking in seva due to menstruation, which is as ridiculous as pertaining to black pudding. Would you like me to mail you each time I post so that I can explain what it actually means?
yeah it is, but any kind of reading or interest in anything requires a little intelligence...and contemplation...to get to something of an interpretation that would make sense...

and if the reader can only come up with overly dramatic and nonsensical things like the examples in your post, then surely that's where the sangat come into play to help the person develop an understanding...


here's a thought....why don't you tell us why the one liner i posted does not indicate that Waheguru is within you?...because that's the example i gave of 'one' scenario where a one liner would perfectly answer the question of "where can i experience Waheguru"...does it answer that question?

of course there are occasions where a complete shabad is required...or indeed most of the SGGS Ji..

for example if a person then asks...."well ok, if Waheguru is within me...what do i do to experience Him"...

well then...that's a whole new ball game and requires a lot more reading and contemplating...as i myself found..

God Bless ji..
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
1,644
Likes
1,639
you mean like some of the people who have translated SGGS with a Christian leaning?
or like some of the people who view Waheguru as a person?
or even some of the people who need forgiveness from sin in their lives?
here's something jesus said "in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God"...brilliant...perfect...Jesus knew the truth...wow...i don't need to know of any human twisted version of jesus's teachings other than the above...it just so happens to be a one liner on this occasion...sorry...my bad lol...

to this day...me personally...i;ve never met any sikh that actually makes an effort to open and read SGGS Ji, to come to the conclusion Waheguru is a person...

Forgiveness, that word...i don;t really like it...i would say i pray that waheguru gives me the awareness to understand and know, and acknowledge when i've done something wrong...hurt another physcially, spiritually and mentally...
...and to make a change
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,393
Likes
1,906
Harkiran, where did you get this from and why ? In my view, the whole question answer synergy used to explain the writings of Bhagat Kabir's [BK], in the instant scenario is taken "completely" out of context. Not knowing the make and model of the car and then going on to advertise it for sale, what prospects of sale, if any ?

There are places within SGGSJ where the understanding and the background of the author ought to be fully known for an authentic or near authentic and correct interpretation. And, here you've cited an example where I feel, total injustice has been done because the author's intention were to a different end.

Take Charles Dickens [English Writer] for example, his writings were so influential that it shaped and mapped the mid-Victorian society of the then late 1850's, which until present day, is the forerunner to modern day British Society. His train of thought, belief, culture, etc.. plays a significant role in the understanding of his writings. Similarly, BK's background need to be known in order to interpret his writings for it helped shaped the then Hindu - Islamic Indian society and paved way for Sikhism to come into the arena. The point in question above [poem] is to an end where BK is "actually" having a disguised dig [through writing] at the Mulla [Moslem priest] for carrying out unholy acts in the name of Allah. And, since BK was a spiritualist his emphasis is on the true food of the self as opposed to the deceitful palaver created in the name of religious edification.

When communicating prose, most people are probably unaware of the extent to which the use of language necessarily involves interpretation. Even the simplest statement usually relies on an understanding of habits, knowledge, values and purposes shared between the author and the recipient of the communication.

Much obliged !.
I got it from Harry Ji's one liners post :) I was just making the point that even as a one liner, it does not looks to be speaking about literal beans and rice, though that was the point he was trying to make.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,393
Likes
1,906
here's something jesus said "in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God"...brilliant...perfect...Jesus knew the truth...wow...i don't need to know of any human twisted version of jesus's teachings other than the above...it just so happens to be a one liner on this occasion...sorry...my bad lol...

to this day...me personally...i;ve never met any sikh that actually makes an effort to open and read SGGS Ji, to come to the conclusion Waheguru is a person...

Forgiveness, that word...i don;t really like it...i would say i pray that waheguru gives me the awareness to understand and know, and acknowledge when i've done something wrong...hurt another physcially, spiritually and mentally...
...and to make a change
Waheguru Ji is not a 'person'. We are persons. Waheguru Ji CREATED persons. Waheguru Ji does not have form like a person does. Waheguru Ji does not have a beginning or end like a person does.But that does not make Waheguru Ji any less conscious of creation created by / within Waheguru Ji. Consciousness is not part of the creation. Consciousness IS. In this light, Harkiran IS a person, but I AM NOT a person, I am much more than a person. The consciousness that is currently playing the part of Harkiran exists more than as a person.
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,053
Likes
550
Age
61
Location
London UK
did the Hindus invent reincarnation,
..invent, perhaps is an inappropriate term to use here because reincarnation is a theoretical construct [substance] to support an ideology; a conceptual tool if you like, which is compatible with metaphysical philosophy of ancient India. It is Hindu, and the question to ask is "who are the Hindus" ?
transmigration
..European term coined around medieval times during the "great works of the alchemists".
meditation
....from an institutional perspective, I'd say yes, it is from within Hindu thought, but by definition it is wide and is as old as humankind for it is a form of concentration. Reading and writing have been considered as meditation.
the concept of a single supreme creative force?
...creative "energy", an emergent of an absolute being [Brahm]. Yes ! again, it is Hindu ideology upon which the idea of "God" [Ikonkar] has been developed by Baba Nanak and shared by the majority of the exponents of Gurbani.
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,053
Likes
550
Age
61
Location
London UK
Religion is probably an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared sense of morality. The common denominator in all religions is the moralising principles, Sikhism spiritual is cut from a different cloth. What is Sikh spiritual ?
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
5,029
Likes
7,158
Location
Henderson, NV.
here's something jesus said "in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God"[/B]...brilliant...perfect...Jesus knew the truth...wow...i don't need to know of any human twisted version of jesus's teachings other than the above...it just so happens to be a one liner on this occasion...sorry...my bad lol...
Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have no problem with what you believe in but let's be honest here. Jesus did not say,"in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John said that in 1:1 between 60 to 100 years after Jesus' demise.

In fact what "Jesus said" is in doubt. All Jesus' words are second-hand quotes by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. This Son of an omnipotent, omniscient God who could confound the wise men of the temple never wrote his own gospel.

The same is not the case of SGGS and by comparing one liner of a whole Shabad to these second hand proclamations by someone, about someone, is demeaning to the person's own understanding of the subject being discussed in the thread,.

Allow me to take your claim a bit farther. If Jesus had said that himself, then was Jesus a son of god or a son of the word with the help of virgin Mary?

On the other side of the Christian coin that you quoted to compare Sikhi with, there is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

What is the difference between John1:1 and Genesis 1:1?

So, which one liner from the above two gives the whole meaning to you?

Please share your wisdom.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
5,761
Likes
8,153
Age
50
..invent, perhaps is an inappropriate term to use here because reincarnation is a theoretical construct [substance] to support an ideology; a conceptual tool if you like, which is compatible with metaphysical philosophy of ancient India. It is Hindu, and the question to ask is "who are the Hindus" ?

Human beings walked this earth 200,000 years ago, are you saying that not one human being in that period had a thought about being reborn? Are you saying that it was the Hindus that invented reincarnation, just like Newton invented gravity? Reincarnation no more belongs to the Hindus than it does to all of us as a conceptual tool.

.from an institutional perspective, I'd say yes, it is from within Hindu thought, but by definition it is wide and is as old as humankind for it is a form of concentration. Reading and writing have been considered as meditation.
how about on the whole? does an answer from an institutional perspective actually count if the definition itself contradicts?

...creative "energy", an emergent of an absolute being [Brahm]. Yes ! again, it is Hindu ideology upon which the idea of "God" [Ikonkar] has been developed by Baba Nanak and shared by the majority of the exponents of Gurbani.
Again, 200,000 years ago human beings walked the earth, your saying that not one person had a thought that the supreme being was a single energy, sun worshippers worshipped a single being, some could even say they used the sun as an image to represent a one single creative energy, so how do you give the monopoly for this line of thought to Hinduism that arrived on the scene some 196,500 years later? I mean Guru Nanak had 200,000 years of history to assist him in his search for the truth, yet suddenly all this thinking is Hindu ideology, this ideology belongs to no one, it cannot be owned, the truth is not a commodity that can be patented and copyrighted.

GIven all that, it beats me why certain folk seen insistent that Sikhism was born out of Hinduism.

Just sitting here watching the rain fall down in Essex, good job the rain comes down really, if it hadn't been for Newton who knows what would have happened
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
1,644
Likes
1,639
Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have no problem with what you believe in but let's be honest here. Jesus did not say,"in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John said that in 1:1 between 60 to 100 years after Jesus' demise.

In fact what "Jesus said" is in doubt. All Jesus' words are second-hand quotes by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. This Son of an omnipotent, omniscient God who could confound the wise men of the temple never wrote his own gospel.

The same is not the case of SGGS and by comparing one liner of a whole Shabad to these second hand proclamations by someone, about someone, is demeaning to the person's own understanding of the subject being discussed in the thread,.

Allow me to take your claim a bit farther. If Jesus had said that himself, then was Jesus a son of god or a son of the word with the help of virgin Mary?

On the other side of the Christian coin that you quoted to compare Sikhi with, there is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

What is the difference between John1:1 and Genesis 1:1?

So, which one liner from the above two gives the whole meaning to you?

Please share your wisdom.

Thanks.
they both do Tejwant Ji...why do you need to try and complicate everything...seriously...chill the beans...:)

whether John said it many years later i do not care...for when i read Gurbani Talking about 'Shabad'...the two pretty much match...i contemplate very similar things when i read both
""in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
and
"The One Shabad, the Word of the One God, is prevailing everywhere. All the creation came from the One Lord."
SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge


i can meditate and contemplate on both the above and i feel the same within, i feel like i came from the shabad...as i (body, ego) also came from the shabad...and the shabad resonates within me...and the shabad is my connection back to the one...the god, the ik, the source...


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
So in the beginning...creation came forth...all of it....its not that difficult to understand or comprehend...no need for us humans to complicate it, or over think it...

really, there is no need to over complicate things here...regardless of who said, or what said it, if it takes my mind to the same place, then i care nothing for anything else...

eventually, the words evaporate, and one finds their being, resonating with some force, that has a pulling power, taking you deeper and deeper within...its pretty remarkable...
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
1,644
Likes
1,639
Human beings walked this earth 200,000 years ago, are you saying that not one human being in that period had a thought about being reborn? Are you saying that it was the Hindus that invented reincarnation, just like Newton invented gravity? Reincarnation no more belongs to the Hindus than it does to all of us as a conceptual tool.



how about on the whole? does an answer from an institutional perspective actually count if the definition itself contradicts?



Again, 200,000 years ago human beings walked the earth, your saying that not one person had a thought that the supreme being was a single energy, sun worshippers worshipped a single being, some could even say they used the sun as an image to represent a one single creative energy, so how do you give the monopoly for this line of thought to Hinduism that arrived on the scene some 196,500 years later? I mean Guru Nanak had 200,000 years of history to assist him in his search for the truth, yet suddenly all this thinking is Hindu ideology, this ideology belongs to no one, it cannot be owned, the truth is not a commodity that can be patented and copyrighted.

GIven all that, it beats me why certain folk seen insistent that Sikhism was born out of Hinduism.

Just sitting here watching the rain fall down in Essex, good job the rain comes down really, if it hadn't been for Newton who knows what would have happened

i think Original Ji, asked you a question..."who are the hindus"

maybe He can clarify,
but i would say Hindu's are human beings first and foremost...as are sikhs...as are budhists...as are any other named religion on this earth...
So being Human...we have one thing in Common....the Human body...
and every persons body has the gateway to Waheguru within them...regardless of what you believe in, or what you name yourself.

this is why Budhists recognized and came across energy centers that exist beyond just the physcial component in their body....
thats why Hindus came across the same and called them the chakras...
thats why in Gurbani, Guru ji has called them the seven seas ... and went beyond with the speaking of the tength gate, the anhad shabad...etc...why the ocean of the mind...mansarover was mentioned...which is wondrous in itself...wah...!

because even if you called yourself an athiets, those elements would still exist within you...
they existed when the first human being walked...and they shall forever exist...along with all other truths

all named religions came from becoming aware of truths...they all came from the truth...
from a Sikh perspective...Guru Nanak made sure the complete truth was available to us to explore and become aware of ourselves...within...He said we can do this NOW...and not wait until physical death.

so lets explore....and stop with this nonsense...
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
5,761
Likes
8,153
Age
50
i think Original Ji, asked you a question..."who are the hindus"
not being content with taking bani out of context, are we now taking my posts out of context too? there was a bit before that question that was quite relevant Chazji
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
5,029
Likes
7,158
Location
Henderson, NV.
they both do Tejwant Ji...why do you need to try and complicate everything...seriously...chill the beans...:)

whether John said it many years later i do not care...for when i read Gurbani Talking about 'Shabad'...the two pretty much match...i contemplate very similar things when i read both
""in the beginning was Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
and
"The One Shabad, the Word of the One God, is prevailing everywhere. All the creation came from the One Lord."
SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge


i can meditate and contemplate on both the above and i feel the same within, i feel like i came from the shabad...as i (body, ego) also came from the shabad...and the shabad resonates within me...and the shabad is my connection back to the one...the god, the ik, the source...


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
So in the beginning...creation came forth...all of it....its not that difficult to understand or comprehend...no need for us humans to complicate it, or over think it...

really, there is no need to over complicate things here...regardless of who said, or what said it, if it takes my mind to the same place, then i care nothing for anything else...

eventually, the words evaporate, and one finds their being, resonating with some force, that has a pulling power, taking you deeper and deeper within...its pretty remarkable...
Chaz Singh ji,

Guru fateh,

It becomes difficult to interact with you as a learning process, because you are not able to answer the question directly and honestly. It would be easier for me to say, 'I do not know'. Does it happen consciously or unconsciously? It matters naught.

Enjoy your journey.
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,393
Likes
1,906
Human beings walked this earth 200,000 years ago, are you saying that not one human being in that period had a thought about being reborn? Are you saying that it was the Hindus that invented reincarnation, just like Newton invented gravity? Reincarnation no more belongs to the Hindus than it does to all of us as a conceptual tool.
But... you said before that reincarnation was a Vedic philosophy? I am confused now. Everytime it was mentioned before, you accused me of touting Hindu ideas.

The reality is, we HAVE been here before. You can call it what you want. But it's definitely real. There is enough subjective evidence to go by. And no Hindus were not the first to come up with the idea.

I can think of several. Ancient Egyptians mentioned a nonphysical body which can exists independently of the physical body they referred to as the 'ba'. Ancient Greece, The Celtic Druids, numerous indigenous peoples in North America, and even proto-european religions contained the idea of a separate conscious part of the individual which lives on past the death of the physical body,and comes back in different forms.

And yes, I believe when Gurbani speaks about births and deaths, it is not just some metaphor for different states of mind in physical sense.
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
1,644
Likes
1,639
Chaz Singh ji,

Guru fateh,

It becomes difficult to interact with you as a learning process, because you are not able to answer the question directly and honestly. It would be easier for me to say, 'I do not know'. Does it happen consciously or unconsciously? It matters naught.

Enjoy your journey.
i answered your question honestly ...

if you don;t like what i write...that's your prerogative

god bless...
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,393
Likes
1,906
@Harkiran Kaur ji, would request you to quote the complete shabd from Gurbani and your source of transliteration/translation you have read for that shabd.

Thank you.
I don't think I quoted a shabad?

I was just talking in general terms. Not specific shabad or tuk. Just that whenever I read any reference to that idea (in general) I always took it to mean actual being here more than once, never did I ever get the idea that it was just speaking about psychology or state of mind. I wasn't referring to a specific shabad, rather just speaking in general terms. I have on here before though, posted full shabads on this very topic and to no avail. It only turned into a fight between those who believe Gurbani is all about human psychology and not spirituality, and those who believe in spirituality. I'd rather not get into the same argument again...
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,053
Likes
550
Age
61
Location
London UK
Sir

Forgive me for the late response, didn't seem to get the usual alert on my email - sorry !
Human beings walked this earth 200,000 years ago, are you saying that not one human being in that period had a thought about being reborn? Are you saying that it was the Hindus that invented reincarnation, just like Newton invented gravity? Reincarnation no more belongs to the Hindus than it does to all of us as a conceptual tool.
..yeah, there is evidence of the modern human to have walked around 200,000 years ago, but abstract thinking ? hmm ! that's not that old. Until recently, the accepted view has been that our ancestors underwent a "creative explosion" around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, when we suddenly began to think abstractly. This idea is supported by the plethora of stunning cave paintings, like those at Chauvet. Immortality of the soul came with the later civilisations of the Sanskrit family. Hinduism, together with the Greeks, Romans and a wee bit of the Scandinavians form part of the Sanskrit family.

Reincarnation is not an invention per se but rather, yes, as you've correctly observed, a conceptual tool which developed over time, just like chairs and a tables came out of the wood from the trees, so did the theory of reincarnation emerged from an ideological thought process of the ancient Sanskrit family. Nanak modified the theory of reincarnation to the point of "no return" and gave us an eternal life by exiting the wheel of the 84. I'm sure Chaz has the manual, if you're interested, ha ! As for gravity, its always been there. Sir Newton harnessed it if you like and modified it to pass it on to Einstein to give us the general theory of relativity.

how about on the whole? does an answer from an institutional perspective actually count if the definition itself contradicts?
..pass ?
Again, 200,000 years ago human beings walked the earth,
..yeah, pretty much like Zombies coz thinking faculties, inventions, discoveries and the rest hadn't kicked in as yet.
your saying that not one person had a thought that the supreme being was a single energy,
...does a 2 year old know or can it know the science of reproduction? No ! Similarly, we couldn't have conceived such a notion. Brains were no bigger than an orange !
sun worshippers worshipped a single being
..cannot support the being bit, but yes, worshipping the Sun was indeed an early concept, particularly of the ancient Egyptians and the Incas of Latin America dancing around in space suits make belief the heavenly belt was the real deal.

so how do you give the monopoly for this line of thought to Hinduism that arrived on the scene some 196,500 years later?
..to date we know of 3 races that entered Europe. All modern Europeans carry the genetic signatures of three distinct groups that migrated into Europe between 45,000 and 4500 years ago: the hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers and Yamnaya.

All this tells us that an intrepid group of Homo sapiens must have left the Middle East early on, making it to Siberia more than 24,000 years ago. From there, they split east and west, to the Americas and to Europe. The Sanskrit family was founded within these groups. The Aryan invasion of North India happened around 1800 BC. Hinduism was their religion. The Greeks, Romans and the Scandinavians shared the same religious belief, polytheism.

The best explanation for the out-of-Africa migrants.is that the ancestors of European hunter-gatherers somehow set up camp on their own in the Middle East and lived apart for millennia – long enough to evolve their own genetic markers. No one knows why and how this happened.

I mean Guru Nanak had 200,000 years of history to assist him in his search for the truth, yet suddenly all this thinking is Hindu ideology, this ideology belongs to no one, it cannot be owned, the truth is not a commodity that can be patented and copyrighted.
..you're right, it cannot be owned, but ideologies develop within groups and the only known group that we can associate with is the Sanskrit family. That gives us our bearings and identity as a social group on the move. Truth is universal and everyone has an equal right to it, exactly what Nanak set out to show the Moslems and the Hindus.

GIven all that, it beats me why certain folk seen insistent that Sikhism was born out of Hinduism.
.. the other way round perhaps ! Nanak and his renaissance was to that end coz humankind had forgotten the religion of truth - satnam. Evolution wanted Hinduism the "folk" saved from the clutches of Islam and be supplanted by a more modern religion, that is Sikhism. Look around you, Sikhism is the next best thing since sliced bread. Besides, evolution will advance the dominant ideology of a system that stacks-up on all fours, which Sikhism is. Do we need to be bitching about Hindu this, Vedic this and Abrahamic this, when we know that evolution will one day favour Gurmat stream, a current in which all competing currents will lose themselves and give up their own individual identity to become 1, meaning Ekonkar ? For that is the truth.
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,393
Likes
1,906
@harkiran ji, I never said you posted a shabd, all i asked was I wanted to read the basis of your belief about births and deaths from Gurbani while quoting the full shabd...

I ask everybody to post full shabds as a rule of thumb. :)
I am sure I posted full shabads on this before and my full interpretation of them. My view of "reincarnation" as it were or "transmigration" falls in line with Gurbani saying that all is one (generally speaking). The idea of Nirgun / Sargun aspect of Waheguru. Form which emenates from formless. Consciousness being the base of existence and having a real intrinsic connection to matter. So to me, "we" really means Waheguru. And Waheguru has been the 'doer' behind everyone and everything since the inception of the Universe. So my understanding of what transmigration / reincarnation is, does not refer to "separate" souls as if we are all separate entities body jumping after death and starting a new separate life. Rather, the one who continues to exist in every human, is Waheguru. And the only experiencer / doer who has ever existed behind every entity that has ever breathed (and also every inanimate object, plant etc as well) is one and the same.... Ik Onkar, Waheguru, Akal Purakh.

I really don't want to get back into the same discussion again since I know several people on here will never leave the simple psychology explanation (states of mind) referring to this one physical life and having nothing to do with actual spirituality etc. Posting a shabad about reincarnation is only asking for an argument again and I'd rather not engage in arguments because I feel its not productive.

But here is one, not specifically reincarnation related but does explain that Waheguru IS every character in this reality and always was and always will be (our Ego identity, or experience of being a separate entity is only that we have forgotten who we really are... an actor playing this character). I know some will try to say that the characters are just states of mind... like if I am angry thats a character etc. But I can't see how that fits.

ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ ਮਹਲਾ ਘਰੁ
रागु सूही महला ५ घरु १
Rāg sūhī mėhlā 5 gẖar 1
Raag Soohee, Fifth Mehl, First House:

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯgur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

ਬਾਜੀਗਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ਬਾਜੀ ਪਾਈ
बाजीगरि जैसे बाजी पाई ॥
Bājīgar jaise bājī pā▫ī.
The director stages the play, (the director is Waheguru)

ਨਾਨਾ ਰੂਪ ਭੇਖ ਦਿਖਲਾਈ
नाना रूप भेख दिखलाई ॥
Nānā rūp bẖekẖ ḏikẖlā▫ī.
playing the many characters in different costumes; (all of us, the animals, the plants, minerals etc.. everything)

ਸਾਂਗੁ ਉਤਾਰਿ ਥੰਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰਾ
सांगु उतारि थम्हिओ पासारा ॥
Sāʼng uṯār thamiĥa▫o pāsārā.
but when the play ends, he takes off the costumes, (when this world ceases to exist, or... if we look beyond the 'play' to the formless Ik Onkar, Waheguru...)

ਤਬ ਏਕੋ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
तब एको एकंकारा ॥१॥
Ŧab eko ekankārā. ||1||
and then he is one, and only one. ||1|| (...we see that everything is really ONE.... everything is Waheguru)

ਕਵਨ ਰੂਪ ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿਓ ਬਿਨਸਾਇਓ
कवन रूप द्रिसटिओ बिनसाइओ ॥
Kavan rūp ḏaristi▫o binsā▫i▫o.
How many forms and images appeared and disappeared?
(all form, in this creation which came from the formless Ik Onkar. This means all life, all inanimate objects, etc. Everything which is 'matter' - the Sargun expression of Nirgun formless Creator)

ਕਤਹਿ ਗਇਓ ਉਹੁ ਕਤ ਤੇ ਆਇਓ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ
कतहि गइओ उहु कत ते आइओ ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Kaṯėh ga▫i▫o uho kaṯ ṯe ā▫i▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Where have they gone? Where did they come from? ||1||Pause||
(Making us think, who is the ONE. Who is the originator, the doer, behind it all)

ਜਲ ਤੇ ਊਠਹਿ ਅਨਿਕ ਤਰੰਗਾ
जल ते ऊठहि अनिक तरंगा ॥
Jal ṯe ūṯẖėh anik ṯarangā.
Countless waves rise up from the water. (alludes to the expanse of Creation, countless forms arising from formless - the ocean itself is flat akin to formless, and waves emanate from it as forms, giving us an analogy of our separate identities, emanating from the ONE pool which we all emerge.. and that is Waheguru)


ਕਨਿਕ ਭੂਖਨ ਕੀਨੇ ਬਹੁ ਰੰਗਾ
कनिक भूखन कीने बहु रंगा ॥
Kanik bẖūkẖan kīne baho rangā.
Jewels and ornaments of many different forms are fashioned from gold.

ਬੀਜੁ ਬੀਜਿ ਦੇਖਿਓ ਬਹੁ ਪਰਕਾਰਾ
बीजु बीजि देखिओ बहु परकारा ॥
Bīj bīj ḏekẖi▫o baho parkārā.
I have seen seeds of all kinds being planted -

ਫਲ ਪਾਕੇ ਤੇ ਏਕੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੨॥
फल पाके ते एकंकारा ॥२॥
Fal pāke ṯe ekankārā. ||2||
when the fruit ripens, the seeds appear in the same form as the original. ||2||
(gold is the base, jewellery is 'form' from the unmoulded gold, seeds planted give rise to trees and plants, but then the plants / trees produce seeds the same as the originator showing us that we are reflections of the divine - we carry the divine within us).

ਸਹਸ ਘਟਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਆਕਾਸੁ
सहस घटा महि एकु आकासु ॥
Sahas gẖatā mėh ek ākās.
The one sky is reflected in thousands of water jugs,
(The ONE Waheguru is reflected in all of creation)

ਘਟ ਫੂਟੇ ਤੇ ਓਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਗਾਸੁ
घट फूटे ते ओही प्रगासु ॥
Gẖat fūte ṯe ohī pargās.
but when the jugs are broken, only the sky remains.
(similarly remove the physical bodies, and you will see the deivine light... or if you prefer, when the Ego is broken, you can see it while the body still lives )

ਭਰਮ ਲੋਭ ਮੋਹ ਮਾਇਆ ਵਿਕਾਰ
भरम लोभ मोह माइआ विकार ॥
Bẖaram lobẖ moh mā▫i▫ā vikār.
Doubt comes from greed, emotional attachment and the corruption of Maya.
(doubt about these facts come from our attachment to this physical existence as a separate entity)

ਭ੍ਰਮ ਛੂਟੇ ਤੇ ਏਕੰਕਾਰ ॥੩॥
भ्रम छूटे ते एकंकार ॥३॥
Bẖaram cẖẖūte ṯe ekankār. ||3||
Freed from doubt, one realizes the One Lord alone. ||3||
(Remove all doubt and you see that all is the ONE Creator)

ਓਹੁ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਬਿਨਸਤ ਨਾਹੀ
ओहु अबिनासी बिनसत नाही ॥
Oh abẖināsī binsaṯ nāhī.
He is imperishable; He will never pass away.
(since we ARE the Creator... this is significant!)

ਨਾ ਕੋ ਆਵੈ ਨਾ ਕੋ ਜਾਹੀ
ना को आवै ना को जाही ॥
Nā ko āvai nā ko jāhī.
He does not come, and He does not go.
(Because Waheguru exists beyond this creation)

ਗੁਰਿ ਪੂਰੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਲੁ ਧੋਈ
गुरि पूरै हउमै मलु धोई ॥
Gur pūrai ha▫umai mal ḏẖo▫ī.
The Perfect Guru has washed away the filth of ego.
(and here we have it, ego itself is what is preventing us from this realization... the haume we have to realize these false identities for what they are)

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੇਰੀ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੪॥੧॥
कहु नानक मेरी परम गति होई ॥४॥१॥
Kaho Nānak merī param gaṯ ho▫ī. ||4||1||
Says Nanak, I have obtained the supreme status. ||4||1||
(the realization of being ONE and the same with Creator, such that there is no difference)


If you are going to ask me if I believe that "Harkiran" will be reincarnated, you will be asking the wrong question. Harkiran is only a character. However, the consciousness behind this character, is the true ME. And my real identity WILL go on to experience other perspectives. I know I explained this before... anyway, I am not going to discuss it because I know where the conversation will go. So we can just agree to disagree :)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top