ੴ - By Dr Devinder Singh Chahal

[techsingh]

This is from is jap ji shaib translation by Dr devinder singh chahal. Which is available online for free. He says:

"All the verses of Guru Nanak start with a definition of that Entity, which is called God in the English world, Om/Oankaar, Parmatama, Bhagwan or many other names in Hinduism, and Allah in Islam. Guru Nanak has not assigned any specific or descriptive name to this Entity - something that has a real existence as explained by Guru Nanak in the following sloka. However, most Sikhs and many Sikh theologians incorrectly pronounce it as Ek Oankaar which represents OM - the Trinity in Vedanta. Guru Nanak does not accept this Entity in Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. In spite of this fact, most Sikhs have wrongly assigned the name, Waheguru, to this Entity. This definition is titled the Commencing Verse (commonly called Mool Mantra) since it appears before every section of his verses in its complete or abbreviated form. Therefore, the Commencing Verse appears before the first composition Guru Nanak‟s verse called Jap. The Commencing Verse starts with a logo: ੴ Ek Oh Beant (The One and Only - That is Infinite). This state is now called „Singularity‟ or „Nothingness‟ in the scientific world where nothing is distinguishable, nevertheless, it is the source of the origin of everything. and every being. The logo is followed by its attributes that distinguish this Entity from the God in other religions: ਸਵਤ ਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾ ਰਖੁਵਨਰਭਉਵਨਰਿਰੁਅਕਾਲਮੂਰਵਤ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਰਸਾਵਦ ॥"

What is correct? Or does it even matter or we should just focus on what it means. End result.

ਏਕ-ਓਅੰ-ਕਾਰ (is it the mythological hindu trinity?) Or (logo) meaning ek ohh beant as suggested by dr. Shaib and his reasoning for this suggestion?

Also what about his suggestion of using the word Waheguru? Have sikhs wrongly assinged the name to the (entity). Guru Nanak has not assigned any specific name to that (entity).


Note and rant:

Gurmat has rejected hindu/mat and its related rituals/philosophy so do keep that in mind when responding. For example (Worship to please,by chanting,bathing at pilgrimages, reincarnation, transmigration, rituals, holy men(sants non gristi), hell/heaven as physical places etc and many more non related things to gurmat.

All references in SGGS are just references it does not mean acceptance by Guru ji, of that deity or philosophy. If Guru ji was writing bani today they would probably use celebrities as references because in a way people basically worship them From the queen of England to taylor swift and etc.

I am also in agreement with dr. devinder singh ji that gurbani should not be interpreted thru the lens of Hindutva or any other religious/ism because the true message of Guru ji will be missed by a mile if not more. This does not mean i hate hindu religion or its practitioners. Sikhi is about live and let live. Hense, do not dilute gurmat, its message is unique and is a written guide, step by step, to make that same jyot that exists in us all to manifest itself.

 

[Harry Haller]

This is from is jap ji shaib translation by Dr devinder singh chahal. Which is available online for free. He says:


What is correct? Or does it even matter or we should just focus on what it means. End result.

ਏਕ-ਓਅੰ-ਕਾਰ (is it the mythological hindu trinity?) Or (logo) meaning ek ohh beant as suggested by dr. Shaib and his reasoning for this suggestion?

Also what about his suggestion of using the word Waheguru? Have sikhs wrongly assinged the name to the (entity). Guru Nanak has not assigned any specific name to that (entity).


Note and rant:

Gurmat has rejected hindu/mat and its related rituals/philosophy so do keep that in mind when responding. For example (Worship to please,by chanting,bathing at pilgrimages, reincarnation, transmigration, rituals, holy men(sants non gristi), hell/heaven as physical places etc and many more non related things to gurmat.

All references in SGGS are just references it does not mean acceptance by Guru ji, of that deity or philosophy. If Guru ji was writing bani today they would probably use celebrities as references because in a way people basically worship them From the queen of England to taylor swift and etc.

I am also in agreement with dr. devinder singh ji that gurbani should not be interpreted thru the lens of Hindutva or any other religious/ism because the true message of Guru ji will be missed by a mile if not more. This does not mean i hate hindu religion or its practitioners. Sikhi is about live and let live. Hense, do not dilute gurmat, its message is unique and is a written guide, step by step, to make that same jyot that exists in us all to manifest itself.

there are some that say one cannot fully understand Sikhism unless one fully understands Hinduism, opinions please!

 

[techsingh]

don't know if your joking or serious but that could be a separate topic. But i would say 95% think that hence it is widley accepted sikhi is a simplified version of hinduism at its current state. Also most sikhs will say what does matter if it brings the person closer to god but then why does anything matter sex orgies, drugs etc (meaning if those things bring that person closer to god as it does according to those practitioners) Why did Guru ji need to write 1429 pages and criticize the people and its practices? But i guess i need to start watching Ramayian soap operas. This is going off topic.

Please give opinions on the OP questions.

 

[Harry Haller]

don't know if your joking or serious but that could be a separate topic. But i would say 95% think that hence it is widley accepted sikhi is a simplified version of Hindutva at its current state.
Please give opinions on the OP questions.

I don't quite follow you here, I am being quite serious, as is shown by your figure of 95% believing Sikhism to be simplified Hinduism.

I am of the personal opinion similar to yours, many many references are made in the SGGS, but that does not mean validation or acceptance.

God is in effect unknowable in Sikhism, only the qualities of god are known, thus, when thinking of god, thinking of anything at all, is in effect idol worship, if one thinks of a waterfall when thinking of god, is this is any way different to thinking of a half monkey, half man? The Hindus, in my opinion accepted that god was unknowable, and also accepted the human need for imagery, which is why in Hinduism, they have a free range on images, which we in Sikhism call idols. Is it such a bad thing to focus on an idol representing god when mentally, we are doing the same anyway? I think Sikhism focuses more on the relationship between creator and creation, the bond that holds us all together, than 'straight worship', in which case the whole question of worship is moot, Sikhs do not worship, they connect, although having said this, my heart sinks when I go to a Gurdwara and watch ritual after ritual, mass worshiping, idol worship, and a somewhat literal interpretation. On the one hand, god is the same to all, and we are all on the same path, on the other hand, most religions are obsessed with ritual and ceremony, Sikhism is supposed to be different, no clergy, no barriers, no ritual, no black magic, no superstition, but I feel the standard has been set too high, its basically no fun at all, no bells, no fires, no plethora of gods, no myths, just acknowledge your connection to the universe and be responsible for such, its a serious business.

Yes, I am being quite serious, for many Sikhs, it begins at the Vedas.

 

[techsingh]

I don't quite follow you here, I am being quite serious, as is shown by your figure of 95% believing Sikhism to be simplified Hinduism.

I am of the personal opinion similar to yours, many many references are made in the SGGS, but that does not mean validation or acceptance.

God is in effect unknowable in Sikhism, only the qualities of god are known, thus, when thinking of god, thinking of anything at all, is in effect idol worship, if one thinks of a waterfall when thinking of god, is this is any way different to thinking of a half monkey, half man? The Hindus, in my opinion accepted that god was unknowable, and also accepted the human need for imagery, which is why in Hinduism, they have a free range on images, which we in Sikhism call idols. Is it such a bad thing to focus on an idol representing god when mentally, we are doing the same anyway? I think Sikhism focuses more on the relationship between creator and creation, the bond that holds us all together, than 'straight worship', in which case the whole question of worship is moot, Sikhs do not worship, they connect, although having said this, my heart sinks when I go to a Gurdwara and watch ritual after ritual, mass worshiping, idol worship, and a somewhat literal interpretation. On the one hand, god is the same to all, and we are all on the same path, on the other hand, most religions are obsessed with ritual and ceremony, Sikhism is supposed to be different, no clergy, no barriers, no ritual, no black magic, no superstition, but I feel the standard has been set too high, its basically no fun at all, no bells, no fires, no plethora of gods, no myths, just acknowledge your connection to the universe and be responsible for such, its a serious business.

Yes, I am being quite serious, for many Sikhs, it begins at the Vedas.

I feel exactly the same way. No straight worship of GOD in Sikhi. Connect is better word as you said. Yes most people are put off by this its not fun its sersious business. Totally agree.

Any opinions on the OP questions though.

 

[Harry Haller]

I feel exactly the same way. No straight worship of GOD in Sikhi. Connect is better word as you said. Yes most people are put off by this its not fun its sersious business. Totally agree.

Any opinions on the OP questions though.

sure, just for clarification, copy and paste the exact questions that you wish an opinion on

 

[techsingh]

sure, just for clarification, copy and paste the exact questions that you wish an opinion on

What is correct? Or does it even matter or we should just focus on what it means. End result.

ਏਕ-ਓਅੰ-ਕਾਰ (is it the mythological hindu trinity?) Or (logo) meaning ek ohh beant as suggested by dr. Shaib and his reasoning for this suggestion.

Also what about his suggestion of using the word Waheguru? Have sikhs wrongly assinged the name to the (entity). Guru Nanak has not assigned any specific name to that (entity).

 

[Harry Haller]

What is correct? Or does it even matter or we should just focus on what it means. End result.

I don't know is the truth, and I wager that no one knows, what we can do is take on board the flavor of Sikhism, Guru Nanak spent much time pointing out pointless rituals in Hinduism and Islam, would he then adopt the basics of either religion for Sikhism, I personally think not. It would appear another ruse to make Sikhs think that Hinduism is the umbrella that covers us all, Hinduism is indeed a remarkable religion, but it is Hinduism, Sikhism is Sikhism. Again if you look at the definition of God in Hinduism, as per wikki.

In Hinduism, Brahman (/brəhmən/; ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2] In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][3][4] It is the pervasive, gender-less, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][5] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1]

Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, and is conceptualized in Hinduism, states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[6] Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads.[7] The Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle.[8] In the Upanishads, it has been variously described as Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[9][10] and as the highest reality.[11][note 1][note 2]

Brahman is discussed in Hindu texts with the concept of Atman (Soul, Self),[7] personal,[note 3] impersonal[note 4] or Para Brahman,[note 5] or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school.[14] In dualistic schools of Hinduism such as the theistic Dvaita Vedanta, Brahman is different from Atman (soul) in each being, and therein it shares conceptual framework of God in major world religions.[4][15][16] In non-dual schools of Hinduism such as the monist Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is identical to the Atman, Brahman is everywhere and inside each living being, and there is connected spiritual oneness in all existence.[5][17][18]

now rather than our Hindu friends being idol worshipers, a bit more digging reveals that the Hindu god is not that much different to what we call Ek Onkar, a non personable, unknowable being, factor into that reincarnation, karma, meditation, the tenth gate, and the similarities between Hinduism and Sikhism start to increase. I suppose I am saying that although I myself do not believe or accept any similarities, they do exist, and it is possible I am wrong, who knows. Does it make any difference? haha well that all depends on your outlook, if you believe that there are elements of Hinduism in Sikhism, then it doesn't, if you don't, then it does.

Also what about his suggestion of using the word Waheguru? Have Sikhs wrongly assigned the name to the (entity). Guru Nanak has not assigned any specific name to that (entity).

It is true, to my knowledge, Guru Nanakji never used the word Waheguru in his writings, however the SGGS, which we accept as Guru does, so I think that resolves that argument!

 

[techsingh]

now rather than our Hindu friends being idol worshipers, a bit more digging reveals that the Hindu god is not that much different to what we call Ek Onkar, a non personable, unknowable being, factor into that reincarnation, karma, meditation, the tenth gate, and the similarities between Hinduism and Sikhism start to increase. I suppose I am saying that although I myself do not believe or accept any similarities, they do exist, and it is possible I am wrong, who knows. Does it make any difference? haha well that all depends on your outlook, if you believe that there are elements of Hinduism in Sikhism, then it doesn't, if you don't, then it does.

I think what your saying is it depends on the individuals interpretation of bani. Which would answer this question.
ਏਕ-ਓਅੰ-ਕਾਰ (is it the mythological hindu trinity?) Or (logo) meaning ek ohh beant as suggested by dr. Shaib and his reasoning for this suggestion.

I don't know is the truth, and I wager that no one knows, what we can do is take on board the flavor of Sikhism, Guru Nanak spent much time pointing out pointless rituals in Hinduism and Islam, would he then adopt the basics of either religion for Sikhism, I personally think not. It would appear another ruse to make Sikhs think that Hinduism is the umbrella that covers us all, Hinduism is indeed a remarkable religion, but it is Hinduism, Sikhism is Sikhism. Again if you look at the definition of God in Hinduism, as per wikki.

should have been clear i did not mean what is correct in the broader sense just wanting know what was correct regarding the ideas put forth by dr devinder singh. Thanks for answering. Which i agree with A sikh cannot boast to claim he knows the eternal it would contradict the very definition sikh

A bit off topic but i am interested in what you mean by when you go to Gurdwara you note idol wordhip.Could you specific.In your opinion would you say bowing to SGGS is idol worship even if you understand and practice its core message.

 

[Harry Haller]

I think what your saying is it depends on the individuals interpretation of bani. Which would answer this question.
ਏਕ-ਓਅੰ-ਕਾਰ (is it the mythological hindu trinity?) Or (logo) meaning ek ohh beant as suggested by dr. Shaib and his reasoning for this suggestion.

of course, if you believe that Sikhism is routed in Hinduism, then you will look for similarities and focus on such, I am not sure if anyone actually has the right to claim supreme knowledge or truth, such debate or conclusion is up to the individual. Given the many denominations of Sikhism means that all we can do is debate and use our common sense to open dialogue, see what we all agree with rather than what fault we can find.

should have been clear i did not mean what is correct in the broader sense just wanting know what was correct regarding the ideas put forth by dr devinder singh. Thanks for answering. Which i agree with A sikh cannot boast to claim he knows the eternal it would contradict the very definition sikh

for that you would need to find someone that knew what was correct and true, good luck with that one!

A bit off topic but i am interested in what you mean by when you go to Gurdwara you note idol wordhip.Could you specific.In your opinion would you say bowing to SGGS is idol worship even if you understand and practice its core message.

I do not think bowing to anyone is idol worship, it is a cultural mark of respect.Bowing to inanimate objects is something different, drinking dirty water is something different, kissing floors and walls, again is something different, this is where logic and discretion come in.