Guru And God No Difference

[Sardara123]

Guru Granth:​

goNf mhlw 5 ]
gurU gurU guru kir mn mor ]
gurU ibnw mY nwhI hor ]
gur kI tyk rhhu idnu rwiq ]
jw kI koie n mytY dwiq ]1]
guru prmysru eyko jwxu ]
jo iqsu BwvY so prvwxu ]1] rhwau ]
gur crxI jw kw mnu lwgY ]
dUKu drdu BRmu qw kw BwgY ]
gur kI syvw pwey mwnu ]
gur aUpir sdw kurbwnu ]2]
gur kw drsnu dyiK inhwl ]
gur ky syvk kI pUrn Gwl ]
gur ky syvk kau duKu n ibAwpY ]
gur kw syvku dh idis jwpY ]3]
gur kI mihmw kQnu n jwie ]
pwrbRhmu guru rihAw smwie ]
khu nwnk jw ky pUry Bwg ]
gur crxI qw kw mnu lwg ]4]6]8]
​

Bhai Gurdas:​

sbd suriq imil swDsMig gurmuiK duK suK smkir swDy]
haumY durmiq prhrI gurmiq siqgur purKu AwrwDy]
isv skqI no lµiG kY gurmuiK suK Plu shj smwDy]
guru prmysru eyku jwix dUjw Bwau imtwie aupwDy]
jMmx mrxhu bwhry Ajrwvir imil Agm AgwDy]
Aws n qRws audws Gir hrK sog ivhu AMimRq KwDy]
mhw AswD swDsMg swDy ]ó]
​

​

​

 

[AmbarDhara]

bwxI pihlW qoN hI gurU sI[
gurU nwnk dyv jI ny aupdyS kIqw bwxI dvwrw[
auh joq gurU AMgd dyv jI ivc AweI[ aupdyS bwxI dvwrw huMdw irhw[
qIjI pwqSwhI sRI gurU Amrdws jI g`dI qy ibrwjy qy auvyN aupdyS huMdw irhw[ ...
iPr gurU gRMQ swihb g`dI qy ibrwjmwn hoey, aupdyS bwxI dvwrw ho irhw hY[
gurmuKW vwsqy auhI gurU jI bYTy bwxI dvwrw aupdyS kr rhy hn[
mUrK leI &rk hY, igAwnI leI prq`K gurU hY bwxI[
gurU gRMQ swihb jI g`dI pr hYN, aupdyS bwxI dvwrw hY[
gurmuKW leI koeI &rk nhIN hY[
&rk hmwrI idRStI myN hY, idRStI p`kI krnI hY[



Ambar Dhara Ji, I traced this above paragraph from another thread on SPN. Does it say the same thing that Guru God Bani all is/was THE SAME from the Primal Begining? I think it DOES. Please Comment.

This thread is providing a solid proof that shabad never dies.
These are the exact words i read in Surinder's posts that GURU IS NOT BODY. GURU IS JOT. AND JOT IS GURU as JOT IS GOD.

Guru and God not different.

whosoever wrote this made made this thread like Ratan Jawahar Manik. The thread starter said- IS, this rachna said- FROM THE PRIMAL BEGINING.

So I say
GURU IS/WAS/WILL BE GOD and GOD IS/WAS/WILL BE GURU
GURU AND GOD NO DIFFERENCE, IT NEVER WAS, IT NEVER WILL BE.

 

[BhagatSingh]

bwxI pihlW qoN hI gurU sI[
gurU nwnk dyv jI ny aupdyS kIqw bwxI dvwrw[
auh joq gurU AMgd dyv jI ivc AweI[ aupdyS bwxI dvwrw huMdw irhw[
qIjI pwqSwhI sRI gurU Amrdws jI g`dI qy ibrwjy qy auvyN aupdyS huMdw irhw[ ...
iPr gurU gRMQ swihb g`dI qy ibrwjmwn hoey, aupdyS bwxI dvwrw ho irhw hY[
gurmuKW vwsqy auhI gurU jI bYTy bwxI dvwrw aupdyS kr rhy hn[
mUrK leI &rk hY, igAwnI leI prq`K gurU hY bwxI[
gurU gRMQ swihb jI g`dI pr hYN, aupdyS bwxI dvwrw hY[
gurmuKW leI koeI &rk nhIN hY[
&rk hmwrI idRStI myN hY, idRStI p`kI krnI hY[



Ambar Dhara Ji, I traced this above paragraph from another thread on SPN. Does it say the same thing that Guru God Bani all is/was THE SAME from the Primal Begining? I think it DOES. Please Comment.

This thread is providing a solid proof that shabad never dies.
These are the exact words i read in Surinder's posts that GURU IS NOT BODY. GURU IS JOT. AND JOT IS GURU as JOT IS GOD.

Guru and God not different.

So Guru is jot? and jot is Guru? and Jot is God? ok. So what are we then??

 

[Amarpal]

Dear Khalsa Ji,

'The Sat' is Nirakaar, Guru is Akaar. It is very clear from this that Guru cannot be 'The Sat' (God).

Assuming Guru to be God is not the way of Sikhs; Sikhi does not preaches it. It is the accepted way of ancient religions, our Guru Sahibs have never considered any Akaar (form or bodied entity) to be The Sat'.

This truth is self evident, no Akaar can be omnipresent which 'The Sat' is.

If Guru is equated with 'The Sat' them worship of beings and dieties will be justified. This is the cultural attributes of followers of ancient religions. If the followers of Sikh religion start accepting this thier ways will become similar to those of the followers of ancient religion and finally they will get dissolve in thier mass.

Let us not drift away from Sikhi. Guru is not 'The Sat' (God).

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

 

[kaur-1]

This is how I view Guru ji.
Q & A: Does It Make Sense That Sikhs Worship 10 Gurus Like Gods? - DiscoverSikhi.Com

 

[Sikh80]

Amar Pal ji's post is really valuable for all those who do not understand Sikhi properly.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Dear Khalsa Ji,

'The Sat' is Nirakaar, Guru is Akaar. It is very clear from this that Guru cannot be 'The Sat' (God).

Assuming Guru to be God is not the way of Sikhs; Sikhi does not preaches it. It is the accepted way of ancient religions, our Guru Sahibs have never considered any Akaar (form or bodied entity) to be The Sat'.

This truth is self evident, no Akaar can be omnipresent which 'The Sat' is.

If Guru is equated with 'The Sat' them worship of beings and dieties will be justified. This is the cultural attributes of followers of ancient religions. If the followers of Sikh religion start accepting this thier ways will become similar to those of the followers of ancient religion and finally they will get dissolve in thier mass.

Let us not drift away from Sikhi. Guru is not 'The Sat' (God).

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

can you please read through this thread and explain the many shabads which say that guru and god are one? also, please use gurbani to support your statements so that we may better understand them.

thanks.

 

[spnadmin]

can you please read through this thread and explain the many shabads which say that guru and god are one? also, please use gurbani to support your statements so that we may better understand them.

thanks.

Jasleen ji,

It would be very gracious of amarpal ji to take up your suggestion. I share his concern -- that it is possible to understand the Divine that is within us in a way that leads to what amarpal calls practices of "ancient religions" and that I fear is polytheism, or worship of many gods. (you know that, no offense)

Many thanks for your comments because they lead the thread in the direction of a constructive discussion about Gurmat.

 

[ekmusafir_ajnabi]

Dear Khalsa Ji,

'The Sat' is Nirakaar, Guru is Akaar. It is very clear from this that Guru cannot be 'The Sat' (God).

Assuming Guru to be God is not the way of Sikhs; Sikhi does not preaches it. It is the accepted way of ancient religions, our Guru Sahibs have never considered any Akaar (form or bodied entity) to be The Sat'.

This truth is self evident, no Akaar can be omnipresent which 'The Sat' is.

If Guru is equated with 'The Sat' them worship of beings and dieties will be justified. This is the cultural attributes of followers of ancient religions. If the followers of Sikh religion start accepting this thier ways will become similar to those of the followers of ancient religion and finally they will get dissolve in thier mass.

Let us not drift away from Sikhi. Guru is not 'The Sat' (God).

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

Amarpal Singh ji,

I am rather surprised to note your above comments.

Anand Sahib

siqgurU ibnw hor kcI hY bwxI ]
bwxI q kcI siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ]
khdy kcy sxdy kcy kcØI AwiK vKwxI ]
hir hir inq krih rsnw kihAw kCU n jwxI ]
icqu ijn kw ihir lieAw mwieAw bolin pey rvwxI ]
khY nwnku siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ]24]

Please explain, if our Gurus were not "Sat" then the Bani we have becomes Kachi Bani.

To explain whether our Gurus are Gods or not is not a simple task especially when one is addressing people with unequal level of intellect and/or Spiritual growth. Moreover the translations that one is relying upon are untrustworthy.

The answer to the debate lies in "Sochey soch na hoveyee" one needs to experience it. The discussion here is in contradiction to this verse. Do not think that is beyond ones thinking.(I am aware there is another more popular meaning to this verse but this is equally applicable and valid)

The word "Guru" has been used to have several meanings in SGGS. From different stages of spirituality you will have a different sence of feeling of Guru. From the level of discussion in this forum, the part that we can visualise, Our Gurus were not Gods but from the part that is beyond our understanding there lies an inseperable link direct with God. "Ehvad oochay hovey soay, Tis OOchey ko janey soay" One needs to experience this.

Gurus have laid no claims to be Gods, it is our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Gurus poetry/Bani. One can assume what one likes due to ones understanding, whether Gurus were Gods or not has no bearing on us. Only the teachings of our Gurus is of significance.

Kind regards to all

 

[BhagatSingh]

Amarpal Singh ji,

I am rather surprised to note your above comments.

Anand Sahib

siqgurU ibnw hor kcI hY bwxI ]
bwxI q kcI siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ]
khdy kcy sxdy kcy kcØI AwiK vKwxI ]
hir hir inq krih rsnw kihAw kCU n jwxI ]
icqu ijn kw ihir lieAw mwieAw bolin pey rvwxI ]
khY nwnku siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ]24]

Please explain, if our Gurus were not "Sat" then the Bani we have becomes Kachi Bani.

What do u mean by pakki bani and kachi bani?
And if God doesn't write bani, is it Kachi?
Well, it is God who writes everything! From the Bible, Gita, quran to SGGS to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star! :}{}{}: The fact that Bible, Gita and Quran have absurdities in them is all part of His/Her play!

To explain whether our Gurus are Gods or not is not a simple task especially when one is addressing people with unequal level of intellect and/or Spiritual growth. Moreover the translations that one is relying upon are untrustworthy.

The answer to the debate lies in "Sochey soch na hoveyee" one needs to experience it. The discussion here is in contradiction to this verse. Do not think that is beyond ones thinking.(I am aware there is another more popular meaning to this verse but this is equally applicable and valid)

The word "Guru" has been used to have several meanings in SGGS. From different stages of spirituality you will have a different sence of feeling of Guru. From the level of discussion in this forum, the part that we can visualise, Our Gurus were not Gods but from the part that is beyond our understanding there lies an inseperable link direct with God. "Ehvad oochay hovey soay, Tis OOchey ko janey soay" One needs to experience this.

Gurus have laid no claims to be Gods, it is our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Gurus poetry/Bani. One can assume what one likes due to ones understanding, whether Gurus were Gods or not has no bearing on us. Only the teachings of our Gurus is of significance.

Kind regards to all

Agreed!!

 

[Sikh80]

I am in full agreement with this.Any one who takes birth and dies physically cannot be the part of eternal SAT. We may call him GOD in our eulogisation. But there is a difference between the fact and eulogisation. Guru is a channel for us to meet the LORD. Now that channel is through the sabad guru i.e Guru Granth sahib.

 

[BhagatSingh]

I am in full agreement with this.Any one who takes birth and dies physically cannot be the part of eternal SAT. We may call him GOD in our eulogisation. But there is a difference between the fact and eulogisation. Guru is a channel for us to meet the LORD. Now that channel is through the sabad guru i.e Guru Granth sahib.

You mean they can be part of the Sat but cannot BE the Sat!?

 

[Sikh80]

A simple breakdown of his teaching is:

• There is only one God.
• We should worship and pray to the one God and no-one else.
• Work hard and help others.
• Be honest
• Everyone is equal in the eyes of God, there is no rich, poor, male, female, black nor white. The only difference between people is in their actions.
• Be kind to all; birds, animals and people.
• Fear nothing, pray for the good of all.
• Be simple and honest in your daily life.

Before he died, Nanak told his most trusted follower, Lehna, that he must be the next guru. Lehna was given the name Guru Angad.

Guru Nanak

 

[Archived_Member1]

I am in full agreement with this.Any one who takes birth and dies physically cannot be the part of eternal SAT. quote]


there is so much gurbani to refute this idea of yours that i don't know where to begin.

most of it has already been posted in this thread, however, you seem to think that ALL of it is misinterpreted by everyone here.

i request that you please read sukhmani sahib. not only is it a beautiful read, it is soothing, and will also help you to understand that saint, guru, and bramgiani are all GOD.

 

[Sikh80]

Metaphorically, yes they are same. All cannot be god.

GOd was one and is always One and shall be so. It is called Saibhang. The self-existent. He is capable of creating HIMself. PLease stop advising me. Keep something for yourself.
You need much more than we need.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Metaphorically, yes they are same. All cannot be god.

why not? how do you know? as Japji Sahib reminds us, only God knows his ownself. why are you so eager to set man-made limits on God?

sabh gobind hai, sabh gobind hai, gobind bin nahi koee.

PLease stop advising me. Keep something for yourself.
You need much more than we need.

you're participating in a public forum. that usually means you're inviting discussion.

and what, pray tell, do you think i need? please elaborate. i'm tired of your veiled insults.

 

[Sikh80]

One Creator.
It is the teaching Of Nanak dev ji. I hope you know this.if not, revise your sikhi concepts.

Stop giving advice and carry on if you wish. If you act as a superior being ,i stop now.

why not? how do you know? as Japji Sahib reminds us, only God knows his ownself. why are you so eager to set man-made limits on God?

sabh gobind hai, sabh gobind hai, gobind bin nahi koee.



you're participating in a public forum. that usually means you're inviting discussion.

and what, pray tell, do you think i need? please elaborate. i'm tired of your veiled insults.

Hi Kelly ji,
In discussion the basic principle is that we are discussing with someone whom we feel as our equal. If this fine balance is lost the respondent becomes uneasy. In the opening comment you asked me to do sukhmani sahib paath and then learn about saint,brahmgyani and god.

I have never, from the core of my heart, ever hurt anyone. Nor will I do. This is a plain Indian culture ;different from the other culture.

You are fairly sensitive and a sensible lady so carry on the talk in ordinary fashion. Of what good is the praise and insult to me to a person whom I have never to meet or see in this life time.
Regards. and do not lose your cool.

If by the use of my language I have hurt you I need be forgiven and should be told as to which part of my language you have felt so.

One pjhenomenon that I have seen is that at the end of each post there is a message ;Automated double post'
Please check whether you see such a comment.

 

[Archived_Member1]

One Creator.
It is the teaching Of Nanak dev ji. I hope you know this.if not, revise your sikhi concepts.

so is this:



naanak barahm gi-aanee aap parmaysur. ||6||

O Nanak, the God-conscious being is Himself the Supreme Lord God. ||6||

barahm gi-aanee pooran purakh biDhaataa.

The God-conscious being is the Perfect Supreme Being, who orchestrates all.

barahm gi-aanee kaa sagal akaar.

The God-conscious being owns the entire creation.

barahm gi-aanee aap nirankaar.

The God-conscious being is himself the Formless Lord.

naanak barahm gi-aanee sarab kaa Dhanee. ||8||8||

O Nanak, the God-conscious being is the Lord of all. ||8||8||

Stop giving advice and carry on if you wish. If you act as a superior being ,i stop now.

no advice, only gurbani.

Hi Kelly ji,
In discussion the basic principle is that we are discussing with someone whom we feel as our equal. If this fine balance is lost the respondent becomes uneasy. In the opening comment you asked me to do sukhmani sahib paath and then learn about saint,brahmgyani and god.

my name is jasleen.

and how is recommending that one read sukhmani sahib insulting?

I have never, from the core of my heart, ever hurt anyone. Nor will I do. This is a plain Indian culture ;different from the other culture.

perhaps in plain "indian culture" thowing about vague insults doesn't hurt people. here, it's rude and unnecessary. simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you need to insult them or chase them out of the forum.

You need much more than we need.

you never answered me. what is it you think i need?

 

[Sikh80]

To add to the list the followings can be treated as god,depending upon the context,:
1] A saint
2] Brahmgyani
3] Guru
4] Gurmukh
5] many others;may be
There is no definition clause in Granth sahib wherein these terms are defined like we do in some statute books in clause 2 of the Statute. It is same with the American law or the Indian law. One can, therefore , never draw the meaning to make it a sweeping generalised meaning.It is the context that decides the exact meaning.

Yes, you may see ang. 1407 wherein Guru Arjan dev ji Maharaj is also refd. to as the Unfathomable lord. Does it mean that He becomes the Primal Lord.
One shall have to use some logic and some reasoning to debug the meaning. One has to do the digging oneself. Else we are likely to be swayed by the opinions of other. I have not read SGGS even for once. But I shall read it slowly and very gradually.

Kindly refer page 1407 and see for yourself the above statements about Arjan dev ji maharaj.
e&oe
My eng. is poor. There may be mistakes and I have not read it for the second time.

I would request to forget the past for a minute and move ahead. We shall always keep this as a bottom line that we are student of sikhi. It is top line and the bottom line whenever we discuss on this forum.

Do you see 'automated Doublepost at the bottom" .kindly inform.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Do you see 'automated Doublepost at the bottom" .kindly inform.

it's autoMERGED doublepost. it means you posted twice in a row and the forum software automatically merged your two posts together.