Who Is God In Sikhism?

[spnadmin]

Prakash.S.Bagga ji

What is your source in gurmat for this statement?

The SYMBOL Uankaar represents the SHAKATI of the Universe. .Whereas Oankaar is the Source of SHAKATI.
In Gurbani therefore we should try to grasp the message of GuRu about the CREATOR.
In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji we would not find any reference as IK or EK Oankaar.So what is correct should be known from within Gurbani.

Increasingly you are promoting a sanatan view of Gurbani. Truly you are tipping the scale in the direction of not only misleading but mischievous statements. If you are a member of a sanatan sampardya it would be better to say so up front so that readers do not mistake your comments for gurmat vichaar.


Other statements are contradictory. "In Gurbani we should try to grasp the message of Guru..." followed by "In Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji we would not find any reference as IK or EK Oankaar.So what is correct should be known from within Gurbani."

This is doubletalk. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Gurbani, and Gurbani is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. What sources are you using for these remarkable statements?

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

SPNADMIN Ji,
I feel very disappointed from your views. Instead of verifying the views from SGGS you are directly labeling with undesirable remarks.Perhaps this is the reflection of our own shortsightedness in understanding the views.
If you feel so prejudiced without confirming the facts I am sorry better I withdraw from this forum as I have nothing more to say.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

Prakashji

Suggestion!

I think its a given that you have worthy views to contribute, I have to confess that the more you try and explain, the worse it gets for me, to the point where I don't think you actually exist, I think you are a group of kids somewhere in bangalore, giggling and posting new and more confusing posts, like something out of a monty python film,. 'ok, lets see who can come up with the most ridiculous spelling for shakti',

Every time I read a post, even words that do not need to be changed, get changed!

If you do really exist, I think we have come to the end of the grammar related expression, however, I, and I am sure many others, would love just to hear your views without the background phonetic thing.

Every time you have expressed an opinion, it has been good, and generally agreed with, and that is what I think we need, your opinions, your thoughts, how you came to them, well thats between you, the almighty and your dictionary, as you said, you are as Gursikh as anyone else.

forgive me for being straight, but I personally just have not the time to find every thread you contribute to, get taken away from the subject and back to phonetics.

peacesignkaur

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

HARRY HALLER Ji,
I weome your suggestion.But under the present situation you can understand my limitations.I would find difficult to live with incorrect pronunciation of words.I would prefer staying out rather than be a part of incorrect Gurbani words.

I am quite familiar with the techniques of branding anyone with any label when we find ourselves in a state of fix like this.I consider this as a great shortcoming which enables us to understand what is right or what is wrong.
For a positive outlook we should always first confim the views.SGGS is an ocean of such a knowledge where anyone can feel why this is the only Scripture in world worth refering as GuRu.
I have also learnt a lot from interaction with persons like yourself,Bhagat Singh Ji,Ambarsaria ji and Giyani ji.There is no end to learning so I am also a part of the same stream.
But I realy felt bad about being branded as different from what I am.However I shall try to interact If I can restrict myself to your suggestion.
Thanking you most
With best wishes
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

Prakashji

We share the same problem my dear friend, when I first posted here, most of my posts dealt with the subject in hand, but my experience in enabling me to debate the subject at hand did not come from SGGS ji, it came from a lifetime of excess, of drugs, alcohol, women, gambling, most of my theories and thoughts came from Herman Hesse books, and sometimes its hard not to push the background of your learning, I think a new thread dealing with the grammar would be a wonderful idea, as then we could concentrate on the core of your content.

But, till then, as I have had to try and do now, sometimes it is better to concentrate on the subject in hand, without the need to explain how you arrived at your observation.

I have also learnt from you, you have humility and intelligence, but please, instead of showing us glimpses of what you know, that just causes more confusion, present your thoughts as best you can in a thread so that we can all debate the subject

 

[Ambarsaria]

SPNADMIN Ji,
I feel very disappointed from your views. Instead of verifying the views from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji you are directly labeling with undesirable remarks.Perhaps this is the reflection of our own shortsightedness in understanding the views.
If you feel so prejudiced without confirming the facts I am sorry better I withdraw from this forum as I have nothing more to say.
Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash.S.Bagga ji it is your choice to clearly answer or not answer what spnadmin ji asked above and I repeat below,

If you are a member of a sanatan sampardya it would be better to say so up front so that readers do not mistake your comments for gurmat vichaar.
For example, Nirmala, etc., as defined in the following,

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Nirmala

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSARIA Ji,
You are always great in your judgements.I must salute to your wisdom.
At this moment I can pray Hari ji to give proper guidance to your thinking.
You can brand me with whatevevr you can think ultimately it is all your own reflection.
All the best.
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

My Last Message For The Sangat,
We should not try to know the Creator thru our intellect.
We should remain sincere Devotee of GuRu Nanak ji/ SGGS .
We should read.listen if possible Sing Gurbani and enjoy the fruits as per Will of Parbraham,Parmesar and Sati GuR ji,

With best wishes to all

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[BhagatSingh]

"It takes one to know one."

Wah Prakash ji, I applaud you for not participating in such shenanigans. It is too easy to get sucked in.

 

[Ambarsaria]

AMBARSARIA Ji,
You are always great in your judgements.I must salute to your wisdom.
At this moment I can pray Hari ji to give proper guidance to your thinking.
You can brand me with whatevevr you can think ultimately it is all your own reflection.
All the best.
Prakash.s.Bagga

prakash.s.bagga ji thanks for your prayer for me I pray to Waheguru for you.

The question was from spnadmin ji. If you have given any of the following answers it would have been good,

1. No answer
2. None of anybody's business
3. I am not
4. I believe in Nirmala or other sect like your friend Harbans Singh ji (I may have the name wrong but he posted and then he stopped and does not post regularly) as he indicated that he was Nirmala follower.

You decided to go on a tangent.

You are 100% right I am suspicious when people don't give direct answers as I try to at least. I will give one of the 4 above if asked. My answer will be number 3 for me if I was asked.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Just for Fun....ENGLISH...alphabet "O" is vocalised by the HORRA in the Punjabi paintee...there is no "O" akhar........and OORRA is "U" and could also be "O"
Whether we write Unkaar/Oankaar..in PUNJABI it will have to be written ONLY ONE WAY..as it has been written. There cannot be a U and a O type of Oankaar in Punjabi Lipi...OORRA is a "U" and its vocalisation becomes "O" when its open ended. OAT cna only be written as OORRA+open end+Tainka...no other way as if "Uat"..
ENGLISH is very INADEQUATE compared to PUNJABI Gurmukhi LIPI..35 letters cannot be exressed in 26 ??? Plus Punjabi has the Lagaan matras..which dont exist in English....its a complete waste of time trying to pull/stretch.... the English coat size cloth to fit the Punjabi jatt's Chadra Kurta Pajama !!!cheerleadercheerleadercheerleadercheerleadercheerleader

 

[BhagatSingh]

Ambarsaria ji,

As I see it, Vichar is a contemplation. There is no need to state one's ancestry, lineage, origin, set of beliefs, or anything else, when it comes to contemplation.

As I see it, Prakash ji actually gave a response out of the 4 responses that we limited him to. But what was the purpose of limiting the responses that the other can give? We know how powerful the mind is, it hardly has any limitations when it comes to generating responses.

What was the purpose of the limiting him to what I would do? He is Prakash Singh ji and I am Bhagat Singh. What is the meaning of "If asked I would have done that"?

What is the purpose of limiting him to what I think he should do? Perhaps he should write more. Perhaps he should write it like this, or like that. But Prakash ji is an individual with his own personality that expresses itself in a certain way, sometimes it is fewer words.

Notice how quickly I take away the freedom of others.

As I contemplate the question posed, I realized it is inherently a meaningless question.

This was the question? (Is it a question?)

If you are a member of a sanatan sampardya it would be better to say so up front so that readers do not mistake your comments for gurmat vichaar.

If this was stated in a racial context it would be seen a racist remark. Let us explore the hidden racism.
If you are a member of a black community it would be better to say so up front so that readers do not mistake your comments for white community's ideas.

Even if the man was white, should he be entertaining himself with such questions?

Look how by asking someone that, I have pushed myself to the label of a racist. And if he answers, he has pushed his views to be seen from a specific skin colour, coming from a white man or a black man or in our context of either Snatan Samparda or Gurmat Vichar. Both parties have pushed themselves in a narrow context, to see, to listen, to share from a narrow context.

And if the purpose is to continue to see things in a narrow context, why do I ask people to do Vichar with me?

And when I contemplate that question deeply, I find myself asking: If the purpose of my existence is to limit myself to my own context, then why do I even begin to exist?

 

[Harry Haller]

Bhagatsinghji,

I have sympathy for your stand on this, and a lot of what you say is correct, I feel that Prakashji's input to this forum was positive, regardless of where his information came from.

However, there are rules set out so that the forum operates in an ordered and structured manner, and if these rules were to be disregarded than each thread has the potential to result in many views and opinions being presented that are not even relevant to the thread.

As I see it, and this is what I find confusing, Prakashji persisted in backing up his thoughts with evidence that firstly drew away from the topic, and secondly using an explanation that I personally found hard to understand, never mind whether it was sanatan sampardya or sanatogen vitamins, what he should have done, in my humble view, was either start a thread so that the phonetic translation could have been debated, or carry on contributing to threads without constant reference to the source of his knowledge, this is rather like me going into intimate detail about my own experiences to justify my stand on life (ok i do sometimes, but if I offended one person, I would cease).

The thought that someone has been driven away because of his background views does not sit hugely well with me, because as you say, where do we draw the line insofar as where peoples views orginate from, I would like to think that if a follower of dera sacha sauda started giving their views on sikhi, and those views were in exact tandem with general thinking, would they be given a harder time than say a muslim or a christian?, would we be worried that they would be trying to corrupt us, would we worry about gullible sikhs being taken in?, I would say if a sikh was taken in by anything, it is not in our power and nor should it be to try and avoid that, we are sikhs, I think it is important we give time to listen to any view that can help us, or that makes us think, otherwise we risk not being as open minded as we would like to be, just my own opinion, we also cannot, like worried parents, censor what people can and should be exposed to in an environment that encourages adult debate, my own personal view is that if Prakashji had an association, than he should have been honest about it, but there is also a part of me that, other than the phonetics, agreed with some of what he posted, and am saddened by the loss of someones views simply because they did not follow protocol

 

[BhagatSingh]

Harry ji,
Of course, what you say must be contemplated upon. It must be realized that moderators are also working from their own context and do have to run a forum.

My question to you is, was Prakash ji not honest enough with his comments?
Have a close look at his reply. I think you will find that he was quite honest.

Another one to think about:
If I have no associations (I cannot be labelled as x,y, or z) and if you were to ask me, "what is your association?"

what would I say to you?

Realize that any set of words can mean anything else, and if you had already started to believe that I had a particular association (whether a desirable or an undesirable one), how could I convince you otherwise?

 

[Harry Haller]

Bhagatsinghji,

Ok, yes, he was honest, unless I am being hugely stupid, I would take his answer in the positive to the question asked. I do not think that was the huge issue, I think the huge issue was with the disregard for forum rules, and the constant reference to spelling,(which as gyaniji points out is quite a valid issue)

I couldnt care less whether he came from the order of the smurfs, but I felt he was holding something back, a hidden agenda, which did not sit too well with me, but he could have clarified that, without ambiguity, and we could have all moved on

BhagatSinghji, if I asked you that question, I would imagine you would give me a frank and speedy answer, and I think that is all that was required, not a huge beating round the bush

 

[BhagatSingh]

Hmm...
So so are you telling me that as soon as I have questioned your specificity, I have admitted my own ambiguity?

When I questioned his honesty. I have immediately admitted my own dishonesty. I can never know whether he is honest so my questioning is dishonest.
First you thought he was being dishonest then you thought he was being honest, while looking at the exact same set of words.

This is all relevant to the thread even though it does not appear relevant. So to make it clear (or less so):
Just as specificity and ambiguity manifest simultaneously.
Just as honesty and dishonesty manifest simultaneously.
Just as relevance and irrelevance manifest simultaneously.

The One and Many also manifest simultaneously.

That is the meaning of Ik Oankar.

 

[Harry Haller]

Bhagatsinghji

you are certainly an enlightened fellow, much much more than me , I am just a fool who gets by on the few scraps of knowledge I have picked up over the years, I have no benefit of the understanding of gurbani, nor the ability to find wisdom in shabads, I accept what you are saying in your post, but sometimes you accuse me of thinking too much, I would say that your last post encourages just that, thinking too much,

Sometimes when I read, I get a real feel for what is trying to be said, rather than what is being said, when that feeling gets shared by others, you cannot but sense hidden agendas, which is what I feel has happened here regarding prakashji, I am afraid that is all I am able to say that best describes my feelings.

If you read my first paragraph again, is it sarcasm? is it sincere? it can be translated in a number of fashions from a huge complement to a minor insult, as it happens, it is sincere, and it is meant as a compliment, but you cannot read it without a slight tinge of imperfection, it is not a perfect statement, I hope you understand my point

 

[BhagatSingh]

If you truly consider yourself a fool, then realize that you are the wisest of them all. Maybe it should be written like so "the wise who wrangle". Those who think they are wise, wrangle. Those who think they are wise are fools.

Only you know yourself. And to know yourself, you come to know others. "It takes one to know one."

One sensed hidden agenda then responded with posts that had a hidden agenda to reveal the other's hidden agenda. How strange? But does either one contain a hidden agenda?
And if not what were we trying to do in the first place?

We were trying to be. We are being when we try to be. You are being. I am being.

In being, resides doing. The being does. (No reason to explain or judge or evaluate what it does, you cannot. it simply does what it does)

All beings do, and in this the Ultimate Being comes to be.

Every sort of doing is named. It is given a name. Every being is given a name. The Ultimate Being is given a Name (e.g. waheguru). Name-calling is a human doing, hence a human being.

Through the Name the Ultimate Being, the ultimate nature of being, is realized.

I just realized how there is a ring to being and doing.

'ing'

Does that not sound like 'Ong'?
'Ong' is the sound of the universe. Onnnnnnnng is a meditation, not a Name, and yet it is very much a Name, a symbol, representation of the universe.

Ong is continuous since Ong is the sound of the universe. But who is making this sound while meditating?

Could it be that you are the sound of the universe? Is the universe a fool?

In the imperfection of being, lies perfection of the Ultimate Being.

Thanks for meditating along with me.

 

[Harry Haller]

I have had to read it several times, but I understand what you have written, and I agree with it in full, just when I think you are heading for the sky again, I actually realise you are bringing everything back to basics, I cannot disagree with you

My final word on this?

If I lived with you, I would hate to ask you to put the rubbish out!

(see this rotten strawberry, that looks a bit like a pugh.......)

 

[Ambarsaria]

Ambarsaria ji,

As I see it, Vichar is a contemplation. There is no need to state one's ancestry, lineage, origin, set of beliefs, or anything else, when it comes to contemplation.

As I see it, Prakash ji actually gave a response out of the 4 responses that we limited him to. But what was the purpose of limiting the responses that the other can give? We know how powerful the mind is, it hardly has any limitations when it comes to generating responses.

What was the purpose of the limiting him to what I would do? He is Prakash Singh ji and I am Bhagat Singh. What is the meaning of "If asked I would have done that"?

What is the purpose of limiting him to what I think he should do? Perhaps he should write more. Perhaps he should write it like this, or like that. But Prakash ji is an individual with his own personality that expresses itself in a certain way, sometimes it is fewer words.

Notice how quickly I take away the freedom of others.

As I contemplate the question posed, I realized it is inherently a meaningless question.

This was the question? (Is it a question?)
If this was stated in a racial context it would be seen a racist remark. Let us explore the hidden racism.
If you are a member of a black community it would be better to say so up front so that readers do not mistake your comments for white community's ideas.

Even if the man was white, should he be entertaining himself with such questions?

Look how by asking someone that, I have pushed myself to the label of a racist. And if he answers, he has pushed his views to be seen from a specific skin colour, coming from a white man or a black man or in our context of either Snatan Samparda or Gurmat Vichar. Both parties have pushed themselves in a narrow context, to see, to listen, to share from a narrow context.

And if the purpose is to continue to see things in a narrow context, why do I ask people to do Vichar with me?

And when I contemplate that question deeply, I find myself asking: If the purpose of my existence is to limit myself to my own context, then why do I even begin to exist?

Bhagat Singh ji as you know I have same status if not lower than Prakash.s.bagga ji being a newer member. I have tried to help him sometimes when he repeatedly posts incomplete Shabads (Tuks, transliterations, phonetics, etc., against spn TOS). I have offered many times to do that in case he has limits of access in India or does not want to use (srigranth.org, again has been flagged to him manytimes and he refuses). He refuses to post Punjabi words from Gurbani and uses his own English phonetics which most cannot relate to (may be I am thick in this area). Lastly let us remember what the context of his post is in this case,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/

Sikh Philosophy Network » Sikh Philosophy Network » Sikh Sikhi Sikhism » Who is God in Sikhism?
A Sikhism part of Forums at spn and him making comments in this context.

I did not restrict him to four choices I only suggested to him if it would help quickly resolve and thread could move forward. Anyone is open to add more or delete some to help.

A Sikh has a right to ask a Sikh questions or comment if they believe posting of confusing and not linking with Gurbani the right way per spn TOS (very very minimal requirement, post complete shabad and stay on topic) are taking place. We all make mistakes and once is ok, twice is ok, many times over is not my issue (I am no moderator here just a member) but it hurts if the comments are virtually spamming with words that are inaccurately conjured up and consistently prove to be sabotaging focused contributions.

I have apologized to Prakash.s.bagga ji before and if I am considered wrong, I will apologize again.

My comments are strictly how possibly some of the bad will impact perhaps younger readers or the hijacking of threads with proven approach that has been clearly flagged by spnadmin ji in the past many times. Nothing more nothing less.

Sat Sri Akal.