# Who Is God In Sikhism?



## Amardeep (Apr 9, 2006)

sath shri akal jee.

i've always thought that God in sikhism is the same as God in Islam, a unseen God, and not as in christianity where Jesus is God.

but now when im reading on varius webpages, and sikh books people are calling Nanak "Satguru", Gobind Singh is called the "Creator", and Nanak is called Nirankar..

was Guru Nanak God? 

i've even read such statements here on this page.

if he was, then who was he praying to?

it does not make sence to me, that Guru Nanak and the following Gurus could have been God..

can someone please explain to me who God and the Guru's are in sikhism...

thank u in advance...


----------



## Sathanuman Singh (Apr 10, 2006)

Amardeep said:
			
		

> sath shri akal jee.
> 
> i've always thought that God in sikhism is the same as God in Islam, a unseen God, and not as in christianity where Jesus is God.
> 
> ...



Guru Nanak Dev ji is One with the One. His Guru is the Shabd Guru. His Guru is Pavan.
Joshua (Jesus) has the same relationship with the Divine.
"I am the Way" (I am the Dharma)
Unless you live Dharma, You will have Karma
"No man comes to the Father except by (The Guru)
Remember the "Gospels" were written many years after Jesus walked amongst these earey followers. This was the beginning of the Piscean Age.
It has been an 2000 plus year cycle of 'Beliefs' and secrets.
Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the Guru for this Age (Aquarius)
His Hymns (Gospel) are composed by Him. They are sung by him. All the Guru's, the Bagats, Saints all sang the same Hymn. The same Bani.
Buddhism is the inner path. Islam is the path of submission to God's Divine Will.
Judaism is the ancient path of Dharma as is the path of the Vedas (Hindus)
The main message of Jesus is in one Gospel (Matthew) The Sermon on the Mount.
Most all the so called "New Testament" are letters of the convert (Paul)
This makes up most of the worship of Jesus as a God.
Interesting that in this religion, Jesus is God, but a man Jesus is betrayed by another man (Judas)
God is not betrayed by something outside God. God is the Doer!
Sat Kartar! Ong Sang Wahe Guru!
Jesus even prays an ancient Jewish prayer, probably taught to him by his mother.
In that (Ardas) he implores God to
...lead us not into temptation but deliver us from Evil"
In the Ardas of Guru Gobind Singh,
The 10th Master says, keep us from Lust, Anger, Greed, Pride, and Attachment, but keep us ever attached to Thy Lotus Feet."
The reason so many have duality with what Jesus says is the time we are in.
The Khalsa is rising and the way of the Cross is waning.
Guru Gobind Singh came here for one reason. Not to establish his religion, or the worship of this personality. The Rehit is to save the man from his duality and to establish Dharma. In order to do that he created the Khalsa and bestowed the Guruship with Siri Guru Granth Sahib.
Now the Word is Worshiip, the Disciple is the disciplined one who serves the Dharma. The way of the Righteous is experienced within the soul.
Jesus has handed the bataan to Guru Nanak Dev Ji through Guru Gobind Singh. The Spirit is exalted and all prosper by Thy Grace.
Waho Waho Gobinda Singh, Ape Guru Chela!


----------



## Amardeep (Apr 10, 2006)

i see..

so God is an unseen God as in Islam, and the Guru's were just enlightend with "light" and were one with God, even though they were not God?

i see...


----------



## Anoop (Apr 11, 2006)

your taking of god being external. Thats your point of view. The thing is god is inernal and external. Its like, we dont know of it but its the truth. God is the ultimate truth that exists. I am not saying it in gods point of view as i dont know what god is, but god is everywhere, we are part of it...thts our human body...but god is us, and we are god, but we are like the extentions of god. God is within us. Believe in the truth with all your heart. This site might help you, its what sikhism is, but this is someone who actually taken the basics of sikhism, though he hasnt mentioned it: http://www.adidam.org/teaching/first_word/complete_text.html


----------



## DragonKhanda (Sep 4, 2006)

Wow, I only read the first two paragraphs and am suprised to hear how much it sounds like Sikhism! 

Amardeep; perhaps this analogy will help you.
We know that there are three parts to an atom, the electron, proton, and neutron. Then there are subatomic particles that make up each atom, like the quark. It will be awile till science discovers the next step; personally i dont think they will ever find the end to guru's Creation. But anyway, think of God/guru/Spirit/soul whatever you want to call it, as, say another subatomic particle, or something proven but intangible; the magnetic poles, love, time, the sikhtron (yes i know thats not a documented term, i just made it up for the sak of the example). Its hard to get your head around when you been brought up on something else your entire life; I still dont understand it to the point of Oh! or whatever, but i understand the principle of it. 

Like when you're in second grade or so, and the teacher is trying to explain the concept of time. How to get that first understanding? That is the most difficult.

When you think of say, your keyboard, and its shadow. You think they are entirly different things, but we know there is a reason for these. Dont think of the wind as air, it is God. Why does the wind blow? Because of the wind over there? Humans breathing? God is in the buttons you press, the lungs you use to breathe air into your body, the greass outside. "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isnt there."


Clear as mud? Hope i made some sense. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Nim_23 (Nov 9, 2006)

*Awal Allah noor upaya kudrat ke sab bande*
GOD IS ONE & WE ARE ALL MEN OF GOD


----------



## GURVINDER (Nov 9, 2006)

God Is One Who Created The Whole World And We All Are The Son Of That God,ev


----------



## Veeru (Nov 9, 2006)

Just because different religions named him differently, it doesn't mean there are different Gods...


----------



## max314 (Nov 9, 2006)

God's name is Bob.

Bob the God.

That's why they rhyme.


----------



## Anoop (Nov 9, 2006)

your joking right?:crazy:


----------



## max314 (Nov 9, 2006)

Anoop said:


> your joking right?:crazy:




No, really.  God is Bob.

I insist.

Now, if we can just get enough people together to believe that, we can start our new religion of Bobism :wink:


----------



## CaliforniaSeeker (Nov 9, 2006)

Religion of Bobism? Well, there's always the Church of the Sub-Genius... :wink:

Seriously, though, my understanding (gathered from reading different sources) of what Sikhi believes/teaches about God/Waheguru/the Ground of All Being/choose your term is roughly the following:

There is only one Divine. Some religions use the name "God", some use "Allah", some use "Jehovah", some use more than one name, some use none. In all of these cases, what we have is humans trying to understand something transcendent and trying to explain something ineffable. The different portrayals and understandings of what the Divine is/does/wants are all reaching for the same thing, but nobody is able to fully understand it or explain it. We can't -- we're inherently limited. Our inability to do so doesn't mean the Divine doesn't exist, it just means we don't understand it.

An analogy that comes to mind is vision. As a human, I can't directly see ultraviolet radiation. My inability to see it directly doesn't mean it's not there, however, as I will find out to my sorrow if I spend too much time outdoors without sunblock. 

I am a seeker and a student; if what I've said seems incorrect to anyone, please let me know -- I want to learn as much as I can and correct any misunderstandings I may have gotten into.


----------



## Anoop (Nov 10, 2006)

I think the problem is...about having faith, i mean...people say why talk about god when you just need to listen to your inner voice. Thats what i am confused on, does god really want us to get on with life, or to remember him threough teachings. I mean do we need religion, isnt it not enough to be spiritual. This brings a debate amongst spirtualism and religion.


----------



## Nim_23 (Nov 10, 2006)

Religion is like a path to light for a human being.  A being without a religion will be lost.  He will not know whres he heading towards.

Sikhism is one of the world’s simplest faiths, yet very strong discipline and the results produced by it have been very powerful. Sikhism helps one to devote his life to God and attain salvation.

Thus is explains the rising number of American Sikhs.


----------



## max314 (Nov 10, 2006)

Nim_23 said:


> Religion is like a path to light for a human being.  A being without a religion will be lost.  He will not know whres he heading towards.
> 
> Sikhism is one of the world’s simplest faiths, yet very strong discipline and the results produced by it have been very powerful. Sikhism helps one to devote his life to God and attain salvation.
> 
> Thus is explains the rising number of American Sikhs.



Well, there are growing numbers of members in many faiths, particularly Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all over the world, so I don't think that Sikkhism is the only faith that people feel provides them "a path to light", as you put it.

But I find it interesting that Guru Nanak's sentiments never actually promoted religion, nor did he promote any other form of institutionalised belief system.  Rather, he spent most of his time pointing out the common goods in existing religions, and condemning what he perceived to be their individual deficits.


I don't think that Sikkhism is a 'religion', though I believe that Khalsaism is.

The reason for this is very simple: the Guru Granth Sahib promotes equality, secularism, non-discrminatory, non-divisional views on living with a God who is featureless, formless and timeless.  It rejects the notion of rituals and routines, and it discards the importance of wearing particular clothes over the content of one's character.  Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Dassam Granth, on the other hand, teaches that a Khalsa is above all and that a Khalsa should not consort with non-Khalsas.  It teaches of a God who is wrathful and vengeful, and places importance on certain rituals (e.g. taking _amrit_) and codes of practice and dress (e.g. the Five K's, etc).

Weighing up the two sets of information, it would seem to me that the way of the Khalsa measures up to all the distinguishable requisites of a religion, whereas Sikkhism is almost entirely independent of that.

The Khalsa, it seems, was forged very deliberately into a warrior cult or religion in order to protect those universal, non-institutional teachings of the Granth and to enforce its principles.  A 'necessary evil', one might say.

Of course, given the amount of time and the proximity with which Sikkhism and its warrior Khalsa cult have lived side-by-side has meant that many Khalsaist influences have trickled down and eventually set upon the now-accepted image of Sikkhism.  But, in my view, the two are always going to be essentially separate, though historically linked.


----------



## CaliforniaSeeker (Nov 13, 2006)

max314 said:


> I don't think that Sikkhism is a 'religion', though I believe that Khalsaism is.
> 
> The reason for this is very simple: the Guru Granth Sahib promotes equality, secularism, non-discrminatory, non-divisional views on living with a God who is featureless, formless and timeless. It rejects the notion of rituals and routines, and it discards the importance of wearing particular clothes over the content of one's character. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Dassam Granth, on the other hand, teaches that a Khalsa is above all and that a Khalsa should not consort with non-Khalsas. It teaches of a God who is wrathful and vengeful, and places importance on certain rituals (e.g. taking _amrit_) and codes of practice and dress (e.g. the Five K's, etc).



What an interesting thought. I've come across many pieces of writing by Sikhs saying that Nanak 1 and Nanak 10 (and all the Nanaks in between) were the same consciousness and thus there are no contradictions and, in fact, there cannot be any contradictions between Nanak Dev Ji's teachings and Gobind Singh Ji's teachings -- they are the same. As someone coming to Sikhi from outside, however, I have to say that from this perspective, there are significant differences between the two.

And, while hoping this doesn't sound arrogant ("who are you to pick and choose among the Guru's teachings?" you may ask) I must say that Nanak Dev Ji's teachings resonate in my heart much, much more than Gobind Singh Ji's do.


----------



## max314 (Nov 13, 2006)

CaliforniaSeeker said:


> What an interesting thought. I've come across many pieces of writing by Sikhs saying that Nanak 1 and Nanak 10 (and all the Nanaks in between) were the same consciousness and thus there are no contradictions and, in fact, there cannot be any contradictions between Nanak Dev Ji's teachings and Gobind Singh Ji's teachings -- they are the same. As someone coming to Sikhi from outside, however, I have to say that from this perspective, there are significant differences between the two.
> 
> And, while hoping this doesn't sound arrogant ("who are you to pick and choose among the Guru's teachings?" you may ask) I must say that Nanak Dev Ji's teachings resonate in my heart much, much more than Gobind Singh Ji's do.




Mm...let me make my views as they stand at present as clear as possible on this matter.

I do not think that the Gurus had the same 'soul'.  I do not think that the Gurus were any more 'divine' than you or I (i.e. we are *all* divine, because we are all a part of God/the Cosmos/the Universe, as per the writings of _gurbani_).  I also think that _believing_ something as Paganistic/dietic and mystical as this would be a direct betrayal of the Gurus' teachings.

It is this 'Brahminical' thinking - applied to the Sikkh faith - that will be its ultimate demise.

You see, once you start believing that any man who is made of clay is somehow more 'God-like' than any other man of clay, you instantly instill a culture of hierarchical division.  The Tenth Master often said that a gurudwara should never be erected in his name, because the only entity to be recognised is the One God (through whom all men, animals, plants, stars and planets exist as one unified entity) was the One God ("_ik onkaar_" is the only concept in Sikkhism...that's why it's so simple...it's designed around an all-unifying singularity that requires no priests, no statues, no rituals, no saints, no prophets, no messiahs, _nothing_ in order to be reached...everyone is in touch with God / the Universe in every minute of their life, even if they don't consciously know it).  When Guru Nanak died, the location of his death bed was built over in order to prevent ritualised worship to...nothing.

Guru Nanak was essentially a man who travelled the world looking for answers and testing out his theories.  He came to the conclusion that only one God existed, and that all men were equal under him, and that all men had an innate access to him that didn't require any third parties or strange witchcraft.

He then passed on the core of his teachings to Guru Angad Dev (Guru Nanak used "_angad_" as a term of affection, meaning "part of me"...aw, sweet? ), who actually retreated into the caves after Guru Nanak's death with a combination of grief upon the death of his mentor and a sense of burden at the prospect of having to follow up such a great man as a philosophical leader (again, this whole thing begs the question as to how they could possibly be 'one soul'...).

But Angad eventually rose to the challenge, and wonderfully so.  He stressed the importance of _seva_ (the concept of selfless service to your fellow humans), the importance to submit to the Cosmic Will and not become frustrated with what you perceive to be negative events in life (e.g. death, monetary losses, etc), as well as the outright disapproval of being overly showy and dishonest.  He also standardise the _gurmukhi_ script to aid its reading.

 Guru Arjan Dev JiThe most noteworthy additions and alterations to the scriptures came when - the Fifth Master - actually rewrote some of Guru Nanak's writings, including the all-important _mool mantra_ (again, if there is one consciousness, then why is there a need to ammend previous writings?  It's not like the Truth has changed).

Guru Gobind Singh Ji's creation of the Khalsa knights was a necessity of the time, and was a warrior group based on his own idealised image of a spiritual warrior; a turban-bearing, sword-wielding soldier who was in love with the essence of steel and what it brought in terms of the power to do righteous deeds in the face of inhuman opponents.

I've never doubted Guru Gobind Singh Ji's actions or methods even once.  I believe that the Tenth Master did what he had to do.  And did it exceedingly well: UNESCO recognises the acts of Khalsa warriors on the same level as those of the Spartan warriors of ancient Greece.

However, just as the situation had changed between the time of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, so too has the time changed between Guru Gobind and today's world.  Moreso, in fact.

My proposition is that Sikkhism - a faith that believes in the Will of God (e.g. evolution and change) - should be able to...well...evolve and change.

What form that change takes is not something I want to discuss, but I'll leave it to you all to decide.


----------



## Nim_23 (Nov 14, 2006)

*


max314 said:



			Well, there are growing numbers of members in many faiths, particularly Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all over the world, so I don't think that Sikkhism is the only faith that people feel provides them "a path to light", as you put it.
		
Click to expand...

* 
Most of us are aware how christians and islam members try to speak to ppl of other religion to get them to convert In fact in S'pore christians go door to door to promote their religion to get others to believe them to convert to their religion which is the 'best' religion.

As for islam members they brainwash the ignorant to believe that the islam religion is the one and only religion and Allah is de only god; other religion gods are fake and other religions are devils etc etc.

However most of those American Sikhs who convert is because in their bible it is stated about the olden days - in a certain year Nanak wil arrive and these Americal Sikhs realised that he Nanak really came in that year and thus their interest led them to Sikhism which they learnt the right path, values, they found peace in the Sikhism. No one forced them to convert.

Has anyone off you ever read about someone converting to Sikh by force or regrets converting?

This is my view, no offence to anyone. Thank you.


----------



## navroopsingh (Nov 15, 2006)

God is the same belief and principle in most religions. Unfortunately, at one point or another, under various leaders the interpretation changes and suddenly you get hate mail or pamphlets saying things like the end of false religion is near or accept allah or die(i have gotten that from a muslim i met ). God is everywhere at all time, yet i recall a line from rehras sahib or japji sahib saying something about him sometimes travelling under the "guise" of a poor beggar, or traveller etc. but i cant remember exactly, i will try to find the quotation.


----------



## hpluthera (Nov 15, 2006)

Dear Amardeep and others intersted in the Topic'
When we have questions arie in our mind who am I? who is God? the real answres can only be found in Gurbani in itself and once we know from there ten there remains no darkness.
Sakhi Baba Nanak:
When he went in Baieen Stream to take bath and did not come out for 13 days and the family thaght "nank" drowned and he finally emerged on the 13th Day of Kirya final righs. when all village and Brahmins were present and every one was delighted to see him and amazed as well.  So when asked where was he Guru Nanak expressed that He was in communion with Nirankar the One Supreme (Akal Purukh).  Evryone rediculed him and Brahman questioned hard doubting if he is crazy,  and a direct question was asked to Guru Nanak "Tell us how does your Nirankar Looks like"  so Guru Recited:
Mool Mantra 
IK Onkar Satnaam Kartapurukh, Nirbhau, Nirvair, Akal Moorat, ...... 

and thus came the Japji Sahib.
The one you want to know is the only one for billions and trillions so how can you capture Him in one Name that is why in Gurbani Gurus said "Apna Guru Diayiye"  "Apne Gur Ka sun updesh"   So your intention to reach Him by what ever Name you know Him is okay.  If you say RAM RAM RAM fast it will start siunding MARA MARA MARA and same if you say GOD GOD GOD it will start sounding DOG DOG DOG.  Does that mean your worship wil be lessened by that no your Shardha and Prem will be the offering name is the support.
You Submit to Him yourself not the language name by which you know Him.
SGGS therefore has hundreds names for Almighty Lord.  The matter is with belief and faith.  You cry any name wihout faith it has no meaning. 

If you are thirsty and you are served water by use of some Name you do not understand  it will still quench your thirst because it is water what you want.
On the other hand if you are given something else but is called water 
although its has Name water but it will not quench your thirst.
So is God's Name - Jisko Lagi Piyas --Naam Ki Piyas he only knows His reality.

So dear Friends Naam Simran is the only way to answer all questions automatically yes I gaurantee.  

Regards
HP Luthera


----------



## max314 (Nov 19, 2006)

Nim_23 said:


> Most of us are aware how christians and islam members try to speak to ppl of other religion to get them to convert In fact in S'pore christians go door to door to promote their religion to get others to believe them to convert to their religion which is the 'best' religion.
> 
> As for islam members they brainwash the ignorant to believe that the islam religion is the one and only religion and Allah is de only god; other religion gods are fake and other religions are devils etc etc.



I am aware that this goes on, however, I am also aware that there are a significant number of Islamic and Christian converts who have done so completely by free choice.

I think it's a little pompous and arrogant to simply presume that one knows exactly how _all_ converts become such.



> However most of those American Sikhs who convert is because in their bible it is stated about the olden days - in a certain year Nanak wil arrive and these Americal Sikhs realised that he Nanak really came in that year and thus their interest led them to Sikhism which they learnt the right path, values, they found peace in the Sikhism. No one forced them to convert.



I'm not aware of any such prophecies.  Perhaps you could show me where they are written.



> Has anyone off you ever read about someone converting to Sikh by force or regrets converting?



I don't know many Sikkhi converts, to be honest, so I can't comment.  But I have met a few Muslim and Christian converts, none of whom "regrets" their conversion.



> This is my view, no offence to anyone. Thank you.



Thank you.


----------



## hpluthera (Nov 19, 2006)

At the very beigining i would say the question is wrong:

Let us first make it very clear for once and for all that Guru nanak said 
There is only ONE GOD for all 
"Sabna Jiyan Ka Ik Datta So Main Visar Na Jaeen"
So the question " who is God in Sikhism?" arise,if there are more than one God, therefore,  it is stupid to say who is your God or who is Mine God.  There is no diepute nor it is a matter of discussion or argument or proving to any one.  However, those who wish to tease others they raise such questions.

In the world there are only two type of people for whom GOD matters 
One who believes and the other who do not believe
The third Category is of DOUBTFUL Characters they are not stable hence they are neither believers nor non believers hence very dangerous and threat to the whole mankind. Because these are the people who are Hypocrates These are the people who are ungreatful.

Because those who are in doubt they receive neither Ram nor Maya. "Dubidha mein dono Gayo Maya Milli Na Raam"

I love non believers because they atleast believe in themselves but not anything else and they have great faith in self,  if not GOd. But the Doubtful has "NO FATH"
neither in self nor in God.

People of faith in self or God  are most relevant at least his faith is without doubt that here is no GOd. Still he lives with some firm faith.

Doubtful is dangerous and your Question seems to me coming from a Doubtful Character.
God is with in you and "ander Vaseh Bahar Bhi Ohi"
and he is "rav reha sarbatra Mein" "Har Ghat Ram Bole, Ram bina Kuch Bole Na"  "Deh Matti Bole Pawan Bujh re giani Muva Kaun"

If your Question is to know by what Name do Sikhs Know God?

For answer Read GUru Nanak.
He has millions of names but he is one "Anek hai Phir Ek Hai"

Dear Friends Sikh is a seeker and to seek the first requirement is :
Unwavering Faith
Submit to Thy Will
By Simran Connect to Him 
Like "Babe Chakkiyan Challaiyan" Like Baba Nanak by Simran let the Grinders revolve and grind flour in the Babur's Jail. Your all work will be done by Simran - Read Sukhmani Sahib.

I have full faith.
This is the power of Simran.

Dhan Nirankar Dhan baba Nanak
HP Luthera


----------



## deepkian (Dec 1, 2006)

I think you are right Guru Nanak Dev ji in mool mantar clear this GOD is one, and from himself.
Gurus always advocates this and even tenth guru Gobind Singh ji, warn to call him Parmeshwar.


----------



## Singghh (May 11, 2011)

11 Gurus of sikhism are actually God himself. Because according to Gurbani "Parbraham gur naahi bhedd".
 Guru Nanak is praying to God to teach us "How you should pray to God"


----------



## findingmyway (May 11, 2011)

Not who but what........
ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

God cannot be personified, it is more abstract. God is everything around us and in us :meditation:


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Jun 28, 2011)

In Sikhphilosophy as per SGGS I do not find anything being refered as GOD.This I feel is our own assunption with respect of Gurbaani interpretation.Generally where we are stuck up with some explanation instead of understanding that we immediately make use of the word GOD.
If we carefully and sicerely go thru Gurbaani we would find that the whole Gurbaani is based on the concept of two words  GuRU and GuR.Now because our preachers and scholars have taught us that GuR is the same as GuRU so we are leaving a vacant space to be filled by the word GOD to justify the interpretation of Gurbaan. Actually we should have tried to understand the reference meanings of the words GuRU and GuR.

Therefore if we can understand the reference meanings of the stated two words  any one can see then there would be no needof making use of the word GOD in interpretation of Gurbaani. Unfortunately we are not doing this.

This is observation for anyone to verify from SGGS.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## findingmyway (Jun 28, 2011)

Prakash ji,
What is your understanding of GuRU and GuR?


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 28, 2011)

With the indulgence of all participants in this discussion, I do hope we leave the discussion of GUR and GURu behind us as it has been discussed on other threads and tends to drive a topic into the ground. Thanks.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Jun 29, 2011)

FINDINGMYWAYS Ji,

I think you can get the answer to your query from within SGGS .You can pay attention to these words and analyse yourself for understanding the difference.This would be your own confirmation.I have simply put my own observation in the subject matter.
I am sure you can do this.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Original (Aug 2, 2011)

max314 said:


> Mm...let me make my views as they stand at present as clear as possible on this matter.
> 
> I do not think that the Gurus had the same 'soul'. I do not think that the Gurus were any more 'divine' than you or I (i.e. we are *all* divine, because we are all a part of God/the Cosmos/the Universe, as per the writings of _gurbani_). I also think that _believing_ something as Paganistic/dietic and mystical as this would be a direct betrayal of the Gurus' teachings.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Max314

Beautiful piece of literature, succinctly written. No room for addition or deletion, save in places where philosophical surgery may render it "perfect". 

If I may add, that although Guru Nanak departed from the Hindu system of belief, yet the philosophical mother-board for Sikhism remians very much a  'Brahminical' concept. Nothing wrong with that, afterall we are to a degree rooted in Hinduism. For example, the cycle of 84, reincarnation, and much more. In addition, the "mystical experience" at the bainee in Kartarpur forms the very basis of spiritual Sikhism. 

Your writing reflects your wisdom, which in my opinion is beautiful and it would do so much justice if you were to share your thoughts on the evolution and the change which Sikhism will inevitably face. As for evolution and the principles of natural selection, one may add, that provided the universe continue to behave in a deterministic way, then in any given sizeable population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behaviour and thought will come to dominate for the better of all humankind. Moreover, it is people like you who help shape the future and bring about evolutionary changes necessary for both society and the individual in developing their spiritual and intellectual worth. 

So says Gurbani that as the rough diamond is dull and lifeless when first removed from the Earth, so does the spiritual nature of man in its fallen state reveal little, if any, of its inherent luminosity? Just as in the hand of the skilful Gem Cutter the shapeless stone is transformed into a sparkling gem so does the soul of man upon the lathe of the divine Gem Cutter is grounded and polished until it reflects the glory of its creator. You have the wisdom, share it therefore and make your human fellow reap thereof.

Take care -


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Aug 2, 2011)

There is no such reference in Gurbani which can be termed as GOD.From Gurbani we get the reference Karata Purakh as Creator of the whole Universe.And this Creator is not Formless as we think .This Creator is Omnipotent,Omnipresent .This Creator is a SYSTEM  of infinite vibrations/waves  generated from GuR JoT .The SYSTEM is refered as Prabhu.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 2, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> There is no such reference in Gurbani which can be termed as GOD.From Gurbani we get the reference Karata Purakh as Creator of the whole Universe.And this Creator is not Formless as we think .This Creator is Omnipotent,Omnipresent .This Creator is a SYSTEM  of infinite vibrations/waves  generated from GuR JoT .
> 
> The SYSTEM is refered as Prabhu.
> 
> ...


Sat Sri Akal


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Aug 2, 2011)

AMBARSARIA Ji,
Well,I have no problem in accepting the word Rab as reference for the System .It is very much there in Gurbani.
But your subsequent statement is suprising  .In fact there are nearly 400 reference words in Gurbani  aligned with Hindi and Hinuisim.The word Oankaar itself is a main word of Hidu Philosophy.We have also adopted this as a starting word of our Gurbani philosophy{I personall disagree with this}

So I dont get what you intend to tell .I request for further clarification so that I can improve my thinking for Hindi aligned words in Gurbani.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 2, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga ji



> But your subsequent statement is suprising .In fact there are nearly 400 reference words in Gurbani aligned with Hindi and Hinuisim.The word Oankaar itself is a main word of Hidu Philosophy.We have also adopted this as a starting word of our Gurbani philosophy{I personall disagree with this}



There is a difference. Aligned with Hinduism means  _in agreement or alliance with Hinduism _

These words were part of the language, culture and experiences of the times. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji gives a radical restatement, a new vision of their original intentions and meanings.

And what is it that you personally disagree with. That was not clear.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 2, 2011)

What is aligned/allied and what is out of alignment/alliance? 

Hahaha!
_sab mohi maya jaal jio

jogi andar jogiya tu bhogi andar bhogiya

Kurban tere naam nu_

‪Kurban Tere Naon Nu [Full Song] Kurban Tere Naon No‬&rlm;      - YouTube


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 2, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> AMBARSARIA Ji,
> Well,I have no problem in accepting the word Rab as reference for the System .It is very much there in Gurbani.
> But your subsequent statement is suprising  .In fact there are nearly 400 reference words in Gurbani  aligned with Hindi and Hinuisim.The word Oankaar itself is a main word of Hidu Philosophy.
> _Next I assume I will hear Om is part of Sikhism winkingmunda.  I thought you previously wrote the first word to be Ekankaar before in some posts._ _Guruji spent all their lives and gave us Gurbani to get away from the Hindu Garbage and you are here to show with single words and tuks and using Hindi sounding words like Prabhu to help us understand Gurbani.  I rather not learn much more along such lines due to great frustration through such with your posts and bias however it got embedded in your learning.__  May be I am totally wrong and I apologize ahead._
> ...


Prakash.s.bagga ji we do think differently and that is normal.  I am lost with this shifting sand and useless dialog.  It is of no personal consequence to me.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 2, 2011)

An "Englishman" saw this on a Punjabi man's Laptop screen...

Sunnah bayee jarnail siahn..kee haal hai ?......and exclaimed..OH is that *Punjabi*?? It looks so much like *English* ???

A Hindu saw this on a Sikh Man's laptop....EKOankaar..........Oh is that Sikhism symbol ?? It sure looks so much like Hinduism's OM Symbol !!

While the Englishman just walked away..the Hindu man decided to do soemthing about it....and came up with..the ATTACHMENT BELOW....because he couldnt live with the FACT that Guru nanak ji could make something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from an old established symbol..something that was as dfferent as day is from NIGHT. That has been the "haal" of our "scholars of Gurbani" themsleves so steeped in vedanta/hinduism/puranas and vedas etc they couldnt see straight even if they desired to...  WE ARE DIFFERENT..we are made to STAND OUT..not " fit in"....EK Oankaar is NOT "OM"....not by a million miles...just like " Jarnail siannhh kee hall Hai" is NOT ENGLISH !! no matter how it looks ???


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 2, 2011)

Well if we are to reject something, we ought to find out what it is first.  

Om - we must first know what it is. So *what is Om?*
How do the various schools of Hinduism view Om? Advaita vs Dvaita philosophies. What do the Upanishads, Bhagwad Geeta say about Om? What do the Vedas say? To know Om one must first adopt the Hindu perspective otherwise, you will get a biased view of it. 

And we know this Om/Ong/Oan shows up in *Ek Ongkar/Ek Omkar. What does it mean here?* Likewise a Hindu has to take the Sikh perspective to understand Ek Onkar properly. He has to read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

*Can we reject one and not the other?* (Can a Hindu reject Ek Ongkar and not Om?)

Some questions to contemplate.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Aug 2, 2011)

AMBARSARIA Ji,
Certainly we differ in our understanding.And this difference is because of our reference of thinking.My understanding of Gurbani is related to gramatical considerations and this makes the difference.Otherwise we both are GuR Sikh .
I feel in this connection the views of Bhagat singh ji are worth giving attention.
The views of Giyani Jarnail Singh Ji convey a lot we should understand.
The points on which we differ greatly can certainly be clarified with common approach of grammer considerations only. So we should look at this time first to have some common consensus whether  grammer considerations are important or not
I dont expect to go thru the big volumes of grammer books and we immediately feel horrored . 
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Aug 2, 2011)

BHAGAT SINGH Ji,
I am really impressed with your views.
It is important to understand from within SGGS the correctness of this pronunciation.
If you look carefully you will notice that in Hindu Philosophy the symbol is related to the letter U not the letter O.So there is a great difference in Uankaar and Oankaar.
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 SGGS we would not find any reference as IK or EK Oankaar.So what is correct should be known from within Gurbani.

Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

_"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 (Aug 3, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> 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.
> ...


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,


No answer
None of anybody's business
I am not
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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

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 (Aug 4, 2011)

BhagatSingh said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.
> ...


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.


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Aug 5, 2011)

AMBARSARIA Ji,
I feel humbled at your gesture.I dont think you have done anything wrong.You have made me realise my shotcomings for participating in the forum.I shall try my best to improve my style to meet Forums requirement.
So there is no need to feel apologetic.Since English  is not our language and we are likely to be misundrstood just for nothing.
I have full regards to your invovement from time to time.And there is nothing in my heart as we  come from the same unknown source to make the journey of our life as directed by the CREATOR.
Thanking you,
Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 5, 2011)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> AMBARSARIA Ji,
> I feel humbled at your gesture.I dont think you have done anything wrong.You have made me realise my shotcomings for participating in the forum.I shall try my best to improve my style to meet Forums requirement.
> So there is no need to feel apologetic.Since English  is not our language and we are likely to be misundrstood just for nothing.
> I have full regards to your invovement from time to time.And there is nothing in my heart as we  come from the same unknown source to make the journey of our life as directed by the CREATOR.
> ...



And I too am glad you didnt leave the Forum paraksh Singh Ji...We are all Brothers in Learning here....each has his/her own special role and place...no offense shuld be taken even if it was "meant/supposedly meant"..etc becasue we DONT KNOW for sure...so give the benefit of the doubt generously..and continue to share with all. GURU forgives all..so why not we try to walk in HIS Footsteps...even if inadequately...and our tiny feet canb NEVER hope to fit His GIANT "shoes"...we can always try and keep on trying to emulate HIM...Thanksswordfight:swordfight-kudiyaneacesignkaurpeacesignjapposatnamwaheguru:welcomemunda


----------

