Thanks for all this information, very helpfull

Namaste

in the light


Hari Har Singh wrote:
> "gef" <gef@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:d1Gdd.10044$_P6.422686@weber.videotron.net..
> 
>
>
> Hi gef,
> no, I'm not a Sikh - sorry :-) But at the Forum at www.3ho-europe.org you
> can find some.
>
> 
>
>
> OK, as far as my understanding of Sikh Dharma is, that you share food with
> Guru Nanak if you share it with other people. That's what the lady in your
> dream did?
> They call it "Langar" - public kitchen. Guru Nanak once himself gave the
> advice that everyone who wants to meet him, first has to be served in the
> public kitchen, regardles if it was a king, a brahman or a beggar - they
> were all sitting together eating the same food.
> There is no tradition in Sikh Dharma of offering a "God" food or so. Guru
> Nanak himself is not seen as a God but as a teacher and holy person.
>
>
> EK OMKAR SATNAM - ONE TRUE NAME
> Guru Nanak, the enlightened mystic and founder of Sikhism, speaks in prais
e
> of God not as a pundit, but as if inebriated. Nanak made his sadhana, his
> practice, out of song. Nanak's words are the words of a poet, a bard and a
> lover of beauty. Sharing His insight on the beauty of Nanak's words, Osho
> says Nanak's poems are like uncut stones, not guided by any rule or
> conditions or any effort to beautify his language. They are not changed an
d
> arranged. They are just as Nanak uttered them. These are words that were
> spoken and not written; therefore no account is kept of the rhythm or the
> cadence or even the language.
>
> Osho says, "His words aren't those of a scholar, but rather they express a
> person completely steeped in the wine of love; therefore the repetitions.
> They are words spoken in a state of ecstasy, just as you see a drunkard
> going along the road repeating himself over and over and over again. Nanak
> is completely inebriated with some profound intoxicant, so he also indulge
s
> in repetition."
>
> Bringing out the essence of Japuji, Osho says the Japuji are the very firs
t
> words uttered by Nanak after self-realization; therefore they hold a very
> special place in the sayings of Nanak. The Japuji is the first gift from
> Nanak to the world.
>
> "To appear before God, to attain the beloved, are purely symbolic terms an
d
> not to be taken literally. There is no God sitting somewhere on high befor
e
> whom you appear. But to speak of it, how else can it be expressed? When th
e
> ego is eradicated, when you disappear, whatever is before your eyes, is Go
d
> himself. God is not a person -- God is an energy beyond form.
>
> To stand before this formless energy means to see Him wherever you look,
> whatever you see. When the eyes open, everything is He. It only requires
> that you should cease to be and that your eyes be opened. Ego is like the
> mote in your eye; the minute it is removed, God stands revealed before you
.
> And no sooner does God manifest, than you also become God, because there i
s
> nothing besides Him.
>
> Nanak returned, but the Nanak who returned was also God Himself. Then each
> word uttered became so invaluable as to be beyond price, each word equal t
o
> the words of the Vedas." Read more..
>
> EK OMKAR SATNAM
> HE IS ONE. HE IS OMKAR, THE SUPREME TRUTH.
> HE IS THE CREATOR, BEYOND FEAR, BEYOND RANCOR.
> HIS IS THE TIMELESS FORM.
> NEVER BORN, SELF-CREATING.
> HE IS ATTAINED BY THE GURU'S GRACE.
>
> He is one: Ek Omkar Satnam.
>
> In order to be visible to us, things must have many levels, many forms.
> That's why whenever we see, we see multiplicity. At the seashore we see on
ly
> the waves, we never see the ocean. The fact is, however, only the ocean is
,
> the waves are only superficial.
> But we can see only the superficial because we have only external eyes. To
> see within requires internal eyes. As the eyes, so the sight. You cannot s
ee
> deeper than your eyes. With your external eyes you see the waves and think
> you have seen the ocean. To know the ocean, you must leave the surface and
> dive below. So in the story Nanak did not remain on the surface, but dived
> deep into the river. Only then can you know.
> Waves alone are not the ocean, and the ocean is much more than a mere
> collection of waves. The basic fact is that the wave that is now, after a
> moment no longer will be; nor did it exist a moment ago.
>
> There was a Sufi fakir by the name of Junaid. His son, whom he loved dearl
y,
> was killed suddenly in an accident. Junaid went and buried him. His wife w
as
> astonished at his behavior. She expected him to go mad with grief at the
> death of the son he loved so dearly. And here was Junaid acting as if
> nothing had happened, as if the son had not died! When everyone had left,
> his wife asked him, "Aren't you sad at all? I was so worried you would bre
ak
> down, you loved him so much."
>
> Junaid replied, "For a moment I was shocked but then I remembered that
> before, when this son was not born, I already was and I was quite happy. N
ow
> when the son is not, what is the reason for sorrow? I became as I was
> before. In between, the son came and went. When I was not unhappy before h
is
> birth, why should I be unhappy now to be without a son? What is the
> difference? In between was only a dream that is no longer."
> What was formed and then destroyed, is now no more than a dream. Everythin
g
> that comes and goes is a dream. Each wave is but a dream; the ocean is the
> reality. The waves are many, the ocean only one, but we see it as so many
> waves. Until we see the unity, the oneness of the ocean, we shall continue
> wandering.
>
> There is one reality, truth is only one: Ek Omkar Satnam. And, says Nanak,
> the name of this one, is Omkar. All other names are given by man: Ram,
> Krishna, Allah. These are all symbols, and all created by man. There is on
ly
> one name that is not given by man and that is Omkar, and Omkar means the
> sound of Om.
>
> Why Omkar? -- because when words are lost and the mind becomes void, when
> the individual is immersed in the ocean, even then the strain of Omkar
> remains audible within him. It is not a man-made tune but the melody of
> existence. Omkar is the very being of existence; therefore Om has no
> meaning. Om is not a word but a resonance that is unique, having no source
,
> no creation by anyone. It is the resonance of the being of existence. It i
s
> like a waterfall: you sit beside a waterfall and you hear its song but the
> sound is created by the water hitting against the rocks. Sit by a river an
d
> listen to its sound; it is caused by the river striking against the banks.
>
> We need to go deeper to understand things. Science tries to break down the
> whole of existence. What it first discovered was energy in the form of
> electricity, and then charged particles like the electron of which all of
> existence is made. Electricity is only a form of energy. If we ask a
> scientist what sound is made of, he will say that it is nothing but waves 
of
> electricity, waves of energy. So energy is at the root of everything. The
> sages say the same thing; they are in agreement with the scientists except
> for a slight difference of language. Sages have come to know that all
> existence is created out of sound, and sound is only an expression of
> energy. Existence, sound, energy -- all are one.
>
> The approach of science is to analyze and break things down, to reach the
> conclusion. The sage's approach is absolutely different: through synthesis
> they have discovered the indivisibility of the self.
>
> The wind rises creating a murmur in the branches of the tree, a collision 
of
> air against the leaves. When the musician plays a chord on an instrument,
> the sound is produced by a blow. All sound is produced by an impact, and a
n
> impact requires two -- the strings of the instrument and the fingers of th
e
> musician. Two are necessary to form any sound.
>
> But God's name is beyond all separateness. His name is the resonance that
> remains when all dualities have faded and cease to exist. Within this
> indivisible whole you come across this resonance. When a person reaches th
e
> state of samadhi, Omkar resounds within him. He hears it resounding inside
> him and all around him; all creation seems to be vibrating with it.
>
> He is struck with wonder when it first happens knowing that he is not
> creating the sound. He is doing nothing and yet this resonance is coming -
-
> from where? Then he realizes that this sound is not created by any impact,
> any friction; it is the anahat nad, the frictionless sound, the unstruck
> sound.
>
> Nanak says: Omkar alone is God's name. Nanak refers to name a great deal.
> Whenever Nanak speaks of His name -- "His name is the path," or "He who
> remembers his name attains" -- he is referring to Omkar, because Omkar is
> the only name that is not given to Him by man, but is His very own. None o
f
> the names given by man can carry you very far. If they do go some distance
> towards Him, it is only because of some slight shadow of Omkar within them
.
>
> For instance the word ram. When Ram is repeated over and over it begins to
> transport you a little, since the sound "m" in Ram is also the consonant i
n
> Om. Now if you keep repeating it for a long time, you will suddenly discov
er
> that the sound of Ram subtly changes into the resonance of Om, because as
> the repetition begins to quieten the mind, Omkar intrudes and penetrates
> Ram; Ram gradually fades and Om steps in. It is the experience of all the
> wise men that no matter with what name they started their journey, at the
> end it is always Om. As soon as you start to become quiet, Om steps in. Om
> is always there waiting; it only requires your becoming tranquil.
>
> Says Nanak: "Ek Omkar Satnam."
> The word sat needs to be understood. In Sanskrit there are two words: "sat
"
> means beingness, existence, and satya means truth, validity. There is a
> great difference between the two, though both contain the same original
> root. Let us see the difference between them.
>
> Satya is the quest of the philosopher. He seeks truth. What is the truth? 
It
> lies in the rules whereby two plus two always equals four, and never five 
or
> three. So satya is a mathematical formula, a man-made calculation, but it 
is
> not sat. It is logical truth but not existential reality.
>
> You dream in the night. Dreams exist. They are sat/reality, but not
> satya/truth. Dreams are -- or else how would you see them? Their being is
> there but you cannot say they are true, because in the morning you find th
ey
> have evaporated into nothingness. So there are happenings in life which ar
e
> true but not existential. Then there are other occurrences that are existe
nt
> but are not logically true. All mathematics is true but not existential; i
t
> is satya but not sat. Dreams are; they are existential, but they are not
> true.
>
> God is both. He is sat as well as satya, existence as well as truth. Being
> both, He can neither be fully attained through science, which probes truth
,
> nor through the arts, which explores existence. Both are incomplete in the
ir
> search, because they are directed only towards one half of Him.
>
> The quest of religion is entirely different from all other quests. It
> combines both sat and satya: it is in quest of that which is more authenti
c
> and true than any mathematical formula. It is in quest of that which is mo
re
> existential, more empirical, than any poetic imagery. What religion seeks 
is
> both. Looking from any one angle, you will fail; from both directions, the
n
> only shall you attain.
>
> So when Nanak says: "Ek Omkar Satnam," both sat and satya are contained in
> his expression. The name of that supreme existence is as true as a
> mathematical formula and as real as any work of art; it is as beautiful as
 a
> dream and as correct as a scientific formula; it contains the emotions of
> the heart, and the knowledge and experience of the mind.
>
> Where the mind and the heart meet, religion begins. If the mind overpowers
> the heart, science is born. If the heart overpowers the head, the realm of
> art is entered: poetry, music, song, painting, sculpture. But if head and
> heart are united, you enter into Omkar.
>
> A religious person stands above the greatest scientist; he looks down on t
he
> greatest artist, because his search contains the essentials of both. Scien
ce
> and art are dualities; religion is the synthesis.
>
> Osho - The True Name, Vol-1, # 1, The Singer
>
> Source: http://www.oshoworld.com/Onlinemag/..m/mainstory.asp
>
>
> More recently, Swami Ram Tirath Danda Sanyasi, a Sanskrit scholar, who
> studied Hindu and other religious scriptures, wrote a book declaring Aad
> Guru Granth Sahib as the superior most scripture and its contents as the
> most superior religious philosophy.8 I find Sri Osho Rajnish's translation
> of Japji more accurate than most of the translations done by Sikhs.
>
> Source: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082004/.._rejoinder.html
>
> More sources: www.sikhnet.com
>
>
> Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]