and follows this up by claiming:
There are many
more quotes but the fact is that wherever Waheguru is
mentioned as "Nirgun" word "Sargun" also appears. Both
words appearing right after each other in the same line does
not mean contradiction but a characteristic of Waheguru.
Had the two words been separate one could raise doubts.
(bold ours)
What is this strange principle/ rule which
states that two juxtaposed
terms cannot be contradictory to each other? He then alludes
to another equally absurd
principle/ rule by asserting:
Any rational
person can see that since Guru Sahib mentioned both words
together there must be hidden meanings to it. (bold
ours)
Bijla Singh has a tendency of failing to
define key terms
of an argument; in this instance,
he has again failed to define what he means by "hidden
meanings". Hence, it would be futile for us to respond by
fallaciously reading into what this vague term could mean.
Moreover, despite our best efforts, we too have failed in
our search for a principle/ rule that not only holds that
two juxtaposed words cannot be contradictory, but that
juxtaposed words "must" also contain "hidden meanings"
(whatever that means).
Not a good start on the part of Mr Singh;
but let us move on to his explanation of the word Sargun and
see if he fares any better:
Thus, it is clear
now that the word Sargun refers to creation of Waheguru.
When in Gurbaani it says "He Himself is formless and also
formed", "creating Himself" or "fashioning Himself"
it refers to creation because He is the creator and
resides within the creation.
It seems that Bijla Singh has failed to
delineate an exhaustive explanation of Sargun and its
relationship to Nirgun. He should have clarified that
although Waheguru was Nirgun sans creation, i.e. he was
"formless and has no particular form of His own"
and then "manifested Himself from His Nirgun (invisible) form,
which forever existed, to his Sargun (visible) form",
he still remained Nirgun following said manifestation. It is
important to make this specific point crystal clear and not
leave it ambiguous. Before we deal with this anomaly in
detail, it is important to point out a red herring in Bijla's suggestion that the words "Nirankar" and "Ik Oankar"
are "not contradictory at all". At no stage have we ever
contended they are. The only reference we have made of said
terms was in response to
Saajan Sandhu, which Bijla has obviously overlooked,
wherein
we conspicuously stated:
... the Nirgun god
was both Ekankar (Ek (1) Ank; singularity) and
at the same time the negation of Ekankar, that is, Nirankar
(Nir (none) Ank), what can be translated as formless.
... God manifested
as Sargun, but the damning factor is that He still remained
Nirgun. Hence, following Oankar, He is both Nirgun and
Sargun at the same time.
Hence, He as Nirgun is both Nirankar and Ekankar, the
formless and attributeless 1, as well as its opposite -
Sargun, the attributed, at the same time. Hence, in relation
to the law of non-contradiction, no matter which way you
look at the theology-proper of Sikhism, it is a classic
contradiction in terms.
(bold, underline ours)
Hence, it is a red herring for anyone to
suggest or allude that we hold "Nirankar" and "Ik Oankar" to be
contradictory terms.
Bijla continues by giving the following
etymological breakdown:
Nir (without) Akaar (form)
- Waheguru is without any form. Ik (One) Oan
(Brahm or God) Kar (without changes).
He then preposterously claims:
One God who has
stayed the same, is the same and will always be the same. In
other words, He doesn't change over time. His powers,
characteristics and existence are beyond time and forever
and ever.
Again, it all depends on what Bijla
means by the word "same", which, lo and behold, he has
typically failed
to define! In this context, we can safely infer that in regards to Waheguru and His relationship to
creation, three essential possibilities exist: either Waheguru's
intrinsic nature, which includes his attributes, was the
same sans creation as it is since creation; or Waheguru
does not undergo relational change with
the becoming of creation; or both? Bijla certainly seems to acknowledge an intrinsic change
when he states:
FIRST
Waheguru was only Nirgun as there existed nothing but Him.
THEN He created the entire creation i.e. solar
systems, galaxies, planets, life forms, humans etc. In other
words, anything to everything originated from Waheguru.
(bold, underline, capital ours)
The use of the adjective "first" with
respect to time and order (by order we mean: Waheguru was
Nirgun and not Sargun sans creation) followed by the
conjunctive adverb "then" (grammatically speaking the full
stop before the word "then" should in actual fact be a comma
in order to join the two clauses
separated by time)
clearly point to the fact that a change certainly occurred: Waheguru cannot be what he is said to have been before,
otherwise the use of the adjective "first" would be
redundant and meaningless. According to Bijla, "Waheguru was
only Nirgun" (bold ours) when there existed nothing,
but "then" manifested as Sargun when "He created the entire
creation", while of course still fully remaining Nirgun.
Since Nirgun and Sargun are descriptions of Waheguru's
intrinsic nature, i.e. his essence, thus Waheguru underwent
an intrinsic change
with the becoming of creation. To say otherwise is to deny
the claim that Waheguru is Sargun, which he certainly was
not sans creation.
In addition, there must have also been for
Waheguru a relational change with
the becoming of creation because Bijla Singh
maintains that "He is within His creation and beyond" and "Waheguru is omnipresent and all pervading nothing in the
creation is without Him", and cites the following verses as
evidence:
People, O
Siblings of Destiny, do not wander deluded by doubt. The
Creation is in the Creator, and the Creator is in the
Creation, totally pervading and permeating all places.
||1||Pause|| (Ang 1349)
This whole
world which you see is the image of the Lord;
only the image of the Lord is seen. By Guru's Grace,
I understand, and I see only the One Lord; there is no one
except the Lord. (Ang 922)
In this regard, we wish to ask: could Waheguru have been omnipresent, within His
creation and beyond, and all pervading without the existence
of the creation? Also, could an "image of the Lord" exist without
the existence of "this whole world"? Since the
answer to these questions is an obvious no, it is incorrect
to claim absolutely that "He doesn't
change over time" when Bijla acknowledges the Sargun form of Waheguru as pervading through space, time
and existence, which are
a priori in a constant state of change and flux? Hence, there must have been
for him a relational
change with
the becoming of creation. It is, therefore, apparent that Waheguru
changed both intrinsically and relationally following
creation. In failing to see this, Bijla is
either incredibly
confused or suffering from compounded ignorance.
Finally, returning to Waheguru being both Nirgun and
Sargun
in the becoming of creation, then in light of his obvious
intrinsic change in this context, what he was sans creation,
i.e. Nirgun, is not what he was afterwards. Yet, Sikhs still
insist that what Waheguru was sans creation is what he is
afterwards despite his obvious intrinsic and relational
change vis-á-vis Sargun. This creates a catch-22
situation for the Sikhs: either Waheguru is Nirgun and,
thus, changeless, or he underwent a change with
the becoming of creation to be what he was not sans creation, and that is, Sargun - they
cannot have it both ways. However, since he is said to be
both Nirgun and Sargun at the same time and in the same
respect
in the becoming of creation, the glaring contradiction still
exists.
In spite of Bijla Singh's valiant effort in
trying to "explain this concept in details [sic] so that
Muslims can see the truth and correctly understand who
Waheguru really is", we, who correctly understand and apply
the a priori universal law of non-contradiction, are
indeed finding this so-called "simple yet so elegant concept
[...] hard to grasp".
The only thing we "Muslims are [...] confused"
over is how Sikhs, like Bijla, can delude themselves into
believing that "Nirgun (without attributes) and Sargun (with
all attributes) at the same time" is a rational and
non-contradictory belief? Is it simply because "every word
of Gurbani is directly revealed from Waheguru"? If so, then
this blind following can only be accepted by rejecting
rationality. This would in turn raise questions over the
nature of God's relationship with His creation where He
would demand of His servants' worship of Him through the
acceptance of a mentally oppressive belief in His divine
nature.
