There is no true religion, only one that makes sense to you........People will fight for their religion its sad because they are willing to die for it. It makes me sad.
Well sikhism ia only called a religion because of the influence of western thought. It itself is primarily a philosophy with elements of a religion existing to contain that philosophy. Sikhi recognizes two aspects of itself. One is eternal spiritual truth and one is temporal cultural truth. Our gurus say to only look inside the guru granth sahib to understand our "religion", but now there are a lot of things that we follow which are not in the guru granth sahib. In fact the guru granth sahib doesn't state any rules in particular and everything is written as poetry. There is a lot of metaphor and ou can't take anything at face value. Everything must be examined according to it's usage within that particular context in addition to its usage in other places. I would say that buddhism, sikhism and taoism say the same thing in a different way. They all lead to the same end.
Lol because both a and b are made of this one thing. Nirgun is the aspect of god that is pure emptiness, infinite emptiness, infinite nirvana, tao. Sargun is all of creation. God is both of these things. Existence occurs in cycles. In the beginning ( obviously not really beginning because cycles) god exists in sunn samaadhi, or primal/empty trance/meditation. This is a state of nonexistence and an attributeless state. From this occurs the "big bang" and creation issues forth like rivers and is sustained by the shabad, or the vibration of the universe, the "word" of God. This creates sargun. Just like yin and yang.
"Īśvara is the cause of the world, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, just and wholly transcendent being. Madhva has Īśvara straddle various contradictions in the description of Brahman by semantic interpretation. For example, for the notion that 'Īśvara both has forms and is formless, and is both qualified and unqualified,' Madhva explains it in the following way. Īśvara is endowed with forms because he has a body of knowledge and bliss, but is formless because he has no body that can be circumscribed by a finite mind. <i>Īśvara</i> is qualified because he possesses the six qualities of omniscience (<i>JñÄna</i>), sovereignty (<i><span>AiÅ›varya</span></i>), omnipotence (<i>Åšakti</i>), endurance, or the capacity to support everything by will and without any fatigue (<i>Bala</i>), vigour, or the power to retain immateriality as the supreme being in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations (<i>VÄ«rya</i>) and splendour, or self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by his spiritual effulgence (<i>Tejas</i>), but unqualified because he is entirely free of material adjuncts. <i>Īśvara</i> chooses to save some souls while condemning others to eternal existence within <span>saṃsÄra</span>." You're imposing a logical law of THOUGHT onto actuality as an actuality, which is wrong and unverifiable; just because you believe from your personal deduction based upon past experinces that a and b are mutually exclusive, that does not mean a and b are actually mutually exclusive. A scientist, i.e., dogmatic empiricist, cannot prove, not even falsify, that the universe or "reality" abides by logical, i.e., conceptually reified, laws without presupposing their own assumption, that is, by comitting the fallacy of a circular argument. The idea of the Godhead in its entirety is beyond the mind of man, but pride will not allow most to concede, and consequentially, accept such a point, therefore, man must have faith in the unknown and unseen Infinite Intellect dubbed "God" (supreme being); who is eveywhere and no where.. another paradox.