Jump to content

Bijla Singh

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bijla Singh

  • Rank
    Nayana Bacha||Nayani Bachi

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. I am calm and relaxed. My take is that if one wants to disagree with something then they must provide rational reasons rather than mere excuses. In my understanding Bhai Veer Singh’s interpretation is correct on “jug jug” as it fits better into the context of the pauri. Darshan of six Mahals have been seen and how many more will there be? Answer is four more. Saying "Satguru will come in every yug" is completely out of context and contradictory to Gurbani. Context of Bachittar Natak is different as it talks about avtars coming in human form and eventually getting engulfed by Kaal. From this it is clear that avtars cannot give mukti. Only Satguru can. It also states that many Kishan, Bishan, Raam, Shiv etc have come and gone but nowhere does it state that Guru Sahib is in the same cycle or if Satguru comes and goes. Bachittar Natak promotes Kaal as the supreme whereas Vaars promote Guru Sahib (saroop of Akaal) as the supreme. Since Satguru Granth Sahib Ji is already here in partakh, there is no need for any avtar to come. When these avtars failed and were “apni apni urjhana” by not preaching “Satnam”, “Aap Naryan Kaaladhar” manifested as Satguru and “Satnam Da Chakkar Firaya”. Fog and darkness was dispelled and Satguru stayed here forever. Gurbani is jugo jugo atal and will still be here when the next yug comes. Its message will still be the truth. Avtars may come but they will not win over Kaal and will not be equal to or above Guru Granth Sahib. Khalsa is Kaal Purakh Ki Fauj and therefore does not need any future avtars.
  2. So now Bhai Veer Singh had an agenda? Is it the only excuse left for you to use when you desperately want to justify your opinions? Every word has multiple meanings and your interpretation makes no sense at all because it doesn’t fit the context. Jug means jora or pair. Satguru does take birth in every yug. Go through the pauri line by line first. By the way it is pauri 49. Have you even read Giani Hazara Singh’s veechar on this pauri? Pandit Tara Singh Nirotam and Kartar Singh Dakha also interpreteted it the same way. Vasudev did not even exist in Satyug. Waheguru is not simran of Vishnu in Satyug. When taken literally the interpretation would be contradictory to Gurbani, rest of the Vaars and history. Correct meanings are: ਵ – ਵਾਸਦੇਵ – ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਵਾਸਾ ਹਰ ਥਾਂ ਤੇ ਹੈ ਹ – ਹਰੀ – ਪ੍ਰਾਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਗ – ਗੋਬਿੰਦ – ਸਰਬ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲਕ ਰ – ਰਾਮ – ਜੋ ਹਰ ਕਿਤੇ ਰਮਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ
  3. Is this last Pauri of Vaar 1 you are referring to? Because Bhai Veer Singh has written veechar in his teeka.
  4. I hardly doubt every "brahmgyani" accepts the same interpretation or has the same viewpoint about Gurmat. They don't know everything about Gurbani and Gurbani interpretation is not limited to them. I did not take a cheap shot but respectfully told him what I think. Scholars have done much research on Bhagats and facts they have brought forward are not known in sampardas. I am correct when I made that statement. He does not know the context of the word "Satguru". Internal evidence of Gurbani, Bhagat Bani and Vaars prove my point. Bhagat Bani shows how Gurmat prema bhagti is different from bhakti movement. Many Hindu scholars have written PhD thesis on Kabir Ji, Farid Ji and Naamdev Ji. They know more about Bhagats than Sikhs and sampradas whereas it should be the other way around. Anyways, my intent was not to insult him but point out that other scholars' work needs to be studied because Gurbani has no limits.
  5. In pdf file look on page 1873 under the word “Jug”. Multiple meanings are given. According to the context of the Pauri interpretation 2+2 fits better. Had you studied Vaars and Gurbani in proper context you would’ve known the truth. Your understanding of the word “Satguru” is incorrect and not in context with Gurbani. Vaars clearly make Guru Sahib the greatest. Everyone else is a bhagat not Satguru because a person whose avastha changed over time and eventually became mukat is a bhagat whereas Satguru’s avastha stays the same and is already mukat. I don’t put others down. I advocate Gurmat. It is you who brings Guru Sahib down to the level of avtars most of whom are mythology characters. Gurbani makes clear that many characters were simply kings of their time periods and people made them out to be avtars i.e. “Jugeh Jugeh Kay Rajay Kieay Gaveh Kar Avtaari..” and even then they are not Waheguru but part of His creation. Bhai Gurdas Ji calls true Gursikhs “better” than bhagats. Study Vaars first. Bhai Veer Singh Ji also says that only Satguru Nanak Sahib Ji is the greatest. Kabir, Farid etc were bhagats because Guru Sahib called them bhagats “Bani Bhagat….Ji Ki”. If you want to do veechar on individual bhagats and their status based on Gurbani and Vaars I am open to it but I am not willing to debate as it leads to personal attacks, angry posts and wastes much of my time. Gursikhs are supposed to do veechar anyways. I respect Sant Ji but he was not god. He was a human and did make mistakes in interpreting Gurbani. Just pick up Gurbani Paath Darpan and see it yourself. He used to say that Gurbani has no limits then why should we limit the interpretation to him only. Have you studied Gurbani from viyakaran perspective? How about interpretation of Bhai Kahan Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh, Bhai Veer Singh, Prof. Sahib Singh, Prin. Teja Singh etc? Giani Gurdit Singh spent more than 30 years in researching about Bhagats and their banis. His work cannot be matched by anyone else and facts he has brought forward cannot easily be ignored. I do not say other religions are 100% false (meaning have no truth) but they are not complete and cannot give muktee. They will give gyan, may help one progress spiritually but salvation is only in the house of Guru Nanak Sahib. Gurbani gyan is not as same as gyan of Vedas or other books. Daya Nand stated that Gurbani is “vedan da saar” and your statement is not any different if gyan is the same. Vedas are full of hypocritical stories and karam kaand whereas Gurbani is not. This is a long topic but Gurbani says that Vedas cannot give muktee even if one reads them for four yugs. Vedas are not Guru. Only Poora Guru gives muktee and Gurmat does not give status of Guru to anyone but Guru Nanak Jot. Your understanding of Gurbani is very limited. So I suggest you study Vaars first in proper context and also study bhagat bani. Do not simply limit yourself to a certain sant and take his words to be absolute truth. Study with reasons and disagree with reasons. Once again I can only do veechar as it leads to Sikhs learning from each other by keeping their personal opinions below the authority of Gurbani. Veechar is done with an open mind and if at the end two people disagree, it does not end with frustration and personal attacks but with happiness and joy.
  6. Bhai Kahan Singh gives multiple meanings of the word "Jug". First meaning he gives is "two" or pair. The context of Pauri prevents us from coming up with multiple meanings. Sikhs are specifically asking how many forms will be more and the answer "in every yug satgur takes avtar" is not valid and does not address the question. Further, Satguru does not come and go. Satguru is not like other avtars that have limited powers. Satguru is Akal Purakh Himself. Read all of the Vaars and you will see it yourself. Guru Sahib is placed at the highest place. Even Gursikhs are called better than many of the bhagats like Kabir Ji, Dhru Ji, Naamdev Ji, Janak etc.
  7. No, Sri Gur Katha does not talk about Guru Sahib worshipping any deity. It is free from mythology.
  8. I posted the topic last year so I do not know if any discussion took place on the same topic on ss.com. It could be another source. I am not a scholar who has the authority to claim a source to be authentic. Prof. Gurmukh Singh verified the authenticity of Sri Gur Katha and published it around 1992. Two more sources I know about are Soochak Parsang Guru Ka written by Bhai Behlo Ji and second Baba Binod Singh's Granth. Both of these were verified by Dr. Trilochan Singh and were referenced in his book Jeevan Chrittar Guru Nanak Dev Ji. I do not know if these can be found in English. Much of our history has not been translated and most of it is still waiting to be studied and published. Sources that have been published are only tip of the iceberg. On a side note, I did not find any "brahmanvaad" in Sri Gur Katha when I read it. This is the only source that gives details of physical description of Guru Sahib, shaheedi of Guru Sahib, how Amrit was prepared, how it was given and which Banis were recited. The granth calls Gurmat the true path and Guru Sahib the greatest of all (not vishnu avtar). Its language greatly resembles Dasam Granth's language and kabits are written in birrass and words from Dasam Granth are used i.e. ਜੈ ਤੇਗੰ ਜੈ ਤੇਗੰ ਗਾਇਓ. When I have time I will post some valueable information from it.
  9. You did not ask a single question on this topic and your inability to find any sources is your own fault. Siri Gur Katha is an accepted source and has been published.
  10. Singh Ji, Guru Nanak Sahib started a new Panth which is believed by Bhai Gurdas Ji other Gurus and the entire Panth. This is not my personal belief but the truth. Bhai Gurdas Ji gives reasons as to why 6th Nanak Ji raised arms. This is not my personal belief but Sikh beliefs. Mcleod starts attacking Sikhi right from the first page. I don’t think kaloo raam should be compared to Mcleod as both did damage in their own ways. Many renowned scholars refuted Mcleod and did not agree with him. If his “findings” led to in depth study of Gurmat then kaloo raam’s work is not any different. His anti-Gurmat books led scholars to dig deep and bring forth Siri Gur Katha. Karam Singh historian’s book led scholars to find Soochak Parsang Guru Ka and Granth of Bhai Binod Singh to support existence of Bhai Bala Ji. This in no way means that Mcleod, Karam Singh and Kaloo Raam were correct and did not intentionally create confusion among the Sikhs and attacked Sikhi’s roots. Kaloo’s work stays within the Panth and limited to only those who know Punjabi but Mcleod’s work reaches to non-Punjabi and non-Sikhs who know nothing about Sikhi. His work can be read by anyone in the world since English is a world language these days. This to me is more damaging. Mcleod was not another Macauliffe but Trumpp.
  11. Kala Afghana is paid by the RSS and their puppet and no one expects anything pro-Gurmat from him. But if Mcleod had no agenda (which I disagree with) then how could a learned man with PhD make so many mistakes and question the very roots of our religion? An ignorant person who knows nothing about Sikh history would suggest that Jatts influenced Guru Sahib to raise arms but if the same statement comes from someone who is supposedly learned and has access to vast historical accounts and proofs then clearly he has an agenda. Mcleod ignored Vaars (and misinterpreted them), Gurbani references and janamsakhis. He calls Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha wrong simply because he belonged to Singh Sabha. He wrote that Guru Nanak Sahib did not start any new Panth without giving any proof from Gurbani and Vaars. Even a kid can raise the same questions as Mcleod did but only a true learned person with unbiased mind can write something that reflects true beliefs of the religion. What kind of a scholar or historian ignores all the proofs and writes books on mere conjectures? He was not a Sikh but doesn’t mean he had the right to attack Sikhi without any proofs. He had the responsibility to be ethical and objective but he failed. Had he given any evidence to prove his points he would’ve had some credibility but he simply declared himself right by basing his arguments on assumptions and then contradicted himself by saying “possibly” “probably” etc. Read Dr. Trilochan Singh’s book in which he has rebutted every silly statement of Mcleod against Gurmat and shows what kind of hidden agenda Mcleod had. He is dead but caused enough damage (even more than kaloo raam) to Sikhi in the western world.
  12. This is not related to the topic but very interesting note. As you mentioned Ramanand Ji left his Guru (Raghva Ji) and started Raam bhagtee as opposed to Krishan bhagtee and gave new mantra “Ram-E-Namah”. Then what changed his mind that made him turn from sargun worshipper to nirgun worshipper? In his shabad he says Satguru came to him and showed him the true path and Satguru’s shabad erased millions of his karams. If he didn’t have a guru then which Satguru came to him? Which Shabad was it? Who started Nirgun worship first that influenced Ramanand Ji to become nirgun worshipper? Something for you to ponder upon. Have fun ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਮਹਲਾ 3 ॥ ਪੂਰਾ ਥਾਟੁ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਪੂਰੈ ਵੇਖਹੁ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ॥ ਇਸੁ ਪਰਪੰਚ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਚੇ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਮਤੁ ਕੋ ਧਰਹੁ ਗੁਮਾਨਾ ॥1॥ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਮਤਿ ਆਵੈ ਸੋ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਮਾਹਿ ਸਮਾਨਾ ॥ ਇਹ ਬਾਣੀ ਜੋ ਜੀਅਹੁ ਜਾਣੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਰਵੈ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ॥1॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਹੁਣਿ ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਨਰ ਮਨੁਖਾ ਨੋ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਧਾਨਾ ॥ ਜਤੁ ਸੰਜਮ ਤੀਰਥ ਓਨਾ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਲਿ ਮਹਿ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ॥2॥ ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ ਆਪੋ ਆਪਣਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਸੋਧਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ ॥ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਿਨੀ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਗਿ ਤੇ ਪੂਰੇ ਪਰਵਾਨਾ ॥3॥ ਕਹਤ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਸਚੇ ਸਿਉ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਲਾਏ ਚੂਕੈ ਮਨਿ ਅਭਿਮਾਨਾ ॥ ਕਹਤ ਸੁਣਤ ਸਭੇ ਸੁਖ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਮਾਨਤ ਪਾਹਿ ਨਿਧਾਨਾ ॥4॥4॥ Amardeep ji, read the entire Shabad and see what it actually implies. It does not declare that previous religions were correct or what Vedas and Puranas preached is the right way. Shabad clearly rejects “jap tap teerath” etc and advocates only Naam japna by meeting Satguru. We can discuss it in details if you want but I think the Shabad is very clear. It does not say that people were required to do “jap tap teerath” in earlier times. It only says what people did and followed in previous times and Guru Sahib rejected it altogether. Only Naam is the savior. Your initial post states that people were required to do such rituals and sargun worship but Gurbani only states what people did and then rejected it. Gurbani doesn't prove that people were really required to do it.
  13. Amardeep, quotes you provided only state what people did in earlier times and the rituals they performed. It makes no mention that they were required to do this to obtain salvation. I hope you see the difference. Doing something in the past is not the same as obligation. Akal Purakh did not make it mandatory for people to worship sargun. Pauri (in the link) and the next one make it clear that without Satguru no one can achieve salvation because without the sun darkness will not go away. Clearly, previous religions and rituals of yugs created darkness which was cleared by the manifestation of Satguru Nanak Sahib. Gurmukhi text of Sakhi Bhai Nand Lal Ji is this: ਤਬ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਕਹਿਆ: ਜੋ ਮੇਰਾ ਸਿਖ ਹੋਵੈਗਾ ਸੋ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਥੀਂ ਬਗੈਰੁ ਹੋਰਥੈ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤ ਨ ਕਰਸੀ । ਅਤੈ ਜਿਥੇ ਸ਼ਬਦੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਿਥੈ ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਨੀ, ਹੋਰ ਮੜ੍ਹੀ ਮਸਾਣੀ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਵਣਾ । ਪੰਡਤ ਪਾਂਧੇ ਮੀਏਂ ਮਹਤੇ ਦੀ ਮਤ ਨਹੀ ਲੈਣੀ ਅਤੇ ਜੋ ਮੇਰਾ ਹੋਸੀ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦਿ ਥੀਂ ਸਿਵਾਇ ਕਰਮ ਕਿਰਿਆ, ਭਦਣੁ, ਉਸਤਰਾ ਨਹੀ ਲਾਵਣਾ । ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ, ਤਰਪਣੁ ਪੂਜਾ, ਅਰਚਾ, ਧੋਤੀ ਬੰਨ੍ਹ ਕੇ, ਸਿਰੀਂ ਨੰਗਾ ਖਾਵਣਾ ਨਾਹੀ । ਨੰਗੀ ਬੋਦੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਅਗੈ ਬੈਠਣਾ ਨਾਹੀ । ਜੋ ਕੋਈ ਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਾ ਹੋਸੀ ਸੋ ਇਤਨੀਆਂ ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਨਾ ਆਵਸੀ । (ਸਾਖੀ ਰਹਿਤ ਕੀ ਭਾਈ ਨੰਦ ਲਾਲ ਜੀ) Mcleod translated it wrong. It does not mention the word “required” and Mcleod does not provide any proofs (as usual) that people were actually required to waste time in rituals in order to achieve salvation. They were blinded by the hypocrisy of Brahmins but Waheguru made no such requirement. Gurmat is independent of time because true path does not become invalid over time. Gurmat will not become invalid when satyug comes. Waheguru has remained “Sach” since the beginning and so has His Naam. His path, Gurmat, will always remain “Sach” as well.
  14. Can you prove that it was mandatory for people to worship sargun form? Truth remains the same and is independent of time. If one way is the correct way then it cannot become false over time. It will remain truth. Guru Nanak Sahib preached Nirgun worship which is the greatest path of all. It will not become a false way when kalyug (time) is over and satyug arrives. According to your statement people will have to go back to sargun worship once kalyug is over which is not correct. Gurmat Path is Achal and will never be shaken by time. If you can please post the Gurmukhi text next time it would be great as it is better to find it and understand its context but the translation clearly proves that in earlier time periods people indulged in empty rituals but these are all waste of time. Only Naam is the savior. It does not prove that what people did in earlier times was right. On the contrary, Bhai Sahib Ji is saying that just because your ancestors practiced a certain path or performed rituals doesn’t mean it is the correct way and you should follow it also, rather seek the sanctuary of Naam. It is not possible that a certain way to reach God suddenly becomes invalid when a time period changes. If what people did in earlier ages is right then we would have to declare widow burning, human sacrifice, slavery, child marriage etc correct. Muslims use the same excuse to justify Mohammad’s marriage to 9 years old girl. Further, the translation makes it clear that human cannot be the savior no matter how high avastha he has. Quotes you provide from Geeta show that Krishna (assuming he wrote it) is not above haumai and always talking about himself as the Supreme Being. Then why did he die? He couldn’t even reverse a Durbasa’s curse. It is very simple: one who dies cannot save anyone else. It would be better just to discuss Geeta in its own context and not compare it to Guru Granth Sahib. Geeta is a book but Gurbani is Satguru, revealed word of God.
  15. The translation is wrong. Check Bhai Veer Singh’s teeka of Vaars in which he translates “Jug Jug” as 2+2=4 which means Satguru will change 4 more human bodies. Sikhs are questioning Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji about how many more ‘cholas’ will the Satguru change and Guru Sahib replies that 4 more. Then the Guru Light passed to the Shabad. I don’t want to turn this in another long debate but check the description and qualities of Satguru in the light of Gurbani and Vaars. Avtars come and go but Satguru doesn’t. Satguru (true Guru) always remains awake and is beyond birth and death. Gurbani, Bhatts and Vaars call Guru Nanak Sahib the true Satguru who is the greatest. For some reason sampardas like to put Guru Sahib in the same category of avtars but Gurbani says otherwise. Satguru is “Aap Narayan Kaladhaar..” whereas avtars are creation of Waheguru and have limited powers and at the end are destroyed by kaal but Satguru is creator of kaal. Creator and creation are not the same. Anyways, can anyone prove that Geeta was written by Krishna himself?
  • Create New...