Kaljug Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I am not disputing the usefulness of mythological tales in conveying important messages. The problem in my eyes are when we are expected to believe in such mythological accounts as literally true. If we Sikhs are all agreed that the use of such tales are allegorical then there is no problem. (definition of allegory - The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form). In this context, the use of Chandhi is understandable. But that is very different to actually believing in the prior existence of Chandhi and her exploits on this earth. That distinction is causing the conflict in the panth we see today. People are essentially saying that if we literally believe the avtaar stories we place ourselves firmly within the Hindu cosmology. If, however we all agree that the use of such characters is purely a vehicle of a greater message that does not involve having to literally believe in their existence, it makes sense. The truth however is likely to be that many of our ancestors (who came from simple backgrounds) did probably believe them to be literally true. Where do we stand on this today? Fateh! I don't think you are understanding the distinction I am making between historically real and mythologically true. Take the goddess Kali for example, the chthonic fierce form of Chandi. Historically she was probably a pre-Aryan Dravidian matriarch who took part in leading campaigns against the Aryan invaders. Some scholars believe that the necklace of skulls she wears were not originally skulls but the heads of fair-skinned Aryans she had conquered. In mythological terms, she has become a symbol for feminine power, wrath and the forces of destruction. On a spiritual level, Kali represents the terror that we feel when the ego is stripped away and shown to be essentially non-existent, a construct that we have created through our karmas. She destroys the false identification with our limited egos so that we see our true selves as being one with paramatma. (That is why she wears for earings the bodies of children who represent her devotees who have returned to their original true nature which is child-like because of its innocence and its purity.) Hindus believe that Kali has an independent existence, and her devotees believe that she is the supreme reality itself who, in sargun form, is the many-armed deity with skin the colour of thunder clouds, and who wears a garland of skulls and a belt made of the arms of her slain enemies. In the patriarchal Aryan North her protruding tongue is supposed to represent her shame at finding herself standing on her hubby Shiva, but in the traditionally matriarchal Dravidian South it represent her rage. In Sikhi, though some traditional schools may believe that Kali exists in some spiritual form, she is not believed to be Nirguna Brahman herself, nor is she believed to be anything but a creation of Akal Purakh who manifested according to His hukam. I don't think that Sikhs believe that there was some multi-limbed angry bird walking the earth at some point in historical time killing fanged demons with her awesome ninja skills. In fact, I don't even know that educated Hindus believe that to be true. I'm still not 100% certain what role Chandi plays in Sikhi, but I am 100% certain it is not the same as the Hindu belief. Sikhi, to my limited understanding, acknowledges the existence of Akal Purakh's Shakti, His Primordial Power - which is decribed in feminine terms because Shakti has traditionally been described in feminine terms in Indian religion, and which is sometimes named Bhagauti, or Chandi, or Durga, or simply Lokmata - but, unlike in Shakta philosophy where Shiva and Shakti are described as separate entities, Sikhs do not believe that Akal Purakh's Shakti is separate from Himself (as singh2 has repeatedly illustrated on this forum with quotes from Dasam Granth). After all, half of infinity is still infinity. Singh, if I don't make sense (and I very rarely do), I'd urge you to watch Joseph Campbell's 6 part TV series called The Power of Myth. In it he differentiates between mythological truth and historical truth (which you call literal truth) in his own inimitable way. Regards, K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singh2 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) That distinction is causing the conflict in the panth we see today. People are essentially saying that if we literally believe the avtaar stories we place ourselves firmly within the Hindu cosmology. If, however we all agree that the use of such characters is purely a vehicle of a greater message that does not involve having to literally believe in their existence, it makes sense. The truth however is likely to be that many of our ancestors (who came from simple backgrounds) did probably believe them to be literally true. Where do we stand on this today? These stories are present in SGGS all the way from start to end. Why do we have double standards one for SGGS ji and one for Dasam granth especially when the end message is same. Edited August 22, 2009 by singh2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaljug Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Fateh! Perhaps the point I am making (the distinction between existence and unique existence of a god or goddess) would be more clear if I gave an example from personal experience. I have a friend who is a priest of an African Traditional Religion whose tutelary deity is called Centella Ndoki, and whose function and place in her respective pantheon is the same as Kali's in the Hindu pantheon. Like Kali, Centella represents feminine power in its most violent and destructive form - she rules ghosts, spirits and demons; she destroys the enemies of her devotee; despite being ferocious in aspect, she is maternal in her care for her priests. Much like in Hinduism, she is propitiated in front of a physical representation of her powers (called a murti in Hinduism and an nganga in my friend's religion). Now, she is most certainly real in some sense because I have seen her come down and possess her priest to foretell the future or offer advice, I have seen her to cause a tree under which her murti was buried to wither away while the surrounding trees are still producing fruit, and I've seen her kill a sacrificial animal on the spot at the command of her priest. However, priests of Kali do the same thing in Trinidad and in India (mostly in Southern India). This African deity and the Indian one do the same thing, but they have different names, their myths are different, their rituals are different, and they are propitiated in completely unrelated languages. However, they represent the same power, the same universal symbol of an unstoppable, dark and almost inhumanly ferocious energy. This symbol, this archetype if you like of Woman As Warrior, is present in every culture and religion of every country. The fact that Gurbani calls this power by the name of Chandi or Kalika does not mean that the Hindu goddess of the same name is real but that Centella, or Oya, or Erishkigal, or Hecate are any less real. Gurbani is not concerned with mythology, and unlike most manmade religions, it does not propagate a new mythology - Gurbani is only concerned with Truth. K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laalsingh Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Fateh! I'm still not 100% certain what role Chandi plays in Sikhi, but I am 100% certain it is not the same as the Hindu belief. Sikhi, to my limited understanding, acknowledges the existence of Akal Purakh's Shakti, His Primordial Power - which is decribed in feminine terms because Shakti has traditionally been described in feminine terms in Indian religion, and which is sometimes named Bhagauti, or Chandi, or Durga, or simply Lokmata - but, unlike in Shakta philosophy where Shiva and Shakti are described as separate entities, Sikhs do not believe that Akal Purakh's Shakti is separate from Himself (as singh2 has repeatedly illustrated on this forum with quotes from Dasam Granth). After all, half of infinity is still infinity. Regards, K. Kalijug ji, of course, Lord is creator and creation. Shakti is part of His creation. But Shakti is Maya, root of five vices and three gunas and hindrance to our way to Lord. Bhagat Kabir even called her snake. Gursikh should worship Akal only. Bhagat Beni on Ang 96 ਜਪੁ ਤਪੁ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਸੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਮਤਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਨ ਅਰਾਧਿਆ ॥ਉਛਲਿਆ ਕਾਮੁ ਕਾਲ ਮਤਿ ਲਾਗੀ ਤਉ ਆਨਿ ਸਕਤਿ ਗਲਿ ਬਾਂਧਿਆ ॥੨॥ Bhagat Kabir on Ang 332 ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਬਾਣਿ ਬਜਰ ਕਲ ਛੇਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਗਟਿਆ ਪਦੁ ਪਰਗਾਸਾ ॥ਸਕਤਿ ਅਧੇਰ ਜੇਵੜੀ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਚੂਕਾ ਨਿਹਚਲੁ ਸਿਵ ਘਰਿ ਬਾਸਾ ॥੨॥ Bhagat Kabir on Ang 339 ਕਾਟਿ ਸਕਤਿ ਸਿਵ ਸਹਜੁ ਪ੍ਰਗਾਸਿਓ ਏਕੈ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾਨਾ ॥ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਗੁਰ ਭੇਟਿ ਮਹਾ ਸੁਖ ਭ੍ਰਮਤ ਰਹੇ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਾਨਾਂ ॥੪॥੨੩॥੭੪॥ Bhagat Kabir on Ang 447 ਸਕਤਿ ਸਨੇਹੁ ਕਰਿ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕਰੀਐ ਮੈ ਨ ਬਦਉਗਾ ਭਾਈ ॥ਜਉ ਰੇ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਮੋਹਿ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਕਰੈਗਾ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਕਟਿ ਜਾਈ ॥੨॥ Third Master on Ang 506 advising to banish Shakti's maya and enter Shiv's house. ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਨਾਚੈ ਸਕਤਿ ਨਿਵਾਰੈ ਸਿਵ ਘਰਿ ਨੀਦ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ਸਕਤੀ ਘਰਿ ਜਗਤੁ ਸੂਤਾ ਨਾਚੈ ਟਾਪੈ ਅਵਰੋ ਗਾਵੈ ਮਨਮੁਖਿ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੩॥ Guru Amardas on Ang 786 ਸੂਹਵੀਏ ਸੂਹਾ ਸਭੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਹੈ ਜਿਨ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਦੂਜਾ ਭਾਉ ॥ਖਿਨ ਮਹਿ ਝੂਠੁ ਸਭੁ ਬਿਨਸਿ ਜਾਇ ਜਿਉ ਟਿਕੈ ਨ ਬਿਰਖ ਕੀ ਛਾਉ ॥ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਲਾਲੋ ਲਾਲੁ ਹੈ ਜਿਉ ਰੰਗਿ ਮਜੀਠ ਸਚੜਾਉ ॥ਉਲਟੀ ਸਕਤਿ ਸਿਵੈ ਘਰਿ ਆਈ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਾਉ ॥ਨਾਨਕ ਬਲਿਹਾਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਜਿਤੁ ਮਿਲਿਐ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਉ ॥੧॥ Guru Amardas on Ang 1090 made it clear that Shakti is not the way to Lord ਦੋਵੈ ਤਰਫਾ ਉਪਾਈਓਨੁ ਵਿਚਿ ਸਕਤਿ ਸਿਵ ਵਾਸਾ ॥ਸਕਤੀ ਕਿਨੈ ਨ ਪਾਇਓ ਫਿਰਿ ਜਨਮਿ ਬਿਨਾਸਾ ॥ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Khalsa Fauj Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 LaalSingh Ji, Very impressive post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 So are we all saying this is allegorical then? If so, it would really clarify the matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singh2 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Nobody ever said that these deities are above maya. Dasam granth clearly states that they are maya. Guru sahib pays tribute to shakti of waheguru in Dasam granth. That is waheguru Himself and many places symbolized by weapons. Examples are krishna avtar, Charitopakhyan and akal ustat. At many places for example Guru sahib has written some verses with heading " Ab Devi ji ku ustat" for example in krishna avtar and many people who are against Dasam granth say that Guru sahib is praising a Devi. if one reads those carefully that devi is no deity but Waheguru ji. Edited August 22, 2009 by singh2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balbir Singh Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakaal! Dear all and Laalsingh Jee! You wrote in the post #54 "Gursikh should worship Akal only." Please provide a reference for this. I will be grateful. ***** Quote from Singh2 Jee "At many places for example Guru sahib has written some verses with heading " Ab Devi ji ku ustat" for example in krishna avtar and many people who are against Dasam granth say that Guru sahib is praising a Devi. if one reads those carefully that devi is no deity but Waheguru ji." May I ask why Gurdev is addressing Devi as female? Balbir Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GillAUS Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 In regards to the devis/devtas, I am of the opinion that Guru Ji has humanised these individuals to show that they are under Akaal Purakh's Hukam and as such, are in fact not 'devis' and 'devtas' at all. As for the fact in regards to whether or not they are merely historical or mythological - can't they be both? Like what brother Kaljug mentioned, sometimes history can become mythologised (Is that a word? I'm not sure lol). As such, if we take them to be historical figures, it would not be absurd at all. Additionally, we need to see such figures as not being 'Hindu' but rather part of the wider indigenous Indic culture from which Sikhi was born and flourished! No need to become like Pakis and think that Sikhs just fell from the sky! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Is there even such a thing as a devta in the mythological sense as displayed in hindu tv shows with devtas with 4 arms flying in the air ਸਾਧ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਜਗਤ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥ साध करम जे पुरख कमावै ॥ नाम देवता जगत कहावै ॥ Because of virtuous actions, a purusha (person) is known as devta (god) ਕੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਜਗ ਮੈ ਕਰਹੀ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਅਸੁਰ ਤਿਨ ਕੋ ਸਭ ਧਰਹੀ ॥੧੫॥ कुक्रित करम जे जग मै करही ॥ नाम असुर तिन को सभ धरही ॥१५॥ And because of evil actions, he is known as asura (demon).15. Are'nt they just normal people ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GillAUS Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Is there even such a thing as a devta in the mythological sense as displayed in hindu tv shows with devtas with 4 arms flying in the air ਸਾਧ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਜਗਤ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥ साध करम जे पुरख कमावै ॥ नाम देवता जगत कहावै ॥ Because of virtuous actions, a purusha (person) is known as devta (god) ਕੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਜਗ ਮੈ ਕਰਹੀ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਅਸੁਰ ਤਿਨ ਕੋ ਸਭ ਧਰਹੀ ॥੧੫॥ कुक्रित करम जे जग मै करही ॥ नाम असुर तिन को सभ धरही ॥१५॥ And because of evil actions, he is known as asura (demon).15. Are'nt they just normal people ? Well yes, that's basically also what I was trying to say. I think that Guru Ji is showing that these 'devtas' are just actually humans who may have achieved some certain good deeds. However, on the same token, they are also not infallible and as such, susceptible to maya and God's hukam just like everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Can we agree that in Sikh writings they are devices to convey a greater point and not necessarily literal/historical truths? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 ਸਾਧ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਜਗਤ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥ साध करम जे पुरख कमावै ॥ नाम देवता जगत कहावै ॥ Because of virtuous actions, a purusha (person) is known as devta (god) ਕੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਜਗ ਮੈ ਕਰਹੀ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਅਸੁਰ ਤਿਨ ਕੋ ਸਭ ਧਰਹੀ ॥੧੫॥ कुक्रित करम जे जग मै करही ॥ नाम असुर तिन को सभ धरही ॥१५॥ And because of evil actions, he is known as asura (demon).15. Devtay do literally exist, as do many other non-human beings in Waheguru's creation such as jamdooths. BUt in this particular case, it is being used as a metaphor for purity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted August 19, 2018 Report Share Posted August 19, 2018 On 8/22/2009 at 6:30 PM, amardeep said: ਸਾਧ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਜਗਤ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥ साध करम जे पुरख कमावै ॥ नाम देवता जगत कहावै ॥ Because of virtuous actions, a purusha (person) is known as devta (god) ਕੁਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਜਗ ਮੈ ਕਰਹੀ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਅਸੁਰ ਤਿਨ ਕੋ ਸਭ ਧਰਹੀ ॥੧੫॥ कुक्रित करम जे जग मै करही ॥ नाम असुर तिन को सभ धरही ॥१५॥ And because of evil actions, he is known as asura (demon).15. Bump this up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted December 9, 2019 Report Share Posted December 9, 2019 Bump this thread up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.