Devi Pargat By Guru Gobind Singh?

[The Khalsa Fauj]

Devi bhagat, Harjas Kaur, you are lost in maayaa because Gurbani says:

Devi Devaa Mool Hai Maayaa

[tSingh]

Chatanga ji, simply because if you make a list of the sidhantic principles of Gurmat they are entirely in accordance with advaita.

Now I have mentioned before that there is an advaita vedanta tradition (focusing on the ant of the vedas i.e. upanishads) and there is advaita or monism. Sikhi is advaitvaad taught independently but entirely in line with Advaita Vedanta.

We are most certainly not Jiv Gosvamis achintyabhedaabhed as harjas kaur states purely because:

i) Braham is identified to be aatam 'anadar aatme braham n chiniaa...'

ii) aatam is defined to be satchitanand

iii) maya is moh-maya, that which veils, and is defined as the treh guna

iv) avidya and maya are described synonymously.

The name for that is 'advaita' a term Sri Guru Maharaj uses liberally in Gyan Prabodh. None of the descriptions of jivanmukti describe a qualitative difference in the nature of aatam and braham, they are entirely the same thing - satchitanand. Thus

i) the jeevbhaav we are in now is not eternal but mithyaa,

ii) Braham is not at its essential nature (svarup lakshana) the param purushottam of achintyabhedaabhed, that is the very opposite of Gurmat

Therefore in opposition to vasisthadvaita and achintyabhedabhed and all other alternative forms of vedant. I have a number of friends who are gaudiya, both traditional gaudiya and the less traditional ISKCON, and there are very strong divergences in our siddhant.

This is exactly the focus of Vivek Pradipika.

Edited January 16, 2010 by tSingh

[chatanga1]

so tsingh, is gurmat another branh on this tree of vedanta?

if what you write is true, was there any reason for Gurmat to be revealed in kalyug, as all the knowledge for mukti was already revealed for jeev way before.

Did Guru Nanak Dev Ji ever talk of advait vedanta or did he copy their ideas?

[amardeep]

It is not about copying. Its about restoring

Tsingh: Could you please tell us more about the Gyan Prabodh and its relevance to gurmat theology? I have heard you reffer to this bani on several occasions and each time I try to find the bani and read it but eventually stop again because it goes on and on in lenght about kings of the past and animal sacrifice etc where I lose sight of where this "gyaan" is to be found. What is it relevance among Nirmale and sikh theology? is it different from other banis in its content or ?

Edited January 16, 2010 by amardeep

[tSingh]

My last post for a while - no more time.

Chatanga - the answer to your question is simple - did prehlad, dhru, shukdev, etc from earlier yugs recognise a different truth? did they obtain a different 'gyaan' about Braham...or the same? If its different, then Braham changes. If their understanding was wrong, we wouldn't hear about them. So then what is the difference? As I wrote earlier - yug dharam. there are differences, but the advaita truth is just that, truth.

Amardeep - first section, lakshana of braham, not less important for 'nirmalas' than any other section, just so happens to be something that springs to my mind.

[HarjasDevi]

We are most certainly not Jiv Gosvamis achintyabhedaabhed as harjas kaur states purely because:

i) Braham is identified to be aatam 'anadar aatme braham n chiniaa...'

ii) aatam is defined to be satchitanand

iii) maya is moh-maya, that which veils, and is defined as the treh guna

iv) avidya and maya are described synonymously.

TSingh Ji, so sorry you do ot have more time, would be an amazing discussion to learn Nirmala perspective. Yes, there is Advait in Sikhi, based on Upanishadic teachings, which I was using quite a few Upanishadic references to illustrate. You are correct, this view is not on par with Goswami or Gaudiya Vaishnav as well. However, from what I understand of this series of debates between Swami Shanchayrachara and his purely Advaitist views, the Vaishnavs refer to as Mayavaadi, it was actually Mahaprabhu Caitanya who took the middle path saying there was neither a purely Advaita nor a purely Dvaita truth, rather there was a union of both ideas.

To illustrate, Advaita takes the position strictly that all is Brahman.

To the Vaishnav bhaktas this was abhorrent because they taught mukti was based on bhakti. The main principle teachings of Dvaitic Bhakti are Naam jap, Sankirtana, and the Mahamantar empowered by a Satguru. The perspective of Dvaita was praise of a God independent of His creation. We do in fact also see those teachings in Sikhism. Sikhism, quite independently of Vaishnav Sampradayas incorporated the Advaitic wisdom of the Upanishadic teachings of merging through self-realization with the Divine.

Achintya-Bheda-abheda, while originally postulated from the Vaishnava school is a qualified dualism and a qualified non-dualism. This position teaches that God is at once independent from His creation as well as manifest within it. And I believe this is the teaching illustrated in Gurbani. We are bhaktas, devotee's, soul-brides of a Divine Beloved whom we also call Gopala, Govinda, Antarjami. This cannot be other than originating from a Goswami perspective. Nonetheless, the unity principle of Advaitic Oneness persists as a teaching. And this is why it can never be said in Sikhi that the God is separate from His creation, as would be a purely Goswami Dvaitic conception and veering closer to a pure monothesim of Abrahamic religions.

The theism of the Eka is qualified, in that the infinity is incorporated into the Oneness. And that is why I have stated Sikhi philosophy is far closer to Achintya Bheda Abheda. To a strict Advaitist, you would not call the NAAMs of the God for liberation, nor practice bhakti and sankirtana. Because the God would not be accepted as other than your inner True Self.

Please do make time veer ji and clarify these points.

[Kaljug]

TSingh Ji, so sorry you do ot have more time, would be an amazing discussion to learn Nirmala perspective. Yes, there is Advait in Sikhi, based on Upanishadic teachings, which I was using quite a few Upanishadic references to illustrate. You are correct, this view is not on par with Goswami or Gaudiya Vaishnav as well. However, from what I understand of this series of debates between Swami Shanchayrachara and his purely Advaitist views, the Vaishnavs refer to as Mayavaadi, it was actually Mahaprabhu Caitanya who took the middle path saying there was neither a purely Advaita nor a purely Dvaita truth, rather there was a union of both ideas.

To illustrate, Advaita takes the position strictly that all is Brahman.

To the Vaishnav bhaktas this was abhorrent because they taught mukti was based on bhakti. The main principle teachings of Dvaitic Bhakti are Naam jap, Sankirtana, and the Mahamantar empowered by a Satguru. The perspective of Dvaita was praise of a God independent of His creation. We do in fact also see those teachings in Sikhism. Sikhism, quite independently of Vaishnav Sampradayas incorporated the Advaitic wisdom of the Upanishadic teachings of merging through self-realization with the Divine.

Achintya-Bheda-abheda, while originally postulated from the Vaishnava school is a qualified dualism and a qualified non-dualism. This position teaches that God is at once independent from His creation as well as manifest within it. And I believe this is the teaching illustrated in Gurbani. We are bhaktas, devotee's, soul-brides of a Divine Beloved whom we also call Gopala, Govinda, Antarjami. This cannot be other than originating from a Goswami perspective. Nonetheless, the unity principle of Advaitic Oneness persists as a teaching. And this is why it can never be said in Sikhi that the God is separate from His creation, as would be a purely Goswami Dvaitic conception and veering closer to a pure monothesim of Abrahamic religions.

The theism of the Eka is qualified, in that the infinity is incorporated into the Oneness. And that is why I have stated Sikhi philosophy is far closer to Achintya Bheda Abheda. To a strict Advaitist, you would not call the NAAMs of the God for liberation, nor practice bhakti and sankirtana. Because the God would not be accepted as other than your inner True Self.

Please do make time veer ji and clarify these points.

I would recommend Tirath Singh Nirmala's book Vivek Pradipika which does a great job explaining Gurmat Sidhant and how it differs from Vedantic schools like vishistadvaita (and also how Gurmat Sidhant is in line with advaitvaad). I found it very useful in that respect, and I feel you would too since you obviously have a desire to gain this philosophical understanding of Gurmat

You can buy it from here and see some extracts from his book here also:

http://nectpublications.com/

Do you read Gurmukhi? If so, there are some great books you may find useful.

Regards,

K.

[HarjasDevi]

The Khalsa Fauj writes:

Posted Yesterday, 09:01 PM Devi bhagat, Harjas Kaur, you are lost in maayaa because Gurbani says:

Devi Devaa Mool Hai Maayaa

Does Gurbani teach you veer ji to make judgmental statements about the qualities of others? And do you think personal attacks about someone's views are adding anything to a discussion with them? Let's take a look at Gurbani and see what is Gurmat on this subject please, without who is or is not deluded, since all here are except those with brahmgyaan. And I never make such arrogant claim because I so clearly am not. As a moorakh I am only with sincerity sharing my views and hoping also to gain greater insight from the sadhsangat ji.

ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵਾ ਮੂਲੁ ਹੈ ਮਾਇਆ ॥

Ḏevī ḏevā mūl hai mā▫i▫ā.

The source, the root, of the gods and goddesses is Maya.

~SGGS Ji ang 129

Yes and the rest of the Shabad adds:

ਆਪੇ ਕਰਤਾ ਆਪੇ ਭੁਗਤਾ ॥

Āpe karṯā āpe bẖugṯā.

He Himself is the Creator, and He Himself is the Enjoyer.

ਬੰਧਨ ਤੋੜੇ ਸਦਾ ਹੈ ਮੁਕਤਾ ॥

Banḏẖan ṯoṛe saḏā hai mukṯā.

One who breaks out of bondage is liberated forever.

ਸਦਾ ਮੁਕਤੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੈ ਸਚਾ ਆਪੇ ਅਲਖੁ ਲਖਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੪॥

Saḏā mukaṯ āpe hai sacẖā āpe alakẖ lakẖāvaṇi▫ā. ||4||

The True Lord is liberated forever. The Unseen Lord causes Himself to be seen. ||4||

ਆਪੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਆਪੇ ਛਾਇਆ ॥

Āpe mā▫i▫ā āpe cẖẖā▫i▫ā.

He Himself is Maya, and He Himself is the Illusion.

ਆਪੇ ਮੋਹੁ ਸਭੁ ਜਗਤੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥

Āpe moh sabẖ jagaṯ upā▫i▫ā.

He Himself has generated emotional attachment throughout the entire universe.

ਆਪੇ ਗੁਣਦਾਤਾ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵੈ ਆਪੇ ਆਖਿ ਸੁਣਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੫॥

Āpe guṇḏāṯā guṇ gāvai āpe ākẖ suṇāvṇi▫ā. ||5||

He Himself is the Giver of Virtue; He Himself sings the Lord's Glorious Praises. He chants them and causes them to be heard. ||5||

ਆਪੇ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਏ ਆਪੇ ॥

आपे करे कराए आपे ॥

Āpe kare karā▫e āpe.

He Himself acts, and causes others to act.

ਆਪੇ ਥਾਪਿ ਉਥਾਪੇ ਆਪੇ ॥

Āpe thāp uthāpe āpe.

He Himself establishes and disestablishes.

ਤੁਝ ਤੇ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਕਛੂ ਨ ਹੋਵੈ ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਕਾਰੈ ਲਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੬॥

Ŧujẖ ṯe bāhar kacẖẖū na hovai ṯūʼn āpe kārai lāvaṇi▫ā. ||6||

Without You, nothing can be done. You Yourself have engaged all in their tasks. ||6||

~SGGS Ji ang 129

Can you explain it? HE is HIMSELF the MAYA and the root of the Devatay. The Devatay and the Maya are none other than HIM!

And the delusive net which is cast over the sansaar is HIS Lila! And our liberation through a Satguru is ALSO His Divine design! Nothing here is disrespecting devatay or Maya jios.

[The Khalsa Fauj]

Sure sure! Will do so in the future. No time these days.

Gurbani also says:

Trai Guon Tay Prabh Bhinn.

Therefore, it is clear that your arths are wrong. We will provide proper arths in the future.

[The Khalsa Fauj]

It is possible that proper arths could be that God made maayaa. These arths will be according to Gurmat but it is best to spend lots of time and dig proper arths.

[laalsingh]

These were long posts. I might have missed it. Was there any answer to it?

Harjas Kaur Ji. that was very interesting. tell me, do you view the feminine atributes of gurbani as representing the devi. specificaly where you have quoted "The One Divine Mother conceived and gave birth to the three deities." do you see this great mother as the tiger-riding devi?

[laalsingh]

To make it more clear, divine mother( or Shakti from SGGS) and Bhagauti from Khalsa perspective are same or different?

Is Shakti or Devi as per SGGS worth worshiping?

To be more clear,

Are you meditating on Shakti or Shiva?

Please be concise.

[laalsingh]

Can you explain it? HE is HIMSELF the MAYA and the root of the Devatay. The Devatay and the Maya are none other than HIM!

He is also Pakistanis and Chinese.

You are worshiping maya (picture of tiger lady), but why not Pakistanis and Chinese?

[HarjasDevi]

He is also Pakistanis and Chinese.

You are worshiping maya (picture of tiger lady), but why not Pakistanis and Chinese?

1. Yes, HE is also abiding within every human being, every living thing, including terrible criminals and even those who we may consider national enemies, though they may be good hearted people and come from innocent families, like Pakistanis and Chinese.

2. I never said I worship Durga. I worship the All-Pervaiding and I honor all forms in which the Divine is expressed. To be honest I can't wrap my mind around exactly what God is, as Jap Ji Sahib expresses so clearly, I would never end writing trying to explain or understand it. But my Divine Beloved, absolutely do I dedicate my life, heart and mind.

3. You are forming judgments about me, what I am like, what I practice, what I believe, what I do, on the basis of assumptions. Did you ever once ask if I worship Devatay? I believe the sarguna which are lights manifesting in Sansaara are reflections of the ONE Great light. If you ever read my posts I also said we should acknowledge the Divinity pervading within each person and try to be a good person. We do namaskarum with folded hands for precisely this purpose. Not to worship the petty individual in front of us, but to honor the Paramatma.

Durga, like Raam, is just another representation of the Divine. She represents the Shastars guided by pure intention, to right wrongs, to bring justice for the poor and oppressed. No one in the world is like Durga Ma. Durga Ma is an ideal, a power, a radiance, a manifestation of something so great and so pure and so high, no human mind could ever fathom the grandeur and beauty of it.

4. Also, because I don't like the evil mischief and murderous designs of foreign intelligence agencies which jeopardize peace and prosperity, don't think I haven't criticized Indian police and justice system for evil corruptions either. Veer ji, you do me an injustice because my philosophical world-view is sanatan. And you slander what I actually do believe and practice and that is not right.

[HarjasDevi]

Thank you Kalyug Ji for the link. Yes I can read Gurmukhi but not fluently well, however I have friends who help and use dictionaries. So I'm a bit slow but can read through it no problem. I will definitely manage, I love spiritual philosophy. I also read a bit of Sanskrit, but not very good either.

[HarjasDevi]

laalsingh writes:

To make it more clear, divine mother( or Shakti from SGGS) and Bhagauti from Khalsa perspective are same or different?

From established Sanatana Dharma teaching, Divine Mother, Adi Shakti and Baguati are different perspectives and only One. Devi, for example is just a feminine face that people conceptualize in their minds and put it onto a thought of what Divinity is. We already know the Divine is nirguna is TOTALITY and beyond any kind of forms and this is the truest understanding of God that He/She is beyond conceivable human perspectives and ideas. That's why, some little Buddhist lady praying on mala to ideas of Buddhas, or some Musalman Mataji bowing reverently or entreating help for suffering problems, or some Hindu mataji lighting dhoop and placing flowers before Ganapati murthi which reciting chalisa and singing bhajans, I mean all of it has error, but if sincere, all of these prayers are reaching the ONE. We can't really trash the beliefs and practices of others as if we had exclusive rights on God. And we don't know what is the thinking or level of understanding of other people to bully them for not having exactly OUR viewpoint.

There is no mother and no Father, and yet ALL conceptions in time and conceivably fallible human comprehension exist within the Divine Totality which manifests in a perceivable ways for our benefit, to reach us in this suffering realm and lead us to Divine peace, and Divine understanding, Divine joy, to unity.

How can I make this clear? It isn't simplistic. That's why I wrote so many posts citing Advaitvaad. God is our Beloved Mataji, Pitaji, He is our Divine Friend, the closest of the closest and residing right within our very atma. He is closer than the breath we breathe and the vitality which moves every thought into existence and every beat of the heart. But my brain and the chidabhasa of my intellect perceives and interprets is only a mirror of my own true inner light, the eternal witness, the Kutastha Caitanya. So the imaginings of my brain cannot contain the fullness and totality of concept of the Divine in any such way as to proclaim: yes, this imagery, this symbolism, this detail, this painting, this concept....is God. How can I do that and be correct? On the other hand, I cannot deny that human beings conceptualize God in limited ways. We ALL do this, that's how the brain and mind WORK. It's nothing to do with faults or bad intention. Our brains just work that way. We IMAGINE what God is. We are not at a level of directly PERCEIVING the Divine.

So it is closer to the analogy of the cave. We are looking at reflections of shadows on the cave wall. We can't look directly at the Light source which produces those images. Durga Ma is an image, a reflection, all devatay are. If you understood teachings of Bhagavad-Gita in this respect, you would know that not all devatay have the same powers and brilliances. Some are reflecting more than others. So it's a wrong understanding of Hindu religion to think all devatay are the same. Bhagavan Krishna for example is not considered the same as Trimurthi. Even Gurbani describes this. Sadashiva is not considered the same as Trimurthi.

So there is already philosophical distinction which should be noted between Brahma-Shiva-Vishnu who are representing the sansaara and the gunas under the delusion of Maya. And Maha-Vishnu as the aspect of Parabrahm which is All-Pervading Light of which Guru Sahibaan are Jyoti-Jyot. Parabrahm who is beyond even limits of Brahma and without limits, unborn and undying. Sadashiva who is Pure Consciousness which rests in eternal undisturbed samadhi who is Sat-Chit-Ananda.

The Trimurthi is representing the sargun manifestations of the limited sansaar. but the Para, Maha, Sada are symbolically trying to explain that the Eka is BEYOND the limitations of Sansaar.

Likewise, Devi has many radiances. But Mahamaya is like Maha-Vishnu, Sadashiva, Parabrahm. The one able to liberate from Maya because She is that aspect understood to be beyond it.

You are asking about "the lady with the tiger." Well I guess it depends on what you understand She is. If you see Her as a reflection, a radiance of the Divine, which is the role of devatay, then no, She is not worthy of worship. Only honor for Her role as helper of the Divine.

But if you understood the teachings of the Devi Mahatmyam itself, that She as representation is symbolizing a Greatness which is a trancendental unity, and that is the ONE Great Devi who is the Divine Mother.

If you understand that She is merely a reflection of the One Great Light who is our eternal Mata Ji and Pita Ji, then yes, we worship. But to worship the image of a lady on a tiger is foolish. To worship the eternal Light behind such representations is altogether different.

Is Shakti or Devi as per SGGS worth worshiping?

Devi in Sanatana Dharma is synonymous with Divine Mother and hence, Parabrahm. I worship Divine Mother who is equally Divine Father and Divine Beloved. Shakti is only a manifestation of One Totality. Of what use is power without consciousness? To worship only in parts is limited. It's not fair to ridicule people for that belief or worship. But it is not correct. Yet, to be honest, how can we, with our limited brains really worship the worshipful Totality? We can't, and so we have Satguru. Cling to Satguruji's charan and He will carry us across, regardless the limitation of our understanding. It's not by our own efforts we attain God, it's by Guruji's grace.

To be more clear,

Are you meditating on Shakti or Shiva?

Neither. When I meditate I try to clear my mind of all false and fleeting images arising from the human imagination and try to rest in the stillness of God's peace. Yet, I recognize Shiva and Shakti are reflections of something very Holy and beyond us. The very power and consciousness that brings life to the world and to universes upon universes. We can't even think of words of praise. The highest praise we can offer is to sing words of Guruji's shabads and to jap the holy Naam.

Please be concise.

You're asking the impossible jeeo.

[Balbir Singh]

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakaal!

Dear all!

The Khalsa Fauj Jee wrote "Devi bhagat, Harjas Kaur, you are lost in maayaa because Gurbani says: Devi Devaa Mool Hai Maayaa"

Baabaa Jee Gurbani also says.

ਮਾਣਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਭਏ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਨਾਮੁ ਹਰੇ ॥

माणस ते देवते भए धिआइआ नामु हरे ॥

Māṇas ṯe ḏevṯe bẖa▫e ḏẖi▫ā▫i▫ā nām hare. SGGS 90

ਜਿਨਿ ਮਾਣਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਕੀਏ ਕਰਤ ਨ ਲਾਗੀ ਵਾਰ ॥੧॥

जिनि माणस ते देवते कीए करत न लागी वार ॥१॥

Jin māṇas ṯe ḏevṯe kī▫e karaṯ na lāgī vār. ||1|| SGGS 462

ਮਾਨਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਭਏ ਸਚੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਦੇਇ ॥

मानस ते देवते भए सची भगति जिसु देइ ॥

Mānas ṯe ḏevṯe bẖa▫e sacẖī bẖagaṯ jis ḏe▫e. SGGS 850

Please explain this. Hari Simran transforms one to Devte. Does Simran of Hari Naam leads one to Mool of Maayaa?

*****

Sikhi is not a mind's imagination and its propaganda.

Gurdev wrote Vaars of Durgaa, Chandee and their Ustati. Gurdev got wisdom and their Darshan also. Gurdev's wonderful explanations of Devee are direct experiences, I feel.

Better talk to your mind. Why are you missing Devee's Darshan and what Devee is?

Balbir Singh

[fatehsingh]

Excellent points by Harjas Kaur answering Laal Singh's good questions. Is this fixed or something? lol

[chatanga1]

Harjas Kaur Ji, another question. is the devi the complete shakti of God or like 50% or something?

[PAL 07]

balbir singh you are assuming the context of those gurbani shabads you have provided.

In Gurbani where Guru Sahib talks about man becoming dev the context is that man has forsaken bad attributes (like the asurs/rakshas) and become like the devtas who are full of good attributes.

In fact a true khalsa is much greater than devtas.

BRAHMGYANI KO KOJEH MAHESUR - The Devtas are forever looking for the darshan and seva of Mahapursh naam abysises.

Reminds me of the sakhi when shiva came to massage Sant Gurbachan Singh's legs (Gyan Kirna - Jeevan Sant Gurbachan Singh by Preetam Singh Likhari DDT)

Edited January 17, 2010 by PAL 07

[PAL 07]

The Devi is a symbolic representation of an impersonal or trans-personal force. What you call metaphysics, symbolism and myth is something that should not be seperable from everyday life. The purpose of worshipping weapons is to sanctify them, in order that they be used in harmony with the one reality. Durga or the Devi is a means by which a war and weapons can be sanctified and brought into harmony with cosmic and dharmic principles. Without this 'metaphysics and symbolism' than any war or weapon becomes a tool of the personal ego and not in harmony with surrounding environment and the cosmos. First a war if it is to be fought dharmically must be authorised from 'above' it has to be in harmony with universal principles. One way of harmonising yudh is through propitating the Devi who is assigned by Akaal for this specific duty. The Gurus never dis-believed in the Devas and Devis but emphasised that the one reality supports them and pulls their strings.

This is why it is not possible to fight a dharmic yudh in this day and age because there is no way of harmonising the weapons of mass destruction we possess to the one reality, there is no metaphysic in place that enables these weapons to be sanctified, to be dharmic.

BRILLIANT POST WELL DONE !!!!!!!!

[PAL 07]

O yeh and just another thing there is no such thing as devi having 8 arms (or anyother devtas for that matter) infact they only have two arms like us and the other arms are symbolic of the things that they are holding, notice in pictures of devi she is not carrying only weapons.

[Balbir Singh]

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakaal!

Dear all and PAL 07 Jee!

You wrote "In fact a true khalsa is much greater than devtas." and "The Devtas are forever looking for the darshan and seva of Mahapursh naam abysises."

Please provide references where true Gurus have said so. I will be thankful.

Quote "Reminds me of the sakhi when shiva came to massage Sant Gurbachan Singh's legs (Gyan Kirna - Jeevan Sant Gurbachan Singh by Preetam Singh Likhari DDT)"

In my view, true Sikhi is not based on Sakhis and the lessons from DDT.

*****

Quote "O yeh and just another thing there is no such thing as devi having 8 arms (or anyother devtas for that matter) infact they only have two arms like us and the other arms are symbolic of the things that they are holding, . . . "

Strange, Devee gave you Darshan of her two arms, the lucky person!

Balbir Singh

[shaheediyan]

Great post Harjas Kaur Bhenji. I don't think yuo need to reply to anymore questions on this topic, you would be wasting time.

This temperament suits you far better than when you let people get to you. Hope to see more of the same on other topics.

[laalsingh]

Harjas ji,

I haven't read your essays in full, but other devi bhagats on this forum seems to be very convinced. People from every background with different religious practices are fully convinced with what they are doing. Ask a Hindu why they worship cow, he will write a long essay. Ask Muslim why they eat halal cow, he will give some very convincing reasons. You and other devi bhagats (Shaktas) are somehow convinced that devi puja is as per gurmat. But I take my directions from SGGS, not long essays written by somebody.

You can't find anything in SGGS which says devi puja is worth anything. On the other hand, SGGS is full of shabads where devi (laxmi or shakti) is shown as maya (and in a bad light).