Jump to content

Bhagats Were Sikhs?


Recommended Posts

I am still in double mind.It looks to me that some Bhagats met Guru Nanak and adopted Gurmat but others if accepted that they were original were in Not in time of Guru Nanak

Saint Namdev

1270 A.D - 1350 A.D

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/namdev.html

Also Sikh history .com puts the date of Kabir ji's Demise much earlier than Guru Nanak was born

Saint Kabir 1398 A.D - 1448 A.D

Saint Kabir Das (kabir, Arabic for "great", dasa, Sanskrit for "slave" or "servant"), is widely acknowledged as one of the great personality of the Bhakti movement in North India. He was as is widely acknowledged born in Year 1398 A.D.(71 years before Guru Nanak). Kabirpanthis (followers of Kabir) say that he lived upto the age of 120 years and give date of his death as 1518, but relying on the research of Hazari Prased Trivedi, a British Scholar Charlotte Vaudenville is inclined to lend credence to these dates and has prooven that 1448 is probably the correct date of Saint Kabir's demise.

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/kabir.html

so again If Bhagat Namdev of GGS was the original Marathi Bhagat of 13th 14 th century then theory of all Bhagats meeting Guru Nanak and Becoming Sikhs could be debatable

Anyway I don't found anything wrong in this propa ganda as to Younger generation we can tell them that Bhagats were Sikhs so other religions may not be manipulate their thinking

These birth dates are based on Max Arthur Macouliff's guess over a 100 years ago. We already have puraatan Sikh and non Sikh sources stating that the Bhagats had met with Guru Nanak Dev Jee, so the birth dates given given by Macouliff can be discarded from this discussion. Even the birth dates given by Macouliff from logical stand point do not make sense if you bring in other historical factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussion 1: Bhagat Kabir and Guru Nanak.

* Met in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. (Proof: Mehervaan Janamsakhi and Gurdwara Guru Ka Bagh)

* Met in Nanak Kuan, Maghar, Uttar Pradesh. (Proof: local legend, upcoming Gurdwara in memory of meeting)

* Met in Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh. (Proof: Kabir Chabutra - place where Bhagat Kabir meditated and met Guru is preserved )

* Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's Twareek Guru Khalsa also confirms Guru jee meeting with the Bhagats.

* Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwalay also confirms this. His Gurmat vidhya lineage goes all the way back to Guru Gobind Singh Jee.

* Period during which he lived is disputed:

+ 1398 - 1448

+ 1398 - 1518

+ 1440 - 1518

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't you agree that most of the time it is only a Sikh that will say 'all religions lead to god'. Go on Facebook, you will see no Muslim leaving the religion box unfilled. But many times a Sikh will have 'all religions are good' 'i like all religions' etc. Why is that? Because we don't teach the importance of Sikhi. If all religions reached to God, what was need to create Sikhi? Bottomline is we don't discriminate and are tolerant of them, even fight for them if needed, BUT we don't accept their religious ideologies.

True, since my childhood I was also taught that all religions are the same and all lead to the same place, and the example of the Bhagats was always cited as an example of this thought. Out of ignorance I believed this and even proudly state this in order to show what a great religion Sikhi is. Then once a Muslim friend of mine said to me:

"if Sikhism believes that all religions are equal and the same, then what incentive does a Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist have to leave their religion and convert to Sikhism?"

I was left speechless to say the least. Then I started to analyze Gurbani itself and seeing tukhs like Hindu Anna, Turku Kaana and the Savaiya from Rehras Sahib "Raam, Rahim, Puraan, Kuraan, Anekh kahe mat ek na manyo" started getting me to think that does Sikhi beleive that all religions are the same? or is there more to this.

If Sikhi does not offer anything new or unique than any other religion out there, were our ancestors who left Hindu dharm for Sikh dharm, were they all fools? Surely not, they saw the uniqueness and greatness of Guru Nanak Dev Jee and realized the truth.

Edited by Mithar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhagat Namdev is mentioned in Mehervaan Janamsakhi as having met Guru Nanak in Ayodhya.

I don't know about mehervaan Janamsaakhi but we all know Janamsaakhi's are debatable

here is Bhagat Namdev's Birth date from Hindu source

Namdev was a contemporary of Jnanadev, the famous saint of Maharashtra, being his senior in age by about five years. He was born in 1269 A.D

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Sant_Namdev

-------------------------------------------------------

Are they also taking his Birth date from Macalifue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about mehervaan Janamsaakhi but we all know Janamsaakhi's are debatable

here is Bhagat Namdev's Birth date from Hindu source

Namdev was a contemporary of Jnanadev, the famous saint of Maharashtra, being his senior in age by about five years. He was born in 1269 A.D

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Sant_Namdev

-------------------------------------------------------

Are they also taking his Birth date from Macalifue?

Yes, they are taking his birth date from Macouliff. Whenever you see their reference they always refer to Macouliff because Macouliff was considered a very great historian of his time.

The greatest proof of Bhagat Namdev being of a later era is his own bani from this very famous shabad:

ਹਲੇ ਯਾਰਾਂ ਹਲੇ ਯਾਰਾਂ ਖੁਸਿਖਬਰੀ ॥ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਂਉ ਹਉ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਂਉ ॥ ਨੀਕੀ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਿਗਾਰੀ ਆਲੇ ਤੇਰਾ ਨਾਉ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਕੁਜਾ ਆਮਦ ਕੁਜਾ ਰਫਤੀ ਕੁਜਾ ਮੇ ਰਵੀ ॥ ਦ੍ਵਾਰਿਕਾ ਨਗਰੀ ਰਾਸਿ ਬੁਗੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੀ ਪਗਰੀ ਮੀਠੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਬੋਲ ॥ ਦ੍ਵਾਰਿਕਾ ਨਗਰੀ ਕਾਹੇ ਕੇ ਮਗੋਲ ॥੨॥ ਚੰਦੀ ਹਜਾਰ ਆਲਮ ਏਕਲ ਖਾਨਾਂ ॥ ਹਮ ਚਿਨੀ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ ਸਾਂਵਲੇ ਬਰਨਾਂ ॥੩॥ ਅਸਪਤਿ ਗਜਪਤਿ ਨਰਹ ਨਰਿੰਦ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਕੇ ਸ੍ਵਾਮੀ ਮੀਰ ਮੁਕੰਦ ॥੪॥੨॥੩॥

The text in bold translates to "Why are there Moghals in the holy city of Dwaarikaa? ||2||"

The mughals did not arrive in India and establish their empire until 1526 when they defeated the Afghans at the battle of Panipat. This is also the time period of when Guru Nanak Dev Jee was physically on earth in bodily form.

I would also like to point out that historically there was more than one Namdev. It is very much possible that the people confuse all the Namdevs as being the same person just as we confuse the first Baba Farid the Pathan to Baba Farid Sani.

Edited by Mithar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't reply about Rabindranath Tagore confirming Bhagat Kabirs birth in 1440.

What is the source of that Hindu site? And as I said earlier, Bachittar Natak mentions one Ramanand Bairagi before Muhammad, so why not two Bhagats with same name?

Mehervaan Janamsakhi might be debatable, but is Gurdwara Guru Ka Baagh (commemorating the meeting of the Guru and Bhagats) also false?

Macauliffe wasn't a bad historian, but we can't say that he was right on everything. We can say he 'guessed' the dates. He was quite wrong on other things about Bhagat (Bani) too, so why not here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they are taking his birth date from Macouliff. Whenever you see their reference they always refer to Macouliff because Macouliff was considered a very great historian of his time.

The greatest proof of Bhagat Namdev being of a later era is his own bani from this very famous shabad:

ਹਲੇ ਯਾਰਾਂ ਹਲੇ ਯਾਰਾਂ ਖੁਸਿਖਬਰੀ ॥ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਂਉ ਹਉ ਬਲਿ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਂਉ ॥ ਨੀਕੀ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਿਗਾਰੀ ਆਲੇ ਤੇਰਾ ਨਾਉ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਕੁਜਾ ਆਮਦ ਕੁਜਾ ਰਫਤੀ ਕੁਜਾ ਮੇ ਰਵੀ ॥ ਦ੍ਵਾਰਿਕਾ ਨਗਰੀ ਰਾਸਿ ਬੁਗੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੀ ਪਗਰੀ ਮੀਠੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਬੋਲ ॥ ਦ੍ਵਾਰਿਕਾ ਨਗਰੀ ਕਾਹੇ ਕੇ ਮਗੋਲ ॥੨॥ ਚੰਦੀ ਹਜਾਰ ਆਲਮ ਏਕਲ ਖਾਨਾਂ ॥ ਹਮ ਚਿਨੀ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ ਸਾਂਵਲੇ ਬਰਨਾਂ ॥੩॥ ਅਸਪਤਿ ਗਜਪਤਿ ਨਰਹ ਨਰਿੰਦ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਕੇ ਸ੍ਵਾਮੀ ਮੀਰ ਮੁਕੰਦ ॥੪॥੨॥੩॥

The text in bold translates to "Why are there Moghals in the holy city of Dwaarikaa? ||2||"

The mughals did not arrive in India and establish their empire until 1526 when they defeated the Afghans at the battle of Panipat. This is also the time period of when Guru Nanak Dev Jee was physically on earth in bodily form.

I would also like to point out that historically there was more than one Namdev. It is very much possible that the people confuse all the Namdevs as being the same person just as we confuse the first Baba Farid the Pathan to Baba Farid Sani.

According to interpretation of Pro Sahib singh magol word is not used for Mughals

http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/darpan2/0727.html

Also even if we accept that it is used for Mughals then again it raises other question as Gujarat was Captured by Akbar in 1573 ,so there were no Mughals in Dwarka in Guru Nanak's time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to Bhagat Namdev Jee. The following was found on the Tapoban forum:

Sri Bharadwaj says based on facts, ancient Marathi Granths such as Bhaghat Rasaimat Sindhu, Naamdev Jeevan Charitar, says Guru

Nanak Mahaprabhu bhagat Nanak Swami and Naam Dev met at Kumar Teerathâ€. That is why Bharadwaj says “Bhagat Naamdev’s time period could not have been before Guru Nanak Jeeâ€. This opinion of Bharadwaj is based on research on old granths Naam Dev Charitar. In fact Bharadwaj has even written a book Gyanashwar v Gyan Dev in which he sites many sources and comes to the conclusion that Naamdev and Guru Nanak were contemporaries.

Besides these, Meherwaans Janamsakhi mentions many of the Bhagats meeting Guru Nanak Dev Jee at Ayodhya. Infact there was even a Gurdwara built in the memory of this meeting hundreds of years ago which still exists today. The Bhagat who were present in this meeting were Nama (Naamdev), Jai Dev, Trilochan, Ravidas, Sadhana, Dhana, Banee.

We also have the oldest source of Gurbani, the Goindwal pothis saying: "ਕਬੀਰ ਨਾਮਾ ਭਗਤ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਾਬੇ ਕੇ"

Edited by Mithar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word moghul derives from Mongol who themselves were turks. So the words Turk, mongol and mughal are used interchangeably in most Indian litterature.. The turks were in India since the 12 century (in fact the Turks were preety much in control of all of the Islamic world since the 12 century and onwards) or so, so the above shabad by Bhagat Naamdev does not provide us with anything regarding the time the shabad it was written

Edited by amardeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When were Bhaghat Rasaimat Sindhu & Naamdev Jeevan Charitar written?

Also keep in mind the context. These books are not biographies but rather hagiographies,.. Many people whom Guru Nanak are said to have meet during his udasis were'nt even alive when they meet. Bahlol for instance died in 800s while he is said to have meet Guru Nanak in the janam sakhis... They are not stories of two persons meeting, but allegories of two idelogies meeting, discussing and eventually sikhism comes out as the victor (ie. gurmat triumphs over Vaishvavism, Shaivism, Islam etc)..

Edited by amardeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When were Bhaghat Rasaimat Sindhu & Naamdev Jeevan Charitar written?

Also keep in mind the context. These books are not biographies but rather hagiographies,.. Many people whom Guru Nanak are said to have meet during his udasis were'nt even alive when they meet. Bahlol for instance died in 800s while he is said to have meet Guru Nanak in the janam sakhis... They are not stories of two persons meeting, but allegories of two idelogies meeting, discussing and eventually sikhism comes out as the victor (ie. gurmat triumphs over Vaishvavism, Shaivism, Islam etc)..

Sikhs are probably the only religious group which puts more faith in western academic or orientalist scholars than their own traditional oral and biographical history of their religious leader/founders. This is what has led Sikhs to even doubt whether or not Bhai Lalo was an actual person and this is precisely what has led many orientalist Sikhs to even deny the Panja Sahib Sakhi, Banghdad and Meccay wali Sakhi, Guru jee meeting with the Bhagats and even about the traditional Sikh account of Baba Deep Singh Jee's shaheedi.

You will never see Christian doubting stories that show how great Jesus was like he walked on water, cured the sick etc.

You will never see Muslim doubting traditional stories of Mohammad like him splitting the moon.

You will never see Hindus doubting the existence of a man with a elephant head or monkey man.

These are all far out mythical claims made by members of the Christian, Islamic and Hindu faiths. Yet Guru Nanak Dev Jee meeting with the Bhagats and giving them Naam is not even a miraculous story and is even supported by puraatan Sikh and nonSikh sources and that show the greatness of their Guru, yet you will see Sikhs showing the most opposition to these events.

Wah Jee Wah!

Edited by Mithar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed Sikhs are the worst enemies of Sikhi themselves. Yes Janamsakhis might be wrong because they want to show Sikhi as superior, but what will Marathi Granths gain by lying about Bhagat Naamdev meeting Guru Nanak?

Janamsakhis are hagiographical accounts but not completely wrong. But can we discard all of them as being completely false? We could use Mehervaan Janamsakhi to show that Guru Nanak Ji did have long hair, this would be a reply to all the people saying that Guru Nanak didn't keep Kes.

I know we shouldn't believe in things blindly, but here you got many proofs. I will still try to get more information on the Marathi granths.

You did not reply about Bhagat Kabir either.

We can see how the Gurus influenced the Bhagats. Words such as ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ and ਅਨਹਦ ਸਬਦ are used by Bhagat Naamdev and Bhagat Kabir besides the Gurus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed Sikhs are the worst enemies of Sikhi themselves. Yes Janamsakhis might be wrong because they want to show Sikhi as superior, but what will Marathi Granths gain by lying about Bhagat Naamdev meeting Guru Nanak?

Janamsakhis are hagiographical accounts but not completely wrong. But can we discard all of them as being completely false? We could use Mehervaan Janamsakhi to show that Guru Nanak Ji did have long hair, this would be a reply to all the people saying that Guru Nanak didn't keep Kes.

I know we shouldn't believe in things blindly, but here you got many proofs. I will still try to get more information on the Marathi granths.

The thing about Janam Sakhis is that maybe 10% may be incorrect, but that does not mean we should discard the rest of the 90%. That would amount to throwing the baby along with the bath water. Sikhs will be the first ones to argue fanatically against anything that shows or proves the greatness of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee or Sikhi over the rest. We like to claim, Sabb te vadda Satgur Nanak(SatGuru Nanak is the Greatest!), but in reality the Sikh Qaum does not beleive in this statement.

ਇਸੇ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਤਾਂ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਦਾ ਇਨਾ ਬੇੜਾ ਗਰਕਿਆ ਹੈ| ਕਿਨੀ ਅਫਸੋਸ ਵਾਲੀ ਗੱਲ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਲਿਖੇ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਤੇ ਯਕੀਨ ਨਹੀਂ, ਮਗਰ ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਮਗ਼ਰਿਬ (west) ਤੋਂ ਮੁਤਾਸਿਰ ਹੋਇਆ ਫੋਕਾ ਵਿਦਵਾਨ ਕੁਝ ਕਹੈ ਦਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਅਸੀਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਰਚੇ ਹੋਏ ਇਤਿਹਾਸਿਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੀਨੇ ਬਸੀਨੇ ਤੋਂ ਚਲੀ ਆ ਰਹੀ ਪਰੰਪਰਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਰੱਦ ਕਰ ਦੇਂਦੇ ਹਾਂ| ਸਾਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਤੇ ਬਹਤ ਅਫਸੋਸ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ|

Edited by Mithar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bhaa ji not only is questioning being done, btu also editing ! this is blasphemy, various jathebandhis edit the bani as according to their hindu phobic nature and thinking.

the gutke are being edited, i have a old sukhmani sahib gutka and a certain asatpadi was entirely wiped out in a new singh sabha one !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed Sikhs are the worst enemies of Sikhi themselves.

The constant focus on doing Shabad Vichaar (both mystically but also interlectually) in Gurbani and the vaars is what distinguishes Sikhi from other religions as we are allowed and encouraged to study our scriptures and litterature in ways other religions are not. This does not mean that we should discard anything but also it means we should'n believe in everything either.

Sikhi, unlike the various strands of Hinduism, is a religion that can be placed in history and time and therefore we ought to use secular litterature etc. to find out the dates of when the bhagats lived in order to asses whether a meeting is possible at all.

And in what context does it say that Guru Nanak meet Naamdev? If i remember correct, the Bala Janam Sakhi mentions a meeting between Kabir and Guru Nanak, however it is in the sense that Guru Nanak is the chela of Baba Kabir, and not the other way around. Is Naamdev or Guru Nanak the superior Guru in these Marathi Granths?

Edited by amardeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, but we shouldn't ignore evidences either just because they seem to challenge beliefs we've had since childhood (or even decades/centuries for that matter).

Bala Janamsakhi is written by Hindalias to denigrade Guru Nanak Ji. It says Guru Nanak was lower in spirituality than Bhagat Kabir and especially their leader Hindal. So if you know history of the source and you see that it is not in favor of Guru Nanak, you can safely assume that the portion you are referring to is their intended damage to Guru Nanaks Nirmal Panth.

I haven't read those Marathi granths, I will try to see if I can get them from somewhere. But these Granths are most likely about Naamdev (check the title 'Naamdev Jeevan Charitar' - most probably a biography of Bhagat Naamdev). I don't think they will be saying that Bhagat Ji became a Sikh of Guru Ji though.

Edited by SikhKhoj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...