Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji Part 2 - ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ

[BhagatSingh]

In this 'Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji' series, I want to highlight shabads, poems from Guru Granth Sahib, that have been translated incorrectly, which give the reader the wrong impression about the belief system of the author or about the message in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

When I read the English translation of Guru Granth Sahib ji. I notice that there are certain mistakes embedded in these translations that are over-looked by most sikhs, who rely on them to make out the meaning of the shabad. These incorrect beliefs then become internalized and lead to incorrect understanding. The incorrect understanding is then propagated in real life and in online forums, it seeps into discussions and the mindset.

 

One of the oft-quoted shabads of Nam Dev ji has him slowly paint a scholar into a corner, only to give him a lesson.

Each time Nam Dev ji questions him, the scholar changes his religion. Bhagat Namdev ji notices this pattern a lot in native Indians, Hindus. There is a buffet of spiritual religious traditions laid out in front of them, and they take a little here and there. They wander through multiple Indian faiths, without learning anything.

Namdev ji says, that unlike the Muslims who are strict to their faith, the Hindus are not strict on one faith. They keep tasting here and there on the buffet of faiths and this leads to their detriment. 

Nam Dev ji says it is good to stick to one religion and to practice its teachings. However this is only one eye.

He adds that the one who has gyan is better than the one who is simply following a religion. The practical, the experiential knowledge of Atma, pure consciousness, is the second eye and the one who has both eyes is the most exalted in Namdev ji's view.

 

 

He sets a high bar for Hindus and Muslims to strive for gyan and be strict to the faith they have chosen. However this shabad is twisted into something else, as told by Amardeep below. It is used to put down Hindus and Muslims, and it becomes a practice of Ahankar rather than something to strive for.

Please do one on the "hindu anna turk kana" - or as it goes today ""hindu anna turk kana sikh siana".

 

 

There's a lot of misinformation about Bani of Nam Dev ji in Guru Granth Sahib. His words are twisted to mean things that he is simply not saying.

The botched translation we will be looking at today is not itself botched but severely incomplete. So the meaning that is taken from the incomplete translation is often wrong.

In this thread, we will delve into Bhagat Nam Dev ji's words and uncover the correct meaning.

 

ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਗੋਂਡ ॥
बिलावलु गोंड ॥
Bilāval gond.
Raag Bilaval Gond

ਆਜੁ ਨਾਮੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਮੂਰਖ ਕੋ ਸਮਝਾਊ ਰੇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
आजु नामे बीठलु देखिआ मूरख को समझाऊ रे ॥ रहाउ ॥
Āj nāme bīṯẖal ḏekẖi▫ā mūrakẖ ko samjẖā▫ū re. Rahā▫o.
Today, I, Namay, saw Vitthala, (another name of omni-present pure consciousness), and I will explain to those who haven't seen him.

Bhagat Nam Dev ji converses with an ignorant scholar.
ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ਲੋਧੇ ਕਾ ਖੇਤੁ ਖਾਤੀ ਥੀ ॥ ਲੈ ਕਰਿ ਠੇਗਾ ਟਗਰੀ ਤੋਰੀ ਲਾਂਗਤ ਲਾਂਗਤ ਜਾਤੀ ਥੀ ॥੧॥
पांडे तुमरी गाइत्री लोधे का खेतु खाती थी ॥ लै करि ठेगा टगरी तोरी लांगत लांगत जाती थी ॥१॥
Pāʼnde ṯumrī gā▫iṯarī loḏẖe kā kẖeṯ kẖāṯī thī. Lai kar ṯẖegā tagrī ṯorī lāʼngaṯ lāʼngaṯ jāṯī thī. ||1||
Panday, I saw your Gayatri (another name of omni-present pure consciousness), grazing in the fields.

Gayatri is a divine mantar that connects the chanter to the pure consciousness, thus it eats up negative actions, like a cow grazes a field.

Since Gayatri took away all suffering, like a mother who cuddles her child, she was later personified as a Mother Goddess.

Gayatri was also associated with the form of a cow, as the cow was a symbol for motherhood.

So the farmer, thinking, Gayatri was a stray cow, beat her and broke her leg until she limped away.

 

The scholar had no experiential knowledge of Gayatri, he did not really understand Gayatri to be able to defend her from Nam Devji criticism. So upon hearing this caricature of Gayatri, the Hindu scholar says he worships Mahadev, the God of Gods.

Surely Namdev ji couldn't caricature Mahadev?

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਧਉਲੇ ਬਲਦ ਚੜਿਆ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਮੋਦੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਖਾਣਾ ਪਾਕਾ ਵਾ ਕਾ ਲੜਕਾ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਥਾ ॥੨॥
पांडे तुमरा महादेउ धउले बलद चड़िआ आवतु देखिआ था ॥ मोदी के घर खाणा पाका वा का लड़का मारिआ था ॥२॥
Pāʼnde ṯumrā mahāḏe▫o ḏẖa▫ule balaḏ cẖaṛi▫ā āvaṯ ḏekẖi▫ā thā. Moḏī ke gẖar kẖāṇā pākā vā kā laṛkā māri▫ā thā. ||2||
Panday, I saw your Mahadev (another name of omni-present pure consciousness), who was riding the bull.

In the Parbati's house, the food was ready. She was going to take a bath. To guard her door, she took the turmeric paste applied on her body, and made a man to guard her.

Meaning - Mother Nature created man out of matter.

Then Mahadev came to the house to meet his wife. However this created man, did not recognize Mahadev and would not let him enter the home.

Meaning - Pure Consciousness as Divine Father Spirit came to meet Mother Nature. Man was ignorant of his Divine Father, he could not recognize the Divine and would not let him enter his mind, due to his ignorance, wandering mind.

Mahadev cut off his head. And later replaced with the head of an elephant, giving birth to Ganesh.

Meaning - so the Diving Father destroyed man's ignorance and gave him enlightenment, transforming him into a transcendent being.
 

The scholar had no knowledge of the deeper meanings to the stories of Mahadev. He had no actual faith in Mahadev. He thought who would kill a person for no reason? So then he says that he worships Ram.

 

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਰਾਵਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਸਰਬਰ ਹੋਈ ਘਰ ਕੀ ਜੋਇ ਗਵਾਈ ਥੀ ॥੩॥
पांडे तुमरा रामचंदु सो भी आवतु देखिआ था ॥ रावन सेती सरबर होई घर की जोइ गवाई थी ॥३॥
Pāʼnde ṯumrā rāmcẖanḏ so bẖī āvaṯ ḏekẖi▫ā thā. Rāvan seṯī sarbar ho▫ī gẖar kī jo▫e gavā▫ī thī. ||3||
Panday, I saw your Ram Chandra (another name of omni-present pure consciousness). His wife was kidnapped by Ravan.

The scholar had no faith in Ram either; he could respond to this. So upon hearing this, the scholar realizes he doesn't worship any of them. He never had faith to begin with. He had no experiential knowledge, no deeper knowledge about the stories he read and analyzed.

 

Bhagat Nam Dev ji then says

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥
हिंदू अंन्हा तुरकू काणा ॥ दुहां ते गिआनी सिआणा ॥
Hinḏū anĥā ṯurkū kāṇā. Ḏuhāʼn ṯe gi▫ānī si▫āṇā.
Hindu has no eyes but Muslim has at least one. However Enlightened being is the most intelligent.

This use of the word ਸਿਆਣਾ  and previous discussion gives context to what ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ really means

 

What eyes, or lack thereof, is Bhagat NamDev ji talking about?

The Hindu does not have a religion, and he does not understand the deeper meaning. So the Hindu has 0 eyes.

The Muslim at least has his religion however he does not have deeper knowledge. So the Muslim as 1 eye.

However the Enlightened being, also practices religion and has deeper knowledge, that he has acquired through spiritual practice. So the enlightened one has both eyes.

 

ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥ Within Hindus and Muslims, those who develop deep knowledge are the most exalted.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਈ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਨ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
हिंदू पूजै देहुरा मुसलमाणु मसीति ॥ नामे सोई सेविआ जह देहुरा न मसीति ॥४॥३॥७॥
Hinḏū pūjai ḏehurā musalmāṇ masīṯ. Nāme so▫ī sevi▫ā jah ḏehurā na masīṯ. ||4||3||7||
The Hindu worships the temple and the Muslim worships the mosque. Namay worships that where there is no temple nor mosque, meaning turiya avastha, state of pure consciousness.

 

Isn't Nam Dev ji criticizing Hindus? Isn't he slandering their religions?

Remember Namdev ji is criticizing his own people, Hindus are his own people. He has fought for them and he has represented them in front of kings. He wants to see them improve. He wants Hindus to follow a particular faith and stick to it. He wants his own followers to stick to the path that he has given them. In the previous shabad, he tells his followers to worship Ram, as instructed by the Bhagwad Gita. ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਗਹੁ ਮੀਤਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਇਉ ਕਹੈ ਗੀਤਾ ॥੫॥੨॥੬॥

So Namdev ji is not trying to slander any religions here. He is not putting down the Gaytri, Mahadev, Ram, etc, as it is often interpreted by so-called "scholars". Instead, he is trying to paint the ignorant scholar into a corner and get him to admit that he is not really worshiping anybody so that by recognizing what he lacks, he may improve himself in that area. Nam Dev ji is trying to get him to adopt a certain path and do spiritual practice to gain deeper insight.

 

Criticizing his own people? Where has Namdev ji represented Hindus?

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/17024-muslim-sultan-tries-to-kill-namdev-ji-for-worshipping-vishnu-ji-translation/

Edited September 9, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[paapiman]

Each time Nam Dev ji questions him, the scholar changes his religion. Bhagat Namdev ji notices this pattern a lot in native Indians, Hindus. There is a buffet of spiritual religious traditions laid out in front of them, and they take a little here and there. They wander through multiple Indian faiths, without learning anything.

 

Bro, first of all, you did a great job in explaining the deeper meanings of the story associated with Sri Gayetri jee and Mata Parbatee jee. Thanks for taking time and educating fools like me.

Gurparsaad, let's expand on the knowledge.

Uthanka: Paaji, what is your source for the uthanka? In Taksaals, the uthanka of the shabad clearly implies the the shabad above, was recited to different people, not the same person.

-  One Pandit claimed that Sun's Gayetri mantar is above God's name.

-  Another person claimed that the worship of Shivjee is the best

-  Another person claimed that the worship of Sri Ram Chander jee is the best

Bhagat Baba Namdev jee Maharaaj proves to all of them that God's worship, is above their respective claims.

More issues will be discussed, but let's do them one at a time, in order to avoid confusion. 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited September 15, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

One of the oft-quoted shabads of Nam Dev ji has him slowly paint a scholar into a corner, only to give him a lesson.

Each time Nam Dev ji questions him, the scholar changes his religion. Bhagat Namdev ji notices this pattern a lot in native Indians, Hindus. There is a buffet of spiritual religious traditions laid out in front of them, and they take a little here and there. They wander through multiple Indian faiths, without learning anything.

 

Bhagat Singh jee - Can you please state the source of the above uthanka?

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

On 2015-09-13, 10:30:28, paapiman said:

Bro, first of all, you did a great job in explaining the deeper meanings of the story associated with Sri Gayetri jee and Mata Parbatee jee. Thanks for taking time and educating fools like me.

Gurparsaad, let's expand on the knowledge.Uthanka: Paaji, what is your source for the uthanka? 

Sorry bro I've been gone for a while. My source is primarily Farid Kote Wala Teeka but I also have knowledge of other faiths, so from that I get more clarity into what's happening.

 

Quote

 

 

In Taksaals, the uthanka of the shabad clearly implies the the shabad above, was recited to different people, not the same person.

-  One Pandit claimed that Sun's Gayetri mantar is above God's name.

-  Another person claimed that the worship of Shivjee is the best

-  Another person claimed that the worship of Sri Ram Chander jee is the best

Bhagat Baba Namdev jee Maharaaj proves to all of them that God's worship, is above their respective claims.

 

That cannot be right because -
1. Gaytri, Shiv ji and Ram ji are three different names of God in three different religions. So if he is talking to 3 different pandits then each pandit is worshipping God and is strict to his faith.

If that's the case then the rest of the shabad would make no sense if he is going to different people. If he is talking to 3 pandits who are strict to their faith then his conclusion should be "hindu te turk kana"

His observation is that Hindus are not strict to one path. They keep switching paths. However Muslims are strict to one path, and this is why Muslims have 1 eye hence "hindu anna turk kana"
 

2. Bhagat Nam Dev ji worships  Shri Ram Chandar ji (and Krishan ji and Vishnu ji, all as one being) - In the previous shabad, he tells his followers to worship Ram, as instructed by the Bhagwad Gita. ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਗਹੁ ਮੀਤਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਇਉ ਕਹੈ ਗੀਤਾ ॥੫॥੨॥੬॥

Nam Dev ji advocates for meditation of ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮ  and ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ. if there are 3 different pandits as you claim then he should have no problem with the third one.

So when you take 1 and 2 into account, you'll see it cannot be three different pandits. It's one pandit who is not strict on one religion.

[paapiman]

3 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

Sorry bro I've been gone for a while. My source is primarily Farid Kote Wala Teeka but I also have knowledge of other faiths, so from that I get more clarity into what's happening.

Where have you been Gurmukho? I think it's been long time you posted anything. Naraj tay nahi ho gaye?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

1 minute ago, paapiman said:

Where have you been Gurmukho? I think it's been long time you posted anything. Naraj tay nahi ho gaye?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Aisi koi gal nahi bhaji. I was on vacation. Since these discussions don't have an end, I thought I'd take a break from the forum and focus on having a blast during the vacation.

[paapiman]

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

That cannot be right because -
1. Gaytri, Shiv ji and Ram ji are three different names of God in three different religions. So if he is talking to 3 different pandits then each pandit is worshipping God and is strict to his faith.

If that's the case then the rest of the shabad would make no sense if he is going to different people. If he is talking to 3 pandits who are strict to their faith then his conclusion should be "hindu te turk kana"

Bro, the terms "Shiv" and "Raam" are the names of Almighty God. Sri Mahadev jee (a demi-God) and Sri Ram Chandar jee (a demi-God) also share the same names. Some people worship them as the Almighty God, which is not true.

From Amir Bhandar teeka, one can deduce that the above shabad was recited by Bhagat jee in a Sabha (gathering). Please have a look below.

Note: Some shabads have multiple uthankas. Therefore, the uthanka which you provided might also be true.

 

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

2 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, the terms "Shiv" and "Raam" are the names of Almighty God. Sri Mahadev jee (a demi-God) and Sri Ram Chandar jee (a demi-God) also share the same names.

Mahadev ji and Ram Chandra ji are also names of almighty God, these are two different religions. Ram Chandra ji took avtar that is why Almighty is known as Ram.

The way people say Dhan Guru Nanak tuhi nirankar. That's how Ram Chandra ji is worshipped as well, he is nirankar. Bhagat Nam Dev ji says - ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥ The "Son of Dashrath" is my King, Ram Chandra, and I drink his essence, his amrit.

Don't get confused.

 

14 minutes ago, paapiman said:

From Amir Bhandar teeka, one can deduce that the above shabad was recited by Bhagat jee in a Sabha (gathering).

Except Amir Bhandar is wrong here.

 

[paapiman]

55 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

The way people say Dhan Guru Nanak tuhi nirankar. That's how Ram Chandra ji is worshipped as well, he is nirankar. Bhagat Nam Dev ji says - ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥ The "Son of Dashrath" is my King, Ram Chandra, and I drink his essence, his amrit.

Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj is the incarnation of the Almighty God, unlike Sri Ram Chandar jee, who is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Therefore, he is not Nirankaar.

 

ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥

 

One of the Arths of the above verse is as follows.

 

 

 

Who is the king of Sri Ram Chandar jee -- Akal Purakh Waheguru

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥

In the above verse, Bhagat jee is stating that Naam (tat amrit ras) is my Raja Ram Chandar jee (who was son of Raja Dasrath jee). He is implying that Naam (of the Almighty God) is above Raja Ram Chandar jee.

Another interesting point (please see below), which will make sense, if one reads the entire shabad.

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by paapiman

[BhagatSingh]

16 hours ago, paapiman said:

Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj is the incarnation of the Almighty God, unlike Sri Ram Chandar jee, who is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Therefore, he is not Nirankaar.

Wrong.

1. Read Valmiki's Ramayan

2. ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ ਬਾਵਨ ਭਾਇਓ ॥
In Satyug, You (Vishnu) enjoyed deceiving and liberating King Bali in the Vaman avtar.

ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਘੁਵੰਸੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥
In Treta, You loved being called King Ram, of the Raghu Dynasty.

ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ਕੰਸੁ ਕਿਰਤਾਰਥੁ ਕੀਓ ॥
In Dwapar, You, Krishan Murara, killed Kans and saved everyone.

ਉਗ੍ਰਸੈਣ ਕਉ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਭੈ ਭਗਤਹ ਜਨ ਦੀਓ ॥
You granted Kingship to Ugrasain and elevated your devotees.

ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰੁ ਅੰਗਦੁ ਅਮਰੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥
In Kaliyug, You came as Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Angad Dev and Guru Amar Das.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਬਿਚਲੁ ਅਟਲੁ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਓ ॥੭॥
The rule of Guru Sahibs is unchanging, unmovable, by His very command.

[BhagatSingh]

17 hours ago, paapiman said:

One of the Arths of the above verse is as follows.

 

These arth are wrong as well. I am starting to think you should put away Amir Bhandar, as it is not helpful at all.

This pankti is quite simple.
ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥
The "Son of Dashrath" is my King, Ram Chandra, and I drink his essence, his amrit.

ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ
Son of King Dashrath

ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ
My king

ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ
is Ram Chandra


Shri Ram belonged to the Raghu  ਰਘੁ dynasty. hence he is known as
ਰਘੁਰਾਇ
ਰਘੁਪਤਿ
ਰਘੁਨਾਥ
etc
Bhagat Ravidas ji - ਬਿਨੁ ਰਘੁਨਾਥ ਸਰਨਿ ਕਾ ਕੀ ਲੀਜੈ
and
ਤੁਮ ਸਰਨਾਗਤਿ ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦ ਕਹਿ ਰਵਿਦਾਸ ਚਮਾਰਾ ॥੫॥੬॥
I come to your sanctuary Raja Ram Chand, says Ravidas chamaar.

[paapiman]

5 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

These arth are wrong as well. I am starting to think you should put away Amir Bhandar, as it is not helpful at all.
 

Bhai saab jee, Amir Bhandar was written by Gyani Kirpal Singh jee, best student of Vidya Martand Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Amir Singh jee Khalsa Sato ki Gali wale. These personalities were Jathedars of Amritsari Taksal. These arths are very close (if not same) to the arths taught by Satguru jee (Tenth Master) to the Sikhs.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, paapiman said:

Bhai saab jee, Amir Bhandar was written by Gyani Kirpal Singh jee, best student of Vidya Martand Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Amir Singh jee Khalsa Sato ki Gali wale. These personalities were Jathedars of Amritsari Taksal. These arths are very close (if not same) to the arths taught by Satguru jee (Tenth Master) to the Sikhs.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Good to know.

But he is still wrong. ;)

Look Amir Bhandar may be really good and it maybe good for your spiritual apetite but so far the shabads I am mentioning in my botched translations serieis, are those shabads which most teekas like Prof sahib Singh teeka, will get wrong, in fact most sikh scholars and missionaries will get wrong as well.

They are only human, they are bound to make mistakes no matter how well trained or knowledgeable they are.

I am making these threads to correct those mistakes. Do not think that I am attacking Amir Bhandar. Amir Bhandar is probably a great teeka. And I am not saying you should abandon it completely because it is useful in understanding other parts of Guru Granth Sahib.

When I say it gets something wrong and that you should put it aside for a while, what I am saying is that you have to trust me and go beyond the teekas and do some research on your own.

[chatanga1]

20 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

These arth are wrong as well. I am starting to think you should put away Amir Bhandar, as it is not helpful at all.

Bhagat SIngh Ji, that's assuming you are correct. It's a pretty big ask to get someone to put away a teeka like Amir Bhandar.

Especially from someone who thinks it's ok for a girl to marry a dog.

Edited November 30, 2015 by chatanga1

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Bhagat SIngh Ji, that's assuming you are correct. It's a pretty big ask to get someone to put away a teeka like Amir Bhandar.

Especially from someone who thinks it's ok for a girl to marry a dog.

Hardly. It would be a big upgrade to use Farid Kote Teeka.

[paapiman]

Most likely, Amir Bhandar teeka goes into more depth than Fareedkot wala teeka. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Lucky]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2015‎ ‎12‎:‎11‎:‎33‎, BhagatSingh said:

What eyes, or lack thereof, is Bhagat NamDev ji talking about?

The Hindu does not have a religion, and he does not understand the deeper meaning. So the Hindu has 0 eyes.

The Muslim at least has his religion however he does not have deeper knowledge. So the Muslim as 1 eye.

However the Enlightened being, also practices religion and has deeper knowledge, that he has acquired through spiritual practice. So the enlightened one has both eyes.

 

ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥ Within Hindus and Muslims, those who develop deep knowledge are the most exalted.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਈ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਨ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
हिंदू पूजै देहुरा मुसलमाणु मसीति ॥ नामे सोई सेविआ जह देहुरा न मसीति ॥४॥३॥७॥
Hinḏū pūjai ḏehurā musalmāṇ masīṯ. Nāme so▫ī sevi▫ā jah ḏehurā na masīṯ. ||4||3||7||
The Hindu worships the temple and the Muslim worships the mosque. Namay worships that where there is no temple nor mosque, meaning turiya avastha, state of pure consciousness.

Isn't Nam Dev ji criticizing Hindus? Isn't he slandering their religions?

Remember Namdev ji is criticizing his own people, Hindus are his own people. He has fought for them and he has represented them in front of kings. He wants to see them improve. He wants Hindus to follow a particular faith and stick to it. He wants his own followers to stick to the path that he has given them. In the previous shabad, he tells his followers to worship Ram, as instructed by the Bhagwad Gita. ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਗਹੁ ਮੀਤਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਇਉ ਕਹੈ ਗੀਤਾ ॥੫॥੨॥੬॥

So Namdev ji is not trying to slander any religions here. He is not putting down the Gaytri, Mahadev, Ram, etc, as it is often interpreted by so-called "scholars". Instead, he is trying to paint the ignorant scholar into a corner and get him to admit that he is not really worshiping anybody so that by recognizing what he lacks, he may improve himself in that area. Nam Dev ji is trying to get him to adopt a certain path and do spiritual practice to gain deeper insight.

You got it...good work!

 

[BhagatSingh]

23 hours ago, paapiman said:

Most likely, Amir Bhandar teeka goes into more depth than Fareedkot wala teeka. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Is it too much to ask you to do your own analysis?

 

23 hours ago, Lucky said:

You got it...good work!

*high five*

[Guest]

Gurfateh,

I have attached a audio file of Katha that Giani Sher Singh Ji has done, specifically the pangtis that are being discussed.

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਧਉਲੇ ਬਲਦ ਚੜਿਆ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਮੋਦੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਖਾਣਾ ਪਾਕਾ ਵਾ ਕਾ ਲੜਕਾ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਥਾ ॥੨॥

and

ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥

 

Giani Sher Singh .m4a

 

Giani Sher Singh .m4a

[paapiman]

11 hours ago, Guest said:

Gurfateh,

I have attached a audio file of Katha that Giani Sher Singh Ji has done, specifically the pangtis that are being discussed.

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਧਉਲੇ ਬਲਦ ਚੜਿਆ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਮੋਦੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਖਾਣਾ ਪਾਕਾ ਵਾ ਕਾ ਲੜਕਾ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਥਾ ॥੨॥

and

ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥

 

Giani Sher Singh .m4a

 

Giani Sher Singh .m4a

Thanks a lot guest jee.

Gyani jee has also proved that Sri Ram Chandar jee (incarnation of a demi-God) took power from Akal Purakh Waheguru (Almighty God), who pervades everywhere. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

Sri Chaupai Sahib jee

Kaal purakh kee dehm(i) kotik bisan mahays| kot(i) indr brahmaa kithay rav sas(i) kror jalays

In the Timeless God's formless body, reside hundreds of millions of Vishnus and Shivas. There are hundreds of millions of heavens, Brahmas, suns, moons and other deities.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

17 hours ago, Guest said:

Gurfateh,

I have attached a audio file of Katha that Giani Sher Singh Ji has done, specifically the pangtis that are being discussed.

Fateh Singh,
I have heard Sher Singh ji katha before and he is quite good. And he makes a lot of good points but he is wrong here.

To clarify, I am not trying to put anyone down by saying they are wrong. Amir Bhandar and katha by Sher Singh ji is good when it comes to other matters. But when it comes to understanding this topic, they are missing certain information and experiential knowledge, that leads them to the wrong conclusions.

[BhagatSingh]

5 hours ago, paapiman said:

Gyani jee has also proved that Sri Ram Chandar jee (incarnation of a demi-God) took power from Akal Purakh Waheguru (Almighty God), who pervades everywhere.

Ram ji pervades everywhere.
"Vishnu" is the name of that being "one who resides everywhere".
Ram ji is an avtaar of Vishnu ji - meaning Ram ji resides everywhere.

Bro, if you have any doubt about this you can read just one of several texts that will clear your doubts -
Vishnu Puran

Bhagawad Puran

Valmiki Ramayan

Vishnu Sahasarnama

While Guru Amar Das ji was lying on this deathbed, about to be assimilated into the supreme jot, he said to his sikhs -
ਕੇਸੋ ਗੋਪਾਲ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਸਦਿਅਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਕਥਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਣੁ ਜੀਉ ॥
Call Pandit Keshav Gopal, and ask him to read Hari's Puran and do the katha.

So don't be shy when you are reading these Puran. These are the same books Guru Amar Das ji is listening to.

And you can see this belief system here -

ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ ਬਾਵਨ ਭਾਇਓ ॥
In Satyug, You (Vishnu, the one who resides everywhere) enjoyed deceiving and liberating King Bali in the Vaman avtar.

Vaman Avtar of Vishnu ji is the avtar - physical representation of the the being who resides everywhere that is "Vishnu".

Vishnu means one who resides everywhere. And it's not simply a coincidence that he happens to have that name. If you read any of the texts above, the people who are talking about Vishnu, are talking about the Supreme Being who resides everywhere.

Read the story of Vaman avtaar -

(ਬਾਵਨ) Vaman asks for a donation from (ਬਲਿ) King Bali. He is a dwarf, who asks for 3 steps of land. King Bali grants him that. Then Vaman shows his real form, he expands so large that he spans everything! Realizing that it is Vishnu, King Bali becomes enlightened and bows down in humility. Upon seeing Vishnu, Bali bows down to become one with Vishnu; atma returns to parmatma.

ਛਲਿਓ - the deception or the trick that Vishnu ji plays on King Bali is that he appears as small but in reality he is this entity that is the entire cosmos itself. He is everything.

When Bali realizes this, he has what is called "darshan", an awakening, a realization of truth.

Note - King Bali was Prahlaad's (Vishnu bhagat) grandson.

Now read the rest of the shabad.

In Guru Granth Sahib, Kavi Kal ji says -

ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ ਬਾਵਨ ਭਾਇਓ ॥
In Satyug, You (Vishnu, the one who resides everywhere) enjoyed deceiving and liberating King Bali in the Vaman avtar.

ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਘੁਵੰਸੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥
In Treta, You loved being called King Ram, of the Raghu Dynasty.

ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ਕੰਸੁ ਕਿਰਤਾਰਥੁ ਕੀਓ ॥
In Dwapar, You, Krishan Murara, killed Kans and saved everyone.

ਉਗ੍ਰਸੈਣ ਕਉ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਭੈ ਭਗਤਹ ਜਨ ਦੀਓ ॥
You granted Kingship to Ugrasain and elevated your devotees.

ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰੁ ਅੰਗਦੁ ਅਮਰੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥
In Kaliyug, You came as Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Angad Dev and Guru Amar Das.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਬਿਚਲੁ ਅਟਲੁ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਓ ॥੭॥
The rule of Guru Sahibs is unchanging, unmovable, by His very command.

Whether you agree with him or not, in this shabad, Kavi Kal ji is saying that Guru Sahibs are avtaars or Vishnu ji.

The idea of "Dhan Guru Nanak, Tuhi Nirankar" comes from this shabad by Kavi Kal ji.
 

Quote

Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj is the incarnation of the Almighty God, unlike Sri Ram Chandar jee, who is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Therefore, he is not Nirankaar.

Now do you get why this sentence is nonsense?
Poet Kal states that Vishnu/nirankar, incarnates as Vaman, then incarnates as Ram, then incarnates as Krishan then incarnates as Nanak.

[paapiman]

Sri Vishnu jee is a demi-God, who physically exists. People started worshiping him, as they thought he was the mightiest entity that existed (obviously they were wrong). The name "Vishnu" or "Bishan" can also refer to the Almighty Lord, Waheguru. It depends on the context. Is it being used for the Almighty Waheguru or a mere demi-God?

If a person's name is Nanak, does that mean he is equal to or on par with Sri Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj? This is so rudimentary to understand.

 

Bhul chuk maaf