What does the word Ram refers to in Guru Granth Sahib??

[newAgeSikh]

My theory says it refers to Hindu God Ram and the verses or Shabad containing it, are Bani of Bhagats like Kabir.

But in translation it alwyas refers to as 'Lord'.

Any Explanation, Why it is so?

Since it makes it difficult to understand what Bani comes from Bhagats and what comes from Guru's.

Why Guru's will use Ram to refer 'Lord'. they should have used Nanak.

[newAgeSikh]

Checkout the example:

khu nwnk sunu ry mnw ismrq kwih n rwmu

kaho naanak sun ray manaa simrat kaahi na raam

[newAgeSikh]

While check this example:

khu nwnk sunu ry mnw so mUriq Bgvwn

kaho naanak sun ray manaa so moorat bhagvaan

In this the word Bhagvaan is used instead of Ram. While the translation of the two words are 'image of God' and 'Lord' respectively.

But it shows inconsistency in writting or writting of two different Guru's or Bhagats attributed in 'Slok M 9'.

[newAgeSikh]

While if you look at this example:

rwmu gieE rwvnu gieE jw kau bhu prvwru

raam ga-i-o raavan ga-i-o jaa ka-o baho parvaar

Here the Reference to Ram is considered as Ram Chandra the Hindu God as it was clear in context as used with reference to Raavan.

In that case why all other references to Ram have been attributed to 'Lord' if these are not from different bhagat's.

All the examples are from Slok M 9

[newAgeSikh]

Another example

nwmu rihE swDU rihE rihE guru goibMdu

naam rahi-o saaDhoo rahi-o rahi-o gur gobind

Here Gobind is used to refer to 'Lord'. So why the Bani of any other Guru or Bhagat than Guru Gobind or a Bhagat after Guru Gobind uses 'Gobind' to refer 'Lord' as there is no dictionary meaning of Gobind being 'Lord'.

Similary there is no dictionary meaning of word Ram is 'Lord', hence only the Bhagat's devotional to Ram will have it as 'Lord' in their Sloks.

Just my 2cents

[Guest]

Raam mentioned in SGGS Ji is *NOT* Ram Chander Ji Maharaj(Hindu God).

Raam in SGGS JI refers to formless lord- aka nirankar, ikongkar, vahiguroo, paratama, alllah !

[newAgeSikh]

Consider the example:

raam naam ur mai gahi-o jaa kai sam nahee ko-ay

jih simrat sankat mitai daras tuhaaro ho-ay.

This verse seems very characteristics of a Bhagat who has enshrined the 'Ram' Naam and infering it to be a generic 'Lord' doesn't make sense.

[newAgeSikh]

But it is well known fact the Guru Granth Sahib contains Bani of Hindu Bhagats then reference in Hindu Bhagats Bani to Ram should mean the 'Hindu God Ram' and should not be translated to generic term 'Lord'.

What harm can that cause?

[Guest]

But it is well known fact the Guru Granth Sahib contains Bani of Hindu Bhagats then reference in Hindu Bhagats Bani to Ram should mean the 'Hindu God Ram' and should not be translated to generic term 'Lord'.

What harm can that cause?

Not True.

Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj has bani of bhagats who praised akaal purkh. All bhagats in gurbani were not just any typical hindu. They were free from all the hindu rituals that hinduism tells you to perform.

Also there is no such thing as hinduism. Show me hindu word refered in bhagat geta, vedas.

Check out this topic:

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=3129

I hope it helps.

[newAgeSikh]

N30,

Thats being very narrow.

The bhagat were what they were. there us nothing like non typical Hindus.

The fact that Hindu Bhagats Bani is registered in Guru Granth Sahib adds to the credibility of embarcing people of all faiths into Sikhisim.

My intention is to understand why translator translates meaning of the same word multiple time. This is true of English language but I've not come across Gurmukhi any other relevant words used with multiple meanings.

In Computer you do call it 'overloading'. The word 'Ram' is overloaded with multple meaning at different places.

Why is there any need to make multiple meanings of the word?

[sukhsingh]

N30,

Thats being very narrow.

The bhagat were what they were. there us nothing like non typical Hindus.

The fact that Hindu Bhagats Bani is registered in Guru Granth Sahib adds to the credibility of embarcing people of all faiths into Sikhisim.

totaly wrong here. do some resarch, READ BANI, u will see that they dont agree with the rituals of hinduism and the beliefs of islam. they are not HINDUS and MUSLIMS, infact, bhagat kabir ji started his own religion, and to call him a hindu is WRONG and idiotic.

that would be like calling sri guru nanak dev ji maharaj a hindu b/c he had hindu parents.

main point though, read the bani of the bhagats, and u will see they are agaisnt the beliefs in islam and hinduism.

[karmjeet]

My theory says it refers to Hindu God Ram and the verses or Shabad containing it, are Bani of Bhagats like Kabir.

But in translation it alwyas refers to as 'Lord'.

well newagesikh ,

ur theory is wrong . "Ram" is just referred as a name of GOD . There are countless names of God like gobind,gopal, hari, rab, parmeshwar,parmatma,nirankar , waheguru , ishwar , ik onkar , god, etc.

Ram is also like a name of the God used in Gurbani .

But it is also true that some shabds refer ram as sri ramchandar ji . there is no doubt in that .

The name that we have to repeat is Waheguru ,this is our gurmantar.

Why Guru's will use Ram to refer 'Lord'. they should have used Nanak.

gur kahya so kar kamavho gur ki karni kahe dhavo

do as wt guru ji says to do . don't debate that guru ji should have done this or done that . sikhs have no authority for questionig over guru's tasks . if some one does that he isnot sikh .

"oh banda hi sikhiyon kharaj hai jo apne guru te shanka jaan kintu prantu karda hai . oh sikh nahi kehla sakda "

Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj

So nimrta sahit benti hai , don't waste time in analyzing guru 's work according to ur own budh , do wt he says to u .

amrit shak ke singh bano, naam japo , nitnem karo and dharam di karo kirat , te satsangat shadni nahi and then u will achive place in dargah

bhul chuk maaf

wjkk wjkf

[Guest]

Writer: Yuktanand Singh

Ram means all pervading God. This is one of the many names of God and this term for God had been used in India, long before the existence of Ram the prince of Ayodhya. Most of the references to Ram in Gurbani mean the former. They have nothing to do with the latter.

For further explanation regarding the name 'Ram' given to the king, Ram, please refer to the link given before:

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion....4A?OpenDocument

Ram, a human, was the King of Ayodhya. His story was written by Valmiki and Tulsidas. The prince Ram has been eulogized in these epics and worshipped by the Hindus as one of the Avatars.

Gurbani does not consider an Avatar as God but as someone created by God. Gurbani says, "Avatars could not know His limits" (994:4) Thus, clearly an Avatar is not the same as God. In Gurbani, the Guru is also called an Avatar: "Mathura tells the essence of truth, Avatar (in this case, Guru Arjan) was created to deliver the world." (1409:8)

As Serjinder Singh Ji has explained, the prince Ram was named so because his father believed that this will win him God's favor, not because the prince was God. The Hindus confuse the two, the all pervading Ram (God) and prince Ram (also considered as an Avatar) as one and the same. Gurbani clearly refutes this. Gurbani says, "Ram and Ravan with large families also passed away" (1429:3) "Ram cried when he was sent to exile" (953:19) As we know, God does not have these weaknesses, we mortals do.

Our Gurus were not afraid to see God in whatever anyone worshipped. I agree with Vikram Singh Ji, that the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata have had profound influence on the Indian society. References to the deities from these epics are thus inevitable in Gurbani. For example, Gurbani says:

"One of the Ten Avatars was the King Ram" (1279:18)

"Ravidas the shoemaker takes your sanctuary O King Ram Chandar." (659:7)

"Ram Chandar's healing rod has eliminated the illness." (817:4)

The Gurus freely used the tags from prevalent beliefs and mythology without supporting or refuting them but to guide the people through these people's own terminology. They did not feel threatened as we do today. But, people take advantage of this generosity with words, and quote them as if Guru Ji worshipped a historical Ram, or Krishna.

Nothing could be farther from truth because Gurbani clearly rejects the Hindu Pandit's worship of the Ram of Ayodya:

"O Pandit I have seen your Ram Chandar also, who lost his wife while busy fighting Ravan. Hindu is blind….." (875:1)

"Separated from Sita and Laxshman, Ram Chandar was secretly dejected." (1412:8)

God in Gurbani is above these derangements of ordinary humans.

The same goes for Krishna:

"Krishna was a mere cattleman in Kashi until he was glorified through meeting a Harjan (Sant)" (1263:8)

"Krishna and Balbhadra had to fall on Guru's feet" (165:6)

This is not to say that we should not respect the Rama or Krishna of Indian history. It would be also wrong to say that the Gurus did not respect the Ram and Krishna from the epics. But Gurbani worships only the one formless God, not any of the mythological deities in it. This message may help also:

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion....9C?OpenDocument

Finally, Gurbani makes it clear that, "(The real) Ram Chand is He who has no form or feature" (1082:9)

This entire Shabad (1082:5) is significant because Guru Ji mentions names of various Hindu Gods and Avatars and explains that in Gurbani they all stand for the same formless Waheguru, concluding the Shabad with a note that the real name of Waheguru is Primal Sat Naam. All other names are man made, derived from various historical figures. This Shabad alone puts an end to the notion of any Hindu God being worshipped or adored in Gurbani.

[newAgeSikh]

do as wt guru ji says to do . don't debate that guru ji should have done this or done that . sikhs have no authority for questionig over guru's tasks . if some one does that he isnot sikh

This seem to be in contracdiction to what I have learned. Guru Nank tried to prove to the world that don't be obssessed with rituals, tries to search for truth. He showed at many places bu the 'Haridvar Incident' or 'Macca Incident'.

SO by looking for truth is the work of a true Sikh. By just accepting what some AmritDhari Sikh says is not being a true Sikh.

I need to still find the truth behind why to wear turban or keep beard because as Guru Nanak showed us that blindly following ritual will make us no better than the Brahmins of ancient India.

The AmritDhari Sikhs are more narrower than Brahmins of ancient India.

[Pheena]

Why Guru's will use Ram to refer 'Lord'. they should have used Nanak.

What is written in the SGGS is what it is meant to say, not what it 'Should' Say.

The Student is there to learn, but yet he is already trying to become a teacher.

[Guest]

The Student is there to learn, but yet he is already trying to become a teacher.

Exactly my thoughts pheena veer ji

[newAgeSikh]

What is written in the SGGS is what it is meant to say, not what it 'Should' Say.

The Student is there to learn, but yet he is already trying to become a teacher.

Student is trying to learn that is why is asking question.

You don't read a book without asking question, if you do that then you remain where you are and can never progress.

I'm just trying to parse the SGGS. Trying to read between the line.

Trying to Khoj the meaning of life by understanding the compilation of SGGS. It is said in the Gurbani

"... Khoj Shabd me Lai"

But when I try to Khoj in the shabad I come across question but it seems Sikh Scholars try to avade questions.

THis give rise to making my own conception about the things the way my Knowledge seems to be working.

I think logically, for me 'RAM' is one word has one meaning to one person as in India during that time the lanuage doesn't provide overloading.

So the question is

" If 'RAM' word is used in many shabad with different meanings then it is due to the fact that those shabads have been written by different people as same person will use the word 'RAM' in the same context".

Now it seems from this discussion board we can attribute

'RAM' to creator GOd without any reference to 'RAM Chandra the Hindu GOd'.

but then the question is 'Why you use 'RAM'', one could have used 'Bhagwan' as it has been used in SGGS or 'Nanak' that has been used lavishly.

Again my theory says the person who used 'RAM' refering to GOD either tries to convey the Hindu's regarding GOD RAM as at that time the majority of the followers of Guru's were Hindu only or consider himself RAM as the GOd and so tries to refer to him as God e.g Why Kabir won't use RAM refering to 'Hindu God RAM chandra' as he was not trying to create anything new.

So whats is wrong in using the word 'RAM' refering to Hindu God 'RAM Chandra'.

If today some Guru wants to convey something to Sikh community then the Guru will use the word GOD and 'NANAK' as Synonymous.

Now if in future that Guru give rise to a new religion with a new SGGS and has reference to Nank and the follower of that group says that the word 'Nanak' there refers to GOD and has no bearing to the Sikh's first Guru Nank. Will that be appropriate.

We have come from Hindu religion then why hide the fact that the word 'RAM' in the SGGS will mean anything else then the prevailing notion at the time of writing of the SGGS to denote to the Hindu god Ram Chandra.

[newAgeSikh]

Exactly my thoughts pheena veer ji

N30 Veerji, it doesn't seems that you have any original thoughts. If you had you must have had asked questions yourself.

There is tons to ask about. tons of things to Khoj in the Gurbani.

Thats what Gurji left the message with all the Saad Sangat to come together and Khoj the meaning.

If you give up like this then there will never be any awareness. People will go on following the Leaders without any say of them and soon the Sikhs will become another Hindus with Sects as

AmritDhari Sikhs --------------- Hindu Brahmins

Normal Siks(with turbans) ----------- Hindu Shatrias/Baniyas

Shajdahri Sikhs --------------- Hindu Sudras

Beware before it is too late.

We are going backward as a Sikh community and is not progressing as Guru Nanak Vision.

There is no age old enough to learn and no age young enough to teach.

A true Guru learned from the Chella's also.

[Sukhi]

newAgeSikh... i think Admin answered ur question very nicely. take a second look at what he put up...

apart from that, i'd suggest that you remember while reading Gurbani that it's quite rich in metaphors. you can't just give one meaning to Ram, because that would defeat the purpose of what Gurbani is meant to do... make you look deeper...

but apart from this, i'm going to agree with Admin and tell you that Ram as used in Gurbani is referring to God...

i'm not well-versed on bhagat Kabir yet... but i can tell you that he too used the word Ram to refer to an all-pervading, formless God...

however, keep in mind... there are many metaphors deep within Gurbani, and as you grow and learn, you'll begin understanding them more and more...

[Pheena]

veer, you are diggin way way way too much in which there is nothing there.

Ram = God = Deity, depending on the context of the Shabad. i don't get your theory, nor does it make ne sense to me. But it could be just me.

So please correct me if im wrong...but Im getting the feelign that you are allergic to the word RAM used by the Gurus when talking about God when in your views they should have used the words, Waheguru, Nanak and so forth? Am i correct so far?

[newAgeSikh]

So please correct me if im wrong...but Im getting the feelign that you are allergic to the word RAM used by the Gurus when talking about God when in your views they should have used the words, Waheguru, Nanak and so forth? Am i correct so far?

I'm not allergic to word 'RAM' but I'm unable to make sense why someone will use it if the whole notion was to move away from the Mythological Character as God.

Also I'm just trying to understand the Bani by understanding the state of mind of the Guru or Bhagat who wrote it.

It iwll make more sense to me if Bhagat Kabir wrote all the shabd with 'RAM' in it because in my view he was not preaching anything against the praying to Mythological Characters but why will Guru Nank or other Guru will use it.

I've not come across any of the Guru Nanak's scripture that uses the word 'RAM' as GOD. Has anyone have an example of First Guru Nanak using it as GOD.

[Guest]

I've not come across any of the Guru Nanak's scripture that uses the word 'RAM' as GOD. Has anyone have an example of First Guru Nanak using it as GOD.

Whats this Guru Nanak's Scriptures?

Siri guroo granth sahib is Guru Nanak Dev Nirankar Jot.

Ban Haie Guru

Guru Haie Bani

Vich Bani Amrit sarie||

All guroo's and bhagats were one akaal purkh di jot. Please do not defferntiate between Guru's and Bhagats!

[newAgeSikh]

All guroo's and bhagats were one akaal purkh di jot. Please do not defferntiate between Guru's and Bhagats!

Bhai N30 Veerji,

You are becoming very obstinate.

If you don't want to uderstand the Bani then be it so.

But why are you denying me an oppertunity to understand it more.

I could do everythnig myself if I have the time but I know I can get some information here fast.

Also discussion is like food for my brain. As my stomach wants food, my brain do want some healthy discussion.

It is a known fact that SGGS contains bani of not only Guru's but Bhagats and Sufi sants too. You can easily find information stating the number of verses or shabad contibuted by each Guru and Bhagat. then why not read those in the light of knowledge about the Guru and Bhagat who wrote as it will convey the nature and issue of the time.

My theory is with time and Guru or Bhagat the Bani should change and I want to understand the change and to understand the common minimum charchter that is same and why the Shabad is placed where it isplaced and so on.

I picked this one particular word 'RAM' as this can give me an insight to the mind of Guru's and Bhagats and may enlighten me with more knowledge respect to compilation of SGGS.

[Pheena]

ok Firstly you are incorrect in thinking that Ram the brother of Lakshman, the husband to Seeta, the one who triumped over Rawaan was a mythological creation. What makes you think that Ram was a mythological character?

What about Krishna, was he a Mythological Character as well? If so then the whole of MahaBharat is a Myth? Am i correct so far?

What you mean it will make more sense to you if....., it seems you are trying to Mold Gurbani to how it wuold make sense to you and not molding yourself to what gurbani is. If that is your approach to this, then surely you are not using the right methods.

Gurbani is What it is. Don't think about changing Gurbani, think about Changing yourself.

[karmjeet]

newagesikh wrote

SO by looking for truth is the work of a true Sikh. By just accepting what some AmritDhari Sikh says is not being a true Sikh.

I did not say that you should not look for truth . It is good to do khoj . And i also did not say accept wt some amritdhari sikh says .

i told you do not have doubts on your guru if u want to be called a sikh . accept what he says .

Why Guru's will use Ram to refer 'Lord'. they should have used Nanak.[/qoute]

We cannot say guru should have written that or something else . we cannot judge our guru's works

wjkk wjkf