navjot2

EXACTLY! THANK YOU! now thats a post people think they can intellectualise god as a concept and then go out and lecture others on things they havent even realised for themselves. understanding god conceptually, can you even call that understanding? first pauri of 'Japu', a hundred thousand clever thoughts and not a single one will go with you.

firstly i beg your pardon i did not mean to imply that any of the points in Gurbani are irrelevant i meant the question on how to worship without form. i dont know if that was clear. Sidh Gost, Ang 941 of Guru Granth, salok 52: "Sunno sunn kahai sabẖ ko▫ī. Anhaṯ sunn kahā ṯe ho▫ī. Anhaṯ sunn raṯe se kaise. Jis ṯe upje ṯis hī jaise."

i dont even see how it is considered wrong by todays standards? espicially if a person is wealthy, who cares if they have more than one wife? (i assume all partners consent to the situation). Matheen, i question how he even came to be called 'key to Gurbani' or considered any kind of authority. I have a book of his Vaars at home. He's a very talented writer, but from what I can make out he is just that- a contemporary (of Guru's) and a writer. That doesnt equate to an authority or imply we should use him in that way. Does he even mention anythign about his acquintance with sangat let alopne Guru Arjan Dev? In what way is his writing 'key'? Theres nothign to say his writing was even affliated let alone approved by Gurus. I am not telling others to reject his writing I am just saying I dont know how/why they are considered authoritative.

argh! thanks Kam for telling me.

wow i cant improve on what das said. heres what i was going to say: 1. i think you worship Formless by rejecting all forms. Isnt that what is happening in JAAP. 2. in Sidh Gost (if i havent misunderstood) Guru Nanak says that if you continually worship Hadra Hajoor (god as everpresent) then you get absorbed into the Sunn (Void). p.s. isnt this irrelevant because you should just be meditating on Naam?

guys its a typical old rajput style image i.e. simple figure. that face could be anyone- i mean its such a simple form. probably all we can get from that is that he was brown and had a broad stright nose. we're not talking leonardo di vinch type attention to detail. p.s. sobha singh portraits belong in the bin. why dont sikh fanatics do somethign useful for once and go on a tirade against those?

neither of you answered my question. i said what is so wrong about having more than one wife. since when was Bhai Gurdas an authority? since never. shaheediyan are you married? im sorry but im dont see any meaning in your 'answer'.

wow what an enlightening and convincing comment! wow! thanks so much for posting!!!

translations of sikh texts are often so heavily edited. doesnt that frustrate you?

Khalsa Fauj Hi a couple of days ago I read a post by you on here about vyakaran. could you give me a quick explanation of what 'u','i',and 'a' with regards word 'Nanak' in Gurbani? I have been looking on net and cant find a strightforward explanation. also can you tell me how you know this (did you learn it from Prof Sahib Singhs work?) any input appreciated

whats so wrong about having more than one wife?

you appear to have misinterpreted my reticence as some sort of invitation for advice from you. actually it was this kind of attitude (seeing things that arent there- probably so you can give a predetermined response) that i was refering to when i called you confused. if you listened to me at all (which was only a few sentences) you would understand that i am not interested in your advice. now let me put it a little clearer for you. its not my 'interpretation' that Nayan can do both.

hi i am sikh. you reply seems very confused to me. i didnt say that everone intreprets how they see fit. i said people are ignorant.

dear Nayan please dont listen to these ignorant people. from what I have read from a Holy Person you can continue to do Shiva Puja and also read Gurbani/Naam Japa. You are right that Naam Japa can be done anywhere. you can see Puja as a blessed duty also. so you can do both. never take advice from others, only from Holy People or Holy Texts. Do not accept other peoples 'interpretations'.

the upanishads are not in the Vedas, they are seperate. The Vedas are Shruti. also in Gurbani it is given that Akaals worship is there in the Vedas

no this isnt accurate. ' turks' refers to moghuls. where in Gurbani is it used to refer to muslims?

???? woah there! what planet are you lot on? let me clarify I am not talking about interpretating the Gurbani, I am only talking about the grammar structures. there is clearly something to these suffixes 'aunkar' 'siharee' and 'kanna'. so we have word vaiations like naamu naami, Nanaku, Nanaki, sachu. obviously there must be some kind of rationale behind them. why else would they be there? Why say 'Nanak' in one sentence and 'Nanaku' in another? are you guys saying they are just random unexplainable occurances? why? it just seems like we are making excuses for not understanding it. alot of Gurbani is about imparting knowledge/INSTRUCTION to the ignorant. we cant just say that it is all above understanding. im baffled why only modern schools picked up on it. they would say perhaps the knowledge was lost at some point in history. im sorry but if neither modern nor the known traditional schools can explain these rules then they are equally invalidated as ways of approaching SGGS. If such a basic structure has not even been understood then who would write a teeka? terrible. its like saying dont bother to understand any of the vocabularly because you will only understand by Gurus Grace. although that is probably also true it is still wholly impractable. Next you will be saying dont bother learning Gurbani akhars (letters) !

mcleod? nooo i want original not translation. if any has seen it online let me know please.

off topic but still relevant: where can i read Chibber Singh rehitnama? out of interest.

Hi, thank you all for your kind input. i used to read tapoban but i couldnt see any *consistency* in their logic. now that it has been explained that Prof Sahib Singh couldnt find any consistent rules either i understand why. i know his 'darpan' text is online but couldnt find anywhere his viakaran essay. Is Randhir Singh's view/explanation similar to Prof Sahib or different? I take it that Prof Harkirat Singh also couldnt explain a consistent logic to this? I just think that if there is a grammatical rule to these letters it should be wholly consistent to be accepted as underlying , therefore be explainable in one sentence. it should not take a whole book! i have tried a few approaches, both others and my own ideas, but couldnt find any consistency in them. i do appreciate that we shouldnt be distracted/waylead and that a holy person may be able to explain a salok without understanding the rules either. what incidenctally is the view of the purataan traditions on these suffixes like 'u' and 'i'? are they silent on the matter?

shall i take it that none of you know?

Hi can someone clearly and simply elaborate on the Gurbani Grammar rules? what do the u, i etc mean? please let me know hwo you know also.

people seem to be responding defensively. im sorry if i hit a nerve that wasnt my intention. i just want to KNOW. Speculation is empty. Fateh thats very interesting about gyani. i hope his work is indeed the historical jewel that you make it out to be, as i might just look him up. as for me, i do not have any opinions to share, because like i said -being opinions- they are not of any use or value. nor do i have any facts. however i think every detail of Gurus lives, especially something as effecting as Amrit Sanchar, deserves serious attention. And to me it does matter to know who contributed and how at that historical Vaisakhi, though not from any ideological standpoint. actually i would take this opportunity to say that the account from the Abu guy isnt 'too fantastical' or 'frankensein'ish from my perspective. i could believe such events occured. For with Prabh's blessing what is not possible? thats not to say that i do believe in the authenticity of the account. however the account appears to have something about it- its not obvious in the way you would expect an aprocryphal account to be. it itself is vague about who brought the Patase to Guru. And the details here and there. I am only putting it here to counteract others more cynical (for want of a better word) opinions. dear niranjana, i did not even know who Mata Khivi was. Given some of the contributions of the singhsabha revisionist lot, the input of a 'gyani' hardly fills me with faith. these dates you say you refer to are also being taken for granted. there is arguement over the details of vaisakhi so you expect them to have got the dates of Mata Sahib Devi marrying Guru Gobind Singh correct? i do not know much about the nirmalas but i have come to believe that the udasins have an extensive literature. i wonder if they report anything about the event. dear shaheedyian, when you say "The real story of Vasakhi is whatever you want it to be, the more important issue is, does it help build your character, your life and your journey towards God?" well am i the only person who finds that disturbing?

ok people, regarding the sanchar itself, what do you think of this? "Bhai Veer Singh mentions Abu-ul-Trafi in his book. He was spying on Guru Gobind Singh for a year and a half. This is how the incident [amrit sanchar] is recorded in this spy's journal: "... Veer Singh isnt someone i hold much faith in interms of historical account. has anyone heard of this abu ul trafi fellow?

??? am i insane??? there are NO textual sources on that Namdhari page. Mention of so called logical reasons are not factual. also please pardon me but i do not have access to some arcane text library. that artical from sikhreview is also an ideological piece with little objective substance.