navjot2

"When we lost the anglo-sikh wars we were just like everyone else in the punjab, except there werent enough of us to count. So this talk of hinduism swallowing up sikhi was a real threat." in what sense was it a real threat? explain how the existance of sikh panth was actually 'threatened'. or cant you discern between 'sikh rule' and sikhs as a community? "Anyway, as people were reluctant to take up arms and recreate the Khalsa Raj, an alternative needed to be found in order to protect sikhi." see this is the nonesense talk of a deranged fanatic. the only 'pipe dream (fanstasy)' was that sikhi was threatened and needed protection in the first place. You're the punchline to a joke that English people stop laughing at over 70 years ago. dear TonyPh, you can only but look up to my 'lack of intellect', hence the resortment to personal slurs. These Singh Sabha concoted false historys lies etc and we should not be made excuses for. Every single history book of theirs references back to Macauliff. They deserve no respect whatsoever. Dont be stupid and believe that they had any good intention. They didnt. They first created the sense of fear that you people seem to think was real because it was a prerequisite to controlling peoples minds. Prof Sahib Singh could not even formulate the rules for vyakaran yet presented a work on it! You people have been so brainwashed that you have basically canonised these people as saints. Sikhs werent getting first rate education at Khalsa colleges, but at Christian Missionary schools. Your savagery and lack of education on any material issue shows in your dismissal of Pad Ched. What does Pad Ched represent? Sikh language altered to suit the western mindset in terms of readability- basically repsresntative of the underlying mindset you people adopted. You understand yourself in terms of a westerners mind rather than an intrinsic understanding. You think its ok to even touch a religious text in the name of making it convenient for your english grammar school headset. totally ignoring that that was the natural way of reading it since it was written. you think this is not matter at all? yet you cry that sikhs going to mandirs and sufi shrines is some terrible thing. p.s. people would disagree that pad ched doesnt alter the meaning. As for partition- do these homeless sikhs have anythign to do with 'Master' Tara Singh and other self appointed 'leaders of sikhism' running into the middle of Lahore waving their weapons and shouting inciteful nonesense? what was it he was shouting again? If you want to see ideological stagnation reread you own trash or your brother HSD's crap.

i do not see the correlation between what you are saying and the Saloks you quote i.e. the Saloks dont contain any reference to what you are interpreting, you comments are not relevant to the Saloks let me put it this way- from what i can see Bhagat Ji is saying dont forget death. this isnt any kind of commentary on Sharia. you are reading stuff into it and raising pointless questions (because they are non-issues).

edit

i read convincing arguement on sikhnet once a long time ago about how use of name 'Kaur' was actually introduced by Singh Sabhas, not Guru Gobind Singh

also i would not get too excited about accounts by foreigners if i send you into a foreign country where you dont speak the languag eand they dont speak yours do you think you will be able to give me an accurate description of their way of life etc?

this is the kind of rubbish self history written by singh sabha. so what if four students converted to Christianity? that jutifies starting up a whole rleigious movement? this just shows the hysterical mindset that gave way to Singh Sabha. At least they had the guts to become Christians rather than these pseudo-Protestant 'Singh' Sabhas The idea that Hinduism would 'devour' sikhi like a snake was also a British instigation into Sikh mindset.

to whoever said Singh Sabha introduced modern/western historic approach to Sikhi- thats a joke. no western historian respects their work. thats why McLeod pissed them off (because he articulated that). Perof Sahib Singh and Vir Singh were criminals, Teja Singh was a sensationalist and propgandist. Singh Sabha= when certain sikhs started trying to act like 'leaders'. You people have made the above type people your leaders.

put it this way BEFORE SINGH SABHA: sikhs had secure sense of sikhi sikhs living in harmony with non-sikhs panjab prosperous and- unlike moghul delhi- progressive panjab was the LAST place to fall to British, and then mainly due to betrayl by Dogris (non-sikhs) no such thing as 'pad ched' gurmukhi respect for tradition- like raag vidya AFTER SINGH SABHA so called 'sikhs' indulge in partition riots killing muslims etc- when did this happen before Singh Sabha? huge paranoia and hysteria amonst sikhs ideological stagnation of modern sikh mindset introduction of 'pad ched' gurmukhi, saying lareedar is 'difficult to read' (yeah maybe for English nurtered Missionary School graduates) loss of tradition, like raag vidya reinvention of panjabi/gurmukhi to resemble english and hindi language and grammar (i.e. linguistic mutilation). fixation on outward identity sepration of people from SGGS, now they need some 'scholar' to help them understand it. basically Sikhi made to resemble Pseudo-Protestantism, i.e. religion should serve people and not the other way around. so its okay to 'change' things in the name of 'egalitarianism'. After SIngh Sabha- Guru Nanak is refered to as a 'reformer' rather than Satguru Khalsa is seem like some sort of social 'french revolution' type movement rather than a spiritual enitity Sikhi replaced within Sikhism- has become some sort of morality code rather than Bhakti ghar. I was reading Katha Amrita (RamaKrishna's biography) a while back in it he says that sadhus/holymen are well respected in wetsern india (i.e. panjab). we're talking 1800s here. can we say that was true after Singh Sabha?

because he is not a Singh that makes him a non-sikh?

by the way guys its totally hypocritical for me to even engage in this discussion because i dont believe in commenting on Bani at all- not even interpeting it. So therefore i apologise in that respect and would like to say i wont discuss/quote/ or interprerate Bani any more.

Now heres a question for you Singh2. Answer it: Is the word Siva or Sivaa? Answer this question

ਨਮੋ ਏਕ ਰੂਪੰ ਅਨੇਕੰ ਸਰੂਪੇ ॥ नमो एक रूपं अनेकं सरूपे ॥ Salutation to Thee, O One Lord pervading in many forms. 326

You are telling me not to refer to non-sikh scripture then you are telling me what non-sikh scriptures say? lol The Shakti herself formed the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva- according to Markendeya Purana She Created the Devas etc (correct me if wrong). The light shone from their bodies when they were enraged, they did not do create it themselves. I am not 'superimposing' Hindu theory. I am just trying to understand what is being refered to by looking at relevant texts. How do you know the vahiguru ji di fateh texts are Gurus insertion? I though Mani Singh ji put these in along with the composition names when he compiled them. the reason i thought this is because in places it is written 'bani of 10 master' etc- why would Guru Gobind Singh title his own work in that manner: look at beggining of Jaap Sahib: ਜਾਪੁ ਸਾਹਿਬ जापु साहिब JAPU SAHIB ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥ The Lord is One and He can be attained through the grace of the true Guru. ਸ੍ਰੀ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹ ॥ स्री वाहिगुरू जी की फ़तह ॥ The Lord is One and the victory is of the Lord. ਜਾਪੁ ॥ जापु ॥ NAME OF THE BANI. ਸ੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖਵਾਕ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੀ ੧੦ ॥ स्री मुखवाक पातिसाही १० ॥ The sacred utterance of The Tenth Sovereign: see? and on page 94: ਸ੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖਬਾਕ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ੧੦॥ स्री मुखबाक पातशाही १०॥ From the Holy Mouth of the Tenth King (Guru) mukhbaak- the words from His mouth. see?

Singh2 firstly you translation is wrong look: ਰੂਪ ਰੰਗ ਅਰੁ ਰੇਖ ਭੇਖ ਕੋਊ ਕਹਿ ਨ ਸਕਤਿ ਕਿਹ ॥ Roop rang aru rekh bhekh kooo kahi n sakati kih: God is without colour or form, and without any distinctive norm how has na sakti kiha- translated to beyond any distinctive norm? it means He cannot be called a shakti (i think?) i think what is meant is God is not LIMITED to any form. Also Adi Shakti is being described with form- With Eight Limbs, Riding A tiger, with a half moon on her head etc ਪਲੰਗੀ ਪਵੰਗੀ ਨਮੋ ਚਰਚਿਤੰਗੀ ॥ पलंगी पवंगी नमो चरचितंगी ॥ O the rider of the steed-like lion; ਨਮੋ ਭਾਵਨੀ ਭੂਤ ਹੰਤਾ ਭੜਿੰਗੀ ॥ नमो भावनी भूत हंता भड़िंगी ॥ O Bhavani of beautiful limbs! Thou art the destroyer of all engaged in the war. ਨਮੋ ਭੀਮਿ ਰੂਪਾ ਨਮੋ ਲੋਕ ਮਾਤਾ ॥ नमो भीमि रूपा नमो लोक माता ॥ O the mother of the universe having large body! ਭਵੀ ਭਾਵਨੀ ਭਵਿਖਯਾਤਾ ਬਿਧਾਤਾ ॥੩੫॥੨੫੪॥ भवी भावनी भविखयाता बिधाता ॥३५॥२५४॥ Thou art the power of Yama, the giver of the fruit of actions performed in the world, Thou art also the power of Brahma! I salute Thee.35.254. ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਪੂਰਨੀ ਪਰਮ ਰੂਪੰ ਪਵਿਤ੍ਰੀ ॥ प्रभा पूरनी परम रूपं पवित्री ॥ O the most pure power of God! ਪਰੀ ਪੋਖਣੀ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੀ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ॥ परी पोखणी पारब्रहमी गाइत्री ॥ Thou art the maya and Gayatri, sustaining all. ਜਟੀ ਜੁਆਲ ਪਰਚੰਡ ਮੁੰਡੀ ਚਮੁੰਡੀ ॥ जटी जुआल परचंड मुंडी चमुंडी ॥ Thou art Chamunda, the wearer of the necklace of head, Thou art also the fire of the matted locks of Shiva; ਬਰੰ ਦਾਇਣੀ ਦੁਸਟ ਖੰਡੀ ਅਖੰਡੀ ॥੩੬॥੨੫੫॥ बरं दाइणी दुसट खंडी अखंडी ॥३६॥२५५॥ Thou art the donor of boons and destroyer of tyrants, but Thou Thyself ever remain indivisible.36.255. ਸਭੈ ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰੀ ਬਰੰ ਬਯੂਹ ਦਾਤਾ ॥ सभै संत उबारी बरं बयूह दाता ॥ O the Saviour of all the saints and the donor of boons to all; ਨਮੋ ਤਾਰਣੀ ਕਾਰਣੀ ਲੋਕ ਮਾਤਾ ॥ नमो तारणी कारणी लोक माता ॥ The one who ferries across all over the terrible sea of life, the primary cause of all causes, O Bhavani! The mother of the universe. ਨਮਸਤਯੰ ਨਮਸਤਯੰ ਨਮਸਤਯੰ ਭਵਾਨੀ ॥ नमसतयं नमसतयं नमसतयं भवानी ॥ I salute Thee again and again, Bhavani ਸਦਾ ਰਾਖਿ ਲੈ ਮੁਹਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਕੈ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨੀ ॥੩੭॥੨੫੬॥ सदा राखि लै मुहि क्रिपा कै क्रिपानी ॥३७॥२५६॥ Protect me ever with Thy Grace.37.256. You have even now not admitted the word is Sivaa not Siva. Conveniently ignoring that fact eh? You keep making this Hindu/Sikh distinction. What Guru ji is discussing is Durga/Shakti. This is a thing in Itself, doesnt haev to dow tih Hindu or Sikh are religions. Just like talking about God does not have to do with any religion. This is Vidya (essential learning). your petty mindset is trying to appropriate in ways it understands "Do not impose their philosophy on sikhs. We follow different belief system." Now you have become the voice of 'Sikhism'? Look: ਆਈ ਫੇਰਿ ਭਵਾਨੀ ਖਬਰੀ ਪਾਈਆਂ ॥ आई फेरि भवानी खबरी पाईआं ॥ The demons hear the news that the goddess Bhavani has come again. 310 Durga being equated with Bhavani. ਚਉਦਹ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਛਾਇਆ ਜਸੁ ਜਗਮਾਤ ਦਾ ॥ चउदह लोकां छाइआ जसु जगमात दा ॥ The praise of the mother of the universe spread over all the fourteen worlds. 325 Durga being described as Jagmata. (sggs 129) Bhavani (Shakti) Created the word on His Order. So Shakti formed (saaji) Durga. Then you are telling me: "For us ad shakti is in our body itself and not in multiarmed deity." Guru Ji Himself is describing her as multi armed. Its writeen there and you know it. see you arguements are not standing up. "GURBANI DOES NOT PERMIT US TO CONSIDER ANY PHYSICAL ENTITY AS GOD. WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF SHABAD GURU." who is disputing that?

an entity becomes him by default? isnt that what i am saying? i agree that God does not Take birth. where was that argued? also, God is beyond any Shakti (Power).

you are forcing your own opinion of 'Tu Hi'. 'Tu Hi' means, to me, 'You Alone Are'- there is nothign but God It does not say God pervades the leaf, it says You Alone Are the Leaf etc look at page 37, where God is described as the True Actor of various events.

heres a difference between my view and yours: So you say it is a 'different' Bhavani, but I say it is the same Bhavani. irreconciable.

kaljug i did not say pathar puja is parvaan in sikhi. i would never say anything is 'parvan' in sikhi. its not my decision to say that. he asked if he could read Gurbani and continue his Shiv puja. then you people took it upon yourselves to tell him no. why? who are you to say what to do to him? reading Gurbani is for anyone. why shouldnt Hindus and Muslims read if they want to? why should they give up their dharam to do it?

propaganda de chela is telling mE to stop doing propaganda as for your little summary, yes its correct: 1. Guruji used the word "Sivaa". Not Siva. you havent even admitted that much yet. 2. Yes the question is what is Durga in essence? Answer: Adi Shakti roopa. I was trying to explain the significance of Shiva/Shivaa difference by explaing to you that Shivaa is one of Durga's epithets, as any of her worshippers would tell you Obviously you cant handle that. you cannot even admit what is on the pages of Dasam Granth, yet you question intergrity of others. These are Gurus own words. Just like when he says Namo Bhavani. But then again you think the Allah is some other Allah to Muslim's Allah, which just shows the kind of twisted mentality we are dealing with here. go hide behind some kathaks 'interpretation' if you are too gutless to take Dasam Bani as it is.

yes Krishan Murure= Akal Purakh, but noentheless the words Krish Murare have been specifically used. He did not write Akal Purakh here. you cant accept that because Krishna Murare is a Hindu terminology? get over it.

This is you fantasy that that paper is saying what I am saying. where does he even make remotely similar points? Apart from the fact that Shivaa refers to Durga, not Shiva, which I have already explained and which even Nabha admits (and which anyone with even abit of education could know).

i notice few mentions of Bahadur person being leveled at me. N30 you also must be pretty stupid. my view is extreme? theres nothing 'extreme' about my view. what are you 'afraid' of Singh2 and his fanatical nonesense?

you can lie if you want. i can recall you posting translations of Gurbani and highlighting a line to say 'Satinaam is your naam' (paraphrase) whilst saying all the other naams are only artificial. its obvious what you were implying

If Guru has defined who is a sikh then what need is there for you to refer to it? Because you are trying to define who is a sikh. you are a fanatic, analyse your own behaviour. also the fact is that you cannot stand any alterante viewpoint apart from the ones propagated by your post Singh Sabha masters and you cannot even allow Gurbani to stand on its own but think you need some idiot from past 100 years to explain. you want their ideology enforced on everyone, and you just ignore anything in Gurbani that doesnt support it. where did I refer to idol of Durga? You have still not explained why the word is SivAA and not Siva? you chose to ignore the obvious difference. even Kahan Nabha knew it and admited it (Sivaa= Akal Purakh ka Shakti). so its okay dont be afraid. I am using the terminology of Dasam Granth Itself. If you had read it for yourself (rather than other peoples quotes of it) you would not have been so scared of the terminology or thought that i was implying that you should worship Devi Murti's. your problem is you are all under-educated. sorry. you spent too much time reading what others say about Gurbani rather than reading Gurbani/ Dasam Bani Itself. Also because you have been following others so much, your reference points are paranoia and hateful emotional responses to historical events. Heres your question: "Do you still believe that Guru sahib asked boon from durga in shabad " Deh siva bar mohe hain?" This is the test for you." He asked boon from Sivaa. Sivaa = Akal Purakhs Shakti. this, to me, is synonymous with Bhavani, Chandi, Durga. you are were not raising any noteworhty points for me to respond to. what relevance does what hindu thugs did/do have to this discussion? you are just trying to emotionally arouse people. and tell me- when did i CONDONE their behaviour? are you stupid? you people are just projecting your idiotic paranoia at me. its spelt SatiNaamu isnt it? your Singh Sabha masters have told you not to pronounce 'i'/'u' in words, which doesnt make any logical sense. im sorry but saying 'a sikh does not write satnaam like that' just makes me ponder how stupid and uneducated you are. wuh yeah ok...hat idiot reasoning. If it doesnt refer to muslim Allah then why use the word Allah? if God is One then whose elese name is it?

Look at the language being used. He is saying 'You are' (Tu Heen). "ਪਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ" He is NOT saying Akal is IN the leaf, but Akal IS the Leaf. LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE. Creator and Created is afterall still a duality. When we talk of One, we cannot refer to duality. It is described this way- as a duality- so we can understand. And because that is one mode of perception. But it is not the only mode of perception. It is one way of looking at Him but not only way used in Gurbani. the leaf is not God but God is the leaf. do you see? no'thing' is God, but God is everything. this is what i am refring to when i say you cannot treat Gurbani like a philosophy text or apply one single ideology to it. God doesnt have limits.