navjot2

which is what i am saying! this is what i am saying Durga is a name/form of. Adi Shakti.

oh really kaljug? so please show me where i told anyone to worship a devta? my 'Bhavani'? "Namo Bhavani" is from Dasam Granth. Namo means 'i salute thee'. so if anyone is chosing to ignore anything it is you and singh2. When Guru talks about Krishna etc in relation to Akal he is gievn us gian about the limitless, infite Lord. This is same in SGGS. this has nothing to do with your hatefulness. Whatever is written in Dasam Granth, i do not dispute. That is actually what you lot do (are doing). Durga- in that story- arose from the light that shone from their bodies but was not created by those three as she specifically states. suddenly you have become a master of Durga Saptashati? the quote is self explanatory. She is from the same Adi Shakti Santa Singh quotes.

Shaheediyan let me clarify what i was saying: 1. There is only One, but in some parts Akal and his shakti are differentatied- Akal and Bhavani. Guru ji worships only Akal, but venerates Bhavani (Akal's Shakti- like i said even Nabha understands/admits that much). Dont forget that Bhavani/Shakti/Durga is Akals very own- He Himself differenetiated from Himself. 2. Shakti means Akal's power. Shakti took form as Durga. Know who what does Durga represent, in essence? That same primoridal power in Protector form. this from wikipedia explains who/what Durga is according to Markendiya purana: "She gave her own introduction in the language of Rig-Veda saying that she was the form of the supreme Brahman and had created all the gods. Now she had come to fight the demon to save the gods. The gods did not create her, it was it was her leela that she emerged from their combined energy. The gods were blessed with her compassion." so, that same primordial Devi (Akals Shakti), took form as Durga. We do not even need this outside explanation because same is explained in Dasam Granth. 3. Siva and Sivaa are lingustically two different words. Siva means Akal (as they say) and Sivaa means His Shakti. Which is what Durga REALLY is. 4. Theres One Shakti but different forms. Shakti itself being a form of Akal. Just like Akal himself formed the two of Guru and Student, same way in existance he formed Shiva and Shakti. let me give analogy- everything is made of atoms. so a tree and a lake are both made from atoms. but tree and lake are two different forms. you would not take a drink from a tree and you would not try and get shade from a lake- do you see? same way in some parts Sharaada is invoked (Saraswwati- Shakti form that grants learning) and in others Chandi (Shakti of warrior and yogic slendour). 5. where a multitude of Devas is refered to, they are different form the One. Where One is refered to, using the name of one Devata- e.g. Chandi- the One Name used in singularity becomes Signifier of the One. He is saying that too so we agree there. 6. above is based on reading Gurbani. I am 100% receptive to sincere disagreement and happy to learn. I have not been telling anyone to change their worship.

singh2 etc are pure fanatic in that because i dont agree with them they start firing off 'RSS RSS' etc, telling us who is sikh who isnt. You can see they are claiming all this stuff about me that I didnt even say. I did not tell anyone to worship Hindu devtas. So they tried to hijack this thread and lead it in different directions in order to confuse people so they would not listen to what i am saying because, as you can see, their whole approach is hatred for Hindus, whereas I am accepting Hindu language/terms of reference. Now if you are lead by any bias, be it hatred or love for Hindus, you will not get good understanding of what is being said in Bani. It is an insincere approach. But they are addicted to it. as you can see he ignores what doesnt agree with him. selective quoting etc etc now he has brought in 1984 to rile up peoples emotions. he is number one manipulator extradinaire. because he plays sleath games he thinks everyone else is doing the same. just like a liar thinks everyone else is a liar. his RSS paranoia is laughable. p.s. he is harbouring subtley that he doesnt think Vaheguru is Gurmantra he thinks it Satinaam. Whereas I am not debating these worship related issues at all. I am discussing language used in Bani. and what can you say about an idiot like Kaljug who maintains that the Allah refered to in SGGS is 'different' from Allah muslims call out to?

1. yes and when he says Namo Bhavani its also Akal. But he uses the word Bhavani. 2. by saying Akal is leafs, rivers mountains, you ideology about cifference between creator and creation doesnt always hold

you cant handle what i am saying, it confuses you, so your panic reponse is 'oh he must be hindu' so then you can ignore what i am saying. this is because: 1. you are scared (literally) of anything Hindu related. you freak out when confronted by it. 2. you have been brainwashed into trying to understand GurBani the way mullahs and protestants udnerstand their scripture- giving quotes and saying this is a rule etc again taught to you by Kahan Lahan Bahan idiot types. selectively quoting is the watermark of such trash. when you quote someting else they ignore it or go into denial.

I quoted a whole Salok (numbered). It is complete in itself. The meaning doesnt change by putting it in context of the whole Pauri. Where are the words Akal and Purakh in this Pauri? anywhere? p.s. You really need to get a new buzzword. RSS are so 2006.

yes they are not patented by 'Hindu thugs' I agree. who you appear to have some fixation with (hindu thugs i mean)? do you inhabit some cartoon world where Hindus are all 'bad guys'? that doesnt mean they are unrelated to their Hindu Origin. Like i said if a Vaishnava reads Bani some of these or a Durga devotee reads some of these Bani's they will get it staright away, without having to 'interpret' the language. because they are familiar with that language which you are not, so you have to translate everything as meaning 'Akal'. i dont know if you understand what i mean by this? and do you think this understanding of 'Ram' is not shared by Hindus? e.g. have you heard of Yoga Vashishta from Ramayana. yes these names are always God. All NAAMS are HIS NAAMS. Because there is Only One. have you ever met a Hindu? are they like some exotic thing to you?

Look just ignore what i am saying obviously it is too strange to you. here let me try once more. Akal and His Shakti. His Shakti has different forms. The 'deity' as you put it, is a form of His Shakti. When it says for Help from Shakti, yes it Is Asking for Help from the Form of His power. Just like Sword represents his power, same way Durga and eight-armed Bhavani do. One is a Sword, One is A Goddess, both are forms of His Power. He split Himself from His power, but also He Himself is His Power. if Siva means Akal, Sivaa means His Shakti. thats my simplified version for you ok? happy now? Look instead of theorising this try and see it like a devotee. for Gods sake why dont you just READ Dasam Bani. Okay? I mean Dasam Bani Alone. Not some idiots interpretation of it. Forget about Prof Sahib etc you dont need them. they dont know anything. there was Sikhi before them. You dont need any tika. You can throw my comments in the trash also. seriously i didnt think my comments would cause anyone distress? sorry if they did. i dont see whats so alarming about anything i said? i think i've done enough 'idiot seva' for one night. bye!

where do the words Akal and Purakh appear here? outside of your imagination i mean? i think you need to differentiate/have respect for between what is actually said and what your imagination or your essays try and say he says heres some help- whats written on the page is Gurubani, what is written elsewhere/thought is not.

You are playign a game with yourself trying to rid these words completely of their Hindu connotations. so why use the word Shiva in the first place? Yes theres a difference between Shiva as in The Supreme and Shiva as in the Personality. As in Shaiva Are you going ot tell me that the word Atma has a completely diff meaning in sikhi than in Hindu dharams?

yes no one is telling you to start doing puja to Bhavani or Durga. is that what you are so scared of? let me make it simple for you- Bhavani, Durga- you can take these as epithets of Akal ok? but if you think these words are different from the Hindu words you are living in denial land

so what is Guru ji doing in this Paath you idiot?

blah blah blah and you call me premenstrual. Bhindrawale was an egoist. if you want to idol worship him its your tragedy. you idiots have debased yourselfs by folowing all these stupid people. you can only be described as stupid since i dont even think you have comprehended what i am saying all this time, hence the lack fo coherent arguement in response. which devtay am i tellng you to worship? are you argueing with my or your imagination? the latter is out of my hands sorry dont project it on me. are you still crying because i told a Hindu devotee he doesnt have to stop his Shiv Puja to read Gurbani? arent you the arrogant prat who then went and started up a thread about Shiva so you could air your views about him or whatever? Oh yeah really sensitive. Because thats the kind of filth that you are. Whoever Akal wants to worship Him, He Himself arranges for them. Your 'ideology' is nothing.

lol. what happened to you? thats actually a very sweet response. again this is you 'interpretation'. i think the point is not to limit God to anything. then he is EVERYTHING. "ਬ੍ਰਿਛਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਪਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਛਿਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਉਰਧਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੪॥੬੪॥" O Lord! Thou art the tree. O Lord! Thou art the leaf. O Lord ! Thou art the earth. O Lord ! Thou art the sky. 14. 64. obviously the above does not mean do worship of leaf or the sky, unless of course you are worshipping Him in/as this form. I am actually not denying that Parmeshar Itself is Shakti. Never have. What I am pointing out is that they have been differentiated in parts of Dasam Bani. duh. 'TU HI BHAVANI- you are Bhavani'. These are all His forms Alone.

do you think Shaiva think that their Godhead takes birth and dies?

Kalika is being refered to as part of a couple. idiot. maybe you savages dont understand terms of respect. do you even know panjabi?

you pitiful state of affairs is that you have reduced yourself to learning from blogs etc. so it is one idiot teaching another. so what exactly have you absorbed? Gurmati or some random persons overactive imagination? and exactly whose chela have you become in the process? 'multi armed chick' as you put it is described in Dasam Bani. FACT. see above. bye!

Bhavani, Kallika and Chandi- all recognised as forms of this Shakti in Dasam Granth. This person is himself describing what i am. and he is doing it pretty sweetly. Its no secret that Nihungs 'worship' literally their weapons. and that they read Dasam Bani. So you think when they read Dasam Bani every time they hear the word 'eight armed' or 'Bhavani' they are it only means a sword? p.s. why have you censored whatever word Guru used for God in that SGGS quote with the word 'Vaheguru'? also first you are saying that Parmeshar is that Shakti, then you are quoting to say the True Guru is beyond Shakti- hence beyond Parmeshar? See where your stupid ideological games are landing you? no offence but you come across as seriously stupid.

Hi thanks for sincere question. Durga, Bhavani, Sharada, Devi etc are all Shakti rupas (forms of SHakti) - Shakti is Akal's Shakti but differenetiated from Akal, who is beyond Shakti realm. Its Akals Shakti. It serves Akal and one way of doing this is that it helps His Devotees. I am not disagreeing that there is Only One. What I am saying is that if Guru used the word Bhavani we should respect that. Not psychologically censor it. Guru ji is not limited to an ideology. This SIngh2 person is saying that nothing created is Akal. Yes that is one way that Guru describes it. But also Guru says that God is the sky, the water, the trees, in Anand Paath it says the universe is God's body. People only take this metaphporically, why? a poet can make all kind of metaphorical claims about God without knwoing anything about Him. But Gurus say it how they see it. So it is wrong to treat Gurbani like poetry and say it is metaphorical just because it doesnt make sense to you personally. 'Ek Tu Hi'- One Only You.

First line refers to Durga, second line refers to Chandi. maybe you need to go learn how to read Gurmukhi. "ਚੰਡੀ ਕਾਲੀ ਦੁਹੂੰ ਮਿਲਿ ਕੀਨੋ ਇਹੈ ਬਿਚਾਰ ॥ Chandi and Kali both together took this decision; "ਹਉ ਹਨਿਹੋ ਤੂੰ ਸ੍ਰਉਨ ਪੀ ਅਰਿ ਦਲਿ ਡਾਰਹਿ ਮਾਰਿ ॥੧੬੭॥" I shall kill the demons and thou drinkest their blood; in this way we shall kill all the enemies."167. page 220 i.e. Chandi, Kali and Durga are different Devi manifestations. "ਨਿਰਖ ਚੰਡਕਾ ਤਾਸ ਕੋ ਤਬੈ ਬਚਨ ਇਹ ਕੀਨ ॥" Chandika, seeing her, thus spoke to her; "ਹੇ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਤੂੰ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਹੋਹੁ ਜੁ ਮੁਝ ਮੈ ਲੀਨ ॥੭੬॥" O my daughter Kalika, merge in me.76. As from above Kali arose from Chandi, likewise Chandi from Durga (if i recall corectly).

bowing to the paath quoted, i point out to you that Durga/Devi isnt mentioned here, because as i have already mentioned, Devi represents Akal's own Power. Are you aware that Parmaartha, Paramesar etc are only used in Hindu religion?

so you dont think Gurus words can stand on their own?

singh2 firstly i studied panjabi when i was younger at panjabi school. maybe if you did that you wouldnt have to run to 'giana- jani-translated-dot-click '. and i already told you just ebcause you assert something doesnt make it true orr have any discursive value. theres a difference between describing someone (as in an epithet) and adressing someone (where terms of respect are used). Even in common hindi phrasing they say 'hamara maat pita'. Why use the words Kalika with the reference to Kal? Because he is differentiaitng Shiv and Shakti. I think this is going over your head.

its the way he said it, just like the way you say it