BhagatSingh

Bhaji I know muharni lol. Punjabi is my first language. Here I am talking about those siharis that are on the last letter of the word. For example - ਆਦਿ My point is that this is not pronounced as Aad, as we would normally say it, rather it is pronounced as Aadi.

Yes I know that. I believe Mata Sahib Dewan to be my mother but Mai Bhago ji, Bibi Bhani ji, Mata Sulakhani ji, Mata Gujri ji, Bebe Nanaki are also my mothers. My point wasn't to diminish the contribution to Mata Sahib Dewan, although I see I have some learning to do in that regard, it was to highlight the importance of all the other mothers and fathers who have contributed and are not being talked about here or in the present mainstream Ardas. I am not saying "don't mention Mata Sahib Dewan because she is not important". I am saying "Mention these others figures as well" in the form of a rhetorical question "Why are they not mentioned in the first place?" Call me retarded if you like but I think it is important to highlight them. Source? Firstly, it's Ram Chandra ji, not "ram chandar". Show some respect. Secondly, state the full truth. Guru Gobind Singh ji, or if you believe another Kavi wrote it then that Kavi, specifically states that Guru ji descended from the sons of Ram Chandra ji. This makes Ram Chandra ji his forefather. Thirdly, Guru Gobind Singh ji's actions map out on the Moral Code that is set forth by Raja Ram Chandra ji's actions in Sant Valmiki ji's Ramayan. This moral code can be briefly summarized as - 1. Take up Responsibility and do what is Responsible 2. Obey your Parents and Mentors 3. Protect the Saints and Fight the Tyrants 4. Do the above, even if that means sacrificing things you hold close to you, ie. letting go of the people you love. So make sacrifices to uphold Responsible Action. Guru ji followed this code to the letter and this makes Guru ji not just the biological son but also the spiritual son. Call me RSS if you like but I think this is an important fact that some in our community have forgotten and/or ignored, to their own detriment. Some have gone so far as attacking and maligning the reality and the character of Ram Chandra ji in order to further their agenda. @Reader There is lots to unpack in your post so I'll just start listing off my thoughts. @amardeep This is intended as a more detailed response to your post as well. 1. I'll take you up on that but in this case, Maya ji as Divine Mother is mentioned in all existing Teekas. 2. The words Ma -> Mai -> Maiya -> Maya are all related words, the root of which is Ma or Mother. 3. Maya ji is the Manifest Energy of Bhagwat. She is the Divine Mother and he is the Divine Father Baishno so jis upar suprasan Bishan ki Maya te hoe bhin Bishan is Father, Maya is Mother. 4. Bhagwati and Maya are referring to the same Mother. Though there are some exceptions in colloquial usage. Maya is sometimes used to refer to money (in the present century) or material attachment (by the medieval Saints) whereas Bhagwati refers to the sword (the curved sabre is symbol of the Divine Mother) or devotees of Bhagwat (e.g. in Sukhmani sahib, - Bhagauti Bhagwant Bhagti ka rang ). 5. Divine Masculine-Divine Feminine duality is talked about in Guru Granth Sahib, where it is talked about as Hari-Maya - Baishno so jis upar suprasan Bishan ki Maya te hoe bhin - and Shiv-Shakti - Jeh dekha teh Ravi rahe Shiv Shakti ka mel 6. Divine Masculine-Divine Feminine Purush-Prakriti Shiv-Shakti Dev-Devi Vishnu-Lakshmi Bhagwat-Bhagwati Hari-Maya Ram-Sita Mahakal-Kalika Guru-Mata Piri-Miri Husband-Wife Paternal-Maternal Pattern-Matter Consciousness-Energy Spiritual-Material These are our - Father-Mother 7. I recently talked about this topic on a different forum, and it addresses the points you have made in your post. 8. Your post - The Mool Manter is a Manglacharan, which is a bowing to a set of principles or ideals which anyone from (almost) any philosophy can agree with. It is important to Sikh philosophy but not the specific defining feature of the philosophy that is espoused in Guru Granth Sahib. The philosophy of Guru Granth Sahib is summarized by - Ek Krishnam sarb deva dev deva ta atma, atma Vasudevasya je koi janai bhev, Nanak ta ka das hai, soi Niranjan Dev. 9. The methodology of Guru Granth Sahib is summarized in this Ashtpadi - Baishno so jis upar suprasan, Bishan ki Maya te hoye bhin. karam karat hvai nehkaram, tis Baishno ka nirmal dharam. kahu phal ki ichha nahi vanchai, keval bhagti kirtan sangi rachai. man tan antari simran Gopal, sabh upre hovat kirpal. aape drirhai avra naam japavai, so baishno param gati pavai. The Ardas does talk about this methodology a little but but does not talk about the philosophy. 10. The Ardas also does not mention all the Saints who bani is recorded in Guru Granth Sahib, like Kabir ji, Nam Dev ji, Ravi Das ji etc and all the Saints who are revered in the bani like Prahlaad ji, Sudama ji, Valmiki ji etc. Agreed. The Ardas is a collective Sikh prayer created by the Sikhs and so it can be updated. And I think it is due for some improvements.

In Gurbani ਜੋਰ is used also. I don't agree. He isn't pronouncing the siharis. I thought you and @paapiman agreed with me that Siharis should be pronounced?

In Guru Granth Sahib, Maya ji is the central Maternal figure. There are many references to Maya ji as Mother in Guru Granth Sahib if anyone reads it attentively. The Ardas also starts with Prithm Bhagauti simar kai, which is referring to Maya ji. So I would say that just about covers the Divine Mother. But as for specific historical mothers - Why isn't Mai Bhago ji mentioned in the Ardas? or Bebe Nanaki ji? or Bibi Bhani ji? These mothers played a far more important role in Sikh history than Mata Sahib Dewan. While we are on this train - What about Mardana ji? or Bhai Gurdas ji? or Banda Singh ji Bahadur? Are they not important? Why isn't Raja Ram Chandra ji mentioned in Ardas? Don't we read in Dasam Granth that he is the father of Guru Gobind Singh ji? Why isn't Krishan ji mentioned in the Ardas? Ek Krishnam sarb deva dev deva ta atma, atma Vasudevasya je koi janai bhev. The one sentence from Asa di Vaar that encapsulates the entirety of Sikh philosophy and the purpose of our existence, and there is no mention of it in the Ardas.

Well I was going to suggest that they are an alien race from planet BRX90 from our neighbouring star and are sent on earth as our overlords and for our entertainment. But sure let's go with "are these people for real?"

Are these people real?

Well it'll be like Marijuana. How hard was it to get it in Canada during the period it was banned? It was actually rather easy. But what it did was that it made criminals out of everyday people, some of who were suffering from diseases that are healed by marijuana. And it drove Marijuana into the black market, which is unregulated. So you never knew what you are getting. The same thing will happen with guns. Should you encourage or discourage our people to learn shastar vidya of guns? So do you think you are encouraging or discouraging shastar vidya of guns amongst our people by banning the guns? Dally is right. That's what both of your arguments boil down. They boil down to - fear. "Oh no can't let bad people get guns!" "Oh no there aren't enough of us!" And selfishness - "Oh no let's ban guns because our community isn't good with them so let's vote to prevent other communities from protecting themselves" All I am seeing is you saying that this is not an apt summary of your views but you have not clarified your views. What more is there to your view other than fear and selfishness?

What does any of this have to do with my post?

They will fall in to the hands of criminals regardless of whether they are banned or not. But whether or not they fall into the hands of good, law-abiding people, that is the question. If you ban guns, good people will not have access to them. And if good people cannot get access to them, they cannot protect themselves from the criminals who will have them... and from the government who will also have them. Remember when you prevent the people of a nation, from getting access to guns, while simultaneously giving government access to guns, all you are doing is making the government stronger. If the government decides to abuse that power, if it turns tyrannical and oppresses its people, then the people stand no chance against it. When this happened to the Sikh community back in 1600s, when the government tortured Guru Arjun Dev ji, even though he was innocent, then Guru Hari Gobind ji relied on weapons to fight the government. So a Sikh asking for weapons to be banned does not know his own history.

You cannot have a friendship with God without fearing him. There is no Love of God without the Fear of God. Why is that? Because it is the Fear of God that destroys Ahankar, the separation between you and God.

True. That's the "official spelling". Partially true. It's the e, eh thing again. Like Siharis are pronounced as - short e and short eh - Aunkars are pronounced both ways as well - short u and short o. Some people say bull (lips), some people say boll. Some people say sikh (student), some people say sekh. Either way you pronounce it, Joru/Joro/Joroo, it changes the meaning of the word to something else. Pronouncing ਜੋਰੁ as Joru makes it sound like Joroo (wife). Pronouncing ਜੋਰੁ as Jor-oh makes it sound like Joro (to connect, fix) So ਜੋਰ, a singular and masculine word meaning power, should be pronounced as Jor (power). You are right. It is significantly different to a keen observer. (You don't even have to be that keen to see the difference.) But It is similar enough in common spoken language to be interchanged. And that's my point - It is interchangeable in spoken language due to the immense similarity, even though there is a difference. This is why in Gurbani you will notice these matras being interchanged. u (aunkar) and oo (dulankar) are interchanged - e.g - ਪ੍ਰਭੁ - ਪ੍ਰਭੂ and ਉਤਮ - ਊਤਮ u (aunkar) and o (hora) are interchanged - e.g - ਭਜੁ - ਭਜੋ e (sihari) and ee (bihari) are interchanged - e.g. - ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ - ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦੀ and ਘਰਿ - ਘਰੀ e (sihari) and eh (lavan) are interchanged - e.g. - ਘਰਿ - ਘਰੇ They are similar sounds that's why. (Interesting to note - Here you have the same word with the same meaning written and pronounced in three different ways - ਘਰਿ - ਘਰੀ - ਘਰੇ) (also note that the Aunkars in above mentioned examples, ਪ੍ਰਭੁ , ਭਜੁ , ਉਤਮ should be pronounced)

Why was it closed down? srigranth.org and sridasam.org are invaluable resources.

Joroo Joru same thing In Hindi it is spelled and pronounced both ways. जोरू/जोरु In Indian languages, pronunciation and spelling of similar vowels can be (and are often) interchanged. For example - ਉਤਮ ਊਤਮ This is because Long U vs Short U sounds are not that different. There is a difference but it is small. So if you pronounce the Aunkar on ਜੋਰੁ Jor it changes the meaning of the word to Joru/Joroo. Unique Purpose of Aunkar Now suppose that's not the case. Suppose we live in another world where these related similar-sounding vowels are never interchanged. We know the Aunkar in Gurbani has a purpose completely unrelated to being a vowel - It indicates a noun that is both singular and masculine. This a rule that we do not see in normal Punjabi. So normal rules of Punjabi pronunciation may not apply to this type of usage of the Aunkar symbol. In some places it maybe a vowel in other places it is a unique matra for indicating nouns that are both masculine and singular. This usage is not seen in any other vowel symbol. So the Aunkar is likely to have its own rules for pronunciation. Difference between Aunkar-Dulankar Pair and Sihari-Bihari Pair The reality is that the related vowel sounds are interchangeable. For example - ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦੀ, ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ, ਉਤਮ ਊਤਮ etc And so another line of evidence we have is that we know that the meaning of words that end in Sihari is the same if that Sihari is turned into a Bihari. ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ has one meaning - grace. Add a sihari at the end of that and you get ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ, which has a different meaning "through grace" or "of grace" or "person who gives grace". Change that sihari to a bihari ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦੀ and the meaning is the same ("through grace" or "of grace" or "person who gives grace"). The pronunciations are not that different ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦੀ. But very different from ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ. But unlike Sihari-Bihari, Aunkar-Dulankar function very differently in Gurmukhi. Certainly Aunkar-Dulankar are interchangeable in words like ਪ੍ਰਭੁ and ਪ੍ਰਭੂ (and so I say you should pronounce the Aunkar in Prabhu). But there are some words that end in Aunkar ਜੋਰੁ do not have the same meaning as the ones that end in Dulankar ਜੋਰੂ. ਜੋਰੁ is singular and masculine - power ਜੋਰੂ is feminine - wife So here pronouncing the Aunkar causes confusion with the Dulankar version. Pronouncing the Aunkar in ਜੋਰੁ , easily confuses the word with ਜੋਰੂ. Remember Gurmukhi is an oral language first and foremost, so the emphasis is on pronunciation rather than spelling. Since ਜੋਰੁ and ਜੋਰੂ sound pretty similar, but very different from ਜੋਰ, I would say the Aunkar should not be pronounced in order to avoid confusion. This issue does not arise with ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦੀ so the sihari should be pronounced.

Intelligence isn't reading a book, it is solving problems in the right ways. What are the benefits you are looking for exactly?

On some words pronouncing the Aunkar changes the meaning of the word to something else. E.g. if you pronounce the Aunkar on ਜੋਰੁ it changes the meaning of the word. Instead of being Jor "power", it becomes Joru "wife". The aunkar in ਜੋਰੁ is only there to indicate a singular, masculine word, so a singular power source. ਤਿਸ ਤੇ ਭਾਰੁ ਤਲੈ ਕਵਣੁ ਜੋਰੁ ॥ What Power holds and supports the weight of this world? ਜੋਰੁ here is singular masculine word - Power - and the aunkar indicates that. Same with ਭਾਰੁ and ਕਵਣੁ. Bhar means "weight". Bharu means "one who applies weight". So here it should be pronounced as Bhar, not Bharu. And pronouncing it on other words, makes the word lose its meaning. E.g. ਗਿਆਨੁ Gyan means "knowledge". Gyani and Gyanee mean "of knowledge" often "person of knowledge". Gyanu and Gyanoo have no meaning. So that's why I think the Aunkars are only there to indicate words that are both Singular and Masculine. Most mainstream Gurbani Grammar scholars agree with that. Where we disagree is that they think Aunkar should never be pronounced, whereas I think in some words it should be. Some of these words I talked about in my Aunkar thread. Depends on how you pronounce it.