The Three deities as repreentatives of God & significanc

[Niranjana]

Chatanga wrote:

deh shiva is Guru describing the power of God, ie sword aka Chandi. This at the end of the Chandi Charitar which describes the power of God Chandi against evil ie rakshas. at the end Guru Says Please Chandi(shiva) aka sword/God give me this boon...

For many moons i couldnt make out why Guru Ji wrote Shiva, until I read about Shiv Ji nad found that Shiv Ji actually accorded the status of Shiva to Parbati who was an incarnation of Chandi.

tis quite complicated, and dumbasses make a lot of mileage out of this, including my Sikh friend who used this line to "prove" that Sikhs were part of the Hindu religion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Scholars concur that the closing stanza of Chandi Charitr is Guru Jee’s own wording as an addition independent of the foregoing ‘translated’ work in the composition describing the deeds of the Goddess Durga. The reference to “siva†(and not Shiva) in “Deh Siva…†is clearly a reference to Durga alone.

Many people have problems with this, either using this as a means of disputing this composition as Sri Mukhvak Gurbani or as your friend suggests arguing that we are part of a Hindu Tantrik tradition or as you do, cover it up by asserting, in the face of literary evidence otherwise, that “Siva†somehow refers to Akal Purakh.

It would appear to be clear that the phrase “Deh Siva†refers to the Devi Durga alone and this is in no way counter to the principles of Sikhism as some consider it to be.

Durga Devi is a respected figure in the Indic tradition and the shabd “Deh Siva†is no different to say touching the feet of one’s elders for a blessing/mark of respect, which in no way implies that we are worshipping our elders and the same would appear to be true here.

[cybersingh]

that's it.....................................

The dera gods are angry now.... :x ...Let the trinity unite.................

[chatanga]

niranjana wrote:

Many people have problems with this, either using this as a means of disputing this composition as Sri Mukhvak Gurbani or as your friend suggests arguing that we are part of a Hindu Tantrik tradition , in the face of literary evidence [highlight=red:e4626fa76d]or as you do, cover it up by asserting[/highlight:e4626fa76d]otherwise, that “Siva†somehow refers to Akal Purakh.

quote]

in what way am i covering it up ?

chatanga

[Maha Kharag Singh]

Eka Mai jagat viai teen chele parvaan ik sansari ik bhandari ik lae dibaan.

There is one primal energy which gave rise to three servents one who creates one who preserves and one who destroyes.

Bhrama, Vishnu, Shiva these are metaphysical aspects of God, they are seperate from God but contain the essence of God, hence them being able to carry out such arduous duties. And because they are seperate from God they can take both physical form and the meta physical.

The metaphysical form is the highest form, which is the same as God, but because the trehdev can take physical form, this lowers them in the hierachy from Mahakaal. And due to taking the physical form they can be bound by maya and the panch avguns.

When in physical form they conform the the laws of nature ie birth and death. eg Vishnus avtaars.

Satguru, is something which is the same as these trehdev but its higher because even though its in physical form, the Satguru isnt influenced by maya and the panch avguns.

This doesnt however mean that we do not take into account the treh dev because if it wasnt for their contributions we wouldnt be here.

As to the Shivaling, the reason it is so important is, because in the beginning the way reproduction occured in accordance to the purans was via the eyes where the male would transfer the tejh into the female, hence why the pachbhramaputras remained balabhramacharis, this process to a long time, and when beseached to bhrama, the sexual intercourse idea was created.

The shivalingam represents life, the male and female counterparts of Gods persona, coming together to sajjha shrishti, the milk represents the river of life, there are many references to life as a river/sea eg sansaar samunday taar gobinday etc

heres one for you wbol to research, the shivalingam as a jyotrilingam.

Chatanga wrote:

deh shiva is Guru describing the power of God, ie sword aka Chandi. This at the end of the Chandi Charitar which describes the power of God Chandi against evil ie rakshas. at the end Guru Says Please Chandi(shiva) aka sword/God give me this boon...

For many moons i couldnt make out why Guru Ji wrote Shiva, until I read about Shiv Ji nad found that Shiv Ji actually accorded the status of Shiva to Parbati who was an incarnation of Chandi.

tis quite complicated, and dumbasses make a lot of mileage out of this, including my Sikh friend who used this line to "prove" that Sikhs were part of the Hindu religion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Scholars concur that the closing stanza of Chandi Charitr is Guru Jee’s own wording as an addition independent of the foregoing ‘translated’ work in the composition describing the deeds of the Goddess Durga. The reference to “siva” (and not Shiva) in “Deh Siva…” is clearly a reference to Durga alone.

Many people have problems with this, either using this as a means of disputing this composition as Sri Mukhvak Gurbani or as your friend suggests arguing that we are part of a Hindu Tantrik tradition or as you do, cover it up by asserting, in the face of literary evidence otherwise, that “Siva” somehow refers to Akal Purakh.

It would appear to be clear that the phrase “Deh Siva” refers to the Devi Durga alone and this is in no way counter to the principles of Sikhism as some consider it to be.

Durga Devi is a respected figure in the Indic tradition and the shabd “Deh Siva” is no different to say touching the feet of one’s elders for a blessing/mark of respect, which in no way implies that we are worshipping our elders and the same would appear to be true here.

a totally correct and down to earth statement, couldnt have put it in any other way, kudos to niranjana

[Pheena]

dude vishnu, brahma , shiva... they are nothing infront of WAHEGURU.

All that exists is WAHEGURUWAHEGURUWAHEGURU.....WAHEGURU CONTROLS EVERYTHING.

Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma from what I can understand is just an analogy for humans to understand the creative, destructive, preserve process.

and no body prays to Brahma..do u know that !!!

as for Shiva... he also gets incited by Kaam .. and ppl pray to him {}

that shiva lingam, is nothing but the representation of male sex organ and the femal sex organ in intercourse. the milk they through on the lingam is nothing but signification of semen... and thats what it really means..and thats what they pray and bow to !!! SHOCKING

I think in every discussion related to Hindu or any aspects of Hinduism you seem to come back with the same points of only Waheguru. I have yet to find anyone in this thread who disagree with you on this point. More so you seem to assume that because some user acknowledge or further more tend take a deeper look at the existential meaning of these Devi/Devtas that they are somehow going away from the path of the Gurus.

There are times when you must stand for what you believe and then there are times when you must look at the knowledge that you have gathered and dust it off once a while to see if what borrowed knowledge I have gathered is really worth the weight.

Just some observing thoughts, nothing more.

[DEVA]

On 10/12/2007 at 4:43 PM, Xylitol said:

seems kinda pointless to reply to this thread...but...

 

Guru Nanak was waheguru himself. But disappeared in the river for a period to be formally initiated by waheguru, ie. to get a Guru b/c that is the maryada of this world.

 

He was not given Amrit by vishnu or by imam Ali. pointless revisionism.

Kirpakaro
·
263d
Guru Ji himself says “I was a minstrel, out of work, when the Lord took me into His Service to sing his praises night and day, He gave me His Order from the beginning” (Ang 150)

 

NANAK WAS NOT GOD YOU FOOLHE WAS RAJA JANAK IN PREVIOUS LIFE HE WAS GURU GOBIND COME BACK AS HE SAID HE WOULD AND GOBIND SINGH JI SAID ANYONE WHO CALLS ME GOD WILL GO TO HELL.

SGGS SAYS. KRISHNA IS LORD OF ALL HE IS THE DIVINITY OF THE SOUL...SIKHS ARE IGNORANT OF THIS AND MAKE MEN INTO GOD AND THE GOD WHO CAME MAKE HIM INTO A DEVIL

 

GO READ GRANTH SAHIB. PAGE 469 v5 - 2 KRISHNA IS LORD.

 

AND

 

GURU GOBIND SINGH JI SAID IN SAWSAAKI Page 581 v 149

AKAAL PURAKH WILL COME HIMSELF TO SAVE THE GOOD AT END OF KALIYUGA

 

DO YOU RESEARCH AND GAIN PROPER KNOWLEDGE INSTEAD MAKING FALSE CLAIMS AND SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

 

GOD WAS NOT ANY GURUS. IN FACT GURU RAM DHAS BECAME DISCIPLE OF GURU ANGAD. GURU RAM DHAS WAS NOT ONE WITH GOD BUT HIS HUMBLE PURITY SEVA HE WAS IVSB GADDI.

KRISHNA SAID IN BHAGAVAD-GITA GITA. I AM THE SOURCE OF ALL CREATION I LIVE IN ALL YR HEARTS. I AM THE SUPREME BEING FORMLESS NOTHING HAPPEND WITHOUT MY WILL.

 

NOW WHY WOULD THE GURUS WRITE IN SGGS THAT KRISHNA IS GOD WHEN THEY SAY GOD CAN'T TAKE BIRTH LOL. WHEN SIKHS LACK TRUE SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE THEY THEN CREATE FALSE IDEAS.

 

SSA