Terms Used In Sri Dasam Granth

[navjot2]

They may be anything but Guru ji does not ask boon from such deities anywhere repeat anywhere in Dasam granth.

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!

Edited August 28, 2009 by navjot2

[singh2]

where do the words Akal and Purakh appear here? outside of your imagination i mean?

You need to go to elementary school to learn basics and that too where RSS does not have influence.

Read the whole shabad given below. It is all praise of akal purakh. Do not take one line and distort it.

ਤ੍ਵਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ ਲਘੂ ਨਿਰਾਜ ਛੰਦ ॥

त्वप्रसादि ॥ लघू निराज छंद ॥

BY THY GRACE. LAGHU NIRAAJ STANZA

ਜਲੇ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਥਲੇ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਉਰੇ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਬਨੇ ਹਰੀ ॥੧॥੫੧॥

जले हरी ॥ थले हरी ॥ उरे हरी ॥ बने हरी ॥१॥५१॥

The Lord is in water. The Lord is on land. The Lord is in the heart. The Lord is in the forests.1.51.

ਗਿਰੇ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਗੁਫੇ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਛਿਤੇ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਨਭੇ ਹਰੀ ॥੨॥੫੨॥

गिरे हरी ॥ गुफे हरी ॥ छिते हरी ॥ नभे हरी ॥२॥५२॥

The Lord is in he mountains. The Lord is in the cave. The Lord is in he earth. The Lord is in the sky. 2.52.

ਈਹਾਂ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਉਹਾਂ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਜਿਮੀ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਜਮਾ ਹਰੀ ॥੩॥੫੩॥

ईहां हरी ॥ उहां हरी ॥ जिमी हरी ॥ जमा हरी ॥३॥५३॥

The Lord is in here. The Lord is there. The Lord is in the earth. The Lord is in the sky. 3.53.

ਅਲੇਖ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਭੇਖ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਦੋਖ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਦ੍ਵੈਖ ਹਰੀ ॥੪॥੫੪॥

अलेख हरी ॥ अभेख हरी ॥ अदोख हरी ॥ अद्वैख हरी ॥४॥५४॥

The Lord is Accountless. The Lord is guiseless. The Lord is blemishless. The Lord is sans duality.4.54.

ਅਕਾਲ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਪਾਲ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਛੇਦ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਭੇਦ ਹਹੀ ॥੫॥੫੫॥

अकाल हरी ॥ अपाल हरी ॥ अछेद हरी ॥ अभेद हही ॥५॥५५॥

The Lord is non-temporal. The Lord cannot be reated. The Lord is Indestructible. The Lord`s secrets cannot be known. 5.55.

ਅਜੰਤ੍ਰ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਸੁ ਤੇਜ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਤੰਤ੍ਰ ਹਰੀ ॥੬॥੫੬॥

अजंत्र हरी ॥ अमंत्र हरी ॥ सु तेज हरी ॥ अतंत्र हरी ॥६॥५६॥

The Lord is not in mystical digrams. The Lord is not in incantations. The Lord is of bright effulgence. The Lord is not in Tantras (magical formulas). 6.56.

ਅਜਾਤ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਪਾਤ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਮਿਤ੍ਰ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਮਾਤ ਹਰੀ ॥੭॥੫੭॥

अजात हरी ॥ अपात हरी ॥ अमित्र हरी ॥ अमात हरी ॥७॥५७॥

The Lord does not take birth. The Lord does not experience death. The Lord is without any friend. The Lord is without mother. 7.57.

ਅਰੋਗ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਸੋਗ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਭਰਮ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਕਰਮ ਹਰੀ ॥੮॥੫੮॥

अरोग हरी ॥ असोग हरी ॥ अभरम हरी ॥ अकरम हरी ॥८॥५८॥

The Lord is without any ailment. The Lord is without grief, The Lord is Illusionless. The Lord is Actionless. 8.58.

ਅਜੈ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਭੈ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਭੇਦ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਛੇਦ ਹਰੀ ॥੯॥੫੯॥

अजै हरी ॥ अभै हरी ॥ अभेद हरी ॥ अछेद हरी ॥९॥५९॥

The Lord is Unconquerable. The Lord is Fearless. The Lord`s secrets cannot be known. The Lord is Unassailable. 9.59.

ਅਖੰਡ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਭੰਡ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਡੰਡ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਚੰਡ ਹਰੀ ॥੧੧॥੬੦॥

अखंड हरी ॥ अभंड हरी ॥ अडंड हरी ॥ प्रचंड हरी ॥११॥६०॥

The Lord is Indivisible. The Lord cannot be slandered. The Lord cannot be punished. The Lord is Supremenly Glorious.10.60.

ਅਤੇਵ ਹੂਰੀ ॥ ਅਭੇਵ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਜੇਵ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਅਛੇਵ ਹਰੀ ॥੧੧॥੬੧॥

अतेव हूरी ॥ अभेव हरी ॥ अजेव हरी ॥ अछेव हरी ॥११॥६१॥

The Lord is extremely Great. The Lord`s mystery cannot be known. The Lord needs no food. The Lord is Invincible. 11.61.

ਭਜੋ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਥਪੋ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਤਪੋ ਹਰੀ ॥ ਜਪੋ ਹਰੀ ॥੧੨॥੬੨॥

भजो हरी ॥ थपो हरी ॥ तपो हरी ॥ जपो हरी ॥१२॥६२॥

Meditate on the Lord. Worship the Lord. Perform devotion for the Lord. Repeat the Name of the lord. 12.62.

ਜਲਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਥਲਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਨਦਿਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਨਦਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੩॥੬੩॥

जलस तुहीं ॥ थलस तुहीं ॥ नदिस तुहीं ॥ नदस तुहीं ॥१३॥६३॥

O Lord! Thou art water. O Lord! Thou art dry land.O Lord! Thou art the stream. O Lord ! Thou art the Ocean. 13.63

ਬ੍ਰਿਛਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਪਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਛਿਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਉਰਧਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੪॥੬੪॥

ब्रिछस तुहीं ॥ पतस तुहीं ॥ छितस तुहीं ॥ उरधस तुहीं ॥१४॥६४॥

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.

ਭਜਸ ਤੁਅੰ ॥ ਭਜਸ ਤੁਅੰ ॥ ਰਟਸ ਤੁਅੰ ॥ ਠਟਸ ਤੁਅੰ ॥੧੫॥੬੫॥

भजस तुअं ॥ भजस तुअं ॥ रटस तुअं ॥ ठटस तुअं ॥१५॥६५॥

O Lord! I meditate on Thee. O Lord! I meditate on Thee.O Lord! I repeat Thy Name. O Lord ! I worship Thee. 15.65.

ਜਿਮੀ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਜਮਾ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਮਕੀ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਮਕਾ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੬॥੬੬॥

जिमी तुहीं ॥ जमा तुहीं ॥ मकी तुहीं ॥ मका तुहीं ॥१६॥६६॥

O Lord! Thou art the earth. O Lord! Thou art the sky.O Lord ! Thou art the Owner of the house. O Lord! Thou art the house Thyself. 16.66.

ਅਭੂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਅਭੈ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਅਛੂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਅਛੈ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੭॥੬੭॥

अभू तुहीं ॥ अभै तुहीं ॥ अछू तुहीं ॥ अछै तुहीं ॥१७॥६७॥

O Lord! Thou art birthless. O Lord Thou art Fearless.O Lord ! Thou art Untouchabe. O Lord ! Thou art Invincible.17.67.

ਜਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਗਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਮਤਸ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੮॥੬੮॥

जतस तुहीं ॥ ब्रतस तुहीं ॥ गतस तुहीं ॥ मतस तुहीं ॥१८॥६८॥

O Lord! Thou art the celibacy. O Lord! Thou art the means for a virtuous deed. O Lord! Thou art the salvation. O Lord! Thou art the Redemption. 18.68.

ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੧੯॥੬੯॥

तुहीं तुहीं ॥ तुहीं तुहीं ॥ तुहीं तुहीं ॥ तुहीं तुहीं ॥१९॥६९॥

O Lord! Everything art Thou, Everything Thou art. O Lord! Everything Thou art the salvation. O Lord ! Everything art Thou, Everything Thou art. O Lord! Everything Thou art. O Lord! Everything art Thou, Everything Thou art. 19.69.

ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ॥੨੦॥੭੦॥

तुहीं तुहीं ॥ तुहीं तुहीं ॥ तुहीं तुहीं ॥ तुहीं तुहीं ॥२०॥७०॥

O Lord! Everything art Thou, Everything Thou art. O Lord! Everything art Thou, Eveything Thou art. O Lord! Everything art Thou, Everything Thou art. O Lord! O Lord! Everything art Thou, Everything Thou art. 20.70.

[navjot2]

focus on the discussion of siva. Siva in gurbani is always God as is Ram. Do not try to wiggle out from this.

These words are not patented by Hindu thugs. If so show us?

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?

[navjot2]

You need to go to elementary school to learn basics and that too where RSS does not have influence.

Read the whole shabad given below. It is all praise of akal purakh. Do not take one line and distort it.

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.

[singh2]

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!

Navjot2

He is no different from his shakti. As we are part of Him his shakti is present in us also. We have to make efforts to realize that shakti. We have that potential too if we follow Gurmat and naam simran.

That is what Gursikhs of past have done. We do not need to revere any deity (be it durga or her husband demigod shiva ) for that. That shakti is within our body. There lies the difference between Hinduism and sikhism.

So do not ever imagine Guru ji asking boon from any idol. He was idol breaker. Neither his sikhs revere any idol. It is like death for us.

Guru sahib writes

ਸਿਵ ਸਕਤੀ ਦੇਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਏ ॥

Siva saktee dehee mahi paaye:

Both Spirit and matter are placed into the body

ang 1056.

Follow what is written above.

Edited August 28, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

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.

What is the name of bani? Do not forget that. It is called Akal Ustati. So when Guru ji says Tu Hi it means referering to akal.

Another RSS trick from up your sleeves.

Edited August 28, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

ਦਸਮ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚ ਅਵਤਾਰਵਾਦ ਦਾ ਖੰਡਨ

ਕਿਤੇ ਕਿਸਨ ਸੇ ਕੀਟ ਕੋਟੈ ਉਪਾਏ, ਉਸਾਰੇ ਗੜੇ ਫਿਰ ਮੇਟੇ ਬਨਾਏ॥

He hath Created millions of Krishnas like worms. He Created them, annihilated them, again destroyed them, still again Created them.

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

ਕਿਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਸੇ ਕੀਟ ਕੋਟੈ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਕਿਤੇ ਰਾਮ ਸੇ ਮੇਟਿ ਡਾਰੇ ਉਪਾਏ ॥

Somewhere He hath created millions of servants like Krishna. Somewhere He hath effaced and then created (many) like Rama. (pg.98)

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

ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਉਬਾਰ ਨ ਸਕਹੈ ਜਾਕਰ ਨਾਮ ਰਟੈ ਹੈ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸ਼ਨ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਸੂਰਹ ਸਸਿ ਤੇ ਬਸਿ ਕਾਲ ਸਭੈ ਹੈ ॥੧ (ਸ. ਹਜਾਰੇ)

Ram and Rahim whose names you are uttering cant save you. Brahma, Vishnu Shiva, Sun and Moon, all are subject to the power of Death.1. .(pg.1349)

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

ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ॥ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈਂ ਹਮ ਏਕਨ ਜਾਨਯੋ॥ ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਯੋ ॥ (ਰਾਮਾਵਤਾਰ)

O God ! the day when I caught hold of your feet, I do not bring anyone else under my sight; none other is liked by me now; the Puranas and the Quran try to know Thee by the names of Ram and Rahim and talk about you through several stories, but I do not accept these

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

ਜਾਕਰ ਰੂਪ ਰੰਗ ਨਹਿ ਜਨਿਯਤ ਸੋ ਕਿਮ ਸਯਾਮ ਕਹੈ ਹੈ॥ (ਸਬਦ ਹਜ਼ਾਰੇ ਪਾ.10)

He, whose form and colour are not, how can he be called Shyaam (black)? .(p1349)

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

ਕਾਹੂ ਕਹਯੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨਾਂ ਕਹੁ ਕਾਹੂ ਮਨੈ ਅਵਤਾਰਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਸਾਰ ਸਭੈ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਜੀਅ ਜਾਨਯੋ॥...ਅੰਤ ਮਰੇ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ਪ੍ਰਿਥੀ ਪਰ, ਜੇ ਜਗ ਮੈ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਕਹਾਏ॥(33 ਸਵੈਯੇ)

Someone calls Him Ram or Krishna and someone believes in His incarnations, but my mind has forsaken all useless actions and has accepted only One Creator.12. (p.1352)

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

ਕਾਲ ਹੀ ਪਾਇ ਭਇਓ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਗਹਿ ਦੰਡ ਕਮੰਡਲ ਭੂਮ ਭ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਕਾਲ ਹੀ ਪਾਇ ਸਦਾ ਸ਼ਿਵਜੂ ਸਭ ਦੇਸ ਬਿਦੇਸ ਭਇਆ ਹਮ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥

Brahma came into being under the control of time and taking his staff and pot his hand, he wandered on the earth; Shiva was also under the control of time and wandered in various countries far and near;

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

ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਔ ਬਿਸਨ ਜਪੇ ਤੁਹਿ ਕੋਟਿਕ ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਭਲੀ ਬਿਧਿ ਧਿਆਯੋ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਜਪਿਓ ਅਰੁ ਸੰਭੁ ਥਪਿਓ ਤਿਹ ਤੇ ਤੁਹਿ ਕੋ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਨ ਬਚਾਯੋ ॥……..ਤੋਹਿ ਬਚਾਇ ਸਕੈ ਕਹੁ ਕੈਸੇ ਕੈ ਆਪਨ ਘਾਵ ਬਚਾਇ ਨ ਐਹੈ ॥ਕੋਪ ਕਰਾਲ ਕੀ ਪਾਵਕ ਕੁੰਡ ਮੈ ਆਪ ਟੰਗਿਓ ਤਿਮ ਤੋਹਿ ਟੰਗੈਹੈ ॥

Thou hast meditated on millions of Krishnas, Vishnus, Ramas and Rahims. Thou hast recited the name of Brahma and established Shivalingam, even then none could save thee…….They cannot save themselves form the blow of death, how can they protect thee? They are all hanging in the blazing fire of anger, therefore they will cause thy hanging similarly. (pg111)

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

ਮੈ ਨ ਗਨੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਮਨਾਊਂ ॥ ਕਿਸ਼ਨ ਬਿਸ਼ਨ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹ ਧਿਆਊਂ ॥ਕਾਨ ਸੁਨੇ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ ਨ ਤਿਨ ਸੋਂ ॥ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ਮੋਰੀ ਪਗ ਇਨ ਸੋਂ ॥੪੩੪॥ (ਕ੍ਰਿ.ਵਤਾਰ)

I do not adore Ganesha in the beginning and also do not meditate on Krishna and Vishnu; I have only heard about them with my ears and I do not recognize them; my consciousness is absorbed at the feet of the Supreme Lord.434.

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

ਖੋਜ ਰਹੇ ਸ਼ਿਵ ਸੇ ਜਿਹ ਅੰਤ ਅਨੰਤ ਕਹਿਓ ਥਕ ਅੰਤ ਨ ਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੀ ਬਾਤ ਸੁਨੋ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਮੁਖ ਤੇ ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਇਹੈ ਠਹਰਾਯੋ ॥੨੪੦੩॥

He, whom Shiva etc. had been searching, but could not know His Mystery; O Shukdev ! relate to me the story of that Lord.2403.

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

ਜੌ ਕਹੌ ਰਾਮ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਅਜੈ ਅਤਿ ਕਾਹੇ ਕੌ ਕੌਸ਼ਲ ਕੁੱਖ ਜਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਕਾਲ ਹੂੰ ਕਾਲ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹਿ ਕੌ ਕਿਹਿ ਕਾਰਣ ਕਾਲ ਤੇ ਦੀਨ ਭਯੋ ਜੂ ॥

If you consider Ram, the Lord as Unborn, then how did he take birth from the womb of Kaushalya? He, who is said to be the destroyer of death, then why did he become subjugated himself before death?

ਸੱਤ ਸਰੂਪ ਬਿਬੈਰ ਕਹਾਇ ਸੁ ਕਯੋਂ ਪਥ ਕੌ ਰਥ ਹਾਂਕ ਧਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕਰਿ ਕੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਕੋਊ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਲੇਨ ਲਯੋ ਜੂ ॥੧੩॥

If he (Krishna) is called the Truth-incarnate, beyond enmity and opposition, then why did he become the charioteer of Arjuna? O mind! you only consider him the Lord God, whose Mysetry could not be known to anyone.13.

ਕਯੋਂ ਕਹੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨਿਧ ਹੈ ਕਿਹ ਕਾਜ ਤੇ ਬੱਧਕ ਬਾਣ ਲਗਾਯੋ ॥ ਅਉਰ ਕੁਲੀਨ ਉਧਾਰਤ ਜੋ ਕਿਹ ਤੇ ਅਪਨੋ ਕੁਲ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਯੋ ॥

Krishna himself is considered the treasure of Grace, then why did the hunter shot his arrow at him? He has been described as redeeming the clans of others then he caused the destruction of his own clan;

ਆਦਿ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਕਹਾਇ ਕਹੋ ਕਿਮ ਦੇਵਕਿ ਕੇ ਜਠਰੰਤਰ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਤ ਨ ਮਾਤ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਤਿਹ ਕਯੋਂ ਬਸੁਦੇਵਹਿ ਬਾਪੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥੧੪॥

If he (Krishna) is said to be unborn and without a beginning, then how did he come into the womb of Devaki? He, who is considered without any father or mother, then why did he cause Vasudev to be called his father? 14.

ਕਾਹੇ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਮਹੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਭਾਖਤ ਕਾਹਿ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਹੈ ਨ ਰਘ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਜਦ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਰਮਾਪਤਿ ਤੈ ਜਿਨ ਕੌ ਬਿਸ੍ਵਨਾਥ ਪਛਾਨਯੋ ॥

Why do you consider Shiva or Brahma as the Lord? There is none amongst Ram, Krishna and Vishnu, who may be considered as the Lord of the Universe by you;

ਏਕ ਕੋ ਛਾਡਿ ਅਨੇਕ ਭਜੈ ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਪਰਾਸਰ ਬਯਾਸ ਝੁਠਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਸਜੇ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੌ ਬਿਧ ਨੈਕ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੫॥

Relinquishing the One Lord, you remember many gods and goddesses; in this way

ਕੋਊ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਤ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਕੋਊ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਬਤੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਕੋਊ ਕਹੈ ਬਿਸ਼ਨੋ ਬਿਸ਼ਨਾਇਕ ਜਾਹਿ ਭਜੇ ਅਘ ਓਘ ਕਟੈ ਹੈ ॥

Someone calls Brahma as the Lord-God and someone tells the same thing about Shiva; someone considers Vishnu as the hero of the universe and says that only by remembering him, all the sins will be destroyed;

ਬਾਰ ਹਜ਼ਾਰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਅਰੇ ਜੜ ਅੰਤ ਸਮੈ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਤਜਿ ਜੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਧਯਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਿ ਹੀਏ ਜੋਊ ਥੇ ਅਬ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਆਗੈ ਊ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥

O fool ! think about it a thousand times, all of them will leave you at the time of death. Therefore, you should only meditate on Him, who was in the past, is there in the present and will also be there in the future.16.

ਕੋਟਕ ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਕਰੇ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਕਈ ਕੋਟਿ ਉਪਿੰਦ੍ਰ ਬਾਨਇ ਖਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਦਾਨਵ ਦੇਵ ਫਨਿੰਦ੍ਰ ਧਰਾਧਰ ਪੱਛ ਪਸੂ ਨਹਿ ਜਾਤਿ ਗਨਾਯੋ ॥

He, who created millions of Indras and Upendras and then destroyed them; He, who created innumerable gods, demons, Sheshnaga, tortoises, birds, animals etc.,

ਆਜ ਲਗੇ ਤਪੁ ਸਾਧਤ ਹੈ ਸ਼ਿਵ ਊ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਕਛੁ ਪਾਰ ਨ ਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਨ ਭੇਦ ਲਖਯੋ ਜਿਹ ਸੋਊ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰ ਮੋਹਿ ਬਤਾਯੋ ॥੧੭॥

And for knowing whose Mystery, Shiva and Brahma are performing austerities even till today, but could not know His end; He is such a Guru, whose Mystery could not be comprehended also by Vedas and Katebs and my Guru has told me the same thing.17.

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

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਨ ਭੇਦ ਲਹਯੋ ਤਿਹਿ ਸਿੱਧ ਸਮਾਧਿ ਸਭੈ ਕਰਿ ਹਾਰੇ ॥ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਬੀਚਾਰੇ ॥

The Vedas and Ketebs could not comprehend His Mystery and the adepts have been defeated in practicing contemplation; Different kinds of thoughts have been mentioned about God in Vedas, Shastras, Puranas and smrities; (p1351)

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

ਸੋ ਕਿਮ ਮਾਨਸ ਰੂਪ ਕਹਾਏ॥ ਸਿਧ ਸਮਾਧਿ ਸਾਧ ਕਰ ਹਾਰੇ ਕਯੋ੍‍ ਨ ਦੇਖਨ ਪਾਏ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ (ਸ. ਹਜ਼ਾਰੇ)

How can He be said to come in human form? The Siddha (adept) in deep meditation became tired of the discipline on not seeing Him in any way…..Pause. (p.1348)

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

ਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਸੁਰੇਸ਼ ਗਣੇਸ਼ ਮਹੇਸੁਰ ਗਾਹਿ ਫਿਰੈ ਸ੍ਰੁਤਿ ਥਾਹ ਨ ਆਯੋ ॥

ਰੇ ਮਨ ਮੂੜ ਅਗੂੜ ਇਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤੈ ਕਿਹ ਕਾਜਿ ਕਹੋ ਬਿਸਰਾਯੋ ॥ 4॥ 1350 33 ਸਵੈਯੇ

Sheshnaga, Indra, Gandesha, Shiva and also the Shrutis (Vedas) could not know Thy Mystery; O my foolish mind! why have you forgotten such a Lord. 4.

Edited August 28, 2009 by singh2

[Kaljug]

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?

Your hypothetical Vaihnav and your Durga devotee will interpret Dasam bani according to their own Hindumat, exactly as you are interpreting Dasam Bani according to your own Hindu ideology. Neither of these have anything to do with Gurmat.

The fact remains that what differentiates Sikhs from Hindus is that Gurbani calls God by the name of Ram and a Sikh understands this as one of many names used to refer to God, but a Hindu interprets this as being the same being as Ram of Ayodhya. Sikhs do not believe the mythological Ram of Hindu tales is equivalent to Ram referring to God, neither is Ram of Ayodhya considered any kind of sargun form of God. Should the story of Ramayana disappear from the face of the earth and the memory of its Hindu inhabitants, God would still exist, but the Hindu Ram would cease to be.

k.

[laalsingh]

Your hypothetical Vaihnav and your Durga devotee will interpret Dasam bani according to their own Hindumat, exactly as you are interpreting Dasam Bani according to your own Hindu ideology. Neither of these have anything to do with Gurmat.

The fact remains that what differentiates Sikhs from Hindus is that Gurbani calls God by the name of Ram and a Sikh understands this as one of many names used to refer to God, but a Hindu interprets this as being the same being as Ram of Ayodhya. Sikhs do not believe the mythological Ram of Hindu tales is equivalent to Ram referring to God, neither is Ram of Ayodhya considered any kind of sargun form of God. Should the story of Ramayana disappear from the face of the earth and the memory of its Hindu inhabitants, God would still exist, but the Hindu Ram would cease to be.

k.

It even goes beyond that. Nirankar exists even if this universe (along with time and space) disappears.

[Balbir Singh]

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakaal!

Dear all!

Please ponder. Sikhs are not able to convince each other. Why? Perhaps Sikhs need to experience truth first.

Since years seeker's mind is being filled with the wrong translations and preaching. Today they are fighting to prove that they are right what they have understood.

Here are few examples from some posts.

Singh2 Jee provided these translations.

ਕਿਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਸੇ ਕੀਟ ਕੋਟੈ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਕਿਤੇ ਰਾਮ ਸੇ ਮੇਟਿ ਡਾਰੇ ਉਪਾਏ ॥

Somewhere He hath created millions of servants like Krishna. Somewhere He hath effaced and then created (many) like Rama. (pg.98)

In my view the correct translation is this.

Somewhere through Krisan millions of lives produced. Somewhere through Raam deleted the created.

-----

This is another example.

ਮੈ ਨ ਗਨੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਮਨਾਊਂ ॥ ਕਿਸ਼ਨ ਬਿਸ਼ਨ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹ ਧਿਆਊਂ ॥ਕਾਨ ਸੁਨੇ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ ਨ ਤਿਨ ਸੋਂ ॥ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ਮੋਰੀ ਪਗ ਇਨ ਸੋਂ ॥੪੩੪॥ (ਕ੍ਰਿ.ਵਤਾਰ)

I do not adore Ganesha in the beginning and also do not meditate on Krishna and Vishnu; I have only heard about them with my ears and I do not recognize them; my consciousness is absorbed at the feet of the Supreme Lord.434.

May I ask if 'in saoN' ਇਨ ਸੋਂ is another name of the supreme Lord as mentioned in the above translation?

*****

Quote from Kaljug Jee "God would still exist, but the Hindu Ram would cease to be."

Enlightened Kaljug Jee, please explain. God would still exist, but what will happen with the Sikh Raam?

*****

The reverend Gurus have not only used the word 'ustati'. They have done ustati of Akaal, Kaal, Mahaakaal, Devee etc.

In Sri Guru Granth Saahib Jee the true Gurus have not only used the word 'Maaee' but also asked favor from 'Maaee'. Why?

Who is this 'Maaee'?

Is this all 'Waheguru' that Sikhs do not know?

Balbir Singh

PS I am away for few weeks.

[shaheediyan]

I think many people are getting overly 'heated'. From what I have read, Navjot is not promoting idol worship or the historical existence of demigods. He is talking about shakti forms - these forms have been given names - and later on given artistic appearances (as is in the nature of humans - to make concepts manifest i.e. through art - put a face to them)... in fact, the actual visual depictions of concepts (demigods) have very deep meanings - and do not 'actually' represent some genetic mutations with numeous limbs i.e. Sarasvati is the artistic representation of God (in Indian Dharmas) her many arms and the artifacts they are holding represent the many artistic/knowledge/scientific forms.

Same way, Khalsa (and Hindus) of old used Chandi as visual/poetic/psychological depiction of shakti - esp in war with Chandi on nishaan sahibs and represented in a form in battle standards... this does not mean that Khalsa worshipped Chandi (as most people understand it).

The confusion arises in the common Hindu understanding of these 'aspects' of God - which are thought to be actual demigods - or actual beings to be worshipped... where as Guru makes clear through their bani that they are all one and same - and also hints towards their conceptual origins - which all represent 'the one' - which is where Singh2 is coming from.

I think if everyone calmed down a little, you would see that your ideologies are not so different.

Navjot, please could you tell us what the differences are in these forms of shakti, or are the same using different names?

"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."

Also, one benti, you are not showing any Sikh traits by insulting Gursikhs which are held dear by the Panth i.e. Baba Jarnail Singh, if you don't agree with 1984, thats your business, but without having actually listened to his kathaa or read about the other 99% of his jeevan, you are not in a place to pass comment - and neither will you make friends, no matter what you think, Baba Jarnail Singh was a puran Gursikh - a devoted naam abyaasi, NITNEMI, parchaarak, who has brought hundreds of thousands of lost souls on to Guru Nanaks Marg, both directly and indirectly.

Thanks.

[singh2]

]hink many people are getting overly 'heated'. From what I have read, Navjot is not promoting idol worship or the historical existence of demigods. He is talking about shakti forms - these forms have been given names - and later on given artistic appearances (as is in the nature of humans - to make concepts manifest i.e. through art - put a face to them)... in fact, the actual visual depictions of concepts (demigods) have very deep meanings - and do not 'actually' represent some genetic mutations with numeous limbs i.e. Sarasvati is the artistic representation of God (in Indian Dharmas) her many arms and the artifacts they are holding represent the many artistic/knowledge/scientific forms.

I wish you should read whole thread before writing these remarks.

The thread started when navjot2 said that Guru sahib is asking boon from Durga in shabad

deh siva bar mohe hai. My argumenets is in that shabad Siva is a refrence to God the almighty

and not to Durga. Our Guru do not seek boon from idols.

The above is the original discussion. Then he kept on changing his stand.

Do you also believe that Guru is asking boon from Durga? Your remarks without reading

the central topic are very misleading. WE should focus on the topic.

[singh2]

We know the position of demigods described in Gurbani. Gurbani says time and again that these deities were engrossed in maya and could not transgress maya and hence carry no relevance.

Khalsa old or new ( of course khalsa is same)do not revere them and their Guru do not ask blessing from these demigods or deities.

In these episodes the central message from Guru ji is that these deities are creation of God and do not consider them as God as was the norm among Hindus. There is clear difference also between shkati of God symbolized by weapons and deity durga.Gurbani says that shakti is within each of us and we have to realize that shakti of God.

Let us lay it to rest. If someone has other opinion it is a personal one.

Edited August 28, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

Also, one benti, you are not showing any Sikh traits by insulting Gursikhs which are held dear by the Panth i.e. Baba Jarnail Singh, if you don't agree with 1984, thats your business, but without having actually listened to his kathaa or read about the other 99% of his jeevan, you are not in a place to pass comment - and neither will you make friends, no matter what you think, Baba Jarnail Singh was a puran Gursikh - a devoted naam abyaasi, NITNEMI, parchaarak, who has brought hundreds of thousands of lost souls on to Guru Nanaks Marg, both directly and indirectly.

Bhai sahib

We are not sure if he is a sikh at all. let us believe you for a moment. Let us see if he will ever show respect to sikh martyrs of 1984. He will never and you know why because he is 100 percent hard core Hindu fanatic. These people danced bhangra in the streets of Amritsar after army take over of Harmandir sahib and distributed laddoos among themselves. They hired goondas and smashed model of Golden temple on dispaly at railway station before operation blue star.

I did not see his comments on bhindrewale in this thread. Are you talking some old thread.

[Kaljug]

I think many people are getting overly 'heated'. From what I have read, Navjot is not promoting idol worship or the historical existence of demigods. He is talking about shakti forms - these forms have been given names - and later on given artistic appearances (as is in the nature of humans - to make concepts manifest i.e. through art - put a face to them)... in fact, the actual visual depictions of concepts (demigods) have very deep meanings - and do not 'actually' represent some genetic mutations with numeous limbs i.e. Sarasvati is the artistic representation of God (in Indian Dharmas) her many arms and the artifacts they are holding represent the many artistic/knowledge/scientific forms.

Fateh!

Actually no, navjot2 is saying Dasmesh Pita worshipped these deities and that these deities are equivalent to Akal, see his reference to "sargun" Durga (there is no nirguna Durga in Sikhi). He also believes that the Shiv referred to in Gurbani and in the Deh Shiva shabad in particular refers to the Hindu Shiva as envisioned by Shaivites. Shaivites might believe that Shiva is eternal, but this is not in accord with the Sikh belief.

K.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Kaljug

[singh2]

Fateh!

Actually no, navjot2 is saying Dasmesh Pita worshipped these deities and that these deities are equivalent to Akal, see his reference to "sargun" Durga (there is no nirguna Durga in Sikhi). He also believes that the Shiv referred to in Gurbani and in the Deh Shiva shabad in particular refers to the Hindu Shiva as envisioned by Shaivites. Shaivites might believe that Shiva is eternal, but this is not in accord with the Sikh belief.

K.

Very correctly said by Bhai sahib.

The whole debate triggered when he said in shabad " deh siva bar mohe --" Guru ji is asking boon from Durga. That amounts to distortion as words will mean differently per context.

[Xylitol]

He's like a Hindu Bahadur Singh. No difference...

[Kaljug]

He's like a Hindu Bahadur Singh. No difference...

Does that mean some Sikh put some beef mince in his vegetable lasagne and he has become a Sikhiphobe as a result?

K.

[navjot2]

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.

[navjot2]

What is the name of bani? Do not forget that. It is called Akal Ustati. So when Guru ji says Tu Hi it means referering to akal.

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

[navjot2]

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?

Edited August 29, 2009 by navjot2

[navjot2]

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.

[Kaljug]

I did not tell anyone to worship Hindu devtas.

You lie.

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?

Keep talking shit, you cow-worshipping bahman slave. Obviously every Sikh in the world except you and Balbir Singh with his mango fetish are wrong and Dasmesh Pita was a Devi worshipper.

You have been provided panktis that describe Krisna and his like as worms, you have been shown that the Hindu Shiva dies live everybody else on this rock, laalsingh has shown you the tuks from Guru Granth Sahib that show that Shaktas, Devi worshippers, are misguided fools, but you choose to ignore them and your friend Balbir invents his own translations in order to gloss over the condemnation in Gurbani of slaves of Akal like Krishna.

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."

Yeah, and this is what all the devatas have been saying since they were created - that they are the form of brahman himself. And FYI, in Durga Saptashati, Devi is described as the combined light of the male devatas.

Durga, like the leaves and the trees in Akal Ustat will one day die, as will your precious Bhavani.

K.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Kaljug

[Kaljug]

.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Kaljug

[Kaljug]

Fateh!

Baba Santa Singh describes what Bhagauti or Bhagwati means in puratan Sikhi in the second installment of his katha on Sarblog Granth:

http://nihangsingh.org/Baba%20Santa%20Singh.html (click on Chalish Nur Ey Bez Khalseh Part 2)

In it he describes Ad Shakti as being distinct from any devi or devata. He tells us that Chandika, Kalika, etc are used as names for this power of Akal. He also mentions that shakti-rupa for Sikhs is shastar and Mata Sahib Devi is regarded as mother of the Khalsa (and is the form of Ad Shakti) and not Durga Devi.Singh.

But please bear in mind that he must be mistaken because he is scared of Hindus and not as smart as navjot. And he doesn't have as many mangoes as Balbir Singh.

K.