Terms Used In Sri Dasam Granth

[singh2]

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

There is no end to ignorance. This is his creation. When he names leafs ,rivers etc he is referring to nature or parikirti.

What makes you think it is not his creation.

Edited August 29, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

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

You can call me a fanatic if i interfere in religious affairs of others. I do not do that. Guru sahib has defined who is a sikh. We do not need new definitions saying that Guru sahib was asking blessing form a multi armed idol of Durga.

Do you still believe that Guru sahib asked boon from durga in shabad " Deh siva bar mohe hain?" This is the test for you.

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.

I am stating the facts. if i am not tell me where i have lied. Do not condone the atrocities committed by Hindu right wing thugs on sikhs in pre and after 1984 periods. i had the chance to see those atrocities myself. Debate the points raised by me instead of making a general statement.

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?

Where did i say that? This is a typical mean hindu mentality to tell lies. Here you are lying nakedly. Show me where did i state that otherwsie it is another propaganda you are doing here. Moreover spelling satnam as satinaam tells us your background. A sikh does not write Satnam like that. It is like some RSS zealots writing sansar as sansara.

Of course what kalyug says is correct. It is not any erference to muslim allah. per sikhism God is one. We do not have 33 crore gods that include rats, snakes etc..

Edited August 29, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

Navjot2 is a very sophisticated liar. The thread started when Randip stated taht in Dasam granth Guru sahib worship Hindu deity shiva.

Randip said in post no. 1 of this thread.

Guruji worshipped Shiva from passage Deh Shiva......etc from Dasam Granth ji.

I replied

First of all it is not shiva. It is siva. Siva is a reference to akal purakh.

What makes you think that it is a reference to hindu God shiva?

to this navjot2 replies

You can make whatever petty squibles you want, saying 'oh its not Hindu God Shiva/Durga'. But the fact is that Guru used the word Sivaa. Not Vaheguru or Akal Purakh. If you cant even accept that what kind of 'sikh' are you?

Then he write

Now you go ask a Durga devotee/pundit who Sivaa is and he will tell you its a name of Durga. So now the question arises who is Durga (in relation to Siva)?

unquote

One can read his next few posts and all he is saying is That guru gobind singh is asking boon from Durga. By his l;ogic he will say and ahs said that refrence to akal purakh as ram in SGGS is Hindu deity Ram.

Stop telling lies and do your propaganda on some other site.

Edited August 29, 2009 by singh2

[SAadmin]

i beleive in this topic both parties views later on have gone too far subjective, it seems like both mindset either follow one extreme or another, later on in the post..where none of the views is actually parvan in Gurmat. I will explain in detail laer on..have limited internet acess at the moment.

[singh2]

i beleive in this topic both parties views later on have gone too far subjective, it seems like both mindset either follow one extreme or another, later on in the post..where none of the views is actually parvan in Gurmat. I will explain in detail laer on..have limited internet acess at the moment.

N30singh

You can write whatever you like. But the focus is on Did Guru sahib ask boon from a deity Durga?The other statement he made to bhagauti as being Durga. He had been advised that in SGGS we come across some verses such as on page 98

Gurmukh sang krishna murare

One has to interpret this refrence as not to deity krishna but akal purkah.Literal interpretataion is flawed. One has to see the attributes of God in as in mool mantra.

If continuous provocation will continue as is going on here approproate replies which may sound unpleasant at times will be furnished.

Edited August 29, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

The theories navjot2 is forwarding here can be found in this article of Sumer singh Chauhan who says that sikh Gurus were worshippers of Hindu deities.Read the rubbish written by him and same rubbish is being preached here.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0504/102.html

The argument now is based not only on the thoughts of the author of this paper but also on the indepth research of others and the interviews conducted for the research of this paper. Guru Gobind Singh describes in the Dasma Granth how Akal (God) had expanded Himself to first become Vishnu, then Brahma and Shiva. This is described in the Vichitra Natak.------

It is a documented fact that Guru Nanak worshipped Krishna----

It is accepted that Guru Gobind Singh was a staunch believer in Durga Mata (Mother Goddess) as many of his hymns such as 'Deh Vo Shiva' are directed towards Shiva (not the male god but his female consort also known as Shakti or Devi who at times is referred to by His name).----

Guru Gobind Singh worshipped Durga and fought the mughals to free Ayodhya Masjid (the controversial mosque of Ayodhya). Guru Ramdas wore a Vaishnav tilak on his forehead.

[navjot2]

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.

[navjot2]

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.

which is what i am saying!

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

Edited August 30, 2009 by navjot2

[navjot2]

There is no end to ignorance. This is his creation. When he names leafs ,rivers etc he is referring to nature or parikirti.

What makes you think it is not his creation.

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.

[navjot2]

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?

[navjot2]

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

[navjot2]

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?

[navjot2]

The theories navjot2 is forwarding here can be found in this article of Sumer singh Chauhan who says that sikh Gurus were worshippers of Hindu deities.Read the rubbish written by him and same rubbish is being preached here.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0504/102.html

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).

[navjot2]

Gurmukh sang krishna murare

One has to interpret this refrence as not to deity krishna but akal purkah.Literal interpretataion is flawed. One has to see the attributes of God in as in mool mantra.

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.

[navjot2]

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.

Edited August 30, 2009 by navjot2

[Kaljug]

which is what i am saying!

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

Namaste!

What you are not getting is that Durga, Chandi, Kalika, and all other such names in Gurbani refer to Ad Shakti. They do not refer to the Hindu goddess by the same name. Similarly, when in Akal Ustat, Dasmesh Pita says Namo Bhavani, he is saying that Akal Himself is Bhavani Shakti, not that the Hindu goddess by the same name is Akal. Baba Santa makes the same point when he says that Bhagwati in Sarbloh Granth is NOT any deva or devi.

As to your other points about Akal Ustat saying You are the leaf, You are the trees, etc you need to read the rest of the bani to understand what Dasmesh Pita means here. At the end of the list of Tu Hi's Dasmesh Pita says Tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi, tuhi tuhi. There is no object here: God simply is. What is meant is what anyone who, through bhakti, gains dib drishti = God is seen to pervade creation.

And no, I'm no expert on Durga Saptashati, but I can probably still recite Chandi Path and Chandika Dhalam by heart if I really tried to bring back childhood memories.

Read the Quran yourself. The Allah of Gurbani is not the same Allah who supposedly authored the Quran and advocated the conversion of infidels, the tax inmposed on non-Muslims, and the enslavement of the women of non-Muslims. Do you really believe that Dasmesh Pita approved of all of these things?

Bhai Gurdas Ji also makes it clear that none of the Gurus worshipped any Devi or Devata - but I suppose you think that we Sikhs are all idiots for believing Bhai Gurdas and not you who seem to believe that you have some unique understanding of Gurbani that no one else has (except of course Balbir Singh with his mangoes and the RSS "scholars" whose views you echo).

Oh yeah, and you have already forgotten about the guy with Hindu and Sikh parents who came on a SIKH forum and asked if Sikhi approved of worshipping his stone shivalingam, and who you told that some mysterious "Holy People" told you that pathar puja is parvaan in Sikhi?

Regards,

K.

[singh2]

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.

Answer my question.

The question is

Is guru gobind singh asking blessing from Durga in shabad " Deh siva bar mohe hain".

Durga is not ad shakti.

[singh2]

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.

As has been shown to you per sikh philosophy God does not take birth. He is above birth and death. Creation is part of him but in way an entity becomes him by default.

[singh2]

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.

1) Using word siva does not make guru ji a devotee of Durga. Guru sahib is very clear whom he reveres.He writes

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

(Guru Gobind Singh Jee, Jaap Sahib).

Do not interpolate to mean siva as durga. Guru ji does not ask boon from any Durga.

2) Durga worshippers are not sikhs. they are hindus. Durga is wife of demigod shiva and is considered

as absolute God which means there in no other God above her. Do not impose their philosophy on sikhs.

We follow different belief system.

Sikhism rejects your philosophy. As has been shown earlier such deities are slaves at the feet of akal purakh. For sikhs

these deities are engrossed in maya. how can they become ad shakti. get over it.

ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵਾ ਮੂਲੁ ਹੈ ਮਾਇਆ ॥

Devi devaa mool hai Maya

Maya is the origin of demigods

(sggs 129)

ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵਾ ਪੂਜਹਿ ਡੋਲਹਿ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਨਾ ॥

ਕਹਤ ਕਬੀਰ ਅਕੁਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਚੇਤਿਆ ਬਿਖਿਆ ਸਿਉ ਲਪਟਾਨਾ ॥:

Devee devaa poojahi dolahi paarbrah nahee jaanaa.

Kahat Kabeer akul nahee chetiaa bikhiaa siyu lapataanaa:

O man, you worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Being.

Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways

ang 332

For us ad shakti is in our body itself and not in multiarmed deity.

Guru sahib writes

ਸਿਵ ਸਕਤੀ ਦੇਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਪਾਏ ॥:

Siva saktee dehee mahi paaye:

Both Spirit and matter , are placed into the body

(1056 SGGS).

So try to understand instaed of indulging in propaganda here. GURBANI DOES NOT PERMIT US TO CONSIDER ANY PHYSICAL ENTITY AS GOD. WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF SHABAD GURU.

If you do not know what is shabad Guru try to learn instead of indulging in propaganda by juggllery of words. I know this is your profession and you will not stop it. But you will not be able to misguide our young people here.

Edited August 31, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

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.

Do not write rubbish here. Confine yourself to the writings in Dasam granth sahib. Dasam granth is very clear about who created Durga. In hinduism she is supreme goddess of the world . Per markandey purana the trinity( Brahma , Vishnu,mahesh) bestowed a dazzling beam of energy upon Parvati, the wife of Shiva, transforming her into the goddess Durga.

Sikhism does not buy the above fairy tale. In sikhism she is creation of God like others. There lies the difference. What you are doing is superimposing Hindu theory on sikhism though sikh scripture rejects that. How can she be ad shakti when her creators brahma , vishnu , mahesh are condemned in a very strong language in dasam granth.

In the beginning of vaar guru sahib salutes God

ੴ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹ ॥

The Lord is one and the Victory is of the Lord.

Then he writes further that God created Khanda first i.e. symbolising God's shakti and then the world.Guru sahib writes He is the one who created demigods and Durga.

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥

खंडा प्रिथमै साज कै जिन सभ सैसारु उपाइआ ॥

At first the Lord created the double-edged sword and then He created the whole world.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਦਾ ਖੇਲੁ ਰਚਾਇ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥

ब्रहमा बिसनु महेस साजि कुदरति दा खेलु रचाइ बणाइआ ॥

He created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and then created the play of Nature.

ਸਿੰਧੁ ਪਰਬਤ ਮੇਦਨੀ ਬਿਨੁ ਥੰਮ੍ਹਾ ਗਗਨਿ ਰਹਾਇਆ ॥

सिंधु परबत मेदनी बिनु थम्हा गगनि रहाइआ ॥

He created the oceans, mountains and the earth made the sky stable without columns.

ਸਿਰਜੇ ਦਾਨੋ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਤਿਨ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਬਾਦੁ ਰਚਾਇਆ ॥

सिरजे दानो देवते तिन अंदरि बादु रचाइआ ॥

He created the demons and gods and caused strife between them.

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥

तै ही दुरगा साजि कै दैता दा नासु कराइआ ॥

O Lord! By creating Durga, Thou hast caused the destruction of demons.

Edited August 31, 2009 by singh2

[navjot2]

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?

[navjot2]

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.

[navjot2]

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.

[navjot2]

As has been shown to you per sikh philosophy God does not take birth. He is above birth and death. Creation is part of him but in way an entity becomes him by default.

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).

[navjot2]

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?

Edited August 31, 2009 by navjot2