Devi Pargat By Guru Gobind Singh?

[PAL 07]

please accept my apology i didn't mean to hurt anyones emotions and i formally apologise and say sorry to you please may you forgive me...........i was only seeing if the following shabad had any meaning to you and you was being tested by the Gurus bench mark:-

Taisa maan taisa abimaan, taisa rank taisa raajan, jo vartayeh sai jugt nanak oh purkh kahieh jeevan mukt.

" The liberated souls treat respect and disrespect the poor and the king all in the same way and are not affected by it" Sukhmani Sahib

[Kaljug]

Giani Ji gives an an alternative explanation to the Panth Prakash/Suraj Prakash/Nihang ideas for the inclusion of Chandi bania in Dasam Granth 54m10s in to this katha:

http://blip.tv/file/3042566/

Edit: Actually, I suppose that this is not an alternative explanation but rather reiterates the point that Dasmesh Pita was doing ustat of Akal Purakh and not Devi.

Don't worry, PAL 07, I don't think you have offended anyone. We tend to have thick skin here.

Regards,

K.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Kaljug

[jvalasingh]

That would mean Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji Did pargat of a Devi when they went to war

That logic doesn't exactly follow because the importance of the Devi was not just for Maharaj himself going to war it was for the creation and benefit of the Khalsa.

In Suraj Prakash it says, "I have placed you in the lap (godh) of Sri Kaalika (devi)"

The act of devi becoming pragat was for the benefit of the Khalsa Panth in yudh (after Maharaj had left). That is why when he was explaining to Sangat before he left, not to worry about the future, he said you are in the protection of Sri Kalika (our mother, Adi Shakti).

It goes back to the mythology of how Dusht Daman helped Chandi in Satyug and Chandi promised to do Dusht Damans seva in Kalyug. This is Chandi's seva, Adi Shakti's seva, to instill Her Shakti into the Bhujangi warriors of the Khalsa Panth to eradicate Adharam.

That is a very good point to note. I personally have no belief that Guru Ji did aradhna of the devi for her to become pargat prior to the birth of the khalsa or yudh. They are full belief in akaal purkh and state 'Tehee Durga Saaj Kai Danta Da Naas Karaiya'!

Why would Guru Ji need to do this when their form was of Akaal purkh what is the need of any being when you are superior int he first place. (Aap narayan Kaladhar Jag Mai Parvariyo)

In no way does it lower the standing of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj. From my understanding it was the Pandit who was trying to get Devi Pargat, but it was only until when Maharaj came that She became Pargat. She then told Maharaj, take my Karad [a small dagger], and make your Panth carry this, and I will always be there for their sahiathaa [protection]. This is why we have, Sri Bhagauti Ji Sahai.

I think this concept is only accepted by the nihang samparda as everyone i have spoken to from the four other sampardas do not accept this notion as all!

I would be very surprised if such well read Sant Mahapursh from the Nirmala Sampradaya do not also believe this. Have you had contact with any? I am talking about Nirmalas who have studied in the traditional manner and carry out the puratan traditions. The only difference is their aim/directional focus in Gurmat is more akin to Brahm Gyaan and not to Dharam Yudh on a phsyical level, which makes them less interested naturally in aspects such as Shastarvidiya, Jang Vidiya di Marayda etc. That doesn't take anything away from their own, that makes sense because you focus on what you are good at and what you want to achieve. Nihangs have shastarvidiya, Nirmale have shaastarvidiya. Furthermore I would be very surprised if the Udasi Sampradya does not believe in this as well, as they have a more Shiv type focus to their approach, it would be natural to include Parbati/Chandi etc.

Have you spoken to the traditional heads of these Sampradays? (i.e. the Mahants at the Nirmala and Udasi Akharas?) If not I do not think one should make such generalizations.

Giani Baba Inderjit Singh Ji, student of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranvale, made it very clear to me that Devi [Adi Shakti, Chandi etc], was here for the protection of the Panth, and it was from the Devi whom we have received are Kirpan (karad) from.

[chatanga1]

That logic doesn't exactly follow because the importance of the Devi was not just for Maharaj himself going to war it was for the creation and benefit of the Khalsa.

In Suraj Prakash it says, "I have placed you in the lap (godh) of Sri Kaalika (devi)"

Furthermore I would be very surprised if the Udasi Sampradya does not believe in this as well, as they have a more Shiv type focus to their approach, it would be natural to include Parbati/Chandi etc.

Have you spoken to the traditional heads of these Sampradays? (i.e. the Mahants at the Nirmala and Udasi Akharas?) If not I do not think one should make such generalizations.

Giani Baba Inderjit Singh Ji, student of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranvale, made it very clear to me that Devi [Adi Shakti, Chandi etc], was here for the protection of the Panth, and it was from the Devi whom we have received are Kirpan (karad) from.

That logic doesn't exactly follow either as the creation of the Khalsa is as Akal's own army, as Guru Ji has stated in Sri Sarbloh Darbar. Why would Guru give this status and then rely on the Goddess to fulfill it?

as far as what i have read, and listened to on this this, the form of chandi was the sword, not the 8 armed devi. Chandi gives Dusht Daman the bachan that in kalyug i will protect you as the sword, not as the roop that she was in at the time ie 8 armed goddess.

i think the main thing here is what does "devi" represent to us, individually firstly and then maybe as a panth.

also as for the udasis focusing on shiv, i wouldnt really give that too much thought. Guru Nanak, the original udasi never did, and neithe rdid Baba Sri Chand. this shiv focus just didnt fit in with gurmat. unless Shiv Ji also gave Guru Ji a boon that in Kalyug,I will protect your followers as a bata of sukh nidhaan.

i spoke to the mahant of Sant Ishar Das' dera jalandhar a few years agao. very disapponted.

Edited January 10, 2010 by chatanga1

[dalsingh101]

I just don't get why some of you take granths like Suraj Prakah and Panth Prakash as 'gospel' beyond mistakes myself?

[Laadli Fauj]

how relevant is maharajs pargatting or lack of pargatting devi to our jeevans?

gur ki karni kahai dhaavau

what our guru does/did shouldn't matter so much as to what they told us to do

[PAL 07]

SHIVA will protect your followers as a bata of sukh nidhaan...LOL IM LOVIN THIS DISCUSSION......WHY CANT EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT MAHRAAJ DID PARGAT JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE HER CUZ SHE IS THE GODDESS OF WAR......THE SAKHI OF BABA NAND SINGH COMES TO MIND WHEN ALL THE DEVTAS CAME TO HAVE DARSHAN OF BABAJI AND SANT NAND SINGH SAID WHY HASN'T THE FIRE DEVTA COME AND THEN THE OTHER DEVTAS SAID THAT HE HAS HANKAAR THAT YOU NEED TO USE HIS RESOURCES TO COOK YOUR FOOD AND THEN BABAJI SAID TEEKYA FROM NOW ON PREPARED FOOD WILL COME ITSELF TO ME AND I DONT NEED THE HELP OF FIRE ANYMORE.

[jvalasingh]

That logic doesn't exactly follow either as the creation of the Khalsa is as Akal's own army, as Guru Ji has stated in Sri Sarbloh Darbar. Why would Guru give this status and then rely on the Goddess to fulfill it?

I understand your point, however you have to understand that these devi-devtey have roles and places in our system of belief. The line, ikaa maie jugat viaee thin cheley parvaan, ik sansari (brahm), ik bhandari (vishnu), ik laee di baan (shivji), from japji sahib. A parallel question can be asked, why does Brahm, Shiv and Vishnu exist? They exist for a reason, that does not mean the One Lord is lower or anything, its just His khel that these beings have certain roles/duties.

as far as what i have read, and listened to on this this, the form of chandi was the sword, not the 8 armed devi. Chandi gives Dusht Daman the bachan that in kalyug i will protect you as the sword, not as the roop that she was in at the time ie 8 armed goddess.

As far as I have understood from Giani Baba Inderjit Singh Ji, student of Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji, the sword and the 8 armed Chandi are the same, they are just different manifestations of Adi Shakti. Adi Shakti is the source and as manifestated Herself over all the yugs as different forms to protect Dharam, in this Yug She can be seened and worshiped in the Sword (and other weapons).

[Kam1825]

jvalasingh the quotes fromthe Suraj prakash are just copied and elaborations of the Gurbilas Patshahi 10. Yes this story comes up in both granths but if you see Bhai Santokh Singh Ji's writings ont he 6th and 10th Guru fromt he gurbilas which were already written.

From the contact i have had with all the nirmala sants so far from punjab, hardwar and haryana all deny this story to be true. Again with Taksal witht he exception of baba inderjeet singh ji all again deny this story including sant giani mohan singh ji. Udasis are not really up on this topic i asked a few in India and they did not seem to know. It is only the nihangs who believe in this concept.

I am not sure about the Namdharis and hope someone can elaborate on their thoughts on this.

Yes it is accepted that Chandi is the metaphor of Shakti. But it is the shakti and not devi that was pargat for the khalsa. I remember going through Chandi Di Vaar wtith mahapurkh who did the katha as the ballad of Chandis battles then after it finished started again through the antreev. Chandi being Shakti, Mekhaur being Kaam, Sronatbeej being to listent o slander, etc It was all pure vedant but none of the mahapursh other then nihangs i have met believe this story to be as it is but metaphorical!

[jvalasingh]

I see, well it would have to be the Nihangs who believe in such a philosophy because in reality that is who it concerns most, as their specialty is in Jangvidiya and Ithitaas.

[Kam1825]

Ithitaas???

Other then Rattan Singh Bhangus works i am not sure what ithaas has actually been preserved by the nihangs? If there are Ithaasak Granths which i am sure there are can they be named and where they are available from.

[dalsingh101]

The jangvidya too is really preservation of the vidya from another era not that which is current today.

[jvalasingh]

Ithitaas???

Other then Rattan Singh Bhangus works i am not sure what ithaas has actually been preserved by the nihangs? If there are Ithaasak Granths which i am sure there are can they be named and where they are available from.

I mean the more seena-baseena tradition of Khalsa traditions, which are distinct from the Nirmale and Udasian Panths.

Also since their worship centers around Shastar Pooja and Bir Ras Gurbani the concept of Devi and Bhagauti is extremely important to them, much more so then to Nirmale and Udasis.

[Kam1825]

Jvalasingh i do not doubt that the reverance of hte shastars are more respected and important to the nihangs as they are the Sant Sipahi Khalsa. It is evident in just the deras and focus on the vidya of shastars.

Regarding a Nirmala view of Durga, Bhagouti and Bhagvati i suggest reading the following link

http://www.panjabdigilib.org/webuser/searches/displayPageContent.jsp?ID=1688&page=1&CategoryID=1&Searched=bhagouti

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

I'm currently working on this topic and its very interesting indeed and quite complex. For the Nirmala perspective (which of course it varies), there are three separate issues involved:

1) The nature of the Devi

2) Whether or not the Devi manifested

3) Whether Sri Guru Jis ishta was the Devi

There is generally unanimity in the views on issue 1. The majority of Nirmale take the line that the Devi is to be considered maya-prakriti as explained in much detail within the Devi Bhagvatam (which has a long section describing the Devi as agyaan-maya-avidya) and the Gita. The Devi here is not to be recognized as a separate entity in the chaturbhuji sargun svarup.

Issue 2 - of the Nirmale I've spoken to, and generally in writings on this, the view is that the Devi did manifest (I cannot think of one historical text that says the Devi didnt manifest Panth Prakash, Suraj Prakash, Sudharam Marg, Mahima Prakash, Bansavalinama, Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin).

Part of this issue could be the definition of a Nirmala. When I talk of Nirmale I'm referring to those who are bhagva wearing, sanatani Sants and Mahants who maintain puratan virakat maryada, the importance of dehdhari guru, aarti puja, etc, and not to Sants who have emerged out of the Nirmala tradition during the 20th Century like Damdami Taksal.

On issue 3, I have not encountered the view that Sri Guru Ji considered the Devi his isht among Nirmale. This goes back to issue 1 that for Nirmale that Parashakti Mahamaya is inseparable from Akal Purakh. However, the idea of Sri Guru Ji being a devi-upaasak is very much an Udasi view, found in a writings dating way back (Swami Anandghan in the 19th century, Swami Shivram Das Chakravarti in the 20th century), something that was openly criticized by Kavi Santokh Singh Ji. I fully agree with Jvala Singh here that this holds great importance for the Nihangs. For example, Ive only come across a little of Avatar Singh Vahirias writings but he describes the various shaktis contained within the Amrit Sanskar.

Edited January 12, 2010 by tSingh

[Kaljug]

Gurfateh

I'm currently working on this topic and its very interesting indeed and quite complex. For the Nirmala perspective (which of course it varies), there are three separate issues involved:

1) The nature of the Devi

2) Whether or not the Devi manifested

3) Whether Sri Guru Ji’s ishta was the Devi

There is generally unanimity in the views on issue 1. The majority of Nirmale take the line that the Devi is to be considered maya-prakriti as explained in much detail within the Devi Bhagvatam (which has a long section describing the Devi as agyaan-maya-avidya) and the Gita. The Devi here is not to be recognized as a separate entity in the chaturbhuji sargun svarup.

This seems to contradict Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji with regards the futility of Shakta worship and Sri Dasam Granth which posits Shakti as a creation of Akal. Would you agree?

Issue 2 - of the Nirmale I've spoken to, and generally in writings on this, the view is that the Devi did manifest (I cannot think of one historical text that says the Devi didn’t manifest – Panth Prakash, Suraj Prakash, Sudharam Marg, Mahima Prakash, Bansavalinama, Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin).

It seems pretty certain that the account of Devi pargat in Panth Prakash derives from Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin. Given that most of the texts you mention above were written after Gurbilas, do you not think it likely that the authors simply referred to earlier accounts of Chandi Havan when writing their granths?

On issue 3, I have not encountered the view that Sri Guru Ji considered the Devi his isht among Nirmale. This goes back to issue 1 that for Nirmale that Parashakti Mahamaya is inseparable from Akal Purakh. However, the idea of Sri Guru Ji being a devi-upaasak is very much an Udasi view, found in a writings dating way back (Swami Anandghan in the 19th century, Swami Shivram Das Chakravarti in the 20th century), something that was openly criticized by Kavi Santokh Singh Ji. I fully agree with Jvala Singh here that this holds great importance for the Nihangs. For example, I’ve only come across a little of Avatar Singh Vahiria’s writings but he describes the various shaktis contained within the Amrit Sanskar.

Out of curiosity, what is the name of the oldest Udasi granth that mentions this view of Dasmesh Pita being a Devi worshipper? When was it written?

Thanks,

K.

[jaikaara]

I am not surprised. The sadhana of the sanatan dharam has the transition from dualism to non dualism, therefore the sadhana would be like....since the Devi is considered to be the ugra swaroop with the weapons, the Bir Ras sadhana would be concentrated on Devi as the Ishth.

The transition then moves on to Akaal as the Ishth wherein the Devi and every form is considered to be part of the Akaal and inseparable. Therefore Akaal is the sole Isth for sadhana.

Let me tell you veers, dont just take things in black or white. There are shades of grey. This understanding can come if one has read various other vedant based philosophies.

[Kaljug]

Baba Santa Singh speaks a little on Dusht Daman (1m20s) and what Bhagauti is in the katha called Chalish Nur Ey Bez Khalseh Part 2 which can be found here:

http://nihangsingh.org/Baba%20Santa%20Singh.html

K.

[chatanga1]

The sadhana of the sanatan dharam has the transition from dualism to non dualism, therefore the sadhana would be like....since the Devi is considered to be the ugra swaroop with the weapons, the Bir Ras sadhana would be concentrated on Devi as the Ishth.

isnt this where the confusion arises? This seems to be saying that Dasam Pita was upaashik of tiger-riding Devi, or that Guru Jin would be happy that Sikhs are worshipping such devi?

The transition then moves on to Akaal as the Ishth wherein the Devi and every form is considered to be part of the Akaal and inseparable. Therefore Akaal is the sole Isth for sadhana.

This understanding can come if one has read various other vedant based philosophies.

Hasnt Guru already told about their roles in Dasam Granth - 24 avtars and chandi bani's?

Maybe the problem is the vedant approach?

Edited January 12, 2010 by chatanga1

[jaikaara]

i dont understand what is the confusion ?

[chatanga1]

i dont understand what is the confusion ?

MY confusion sadly. over what some percieve the devi to be, and her role or status in kalyug.

[tSingh]

Kalyug,

There is only a contradiction if we take the references to Mahakalika described in Bachittar Natak to have separate bhaavrup (ontological difference) from Akal Purush. That would be two rather than one...whereas all the quotations cited so far such as Bhavani being 'charan saran', etc do not suggest two, but one alone. Likewise we have Khandaa and then Durga as Kam points out. In Chandi Di Var we have Durga and Kali as two seperate entities, and therefore forms of the devi at the same time, not the singular Akal. So there is the maya-prakirti-paraashakti as the icchashakti of Mayapati Sargun Parmeshvar, and then there is the created devi and devtas as we already know including Durga. Now just as Parmeshvar is indicated through the actions and names of Vishnu Bhagvan, similarly the icchashakti is indicated through the actions and names of the Devi. But yes, this begins to get complicated when we start to think through all this in terms of siddhant. Still working on it.

I'd disagree with you on Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin and Panth Prakash. Its not a retelling. If you actually read all the historical texts themselves you'll see for yourself that this is not a mere retelling of the sakhi. There are clear differences not only about who was involved, what was done, but also what the intention was. For example Gyani Gyan Singh ji states that Sri Guru Ji was prompted by the Mahabharat katha and was conducting an enquiry of sorts into the Brahmins claims. Yet still the devi manifests. Whereas Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin states clearly that Sri Guru Ji was a devi upaasak and sought a boon from her. If these two are a retelling, then similarly Chaubis Avatar is a mere retelling of Bhagvat Purana...but they are not, there are important differences. Different interpretations of one event.

I'm no expert on the Udasis at all. I've mentioned the sources I'm talking about. Perhaps ask Nihang Niddar Singh Ji instead.

t

[dalsingh101]

tsingh

Do you think we will ever get an indepth analysis of the differences between Chandi in Markendaya Purana and that in dasam granth by people who have studied both? I found this link which claims to be a complete translation of the MP, but my initial perusal failed to find the verses regarding Chandi? Apparently the section is called Devi Mahatmyam or Devi Mahatmya for anyone interested:

http://www.urday.com/markandeya.htm

This probably helps as background reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Mahatmya

Edited January 13, 2010 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

i had a look at the 2nd link. here is a quote from it :

The first story of the Devi Mahatmya depicts Devi in her universal form as Shakti. Here Devi is central and key to the creation myth; she is the power that induces Vishnu's deep slumber on the waters of the cosmic ocean prior to the manifestation of the Universe which is a continuous cycle of manifestation, destruction and re-manifestation...

Hasnt Guru Ji in bani said that the Shivas and Shaktas are all created by or subservient to God?

Here is a quote fromn the first link :

The life span of Brahma consists of Dwiparardha. The day and night of Brahma are of equal duration. Brahma is the origin of this universe. He is the inconceivable soul- the supreme lord and the cause of all the events. He is beyond the reach of activities. He enters into Prakriti and Purusha- excites both of them to get unified. When Prakriti gets excited, the Supreme Lord manifests Himself in the egg as Brahma. He then commences his creation. The same Brahma attains the form of Vishnu due to the effect of his Satva guna and nurtures the whole creation. Under the influence of Tamo guna, He attains the form of Rudra and finally annihilates the whole creation. He then goes into hibernation.'

'This way, the same Almighty God in his three different forms of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh performs his duties of creation, nurturing and annihilation respectively...

this has already been answered in gurbani many times. Ive come to this conclusion. if you want to know what Guru Ji thinks about devi, then read bani, if you want to get into the myriad of theories and what-not and waste your life debating things of little relevance then read the vedic scriptures.

im thinking that if this is the prctaice of nirmalas, is this what Guru ji really expected of them?

Edited January 13, 2010 by chatanga1

[jaikaara]

chatanga veer ji , amazing post making sense and its like an arrow, i like it .