Jump to content

Hindu Khalsa Flags of 18th-19th Century


Recommended Posts

I think so because if there are banis about Bhagawati, then why not flags too? It's not a stretch.

Have a look at this Asht-Bhuj Dhwaj - the Eight-Armed Insignia. This is a symbol of Bhagawati as well. Those Singhs say that it was in Guru Gobind Singh ji's possession.

6.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kdsingh80 said:

Do puratan sikhs actually worship these devi devta's?

No. They see them as eminating from Akal Purakh ie different aspects of Akal Purakh. There probably were many confused individuals that were worshipping them as seperate independant Gods opposite Akal PUrakh

Edited by amardeep
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused, so do these guys believe the Hindu Gods / Goddesses actually existed as real entities? (whether or not they see them as avatars or aspects of God) I thought Sikhs are to focus on the ONE Akal Purakh only? And that all the deities were just * ideas * created by humans to symbolize aspects of God. But are we now saying they all actually existed? If so, then why is Sikhi so against idol worship when even the Hindus state they are not worshipping the stone idol, but only using it as a means to help visualize the deity, that it's the deity they are actually worshipping. As Sikhs are we supposed to believe in all the gods and goddesses as actual tangible entities which really existed? I have never come across this and it seems to go against everything vast majority of Sikhs claim!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@amardeep So then, it is as I was taught, that devi /devtay are symbolism only in essence * ideas * and not real tangible entities.  Then how can one say that all demi gods and goddesses have done good deeds in the past so we respect them? Is it the symbolism that is being respected? As you pointed out HUMANS who do virtuous actions are known as devi. So is it the virtuous actions being respected, revered and not an entity? If so, then why have some on here referred to devi as if they were actual entities (one reference was talking about female bodies, and paapiman (sorry) stating that a devi though longs for a human body will not want a female body but only wants a male body. That sounds like 1) he is referring to devi / devtay as an entity and not an idea. and 2) if it's stated that virtuous actions make a HUMAN a devta, then why would a devta be wishing for a human body? And who is doing the wishing?? Doesn't this seem contradictory???

I get the feeling that some Sikhs are viewing them as actual living entities who existed in a tangible sense and are referring to them (and revering them) as such. This is also where some Sikhs accuse others of bringing Hinduism into Sikhi. Instead of realizing that allegory using known elements of the time, they are taking it as literal belief in Hindu Gods / Goddesses that existed.

What I have encountered over the years however was what you stated, that much of Gurbani is allegory and is not speaking in literal terms. For example, references to bride or female in SGGSJ, usually is referring to the concept of soul bride, and the husband or male referred to is Husband Lord (God). So the shabad is not speaking about a physical female (wife) and husband (male) but of ALL humans (soul brides) to God (husband Lord).  But then you have people interpreting it in literal sense and using it to push their point.

So let's take the verse that I was talking about;

ਤਬ ਇਹ ਮਾਨਸ ਦੇਹੀ ਪਾਈ ॥

Ŧab ih mānas ḏehī pā▫ī.

Then, this human body is obtained.

ਇਸ ਦੇਹੀ ਕਉ ਸਿਮਰਹਿ ਦੇਵ ॥

Is ḏehī ka▫o simrahi ḏev.

Even the gods long for this human body.

ਸੋ ਦੇਹੀ ਭਜੁ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ॥੧॥

So ḏehī bẖaj har kī sev. ||1||

So vibrate that human body, and think of serving the Lord. ||1||

 

I don't take the above to mean literal Gods, but just as an emphasis how important this human body is. (by the way sorry to Paapiman but it does not say a male body either). But he referred to them as actual beings. Reading the whole shabad it seem to condemn the idea. The statement seems to be saying even these beings you believe in (if they were real) would long for this human body... because this human body is what is REAL and is the chance to meet God. When how can something not real or tangible realize the divine? It seems to be just allegory to me.  But watch... I am almost sure some members on here will attack me for suggesting this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CuriousSeeker

Waheguru

Devi devtay,  today exist as with the other many heavenly beings.  They are just on a different Astral planes (7 higher ones).  As you advance on the path, their existence isn't really a question/doubt.  Also some times during mediation when there is a sweet smell, but you cannot find the source, it is usually these beings. Over time, as with progress, their visits will be visible to you on this plane.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

@amardeep So then, it is as I was taught, that devi /devtay are symbolism only in essence * ideas * and not real tangible entities.  Then how can one say that all demi gods and goddesses have done good deeds in the past so we respect them? Is it the symbolism that is being respected? As you pointed out HUMANS who do virtuous actions are known as devi. So is it the virtuous actions being respected, revered and not an entity? If so, then why have some on here referred to devi as if they were actual entities (one reference was talking about female bodies, and paapiman (sorry) stating that a devi though longs for a human body will not want a female body but only wants a male body. That sounds like 1) he is referring to devi / devtay as an entity and not an idea. and 2) if it's stated that virtuous actions make a HUMAN a devta, then why would a devta be wishing for a human body? And who is doing the wishing?? Doesn't this seem contradictory???

I get the feeling that some Sikhs are viewing them as actual living entities who existed in a tangible sense and are referring to them (and revering them) as such. This is also where some Sikhs accuse others of bringing Hinduism into Sikhi. Instead of realizing that allegory using known elements of the time, they are taking it as literal belief in Hindu Gods / Goddesses that existed.

What I have encountered over the years however was what you stated, that much of Gurbani is allegory and is not speaking in literal terms. For example, references to bride or female in SGGSJ, usually is referring to the concept of soul bride, and the husband or male referred to is Husband Lord (God). So the shabad is not speaking about a physical female (wife) and husband (male) but of ALL humans (soul brides) to God (husband Lord).  But then you have people interpreting it in literal sense and using it to push their point.

So let's take the verse that I was talking about;

ਤਬ ਇਹ ਮਾਨਸ ਦੇਹੀ ਪਾਈ ॥

Ŧab ih mānas ḏehī pā▫ī.

Then, this human body is obtained.

ਇਸ ਦੇਹੀ ਕਉ ਸਿਮਰਹਿ ਦੇਵ ॥

Is ḏehī ka▫o simrahi ḏev.

Even the gods long for this human body.

ਸੋ ਦੇਹੀ ਭਜੁ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ॥੧॥

So ḏehī bẖaj har kī sev. ||1||

So vibrate that human body, and think of serving the Lord. ||1||

 

I don't take the above to mean literal Gods, but just as an emphasis how important this human body is. (by the way sorry to Paapiman but it does not say a male body either). But he referred to them as actual beings. Reading the whole shabad it seem to condemn the idea. The statement seems to be saying even these beings you believe in (if they were real) would long for this human body... because this human body is what is REAL and is the chance to meet God. When how can something not real or tangible realize the divine? It seems to be just allegory to me.  But watch... I am almost sure some members on here will attack me for suggesting this!

If you're asking me why certain people say certain things then I don't know

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, amardeep said:

No. They see them as eminating from Akal Purakh ie different aspects of Akal Purakh. There probably were many confused individuals that were worshipping them as seperate independant Gods opposite Akal PUrakh

They are not confused. You are confused about what they are doing.

You're gona run into a lot of problems with this belief when you study the writings of these religions closely.

 

These are different religions and their names of the Highest Being.
Like how you are using the name "Akal Purakh" for what I am calling "the Highest Being".

I don't have to use any of those names  - "Akal Purakh" or "Highest Being" - we can use other names -  "Vishnu/Bishan/Hari" or "Allah" or "Holy Spirit" or "Shiv/Mahesh/Mahakal" or "Bhagawati/Devi" - we can even use other names like "Yanus and "Zeus" and I can still refer to that which you are referring to.

These are not "aspects". You may not realize this but these names are describing the very thing you are describing when you say Akal Purakh.

They are not describing the aspects but the thing itself.
E.g. A "dog" is not an aspect of a dog. Dog is dog.
A "kuta" is not an aspect of a kuta. Kuta is kuta.
"Dog" and "Kuta" are referring to the very thing, the same animal.
Dog and Kuta are not aspects of a third name - Chien. lol

 

If I say Bishan ki maya te hoye bhin. Then I am conveying one religion.
Bishan - the Akal Purakh, Ultimate Preserver, the Highest Being who is ultimately the Preserver, and who ultimately resides everywhere. Bishan refers to all qualities of the Highest Being. The dark-skinned, four-armed - ਧਾਰਿ ਖੇਲੁ ਚਤੁਰਭੁਜੁ ਕਹਾਇਆ ॥ - chakra-wielding - ਚਕ੍ਰਪਾਣਿ - image represents all of those qualities of the Highest Being.

If I said, Shiv ji ki shakti te hoye bhin.  Then I am conveying a different religion.
Shiv -  Kaal Purakh, who is ultimately the Destroyer, Mahakal, who is ultimately nothingness. Shiv refers to all qualities of the Highest Being. The jatadhari, trishul-bearing, dumroo-playing - ਡਮਾਡੰਮ ਡਉਰੂ ਸਿਤਾਸੇਤ ਛਤ੍ਰੰ ॥ - image represents all of those qualities of the Highest Being.

This point is absolutely crucial to understand to get the full picture.

And I think you are probably one of the only few here, who can fully understand this point and grasp the full implications of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one group who believes that these enitities do exist in real life including shaheed singhs, devi, 33 crore devta, ghosts, pisach, 52 beer, 9 crore durga, etc etc.  I have heard & read enough anecdotes in my life to come to a conclusion that these entities can be real. Universe is bigger than we imagine. If something is mentioned in Gurbani, it probably did happen in actuality.

There is another group like Bhagat who focus on the deeper symbolically message. He is also right.

Choose whichever approach you like, end of all debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From Sikh Rehet Maryada: 

"No book should be installed like and at par with the Guru Granth. Worship of any idol or any ritual or activity should not be allowed to be conducted inside the gurdwara."

 From Gurmat Rehet Maryada:

"5. Bowing to the shrines of ancestors/saints etc. These useless actions are not to be performed. "

From Guru Granth Sahib Ji:

"The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way and have forsaken the true path. They pray according to the teachings of Narad Jee, performing idol worship." (SGGSJ Ang 556)

From Dasam Granth:

"Some worship idols and some worship the dead. The world is entangled in false actions with no one realising the true Lord." (Dasam Granth Ang 15)

 

So, although we established some Sikhs idol worship, is it really ok to do so?? I don't think so from the above... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

These are different religions and their names of the Highest Being.
Like how you are using the name "Akal Purakh" for what I am calling "the Highest Being".

I don't have to use any of those names  - "Akal Purakh" or "Highest Being" - we can use other names -  "Vishnu/Bishan/Hari" or "Allah" or "Holy Spirit" or "Shiv/Mahesh/Mahakal" or "Bhagawati/Devi" - we can even use other names like "Yanus and "Zeus" and I can still refer to that which you are referring to.

These are not "aspects". You may not realize this but these names are describing the very thing you are describing when you say Akal Purakh.

BhagatSingh ji,

I know very little about other religions, and can't comment that when a Hindu says Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesh they really mean the same God which Guru Nanak Dev ji defined in Mool Mantar.  I can, however, say with some confidence that when Guru Nanak Dev ji speaks of Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh and other Devi Devte, he doesn't equate them to Waheguru.  Instead, the Guru is categorical in pointing out that these deities are temporary (mortal) creations of God, are under the sway of maya, are numerous in numbers, and they can't lead others to God because they themselves are yearning for the same  (please see quotes below from SGGS) .  The Guru instructs his Sikhs to not go after anything  which is temporary and instead connect with One who is permanent and absolute.

If a Hindu's version of Vishnu is the same as Waheguru, then he is on the right path and his worship of Vishnu will take him to Waheguru.  However, when somebody claims to be a Sikh of Guru Nanak, then that person needs to live by the terminology and instructions the Guru has provided.  One cannot claim to be the Sikh of Guru Nanak and then worship Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesh.  In order to achieve oneness, Sikhs have to embrace and respect everybody and everything and see Waheguru in Maya but not be fooled by Maya.  If a puratan or a current-day Sikh is worshiping  a devi/devta, then that person is not following the Guru.  If people associated with the sanatansikhi blog are pointing icons of devis on Sikh flags as a common cultural background to foster understanding and tolerance, then they are doing a worthwhile thing.  If these people are trying to confuse Sikhs to worship and run after devi devte against the wishes of the Guru then they are doing a terrible thing.

 

ਐਸੀ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਇਕ ਰਾਮਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਪਾਇ ਠਗਉਲੀ ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ ਜੋਹਿਆ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਮੋਹਿਆ Such is Maya, the woman, which the One Lord has created… Through her illusion, she has dominated the whole world.  Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are under her spell. (SGGS 394)

ਕੋਟਿ ਮਹੇਸ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਮਾਏ ॥ He created and destroyed millions of Shivas. (SGGS 1156)

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਰੋਗੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਾਰ ਕਮਾਈ ॥ Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva suffer from the disease of the three gunas - the three qualities; they do their deeds in egotism. (SGGS 735)

ਰੋਗੀ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਸਰੁਦ੍ਰਾ ਰੋਗੀ ਸਗਲ ਸੰਸਾਰਾ ॥ Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are diseased; the whole world is diseased. (SGGS 1153)

ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਮਹੇਸ ਸਿਧ ਮੁਨਿ ਇੰਦ੍ਰਾ ਭਗਤਿ ਦਾਨੁ ਜਸੁ ਮੰਗੀ ॥ Brahma, Shiva, the Siddhas, the silent sages and Indra beg for the charity of His Praise and devotion to Him. (SGGS 1322)

ਜਿ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੈ ਘਰਿ ਵਥੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੁ ਨਫਰੈ ਹਥਿ ਆਵੈ ਅਣਹੋਦੀ ਕਿਥਹੁ ਪਾਏ ॥ If there is something in his master's house, he can get it; but how can he get what is not there? (SGGS 306)

ਏਕਸੁ ਕੀ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਾਰ ਏਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਰੁਦ੍ਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ Everyone must serve the One Lord, who created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. (SGGS 1130)

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, IJJSingh said:

BhagatSingh ji,

I know very little about other religions, and can't comment that when a Hindu says Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesh they really mean the same God which Guru Nanak Dev ji defined in Mool Mantar.  I can, however, say with some confidence that when Guru Nanak Dev ji speaks of Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh and other Devi Devte, he doesn't equate them to Waheguru.  Instead, the Guru is categorical in pointing out that these deities are temporary (mortal) creations of God, are under the sway of maya, are numerous in numbers, and they can't lead others to God because they themselves are yearning for the same  (please see quotes below from SGGS) .  The Guru instructs his Sikhs to not go after anything  which is temporary and instead connect with One who is permanent and absolute.

If a Hindu's version of Vishnu is the same as Waheguru, then he is on the right path and his worship of Vishnu will take him to Waheguru.  However, when somebody claims to be a Sikh of Guru Nanak, then that person needs to live by the terminology and instructions the Guru has provided.  One cannot claim to be the Sikh of Guru Nanak and then worship Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesh.  In order to achieve oneness, Sikhs have to embrace and respect everybody and everything and see Waheguru in Maya but not be fooled by Maya.  If a puratan or a current-day Sikh is worshiping  a devi/devta, then that person is not following the Guru.  If people associated with the sanatansikhi blog are pointing icons of devis on Sikh flags as a common cultural background to foster understanding and tolerance, then they are doing a worthwhile thing.  If these people are trying to confuse Sikhs to worship and run after devi devte against the wishes of the Guru then they are doing a terrible thing.

 

ਕੋਟਿ ਮਹੇਸ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਮਾਏ ॥ He created and destroyed millions of Shivas. (SGGS 1156)

Exactly! It's not talking about a literal Shiva. But of the fact that many cultures have worshipped many different ideas as to what they thought God was. For example, ancient Egypt and Horus, Isis etc. could be seen in this context as more 'Shivas'.  So it's not pointing to a literal entitiy that existed called Shiva.

ਏਕਸੁ ਕੀ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਾਰ ਏਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਰੁਦ੍ਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ Everyone must serve the One Lord, who created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. (SGGS 1130)

Again, it points to the IDEA of a Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva being created, and not necessarily literal entities that actually existed. Because really EVERYTHING except Waheguru is part of Maya anyway. There really is only ONEness and no other. So all these different ideas and deities are creations of Maya which is creation of Waheguru. And if they are created BY Waheguru they can not BE Waheguru (in entirety) just like we are created by Waheguru but individually we are NOT Waheguru. Collectively EVERYTHING is Waheguru but Waheguru exists independently beyond creation as well. 

Like Waheguru is the dreamer and we and everything we know to exist in this reality, are the dream.... including Shiva, Vishnu etc. To even say we think of Waheguru as a deity is wrong thinking. Waheguru is formless, yet all form exists within Waheguru. Waheguru is everything and yet nothing all at once. Nirgun and Sargun. Beyond comprehension. To apply a face, and physical *human* qualities to these devi / devtay already is proof they are not Waheguru / Akal Purakh because we are told we can never describe the qualities of the ONE.

 

This is why I am very against idol worship. Why worship something that is only another aspect of Maya? We should focus on the ONE alone... This is also why I am against worshipping human Gurus, Babas, and yes even Sants. Because although we should respect them for their high avastha, but they are not God.  (And I don't mean this in a mean way at all) but Gurbani does say over and over to only focus on the ONE Creator of ALL. I realize some may hate me for this, but for me, Waheguru / Akal Purakh however you want to refer to Creator comes before anything / anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys dont worship them but every puratan sikh did... look at every sikh palace there is a mandir.. dont try to learn history from fools coming from low families of no rank and import. 

ask any old important sikh family. this all changed when the brits colonized low castes and relegated them to the inferior state they find themselves in today.

look at the forts and histories of sikh leaders and you will see they were typical hindu sikhs...

 

Edited by amardeep
Abusive language
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Attitude Towards Hindus

Do not worship at cenotaphs, nor pay heed to any temple, religious vow, place of pilgrimage, goddess, god, fasting, 1-lindu worship, idols, mantras, or Brahmans. Do not make libations to the gods. Do not repeat the Gayatri, nor the evening prayers of Hindus. Do not worship at the cenotaph or tomb of some dead person. Do not hold a shraddh ceremony. Do not wear a sacred thread, feed a clean-shaven person, worship an idol, believe in an earthen image, or desert your own Guru. Do not observe the following: offerings to ancestors, Hindu evening ritual, bride-price, worship of the sun and planets, worship of gods, idol worship. Belief in the merits of particular phases of the moon is futile. Do not pierce your ears or your nose. Do not believe in the six darshans. Do not wear a tilak. Do not take food at a hair-cutting ceremony. Do not undergo a tonsure ceremony. A Brahman should not ride a bull. End the authority of the Hindu. A Singh should feed a Hindu. Having become a Singh, do not seek to learn the Hindu scriptures. You will become involved in the futile concerns of the Brahmans and will abandon the Guru's hymns. It is acceptable to have studied the Hindu scriptures before becoming a Singh. If a Brahman does not maintain his kes uncut and has not been initiated into the Khalsa do not accept food from his hands or make any offering to him. Those who worship Shankaracharya, Dattatreya, Ramanuja, or Gorakhnath will go to a horrible hell. [10, 12, 14, 30, 37, 40, 42, 44, 50, 61, 62, 69, 75, 76, 77, 83, 87, 88, 91]

https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-rehat-maryada/daya-singh-rahit-nama-sp-384

Quote

Hindu Conventions

A Gursikh must not wear either a sacred thread or a frontal mark. He must never offer prayers at any tomb, cenotaph, or sacred pool, nor at a shrine dedicated to Gugga Pir. He should not worship at the shrines of deceased Hindus and he should not enter a Hindu temple. Sikh marriages should be performed by Brahmans. Brahman Sikhs should receive double the deference and attention normally bestowed on a Sikh. The ashes of a deceased Sikh should be deposited in the Ganga. On the anniversary of a father's death, a shraddh ceremony should be held. [20, 24, 45-6, 120, 137, 387, 406]

Belief in the Goddess Devi

The Devi receives abundant attention in the Chaupa Singh Rahitruima. It comes in the lengthy narrative description of the successful fire ceremony, held on the hill called Naina Devi. [205-35]

https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-rehat-maryada/chaupa-singh-rahit-nama#2

The daya singh Rehat was against worshipping any god , goddess wwhile Chaupa singh was for worshipping Devi, so I guess there were different type of sikhs at that time

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

yes even Sants

ਕਰਉ ਬੇਨੰਤੀ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਮੇਰੇ ਮੀਤਾ ਸੰਤ ਟਹਲ ਕੀ ਬੇਲਾ ॥

Listen, my friends, I beg of you: now is the time to serve the Saints!

Kara▫o benanṯī suṇhu mere mīṯā sanṯ tahal kī belā.

I make supplication, listen to me, O my Friend! This is the high time to serve the saints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CdnSikhGirl said:

and yes even Sants

ਨਾਨਕ ਦਾਸੁ ਇਹੈ ਸੁਖੁ ਮਾਗੈ ਮੋ ਕਉ ਕਰਿ ਸੰਤਨ ਕੀ ਧੂਰੇ ॥੪॥੫॥

Naanak Dhaas Eihai Sukh Maagai Mo Ko Kar Santhan Kee Dhhoorae ||4||5||

Nanak, Your slave, begs for this happiness: let me be the dust of the feet of the Saints. ||4||5||

ਪਉ ਸੰਤ ਸਰਣੀ ਲਾਗੁ ਚਰਣੀ ਮਿਟੈ ਦੂਖੁ ਅੰਧਾਰੁ ॥੨॥

Po Santh Saranee Laag Charanee Mittai Dhookh Andhhaar ||2||

Seek the Sanctuary of the Saints, and fall at their feet; your suffering and darkness shall be removed. ||2||

ਰੇਨੁ ਸੰਤਨ ਕੀ ਮੇਰੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਲਾਗੀ ॥

Raen Santhan Kee Maerai Mukh Laagee ||

I applied the dust of the feet of the Saints to my face.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...