Jump to content

Ogardanti


Guest BikramjitSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Javanmard

Bikramjit wrote:

Here is a view from another western scholar Roger Ballard about the word 'Panth'

with this in mind I shall use the term panth to refer to a body of people drawn together by their commitment to the teachings of a specific spiritual master, be he living or (more usually) dead. Whilst this definition is somewhat wider in scope than is everyday usage, the expansion is quite deliberate, since my objective is to establish a categorical term which can be deployed to identify the followers of any spiritual teacher, regardless of whether he takes the title Guru, Sant, Yogi, Mahant, Sheikh, Pir or more generic Baba

So it is not possible to state that by referring to 'Panth' the writer of the Ogardanti is referring to the Abrahamic religions.

that's his view. I don't rely on views: I rely on grammar and philology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Bikramjit wrote:

that's his view. I don't rely on views: I rely on grammar and philology.

I am surprised at your comment, at the end of the day everything written by each and every scholar is a view or an opinion expressed through the study of the relevant data.

Someone whose mother tongue is not Punjabi or Hindi wouldn't really be able to understand how the word Panth is used and has been used since the times of the Gurus. Clearly a panth cannot be used to describe an amalgram of religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity. You don't need to rely on grammer and philology, ask anyone who speaks one of the north Indian language and they'll laugh at you if you used the word Panth to lump together the semitic religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

bikramjit wrote:

Someone whose mother tongue is not Punjabi or Hindi wouldn't really be able to understand how the word Panth is used and has been used since the times of the Gurus

So according to Bikramjit labguages are static :roll: but linguistics teaches us that languages are dynamic and that words accumulate meanings through the ages. Panth may just mean "religion" in modern Panjabi but in the 17th century there is a multiplicity of meanings.

The fact remains that anyone studying any Indian religions (including Sikhi) needs Sanskrit And regarding Sikhi one has to add Sadhu Basha and Braj Basha.Guru Gobind Singh learnt all these languages and set an example for the SIkhs by doing so.

The word Panth means literally "way or path", secondary meanings are a matter of context and interpretation. I translated it by the "two ways". I am not saying that panth does not mean what Bikramjit is talking about but in this context it is refering to two religious traditions.Regaring Jeevan Deol's comment: If the term Turk is used for a religous groups then it is used for Sunni Muslims and followers of the Naqshbandi tariqa. In the Mughal court two groups were opposing each other: The Turani and the Irani. The Turani or Turks were Sunnis and the Iranis were the Sufi-Shia. To say that Turk means al Muslims (as Jeevan Deol suggests) is pure fallacy otherwise how would you explain the friendship bteween Budhu Shah, a Shia Pir, and Guru Gobind SIngh and Guru Gobind Singh's help to Bahadur Shah who was Shia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Yes, we would expect any writing of Guru Gobind Singh to acknowledge the differences that exist amongst the various factions in the Mughal court. So now are we to assume that you have again changed your argument and the word Turk now means the Turani faction in the Mughal court or just the Sunni muslims ?. Again this is patently ridiculous. Why would the writer of the Ogardanti or even the other Sikh texts not refer to the sunnis by that name. Guru Gobind has listed some of the Muslim sects in his writings so why isn't it done in the Ogardanti or the Rehatnamas, or any other writings of that period. If the true enemies of the Khalsa were just the Sunnis then why aren't the Shias not mentioned even in passing, one would expect some passage to regard the Shias as friends of the Khalsa. But such a passage doesn't exist. The only reason being that the word Turk meant what it had always meant since the days of Bhagat Kabirji, it meant a Muslim. If your new theory is tested against other texts such as the Rehatnamas it shows how ridiculous it is. Just an example from the Chaupa Singh Rehatnamas shows just how far fetched your theory is. A Sikh should not give a Turk ( Sunni Muslim ) charge of his house. So is it o.k. to give charge of your house to a Shia Muslim ? How about the Tankahnama of Bhai Nand Lal. 'Lai Turkan tey Maas ju Khaaveh' Does this mean that a Sikh can only be Tankhaiya if they eat the meat of the Sunnis ?. Just read the word Sunni at each place where the word Turk is used and you will realise how weak your argument is.

Lallesvari rather than clutching at straws to try and justify your belief that the Ogardanti is only against the Sunni and not against the Shia, you should try and be objective rather than bring your subjective pro-Shia bias. The writer of the Ogardanti does not distinguish between the different sects of Muslims. He regards Islam as a monolith and both the Shia and Sunni branches as equally deluded and both destined to be destroyed.

I am particulary surprised at your comment that Jeevan Deol's regarding of the word Turk as denoting Muslim religious practice as a fallacy. Didn't you laud him a few weeks ago and state that he has destroyed Daljeet Singh's arguments on the Dasam Granth. I would have thought that countering Daljeet Singh's arguments would have been more difficult than deciphering what the word Turk meant to the Sikhs in the 18th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Bikramjit wrote:

You have stated that the word Panth means 'way or path'. This is correct but then how can the word Panth then be used to describe the semitic 'path' surely the word should be semitic paths (Panthan ) since the Christian, Islamic and Jewish 'paths' differ from each other in many respects.

well that's why I consider the mention of the "two ways" as a metonymy.For panth to mean Islam it would mean that there is something like a "Hindu panth", but this is never used nor is the expression Islamic panth.That is why I stick to a neutre translation "the two ways" which can be interpreted as Bikramjit does (which has its problems) or which can be interpreted as I did. Maybe both of us are wrong... or both of us are right....

let's stick to Ugardanti. I never said the use of the word Turk wasn't problematic and my respect for Jeevan does not mean I have to stick to everything he says.

The fact remains that in Mughal India the Turk and the Irani were opposing each other.If later authors use Turk for all Muslims this needs more investigation as Bikramjit has very clearly shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Bikramjit wrote:

well that's why I consider the mention of the "two ways" as a metonymy.For panth to mean Islam it would mean that there is something like a "Hindu panth", but this is never used nor is the expression Islamic panth.That is why I stick to a neutre translation "the two ways" which can be interpreted as Bikramjit does (which has its problems) or which can be interpreted as I did. Maybe both of us are wrong... or both of us are right....

let's stick to Ugardanti. I never said the use of the word Turk wasn't problematic and my respect for Jeevan does not mean I have to stick to everything he says.

The fact remains that in Mughal India the Turk and the Irani were opposing each other.If later authors use Turk for all Muslims this needs more investigation as Bikramjit has very clearly shown.

As Jeevan Deol has stated the Khalsa Panth was distinguished from the other Panth as the third panth. The other two being the Muslim and Textual Hinduism. By Textual Hinduism I assume he means the Hinduism of the Brahmins. If the Hinduism of the Brahmins is meant then there is no problem with reading the other Panth as the Muslims. Even so, the writer of the Ogardanti is clear that he treats Hindus as one Panth and Muslims as another. This is contradiction to your earlier claim that when the word Hindu Dharm is used as a expression of 'Indian reliogosity' and that it includes the Muslims as well.

The ogardanti belongs to the late 18th century about the same time as the Rehatnamas. Some Rehatnamas are older than the Ogardanti. So it is not as you state 'later authors' that use the word Turk to mean Muslim but contemporary authors and authors whose work precede the Ogardanti. As I have shown before even the Bhagats such as Kabirji and Namdevji have used the word Turk to mean Muslim. The ogardanti as well as the Rehatnamas belong to a body of literature of a particular age. You cannot refer to the Ogardanti in isolation, if you theory fits some or part of the Ogardanti but is nonsense when tested on the Rehatnamas

You theory of the word Turk as referring to the Sunnis only is ridiculous. Could you show me some quotes from the Ogardanti that prove your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

As Jeevan Deol has stated the Khalsa Panth was distinguished from the other Panth as the third panth. The other two being the Muslim and Textual Hinduism. By Textual Hinduism I assume he means the Hinduism of the Brahmins.

Hinduism? why use 19th century constructs for 17-18th century realities? Even in that period we are dealing with language constructs. All would be fine if it wasn't for critical theory... :wink:

Textual Hinduism
there has never been any such thing such as Textual Hinduism! I would not have a problem if this term meant the Smarta tradition but then again I doubt very much that Smarta and "Hinduism" (whatever that means :roll: ) are the same thing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Hinduism? why use 19th century constructs for 17-18th century realities? Even in that period we are dealing with language constructs. All would be fine if it wasn't for critical theory... :wink:

there has never been any such thing such as Textual Hinduism! I would not have a problem if this term meant the Smarta tradition but then again I doubt very much that Smarta and "Hinduism" (whatever that means :roll: ) are the same thing...

To the Writer of the Ogardanti as well as the Rehatnamas the Hinduism of the brahmins with it's texts such as the Vedas was a Panth. The monolith of Islam ( both Sunnis and Shias ) were all considered another Panth. You harp on about critical theory but you have not been able to provide any evidence using quotes from these texts to show that Hindu Dharam meant a collective of both Hindus and Muslims and Turk was solely for Sunni Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

1. For there to be a monolith called "HInduism" there should be a word in Braj for it: in the whole of Ugardanti there is none.

2. The expression dharam hinduka etc.... has been analysed before and either ways it does not match the concept of "Hinduism" because there is no Hindu monolith at the time of Guru Gobind Singh. again see King in 'The myth of Hinduism".

3. The passage regarding the two panths does not qualify them in any way and does not give epithetes. To talk about an Islamic Panth and a Hindu Panth when the words duhan panth are not qualified is pure periphrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

1. For there to be a monolith called "HInduism" there should be a word in Braj for it: in the whole of Ugardanti there is none.

So who were the Bhagats and the Guru Sahibs as well as other Sikh writers referring to when the wrote the word 'Hindu'. When Bhagat Namdev referred to the 'Hindu' as blind in this verse ?. The words 'Dharam Hindu' which is used in the Ogardanti is the same as the word Hinduism is today.

Hindu anhaa Turkoo kanhaa, duha tay gianee sianaa ( Namdevji SGGS page 875 )

Any idea whether he is referring to a Vaishnav, a Saivite or any of the other sects which make up Hinduism ?.

2. The expression dharam hinduka etc.... has been analysed before and either ways it does not match the concept of "Hinduism" because there is no Hindu monolith at the time of Guru Gobind Singh. again see King in 'The myth of Hinduism".

I assume you mean that it was analysed by you !. You keep harping on about Richard King but you have not answered my questions about his research in Gurbani or Sikh texts ?. Has he tested his theory about the concept of there being no such thing as 'Hinduism' by analysing the Sikh texts ?.

3. The passage regarding the two panths does not qualify them in any way and does not give epithetes. To talk about an Islamic Panth and a Hindu Panth when the words duhan panth are not qualified is pure periphrase.

When the other 'Teesra Panth' is qualified then cannot we not assume that the writer of the Ogardanti who is in essence writing for the people of his time, does not qualify it because he knows that the reader is well aware of what he means by the other two panths. The whole context of the passages needs to be understood. As I stated before-;

1. If the writer of the Ogardanti meant the word turk to be taken as just Sunni Muslims, then he would qualified the word. The word Turk as understood by Sikh texts has meant Muslim. You have been unable to disprove this because I asked you to provide quotes from Sikh texts where the word Turk is used for just Sunni Muslims. I can provide you with quotes from the Rehatnamas, Suraj Panth Parkash and a whole host of other Sikhs texts spanning three centuries in which if your understanding of the word Turk is translated to mean just Sunni Muslim it would make these texts unintelligible.

I still await you quotes

2. For the duhan panth terms to mean Hindu and Simitic then the writer of the Ogardanti would have used terms which have been used in the Guru Granth Sahib to refer collectively to the simitic religions. Why is the word 'Kateban' not used when describing the destruction of the semitic religions ?. Why does the writer use 'Koranan' instead ?. Guru Gobind Singh used terms such as 'Farangi' (Franks -European ), 'Arab' 'Yunani' (Greeks ), is it conceivable that Guru Gobind Singh if he was describing the end of the semitic religions would not have used the word 'Kateban' to describe this ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Bikramjit in one sentence: modern questions with 19th century concepts for Indian medieval religious texts without any knowledge of Braj!

I am wasting my time :wink:

It has nothing to do with 19th century concepts or whether or not in your opinion I have knowledge of Braj or not. Strange comment coming from someone who has just shown that that his knowledge of Braj is limited to having a Braj dictionary at hand :wink:

It's about maintaining a consistant argument without the need to refer the other person to 'so and so' scholar's book. It's also about knowledge of Sikh texts and actually having them at hand when you want to discuss them as well as approaching the texts without any pre-conceived notions.

My requests to you have been simple

You stated Turk means Sunni Muslim. Earlier the implication was that the Ogardanti was describing the struggle of both 'Hindus and Muslims' against the Mughal/Turks. Then you changed your argument and now it just meant Sunni Muslim. This is totally contary to how the word has been used in Sikh texts going back to Bhagat Bani. So show me some quotes from the various Sikh texts where the word can be solely translated as such. Since you post so authoritively about these texts I assume you have them at hand

Similarly with your translation of the words 'Dharam Hindu'. You have been unable to prove or even provide references to your belief that this means a collective of both Hindus and Muslims.

As I have asked you twice on this thread and with your prior history of making statements such as on Kirpan da Amrit but being unable to back them up then if I were to describe you in one sentence, it would be;

You are unable to provide quotes from relevant texts to back up your arguments. I suppose you are wasting your time, repeating the same unsubstantiated views and not providing any evidence to back them up.

You have chosen not to answer the two questions in my previous post. I see that you have now adopted your oft used tactic of bypassing the question and criticising the questioner.

It's quite simple. Either put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

right so far this thread does not read well. can the following questions be answered

1) what is Ogardanti.

2) whare has it originated from

3) who is the writer of it

4) when is it to be read

5) for what purpose is it read

6) where can i find it (in which granth)

7) who reads it (sampardas)

8) what is damdami taksals view on Ogardanti

9) can it be put to kirtan

10) does it involve certain raags.

11) what are the views of other groups outside mainstream sikhi such as namdharis who i know read it daily

12) Does it concentrate on God.

13) if it is bani would it be classed as shant raas or bir raas

14) does anyone know of any gurdwaras where it is recited

please also if anyone can provide it can they provide proof for thier answers.

i would rather this read as a knowledgable thread where people can learn something, both sides of the arguement and not just read about squabbles between persons on the forums just because they do not like each other.

thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Uggardanti is a bani of Guru Gobind Singh which is part of the puratan version of Dasam Guru Granth Sahib (not SGPC version). It concentrates on Akal Purakh using feminine names and is a bir ras bani. It is still read by the Nihangs and Nirmale. This bani is extremely powerful before battles and difficult situations. It is alsp believed to destroy ennemies and a powerful protection against evil and black magic.

A translation of it can be found in Harjinder Singh Kanwal's "Dasmesh Bani Darpan" but he mis-translates one line due to Namdhari influences. Namdharis read it as part of their nitnem but mistranslate the passage on nila bana.

great and beautiful gurbani indeed!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know it is beautiful i have it on Cd and listen to it all the time. Baba Hari Singh Ji Rhandawae Walae used to come and listen to it daily and said it was powerful but i never got to ask all of these wustions i wanted.

if possible could you shed light on the other questions asked as well.

thanks for the quick reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
Guest Sardar Moderator Singh

This debate was very informative minus the little personality clash between Messrs Bikramjit Singh Dhillon and Lalleshvari Shaka Nyorai.

However in the end, the personality issues have come to surface valid points raised by both sides lost within the early discussion.

Perhaps after a year of cooling down, we can expect the forum to discuss this again more calmly.

Here are the main issues:-

1. What were Pandit Tara Singh Narotam's issues with this Bani not being Gurbani and are these valid, if not, why?

2. We have plenty already on this thread discussing Hinduism being a latter construct (which is a discussion we have have separately if so desired), however, let us have the following clarified in relation to one another in all the Guru Granth Sahib, Rehitnama Literature, Gurbilas and other Sikh Literature (Panth Parkahs and Gur Partap Suraj Granth) and Ugardanti: Turk, Hindu, Hindu Dharm, Musalman, Katebaan, Ved, Koran.

3. Teesra Panth (Nihang Niddar Singh actually handled a similar question during his recent talk, however let's discuss this in full here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of claims that Oogardanti Baani is "very powerful" blah blah blah..

In reality, we shud put things into perspective and realise that ALL Gurbani is powerful....going one stage further, any teaching that instills Dharam is powerful.

However, it is ONLY powerful when a person firstly UNDERSTANDS, then CONTEMPLATES and further PUTS INTO PRACTICE the teachings at both physical and spiritual planes.

Lots of people "read" and "recite" Oogardanti bani - this does not automatically mean they are mighty warriors, and vice versa, it does not mean all mighty warriors recite Oogardanti bani.

As the old saying goes, when the waters muddy, allow time for the silt to settle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont give a sh!t about the scholarly prespective of oogardhanti - This isnt a 21 centurary concept but something which has been there since the beginning of time look at Dhana :D

My understanding according to what I know by the grace of god at this moment in time. Firstly bikramjit and Lalesh jeebus man you two could write you own epic on the battle of Hindu the term..

Bikramjit beleiving it refers to the hindu religion

Lalesh believing it implies a geographical group of people

And I am the tisra panth I dont care I just gonna kcik both ur asses :) with the shakti of akaal purakh.

I think in the beauty of akaal this whole post is a modern version of the ughardanti one of the scholars is blind the other one eyed, they raised wicked points at first but then the next to pages of posts was in the famous words of NNS too too meh meh.

Lalesh has forgotten his qu'aran and the teachings of humbleness and refraining from seeing himself as supreme (i guess thats the circumcistion) and Bikramjit has lost himself in his purans and veds (his personal library) And now all those will be annihalted by the grace of Guru in the shakti form which I will use to make my panth parvesa :D

Lol its all about the interpritation and my understanding is that the hindu refers to the bhramanical order of bhramins who saw them selves as the instituted rulers of the religious world and the turks where the moghul goverment, both were institutes created to rule and govern.

And the tisra panth was a new thing which would take over both the miri and the piri.. To me the whole ugardanti is a good way to understand the miri piri concept.

The tesra panth of the khalsa isnt muslim it isnt hindu (term used losely) its not even sikh. its just truth..

but thats my understanding I cant quote any scholars or any other funky dudes, and I know that the mods and most sikhawareness people like these descussions to be all academic and formal. I give my own examples for the reasons as to why I believe what I do. Thats all I have to say about that :) (reference forest gump)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 17 years later...

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...