Bhagats and Bhagat Bani

[Guest Sardar Moderator Singh]

Gur Fateh!

I would like to re-open the discussion on Bhagat Bani and welcome all thoughts on the matter.

It is widely publicised that the Guru Granth Sahib contains the Bani of not only of the "Sikh" Gurus but also of Muslim and Hindu Fakirs and Bhagats.

This in line with the Muslim and Hindu origins assigned to Bhai Mardana and Bhai Balla as the two faithful companions

In the last century this view was challenged by the likes of Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh and others.

The crux of their arguments being based on a supposed flaw in the works of Macaufille, who they regarded to be the first person to 'estimate' dates for the existance of the Bhagats in placing them as older to the Gurus.

The arguments eventually conclude that the Bhagats all eventually became "Sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev Ji" as indeed did Bhai Mardana.

In addition to this, we have even seen the more extreme view of the Teja Singh Bhasauria led Singh Sabha in total denial of Bhagat Bani.

What are the forum's views on the Bhagats?

Are they "Sikhs" as suggested by Gyani Ditt Singh and others?

Whatever the case, what basis does "Bhagat Bani" hold for Sikhs?

[sikh_fauge]

Before this discussion continues, wasnt one of the main contributors to gurbani baba sheikh farid?

Baba sheikh farid, from my understanding, was a well known saint way before guru nanak dev ji (1300's i think, or mabye im crazy.)

So whether the other bhagats were sikh or not is irrelevant. One of the main contributors was a muslim (hence TRUTH is universal, and not confined to sikhs.)

[Pheena]

2 ways to look at it.

A Sikh in general sense that everyone who seeks with honesty is a Sikh. We are all Seekers and Learners. We are all Sikhs regardless of ones religion. In that sense All the bhagats were Sikhs.

If one looks at it from teh Organized Religions point of view, then NO they were not Sikhs, Sikhism was not an organized religion until the 10 nanak. UP to that point the word sikh did not hold the values of a religion but that of its literal meaning, Learner/Deciple/Seeker. Also why are we so hell bent on trying to capture the bhagats into the boundries of an organized religion. I have said this before and i will say this again....Any Enlightened person cannot be held to A religion, Truth is not a part of a Religion....he is beyond the lables of the world. The reason the words of those Enlightened Masters whom the sikhs call Bhagats was added to the Guru Granth Sahib was because the Same Truth was spoken by them as did was by the Guru Nanak. Their Bani is equal to the Gurus. When we Bow to the SGGS we bow to the Bhagats and Gurus equally.

If we say that those Gurus (bhagats) were not SIkhs then that Guru Granth Sahib become Universal and would become the Guru of anyone with or without Amrit Sanchaar.... for the Bhagats that are included are not Sikhs meaning they are not part of the Organized Religion. So any Hindu, Christian would consider the SGGS their Guru and would call themselves sikhs wihtout Taking Amrit.

If we say that they were Sikhs, then we build that boundry that only the selected few are able to become the Deciples of the SGGS. The onese who have Taken Amrit, the Ones who are part of the Khalsa Panth and no one else, because every Bhagat in the SGGS became a Sikh and so must the Followers.

Again No Enlightened person can be tied down to a Religion. The question was asked to the 5th Nanak, Are you Hindu or Muslim? He spoke He is neither, why not then at that point Guru ji say he is a Sikh?? A perfect oppotunity to repersent the Religion that would become.

Religion in teh sense of an organized group will always try to create boundries. It is no different than the Ahmadis saying Guru Nanak was Muslim. WE are Saying Bhagat Naamdev was a Sikh....say the same things to the devotees of Bhagat Naamdev and hear their response, i bet it would be no different than the response a sikh will give to an Ahmadi who says Guru Nanak is a Muslim

To say that they took Amrit would mean that they were not complete, that Amrit was needed form theim to acheive liberation? if it wasn't necessary then what was the purpose of them taking Amrit? Were they not already enlightened?? How is that different that from a Muslim saying you must become a Muslim to achieve Jannat. So only After they took Amrit are they Sikh?

P.S As i may seem to give off some hints that i am Anti-Amrit Shakking, then you are mistaken. I hold those who have taken Amrit in great Honor and look up to them. So don't confuse it as such.

I apologize if my views have offende neone....and these views are not concrete, so i welcome any change.

Waheguru

[Guest]

Dhan Dhan Satguroo Kabir Sahib Ji

Dhan Dhan Satguroo Baba Farid Sahib Ji

Dhan Dhan Satguroo nanak Dev Nirankar :D