What Is Bhagauti?

[samurai]

4 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Shri Granth has dictionaries, mahan kosh, Farid Kote wala teeka - all this knowledge loaded into it.

Mahan kosh-kahn singh nabha...

ਖੰਡਾ - khandā - खंडा

ਦੋਧਾਰਾ ਖੜਗ. ਦੋਹਾਂ ਪਾਸਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਖੰਡਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ. "ਤ੍ਰੈ ਸੈ ਹੱਥ ਉਤੰਗੀ ਖੰਡਾ ਧੂਹਿਆ." (ਕਲਕੀ) ਦੇਖੋ, ਸਸਤ੍ਰ। ੨. ਮਾਇਆ, ਜੋ ਖੰਡ (ਦ੍ਵੰਦ ਪਦਾਰਥ) ਰਚਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਹੈ. "ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜਕੈ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਭ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਉਪਾਯਾ." (ਚੰਡੀ ੩)

दोधारा खड़ग. दोहां पासिआं तों खंडन करन वाला शसत्र. "त्रै सै हॱथ उतंगी खंडा धूहिआ." (कलकी) देखो, ससत्र। २. माइआ, जो खंड (द्वंद पदारथ) रचण वाली है. "खंडा प्रिथमै साजकै जिनि सभ संसार उपाया." (चंडी ३)

ਖੰਡਾ ਪਖਾਰਨਾ - khandā pakhāranā - खंडा पखारना

ਕ੍ਰਿ- ਜੰਗ ਲਈ ਕੋਈ ਵੈਰੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ ਪੁਰ, ਤਲਵਾਰ ਸਾਫ਼ ਕਰਕੇ ਮਿਆਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਰਨੀ. ਦੇਖੋ, ਹਥਿਆਰ ਪਖਾਰਨਾ.

क्रि- जंग लई कोई वैरी ना होण पुर, तलवार साफ़ करके मिआन विॱच करनी. देखो, हथिआर पखारना

khanda= maya/shakti

https://www.searchgurbani.com/mahan_kosh/view

Bro, can we now please put an end to it?

[samurai]

http://www.gurmatveechar.com/audios/Katha/02_Present_Day_Katha/Giani_Pooran_Singh_%28Delhi_wale%29/Chandi_Di_Vaar_Katha/Giani.Pooran.Singh--Chandi.Di.Vaar.Katha.Part.03.mp3

[BhagatSingh]

5 hours ago, samurai said:

੨. ਮਾਇਆ, ਜੋ ਖੰਡ (ਦ੍ਵੰਦ ਪਦਾਰਥ) ਰਚਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਹੈ. "ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜਕੈ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਭ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਉਪਾਯਾ." (ਚੰਡੀ ੩)

Bro, can we now please put an end to it?

You didn't think I knew about that?  He got it wrong bro.

Have you not been paying attention to anything I've been saying?

I showed you what Khanda means, it's base definition. I explained why it is connected to Mahakal. And I explained that using a well-known artifact, and using textual evidence from within Dasam Granth, itself.

After all that, all you do is post a sentence saying the same thing I disproved in detail.

That's like a mathematician slowly working through a proof to show you why 2+2 =4, then you say "Oh but look in this book, it says 2+2=5. Can we now put an end to this?"

"Oh now I get it. 2+2 does equal 5. Of course, why didn't I see it before. Oh how wrong I was!"

 

Seriously, put the 2 and 2 together man!

[samurai]

ok bro, don't need to have a b1tch fit..

i posted that as you mentioned using that material for definitions.. You've dissected a word that 'may' not need to be dissected. Its obvious this 'interpretation' of yours you are going to stick to it but i read your work here and still i am inclined to go with the interpretations of the likes of sant gurbachan singh bhindrevala and that katha i posted was by his student.. Also people i've met sants (some from nirmala samprada) and nihangs (from uk and india)... ive asked them the same questions before and got same answer. Now they may all be 'wrong' (granted) but i'll take that gamble and stick with the interpretation of khanda being adi shakti, but can appreciate/respect your interpretation... 

 

[paapiman]

The Katha posted by Samurai paaji above is by Gyani Pooran Singh jee, who was a student of Vidya Martand Srimaan 108 Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale.

Gyani jee does good Katha. Gurparsaad, will try to post some snippets of his Katha.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

3 hours ago, samurai said:

ok bro, don't need to have a b1tch fit..

You are the one asking me to "put an end to it", in bold and underline. Who is the one having a b1tchy fit mate?

Quote

i posted that as you mentioned using that material for definitions.. You've dissected a word that 'may' not need to be dissected.

I didn't dissect a word just for the h3ll of it. I dissected the word because you appeared to not understand me the first time.

It's like if I tell you that a frog also breathes to survive and you respond with "wtf? no it doesn't".

If you can't already see it's chest go big and small rhythmically, then the only way I can show you if a frog breathes, is to dissect one in front of you.

 

3 hours ago, samurai said:

Now they may all be 'wrong' (granted) but i'll take that gamble and stick with the interpretation of khanda being adi shakti, but can appreciate/respect your interpretation... 

Look man, when I first read that shalok, I read it like everyone else, where I read khanda to mean bhagawati. However over time, after receiving more understanding, it has changed how I view what is written. I now read it differently, not just for the h3ll of it, but because there is better understanding of it.

Fast forward to this thread - I am sharing that understanding with you, and requesting that you -

-> Think about it.

-> Ask questions if its not clear.

-> Present counter-proof /or/ Confirm that it changed your mind

(And posting someone's final conclusion, whether katha or written down, is not counter-proof. That final conclusion is what is under debate here.)

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, paapiman said:

Gyani jee does good Katha. Gurparsaad, will try to post some snippets of his Katha.

It would be better if you posted your understanding of their katha, instead.

That way we can actually have a discussion rather than have a 'katha match' of who can paste the most amount of katha, and the most amount of snippets from books.

[dalsingh101]

41 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

It would be better if you posted your understanding of their katha, instead.

That way we can actually have a discussion rather than have a 'katha match' of who can paste the most amount of katha, and the most amount of snippets from books.

It's like a 'kathathon'. lol

[samurai]

 

Bruv you just mentioned you use mahan kosh a a dictionary and that's the definition.. Now this guys wrong...lol..Alot of what i learnt is from katha and it 'makes sense' to me, just like someone may feel what you are saying is 'right'...Thats what i learnt from this forum when one makes a statement others always want a reference. I could say this is my thoughts as it makes sense to me but that is the source, its not my invention

I said before jarnail singhs katha was saying khanda is maya.. you said hes not wrong hes from different religion

Mahan kosh is saying same thing and so is that katha now they are wrong..

Like i said in last post, just like i'm listening to you (well reading) and not accepting it, ive also listened to others and have accepted what they have said as it makes sense to me (so i have been in a neutral position), doesn't mean i'm that persons chela, like wise some may agree with you and start taking your advise doesn't make them your cheleh.  

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Khanda is maya? so you believe that sikhs venerate maya?

 

[Guest guest]

Bhagat Singh

you must realise that, not only will people like samurai reject out right any explanation involving hindu concepts, they will resent such views even being expressed.  hence his demand to put an end to it.  it doesnt matter how thought-out your explanation is. 

anyway this is a place of discussion, so its fine to share.  but to some it is offensive (not me), for reasons stated above.

well if that is incorrect samurai can say so.  but lets be honest?

[GurpreetKaur]

A lot can be learn from Hinduism and many other religions, if Sikhs stop looking down on other religions. 

24 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

Bhagat Singh

you must realise that, not only will people like samurai reject out right any explanation involving hindu concepts, they will resent such views even being expressed.  hence his demand to put an end to it.  it doesnt matter how thought-out your explanation is. 

anyway this is a place of discussion, so its fine to share.  but to some it is offensive (not me), for reasons stated above.

well if that is incorrect samurai can say so.  but lets be honest?

Are you the mean type guest jee who always posts mean stuff if yes, I am proud of you for being somewhat nice today and yes you said it right, I think we are brainwashed to reject Hindu concepts since we will call it brahmanvad and downgrade it and that's the problem when a Sikh try to use Hindu concepts we will go against him with all the force lol. I am just an observer lol

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, samurai said:

Bruv you just mentioned you use mahan kosh a a dictionary and that's the definition.. Now this guys wrong...lol..

Yes. I use Mahan Kosh. However when I use it, I also keep in mind that there are parts of it that involve the author giving definitions and what parts of it involves the author's own interpretation of certain words. (like any other dictionary)

In dictionaries, they try to be as neutral as possible but there is always some level of interpretation. You can develop enough vivek buddhi to the point where you can start to see differences between definitions and interpretations, and how base definitions give rise to bigger picture, bigger concepts (holistic approach), how larger concepts can be reduced to base definitions (reductionist approach).

In Mahan Kosh, Kahn Singh ji gives his interpretation of Khanda as it is in Chandi di Vaar (and he is quite clear about this being his interpretation). The same interpretation is being parroted (means to be repeated without question) everywhere else, because they all believe that interpretation to be true and no one questions it.

[BhagatSingh]

Story time with bapu Bhagt Siya
(read in old man voice)

Many years ago when I was your age (lol), I started off my reading of Dasam Granth at Chandi Di Vaar because I had heard Bhai Balbir Singh ji's beautiful rendition of it. *cough cough cough*

When I read it, I did so all in context of Guru Granth Sahib. I thought Hari is supreme and he creates Maya (as it says in Guru Granth Sahib - bishan ki maya te hoye bhin). So I too mistakenly read Khanda as Maya, and read "Khanda prithmai saaj kai..." as Hari created Maya.

*clears throat*
It wasn't till much later after I had started reading Bachittar Natak Granth Sahib that I found out that Khanda (being a powerful and phallic symbol) has had an association with Mahakal and similar deities for thousands of years. This was written in the very beginning of Bachittar Natak as well, in overt terms. This piece of evidence struck me and totally contradicted my previous knowledge about Chandi di Vaar, including the bit where I thought Khanda is Maya.

So after discovering this gem of knowledge, I corrected myself. I then raised the sails and took to the oceans. Once more I began to sail the ocean that is Chandi Di Vaar, but this time, I sailed it in it's own light as it's own separate ocean.
*cough cough cough*

So mere jwan bacheo, this is how your bapu sailed the oceans and lived happily ever after.

The End

[samurai]

16 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

The same interpretation is being parroted (means to be repeated without question) everywhere else, because they all believe that interpretation to be true and no one questions it.

i take that comment about 'ending' back.. so please do carry on with discussion..

@guest guest, i don't have a problem with hindu concepts.

[dalsingh101]

I have to say, for me this thread exemplifies why I'm a bit...hhhmmm..what's the word I'm looking for.....that's it...'reluctant' about a lot of the 'Hindu' stuff. It's just so darn unclear and convoluted. It's like a mish-mash of all manner of jazz. This IS confusing, and let's not forget that certain people actually designed it to be difficult to penetrate, for their own exclusivist agenda. 

It doesn't help that Sanskrit is a mostly dead language now either.

I feel that one of the reasons for Sikhi's success in Panjab was because it was infinitely more clear and accessible to the masses. And the language was much closer to home. 

[paapiman]

22 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

It would be better if you posted your understanding of their katha, instead.

That way we can actually have a discussion rather than have a 'katha match' of who can paste the most amount of katha, and the most amount of snippets from books.

Bro, Daas does not have the intellect to understand Katha really well.

Not interested in any Katha match.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

3 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

I have to say, for me this thread exemplifies why I'm a bit...hhhmmm..what's the word I'm looking for.....that's it...'reluctant' about a lot of the 'Hindu' stuff. It's just so darn unclear and convoluted. It's like a mish-mash of all manner of jazz. This IS confusing, and let's not forget that certain people actually designed it to be difficult to penetrate, for their own exclusivist agenda. 

No it is would be entirely false to say it was designed this way.

It was convoluted and has become convoluted. That's why you had the Guru system in the first place. That's why those guys were writing a whole bunch of scriptures to make sense of it all. 

So it's the nature of discipline. Further convoluted because you cannot talk about the very essence of reality directly, it must always be done indirectly. And there are many (thousands) different systems (religions) that are possible for encapsulating it in a conceptual framework.

When you try to make sense of a whole bunch (thousands) of religions for the masses or for the unlearned, you end up with a lot messy and convoluted explanations and stories.

Like I'll use the example of 2+2=4. A learned person can see that the only thing they need to see is 2+2=4. But now try to explain that to someone who is unlearned, a child. Now it's no longer as simple as add 2 to 2. Now you gotta go into reason why it's like that.

Another example is teaching someone to ride a bike. A learned person can ride a bike, all they have to be told is "get on a bike and move the pedals." But for an unlearned person, it requires a messy set of explanations and a lot of guidance.

 

Anyway long story short, that's is why I am here. XD

Quote

It doesn't help that Sanskrit is a mostly dead language now either.

Not really.

Quote

I feel that one of the reasons for Sikhi's success in Panjab was because it was infinitely more clear and accessible to the masses. And the language was much closer to home. 

This type of translation work was happening everywhere. North India, South India, East India, West India, Middle-India, and all the places in between.
(all of those regions are different cultures and different religions)

This was in order to make Sanskrit more accessible to the people.

This is why we have Onkar in different scripts as I showed earlier. When Sanskrit texts were translated and new spiritual texts were written, the tradition to "chant the Aum" to "perform the Onkar", as meant by the symbol, in the beginning of a spiritual text, was also carried through in those languages.

[BhagatSingh]

2 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, Daas does not have the intellect to understand Katha really well.

Well there's something you can work towards in these threads. Tell us what you think you understand of the katha, and other members can fill you in.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

That's why you had the Guru system in the first place. That's why those guys were writing a whole bunch of scriptures to make sense of it all. 

I think what often happens is that scriptures in archaic languages can become like a sort of Rorschach blob; where interpreters (of various calibres) simple project their own inner beliefs and intuition onto them. Granted, some smart people might elicit quite intelligent ideas from this process - but then it also lends itself to any old Yoda with a bit of linguistic skills to wow the ignorant and make chelay out of them.

Thank you Waheguru for giving me a Sikh heritage. You've saved me from a potential lifetime of having to kiss some pandit's arse to get spiritual food. 

 

Thank you so much. 

[dalsingh101]

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

 

This type of translation work was happening everywhere. North India, South India, East India, West India, Middle-India, and all the places in between.
(all of those regions are different cultures and different religions)

This was in order to make Sanskrit more accessible to the people.

They didn't just preach spiritual matters, they reshaped society in a totally different way to what existed before, making it infinitely more egalitarian. We've spoke about this ad naseum. Now it's getting boring and going around in circles. lol

 

[amardeep]

The Gurus can't be compared to any of the bhagats/bhaktas that were seen in India at the time. The Gurus ideas were far more coherent as well as the fact that their concept of dharma was more wide. Also, the Gurus were the only ones who actually setup a panth, a scripture and organization. The other bhaktas did'n.

Edited March 19, 2016 by amardeep

[Guest guest]

Sanskrit grammar is currently much better understood then Gurbani grammar.  Infact, Prof Sahib Singh started as a Sanskrit grammar student, and used his learning from there to start (e.g. the different karakas).

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, dalsingh101 said:

They didn't just preach spiritual matters, they reshaped society in a totally different way to what existed before, making it infinitely more egalitarian. We've spoke about this ad naseum. Now it's getting boring and going around in circles. lol

Well then you remember the discussions where I explained that these things were happening before, and in other parts of India. Alwars, Maratha, etc in south India - I hope they ring a bell.

1 hour ago, dalsingh101 said:

Granted, some smart people might elicit quite intelligent ideas from this process

Known as Guru, Acharya, Sant, Bhagat, etc during medieval times.

E.g. Ramanuj Acharya (Guru Ramanuj) from 1000 ad.

 

1 hour ago, amardeep said:

The Gurus can't be compared to any of the bhagats/bhaktas that were seen in India at the time. The Gurus ideas were far more coherent as well as the fact that their concept of dharma was more wide.

This is not the case.

The bhagats ideas were all coherent, they all believed the same thing along with the Gurus, that's why they were all added to Guru Granth Sahib. They had the same concept of Dharma, whether you read Sant Nam Dev ji's bani from 1200s, Ramanand ji from 1300s or Kabir ji from 1400s or Guru Sahibs from 1400s to 1600s.

We have to abandon this notion that Guru Granth Sahib is a book where people who held different beliefs, and different religions were added.

This is true to some degree - Sheikh Farid.
The reason why Sheikh Faird's bani is there in Guru Granth Sahib is because of the lengthy commentaries that Guru Amar Das ji did on Farid ji's bani.

But everyone else in Guru Granth Sahib pretty much holds the same world view, same beliefs, same theological structure, "one spiritual message for all castes", same openness to Muslims and use of Muslim language, etc. everything.
 

Quote

Also, the Gurus were the only ones who actually setup a panth, a scripture and organization. The other bhaktas did'n.

Bhagat Nam Dev ji is actually Guru Nam Dev ji.

Bhagat Ramanand ji is actually Guru Ramanand ji.

Bhagat Kabir ji is actually Guru Kabir ji.

Bhagat Ravi Das ji is actually Guru Ravi Das ji (we were strongly reminded of this very recently).

Then we have our Gurus.

I say this to explain that those guys were doing things just like our Gurus. The everyday sikh just doesn't know everything they did because they haven't taken the time to study their lives.

They were all Gurus of a common panth, common scriptures and organization.

And like our Gurus they also had their own poems and writings, and their individual gatherings, panth and practices.

Guru Arjun Dev ji saw this commonality and went a step forward, and added their bani into one place to unite different Gurus from different parts of India, who all had the same ideas and religion. However the word Guru is added to the only to the names of your personal, living guru and his master. So they were called Bhagats in Guru Granth Sahib, whereas the ten Gurus were called Gurus. In reality the other Bhagats were all Gurus.

 

Bhagat Nam Dev ji was a huge figure from 1200s. He was a big Guru of his time. A Jesus Christ level of man (for those who know Jesus). He had that level of spiritual attainment that miracles and extraordinary stuff would happen to him. The dehora turned towards him, he got saved from an attacking elephant, he revived a slaughtered cow. That's the type of power he had. He not only had mastered bhagti but also mastered shakti. He was a superior man.

No ahankar. no ego, just pure God.

I mean here we have Guru Ram Das ji venerating Bhagat Nam Dev ji to the same degree as Bhagat Prahlaad ji, who is another big figure from their shared religion.

ਹਰਿ ਜੁਗੁ ਜੁਗੁ ਭਗਤ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਪੈਜ ਰਖਦਾ ਆਇਆ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਜੇ ॥
In all ages, Hari creates his Bhakts, saints. King Ram protects their honour.
ਹਰਣਾਖਸੁ ਦੁਸਟੁ ਹਰਿ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਪ੍ਰਹਲਾਦੁ ਤਰਾਇਆ ॥
Hari killed Harnakash, as Narsingh, and protected Prahlaad, gave him an exalted position.
ਅਹੰਕਾਰੀਆ ਨਿੰਦਕਾ ਪਿਠਿ ਦੇਇ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਮੁਖਿ ਲਾਇਆ ॥
He turned away from the deluded slanderers and embraced Nam Dev.
ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਐਸਾ ਹਰਿ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਅੰਤਿ ਲਏ ਛਡਾਇਆ ॥੪॥੧੩॥੨੦॥
The followers of Nanak, serve this Hari in this manner, that Hari will liberate them in the end (as he did Prahlaad and Nam Dev).

This one shabad, encapsulates the theological structure, religion, practices, famous personalities/icons, etc of our Gurus and their followers.

Bam!

 

This will become crystal clear, if one were to take their time and understand this and get the big picture.

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, Guest guest said:

Sanskrit grammar is currently much better understood then Gurbani grammar.  Infact, Prof Sahib Singh started as a Sanskrit grammar student, and used his learning from there to start (e.g. the different karakas).

Gurmukhi grammar is based on Sanskrit grammar. This is because Sanskrit is the parent language.

In order to pronounce Gurbani accurately, one should study a bit of Sanskrit and practice the pronunciation.

Words like -

ਹਿਰਦੈ
ਰਿਖੀਕੇਸ
ਪੁਰਖ
ਮੋਖ
ਵਿਸੇਖ
ਙਿਆਨੀ

These require a previous understanding of Sanskrit alphabet and pronunciation.

That reminds me, I left a certain thread on the stove (Patanjali) that I should get back to at some point.