What Is Bhagauti?

[paapiman]

4 hours ago, akalpurkh said:

Gurbani/Guru Sahib used them just as a reference for the people of that era to teach them about the Eternal truth. Guru Sahiban had a distinctive way to teach truth by using references of the popular mythological characters of that time.

Bro, so you are saying that Maharaaj used false mythological stories to bring people into Sikhism?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[dalsingh101]

46 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, so you are saying that Maharaaj used false mythological stories to bring people into Sikhism?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

You shouldn't see it as 'false mythology' maybe better to see it as using the accepted norms of disseminating information in the region, and tying learning to concepts/frameworks that people were already familiar with. 

This is standard (good) practice for trying to teach people; using what they are already familiar with to develop understanding. 

It's not false mythology, because behind EVERY mythological story are concepts/ideas/ideals that the myths are trying to convey. That's their importance and significance. 

 

Think about this:

If Sikhi was revealed in say Europe or Africa instead of Panjab, do you really think the Gurus would use traditional Indic references to get points across? If not, what do yo think they would use to make people understand?

[amardeep]

14 hours ago, Guest said:

They are not differnt from other invocations in Sri Dasam Granth.  Obviously its written in Farsi, but particulars of Islam are not refered to, the word Allah is not used and there is no reference to the Islamic Prophet.  I do not see any particular philosophy written there.

It does Refer to the prophet Muhammad in the theologicla sections with praise of him having attained high stages of spirituality and a perfect believer. It is the line that says something like Nabi Ul Kitab.

[paapiman]

11 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

You shouldn't see it as 'false mythology' maybe better to see it as using the accepted norms of disseminating information in the region, and tying learning to concepts/frameworks that people were already familiar with. 

This is standard (good) practice for trying to teach people; using what they are already familiar with to develop understanding. 

It's not false mythology, because behind EVERY mythological story are concepts/ideas/ideals that the myths are trying to convey. That's their importance and significance. 

Bro, the above makes sense, but it is a very dangerous line of thinking, when it comes to Gurbani/Religion.

Imagine after 500 years or so, people start claiming that our Satgurus did not exist, but were mere fictional characters formed by writers to teach morals/ethics to society. This is a very dangerous trap of Maya. Hope you get my point.

Everything Maharaaj wrote and said is true, in all time frames (past, present and future) -- Trikaal Sat. There is a reason Maharaaj has used the word "Sat" three times below.

 

ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋਈ ॥

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

14 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

ABC before XYZ. You have to learn about the qualities that make them different.
You have to understand why there is a difference between the question you asked and the question I asked.

Last time, I tried giving examples and going into it straight away, I felt like we got nowhere. Neither you nor Samurai nor Ragmaala seemed to get it. I don't know about Chatanga, he never commented again.

I can't keep pushing boulders up mountains and then have them roll back on me 10 minutes later. Like I keep explaining Vishnu ji to Paapiman and everytime he posts about him, its like he is back to square one.

I do understand what you're trying to say,- I just dont agree with it when holding it up against Guru Granth Sahib. Thats why I try and ask you comparative questions to see if your interesting theory will last if kept concistent.

[akalpurkh]

3 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, the above makes sense, but it is a very dangerous line of thinking, when it comes to Gurbani/Religion.

Imagine after 500 years or so, people start claiming that our Satgurus did not exist, but were mere fictional characters formed by writers to teach morals/ethics to society. This is a very dangerous trap of Maya. Hope you get my point.

Everything Maharaaj wrote and said is true, in all time frames (past, present and future) -- Trikaal Sat. There is a reason Maharaaj has used the word "Sat" three times below.

 

ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋਈ ॥

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Paapiman ji,

Whether it is dangerous or not, but the fact is fact. Guru Sahib didn't joined us with their saroops, but with the Shabads. Shabad cannot be destroyed. 

BTW, Guru Sahib also mentioned about 33Cr Devi Devte in their banis. Do Guru Maharaj wants us to believe in that? Answer is No. 

To understand any phrase you have to understand its central idea.


 

[akalpurkh]

51 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

You shouldn't see it as 'false mythology' maybe better to see it as using the accepted norms of disseminating information in the region, and tying learning to concepts/frameworks that people were already familiar with. 

This is standard (good) practice for trying to teach people; using what they are already familiar with to develop understanding. 

It's not false mythology, because behind EVERY mythological story are concepts/ideas/ideals that the myths are trying to convey. That's their importance and significance. 

 

Think about this:

If Sikhi was revealed in say Europe or Africa instead of Panjab, do you really think the Gurus would use traditional Indic references to get points across? If not, what do yo think they would use to make people understand?

Perfect answer :)

[dalsingh101]

36 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, the above makes sense, but it is a very dangerous line of thinking, when it comes to Gurbani/Religion.

Imagine after 500 years or so, people start claiming that our Satgurus did not exist, but were mere fictional characters formed by writers to teach morals/ethics to society. This is a very dangerous trap of Maya. Hope you get my point.

Everything Maharaaj wrote and said is true, in all time frames (past, present and future) -- Trikaal Sat. There is a reason Maharaaj has used the word "Sat" three times below.

 

ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋਈ ॥

 

Bhul chuk maaf

That's not an issue at all, unless people imprison themselves in solely Indic worldviews, (which isn't going to happen because we've spread about and this necessitates the presentation of our heritage from multiple cultural perspectives to keep our youth, and people from other cultures engaged with Sikhi). We've got loads of independent sources verifying the physical existence of our Gurus in numerous forms, unlike devis and devtay. 

 

The Gurus were NOT AT ALL averse to using poetical devices when conveying Sikhi. I'd say your literal approach is more dangerous than anything else. 

[paapiman]

25 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

 We've got loads of independent sources verifying the physical existence of our Gurus in numerous forms, unlike devis and devtay. 

Are you sure, those sources will last forever? What happens, if there is a world war and most sources are lost?

 

25 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

The Gurus were NOT AT ALL averse to using poetical devices when conveying Sikhi. I'd say your literal approach is more dangerous than anything else. 

Bro, focusing only on literal approach is dangerous. One cannot deny that literal approach is needed many times to understand concepts, especially for beginners in spirituality.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

25 minutes ago, akalpurkh said:

BTW, Guru Sahib also mentioned about 33Cr Devi Devte in their banis. Do Guru Maharaj wants us to believe in that? Answer is No. 

Bro, Maharaaj is talking about facts. Believing in something, is different from worshiping it. 

What is so surprising about 33 crore devi devtay? Why would you say, that they did not exist?

Right now, the world population is more than 7 billion. Why cannot Waheguru create 330 million demi-Gods/Goddesses on this earth?

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, akalpurkh said:

Paapiman ji,

Whether it is dangerous or not, but the fact is fact. Guru Sahib didn't joined us with their saroops, but with the Shabads. Shabad cannot be destroyed. 

BTW, Guru Sahib also mentioned about 33Cr Devi Devte in their banis. Do Guru Maharaj wants us to believe in that? Answer is No. 

To understand any phrase you have to understand its central idea.


 

But shabad is the Guru's saroop, "gur murat gur shabad hai"

We could believe in 33 crore Devi devte as manifestations of nature or Akal Purakh, all under the power of Akal Purakh, "ek krishnan sarb deva, dev deva ta atma". Bhul chuk maaf but modern readings of scripture which insist on terming some aspects as mythology are a very slippery slope, I agree with @paapiman ji here

[paapiman]

17 hours ago, GurpreetKaur said:

What is Jaganath? 

 

 

Sister, please listen below to get info on Sri Jagannath jee.

Please start listening from 15:50 min:

 

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[samurai]

@BhagatSingh

ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਭਗੌਤੀ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਕੈ

who simered on bhagauti??

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ

who ‘saajed’ khanda??

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ

who ‘saajed’ durga??

is it not nirankar?

when Shakti is praised its already been established that nirankar is supreme. you really need to understand shakti.

I also mentioned kaval mukht before which you disregarded or thought was irrelevant. (you still may think this) but just give it a thought in regards to shakti

Someone who want to reach smadhi/dissolvent into nirankar(no identity/totally gone), Shakti plays no part. But for one who wants to serve, in particular dharm yudh, Shakti becomes important.

Ultimately there is no shakti, there is no me or you, but while we are in the leela/play we have a desire to play a ‘role’

Shakti plays a major role in a warriors life not so much on the bhagat, which is why it was focused on in dasam bani. This also does not make one a Shakti poojari, it’s a Pooja to protect ones bhagti of nirankar aswell

Reason for GGSJ to be given gurgaddi is because its focus is on bhagti (for everyone) where as dasam is for birras (warriors). I would see it as more complimentary then different.

Also want to point out, it is not all about fighting/war etc because without bhagti on nirankar and to serve him, all this Shakti/warrior mentality decays, it becomes adharam. Which then can be seen as bravado and egotistical, but lets not forget the shant ras people also suffer from these ailments just less apparent.

This is article I read ages ago and coincidently its from this site..lol..just to give people more of an understanding about shiv shakti… it’s a good read in general…

 

[chatanga1]

On 17/05/2015 at 4:47 AM, Guest said:

According to sant gurbachan singh ji katha he quoted from amar kosh where bhaugati is interpreted to have four theological meaning -

 

1. Akaal purkh including all sargun aspects (sargun and nirgun is one)

2. Kirpan- Sri Sahib

3. Bhagvati Chandi -goddess

4. Aad shakti- force

All four forms of interpretations are accepted depending on the context of shabad

Bhaugati which is mentioned in ardas is akaal purkh vachak.

 

On 17/05/2015 at 5:15 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

1) the primal power, which is a branch and arm of Waheguru.

2) The strong feminine ( in origin ) adoptable trait of a character which instilled the virtue for one to rise to defend the oppressed and uphold/defend Dharma, Righteousness, and Justice. The character who is and lives by ਪਤਿਤ ਉਧਾਰਨੰ, ਦੁਸ਼ਤ ਮਾਰਨੰ, and ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰਨੰ. I don't see Chandi ( the goddess) as Bhagauti itself, rather I see her as a Bhagauti.

3) the totally indescribable Femine aspect of Waheguru.

4) a Conceptual power which is manifested in that which can punish, annihilate, and defend.

5) The Sri Sahib and/or Shastar of the righteous Khalsa.

 

On 17/05/2015 at 1:48 PM, Singh123456777 said:

In gurbani a person has to look at the context of what the shabad is saying.

ੴ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹ ॥

The Lord is one and the Victory is of the Lord.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਜੀ ਸਹਾਇ ॥

May SRI BHAGAUTI JI (The Sword) be Helpful.

ਵਾਰ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਜੀ ਕੀ ॥ ਪਾਤਸਾਹੀ ੧੦ ॥

The Heroic Poem of Sri Bhagauti Ji (Goddess Durga). (By) Th Tenth Kingg (Guru).

ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਭਗੌਤੀ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਕੈ ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਈਂ ਧਿਆਇ ॥

In the beginning I remember Bhagauti, the Lord (Whose symbol is the sword and then I remember Guru Nanak.

Three different types of bhagauti are used by guru Ji.

 

19 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

 I don't know about Chatanga, he never commented again.

 

Yeah bro, I agree with the 3 posts I've quoted above. Wasn't following this topic too much.

[chatanga1]

20 hours ago, GurpreetKaur said:

What is Jaganath? 

 

 

I don't get it.

[BhagatSingh]

5 hours ago, amardeep said:

I do understand what you're trying to say,- I just dont agree with it when holding it up against Guru Granth Sahib. Thats why I try and ask you comparative questions to see if your interesting theory will last if kept concistent.

Well you have to demonstrate that you understand it. Show me what you understand and what you don't. Make it easy for me to talk to you because right now you are making it incredibly difficult and frustrating for me, by not telling me what you understand already.

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, samurai said:

ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਭਗੌਤੀ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਕੈ
who simered on bhagauti??

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ
who ‘saajed’ khanda??

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ

who ‘saajed’ durga??

is it not nirankar?

On 2016-02-22 at 5:02 PM, amardeep said:

Sorry where does it say Chandi creates Mahakal. Can you post the verses

This is what i am talking about you guys.

In my mind, I think we went over this stuff in the last thread where I explained this. In my mind, you should understand what I am thinking and how I arrive at my thinking because I explained it already. And anything you say should build up on that whether you disagree or agree.

So here I am thinking you guys got it, and I go on further to talk about other things.
But then you guys say things like this (in the quotes) and then it's like we are back to square one. It seems as if I was not able to get anything across. I am trying hard here to explain what I am saying. Maybe I am just extremely poor at explaining?

I really want to have you guys on the same page as me because I think this stuff is really cool to talk about  whether we disagree or agree on it. But I can't seem to get there because no matter what I do, I can never meet you guys on the same page.

What can I do to work towards us being on the same page? What can we do?

In the last thread, I proposed that we should skype. I got no answer from you.

[samurai]

@BhagatSingh

From my understanding

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ

Khanda (Shakti) was first created (by creater/akaal), who then (Shakti) created the universe

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਦਾ ਖੇਲੁ ਰਚਾਇ ਬਣਾਇਆ

Brahma, vishu, shiva were created and akaal purks khed (game) was made/manifested (by shakti on order/hukam of akaal purkh)

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ

You (akaa purkh) created durga (Shakti) to destroy the demons (enemies/agyanis)

Akaal/Shakti do not have gender but inlay terms to explain, gender is used ie ‘he’ for god.

Bhagt singh your interpretation,

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥
Khanda prithme saaj kai jin sab sansaar upaya
First the divine feminine creates the masculine principle. First Bhagawati creates Khanda who is symbol of masculine force that is consciousness or spirit

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਦਾ ਖੇਲੁ ਰਚਾਇ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥
Three elements are - creative, preservative and destructive, and with these three elements this the play of nature was created.

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥
Bhagawati then creates Durga to wipe out the demons whenever they cause trouble.

So can you see there’s already a stumbling block??

 I get where you are coming from and you explained yourself well in accordance to your interpretation, but I feel your interpretations are not accurate in the first place.

In previous thread I made a statement and asked if this is true to which you answered ‘yes, your close’ (basically dasam bani gives superiority to shakti unlike akaal in GGSJ hence theological differences). From this I understood your mind set and left it at that.

Only reason I replied now was because you mentioned me in this thread.  

I agree dasam bani is very interesting in the interpretation/meaning and practice of it, like you I enjoy talking to people that are on the ‘same page’ as me too..lol. (it’s a pity we are not on the same page). 

what can we do to be on same page??hhmm.. im not sure bro, thing with dasam granth its quiet mind bobbling, like you really need to get your head around it.. Not just look at it from an intellectual view, im not sure..im really not..

The way ive always seen it is,  guru granth sahib is the rose and dasam bani is the thorns of that rose. The saint is the rose and the warrior is the thorn of that rose. My soul is the rose and my body is the thorn of that

[amardeep]

Bhagatsingh ji:
 

The way I undestand it is that you believe the Dasam Granth to be a collection of different poets each having different religious backgrounds. This is reflected in the different manglacharans and opening sections of the various writings which at the same time functions as exclussive confessions of faith. In the cases where a devi upashak poet would write about the avatars of the vaishnava tradition (chaubis avatar), the poet would first confess his own personal faith by writing ustat of the Devi prior to beginning the task of translating Chaubis Avatar of Vishnu. The poet does'nt personally believe in Vishnu but he is engaged in the task of translation.

Is this correct?

[dalsingh101]

Quote

It seems as if I was not able to get anything across. I am trying hard here to explain what I am saying. Maybe I am just extremely poor at explaining?

Yep....

 

[GurpreetKaur]

3 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

I don't get it.

Me too.. I don't know what is Bhaugati and now I don't know what is Jaganath. But oh well. Lol

[Ragmaala]

Just now, GurpreetKaur said:

Me too.. I don't know what is Bhaugati and now I don't know what is Jaganath. But oh well. Lol

Jaganath Puri is a Hindu Temple in India.  Guru Ji went here to teach I believe.

[GurpreetKaur]

Just now, Gunahgar said:

Jaganath Puri is a Hindu Temple in India.  Guru Ji went here to teach I believe.

Ohh okay okay . Thank you. Now tell me what is Bhagauti? Lol

[Ragmaala]

Just now, GurpreetKaur said:

Ohh okay okay . Thank you. Now tell me what is Bhagauti? Lol

For Sikhs, Bhagauti is the working power of Nirankar or You can say if Guru Gobind Singh ji is our Nirankar, then Mata Sahib Kaur is Our Bhagauti ji. Simple. Dont get into complexities lol.

[BhagatSingh]

When you say "I feel your interpretations are not accurate in the first place."
There are things that I say and there are things that are there before I say anything.

You have to recognize the difference between what is my interpretation and what is just "the way it is" like a fact. So difference between facts vs my interpretation of those facts. You are misunderstanding what I am saying because you are not able to separate what is fact from my interpretation of that fact.

(Keeping in mind, that to some degree facts are also interpretations but that comes later level, don't even worry about that yet. First, you have to go through the motions of separating facts and interpretations. And learn to see what is considered fact and what is considered interpretation in the subject we are discussing.)

1 hour ago, samurai said:

@BhagatSingh

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ
Khanda (Shakti) was first created (by creater/akaal), who then (Shakti) created the universe

This is the wrong way to read this sentence because this is not what this sentence is saying.

Let's go step by step as to why that's the case.

ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ

ਖੰਡਾ

We intuitively understand this is not talking about a "khanda sword", which a straight sword. This is talking about a principle using the symbol of Khanda sword.

So ਖੰਡਾ derives from ਖੰਡਨ - To destroy. So ਖੰਡਾ means "One who destroys"

So you might think well  -
1. Shakti destroys/Shakti is power
2. Khanda destroys/Khanda is power
3. Shakti is being referred to as Khanda

Fair enough, that's a logical point and valid argument but it is simply not true.
 

Why not?
(At the time this writing was penned) Shakti was was (and still not) considered to be represented by a Khanda sword. Shakti is never represented by a Khanda straight sword. I am talking specifically about Khanda straight sword here not any other type of sword.

Who is Khanda a symbol of?
Khanda is a symbol of Mahakal/Shiv ji. Mahakal is represented by the Khanda sword in Shaiv religions ,the traditions that we are talking about right now. Shaiv traditions/Shaiv religions

From Bachittar Natak Granth -
ਤ੍ਰਿਭੰਗੀ ਛੰਦ ॥
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਾਲ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਉਸਤਤਿ ॥ <----------- this is the key to understanding what follows.
ਖਗ ਖੰਡ ਬਿਹੰਡੰ ਖਲ ਦਲ ਖੰਡੰ ਅਤਿ ਰਣ ਮੰਡੰ ਬਰ ਬੰਡੰ ॥
ਭੁਜ ਦੰਡ ਅਖੰਡੰ ਤੇਜ ਪ੍ਰਚੰਡੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਅਮੰਡੰ ਭਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਭੰ ॥
ਸੁਖ ਸੰਤਾ ਕਰਣੰ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਦਰਣੰ ਕਿਲਬਿਖ ਹਰਣੰ ਅਸਿ ਸਰਣੰ ॥
ਜੈ ਜੈ ਜਗ ਕਾਰਣ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਬਾਰਣ ਮਮ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਰਣ ਜੈ ਤੇਗੰ ॥੨॥

ਖਗ - Khanda or Kharag. Kharag is shortened to Khag.

So in this paragraph, Shri Kaal (Mahakal, Shiv ji) is represented by the Khanda/Kharag symbol, and Shri Kaal ji is being praised using the metaphor of a sword wandering the battlefield, saving saints, destroys enemies.

On a side note -
ਕਿਲਬਿਖ ਹਰਣੰ - This refers to the story of Shiv ji drinking the ਕਿਲਬਿਖ Kilvish, poison of the world, an getting a neelkanth. Shiv ji is the personification of peace. The poison is a symbol of ignorance and suffering. So the deeper meaning there is that inner pool peace (Shiv) dissolves all inner turmoil (kilvish).

Coming back to Khanda being a symbol of Mahakal/Shiv. Aside from writings there are artifacts that show us this as well.
 

Have a look at the Ardh Chand symbol.
http://s1354.photobucket.com/user/komlink/media/goddessShivShakti-khanda_zpsbeec3d00.jpg.html

That khanda in the center is Mahakal/Shiv, the curved swords that form the moon, are Shakti.

Btw note that none of this is my interpretation that's just how that is. I have just learned this over time, this is not my original thinking.


So when you understand the symbol that is used. That gives away the meaning instantly.
ਖੰਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਸਾਜ ਕੈ ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਸੈਸਾਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ
First, Bhagawati creates Mahakal, and then creates the entire world.