What Is Bhagauti?

[dalsingh101]

Quote

 

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.

 

Prof. Sahib Singh interestingly talked about this. He said it was sometimes  wrong to use previously existing interpretations (from the older Indic world) on Sikh writings. He said that great writers often appropriate older words and give them adapted or different nuances when employed in new writings. Your insistence to rigidly stick to what you yourself believe are older, traditional meanings of these words is a problem - if this is true. 

 

Here's a translation I did about 5 years ago from the professor's Jaap Sahib Steek. 

 

Quote

 

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੀ ‘ਬਾਣੀ’ ਵਿਚ ਕਈ ਐਸੀਆਂ ਅਨੋਖੀਆਂ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਆਉਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਜਿੰਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝਣ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਜੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ‘ਬਾਣੀ’ ਤੋਂ ਕੋਈ ਬਾਹਰਲੀ ਕਸਵੱਟੀ ਵਰਤੀ ਜਾਏ ਤਾਂ ਗਲਤੀ ਖਾ ਜਾਈਦੀ ਹੈ। ‘ਅਰਦਾਸਿ’ ਵਿਚ ਵਰਤੇ ਹੋਏ ਲਫਜ਼ ‘ਭਗੌਤੀ’ ਬਾਰੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਸੱਜਣ ਟੱਪਲਾ ਖਾ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ, ਕਈ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ‘ਦੇਵੀ-ਵਾਚਕ’ ਸਮਝ ਕੇ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਕੱਢਣ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਜਤਨ ਕਰਨ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ, ਤੇ ਕਈ ਸੱਜਣ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ‘ਤਲਵਾਰ’ ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਇਹ ਕਹਿਣ ਲੱਗ ਪੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ-ਪੂਜਾ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰਾ ਦਿੱਤੀ। ਬਚਿੱਤਰ ਨਾਟਕ’ ਵਿਚ ਲਫਜ਼ ‘ਕਾਲਕਾ’ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਮਿਲਦਾ ਹੈ; ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਪੜ੍ਹ ਕੇ ਕਈ ਸੱਜਣ ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਮੰਨ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਨੇ ‘ਦੁਰਗਾ’ ਦੀ ਪੂਜਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ, ਕਈ ਇਹ ਕਹਿ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

.............................

Within Guru Gobind Singh ji’s bani there are instances of such unique narratives (ਅਨੋਖੀਆਂ ਗੱਲਾਂ) that they can be misunderstood if external criterion (ਬਾਹਰਲੀ ਕਸਵੱਟੀ) is applied to interpret them. With regards to the use of the word ‘Bhagautee’ in ‘Ardas’, this has led to misapprehensions on the part of many respectable people (ਸੱਜਣ). Some, considering it to signify devi (ਦੇਵੀ-ਵਾਚਕ), commence efforts to remove [the reference] from bani, and some respectable folk, giving the meaning as a ‘sword’, have started to say that Satguru Gobind Singh ji initiated the worship of weaponry (ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ-ਪੂਜਾ). We encounter the use of the word ‘Kalka’ (ਕਾਲਕਾ) in Bachittar Natak; upon the reading of which some respectable people have come to accept that Satguru ji worshipped ‘Durga’. Some are saying that this bani doesn’t belong to Satguru ji.

 

................................................

ਇੰਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਭੁਲੇਖਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਅਸਲ ਕਾਰਨ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚ ਵਰਤੇ ਹੋਏ ਇਹੋ ਜਿਹੇ ਲਫਜ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝਣ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਬਾਹਰੋਂ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਕਸਵੱਟੀ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਾਂ। ਪਰ ਅਸਲ ਵਿਚ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਭਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝਣ ਦਾ ਸਹੀ ਤਰੀਕਾ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਰ ਹੋਰ ਥਾਂ ਵਰਤੇ ਹੋਏ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਲਫਜ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪੜ੍ਹੀਏ ਤੇ ਫਿਰ ਵੇਖੀਏ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਇੰਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਲਫਜ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਸ ਅਰਥ ਵਿਚ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਨ। ਉਚ-ਕੋਟੀ ਦੇ ਕਵੀ ਤੇ ਵਿਦਵਾਨ ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਸਿਰਫ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਮੌਜੂਦ ‘ਬੋਲੀ’ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਸਗੋਂ ‘ਬੋਲੀ’ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਰ ਨਵੇਂ ਲਫਜ਼ ਤੇ ਖਿਆਲ ਲਿਆ ਭਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਤੇ ਕਈ ਮਰ ਚੁੱਕੇ ਲਫਜ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਵੀਂ ਜਿੰਦ ਪਾ ਕੇ ਨਵੇਂ ਰੂਪ ਤੇ ਨਵੇਂ ਅਰਥ ਵਿਚ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਨ।

 

The real cause of these misapprehensions is that we have used external conventions to interpret the use of such words in Satguru Gobind Singh’s bani. But in reality the correct method to understand their intended meaning is to read other instances of the use of such words - within their own bani - and then to see the interpretation with which they themselves used the words. High calibre (ਉਚ-ਕੋਟੀ) poets and gifted writers don’t simply use an existing language in a beautiful manner, instead they also fill the language with additional new words and concepts (ਖਿਆਲ), putting new life into dead words [by] presenting them in a new form and using them with fresh meanings.

 

 

 

[amardeep]

Beatufully written and beatifully translated.

However I do agree with Bhagat Singh to a certain point that one must also look at the meaning of words during that time period they were written (and before that also) to look for interpretations. But if it is clear that the author is adding new life and meanings into words, then go by these new meanings. This is the case with the Guru's use of the word Khalsa for instance. You can't just take the arabic word or the Mughal term to describe the Sikh term Khalsa. Etc.

Edited March 2, 2016 by amardeep

[samurai]

Ok,i see where you are coming from..again..i do

What if khanda is kaal/maya/agyan (sant jarnial singh bhindrevale katha).so who's factual now? 

It goes back to the question the 'facts' your saying are pretty much your interpretation/understanding? if not where are these facts derived from?

[Guest guest]

10 hours 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?

This is YOUR thinking.  You are projecting it on the Gurus.

To answer your last question- they would refer to the devotees from European or African history.  But it is a moot point, because it was revealed in Panjab, and you cannot say anything about what modes of communication would have been used in other cultures and times. 

You think/talk about Gurus like scheming politicians or ideologues.  You seem to consider them some kind of them as some kind of literati manipulators of the masses.  This would amount to dishonesty.  Communists etc never needed any religious texts to rouse 'warrior spirits' in their followers. 

[Guest guest]

10 hours ago, amardeep said:

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.

I have only read it in English (I don't understand Persian) and have no recollection of this.  Could you show it to me?  I am curious to see it.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

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. 

See what I mean by politican thinking?  we must 'change' to accomodate 'our youth, and people with other cultures'.  By this phrase, I think you mean your own predliction.   What is "dangerous" about his approach?  I think rather this 'what suits me' approach is sinister.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, samurai said:

@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?? 

could perhaps Khand refer to Sach Khand, Saram Khand etc not Khanda as in sword?  "first you formed the realms, from whence all worlds arose", "then you unified Brahma Vishnu and Mahesh, in doing so begain the play of nature" (and no he doesn't say bhuta- elements), "then in forming Durgaa you caused the destruction of demons".

You are only getting 'confused' because you then try and take every mention of Devi etc as metaphors for Shakti.  This is deliberate obsfucation.  The different words may be used for a reason.  The above conforms with the order of the battles of Durga in Hindu tradition.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The real cause of these misapprehensions is that we have used external conventions to interpret the use of such words in Satguru Gobind Singh’s bani. But in reality the correct method to understand their intended meaning is to read other instances of the use of such words - within their own bani - and then to see the interpretation with which they themselves used the words.

This wouldnt necessarily work, for example Krishna is used both for Nirankar and the historical Krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

Amandeep I found the verses you were refering to.  Yes they are in the text (not the start), so not invocations. but in relation to Aurangzebs failure to honour his faith.  Could be wrong, since I cannot understand Persian, and the translations seem deliberately obscure

[BhagatSingh]

3 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Prof. Sahib Singh interestingly talked about this. He said it was sometimes  wrong to use previously existing interpretations (from the older Indic world) on Sikh writings. He said that great writers often appropriate older words and give them adapted or different nuances when employed in new writings. Your insistence to rigidly stick to what you yourself believe are older, traditional meanings of these words is a problem - if this is true. 

With all due respect to Prof Sahib (I've learned a lot from him) I've shown errors in his translations previously. He gets this "wrong" as well.

Not because he is "wrong" per se...that's why I put it in quotes.  What I mean by "wrong" is that he did not a grasp the layer of knowledge that was operating underneath his knowledge. If knowledge is like an ocean, then hopefully as you come to understand what I am on about, you will see that Prof Sahib is swimming in surface waters (I am referring to his whole body of work). From deeper down you can not only see what he is doing, but also why everyone is doing what they are doing.

His understanding is a good basic understanding for "beginners" (relatively speaking) but here we are gona dive MUCH deeper. Brace yourself.

With regards to his translation - We've had this conversation before. Where I said if you want to read a teeka of Guru Granth Sahib, then you must read the Farid Kote Wala Teeka. Those Nirmaley had a much better understanding of this subject. A much deeper understanding.

 

As for what Prof Sahib says about definitions, I think Amardeep's reply is good  -

3 hours ago, amardeep said:

However I do agree with Bhagat Singh to a certain point that one must also look at the meaning of words during that time period they were written (and before that also) to look for interpretations. But if it is clear that the author is adding new life and meanings into words, then go by these new meanings. This is the case with the Guru's use of the word Khalsa for instance. You can't just take the arabic word or the Mughal term to describe the Sikh term Khalsa. Etc.

Bingo ^^^ This exactly. (Here Amardeep and I are on the same page. So good to know!)

And not only do these Indic words match older meanings from puratan texts, Purans. They are also consistent with the myths within the text. When you use elements from within the text, those meanings that you discover from Puran still hold.

Remember I started off this study a decade ago, using only the meanings from within the text - Guru Granth Sahib. (Even in the post you quotes, I used mostly internal evidence, internal meanings, aside from the Ardh Chand artifact.)

But when you only work from within a text then you will run into problems and your knowledge will have many gaps. Parts that are missing, because you know these writings themselves are derivates and they assume you know things from previous writings. They may leave out bits that you have to fill in from other works.

So if you want a fuller, more holistic, more broader knowledge you have to study old texts and expand the structures of your intellect.

 

What we are doing here is creating a megalithic structure from which to hang facts off of (like the Physics Unified Theory). What I am doing in this small forum, is much larger in scope to what anyone has done previously AFAIK.

I think Kahn Singh Nabha comes close to that and I have learned a lot from him but I suspect even he did not grasp Indic traditions in a way I have. And if he did I have not come across those bits of his work.

 

Again these are great men (Prof Sahib and Kahn Singh ji) whom I respect and whose insights I worship but I must state what I know and what is reality to me.

I will repeat what I said at the start of this thread -

This perspective and understanding requires -

1. a previous experience of divine, of his simultaneous oneness and multiplicity,

and then

2. further study of world religions, and Indian religions

and then

3. through combining the previous two, further study of the process by which the divine creates a variety of religions throughout history,

and

4. further study of the why the divine creates diverse, sometimes contradictory, religions.

Needless to say that this perspective is not readily available to everyone. It is like climbing mount Everest, only a few will go to that level.

 

So in order to keep up with me, one must have these 1,2,3,4 tools in their belt, ready to go.
OR
If they don't have these tools, they should be prepared to understand these things slow and steady, point by point, one word by one word and really take it in before jumping to conclusions or starting disagreements.

 

When I say all this there is no ego just what is the reality of my existence, the reality of knowing and unknowing, of mystery and clarity as it reveals itself to me. From where I am, I can see all these unique and beautiful ways of seeing.

TBH when I came a long time ago, I explained a lot of things, people misunderstood me, so now I am back. I exist to propagate this knowledge, that is the purpose of why I am here.

I am like a thousand-headed serpent that they talked about in ancient lore. This gargantuan serpent has at least a thousand different perspectives, because it has thousand heads and thousand eyes by which he sees the world. Each eye is unique and original point of view. His tail is the source of knowledge and his heads are diversification of that knowledge into various branches. That is who I am, but still a student of Ustad Nar Singh Narayan ji. More accurately "I am the Jagannath's B**ch". Without him I have no knowledge.

Well that and also an inarticulate, condescending, douchbag in forums.

Class dismissed. ;)

Have a good night. Cheers.

[amardeep]

9 hours ago, Guest guest said:

Amandeep I found the verses you were refering to.  Yes they are in the text (not the start), so not invocations. but in relation to Aurangzebs failure to honour his faith.  Could be wrong, since I cannot understand Persian, and the translations seem deliberately obscure

No its in the beginning in the opening verses.

ਸ਼ਰੀਅਤ ਪ੍ਰਸਤੋ ਫ਼ਜ਼ੀਲਤ ਮ-ਆਬ ॥ ਹਕੀਕਤ ਸ਼ਨਾਸੋ ਨਬੀਉਲ ਕਿਤਾਬ ॥੯॥
शरीअत प्रसतो फ़ज़ीलत म-आब ॥ हकीकत शनासो नबीउल किताब ॥९॥
He is the Source of all virtues, keeper of Dharma; He knows everything and is the Source of all Scriptures.9.

 

It's translated wrong. The Nabi ul Kitab (Prophet of the book) Means it Refers to the prophet Muhammad.

Very poor translation though. Hakikat does'nt mean one knows everything. Hakikat is a spiritual stage in sufism (similiar to Sach khand in Sikhi), - so it says the prophet had reached the highest stage of enlightment. Bhai Gurdas also talks about plenty of Muslims in history having reached the stage of hakikat (haqq Means truth in Arabic, - like Sach Means Truth in indian languages - Sach khand)...

Edited March 3, 2016 by amardeep

[amardeep]

Bhagatsingh:
Have you looked into the old Nirmala writings on Sikhi? The old nirmale had a huge amount of knowledge and insigths into the indic traditions and often interpreted Sikhi in lights of these sanskrit roots of each Words used in Gurbani. I think you would find the writings of Pandit Gulab Singh (misl period) and Pandit Tara Singh Narotam (early colonial period) interesting in this regard. It would be interesting to see how Pandit Tara Singh Narotam interprets Dasam Bani for instance. He often drew on bengali vedant in his interpretation of key concepts in Sikhi (avatarvaad, maya etc).

Pandit Gulab Singh wrote his Moksha Panth Prakasha in the 1770s. The book is a discussion on vaishnava mat, shaivism etc. and how they relate to Sikhi (the book follows a Indian tradition of the different religions discussing the other religions and how their own tradition is superior). Interestingly he does'nt use the Word hindu at any time. Like you say, he considers them all as seperate religions. Obviosly his take is that they are all flawed in comparision to Sikhi.

I dont understand a Word of their writings and on a quick glance they look extremely Deep. Pandit Gulab Singh's books are even more tricky since they are written in verse.

Edited March 3, 2016 by amardeep

[paapiman]

17 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

I don't get it.

What didn't you get brother?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

14 hours ago, Gunahgar said:

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

Sri Satguru jee (First Master) went there. That is where Maharaaj recited one of the shabads (Gagan Mai Thal......) of Sri Aarti jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

I dont understand a Word of their writings and on a quick glance they look extremely Deep. Pandit Gulab Singh's books are even more tricky since they are written in verse.

Paaji, have you heard the entire katha of SSGGSJM?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Jatro]

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

Bhagatsingh:
Have you looked into the old Nirmala writings on Sikhi? The old nirmale had a huge amount of knowledge and insigths into the indic traditions and often interpreted Sikhi in lights of these sanskrit roots of each Words used in Gurbani. I think you would find the writings of Pandit Gulab Singh (misl period) and Pandit Tara Singh Narotam (early colonial period) interesting in this regard. It would be interesting to see how Pandit Tara Singh Narotam interprets Dasam Bani for instance. He often drew on bengali vedant in his interpretation of key concepts in Sikhi (avatarvaad, maya etc).

Pandit Gulab Singh wrote his Moksha Panth Prakasha in the 1770s. The book is a discussion on vaishnava mat, shaivism etc. and how they relate to Sikhi (the book follows a Indian tradition of the different religions discussing the other religions and how their own tradition is superior). Interestingly he does'nt use the Word hindu at any time. Like you say, he considers them all as seperate religions. Obviosly his take is that they are all flawed in comparision to Sikhi.

I dont understand a Word of their writings and on a quick glance they look extremely Deep. Pandit Gulab Singh's books are even more tricky since they are written in verse.

Sant Gurbachan Singh ji Khalsa's katha-s are a synthesis of writings like these. Pandit Tara Singh Narotam ji's works are out of print, only available on Panjab Digital Library website. 

[paapiman]

6 minutes ago, Jatro said:

Sant Gurbachan Singh ji Khalsa's katha-s are a synthesis of writings like these. Pandit Tara Singh Narotam ji's works are out of print, only available on Panjab Digital Library website. 

Paaji, Baba jee's kathas are not very hard to understand. Guess - Baba jee deliberately used simple language to make it easy for the Sangat. 

Can you please confirm the above?

Thanks

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[dalsingh101]

 

Quote

 

This is YOUR thinking.  You are projecting it on the Gurus.

To answer your last question- they would refer to the devotees from European or African history.  But it is a moot point, because it was revealed in Panjab, and you cannot say anything about what modes of communication would have been used in other cultures and times. 

You think/talk about Gurus like scheming politicians or ideologues.  You seem to consider them some kind of them as some kind of literati manipulators of the masses.  This would amount to dishonesty.  Communists etc never needed any religious texts to rouse 'warrior spirits' in their followers. 

 

 

This is entirely YOUR paranoia you are projecting outwards.

One (very important!) aspect of our Gurus were their role as teachers and how they conveyed what they wanted people to know. They were trying to enlighten humans. And that too from a wide social base from the privileged and educated to the long term suppressed and uneducated. A little consideration of how they approached this with some measure of rationality isn't anything for you to get schizo about. 

Any form of writing inevitably projects the stances, opinions and predilections of the writer. Anything YOU personally write is not in any way immune from this.  Acting otherwise is just highlighting a complete ignorance of what writing/interpretations actually involve.   

You, which your disgusting caricature of 'scheming politicians and ideologues' say more about your own state of mind than anything else. 

 

Quote

See what I mean by politican thinking?  we must 'change' to accomodate 'our youth, and people with other cultures'.  By this phrase, I think you mean your own predliction.   What is "dangerous" about his approach?  I think rather this 'what suits me' approach is sinister.

Here again, you seem to be totally misapprehending and strangely expecting the worse motives (paranoia again?). It's no big mystery or secret that people in the diaspora will (and do) have to contextualise Sikh heritage to their children raised in a totally different environment to them, many of whom will be infinitely more proficient in languages outside of Panjabi and other languages used in Sikh religious scriptures/texts. 

What is the big controversy with this??

 

Mate, if you're one of those hawkish, paranoid types, you're on the wrong forum for that crap. You want to sort your accusatory tone out quickly or maybe take an extra one of the pills some psychiatrist  is likely to have prescribed to you for your 'overly active' imagination.

 

I think you're really sinister btw. 

 

Stop lurking around in the shadows. If you've got such strong opinions (which is great), register an ID and discuss,so we know we are talking to one person.  

[Jatro]

5 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Paaji, Baba jee's kathas are not very hard to understand. Guess - Baba jee deliberately used simple language to make it easy for the Sangat. 

Can you please confirm the above?

Thanks

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Yes brother, Sant ji's main aim was to make the sangat connect with Gurbani, he never really went into academic type of exposition except when it was absolutely necessary

[dalsingh101]

@BhagatSingh

I generally agree with what you are saying. There are deep undercurrents of thought/consciousness beneath the surface interpretations of Gurbani, and whilst modern interpretations like Prof. Sahib Singhs help in terms of grasping grammatical nuances, they, like all writers (me, you, Tom, Dick, Harry), aren't immune to the influences of their own milieu, and given what we are beginning to grasp about the colonial period and it's impact on Sikh reformers it becomes even more important to factor this in.  

My problem with some of what you say is that I know you, and I know you have a brilliant and active imagination (which we can see in your artwork), I also know you have a very strong tendency to use concepts that have emerged from your own gnosis/thinking and use them as if they were uncontested accepted facts (which they are not)  - and you also don't bother to indicate that these parts of your argument are derived from your own imagination/conceptualisations. I'm not doubting that some of your leaps of imagination may be very perceptive, but equally they could be off too - given that, at least be clear about when you are doing this.

 

Quote

2. further study of world religions, and Indian religions

Okay, so what have you done in this department? Where has your knowledge of both Indian traditions and other religions come from? Short courses in western academic institutes? A study of translations? A study of original source materials in native languages? 

Let us know please. My feeling is that you may have dipped your toes into these subjects (which is great) but that you vastly overestimate your actually 'expertise' in these matters. Watch out for hubris. 

 

That being said: 

 

I agree that a closer study and wider dissemination of more traditional interpretations of Gurbani is a pressing need right now and would do a lot to help us grasp precolonial Sikh thinking.   Because of colonialism and the politics it engendered, many Sikh people are not only ignorant but actually highly suspicious of the pre-colonial mindsets, seeing it as some reversion to 'Hinduism'.

Today, we need a close study of the older interpretations - the big question is: Who is qualified and competent to do this?

 

[chatanga1]

19 hours 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

 

I don't understand how could Waheguru "create" his power? As to me it seems like it's one of the mysteries of Sri Kaal that can never be fathomed.

[chatanga1]

18 hours ago, GurpreetKaur said:

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

 

What was that picture about Sis? Is it an idol or something of Jaggannath?

[BhagatSingh]

2 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

What was that picture about Sis? Is it an idol or something of Jaggannath?

Yes the black one to the right. Can you see the Chakra and Conch symbols in his hands?

[chatanga1]

18 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

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"

 

Nope. That's too far-fetched to interpret Khanda as one who destroys. In other instances of use in Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth the word Khanda has meant sword and nothing else.

To keep in with the poetic sway of this writing, the word "ਖੰਡਨ" can be used as easily as "ਖੰਡਾ".

 

I think you are swaying to the extremes with your sanatan approach.

[paapiman]

12 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

 

What was that picture about Sis? Is it an idol or something of Jaggannath?

It is the incomplete idol of Sri Jagnanath jee, which was made by Sri Vishwakarma jee. Listen to Gyani Ram Singh jee for further details brother. The Katha is on pg.4.

You will notice in the picture that there are no hands and feet. The idol is located at Jagannath temple in Puri, Orissa, India.

 

Bhul chuk maaf