Trend of linkin all the bhagats as follower of Guru Nanak ji

[Guest]

Trend of linking all the bhagats in gurbani as follower of sri guru nanak dev ji is not a new one, it's been going around 100 years when new tat khalsa came into existence. They were some how not mukht before arrival of satguru nanak dev ji, and they got mukhti only upon meeting satguru nanak dev ji.

Samparda's usually have beleif that bhagat namdev, bhagat kabir, bhagat ravidas, bhagat dhanna, baba farid were all back as panj pyares as mentioned in puratan granth- bhai rattan singh bhangu granth- Sri Guru Panth Parkash.

But to make it sound like - these bhagats were somehow not mukht before that they had to come back and take amrit as panj pyares is tottally out of order.

I just had extremely long discussion with bhai sahib balpreet singh ji from tapoban on:

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=198733

Please go through it, and leave your feedback. It be must appreciated on here.

I think there is a fine line difference between having full sharda of satguru nanak dev ji being 100% guru avtar, highest avtar of all (shared by samparda's- nirmale, taksal, nanaksar etc etc), yet reserving full respect for other guru mahatama's of other mats and making satguru nanak dev ji as one and only one true satguru who introduced higher reality(sachkhand) in kalyug for gursikhs only. No one before satguru nanak dev ji managed attained/reach sachkhand because no one until satguru nanak dev ji had real "gurmat naam" and sachkhand(higher reality) to merge with divine was first introduced by satguru nanak dev ji patsah.

[gsingh00]

bhagat fareed jee was disciple of guru nanak dev jee, you can listen to sant gyanee gurbachan singh jee's katha on it or sant gyanee kartar singh's

[Guest]

I don't have issue with that gurpreet singh even Guru Panth parkash mentioned it, re-read my post for actual purpose of my post.

[gsingh00]

yeah, i knew that wasnt ur point, just htought i'd tell u

one other thing i noticed after reading ur posts on sikhsangat...u shouldnt use gyani takhur as a reference for ur arguement, as he clearly says in his anand sahib katha for the pauri on ..."jae gur tae vaemukh hovae, bin satigur mukt n pae" that ever since guru gobind singh jee started maryada of khande battae amrit, no one can no longer reach sachkhand without following this maryada, and all bhagats that had achieved brahmgian before had to come back and take amrit before going back to sachkhand...i think its file 7 of anad sahib katha, but i could be wrong...i dunno if gyani takhur singh is right on this issue, but i think you make sure that you got ur info down before bedating with sikhsangat people...and if sant kartaar singh wrote that sant gurbachan singh and sant sundar singh had to come back as sikhs to achieve mukti, i dont think there is much oh a point in you using taksal sources to back up ur arguments.

[gsingh00]

also, i disagree with you comparing any devta to guru nanak dev jee

lets look at this shabad

BYrau mhlw 5 ]

bhairo mehalaa 5 ||

Bhairao, Fifth Mehla:

siqguru myrw bymuhqwju ]

sathigur maeraa baemuhathaaj ||

My True Guru is totally independent.

siqgur myry scw swju ]

sathigur maerae sachaa saaj ||

My True Guru is adorned with Truth.

siqguru myrw sBs kw dwqw ]

sathigur maeraa sabhas kaa dhaathaa ||

My True Guru is the Giver of all.

siqguru myrw purKu ibDwqw ]1]

sathigur maeraa purakh bidhhaathaa ||1||

My True Guru is the Primal Creator Lord, the Architect of Destiny. ||1||

gur jYsw nwhI ko dyv ]

gur jaisaa naahee ko dhaev ||

There is no deity equal to the Guru.

ijsu msqik Bwgu su lwgw syv ]1] rhwau ]

jis masathak bhaag s laagaa saev ||1|| rehaao ||

Whoever has good destiny inscribed on his forehead, applies himself to seva - selfless service. ||1||Pause||

siqguru myrw srb pRiqpwlY ]

sathigur maeraa sarab prathipaalai ||

My True Guru is the Sustainer and Cherisher of all.

siqguru myrw mwir jIvwlY ]

sathigur maeraa maar jeevaalai ||

My True Guru kills and revives.

siqgur myry kI vifAweI ] pRgtu BeI hY sBnI QweI ]2]

sathigur maerae kee vaddiaaee || pragatt bhee hai sabhanee thhaaee ||2||

The glorious greatness of my True Guru has become manifest everywhere. ||2||

siqguru myrw qwxu inqwxu ]

sathigur maeraa thaan nithaan ||

My True Guru is the power of the powerless.

siqguru myrw Gir dIbwxu ]

sathigur maeraa ghar dheebaan ||

My True Guru is my home and court.

siqgur kY hau sd bil jwieAw ]

sathigur kai ho sadh bal jaaeiaa ||

I am forever a sacrifice to the True Guru.

pRgtu mwrgu ijin kir idKlwieAw ]3]

pragatt maarag jin kar dhikhalaaeiaa ||3||

He has shown me the path. ||3||

ijin guru syivAw iqsu Bau n ibAwpY ]

jin gur saeviaa this bho n biaapai ||

One who serves the Guru is not afflicted with fear.

ijin guru syivAw iqsu duKu n sMqwpY ]

jin gur saeviaa this dhukh n sa(n)thaapai ||

One who serves the Guru does not suffer in pain.

nwnk soDy isMimRiq byd ]

naanak sodhhae si(n)mrith baedh ||

Nanak has studied the Simritees and the Vedas.

pwrbRhm gur nwhI Byd ]4]11]24]

paarabreham gur naahee bhaedh ||4||11||24||

There is no difference between the Supreme Lord God and the Guru. ||4||11||24||

guru sahib clearly says "gur jaisaa nahe ko dev", and now if you say this is referring to nirgun vaahiguroo who manifested MOST of his attributes in Guru Nanak Dev Jee, but not all. This is where I must disagree with you, because the last line tells us "paarbrahm gur nahee bhaed" so there is NO difference between nirgun vaahiguroo and sargun Guru Nanak Dev Jee. The only time akal purkh came down was in the form of Guru Nanak Dev Jee. Ram Chandar, Krishna, and the other devtae are all worthy of respect but they are not comparable with satguru Nanak who is no different than nirgun vaahiguroo, as this shbad tells us. All the other devtae/avtaars however were very different from vaahiguroo.

To tel you the truth, I am not even sure if we should call Guru Nanak Dev Jee as sargun, but thats for another day, its time to ge a bit of sleeep

If you disagree with my interpretations, I will be glad to read what you have to say...

[antinang]

If the bhagats were not followers of Guroo Sahib, then where did they get naam? they needed Satguroo to give it to them, as only Guroo Nanak Dev Ji recieved naam from Vaheguroo himself.

[vinegar]

No one before satguru nanak dev ji managed attained/reach sachkhand because no one until satguru nanak dev ji had real "gurmat naam" and sachkhand(higher reality) to merge with divine was first introduced by satguru nanak dev ji patsah.

so your point is that it is wrong to say they weren't mukt?

So you're saying they were born again in order to take amrit?

sorry I'm a bit confused, I don't get what we're arguing about. I dont think neo is comparing the devte to Guru Nanak Dev Ji, he is saying that it is wrong to think that they weren't mukt before coming back to take amrit.

No one before satguru nanak dev ji managed attained/reach sachkhand

I disagree with this though, it implies that Guru Nanak Dev ji 'reached' Sach Khand. imo Akaal Purakh manifested himself in human form and called that form Guru Nanak Dev Ji, which is where I think Gurpreets point about calling Guru Sahib sargun comes about.

Though personally I would still call Guru Nanak Dev Ji sargun saroop in that they were visible with naked eye and had 5 elements chola.

sorry im off the mark, but I havent read the SS conversatiuon.

EDIT: I read a bit, and it seems you are thinking almost the same as me, neo.

[vinegar]

No one before satguru nanak dev ji managed attained/reach sachkhand because no one until satguru nanak dev ji had real "gurmat naam" and sachkhand(higher reality) to merge with divine was first introduced by satguru nanak dev ji patsah.

so your point is that it is wrong to say they weren't mukt?

So you're saying they were born again in order to take amrit?

sorry I'm a bit confused, I don't get what we're arguing about. I dont think neo is comparing the devte to Guru Nanak Dev Ji, he is saying that it is wrong to think that they weren't mukt before coming back to take amrit.

No one before satguru nanak dev ji managed attained/reach sachkhand

I disagree with this though, it implies that Guru Nanak Dev ji 'reached' Sach Khand. imo Akaal Purakh manifested himself in human form and called that form Guru Nanak Dev Ji, which is where I think Gurpreets point about calling Guru Sahib sargun comes about.

Though personally I would still call Guru Nanak Dev Ji sargun saroop in that they were visible with naked eye and had 5 elements chola.

EDIT: I just read a bit of the SS convo, and I still dont *really* getr the argument. If Guru Nanak = Waheguru and vice versa, then what is the argument abt. If Waheguru gave naam to dhroo before He came in Guru Nanak form, technically it is still Guru Nanak giving the naam

[Guest]

lso, i disagree with you comparing any devta to guru nanak dev jee

Wow Gurpreet Singh,

I am just amazed at such a accusatation against me, if it was probably in real life you probably have me killed with your such a gross accussation.

I swear to Satguru Maharaj, I never ever ever ever compared Satguru maharaj with any of these devta's or such thought crossed my mind in the debate or in general. In fact i made avtar post in that thread if you see it and highlighted Guru Avtar being Satguru Nanak Dev Ji in Sargun Form in bold size letters.

Next time you throw an accusation against me, atleast quote me where you get that idea from?

First you throw accusation against bahudar singh nirmala (lalleshvari) that he is as an muslim in disguise then you throw this accusation against me.

I am extremely offended. :roll: :roll:

I ll respond to rest of your post later on today but i had to let this out of my chest because i cant think anything thats how i disguisted i am at your gross accusation against me.

[gsingh00]

"Satguru from socio-religious aspect depending on different dharam, its anyone who is merged with Vahiguroo by rising above from all vices, gyan indraie, five koshas and already enlightened and has ablity to enlighten others(bring others from darkness to light).

Satguru from socio religious aspect in Sikhi is defaniately without any question- Satguru Nanak Dev Nirankar."

you said there is more than one satguru, and that different dharams can have different satgurus. I could be wrong but this sure seems to me like you are comparing Guru Nanak Dev Jee with other "Gurus" or other dharams. Maybe I took this out of context, but it doesnt seem to me as if I did. and i also assumed that these other "satgurus" that you are talking bout are devtae, or people like jesus, mohammad saab, buddha, etc.

However, since you said "I swear to Guru Maharj..." I prolly took this out on contet, or misunderstood it, and for this i apologize

my bad.

[gsingh00]

and for my last post.....i think its a joke that it bothers people so much that i called javanmard a muslim (i wont even try to defend that its right) but no one has any problem when he calls taksali's "neo-sikhs" or does nidya of a true mahapursh (talking about sant jarnail singh..."If anything him and other people have created a whole generation of people who became disgusted with Sikhism. That is his legacy!")

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=8568

[Guest Javanmard]

N3O I know the answer to your question, see you on msn!

gurpreet singh wrote:

"bhagat fareed jee was disciple of guru nanak dev jee, you can listen to sant gyanee gurbachan singh jee's katha on it or sant gyanee kartar singh's"

Mashallah, mashallah...

Baba Farid lived in the 12th century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Farid). He is very often confused with his sadanashin Farid II who had the same name and who lived at the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. So Baba Farid couldn't be a disciple of Guru Nanak but his sadanashin yes. Unfortunately the sampradayas are not very strong when it comes to historical knowledge these days. Let's hop they'll remedy to it soon, inshallah!

Maula Hafiz!

ps. you call Muhammad and Jesus devatas? I think anyone having knowledge of both Islam and Indian religions would giggle at this. Hear me giggle!

[Guest]

one other thing i noticed after reading ur posts on sikhsangat...u shouldnt use gyani takhur as a reference for ur arguement, as he clearly says in his anand sahib katha for the pauri on ..."jae gur tae vaemukh hovae, bin satigur mukt n pae" that ever since guru gobind singh jee started maryada of khande battae amrit, no one can no longer reach sachkhand without following this maryada, and all bhagats that had achieved brahmgian before had to come back and take amrit before going back to sachkhand...i think its file 7 of anad sahib katha, but i could be wrong...i dunno if gyani takhur singh is right on this issue, but i think you make sure that you got ur info down before bedating with sikhsangat people...

Gurpreet Singh,

I didnt had any malice intentions when i used gyani thakur singh ji for reference which i did only once to quote and prove that ongkar is legitmate gurmat naam along with vahiguroo mantar other primal mantars, those quotes of ongkar and their meaning which is all can be found in japji sahib audio katha . I didn't use him to prove my other arguments.

I respect his stance on that all the bhagats which gurbani mentions had to come to take amrit but i humbly disagree with him. They might have even came back under the hakum of akaal purkh. I don't know however to make it sound that some how they were not mukht that's why they came, i fully disagree with that approach because that negatates the whole updesh (universal updesh) of sri guru granth sahib ji. Here is my reasoning that i disagree.

There are two issues-

1. I think real core- amrit is only one which is naam amrit from gurdev (adhatamically speaking) and naam amrit from panj pyares(socio religious context in dharam) and that's it, khanda da amrit, charan da amrit or any kinda intiation amrit are known as sanskar amrit or amrit sanskar in puratan times.

2. All the bhagats rachna, their feeling of oneness with akaal purkh in form of writings- quotes, poetic stanzas was already out there and used by many people before satguru maharaj came to this earth as king of kings to do udhaar of kalyugi jivs like us. That shows that, bhagats were in turiya avastha before satguru ji came.

The whole issue i m having hard to accept is not that bhagats had to come and take khanda batta da amrit as rattan singh bhangu mentioned in the granth he wrote, off course anything is possible in hakum of akaal purkh, off course when this atma is re- born as jiv atma, divine law doesnt discriminate with dharms and all that but the whole issue i m having is- sikhs have used that and they made it sound like as if they were not mukht atma and they came to get amrit to get mukhti because they were already mukht as you know by their feeling in form of writings.

Kabir Jis Maran Jagat Daraie Mera Mann Anand, maran hi paie poora parmanand ||

and if sant kartaar singh wrote that sant gurbachan singh and sant sundar singh had to come back as sikhs to achieve mukti, i dont think there is much oh a point in you using taksal sources to back up ur arguments.

I have no doubts in that sakhiya but to use that sakhi to proof that that is "divine law" is not right as i said in sikhsangat if thats a case someone may come along and say- sri guru gobind singh ji being dushat daman in his previous life as a sadhu ( didnt had mukhti) had to come back and take amrit from panj pyares. would you say then dusth daman was indeed not mukht he had to come back as sri guru gobind singh ji take amrit from panj pyares ?

[Guest]

guru sahib clearly says "gur jaisaa nahe ko dev", and now if you say this is referring to nirgun vaahiguroo who manifested MOST of his attributes in Guru Nanak Dev Jee, but not all. This is where I must disagree with you, because the last line tells us "paarbrahm gur nahee bhaed" so there is NO difference between nirgun vaahiguroo and sargun Guru Nanak Dev Jee. The only time akal purkh came down was in the form of Guru Nanak Dev Jee. Ram Chandar, Krishna, and the other devtae are all worthy of respect but they are not comparable with satguru Nanak who is no different than nirgun vaahiguroo, as this shbad tells us. All the other devtae/avtaars however were very different from vaahiguroo.

To tel you the truth, I am not even sure if we should call Guru Nanak Dev Jee as sargun, but thats for another day, its time to ge a bit of sleeep

If you disagree with my interpretations, I will be glad to read what you have to say...

Please read this thread title: Was Guru Nanak Dev Ji god himself?

source: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=8645

I would like to see your take on that topic discussed to full extent.

Satguru nanak dev ji was poran guru avtar in sargun saroop, no question about it, but to say guru nanak dev ji was full nirgun vahiguroo directly contradicts first bani came from pavitar satguru's mukh- mool mantar.

[gsingh00]

i agree with you that Sikhi is anadee and that bhagats got muktee before akaal purkh took sargun saroop as Guru Nanak Dev Jee. But where I think we disagree with eachother is where these bhagats before Guru Nanak Dev Jee got amrit/naam from. I think we both agree that amrit/naam is necesary to reach brahmgian (correct me if im worng with this assumption). What I disagree is that you wrote

"Satguru from socio-religious aspect depending on different dharam, its anyone who is merged with Vahiguroo by rising above from all vices, gyan indraie, five koshas and already enlightened and has ablity to enlighten others(bring others from darkness to light)."

If you are referring to other "Guru's" from other religions such as devi/devtae, jesus, mohammad jee, buddha (you havent clarified yet who you meant by other satgurus), I cannot agree with you here. Unless you have alternate meanings for what is written in bachitar naatak about the founders of other religions, I don't understand how you believe that they could give people muktee.

However, I do believe people did get mukti before Akaal Purkh took form of Guru Nanak Dev Jee. But I believe they recieved their amrit/naam directly from nirgun vaahiguroo without anyone coming between the bhagat and akaal purkh.

As guru gobind singh jee tells us "Kaisae tohi taar hai, suN jaRh, aap dubio bhaav saagar."

And the thing about bhagats having to come back after guru Gobind Singh Jee started Khande battae daa amrit, it coud very well be true, akaal purkh can start any maryada he wants as this is just all his khed, and i would think bhagats would be happy to stay in hukam of akaal purkh. So yeah, we have no disagreement here either.

[Guest Javanmard]

The introductory passage of Bachitar natak is not to be interpreted at face value. Maharaj gives hints to the fact that the names mentioned there represent the movements that went astray not the founders themselves. Bhagat Ramanand is quoted in that passage yet he is one of the bhagats of Adi Guru Granth Sahib and the figure of Mahadin cannot be Muhammad because Mahadin isn't an Arabic or Persian word. Mahadin stands for shari'a bound Islam (mainly Sunni). If Vishnu and Shiva, who are mentioned in that passage of Bachitar Natak went astray themselves how then do we reconcialiate that with Japuji Sahib where it says that the Guru is Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and the Devo? Unless of course in Bachitar Natak these names are used to represent the movements that went astray and NOT their founders. Same thing for Mir Mahdi who is mentioned at the end of the Bachitar Natak Granth but who can't be Imam Mahdi because of the title "Mir" which is political in nature, whereas the dawa of Sahib e Zaman Imam Mahdi (af) will be of a spiritual nature. Interpretation of gurbani always needs to be consistent with the rest of gurbani. Apparent contradictions in this passage are quickly removed when one is aware that Maharaj gave us the hints on the text itself. The eternal Satguru has manifested himself in different wasy throughout history. The Bhattan de svaye confirm this as they clearly mention that Maharaj came as Krishna and Rama before. One cannot become a Satguru, one is simply born as such. The characteristics are sinlessness and infallibility as well as a clear miracle for the world to recognise the mission of the Satguru. The Satguru is like the sun whilst the bhagats are like plents rotating around the sun. Whether Maharaj is manifested in this earthly plane or wether he remains in his Adi Guru form, the bhagats have him as their center and pole and it is His light that is what they call Satguru. So Baba Farid did live in the 12th century but still he is a bhagat of Guru Nanak a. because Maharaj is the mystical pole of the universe b. Baba Farid prepared humanity to the coming of Maharaj. If we take the criteria of sinlesness and infallibility and apply them to Jesus and Muhammad (and the holy Imams) we see that they are applicable and that there is no problem in admiting the possibility that they were manifestations of Satguru. Nevertheless, as explained in Bachitar Natak (and in the Qur'an) these diverse religions have deviated from their original aim and only a minority has kept the truth until the next manifestation of Satguru.

"Aval Allah Noor Upaya, Kudart De Sab Bandey

Ek noor Tey Sab Jag Upjiya, Kon Bhaey Kaun Mandey"

This verse cannot possibly mean that Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler are equal in goodness and thus cannot be applied to humanity at large but rather refers to the manifestations of the divine light. In the same way as there cannot be any difference between Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh as they are the same light, we should consider Krishna, Jesus and Muhammad as expressions of the same divine light.

[Xylitol]

Gurpreet Singh,

I didnt had any malice intentions when i used gyani thakur singh ji for reference which i did only once to quote and prove that ongkar is legitmate gurmat naam along with vahiguroo mantar other primal mantars, those quotes of ongkar and their meaning which is all can be found in japji sahib audio katha . I didn't use him to prove my other arguments.

I respect his stance on that all the bhagats which gurbani mentions had to come to take amrit but i humbly disagree with him. They might have even came back under the hakum of akaal purkh. I don't know however to make it sound that some how they were not mukht that's why they came, i fully disagree with that approach because that negatates the whole updesh (universal updesh) of sri guru granth sahib ji. Here is my reasoning that i disagree.

There are two issues-

1. I think real core- amrit is only one which is naam amrit from gurdev (adhatamically speaking) and naam amrit from panj pyares(socio religious context in dharam) and that's it, khanda da amrit, charan da amrit or any kinda intiation amrit are known as sanskar amrit or amrit sanskar in puratan times.

2. All the bhagats rachna, their feeling of oneness with akaal purkh in form of writings- quotes, poetic stanzas was already out there and used by many people before satguru maharaj came to this earth as king of kings to do udhaar of kalyugi jivs like us. That shows that, bhagats were in turiya avastha before satguru ji came.

The whole issue i m having hard to accept is not that bhagats had to come and take khanda batta da amrit as rattan singh bhangu mentioned in the granth he wrote, off course anything is possible in hakum of akaal purkh, off course when this atma is re- born as jiv atma, divine law doesnt discriminate with dharms and all that but the whole issue i m having is- sikhs have used that and they made it sound like as if they were not mukht atma and they came to get amrit to get mukhti because they were already mukht as you know by their feeling in form of writings.

Kabir Jis Maran Jagat Daraie Mera Mann Anand, maran hi paie poora parmanand ||

I have no doubts in that sakhiya but to use that sakhi to proof that that is "divine law" is not right as i said in sikhsangat if thats a case someone may come along and say- sri guru gobind singh ji being dushat daman in his previous life as a sadhu ( didnt had mukhti) had to come back and take amrit from panj pyares. would you say then dusth daman was indeed not mukht he had to come back as sri guru gobind singh ji take amrit from panj pyares ?

I believe he said that they all came back to do Satkaar of Amrit. I don't recall any necessity, however, these Gurmukhs are all very humble and polite people, so it makes sense that they would such a thing to do satkaar. Also, he didn't say that they couldn't get mukti before, just that Guru Nanak Sahib ji was the first into Sachkhand. Mukti and Sachkhand are different (but you know that already). And he does refer to the Bhagat Sahiban as Brahmgyani (i think). It's been quite awhile since I heard that katha, so bhul chuk maaf.

[Xylitol]

didn't qoute properly. The above post is referring to Giani Takhur Singh's katha on the Bhagat Sahiban coming to get AmritChak after the final form of Amrit was introduced by Guru Gobind Singh ji.

[Xylitol]

Javanmard, I've heard that there is more than one Vishnu, Shiva, or Brahma. These too, are janams of a sort.

[Guest]

"Satguru from socio-religious aspect depending on different dharam, its anyone who is merged with Vahiguroo by rising above from all vices, gyan indraie, five koshas and already enlightened and has ablity to enlighten others(bring others from darkness to light)."

If you are referring to other "Guru's" from other religions such as devi/devtae, jesus, mohammad jee, buddha (you havent clarified yet who you meant by other satgurus), I cannot agree with you here. Unless you have alternate meanings for what is written in bachitar naatak about the founders of other religions, I don't understand how you believe that they could give people muktee.

Gurpreet Singh,

I was referring to karaks in general regardless of any matt as Satguru not any in specific one of any other matt.

Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji has described karaks in Sukhmani sahib as:

Dhan Dhan Dhan Jan Aeya Jis Parsad Sabh Jagat Teraae ||

When we study gurbani, there are three different context used for word "Satguru".

1. Sri Akaal Purkh Ji - Nirgun Saroop

2. Satguru Nanak Dev Ji either by bhat swaieyes or other Guru sahiban used to refer back to Satguru Nanak Dev Ji.

3. "Satguru" word has been used as Karaks in general regardless of any matt, also in bhagat kabir ji bani, it is used to describe his gurudev- bhagat ramanand ji.

[Guest Javanmard]

N3O wrote:

3. "Satguru" word has been used as Karaks in general regardless of any matt, also in bhagat kabir ji bani, it is used to describe his gurudev- bhagat ramanand ji.

The sources that mention that Bhagat Ramananda was Kabir's Satguru are mainly Vaishnava. But there are problems with that. There are differences in the articulation of Ramananda's doctrines and those of Kabir. Also we need to take into account the Ismaili sources that mention Kabir Ji as an enlightened master whose Satguru was the light of the eternal Satguru-Imam, so no human Satguru. And Sikhi-wise this just makes more sense. Maharaj is like the sun: we may or may not see Him but the planets still gravitate around him. Just because Maharaj didn't appear as Guru Nanak during Kabir Ji's time doesn't mean that his eternal light didn't guide those bhagats.

Xylitol wrote:

Javanmard, I've heard that there is more than one Vishnu, Shiva, or Brahma. These too, are janams of a sort.

The multiplicity of Vishnus, Shivas and Muhammads is a reference to the multiplicity of universes. Each universe has his Muhammad, Shiva etc...Yu can't put avatars and vyuhas at the same level of human beings though as they are born out of pure light unlike us.

[Kam1825]

"Also we need to take into account the Ismaili sources that mention Kabir Ji as an enlightened master whose Satguru was the light of the eternal Satguru-Imam, so no human Satguru."

Javanmard what source is this from.

i am sorry to say but any mystic that has come since the death of the prophet mohammed have all been linked to islam. The islamic community always come back to state that all the mystics never had anything to do with any other faith but their own so negate the possibility that Bhagat Ramanand was the guru of Bhagat Kabir Ji.

Muslims to this day still state that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was an islamic mystic and only taught of islam. their are many sites on the net which say this and state that sikhism is just a sect of islam and the gurus only wrote their own bani and it was not a revalation from God like the quran.

The islamic sources are all radical and biased towards their own faith.

if you look at sites on kabir panthis they state that the spiritual master was bhagat ramanand as shown at the temples associated to kabir.

[akaali]

ek shiv pay, ik gay, if FAIR pay, raam chandr krisha ke avtaar be anek hai!!

- akaal ustat (plz forgive me if its not the exact line, im just going off memory)

[Guest SAdmin]

Bhagat Kabir Ji's guru was Bhagat Ramanand and he claimed it himself. Islamic scholars have propaganda sometimes to assimilate others in Islam in the light of last living prophet/holy man/sant/bhagat being Mohammad.

There is one legend regarding him and it is amazing because similar legend exist for Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

One popular legend of his death, which is even taught in schools in India (although in more of a moral context than a historical one), says that after his death his Muslim and Hindu devotees were fighting over his proper burial rites. The problem arose, as Muslim customs called for the burial of their dead, whereas Hindus cremated their dead. The scene is depicted as two groups fighting around his coffin one claiming that Kabir was a Hindu, and the other claiming that Kabir was a Muslim. However when they finally open Kabir's coffin, they find the body is missing, in lieu of which is placed a set of flowers. The legend goes on to state that the fighting was resolved, and both groups looked upon the miracle as an act of divine intervention.

[Hari]

Kids love fairy tales. Aaah bless