Jump to content
Singh2017

Did the Gurus have past lives?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

You are making assumptions of one word ਕਰਿ. The translated punjabi you provide is adding in words.  Bhai Gurdas ji says night and the punjabi translator assumed, at bed time. Also Bhai Gurdas ji does not even use the word read.  This is being added and changing the meaning.  The word ਕੀਰਤਿ is describing ਸੋਹਿਲਾ. 

ਰਾਤੀ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਸੋਹਿਲਾ ਕਰਿ ਆਰਤੀ ਪਰਸਾਦ ਵੰਡੰਦੇ।

there is no mention of candles for aarti.

That's because it's a matter of interpretation. You're right in saying the translator has added in words but that's because he has also interpreted it as he see's fit.

As for no mention of candles, it doesn't have to be mentioned as it is implied in this case. The definition of the word ਆਰਤੀ is enough. Asking for the specific mention of divas would be like asking for the different materials that should be used to make Chaur Sahib, and in what manner one should wave the chaur.

Although English translations are often botched, I will still provide it for reference as it seems to fit:

Having recited the Sohila and made supplication at night they distribute sacred food (prasad).

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

That's because it's a matter of interpretation. You're right in saying the translator has added in words but that's because he has also interpreted it as he see's fit.

when it comes to translating a person is to translate as what the original is saying and not as he see's fit. The latter is the wrong way of translating.

As for no mention of candles, it doesn't have to be mentioned as it is implied in this case. The definition of the word ਆਰਤੀ is enough

If the definition of Aarti was implied from the beginning.  When I provided the line of Bhai Gurdas ji, you should have said the candle lighting was implied and their was no need for you to go searching for a different line from Bhai Gurdas ji vaars.  Since no other word in the first line I provided would have inferred anything on the word aarti as it clearly implies for you; candle lit aarti.  If you had believed from the beginning aarti implied candle lit aarti, then you would have not questioned what ਕਰਿ means in the line you provided of Bhai Gurdas ji vaar. Let me remind you what you wrote:

I don't know if I'm reading it wrong but to me 'aarti karke' sounds like something that was performed physically as opposed to only being sung.

Asking for the specific mention of divas would be like asking for the different materials that should be used to make Chaur Sahib, and in what manner one should wave the chaur.

That's the worst comparison I have read.  Chaur sahib can't be compared to aarti as you see it, with candles.  Again you are making assumptions about the candles being part of aarti.  Gurbani directly tells us to wave the chaur sahib over Guru Sahib. One of the Gurus waved the chaur sahib over the other Guru and carried water for him.  This is specifically said in Gurbani.  Yet in Gurbani there is no mention of aarti being done with lit candles or candles at all. Hence the two cannot be compared and you can't see the difference for some reason. If aarti was clear cut, a Gurmukh would not have had to write in a book to specifically say, do not light candles and do aarti.  Bhai Gurdas ji would have been precise because he was writing about what the Gurus, Gurmukhs, and manmukh did.  It is no mystery Bhai Gurdas ji vaars provide us with how Sikh practices were done.  One example being how charan pahul was administered. Aarti is a very important Sikh practice and Bhai Gurdas ji would have not left it to ambiguous interpretations.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

when it comes to translating a person is to translate as what the original is saying and not as he see's fit. The latter is the wrong way of translating.

By this logic all translations, arths, teekas etc should just go out the window. Gurbani (including other Sikh writings) is subject to interpretation as it has many layers and so speaks to different people on different levels. Gurbani has no ant, therefore no translation etc is completely right.

20 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

If the definition of Aarti was implied from the beginning.  When I provided the line of Bhai Gurdas ji, you should have said the candle lighting was implied and their was no need for you to go searching for a different line from Bhai Gurdas ji vaars.  Since no other word in the first line I provided would have inferred anything on the word aarti as it clearly implies for you; candle lit aarti.  If you had believed from the beginning aarti implied candle lit aarti, then you would have not questioned what ਕਰਿ means in the line you provided of Bhai Gurdas ji vaar. Let me remind you what you wrote:

I was merely providing you with another line as a clearer example that aarti could well have been performed with divas. Just as you provided the former to try and definitively prove that it was not - even in that one it says that aarti was sung, it doesn't state it was strictly only sung; one could unambiguously assume that the accompanying ritual went along with it, that it need no mention, hence, me finding a different one to show that distinct possibility.

You're trying to play a game of semantics, and a poor one at that.

20 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

That's the worst comparison I have read.  Chaur sahib can't be compared to aarti as you see it, with candles.  Again you are making assumptions about the candles being part of aarti.  Gurbani directly tells us to wave the chaur sahib over Guru Sahib. One of the Gurus waved the chaur sahib over the other Guru and carried water for him.  This is specifically said in Gurbani.  Yet in Gurbani there is no mention of aarti being done with lit candles or candles at all. Hence the two cannot be compared and you can't see the difference for some reason. If aarti was clear cut, a Gurmukh would not have had to write in a book to specifically say, do not light candles and do aarti.  Bhai Gurdas ji would have been precise because he was writing about what the Gurus, Gurmukhs, and manmukh did.  It is no mystery Bhai Gurdas ji vaars provide us with how Sikh practices were done.  One example being how charan pahul was administered. Aarti is a very important Sikh practice and Bhai Gurdas ji would have not left it to ambiguous interpretations.

You're welcome to that opinion. You keep coming back to that quote stating that aarti is not to be done with divas - 1) not everybody is Taksali nor is Taksal the final authority on each and every thing in Sikhi nor does what they say apply to the whole panth 2) by saying (specifically) that a Gurmukh had to write it in a book, you are automatically implying that those who do aarti with candles are not Gurmukhs, an opinion which you have absolutely no foundation or evidence to hold. While Taksal is a respected Samparda, their members are generally biased and think only they have the correct form of Sikhi, which is what you are doing, which is flawed thinking.

First you say "if aarti was clear cut", then you proceed to say "Bhai Gurdas ji would have not left it to ambiguous interpretations" - these statements contradict eachother.

The aarti itself is not clear cut, the intention and devotion behind doing it differs amongst individuals - if one chooses to do it without divas, do it with divas, or do it with moving the divas around in a circular motion there shouldn't be a problem, none are wrong. Everybodys bhaav is not the same. In the case of divas one is honouring their Sargun Isht Dev and Spiritual & Temporal King with an ancient ceremony which, IMO and that of many others, is not considered against the teachings of Sikhi.

We're not going to come to a consensus on this so lets leave it where it is. I no longer wish to discuss it. Although, I'm glad I've been able to have this discussion with you, without any hostility as is usually the case.

Dhanvaad Jio.

 

Edited by MrDoaba
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2017 at 12:25 AM, MrDoaba said:

Right, so I've listened to the Katha, read a translation of Charitr 404 (bits were missing), and a seperate analysis. Baala is the woman born of flames who, according to the katha, is Mata Sahib Kaur in Kalyug. The analysis states:

"There is another important facet to be kept in mind about Sabudh Baach - The protagonist Baala, who fought with immense courage on the advent of Satjug does not appear anywhere in this present episode for a long time. This, again, is a subtle hint that the present social order has rendered the otherwise capable woman absolutely powerless. However, she reappears in the form of Bhawani and joins Kaal Purakh again in war efforts once all the 'Turk' Demons have been destroyed."

So what @Singh123456777 said would technically be partly correct i.e Mata Sahib Kaur being Chandi/Durga/Bhavani in their past life. What happens in the rest of the charitr vis-a-vis Bhavani? What's the source of the Chandi and Dusht Daman story? Lets see if we can figure out if they are in fact connected in any way.

Also, charitr 404 takes place in Satyug so one could assume that Baala continues to take birth until Kalyug (current day), most likely as Devi until Mata Sahib Kaur (who by some is also considered to be a manifestation of Devi) - my question is this: what is the significance of being born out of fire, what does it represent, especially in regards to the way it is portrayed in the charitr? A fact which may or may not be related to this, is that Devi is often represented by a flame (sometimes in a diva believe it or not haha). Second question: I know many revere the physical manifestations of Devi to varying degrees, and many revere Mata Sahib Kaur without having any connection to Devi, but does it really matter - aren't they all forms of Shakti or the feminine aspect of Akaal Purkh?

Please forgive any mistakes.

 

I'll explain my interpretation in a bit paji, a bit roped up with university

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2017 at 4:39 AM, MrDoaba said:

Good, I'd rather not be one than follow a document that was practically shoved down the collective Panth's throat.

So put that in your diva and light it.

VJKK VJKF,

VeerJi, forgive me if I offend you but I just wanted to know; are you a Sikh? Just wanted to know because I didn't know that there were non-Sikhs on here too. 

Vaheguru Ji.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VJKK VJKF,

Sangat Ji, maaf karo I didn't mean to start this altercation between you guys. Thank you for everyone who answered - I'm humbled so many people contributed. Thank you so much Ji. 

Vaheguru Ji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Singh2017 said:

VJKK VJKF,

VeerJi, forgive me if I offend you but I just wanted to know; are you a Sikh? Just wanted to know because I didn't know that there were non-Sikhs on here too. 

Vaheguru Ji.

I'm offended. But since you ask, I follow Divaism. The Diva is the main Godhead. And I put my Diva in the air and wave it around like I just don't care.

Now, Veer Ji, forgive me if I offend you, but I just wanted to know...why do you like your own posts? Just wanted to know because I didn't know that there were people who like their own posts on here too.

Jai Diva Di

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

I'm offended. But since you ask, I follow Divaism. The Diva is the main Godhead. And I put my Diva in the air and wave it around like I just don't care.

Now, Veer Ji, forgive me if I offend you, but I just wanted to know...why do you like your own posts? Just wanted to know because I didn't know that there were people who like their own posts on here too.

Jai Diva Di

VJKK VJKF

It's quite funny you say that Ji because up until this morning... I thought you were supposed to. My school email works like that - you like emails so that everyone else can read things you want to share like events and timetables but I found out this morning you can see them regardless of that on here. I joined this just over a month and a few weeks ago and have had exams since so I haven't had the time to know how to properly use this. I unliked all of the previous posts so whatever is liked isn't me. I said no offence for a reason Ji - I didn't mean to be rude so I said no offence before. You didn't have to be so sarcastic Ji. Maaf karna.

Vaheguru Ji.

Edited by Singh2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Singh2017 said:

VJKK VJKF

It's quite funny you say that Ji because up until this morning... I thought you were supposed to. My school email works like that - you like emails so that everyone else can read things you want to share like events and timetables but I found out this morning you can see them regardless of that on here. I joined this just over a month and a few weeks ago and have had exams since so I haven't had the time to know how to properly use this. I unliked all of the previous posts so whatever is liked isn't me. I said no offence for a reason Ji - I didn't mean to be rude so I said no offence before. You didn't have to be so sarcastic Ji. Maaf karna.

Vaheguru Ji.

ਜੋਕ ਸੀ ਪਾਊ...ਕੋਈ ਮਾਫੀ ਮੂਫੀ ਮੰਗਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਨੀ. ਮੈਂ ਸਿੱਖ ਐ, ਪਰ ਕਈ ਲੋਕ ਸੋਚਦੇ ਕਿ ਮੈਂ ਦੋ ਨੰਬਰ ਦਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਐ (ਉਹ ਲੋਕ ਇੱਕ ਨੰਬਰ ਦੇ ਕੱਟੜਵਾਦੀ). ਲੇਕਿਨ ਜਿਹੜਾ ਕੂਕਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਬਾਬਾ ਹੈ, ਉਹ ਕਹਿੰਦੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਸਾਰੇ ਜਾਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਹਨ. ਸਹੀ ਕ ਨਹੀ? ਜੇ ਨਹੀ, ਫੇਰ ਤਾਂ ਲੱਗੀ ਅੱਗ ਏਕਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਬੀਰੇ...

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/12/2017 at 11:54 AM, MrDoaba said:

By this logic all translations, arths, teekas etc should just go out the window. Gurbani (including other Sikh writings) is subject to interpretation as it has many layers and so speaks to different people on different levels. Gurbani has no ant, therefore no translation etc is completely right..

 

I have said all interpretation must accurately state what has been said originally and that's a bad thing!  In one of the previous post you wrote modern Sikhs as a slander and now you have written something against Naamdharis.  Why direct negative comments toward these groups to slander them when, according to you Gurbani is subject to interpretation as it has many layers and speaks to different people on different levels. It speaks to the Naamdharis and "modern" Sikhs differently.  Why don't you live by your words? Why did Nihangs kick out Darshan Ragi from the stage after he spoke about hemkund sahib.  According to you these Nihangs were wrong for kicking out Darshan ragi who was speak about Sikh writing at his level. What you are saying, i, MrDoaba can say what interpretation is correct of Gurbani and Sikh writing but if anyone else does it and it goes against my made up practices, they are wrong and I will label them as modern Sikhs and naamdharis even though they say interpret Gurbani and Sikh writing as what has been written. Gurbani having no ant does not mean Gurbani doesn't have a correct interpretation.  Gurbani has no ant because the correct interpretation can go on for decades and centuries, and for infinity by the Gurmukhs who knows it.  Yet they will never contradict what they said.  Its called Naam. 

I will respond to the rest when I have more time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

I will respond to the rest when I have more time.

There's no point bro, you'll be wasting your time. I'm not gonna get into a discussion about any of this with you because it's gonna become a p!ssing match. Things are going to get lost in translation, pun intended. Everything you're going to say has been said a million times before. It will come down to this: "this jathebandi, that jathebandi, that group, that samparda, this baba, that baba etc etc" and all that goes along with it, including Panthic politics on a deeper level. None of which I wish to devote my time to.

All I'll say is I've not slandered anyone. Yeah I don't generally like the SGPC et al if that's who you mean by modern Sikhs, but I haven't said anything close to slander. And how in Gods good name did you take what I wrote Namdharis to be against them? My comment about their Baba was supposed to be positive, if somewhat ironic. His samparda is highly marginalised, people don't call them Sikhs, yet he calls for ekta and recognises the differences in the Panth (and is trying to lead his Sikhs back into the wider panth, although these are suspicious claims). There is humour, irony, and truth in that post. Which you've obviously failed to spot. You need to loosen up bro, you've misread my posts before and put whole new meanings to them out of thin air. And if anything, Namdharis are on par with traditional Sampards in regards to how Puratan/Sanatan they are, so it would not make sense for me to bash them in this context.

Stick to what you believe in, and I'll stick to what I believe in. Bas.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrDoaba said:

All I'll say is I've not slandered anyone. Yeah I don't generally like the SGPC et al if that's who you mean by modern Sikhs, but I haven't said anything close to slander.

This is what you wrote in this topic

"A number of misguided modern-Sikhs say that this practice is Hindu or ritualistic. If we are to remove everything from the Khalsa Panth that has the slightest relation to the Hindu Dharam we would have nothing left. 

What happened to accepting all the different levels that Gurbani speaks to certain people here?

as I said before.  You want your irrational rule to apply to everyone else expect you and your group. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2017 at 12:25 AM, MrDoaba said:

Right, so I've listened to the Katha, read a translation of Charitr 404 (bits were missing), and a seperate analysis. Baala is the woman born of flames who, according to the katha, is Mata Sahib Kaur in Kalyug. The analysis states:

"There is another important facet to be kept in mind about Sabudh Baach - The protagonist Baala, who fought with immense courage on the advent of Satjug does not appear anywhere in this present episode for a long time. This, again, is a subtle hint that the present social order has rendered the otherwise capable woman absolutely powerless. However, she reappears in the form of Bhawani and joins Kaal Purakh again in war efforts once all the 'Turk' Demons have been destroyed."

So what @Singh123456777 said would technically be partly correct i.e Mata Sahib Kaur being Chandi/Durga/Bhavani in their past life. What happens in the rest of the charitr vis-a-vis Bhavani? What's the source of the Chandi and Dusht Daman story? Lets see if we can figure out if they are in fact connected in any way.

Also, charitr 404 takes place in Satyug so one could assume that Baala continues to take birth until Kalyug (current day), most likely as Devi until Mata Sahib Kaur (who by some is also considered to be a manifestation of Devi) - my question is this: what is the significance of being born out of fire, what does it represent, especially in regards to the way it is portrayed in the charitr? A fact which may or may not be related to this, is that Devi is often represented by a flame (sometimes in a diva believe it or not haha). Second question: I know many revere the physical manifestations of Devi to varying degrees, and many revere Mata Sahib Kaur without having any connection to Devi, but does it really matter - aren't they all forms of Shakti or the feminine aspect of Akaal Purkh?

Please forgive any mistakes.

 

Ok so here's my take on this all. Again I'm gonna say I'm not a scholar on Dasam Bani, nor do I have any form of Brahmgyan that I can provide a meaningful spiritual lesson. 

The Fire represents purity and power. For example when Durga waged her war with the general of Mahishasura, While fighting from her rage and her forehead (Dasam Dwar) rose a fire, and that fire gave birth to Kalika.  Mata Baala rising from the flames is important as well, as it shows she has no linege from either side (she wasn't born into a Asura family like Bhagat Prahalad or as a Devta to fight for good). 

In a more deeper stance She represents a Gursikh or a Puran Brahmgyani. The Fire is the fire of Brahmgyan that burns within them. Mata Baala is born amidst of that fire in the the world, She's basically born between Paap (Demons) and Piousness (Devtas). The battlefield represents the Karma fields we live in, basically the eternal struggle between good and evil. But a Gurmukh is born amongst neither and is above both (Sukhmani Sahib). Her being a woman is important as She's also a manifestation of the Soul-Bride that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is also telling us about. 

She wants to marry God and so she prays and her prayers are answered. Bhavani comes to deliver the News that Mata Baala should do anything that God tells her (Bhavani represents Righteousness here, i.e the ideal path reveals itself on how to reach God). Kaal Purkh then instructs her to wage war against the demons (destroy the evil within) and She follows it to a dot. God then assists her due to this by coming to her in a form to support and basically destroy the Demons too. Their union is such that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva all run and flee as the power and magnificence is too much. On a metaphorical stage that's the 3 guna becoming powerless before the true Gurmukhs. 

 

I think Ugardanti Bani is amazing in explaining this. Basically Akaal Purkh's Shakti is the one that destroys evil, creates preserves etc. This Shakti will manifest or make itself visible for mortals to see. The power was working through Narsinmha while he destroyed Harnakash. This Power was the same one that was visible to the world while Krishna destroyed Kansa. Think of it like a gun being fired, when we fire a gun. the bullet leaves the pistol and kills someone. The bullet is essentially the Avtars or Devi when they destroy evil, but like the gun we never blame the bullet but the firer, the trigger firer is the one responsible. IN this case that firer is Akaal Purkh Waheguru. That's the Shakti that Guru Sahib told her to Pooj, as without it the bullet is nothing but an empty caress. 

 

The Dusht Daman Story has its roots in Suraj Prakash Granth but I think its been around alot longer. The incident happened in Satyug, which was when Guru Sahib helps Durga. The final Charitar also takes place in Satyug but the question is when. Before or after the Dusht Daman Story. There's also the incident that since Bhavani is the one who delivers the message to Mata Baala, and Mata Ji is Mata Sahib Kaur Ji. Why is there a difference in characters? Why is Bhavani talking to herself in this instance? the only other time I've read this happened was when Krishna took Arjuna to his realm to speak to Vishnu, in an attempt to teach him a lesson regarding ego while remaining inside his earthly role. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kira said:

Ok so here's my take on this all. Again I'm gonna say I'm not a scholar on Dasam Bani, nor do I have any form of Brahmgyan that I can provide a meaningful spiritual lesson. 

The Fire represents purity and power. For example when Durga waged her war with the general of Mahishasura, While fighting from her rage and her forehead (Dasam Dwar) rose a fire, and that fire gave birth to Kalika.  Mata Baala rising from the flames is important as well, as it shows she has no linege from either side (she wasn't born into a Asura family like Bhagat Prahalad or as a Devta to fight for good). 

In a more deeper stance She represents a Gursikh or a Puran Brahmgyani. The Fire is the fire of Brahmgyan that burns within them. Mata Baala is born amidst of that fire in the the world, She's basically born between Paap (Demons) and Piousness (Devtas). The battlefield represents the Karma fields we live in, basically the eternal struggle between good and evil. But a Gurmukh is born amongst neither and is above both (Sukhmani Sahib). Her being a woman is important as She's also a manifestation of the Soul-Bride that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is also telling us about. 

She wants to marry God and so she prays and her prayers are answered. Bhavani comes to deliver the News that Mata Baala should do anything that God tells her (Bhavani represents Righteousness here, i.e the ideal path reveals itself on how to reach God). Kaal Purkh then instructs her to wage war against the demons (destroy the evil within) and She follows it to a dot. God then assists her due to this by coming to her in a form to support and basically destroy the Demons too. Their union is such that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva all run and flee as the power and magnificence is too much. On a metaphorical stage that's the 3 guna becoming powerless before the true Gurmukhs. 

 

I think Ugardanti Bani is amazing in explaining this. Basically Akaal Purkh's Shakti is the one that destroys evil, creates preserves etc. This Shakti will manifest or make itself visible for mortals to see. The power was working through Narsinmha while he destroyed Harnakash. This Power was the same one that was visible to the world while Krishna destroyed Kansa. Think of it like a gun being fired, when we fire a gun. the bullet leaves the pistol and kills someone. The bullet is essentially the Avtars or Devi when they destroy evil, but like the gun we never blame the bullet but the firer, the trigger firer is the one responsible. IN this case that firer is Akaal Purkh Waheguru. That's the Shakti that Guru Sahib told her to Pooj, as without it the bullet is nothing but an empty caress. 

 

The Dusht Daman Story has its roots in Suraj Prakash Granth but I think its been around alot longer. The incident happened in Satyug, which was when Guru Sahib helps Durga. The final Charitar also takes place in Satyug but the question is when. Before or after the Dusht Daman Story. There's also the incident that since Bhavani is the one who delivers the message to Mata Baala, and Mata Ji is Mata Sahib Kaur Ji. Why is there a difference in characters? Why is Bhavani talking to herself in this instance? the only other time I've read this happened was when Krishna took Arjuna to his realm to speak to Vishnu, in an attempt to teach him a lesson regarding ego while remaining inside his earthly role. 

Im sarbloh granth it talks about when durga needed help from sarbloh avtaar, again dont know if that is before or after dusht daman

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Singh123456777 said:

Im sarbloh granth it talks about when durga needed help from sarbloh avtaar, again dont know if that is before or after dusht daman

I think this was a different incident, if I recall right this was during the war with Brijnaad? 

I'm in the process of getting pothis of Sarbloh Granth so I'll definitely see if I can put together a chronological order to the events, but I'm sure someone somewhere took a note of it.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×