Confused About Something Gurbani

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal"

Namastang Sahib, I am not putting the scriptures down but rather stating what is there. Guru Granth Sahib Ji is unique in its ability to present the most direct, to the point message. This same message is in other religions somewhat, but you must dig through hundreds of pages to get the same teachings that Guru Sahib bestows in but a verse.

It is what it is. Don't believe me? Read foryourself.

[N30S1NGH]

Sat Sri Akal"

Namastang Sahib,  I am not putting the scriptures down but rather stating what is there.  Guru Granth Sahib Ji is unique in its ability to present the most direct, to the point message.  This same message is in other religions somewhat, but you must dig through hundreds of pages to get the same teachings that Guru Sahib bestows in but a verse.

It is what it is.  Don't believe me?  Read foryourself.

136153[/snapback]

Thanks for clarifying brava.

[Bijla Singh]

Understand some of the words Hindus use today.

1) Real Meaning of Vedas - Divine Knowledge

Hindu use -> Vedas - Books of Hindus

2) Raam - name of God

Hindus -> Raam - Son of Dasrath

3) Kesva - Waheguru with long hair

Hindus -> Kesva - Krishna (No proof exists if Krishna ever kept his hair)

In Gurbani when Guru Ji says "vedas Meh Naam" Guru Ji refers to "Books of Divine Knowledge" NOT books of hindus.

Even hindu scholars centuries ago admitted that Vedas meant Divine Knowledge but hindus started using this word to describe their books.

Really the books are not Vedas; Vedas means divine knowledge. He, who gains the knowledge and attains the sublime stage, can be called the knower of Vedas. (Brahat Parasar Sanheeta, Part 4)

If you want to believe that Guru Ji refers to Hindu books in the Panktee then according to Sikh scholars (i.e. Bhai Kahan Singh) it means:

ਨਾਮੁ ਉਤਮੁ ਸੋ ਸੁਣਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ, ਵੇਦਾ ਮਹਿ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ਜਿਉ ਫਿਰਹਿ

Now the meanings are very clear. Besides this point, it has been proven that ‘Vedas’ actually mean divine knowledge which means the word ‘Vedas’ in the above line does not refer to Hindu books (Vedas) that contain rituals of Yajna and Homa. If you take the line as if it is referring to Hindu Vedas then the meaning would be this: If there is anything worthwhile in the Vedas that is the Name of the Lord, you do not listen to it and just roam about like a disoriented individual in the study of worthless rituals.

Guru Ji has not described Vedas as supreme; rather the Name of the Lord is described as Supreme.

http://www.searchsikhism.com/hind8.html

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[The Khalsa Fauj]

Veda May Naam Uttam does mean Naam is greater than Vedas. Have you ever read the Vedas? If you thinnk Vedas have Naam, then wear a tilak janju, go do jugs, wear a dhoti, don't cross an ocean and all the other weird stuff that vedas say. Vedas are not great at all. There is nothing great in them. Show me one line from them, which is useful to attain God.

Simrat Saaster Baid Sbai Boh Bhaid Khai Hum Aik Naa Jaaneo.

vydu pVih hir rsu nhI AwieAw ]

vaedh parrehi har ras nehee aaeiaa ||

The Pandits read the Vedas, but they do not obtain the Lord's essence.

Guru Amar Daas Ji

Raag Maajh

128

Why don't they get essence? Because it can't give it.

bRhmw vydu pVY vwdu vKwxY ]

brehamaa vaedh parrai vaadh vakhaanai ||

Brahma studied the Vedas, but these lead only to debates and disputes.

Guru Amar Daas Ji

Raag Gauree

231

pMifq mYlu n cukeI jy vyd pVY jug cwir ]

pa(n)ddith mail n chukee jae vaedh parrai jug chaar ||

O Pandit, O religious scholar, your filth shall not be erased, even if you read the Vedas for four ages.

Guru Amar Daas Ji

Raag Sorath

647

bwxI bRhmw vydu Drmu idRVhu pwp qjwieAw bil rwm jIau ]

baanee brehamaa vaedh dhharam dhrirrahu paap thajaaeiaa bal raam jeeo ||

Instead of the hymns of the Vedas to Brahma, embrace the righteous conduct of Dharma, and renounce sinful actions.

Guru Raam Daas Ji

Raag Soohee

773

Clear message to forget about the Vedas.

There are many other quotes. This is enough though. If it is not enough. You won't even listen if Akaal came and said this to you.

Tabe Ros jaageo explains clearly on what the vedas aere about. Watch the movie for more.

[N30S1NGH]

There are many other quotes. This is enough though. If it is not enough. You won't even listen if Akaal came and said this to you.

Tabe Ros jaageo explains clearly on what the vedas aere about. Watch the movie for more.

136199[/snapback]

Khalsa fauji sion, this quote you posted "Tabe Ros jaageo" is from sri bachitar natak which you don't beleive in but you had nerve using this quote for your justification.

you are hypocrite.. either accept or deny dasam granth fully what's with accepting which fits your agenda??

I find it disguisting to see a sikh pick an choose from gurbani like as if they are in buffet place.

[The Khalsa Fauj]

I was refering to the movie. Tabe Roas jaageo. It doesn't mean I agree that it is bani. use your head.

[The Khalsa Fauj]

Don't ignore what I wrote about Vedas. We belive what is according to gurmat is Gurbani, what is not, is not. If that is being hypocrite, be it. Calling me a hypocrite doesn't make me one. Also Naastiks can say anything they want.

[N30S1NGH]

From reading Bhattan Kay Svaiyay, I know that Guru Nanak has existed through the 4 jugs.  He revealed Gurmat Naam openly only in Kaljug.  I also know from Guru Sahib's bani that Dhru and Prehlad were saved by "Gurmat Naam".  Not any naam but only Gurmat Naam.  "Dhroo Prehlaad Bidar Dasee Sut, Gurmukh Naam Taray"

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that Guru Nanak used to do kirpa on select bhagats and bless them with Gurmat Naam.  Svaiyay M: 5 kay tell us "Siri Guru Sahib Sabh Oopar.  Karee Kirpa Satjug jin Dhroo par.  Sree Prehlaad Bhagat Udhreeang.  Haso kamal mathay par dhareeang."  This means that Siri Guru Sahib (this clearly means Guru Nanak since it is the Bhattan Day Saviayay and they are talking about glory of Guru Nanak), does kirpa on everyone.  In Satjug he blessed Dhroo.  He saved Prehlaad.  He put his lotus hands on their forehead (I always take this to mean gave them naam, just like naam is give the same way now). 

In the same bandh it says "Gur parsaad prabh paieeai, gur bin mukat na hoi" meaning only by Guru's grace is Vahiguru found and without a Guru no one is mukat."  The very next line says "Guru Nanak Nikat basai banvaree" and goes on to talk about Guru Angad, Guru Amardas and Guru Ram Das.  This is all the same bandh, not a new one.

It is clear that the Guru is only Guru Nanak.  It is clear that without Guru Nanak no one can be saved.  And it is clear that Guru Nanak himself did kirpa and gave naam to Dhroo and Prehlaad.

This isn't totally restricted to previous jugs.  Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh writes about the prisoner in jail for life who wanted naam but knew he could never go to the Punj Pyaaray.  Bhai Sahib asked him to do ardaas to Guru Nanak for the gift of naam.  Bhai Sahib felt very sympathetic but could not reveal naam alone without the punj pyaaray.  Soon after, that prisoner began to jap naam and Bhai Sahib was amazed that Guru Nanak had done kirpa and revealed it to him.

135987[/snapback]

Singh132(balpreet Singh) sorry for late reply:

Clearly not only does Gurbani state that those individuals in a different yug were 'gurmukh' (i.e. Waheguru) but as stated by the bhatt svayae, Parmatma took sargun avatar in previous yugs as Ram and Krishan but in Kalyug as Guru Nanak bringing forth yug dharma. This is the position held by Taksal, and nirmalay generally speaking. Hence Guru ji is avatar.

Certain modern groups cannot accept that Guru ji was an avatar, since it suggests the truth predated his manifestation by linking to previous Hari avatars.

Also on a side note:

What do you have to say about Raja Janak who existed long time before Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Bhai Gurdas ji describes him as:

source: http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?book...=10&pauri=5

Gurmukh (person who have their face towards Guru). Raja Janak's Guru was Asthavakat- 8 year old disable child who may be disabled in the eyes of chamars(people who judge others by skin, appearance) but his atma was merged with nirankar as one roop.

By saying Satguru nanak dev ji is only and only true Guru out of all the guru's we had in all the yugs, one still has dvaish(partiality) which restricts one's mindset to accept other bhagats, bhramgyani also had in the past merge with that higher reality and became also nirankari jot. Having that kind of mindset is against Gurmat Advait Sidhant.

[Singh132]

Namastang,

Did you read what I wrote? I said that Guru Nanak is the eternal Guru (and showed in Guru Granth Sahib that it is said Guru Sahib has existed in all 4 jugs). He seems to have selected certain bhagats to give Gurmat naam too, but only in kaljug it was openly available.

Guru Nanak, (see my last post) has also been shown to be the one Guru. If he was not, then why did he come? If all religions are great and there are other Gurus, why did the world need Guru Nanak? He offered nothign new then?

The fact is that no other Guru has ever revealed Gurmat Naam. This is not just any naam, it is the highest mantar revealed in Sachkhand.

Buddha is in Gian Khand: how could his followers be considered to be brahmgyanis?

As for Guru Nanak being an avatar: what is he an avatar of? Vishnu? I'm going to properly reply to this point because it is by far the most DANGEROUS of all thoughts coming from the RSS/Sanatanis. But first I want to know what you think Satguru was an avatar of. And was Guru Nanak the same being that was Ram and Krishna according to you?

[tkkookar]

if vedas doesn't have essense then what people used to read or praise in satjug ??