Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nalwa

Harmandar Sahb And Bhagat Bani

Recommended Posts

Hindu Gujju fanatic has email me some questions related to Harmandar Sahb and Bhagat Bani

After yesterday clashed in Akal Takht many Hindus have started questioning Sikhs about yesterday clashes and many Sikhs have answer them saying its our internal matter so back off but some have come back saying

1) The word Hari means Vishnu and it Har Mandar menas Vishnu Temple so we have every right to interfere.

2) Guru Granth Sahib contains Baanis of Hindu bhagats and why your Gurus added it ? Its stealing .

Would request you all to help to answer Hindu fanatics on above questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Hari is not exclusive to Vishnu. Hari is also a name for God. Plus even then, Vishnu is not a 'Hindu' God, he is his own entity, he is not a Hindu himself, and because of that the Hindu cannot say he has any right to enter, as Vishnu is not his God. He needs to reevaluate his thought process, and think that if someone is what he believes to be a 'God', then God does not belong to ANY religion. This is what Islamic preachers say, that their God is the only God.

2) Anything that brings one closer to God is revered by our Gurus. At the time, some of the Bhagats were a lot less known, although their teachings were Brahmgiaan. Because of this, the Gurus placed Bania not only from themselves, but from Saints of other faiths, as the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is complete Brahmgiaan. You can also state that if these Bhagats saw you today they would look at you in a pathetic manner for even making such a stupid comment, and that he probably hasn't even read the message the Bhagats are making, so he comes to a stupid claim like this. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Amrit, the Bani is holy, this Bani will lead you to salvation, so why criticise Bani? He only decides to criticise Bani as he has no spiritual knowledge himself and only wishes to pick out his own so called 'faults' in other religions, because he is insecure in himself.

Bhul Chuk Maaf. If others can elaborate, please do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guru Gobind Singh Ji came to annihilate the sinners and Malesh, and in the process, defended the 'Hindu' faith. The Nihangs used to leave their camps at 12am to regain the captured Hindu women and children, to defend the 'Hindu faith'. Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji gave Shaheedi to protect the Pandits of the 'Hindu faith'. Without the coming of the Gurus, today's 'Hinduism' would be severely reduced in size. Also, the word 'Hindu' itself has no spiritual bearing towards the Devi-Devtey, as Hindu simply means one from that of the Indus region, and a resident of 'Hindustan'. Tell him to check his own roots out before trying to discredit others'.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This is very low mentality. HAR is not exclusive to the Hindus. (BTW what is Hindu? please define Hindu? each one has a different interpretation) HAR means the Almighty and in Guru Granth Sahib Ji many many shabads use HAR referring to the Almighty only.

Vishnu is not exclusive to the Hindus, Brahma is not exclusive to the Hindus, Krishan Ji is not exclusive to the Hindus.

The god the ruled the Roman gods was called Jupiter. The god that ruled the Grecian gods was called Zeus. The devta that rules the Hindu Devtay is called Inder. Guess what, they are one and the same. Jupiter=Zeus=Inder. In different ages different cultures have worshipped various gods, which we in Sikhi call Devtay, but they are the same entities. These gods are not exclusive to anyone, they belong to no one. Ask the devtay, they will say they belong to those who have prem within their hearts and who have love for the Almighty.

So Hari to the hindus is one thing, Raam to the Hindus is one thing, to us Hari is Akaalpurkh, to us Raam refers to AkaalPurkh.

2) This follows from 1). Bhagats were in tune with God, they did not believe themselves to belong to anyone other then the Almighty, they believed not in race, creed, colour or religion, they were on a higher plain, it is fools who say they are ours and no one else's.

Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not of the Sikhs, Guru ji is for all humanity. It would be silly of us to claim Guru Ji as our own. Guru belongs to anyone who has love for Guru Ji in their hearts.

Guru Arjan Dev Ji saw the divine spirit in the shabads that the Bhagats wrote, they were not hindu or mislim, it did not matter, what matters is that we attune our selves with Gurus bani.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Hari is not exclusive to Vishnu. Hari is also a name for God. Plus even then, Vishnu is not a 'Hindu' God, he is his own entity, he is not a Hindu himself, and because of that the Hindu cannot say he has any right to enter, as Vishnu is not his God. He needs to reevaluate his thought process, and think that if someone is what he believes to be a 'God', then God does not belong to ANY religion. This is what Islamic preachers say, that their God is the only God.

2) Anything that brings one closer to God is revered by our Gurus. At the time, some of the Bhagats were a lot less known, although their teachings were Brahmgiaan. Because of this, the Gurus placed Bania not only from themselves, but from Saints of other faiths, as the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is complete Brahmgiaan. You can also state that if these Bhagats saw you today they would look at you in a pathetic manner for even making such a stupid comment, and that he probably hasn't even read the message the Bhagats are making, so he comes to a stupid claim like this. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Amrit, the Bani is holy, this Bani will lead you to salvation, so why criticise Bani? He only decides to criticise Bani as he has no spiritual knowledge himself and only wishes to pick out his own so called 'faults' in other religions, because he is insecure in himself.

Bhul Chuk Maaf. If others can elaborate, please do.

Technically I dont think the word hindu comes up in vedas or bhagadvita gita. I remember see a hindu pundit swami explaing the word hindu came from the Persians in which it means "black theif".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word Hari means Vishnu and it Har Mandar menas Vishnu Temple so we have every right to interfere.

In original Sanskrit, word Hari has many meanings but not a single meaning refers to Vishnu. See the dictionary of Monier Williams ‘Dictionary of Sanskrit’. It was later in Vaishnavism that the term came to be used for Vishnu. However, in Gurmat the word refers to Vaheguru which means the destroyer of all. Vishnu is a creation of Vaheguru and there exists millions of Vishnu. So Sikh Gurus would not build a temple for Vishnu and then install Gurbani inside it which rejects the authority of Vishnu being the Supreme God.

Guru Granth Sahib contains Baanis of Hindu bhagats and why your Gurus added it ? Its stealing

None of the bhagats were Hindus or Muslims. Many of them came from so-called low caste and they were rejected and caste out of the society. They were opposed, prisoned and tortured. Guru Sahib gave them emancipation and equality by safeguarding their Bani. No prior attempt had been taken to keep their Bani safe and preserved. It is also not stealing because their Bani is included under their name and full credits have been given.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Hari does not refer to Vishnu but to the formless Waheguru.

ਘਟ ਘਟ ਮੈ ਹਰਿ ਜੂ ਬਸੈ ਸੰਤਨ ਕਹਿਓ ਪੁਕਾਰਿ ॥
Ghat Ghat Main Har Ju Baseh, Santan Kahio Pukaar.
Guru Tegh Bahadur (Ang 1427, Guru Granth Sahib)
Har refers to the all pervading Lord, not some mythical entity. Besides that, Sikhi rejects all myths of other religions and redefines them according to Gurmat - Just like Mecca means mind in Gurmat etc.

2. Even though the Bhagats may have been born in Hindu/Muslim backgrounds, they rejected their beliefs just like Guru Nanak Sahib did.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥
The Hindu is blind while the Muslim is one eyed. The Gyani is wiser than both of them.
Bhagat Naamdev (Ang 875, Guru Granth Sahib)
Will you still say that Naamdev was a Hindu? All Bhagats, Gurus united under one thought - the above line is applicable to all authors of Bani.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my research which hopes and tries to uphold gurmat/gurbani as balanced, pristine as possible:

Hari just like term raam mostly in gurbani refers to Akaal purkh.

With that being said, we cannot ignore or reject sargun interpretation and reference of term - hari sargun darshan/dedicated to sargun hari in devotion to (be it vishnu or its avtars, chaturbhuj vishnu) in gurbani bhagat bani used by bhagats initially in sargun bhakti later on bhagats perceiving hari as nirgun parbhram after they progressed spiritually or after the darshan of sargun hari.

Sure those shabad which are references to sargun hari (from historical/sargun bhakti standpoint) can be also interpretated as antriv arths where shabad allows (from anubhav arth in meditation vantage point) which is fine from as long sargun interpertation of hari is not downplayed or totally rejected as we then inadvertently reject historical/sargun bhakti stance of bhagats included in gurbani all in fear of fighting some junkie hindu fanatic kid.

So in this way shabad has to be proper contexualized and also looked at historical angle. We cannot always interpret gurbani from nirgun antriv arth standpoint as gurbani is meant for all seekers from all walks of life, addresses to both sargun bhagat (help them with spiritual development) and nirgun ikongkar shabad upsakh.

Many bhagats bhagat bani reference who are included in gurbani starting their spiritual journey quest with sargun bhakti and have used hari term in gurbani in reference to sargun Hari in bhagti but as they spiritual progressed they perceive hari from sargun hari to sarabvpyapk hari or raam (ramiya hoya all prevading paremshvar).

Regarding this hindu fanatic, don't even need to mention gurbani...just beat him with his own tools- bring vedanta outright rejection of hari being vishnu. He won't have anything to say. Tell him if vedanta does not agree with hari being vishnu being some authority but only vyapk atma but how the hell you expect outside gurmat to agree with your sargun fanatic stance.

Most of rss hindu sargun fanatics propaganda can be beaten by their own hindu gnosis school of thought (Vedanta/gyan marg listed in their own bhagvad gita), without sikhs acting in fear/downplaying (contary to true search in gurmat) or going extreme lenghts of undermining gurmat teaching or downplaying/ water down gurmat interpertation. Leave gurbani the way it is...Lets not water down interpertation to fight off rss. Enough damage is already being done to gurmat traditions or framework all in the name of fighting rss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baani Bhagat Namdev Dev Jee -

Naan Hum Hindu , Naan Musalmaan. Allah Raam ke Pind Paran.

Now ask which Bhagat was HINDU???

And then ask the question who is a HINDU, Are Shudras, Dalits, Nayis, Julahas HINDUS??? Are Brahmans also Hindus? Is it acceptable for both Brahmans and Dalits to sit together and eat together??? IS it acceptable for a Brahmin girl to marry a Dalit Boy or vice-versa, WHY NOT - Both are HINDUS???

The Bhagats themselves rejected HINDUISM ...

The Bhagats (whose Baani is in Gurbaani) were not allowed entry to any famous HINDU Temple at their time, were laughed upon by Brahmins and GURU Arjan Dev Jee revolutionized by giving all these Bhagat's a place in Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee (Adi Granth - known at that time as Pothi Sahib). Now ask again, WERE THEY HINDUS???? and if YES, what is HINDUISM????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my research which hopes and tries to uphold gurmat/gurbani as balanced, pristine as possible:

Hari just like term raam mostly in gurbani refers to Akaal purkh.

With that being said, we cannot ignore or reject sargun interpretation and reference of term - hari sargun darshan/dedicated to sargun hari in devotion to (be it vishnu or its avtars, chaturbhuj vishnu) in gurbani bhagat bani used by bhagats initially in sargun bhakti later on bhagats perceiving hari as nirgun parbhram after they progressed spiritually or after the darshan of sargun hari.

Sure those shabad which are references to sargun hari (from historical/sargun bhakti standpoint) can be also interpretated as antriv arths where shabad allows (from anubhav arth in meditation vantage point) which is fine from as long sargun interpertation of hari is not downplayed or totally rejected as we then inadvertently reject historical/sargun bhakti stance of bhagats included in gurbani all in fear of fighting some junkie hindu fanatic kid.

So in this way shabad has to be proper contexualized and also looked at historical angle. We cannot always interpret gurbani from nirgun antriv arth standpoint as gurbani is meant for all seekers from all walks of life, addresses to both sargun bhagat (help them with spiritual development) and nirgun ikongkar shabad upsakh.

Many bhagats bhagat bani reference who are included in gurbani starting their spiritual journey quest with sargun bhakti and have used hari term in gurbani in reference to sargun Hari in bhagti but as they spiritual progressed they perceive hari from sargun hari to sarabvpyapk hari or raam (ramiya hoya all prevading paremshvar).

Regarding this hindu fanatic, don't even need to mention gurbani...just beat him with his own tools- bring vedanta outright rejection of hari being vishnu. He won't have anything to say. Tell him if vedanta does not agree with hari being vishnu being some authority but only vyapk atma but how the hell you expect outside gurmat to agree with your sargun fanatic stance.

Most of rss hindu sargun fanatics propaganda can be beaten by their own hindu gnosis school of thought (Vedanta/gyan marg listed in their own bhagvad gita), without sikhs acting in fear/downplaying (contary to true search in gurmat) or going extreme lenghts of undermining gurmat teaching or downplaying/ water down gurmat interpertation. Leave gurbani the way it is...Lets not water down interpertation to fight off rss. Enough damage is already being done to gurmat traditions or framework all in the name of fighting rss.

What is Vedant ? Can you provide more info or link where i can read this .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ask him that because the famous hindu saint Swami Ramakrishana Parmhansa practiced Islam for a while that means he was a muslim.

LOL that will shut him up,

Swami Ramakrishan Parmhansa was an amazing brahmgiani and famous hindu saint, for a long time he did idol worship of Durga. He was mast and had many divine visions. He was the Guru of Swami Vivikenanada. For a while he stopped idol worship and used to go to the mosque....

post-39392-0-40155800-1402249198_thumb.j

watch the full video here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I would say the dream was 100% linked to his dad. My families done sangat and seva of both Sant Isher Singh Ji and Sant Kishen Singh Ji. They were pure brahmgianis. We cant narrow the avasta of a Mahapurakh to our level of thinking. 
    • Guru sahib supported people marrying in the same biradhri because they came from the same background and lifestyle. Even in charitropakhyan mahraj gives lessons that you should marry ppl of same age, background etc. one lesson is an old guy cant keep a young woman for long 
    • Exactly, we only know his perspective and its telling that any nonbiased person would start to feel bad for her. It doesnt matter if your gay, be a good husband and talk to her and trust her. If you cant trust her because shes done something in the past then I understand the apprehension. But without that it seems youre just insecure 
    • We can only hope. 😅😂 Seriously, I think you're absolutely correct to a certain degree on a surface level, but you make it seem like all these events are organic in origin and execution. I would argue there's an element of planning and organisation that goes into these world-changing events. I definitely don't think there's anything of accident or chance when it comes to the major events in "recent" (post-Enlightenment) human history (including wars, social upheaval, social and political movements and policies, even down to smaller issues such as those affecting cultural and artistic endeavours that shape the human consciousness, etc). We do not stumble from unknown event to another unknown event, hoping we work it out along the way. I think this management and direction of events is becoming obvious and clear to a great percentage of humanity compared to previous decades and centuries. Whether this awakening of sorts is a natural part of the yugic cycle, or it's something more mystically directed is difficult to know.
    • Yeah that was the key to success, Jats refused to accept a position which would of naturally been near the bottom and rebelled against the Bamhans, and there wasn't much Bamhans could of done. The fact that Punjab had more of a flexible biradari system rather than the traditional Varna system and order also probably helped Jatts. Punjabi Gujjars are another group which refused to be pushed around by Bamhans. By 1760-ish most of Punjab was ruled under the Sikh misls who were mainly jatts. Bhangis(Dhillon), Kanheya(Sandhus), Singhia(Dhaliwals) etc ..  They also held the Afghans at bay.  It's a shame that most are rather sloppy now than rebellious, the 80s and 90s was the last time we saw any major rebellion.    Rajputs pretty much went with whoever the ruling party was.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use