Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh

[Randip Singh]

Randip Singh ji,
What is being quoted (including recent quotes by you), are slokas of Bhagat Kabir ji, they are not shabda; every sloka stands at its own; they are not linked always or depended on each other; they cover various issues.
I request you to post Bhagat Kabir’s bani in which he criticizes “woman” as black cobra because the article you referred, just says so without giving any reference of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; as you have referred Bhagat Kabir’s being anti woman, I am curious about this; I think it is misunderstanding about Bhagat Kabir, or out there Kabir panthies are doing such propaganda; in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, he doesn’t say such things and outside Sri Guru Granth Sahib , who knows what other people had done to his bani as Pirthya and other people did in the name of Guru Nanak. In Sri Guru Granth Sahib, all is said in context of lust not sex or gender. On 329 and 480 Sri Guru Granth Sahib, sarpani is used for Maya; I wonder where Bhagat Kabir calls a woman black cobra!

Try clicking on the links . Not only are the sloka's there but commentary from intellectuals:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eUJICz55HFMC&pg=PA114&dq=kabir+woman+cobra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lpenT4XCBsnk8QOfoLHhBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kabir%20woman%20cobra&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kabir woman cobra&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kabir woman cobra&f=false

Nanak only icluded Bani's of Bhaghats that were compatible with the Sikh view, or we may as well call our selves Kabir Panthi's. Infact why don't we call ourselves Kabir Panthis?

Previous discussion link:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/bhagats/18645-kabir-dohay-2.html

On 1379, Roti with butter is referred to luxurious viands by Baba Freed, it is not literally about roti and butter and see the context where it is said. I just feel we should not do injustice to Baba Freed or Bhagat Kabir if they say something about hypocrisy or exploitation done by some people in their times.
With Regards
mandemeet

Indeed we shouldn't and my illustration here shows why you should never quote one line out of a shabad, because it distorts the shabad.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Chhopprre roti...kaath ki roti..etc are to be considered as Parts of the Complete shabad..once they are taken out and used as one liners..the meaning...gets DISTORTED..which may be an agenda of some..but not allowed here at SPN.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Gyani ji,
That shabad is not directed at Mullah rather it is addressed to a Pandit. Read the verses before that one. But the principle it is asking one to contemplate applies to everyone.
Kabir ji says:
If using force and killing dharmic, then what is adharmic? (Rhetorical for Killing is not dharma at all). If a you call yourself a sage (for killing animals for your fire rituals) then who would you call a butcher? (Rhetorical for you are not a sage, you are a butcher. You are following adharam.)

Now this isn't talking about eating meat, it's talking about killing animals as an adharmic action.

Randip Ji,

You pulled out one liners out of the shabad.

Are you reading the teekas? The English translation does appear to look like a misquotation. Read the teekas instead, they are in fact taking the entire bani into account. The Freed Kote wala teeka does this really well, but it's also more difficult to understand of the two teekas.

Kabir may have been a vegetarian, this does not mean...

Now you are jumping ahead of the discussion. You still don't agree with what I presented so how can you go ahead and start comparing this bani with the Gurus, etc? You cannot do that. The better way would be to look at each thing carefully with sehaj before moving to the next.

I really can't see how or why this shabad relates to meat?

The shabad is addressed to a Mullah, talking about halal and killing animals for meat and yet you cannot see what it has to do with meat?
You are reading the English translation, which can potentially change the meaning if the gurmukhi and teekas are not taken into account.

Both,

I repeat the shabads I have presented are talking about killing animals as an unrighteous action. We are not discussing eating meat, rather killing animals for their meat, and killing animals for religious rituals.
This is what he is saying on page 332 as well (killing of any living being).

Do we agree that killing animals is not right action, per Kabir ji's bani?

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Bhagt Ji,
IF kabir Ji had in mind that .."all" killing is bad..then he would have written so..THOU SHALT NOT KILL...even for Food".

1. The Mullahs DONT kill for Food per se..its RELIGIOUS MOTIVE over riding the food motive. Kabir Ji is exposing that . Killing God's animal to appease god.

2. Pandits also KILL for RELIGIOUS REASONS..the Goats killed at Kali mandirs are for SACRIFICE to mata Chandi/kali mata etc. That means the goat is being killed to appease a demigod.

AND Since BOTH the above are for "RELIGIOUS PURPOSES/ DHARMIC...they are BOTH...BANNED for SIKHS. One is halal..other is mata parshaad. THIS "religious reason" is why the Sikh rehat Maryada BANS halal....directly and clearly and the mata parshaad by association....and Recommends ONLY JHATKA which is meat for FOOD ONLY and no religious significance whatsoever.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Gyani ji,
Dharam is always placed above one's own interests in Sikhism. Dharam means righteousness. Kabir ji has said killing a lifeform for meat is tyranny (the very first shabad we looked at). He says it's not dharam at all, eat kichree instead of cutting throats to have meat with your bread.

The Pandit kills for religious reasons, that is exactly why according to Kabir ji he is ignorant. He is doing adharam by killing the animal but the foolish one thinks he is doing dharam by killing it. Same with the mullah who thinks if he kills the animal in a particular way, it has become halal. They are both deluded precisely because what they are doing is adharam.

If killing something for food makes it dharmic then the mullah has got it right. His halal is going to be food. But Kabir ji says "NO, you are a fool for calling it halal, it is tyranny."

The tyranny is not because it is offered to God. Offering things to God is a good thing. The tyranny is that you used force and killed the animal. How can it ever be tyrannical to offer something to God?

ਆਸਾ ॥
आसा ॥
Āsā.
Aasaa:

ਰੋਜਾ ਧਰੈ ਮਨਾਵੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਸੁਆਦਤਿ ਜੀਅ ਸੰਘਾਰੈ ॥
रोजा धरै मनावै अलहु सुआदति जीअ संघारै ॥
Rojā ḏẖarai manāvai alhu su▫āḏaṯ jī▫a sangẖārai.
You keep your fasts to please Allah, while you murder living beings for taste (ਸੁਆਦਤਿ).
FKW: ਰੋਜਾ ਧਾਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਅਲਾਹ ਕੋ ਮਨਾਉਤਾ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਸੁਆਦ ਕੇ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਜੀਵੋਂ ਕੋ ਮਾਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਅਲਹ ਕਾ ਨਾਮ ਲੇ ਕਰ ਸੁਆਦ ਕੇ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਜੀਵ ਘਾਤ ਕਰਤਾ ਹੈ॥
PSS: (ਕਾਜ਼ੀ) ਰੋਜ਼ਾ ਰੱਖਦਾ ਹੈ (ਰੋਜ਼ਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਅਖ਼ੀਰ ਤੇ ਈਦ ਵਾਲੇ ਦਿਨ) ਅੱਲਾ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਤੇ ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਦੇਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਸੁਆਦ ਦੀ ਖ਼ਾਤਰ (ਇਹ) ਜੀਵ ਮਾਰਦਾ ਹੈ।
[Keeps fasts for Allah but then for taste he kills living beings]


ਆਪਾ ਦੇਖਿ ਅਵਰ ਨਹੀ ਦੇਖੈ ਕਾਹੇ ਕਉ ਝਖ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥
आपा देखि अवर नही देखै काहे कउ झख मारै ॥१॥
Āpā ḏekẖ avar nahī ḏekẖai kāhe ka▫o jẖakẖ mārai. ||1||
You look after your own interests, and so not see the interests of others. What good is your word? ||1||
ਅਪਨੀ ਓਰ ਦੇਖਕਰ ਔਰ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਜੀਵੋਂ ਕੀ ਓਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਖਤਾ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਜੋ ਹਮਾਰੇ ਹੀ ਜੈਸਾ ਜੀਵ ਇਨ ਕਾ ਭੀ ਹੈ ਜੇਕਰ ਜੀਵ ਦਇਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਤੌ ਰੋਜਾ ਨਿਮਾਜ ਕਰਨੇ ਮੇਂ ਕਿਉਂ ਝਖ ਮਾਰਤਾ ਹੈ॥੧॥


ਕਾਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਏਕੁ ਤੋਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰਾ ਸੋਚਿ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਨ ਦੇਖੈ ॥
ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਕਰਹਿ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਜਨਮੁ ਅਲੇਖੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
काजी साहिबु एकु तोही महि तेरा सोचि बिचारि न देखै ॥
खबरि न करहि दीन के बउरे ता ते जनमु अलेखै ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Kājī sāhib ek ṯohī mėh ṯerā socẖ bicẖār na ḏekẖai.
Kẖabar na karahi ḏīn ke ba▫ure ṯā ṯe janam alekẖai. ||1|| rahā▫o.
O Qazi, the One Lord is within you, but you do not behold Him by thought or contemplation.
You do not care for others, you are a religious fanatic, and your life is of no account at all. ||1||Pause||
ਹੇ ਕਾਜੀ ਕਿਆ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਏਕ ਤੌ ਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਤੇਰਾ ਹੀ ਪਖੀ ਹੈ ਭਾਵ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਸਭਮੇਂ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਸਭ ਕਾ ਪਖੀ ਹੈ ਯਹ ਬਡੀ ਸੋਚਨੇ ਕੀ ਬਾਤ ਹੈ ਤੂੰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਕੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਖਤਾ ਹੈਂ ਹੇ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਕੀਏ ਹੂਏ (ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਕਰਹਿ) ਸਮਝ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਤਾ ਹੈ ਅਰਥਾਤ ਵਿਵੇਕ ਰਹਿਤ ਹੈਂ ਇਸ ਸੇ ਤੇਰਾ ਜਨਮ (ਅਲੇਖੈ) ਬਿਅਰਥ ਹੈ॥


ਸਾਚੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੈ ਅਲਹੁ ਨਾਰਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥
साचु कतेब बखानै अलहु नारि पुरखु नही कोई ॥
Sācẖ kaṯeb bakẖānai alhu nār purakẖ nahī ko▫ī.
Your holy scriptures say that Allah is True, and that he is neither male nor female.
ਕਿਤਾਬ ਤੋ ਸਾਚ ਰੂਪ ਅਲਾਹ ਕੋ ਕਹਤੀ ਹੈ ਔ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਕੋਈ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰ ਕਾ ਭੇਦ ਅਲਾਹ ਮੇਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ॥


ਪਢੇ ਗੁਨੇ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਛੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜਉ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥
पढे गुने नाही कछु बउरे जउ दिल महि खबरि न होई ॥२॥
Padẖe gune nāhī kacẖẖ ba▫ure ja▫o ḏil mėh kẖabar na ho▫ī. ||2||
But you gain nothing by reading and studying, O mad-man, if you do not gain the understanding in your heart. ||2||
ਹੇ ਬਉਰੇ ਕਾਜੀ ਜੋ ਦਿਲ ਮੇਂ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕੀ ਖਬਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਭਈ ਤੋ ਪਢਨੇ ਗੁਣਨੇ ਸੇ ਕਛ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਤਾ॥੨॥


ਅਲਹੁ ਗੈਬੁ ਸਗਲ ਘਟ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਲੇਹੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥
अलहु गैबु सगल घट भीतरि हिरदै लेहु बिचारी ॥
Alhu gaib sagal gẖat bẖīṯar hirḏai leho bicẖārī.
Allah is hidden in every heart; reflect upon this in your mind.
ਅਲਾਹ ਛਿਪਾ ਹੂਆ ਸਭ ਘਟੋਂ ਮੈਂ ਹੈ ਹੇ ਕਾਜੀ ਇਸ ਬਾਰਤਾ ਕੋ ਵਾ ਤਿਸ ਅਲਾਹ ਕੋ ਤੁਮ ਹਿਰਦੇ ਮੇਂ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਲੇਹੁ॥


ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹੂੰ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੈ ਕਹੈ ਕਬੀਰ ਪੁਕਾਰੀ ॥੩॥੭॥੨੯॥
हिंदू तुरक दुहूं महि एकै कहै कबीर पुकारी ॥३॥७॥२९॥
Hinḏū ṯurak duhū▫aʼn mėh ekai kahai Kabīr pukārī. ||3||7||29||
The One Lord is within both Hindu and Muslim; Kabeer proclaims this out loud. ||3||7||29||
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਕਹਤੇ ਹੈਂ ਮੈਂ ਪੁਕਾਰ ਕਰ ਕਹਤਾ ਹੂੰ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਔਰ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੋਨੋ ਮੇਂ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਅਲਾਹ ਹੈ॥੩॥੭॥੨੯॥

page 483

 

[Randip Singh]

Gyani ji,
That shabad is not directed at Mullah rather it is addressed to a Pandit. Read the verses before that one. But the principle it is asking one to contemplate applies to everyone.
Kabir ji says:
If using force and killing dharmic, then what is adharmic? (Rhetorical for Killing is not dharma at all). If a you call yourself a sage (for killing animals for your fire rituals) then who would you call a butcher? (Rhetorical for you are not a sage, you are a butcher. You are following adharam.)

Now this isn't talking about eating meat, it's talking about killing animals as an adharmic action.

No he doesn't!!

The shabads are about tyranny and false religious people.

Randip Ji,

Are you reading the teekas? The English translation does appear to look like a misquotation. Read the teekas instead, they are in fact taking the entire bani into account. The Freed Kote wala teeka does this really well, but it's also more difficult to understand of the two teekas.

Either you don't understand what I am saying or you are dodging it. I repeat again. As soon as you pull out a one liner you distort the shabad. This appears to be what you are doing.

Now you are jumping ahead of the discussion. You still don't agree with what I presented so how can you go ahead and start comparing this bani with the Gurus, etc? You cannot do that. The better way would be to look at each thing carefully with sehaj before moving to the next.

I'm not jumping ahead of the discssion but pointing out that you cannot isolate one line from a shabad because you distort it. Post the entire shabad and discuss it.

The shabad is addressed to a Mullah, talking about halal and killing animals for meat and yet you cannot see what it has to do with meat?
You are reading the English translation, which can potentially change the meaning if the gurmukhi and teekas are not taken into account.

I'm not at all. I'm using English side by side translitration. Translitration = Gurmukhi writtem in English, not a translation. This is for the benefit of those people who come on this forum and don't read Gurmukhi.

Both,

I repeat the shabads I have presented are talking about killing animals as an unrighteous action. We are not discussing eating meat, rather killing animals for their meat, and killing animals for religious rituals.
This is what he is saying on page 332 as well (killing of any living being).

Do we agree that killing animals is not right action, per Kabir ji's bani?

No I don't agree.

Kabir may have been a vegetarian just like Sheikh Farid a meat eater, but both are irrelevant to this discussion.

All that matters is what teh shabads meean and what the 6 Nanaks thought when they included them in Bani. By pulling out one liners you're distorting their meanings.

If you won't discuss the entire shabad there is no point to this discussion to be honest (something you appear to be reluctant to do so).:whatzpointsing:

 

[Randip Singh]

Gyani ji,
Dharam is always placed above one's own interests in Sikhism. Dharam means righteousness. Kabir ji has said killing a lifeform for meat is tyranny (the very first shabad we looked at). He says it's not dharam at all, eat kichree instead of cutting throats to have meat with your bread.


If killing something for food makes it dharmic then the mullah has got it right. His halal is going to be food. But Kabir ji says "NO, you are a fool for calling it halal, it is tyranny."

The tyranny is not because it is offered to God. Offering things to God is a good thing. The tyranny is that you used force and killed the animal. How can it ever be tyrannical to offer something to God?

No! Your interpretation is incredibly narrow. You really must read some history books.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/bhagats/26791-bhagat-kabir.html

It reads like that if you read one line yes but if you read the entire shabad it does not mean that at all. He mentions tyranny in this. How the Islamic invaders under Timur justified massacres in the name of Islam.

oraa gar paanee bha-i-aa jaa-ay mili-o dhal kool.
kabeeraa Dhoor sakayl kai puree-aa baaNDhee dayh.
divas chaar ko paykhnaa ant khayh kee khayh.
kabeer sooraj chaaNd kai udai bha-ee sabh dayh.
gur gobind kay bin milay palat bha-ee sabh khayh.
jah anbha-o tah bhai nahee jah bha-o tah har naahi.
kahi-o kabeer bichaar kai sant sunhu man maahi.
kabeer jinahu kichhoo jaani-aa nahee tin sukh need bihaa-ay.
hamhu jo boojhaa boojhnaa pooree paree balaa-ay.
laagee chot maramm kee rahi-o kabeeraa tha-ur.
kabeer chot suhaylee sayl kee laagat lay-ay usaas.
chot sahaarai sabad kee taas guroo mai daas.
kabeer mulaaN munaaray ki-aa chadheh saaN-ee na bahraa ho-ay.
jaa kaaran tooN baaNg deh dil hee bheetar jo-ay.
saykh sabooree baahraa ki-aa haj kaabay jaa-ay.
kabeer jaa kee dil saabat nahee taa ka-o kahaaN khudaa-ay.
kabeer alah kee kar bandagee jih simrat dukh jaa-ay.
dil meh saaN-ee pargatai bujhai balantee naaN-ay.
kabeer joree kee-ay julam hai kahtaa naa-o halaal.
daftar laykhaa maaNgee-ai tab ho-igo ka-un havaal.
kabeer khoob khaanaa kheechree jaa meh amrit lon.
hayraa rotee kaarnay galaa kataavai ka-un.
kabeer gur laagaa tab jaanee-ai mitai moh tan taap.
harakh sog daajhai nahee tab har aapeh aap.
kabeer raam kahan meh bhayd hai taa meh ayk bichaar.
so-ee raam sabhai kaheh so-ee ka-utakhaar.
kabeer raamai raam kaho kahibay maahi bibayk.
ayk anaykeh mil ga-i-aa ayk samaanaa ayk.
kabeer jaa ghar saaDh na sayvee-ah har kee sayvaa naahi.
tay ghar marhat saarkhay bhoot baseh tin maahi.
kabeer goongaa hoo-aa baavraa bahraa hoo-aa kaan.
paavhu tay pingul bha-i-aa maari-aa satgur baan.
kabeer satgur soormay baahi-aa baan jo ayk.
laagat hee bhu-ay gir pari-aa paraa karayjay chhayk.
kabeer nirmal boond akaas kee par ga-ee bhoom bikaar.

The hail-stone has melted into water, and flowed into the ocean.
Kabeer, the body is a pile of dust, collected and packed together.
It is a show which lasts for only a few days, and then dust returns to dust.
Kabeer, bodies are like the rising and setting of the sun and the moon.
Without meeting the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, they are all reduced to dust again.
Where the Fearless Lord is, there is no fear; where there is fear, the Lord is not there.
Kabeer speaks after careful consideration; hear this, O Saints, in your minds.
Kabeer, those who do not know anything, pass their lives in peaceful sleep.
But I have understood the riddle; I am faced with all sorts of troubles.
Struck by the Mystery of God, Kabeer remains silent.
Kabeer, the stroke of a lance is easy to bear; it takes away the breath.
But one who endures the stroke of the Word of the Shabad is the Guru, and I am his slave.
Kabeer: O Mullah, why do you climb to the top of the minaret? The Lord is not hard of hearing.
Look within your own heart for the One, for whose sake you shout your prayers.
Why does the Shaykh bother to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, if he is not content with himself?
Kabeer, one whose heart is not healthy and whole - how can he attain his Lord?
Kabeer, worship the Lord Allah; meditating in remembrance on Him, troubles and pains depart.
The Lord shall be revealed within your own heart, and the burning fire within shall be extinguished by His Name.
Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.
When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then?
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt.
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread?
Kabeer, one is known to have been touched by the Guru, only when his emotional attachment and physical illnesses are eradicated.
He is not burned by pleasure or pain, and so he becomes the Lord Himself.
Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider.
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord.
Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction.
One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself.
Kabeer, those houses in which neither the Holy nor the Lord are served â€"
those houses are like cremation grounds; demons dwell within them.
Kabeer, I have become mute, insane and deaf.
I am crippled - the True Guru has pierced me with His Arrow.
Kabeer, the True Guru, the Spiritual Warrior, has shot me with His Arrow.
As soon as it struck me, I fell to the ground, with a hole in my heart.
Kabeer, the pure drop of water falls from the sky, onto the dirty ground.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

Don't fall into the one liner trap!!! Read shabads in context.

 

[BhagatSingh]

You gotta read the teekas Randip ji. Tell me where you think the teekas get it wrong. Like I have already said, they are accurate. When I read the gurmukhi and dissect the Gurmukhi words and when I read the entire shabads, I find my self agreeing completely with the teekas. Read the teekas and tell me what you think. If you need any help let me know.

 

[mandemeet]

Quote Randip Singh
Nanak only icluded Bani's of Bhaghats that were compatible with the Sikh view, or we may as well call our selves Kabir Panthi's. Infact why don't we call ourselves Kabir Panthis



Randip Singh ji
I went through these ebooks, I haven’t found a page of Sri Guru Granth Sahib where Kabir ji calls the woman a cobra; woman in Gurbani is referred as Nari, Kaman not Maya. Maya is deemed as everything that distracts us from Naam. On 480 and 329 pages, it is obviously clear that Maya is not referred to woman.
480
ਸਰਪਨੀ ਤੇ ਊਪਰਿ ਨਹੀ ਬਲੀਆ ॥
Sarpanī ṯe ūpar nahī balī▫ā.
None is more powerful then mammon, the she-serpent,
ਸਰਪਨੀ = ਸੱਪਣੀ, ਮੋਹ ਦਾ ਡੰਗ ਮਾਰਨ ਵਾਲੀ ਮਾਇਆ। ਤੇ ਉਪਰਿ = ਤੋਂ ਵਧੀਕ। ਉਸ (ਮਾਇਆ) ਤੋਂ ਵਧੀਕ ਬਲ ਵਾਲਾ (ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਰ ਕੋਈ) ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ,

ਜਿਨਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਛਲੀਆ ॥੧॥
Jin barahmā bisan mahāḏe▫o cẖẖalī▫ā. ||1||
which deceived even the Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
ਜਿਨਿ = ਜਿਸ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਨੇ। ਮਹਾਦੇਉ = ਸ਼ਿਵ ॥੧॥ ਜਿਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ, ਵਿਸ਼ਨੂੰ ਤੇ ਸ਼ਿਵ (ਵਰਗੇ ਵੱਡੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ) ਛਲ ਲਏ ਹਨ ॥੧॥

ਮਾਰੁ ਮਾਰੁ ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਜਲਿ ਪੈਠੀ ॥
Mār mār sarpanī nirmal jal paiṯẖī.
Beating and smiting all round the she-snake is now seated in the pure water.
ਮਾਰੁ ਮਾਰੁ = ਮਾਰੋ-ਮਾਰ ਕਰਦੀ, ਬੜੇ ਜ਼ੋਰਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਆਈ ਹੋਈ। ਜਲਿ = ਜਲ ਵਿਚ। ਨਿਰਮਲ ਜਲਿ = ਪਵਿੱਤਰ ਜਲ ਵਿਚ, ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਸਰ ਵਿਚ, ਸਤ-ਸੰਗ ਵਿਚ। ਪੈਠੀ = ਆ ਟਿਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਪਰ ਇਹ ਬੜੇ ਜ਼ੋਰਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਆਈ ਮਾਇਆ ਸਤਸੰਗ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਂਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, (ਭਾਵ, ਇਸ ਮਾਰੋ-ਮਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਸਤਸੰਗ ਵਿਚ ਅੱਪੜਿਆਂ ਠੰਡਾ ਪੈ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ),

ਜਿਨਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਡਸੀਅਲੇ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਡੀਠੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Jin ṯaribẖavaṇ dasī▫ale gur parsāḏ dīṯẖī. ||1|| rahā▫o.
By Guru's grace, I have seen her who has bitten the three worlds. Pause.
ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ = ਸਾਰਾ ਸੰਸਾਰ। ਡੀਠੀ = ਦਿੱਸ ਪਈ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਜਿਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਜਗਤ ਨੂੰ (ਮੋਹ ਦਾ) ਡੰਗ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਹੈ (ਸੰਗਤ ਵਿਚ) ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ (ਉਸ ਦੀ ਅਸਲੀਅਤ) ਦਿੱਸ ਪੈਂਦੀ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ॥

ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਕਿਆ ਕਹਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥
Sarpanī sarpanī ki▫ā kahhu bẖā▫ī.
O brother, why callest thou mammon, a she snake?
ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ...ਭਾਈ = ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਸੱਪਣੀ ਤੋਂ ਇਤਨਾ ਕਿਉਂ ਡਰਦੇ ਹੋ? ਸੋ, ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਤੋਂ ਇਤਨਾ ਡਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਨਹੀਂ।

ਜਿਨਿ ਸਾਚੁ ਪਛਾਨਿਆ ਤਿਨਿ ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਖਾਈ ॥੨॥
Jin sācẖ pacẖẖāni▫ā ṯin sarpanī kẖā▫ī. ||2||
He who realises the True Lord, devours a she-snake?
ਤਿਨਿ = ਉਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨੇ। ਖਾਈ = ਖਾ ਲਈ, ਵੱਸ ਵਿਚ ਕਰ ਲਈ ॥੨॥ ਜਿਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨੇ ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਣ-ਪਛਾਣ ਪਾ ਲਈ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਵੱਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਰ ਲਿਆ ॥੨॥

ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਤੇ ਆਨ ਛੂਛ ਨਹੀ ਅਵਰਾ ॥
Sarpanī ṯe ān cẖẖūcẖẖ nahī avrā.
No one else is more trifling than mammon.
ਆਨ ਅਵਰਾ = ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ, ਸੱਚ ਪਛਾਨਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ। ਛੂਛ = ਖ਼ਾਲੀ, ਸੱਖਣਾ, ਬਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ। ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਤੇ ਛੂਛ = ਸੱਪਣੀ ਦੇ ਅਸਰ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ। (ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਣ-ਪਛਾਣ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ) ਹੋਰ ਕੋਈ ਜੀਵ ਇਸ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਦੇ ਅਸਰ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

ਸ੍ਰਪਨੀ ਜੀਤੀ ਕਹਾ ਕਰੈ ਜਮਰਾ ॥੩॥
Sarpanī jīṯī kahā karai jamrā. ||3||
When the she serpent if subdued what can the king of Death's couriers do?
ਜਮਰਾ = ਵਿਚਾਰਾ ਜਮ। ਕਹਾ ਕਰੈ = ਕੁਝ ਵਿਗਾੜ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਕਦਾ ॥੩॥ ਜਿਸ ਨੇ (ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ) ਇਸ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਨੂੰ ਜਿੱਤ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ, ਜਮ ਵਿਚਾਰਾ ਭੀ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਕੁਝ ਵਿਗਾੜ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਕਦਾ ॥੩

329 Concept of Simiritis is deemed as Maya /serpent

ਬੇਦ ਕੀ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਭਾਈ ॥
Beḏ kī puṯrī simriṯ bẖā▫ī.
The Simriti is the daughter of the Vedas, O brother.
ਭਾਈ = ਹੇ ਭਾਈ! ਬੇਦ ਕੀ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ = ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਧੀ, ਵੇਦਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਜੰਮੀ ਹੋਈ, ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਬਣੀ ਹੋਈ। ਹੇ ਵੀਰ! ਇਹ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਜੋ ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਬਣੀ ਹੈ,

ਸਾਂਕਲ ਜੇਵਰੀ ਲੈ ਹੈ ਆਈ ॥੧॥
Sāʼnkal jevrī lai hai ā▫ī. ||1||
She has brought a chain and a rope for the men. ਸਾਂਕਲ = (ਵਰਨ ਆਸ਼ਰਮਾਂ ਦੇ) ਸੰਗਲ। ਜੇਵਰੀ = (ਕਰਮ-ਕਾਂਡ ਦੀਆਂ) ਰੱਸੀਆਂ। ਲੈ ਹੈ ਆਈ = ਲੈ ਕੇ ਆਈ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ (ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਵਰਨ ਆਸ਼ਰਮ ਦੇ, ਮਾਨੋ) ਸੰਗਲ ਤੇ (ਕਰਮ-ਕਾਂਡ ਦੀਆਂ) ਰੱਸੀਆਂ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਆਈ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ॥੧॥

ਆਪਨ ਨਗਰੁ ਆਪ ਤੇ ਬਾਧਿਆ ॥
Āpan nagar āp ṯe bāḏẖi▫ā.
Of herself, she has imprisoned them in her own city.
ਆਪਨ ਨਗਰੁ = ਆਪਣਾ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਵਸਤੀ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂ। ਆਪ ਤੇ = ਆਪ ਹੀ। (ਇਸ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਨੇ) ਆਪਣੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਕੜੇ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ,

ਮੋਹ ਕੈ ਫਾਧਿ ਕਾਲ ਸਰੁ ਸਾਂਧਿਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Moh kai fāḏẖ kāl sar sāʼnḏẖi▫ā. ||1|| rahā▫o.
She has spread the noose of worldly love and discarded the arrow of death. Pause.
ਮੋਹ ਕੈ = ਮੋਹ (ਦੀ ਫਾਹੀ) ਵਿਚ। ਫਾਧਿ = ਫਸਾ ਕੇ। ਕਾਲ ਸਰੁ = ਮੌਤ ਦਾ ਤੀਰ, ਜਨਮ ਮਰਨ ਦਾ ਤੀਰ। ਸਾਂਧਿਆ = ਖਿੱਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ (ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰਗ ਆਦਿਕ ਦੇ) ਮੋਹ ਦੀ ਫਾਹੀ ਵਿਚ ਫਸਾ ਕੇ (ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਤੇ) ਮੌਤ (ਦੇ ਸਹਿਮ) ਦਾ ਤੀਰ (ਇਸ ਨੇ) ਖਿੱਚਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਕਟੀ ਨ ਕਟੈ ਤੂਟਿ ਨਹ ਜਾਈ ॥
Katī na katai ṯūt nah jā▫ī.
By cutting she cannot be cut and is not broken, either. xxx
(ਇਹ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ-ਰੂਪ ਫਾਹੀ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਪਾਸੋਂ) ਵੱਢਿਆਂ ਵੱਢੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਹ ਹੀ (ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ) ਇਹ ਟੁੱਟਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਸਾ ਸਾਪਨਿ ਹੋਇ ਜਗ ਕਉ ਖਾਈ ॥੨॥
Sā sāpan ho▫e jag ka▫o kẖā▫ī. ||2||
Becoming a serpent, she is eating the world.
ਸਾਪਨਿ = ਸੱਪਣੀ। ਜਗ = ਸੰਸਾਰ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਨੂੰ ॥੨॥ (ਹੁਣ ਤਾਂ) ਇਹ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਬਣ ਕੇ ਜਗਤ ਨੂੰ ਖਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ (ਭਾਵ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੀ ਬੱਚਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਖਾ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਤਿਵੇਂ ਇਹ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੀ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਦਾ ਨਾਸ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ) ॥੨॥

ਹਮ ਦੇਖਤ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ ਲੂਟਿਆ ॥
Ham ḏekẖaṯ jin sabẖ jag lūti▫ā.
Who before my very eyes has plundered the whole world,
ਹਮ ਦੇਖਤ = ਅਸਾਡੇ ਵੇਖਦਿਆਂ। ਜਿਨਿ = ਜਿਸ (ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ) ਨੇ। ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ = ਸਾਰੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਨੂੰ। ਅਸਾਡੇ ਵੇਖਦਿਆਂ ਵੇਖਦਿਆਂ ਜਿਸ (ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੀ) ਨੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਠੱਗ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ।

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਿ ਛੂਟਿਆ ॥੩॥੩੦॥
Kaho Kabīr mai rām kahi cẖẖūti▫ā. ||3||30||
I have escaped from her by uttering the Lord's Name, Says Kabir.
ਰਾਮ ਕਹਿ = ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਆਖ ਕੇ, ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰ ਕੇ। ਛੂਟਿਆ = ਬਚ ਗਿਆ ਹਾਂ ॥੩॥੩੦॥ ਹੇ ਕਬੀਰ! ਆਖ- ਮੈਂ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਉਸ ਤੋਂ ਬਚ ਗਿਆ ਹਾਂ ॥੩॥੩੦

Similar views are expressed by our Guru as well 510 ਮਃ ੩ ॥

Mėhlā 3. 3rd Guru. xxx xxx
ਮਾਇਆ ਹੋਈ ਨਾਗਨੀ ਜਗਤਿ ਰਹੀ ਲਪਟਾਇ ॥
Mā▫i▫ā ho▫ī nāgnī jagaṯ rahī laptā▫e.
Mammon is a she-serpent, which is clinging to the world.
ਨਾਗਨੀ = ਸੱਪਣੀ। ਰਹੀ ਲਪਟਾਇ = ਚੰਬੜ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। ਮਾਇਆ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਬਣੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ (ਹਰੇਕ ਜੀਵ ਨੂੰ) ਚੰਬੜੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ,

ਇਸ ਕੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਜੋ ਕਰੇ ਤਿਸ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਫਿਰਿ ਖਾਇ ॥
Is kī sevā jo kare ṯis hī ka▫o fir kẖā▫e.
He, who performs her service him she ultimately devours. xxx
ਜੋ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਗ਼ੁਲਾਮ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ ਉਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਮਾਰ ਮੁਕਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਕੋਈ ਗਾਰੜੂ ਤਿਨਿ ਮਲਿ ਦਲਿ ਲਾਈ ਪਾਇ ॥
Gurmukẖ ko▫ī gārṛū ṯin mal ḏal lā▫ī pā▫e.
Some rare Guru-ward is a snake-charmer and he has trampled and crushed her and thrown her under his feet.
ਗਾਰੜੂ = ਗਾਰੁੜ-ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਾਣਨ ਵਾਲਾ; ਸੱਪ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਹਰ ਹਟਾਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਮੰਤਰ ਜਾਣਨ ਵਾਲਾ। ਮਲਿ = ਮਲ ਕੇ। ਦਲਿ = ਦਲ ਕੇ। ਮਲਿ ਦਲਿ = ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਮਲ ਕੇ। ਤਿਨਿ = ਤਿਸ ਨੇ, ਉਸ ਨੇ। ਕੋਈ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਗੁਰਮੁਖ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ-ਸੱਪਣੀ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਹਿਰ ਦਾ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਮਲ ਕੇ ਪੈਰਾਂ ਹੇਠ ਸੁੱਟ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ।

ਨਾਨਕ ਸੇਈ ਉਬਰੇ ਜਿ ਸਚਿ ਰਹੇ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥੨॥
Nānak se▫ī ubre jė sacẖ rahe liv lā▫e. ||2||
Nanak, they alone are saved who remain absorbed in the True Lord's love. xxx ॥੨॥
ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਇਸ ਮਾਇਆ ਸੱਪਣੀ ਤੋਂ ਉਹੀ ਬਚੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਸੱਚੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਵਿਚ ਸੁਰਤ ਜੋੜਦੇ ਹਨ ॥੨॥

I couldn’t find any quote by Bhagat Kabir in Sri Guru Granth Sahib that supports views of that intellectual you are referring to.

That intellectual refers Maya as woman and misleads Sikhs. I may be inept in finding quotes on those ebooks; if you could please clearly give me page of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we can see if that intellectual is taking Gurbani as you advocate on this thread (I mean in entirety). If we don’t find it, it is a disservice done to Sri Guru Granth Sahib by referring such idiotic views. Big names and holding phds did wrong justification to Bhagatas; Dr Sahib Singh proves them wrong in Guru Granth Darpan. I suggest you to check it yourself instead of depending on anyone; see the real quotes and read them in their entirety at your own.

Following Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we remain Sikhs, it doesn’t matter if bani is written by any author; you cannot say following Kabir bani, we become Kabir Panthi, following Namdev's bani, we become Namdev panthi, because we are following Sri Guru Granth Sahib not any individual and all authors are well aligned with Guru Nanak’s views; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be there in Sri Guru Granth Sahib . Comparing Guru Nanak with Kabir and finding different approach in them is a fallacy. You can simply see his bani in entirety and feel this .

If you are bent upon depending on those articles instead of analyzing at your own discretion, I have nothing to say you further; No author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib goes against Guru Nanak and it is well proved by Dr Sahib Singh ji in detail.

With regards
mandemeet

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

No author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib goes against Guru Nanak and it is well proved by Dr Sahib Singh ji in detail...

Guru Nanak ji Sahib chose ALL the Banis on His Travels called Udasis. Guru Arjun ji Sahib CONFIRMED the choice when He compiled the AAD Granth in Bir Form. Gurus follwoing had copies made of the AAD Granth and Guru Teg bahadur ji added his banis to many copies, and finally GURU GOBIND SINGH JI once more finally confirmed the entirety of AAD Granth and sealed it, before passing on The Gurgadee of The House of Nanak to SGGS in its PRESENT FORM.

It will indeed be a great dis-service and even grossly insulting to raise doubts on the authenticity of the Banis present in the SGGS. There is no doubt NONE of the authors, ,,nay NOT even a Single TUK goes against GURU NANAK Jis Gurbani/Teachings/Gurmatt. If we "see" any discrepancy..its OUR FAILING..because there is NONE..not even by a NANO-mm or hair breadth !! The Entire 1429 Pages run all as ONE PIECE.

 

[Randip Singh]

You gotta read the teekas Randip ji. Tell me where you think the teekas get it wrong. Like I have already said, they are accurate. When I read the gurmukhi and dissect the Gurmukhi words and when I read the entire shabads, I find my self agreeing completely with the teekas. Read the teekas and tell me what you think. If you need any help let me know.

I've read them, and if you add them back into the shabad they mean something completly different from what you are implying.

No point dissecting a word here are there unless you can see it in the context of the shabad.

 

[Randip Singh]

Nanak only icluded Bani's of Bhaghats that were compatible with the Sikh view, or we may as well call our selves Kabir Panthi's. Infact why don't we call ourselves Kabir Panthis Doha’s of Kabir. The verses I am referring to are NOT in Bani. Let me repeat Not in Bani. NOT in Bani. Let me repeat again NOT in Bani. J

Point 2 – There is nothing wrong with the articles I have posted. They are from intellectuals who have studied Kabir Bhaghats Doha’s, and when I have time I will find the exact link to that Doha where Kabir refers to Woman as Snake. They are not idiotic views, as you claim.

Point 3 – Why cannot the Snake be a male? Why does it have to be a Nagini? When Nanak says from Woman Kings are born so why call her evil, how does that fir in with Kabir Panthi doctrine? I think Nanak allowed this because it is a metaphor, rather than a direct reference by Bhaghat Kabir.

Point 4 – The Nanaks only included that of the Bhaghats that fitted in with Sikh philosophy. Not ALL Kabir’s Donha’s are included in Bani. I repeat again, NOT in Bani, Not in Bani. J

What is being advocated by the above discussion is that we follow the teachings of one Bhaghat. If we do that then we must follow all the writings of that Bhaghat. Many of the writings of Bhaghats not included in Bani do not fit in with Sikh doctrine. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[BaljinderS]

Just look at the historical facts about Sikhs eating meat. European travellers have noted down that Sikhs ate meat. Akali Phuala Singh ate meat (was he not a Sikh?). Read the Rehat Marayda.. it does not say you cannot eat meat. The Nihangs eat meat and always have (Sarbans Dhani Guru Gobind Singh Ji's ladlee fauj).

The fact of the matter, this idea of rejecting meat to become pure etc etc blah blah... has been propagated by various baba's and jatha's who want get more followers and control people with fear... Take out the last 30 odd years from history when the Baba philosophy was not around, nobody said anything about eating or not eating meat... Even now in India, people do not talk about it like we do in the West.. Go and read the facts..

 

[BhagatSingh]

Randip ji,

Almost everywhere he links maya to a woman who is out to entice and entrap man, and destroy his spiritual life.

I don't think the author has read Guru Arjan Dev ji's writings. He employs the same imagery as Bhagat Kabir ji on pg 847, 394.

Maya is feminine according to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Guru Nanak Dev ji has also criticized women saying they only love a man for his wealth (951) and again on 1187, 1243. Guru Arjan Dev ji on 374.

She is considered to be a hurdle in the path of the spiritual progress of man. He spoke, "woman ruins everything when she comes near a man; devotion, salvation and divine knowledge no longer enter his soul."

The Gurus have also said such things.

Everyone who is not doing things right gets it from the the Gurus, no one is spared.


BaljinderS ji,
You are not listening to Randip ji. He says just because some figures in our history ate meat or were vegetarian does not mean we should follow them.

 

[Randip Singh]

Just look at the historical facts about Sikhs eating meat. European travellers have noted down that Sikhs ate meat. Akali Phuala Singh ate meat (was he not a Sikh?). Read the Rehat Marayda.. it does not say you cannot eat meat. The Nihangs eat meat and always have (Sarbans Dhani Guru Gobind Singh Ji's ladlee fauj).

The fact of the matter, this idea of rejecting meat to become pure etc etc blah blah... has been propagated by various baba's and jatha's who want get more followers and control people with fear... Take out the last 30 odd years from history when the Baba philosophy was not around, nobody said anything about eating or not eating meat... Even now in India, people do not talk about it like we do in the West.. Go and read the facts..

Indeed, vegetarianism in India has been used as a Brahmanical means of control. The Baba's use it. Various groups like AKJ, DDT, GNSSJ all advocate it. These groups also don't believe in the Rehat Maryada also and try and change the meaning of words in it.

Some of our Guru's ate meat some didn't. Their position was ambivalent and left it to the individual to choose.

 

[mandemeet]

Point 1 - You are misreading what I am saying or have not understood. The Nanaks did not include all the Doha’s of Kabir. The verses I am referring to are NOT in Bani. Let me repeat Not in Bani. NOT in Bani. Let me repeat again NOT in Bani.

I am happy that you have made it clear, Bhagat Kabir’s Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t call woman cobra. You never mentioned it before, thanks though.

Point 2 – There is nothing wrong with the articles I have posted. They are from intellectuals who have studied Kabir Bhaghats Doha’s, and when I have time I will find the exact link to that Doha where Kabir refers to Woman as Snake. They are not idiotic views, as you claim.

The article is based on Kabir’s Dohas someone found it, but how sure we can be if it was actually written by Bhagat Kabir? If you search, many people wrote in the name of Nanak, but we accept what we find in Sri Guru Granth Sahib; whatever is there in those writings in the name of Nanak, we don’t care and believe in. Why we should believe Bhagat Kabir’s Dohas, which is not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib? In the same manner, we don’t care what Kabir panthis believe or say. Look how respectfully Bhagat Kabir’s bani is introduced in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

ਸਿਰੀ ਰਾਗੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ ਕਾ / ਆਸਾ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ॥ and so on

Do you notice the respect the Guru gives to Bhagat Kabir? Kindly compare it with that intellectual who judges him and accusing him as anti woman just based on the floating around dohas? My all effort was to tell you not to look at Bhagat Kabir from outside Sri Guru Granth Sahib. If that is what you believe in, who I am to say anything to you? I am saying this all believing you to be an open minded and to rethink what others say about Bhagat Kabir based on “so called Dohas.

Point 3 – Why cannot the Snake be a male? Why does it have to be a Nagini? When Nanak says from Woman Kings are born so why call her evil, how does that fir in with Kabir Panthi doctrine? I think Nanak allowed this because it is a metaphor, rather than a direct reference by Bhaghat Kabir.

Good question. The word “Maya” is feminine gender, Bhagat Kabir including the Gurus use it as feminine gender and that is why she snake (Nagni or Sarpani) words are used. No Bhagatas or author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib says anything against woman. No intellectual on this earth can prove it on the basis of Sri Guru Granth sahib.

Point 4 – The Nanaks only included that of the Bhaghats that fitted in with Sikh philosophy. Not ALL Kabir’s Donha’s are included in Bani. I repeat again, NOT in Bani, Not in Bani.

“not in bani”, thanks again as you have made it clear “now”. We, as Sikhs, look at what is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and what is floating out there is nothing for us.

What is being advocated by the above discussion is that we follow the teachings of one Bhaghat. If we do that then we must follow all the writings of that Bhaghat. Many of the writings of Bhaghats not included in Bani do not fit in with Sikh doctrine. Do you understand what I am saying?

I do without a doubt. For us, our world is Bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; what is in there, as Sikhs, we should follow that and what is not there, we shouldn’t. A Bhagat, whose bani is not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we have nothing to do with him. We look at bani in its entirety, the context in which it says something; there is nothing wrong following the bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib regardless of the author. We cannot say that this author was said to be so (by someone); therefore, we are not following him.


Personally, as I wrote earlier, eating meat is one’s own choice. I have no problem with your stand, or with those who don’t agree with you. I understand both parties from where they come from and I respect their views from my heart. My only concern is not to judge Bhagat Kabir on the basis of Dohras, which are not available in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. We reject many corrupt Punjabi Sikh sources or something written in the name of “Nanak” not aligned with Sri Guru Granth Sahib. I think you are very well aware how through a campaign, some people have turned a simple book “bachittar natak” into a big “Sri Guru Dasam Granth Sahib ji” and they befooled many and still are doing it. Keeping such prevailing tendencies in mind, we should also reject that too, which could be written by someone in the name of Bhagatas (who knows?), because what is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, only that is what we believe in.


With regards
mandemeet

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

There has always been attempt for intrusion of others Banee even in SGGS but timely and intelligent action taken by our 5th Nanak GuRu Arjan Dev ji elliminated every chance of intrusion for ever.So we are greatly indebted to 5th Nanak for this but surprisinly we still fail to know How to understand What our GuRu wants us to.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[BaljinderS]

Randip ji,

BaljinderS ji,

You are not listening to Randip ji. He says just because some figures in our history ate meat or were vegetarian does not mean we should follow them.

Bhagat Singh veer ji,

**PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY AROUND, I AM TRYING TO ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE**

Who should we follow? I am talking about historical figures (take out the last 50 years or so before history started to be tempered with). Far as I know there was no discussion on whether to eat or not eat meat. Listen to Giani Maskeen Singh Ji's katha on this topic.

Gurbani has very clearly stated that plants have life same as animals do. Who knows where the sin lies?

These various groups/babas advocating this... I would like to question them on their knowledge of Gurbani, Sikhi, history... 100% guarantee they will not have much to say.. as they have never really been interested in Sikhi (they know a few things to gather followers). Where did they get their education from? How many years have they spent studying?? Its funny really... the tabla, dolkee, shoes, are all made out of animal skin... along with many other products people use. Farming practices are killing and eradicating wild life. If they really care about animals, then why are they not asking their followers to plant trees, developing natures reserves etc etc..

We are all now educated and have allot of resources available to cross reference so we all should be well aware of the facts.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

a side note to the kabir Bani facts...as we all know recently the Begampura sheher vassauunna hai..NAVAN PANTH Chalaunna Hai lobby led by Miss Pooja as lead singer...went ahead to create tensions among the Ravidassiah Community as Vested Interests namely Dera Ballan chiefs and mahants wanted a SEPARATED RAVISASSIAH COMMUNITY to lord over..so these people wnet ahead and REMOVED the ONLY AUTHENTICATED Gurbani of Bahgat ravidass Ji from SGGS and priinted a separate Granth for themsleves...and Installed THAT in their Temples...and they PADDED up this ratehr SMALL Granth with banis they claim are written by Bhagat ravidass ji...and Latets news..is having discovered thta their Granth LACKS the "LAVAN"..( How to get married without Lavan ?? ha ha )...so they composed a set of Lavan and claim these are Lavan of Bhagat Ravidass Ji...Pehlerri Laav..Doosree Laav, Teesri laav and Chauthhrre Laav... and so on on the same tarz as the Authentic Lavan written by GURU RAMDASS JI sahib...The Ravidassisahs NEVER used to read these Lavan before as they never existed..this is how adulterated banis come into granths...Soon they may "discover" that Bhagat Ravidass ji also wrote Kirtan Sohila..Rehrass..Japji Sahib..Anand sahib..Ramkali sadd etc etc..when the "vested interests" see ravidassihs demanding these Banis..

 

[Randip Singh]

I am happy that you have made it clear, Bhagat Kabir’s Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t call woman cobra. You never mentioned it before, thanks though.



The article is based on Kabir’s Dohas someone found it, but how sure we can be if it was actually written by Bhagat Kabir? If you search, many people wrote in the name of Nanak, but we accept what we find in Sri Guru Granth Sahib; whatever is there in those writings in the name of Nanak, we don’t care and believe in. Why we should believe Bhagat Kabir’s Dohas, which is not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib? In the same manner, we don’t care what Kabir panthis believe or say. Look how respectfully Bhagat Kabir’s bani is introduced in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

ਸਿਰੀ ਰਾਗੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ ਕਾ / ਆਸਾ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ॥ and so on

Do you notice the respect the Guru gives to Bhagat Kabir? Kindly compare it with that intellectual who judges him and accusing him as anti woman just based on the floating around dohas? My all effort was to tell you not to look at Bhagat Kabir from outside Sri Guru Granth Sahib. If that is what you believe in, who I am to say anything to you? I am saying this all believing you to be an open minded and to rethink what others say about Bhagat Kabir based on “so called Dohas.



Good question. The word “Maya” is feminine gender, Bhagat Kabir including the Gurus use it as feminine gender and that is why she snake (Nagni or Sarpani) words are used. No Bhagatas or author of Sri Guru Granth Sahib says anything against woman. No intellectual on this earth can prove it on the basis of Sri Guru Granth sahib.



“not in bani”, thanks again as you have made it clear “now”. We, as Sikhs, look at what is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and what is floating out there is nothing for us.



I do without a doubt. For us, our world is Bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; what is in there, as Sikhs, we should follow that and what is not there, we shouldn’t. A Bhagat, whose bani is not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we have nothing to do with him. We look at bani in its entirety, the context in which it says something; there is nothing wrong following the bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib regardless of the author. We cannot say that this author was said to be so (by someone); therefore, we are not following him.


Personally, as I wrote earlier, eating meat is one’s own choice. I have no problem with your stand, or with those who don’t agree with you. I understand both parties from where they come from and I respect their views from my heart. My only concern is not to judge Bhagat Kabir on the basis of Dohras, which are not available in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. We reject many corrupt Punjabi Sikh sources or something written in the name of “Nanak” not aligned with Sri Guru Granth Sahib. I think you are very well aware how through a campaign, some people have turned a simple book “bachittar natak” into a big “Sri Guru Dasam Granth Sahib ji” and they befooled many and still are doing it. Keeping such prevailing tendencies in mind, we should also reject that too, which could be written by someone in the name of Bhagatas (who knows?), because what is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, only that is what we believe in.


With regards
mandemeet

Whew we have agreement Mandemeet ji

Recently the Ravidasia Community wanted to extract Bhagat Ravidas's sloka's from the Guru Granth Sahib and incorporate his other Sloka's (outside Bani) into another Granth. I think we have to be very careful on focusing on one Bhagat.

The actual Fools Wrangle essay to my mind is not actually about eating meat, but about reading shabads fully and understanding the context.

For example, Kabir (incidently a Muslim weaver) turned his back on Islam. Why? He saw the invasion of Timur. He saw the brutal massacre that took place in Benares of Hindu Priests in the name of Dharam (religion). He asks, tell me ohh Mullah's if this is Dharam, then what is Adharam? If you read the shabad in that context, you see what Bhagat Kabir is about.