- Jun 1, 2004
- 3,007
- 83
- 45
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Well said everybody... my intention was not to offend anybody, regards
Well said everybody... my intention was not to offend anybody, regards
Janam Sakhi Are True Events
etinder
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
i also agree with tuaprasad n singh 99
i also agree with tuaprasad n singh 99
plamba
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Please provide names of books containing the writings of "Muslim historians" supporting the myth that Deep Singh participated in battle while in a headless state.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
Mr §ingh said:
Please provide names of books containing the writings of "Muslim historians" supporting the myth that Deep Singh participated in battle while in a headless state.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
plamba
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
These stories aren't meant to be taken literally because they're not true, correct?
My view is that these exaggerated stories fail to make the intended impact precisely because they use a "hammer" to drive their point home.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
Neutral Singh said:
These stories aren't meant to be taken literally because they're not true, correct?
My view is that these exaggerated stories fail to make the intended impact precisely because they use a "hammer" to drive their point home.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
tuaprasaad
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
plamba bro,
What makes you think that these stories are exaggerated?
Why would we need to tell exaggerated stories to make points? Don't you think our ancestors had enough in them to be able to go through whatever is mentioned in these sakhi's?
Are we not belittling our own ancestors and our own history by making such comments?
plamba bro,
What makes you think that these stories are exaggerated?
Why would we need to tell exaggerated stories to make points? Don't you think our ancestors had enough in them to be able to go through whatever is mentioned in these sakhi's?
Are we not belittling our own ancestors and our own history by making such comments?
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
The question is not whether the Sakhis are true or not but do they pass the GURMAT BENCHMARK??
Sakhis that compliment GURMAT can be accepted as true but those that contradict GURMAT should be looked at with jaundiced eyes.
Lets not forget that SGGS is our only measuring stick.
Tejwant
The question is not whether the Sakhis are true or not but do they pass the GURMAT BENCHMARK??
Sakhis that compliment GURMAT can be accepted as true but those that contradict GURMAT should be looked at with jaundiced eyes.
Lets not forget that SGGS is our only measuring stick.
Tejwant
plamba
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Why is the truth not a good enough criteria?
Are you opting to use Gurmat as a yardstick because it is a stricter criteria than the truth or because it is a more lenient criteria than the truth?
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
VaheguruSeekr said:
Why is the truth not a good enough criteria?
Are you opting to use Gurmat as a yardstick because it is a stricter criteria than the truth or because it is a more lenient criteria than the truth?
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
For me GURMAT IS THE TRUTH and TRUTH needs no criteria, it itself is suffice.
We are talking about the events which may or may not have happened during our GURUS' times. In order to check their veracity from the spiritual viewpoint, we only have SGGS as our measuring tool because SGGS explores and explains what SAT - TRUTH- is.
Tejwant
Puneet Ji,
For me GURMAT IS THE TRUTH and TRUTH needs no criteria, it itself is suffice.
We are talking about the events which may or may not have happened during our GURUS' times. In order to check their veracity from the spiritual viewpoint, we only have SGGS as our measuring tool because SGGS explores and explains what SAT - TRUTH- is.
Tejwant
plamba
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
No, but mythical sakhis do belittle the intelligence and spirituality of every Sikh who reads them.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
tuaprasaad said:
No, but mythical sakhis do belittle the intelligence and spirituality of every Sikh who reads them.
Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com
S|kH
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
In the first paragraph, you say the Gurus were enlightened beings, and they could perform such acts our human brain can not. Are they so enlightened that they can defy the laws of various sciences?
And if they are so enlightened, wouldn't some members of the Khalsa, be just as or more enlightened? Besides, Guru Gobind did regard some members of the Khalsa as his Gurus and his teachers now, and took amrit from them. So, can not these acts from such "enlightened people" also be prevalent today?
What about stories from other religions, do you believe those also? I'm sure you consider Prophet Mohammand, Moses, and Jesus intelligent right?
Do you think Moses could separate the sea, or Jesus could walk on water?
Or do you not believe them because they are not "Sikhs".
And now for the Baba Deep Singh...you say he could fight without his head, because the sancticity of the Golden Temple was being broken. What happened when Bhindranwale tried to defend it? Like, I have stated before, the story is true, that Baba Deep Singh was a great fighter who defended the Golden Temple. But, the part of him fighting with his head is simply false. There are multiple other ways to highlight his signficance during the battle than straight out lie.
Also, if you believe Baba Deep Singh, do you also believe the story of Achilles? Or was Achilles 'not one with Waheguru' ?
The incident of Baba Deep Singh is very inspiring...just as the incidents of WWII battles, and so forth.
I agree with plamba on this thread. There are other ways to make stories inspirational and 'hammered'. An inspirational story does not make a story true.
-S|kH
singh99 said:
In the first paragraph, you say the Gurus were enlightened beings, and they could perform such acts our human brain can not. Are they so enlightened that they can defy the laws of various sciences?
And if they are so enlightened, wouldn't some members of the Khalsa, be just as or more enlightened? Besides, Guru Gobind did regard some members of the Khalsa as his Gurus and his teachers now, and took amrit from them. So, can not these acts from such "enlightened people" also be prevalent today?
What about stories from other religions, do you believe those also? I'm sure you consider Prophet Mohammand, Moses, and Jesus intelligent right?
Do you think Moses could separate the sea, or Jesus could walk on water?
Or do you not believe them because they are not "Sikhs".
And now for the Baba Deep Singh...you say he could fight without his head, because the sancticity of the Golden Temple was being broken. What happened when Bhindranwale tried to defend it? Like, I have stated before, the story is true, that Baba Deep Singh was a great fighter who defended the Golden Temple. But, the part of him fighting with his head is simply false. There are multiple other ways to highlight his signficance during the battle than straight out lie.
Also, if you believe Baba Deep Singh, do you also believe the story of Achilles? Or was Achilles 'not one with Waheguru' ?
The incident of Baba Deep Singh is very inspiring...just as the incidents of WWII battles, and so forth.
I agree with plamba on this thread. There are other ways to make stories inspirational and 'hammered'. An inspirational story does not make a story true.
-S|kH
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Plamba i will get back to you with some names of some historians
but kepe in mind that most historians of the time wer MUSLISM and hindus
'Jabh lag Khalsa Rehe Nayra tabh lagjao deyo maI SARA - JABH E GE BbIPRAN kI RIT MAI NA KARO IN KI PARTIT'
Thing is - most peopel keep their ridhya SIdhya Gupt
Could a normal Swordsman hold a 18 kg Khanda and swing it around a chop of people's heads?
Plamba i will get back to you with some names of some historians
but kepe in mind that most historians of the time wer MUSLISM and hindus
If Ramrai could - then it's a piece of cake for te Gurus ...S|kH said:
why not - as long as they're 'nayare'
'Jabh lag Khalsa Rehe Nayra tabh lagjao deyo maI SARA - JABH E GE BbIPRAN kI RIT MAI NA KARO IN KI PARTIT'
Thing is - most peopel keep their ridhya SIdhya Gupt
kind depends on your own opinions...
If they did nuff naam Japma - i bet they could - and do a lot more...
No it shows the power of his ARDAAS - he had SOOOOOOOOO MUCH naam kamai - unbelievable it's hard for a 'muter-brain' like me to comprehend how much Bani they had!
Could a normal Swordsman hold a 18 kg Khanda and swing it around a chop of people's heads?
that's between him and Waheguru, not u and me..
and i usggest you read a bit of history.
tuaprasaad
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
How does it belittle the intelligence and spirituality who reads them? You are making a lot of statements but not providing any reasoning behind them.
plamba said:
How does it belittle the intelligence and spirituality who reads them? You are making a lot of statements but not providing any reasoning behind them.
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Well, in 1699 do you think the Guru cut the head off of goats? wouldn't people have heard the goats crying out after their heads were cut off? Who got the benefit of amrit, the humans or the goats? The Guru is all powerful, he cut off the heads of the body and gave Amrit to the punj pyare. He then set an example of Amrit's importance to the rest of us by begging for it.
Just b/c something you hear doesn't fit into your mental construct of what is possible or not does not automatically put it into the ''made up'' category.
Love the sharda expressed by many
Well, in 1699 do you think the Guru cut the head off of goats? wouldn't people have heard the goats crying out after their heads were cut off? Who got the benefit of amrit, the humans or the goats? The Guru is all powerful, he cut off the heads of the body and gave Amrit to the punj pyare. He then set an example of Amrit's importance to the rest of us by begging for it.
Just b/c something you hear doesn't fit into your mental construct of what is possible or not does not automatically put it into the ''made up'' category.
Love the sharda expressed by many
S|kH
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Do you really believe he cut the heads off of humans and put them back on, and the panj pyare came back as if they were untouched?
Because if you believe that story, than you must believe Moses rifted the ocean with his mast, and Jesus came back alive, and that he could heal the blind and so forth. What about the stories related to Zeus? For he performed many miracles.
Or do you deny these stories and accept the story of Guru Gobind because Guru Gobind was "Sikh" and he was just the character you were raised up believing was "all-powerful" and you were not raised as familiar with the other humans?
xylitol said:
Do you really believe he cut the heads off of humans and put them back on, and the panj pyare came back as if they were untouched?
Because if you believe that story, than you must believe Moses rifted the ocean with his mast, and Jesus came back alive, and that he could heal the blind and so forth. What about the stories related to Zeus? For he performed many miracles.
Or do you deny these stories and accept the story of Guru Gobind because Guru Gobind was "Sikh" and he was just the character you were raised up believing was "all-powerful" and you were not raised as familiar with the other humans?
rosethorne
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
WJKK WJKF
One thing I point out of dear Sikhji, that these Janam Sakhis have no scietific relevance. Ok.....Dear Sikhji, At the Time when these Sakhis were written in the books, There were a time that was horrible for Gursikhs, May you don't believe this as no scientific relavance it has. Mughals were so brutal that no human on Earth can believe the Martyr's stories of Sikhi. But Some Hindu and Muslim guys Dare to write that, not for the money but for thier conciousness. Nobody can build money at that time of Moghuls for writing anything good about Sikhs. Anybody who is raising any questions about the relavance of Sakhis with science then pls.... Sikhji, Can you say something about the moon which is standing into the air with no holds. What is the scientific relavance in that. I want to know Sikhji. Whatever our brain accepts that only relavent to us. Otherthan that may be it is our Guru or our Guru's Janam Sakhis, We find confused of ourselves. Why it is happening to ourselves? There is lack of acceptance of PAHUL. The only reason of upcoming these kind of questions. Once Dear Sikhji, Get the Pahul, then he will realize the facts about Janam Sakhis.
WJKK WJKF
One thing I point out of dear Sikhji, that these Janam Sakhis have no scietific relevance. Ok.....Dear Sikhji, At the Time when these Sakhis were written in the books, There were a time that was horrible for Gursikhs, May you don't believe this as no scientific relavance it has. Mughals were so brutal that no human on Earth can believe the Martyr's stories of Sikhi. But Some Hindu and Muslim guys Dare to write that, not for the money but for thier conciousness. Nobody can build money at that time of Moghuls for writing anything good about Sikhs. Anybody who is raising any questions about the relavance of Sakhis with science then pls.... Sikhji, Can you say something about the moon which is standing into the air with no holds. What is the scientific relavance in that. I want to know Sikhji. Whatever our brain accepts that only relavent to us. Otherthan that may be it is our Guru or our Guru's Janam Sakhis, We find confused of ourselves. Why it is happening to ourselves? There is lack of acceptance of PAHUL. The only reason of upcoming these kind of questions. Once Dear Sikhji, Get the Pahul, then he will realize the facts about Janam Sakhis.
ISDhillon
SPNer
- Dec 13, 2005
- 192
- 14
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
:}{}{}:
All janamsakhis are true the reason why today the janamsakhis of sikhs have some under the spotlight is because after all the apologist arguments have failed religious leaders have realised that historical truth claims are are the only source of evidence that bear winess to their faith even existing. Sikhism not only has the greatest recollection of historical truth claims it also has the most artefacts ever and dna samples of their gurus in hair fibres etc, it is best to turn a deaf ear to the vain prattle of those who just wake up in the morning and decide they are going to disagree with something, in the wake of the historical documents they just have personal opinions which I think we can all agree amount to zero.
Gurfateh!!!:u):
ISDhillon
:}{}{}:
All janamsakhis are true the reason why today the janamsakhis of sikhs have some under the spotlight is because after all the apologist arguments have failed religious leaders have realised that historical truth claims are are the only source of evidence that bear winess to their faith even existing. Sikhism not only has the greatest recollection of historical truth claims it also has the most artefacts ever and dna samples of their gurus in hair fibres etc, it is best to turn a deaf ear to the vain prattle of those who just wake up in the morning and decide they are going to disagree with something, in the wake of the historical documents they just have personal opinions which I think we can all agree amount to zero.
Gurfateh!!!:u):
ISDhillon
Prabjyot Kaur
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
If our human mind can't comprehend something; it does not make it non-existant. I beleive everything that was written about our beloved Gurus and Mahaan Shaheed of the sikh history. Let us try to understand what Satguru Guru Nanak Dev ji is trying to explain to our mortal & egoistic mind.
http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/0003.html
http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/0003.html
Fyr purwxy smyN ivc keI irSI munI jMgl ivc qp krdy rhy, ijnHW ny aupinSdW ilKIAW[ ieh bhuq purwxIAW Drm-pusqkW hn[ keIAW ivc ieh ivcwr kIqI geI hY ik jgq kdoN bixAw, ikauN bixAw, ikvyN bixAw, ikqnw ku v`fw hY, ieiq Awidk[ BgqI krn gey irSI BgqI dy QW iek Aijhy au~dm ivc l`g pey jo mnu`K dI smJ qoN bhuq pry hY[ ie`Qy siqgurU jI ies aukweI vl ieSwrw krdy hn[ Aijhy koJy jqnW dw hI ieh nqIjw sI ik Awm lokW ny ieh imQ ilAw ik AswfI DrqI ƒ iek bld ny cu`ikAw hoieAw hY[ ieh imswl lY ky siqgurU jI ies dI inKyDI kr ky AwKdy hn ik kudriq byAMq hY, qy ies dw rcnhwr BI byAMq hY[
DOlu Drmu dieAw kw pUqu ]
sMqoKu Qwip riKAw ijin sUiq ]
jy ko buJY hovY sicAwru ]
DvlY aupir kyqw Bwru ]
DrqI horu prY horu horu ]
iqs qy Bwru qlY kvxu joru ]
ArQ :- (Akwl purK dw) Drm-rUpI b`JvW nIXm hI bld hY (jo isRStI ƒ kwiem r`K irhw hY)[ (ieh Drm) dieAw dw pu`qr hY (Bwv, Akwl purK ny AwpxI imhr kr ky isRStI ƒ itkw r`Kx leI ‘Drm’-rUp nIXm bxw id`qw hY)[ ies Drm ny AwpxI mrXwdw Anuswr sMqoKu ƒ jnm dy id`qw hY[ jy koeI mnu`K (ies aupr-d`sI ivcwr ƒ) smJ ley, qW auh ies Xog ho jWdw hY ik aus dy AMdr Akwl purK dw prkwS ho jwey[ (nhIN qW, i^Awl qW kro ik) bld au~qy DrqI dw ikqnw ku byAMq Bwr hY (auh ivcwrw ieqny Bwr ƒ cu`k ikvyN skdw hY?), (dUjI ivcwr hor hY ik jy DrqI dy hyT bld hY, aus bld ƒ shwrw dyx leI hyT hor DrqI hoeI, aus) DrqI dy hor bld, aus qoN hyTW (DrqI dy hyT) hor bld, Pyr hor bld, (iesy qrHW A^Irly) bld qoN Bwr (shwrn leI aus dy) hyT ikhVw Awsrw hovygw?
If our human mind can't comprehend something; it does not make it non-existant. I beleive everything that was written about our beloved Gurus and Mahaan Shaheed of the sikh history. Let us try to understand what Satguru Guru Nanak Dev ji is trying to explain to our mortal & egoistic mind.
http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/0003.html
http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/0003.html
Fyr purwxy smyN ivc keI irSI munI jMgl ivc qp krdy rhy, ijnHW ny aupinSdW ilKIAW[ ieh bhuq purwxIAW Drm-pusqkW hn[ keIAW ivc ieh ivcwr kIqI geI hY ik jgq kdoN bixAw, ikauN bixAw, ikvyN bixAw, ikqnw ku v`fw hY, ieiq Awidk[ BgqI krn gey irSI BgqI dy QW iek Aijhy au~dm ivc l`g pey jo mnu`K dI smJ qoN bhuq pry hY[ ie`Qy siqgurU jI ies aukweI vl ieSwrw krdy hn[ Aijhy koJy jqnW dw hI ieh nqIjw sI ik Awm lokW ny ieh imQ ilAw ik AswfI DrqI ƒ iek bld ny cu`ikAw hoieAw hY[ ieh imswl lY ky siqgurU jI ies dI inKyDI kr ky AwKdy hn ik kudriq byAMq hY, qy ies dw rcnhwr BI byAMq hY[
DOlu Drmu dieAw kw pUqu ]
sMqoKu Qwip riKAw ijin sUiq ]
jy ko buJY hovY sicAwru ]
DvlY aupir kyqw Bwru ]
DrqI horu prY horu horu ]
iqs qy Bwru qlY kvxu joru ]
ArQ :- (Akwl purK dw) Drm-rUpI b`JvW nIXm hI bld hY (jo isRStI ƒ kwiem r`K irhw hY)[ (ieh Drm) dieAw dw pu`qr hY (Bwv, Akwl purK ny AwpxI imhr kr ky isRStI ƒ itkw r`Kx leI ‘Drm’-rUp nIXm bxw id`qw hY)[ ies Drm ny AwpxI mrXwdw Anuswr sMqoKu ƒ jnm dy id`qw hY[ jy koeI mnu`K (ies aupr-d`sI ivcwr ƒ) smJ ley, qW auh ies Xog ho jWdw hY ik aus dy AMdr Akwl purK dw prkwS ho jwey[ (nhIN qW, i^Awl qW kro ik) bld au~qy DrqI dw ikqnw ku byAMq Bwr hY (auh ivcwrw ieqny Bwr ƒ cu`k ikvyN skdw hY?), (dUjI ivcwr hor hY ik jy DrqI dy hyT bld hY, aus bld ƒ shwrw dyx leI hyT hor DrqI hoeI, aus) DrqI dy hor bld, aus qoN hyTW (DrqI dy hyT) hor bld, Pyr hor bld, (iesy qrHW A^Irly) bld qoN Bwr (shwrn leI aus dy) hyT ikhVw Awsrw hovygw?
kharkoo4life
SPNer
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
Fateh,
Firstly i would like to say it is very encouraging to see how much pyaar and respect eveyrone has for the guru sahibaan. Regardless of which side of the fence one stands on with regards to the authenticity of janamsakhis it is evident that both sides show equal pyaar towards the guru.
With regards to Sakhis there is a very important fact we should always remember. And that is while gurbani is written first hand by the hands of the gurus themselves the same can not be said of the janamsakhis. The latter were written by 2nd hand sources, in some cases decades (or hundred years after) the deaths of the gurus. Thus while there is no contesting that we should accept gurbani as being the authentic word of the guru it would be naive to assume that every word written in the janamsakhis is equally authentic and true.
The gurus took great pains to ensure that after their death they did not become beings which ppl would worship as superhuman beings. They wanted ppl to get attached to the message and not the messenger. This is why as long a they were alive they forbid anyone to make paintings or drawings of them, did not write a collection of their own personal life stories (nor did they authenticate any written by someone else). Unfortunately these same measures were not taken with the live of Jesus and we can clearly see the end reslut of that -- the elevation of jesus to some supernatural, miracal filled angel/prophet and more focus on worship of him rather than his message
This is not to say that we should completley disregard every story of sikh history. Most are filled with invaluable lessons and we should learn from them instead of getting fixated on the petty details of the story. For instance, the bible is also full of many great stories with good moral lessons but taking the stories literaly and all that is in them to be factual and true multiple problems have arisen. Science is daily disproving the myths of many biblical accounts, but if ppl rather than takin them as true history regard them for that they are -- metaphors and analogies to explain concepts and instill virtues in man then this problem woudl be avoided.
The same dillema today exists with the janamsakhis. The vast majority are filled with so many metaphors and similes that over time these metaphors themselves have become to be taken as the truth rather then the hidden message contained within them.
Lets take a simple common story prevalent amongst the majority of sikhs today: "kawda the cannibal and guru nanak." In short, while travelling thru the jungles mardana was captured by kawda who then placed him over a fire and was preparing to cook and eat him. mardana prayed to guru nanak for help, and then upon arrival of the guru and his divine presence the fire instantly became cool and went out. Thus mardana was saved from the fire and kauda 'rakash' (cannibal) was transformed itno a disciple of the guru.
Now if we analyse this story according to the philosophy of gurbani we will see that it goes completley against gurmat. No guru ever engaged in any miracles or use of miraculous powers. Be it to shower rain on a dry field, to stop a gigantic boulder with their hand or to save someone elses life. If we examine these stories we will see they raise many points which make the gurus contradictory and hypoctires.
Why would one guru be willing to use miraculous power to save his own life (guru nanak stopping the bolder) yet another guru openly walk to his own execution (guru tegh bahadaur)? Why would the guru be willing to use miracles to make rain fall on a dry land simple cuz ppl wanted crops to grow while at another time the guru ostracize his own son (ram rai) for performing miracles to impress someone (as well as altering the bani)?
With regards to the above story, if the presence of the guru was enought to put out the fire why did the fire not go out when guru arjan dev ji sat on the boiling cauldron full of water?
In so many cases the guru is telling us to accept the will of god, bhanna mun-na, yet in their lives we have sakhis where on one hand they are openly accepting their fate (tortures, executions) yet at other hands the gurus are going against the will and using their own special powers to alter the course of events for petty worldy things (be it to save someones life, to make rain fall, or to teach a lesson). And we cannot simply argue that the guru used miracles to teach lessons, cuz the only thing the guru said is worhty to help man change is love and gurbani.
Finally about the above story, in order to make it more appaeling to the listeners, much like they do in hollywood, storytellers and historians have mixed in a great deal of hype and spice to the truth. Firstly, Kauda was not a rakash, i.e. he was not a man eater. He belonged to a group of people, nomads who used to typicaly live in forests, jungles (much like many native americans in north america lived in jungles prior to colonization). Due to their limited contact with regular rural and city folk very little ws known bout them and most ppl viewed them as wierdos. And stories would grow bout how these jungle ppl were evil, possessed or wud eat men.
(when the person ur spreading rumours about isnt around to disprove them u can come up with whatever u want n many ppl will eevntually start belieiving it. For instant, the sasquatch isnt around (cuz it doenst exist) to disprove any of the myths about it so we can make up whatever stories we want about it)
ANyways, due to limited contact, false myths being created bout them, most ppl viewed n treated these jungle men with very little respect or care. They were regarded as almost less than human animals. Thus one can see that when there was any rare contact between regular ppl and these jungle men, the conversations were usually not pleasent.
In this light, what is most likely is when mardana n guru nanak did come across these people, for guru nanak travelled all over and interacted with all people, initially kauda probably looked upon them as ordinary rural folk and with this prejudice approached them with anger and resentment. He probably thoght they were out to mock or ridicule him and became defensive as a result of all the years of social conditioning. He may even have become verbally and physically agressive. But when Guru Nanak spoke, he always spoke with sincere honest heart full of love. And Guru Nanak always tried to reason with people using language and examples they would understand. He probably asked Kauda what he would gain by hurting either of them, what benefit it would serve, and if he did hurt or kill them if he could bring them back to life. This made Kauda think if i cant give life why wud i want to take theirs away. And if they arent causing me harm why should i harm them. Though this interaction of love and reason Kauda came to understand Guru Nanak and became his disciple.
There was no miracle or magic involved. We need to start looking at the traditional sakhis which have been passed down (jus like folk stories and fables) and start analysing them accordign to gurbani and see whetther they could actually be true or are more likely been made up (at least segments of them). And above all, we need to rise above any sakhi and instead of focusing on the minor details about them, understand the hidden message in them.
Prabjyot Kaur said:
Fateh,
Firstly i would like to say it is very encouraging to see how much pyaar and respect eveyrone has for the guru sahibaan. Regardless of which side of the fence one stands on with regards to the authenticity of janamsakhis it is evident that both sides show equal pyaar towards the guru.
With regards to Sakhis there is a very important fact we should always remember. And that is while gurbani is written first hand by the hands of the gurus themselves the same can not be said of the janamsakhis. The latter were written by 2nd hand sources, in some cases decades (or hundred years after) the deaths of the gurus. Thus while there is no contesting that we should accept gurbani as being the authentic word of the guru it would be naive to assume that every word written in the janamsakhis is equally authentic and true.
The gurus took great pains to ensure that after their death they did not become beings which ppl would worship as superhuman beings. They wanted ppl to get attached to the message and not the messenger. This is why as long a they were alive they forbid anyone to make paintings or drawings of them, did not write a collection of their own personal life stories (nor did they authenticate any written by someone else). Unfortunately these same measures were not taken with the live of Jesus and we can clearly see the end reslut of that -- the elevation of jesus to some supernatural, miracal filled angel/prophet and more focus on worship of him rather than his message
This is not to say that we should completley disregard every story of sikh history. Most are filled with invaluable lessons and we should learn from them instead of getting fixated on the petty details of the story. For instance, the bible is also full of many great stories with good moral lessons but taking the stories literaly and all that is in them to be factual and true multiple problems have arisen. Science is daily disproving the myths of many biblical accounts, but if ppl rather than takin them as true history regard them for that they are -- metaphors and analogies to explain concepts and instill virtues in man then this problem woudl be avoided.
The same dillema today exists with the janamsakhis. The vast majority are filled with so many metaphors and similes that over time these metaphors themselves have become to be taken as the truth rather then the hidden message contained within them.
Lets take a simple common story prevalent amongst the majority of sikhs today: "kawda the cannibal and guru nanak." In short, while travelling thru the jungles mardana was captured by kawda who then placed him over a fire and was preparing to cook and eat him. mardana prayed to guru nanak for help, and then upon arrival of the guru and his divine presence the fire instantly became cool and went out. Thus mardana was saved from the fire and kauda 'rakash' (cannibal) was transformed itno a disciple of the guru.
Now if we analyse this story according to the philosophy of gurbani we will see that it goes completley against gurmat. No guru ever engaged in any miracles or use of miraculous powers. Be it to shower rain on a dry field, to stop a gigantic boulder with their hand or to save someone elses life. If we examine these stories we will see they raise many points which make the gurus contradictory and hypoctires.
Why would one guru be willing to use miraculous power to save his own life (guru nanak stopping the bolder) yet another guru openly walk to his own execution (guru tegh bahadaur)? Why would the guru be willing to use miracles to make rain fall on a dry land simple cuz ppl wanted crops to grow while at another time the guru ostracize his own son (ram rai) for performing miracles to impress someone (as well as altering the bani)?
With regards to the above story, if the presence of the guru was enought to put out the fire why did the fire not go out when guru arjan dev ji sat on the boiling cauldron full of water?
In so many cases the guru is telling us to accept the will of god, bhanna mun-na, yet in their lives we have sakhis where on one hand they are openly accepting their fate (tortures, executions) yet at other hands the gurus are going against the will and using their own special powers to alter the course of events for petty worldy things (be it to save someones life, to make rain fall, or to teach a lesson). And we cannot simply argue that the guru used miracles to teach lessons, cuz the only thing the guru said is worhty to help man change is love and gurbani.
Finally about the above story, in order to make it more appaeling to the listeners, much like they do in hollywood, storytellers and historians have mixed in a great deal of hype and spice to the truth. Firstly, Kauda was not a rakash, i.e. he was not a man eater. He belonged to a group of people, nomads who used to typicaly live in forests, jungles (much like many native americans in north america lived in jungles prior to colonization). Due to their limited contact with regular rural and city folk very little ws known bout them and most ppl viewed them as wierdos. And stories would grow bout how these jungle ppl were evil, possessed or wud eat men.
(when the person ur spreading rumours about isnt around to disprove them u can come up with whatever u want n many ppl will eevntually start belieiving it. For instant, the sasquatch isnt around (cuz it doenst exist) to disprove any of the myths about it so we can make up whatever stories we want about it)
ANyways, due to limited contact, false myths being created bout them, most ppl viewed n treated these jungle men with very little respect or care. They were regarded as almost less than human animals. Thus one can see that when there was any rare contact between regular ppl and these jungle men, the conversations were usually not pleasent.
In this light, what is most likely is when mardana n guru nanak did come across these people, for guru nanak travelled all over and interacted with all people, initially kauda probably looked upon them as ordinary rural folk and with this prejudice approached them with anger and resentment. He probably thoght they were out to mock or ridicule him and became defensive as a result of all the years of social conditioning. He may even have become verbally and physically agressive. But when Guru Nanak spoke, he always spoke with sincere honest heart full of love. And Guru Nanak always tried to reason with people using language and examples they would understand. He probably asked Kauda what he would gain by hurting either of them, what benefit it would serve, and if he did hurt or kill them if he could bring them back to life. This made Kauda think if i cant give life why wud i want to take theirs away. And if they arent causing me harm why should i harm them. Though this interaction of love and reason Kauda came to understand Guru Nanak and became his disciple.
There was no miracle or magic involved. We need to start looking at the traditional sakhis which have been passed down (jus like folk stories and fables) and start analysing them accordign to gurbani and see whetther they could actually be true or are more likely been made up (at least segments of them). And above all, we need to rise above any sakhi and instead of focusing on the minor details about them, understand the hidden message in them.
ISDhillon
SPNer
- Dec 13, 2005
- 192
- 14
re: 'Janam Sakhi' Are True Events
I have to say I disagree with the last post if we look at gurbani it quite rightly does reject miracles but only in the sense of man not being capable to perform such acts which are will within the capability of human nature and not supernatural, their is nothing supernatural when we have gift of naam the "kaar naunidh aaavai thai" what we see as miracles are not something greater than us its just we have not acheived that state. The next argument about the fact that one guru did something which has been termed a miracle and then why did the other gurus not use miracles to prevent their own martyrdom, this is about perception when guru arjan dev ji took shaheedi he did so to set a stone of martyrdom in sikhism this is why he responded to mian mir that "please do not stop my execution you laid the foundation stone of harimandar and i am going to lay the foundation stone of martyrdom", their were political reasons for why the gurus carried out what they did, it is the will of god that guru showed the power of naam through what people today term as miracles and it is through the power of naam that guru performed the sacrifice of martyrdom. Science is a system of inquiry it is not capable of examining the power of naam.
"The Guru replied that he had no miracles except the True Name, and he uttered the following Sabad:
"Were I to put on a dress of fire, construct a house of snow and eat iron;
Were I to turn all my troubles into water, drink it, and drive the earth as a steed;
Were I able to put the firmament into one scale and weigh it with a tank;
Were I to become so large that I could be nowhere contained;
and were I to lead every one by the nose;
Had I such power in myself that I could perform such things or cause others to perform them, it would be all in vain.
As great as the Lord is, so great are His gifts; He bestoweth according to His pleasure.
Nanak, he on whom God looketh with favor obtaineth the glory of the True Name."
(Majh di Var, Slok Mohalla 1, p-147) "
So I would not be lossed in words, miracles are something which are pleasing to those who do not have the treasure of naam, with the naam you can do anything all is a possible and natural and the will of god and nothing is supernatural.
ISDhillon
I have to say I disagree with the last post if we look at gurbani it quite rightly does reject miracles but only in the sense of man not being capable to perform such acts which are will within the capability of human nature and not supernatural, their is nothing supernatural when we have gift of naam the "kaar naunidh aaavai thai" what we see as miracles are not something greater than us its just we have not acheived that state. The next argument about the fact that one guru did something which has been termed a miracle and then why did the other gurus not use miracles to prevent their own martyrdom, this is about perception when guru arjan dev ji took shaheedi he did so to set a stone of martyrdom in sikhism this is why he responded to mian mir that "please do not stop my execution you laid the foundation stone of harimandar and i am going to lay the foundation stone of martyrdom", their were political reasons for why the gurus carried out what they did, it is the will of god that guru showed the power of naam through what people today term as miracles and it is through the power of naam that guru performed the sacrifice of martyrdom. Science is a system of inquiry it is not capable of examining the power of naam.
"The Guru replied that he had no miracles except the True Name, and he uttered the following Sabad:
"Were I to put on a dress of fire, construct a house of snow and eat iron;
Were I to turn all my troubles into water, drink it, and drive the earth as a steed;
Were I able to put the firmament into one scale and weigh it with a tank;
Were I to become so large that I could be nowhere contained;
and were I to lead every one by the nose;
Had I such power in myself that I could perform such things or cause others to perform them, it would be all in vain.
As great as the Lord is, so great are His gifts; He bestoweth according to His pleasure.
Nanak, he on whom God looketh with favor obtaineth the glory of the True Name."
(Majh di Var, Slok Mohalla 1, p-147) "
So I would not be lossed in words, miracles are something which are pleasing to those who do not have the treasure of naam, with the naam you can do anything all is a possible and natural and the will of god and nothing is supernatural.
ISDhillon
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
