Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee Maharaaj traveled to America !!!

The story was and still is well known that bhagats were called from Sachkhand. Sant Gurbachan Singh also believed in this story but even some of his own students now have accepted the fact that it is not true. Bhai Randhir Singh changed the place from Sachkhand to Karam Khand. Nonetheless, it is still false. He didn’t invent the story but he did change it to suit his beliefs.

I won’t sit here and refute your made up statements or give you a history lesson. You will have to spend time on your own to find out how Guru Sahib met bhagat Naamdev Ji who spent his last 20 years in Punjab. Statements you are making about Guru Sahib carrying bhagat bani with him and singing it is not supported by any source or historian. Guru Sahib did not take Jeevan or Pir Dastgir (not a name of the pir) to Sachkhand. It is your imagination. There is no end to Dharam Khand and Guru Sahib most likely showed the boy (son of the Pir) everything in Dharam Khand since he had no kamayee instead of taking him to Sachkhand. Your other points are neither here nor there and irrelevant.

It is not my theory that bhagats met Guru Sahib. If you are serious to know the truth about bhagat bani then read the book. I provided you with the name. Read it first to find out the sources and proofs. Read the old tapoban forum where this topic was discussed. Sources existed at the time of Bhai Sahib but no research had been done except by Nihal Singh whose work was largely ignored by the Panth. Like you I do not deify Bhai Randhir Singh to believe that whatever he has written has to be 100% correct. Such a belief is hindrance to progress. Guru Rakha

Quote

Like you I do not deify Bhai Randhir Singh to believe that whatever he has written has to be 100% correct. Such a belief is hindrance to progress. Guru Rakha

But, Bhai Bijla Singh jeeo, using such harsh words for Bhai Sahib too cannot result in any progress. It is true that Bhai Sahib has written that the Bhagats who recited Kirtam Naam, reached as far as Karam Khand but this does not mean that Bhai Sahib fabricated this story. To fabricate means to forge or make up a false story. Daas believes that this is pure Ninda. Bhai Sahib was a Sachyaar Sikh and could have never lied or just pulled a story out of thin air, to support his beliefs. There can be a logical explanation of what he wrote. To jump to such conclusion that he fabricated this story is not a wise thing to do.

As for the topic, surely Guru Sahib must have come to North America too. There is no doubt about it. He's the Jagat Guru and for this reason had to bring Sach to all parts of the Earth.

Kulbir Singh

I have not done any ninda or used harsh words against Bhai Sahib. Disagreeing with Bhai Sahib does not equal ninda. Puratan granths have the same sakhi that places bhagats in Sachkhand. I see Bhai Sahib's statement rooted in the same sakhi. Story was already in the sources which Bhai Sahib used. I am not calling Bhai Sahib a liar but stating that he was wrong about inclusion of bhagat bani. Perhaps you can enlighten me with the logical explanation or provide any proof that this story is true. Bhai Sahib, when you disagree with other Sikhs (like Sant Gurbachan Singh) about Gurbani interpretation, is your intention to call them liars or does that amount to ninda? I hope not. Status of Bhai Sahib as a pooran gursikh does not get degraded by disagreeing with him. I do not think he was a god incarnate and could never have written anything that was wrong. I do not mean it was his deliberate attempt but inadvertently could happen. Guru Rakha

Quote
Bhai Kulbir Singh Ji
But, Bhai Bijla Singh jeeo, using such harsh words for Bhai Sahib too cannot result in any progress. It is true that Bhai Sahib has written that the Bhagats who recited Kirtam Naam, reached as far as Karam Khand but this does not mean that Bhai Sahib fabricated this story. To fabricate means to forge or make up a false story. Daas believes that this is pure Ninda. Bhai Sahib was a Sachyaar Sikh and could have never lied or just pulled a story out of thin air, to support his beliefs. There can be a logical explanation of what he wrote. To jump to such conclusion that he fabricated this story is not a wise thing to do.

As for the topic, surely Guru Sahib must have come to North America too. There is no doubt about it. He's the Jagat Guru and for this reason had to bring Sach to all parts of the Earth.

Kulbir Singh

Bhai Kulbir Singh jio! Nice to see you posting, one humble request, may you please dig up some old evidence that proves Guru Sahib may have went to North America? For sure there must be some talk of Guru Sahib in old historical American writings.

Bijla Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story was and still is well known that bhagats
> were called from Sachkhand. Sant Gurbachan Singh
> also believed in this story but even some of his
> own students now have accepted the fact that it is
> not true. Bhai Randhir Singh changed the place
> from Sachkhand to Karam Khand. Nonetheless, it is
> still false. He didn’t invent the story but he
> did change it to suit his beliefs.
>
> I won’t sit here and refute your made up
> statements or give you a history lesson. You will
> have to spend time on your own to find out how
> Guru Sahib met bhagat Naamdev Ji who spent his
> last 20 years in Punjab. Statements you are making
> about Guru Sahib carrying bhagat bani with him and
> singing it is not supported by any source or
> historian. Guru Sahib did not take Jeevan or Pir
> Dastgir (not a name of the pir) to Sachkhand. It
> is your imagination. There is no end to Dharam
> Khand and Guru Sahib most likely showed the boy
> (son of the Pir) everything in Dharam Khand since
> he had no kamayee instead of taking him to
> Sachkhand. Your other points are neither here nor
> there and irrelevant.
>
> It is not my theory that bhagats met Guru Sahib.
> If you are serious to know the truth about bhagat
> bani then read the book. I provided you with the
> name. Read it first to find out the sources and
> proofs. Read the old tapoban forum where this
> topic was discussed. Sources existed at the time
> of Bhai Sahib but no research had been done except
> by Nihal Singh whose work was largely ignored by
> the Panth. Like you I do not deify Bhai Randhir
> Singh to believe that whatever he has written has
> to be 100% correct. Such a belief is hindrance to
> progress. Guru Rakha

There is plenty of proof Guru Sahib did travel amongst other worlds. Why is he referred to as "ਮੁਰਸ਼ਿਦੁ ਲ ਆਲਮੀਂ"in Ganjnama? Almee(n) refers to worlds, and Murshid refers to gives Hukum ( naam)
Also, in Bhai Gurdas Jis vaars Bhai Sahib states
ਧਰਤਿ ਆਕਾਸ਼ ਚਹੂ ਦਿਸਿ ਜਾਨਾ
Meaning Guru Nanak was known in the lands of the sky and the four directions ( throughout this world) . So if he did not go to other worlds how was he known?

There was no reason for proceedingGurus to go to Khands since Guru Sahib had already freed the atmas of these realms.
In another thread you stated only a few blessed Bhagat were able to go to Sach Khand ( get Darshan) before Pehli Paatshah came, but Bhagat Ravidas mentions Sach Khand is overpopulated.
ਆਬਾਦਾਨੁ ਸਦਾ ਮਸਹੂਰ ॥

How can it be overpopulated if only a few selected were able to go before Pehli Paatshah times? From the beginning of time, all the Bhagats who did massive kamee who recited Kirtam naam went as far as Karam Khand. Karma Khand was overpopulated there was no way to go to Sach Khand without the True Guru. When True Guru came he freed all these atmas.

Many names of God have origins in polythestic cultures. For example, Allah was orignally referred to as a pagan God. Ram originally refreed to Ram Chander. Bhagawan , and Har usually was referring to Krishna. Eventually these came names of worship for people try to meet God. These names are outside of Gurmat Naam which is distinct. Yes these other names are included in Gurbani and considered names of praise, but they are not Gurmat Naam. One cannot go to Sach Khand without Gurmat Naam. Without Gurmat Naam all other names are Kirtam naam and such cannot take one to sach khand ( full mukhti) Even if one is told to recite Waahguru( not given by Panj Pyaarey) then they can only go as far as Karam khand if they are extremely fortunate. Gurmat-naam does not have polythestic origins,and it is distinct. Going to Sach Khand is not a cheap ride. Only though rehat and Gurmantar- Naam can one go to such a place. This mantra comes from WaaheGuru and was given to SatGuru ji to free atmas of this world and the next.Sach Khand and darshan are the same thing. In layman terms God is the abode of Truth, and the abode of Truth is God, and without True Guru there is no Darshan just darkness.

In regards to Bhagat Naam DEv Ji

Mahan Kosh Encyclopedia
ਬੰਬਈ ਦੇ ਇਲਾ ਜਿਲਾਸਤਾਰਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਰਸੀਬਾਂਮਨੀ ਗ੍ਰਾਮ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਾਮਸ਼ੇਟੀ ਛੀਪੇ शिल्पिन् ਦੇ ਘਰ ਗੋਨਾਬਾਈ ਦੇ ਉਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਸੰਮਤ ੧੩੨੮ ਵਿੱ ਨਾਮਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਜਨਮ ਹੋਇਆ

1328. You mentioned Pehli Paatshah was born in 1469?

1469
-1328

= 141
Wow! Bhagat Naam Dev Ji was over 140 years when he met Guru Sahib

How old was Sheik Fareed when he met Guru Sahib?

Mahan Kosh Encyclopedia
ਅ਼. __ ਫ਼ਰੀਦ. ਵਿ- ਅਦੁਤੀ. ਲਾਸਾਨੀ। (2) {ਸੰਗ੍ਯਾ}. ਇੱਕ ਮਹਾਤਮਾ ਸੰਤ, ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਖੇਪ- ਕਥਾ ਇਹ ਹੈ- ਸ਼ੇਖ਼ ਫ਼ਰੀਦ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਜਨਮ ਸ਼ੇਖ ਜਲਾਲੁੱਦੀਨ ਸੁਲੈਮਾਨ ਦੇ ਘਰ (ਜੋ ਇਸਲਾਮ ਦੇ ਦੂਜੇ ਖਲੀਫਾ ਉਮਰ ਦੀ ਸੰਤਾਨ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਸਨ), ਮਾਤਾ ਮਰਿਯਮ ਦੇ ਉਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਕੋਠੀਵਾਲ ਪਿੰਡ ਵਿੱਚ (ਜੋ ਹੁਣ ਚਾਵਲੀ ਮਸ਼ਾਯਖ਼ ਕਰਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਿੱਧ ਹੈ). ਸੰਮਤ ੧੨੩੧ (ਸਨ ੧੧੭੩) ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਇਆ

I will let you do the math.

Did Bhai Kahn Singh Ji fabricate these dates?

Bijla Singh ji, Gurbaani talks about Kot Brahmand, Kayi Bakunth, and just because we can not see them with our physical eyes because we are not at that spiritual state yet, does not mean such places do not exist. What Bhai Sahib Randheer Singh ji saw, he wrote it down and used Gurbaani to back up what he said, he didn't make anything up. It is really rude for you to speak like this.

Sukhdeep Singh Ji, if Mahan Kosh is the best source of history for you to learn about bhagats then good luck in your study. I will not waste my time with you.

Quote

Gurbaani talks about Kot Brahmand, Kayi Bakunth, and just because we can not see them with our physical eyes because we are not at that spiritual state yet, does not mean such places do not exist. What Bhai Sahib Randheer Singh ji saw, he wrote it down and used Gurbaani to back up what he said, he didn't make anything up. It is really rude for you to speak like this.

I agree that there is no end to creation nor have I ever denied that. Gurbani doesn't state that bhagats were called from any khand. I respectfully disagree with Bhai Sahib. It is not a sin to disagree with him. Guru Sahib knows my intentions. I apologize to others for hijacking this topic. Guru Rakha

Bijla Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sukhdeep Singh Ji, if Mahan Kosh is the best
> source of history for you to learn about bhagats
> then good luck in your study. I will not waste my
> time with you.
>


Bhai Bijla Singh Ji



Your historical theory of Bhagat Ki Bani has no logic behind it. Fair enough if you dont want to deny all the writings of the scholars from the Singh Sabha movement so lets discuss Bhai Gurdas Jis Vaaran.

You state Guru Sahib physically met Bhagats in this world and gave them naam, and Bhagats like Ramanand Ji rectied Gurbani after receiving naam. Then you state Guru Arjan DEv Ji sent them down to recite this bani. So if Bhagat Ramananad Ji recited SachiBani while on this earth why was it not written down at that time? Why send him later to come? If he was reciting Sachi Bani doesnt this make him satguru or wouldnt this confuse people as to who is SatGuru? Also if such a meeting occurred why is not recorded in Bhai Gurdas Jis varaan? You would expect such important events recorded in Bhai Gurdas Jis varaan. Also, Bhai Gurdas Ji mentions in his verses some of the names of the Gursikhs of Pehli Paatshahs time. Why arent the names of these "contemporary " Bhagats included as Gursikhs of this world?

Also, Bhai Gurdas Ji menitions about Pehli Paatshah carrying a Kitab with him. Which kitab is this, and what Banis were included? What happened to this kateb when Guru Sahib gave Gurgaddi to Guru Angad Dev Ji, and what happened to this Kateb when Guru Angad DEv Ji gave gurgaddi to Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji?

Also, since Bhagat Kabir Ji was a follower of Guru Sahib in this world as you claim were his writings included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji later. These writings existed during the time of Pehli Paashah and many of these followers still have his " pre- Gurmukh" writings.

Once again If the banis of the Bhagat were recited while in this world how come they were not recorded in Aad Sri Guru Granth. If they were not recited in this world then when and where were they recited?

Bhai Bijla Singh jeeo, I have no qualms over you not agreeing with Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee on certain issues but my concern is that you wrote that he fabricated a story. The impression one gets from this is that Bhai Sahib just made up the story about Bhagats in Karam Khand. Only pseudo sants fabricate stories, not genuine Gursikhs like Bhai Sahib. Given the level of a Gursikh of Bhai Sahib’s level, it is hard to believe that he could have just fabricated a story or theory to prove his point. There must be an explanation to what he wrote and Guru-willing, it will be written soon.

Bhai Sukhdeep Singh jeeo, with respect to all Bhagats receiving Naam from Satguru jee in person, please get your hands on the monumental book by Late Giani Gurdit Singh jee on the subject of Bhagat Baani. This book proves beyond doubt that all Bhagats met Guru Sahib in person and received Naam. They were all Sikhs of Guru Sahib. The dates of their births are all wrong. They were all contemporaries of Guru Sahib.

Kulbir Singh

Bhai Bijla Singh Jio,

Waheguru Ji ka khalsa, Waheguru Ji ki fateh

Upon seeing your first post on this topic Daas had expected your talk on Guru Sahib's visit to America but I was greatly disappointed that a mature/sincere writer like you could easily be indulges with something which has nothing to do with the topic. I understand your contention but disagreeing with some one is genuine approach however, blaming some one is totally 180 degree and it is a rude approach in case of Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Jee. It seems you greatly misunderstood Bhai sahib's writing on Bhagat Bani. I do not know from what angle you read that article, even from critiques point of view you did not justify the reason you wrote. I would highly recommend reading that article again and again and try to digest the reason for which Bhai Sahib wrote that article. Even today when it is researched that Bhagats were contemporary of Guru Sahib's time still this article is not contradicting from any angle. Bhai Sahib wrote the previous situation/reason of Bhagats before SachKhand that's all article is about. This is established and unchallenging fact that Gurbani is Dhur ki Bani, Sachkhandi Bani and it is not collection of writings of mortal beings lived on this world.

With Regards,
Daas

Kulbir Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Bhai Sukhdeep Singh jeeo, with respect to all
> Bhagats receiving Naam from Satguru jee in person,
> please get your hands on the monumental book by
> Late Giani Gurdit Singh jee on the subject of
> Bhagat Baani. This book proves beyond doubt that
> all Bhagats met Guru Sahib in person and received
> Naam. They were all Sikhs of Guru Sahib. The dates
> of their births are all wrong. They were all
> contemporaries of Guru Sahib.
>
> Kulbir Singh

Bhai Sahib I assumed that Bhagats were not contemporaries of Guru Sahib because the dates do not
match with what is written in MahanKosh. Also, I assumed they did not receive Naam in this world because
if they did Im sure they would go to Sach Khand not Karam Khand after departing. Never the less I will do more research on this fascinating subject in the near future.

Quote

but my concern is that you wrote that he fabricated a story.

Again, I never said he fabricated it. I said the story was fabricated by Sikhs to explain inclusion of bhagat bani. It is written in granths of 18th and 19th century that bhagats came or were called from Sachkhand to recite their bani. Bhai Sahib changed it a bit by changing the place to Karam Khand. The story was already there which was believed to be true by most Sikhs of the time. Bhai Sahib knew that since no one could go to Sachkhand without gurmantar, bhagats had to be in a lower khand. Had he known that bhagats were contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib, he would not have written otherwise.

Quote

It seems you greatly misunderstood Bhai Sahib's writing on Bhagat Bani. I do not know from what angle you read that article, even from critiques point of view you did not justify the reason you wrote. I would highly recommend reading that article again and again and try to digest the reason for which Bhai Sahib wrote that article. Even today when it is researched that Bhagats were contemporary of Guru Sahib's time still this article is not contradicting from any angle. Bhai Sahib wrote the previous situation/reason of Bhagats before SachKhand that's all article is about.

It was not my intent to write a detailed post on critiquing the article. I only wanted to show Sukhdeep Singh that more research has been done and now it has been proven that bhagats were not called from any khand. I read the article at least 3 times again and from what I understood, Bhai Sahib is very specific about bhagats whose bani was included in Guru Granth Sahib. He writes that “research obtained in light of Gurmat” to prove bhagat bani inclusion but does not provide a single Gurbani pankti to prove that bhagats were called from Karam Khand nor does he provides any other source. The research I think he refers to is the fact that bhagats could not have been in Sachkhand which is true because they were physically alive during the time of Guru Sahib which Bhai Sahib makes no mention of in his article. He also mentions that bani that bhagats composed while being in physically alive was not perfect and hence was not included. This is also false. Anyways, I do not wish to delve too deep into it at this point. Bhai Kulbir Singh mentioned that he would write something to explain what I have misunderstood. I have no intentions to call Bhai Sahib any of the names others are accusing me of. I am willing to listen and learn with an open mind and no doubt I could be wrong and may have missed something important in the article. Guru Rakha

Bijla Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
He writes that
> “research obtained in light of Gurmat” to
> prove bhagat bani inclusion but does not provide a
> single Gurbani pankti to prove that bhagats were
> called from Karam Khand nor does he provides any
> other source. The research I think he refers to is
> the fact that bhagats could not have been in
> Sachkhand which is true because they were
> physically alive during the time of Guru Sahib
> which Bhai Sahib makes no mention of in his
> article. He also mentions that bani that bhagats
> composed while being in physically alive was not
> perfect and hence was not included. This is also
> false. Anyways, I do not wish to delve too deep
> into it at this point. Bhai Kulbir Singh mentioned
> that he would write something to explain what I
> have misunderstood. I have no intentions to call
> Bhai Sahib any of the names others are accusing me
> of. I am willing to listen and learn with an open
> mind and no doubt I could be wrong and may have
> missed something important in the article. Guru
> Rakha


Bhai Randhir Singh Ji clearly states Bhagats Bani which they wrote through their
own volition was Kachi bani, because without the True Guru all bani is kachi. You yourself
has said this previously.

Your right Bhai Randhir Singh Ji did not believe they were contemporaries of Guru Sahib, and he did
not believe they received Naam in this world. Thats why they got naam in Karam Khand and recited bani then the same way the Bhatts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji did.

. In his article about the bani of the Bhagats, he mentions
dubious people ask him" Since Bhagats came before Guru Nanak Dev Ji why couldnt they instill Gurmat Naam,
there bani is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji"
Bhai Sahib clearly states that there bani of this world was not included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If he believed they were contemporaries, he would have mentioned them meeting Guru Sahib and getting naam in this world . If they were contemporaries they would of recited bani then and there which would have been recorded in Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji the same way he mentions how Swayaas were recited after the Bhatts received Naam.

If the Bhatts swaayas were recorded in Guru Sahibs hazoori in this world then why werent the Bhagats Bani recorded in Guru Sahibs hazoori in Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji if they were contemporaries of Guru Sahib? Meaning If Bhagat Ramanad recited Sachi Bani while in this world then what was the point of telling him to come down again and recite it. Why wasnt it recorded in Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which was in possession of Pehli Paatshah. We know through Bhai Gurdas Jis Vaaran that Bani was recorded in a volume/volumes (?).

If satguru existed at the beggining of time, then isn't it possible that satguru gave Amrit naam to any deserving Bhagat irrespective of their birth and location? Why are we restricting guru sahib with human limitations? Guru sahib didn't have to be in human form to bless a Bhagat with his Darshan. Guru sahib has travelled to other planets, yet we question how hr got to America! Lol.

Aalas Moorakh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If satguru existed at the beggining of time, then
> isn't it possible that satguru gave Amrit naam to
> any deserving Bhagat irrespective of their birth
> and location? Why are we restricting guru sahib
> with human limitations? Guru sahib didn't have to
> be in human form to bless a Bhagat with his
> Darshan. Guru sahib has travelled to other
> planets, yet we question how hr got to America!
> Lol.


We believe Gurmat Naam is distinct and was first given to Guru Nanak Dev Ji by WaaheGuru Ji,
since previous avtaars were unworthy ( non-suitable candidates) of Naam. Refer
to Gurbani ( Bachitar Natak) and refer to Gurmat Leykh by Bhai Randhir Singh Ji.

For this reason we do not believe Bhagats before Guru Nanak Dev Ji could receive AmirtNaam.
Guru Akal ( SatGuru Ji) gave naam to Guru Nanak DEv Ji and only though him can people
reach Sach Khand.

But isn't guru sahib beyond the limitations of time?

Veer Sukhdeep Singh Jee,

Bhai Bijla Singh Jee has already proved what you have stated above is wrong in your controversial "Baba Nanak" thread. Bhagats like Prehlaad, Dhru, and others mentioned in Gurbani such as Ajmal, Ganika, and Janak were saved before Sri Guru Nanak Dev Sahib Jee was in their physical body, but they were still saved by Satguru Jee, that's because Satguru Jee ALWAYS EXISTED, which you refuse to believe. They did not go to heavens or lower levels, they had their full paar-utaar done i.e. Sach Khand mukti. I am not saying other religions can reach God or Sach Khand, but these are the perhaps the only documented cases as mentioned in Gurbani.

"ajamal udrai kahai ik baar" - this implies nirgun (non physical body) form of Satguru Jee gave Vaheguru Naam direct to Ajamal at the last minute before moment of death whilst he was chanting naarain, he repeated this Vaheguru Naam given by Satguru Jee and was mukht and reached Sach Khand. This is my final opinion on this for now, I could be wrong.

The Gurbani pangtees that prove this have already been provided in the other thread, but you stubbornly continue to ignore everyone's opinions and evidence and keep taking arguments in circles.