Veechaar help needed

Different steeks have different veechaar of the below shabad. In light of Gurbani Viakran what is the meaning of the below shabad (especially does the second line means dishonest earnings or actual blood in the form of meat). There are two questions:

1. When a shabad is like Salok Mahalla 1 followed by Mahalla 1 followed by Pauri, what is the meaning of this layout? Where does the mukh-bhaav reside in?

2. In light of Gurbani Viakran what is the meaning of the below shabad (especially does the second line means dishonest earnings or actual blood in the form of meat). Does ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ means drinking blood of humans in form of cheating them of money or ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ means humans who drink blood (which would hint the form of meat).


ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਾ ਦਿਲਿ ਹਛੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਲੇਹੁ ॥
ਅਵਰਿ ਦਿਵਾਜੇ ਦੁਨੀ ਕੇ ਝੂਠੇ ਅਮਲ ਕਰੇਹੁ ॥੧॥

1. The pauri of a vaar is written by the Mahalla whose Vaar it is, in the case of Maajh Ki Vaar the Sirlekh of it tells us it is Mahalla 1. Both the saloks and the pauri can be considered as separate, complete shabads, even though when a Hukamnama Sahib is taken the 2 Saloks and the Pauri are all read together.

2. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Jee on page 114-115 of Gurbani deeya laga-matra di Vilakhanta explains the following:




Bhai Joginder Singh Jee Talwara in Why Kill a Chicken page 8 and 39-40 also states:

ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥
(ਵਾਰ ਮਾਝ, ਮਃ ੧, ਪੰਨਾ ੧੪੦)
“If the attire one wears is considered polluted when it is tainted with drops of blood, then the persons who consume the blood of animals in the form of flesh, how can their mind remain pure?”

The above interpretation is strictly in accordance with the rules of Gurbani grammar as well as in the context of the subject matter discussed therein. Contextually the meaning of the couplet can be explained as below:

“If the clothes are stained with blood, the clothes are polluted.
If the mind is stained with blood, the mind becomes polluted.”

The word ‘ਮਾਣਸਾ’ (Maansa) in the above couplet is to be pronounced as ‘ਮਾਣਸਾ’ without nasalization and NOT as ‘ਮਾਣਸਾਂ’ (Maansaan). According to Gurbani grammar this word has been used as Simple (without preposition) Nominative case in plural form.

The votaries for meat eating try to pronounce it as ‘ਮਾਣਸਾਂ’ (Maansaan) and claim that it refers to the mankind in particular, meaning thereby that herein is a condemnation of those exercise tyranny upon their fellow human beings.

Even in that case, would somebody explain that if someone even pricks another human being, it is tantamount to sucking of his blood, then how the virtual cutting of the throats of other animals is not considered tyranny? What a discriminatory and curious approach! (Page 8)

ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥
(ਵਾਰ ਮਾਝ, ਮਃ ੧, ਪੰਨਾ ੧੪੦)

“If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted.
Those who suck the blood of human beings-how can their consciousness be pure?”

In order to interpret this couple in their own support, the meat-eaters read the word ‘ਮਾਣਸਾ’ (Maansaa) as ‘ਮਾਣਸਾਂ’ (Maansaan) i.e. with the nasalisation of the last vowel. Then they translate it as, “Those who suck the blood of humans, i.e. those who commit tyranny on humans.” Such a contorted explanation is devised to meet their desired interpretation. In this couple, the simile given is absolutely explicit without any illusion: “The blood-stains make the garment polluted. The spilling of the blood of living beings, to obtain their flesh for eating, pollutes the mind.”

Those who support meat-eating are doing great injustice to themselves as well as the innocent Sikh masses. May we ask them a simple question? On one side they consider even ordinary oppression on human beings as equivalent to sucking of their blood, and on the other hand they kill animals simply to eat their flesh and thus literally consume their blood, yet deny the fact tyranny has been committed. The so-called man-made and man-controlled society may be overlooking man’s atrocities on animals, but there will be no escape for the killers in the True Court of the Almighty Lord. There only the truth will prevail. (p. 39-40 Why Kill a Chicken)

Giani Harbans Singh Nirnaikaar on page 500 of volume 2 of his steek disagrees as does Professor Sahib Singh.

I firmly agree with Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Jee and Bhai Talwara Jee.

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮ:੧ ॥
ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਾ ਦਿਲਿ ਹਛੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਲੇਹੁ ॥
ਅਵਰਿ ਦਿਵਾਜੇ ਦੁਨੀ ਕੇ ਝੂਠੇ ਅਮਲ ਕਰੇਹੁ ॥੧॥

Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee has written that "ਜੋ" is not an independent standing pronoun but an adjective of "ਮਾਣਸਾ".

If we consider "ਜੋ" to be an independent pronoun, then it's not clear whether this pronoun is for humans, animals, or ghosts etc. The meaning of the Pankiti in this way is - Those who drink the blood of humans. "those" can be anyone i.e. humans, animals, vampires and who not.

If we consider "ਜੋ" to be an adjective of "ਮਾਣਸਾ", then the meaning is - those humans who drink blood.

It's true that committing cruelties on people are also referred to as "Lahoo peena" or drinking blood but if we do careful contemplation of the first two Pankitis, then it becomes clear that here the second Pankiti is referring to literally drinking blood in form of eating meat. It's said that a Mullah was killing an animal by the way of Halal (Muslim way of killing animal for meat) and some drops of blood fell on his clothes. Soon enough time of Nimaaz came up and the Mullah proceeded to change his clothes since they had become dirty because of blood. At this Guru Sahib commented that if the clothes become unholy or dirty with blood, how will the mind stay purified, if the flesh is obtained and consumed after shedding blood.

Those people who interpret this Pankiti as committing cruelties should remember that killing someone for meat is also a form of cruelty. Meat cannot be obtained without committing cruelty. Therefore, either way, this Pankiti goes in favour of not eating meat.

Kulbir Singh

Thank you, it clearly explains that those who make the meanings to be of cruelties on humans violate gurbani viakran and do this intentionally to promote their thought process.

Guru Fateh to all.

I have a couple of questions to clarify my thought. Before doing that, I would request that the whole 'Shabad' the way the Hukumnaama is taken should be given and hence interpreted as such because the Pauri is connected to it.

1. Are we talking about life or just blood?
2. Does life exist without blood?
3. What is yogurt made with?
4. Can we survive without consuming life in any form or shape?

Input from all would be appreciated.

I would like to clarify that my questions are not to start an argument but to start a conversation.


Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh jeeo,

Delving deep in your questions will start a debate about eating or not eating meat, which is something that is not desirable at this time but here's a brief response to your questions.

Living things have to eat living things but as Gurmukhs we ought to eat such food that brings least damage to the society and to our own Karma. Sure both plants and animals are living but there is a huge difference between plucking a plant and killing a mammal that feels pain and experiences fear and trauma associated with killing.

Never mind what carnivorous animals do or ignorant humans do but Gurmukhs are blessed with Bibek Budh and their main aim is to Japp Naam. After killing an animal for eating, it is hard to do Simran of Naam or you can say that after doing Amritvela Naam Abhyaas Kamaaee, one can't bring oneself to kill an animal just for the taste of the tongue.

Dairy products including yogurt is an acceptable food in Gurmat, so we eat it. Dairy products are used in Langars but meat is not. So we can't compare blood to yogurt.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Quote

Delving deep in your questions will start a debate about eating or not eating meat, which is something that is not desirable at this time but here's a brief response to your questions.

I am sure you are very well aware that Sikhi is based on revelation through investigation by asking questions. Baal Nanak taught us that when he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu. Do you mean we should not follow the same path carved by him at a very young age?

Debate is the corner stone of Sikhi. It will be unSikhi trait on our part by refusing to do so. Debate is part and parcel of Sikhi. We, who dwell with Nirbhau and Nirvair should not shun ourselves away from it but rather should embrace it. Sikhi demands that from us for our own learning process. Sidh Gosht is one of many examples about debates given in the SGGS, our only Guru.

Having said that,argument it not OK as I mentioned in my initial post. Hence, I have no idea why you are shunning away from the basic principles of Sikhi which is to ask questions, discuss and debate in order to learn so we can share that learning with others according to the Gurmat principle of Vand kei chaknah.

Quote

Living things have to eat living things but as Gurmukhs we ought to eat such food that brings least damage to the society and to our own Karma.

I agree with you. Not only as Gurmukhs but as Humans we should avoid everything that harms our environment otherwise the Salok we chant every time," Pavan Guru, Pani Pita, Mata Dharat Mahat...." would be just parroting and hypocritical on our part which is not a Sikhi trait.

Please share with me what is the difference of Karma in Hinduism and Karam in Sikhi. You have used the Hindutva word. I wonder why!

Quote

Sure both plants and animals are living but there is a huge difference between plucking a plant and killing a mammal that feels pain and experiences fear and trauma associated with killing.

I beg to differ with you. You are incorrect in your claim according to Gurbani in the SGGS, our only Guru. All life starts from bacterium and evolves. So, I am a bit confused with your claim.Please elaborate..

Quote

Never mind what carnivorous animals do or ignorant humans do but Gurmukhs are blessed with Bibek Budh.

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by carnivorous animals? Which animals do goats eat? Please specify. What does this have to do with the Bibek budhi? Or is it a personal preference of a Gurmukh as Gurbani in SGGS, our only Guru indicates?

Quote

and their main aim is to Japp Naam. After killing an animal for eating, it is hard to do Simran of Naam or you can say that after doing Amritvela Naam Abhyaas Kamaaee, one can't bring oneself to kill an animal just for the taste of the tongue

Kulbir Singh ji, sorry to say that you are complicating things and justifying for nothing hence making a hay out of my simple but direct questions. But let's carry on the path you want to lead us to.

Please elaborate what does Japp Naam and Simran of Naam mean according to the SGGS, our only Guru? Please quote the whole Shabads with your own understanding (not just literal translations) to help me out.

I have already asked, " Which Vela is not Amrit Vela" according to Gurbani in another post. You may respond about it either here or on that post and I would also like learn from you what you mean by Abhyaas Kamaaee according to Gurbani. I am here to learn with open arms.

I agree with you. We should not do anything for the taste of the tongue which includes fried pakoras and other things that are bad for health.

Quote

Dairy products including yogurt is an acceptable food in Gurmat, so we eat it. Dairy products are used in Langars but meat is not. So we can't compare blood to yogurt.

.

I am a bit confused by your above claim. Yes, we do not use meat during langars except at Hazoor Sahib where the shastars are washed by the goats' blood that are killed at the premise.

Please correct me if I am wrong, you are not concerned about the living beings in bacterium form that turns the milk into yogurt and are still alive and living in there but you are concerned about the lives with blood? If this is true, then why this distinction because after all life is life. How do we know that the bacterium do not suffer as you claim other animals do?

Taking about blood. If you are against that and it seems so, then is it OK to have blood transfusion the same way at times we have food intake through our veins?

Once again, all these questions are to have an honest and open conversation/ debates on which Sikhi is based on solely for learning purpose and I hope to learn a lot from your Gurmat wisdom. Our anchor is Gurbani from SGGS, oiur only Guru, our tool box.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh,

Quote

I am sure you are very well aware that Sikhi is based on revelation through investigation by asking questions. Baal Nanak taught us that when he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu. Do you mean we should not follow the same path carved by him at a very young age?

Debate is the corner stone of Sikhi. It will be unSikhi trait on our part by refusing to do so. Debate is part and parcel of Sikhi. We, who dwell with Nirbhau and Nirvair should not shun ourselves away from it but rather should embrace it. Sikhi demands that from us for our own learning process. Sidh Gosht is one of many examples about debates given in the SGGS, our only Guru.

Having said that,argument it not OK as I mentioned in my initial post. Hence, I have no idea why you are shunning away from the basic principles of Sikhi which is to ask questions, discuss and debate in order to learn so we can share that learning with others according to the Gurmat principle of Vand kei chaknah.

You keep claiming what SIkhi is and what Sikhi is not but you have not provided any Gurbani to back up your claims on such views such as Sikhi promotes arguments. In fact , Gurmati says the exact opposite.
ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥

In Gurbani, moorakh is referred to someone who is without spiritual knowledge ( naam). Arguing is a sansari qualiity its not the quality of Naam Abhyiaasi Gurmukhs. Trust me I know how much it damages your spiritual life.

I dont understand what kind of discussion are you trying to have when you provide no evidence to back up your claims? Secondly your notion that vand chhakan means to share in arguing is ridiculous. Gursikhs share positive gurmat qualities not negative manmat qualities such as arguing and debating. Fair enough if you want a discussion then do it with some pyaare, humility and practical knowledege of Gurbani. Nobody is interested in answering your rhetorical questions. In the bani Siddh Gosht we learn the Siddhas often try to question and argue with Sri Guru Ji, and Sri Guru Ji responded why respond to you when you already know the answers. Meaning the were to egotositcal to listen to the truth as they felt they already know the truth. Your arguments and rationale seem very similar to these Siddhas. I suggest you ask with more sincerity and humility otherwise nobody especially a Naam Abhyiaasi will not waste their time with such non-sense babbling.

Quote

I beg to differ with you. You are incorrect in your claim according to Gurbani in the SGGS, our only Guru. All life starts from bacterium and evolves. So, I am a bit confused with your claim.Please elaborate..

All life starts with Sri Guru Jis Hukum, and in his Hukum he has told us not to eat meat. So no eating meat. End of story!

Tejwant Singh jee,

Quote

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by carnivorous animals? Which animals do goats eat? Please specify. What does this have to do with the Bibek budhi? Or is it a personal preference of a Gurmukh as Gurbani in SGGS, our only Guru indicates?

Carnivorous Animals are those animals who eat other animals to survive. Goats do not eat other animals and therefore are not Carnivorous but are defined as herbivores.

What do you mean by personal preference of a Gurmukh? Are you saying that it is okay to eat meat?

Please do not be ambiguous with your posts. If you are wishing to debate the issue of eating meat in Sikhi then please be very clear as to what stance you are taking and provide your argument with proofs from Gurbani.

Preetam Singh

Sukhdeep Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Quote

You keep claiming what SIkhi is and what Sikhi is not but you have not provided any Gurbani to back up your claims on such views such as Sikhi promotes arguments. In fact , Gurmati says the exact opposite.
ਮੂਰਖੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਨ ਲੁਝੀਐ ॥੧੯॥

If I were you, I would read my post again and may be slowly this time. I never said what you claimed but to the contrary and yet you are judging me with one liners from Gurbani. It is a shame to use Gurbani as a weapon rather than as a tool to make ourselves better. Having said, Gurbani says we are all Murakhs.:-)

My request to you is to use the whole Shabad with your own understanding so, myself and other readers can learn from it.

Please read my post again and then if you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Sin gh

Preetam Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Quote

Carnivorous Animals are those animals who eat other animals to survive. Goats do not eat other animals and therefore are not Carnivorous but are defined as herbivores.

I am aware of that however, it seems that Kulbir Singh ji is not according to his post. I hope by reading your answer of my question he understands it now.

Quote

What do you mean by personal preference of a Gurmukh? Are you saying that it is okay to eat meat?

Please do not be ambiguous with your posts. If you are wishing to debate the issue of eating meat in Sikhi then please be very clear as to what stance you are taking and provide your argument with proofs from Gurbani.

Please read the following thread which has all the related Gurbani Shabads so we can discuss this further.

[www.sikhphilosophy.net]

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh

Mr. Tejwant,

It appears that you are not here to have an honest and open conversation/debate but to pollute the minds of others by propogating your views that contradict the teachings of Shree Guru Granth Sahib Ji. What is your veechar on the shabad posted by Veer Harmeet Singh?

Since you are in disagreement with others with respect to the diet, please advise and educate the forum about good dietary habits that will assist in spiritual development. Please quote from the teachings of our only Guru and not based on the stories that may have reinforced your beliefs.

Wishing you the very best in re-inventing the wheel and in your zest for "Revelation through Investigation"

God Bless!

MNP

Sorry to say but reffering shri guru granth sahib ji maharaj a "tool box" is not acceptable and i think you should apologise for that...

Charanjit Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Quote

Sorry to say but reffering shri guru granth sahib ji maharaj a "tool box" is not acceptable and i think you should apologise for that..

I am sorry to see how touchy you are and I do apologise if I have hurt your feelings. That was not my intention. I also apologise if the word "Tool Box" used for SGGS, our only Guru offended you. As a matter of fact, I love this phrase and I use it often, because SGGS, our only Guru has all the tools that we can use to make ours and others' lives better, hence SGGS is our tool box. I am sure you know the literal/metaphorical meaning of the phrase "Tool Box". I have no intentions of being "anti-semantic". Pun intended.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh

Mnp ji ,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Quote

Mr. Tejwant,

It appears that you are not here to have an honest and open conversation/debate but to pollute the minds of others by propogating your views that contradict the teachings of Shree Guru Granth Sahib Ji. What is your veechar on the shabad posted by Veer Harmeet Singh?

I am sorry to say but It appears that you claim to know more about others than about yourself which is a shame because Sikhi teaches us to give the benefit of the doubt to others rather than jumping to conclusions about them. It is vital to ask questions to others to find things out. To accuse me of being dishonest is not a Sikhi trait I am afraid. But let's move on. I will give my own understanding at the end of the post.

Quote

Since you are in disagreement with others with respect to the diet, please advise and educate the forum about good dietary habits that will assist in spiritual development. Please quote from the teachings of our only Guru and not based on the stories that may have reinforced your beliefs.

One again, you are reading too much or rather claiming to know something that has never been said. I ask questions and have a conversation.

Quote

Wishing you the very best in re-inventing the wheel and in your zest for "Revelation through Investigation"

Pardon my ignorance, but again, I am not a mind reader as you claim to be so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote

God Bless!

The above is a Christian greeting. Are you a Christian btw? You see, I have not jumped to any conclusion about what you wrote the way you did.:-)

Thanks and Regards

Tejwant Singh

Here is my understanding which is in blue. The literal translation is from Sant Singh Khalsa which according to my opinion is quite misleading.

The one is green is by Bhai Manmohan Singh ji and the one in red is from Prof. Sahib Singh ji.

Before I delve into this, I would like to say that this salok and others after that are directed to the Muslims with whom Guru Nanak was having a debate/conversation/discussion. Guru Nanak is talking about the do's and don'ts in Islam and the mechanical rituals which Sikhi is against. You may also read/watch Why Religion? , the speech given at the Interfaith Forum 2012 in Las Vegas at SikhPhilosophy.net.

In the following Salok, Guru Nanak is talking about how women in Islam are forbidden to read Quran or do Namaz during menstruation.
Here is what Quran says about it:

Quote

"They will ask you about menstruation. Say, 'It is harmful, so keep away from women during it. Do not approach them until they are purified of it, when they are purified you may approach them as Allah has ordained." (Qur'an 2:222)

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
Shalok, First Mehl:
ਸਲੋਕ, ਪਹਿਲੀ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ।
xxx
xxx

ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted.
ਜੇਕਰ ਬਸਤਰਾ ਨੂੰ ਲਹੂ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਪੁਸ਼ਾਕ ਮਲੀਨ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।
ਜਾਮਾ = ਕੱਪੜਾ।
ਜੇ ਜਾਮੇ ਨੂੰ ਲਹੂ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਜਾਮਾ ਪਲੀਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ (ਤੇ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ),
When a woman's clothes are bloody due to the menstruation, then her dress( ਜਾਮਾ) becomes unclean hence she is not able to read the Quran.

ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ ॥
Those who suck the blood of human beings-how can their consciousness be pure?
ਜਿਹੜੇ ਇਨਸਾਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਲਹੂ ਚੁਸਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਮਨ ਕਿਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਪਵਿੱਤ੍ਰ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ?
ਰਤੁ = ਲਹੂ। ਮਾਣਸਾ = ਮਨੁੱਖਾਂ ਦਾ।
(ਪਰ) ਜੋ ਬੰਦੇ ਮਨੁੱਖਾਂ ਦਾ ਲਹੂ ਪੀਂਦੇ ਹਨ (ਭਾਵ, ਧੱਕਾ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਹਰਾਮ ਦੀ ਕਮਾਈ ਖਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ) ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਮਨ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਪਾਕ (ਸਾਫ਼) ਰਹਿ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ (ਤੇ ਪਲੀਤ ਮਨ ਨਾਲ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਪੜ੍ਹੀ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਕਬੂਲ
ਹੈ)?

Here Guru Nanak is talking about the hypocricy in Islam that these same men who " suck the blood" of others by lying and making a living through ill means, how can they claim that there mind is clean?
In other words, Islam does not allow anyone to come close to the woman who is having periods and hence her clothes are dirty but at the same time the same men do evil deeds and claim to be " clean".

ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਾ ਦਿਲਿ ਹਛੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਲੇਹੁ ॥
O Nanak, chant the Name of God, with heart-felt devotion.
ਨਾਨਕ ਤੂੰ ਅੱਲਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਮੂੰਹ ਨਾਲ ਸੱਚੇ ਦਿਲ ਕਰਕੇ ਲੈ।
ਦਿਲਿ ਹਛੇ = ਸਾਫ਼ ਦਿਲ ਨਾਲ। ਮੁਖਿ = ਮੂੰਹੋਂ।
ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਮੂੰਹੋਂ ਸਾਫ਼ ਦਿਲ ਨਾਲ ਲੈ,

It only matters to Ik Ong Kaar if the person's heart is clean, nothing else.

ਅਵਰਿ ਦਿਵਾਜੇ ਦੁਨੀ ਕੇ ਝੂਠੇ ਅਮਲ ਕਰੇਹੁ ॥੧॥
Everything else is just a pompous worldly show, and the practice of false deeds. ||1||
ਹੋਰ ਸੰਸਾਰੀ ਦਿਖਾਵੇ ਹਨ, ਆਦਮੀ ਕੂੜੇ ਕਰਮ ਕਮਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਦਿਵਾਜੇ = ਦਿਖਾਵੇ ॥੧॥
(ਇਸ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ) ਹੋਰ ਕੰਮ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਵਾਲੇ ਵਿਖਾਵੇ ਹਨ। ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕੂੜੇ ਕੰਮ ਹੀ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ ॥੧॥

Everything else is nothing but pompous flaunting of the self.

Further down is the following salok which tells the Muslims how it is important to be a good person via good deeds

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
Shalok, First Mehl:
ਸਲੋਕ, ਪਹਿਲੀ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ।
xxx
xxx

ਮਿਹਰ ਮਸੀਤਿ ਸਿਦਕੁ ਮੁਸਲਾ ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ॥
Let mercy be your mosque, faith your prayer-mat, and honest living your Koran.
ਰਹਿਮ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਮਸਜਿਦ, ਭਰੋਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਨਿਮਾਜ਼ ਵਾਲੀ ਫੂੜ੍ਹੀ ਦਰੁਸਤ ਤੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਕੁਰਾਨ,
ਸਿਦਕੁ = ਨਿਸ਼ਚਾ; ਸਰਧਾ। ਮੁਸਲਾ = ਮੁਸੱਲਾ, ਉਹ ਸਫ਼ ਜਿਸ ਉਤੇ ਬੈਠ ਕੇ ਨਿਮਾਜ਼ ਪੜ੍ਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ = ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਹੱਕ, ਹੱਕ ਦੀ ਕਮਾਈ।
(ਲੋਕਾਂ ਉੱਤੇ) ਤਰਸ ਦੀ ਮਸੀਤ (ਬਣਾਓ), ਸਰਧਾ ਨੂੰ ਮੁਸੱਲਾ ਤੇ ਹੱਕ ਦੀ ਕਮਾਈ ਨੂੰ ਕੁਰਾਨ (ਬਣਾਓ)।

ਸਰਮ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਰੋਜਾ ਹੋਹੁ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ॥
Make modesty your circumcision, and good conduct your fast. In this way, you shall be a true Muslim.
ਹਯਾ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀ ਸੁੰਨਤ ਅਤੇ ਭਲਮਨਸਉਪਣ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਵਰਤ ਬਣਾ, ਇੰਞ ਤੂੰ ਮਸਲਮਾਨ ਹੋ ਜਾਏਂਗਾ।
ਸਰਮ = ਸ਼ਰਮ, ਹਯਾ, ਵਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਵਲੋਂ ਸੰਗਣਾ। ਸੀਲੁ = ਚੰਗਾ ਸੁਭਾਉ।
ਵਿਕਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਲੋਂ ਝੱਕਣਾ-ਇਹ ਸੁੰਨਤ ਹੋਵੇ, ਚੰਗਾ ਸੁਭਾਉ ਰੋਜ਼ਾ ਬਣੇ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਬਣ।

ਕਰਣੀ ਕਾਬਾ ਸਚੁ ਪੀਰੁ ਕਲਮਾ ਕਰਮ ਨਿਵਾਜ ॥
Let good conduct be your Kaabaa, Truth your spiritual guide, and the karma of good deeds your prayer and chant.
ਦਰੁਸਤ ਆਚਰਣ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੱਕਾ, ਸੱਚ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਰੂਹਾਨੀ ਰਹਿਬਰ ਅਤੇ ਨੇਕ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਕਲਮਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਬਣਾ।
ਕਰਮ = ਚੰਗੇ ਕੰਮ, ਨੇਕ ਅਮਲ। ਕਾਬਾ = ਮੱਕੇ ਵਿਚ ਉਹ ਮੰਦਰ ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਦਰਸਨ ਕਰਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ।
ਉੱਚਾ ਆਚਰਣ ਕਾਬਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਅੰਦਰੋਂ ਬਾਹਰੋਂ ਇਕੋ ਜਿਹੇ ਰਹਿਣਾ-ਪੀਰ ਹੋਵੇ, ਨੇਕ ਅਮਲਾਂ ਦੀ ਨਿਮਾਜ਼ ਤੇ ਕਲਮਾ ਬਣੇ।

ਤਸਬੀ ਸਾ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵਸੀ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਖੈ ਲਾਜ ॥੧॥
Let your rosary be that which is pleasing to His Will. O Nanak, God shall preserve your honor. ||1||
ਮਾਲਾ ਉਹ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਚੰਗਾ ਲਗਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇੰਞ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਤੇਰੀ ਇੱਜ਼ਤ ਆਬਰੂ ਰੱਖ ਲਵੇਗਾ, ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ!
xxx॥੧॥
ਜੋ ਗੱਲ ਉਸ ਰੱਬ ਨੂੰ ਭਾਵੇ ਉਹੀ (ਸਿਰ ਮੱਥੇ ਤੇ ਮੰਨਣੀ, ਇਹ) ਤਸਬੀ ਹੋਵੇ। ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਅਜਿਹੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਦੀ ਰੱਬ) ਲਾਜ ਰੱਖਦਾ ਹੈ ॥੧॥

I knew where this discussion will lead to. Singhs should expect that as the word about this forum/website spreads it will bring seekers from different walks of life. Some will be Curiosity-Seekers, some will be Inquisitive-Seekers and finally some will be Genuine-Seekers. I feel that with Bibek-Budh the seeker can be identified and answered.

But, Yes it is very insulting if someone call our Pita Jee a "Tool-Box". We do not need any literal, metaphorical or grammatical type of fancy phrase or definitions for our Pita Jee. Use of such phrase shows in which direction the seeker is rowing his boat.

ਵਿਣੁ ਗੁਣ ਕੀਤੇ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥

Khalsa Panth already knows what is appropriate food for a Gursikh as per Hukam of Guru Sahib. Then what is the use of provoking such discussions over & over again and reinventing the wheel. After all what is this fuss about, as if eating food is the only task left to Sikhs. Some are so engrossed in food that eating is the only phenomenon of their life.

Genuine seekers knows one thing i.e. ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਕਾ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਗਿਆਨ ॥

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa,
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa

Wahegure Ji ki Fateh

Please do not use the words like "tool box" for Maharaj it's not much different than calling Guru Granth Sahib an Encylcopedia or mere a book with all the answers. We should choose our words very carefully when referring to Maharaj. You could just say Maharaj have all the tools or answer, basically every thing we can or cannot imagine.

I hope you understand..

Tejwant Singh Ji,

The meat argument has been discussed numerous times on untold number of threads, sites, forums since the mid 90's. If you googled these you will find all the thoughts of Sikhs pro & against over the years. The same goes for Ragmala and Keski debates.

As you are no doubt already aware of the AKJ stance on meat, I'm not entirely sure what you hope gain by to re-igniting this now age old and frankly boring discussion.

'You' are more than welcome to eat whatever you wish, but trying to convince the Singhs here will not get you anywhere.

I myself have miniscule differences in rehats from the Jatha, but am here to learn from Gursikhs who are far more spiritually advanced. Since I've been using the net (early 90's) I have not come across many sites where so much gian is contributed by the members. In fact I can count them on one hand.

My advice is to pick the gems from these Gursikhs and discuss Gurmat - the title of the site, and not get stuck on what is now a very tired topic.

Tejwant singh ji its clear you are trying to promote meat eating and your very first reply to kulbir singh ji was very condescending in its tone. What he said was plain and simple but your reply was an effort to look for an excuse to start an argument.
There is a lot of literature on meat eating, if I were you I would study that and write an exhaustive article with my vviews instead of trying to show others at this gurmat forums in a poor light.
And sikhi is not about arguments. Its about Naam jaap and gurbani understanding with bhae-bhavna. Gurmat is about Daya which begets dharma. Same daya tells me not to kill animals for food when clearly I don't need to.

Again, be nice and write an article based on your views and put it up in your online spot, let's not flog a dead horse.

Tejwant ji another thing:
Guru Granth Sahib is our actual And living GURU. Its not a toolbox!

Quote

In the following Salok, Guru Nanak is talking about how women in Islam are forbidden to read Quran or do Namaz during menstruation.
Here is what Quran says about it:

Tejwant Singh jeeo, how did you get the interpretation that here Guru Sahib is talking about women's menstruation? There is no indication of this in the Salok. Professor Sahib Singh jee or Manmohan Singh jee has made no indication of this. Then how did you reach this conclusion?

The Salok talks about the clothes getting stained by blood and given the next Pankiti - ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ - it's more likely that here the blood refers to such blood that is shed through cruelty.

Quote

It only matters to Ik Ong Kaar if the person's heart is clean, nothing else.

You have conveniently ignored the message of the third Pankiti and written that person's heart should be clean. Do you believe in chanting Naam, as the Pankiti says? Sure, the Pankiti also adds that Naam should be chanted through mouth, with good faith in heart or with good heart but chanting of Naam is clear in this Pankiti. Do you agree with Professor Sahib Singh jee's interpretation of this Pankiti? Professor jee is clearly interpreting this Pankiti to mean that Naam should be chanted with mouth, with good heart?

If you agree with chanting Gurmat Naam, rest will fall in place. You can interpret the first Pankitis as you wish. If you agree with us on the third Pankiti, and practice it, we are confident that sooner than later, we will agree on the first 2 Pankitis as well.

Kulbir Singh

Guru Fateh to all.

A lot of different points have been raised and I will try to address them in this post to the best of my knowledge.. I apologise in advance if I miss someone. Please remind me of it and I will correct it.But before I do that, I have a question to all. I see here that no one greets no one here or at least I have not been, although I have greeted all whom I have addressed. Is this the norm or a rule here?

One more thing I want to point out that we are just getting into circular arguments about myself using the phrase TOOL BOX for the SGGS, our only Guru. Many people are complaining about it rather than getting to the real issue which started with a Shabad from Guru Nanak Dev.

As I said before, I use this phrase often in different forums and no one has raised this issue but many have complimented me and have started using it. Once again, I have no intentions of hurting anyone's feeling and for me Sikhi is a pragmatic way of life where understanding and then practicing our Gurus' message from the SGGS in order to make ours and others' lives better is the base and a must.. I again apologise for that and I will not use the phrase in this forum. No offence meant or intended.

I hope that is clear to all who objected to it which as I said before is the first for me and I visit many forums in order to learn our Gurus' message. This is the reason I joined this group.


Now let's get to the posts:
1. @ Jaskirat ji.-btw, my 23 year old daughter's name is Jaskeerat:-)

You write:

Quote

ਵਿਣੁ ਗੁਣ ਕੀਤੇ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥

Genuine seekers knows one thing i.e. ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਕਾ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਗਿਆਨ ॥

As I mentioned in my posts before. In my opinion, it is insulting to Gurbani and to our Gurus to use one liners as a weapon to prove the point. SGGS is not a weapon but our Enlightener-Our only Guru- to make us better.If you have anything to express based on Gurbani, I would request you to post the whole Shabad with your own understanding. I will wait for your sharing of the whole Shabad/s with us to make us better.

Thanks.

2. @ Unjaan ji,

I agree. We are all here to learn what the SGGS, our only Guru says.

Thanks

3. @ Eyesacadamic Ji

You write:

Quote

Tejwant singh ji its clear you are trying to promote meat eating and your very first reply to kulbir singh ji was very condescending in its tone. What he said was plain and simple but your reply was an effort to look for an excuse to start an argument.
There is a lot of literature on meat eating, if I were you I would study that and write an exhaustive article with my vviews instead of trying to show others at this gurmat forums in a poor light.
And sikhi is not about arguments. Its about Naam jaap and gurbani understanding with bhae-bhavna. Gurmat is about Daya which begets dharma. Same daya tells me not to kill animals for food when clearly I don't need to.

Again, be nice and write an article based on your views and put it up in your online spot, let's not flog a dead horse.

I am not here to promote anything but learn from this wonderful Sadh Sangat. In order to learn the true message of SGGS, our only Guru, asking questions is a must. Hence your assumption is false and wrong. Please do not hesitate to ask questions to me regarding what I have written rather than jumping to conclusions.

Thanks

4. @ Kulbir Singh ji,

My interpretation:
In the following Salok, Guru Nanak is talking about how women in Islam are forbidden to read Quran or do Namaz during menstruation.
Here is what Quran says about it:

You write:

Quote

Tejwant Singh jeeo, how did you get the interpretation that here Guru Sahib is talking about women's menstruation? There is no indication of this in the Salok. Professor Sahib Singh jee or Manmohan Singh jee has made no indication of this. Then how did you reach this conclusion?

One thing is clear from Prof. Sahib Singh ji's interpretation that this Shabad is particularly addressed to the Muslims/Islam. Here it is:

ਜੇ ਜਾਮੇ ਨੂੰ ਲਹੂ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਜਾਮਾ ਪਲੀਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ (ਤੇ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ),

I hope the first thing is clear now who this Shabad is addressed to. We also know from Islamic/Quarnic studies, which I am sure you must be aware that Guru Nanak had studied them deeply. The verse I mentioned from the Quran and many others can be found in there also prohibit Muslim women to do Nawaz during menstruation. We also know from the historical point of view that medical field (sanitary pads) was not that advanced then and it is obvious that womens' clothes got bloody during menstruation. Hence, my conclusion and interpretation.

Quote

The Salok talks about the clothes getting stained by blood and given the next Pankiti - ਜੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਵਹਿ ਮਾਣਸਾ ਤਿਨ ਕਿਉ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਚੀਤੁ - it's more likely that here the blood refers to such blood that is shed through cruelty.

di
How do you mean by:it's more likely that here the blood refers to such blood that is shed through cruelty?

How did you come to that conclusion? Are there any adjacent Shabads that indicate that or is it your own understanding/interpretation?
If there are. then please do share or if it is your personal understanding/interpretation, please let me know.

My interpretation:

It only matters to Ik Ong Kaar if (provided) the person's heart is clean, nothing else.

Quote

You have conveniently ignored the message of the third Pankiti and written that person's heart should be clean. Do you believe in chanting Naam, as the Pankiti says? Sure, the Pankiti also adds that Naam should be chanted through mouth, with good faith in heart or with good heart but chanting of Naam is clear in this Pankiti. Do you agree with Professor Sahib Singh jee's interpretation of this Pankiti? Professor jee is clearly interpreting this Pankiti to mean that Naam should be chanted with mouth, with good heart?

I am a bit confused about what you are trying to say above but I will try my best of what I understand.

Yes, one's "heart should be clean". When one chants Ik Ong Kaar's name from the heart, it obviously mean that the heart is clean or with a clean heart. Hence, I do not understand what your point in nit picking this phrase is. Please elaborate.

Of course the Naam is chanted via mouth provided one is not mute. However, if one's heart is not clean, then chanting the Naam becomes parroting laced with hypocricy because it does not come from the heart. And if one is mute, the important thing is the heart should be clean so one can chant the Naam silently because one is not able to use the mouth. I have no idea where your gripe is regarding this.

I

Quote

f you agree with chanting Gurmat Naam, rest will fall in place. You can interpret the first Pankitis as you wish. If you agree with us on the third Pankiti, and practice it, we are confident that sooner than later, we will agree on the first 2 Pankitis as well.

What do you mean by "rest will fall in place"? What will fall in place? In what manner? Who says so?

Please elaborate.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Quote

One thing is clear from Prof. Sahib Singh ji's interpretation that this Shabad is particularly addressed to the Muslims/Islam. Here it is:

ਜੇ ਜਾਮੇ ਨੂੰ ਲਹੂ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਜਾਮਾ ਪਲੀਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ (ਤੇ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ),

I hope the first thing is clear now who this Shabad is addressed to. We also know from Islamic/Quarnic studies, which I am sure you must be aware that Guru Nanak had studied them deeply. The verse I mentioned from the Quran and many others can be found in there also prohibit Muslim women to do Nawaz during menstruation. We also know from the historical point of view that medical field (sanitary pads) was not that advanced then and it is obvious that womens' clothes got bloody during menstruation. Hence, my conclusion and interpretation.

Tejwant Singh jeeo, we can agree that this Shabad is most likely addressed to a Muslim or is the outcome of Vichaar with a Muslim. This Shabad is not geared towards the menstruation cycle of women because Guru Sahib is talking of blood staining the Jaama i.e. the outer clothing not the under-garments. The under garments are not known as Jaama. Women's menstruation, even in the absence of sanitary pads, did not stain the outer clothes. There were other means to avoid this. Traditionally, the Saakhi behind this is that a Mullah was doing an animal Zibaah (killing the Halaal way) and while doing so some drops fell on his Jaama. Soon enough time for Nimaaz (Muslim prayer) came up and this Mullah proceeded to change his clothes since his blood-stained clothes were not considered to be clean enough for Nimaaz.

No authentic scholar has interpreted this Salok as being geared towards women's menstruation cycle.

Quote

How do you mean by:it's more likely that here the blood refers to such blood that is shed through cruelty?

How did you come to that conclusion? Are there any adjacent Shabads that indicate that or is it your own understanding/interpretation?
If there are. then please do share or if it is your personal understanding/interpretation, please let me know.

I came to this conclusion because firstly this is how this Salok is interpreted historically. Secondly, the second Pankiti talks about drinking blood; therefore, the first Pankiti too must be interpreted as referring to the cruelty of shedding blood. Whether you interpret the second Salok as drinking blood in form of eating flesh or doing cruelties on people; either way the subject matter is cruelty.

Quote

I am a bit confused about what you are trying to say above but I will try my best of what I understand.

Yes, one's "heart should be clean". When one chants Ik Ong Kaar's name from the heart, it obviously mean that the heart is clean or with a clean heart. Hence, I do not understand what your point in nit picking this phrase is. Please elaborate.

Of course the Naam is chanted via mouth provided one is not mute. However, if one's heart is not clean, then chanting the Naam becomes parroting laced with hypocricy because it does not come from the heart. And if one is mute, the important thing is the heart should be clean so one can chant the Naam silently because one is not able to use the mouth. I have no idea where your gripe is regarding this.

Some of our brothers who support eating meat and who don't believe in the last Pehar of night to be Amritvela, also don't believe in the concept of Naam Simran i.e. chanting Naam with love and devotion. From your above quote, it seems like you do believe in chanting Naam, so we will end this point right here. No need to take it any further.

Quote

What do you mean by "rest will fall in place"? What will fall in place? In what manner? Who says so?

We believe in the super efficacy of Naam Japna and singing Gurbani with love, understanding and devotion; and we further believe that one who practices this Trai-Gunni-Aprampar deed, cannot continue eating meat and would start getting up at Amritvela.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response. This is the way to have a conversation to widen our understanding of the SGGS, our only Guru and I do appreciate it.

You write:

Quote

Tejwant Singh jeeo, we can agree that this Shabad is most likely addressed to a Muslim or is the outcome of Vichaar with a Muslim.

I am glad we both agreed on it and it is important to notice that you did not mention anything about it in your first interpretation. One wonders why you forgot this important part!

Quote

This Shabad is not geared towards the menstruation cycle of women because Guru Sahib is talking of blood staining the Jaama i.e. the outer clothing not the under-garments. The under garments are not known as Jaama. Women's menstruation, even in the absence of sanitary pads, did not stain the outer clothes. There were other means to avoid this

.

I beg to differ with you. How do you know if people wore under garments then or of what kind? A salwar can get bloody even now a days despite the sanitary pads. You can ask any ob/gyn about that. Traditionally, Muslims normally do not have the habit of wearing undergarments in the Islamic countries they live especially in the rural areas. I talked to a Muslim friend about this today and he told me that.

Secondly, we know what Quran says about women who are having their periods as posted by me. Hence, this is an educated conclusion based on Quran's verses, Islamic habits and traditions.

Quote

Traditionally, the Saakhi behind this is that a Mullah was doing an animal Zibaah (killing the Halaal way) and while doing so some drops fell on his Jaama. Soon enough time for Nimaaz (Muslim prayer) came up and this Mullah proceeded to change his clothes since his blood-stained clothes were not considered to be clean enough for Nimaaz.

Gurbani does not need any Sakhis to justify it. SGGS, our only Guru stands on its own. There is no mention in the Shabad about Halal is any part, nor is there any mention about it in the preceding or the following Shabads. So, I have no idea where you got that from. But for the sake of this conversation, let's say what you believe in is true. If it were "this Mullah proceeded to change his clothes since his blood-stained clothes were not considered to be clean enough for Nimaaz", then the first verse becomes irrelevant because it says:

Quote

ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥
If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted.
ਜੇਕਰ ਬਸਤਰਾ ਨੂੰ ਲਹੂ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਪੁਸ਼ਾਕ ਮਲੀਨ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।
ਜਾਮਾ = ਕੱਪੜਾ।
ਜੇ ਜਾਮੇ ਨੂੰ ਲਹੂ ਲੱਗ ਜਾਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਜਾਮਾ ਪਲੀਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ (ਤੇ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ),

We have to pay attention to ਜੇ/ if. This is the conditional usage.. As according to you and the Sakhi to put credence in order to justify Gurbani, the Mullah went to change his clothes, then the condition that Guru Nanak used in the Shabad is not required, provided we go by your Sakhi and how come you did not mention anything like that in your initial interpretation?

Why did it show up in your post when I mentioned about this Shabad that it is addressed to the Muslims? I am a bit baffled about it because it is totally about turn from your first one.

Quote

No authentic scholar has interpreted this Salok as being geared towards women's menstruation cycle.

I have no idea what you mean by the above who are these so called authentic scholars and who have they been authenticated by?

Lastly, I would never use Sakhis to justify the SGGS,our only Guru. I rather find that insulting and it shows undermining our Guru.Only educated assumptions based on other scripture, cultural traditions are valid in my opinion.

Thanks & regards.

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Guru Fateh.
>
> Thanks for the response. This is the way to have a
> conversation to widen our understanding of the
> SGGS, our only Guru and I do appreciate it.
>

Why do you keep saying SGGS, our only Guru, are you implying that members and readers of this forum believe in another Guru aside from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj?

Rsk ji,

Guru fateh.

You write:

Quote

Why do you keep saying SGGS, our only Guru, are you implying that members and readers of this forum believe in another Guru aside from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj?

I am sorry to say that I am not implying anything about anyone. It is just your fertile imagination that makes you think like that. I have no idea why you feel offended by it.

Isn't SGGS, our only Guru? Would you like to discuss anything relating to Gurmat from where I can learn? I would like you to.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh ji, you wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sure you are very well aware that Sikhi is
> based on revelation through investigation by
> asking questions. Baal Nanak taught us that when
> he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu. Do you mean
> we should not follow the same path carved by him
> at a very young age?
> Debate is the corner stone of Sikhi. It will be
> unSikhi trait on our part by refusing to do so.
> Debate is part and parcel of Sikhi. We, who dwell
> with Nirbhau and Nirvair should not shun ourselves
> away from it but rather should embrace it. Sikhi
> demands that from us for our own learning process.
> Sidh Gosht is one of many examples about debates
> given in the SGGS, our only Guru.

Going by your logic are you saying that Guru Nanak achieved his spiritual state through discussion and debates. I am of the view that all the debates and discussion done by Guru Nanak were not meant for his own personal spiritual benefits but rather for the other person. Guru Nanak Dev ji through his Kala-Karishmi words which came from Guru-Hridya (Guru Heart) had most profound effect on the other person. Guru Nanak himself stood to gain nothing from plain verbal discussions of ideas and conversations

I am sure you would agree when I say that Bhai Gurdass Ji was a pooran Brahmagyani? And that his writings are held in utmost respect in Sikh sangat? Here is what Bhai Gurdass ji says on Guru Nanak Sahib ji's spiritual state and his tapasya:

ਸੁਣੀ ਪੁਕਾਰਿ ਦਾਤਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਗ ਮਾਹਿ ਪਠਾਇਆ।
The benefactor Lord listened to the cries (of humanity) and sent Guru Nanak to this world.

(ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੨੩)

In this line Bhai Sahib clearly says that Prabhu ji SENT Guru Nanak for the sake of humanity. Guru Nanak himself was Bakshya from Dhur- Dargah. He did not need to learn through futile verbal discussions and debates. All this debates were to connect the other person with satnaam.

Since you mentioned earlier that mentioning just one liners is an 'insult' to gurbani/gurmat I shall copy paste the whole pauri here in case you can infer some other meaning out of this line:

ਸੁਣੀ ਪੁਕਾਰਿ ਦਾਤਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਗ ਮਾਹਿ ਪਠਾਇਆ।
ਚਰਨ ਧੋਇ ਰਹਰਾਸਿ ਕਰਿ ਚਰਣਾਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਪੀਲਾਇਆ।
ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਪੂਰਨ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਇਕ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ।
ਚਾਰੇ ਪੈਰ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਚਾਰਿ ਵਰਨ ਇਕ ਵਰਨੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ।
ਰਾਣਾ ਰੰਕ ਬਰਾਬਰੀ ਪੈਰੀ ਪਵਣਾ ਜਗਿ ਵਰਤਾਇਆ।
ਉਲਟਾ ਖੇਲੁ ਪਿਰੰਮ ਦਾ ਪੈਰਾ ਉਪਰਿ ਸੀਸੁ ਨਿਵਾਇਆ।
ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਬਾਬੇ ਤਾਰਿਆ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਪੜ੍ਹਿ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਸੁਣਾਇਆ।
ਕਲਿ ਤਾਰਣ ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਆਇਆ ॥੨੩॥

Bhai Gurdass ji says Guru Nanak saved the humanity in Kaljug by the divine utterance of Satnaam. Do you agree with this? Or do you say that Guru Nanak Sahib reached his MOST EXALTED, PUREST OF THE PURE, HIGHEST OF THE HIGH SPIRITUAL STATE THROUGH DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS?

Please share with us your views on the above pauri by Bhai Gurdass Ji whose baani has been called as Kunji of Gurbani.

In the next pauri Bhai Sahib says that Guru Nanak Sahib first attained NAU NIDH NAAM GAREEBI from SACHKHAND after he did BHAARI TAPASYA. Nowhere does he say he attained Brahmgyan through debates and discussions. Here is the pauri:

ਪਹਿਲਾ ਬਾਬੇ ਪਾਯਾ ਬਖਸੁ ਦਰਿ ਪਿਛੋ ਦੇ ਫਿਰਿ ਘਾਲਿ ਕਮਾਈ।
ਰੇਤੁ ਅਕੁ ਆਹਾਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਰੋੜਾ ਕੀ ਗੁਰ ਕਰੀ ਵਿਛਾਈ।
ਭਾਰੀ ਕਰੀ ਤਪਸਿਆ ਵਡੇ ਭਾਗੁ ਹਰਿ ਸਿਉ ਬਣਿ ਆਈ।
ਬਾਬਾ ਪੈਧਾ ਸਚਖੰਡਿ ਨਉ ਨਿਧਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਗਰੀਬੀ ਪਾਈ।
ਬਾਬਾ ਦੇਖੈ ਧਿਆਨ ਧਰਿ ਜਲਤੀ ਸਭਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਵੀ ਦਿਸਿ ਆਈ।
ਬਾਝਹੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਬਾਰ ਹੈ ਹੈ ਹੈ ਕਰਦੀ ਸੁਣੀ ਲੁਕਾਈ।
ਬਾਬੇ ਭੇਖ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਉਦਾਸੀ ਕੀ ਰੀਤਿ ਚਲਾਈ।
ਚੜ੍ਹਿਆ ਸੋਧਣਿ ਧਰਤਿ ਲੁਕਾਈ ॥੨੪॥

The whole pauri shows that Guru Nanak attained his MOST EXALTED HIGHEST SPIRITUAL STATE through Tapasya. He did not do any debate and discussions for achieving his spiritual state. In fact the last line shows that after achieving Nau Nidh Naam Garibi Guru Nanak Sahib travelled the world for the sole purpose of SUDHAAI of the humanity and NOT for discussions and debates and then gaining some understanding out of it for his benefit.

Tejwant singh ji can you please share your views on what Pooran Brahmagyani Bhai Gurdass ji has said in these pauris? Do you think that Guru Nanak Sahib achieved his spiritual state after mental exercises and debates and arguments?

Did any of the following Gurus: Guru Angad Sahib, Guru Amardass ji, Guru Ramdass ji, Guru Arjan Dev ji, Guru Hargobind Sahib ji, Guru Har Rae Sahib ji, Guru Harkrishan Sahib ji, Guru Tegh Bahadur ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji attain enlightenment or spiritual avastha through debates and discussion which you say are cornerstone of Sikhi?
Or
Can you please give me examples from Guru Grantha Sahib (our only Guru) proving that debates and discussions are ways and means of achieving enlightenment? You mentioned Sidha Goshta. Did Guru Nanak do the discussion for gaining any spiritual merit? Have you read Sidha Gosht? What is its message? Is it not that by doing Hari Bhagti there is no salvation?

Let me say it plainly here:
My point of view is that the whole Sidha Goshta is about teaching Sidha that without Satnaam/Guru-Shabad there is no Mukti. And here is the proof. The Rahao Pankti:

ਕਿਆ ਭਵੀਐ ਸਚਿ ਸੂਚਾ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਸਾਚ ਸਬਦ ਬਿਨੁ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੧॥

Now I have used this one liner. Can you prove that I am wrong? That by this pankti Guru Nanak Sahib means something else other than that without Sach Shabad (Naam, Gurmantar) there is no mukti. Can you proove from Sidha Gosht that debates and discussions are a valid and accepted gurmat way of achieving spirituality?

Here is what Guru Nanak Sahib says finally:

ਸਬਦੈ ਕਾ ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਸੁਣਿ ਤੂ ਅਉਧੂ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਜੋਗੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥
ਨਾਮੇ ਰਾਤੇ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਮਾਤੇ ਨਾਮੈ ਤੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਈ ॥
ਨਾਮੈ ਹੀ ਤੇ ਸਭੁ ਪਰਗਟੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਝੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਭੇਖ ਕਰਹਿ ਬਹੁਤੇਰੇ ਸਚੈ ਆਪਿ ਖੁਆਈ ॥
ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਾਈਐ ਅਉਧੂ ਜੋਗ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਤਾ ਹੋਈ ॥
ਕਰਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ਮਨਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੭੨॥

Can you please share your views on this pauri too? Do you disagree with the interpretation that Guru Nanak Sahib is saying in this pauri that Naam is everything and without Naam there is NO mukti?

A word of clarification:
I am not saying that discussing something is not useful but I certainly do not agree that

Quote
Tejwant Singh
>Sikhi is based on revelation through investigation by
> asking questions.

or

Quote

> Debate is the corner stone of Sikhi. It will be
> unSikhi trait on our part by refusing to do so.
> Debate is part and parcel of Sikhi. We, who dwell
> with Nirbhau and Nirvair should not shun ourselves
> away from it but rather should embrace it.

Hello TS,

Greetings! Thank you for your response. It has been educative to read the response of the sangat to the stimuli that you have been presenting on the forum. I did visit the link (www.sikhphilosophy.com) provided by you in the thread. It reveals the depth to which you have dived to attain the knowledge and pearls of wisdom that you have projected hitherto. On the other hand, I didn't want any one to second guess my "station" in life, I therefore have a very apt username for all to know that I am indeed Mah(a)NalayakPurush.

It is interesting how the writings of the individuals reveal the personalities that they have. Moreover, we receive things as we perceive. So you are fully right in your thinking to come to the conclusions that you have made. If you have guessed that I might be a Christian because "God Bless" is used by Christians, so be it. Similarly, I had my doubt about you being a Khalsa that is why I omitted the Singh and the greetings that I would exchange when meeting another Khalsa. You have repeatedly abbreviated the name of our only Guru, and this also sprouted some seeds of doubt in my mind regarding your being a Khalsa or a Pseudo-Khalsa.

Once again all the best in reinventing the wheel and in pursuit of "revelation through investigation."

Rabh Rakha

MNP

Quote

Gurbani does not need any Sakhis to justify it. SGGS, our only Guru stands on its own. There is no mention in the Shabad about Halal is any part, nor is there any mention about it in the preceding or the following Shabads. So, I have no idea where you got that from.

You are correct that there is no mention in the Shabad about Halal but you should remember that there is no reference in the Shabad to women's menstruation either. If you want to keep the stance of not using any outside Saakhi, then you should also not use outside conclusions. Just go by what the Shabad says. The Salok in the first Pankiti just mentions that if blood is incurred by Jaama (clothes) then the Jaama becomes impure. Just do Vichaar of the Shabad strictly based on what the Salok says. You can't have it both ways i.e. you object to others making reference to outside Saakhi but you yourself bring in the conclusion from outside, that this Salok is talking about women's menstruation.

Quote

As according to you and the Sakhi to put credence in order to justify Gurbani, the Mullah went to change his clothes, then the condition that Guru Nanak used in the Shabad is not required, provided we go by your Sakhi and how come you did not mention anything like that in your initial interpretation?

Please read my first post carefully. My initial post does allude to the Saakhi.

Quote

Why did it show up in your post when I mentioned about this Shabad that it is addressed to the Muslims? I am a bit baffled about it because it is totally about turn from your first one.

I don't see any reason why you should be baffled. What difference does it make whether the Salok is addressed to a Muslim or a Hindu? We ought to obey the Hukam and adopt the Updesh in any case.

Kulbir Singh

Guru Fateh to All.

@ eyesacademic ji,

You write:

Quote

Going by your logic are you saying that Guru Nanak achieved his spiritual state through discussion and debates.

I never said that and your logic is not my logic. I am not educated enough, nor arrogant enough to come to the conclusion how Guru Nanak achieved his Spiritual State .Hence, I would never try to attempt that.

One thing I know that Guru Nanak was a game changer in all aspects. His idea based way of life ingrained in pragmatism made him refuse to wear the Hindu Janieu at the age of seven, call out Babar, the tyrant and the Sidhs in respective Babarvani and Sidhgosht. His Udaasis speak for themselves.

Quote

I am of the view that all the debates and discussion done by Guru Nanak were not meant for his own personal spiritual benefits but rather for the other person. Guru Nanak Dev ji through his Kala-Karishmi words which came from Guru-Hridya (Guru Heart) had most profound effect on the other person. Guru Nanak himself stood to gain nothing from plain verbal discussions of ideas and conversations

Again, that is your view and conclusion, and as I said, I would dare not attempt anything like that about Guru Nanak who changed the outlook of the world people were living in that time. In fact I wrote a piece about it named," Are we God fearing or God loving" many years ago.

Quote

I am sure you would agree when I say that Bhai Gurdass Ji was a pooran Brahmagyani? And that his writings are held in utmost respect in Sikh sangat? Here is what Bhai Gurdass ji says on Guru Nanak Sahib ji's spiritual state and his tapasya:

Again, that is your conclusion and view that you have every right to have, I am sorry to say I am not capable of doing that.

The fact is that Bhai Gurdas was a great poet like Bhai Nand Lal ji and many others. His Varaans speak for themselves about his insight.

Having said that we should also keep in mind that none of the above mentioned poets' poetry passed the benchmark set by our Gurus to be added in the SGGS, for the reasons only known to Our 5th and our 10th Nanaks.

Quote

Please share with us your views on the above pauri by Bhai Gurdass Ji whose baani has been called as Kunji of Gurbani.

eyesacademic ji, SGGS is the only scripture that is not under lock so that it needs the key unlike the Vedas, Gita, Torah, The Bible, The Quran who were only allowed to be read/studied by the chosen few. SGGS is the only one that can be read/studied by anyone and everyone. Darbar has four doors to welcome all humankind of any hue, creed or faith.

I know it is said, in other words, it is a legend which makes no Sikhi sense in my view. So, allow me to reiterate it that Gurbani is not under any lock that it needs any key from anyone or any locksmith for that matter.

Quote

Did any of the following Gurus: Guru Angad Sahib, Guru Amardass ji, Guru Ramdass ji, Guru Arjan Dev ji, Guru Hargobind Sahib ji, Guru Har Rae Sahib ji, Guru Harkrishan Sahib ji, Guru Tegh Bahadur ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji attain enlightenment or spiritual avastha through debates and discussion which you say are cornerstone of Sikhi?

Once again, I am not arrogant enough to conclude how all other Nine Nanaks attained enlightenment or spiritual avastha. If you want to do it, it is your right as said before but I am sure, the times then, created the situations for all of them to have discussions and debates with the tyrants of that time.

Quote

Or
Can you please give me examples from Guru Grantha Sahib (our only Guru) proving that debates and discussions are ways and means of achieving enlightenment? You mentioned Sidha Goshta. Did Guru Nanak do the discussion for gaining any spiritual merit? Have you read Sidha Gosht? What is its message? Is it not that by doing Hari Bhagti there is no salvation?

I also know that the word ਕਿਆ (what) is used 593 times in the SGGS, our only Guru. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Quote

Let me say it plainly here:
My point of view is that the whole Sidha Goshta is about teaching Sidha that without Satnaam/Guru-Shabad there is no Mukti. And here is the proof. The Rahao Pankti:

ਕਿਆ ਭਵੀਐ ਸਚਿ ਸੂਚਾ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਸਾਚ ਸਬਦ ਬਿਨੁ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੧॥

Now I have used this one liner. Can you prove that I am wrong? That by this pankti Guru Nanak Sahib means something else other than that without Sach Shabad (Naam, Gurmantar) there is no mukti. Can you proove from Sidha Gosht that debates and discussions are a valid and accepted gurmat way of achieving spirituality?

Here is what Guru Nanak Sahib says finally:

ਸਬਦੈ ਕਾ ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਸੁਣਿ ਤੂ ਅਉਧੂ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਜੋਗੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥
ਨਾਮੇ ਰਾਤੇ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਮਾਤੇ ਨਾਮੈ ਤੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਈ ॥
ਨਾਮੈ ਹੀ ਤੇ ਸਭੁ ਪਰਗਟੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਝੀ ਪਾਈ ॥
ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਭੇਖ ਕਰਹਿ ਬਹੁਤੇਰੇ ਸਚੈ ਆਪਿ ਖੁਆਈ ॥
ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਾਈਐ ਅਉਧੂ ਜੋਗ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਤਾ ਹੋਈ ॥
ਕਰਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ਮਨਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੭੨॥

Can you please share your views on this pauri too? Do you disagree with the interpretation that Guru Nanak Sahib is saying in this pauri that Naam is everything and without Naam there is NO mukti?

Well, the fact of the matter is you have not attempted to interpret the Shabad you gave above. Hence, I have no idea what to agree or disagree with.Once you share your own understanding about the whole Shabad then only I can add something from my understanding.
I will eagerly wait for that.

Quote

A word of clarification:
I am not saying that discussing something is not useful but I certainly do not agree that

That is you opinion and I respect that. However, it is interesting to notice that you are doing the same thing that you loathe me of. But I welcome it in the Sikhi spirit. It is important to ask questions and discuss in order to find answers as you yourself have shown in your post.

@Mnp ji,

You write:

Quote

Hello TS,

I did visit the link (www.sikhphilosophy.com) provided by you in the thread. It reveals the depth to which you have dived to attain the knowledge and pearls of wisdom that you have projected hitherto. On the other hand, I didn't want any one to second guess my "station" in life, I therefore have a very apt username for all to know that I am indeed Mah(a)NalayakPurush.

I am sorry to say that if you have visited the above forum, then it is the wrong one. The forum I posted twice is www.sikhphilosophy.net.

Quote

It is interesting how the writings of the individuals reveal the personalities that they have. Moreover, we receive things as we perceive. So you are fully right in your thinking to come to the conclusions that you have made. If you have guessed that I might be a Christian because "God Bless" is used by Christians, so be it.

Sorry to say you are absolutely wrong.The fact is that I did not conclude anything. It was rather a Question. I am sure you know the difference.Please check it again in my post to you.

Quote

Similarly, I had my doubt about you being a Khalsa that is why I omitted the Singh and the greetings that I would exchange when meeting another Khalsa. You have repeatedly abbreviated the name of our only Guru, and this also sprouted some seeds of doubt in my mind regarding your being a Khalsa or a Pseudo-Khalsa.

Yes, that is your conclusion not a question unlike mine and I am fine with it. It is a shame when people fear themselves even to have give the benefit of the doubt by jumping to the conclusions their minds concoct.

Quote

Once again all the best in reinventing the wheel and in pursuit of "revelation through investigation."

Rabh Rakha

Once again I have no idea what you mean by the above. Rabh Rakha.:-)

@ Kulbir Singh ji,

You write:

Quote

You are correct that there is no mention in the Shabad about Halal but you should remember that there is no reference in the Shabad to women's menstruation either. If you want to keep the stance of not using any outside Saakhi, then you should also not use outside conclusions. Just go by what the Shabad says. The Salok in the first Pankiti just mentions that if blood is incurred by Jaama (clothes) then the Jaama becomes impure. Just do Vichaar of the Shabad strictly based on what the Salok says. You can't have it both ways i.e. you object to others making reference to outside Saakhi but you yourself bring in the conclusion from outside, that this Salok is talking about women's menstruation.

Mine was an educated conclusion based on Islamic history, habits, traditions,and the Quran. I did not pull any Sakhi out of thin air. Let's agree that Guru Sahib is talking to the Muslims and talking about bloody Jaama (a very commonly used Arabic word for clothes).

Quote

Please read my first post carefully. My initial post does allude to the Saakhi.

I am aware of that. The reason, I did not point that out in my first post because it was not related to my questions. I was a bit taken aback by the concoction though.

Quote

I don't see any reason why you should be baffled. What difference does it make whether the Salok is addressed to a Muslim or a Hindu? We ought to obey the Hukam and adopt the Updesh in any case.

I beg to differ with you. It is very important to know who Guru Sahib was addressing to in order to understand the Hukam and put it into practice because all peoples religions have their traditions, rituals and other things that Guru Sahib was against. He mentions in the SGGS how these rituals are useless. In fact I posted another Shabad from our Ist Nanak in which he tells the Muslims how to become the true Muslims.Our Gurus were against any pilgrimages, dips in holy waters, Hajjs, fasting etc. etc. SGGS is full of Shabads about these things.

Thanks and regards to All.

Tejwant Singh