Chaubole Bani

Waheguru ji kaa Khalsa Waheguru ji kee Fateh ji

Yesterday, Daas got opportunity to read Arths of Chaubole Bani from both Prof. Sahib Singh ji's teeka and Faridkoti teeka. Even though both teekas did quite similar meanings, context they presented was quite different.

According to Prof. Sahib Singh Ji :
Saman -> One who does lot of Daan
Musan -> One who is losing his spirtual wealth
And the whole bani is in context of giving spirtual message to these two kind of persons.

According to Fardikoti teeka :
Chaubole : Chau + bole : Conversation of four bhagats, in words of Guru Arjan Dev ji
Saman, Moosan, Jamaal, Patang.
Saman is the fater of Moosan who cuts his son's head and Moosan become alive again after Guru Arjan Dev ji called his name.
The bani starts with Saman starting conversation with Musan on his head cutting and giving example of Ravan (who had his heads cut for Shiva). And then Musan's reply. There is also mention of Bhagat jamaal and Bhagat Patang in the conversation (but not very clear how they came into the conversation).


What is Sangat's view on correct Arths of this Bani ? Has Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh ji did Arth of Chaubole Bani anywhere in his books or expressed his views ?

Please refer to the Santhiya file for Chaubolay for Arth Vichaar on this great Baani.

Chaubole appears right after Funhe, in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee. The mind that is imbued in the divine colour of sweet Funhe, is further sweetened when it does Paath of Chaubole. Chaubole appears on Ang 1363 and ends on Ang 1364. It contains 11 Pauris and each Pauri contains 2 Pankitis. It's a small Baani as far as size is concerned but it contains extremely great Gurmat principles. Some of the metaphors contained in it are mind-blowing. Traditionally it is considered to be conversation between 4 Gursikhs - Samman, Moosan, Kamal and Patang but Professor Sahib Singh has not accepted this and has done the meanings of this Baani without acknowledging the 4 Gursikhs. Either way, it does not affect the lofty Gurmat principles that this Gurbani is giving to Gursikhs. It hardly takes a minute to do Paath of this Gurbani.

Sensing the sweetness of these two Baanis and the fact that it does not take too long to read them, many serious Seekers of Vaheguru include these Gurbanis in their Nitnem.

Gurbani is Agam Agaadh Bodh.

Kulbir Singh

I don't know whether Musan is referring to a historical Gursikh or one who does a lot of daan, but it seems like here Professor Sahibs translations the word Musan is always being addressed too while FaridKoti Teeeka seems like Musan is saying and having a dialogue. I think if this was the case Musan would have an aunkar at the end, but instead it has mukta ( ਮੂਸਨ) . Under the Santhiya section on this form it seems like Musan is being addressed too as Professor Sahib Singh has done and the sakhi which is shared by the faridkoti teeka is not be shared/narrated in relations to the pangtis.

I think traditionally by many Deras, Gurbani was explained through the use of sakhis even though some times some sakhis were made up and at times didn't relate to the actual pangti. For example, I have seen people give sakhis of Bhagat Ki Bani in which when the Bhagats were referring to " Guru" they were referring to some Guru who was not Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, We don't know if there was a Gursikh from the time of Sri Guru Arjan Dev Jis time as there is no mention in Bhai Gurdas Jis Vaars of " Musan" nor is there any mention of Musan in " Sikha Dee Bhagata Mala" . We don't know which text the Nirmalas got this sakhi from or whether they fabricated the sakhi themselves?

Quote

We don't know if there was a Gursikh from the time of Sri Guru Arjan Dev Jis time as there is no mention in Bhai Gurdas Jis Vaars of " Musan" nor is there any mention of Musan in " Sikha Dee Bhagata Mala" . We don't know which text the Nirmalas got this sakhi from or whether they fabricated the sakhi themselves?

I can't remember which book it was but Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee has cited the Sakhi of Saman and Musan. The Sakhi itself is an amazing Sakhi.

Kulbir Singh

Quote

I can't remember which book it was but Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee has cited the Sakhi of Saman and Musan. The Sakhi itself is an amazing Sakhi.

Kulbir Singh

If possible can you find the source? My simple understanding is Chaubole does not refer to the sayings of Four Sikhs instead Chaubole is a special type of poetic verse similar to Chaupey. Chaubole style of poetry also exist in Sri Dasam Granth.

ਚੌਬੋਲਾ ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਰਘੁਰਾਜ ਸਰਾਸਨ ਲੈ ਰਿਸ ਠਾਨਿ ਘਨੀ ਰਨਿ ਬਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਹਾਰੇ ॥ ਬੀਰਨ ਮਾਰਿ ਦੁਸਾਰ ਗਏ ਸਰ ਅੰਬਰ ਤੇ ਬਰਸੇ ਜਨੁ ਓਰੇ

There are many made up Sakhis behind banis the most popular being Sri Sukhmani Sahib where it is traditionally believed that Sri Chand help compose this bani. Pure blasphemy! Then there are other weird sakhis such as the one behind Ramkali KI Vaar and there are different stories behind banis such as Sri Anand Sahib.

Sukhdeep Singh jee

Which "weird sakhi" are you refering to in regards to Sri Raamkali Kee Vaar?

Preetam Singh

Samman and Musan sakhi is there in detail in Bhagat Rattan Maal.

Quote

Sukhdeep Singh jee

Which "weird sakhi" are you refering to in regards to Sri Raamkali Kee Vaar?

Preetam Singh

Sorry because I was mentioned Sri Anand Sahib I get mixed up and said Ramkali Kee Vaar instead of Basant Ki Vaar. According to tradition Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji was reciting this bani and then as we was reciting a Langar Sevadar interrupted him and said Langar is ready come and eat. So then Sri Guru Ji stopped reciting and went to eat; thus, the very reason why this vaar is extremely short. Im sorry but this is a very weird sakhi. Since when did langar take precedence over Dhur Ki Bani. Secondly, no Gursikh would dare interrupt Sri Guru Ji while he was reciting bani.

Samman and Musan sakhi is there in detail in Bhagat Rattan Maal.

Quote

Veer Ji can you copy and paste the sakhi. I looked at the index of names mentioned in the Sakhis of Bhagat Rattan Di Mala and the names Jamaal, Patang. Musan, and Samman do not show up. There is only a Sanman and this is a completely different person. If this bani " Chaubole" was a dialogue between father and son ( Musan and Suman) as Faridkoti Teeka suggest then the singular names Musan and Samman would have an aunakar and their would be a verb such as spoke, said etc, as in the case of Siddha Gosht which is a dialogue between the Yogis and Sri Guru Ji.
ਚਰਪਟੁ ਬੋਲੈ ਅਉਧੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਹੁ ਸਚਾ ਬੀਚਾਰੋ ॥

But this does not appear in the so called dialogue between Musan and Samman? If there was such historical characters one thing is the bani is not referring to these characters. Chaubole is a poetic style and does not refer to the four Gursikhs speaking. Professor Sahib Singh has explained this bani much better then the Nirmalas.

Saman Musan Sakhi is on pages 276 - 281 in book 'Sri Guru Bhagat Maal Sateek' by Gyani Narain Singh. Note that I have steek, not original copy. However, there is no mention of bhagat jamaal and bhagat patang in this sakhi.

Veer Ji ,
'Sri Guru Bhagat Maal Sateek' by Gyani Narain Singh is much different then "Sikha Dee Bhagata Mala" by Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji. Sri GUru Bhagat Maal steek has many questionable sakhis. Either way I don't think Chaubole bani is a sakhi of some individual GurSikhs instead it is bani addressing the Jeev Atma as Professor Sahib Singh has suggested

Kulbir Singh Jee,

I have looked for the sakhi in Bhai Sahibs book and I cant find it anywhere?? I think you may be mixing up the sakhi of Ramkali Vaar which he mentions. I don't think if you actually read the sakhi about Musan and Samman you wouldn't think it was so amazing. Here is a brief summary on the sakhi notice how many anti GUrmat practices both father and son commit.


Samman and Musan came from a very poor family. One day they had a very strong desire to serve the Guru and Sangat langar but they didn't have the funds to do so one of their neighbors by the name of Jagat Raam said he would help finance the Gursikhs. One of the neighbors who were rich got jealous and convinced Jagat Raam to not help out the Gursikhs. The son Musan then told his father we can take money from another neighbor while there sleeping it wouldn't be the same thing as stealing as the money would be for serving the sangat and the Guru. As the whole village went to sleep around 10pm Musan and Samman went to the house to "take" the money or should I say steal the money . Musan spent the whole night trying to escape from the roof but his whole body couldn't slide through. As the morning dawned and the hens started roosting he told his father quickly cut my head so we don't get caught and dishonor the image of Sikhi. His father then did so.

As the man woke up he saw a dead body on the floor and he became scared he forgot all about the lost money. He then payed Samman to dispose of the dead body not knowing it was Sammans sons body. Samman then took the money to finance the langar. When Sri Guru Ji came to the house he asked Samman where is your son. Samman then lied to Sri Guru Ji Maharaj and said he is far off doing some work. he then said call him out and bring him here, but he couldn't so Sri GUru Ji then called him out and by doing so brought Musan back to life. Sri GUru Ji then recitied the bani Chauboli .

Anybody who accepts this sakhi is as silly as the nirmalas who propagate it.

Quote

Kulbir Singh Jee,

I have looked for the sakhi in Bhai Sahibs book and I cant find it anywhere?? I think you may be mixing up the sakhi of Ramkali Vaar which he mentions.

Bhai Sahib has written close to 40 books and pamphlets. I can't remember which book it was but there is a mention of Saman or Moosan in one of his books. I will keep an eye for the reference and will post it if I find it.

Quote

Anybody who accepts this sakhi is as silly as the nirmalas who propagate it.

I think we should be careful when we dismiss famous Saakhis as "silly". Everything the Sikhs in olden days did was not correct but their intention and faith can't be suspected. In the above Saakhi too, their mode of getting the money may have been wrong but not their intention. The idea behind this Saakhi is love for Guru Sahib and not that stealing is good.

Mahankosh has mentioned the name of Samman as follows:

ਸ਼ਾਹਬਾਜਪੁਰੇ ਦਾ ਵਸਨੀਕ ਮੂਸਨ ਦਾ ਪਿਤਾ, ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਅਨੰਨ ਸਿੱਖ. ਇਹ ਭਾਣਾ ਮੰਨਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਦੁਤੀ ਸੀ. ਕਪੂਰ ਦੇਉ ਦੇ ਪੁੱਛਣ ਪੁਰ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੁਮੁਖ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੇਹੜਾ ਹੈ, ਸਤਿਗੁਰਾਂ ਨੇ ਸੰਮਨ ਦਾ ਨਾਉਂ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਸੀ. ਇਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਉਂ ਚੌਬੋਲਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ ਹੈ- "ਸੰਮਨ ਜਉ ਇਸ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀ ਦਮ ਕਿਹੁ ਹੋਤੀ ਸਾਟ". (ਚਉਬੋਲੇ ਮਃ ੫) "ਸੰਮਨ ਹੈ ਸਾਹਬਾਜਪੁਰੇ ਕੋ". (ਗੁਪ੍ਰਸੂ)। (2) ਅ਼. __ ਸੁੰਮਨ. ਵਿ- ਅੱਠ. ਆਠ। (3) ਦੇਖੋ, ਸੰਮਨਬੁਰਜ.


When Kapur asked Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee as to who is a Gurmukh Sikh; Siri Guru jee mentioned the name of Samman.

Professor Sahib Singh's interpretation of the word ਸੰਮਨ as one with mind (ਸੰਮਨ = ਸੰ+ਮਨ) is silly (sorry to say that). He has interpreted this word as follows:

ਸੰਮਨ = ਹੇ ਸੰਮਨ! ਹੇ ਮਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ! ਹੇ ਦਿਲ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ!

Who is there in this world who does not have Dil or Mann? What sense does it make to call someone Samman (one with mann i.e. mind).

About Moosan, Mahankosh has the following reference:

ਇੱਕ ਪ੍ਰੇਮੀ ਭਗਤ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਦਾ ਅਨੰਨ ਸੇਵਕ. "ਮੂਸਨ ਤਬਹੀ ਮੂਸੀਐ ਬਿਸਰਤ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਇਆਲ"

Professor Sahib Singh jee's interpretation of Samman and Moosan is totally unique and no other scholar has interpreted these words as "one with mind, and victim of theft respectively. Professor Sahib Singh jee was of the opinion to interpret Gurbani totally without any historical incident but if there can be references in Gurbani to incidents of previous jugs (e.g. Siri Krishna, Siri Prahlaad jee etc.) then why can't there be references to Sikhs of Guru Sahib's times e.g. Samman, Moosan, Mata Kheevi, Bhai Lalo etc.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bhai Sahib has written close to 40 books and
> pamphlets. I can't remember which book it was but
> there is a mention of Saman or Moosan in one of
> his books. I will keep an eye for the reference
> and will post it if I find it.
>

it is mentioned in the book Jhatka Maas Thath Gurmat Nirnay search here for them mention of saman

> Anybody who accepts this sakhi is as silly as the
> nirmalas who propagate it.
>
> I think we should be careful when we dismiss
> famous Saakhis as "silly". Everything the Sikhs in
> olden days did was not correct but their intention
> and faith can't be suspected. In the above Saakhi
> too, their mode of getting the money may have been
> wrong but not their intention. The idea behind
> this Saakhi is love for Guru Sahib and not that
> stealing is good.


excellent point - we should always be mindful and careful of dismissing sakkis - out of 240 years of Guru Sahiban's total jeevan only 40 odd years were spent in war the rest of the time it was major parchaar and sakkis were written, not saying to believe them blindly but be careful as youngsters reading this forum could take this remark and silly and be dismissive of it for part of their life.

It is a true story. It really happened.
By dismissing the story or calling it false, we become no different than the missionaries who propogate anti Gurmat literature. You need to be vigilant when writing or speaking something.

ns44 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kulbir Singh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Bhai Sahib has written close to 40 books and
> > pamphlets. I can't remember which book it was
> but
> > there is a mention of Saman or Moosan in one of
> > his books. I will keep an eye for the reference
> > and will post it if I find it.
> >
>
> it is mentioned in the book Jhatka Maas Thath
> Gurmat Nirnay search here for them mention of
> saman
>
> > Anybody who accepts this sakhi is as silly as
> the
> > nirmalas who propagate it.
> >
> > I think we should be careful when we dismiss
> > famous Saakhis as "silly". Everything the Sikhs
> in
> > olden days did was not correct but their
> intention
> > and faith can't be suspected. In the above
> Saakhi
> > too, their mode of getting the money may have
> been
> > wrong but not their intention. The idea behind
> > this Saakhi is love for Guru Sahib and not that
> > stealing is good.
>
>
> excellent point - we should always be mindful and
> careful of dismissing sakkis - out of 240 years of
> Guru Sahiban's total jeevan only 40 odd years were
> spent in war the rest of the time it was major
> parchaar and sakkis were written, not saying to
> believe them blindly but be careful as youngsters
> reading this forum could take this remark and
> silly and be dismissive of it for part of their
> life.


apologies here is the link of the jatkha maas :

[www.tapoban.org]

We can accept that some Sakhis being attached to Gurbani might be made up, but we cannot dismiss all the Sakhis. We have our old traditions we should also keep in tact. That's why I like Giani Hasbans Singh Jee's teeka. He does not dismiss all the Sakhis linked to Gurbani like Prof Sahib Singh Jee but at the same time he does not accept all the Sakhis like the Sampradayak tradition. He is sort of half way between the two.

Quote

I think we should be careful when we dismiss famous Saakhis as "silly". Everything the Sikhs in olden days did was not correct but their intention and faith can't be suspected. In the above Saakhi too, their mode of getting the money may have been wrong but not their intention. The idea behind this Saakhi is love for Guru Sahib and not that stealing is good.

Honestly , BHai Sahib don't you think the sakhi is silly? You know very will that Sri GUru Ji would never chhak langar from food which has been earned by illegitimate means if this is so then what is the point of dietary bibek? Secondly, Sri Guru ji would never bring the dead back to life if this is true then Baba Atal Rai Ji sakhi is false as Sri Guru ji condemened the practice of brining the dead back to life, but we have valid proof that this sakhi is valid as we have the historical Gurdwara adjacent to Sri Harmandir Sahib. Sri Guru Ji would not condemn something then do it himself. The only exception was Vasakhi this was because he asked for a head as a test. This was a completely different and unique circumstances. Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji has mentioned we should accept sakhis which stand the test of Gurbani anything which strays from Gurmat or GUrmat principles cannot be accepted. You yourself have stated that sakhis which don't match Gurbani should be rejected. So why is there an exception this time? No way would Sri Guru Ji eat from food which which was purchased with stolen money. No way! If this is true then Gurmat BIbek diet has no principle behind it.

Quote

Mahankosh has mentioned the name of Samman as follows:

Mahankosh has mentioned the name of Samman as follows:

ਸ਼ਾਹਬਾਜਪੁਰੇ ਦਾ ਵਸਨੀਕ ਮੂਸਨ ਦਾ ਪਿਤਾ, ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਅਨੰਨ ਸਿੱਖ. ਇਹ ਭਾਣਾ ਮੰਨਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਦੁਤੀ ਸੀ. ਕਪੂਰ ਦੇਉ ਦੇ ਪੁੱਛਣ ਪੁਰ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੁਮੁਖ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੇਹੜਾ ਹੈ, ਸਤਿਗੁਰਾਂ ਨੇ ਸੰਮਨ ਦਾ ਨਾਉਂ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਸੀ. ਇਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਉਂ ਚੌਬੋਲਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ ਹੈ- "ਸੰਮਨ ਜਉ ਇਸ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀ ਦਮ ਕਿਹੁ ਹੋਤੀ ਸਾਟ". (ਚਉਬੋਲੇ ਮਃ ੫) "ਸੰਮਨ ਹੈ ਸਾਹਬਾਜਪੁਰੇ ਕੋ". (ਗੁਪ੍ਰਸੂ)। (2) ਅ਼. __ ਸੁੰਮਨ. ਵਿ- ਅੱਠ. ਆਠ। (3) ਦੇਖੋ, ਸੰਮਨਬੁਰਜ.ਦਾ ਵਸਨੀਕ ਮੂਸਨ ਦਾ ਪਿਤਾ, ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਅਨੰਨ ਸਿੱਖ. ਇਹ ਭਾਣਾ ਮੰਨਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਦੁਤੀ ਸੀ. ਕਪੂਰ ਦੇਉ ਦੇ ਪੁੱਛਣ ਪੁਰ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੁਮੁਖ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੇਹੜਾ ਹੈ, ਸਤਿਗੁਰਾਂ ਨੇ ਸੰਮਨ ਦਾ ਨਾਉਂ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਸੀ. ਇਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਉਂ ਚੌਬੋਲਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਇਆ ਹੈ- "ਸੰਮਨ ਜਉ ਇਸ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀ ਦਮ ਕਿਹੁ ਹੋਤੀ ਸਾਟ". (ਚਉਬੋਲੇ ਮਃ ੫) "ਸੰਮਨ ਹੈ ਸਾਹਬਾਜਪੁਰੇ ਕੋ". (ਗੁਪ੍ਰਸੂ)। (2) ਅ਼. __ ਸੁੰਮਨ. ਵਿ- ਅੱਠ. ਆਠ। (3) ਦੇਖੋ, ਸੰਮਨਬੁਰਜ.

Kahn SIngh Nabha is mixing two different Samman's. The one who supposedly had a son and is mentioned in" Sri Guru Bhagat Mal " he was from Lahore, and the one who is mentioned in Sikhi DI Bhagat Mala" was from Shabjpur which is located in Bangladesh his son died from the bullet of some thieves while the one in" Sri GUru Bhagat Maal" his son Masoon died from the hands of his own father while trying to steal during the holy time of Amrit Vela. Waaheguruuu.....

Quote

Professor Sahib Singh's interpretation of the word ਸੰਮਨ as one with mind (ਸੰਮਨ = ਸੰ+ਮਨ) is silly (sorry to say that). He has interpreted this word as follows:

ਸੰਮਨ = ਹੇ ਸੰਮਨ! ਹੇ ਮਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ! ਹੇ ਦਿਲ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ!

Who is there in this world who does not have Dil or Mann? What sense does it make to call someone Samman (one with mann i.e. mind).

Professor Sahib was a respected panthic scholar I don't think its polite to refer to his translations as silly he took lots of effort in studying Gurbani. The whole panth is indebted to his hard earned works especially his teeka which was the first to translate all of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji according to the strict principles of Gurmat Vyakaran. We understand that FaridKoti Teeka is popular amongst deras and these type of Sakhis are best explained and understood by those attending Deras but such sakhis which violate the basic principles of Gurmat and cannot be accepted. We have been to these deras and we know sakhis and not Gurbani meanings are often expressed in these Deras according to them every shabad has a sakhi behind it and If they cant find one they will make it up. You will notice this overemphasis in explaining hyms is dominant in Mandirs and Churches as well. Gurbani goes beyond sakhis.

Professor Sahib Singh has translated Sanman not with someone with just a mind but someone with an open heart one who gives generously. You did not provide the full definition of Sanman which he has provided you have only selected part of his definition. Here is the full definition:
ਸੰਮਨ = ਹੇ ਸੰਮਨ! ਹੇ ਮਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ! ਹੇ ਦਿਲ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ! ਹੇ ਦਿਲ ਖੋਹਲ ਕੇ ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਬੰਦੇ! ਹੇ ਦਾਨੀ ਮਨੁੱਖ

This definition best relates and highlights the principles of Gurmat which is by giving alone one cant earn the love and blessings of Sri GUru Ji. The sakhi contradicts Gurbani Vyakaran. According to Farikoti Teeka which bases its translation on the sakhi Sanman is speaking but in the verses its clear Samman is being addressed too.

To some extent I agree with Professor Sahib Singh that Gurbani should not be understood in relation to Sakhis instead it should be understand in relation to the actual meanings of Gurbani. There are many references to Sakhis in Gurbani but there is no sakhi in Gurbani. Meaning there is no Gurbani pauri which is a story of some historical figure or event this is why Gurbani differs from the Vedas, Torah, Bibek, and Quaran which are full of Sakhis and are mainly based on Sakhis. Gurbani goes above and beyond the moral conduct of good and bad mentioned in inspiration sakhis of the religious texts.. Gurbani is Dhur Ki Bani pure bani the message to the soul the sakhi of the soul.
ਕਥਾ ਕਹਾਣੀ ਬੇਦੀ ਆਣੀ ਪਾਪੁ ਪੁੰਨੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਦੇ ਦੇ ਲੈਣਾ ਲੈ ਲੈ ਦੇਣਾ ਨਰਕਿ ਸੁਰਗਿ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥
ਉਤਮ ਮਧਿਮ ਜਾਤੀਂ ਜਿਨਸੀ ਭਰਮਿ ਭਵੈ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਬਾਣੀ ਤਤੁ ਵਖਾਣੀ ਗਿਆਨ ਧਿਆਨ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਈ ॥

NS44 the link you provided is too long I skimmed through it and see no name of Sanman or Moosan please provide the exact location or quote from Bhai Sahibs book.

Quote

It is a true story. It really happened.
By dismissing the story or calling it false, we become no different than the missionaries who propogate anti Gurmat literature. You need to be vigilant when writing or speaking something.

Lol I am one of the few members on this forum who post Sakhis and now all of a sudden Im a missionary for not accepting some random sakhi which does not support Gurmat. Please don't waste my time

I'm more than surprised by your comments.
In that case, what is your take on:

1) Baba Deep Singh Ji fighting even after his head was torn off???

2) Bhai Deyaalaa Ji being boiled alived and did not feel even an inch of physical or mental pain???

3) Bhai Sati Daas having been burned alive while wrapped onto cotton and not feeling any pain???

4) Bhai Mati Daas having been cut into two pieces while still alive and not feeling any pain????

5) Bhai Taru Singh Ji's scalp removed yet he remained idle as if nothing had occurred and still remaining conscious and alert???

6) Bhai Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh having been killed in the most brutal way possible????

7) Bhai Manjh having fallen in a well, and begging the Sangat to have firewood safely lifted so it won't get wet???

Are all these mentioned examples false??? should we not believe in these Sakhis?? You need to retrospect your ideas and beliefs before you write anything.

Samman and Musan were two living entities.

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS44 the link you provided is too long I skimmed
> through it and see no name of Sanman or Moosan
> please provide the exact location or quote from
> Bhai Sahibs book.


Issue we have is we want answers too quick and too soon so we just skim - man no where in SGGS it says to skim anything in life- especially darhmic , if you skim that it;'s the same as juggling dynamtie! Be extremely careful in what you say and keep the tone sweet as pyaar between Gursikhs should discourse.


BhaI Sukhdeep Sahib and all -- have a good read of that link but here is excerpt in that discussion with referece:


ijhak Singh – Well what are your thoughts, if Guru Gobind Singh ji didn’t kill the goats, what else did he do?

Gurprasad Singh – It’s not just a thought but, a solid belief of mine that instead of taking the heads of goats, he took the heads of the Panj Piarey and after taking them, He resuscitated all five of them as a way of showing his wondrous miracles.

Nijhak Singh – This miracle was then shown as wrath, why did the Guru need to show it then?

Gurprasad Singh – Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji did not show the miracle, he kept it hidden. Not everyone was made aware of the fact that the heads of the Panj Piarey were removed, and that the five were then resuscitated.

Nijhak Singh – But, this removing of the heads and then resuscitating of the Panj Piarey is only one miracle. Are there other examples of these miracles within religious history?

Gurprasad Singh – Everyone in the Panth knows about the story of Saman and Moosan, as it he is mentioned in the Gurbani. For the sake of benevolence, Moosan had his head removed from his body. His father, believing in the permanence of the Guru’s will, kept the head and the body as an offering, placed it in his chamber and went to serve at the temple. When the ruling Guru failed to see Moosan serving the congregation as usual, he asked where he was. His father, Saman, pleaded that his son was asleep in his chamber. The Guru then said, ‘go and wake him’, to which Saman relied, ‘my lord I am not capable of waking him, only you are’. Upon hearing this, Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji with all his miraculous powers resuscitated Moosan. When night came, the proof of this miracle was shown to all. This account is famous within the Panth.

Nijhak Singh – So, someone just made up that nonsensical story about jhuttka being performed on the five goats?

Gurprasad Singh – Yes, certainly. Nonsense. One stupid historian made it up and then a few more jumped on the band wagon. The Sikhs like you began to believe it as the truth.

Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but if one believes the story, then it gives permission perform jhuttka on goats.
Gurprasad Singh – Please do one thing, on the strength of this nonsensical story, do not think that it gives permission to prepare meat or perform jhuttka.

Nijhak Singh – I suppose you’re right there.

Singh91 you are not making any sense. None of the sakhis you mentioned contradict Gurbani. Nowhere have I said al sakhis should be accepted as false. Read my statements before jumping to conclusions. Once again stop wasting my time

NS44 the sakhi quoted in the paragraph does not indicate that Bhai Sahib accepted this sakhi . The sakhi is just quoted within a fictional debate between two people. Elsewhere he gives reference to the sakhi of Guru Sahib killing 5 goats instead of panj pyaarey this doesn't mean he accepted this sakhi of killing 5 goats .

if a person doesn't want to agree anything against his/her belief i don't think there is a point in discussing the topic...

as gurbani is agam agaadh bodh no one can give the exact meaning of it... so i think one can believe what he understands as far as it is on the basis of gurmat...

bhul chuk muaff...

Bhai Sukhdeep Singh Jio,

Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Jee referred to this Sakhi as an additional proof of Guru Sahib's miracles.

He mentions "Everyone in the Panth knows about the story of Saman and Moosan"

Which clearly indicates he agrees to this Saakhi otherwise no point of bringing this as a good reference in the debate.

Regardless, this Saakhi does represent the upma of Guru Sahib and His powers. There is nothing against Gurmat.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਮੇਰਾ ਮਾਰਿ ਜੀਵਾਲੈ ॥ (ਪੰਨਾ ੧੧੪੨)

Thanks Bhai Jasjit Singh Jeeo exactly what i was trying to say to Bhai Sukhdeep Jee -

Why are we doubting Guru Sahib and miracles is the question for you Bhai Sukhdeep jeeo? in fact why are we questioning - "Gur kee karnee kahee dhavoo"

NS44 and Bhai Jasjit Singh Ji, there are a few things people have to take into consideration with BHai Sahibs views on this sakhi.

Firstly, we don't know what version Bhai Sahib accepted whether it was an oral tradition or a written account. All I know is that the version he mentions is not written in the historical accounts I have read. For example, he mentions how Samman told Sir GUru Ji that Moosan was sleeping but in Sri GUru Bhagat Maal it is mentioned that he told Sri GUru Ji that Moosan was at a far off place working. Nor have I come across any version with the mentioning of Patang or Jamaal. From this we can conclude that there are variations which differ in this sakhi. I do not accept the info which contradicts Gurbani and Im sure Bhai Sahib wouldn't either . For example SRi GUru Ji would never eat from someone who stole money this contradicts Gurbani.

ਘਾਲਿ ਖਾਇ ਕਿਛੁ ਹਥਹੁ ਦੇਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਰਾਹੁ ਪਛਾਣਹਿ ਸੇਇ ॥੧॥

There are numerous sakhis which show that Sri Guru Ji would not eat from someone who didn't make an honest living. If the details of Samman Sakhi are true this contradicts Gurbani and numerous Gurmat Sakhis. Some people made up this sakhi. I don't know whether they made it up all together or they altered the sakhi either way its obvious it has been greatly tampered with and its original version is unknown.

Secondly, we have to take the context in which Bhai Sahib talks about the sakhi into account. The account is mentioned during a debate between two fictional characters about Jhatka. One of them claims according to panthic history there is an account that Sri Guru Ji slaughtered 5 goats on Vasakhi. The opponent Gurprasaad Singh responds and says such sakhis are false and they contradict Gurbani since they dont believe Sri GUrU Ji can perform miracles such as removing someones head and then placing it back on. The person then responds " is there any historical accounts where Sri GurU ji has performed such miracles of removing their head?" Keep in mind he is asking/imlplying are there any historical docments ( panthic documents) where this is mentioned, and the response by Gurparsaad Singh is the Samman Sakhi which is popularly known by the wider panth. Again this is a rhetorical debate and the topic on this part of the discussion is history and the alteration of history. Bhai Sahib himself has said any part of history which contradicts Gurbani cannot be accepted. Im sure he would not accept the info which states Sri GurU ji ate from some thieves. Bhai Sahib has also mentioned how Panthic documents have also been falsified as in the case of Giani Gian Singh Jis Panth Parkaash in which previous traditions mentioned Sri Guru ji took opium. Again this was a panthic document known by everyone but it doesn't mean it was right. Same with Samman Sakhi it was a well known sakhi but it doesn't mean it contains info that contradict Gurbani .

The original topic of this discussion was what is Chaubole bani and who was more correct in their translation Professor Sahib Singh or the Nirmalas? Once again we humbly believe that Chaubole bani is a poetic style verse and it does not mean the conversation of 4 Gursikhs nor can its meanings be based the sakhi propagated by Faridkoti Teeka. Faridkoti teeka translates the sakhi as a conversation between father and son, but its clear the bani is not a conversation so it cant be based on the sakhi. Its clear Samman ( one who gives) and its opposite ( one who takes) are being addressed too.

Quote

Thanks Bhai Jasjit Singh Jeeo exactly what i was trying to say to Bhai Sukhdeep Jee -

Why are we doubting Guru Sahib and miracles is the question for you Bhai Sukhdeep jeeo? in fact why are we questioning - "Gur kee karnee kahee dhavoo"

NS44 jee, please do not twist my words around. Nowhere have I said Sri GUru Ji is incapable of performing miracles. I clearly stated that Sri GUru ji removed the heads of Panj Pyaarey and on numerous threads I have shared sakhis which include miracles. I hope you and others would carefully read what I write before jumping to conclusions. I don't have time to address ever allegation.

Bhai Sukhdeep Jee - what is clear at present is there is no clarity at all - clear as MUD.
Conclusion - read the bani Gursikho with bhavan and prem - I will be doing more research talking to some senior Gursikhs about this but do doubt if your doubts will ever be cleared anyhow - but we must try