Talk:Deh Siva Var Mohe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Sikhism
Sikhism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article Deh Siva Var Mohe, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I just wanted to point out that the Sikh belief is that all Gods are the same, and that many references to Hindu Deities are made several times in the Guru Granth Sahib. We refer to God as Waheguru, but also, Allah, Ram, Krishna, and Shiva. God is Nirgun, and Hinduism has this belief, but personifies it with Vishnu or Shiva.

Nirgun found in many religions

TurbanatorX (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] dispute

any boby wanting to add Siva as Shiva must disscuss here first. As is already pointed out, Siva is different to Shiva.ThanksAjjay (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why someone is trying hard to dispute few hundered year old history by insistting "this Siva is different from that Shiva". I guess need for modern day Sikhs to have a distinct identity as a separate tribe is so strong that they are not willing to see reason. The historical fact is that none of the Gurus claimed Sikhism (panth is not religion its a path, I hope sikhs don't negate Saskrit/Persian root of their own language) as separate religion; and all allegories and stories or spiritual guidelines they used and compiled in their books were being practices by Indians (Hindus which what gurus really were). There was no new philosophy or Gods' names introduced by any of the Gurus. I am sure they wouldn't be very happy if Gurus could see what their followers are doing today to their teachings.All Sikh scriptures are full with names like Govind (Vishnu), Brahma and Bhagwati. Now please don't say they are not what they are too. You want to call Shiva demi-god, your choice.. no skin off my back ! I am an athiest. But your need to negate history is almost childish. And BTW "Singh" was also not Dasham Guru's invention, it was already used by Rajputs just as "Khan" has nothing to do with muslims, it's just that every single idiot convert in Indian sub-continent wanted to change his family name to the honorarium used by Mongol tribes for their leaders.

If you cannot contribute and .. no skin off my back !, then why waste your time , putting forth your views on something few hundered year old history, in which you have no belief. And from your comments , it seems you have no knowledge about the subject as well.Ajjay (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by anonymous ip adress

One of the source cited to define Siva[1] was originally cited by the ip adress editor in Guru Nanak Dev article[2].[3][4] Now why is he refusing to accept his own quoted source of refrence.Ajjay (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shiva + Siva is One and the same but not in the Hindu sense

In order to understand why the word Shiva/Siva is used in Dasam Granth one must understand the emergence of the young Sikh Panth, who were mostly Hindu's. The Dasam Granth uses Hindu metaphors and Hindu Gods to explain the concept of God. Guruji is not saying worship Siva/Shiva but in this context is refering to God the almighty as a newly initiated Khalsa (from the Hindu fraternity)may understand. One must also realise that by using Hindu images and lore the intention was to rouse the warrior spirit within the fledgling Sikh community. If one reads the Dasam Granth one can clearly see that Guruji says that death took Siva/Shiva, Ram etc etc, meaning they were not actually Gods but mortal. Only Akal Purakh is immortal. An analodgy would be, describing and atom to someone, one would use things a person could see and associate with to understand it, but thiose things are not actually the atom. Understanding of the atom will come over time. In the same sense Siva/Shiva is being used to describe a concept in a way the fledgling Sikh would understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But that does mean that Siva is not Shiva in Deh siva var mohe.... in which Guruji is asking God to give him strength. He is asking God and not Shiva. The tales or incarnations, of Shiva are used as a metaphor in Up avtaar. Deh Siva is part of Chandi Charitar not Up avtaar. This anonymous ip address, namely someone calling himself Dave Green ( i am sure he is some rss party card holder, or a communist, certainly not english, as he would like us to believe)refuses to see the point.
Further his continously referring to website of gobind sadan of Baba Virsa Singh, sheds a lot of light on his intentions and beliefs. You should check his contributions[5]. The guy is wrecking hell on sikhism related topics.Ajjay (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Siva = Shiva

Siva is Shiva however the point to note it is a term used to describe God, for the benefit of the fledgling Sikh community, who were essentially HIndu and understood Hindu concepts.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting, why did the Guru use the name 'Shiva' and not Lord God or Christ?

Or... Allah or Yehova or Siddartha???, or one of the many other dozen other names ? If you disagreed with his teaching so much ???

Why was he addressing dumb Hindus ? I mean why not intellectual Jews or Druids or New Age Hippies or 3HO for Christ sakes ?

Did the name 'Shiva' become a hot potato during the 80's as with many other Gods names ?? Seems as if it did. And if it did its a shame that the authenticity of great works have become eroded, neglected, ignored at the expense of mid-term political agendas that have sweet FA chance of seeing the light of day.

As far as the dumb hindu sense goes, the name'Shiva' ONLY existed in the Hindu sense

All names are mentioned, in sggs, but to teach that none is what people think them to be. By the way hindus are not dumb Hindus or the dumb hindu sense. This reflects on your lack of knowledge of history. and i don't need to explain about the great ancient indian civilization. OkAjjay (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe if I took the name 'WaheGuru' and changed its meaning

I might be following the Guru by example, hey ??

HAHAAjjay (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if you understood me

[edit] Jap and Shiva

I understand that the birth of meditation came with the monoistic tradition called Shaivism, ie the focus on Lord Shiva.

When you read the first canto of the Dasam Granth, it begins with reference to Jaap Sahib which is Sanskrit for meditation

Lord Shiva is mentioned in both books of the Sikhs the Holy Granths (Adi Granth) and (Dasam Granth) this why the reader would find it almost inconceivable to see that the Guru was referring to anything else other than the Lord Shiva himself especially with reference to the Shaivite art of meditation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding would not change the basics of any sikh religious philosophy. Further Lord Shiva is mentioned, but not in the traditional Shaivism sense. All this about the traditions of sikhism sharing or being influenced by Shaivism or other traditions, are churned out by historians /philosophers of north america, who are too intelligent to see the difference between the two. If they could discard some ulterior influences, they would immediatly see the difference. As someone said, half knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.
Further you cannot change the truth, to suit the convience of the readerAjjay (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Lord Shiva is mentioned in both books of the Sikhs
Reply
But not in the sense you seem to think. Not as a god, or incarnation of god
also Jaap Sahib is not meditation, it signifies the qualities of God.

Really ? Well everything you say is not motivated by honesty is it ?

Naam Simran refers to Meditation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Following is a verse from the first chapter of dasam granth,
Aank moond bukk dhiaann lagaayeo, lok gayeeyo , parlok gavaayeo. meaning, You sat meditating, with eyes closed, like a {bukk- punjabi word} [It is a bird which sits calmy with eyes closed], and you have not only missed this world, but next too.
OKAjjay (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess it depends on the integrity of the individual !

I changed Siva back to its original definition. Why ?

Because Tom, Dick or Gurpreet cant come along and change the meaning of the Word 'Allah' to suit their agenda, likewise would be the same for any other God (Shiva included). My interpretation is that it wasn't the Gurus intention to change anything, he either meant what he said or didnt know what he was talking about.

Do the words Karma, Kirtan, Prashad, Vishnu, Chandi, Durga, Shakti, Bhakti etc etc... acquired alternate meanings too these days ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twisting definitions

"I wonder why someone is trying hard to dispute few hundered year old history by insistting "this Siva is different from that Shiva". I guess need for modern day Sikhs to have a distinct identity as a separate tribe is so strong that they are not willing to see reason. The historical fact is that none of the Gurus claimed Sikhism (panth is not religion its a path, I hope sikhs don't negate Saskrit/Persian root of their own language) as separate religion; and all allegories and stories or spiritual guidelines they used and compiled in their books were being practices by Indians (Hindus which what gurus really were). There was no new philosophy or Gods' names introduced by any of the Gurus. I am sure they wouldn't be very happy if Gurus could see what their followers are doing today to their teachings.All Sikh scriptures are full with names like Govind (Vishnu), Brahma and Bhagwati. Now please don't say they are not what they are too. You want to call Shiva demi-god, your choice.. no skin off my back ! I am an athiest. But your need to negate history is almost childish. And BTW "Singh" was also not Dasham Guru's invention, it was already used by Rajputs just as "Khan" has nothing to do with muslims, it's just that every single idiot convert in Indian sub-continent wanted to change his family name to the honorarium used by Mongol tribes for their leaders."

He knows more than you Ajjay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stick to Topic

You still have not provided a WP:V and WP:RS for your assertionAjjay (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think by now you can only understand/interpret so much, so don't stress yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)