Talk:Guru Nanak Dev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
  1. December 2005 – July 2006


Contents

[edit] DATE OF BIRTH

The year of birth is different in the article and the infobox, and also in the article 'Sikh Gurus' Can someone who knows either make the D.o.B. the same for both, or make it clear that the D.o.B. is ambiguous? -m-i-k-e-y- 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Most sources i have seen state 15th april. Even the 15th April page says so. The 20th October page does not say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.63.178 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REQUEST

Please don't make any major changes , like removal of paragraph or altering the nature of article wihthout any discussion. Help improve this article!Ajjay (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important link

[edit] Hari Singh's layout suggestion

May be we should first decide on the main sub-sections that we should include in the article and then see how we can work on these sub-sections. My suggestion is:

  • 1. Background
  • 2. Philosophy
  • 2a. The Three Pillars of Sikhism
  • 2b. Other Beliefs and Contributions
  • 2c. Main Banis contributed to SGGS
  • 3. History
  • 3a. Childhood
  • 3b. Marriage and Early Adulthood
  • 3c. Four Journeys
  • 3d. Settlement in Kartarpur
  • 3e. Death
  • 4. Impact on Society
  • 5. What others have said about Guru Nanak
  • 6. Folklore - Sakhis
  • 7. See also – other internal Links
  • 8. External links
  • 9. References

Copied from [1]. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no pillars in sikhism , three or more.Guru Nanak laid down many basics for Sikhs , to which there were continous additions over the time by succesive Gurus.Talking about pillars, it is more of a muslim or islamic thing.Ajjay (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

I think this page is probably best moved to Nanak for neutrality reasons. What do people think? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend not using honorifics such as dev and ji in the names of articles, but, IMHO, titles such a Guru belong with the personal name of historical figures when the title is of such historical significance to the identity of that person. It's a common practice in English encyclopedias (see, for instance, Pope John I, King Arthur, Saint George, & Kublai Khan). —OneMansOpinion 01:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful resources

I've got "The Sikh Religion - Its Gurus, Sacred Writings and Authors." which includes a good few hundred pages on the life of the Guru. I've also got "The Adi Granth - or the Holy Scriptures of the Sikhs" which includes two different Janamsakhis. Also Puratan Janamsakhi is available in Punjabi here: [2].

As most of Guru Nanak's history is based on the Janamsakhis, we must include a prefatory mark saying it's not known whether what they say is true. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some info on the Janamsakhis: http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/janamsakhi.pdf Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guru Nanak's education

Just a reminder for later to add this in:

[3]

There is also proof from the satisfactory internal evidence of his own compositions that Guru Nanak studied the Persian language. Kalu felt that the society of religious men was not likely to advance his son's secular interests. Rai Bular promised that if Nanak learned Persian, in which all state documents and accounts were then written, he would appoint him village accountant in succession to his father. Persian was never the tongue of Hindus, and was despised by them as the language of foreigners and conquerors and of impure Musalman literature;[1] but Hindus in the age of Nanak applied themselves to it as they do now--for the simple purpose of obtaining a livelihood. Nanak soon astonished his Persian as he had previously astonished his Hindu teacher. In reply to Rukn-ul-Din's injunctions he assumed the rôle of teacher in turn and composed the following acrostic on the letters of the Persian alphabet

[1. In the institutes of Parâsar there is found an injunction not to speak the language of the inhabitants of Yavan--a word which originally meant Greece, but was afterwards applied to Arabia--even though it save life from issuing by the throat. Parâsar possessed the Hindu abhorrence of strange countries and gave expression to it. His words are now understood by the Hindus to refer to the language of the Musalmans, though there were no Musalmans for centuries after his time.]

[edit] Removal of a para

I removed "During one of his travels...". This came in with [4] and has been eroded since. Apologies if this causes offence, but this section is surely better without it. Perhaps the original story could be reincorporated into the article in another place by someone who knows Sikhism better than I. AWhiteC 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of gurus

i've noticed that on all the guru pages it says '...of ten gurus' should it not be of eleven gurus?


Nanak is not the founder of Sikhism.Nanak never claimed that he is guru. So, he can not apoint 2nd guru.It was the Bhai Lehna who claimed that Nanak appointed him 2nd guru.Nanak condemn all the rituals of all religions. Therefore how can Nanak start new ritual. By bowing to Bhai Lehna and placing 5 paisa on his feet, is a ritual of Hindus.The history shows that there were struggels to get the guru ship for every guru. Seeker

Reply History shows that their were 'attempts' by seekers and 'pakhandis' to get Guruship. As for saying Nanak never appointed Angad him as guru, i think you are mental (Angad means ones own part, it was given to him by guru Nanak). If you live in india, i suggest there is a mental hospital in Amritsar for people like you. Guru Nanak condemned "Vain rituals" and not "sincere practises". Go read his Bani where he specifically states that his utterings are as received by Supreme God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.131.206 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] birthday wrong

Noticed that at the top of the page it indicates Guru Nanak's birthday is the 20th of October. However, further down the page under "Background" it lists his actual birthday of 5th November. Can this please be corrected.

Someone put (gay) in brackets. How do you report vandalism? Dave the Brave 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Birthday is also shown as 13th April in one paragraph, which is right?

Dave the brave, it is not 100% trolling. I think you may be being a little fussy. This comes from an openly gay man.


[edit] Photo Incorrect

DEar Sir/Madam

I realise that i did write that message a few times. I am speaking on behalf of The Sikh Federation and The British Organisation of Sikh Students (BOSS), I kindly request that the photograph displaying Guru Nanak wearing a red cap, earings and other unappropriate clothing be removed at your earliest convenience as these photos are incorrect immoral and very degrading to the sikh community, it is offensive to even suggest that Guru Nanak would wear a cap when he renounces all rituals, renounces the wearing of jewellerly. I look forward to your reply

(nakamura84@hotmail.co.uk)

Why are you offended by classic works of Sikh art? Just because it's not a Sobha Singh painting (which are also very good in my opinion) does not make it any less deserving of a place on Wikipedia. It's from an 1800's manuscript currently stored in the British Library for god's sake. Stop trying to sanatise Sikh history. 78.86.12.25 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the guru is not wearing a hat - it's a turban (just a different style of turban). What earings and other inappropriate clothing are you talking about? Do you know for certain that Guru Nanak didn't dress like this? Do you know how he dressed (please do provide a quotation from Nanak or his contemporaries detailing this)? The picture is merely a representation of the guru, just like all other pictures - we do not know what he looked like. 78.86.12.25 23:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revelations

Did Nanak Dev ever claim to be a prophet and have divine revelations? Or was he just a man who wanted to incorporate pieces of Hinduism and Islam into one religion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.100.160.21 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


It is stated in Guru Granth Sahib that the bani in it came directly from God .Nanak did not merge the teachings of hinduism and islam, to form a new religion.The claims of Nanak were restricted to the glory and grace of God.He did not claim to be a son of God or his messengar on earth.His teachings were wholly differen't from Islam and Hinduism. Although he did praise some of the teachings of both these religions, he largely denounced their approach towards the path to salvation and God.He regarded all mankind to be childeren of God and not selective persons.To him God did not differntiate between people on basis of who they were, but what they were.He put emphasis on Truth and name of God than on any individual persons. However Nanak stressed and put much emphasis on the need of Guru for reaching God.His teachings and practises,which were wholly new and differen't from existing religions and society norms ultimately led to the rise of a new religion.Ajjay (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kabir?

I deleted this from the folklore section. This belongs on the talk page, not in the article itself. Also, the story of his death is told twice, once sloppily. "Please also look at Kabir - as such is also said about the time of his death. Possibly the stories have cross pollenated from on another?"


-Robin Gordon Leavitt Dec. 5 2007

[edit] Content added..But..............

I have added some valuable content to this article, with citations, but when i opened this article without logging in ,the changes were not there! And when i logged in , the article opened with changes! What is this, something i haven't understood?How does it appear to first time visitors? The article needs to be more knowledgable and presentable.Guru Nanak is one of the major figures in World history.The article doesn't do justice to his Stature.Ajjay (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality disputed

What part of article is disputed? Please mention and elaborate on the objecton.I'm going to remove the disputed tag , if the person who put it cannot elaborate what he found objectionable? that too without any discussionAjjay (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed by me! No response for two weeks. If anybody wants to put it again, than please elaborate the reason for it, or i will remove it again.okAjjay (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to be added?

I would like to add this link, it is quite precious, but I don't dare because of the warning referring to excessive linking.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.120 (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
though the article seems genuine, the source is way too pov. Guru Nanak and Sant mat???????Ajjay (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The concept of Karma

Ajjay please dont keep vandalising this page, please refer to the word Gurbani and ref:

http://www.gurbani.org/webart40.htm with respect to the concept of Karma

I noticed you tried to delete the section of 'Karma in Sikhism' on the Sikhism page, but correctly re-instated.

[edit] Vandalism by Ajjay

Ajjay please stop vandalising pages on Sikhism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Look who is talking, considering you recent contributions. You don't even have a proper username. what are you afraid of? I suspect that you were banned before, many times, for vandalism. now it is so easier to do hone your skills from a public computer, probably belonging to your school library. And i hear you are studying indology..My dear, why don't you explain, what are you studying? Seeing your contributions and the ref. you cite, i am afraid that you are being taken for a ride. Please don't lose your dad's hard earned money to frauds who brainwash innocents like you. Afterall you have a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Dave the Green NOBEL. Sounds good to me.Ajjay (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu/Sikh unity section?

I know this will anger many Sikhs but shouldnt there be a section about those who believe in the unity of Hinduism & Sikhism? In other words those who condsider themself Hindu & Sikh? Or those who believe that the two arent meant to be seperate religions? Please dont get offended by what im saying, but there are some people (like me) who think this way that these religions should not be seperate and should unite as one. After all the Gurus didnt believe in religion (from what I understand) and believed in unity under god 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an article Agnostic. I think your views righly belong there.117.96.128.125 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)