Talk:Poet Shyam: Difference between revisions

ok the article is yours i have wrong info i need to correct. (Lucky 07:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Use of the name Nanak, etc

Point 1 The article says: "If all other Guru's wrote Bani under Nanak, then why didn't 10th Nanak do it?" but if you have a look at Jaap Sahib which is bani by the tenth master, the name "Nanak" is not used. In fact the tenth master did not use the name "Nanak" in any of his writings as far as I am aware - especially the most well known banis of GGS.

So this statement needs to be corrected, unless the writer is saying that Jaap sahib and the other Nitnem banis attributed to GGS are in fact not written by the tenth master!!!

SUNNY First of all, Jaap is written in Dasam Granth and not SGGS. I am talking of the fact that WHENEVER THE AUTHORS (ONLY GURUS, BHAGATS OR BHATTS REFERRED TO THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN NAMES), MENTIONED THEMSELVES IN THE BANI, THEY USED NANAK, TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO DIFF BETWEEN 1st OR 9th Nanak = ALL HAVE ONE JOT (i.e. Nanak Jot). Please look up your facts, Tenth master didn't write a single composition in SGGS. Only one salok is sometimes attributed to 10th master, but that is very unlikely.

Point 2

".... but you can check Bawanja Kavi entry in Mahan Kosh..." - This type of statement is not acceptable in an information site like SikhiWiki. You need to quote the line and translate it to make the point - not ask the reader to check the entry!

Okay. I'll get it done.

Point 3

The Ramanand refered to here is not the Ramanand that you have in mind? Who knows in the millions of years of human history which spiritual leaders have come to the world? Can you list them all from the year dot? So it could be that in 3000BC there was a Ramanand in say Persia or Sri Lanka or somewhere else! This is a very weak point that the writer has selected. Which Ramanand are you talking about? Not Bhagat Ramanand? - as I don't believe he fits the description of a bairagi - so count him out.

Which other Ramanand is worth mentioning? Who says Patshahi 10 is Guru Gobind Singh and not one of the other kings in millions year of human history? There is only one Ramanand that was worth mentioning. If not this, then who was he?

Point 4

"that first three Gurus were Bedis, while second Guru was Trehan and third was Bhalla." Are not the Trehan and Bhalla an off-shoot of Bedis? My understanding is that originally there were only the Bedia and Sodhis; later various other sub-categories came about from these two "peoples"

This articles need a lot of more thought and research. It is dangerous just to write things without first looking at all the options and explaining these options carefully. If the issue is new or not generally accepted in the panth, references must be given so that the readers and critics can check the original text. Regards, Hari Singh^talk 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Trehan and Bhalla are Khatris, but not offshoots ! Khatris are divided into 4 sub categories. SunnySinghDoad 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofs from the text

Stating which side you think the Proofs from the text support would help - pro or con? thanks Allenwalla (my takhallus/ pen name) Hari Ji is right in stating references must be given so that the readers and critics can check the original text.

The original text with page and line number is given in the text. SunnySinghDoad 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)