Talk:Deh Shiva Bar Mohe Eha

If GURU GOBIND SINGh does not believe MAHADEV as SHIV how could he call HIndu lady a SHIVA?
In Chopai, Guru Gobind SIngh cleared this fact ਮਹਾਂਦੇਵ ਕੌ ਕਹਤ ਸਦਾ ਸ਼ਿਵ ॥ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਕਾ ਚੀਨਤ ਨਹਿ ਭਿਵ ॥੩੯੨॥. Mahadev ko tum log SADA SHIV KEHTE ho, Sada shiv o nirankar hai jisko tum log pehchante nahi. This is proof that Hindu lady is not Shiva but Power of Nirankar or HUKAM is SHIVA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.241.229 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deh is word for physical body
Deh is the word for physical body in many Indian languages as well as it being the root word for body in many Indo european languages. The translation was incorrect in that it assumed deh to mean 'to give' which is the translation to 'dey' (no h sound). Siva is definately referring to the hindu mythological diety Siva. However the mistranslation of Deh had caused the whole of the poem to lose meaning.

If you read it as dey/to give the poem does not make sense.

it would then mean, 'give me a boon lord shiva, dont be afraid to do the good deed, dont be afraid to go into battle, be confident in winning.'

thus the whole poem would become a sermon to shiva to go into battle as well as to give you a varr/boon

all because of the mistranslation of one word 'deh'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gundarsemann (talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

only with that translation does the poem make sense as being a sermon to all sikhs to not fear dying in battle for a good cause

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Gundarsemann (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Gundrasemann

misunderstanding
The word is Shivaa not Shiva. Shiva refers to the Godhead in its transcendental, unattached, form. Shivaa however is in the feminine and refers to Shiva's Shakti (Durga). Durga is Shivaa (double aa sound).

In this respect what Nabha Singh is said is correct

--

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)

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)

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

=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. The guy is wrecking hell on sikhism related topics.Ajjay (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

H ?
It didn't by any chance come form the word 'Shiva' did it, because they are so coincidentally identical.

Where did the word 'Siva' actually come from then? Because as most people know, Siva is simply a different way to spell Shiva, the pronunciation is still SHIVA, as for your comment on the letter 'H', I think you will find that Roman Alphabets were not used in Medieval India or during the compilation of any of the Sikh books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.218 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear IP address (90.196.3.218), for anyone so bound on finding the truth as you pretend, the natural path should be to research and do a little homework before making outright claims on Wikipedia. As for the knowledge, AGGS (Aad Guru Granth Sahib), the Sikh scripture, calls the "ultimate truth" with many names but still does not believe in the Shiva that you are trying to portray here. For instance, whenever a Sikh Guru was debating/discussing with a Hindu they would talk referring to the "ultimate truth" in their (the Hindu) terminology and when they were talking/discussing with Muslims you will see them using Muslim terminology to make the debate/discussion easier for the other side. That aside, Dasam Granth is not an appropriate reference as there is no consensus on its content. Many-many Sikh historians doubt its content were 100% from the pen of Guru Gobind Singh, composition "Deh ..." is one of those under scrutiny. Nevertheless, let me highlight it to you that if one starts finding the instances of "Shiva" and "Siva" in AGGS and put them all together to see what the Sikh Guru's and other quoted in AGGS are saying, you will not be very much happy about their views about "Shiv Shakti" etc. So I suggest, open your eyes and do some research. If you insist, we can start putting all those quotes on Shiv etc. from AGGS on this article page perhaps then it will be clear what the Guru's wanted to convey. A side note, all your edits on Wikipedia are coming from an IP Range in the same town area in the same country. I find that that IP Range is involved in very damaging activities on wikipedia like, for example, vandalizing  Guru Nanak article with bad language. Be warned, this IP Range is under radar!,  Regards, --Road Ahead  Discuss 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect in Gurmukhi in the article but correct in edit mode
A couple of words, Sikh and Nidan appear incorrect in Gurmukhi when I view the article but correct in the edit mode when I tried to edit them. Can someone help? Pjbroomstix (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deh Siva Var Mohe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808112424/http://www.sridasamgranth.com/ to http://www.sridasamgranth.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Deh Shiva Bar Mohe Eha.jpg