# How Did Guru Nanak Manage The Travel?



## Dev singh (May 12, 2016)

SSA.

I have question to ask. I asked many no one can give me answer.

As we know people who preach Sikhism they come from India to preach about life of Gurus. That goes from one gurdwara to gurdwara. They get money for preaching to us the sangat.

How did Guru Nanak manage the travel? Did he took money from his home when he went travel and away. Or the people who listen Nanak's preaching? Gave the money to that?


----------



## anon (May 13, 2016)

I have been recently reading a book by H.McLeod in which there is an essay about the life of Guru Nanak. It goes through all the janam sakhis and assesses their validity by looking at existing evidence, or how well the sakhis compare with other sources.

The essay that I read classifies all of the sakhis as being "Likely true" or "Likely False" and im pretty sure that he classifies the stories of Guru Nanaks distant travels, to Mecca, Baghdad, and Sri Lanka as being false.

The conclusion i drew fromthis was that Guru Nanak did not travel nearly as far as we are led to believe.


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (May 14, 2016)

I have the privilege of doing research on Guru Nanak for last 40 years specially on  his travels and visited almost all known places in India, Sri Lanka and Bangla Desh. Guru Nanak walked mostly. His sea travels on boats and ships are also confirmed. Where did he get the money from for his travel expenses? is the question.  Since he walked on foot mostly he needed hardly any expenses except for his meals and the clothes. Before start of his travels Guru Nanak was well known not only in Punjab ruling  circles but among the key sages of the period as well. He had been the store holder of Nawab Dault Khan and his brother-in-law was a high official as well. Rich and powerful like Rai Bullar, Nawab daulta Khan, Ajit Randhawa, karoria etc were his followers. After the final accounts were tallied at his store house, quite a sum i.e., Rs 700/-  was in balance which he asked the Nawab to distribute among the poor. It showed that he needed no money as a travel.  His name was so well spread that where ever he went thereafter there were people to take care of him. Even when he went to the unknown his hymns proved so effective that kings like Shivnabh became his disciples. He himself had reached a stage where hunger did not matter  but for his companions he always managed something and all without keeping any money with him. Janamsakhis have ample proof of it.


----------



## swarn bains (May 15, 2016)

Dev singh jee. if you remember even before and immediately after partition, money was not the requirement to travel. people kept the traveler in their homes, fed them and some instances they were fed by the organizers of sarai, temple or the mosque. there was no convenience of rides but to walk. Money only came into playing a role since the indian society has become more affluent. Baba carried some amount of money with him as well. it was not a money making expedition. Money plays a role these days for everything. The kathakars these days use their wits to impress the audience and yet know nothing about spiritualism. The audience does not seriously listen to what the preacher says but how they impress by their slogans. I heard bhai thakur singh saying in his katha that guru said to his followers to go and kill some pigeons and bring  for him to eat, i heard late divine Hardev singh that je tusi tivian the gut na puto oh kabuu nahien aaondiean then immediately he would say bol wahiguru to distract the audience. I saw Maskeen sahib rolling money and filling his parka pockets and then walk away without saying sat sari akal or asking for forgiveness for any mistake he made.


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (May 15, 2016)

McLeod's research has been proved biased and is not accepted among researcher as an authentic research.  As there have been numerous papers already published to prove that,  I will not dwell on that since subject of discussion is different.  I can only say that he did no do any field work but developed his conclusions on paper work based on certain Janasakhis and a few  sources which were provided to him. Hence these could not be stated as authentic. 
Second point regarding travelling without money is concerned, I had met many mendicants who had visited widely without having money in their pockets.
Can anyone give any example of Guru Nanak  using money after he started his travels. Previous to this there are two examples one of sacha sauda and another of buying rebec for which the money was provided by his father and sister respectively.


----------



## Original (May 16, 2016)

dalvindersingh grewal said:


> McLeod's research has been proved biased and is not accepted among researcher as an authentic research.  As there have been numerous papers already published to prove that,  I will not dwell on that since subject of discussion is different.  I can only say that he did no do any field work but developed his conclusions on paper work based on certain Janasakhis and a few  sources which were provided to him. Hence these could not be stated as authentic.
> Second point regarding travelling without money is concerned, I had met many mendicants who had visited widely without having money in their pockets.
> Can anyone give any example of Guru Nanak  using money after he started his travels. Previous to this there are two examples one of sacha sauda and another of buying rebec for which the money was provided by his father and sister respectively.


Sir

Much of what you've written is in accordance with my own view, but suffice to say, the shabd below offers rational propositions:

ਮਾਰੂ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ਭੂਤਨਾ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਬੇਤਾਲਾ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ਆਦਮੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਵੇਚਾਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਭਇਆ *ਦਿਵਾਨਾ* ਸਾਹ ਕਾ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਬਉਰਾਨਾ ॥ ਹਉ ਹਰਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਨਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਤਉ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਜਾ ਭੈ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਏਕੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਦੂਜਾ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥ ਤਉ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਜਾ ਏਕਾ ਕਾਰ ਕਮਾਇ ॥ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ਖਸਮ ਕਾ ਦੂਜੀ ਅਵਰ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਕਾਇ ॥੩॥ ਤਉ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਜਾ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥ ਮੰਦਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪ ਕਉ ਅਵਰੁ ਭਲਾ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥੪॥੭॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 991}

The operative word in my opinion ought to be "deewana" to ascertain whether Baba Nanak carried any money or felt it necessary to carry ?

Goodnight Sir


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (May 16, 2016)

You are right in this context. He  had a janoon of passing the message gloablly of 'one God of all' 'common brotherhood' ' Truth and truth alone'; the message he received at Bein.


----------



## Dev singh (May 16, 2016)

swarn bains said:


> Dev singh jee. if you remember even before and immediately after partition, money was not the requirement to travel. people kept the traveler in their homes, fed them and some instances they were fed by the organizers of sarai, temple or the mosque. there was no convenience of rides but to walk. Money only came into playing a role since the indian society has become more affluent. Baba carried some amount of money with him as well. it was not a money making expedition. Money plays a role these days for everything. The kathakars these days use their wits to impress the audience and yet know nothing about spiritualism. The audience does not seriously listen to what the preacher says but how they impress by their slogans. I heard bhai thakur singh saying in his katha that guru said to his followers to go and kill some pigeons and bring  for him to eat, i heard late divine Hardev singh that je
> tusi tivian the gut na puto oh kabuu nahien aaondiean then immediately he would say bol wahiguru to distract the audience. I saw Maskeen sahib rolling money and filling his parka pockets and then walk away without saying sat sari akal or asking for forgiveness for any mistake he made.




People then and now have not changes. Now days the ragies come to Canada USA and other countries  they make lot of money. Every one of them. Why Nanak be any different?
In those days singer were making good money. 
All the sakhies are written way after his death. Most of them are don't make any sense. There is no harm to take money with one,s talent. Nanak had to live and eat, it is no crime in taking money.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 17, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> it is no crime in taking money.



actually there is, its called theft, We are Sikhs, we give, we do not take, I personally would be surprised if cash changed hands, it would have set a dark precedent, a bed for the night and a simple meal would have sufficed all round.


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (May 17, 2016)

The problem is relating the event to the times.  Guru Nanak's times were different than ours. Needs were also limited. Free meals and accommodation for nights to the visitors were considered as honour. There were sarais in almost every key place for the travelers and sadhus then where you were not required to pay. Sadhus were always the special guest of any well to do person. Now there is nothing like that. Not much before (about 60 years before) I was able to survive on Rs 20/- for two months. This is not the case now. So we must take into account the changing times.


----------



## Dev singh (May 17, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> actually there is, its called theft, We are Sikhs, we give, we do not take, I personally would be surprised if cash changed hands, it would have set a dark precedent, a bed for the night and a simple meal would have sufficed all round.



So those ragi who sing in gurdwara don't take money that is sang at drop in front of them don't take that money? In my few Nanak and Mardana took the money. I do not think it is bad thing. They both were human and acted as human.


----------



## Kully (Jul 4, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> SSA.
> 
> I have question to ask. I asked many no one can give me answer.
> 
> ...




Sir, can you divulge further on this issue rising within yourself, upto the point where you have proposed it to many people? It seems like a really insignificant detail to me, but I would like know a little more about how this came to be?


----------



## Dev singh (Jul 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Sir, can you divulge further on this issue rising within yourself, upto the point where you have proposed it to many people? It seems like a really insignificant detail to me, but I would like know a little more about how this came to be?




What more you want to know? 
People says Nanak was god. As in the Bhai Gurdas said god came down to earth as nanak.
It can not be .

Is taking money for singing about and praising god is wrong?
On the other hand   IS THERE GOD?

No one have seen god, no one can claim they have seen god? 
What does god do? Does god listen to Ardass?

Dave


----------



## Dev singh (Jul 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Sir, can you divulge further on this issue rising within yourself, upto the point where you have proposed it to many people? It seems like a really insignificant detail to me, but I would like know a little more about how this came to be?




what more u want to know?


----------



## Kully (Jul 10, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> What more you want to know?
> People says Nanak was god. As in the Bhai Gurdas said god came down to earth as nanak.
> It can not be .
> 
> ...




Why cannot it be, that Nanak came to earth as "God"?

Why do you have doubts on "God"?

There are plenty of things I haven't seen but that doesn't mean they don't exist or didn't happen.

What would you like "God" to do?

Why do you think"God" doesn't listen to ardas?


----------



## Kully (Jul 10, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> what more u want to know?



Why you feel such a minor issue is worth asking so many people over? By getting an answer either way, how will it effect your life in this world?


----------



## Sikhilove (Jul 10, 2016)

Guru Nanak Dev ji was a Satguru. He knew what to do and he did it.


----------



## Dev singh (Jul 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> Why cannot it be, that Nanak came to earth as "God"?
> 
> Why do you have doubts on "God"?
> 
> ...




I say there is no god. 
If u can prove
 that there is god and u have seen it then it is up to to u to prove that god is here.
Unless u can prove it then don't bother to sent any text

deve


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 11, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> I say there is no god.


 but you must believe in god to say there is no god


Dev singh said:


> If u can prove
> that there is god and u have seen it then it is up to to u to prove that god is here.
> Unless u can prove it then don't bother to sent any text


if we debate like this, we will get nowhere, i could suggest you prove there is no god, it is kindergarten debate, why do you not answer the questions and then we can see where the debate goes?


----------



## Kully (Jul 11, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> I say there is no god.
> If u can prove
> that there is god and u have seen it then it is up to to u to prove that god is here.
> Unless u can prove it then don't bother to sent any text
> ...



I can't prove "God" as I've never seen him. I do beleive in Sri Akal,  not because I've seen or experienced Sri Akal, but because I have faith in my Guru who says that Sri Akal exists.

If you don't  have faith in a Guru, how can you be a Sikh?


----------



## Dev singh (Jul 11, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> but you must believe in god to say there is no god
> 
> if we debate like this, we will get nowhere, i could suggest you prove there is no god, it is kindergarten debate, why do you not answer the questions and then we can see where the debate goes?




Only stupid person can ask that u asked? Where there is nothing how can any one claim there is. Nothing can not be explained. Because there is nothing. In your pocket there are money that u can claim I have money if there is no money in your pocket, u can not say there is money in your pocket.

U can say there maybe god but not sure. What did your god did for you? Or the if some one killed a person who was very God fearing person. No one have seen god helping any one.

Like I said before if u don't have the prove then dot not reply. It is waist of time yours and mine   
Bye


----------



## Dev singh (Jul 11, 2016)

swarn bains said:


> Dev singh jee. if you remember even before and immediately after partition, money was not the requirement to travel. people kept the traveler in their homes, fed them and some instances they were fed by the organizers of sarai, temple or the mosque. there was no convenience of rides but to walk. Money only came into playing a role since the indian society has become more affluent. Baba carried some amount of money with him as well. it was not a money making expedition. Money plays a role these days for everything. The kathakars these days use their wits to impress the audience and yet know nothing about spiritualism. The audience does not seriously listen to what the preacher says but how they impress by their slogans. I heard bhai thakur singh saying in his katha that guru said to his followers to go and kill some pigeons and bring  for him to eat, i heard late divine Hardev singh that je tusi tivian the gut na puto oh kabuu nahien aaondiean then immediately he would say bol wahiguru to distract the audience. I saw Maskeen sahib rolling money and filling his parka pockets and then walk away without saying sat sari akal or asking for forgiveness for any mistake he made.




My dear friend you were not there nor I was there. U can be right and I can be right. Nanak was not the only one who went out. He must have had good voice. Like singers come to Canada from Indian some preach sermon in Gurdwara. All of them take money to come to Canada and for the singing.

There is nothing wrong to say he must have taken money if he needed it.
I have not seen any Bhai ji do the reading free here in Canada. 

Lets cut this topic start new thread. 

deve


----------



## Kully (Jul 12, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> I have not seen any Bhai ji do the reading free here in Canada.



Sir, maybe this is where the problem is. Do you think that Nanak was different to any other human in this world, you and I included?


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 12, 2016)

Dev singh said:


> Only stupid person can ask that u asked?



well stupidity is relative, if we look at some of the tainted times in our past, sati, killing of female babies etc, one could say that either people chose to be stupid, or they did not believe they were stupid. You are saying that a belief in god is stupid, on a Sikh forum, that is pretty stupid don't you think?



Dev singh said:


> Where there is nothing how can any one claim there is.



No one claims otherwise, god is nothing. 



Dev singh said:


> Nothing can not be explained



sure it can, its just nothing.



Dev singh said:


> Because there is nothing. In your pocket there are money that u can claim I have money if there is no money in your pocket, u can not say there is money in your pocket.



no one is claiming there is money there, just nothing. 



Dev singh said:


> U can say there maybe god but not sure. What did your god did for you?



well personally, I got a brain out of it, and some guidance on how to further my brain. 



Dev singh said:


> Or the if some one killed a person who was very God fearing person. No one have seen god helping any one.



being god fearing does not save you from getting killed, why would it?



Dev singh said:


> Like I said before if u don't have the prove then dot not reply. It is waist of time yours and mine
> Bye


Devji we are deviating from topic, so I will open a thread just for you, we can debate the rest there.


----------



## Original (Jul 14, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> You are saying that a belief in god is stupid, on a Sikh forum, that is pretty stupid don't you think?


*"...hurrah !"* and well done !

Sir, on the one hand you're saying, its sheer stupidity to be questioning belief in God on a Sikh forum and yet on the other, you're saying, "is there a God?". That too, on a Sikh forum ? What's the catch ?


----------



## Harry Haller (Jul 14, 2016)

Original said:


> *"...hurrah !"* and well done !
> 
> Sir, on the one hand you're saying, its sheer stupidity to be questioning belief in God on a Sikh forum and yet on the other, you're saying, "is there a God?". That too, on a Sikh forum ? What's the catch ?





Harry Haller said:


> Devji we are deviating from topic, so I will open a thread just for you, we can debate the rest there.



If you read my post carefully you will see that the post you are referring to was opened so that this thread  is not diluted and remains on topic, it is not my question, it is Devji's question, I am attempting to discourage long tangents on threads by creating new threads instead. I hope that is ok, if you have any better suggestions I will always be happy to implement them provided they are within TOS. Also the word stupidity needs to be taken in the context it was used. 

I am always happy to take any feedback or assistance, after all, I am here to serve you.


----------



## Original (Jul 14, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> If you read my post carefully you will see that the post you are referring to was opened so that this thread  is not diluted and remains on topic, it is not my question, it is Devji's question, I am attempting to discourage long tangents on threads by creating new threads instead. I hope that is ok, if you have any better suggestions I will always be happy to implement them provided they are within TOS. Also the word stupidity needs to be taken in the context it was used.
> 
> I am always happy to take any feedback or assistance, after all, I am here to serve you.


...sometimes I'm lost for words, especially when sum1 like you who has the nuance to flabbergast. This is that time and I'm deeply touched !

If you continue in like manner and be the supreme officer of SPN, I'm sure you'll send home a message that Sikh and God are like Fish n Water, inseparable as it were, and relegate the likes of me into early exile.

Thank you Sir !


----------

