Bhuj Nirinjan

mazharshah · Post by **mazharshah** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:16 pm

Is Bhuj Nirinjan a ginan by Pir Sadruddin?

[Question rephrased by Admin]

Post by **Admin** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:16 pm

Yes it is attributed to Pir SADARDIN in the oldest surviving manuscripts as well as in ALL the manuscripts except for a lone manuscript that is found at the British Library which laks the authors name which, as in most works, only appears once.

mazharshah · Post by **mazharshah** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:27 pm

Admin wrote:Yes it is attributed to Pir SADARDIN in the oldest surviving manuscripts as well as in ALL the manuscripts except for a lone manuscript that is found at the British Library which laks the authors name which, as in most works, only appears once.

The reason why I asked this question is that when the manuscript of Bhuj Nirijan was found in British Library immediately it was printed by Ismailia Assciation Karachi in 70's. After publishing of manuscript criticism was started.
Since then it was not reprinted till today, though some parts of this ginan is still recited in JK's.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:12 pm

Interesting question! If one studies the content at: http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/23012, no doubt it is an enlightened work giving a great deal of wisdom and knowledge for someone on the quest to know the Ultimate as expressed as "Buj Niranjan". In my opinion however it does not convey the Satpanthi 'flavour', but rather it is a work of general Sufi nature. I will elaborate with some examples from the text.

Part 1:

ddubakee le le gothaa khaave
peer paygambar to e nahee paave...................................4

It is like diving deep (into the ocean of knowledge) and tumbling over and over for even the Peers and Prophets where not able to know him completely.

mahaa agaadh samu(n)ddhra kahaave
jaa ko paar koee na paave.........................................5

(God's mystery is like) a very vast and deep ocean. No one can attain it's limits(no one can unfold it in it's entirety).

While there is nothing wrong with the above statements from a human point of view, it feels incorrect to say that the Pirs and the Prophets were unable to know him completely. It in a way contradicts our Satpanthi ideas of the all knowing and all wise Pirs.

There is no explicit reference to the recognition of the Imam of the time although there are allusions to the Perfect Teacher or a Guide, which is common in all Sufi traditions. In Ginans the Pirs have made it quite explicit that the Guide is the Imam - the Gurnar or the Shahpir. Also more emphasis is given to the prophets as opposed to the continuous lineage of Imams in terms of guidance. Nothing wrong but does not convey the Satpanthi 'flovour'.

Part 14:

mahenat kar kar jo kuchh laave
lok kuttu(m)bsu(n) aadh battaave..................................1

Whatever you earn(after toiling hard), half of it should be spent on your family.

aadh naam allaah khilaave
khaadam(tawbaadam) hoee mukhadumee paave..........................2

And the other half, spend in for Allah and with repentent attitude attain granter of repentance.

The above from the Satpanth point of view is not correct, although it may be true from the Sufi perspective. In our Ginanic tradition, the notion of Dasond is very explicit and it is the tenth part (plus 2.5%).

Part 33:

jo nafsaaniyat ku(n) naakhe
sab rozhe ramzhaan ke raakhe......................................1

The explicit mention of Ramadhan fasts is not part of the Ginanic tradition. The above verse seems at odds, although from a general Sufi standpoint it is OK.

Part 23:

mil(walee) mullaa(n) or kaazee aave
likh fatavaa muftee le jaave(lakh fatwa or marafat ponchaave).....1

The preachers and mullahs gather and come to the enlightened person. They prescribe a religious order(of sanction) against the person and take it to the executioner (mufti).

Second version: The preachers(mullas), religious leaders(wallis) and judges(kaazees) come to visit the enlightened person. They prescribe useless ways of attaining God without marifat(gnosis).

eestifasaar kar shahar(tor) milaave
veree hokar sab maarne aave.......................................2

Then they gather all the people of the town and invoke hatred and enmity against the person. They may even beat him up.

The general persecution by the Mullas has not been part of our tradition but can be true for general Sufis.

Part 10:

nabeekaa naaeb ho kar aayaa
sab kaahu ke maname(n) bhaayaa....................................1

The Prophet's inheritor(the Imam of the time) has manifested in this age. This fact is heartily desired by everyone(as it is a source of reassurance and conviction).

jaa par nahi(fan) vaa(n) ko saayaa
bhaaga abhaaga so fan(apane) le aayaa.............................2

Those who are under His shelter(mercy), have come along with their good fate and vis versa applies.

The notion of the Imam as the inheritor of the Prophet does not resonate with the Ginanic tradition (although not wrong from the general Sufi point of view). According to the Ginanic tradition the Prophet leads murids to the Imam.

Hence if the work was written by Pir Sadardeen, then it was meant as a guidance for all Sufis and not for his murids.

mazharshah · Post by **mazharshah** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:11 pm

kmaherali wrote:Interesting question! If one studies the content at: http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/23011, no doubt it is an enlightened work giving a great deal of wisdom and knowledge for someone on the quest to know the Ultimate as expressed as "Buj Niranjan". In my opinion however it does not convey the Satpanthi 'flavour', but rather it is a work of general Sufi nature. I will elaborate with some examples from the text.

Part 1:

ddubakee le le gothaa khaave
peer paygambar to e nahee paave...................................4

It is like diving deep (into the ocean of knowledge) and tumbling over and over for even the Peers and Prophets where not able to know him completely.

mahaa agaadh samu(n)ddhra kahaave
jaa ko paar koee na paave.........................................5

(God's mystery is like) a very vast and deep ocean. No one can attain it's limits(no one can unfold it in it's entirety).

While there is nothing wrong with the above statements from a human point of view, it feels incorrect to say that the Pirs and the Prophets were unable to know him completely. It in a way contradicts our Satpanthi ideas of the all knowing and all wise Pirs.

There is no explicit reference to the recognition of the Imam of the time although there are allusions to the Perfect Teacher or a Guide, which is common in all Sufi traditions. In Ginans the Pirs have made it quite explicit that the Guide is the Imam - the Gurnar or the Shahpir. Also more emphasis is given to the prophets as opposed to the continuous lineage of Imams in terms of guidance. Nothing wrong but does not convey the Satpanthi 'flovour'.

Part 14:

mahenat kar kar jo kuchh laave
lok kuttu(m)bsu(n) aadh battaave..................................1

Whatever you earn(after toiling hard), half of it should be spent on your family.

aadh naam allaah khilaave
khaadam(tawbaadam) hoee mukhadumee paave..........................2

And the other half, spend in for Allah and with repentent attitude attain granter of repentance.

The above from the Satpanth point of view is not correct, although it may be true from the Sufi perspective. In our Ginanic tradition, the notion of Dasond is very explicit and it is the tenth part (plus 2.5%).

Part 33:

jo nafsaaniyat ku(n) naakhe
sab rozhe ramzhaan ke raakhe......................................1

The explicit mention of Ramadhan fasts is not part of the Ginanic tradition. The above verse seems at odds, although from a general Sufi standpoint it is OK.

Part 23:

mil(walee) mullaa(n) or kaazee aave
likh fatavaa muftee le jaave(lakh fatwa or marafat ponchaave).....1

The preachers and mullahs gather and come to the enlightened person. They prescribe a religious order(of sanction) against the person and take it to the executioner (mufti).

Second version: The preachers(mullas), religious leaders(wallis) and judges(kaazees) come to visit the enlightened person. They prescribe useless ways of attaining God without marifat(gnosis).

eestifasaar kar shahar(tor) milaave
veree hokar sab maarne aave.......................................2

Then they gather all the people of the town and invoke hatred and enmity against the person. They may even beat him up.

The general persecution by the Mullas has not been part of our tradition but can be true for general Sufis.

Part 10:

nabeekaa naaeb ho kar aayaa
sab kaahu ke maname(n) bhaayaa....................................1

The Prophet's inheritor(the Imam of the time) has manifested in this age. This fact is heartily desired by everyone(as it is a source of reassurance and conviction).

jaa par nahi(fan) vaa(n) ko saayaa
bhaaga abhaaga so fan(apane) le aayaa.............................2

Those who are under His shelter(mercy), have come along with their good fate and vis versa applies.

The notion of the Imam as the inheritor of the Prophet does not resonate with the Ginanic tradition (although not wrong from the general Sufi point of view). According to the Ginanic tradition the Prophet leads murids to the Imam.

Hence if the work was written by Pir Sadardeen, then it was meant as a guidance for all Sufis and not for his murids.

I have few questions in my mind.
Is there any other manuscript of Bhuj Nirijan beside this which was found in British Library ( in shorter length )?
Is any date or year marked on British Library manuscript?
Is this particular ginan was written by Pir at his early stage or some time earlier at the end of his life?
In what language is this manuscript written? Gujrati or Persian.
As you wrote, it might have been written for sufis. Did Pir had other sufi murids beside khojas/mominas?
In my opinion, Pir Sadruddin has described the four stages of religion ie
Shariyat, Tariqat. Haqiqat, and Ma'rifat and beside that he has explained the four stages of Naasut, Jabrut, Malakut, and Lahut. In his very first few parts he has explained the domain of Lahut. Regarding 'pir paigamber touy na pawey'; may be Pir Sadruddin had explained in general terms. As you know there is difference between paigamber, Nabi and Rasul. The word pir can be applied for any one but according to ginanic terminology Pirs are next to Imam.
In ginanic literature we have a big problem of dates and years, when those ginans were said or written. We don't know which ginans comes after which.
Compilers and collector of ginanic litrature, because of lack of experience did not paid attention to dates/years issue.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:34 am

If anyone is interested in listening to Buj Niranjan with commentary by late Alwaez Shamshu Bandali Haji, you can go to:

http://ginans.usask.ca/recitals/ginans.php?id=0

and choose:

46. ati; acharat kahu ek paheli (bujh niranjan)

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:55 am

Ali Asani's book on Buj Nirinjan can be accessed at:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.t ... CHABLE.pdf

Excerpt:

"Indeed, on the basis of its terminology, especially the
technical Sufi terms of Arabic and Persian origin, a strong case
can be made against an Ismaili origin for the BujhNiraiijan.
No other composition attributed to PIr Sadr ad-DIn or to any
other author of an Ismaili ginan employs the type of Arabic
and Persian terms found in this work. Use of such terms is
uncharacteristic for the very reason that the ginan literature is
in the vernacular: it is a literature that avoids a vocabulary
that would be foreign to a rural, uneducated, Indian population.
The Bfijh Niraftjan is in this respect, as in others, the
exception. Not surprisingly in Ismaili manuscripts of the work,
these Arabic and Persian terms have been particularly vulnerable
to distortion and corruption, in some cases beyond recognition.
Indeed, such terms were so alien to the Ismaili
community of the subcontinent that the original terms became
apparent, and the Ismaili version could be corrected, only in
1976, after the discovery of the India Office manuscript.

Sadik Ali implicitly acknowledges that the high level of
Arabic and Persian is unusual for a ginan. He suggests,
however, that PIr Sadr ad-DIn employed this terminology because
Sufism was prevalent in the Punjab, the region in which he
believes the Bujh Niraftjan was first composed. Moreover,
according to him, the Sufi environment also inspired the PIr
"to bring forth a work ... to justify Ismailism among Sufi
circles." He also suggests that the Ismaili version contains
Shiite Ismaili teachings. But there is little in the Bujh
Niraftjan that would characterize it as a· specifically Ismaili
work, let alone justify Ismailism against Sufi "attacks." The
concept of the Imam, which is so central to Ismaili thought, is
not mentioned even once in the work. In addition, none of the
theological concepts and terms that characterize the Nizari
Ismaili tradition as it developed in the Indian subcontinent are
found in the Bujh Nirafljan For example, the equation of the
Shii Imam to the tenth avatar of Vishnu, a theme which permeates
and influences, in one way or another, significant portions
of the ginan literature (and indeed many works attributed to
PIr Sadr ad-DIn), is conspicuously absent from the Bujh
Niraiijan."

Post by **Admin** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:25 am

mazharshah wrote:
kmaherali wrote:Interesting question! If one studies the content at
I have few questions in my mind.
Is there any other manuscript of Bhuj Nirijan beside this which was found in British Library ( in shorter length )?
Is any date or year marked on British Library manuscript?
There is a date in the British Library manuscript, it is 1724 . It is more recent than the manuscript on which the version accessible to Mumtaz Ali Tajjdin of Karachi was based (1688 AD)

Mumtaz Ali Tajjdin prepared a written article for Asani but as his English is not as powerful as his knowledge of Indic languages and literature, he was ridiculed by Asani over his vocabulary however Mumtaz' research regardless of his English rendering, is much more accurate and reliable.

agakhani_1 · Post by **agakhani_1** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:17 pm

As per Ismaili pirs history ismaili pirs has preached on all sects whether it was Sufi sect or strict Vedic Hindu sect, as long ae pir Sadardin is concern he never looked behind to preached them and history witnessed it, only thing you need to study the history of Ismaili pirs and raise any question.

Post by **Admin** » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

This is a follow up of this posts:

kmaherali

Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 12759

Posted: 14 Jun 2016 08:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP of poster
erumsuleman wrote:
I think this is my first or may be post in this topic.
I have seen that there has been a lot of discussion on buj nirinjan authorship that whether is it pir sadardins composition or not and i have seen that few members usually doubt on its authorship due to there are some parts which contain a little bit of shariat.
There is a separate thread on Bhuj Nirinjan at:
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... pic&t=8826

Can we please continue the discussion on Bhuj Nirinjan there?

Post by **Admin** » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:11 am

The point is not that there is Shariah in this Granth. Of course there is Shariah in several ginans. In Bhuj Nirinjan, the Shariah part looks out of place considering the general topic of the whole Bhuj Nirinjan.

I am not an expert of it though I can tell that Bhuj Nirinjan is by Pir Sadardin, no doubt. I am aware of thesis trying to show that the Granth is not by Pir Sadardin but there are many flaws in the thesis.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:07 am

As I have said earlier in this thread, the work does not 'smell' like a Ginan to me. Such a large piece of work fails to mention the Imams before Hazarat Ali, that is a big odd to me in addition to other facts that I mentioned in my post.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:49 pm

Bujh Niranjan with English and Urdu Translation .pdf

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A% ... 3910294644

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:56 pm

kmaherali wrote:Bujh Niranjan with English and Urdu Translation .pdf

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A% ... 3910294644

By posting Urdu and English translation of Bhuj Nirijin you agree it was penned by Pir Sadardin, isn't it?

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:21 am

swamidada wrote: By posting Urdu and English translation of Bhuj Nirijin you agree it was penned by Pir Sadardin, isn't it?

I just provided the link to the translation. I did not do the Urdu translation but the English one has been taken from the version in this site which was done by me.

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:43 pm

kmaherali wrote:
swamidada wrote: By posting Urdu and English translation of Bhuj Nirijin you agree it was penned by Pir Sadardin, isn't it?
I just provided the link to the translation. I did not do the Urdu translation but the English one has been taken from the version in this site which was done by me.

Do you believe Bhuj Nirinjin is penned by Pir Sadardin?
If not, what forced you to translate this particular Ginan in English.
In 1976 Ismailia Association for Pakistan published Bhuj Nirinjin in Gujrati. (I have a copy of 1976 publication). There was wide spread appreciation of this Ginan by jamaits. Special waizes and lectures were arranged. At that time no one disputed. Then, after a decade, there came a professor who criticized this Ginan and further publication of this Ginan was stopped. Why that professor did not criticized other Ginans with same themes, like Pir Satgur and Pir Shams. Did Hazar Imam banned this Ginan to be recited in JKs?

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:59 pm

swamidada wrote: Do you believe Bhuj Nirinjin is penned by Pir Sadardin?
If not, what forced you to translate this particular Ginan in English.
In 1976 Ismailia Association for Pakistan published Bhuj Nirinjin in Gujrati. (I have a copy of 1976 publication). There was wide spread appreciation of this Ginan by jamaits. Special waizes and lectures were arranged. At that time no one disputed. Then, after a decade, there came a professor who criticized this Ginan and further publication of this Ginan was stopped. Why that professor did not criticized other Ginans with same themes, like Pir Satgur and Pir Shams. Did Hazar Imam banned this Ginan to be recited in JKs?

When I said that I did not think that Pir Sadardeen composed the Buj Nirinjan, it does not mean that it is valueless for the Jamats. It is indeed a very enlightened work and hence I was compelled to translate it and share it with the Jamats.

There are Qasidas that are composed by persons other than Pirs and are recited in Jamat Khanas.

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:15 pm

kmaherali wrote:
swamidada wrote: Do you believe Bhuj Nirinjin is penned by Pir Sadardin?
If not, what forced you to translate this particular Ginan in English.
In 1976 Ismailia Association for Pakistan published Bhuj Nirinjin in Gujrati. (I have a copy of 1976 publication). There was wide spread appreciation of this Ginan by jamaits. Special waizes and lectures were arranged. At that time no one disputed. Then, after a decade, there came a professor who criticized this Ginan and further publication of this Ginan was stopped. Why that professor did not criticized other Ginans with same themes, like Pir Satgur and Pir Shams. Did Hazar Imam banned this Ginan to be recited in JKs?
When I said that I did not think that Pir Sadardeen composed the Buj Nirinjan, it does not mean that it is valueless for the Jamats. It is indeed a very enlightened work and hence I was compelled to translate it and share it with the Jamats.

There are Qasidas that are composed by persons other than Pirs and are recited in Jamat Khanas.

What compels you to think that Bhuj Nirinjin was not penned by Pir Sadardin. Do you have any authentic reasons?

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:14 am

swamidada wrote: What compels you to think that Bhuj Nirinjin was not penned by Pir Sadardin. Do you have any authentic reasons?

You have not read the thread. I have given the reasons why I think it is not the work of Pir Sadardeen earlier!

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:03 pm

kmaherali wrote:
swamidada wrote: What compels you to think that Bhuj Nirinjin was not penned by Pir Sadardin. Do you have any authentic reasons?
You have not read the thread. I have given the reasons why I think it is not the work of Pir Sadardeen earlier!

I have read your post dated Oct 31, 2015 before posting my previous one.
It is strange that your objection is on ONLY 9 couplets out of 257 couplets and 33 refrains. It means you accept 248 couplets + 33 refrains of Bujh Nirinjin.
You twisted the meaning of 9 couplets without paying attention to prior and after couplets. In Bujh Nirinjin Pir Sadardin has explained about;
Allah
Rasul
Hari/Ali
Mazhar e khas Illahi
Gur
SatGur
Shari'at
Tariqat
Haqiqat
Ma'rifat
Naasut
Jabarut
Malakut
Laahut
Tawhid
Noor e Tajjali
Anal Huqq
Wahdat
Kasrat
Islam
Quran

Please note that all 33 refrains according to me represent Satpunth along with 257 couplets.
To me;
BUJH NIRINJIN IS SATPUNTH PREAMBLE GIVEN BY PIR SADARDIN.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Wed May 01, 2019 3:14 pm

swamidada wrote: I have read your post dated Oct 31, 2015 before posting my previous one.
It is strange that your objection is on ONLY 9 couplets out of 257 couplets and 33 refrains. It means you accept 248 couplets + 33 refrains of Bujh Nirinjin.

As I said earlier I accept all the verses as being enlightened. However for the reasons I gave in my earlier post, I don't think this is a work written by Pir Sadardeen for guidance to his murids. It may have been written for all Sufis or composed by a Sufi.

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Thu May 02, 2019 9:27 pm

kmaherali wrote:
swamidada wrote: I have read your post dated Oct 31, 2015 before posting my previous one.
It is strange that your objection is on ONLY 9 couplets out of 257 couplets and 33 refrains. It means you accept 248 couplets + 33 refrains of Bujh Nirinjin.
As I said earlier I accept all the verses as being enlightened. However for the reasons I gave in my earlier post, I don't think this is a work written by Pir Sadardeen for guidance to his murids. It may have been written for all Sufis or composed by a Sufi.

You enlighten the jamaits with translation of Bujh Nirinjin but reluctant to enlighten yourself with guidance of an important Ginan by Pir Sadardin.
Still Bujh Nirinjin is recited in many jamait khanas prorie mostly first chapter means it is a valid Ginan.

AJD · Post by **AJD** » Fri May 03, 2019 2:00 am

We all respect your viewpoint about this giranth "Buj Nirinjan".

However, scholarly speaking, before we can make huge claims like "It's for sure by an Ismaili Pir" or "It's for sure by any other sufi", we need to perform a scientific (plus systematic) study of various sources.

Let me tell you that the very first time someone wrote on Buj Nirinjan was Mumtaz Tajdin whose thesis was in favor of your viewpoint. Later, his thesis was challenged by Dr. Ali Asani (Harvard).

Now, when I was working on Buj Nirinjan, I found a number of strengths and shortcomings in both thesis. For example, Mumtaz largely relies on photocopies of the manuscripts rather than original ones. Similarly, Ali Asani just draws a conclusion without performing extensive fieldwork to hunt for more manuscripts. His conclusion is based on just one manuscript (as it is the oldest known, he got luck).

I am not saying that the works performed by our scholars is wrong. In fact, I have always kept ALI ASANI, SHAFIQUE VIRANI and MUMTAZ on same level. No doubt Mumtaz can be categorized as pioneers in the ginanic study. It goes without saying that the khidmat of "ADMIN" is also matchless. In fact, there is no doubt that ADMIN has performed much more khidmat by revaling the writings of such authors for us.

At any rate, what we can learn is that there is immense work to do. We can challenge our senior scholars in a healthy manner of course. In fact, even we should have a room to get our thesis falsify once new and new materials are unearthed.

And finally let me tell you that I too believe that the giranth is by Pir Sadardin or at least by one of his disciples. I visited a village in Sindh and I was shown a manuscript of Buj Nirinjan written in the second half of the 19th century. So, resources are being discovered. It's a long way, indeed!

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Fri May 03, 2019 10:28 am

swamidada wrote: You enlighten the jamaits with translation of Bujh Nirinjin but reluctant to enlighten yourself with guidance of an important Ginan by Pir Sadardin.
Still Bujh Nirinjin is recited in many jamait khanas prorie mostly first chapter means it is a valid Ginan.

As I said before, when I said that I don't think this work is composed by Pir Sadardeen as guidance to his murids, it does not take away anything from its enlightening qualities. It is a great Sufi work and it contains useful guidance and wisdom for anyone on the Sufi path (which of course includes Ismailism). Otherwise I would not have bothered to translate it and post it here.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Fri May 03, 2019 10:54 am

AJD wrote: And finally let me tell you that I too believe that the giranth is by Pir Sadardin or at least by one of his disciples. I visited a village in Sindh and I was shown a manuscript of Buj Nirinjan written in the second half of the 19th century. So, resources are being discovered. It's a long way, indeed!

Look at the internal evidence of the composition. No mention of the Imam, no mention of pre-Alid Imamat, paying 50% dasond, etc. This does not accord with Satpanth principles.

AJD · Post by **AJD** » Fri May 03, 2019 12:30 pm

Internal evidence matters significantly but that is not the only thing to rely upon. There are many more aspects which one must take into account.

So, as I said, require through research!

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Fri May 03, 2019 1:17 pm

AJD wrote:Internal evidence matters significantly but that is not the only thing to rely upon. There are many more aspects which one must take into account.

So, as I said, require through research!

In 274 verses, there is no mention of the Imam explicitly! What kind of guidance is that for a murid in a Satpanth tradition.

There is mention of Mursheed Kameel which is applicable to all Sufi tariqahs.

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Fri May 03, 2019 9:43 pm

kmaherali wrote:
AJD wrote:Internal evidence matters significantly but that is not the only thing to rely upon. There are many more aspects which one must take into account.

So, as I said, require through research!
In 274 verses, there is no mention of the Imam explicitly! What kind of guidance is that for a murid in a Satpanth tradition.

There is mention of Mursheed Kameel which is applicable to all Sufi tariqahs.

You rejected Bujh Nirinjin as Ginan of Pir Sadardin because there is no mention of Ali and Imam according to you. Let me quote few examples of your translation of Bujh Nirirnjin which you translated and posted.

1. Naam nira(n)jan kee do bhaatee ek zaatee ek bhae seefaatee
The name of the indescriptible has two aspects; one is the essence and the other is the form(which refers to the essence).

In the above part Pir has described Imam as Mazhar which refers to essence as you wrote.

2. Ek nabee or ek gusaaee(n) ek gur bin chit na laaee
You will have awareness of no one else besides the one prophet and one Light which is manifested in the Guide.

In this part Pir has mentioned the Prophet and the Light which is the Light of manifested Imam.

3. “Man lahul mawlaa” kee gat paave jo sa(n)gat sufee kee jaave
The ones who attain the stage of “belonging to Mawlaa”,get into the path of Sufism.

To whom Pir is calling Mowla, obviously it is the Imam.

4. Nabeekaa naaeb ho kar aayaa sab kaahu ke maname(n) bhaayaa
The Prophet’s inheriter(the Imam of the time) has manifested in this age. This fact is heartily desired by everyone(as it is a source of reassurance and conviction).

You have mentioned "Prophet's inheriter is Imam of the time.

5. Alee samare alee paaee-e, alee samare sukh ho-e; nipatt neekatt jo alee vase, pann alee samarat nahi koee re
O You, ... If you remember Aly, you attain Aly. Through remembrance of Aly peace is attained. Though Aly is very close, nobody remembers Aly.

You have translated 'ALI SAMAREE(N) ALI PAAEIYE(N)' If you remember Ali, you attain Ali (so Ali/Hari is mentioned in this part clearly)

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sat May 04, 2019 10:36 am

swamidada wrote: You rejected Bujh Nirinjin as Ginan of Pir Sadardin because there is no mention of Ali and Imam according to you. Let me quote few examples of your translation of Bujh Nirirnjin which you translated and posted.

1. Naam nira(n)jan kee do bhaatee ek zaatee ek bhae seefaatee
The name of the indescriptible has two aspects; one is the essence and the other is the form(which refers to the essence).

In the above part Pir has described Imam as Mazhar which refers to essence as you wrote.

It does not refer specifically to the Imam being a Mazhar. Other Sufis also believe in the Essence and the form. However Ismailis can interpret the Essence to refer to the Imam as in Ginans.

swamidada wrote: 2. Ek nabee or ek gusaaee(n) ek gur bin chit na laaee
You will have awareness of no one else besides the one prophet and one Light which is manifested in the Guide.

In this part Pir has mentioned the Prophet and the Light which is the Light of manifested Imam.

Again it does not specifically state that the Guide is the Imam. Other Sufi tariqahs also accept that their Murshids are the bearers of the Light of the Prophet.

swamidada wrote: 3. “Man lahul mawlaa” kee gat paave jo sa(n)gat sufee kee jaave
The ones who attain the stage of “belonging to Mawlaa”,get into the path of Sufism.

To whom Pir is calling Mowla, obviously it is the Imam.

Yes for Ismailis it is so but other Sufi tariqahs also have the notion of Mowla as being the Mursheed.

swamidada wrote: 4. Nabeekaa naaeb ho kar aayaa sab kaahu ke maname(n) bhaayaa
The Prophet’s inheriter(the Imam of the time) has manifested in this age. This fact is heartily desired by everyone(as it is a source of reassurance and conviction).

You have mentioned "Prophet's inheriter is Imam of the time.

For Ismailis he is the inheritor but other Sufi tariqahs also believe that their silsilas end up in Prophet Muhammad. Hence they may consider someone other than the Imam as the inheritor like the Ahmadis.

swamidada wrote: 5. Alee samare alee paaee-e, alee samare sukh ho-e; nipatt neekatt jo alee vase, pann alee samarat nahi koee re
O You, ... If you remember Aly, you attain Aly. Through remembrance of Aly peace is attained. Though Aly is very close, nobody remembers Aly.

You have translated 'ALI SAMAREE(N) ALI PAAEIYE(N)' If you remember Ali, you attain Ali (so Ali/Hari is mentioned in this part clearly)

Again Ali is not specifically an Ismaili notion or belief. Many other Sufis consider Ali as Allah. For example Abida Parveen sings the praises of Ali as Allah.

Hence I am saying that it is not a guidance specifically for Ismailis but for Sufis. Peer Sadardeen may have composed it for general Sufi audience but not as guidance to his murids.

swamidada_1 · Post by **swamidada_1** » Sat May 04, 2019 9:00 pm

kmaherali wrote:
swamidada wrote: You rejected Bujh Nirinjin as Ginan of Pir Sadardin because there is no mention of Ali and Imam according to you. Let me quote few examples of your translation of Bujh Nirirnjin which you translated and posted.

1. Naam nira(n)jan kee do bhaatee ek zaatee ek bhae seefaatee
The name of the indescriptible has two aspects; one is the essence and the other is the form(which refers to the essence).

In the above part Pir has described Imam as Mazhar which refers to essence as you wrote.
It does not refer specifically to the Imam being a Mazhar. Other Sufis also believe in the Essence and the form. However Ismailis can interpret the Essence to refer to the Imam as in Ginans.
swamidada wrote: 2. Ek nabee or ek gusaaee(n) ek gur bin chit na laaee
You will have awareness of no one else besides the one prophet and one Light which is manifested in the Guide.

In this part Pir has mentioned the Prophet and the Light which is the Light of manifested Imam.
Again it does not specifically state that the Guide is the Imam. Other Sufi tariqahs also accept that their Murshids are the bearers of the Light of the Prophet.
swamidada wrote: 3. “Man lahul mawlaa” kee gat paave jo sa(n)gat sufee kee jaave
The ones who attain the stage of “belonging to Mawlaa”,get into the path of Sufism.

To whom Pir is calling Mowla, obviously it is the Imam.
Yes for Ismailis it is so but other Sufi tariqahs also have the notion of Mowla as being the Mursheed.
swamidada wrote: 4. Nabeekaa naaeb ho kar aayaa sab kaahu ke maname(n) bhaayaa
The Prophet’s inheriter(the Imam of the time) has manifested in this age. This fact is heartily desired by everyone(as it is a source of reassurance and conviction).

You have mentioned "Prophet's inheriter is Imam of the time.
For Ismailis he is the inheritor but other Sufi tariqahs also believe that their silsilas end up in Prophet Muhammad. Hence they may consider someone other than the Imam as the inheritor like the Ahmadis.
swamidada wrote: 5. Alee samare alee paaee-e, alee samare sukh ho-e; nipatt neekatt jo alee vase, pann alee samarat nahi koee re
O You, ... If you remember Aly, you attain Aly. Through remembrance of Aly peace is attained. Though Aly is very close, nobody remembers Aly.

You have translated 'ALI SAMAREE(N) ALI PAAEIYE(N)' If you remember Ali, you attain Ali (so Ali/Hari is mentioned in this part clearly)
Again Ali is not specifically an Ismaili notion or belief. Many other Sufis consider Ali as Allah. For example Abida Parveen sings the praises of Ali as Allah.

Hence I am saying that it is not a guidance specifically for Ismailis but for Sufis. Peer Sadardeen may have composed it for general Sufi audience but not as guidance to his murids.

1. Your objection is that there is no mention of Imam or Noor e Imamat in Bujh Nirinjin. I gave you proofs from your translation now you are somersaulting. There are many Ginans in which there is no mention of Imam/Ali/Noor, will you reject these Ginans. In original texts of Ginans the words mostly used are Nar, Gur, Brahma, Hari which were converted to Ali, Muhammad, Imam, Shah, Pir and so on. You wrote," It does not refer specifically to the Imam being a Mazhar. Other Sufis also believe in the Essence and the form. However Ismailis can interpret the Essence to refer to the Imam as in Ginans"

Reply:
Because other sufis believe in essence and form that does not mean we shall give up belieiving in essence of Imam, in the brackets you mentioned (which refers to the essence)

2. You wrote: Again it does not specifically state that the Guide is the Imam. Other Sufi tariqahs also accept that their Murshids are the bearers of the Light of the Prophet.

Reply:
Is Imam not a Guide? You have translated,"One Prophet and one Light which is manifested in Guide". Because other sufis believe their Murshid as a guide so do we shun the word Guide for Imam?

3. You wrote: Yes for Ismailis it is so but other Sufi tariqahs also have the notion of Mowla as being the Mursheed.

Reply:
At least you admitted that there is word Mowla , means there is mention of Imam as Mowla in Bhuj Nirinjin.

4. You wrote: For Ismailis he is the inheritor but other Sufi tariqahs also believe that their silsilas end up in Prophet Muhammad. Hence they may consider someone other than the Imam as the inheritor like the Ahmadis.

Reply:
Ahmad's philosophy is Risalat continued and not Imamat. What other sufi Tariqas say that is not our concern. As Shia Ismaili we believe Imam is the inheritor of the Prophet as you wrote," The Prophet's inheritor (the Imam of the time).

5. Alee samare alee paaee-e, alee samare sukh ho-e; nipatt neekatt jo alee vase, pann alee samarat nahi koee re
O You, ... If you remember Ali, you attain Ali. Through remembrance of Ali peace is attained. Though Ali is very close, nobody remembers Ali.

Reply:
Please revisit your translation and my reply to you on Ali Samaree(n)....

You have translated 'ALI SAMAREE(N) ALI PAAEIYE(N)' If you remember Ali, you attain Ali (so Ali/Hari is mentioned in this part clearly which goes against your standing on Bhuj Nirinjin).
The question is about Bhuj Nirinjin and not what Alan Faqir or Abidah sang or what is mentioned in Qawalis.