This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sikhism This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism

It is agreed that Kabir died in 1448, according to the lengthy introduction given in the Penguin classic edition of the Weaver's Tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeztur (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Amarkantak
• The followers of Kabir are called Kabir panthi.
• Kabir panthi and organisations across the world. See religions among Fiji population.

Npindia 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir is claimed to be Sufi and Hindu. He can't be both. Let's take his word on the issue: He's Neither. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:31, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I added a few hopefully useful facts about Kabir, with a comment on his current popularity (M.K.)

Please stop implying that Kabir borrowed ideas from Sufi Muslims. Hinduism and raja yoga pre-date Islam by many, many years. Its far more likely that Kabir's ideas arose from Hindu ideals. --Palwan 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's "more likely" isn't always true. The fact that "Hinduism and raja yoga pre-date Islam by many, many years" does not mean that Islam could not have influenced Kabir. Although the dates for his life are uncertain, he did live during a period that came several hundred years after Islam came to South Asia. Kabir himself would probably scoff that his ideals arose from Hindu ideals, just as he is likely to scoff at the suggestion that his ideals are Islamic! Sarayuparin 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says Kabir was born in 1398 and died in 1518, which means that he lived to be 120 years old. Only two other people in recorded history have been shown to have lived that long, so if this is true, then it needs to be sourced (by a RELIABLE source, not just any old source). --Hnsampat 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Kabri words: Its useless to ask the cast(relegion) of the saint. If want to ask, ask the knowledge.

               If one want to buy a sword then he should not think about cost of cover of the sword.

other Kabir saying: When i am there, till then God is not there.

                   Now God is there, Kabir don't exist.

So friends there is no relegion and the cast of the saint. He is always above from this things.

They have only one desire, desire of ultimate knowledge. They will never fall pray of the worldy things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj.poddar (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else find the image on this page to be utterly ridiculous? Why in the world is that included? Algabal 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either. Ironically, too reverential for Kabir. There is an image at [1] that might be public domain. It might be worthwhile to contact the professor who manages that site to check on permissions and copyright data for the image. Sarayuparin 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with it, Jesus has some pretty reverent images as well. Zazaban 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just really bizarre looking. It's from a magazine cover. Just totally inappropriate. Algabal 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just uploaded a picture with more than 100 years old and full referenced.... should be enough. --GurDass (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what you mean by "full referenced". --Sarabseth (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

with other photos there was a problem for sources and references... now this should be ok because in the description I added all possible information to proof that the image is ok for wikimedia common --GurDass (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in the description I added all possible information to proof that the image is ok for wikimedia common"

I don't see anything there. --Sarabseth (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just look all the page, the image is a drawing with more than 100 years old from a museum. There is the link for the digital source and address for the drawing. The "licensing" part of the image is well done, it seems. Do you think that the image is not ok for wikimedia common rules? --GurDass (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't museums have copyright over art that they own and exhibit? --Sarabseth (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) no, if the art have more than 100 years. read wikipedia rules about this --GurDass (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Robert Bly "versions," and "fabulous" comment, I came across a claim that Bly plagiarizes the R. Tagore translation of 1915: www.suite101.com/reference/underhill

Robert Bly's Folly- The Ward Churchill of poetry: Robert Bly's so-called translations amount to little more than plagiarism of the authentic translators' works. This article focuses on Bly's misrepresentation of Kabir through Bly's revisions of the far superior translations of Rabindranath Tagore and Evelyn Underhill.

I edited out the "fabulous" comment as inappropriate, but I'll try to look into this before any further editing. N.B. Miller 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is "most interesting personalities" NPOV?

Why is Kabir's origins not in the articles. from what I know, he was born or placed in a river or a pond. No details are there regarding his life, parents.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not check some reputable sources and put some in? Rumiton 11:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir was probably born out of Muslim parents. The repeated attempted of Hinduisation of different sects and religions by Brahmins in India might have been reason behind claiming Kabir's hindu origins.- Joe

"was probably" is not factual, and what is the meaning of "repeated attempts of Hinduism"? Forfathers living where Kabir was born say he was born to a Brahmin lady and was adopted by a muslim potter's family. If using such religious references is disputable, it is better to not mention it all and just state that he was adopted by a potter's family, till it is factually established. His guardian parents were not weavers but makers of pottery. He was found on the banks of Ganga in Varanasi, was illiterate and grew to be revered as a saint. This is similar to Sai Baba of Shirdi whose birth and parental origins are unclear, but their reverence and works are. I hope these corrections are accepted.--Girish.shukla (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Bhagat Kabirs bani was included in Guru Granth Sahib, does not mean he was a major inspiration behind Sikhism. His verses were included by the fifth Guru, some 100 years after kabir or Nanak. The fifth guru also included the verses of another fourteen saints.He included Only one verse of a Saint.While doing so he rejected verses of many saints such as Mira Bai.

Does that mean that all of fifteen saints were a major inspiration behind sikhism? NO. The reason their verses were included because they were similar to the philosophy of the Gurus of Sikhs.

About Kabir , only those verses of Kabir were included, which taught the similar message being taught by the Sikh Gurus, and many of his verses were rejected.

Kabir was a great Saint and is reverred by Sikhs, but only because his verses are in Guru Granth Sahib.If he would have been a major inspiration , than Sikhs would have been known as Kabirpanthis or something similar to that.Ajjay (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting point, but the claim that Kabir was an inspiration for Sikhism is backed up by a reference. If you have a reference for your counter-claim that Kabir was not an inspiration for Sikhism, please mention it. Otherwise, it unfortunately can't be included, because it would be considered original research. -kotra (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth of Saint Kabir is 1398 and not 1440.The reference in this article for 1440 as dob is encyclopedia britannica, i don't know the source of that encyclopedia, but it is certain that they have gotten their facts entirely wrong.It would be interesting to know their source of this wrong information.

It is certain that the dob of Kabir is not known with certainity , as is his early life history.It is however certain that he flourished during the fifteenth century.Therefore assumptions have been drawn to his exact date of birth.

Kabirpanthis hold that he lived for 120 years and was born close to the end of fourteenth century or the beggining of fifteenth century.Historicaly , in India, the country he was born in and lived in, he is held to be born in 1398.This date is accepted by majority or almost all of Indian historians.Ajjay (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, but WP's policy is verifiability, not truth. On the other hand, this means that if you have a reliable source that puts his DoB as 1398, then you're perfectly welcome to change it. -kotra (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sant Bani Ashram edition of Kabir's Anurag Sagar, the introdution on pages xvii and xviii discusses this problem of Kabir's unusually long life from 1398 to 1518: "since tradition has fixed upon those dates from early times and nothing else about Kabir's life is any less unusual, it seems reasonable to accept them."LFlagg (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly very compelling, and does not pass the verifiability test. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no verification. I would only point to the Sant Bani edition of the Anurag Sagar as a potentially reliable source. Kabir's year of birth can stand at 1440. The year 1398 can be considered as an alternate possibility. Wikipedia does an excellent job of bringing to light basic information on Great Souls. It's a long process.LFlagg (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the wording here because the previous version had incorrect spelling and grammar, and to avoid plagiarism of the source. I tried to keep the meaning of the sentences the same. These edits were reverted, so I thought I should explain my edits further. The meaning is still the same, I merely corrected the spelling and grammar, and switched out some words (that had the same meaning), to avoid any question of plagiarism. If there are any specific problems with my changes, please describe them here so they can be addressed. Until then, I'm reinstating my version (but keeping "mistakingly" which was added later). -kotra (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Kabir mean 'great'? From what I've read on the web, it means 'aware' perhaps similar to 'satori'. Is it common to say 'satguru' as an honorific for him? I've never heard this used for him before. Perhaps it should be explained on the page too, as far as I understand, something like 'truth teacher'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.10.133 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that the word 'kabir' is Arabic. Lots of Arabic words came into Hindi with the Muslim invaders. I have also gathered that the basic word 'root' in Arabic is KBR, a noun. I think that root means 'great.' From the same three-consonant root come the words 'akbar' which means greater, and 'kabir' which means, if I am remembering correctly, 'the greatest.' So the name Kabir is, originally, a superlative as grammarians say, signifying the highest among comparitive 'goods'. Kabir is one of the 99 names (i.e., attributes) of God in the Qur'an.Savitr108 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Savitr108 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the word 'sadguru,' this is simply an honorific title, in Sanskrit as well as Hindi, that one can apply to any spiritual teacher. The word is very common in Sikh writings, and in particular in the poems included in the Adi Granth. You will find Sikh sources referring to Kabir as Sadguru, as for instance here: http://family.webshots.com/photo/2431239210103447126YYluNT ; and if you Google 'Sadguru Kabir' you will find many more. As I remember, Kabir himself uses that word in some of his poems, although it is not entirely clear who his own teacher was. As you surely know, there is historically a major focus in India on the guru-disciple relationship, as key to spiritual growth. Again, Kabir's poems mention that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitr108 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} User:AnomieBOT modify my link: check revision 430472522 and 430407940. Is this normal? --GurDass (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bots do routine work on a number of areas of the site. It's quite normal yes. I'll look at those two edits to see if anything out of the ordinary happened, but chances are very likely they were proper. You can read about bots at WP:BOT. If you have more questions, place the help me template back. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i still can't understand why this bot transforms this link in this way. Can you explain me what's wrong with the original one? --GurDass (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geocities has shut down. AnomieBOT is replacing it with an archived version of that page, so that the link will continue to point to what it means to point to. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the text read: "Kabir has enjoyed a revival of popularity over the past half century as arguably the most accessible and understandable of the Indian saints, with a special influence over spiritual traditions such as those of Sant Mat, Garib Das and Radha Soami.^{[citation needed]}"

The citation is required to support this specific statement (that he enjoyed a revival of popularity and that he has a special influence over these spiritual traditions).

GurDass added a link to a website that offers, in his own words, a "collection of bhajans by various Sant Mat Masters and Kabir, printed by Ajaib Singh's sangat", and removed the CN tag. Clearly, the linked website and/or the allegedly printed version of this material, does not support the statement in the text in any way, shape or form. It appears that the citation was forced into the text, in a place where it does not belong, solely to plug this collection of bhajans, because the editor in question venerates the Sant Mat masters. This is thoroughly inappropriate editorial behavior.

The same link was earlier added in another equally inappropriate place where it did not support the statement it was appended to, and removed by me.

It should also be noted that this is just a website citation. It's not really a work published in any meaningful way, by an arm's-length publisher. It's just self-published. For citation purposes it cannot be regarded as a publication, just a web site. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on me it's personal and just your own. It has no value here, and no place. I can fulfill the "citation needed" about Kabir's influence in Sant Mat today, as the text say. So please, tell me how to do in the correct way. Or i will just revert your vandalism, because just removing proved information and reverting a citation needed, it's vandalism. I wait for your help to put this useful information in the way you think is right. But the information is relevant, so it will return in the text, in a way or another. --GurDass (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vandalism? Do you have any idea what that word means in the context of Wikipedia editing?

Citations have to be relevant to the material they are appended to. You seem to think that any Sant Mat citation can be appended to any sentence which includes the words Sant Mat. That shows very poor editorial judgement, to say the least.

I have explained in detail why your citations were inappropriate. Under the circumstances, it's pretty bizarre to say "Or i will just revert your vandalism, because just removing proved information and reverting a citation needed, it's vandalism." The only thing that "information" has been proved to be is irrelevant to the text it was appended to.

It sounds very much like you are saying that you are the only editor who is allowed to determine whether something is relevant to the article. It doesn't sound like you understand the Wikipedia ethos at all.

Throwing hissy fits isn't going to win any arguments. If you can't discuss disagreements in any kind of reasonable way, it's really not possible for other editors to work with you constructively.--Sarabseth (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]