The Hindu gods and goddesses have been discussed in the Sikh literature since the beginning of Sikhi. From the religious to historical scriptures of the Sikhs, you find the gods and goddess, their characters, and their wars with the demons. But is there any veneration of theirs in the Sikh philosophy? Major part of this has already been discussed in the earlier article. This article will solely be on Durga or her forms.
The narration that the goddess was around the Sikh philosophy for veneration was challenged by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Giani Ditt Singh, and Bhai Vir Singh in their articles and books around the beginning of the 20th century. As this narration has been countered with proper references and analysis by the Sikh theologians, not only around the time of the Singh Sabha but before the annexation of Punjab by the British in 1849 AD too, the narration has been shifted by some miscreants. In this piece of article, we will explore the different angles of Durga’s veneration.
People abandoning Durga’s veneration
Bhai Bhagirath was the first person in the Sikh history that we know of who worshipped Kaali at the time of Guru Nanak Dev ji. Bhai Gurdas ji mentioned it in his vaars:
ਮੈਲਸੀਹਾਂ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਖੀਐ ਭਾਗੀਰਥੁ ਕਾਲੀ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵੈ ।
In Malsia, Bhagirath sings the praises of (goddess) Kaali[1].
This was while writing the list of the Sikhs of the first Sikh Guru. However, it doesn’t mean Bhai Bhagirath was a devotee of Kaali throughout his life. The verse just gives the name and place of the person and what he used to do. In the historical scripture, we find an elaborated story that how while devoting his time to Kaali he went to a temple and the goddess appeared in his dream. She asked him to serve Guru Nanak Dev ji till his last breath, and he would be liberated from the cycles of birth and death[2]. If Kaali was the supreme power, she wouldn’t have asked Bhai Bhagirath to serve someone else. If you worship the One, would He liberate you or ask you to serve someone else? According to Sikha di Bhagatmala, he saw Durga sweeping the floor of the Guru. When he asked her that she’s so powerful why she’d do this, she said she gets power by serving him[3].
Next, we have the story of Bhai Lehna, after gurtagaddi, Guru Angad Dev ji. The place where Bhai Lehna lived had several devotees of Durga. He was a leader of the group to take them to Jawala. In his village lived a Sikh who worshipped none other than the One. And the villagers made fun of him.
One day, Bhai Lehna heard the verses of Guru Nanak Dev ji that the Sikh was singing and asked whose verses these were. He told him about Guru Nanak Dev ji. So next time when Bhai Lehna led a group of devotees to Jawala, he stopped at the place of the Guru. He was so impressed by him and stopped going to Jawala. When asked by the Guru why he wouldn’t go to the place he’d made his mind up for, Bhai Lehna said, ‘If a person gets nectar, why would he go searching for honey?’ He even asked the men who came along with him to stay at the Guru’s place after going to Jawala[4].
In a very early morning, Bhai Lehna saw Durga serving the Guru at his place[5], similar to what Bhai Bhagirath witnessed.
Third, Kheda Soeni/Soeri was a follower of Durga at the time of Guru Amardas ji. When he visited Goindwal Sahib, the Sikhs asked him to eat first before going for the darshan of the Guru. Being a brahmin he didn’t want to eat among other people as it’d be against his religion. He left the place without eating and darshan. In the way, he got the darshan of Durga. When asked, she said she’s going for the darshan of the Guru. Kheda thought how great the Guru would be for whose darshan Durga go. He traced his steps back towards the Guru’s place and ate among the other Sikhs and did the darshan of the Guru. The Guru asked the purpose of his arrival, and he told everything that happened. He’s taken to a room on the order of the Guru to show him Durga. She appeared but the brahmin lost consciousness. He was brought to the Guru, and he became a Sikh of the Guru[6][i]. Kheda Soeni later became a preacher of Sikhi and was given a manji by the Guru[7].
Bhai Vir Singh added a footnote in this chapter of Gurpratap Suraj Granth:
When Shri Lehna was going for the darshan of the devi, he took refuge at the feet of Guru Nanak Dev ji and saw the devi sweeping the floor of Guru’s place. In this chapter, verse 13, the devi said the boon of her bhagti is that one gets to meet the True Guru. The darshan of the devi was shown by the servant of the Guru named Ballu. It’s conclusive that the darshan of the devi that’s shown (to Kheda), she must have come for sweeping the floor of the Guru. If she’d come as a god of the Guru, the Guru would have gone himself to show (Kheda) the devi and wouldn’t have sent a servant. Sending a servant shows the devi was a follower of the Guru. The Guru is above her[8].
Fourth, we have the king of Kaamroop. The king had the blessings of Kamakhya devi. One day his clothes and weapons were taken away by the people as asked by the ninth Sikh Guru to show Guru Nanak’s House had more power over anything and everything. When he couldn’t find his clothes, he wondered if the blessings of the devi were over because nothing that sort would’ve happened due to the gods and goddesses’ protection. His mother came to him and got to know about the incident. She was a devotee of Chandi and went to the temple and sang her praises. Chandi told her to go to Guru Teg Bahadur ji to resolve their matter[9].
These four stories are enough to conclude that the Sikhs didn’t worship Durga or her forms at the time of the Sikh Gurus. If there had been any veneration of the goddess, history would have said otherwise. Durga was called a servant at the House of the Guru.
Gurbani on Durga/her forms
Guru Nanak Dev ji gives references of different people of old times who had ego in their mind: Brahma, Bal, Harnaksh, Ravan, Madhu, Rakatbeej, etc. If the narration of the Right-wing is considered, then Rakatbeej’s name shouldn’t have come here, as according to them Guru Granth Sahib’s bani is in the praises of Vishnu. But this verse doesn’t agree with them:
ਰਕਤਬੀਜੁ ਕਾਲੁਨੇਮੁ ਬਿਦਾਰੇ ।। ... ਅੰਗ 224
The whole shabad is about why the ego is bad, and how the Guru/One helps His devotees. We all know that Rakatbeej was killed by Durga and Kaali. Guru Gobind Singh ji writes it in detail in his bani. It proves one thing that the Guru isn’t limiting himself to one part or Vaishnavism. He writes whatever examples could be given.
Second, we have Bhagat Kabir ji’s shabad when the votaries of deities came to him. In his sermons, he said Durga is called Bhavani, but she can’t liberate a person from the cycles of birth and death. Maybe for this reason, we find Durga asking her devotees to go to the Sikh Gurus for liberation; she may provide the boons, but liberation is not in her hands.
ਮਹਾ ਮਾਈ ਕੀ ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰੈ ।। ਨਰ ਸੈ ਨਾਰਿ ਹੋਇ ਅਉਤਰੈ ।।3।।
ਤੂ ਕਹੀਅਤ ਹੀ ਆਦਿ ਭਵਾਨੀ ।। ਮੁਕਤਿ ਕੀ ਬਰੀਆ ਕਹਾ ਛਪਾਨੀ ।।4।। ... ਅੰਗ 874
Those who worship Maha Mai, they will turn into women from men.
You’re called Aad Bhavani, where do you hide at the time of liberation?
Some Hindus believe that Durga is one and the doer of everything. There isn’t anyone beyond her. However, Gurbani considers her like other deities. She stays in the service of the One. Gurbani hasn’t differentiated between the deities. They all are due to maaya and can’t give you liberation.
ਦੁਰਗਾ ਕੋਟਿ ਜਾ ਕੈ ਮਰਦਨੁ ਕਰੈ ।। ... ਅੰਗ 1162
Millions of Durga serve Him.
ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵਾ ਪੂਜੀਐ ਭਾਈ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਗਉ ਕਿਆ ਦੇਹਿ ।। ... ਅੰਗ 637
After worshipping devis and devatas, brother, what you can ask what they can give (meaning can’t give anything for liberation).
If this isn’t enough, then the Right-wing ideologues have said the tenth Guru didn’t say anything against Durga, like he did with the Trinity of Hindu gods, forgetting that the Thought of all the Sikh Gurus was same; if the earlier Guru denied worshipping of someone, the later ones didn’t start it. Many Sikh writers of the earlier centuries have mentioned it.
Presence of Chandi Charitar
Guru Gobind Singh ji has written about the battles of Durga in his writing. Chandi Charitars and Chandi di Vaar are the major works about her battles with the daints. The presence of these works isn’t a valid argument to consider Durga as the Guru’s God.
The Guru has written the stories of the incarnations of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shivji. If writing Chandi Charitars make him Durga-worshipper, why not the Trinity-worshipper due to the writing of the life stories of the other incarnations? Vishnu’s incarnations cover more space than Durga’s battles!
If it wasn’t their worshipping, why were they written by the Guru?
There is nothing more reliable than the Guru, and he has said along with the lives of these incarnations that he's writing these tales to ignite a war-like spirit; he isn’t writing anything in their praises. Considering for a sec that he was a Durga-worshipper doesn’t make his writing consistent. There are numerous places where he’s written that without the One, he doesn’t consider anyone else. Had he considered the devi his idol, he wouldn’t have called the One as the sustainer and giver of everything.
ਚੰਡ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ ਕਵਿੱਤਨ ਮੈ ਬਰਨਿਓ ਸਭਹੀ ਰਸ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਮਈ ਹੈ ।।
Chandi Charitar is said in poetry, it’s filled with frightening battles.
ਏਕ ਤੇ ਏਕ ਰਸਾਲ ਭਇਓ ਨਖ ਤੇ ਸਿਖ ਲਉ ਉਪਮਾ ਸੁ ਨਈ ਹੈ ।।
Everything is newly written in this, from the hair of head to the nail.
ਕਉਤਕ ਹੇਤ ਕਰੀ ਕਵਿ ਨੇ ਸਤਿ ਸਯਾ ਕੀ ਕਥਾ ਇਹ ਪੂਰੀ ਭਈ ਹੈ ।।
The poet has written it for the pleasure/Game-of-the-One, and now this story of seven hundred sloaks is complete[10]. …
ਸੁਨੈ ਸੂਮ ਸੋਫੀ ਲਰੈ ਜੁੱਧ ਗਾਢੇ ।।
If a timid person listens to this, he will fight in the battle like a warrior[11]. …
ਦਸਮ ਕਥਾ ਭਾਗੌਤ ਕੀ ਭਾਖੀ ਕਰੀ ਬਨਾਇ ।। ਅਵਰ ਬਾਸਨਾ ਨਾਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਧਰਮ ਜੁੱਧ ਕੇ ਚਾਇ ।।
The tenth part of the Bhagwat Puran is translated in the common language. Oh One! I don’t have any other desire but for the Dharam Yudh[12].
Bhagauti and Devi
People who want to dilute the Sikh identity have suggested Bhagauti is Durga. Guru Gobind Singh ji has written three chapters on Chandi but never used Bhagauti for Durga/Kaali anywhere. Durga’s name comes at many places during the battles, but the non-presence of Bhagauti word confirms it’s not one of the names of Durga. Although, Bhagauti can be Durga, but not the other way around.
So, who is Bhagauti? We see the praises of Bhagauti first time in Shashtar Naam Mala Puran.
ਕਾਲ ਤੁਹੀ ਕਾਲੀ ਤੁਹੀ ਤੁਹੀ ਤੇਗ ਅਰੁ ਤੀਰ ।। ਤੁਹੀਂ ਨਿਸਾਨੀ ਜੀਤ ਕੀ ਆਜੁ ਤੁਹੀ ਜਗਬੀਰ ।।5।।
You’re Kaal [Death], You’re Kaali [Power of Death], You’re sword and arrow. You’re the symbol of Victory, You’re the Great Warrior. …
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਤੂੰ ਸਭ ਕਾਰਨ ਤੁਹੀ ਤੂੰ ਬਿੱਦ੍ਯਾ ਕੋ ਸਾਰ ।। ਤੁਮ ਸਭ ਕੋ ਉਪਰਾਜਹੀ ਤੁਮਹੀ ਲੇਹੁ ਉਬਾਰ ।।8।। ਤੁਮਹੀ ਦਿਨ ਰਜਨੀ ਤੁਹੀ ਤੁਮਹੀ ਜੀਅਨ ਉਪਾਇ ।। ਕਉਤਕ ਹੇਰਨ ਕੇ ਨਮਿਤ ਤਿਨ ਮੋਂ ਬਾਦ ਬਢਾਇ ।।9।।
You’re Maaya, You’re the Reason of everything, You’re the Moral of knowledge. You’re the Creator of everything, You’re the Protector of all. You’re the Day, You’re the Night, You created everyone. For your own Game[ii], You created altercations between them. …
ਮੱਛ ਕੱਛ ਬਾਰਾਹ ਤੁਮ ਤੁਮ ਬਾਵਨ ਅਵਤਾਰ ।। ਨਾਰਸਿੰਘ ਬਊਧਾ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਜਗਤ ਕੋ ਸਾਰ ।।16।। ਤੁਹੀਂ ਰਾਮ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਿਸਨ ਤੁਮ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਬਿਸਨ ਕੋ ਰੂਪ ।। ਤੁਹੀਂ ਪ੍ਰਜਾ ਸਭ ਜਗਤ ਕੀ ਤੁਹੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਭੂਪ ।।17।।
You’re the avatar of Macch, Kacch, Varah, and Bavan. You’re Narsingh, Bauda, You’re the Crux of the world. You’re Ramchandra, Krishna, You’re Vishnu. You’re the common people of the world, You’re the King.
So, this Bhagauti is omnipresent. Similar omnipresence of Bhagauti is written in the first charitar of Charitropakhyan. If you compare it with the writing of earlier Sikh Gurus in Guru Granth Sahib ji, you will find it aligning with their Thought (matt). Especially with the shabad on 1085 ang where the fifth Sikh Guru praised the omnipresence of the One. This shabad too had been mistranslated by the anti-Sikh forces to show the veneration of Vishnu, but the more you read it in detail the more you see how the Guru is praising the Omnipresent.
Cleverness of these anti-Panthic forces can be seen from this comparison: if the earlier Gurus praised the One, these people would label them as the followers of Vaishnavism; if the last Sikh Guru praised the omnipresence of the One, they would call him Durga-follower. And they are wrong at both the places. None of the Gurus praised any Hindu deity.
Omnipresence of the One can be praised in any manner. If the Guru praised him in the form of Vishnu, doesn’t make him his follower; if he praised in the form of common people, doesn’t make him their follower; if he praised in the form of devis, doesn’t make him their follower. One needs to look at Akaal Ustat to see how the Guru praised the omnipresence of the One. The difference between the Sikhs and the non-Sikhs/followers-of-Hindu-deities is huge because the Sikhs look at the Being who’s running the Show, the other side looks at the People who’re getting run. They look at the Maaya, Sikhs beyond Maaya.
ਕਤਹੂੰ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਚੇਤਨਾ ਕੋ ਚਾਰ ਕੀਓ ਕਤਹੂੰ ਅਚਿੰਤ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਸੋਵਤ ਅਚੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਤਹੂੰ ਭਿਖਾਰੀ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਮਾਂਗਤ ਫਿਰਤ ਭੀਖ ਕਹੂੰ ਮਹਾ ਦਾਨ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਮਾਂਗਿਓ ਧਨ ਦੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਮਹਾਂ ਰਾਜਨ ਕੋ ਦੀਜਤ ਅਨੰਤ ਦਾਨ ਕਹੂੰ ਮਹਾਂ ਰਾਜਨ ਤੇ ਛੀਨ ਛਿਤ ਲੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਬੇਦ ਰੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਤਾ ਸਿਉ ਬਿਪਰੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਤ੍ਰਿਗੁਨ ਅਤੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਸੁਰਗੁਨ ਸਮੇਤ ਹੋ ॥੧॥੧੧॥
Somewhere He’s conscious and talks about consciousness, somewhere He’s asleep unconsciously without any worries. Somewhere You’re a beggar asking for alms, somewhere You’re a great giver and give any asked money. Somewhere You’re giving great wealth to the emperors, somewhere You take away everything from them. Somewhere the rules of Vedas, somewhere opposite to Vedas, somewhere You’re without the three gunns (rajo, tamo, sato), somewhere with them.
ਕਹੂੰ ਜੱਛ ਗੰਧ੍ਰਬ ਉਰਗ ਕਹੂੰ ਬਿਦਿਆਧਰ ਕਹੂੰ ਭਏ ਕਿੰਨਰ ਪਿਸਾਚ ਕਹੂੰ ਪ੍ਰੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਹਿੰਦੂਆ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਗੁਪਤ ਜਪਿਓ ਕਹੂੰ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਪੁਕਾਰੇ ਬਾਂਗ ਦੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਕੋਕ ਕਾਬ ਹੁਇਕੈ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੋ ਪੜਤ ਮਤ ਕਤਹੂੰ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਕੋ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਜਾਨ ਲੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਬੇਦ ਰੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਤਾ ਸਿਉ ਬਿਪਰੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਤ੍ਰਿਗੁਨ ਅਤੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਸੁਰਗੁਨ ਸਮੇਤ ਹੋ ॥੨॥੧੨॥
Somewhere You’re Jachh, Gandharb, snakes, somewhere knowledgeable person, somewhere kinnar, picach, somewhere wandering soul. Somewhere You’re chanting the Gayatri mantra in your mind in Hindu form, somewhere You’re a Turk giving Adhan for the namaz. Somewhere You’re reading Kamasutra, poems, and Puranas, somewhere You’re understanding the Quran. Somewhere the rules of Vedas, somewhere opposite to Vedas, somewhere You’re without the three gunns (rajo, tamo, sato), somewhere with them.
ਕਹੂੰ ਦੇਵਤਾਨ ਕੇ ਦਿਵਾਨ ਮੈ ਬਿਰਾਜਮਾਨ ਕਹੂੰ ਦਾਨਵਾਨ ਕੋ ਗੁਮਾਨ ਮਤ ਦੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਰਾਜਾ ਕੋ ਮਿਲਤ ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਪਦਵੀ ਸੀ ਕਹੂੰ ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਪਦਵੀ ਛਿਪਾਇ ਛੀਨ ਲੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਤਹੂੰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਅਬਿਚਾਰ ਕੋ ਬਿਚਾਰਤ ਹੋ ਕਹੂੰ ਨਿਜ ਨਾਰ ਪਰ ਨਾਰ ਕੇ ਨਿਕੇਤ ਹੋ ॥
ਕਹੂੰ ਬੇਦ ਰੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਤਾ ਸਿਉ ਬਿਪਰੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਤ੍ਰਿਗੁਨ ਅਤੀਤ ਕਹੂੰ ਸਰਗੁਨ ਸਮੇਤ ਹੋ ॥੩॥੧੩॥
Somewhere You’re sitting in the congregation of the devatas, somewhere You’re giving the ego to the daints. Somewhere You’re giving the throne to Indra, somewhere You’re taking away his throne[iii]. Somewhere You’re understanding the knowledge and ignorance, somewhere You’re with Your wife and sometimes other’s. Somewhere the rules of Vedas, somewhere opposite to Vedas, somewhere You’re without the three gunns (rajo, tamo, sato), somewhere with them.[13].
You will find this omnipresence of Bhagauti/One throughout the writing of Guru Gobind Singh ji. Similar to this, the Guru used the heading Devi ju ki ustat (praises of the Devi). Some have taken the liberty to associate this Devi to Durga/Parbati in their writings and lectures. The Devi of the Guru isn’t Durga but the Omnipresent Force/One for whom he used many names in praises.
ਨਮੋ ਅੰਬਕਾ ਜੰਭਹਾ ਜੋਤਿ ਰੂਪਾ ।। ਨਮੋ ਚੰਡ ਮੁੰਡਾਰਦਨੀ ਭੂਪਿ ਭੂਪਾ ।। ਨਮੋ ਚਾਮਰੰ ਚੀਰਣੀ ਚਿੱਤ੍ਰ ਰੂਪੰ ।। ਨਮੋ ਪਰਮ ਪ੍ਰਗ੍ਯਾ ਬਿਰਾਜੈ ਅਨੂਪੰ ।।
Namaskar to the jot of Ambika and Jambika. Namaskar to the one who killed Chand and Mund, who were the kings of kings. Namaskar to the one who felled Chamar. Namaskar to the great knowledge beyond praises.
These praises aren’t limited to the devis. The Guru brought the devatas too and called this Devi formless.
ਨਮੋ ਲੰਕੁੜੇਸੀ ਨਮੋ ਸਕਤਿ ਪਾਣੀ ।। …
Namaskar to (the jot of the One who was in) Hanuman, namaskar (to the One) who had power in hand.
ਨਮੋ ਦੀਰਘ ਦਾੜਾ ਨਮੋ ਸਿਆਮ ਬਰਣੀ ।। …
Namaskar to (the jot of the One) who had big teeth [Varah], namaskar to (the jot of the One in) Krishna.
ਪ੍ਰਭੀ ਪੂਰਣੀ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੀ ਅਜੇਯੰ ।। ਅਰੂਪੰ ਅਨੂਪੰ ਅਨਾਮੰ ਅਠਾਮੰ ।। ਅਭੀਤੰ ਅਜੀਤੰ ਮਹਾਂ ਧਰਮ ਧਾਮੰ ।।32।।251।। ਅਛੇਦੰ ਅਭੇਦੰ ਅਕਰਮੰ ਸੁਧਰਮੰ ।। ਨਮੋ ਬਾਣ ਪਾਣੀ ਧਰੇ ਚਰਮ ਬਰਮੰ ।। ਅਜੇਯੰ ਅਭੇਯੰ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਨਿਤਯੰ ।। ਨਿਰੂਪੰ ਨਿਰਬਾਣੰ ਨਮਿਤਿਯੰ ਅਕਿਤਿਯੰ ।।33।।252।।
The complete power of Parbrahm, who is unwinnable. You’re without form, beyond praise, without name, without any place. You’re without fear, unwinnable, the House of Dharam. You can’t be cut, can’t be comprehended, beyond karma, great Dharam. Namaskar to the wielder of arrow and shield. You’re unwinnable, beyond comprehensible, formless, who’s always there and beyond time. Beyond form, without attachments, beyond measurable, uncreated[iv][14].
It's not just Durga, but the great power of the One who is in everything and everyone. You. Me. Animals. Bird. Sea. Sky. You name it. Taking advantage of the words associated with the devis has led some miscreants to announce the Guru as the Durga-worshipper. The complete paragraph cleared the message that the Guru wasn’t talking about Durga. It should also be noted that when Sumbh was killed, the devatas sang the praises in Brahm Kavach. If they were talking about Durga, it would be Durga Kavanch. The name itself is sufficient to prove they praised the One.
Baba Teja Singh Nihang Singh’s comments are very important in this regard[15].
Where the Gurdev is praising/requesting Akaal Purakh that the devatas sang the Brahm Kavach. The scholars should contemplate that if devatas wanted to do the praises of a devi, then why they called it Brahm Kavach, why not devi or Durga Kavach was sung? I am amazed that from the past two centuries the scholars, respected professors, doctors, principals, gyani, and writers have been reading and translating this amazing work, and during discussions they have been teaching illiterate people like me. But without giving a thought about this deep meaning, they have been speaking against Devi Mata. I request the great scholars, look at this point, that if the Guru made a mistake by praising the Devi, then Durga or Parbati alone was behind giving the throne back to Indra from the daints, her companion Kaali she revealed from her forehead. Then during the praises, why my Shehansha Satguru Shri Dasmesh ji talked about many devis and devatas in this? If you say it’s (Devi ju ki ustat) written, then can’t the Aad Shakti be called Devi? If we call Dev to Akaal Purakh, why can’t His Shakti be called Devi? Does the right to kill the daints is with Parbati? Or the one who gave the power to Parbati? If not, why Aad Shakti’s name is written everywhere? Or without it which is the independent power? Who is the giver and sustainer of Jot Jwala? From where Parbati got the power? What’s the need to name Ambika and Jambika (in this)? It’s clear that (the Guru says) my namaskar is to the one who’s the Jot form in Ambika and Jambika. Who doesn’t have a body, who’s the king of kings? Does he say Jagat Janani to Durga, or Param Roopa, or Raja, etc., the protector of all faiths to Durga, or Aad Shakti? Or can it be Aad Shakti? My dear readers read it carefully. Knowledgeable writers who’ve read the devi Purana (know) that the names in feminine forms, who’re the adjectives of Aad Shakti, they have attached them to Durga. Gurdev’s motive was to talk about the Game of the Akaal Purakh, to reveal His power, which can’t be done without talking about the good and bad acts.
Within the Devi ju ki ustat, we’ve read the formless jot/Devi is talked about. Doesn’t the whole Gurbani talk about the same? All the Sikh Gurus and the bhagats praised the one jot which’s omnipresent. It’s comical to say the Guru suddenly left the earlier Sikh Gurus’ philosophy and adopted a new one to praise Parbati – Shivji’s wife. The Guru used the words Har, Gobind, Padmapat, etc., to talk about the One. How come the usage of these words by the earlier Sikh Gurus made them the follower of Vishnu but not the tenth Guru? How come the same formless omnipresent jot of the One makes the earlier Gurus Vaishnav but the tenth Guru a follower of Shaktism? Isn’t it laughable that people have adopted these sorts of reasoning to label the Sikh Gurus? And it is done to dilute the distinct Sikh identity and to merge it into Hinduism.
In Krishna Avatar, when the Guru writes Devi ju ki ustat, there as well we find the feminine as well as the masculine names. The Sikh Gurus have made it clear everywhere that the praise of the One can be done in three different sort of names – masculine, feminine, and none.
Recently, people have asserted that the Guru wrote he didn’t worship Krishna and Vishnu because he worshipped a devi first. It should be noted that the said verse falls under Devi ju ki ustat in Krishna Avatar. This Devi we’ve already discussed much, and the Guru clarified again after the Krishna-Vishnu verse.
ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਰਖਵਾਰ ਹਮਾਰੋ ।। ਮਹਾ ਲੋਹ ਮੈ ਕਿੰਕਰ ਥਾਰੋ ...
Mahakaal is my protector. Maha Loh! I am your servant.
ਤੁਮ ਹੋ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਨ ਕੇ ਰਾਜਾ ।। ਆਪੇ ਆਪੁ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜਾ ।।
You’re the King of Kings. You’re the giver to the poor[16].
The Guru again brought the masculine names to make sure there isn’t any doubt about a devi worshipping. Anywhere you find the Devi (I hope you know the difference between Devi and devi) in Dasam Granth Sahib ji, you will find the omnipresence of the divinity and not limiting to a devi.
Guru’s stance on Durga
Guru Gobind Singh ji’s bani is very clear about Durga not being Creator. The Right-wing, however, try to disapprove Gurbani by bringing the arguments discussed above to show her veneration in Guru’s bani. Below references would suffice to show the Guru isn’t limiting to Parbati/Durga. It should also be noted that if one wants to use Durga or Parbati word for the One, there isn’t any quarrel. The issue is when a person says Shivji’s wife – Parbati – is the Power of the One instead of saying Parbati is one of the people who have the Power in them, including everyone on this earth and beyond. This is same as Ram-Ramchandra; they claim Ram of Gurbani is the king of Ayodhya, but Gurbani rejects that claim and calls him/Vishnu affected by Maaya. The same argument they’ve brought here with the Devi word.
ਤੈਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ।। ਤੈਥੋ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਰਾਮ ਲੈ ਨਾਲ ਬਾਣਾ ਦਹਸਿਰੁ ਘਾਇਆ ।। ਤੈਥੋ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਲੈ ਕੰਸੁ ਕੇਸੀ ਪਕੜਿ ਗਿਰਾਇਆ ।।
You created Durga to obliterate the daints. From You, Ramchandra took the power to kill Ravan with the arrows. From You, Krishan took the power to throw Kans from the hair[17].
This, the Guru talks regarding Bhagauti. Bhagauti gave power to these beings to fulfil their tasks. Where do Vaishnavism and Shaktism stand in this? Doesn’t it remove the superiority of these sects? Don’t these verses call explicitly these deities lower than the One? What more proof is needed?
Bhavani word is sometimes used for Durga. But some translators have used it for Maaya too.
ਅਨਹਦ ਰੂਪ ਅਨਾਹਦ ਬਾਨੀ ।। ਚਰਨ ਸਰਨ ਜਿਹ ਬਸਤ ਭਵਾਨੀ ।।
His form and words are beyond limits. At His feet lives Maaya[18].
ਸਨਤਿ ਕੁਆਰ ਸਨਕਾਦਿ ਸਰਬ ਜਉ ਸਮਾ ਨ ਪਾਵਹਿ ।। ਲਖ ਲਖਮੀ ਲਖ ਬਿਸਨ ਕਿਸਨ ਕਈ ਨੇਤ ਬਤਾਵਹਿ ।।
Sanat Kumar and Sankaad and all can’t know the time of Your beginning (as He’s beyond time). Thousands of Lakshmi, Vishnu, Krishna, they all say You’re beyond everything[19].
So, for Guru Gobind Singh ji, 1) Durga is a created being, not Creator, 2) she is at the feet of the One (if Bhavani is translated as Durga), 3) there are thousands of like hers (Lakshmi, as she’s considered a form of Durga/Parbati) but Creator is One.
Second aspect is that the wives of Trinity of Hindu gods are called their shakti[20]. If the Guru has rejected the Trinity, isn’t their shakti rejected too? If the root is rejected, what’s the use of the branches? They are already not looked at. Even though we’ve the above verses where the Guru have explicitly rejected the devis as well.
There is a sakhi at the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji when devis and devatas came at the parkash of the Guru. They all praised the Guru. Shaarda and Kaali were also part of the group who appeared to the Guru for his praises. These two are called Durga’s forms. Now, the sixth Guru didn’t do any homa to make them appear, and he ordered Kaali that in the upcoming battles, she should grab her bowl to drink blood.
ਕਾਲੀ ! ਕਪਾਲ ਭਰੋ ਅਪਨੋ ਪਲਸ਼ੋਣਤ ਸੰਗ ਉਮੰਗ ਬਿਸਾਲਾ ।
Kaali! Fill your bowl with blood and meat[21].
Bhai Vir Singh’s commentary on this is very intriguing:
Here, Kaali, Rudra, Narad, Jognis, fifty-two warriors, all came as servants, with their hands clasped, bowed their heads, and worshipped him [the sixth Guru]. And the Guru, like the Lord, ordered them and gave boons. According to the Sikh Matt, this same place is of Guru Gobind Singh ji with the devatas. The poet [Bhai Santokh Singh] himself tells the devatas and devis to be the worshippers of the Guru. But the Sau Sakhi and other writers have totally changed the story and said the devi is worshipable, the (tenth) Guru revealed her when in trouble, doesn’t make sense. The Kaali who at the time of the sixth Guru appeared without any homa and requesting the Guru, and the Guru says: ‘fill your bowl with blood’, the same devi at the time of the tenth Guru gave so much trouble to reveal herself and ask for bheta once appeared. This doesn’t make sense and doesn’t fit in the argument[22].
In Sau Sakhi, the Guru asked the Sikhs not to worship Seetla [a form of Durga/Parbati].
ਮੇਰਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਸੀਤਲਾ ਨ ਮਾਨੈ । ਭੇਖੀ ਕੋ ਜੋ ਦੇਵੈ ਦਾਨੈ ।
ਜਹਿ ਕਹਿ ਕਾ ਖਾਵੈ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ । ਮੇਰੋ ਸਿੱਖ ਨਾ ਆਦਿ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ।22।
My Sikh shouldn’t worship Seetla. Who gives alms to an impersonator.
Who eats the prasad of every other place. He isn’t my Sikh at all[23].
There is another sakhi at the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji that how a Sikh at that time broke the nose of an idol at Naina Devi. It’s said by a contemporary writer who’d met with the Guru. How come the tenth Guru at the same place worshipped the same deity whose image was broken by a Sikh? I’m not suggesting here to break the idols, or the Sikhs used to do it on time-to-time basis. No. What I’m saying is if the image of that devi was so pure in Sikhism, it shouldn’t have been broken. Because the image that’s said to emerge before the Khalsa revelation is the same.
In short, after the battle of Kartarpur he went to Phagwara. From there, since it was difficult for him to stay in any place near Lähore, he proceeded to Karaitpur [Kiratpur] which is situated within the Punjab hills. That area belonged to Råja Tärächand. who did not pursue the path of allegiance and obedience to King Shähjahän. The people of that area worshipped images. On the top of the mountain an image of a goddess, known as Nainä Devi has been set up. Räjas and others from the territories around, going to that place, followed the custom of making a pilgrimage [to it]. When the Gurü settled himself there, a Sikh of his, Bhairü by name, going to the temple, broke the nose of the goddess. The Råjas got the news of it and complained to the Gurü, taking his [Bhairu's] name. The Gurü summoned Bhairü. Bhairu denied it. The Råjas' servants said, "We recognise this [man]." He replied, "O Räjas, ask the goddess. If she takes my name, you can kill me." The Räjas said, "Fool, how can the goddess speak?" Bhairu broke into laughter, saying, "One now knows who is the fool. When she cannot prohibit anyone from breaking her own head, and cannot identify the person who has attacked her, what good do you expect from her, and why do you worship her?" The Räjas were put to silence[24].
The argument that breaking of an idol doesn’t mean that the devi was rejected is not valid, because it does mean that. Why wouldn’t the Guru punish him for doing it if we want to consider her as the Guru’s God? A similar sakhi is at the time of Guru Arjan Dev ji where the Sikhs went to destroy the place of Sarvar[25].
Bhai Santokh Singh’s comments
There is a big assumption made by some uninformed writers of the 20th century about the identity and the philosophy of the Sikhs, i.e., it’s developed after the Singh Sabha Movement, or they made new rules that didn’t exist earlier. Bhai Santokh Singh’s work rejects this claim – a pre-Singh Sabha scripture.
Bhai Santokh Singh wrote the commentary on Jap Ji Sahib in Garab Ganji Tika in 1829 AD. There he made interesting points that show how Sikhi is different and distinct and isn’t part of other sects, and the Guru wasn’t a follower of a devi.
If the Guru [Guru Nanak Dev ji] has considered these six [Trinity and their wives] as his guru, somewhere he would have said: Oh Sikhs, worship Brahma, worshipping Shivji’s phallus has more benefit, do it; or worship the three devis [Trinity’s wives]. The Sikhs tell the sermons of their Gurus, like Shri Arjan, the fifth Patshah, has written many times the praises of Guru Nanak.
ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨ ਸੁਣਿਆ ਪੇਖਿਆ ਸੇ ਫਿਰਿ ਗਰਭਾਸਿ ਨ ਪਰਿਆ ਰੇ ।।
Those who’ve seen Guru Nanak or listened to him haven’t come into the cycle of birth and death.
Many verses have been written (like this). The Sikhs who read the Granth Sahib know it, and the philosophy of the Gurus is lived by the Sikhs till now. Vishnu and Shivji’s worshipping is of stone, it’s prevented. …
Ling/phallus, Salagrama, or stone’s worshipping is debarred in his [Guru’s] Panth. At the time of the Guru, no sakhi is written like this (where the worshipping of deities is mentioned), haven’t even heard the worshipping of Brahma and Shivji. These sermons (of worshipping the deities) aren’t there in the Granth. With his matmatt, what Anandghan has written, some people have listened to (him) and adopted it[v]. They started wearing the Tulsi mala and tilak. That’s why it’s said Anandghan has churned the water. The sermons of the Guru are roaring like a lion: live under His will, remove ego, do simran of Satnam, work towards to meet the One, these are the rules of the Guru. The other matts are like jackals, how can we merge into them? Hirangarb is the matt of Brahma’s followers, Vaishno the matt of Vishnu’s followers, Shaivism the follower of Shivji, the matts of the three deities and more, they are opposite to each other, rejecting each other, to talk in their own favour more arguments are brought in (to prove their point). …
Those who bring the argument for and against for their point from the Shastras, those who want to merge the Guru’s matt into theirs, those childish people (who’ll listen to them) will be conned. The Sikhs who’re true to the Guru, they won’t believe them even in their dreams. …
And they say the Guru revealed the devi. How? That he praised Chandika at many places in his writing. By listening to (this argument) people like Anandghan says that the Guru’s guru was devi. The Guru has answered there as well.
ਅਰੁ ਸਿੱਖ ਹੌ ਆਪਨੇ ਹੀ ਮਨ ਕੌ ਇਹ ਲਾਲਚ ਹਉ ਗੁਨ ਤਉ ਉਚਰੋ ।।
Mind is the name of the Guru[vi], so the earlier and the tenth Guru’s Thought is same, their Guru is same, they all have one form, for liberation they have the same sermons. Those who consider them different, who is stupider than them? The Guru has said himself:
ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਕਹਾਯੋ ।। ਸਾਧਨ ਲਖਾ ਮੂੜ ਨਹਿ ਪਾਯੋ ।।
Amardas is called Ramdas. The saints know this but foolish don’t.
The one who’s called Mayasaval Brahm – ekho baho shama – Him the Guru called Maha Kaal, that’s the Guru. Those who think otherwise, who believe in them? Keep them away (from yourself.)[26]
If in 1829 AD, Bhai Santokh Singh didn’t consider the devi to be the Guru’s God, how the devi worshipping and homa part came into his work? It should be noted that the devi worshipping part of his work is the longest among any other scripture written before him. The writer who didn’t believe the devi to be the Guru’s God and wrote the devis/devatas worshipping the Gurus … what changed between 1829 and 1843 to make him change his stance? Bhai Vir Singh said that Bhai Santokh Singh wrote those chapters under the fear of his son’s sword, and this has been narrated by Bhai Santokh Singh’s own family[27].
Appearance of devi in Sikh literature
Bhai Vir Singh’s work Devi Pujan Parhtaal is the best book to understand it better. But it’s important to know how the worshipping of devi comes into the Sikh historical scriptures.
Bhai Jeevan Singh’s (Bhai Jaita ji) Shri Gur Katha (1699-1700), Kavi Senapat’s Shri Gur Sobha (1711), Seva Das’ Parchia (1741), Mehma Parkash Vartak (1741) – only Hom was done mentioned in the last two scriptures, are some of the scriptures where there is no mention of the devi. The first time when we hear the presence of devi[vii] it’s in Bhai Koer Singh’s Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi, written in 1751. And down the line almost all the historical scriptures wrote about this. Also, there is one important work of Budh Singh Arora (1783), which isn’t accurate but gives a different picture especially at the time when there’d been enough historical scriptures talking about the devi.
Brahmins said they’d start the fire for the Homa. From the Homa’s fire, a sword like the thunderlight would appear, you [Guru Gobind Singh ji] will win and come over all the Turks. In the year 1701-1702, Guru Gobind Singh started the Homa with brahmins’ advice at Chak Guru, which is known as Amritsar too. When he ordered the pandits to start the mantras, they gave him the ahuti to put into the fire. When many days passed and the Homa was complete, then the sword like the thunderlight appeared in the fire[28].
The earlier known scriptures on the life of Guru Gobind Singh ji didn’t mention any devi/Devi worshipping. Where Bhai Koer Singh took the sakhi from when the contemporary scriptures didn’t have it? Was it developed during Bhai Koer Singh’s period? Bhai Jeevan Singh and Kavi Senapat are too contemporary that they’d miss it to include in their scriptures.
Why the Homa?
One major question that everyone should ask is: why was the Homa performed at the first place? What’s missing that the outcome of the Homa could’ve given? There are different reasons the writers of the historical scriptures have written for the Homa.
To start a Panth. But in Bachitar Natak, the Guru had said Akaal Purakh asked him to start a Panth and how the earlier Panths associated with Hindus and Muslims didn’t start the Panth of the One but their own[29]. The ask of starting a Panth was discussed before the Guru arrived in this world. There wasn’t any need to do a Homa for that.
To fight with the Turks. The Guru had fought the battles with the Turks before, including the battles of Bhangani and Nadaun. He had praised the One that He protected him. How suddenly the need arose to do a Homa for the battles against the Turks, especially when the Guru had said the Panth would flourish when the One would help? It should also be highlighted that the sixth Sikh Guru had fought battles with the Mughals but never did a Homa or worshipped Durga.
To get the power like the devatas. In Bachitar Natak, the Guru wrote he’d become one with the One. Do you think he’d need another sort of power – any power – to do certain tasks on the earth? If getting one with the One doesn’t give you Complete Power, that means there is another power beyond the One, which the Gurbani refutes.
Where did the devi go?
I will consider the devi here instead of Devi. Suppose if the Guru did the Homa and the devi appeared, gave him boons and a double-edged sword, what happened after that?
Revelation of the Khalsa was a very big step in the Sikh religion. And the legend of the devi circles around it. If the devi asked the Guru to start a Panth, it should’ve been remembered by the Guru and the writers who mentioned this story in their scriptures. But that isn’t the case. We don’t see the devi after the Khalsa, except for one or two sakhis, and almost all the later part of the Guru’s life is filled around Gurbani or Akaal Purakh. In the Hukamnamas of Guru Gobind Singh ji written after the Khalsa revelation, we don’t find mentioning of Durga/Parbati anywhere. How come the Guru didn’t write her name anywhere in the Hukamnamas who helped him to make great transformations in Sikhi? They start with the same Ik Oan(g)kar that we see in the Gurbani.
Where did the devi go after the event? As if she wasn’t even there at all. As if it left the memory of the writers that she’d helped the Guru in the revelation of the Khalsa. The historical scriptures are silent on this matter. Even during the Joti Jot of the Guru, we find Gurbani and the rules for the Sikhs[30], nothing on Durga/Parbati.
Mahakaal and Kaal
Some Sikh-looking people in Canada and the US have brought this argument that Mahakaal or Kaal is a deity of Hindus; their belief is that Dasam Granth Sahib isn’t the work of the Guru.
Those who have read the Gurbani diligently, without any bias, know that the names of the One are based on His attributes and actions. Ram, Rahim, Khuda, Allah, Gobind, etc., are all based on His attributes. Similarly, the Guru praised Mahakaal and Kaal in his work. The One is called Kaal because He kills everyone – that’s an attribute of the One. Sikhs don’t believe Vishnu, Brahma, Shivji, or their wives, are independently doing any tasks in the Universe. They all do according to the Wish/Will of the One.
ਅੰਤ ਕਰਤ ਸਭ ਜਗ ਕੌ ਕਾਲਾ ।। ਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਲ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਜਗ ਡਾਲਾ ।।
At last, You kill/destroy the whole world. That’s why the world has named Him Kaal [Death][31].
ਔਰ ਸੁ ਕਾਲ ਸਭੈ ਬਸਿ ਕਾਲ ਕੇ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕਾਲ ਅਕਾਲ ਸਦਾ ਹੈ ।।84।।
Those who kill others (like the executioners, Shivji, etc.), all of them are under Kaal. Only Kaal is always Akaal [beyond death][32].
Mahakaal has been used in the same sense as Kaal – Kaal of Kaal. Bhai Santokh Singh has used Mahakaal for Brahm in his work. Even Bhai Swaroop Singh Koshish used the word Mahakaal for the One in the sakhi of Guru Har Krishan ji[33].
Charitar 405 is very interesting to conclude this point. It’s a long story but the words that the Guru used clear all the doubts that one may have.
From the fire of the war between the king and the daints in Satyug, a woman [Dulan Deyi] took birth, and she wanted to marry the King of the World (ਬਰੌ ਜਗਤ ਕੇ ਪਾਤਿਹਿ ਸੁਧਾਰੀ). She did so much bhagati. So He gets happy over her (ਹੋਇ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਨ ਕਾਲਿ ਕਾ ਦੇਵਾ)[viii].
It’s decided when Swaas Beraj [a daint who can create more daints by just breathing. With every breath he takes more were born.] would die, she could marry the Dev of Kaal. He’s such a great daint that he’d won in the battle against Rakatbeej.
The battle took place but the daints were too much to be killed by her. So Dulan Deyi concentrated on Kaal (ਚਿਤ ਮੋ ਕਿਯਾ ਕਾਲ ਕਾ ਧ੍ਯਾਨਾ ।। ਦਰਸਨ ਦਿਯਾ ਆਨਿ ਭਗਵਾਨਾ ।।) and made many requests. The One entered the battle and killed many daints (ਅਨਗਨ ਕਾਲ ਅਸੁਰ ਤਬ ਮਾਰੇ ।। ... ਵਹੈ ਕਾਲਕਾ ਅਸੁਰ ਖਪਾਏ ।।). So many more daints arrived after the earlier were killed and tried to come near Him (ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਕੇ ਸਨਮੁਖਿ ਧਾਵਤ ।।69।।). They all tried to kill the One but didn’t know that He’s the one who created the whole world (ਚਾਹਤ ਮਹਾਂਕਾਲ ਕਹੱ ਮਾਰੋ ।। ਮਹਾਂਮੂਰਖ ਨੱਹਿ ਕਰਤ ਬਿਚਾਰੋ ।। ਜਿਨ ਸਭ ਜਗ ਕਾ ਕਰਾ ਪਸਾਰਾ ।। ਤਾਂਹਿ ਚਹਤ ਤੇ ਮੂੜ੍ ਸੰਘਾਰਾ ।।76।।).
Twenty quadrillion [20 padam] was the number of the daints, and they all went to kill Him (ਬੀਸ ਪਦੁਮ ਦਾਨਵ ਤਬ ਭ੍ਯੋ ।। ਨਾਸ ਕਰਨ ਕਾਲੀ ਕੋ ਧ੍ਯੋ ।।77।।). It’s such a great battle that in fear Brahma turned into a woman, Vishnu hid in the ocean, and Shivji started living in the jungle. They all were too afraid and taken refuge under the One (ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨ ਸਭੈ ਡਰ ਪਾਨੇ ।। ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਕੀ ਸਰਨਿ ਸਿਧਾਨੇ ।।89।।). They praised the One and said He’s beyond time, fear, formless, and killer of Chand and Mund[ix] (ਚੰਡ ਮੁੰਡ ਦਾਨਵ ਕੇ ਘਾਇਕ). They praised Him so much that it’d cover more space here.
The One killed so many groups of the daints (ਅਸਿਧੁਜ ਅਧਿਕ ਕੋਪ ਕਰਿ ਧਾਯੋ ।। ਬੈਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿੰਦ ਦਲ ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਖਪਾਯੋ ।।)[x]. So many diseases were created to kill the daints. This all was the Game of the One (ਖੜਗਕੇਤ ਅਸੁ ਕਿਯਾ ਤਮਾਸਾ ।।247।।).
The story continued after it, but the purpose to talk about this story was that the Guru used different names – Kaal, Kalka, Bhagwan, Dev, Mahakaal, Kaali, Asidhuj, Kharagket, etc., – for the One in this. Kalka, Kaali, the names associated with Durga/Parbati, the Guru used them to describe the One. So, the conundrum around the words Kaal, Mahakaal, etc., is unwanted. If we believe that Kaali/Durga was fighting the battle as the Guru used the names associated with them, then the story doesn’t agree with this. Like I mentioned earlier, all the praises written by the Sikh Gurus are of the One.
Shakti
Prominent Sikh writers, like Bhai Vir Singh and Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, haven’t rejected the Shakti/Power of the One. What they have mentioned is that you can’t separate One from His Power. Like some Hindus believe that Brahm is half male and half female, or half muscular and half feminine, is rejected by them. What the Hindus have done is they have made a physical body of Brahm, mainly Vishnu – or others, depends on who they worship – and for his shakti, another physical body – Parbati. But I was a little flabbergasted that if Vishnu is their God, then his wife should be the shakti, but they’ve chosen Shivji’s wife for the shakti. Maybe Shaktism is closer to Shaivism than Vaishnavism. To use man and wife for worshipping – Shivji and Parbati.
Bhai Vir Singh writes:
In Gurbani, wherever the word like Bhavani or others came for the Power of the One that’s undifferentiated between Him and Power; and used to describe Him. Power can’t be differentiated from Him[34].
Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha writes:
If someone thinks that the Guru worshipped Power, then it isn’t right, because in Gurmat the worshipping is only of the One (ਅਦ੍ਵੈਤ). Power differentiated from the One can’t be Guru Sahib’s worshipable Being[35].
Some people say that they don’t worship the daughter of Himalaya who’s eight arms but the Power of Akaal Purakh. We raise a question for them, is Akaal Purakh’s Power different or not from Him? Is it conscious or unconscious? Is it ever-present/nonperishable or not? If you consider the devi different from Akaal, conscious, and ever-present, then trust this that the one number the Guru has written before Oan(g)kaar, you’re ready to remove it, and not a Sikh. And if the Devi isn’t different from the One, and is only the name of His Power, then taking the name Devi and worshipping it separately (from the One) is ignorance and foolishness[36].
Both the writers think that there isn’t any other entity except the One and brought the verses from Gurbani to prove their points.
Apart from the Sikhs affected by the Brahminical thoughts, it should be noted that there’re some Sikhs who believe that the Devi appeared before the Khalsa was revealed. But this Devi is the same that the Guru wrote about in his bani – formless and omnipresent. It can’t be separated from the One. This Devi and the One are the same. However, this Devi isn’t Parbati or Shivji’s wife. It can have many names but isn’t present in only one place but everywhere and at all the times. If you compare this thought with what Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha and Bhai Vir Singh wrote, you will find it same. The only difference is the latter didn’t believe the Guru worshipped the Devi before the Khalsa, and for them this was a devi, not Devi, as the writers of the historical scriptures have brought a person with a body. On the other hand, some Sikhs believe that the jot of the One can take any form, so it wasn’t an impossible task for the One. But none believed it to be Parbati/Durga.
If one listens to the katha of this episode from Giani Inderjit Singh Raqbe Wale, he will understand it better that the Guru didn’t worship Durga/Parbati but the One who’s omnipresent. There are other sampardaas too, who said the Devi/devi worshipping didn’t happen.
I have no issues with the jot of the One taken a form with eight arms, He can do whatever He wants. But I couldn’t grasp the need to do the Homa, especially when his own writing is against it.
This whole discussion proves two points.
1. The Guru didn’t worship Parbati/Durga in his writing.
2. Devi of the Guru is different than the devi, it encompasses the devi, not the other way around.
I will end this discussion with the words of Bhai Nand Lal ji. In his Jot Bigas, he rejected the supremacy of Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Shaivism, like the Guru did in Chandi di Vaar.
ਅਨਕ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸ਼ਨ ਮਹੇਸ਼ਨੰ
ਅਨਕ ਦੇਵੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਵੈਸ਼ਨੰ ।।32।।
ਅਨਕ ਰਾਮ ਕਿਸ਼ਨ ਅਵਤਾਰਨੰ
ਅਨਕ ਨਰਸਿੰਘ ਹਰਨਾਕਸ਼ ਮਾਰਨੰ ।।33।।
ਅਨਕ ਧਰੂਹ ਪ੍ਰਹਿਲਾਦਨੰ
ਅਨਕ ਗੋਰਖ ਸਿੱਧ ਸਾਧਨੰ ।।34।।
ਅਨਕ ਅਕਾਸ਼ ਪਾਤਾਲਨੰ
ਅਨਕ ਇੰਦਰ ਧਰਮ ਰਾਇ ਜਮਕਾਲਨੰ ।।35।। ...
ਸਭ ਦੀਨ ਗੁਰੂ ਘਰ ਵਾਰਨੰ
ਸਭਨ ਸਿਰ ਗੁਰ ਅਵਤਾਰਨੰ ।।41।।
Many Brahma, Vishnu, and Shivji
Many Durga devi and Vaishnavi devi.
Many avatars of Ram and Krishna
Many Narsingh killed Harnaksh.
Many Dhroo and Prahlads
Many Gorakhs and Sidhas and their ways.
Many skies and underworlds
Many Indra, Dharamraj, and Jamkaals. …
All sacrifice themselves to the Guru.
Above them all is the avatar of the Guru[37].
[1] ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ, ਵਾਰ 11 ਪਉੜੀ 14
[2] ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼, ਭਾਈ ਸੰਤੋਖ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੂਰਬਾਰਧ ਅਧਿਆਇ 27
[3] ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਗਤਮਾਲਾ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਪੰਨਾ 38-39, 2011
[4] ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼, ਭਾਈ ਸੰਤੋਖ ਸਿੰਘ, ਉਤਰਾਰਧ ਅਧਿਆਇ 47
[5] ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਜਨਮਸਾਖੀ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 124, 1948
[6] ਮਹਿਮਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਵਾਰਤਕ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਡਾ. ਕੁਲਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ‘ਬਾਜਵਾ’, ਪੰਨਾ 90-91, 2004
[7] ਮਹਾਨ ਕੋਸ਼, ਖੇਡਾ
[8] ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸੂਰਜ, ਭਾਈ ਸੰਤੋਖ ਸਿੰਘ, ਰਾਸਿ 1 ਅੰਸੂ 61, ਪੰਨਾ 1590
[9] ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸੂਰਜ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ, ਭਾਈ ਸੰਤੋਖ ਸਿੰਘ ਰਾਸਿ 12, ਅਧਿਆਇ 9
[10] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੰਡੀ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ, 99
[11] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੰਡੀ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ ਉਕਤ ਬਿਲਾਸ, 118
[12] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੌਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ, 570
[13] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਅਕਾਲ ਉਸਤਤ, 11-12
[14] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੰਡੀ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ ਉਕਤ ਬਿਲਾਸ, 115-118
[15] ਦਸਮ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਸਟੀਕ, ਟੀਕਾਕਾਰ ਗਿ: ਈਸ਼ਰ ਸਿੰਗ ਜੀ ਰਾਮਗੜੀਆ ਰੋਪੜ, ਭਾਗ ਪਹਿਲਾ, 230 ਫੁਟਨੋਟ
[16] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੌਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ, 310
[17] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੰਡੀ ਦੀ ਵਾਰ, 119
[18] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਅਕਾਲ ਉਸਤਤ, 11
[19] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਗਿਆਨ ਪ੍ਰਬੋਧ, 130
[20] ਮਹਾਨ ਕੋਸ਼, ਸਕਤਿ
[21] ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸੂਰਜ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ, ਰਾਸ 3, ਅਧਿਆਇ 10
[22] ਦੇਵੀ ਪੂਜਨ ਪੜਤਾਲ, ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 23, 2009
[23] ਪ੍ਰਾਚੀਨ ਸੌ ਸਾਖੀ, ਪਿਆਰਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਦਮ, ਪੰਨਾ 125, 1995; ਰਹਿਤਨਾਮੇ, ਪਿਆਰਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਦਮ, ਰਹਿਤਨਾਮਾ ਭਾਈ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 159, 1991
[24] Sikh history from Persian sources, Edited by J. S. Grewal & Irfan Habib, Dabistan-i Mazahib 1645-46, Page 69, 2011
[25] ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਗਤਮਾਲਾ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ, 2011, ਪੰਨੇ 93-94
[26] ਗਰਬ ਗੰਜਨੀ ਟੀਕਾ, ਭਾਈ ਸੰਤੋਖ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 52-54, 2006
[27] ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸੂਰਜ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾਵਲੀ, ਪਹਿਲੀ ਪੋਥੀ, ਪੰਨਾ 147, 2011
[28] ਸਿੱਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਦੀ ਫਾਰਸੀ ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕਾਰੀ, ਡਾ ਬਲਵੰਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਢਿੱਲੋਂ, ਰਿਸਾਲਾ ਦਰ ਅਹਿਵਾਲ ਨਾਨਕ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਦਰਵੇਸ਼, ਪੰਨਾ 310, 2022
[29] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਬਚਿੱਤਰ ਨਾਟਕ, 55-57
[30] ਗੁਰਬਿਲਾਸ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਦਸਵੀਂ, ਭਾਈ ਕੋਇਰ ਸਿੰਘ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ, ਸਮਸ਼ੇਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਸ਼ੋਕ, ਪੰਨੇ 264-265, 1999
[31] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚੌਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ, 156
[32] ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਬਚਿੱਤਰ ਨਾਟਕ, 45
[33] ਗੁਰ ਕੀਆ ਸਾਖੀਆਂ, ਸ੍ਵਰੂਪ ਸਿੰਘ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਦਮ, ਪੰਨਾ 62, 2008
[34] ਦੇਵੀ ਪੂਜਨ ਪੜਤਾਲ, ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 15, 2009
[35] ਗੁਰੁਮਤ ਸੁਧਾਕਰ, ਭਾਈ ਕਾਨ੍ਹ ਸਿੰਘ ਨਾਭਾ, ਫੁੱਟਨੋਟ, ਪੰਨਾ 81, 2005
[36] ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨਹੀਂ, ਭਾਈ ਕਾਨ੍ਹ ਸਿੰਘ ਨਾਭਾ, ਪੰਨਾ 81, 2013
[37] ਭਾਈ ਨੰਦ ਲਾਲ ਗ੍ਰੰਥਾਵਲੀ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਡਾ ਗੰਡਾ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 185, 2009
[i] The Guru asked Bhai Kheda to always remember Satnaam, and whoever meets him he should give them the mantra of Satnaam. Earlier he used to worship the devi, now Satnaam is the way forward. Mehma Parkash Vartak exclusively wrote that the Guru said not to ask anyone to worship the devi. Mehma Parkash’s verse ਜੋ ਕੋਈ ਤੁਮ ਕੋ ਮਿਲੇ ਸਤਿਨਾਮ ਦੇਹੁ ਮੰਤੁ confirms it. Some may argue ਮਾਤਾ ਕੀ ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰੋ verse is associated with worshipping the deity, but it’s in the sense that earlier he used to do it and the next verses leave no doubt when the Guru asked to give Satnaam mantra to others.
[ii] Compare the verse in the Chandi Charitar written in the 10th reference. The Guru used the word ਕਉਤਕ there as well. That’s why sometimes people translate the verse ਕਉਤਕ ਹੇਤ ਕਰੀ ਕਵਿ ਨੇ into the Guru is writing this to show the Game of the One that how He created the altercations and started the war and ended it by giving power to Durga and daints and devatas.
[iii] We all know that the throne of Indra was given to him by Durga after the daints dethroned him, we see it in the Chandi Charitar too. But here the Guru is saying the One has given and taken away his throne, because inside Durga and daints the jot of One is working. What could be clearer than this that the Guru praised the One wherever we find the praises?!
[iv] Guru Gobind Singh ji called Durga a created being in Chandi di vaar, but here the Guru called the Devi uncreated. How is it for Durga?
[v] The actual line ਕਿਸੀ ਨੇ ਮਾਨ ਕਰ ਅੰਗੀਕਾਰ ਭੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਲਯੋ ਹੈ: ਜੋ ਰੁਦ੍ਰਾਛ ਤੁਲਸੀ ਮਾਲਾ ਧਾਰਿਕੈ, ਤਿਲਕ ਆਦਿ ਕਰਣ ਲਗ ਪਰੇ ਹੈਂ. In the first half he mentioned with ਨਹੀਂ, seems like saying it has not been adopted by anyone, but the second half says that they have started wearing the Rudraksh, Tulsi Mala, and Tilak. Unless we want to continue the essence of the first part that they aren’t wearing the Rudraksh, Tulsi Mala, and Tilak.
[vi] It’s taken from Bhai Vir Singh’s ਦੇਵੀ ਪੂਜਨ ਪੜਤਾਲ as it’s not there in the Published Tika that I have.
[vii] Kavi Kannan is said to be a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh ji. His work has the Devi/devi, but Dr Kirpal Singh M.A. said that he removed the verses while publishing the scripture, which I think should never have been done but footnotes could’ve been added, so it’s impossible to know what was mentioned in it. But if we compare it with Bhai Jivan Singh and Kavi Senapat’s work, who are contemporary too, we find a contradiction. Maybe Kavi Kannan’s original work was changed, and Devi/devi part was added later, or somebody wrote it in later times in his name.
[viii] If we want to keep the words (ਕਾਲਿ ਕਾ) as one and use it for Durga, then the next word is Deva. So it isn’t for a woman, neither is it for a man. What it means is she wanted to marry the Dev of Kaal – Mahakaal.
[ix] Again, Mahakaal/One is called the killer of Chand and Mund. Because it’s His power that worked in Durga. Durga/Parbati couldn’t have done anything without His power.
[x] The word used here for the One is Asidhuj, meaning the one who’s double-edged sword in the flag/head. The Guru himself wrote about this in the previous lines (ਜਾ ਕੀ ਧੁਜਾ ਬਿਖੈ ਰਾਜਿਤ ਅਸਿ ।।)
