Concept of Akaal Shakti in Sikhism and the wrong conclusions by non-Sikhs - Part I

I

’d not thought of writing an article on Akaal Shakti (Aad Shakti) ever. What brought me on this to write this article is the misunderstanding of its meaning. The old definition goes first, as usual: same terms in different religions, if their meaning is different, the ignorant ones will not look at it and come to a conclusion. We’ll thoroughly go through this and understand this, so that no doubt arises in mind regarding this.

I was planning to write a brief article about the misrepresentation of Sikhism by a FAKE Nihang Nidar Singh. Just let me say it in one line that he’s in Hazur Sahib when the Singhs caught this fake Sikh and questioned him. He then apologised there. Few years back some English newspaper wrote an article that he was the only living warrior in the Sikh history. 😐

While searching about him on the Internet and his claims to link Sikhism to Hinduism, I stumbled upon this article ‘Guru Gobind Singh was a worshiper of the Divine Mother (Shri Bhagauti/ Bhagawati).’ It caught my eyes and I started reading this. The article is present on here. This website is dedicated to some The Paraclete Shri Mataji. Who she was and what she did, I am not interested at all. People follow her teachings and all, I’m okay with that. People have different ways of connecting to their gods. Fine. But I’m not okay with the article written by someone about some deity and connecting it to Sikhism.

Akaal Shakti in Sikhism is defined as the Creationist Power of Waheguru that created everything. In gurbani, it’s called maaya, kudrat, chandi (not to be confused with the wife of Shiv ji.) It’s neither a male, nor a female. It has NO gender whatsoever. Think of a person who is powerful, and someone says that the power that he has is some female present in his body. Wait, what? Doesn’t make sense at all.

As it goes, Shakti and Shakta can’t be differentiated – God and the Power of God are same. The one can’t exist from the other. They are inseparable. Think of a person and the power that he has, physical power we can say, can you remove that power from his body and say we have two different entities now? No, you can’t. Power is what defines a person, and without the person there’s no power.

In the beginning of the article, the author talks about the ardaas and its importance and how and when it’s done. Starting with a clear understanding and fathoming the basic thing that Sikhs do every day. Suddenly, he shifts his focus to the meaning of ardaas:

‘This smoothly written ode begins by going through the order of meditation by placing Sri Bhagauti (The Divine Mother) foremost above all else, and then systematically referring to each of the other Gurus in turn entreating them for aid and protection.’

The author has assumed that Shakti and Shakta both are different. He separated the Sikh Gurus too from Waheguru. This is what happens when you start writing articles by reading one or two books on Sikhism. A critical analysis of any topic cannot be done unless you’ve all the facts in your hand. Trumpp and McLeod made the same mistake. They referred the scriptures of Sikhism to other religions and said how both are same or influenced by Hinduism or Bhakti Movement. I’ve planned to write a different article on the Bhakti Movement and how Sikhism had nothing to do with it.

‘Vaar Shri Bhagauti di’ started with ‘Ik Oan(g)kaar’, then how the author assumed that Bhagauti comes first in ‘Vaar Shri Bhagauti di’. Although he did the translation but failed to fathom the true meaning.

Ardaas: God is One. All victory is of the Wondrous Guru. May the respected Shri Bhagauti (Divine Mother) help us! Ode of the respected Shri Bhagauti recited by the Tenth Guru.

We human beings try to put God in some kind of gender or form to understand it. Without the appearance, sometimes it gets hard for people to worship. We even, most of the times, define God as He, some with She. Like many people call Motherland, others Fatherland. Both types of people are there. Maybe the earth nurtures like a mother, so called as Motherland; or the earth protects us by giving us food and water, so called Fatherland. This debate of calling God a He or She has been going on for decades and we’ve not come to a point that everybody can agree on.

Calling God a He and His power a She will be a wrong aspect of defining the Force that’s running the Great Show in the whole universe. It’s unrealistic and unjustified. Many, who’ve talked about the Akaal Shakti or God, haven’t seen it but because of the appearance of the words as feminine or masculine makes them believe if God is a He or She. Or God’s power can be represented by the word ‘She’ or ‘He’. (Although even I write the word ‘He’ to represent God on my blog, not because it’s a male who is controlling the world but the habit.)

As we’re living in the 21^st century, we are trying to link God with the cosmos or energy or consciousness because the old practices of many religions will be called but silly and absurd. To keep the tradition alive, many religious people change the definitions to connect to many people especially in the western countries who’re seeking a spiritual path to experience God. If those old traditions go in the same way as they used to be hundreds of years back, they will never survive in the 21^st century.

Before we go in detail, the word ‘Bhagauti’ needs to be understood. Many dilettantes have used this word to claim their meanings. That’s what’s destroying the world: understanding another religion with the knowledge that you’ve of your religion, which’ll never work. Never. In the earlier years, if we go back to five or ten centuries back, the students were taught by the teachers of faith about the religion. These days, people just open up the web and fathom the rituals of religions.

In Shastar Naam Maala, Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote about Bhagauti:

ਮੱਛ ਕੱਛ ਬਾਰਾਹ ਤੁਮ ਤੁਮ ਬਾਵਨ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥
ਨਾਰਸਿੰਘ ਬਊਧਾ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਜਗਤ ਕੋ ਸਾਰ ॥੧੬॥
ਤੁਹੀਂ ਰਾਮ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤੁਮ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਬਿਸਨ ਕੋ ਰੂਪ ॥
ਤੁਹੀਂ ਪ੍ਰਜਾ ਸਭ ਜਗਤ ਕੀ ਤੁਹੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਭੂਪ ॥੧੭॥
ਤੁਹੀਂ ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਤੁਹੀਂ ਰੰਕ ਅਰੁ ਰਾਉ ॥
ਸਾਮ ਦਾਮ ਅਰੁ ਡੰਡ ਤੂੰ ਤੁਮਹੀ ਭੇਦ ਉਪਾਉ ॥੧੮॥

In the above verses, it’s said that Ramchandra ji, Krishan ji, the People of the World, the Kings, the Warriors, etc., everything is Waheguru, there’s nothing but Waheguru. This’s written with the aspect of the word ‘Bhagauti’. Those who claim it to be ‘Divine Mother’ and manipulate the word as some deity or goddess have just given the record of their appalling ignorance to understand the linguistic study of gurbani. How many of the people who’ve read the holy scriptures of Hinduism will say that Krishan ji and Ramchandra ji were women, because the word which comes here is Bhagauti?

That’s where they seal their lips or say that you’re just trying to change the meaning of the word. I laugh at that. Even today, I was watching a video on YouTube and someone commented on the video that you can’t change the meaning of the word, doesn’t matter how much hard you try. Mischievous people are accusing the others to distort the real meaning of gurbani, how odd that is.

Even if we think the word ‘Bhagauti’ is a feminine word and is used for a goddess or deity, it’ll never justify the following verse.

ਪਉੜੀ ॥
ਦੁਹਾ ਕੰਧਾਰਾ ਮੁਹਿ ਜੁੜੇ ਨਾਲ ਧਉਸਾ ਭਾਰੀ ॥
ਲਈ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਦੁਰਗਸਾਹ ਵਰ ਜਾਗਣ ਭਾਰੀ ॥
ਲਾਈ ਰਾਜੇ ਸੁੰਭ ਨੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਐ ਪਿਆਰੀ ॥
ਸੁੰਭ ਪਲਾਣੋ ਡਿਗਿਆ ਉਪਮਾ ਬੀਚਾਰੀ ॥

Now translate the word ‘Bhagauti’ highlighted above into a deity and kill the whole story and make it a laughable verse. How stupid you will be if you say Bhagauti means a deity! Bhagauti here means a sword, and the translation of the line is that Durga took the sword and struck on the head of Sumbh. If the translation of Bhagauti is some goddess, then the translation will be that Durga struck a goddess on the head of Sumbh. (eyerolling smiley*)

Bringing few verses from the scripture is not how the claim is justified. Read the whole shabad or bani or the whole Guru Granth Sahib ji or Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji. If God is the Father, then He’s the Mother too. But it’s very common that if we say God is our Mother, He will be called a deity. On the other hand, if God is our Father, it’s not said that He is some man with two hands and legs.

The author of the article in consideration takes a step forward and writes:

First call up Bhagauti (The Divine Mother) in your mind, then meditate on Guru Nanak.

Even if we want to call the Akaal Shakti as our Mother, then it doesn’t mean it’s to be represented as a female or goddess. In many translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji, especially that many people around the world read – the one translated by Singh Sahib Sant Singh Khalsa, the Divine Mother is mentioned when the 30^th pauri of Japji Sahib starts. He didn’t mention it to be a female or male. How the Divine Mother, can be called as Akaal Shakti, be a female? Does the gurbani talk about the Shakti and Shakta to be of a specific gender? Isn’t it laughable to call God a male or female when He doesn’t have any gender?

Next, the very common and most misrepresenting verses were written by the author. The verses are from Bachitar Natak – an autobiography of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

In my previous life, I did lot of penance at Hemkunt, and worshipped the primordial Mother (Mahakal Kalka). (Note: Aaradhi means worshipping a female deity.)

Translating ‘Aaradhi’ as some kind of female deity shows the knowledge that the author has about gurbani. These fake translators are trying to destroy the real meaning of gurbani by injecting their own ‘notes’ and inducing their own conclusions. Singhs who’ve been in the puratan sampardaas are very well-read and cannot be influenced with all the worthless books and articles of these maniacs. True knowledge of gurbani is very important. It’s become vital to know your roots, without which the future generations will never know the sacrifices of the Sikhs because of who we’ve survived.

In the same article, it’s also mentioned that there can’t be any difference made between Shakti and Shakta which’s ignored and the Shaki is referred as some kind of female.

Sadashiva is the God Almighty (Waheguru) and He is a Writer of the Play of the Primordial Mother (Eykaa Mayee). The combination between Sadashiva and the Primordial Mother is just like the moon and the moonlight or the sun and the sunlight. We cannot understand such relationships in human marriages or human relations. Whatever the Adi Shakti is creating, which is the desire of Sadashiva, is being witnessed by Him and when He is watching this Creation, He is witnessing all of it. He witnesses the whole Universe and He witnesses this Mother Earth. All the Creation, that is done by the Adi Shakti. His Power is of Witnessing. The Power of Adi Shakti is thus All-Pervading Power.

We’ve already made videos on ‘Did Guru Gobind Singh ji worship a deity?’ and are available on YouTube (in Punjabi.) There’s a need to write this article in English to clear the doubts of those who’re not well-read in Punjabi or living on a foreign land where they mainly understand English as their native language or foreign language. You can also refer to the article available on this blog to know more about it.

I’m bringing the related question here to explain the meaning of ‘Aradhi’ from the above-mentioned article.

Question 2: Aaradhi (ਅਰਾਧੀ) is a feminine word, representing a woman. So the worshipper is worshipping a woman, a goddess.

Answer: This is another question of someone who has no knowledge of gurbani. Let’s understand it with logic.

If a person who gives so many things to the people who are in need will be called daani (ਦਾਨੀ), despite the gender of the giver. We don’t have two words for different genders: daani (ਦਾਨੀ) for a woman, daana (ਦਾਨਾ) for a man. No. We use the same word for both of them.

Even in Guru Granth Sahib ji the word ‘aradhi’ is used to say that Waheguru will be worshipped.

ਜੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਦੇਹਿ ਤ ਤੁਝਹਿ ਅਰਾਧੀ ਦੁਖਿ ਭੀ ਤੁਝੈ ਧਿਆਈ ॥੨॥ – ਅੰਗ ੭੫੭

These were the two basic questions that are asked to trick Sikhs to believe that guru ji worshipped some goddess. Let’s go in more details even if some readers have doubts about it.

Guru Gobind Singh ji uses the line ਦ੍ਵੈ ਤੇ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਗਯੋ (two forms become one). Before explaining this line, we need to go through once again the meaning of Mahakaal and Kaalka. First is, there are no two different persons there; second, it’s not used for a woman.

Even if, let’s say for the sake of the argument that people make, that there are three entities: Mahakaal, Kaalka and Guru Sahib ji. Then the line should be ਤ੍ਰੈ ਤੇ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਗਯੋ, (three forms become one, means Mahakaal, Kaalka, and Guru Sahib ji), not ਦ੍ਵੈ ਤੇ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਗਯੋ (two forms become one: Guru Sahib ji and Mahakaal (Waheguru.))

More on Mahakaal. Mahakaal can never be translated to a goddess. Mahakaal can never be translated to Shiv ji. Those who try to translate it to Parbati or Durga have not read Chandi di Vaar. Although they will use this argument too that Chandi di Vaar was written because Guru Sahib was a follower of a goddess. The problem is that they haven’t even read it properly. Let’s see the following verse from Chandi di Vaar.

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥

You created Durga to destroy the daintts (demons.)

Durga is not from the beginning. She was created by Waheguru for a particular purpose. If she is not permanent, how could Guru Sahib ji worship her?

Although there are some devotees who worship Durga or Parbati. It’s their beliefs. Anyone can worship or believe anything. But humans are so ignorant sometimes that they try to link the beliefs of others to theirs and justify it with some wrong conclusions.

We have also Sikh community. They came to Sahaja, but they said, "We cannot worship Goddess." I said "Why?"

Surprised at it, because Shri Guru Nanak has talked about the Goddess, the Devi. The first sentence of his book is Adya. Adya is the Adi Shakti.

And for this, if the Sikhs stupidly say, then why do they have a "Chandi"-"garh." That's so stupid also, nothing to really compare.

Shri Mataji, 2001 Christmas Puja

It might be because English is not my first language, but I really not understood how some woman who happened to be preaching about God would have this stupid question and conclusion of a city being named after a goddess and connecting it to Sikhs? There’re so many cities or places in Punjab or around Punjab whose names were on some gods or goddess or some common people living around the place, according to her Sikhs should change all the names because they have the majority in Punjab? How stupid you will be!

I am a Sikh and I never saw the word ‘Adya’ in gurbani or it might be written differently in Punjabi or pronounced differently, but I can assure you that it doesn’t mean some goddess with arms and legs. In the article, the author mentioned the 30^th pauri of Japji Sahib:

But how are they going to delete the Aykaa Mayee (One Mother) who is entrenched in their Jap Ji Sahib, the most revered daily morning prayers that opens the voluminous Guru Granth Sahib? No Sikh wants to discuss about the Aykaa Mayee because they just are too conditioned, and rote learning of little understood Gurumkhi scriptural text does little to stimulate the mind. In all my life as a Sikh i never heard any priest, parent or Sikh talking about the Aykaa Mayee. Till today i am unable to understand why they are so blind or deaf to the word "Aykaa Mayee.

When trying to prove what he’s claiming is true, he picks these verses from Japji Sahib and fixes a picture of a woman with three main deities below her to tell this is what the ‘Aykaa Mayee’ is!

The author also mentioned that there’re some places of the goddess, which he called Adi Shakti, like Jawala Devi, Naina Devi, Kangra. All these places are of Parbati, wife of Shivji. There’s some story that I can’t recall fully but it goes like this: these shrines are the places where the parts of Parbati fell from the sky; if the eyes fell somewhere, it’s called Naina Devi; where the brain fell it’s called Hingulaya, etc. But the Akaal Shakti doesn’t have any gender and Parbati is not the Akaal Shakti, but the one who was created by Akaal Shakti.

These online articles are so contradictory and confusing that you can’t get anywhere. If you’re claiming something to be true, make sure it’s coherent throughout the article. Somewhere it’s written that the Akaal Shakti is inseparable with God, somewhere she’d have eyes and brains, and have a gender too.

I believe the person who wrote this article on the website happened to be a Sikh who didn’t have much knowledge about Sikhi and moved to someone who brainwashed him. It happens. It’s been happening for years. We, Sikhs, are destroying Sikhi by not telling our children about history and gurbani. Many sects in Punjab have widely spread. Sikhs go there but not gurudwara sahib. We have to change ourselves, have to teach the children about the past and the people living in this century who are trying to malign our tradition with the fake facts and knowledge that they gained by attending some seminars of those who are as fake as their teachings.

Some chandi yajna performed by Guru Gobind Singh ji is also mentioned in the article. There are three groups who have different opinions about it, will be discussed in the next article.

Part II – Did Chandi show up