Identity – 1
T
|
his is a new series about the clichéd arguments that people have while debating. There’s nothing new coming out of people but the same counterattacks that they had back in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. I’ve had talks with people online and they seem no better than their ancestors in the earlier centuries.
The idea of writing this came when I was having a talk with someone on the Internet, and he’d nothing new to talk about. I always think that if people bring new arguments, then I will have more knowledge, because sometimes I won’t be having answers to many things which go on in a debate, so I go to Singhs and ask them about them. In that way, I learn something new.
This series going to be about almost anything and everything, from the identity of Sikhs and meanings of Gurbani and history and the Sikh Gurus. I will try to cover whatever I’ve heard from the masses about the anti-Sikh propaganda, and answer them thoroughly.
Clichéd argument 1: Gurbani talks about Ram, Govind and other names of Vishnu, so Sikhs follow Vishnu and the other gods of Hindus.
Reality: This is one of the most clichéd arguments I’ve ever heard in my life. And this is mainly used by those who deny the different identity of Sikhs. Which are few behind-the-keyboard-and-Google-search-expert Hindus, whose main motive is to merge Sikhism into Hinduism. And these poor people have been trying to do that for so long. I have but pity on them because they are just wasting their time. I believe this’s the same time, not that intense though, that we had back in the early 20th century and late 19th century when some Hindus were preaching the same thing that Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t start a new religion. Now their propaganda is trying to bend a little but the motive is same. Even now we have some great writers who are replying to their articles/videos.
I really want these people to raise their bar of arguments because even we Sikhs are tired of their illogical statements. This’s almost the same in each case when I had a talk with a Hindu guy who knew nothing new but the old ways of debating. Can be the words in Gurbani or history. History is somewhat a little tricky matter because there’re few incidents in the historical granths of Sikhs that Sikhs do not believe to be true. The reason behind is very simple: Gurbani is written by the Sikh Gurus, but historical granths after them were not. Will talk more on history when the clichéd arguments come.
One of the important parts of learning Gurbani is to know the meanings, without which nothing will be clear. Usually when these people talk about Sikhi not being a different religion, they say that Sikh means a disciple, so it’s not a religion. They will translate the meaning of Sikh here, but when the other words come in Gurbani, especially the names of Waheguru, which they try to link to deities, they do not do the same thing. Isn’t it idiotic to do the translation of the word when they want to talk about the meaning of Sikh to prove it’s nothing but a sect of Hinduism, but when asked to do for the other words in Gurbani they turn their backs with no answer?
Somehow if the illogical discussion is needed in this, then let’s assume that Ram is for Ramchandra, Gobind is for Vishnu, and so on … then tomorrow what if a Muslim comes and says that Allah word comes in Gurbani too, so that means you Sikhs do not believe in the omnipresence of Waheguru because Allah word is in our religious book and He is not omnipresent. Are you getting this? We will lose the whole meaning of Gurbani if we start believing what these online strugglers are propagating. I heard from a guy who said that even Allah is the manifestation of Waheguru, which is as wrong as blind man’s path. Allah is no manifestation of Waheguru; Allah is Waheguru. Same is true for the words which come in Gurbani like Ram, Gobind, Murari, etc. These are not the names of deities but Waheguru. Although I do not deny that at some places these words are used for deities, but in general when I talk about this my motive is to say that the words when come for Waheguru are not for the deities.
ਰਾਮ ਜਪਉ ਜੀਅ ਐਸੇ ਐਸੇ ॥ ਧ੍ਰੂ ਪ੍ਰਹਿਲਾਦ ਜਪਿਓ ਹਰਿ ਜੈਸੇ ॥੧॥
The above verses talk about Dhroo and Prahlad, who chanted the name of Ram. This’s one of the best lines that can be used to deny the intelligence of BHs. Ramchandra was born in Treta. Dhroo and Prahlad were born before him. How could they have chanted the name of Ramchandra before he’s born? If we believe that the name Ram was originated from Ramchandra and Sikhs adopted from him, then how the same name was present in earlier times before Ramchandra?
We can have other verses.
ਪੰਚਾਲੀ ਕਉ ਰਾਜ ਸਭਾ ਮਹਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਸੁਧਿ ਆਈ ॥
ਤਾ ਕੋ ਦੂਖੁ ਹਰਿਓ ਕਰੁਣਾਮੈ ਅਪਨੀ ਪੈਜ ਬਢਾਈ ॥੧॥
In the Hindu scriptures or by the Hindu scholars (can be non-Hindu too who did their research on their scriptures) said that Krishna saved Draupti. If that’s the case why the name Ram came in there?
After giving these two examples to deny their logic to change Ram’s meaning to Ramchandra, they bring another statement that all the words like Ram and Gobind, etc., are for Vishnu. So Vishnu is worshipped. When Draupti is saying Ram, then she’s talking about Vishnu, not Ramchandra. They say the same thing for the word Har. And on many blogs, I have read people writing the number of times the words Ram, Har, Gobind, etc., came in Gurbani to convince the people that if the Sikh Gurus were not believing in the worshipping of the deities, why they mentioned all the names so many times. What these people do not know is that the Gurbani is not a copy of their holy scriptures. There’re many similarities among Sikhism and other religions, but it doesn’t mean the words among the religions might have the same meanings. As already mentioned above, what about the word Allah? Should we Sikhs go according to how the Muslims say who Allah is? If no, why should we interpret the verses according to how the Hindus are telling us? And if Ram is for Vishnu not Ramchandra (even though Ramchandra was an incarnation of Vishnu), then it will be fine to say that Ramchandra was married to Rukmani, and Krishna was married to Sita because the names belong to one deity, no? If someone says that there are two different incarnations of Vishnu so their wives can’t be swapped, then why they swap the meanings of Krishan and Ram (Waheguru) and say that they both are for Vishnu? And was the name Ram already there for Vishnu before Ramchandra was born?
Let’s take a step forward towards illogical arguments and say that Har word is for Vishnu, then why the following verses are giving the different meanings?
ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਮੁਖ ਹੈ ਹਰਿਤੀ ਦੁਖ ਹੈ ਅਲਿਕੈ ਹਰਿ ਹਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਹਰਨੀ ਹੈ ॥
Real meaning: Sumbh tells his brother, Nisumbh, about her that her face glows like Moon, by seeing it laziness goes away, and her hair is more beautiful than the snake around the neck of Shiv ji.
Wrong meaning: Sumbh tells his brother, Nisumbh, about her that her face glows like Vishnu, Vishnu takes away laziness, and Vishnu’s hair is more beautiful than Vishnu around the neck of Vishnu.
ਲੋਚਨ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਸੇ ਸਰਸੇ ਹਰਿ ਸੇ ਭਰੁਟੇ ਹਰਿ ਸੀ ਬਰੁਨੀ ਹੈ ॥
Real meaning: Her eyes are like flowers, and eyebrows are curly like a bow, and sight is like an arrow.
Wrong meaning: Her eyes are like Vishnu, eyebrows are curly like Vishnu, and sight is like Vishnu.
ਕੇਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਕਰਹਾ ਚਲਬੋ ਹਰਿ ਪੈ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਹਰਿਨੀ ਤਰਨੀ ਹੈ ॥
Real meaning: Her waist is like a lion, her gait like an elephant’s.
Wrong meaning: Her waist is like Vishnu, her gait like an elephant’s.
ਹੈ ਕਰ ਮੈ ਹਰਿ ਪੈ ਹਰਿ ਸੋਂ ਹਰਿ ਰੂਪ ਕੀਏ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਧਰਨੀ ਹੈ ॥
Real meaning: She has a sword in her hand, has a lion to ride, she is glowing like the sun, she is wife of Shiv ji.
Wrong meaning: She has Vishnu in her hand, has Vishnu to ride, she is glowing like Vishnu, she is wife of Vishnu.
Why we have different meanings of Har word in the above verses? Are we going to assume that Har word is for Vishnu and go with the ‘wrong meaning’?
We have a post talking about the different names of Waheguru and their meanings. You can check that out here.
Somehow if the assumption has to be made regarding worshipping of Vishnu, then why the below verses say otherwise?
ਮੈ ਨ ਗਨੇਸਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਮਨਾਊਂ ॥
ਕਿਸਨ ਬਿਸਨ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹਿ ਧਿਆਊਂ ॥
ਕਿਸਨ ਬਿਸਨ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹਿ ਧਿਆਊਂ ॥
I will not worship Ganesh at first (it’s to say that Guru Sahib doesn’t believe in the worshipping of him because in Hinduism many times Ganesh would be worshipped in the beginning of some task).
I will never meditate on Krishna and Vishnu.
Some guy even mentioned that the above verses are not written by Guru Gobind Singh ji. The reason behind that is simple. He follows Vishnu or Krishna. So wherever Guru Sahib says that you shouldn’t worship the deities, it hurts their followers badly. To counter that they bring the shabad of Guru Arjan Dev ji which’s been thoroughly discussed here. All of the posts related to that will be merged into one and will be available under the ‘Downloads’ tab. I will not go in detail about the shabad but some of the questions which were put at one place are required here to tell the praises are of Waheguru, not a deity.
1. If Vishnu is under Maaya, how could he be the Liberator?
2. If Vishnu is under Maaya, how could he be called Madhav?
3. If Vishnu is under time, how could he be called Abhinasi?
4. If there are multiple Vishnus in the world, how he happened to be called omnipresent?
5. Which incarnation of Vishnu has thousands of eyes?
6. Which incarnation of Vishnu has multiple forms?
7. If Vishnu is under Maaya, how could he be called Niranjan?
8. If Vishnu is under time, how could he be called Achut?
9. If the jot of Waheguru in Vishnu is taken away, can he perform any actions?
10. If Vishnu is same as Waheguru, then why is he under Maaya?
11. If there is no difference between Vishnu and Waheguru, then why Vishnu is under time?
12. Is Vishnu unborn?
13. Is Vishnu self-existed?
14. Under whose command Vishnu took the incarnations?
15. Who is in all the world – omnipresent?
16. Whose place will not be perished at last?
17. Who is formless?
18. Who is Parkash Saroop?
19. Who is undeceivable?
20. Who’s uncountable limbs?
21. Who is Shudh Saroop?
22. Does Vishnu destroy the world at last?
23. Is Vishnu timeless; if yes, why is he under Maaya?
24. Will Vishnu perish one day?
25. How Krishna is gopi?
26. Why Shesh Naag will sing the names of Vishnu if he’s not present everywhere?
27. If Vishnu is under Maaya, why someone will ask him to help him swim the river of Maaya?
28. If everything seeable is perishable, how could the deities survive?
29. If all the names given are the names of Vishnu, how is he All-knower, Lord of Senses, Reason of this World, Imperishable, Formless, Timeless, Hatredless, Protector of World, jot saroop, Omnipresent, Lord of Maaya, Without any Weakness, Giver, Beyond Birth, Self-existed, Without the influence of Maaya, Creator, Destroyer, Undeceivable, especially when he’s under Maaya?
30. Why would Guru Sahib ask for Vishnu to make (us) meet saints when Vishnu himself is perishable?
31. If Vishnu is perishable, how could he be doing everything by himself?
And on one hand Guru Sahib is saying that Krishna and Ramchandra are like insects in front of Waheguru, and on the other hand it’ll be said to worship them?!
ਕਿਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਸੇ ਕੀਟ ਕੋਟੈ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਕਿਤੇ ਰਾਮ ਸੇ ਮੇਟਿ ਡਾਰੇ ਉਪਾਏ ॥
There should not be any doubt regarding the jot of Waheguru in them, or anyone. That will be worshipped every time because without that jot nobody can survive.
ਜਬ ਅਪੁਨੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਖਿੰਚਹਿ ਤੂ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਬ ਕੋਈ ਕਰਉ ਦਿਖਾ ਵਖਿਆਨਾ – ਅੰਗ ੭੯੭
Many of these who unanimously say that Ram in Gurbani is for Ramchandra, I really do not understand them. There’s no doubt that Ramchandra as an incarnation of Vishnu comes in Gurbani. Apart from that, Paras Ram and Bal Ram come too. Why don’t they say the name Ram is for Paras Ram, not Ramchandra? Isn’t it too obvious that their leaning towards the deity is what’s making them conjure up the meaning of Ram as Ramchandra?
I am yet to see a Muslim guy who is going to say Allah mentioned in Gurbani is the one who’s not omnipresent, because having Allah in everything will go against their scriptures. Although I have seen some debates of Muslims with Basics of Sikhi, and in those sometimes they talk about the scriptures of Muslims mentioned in Gurbani. That’s a completely different story. And somewhat it’s similar to some Hindus too who jump to their feet after seeing the Vedas written in the Sikh scriptures. It’s fine. I have said in other posts too that many religions have the same things. If the Vedas talk about chanting the names of Waheguru, then to explain to someone who follows Vedas the verses will be written. If Kateba talk about Ajrael Farsihta, it’s mentioned in Gurbani too. Because Sikhi is not like saying why Waheguru is not there but Ram. Or why Allah is there but not Gobind or other words in some shabads. Sikhi is different in that way because we believe all are the names of Waheguru.
Guru Sahib has cleared the message while writing Krishna Avatar that there’s no worshipping of deities in Sikhi, people can deny the Sikh scriptures if they want, but they can’t change this fact of worshipping only the One, not the below ones. Guru Sahib didn’t just allude that but mentioned it in clear words that the deities are just the servants of Waheguru and under the command of Waheguru. If after enunciating it succinctly in Gurbani doesn’t make the people believe that the Sikhs do not worship the deities, then nothing will.
And these similarities of the words and their meanings are not a today’s thing, but from a long time it’s been the motive of some anti-Sikh forces to deny the separate identity of Sikhs by bringing these arguments. Max Arthur Macauliffe wrote in his first book about this:
A movement to declare the Sikhs Hindus, in direct opposition to the teaching of the Gurus, is widespread and of long duration. I have only quite recently met in Lahore young men claiming to be descendants of the Gurus, who told me that they were Hindus, and that they could not read the characters in which the sacred books of the Sikhs were written. Whether the object of their tutors and advisers was or was not to make them disloyal, such youths are ignorant of the Sikh religion.
This statement of his made him the perfect villain in the eyes of those who are claiming Sikhism to be a sect of Hinduism. The atrocities of British are well-known before the independence of India. The inhumane acts of theirs were furnished with the lies to tell that a person who was on the side of British couldn’t be trusted with the history that he’s written. Actually, it’s not about on whose side he’s on, it’s about the content of his book, especially the side which says it clearly that Sikhism is a different religion.
Clichéd argument 2: Guru Nanak Dev ji was born in a Hindu family, so he’s a Hindu.
Reality: I will try to focus on this post about the different identity of Sikhs, means that Sikhism is a different and distinct religion. The first clichéd argument I should have included in some other post of this series where we are going to discuss the wrong translations of Gurbani by some sly men. Anyways, I think it’s needed to be there at the first place because it’s one of the most popular arguments of many people who lack knowledge of Gurbani.
Religion is not something that’s given to you when you are born. It’s something that has to be adopted. If I am born in a family which practises some belief, doesn’t make me the follower of that religion. And without following the rules, you can’t be said to follow the religion. This is the vital rule to call a person religious.
Nobody denied that Guru Nanak Dev ji was born in a Hindu family. But we Sikhs deny that he’s a Hindu. And Hindu itself is a very confusing word. It’s very hard to get the definition of Hindu. To me, it seems more like a group of religions like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc., than a particular religion.
While making the videos to response to the article of AV, I said this that movies sometimes help us know more about the environment we live in. Like in PK movie, the character went to a hospital to check where the stamp on the body of a child is which says to which religion the child belongs too. He found none.
AV even said that the first nine gurus were Hindus and Guru Gobind Singh started Sikhism. He’s referring to the Khalsa Panth as the beginning of the religion. Maybe according to him some ceremony was needed to start a religion (and he forgot the Charan Pahul which’s there before the creation of the Khalsa Panth.) Like in today’s date if someone wants to start a religion, he might hold a press conference to declare the beginning of his religion!? If we want to get our hands dirty with that statement of AV’s, then what ceremony was there in the beginning of the time which started the religions? Say in Hinduism, when a child is born in a family some ceremony would be held to declare him a Hindu? Maybe mundan or something? Even not all of them do that. So what makes all the followers of Hinduism Hindu?
Before the Brahmins or in general this whole hierarchy of Hinduism came into picture, who did the ceremony to declare someone to be a Hindu (don’t get confused and believe that I am not talking of Sanatan Dharma, I am. I am just using the word which is common in today’s time)? There must be a person who started Hinduism with a specific ceremony, no?
Bhagat Kabir ji had a long talk with a Brahmin. Following shabad is said by Kabir ji.
ਗਰਭ ਵਾਸ ਮਹਿ ਕੁਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਤੀ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਿੰਦੁ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਉਤਪਾਤੀ ॥੧॥
ਕਹੁ ਰੇ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਬਾਮਨ ਕਬ ਕੇ ਹੋਏ ॥ ਬਾਮਨ ਕਹਿ ਕਹਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਮਤ ਖੋਏ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਜੌ ਤੂੰ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣੀ ਜਾਇਆ ॥ ਤਉ ਆਨ ਬਾਟ ਕਾਹੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਇਆ ॥੨॥
ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਸੂਦ ॥ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਲੋਹੂ ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਦੂਧ ॥੩॥
ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਕਹੀਅਤੁ ਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੈ ॥੪॥੭॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੨੪
Religion is not based on your birth. It’s based on your adoption.
Religion always starts with the beliefs or scriptures. Guru Nanak Dev ji was giving wisdom to a pandit at a very young age. In the beginning, only the words will be used to preach someone. This is what happened in Sikhism. Later all those words came in Guru Granth Sahib ji to make a Sikh scripture.
Many people I have heard saying that there’s no one who started Hinduism, it’s there since the beginning. In other words, you want me to believe that nobody started Hinduism or in general no ceremony was held in the beginning, and Sikhs shouldn’t have that and they should have a ceremony? Why? I don’t know how many of you know this, but to make someone a Sikh charan-paul was given by the Sikh Gurus, and in 1699 Guru Gobind Singh ji gave khade-di-paul.
Some authors in the 19th and 20th century said that Guru Nanak Dev ji’s motive was to reconcile the bitterness between Hinduism and Islam. John Malcolm wrote in his book Sketch of the Sikhs:
He is stated, on this occasion, to have maintained his own principles, without offending those of others; always professing himself the enemy of discord, and as having no object but to reconcile the two faiths of the Muhammedans and Hindus in one religion ; which he endeavored to do by recalling them to that great and original tenet, in which they both believed, the unity of God, and by reclaiming them from the numerous errors into which they had fallen.
Actually, there are many verses in the writing of Guru Nanak Dev ji which rebuked many rituals of both Hinduism and Islam. Malcolm might not have been aware of that.
It’s not only what few of the fringe groups believe, but also in Jews I have heard that if you are a Jew, the child born in your family will be a Jew too. It is as meaningless as the claims of those who say that Guru Nanak Dev ji was a Hindu because he’s born in a Hindu family. Isn’t it somewhat the same like few people say that if your family is a Brahmin family, then you are a Brahmin too? In the talk with a Brahmin, as we discussed above, Brahmin brought the same argument that my mother is a Brahmin, so I am a Brahmin too. To that, Bhagat Kabir ji said ਗਰਭ ਵਾਸ ਮਹਿ ਕੁਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਤੀ ॥
There are educated Hindus too who say that the varna will be chosen according to what the person is going to do. They also say that nowadays it’s been changed by some Hindus (actually it’s been like this for long, don’t know how long. In Bhagat Kabir ji’s shabad it’s evident.) The same way religion is not based on birth but the beliefs that you follow.
Clichéd argument 3: Guru Nanak Dev ji wore a janeu, so that means he’s a Hindu.
Reality: There are three incidents that people usually talk about this.
1. Guru Nanak Dev ji wore a janeu when the ceremony was held in the house.
2. Guru Nanak Dev ji wore a janeu when he went to meet Bhai Lalo.
3. A painting shows Guru Nanak Dev ji wearing a janeu.
I don’t think if there are other incidents that people talk about to prove Guru Nanak Dev ji a Hindu. I mean I have heard only these three so far from the people. If there are other stories too which point at the janeu worn by Guru Sahib, even then the answer will be same.
Ceremony: Guru Nanak Dev ji was, I think, nine when the ceremony was held at the house of Baba Kalyan Chand ji, Guru Nanak Dev ji’s father. The name of the pandit who came in the house was Hardayal. When all the family members were gathered, then Guru Nanak Dev ji asked the reason behind the gathering. It’s said that it’s the ritual that all the members of Khatri do. They all wear a janeu.
Guru Sahib had a long discussion with the pandit and the following shabad was uttered.
ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮ: ੧ ॥ ਦਇਆ ਕਪਾਹ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਸੂਤੁ ਜਤੁ ਗੰਢੀ ਸਤੁ ਵਟੁ ॥
ਏਹੁ ਜਨੇਊ ਜੀਅ ਕਾ ਹਈ ਤ ਪਾਡੇ ਘਤੁ ॥
ਨਾ ਏਹੁ ਤੁਟੈ ਨਾ ਮਲੁ ਲਗੈ ਨਾ ਏਹੁ ਜਲੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਧੰਨੁ ਸੁ ਮਾਣਸ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜੋ ਗਲਿ ਚਲੇ ਪਾਇ ॥
ਚਉਕੜਿ ਮੁਲਿ ਅਣਾਇਆ ਬਹਿ ਚਉਕੈ ਪਾਇਆ ॥
ਸਿਖਾ ਕੰਨਿ ਚੜਾਈਆ ਗੁਰੁ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਥਿਆ ॥
ਓਹੁ ਮੁਆ ਓਹੁ ਝੜਿ ਪਇਆ ਵੇਤਗਾ ਗਇਆ॥੧॥
Those who are in favour of calling Sikhs Hindus, say that this shabad would not have been said by Guru Nanak Dev ji. These people do not even know that mahalla pehla is written in the beginning of the shabad. Some others say that Guru Nanak Dev ji was in a very young age, how a child would have said what was wrong or right. These same people who are calling Guru Nanak Dev ji just a mere human being would believe that when Krishna opened his mouth there were so many galaxies in there.
Had they read the below shabad that Waheguru Himself was Guru Nanak Dev ji, they wouldn’t have this doubt.
ਆਪਿ ਨਰਾਇਣੁ ਕਲਾ ਧਾਰਿ ਜਗ ਮਹਿ ਪਰਵਰਿਯਉ ॥
ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰਿ ਆਕਾਰੁ ਜੋਤਿ ਜਗ ਮੰਡਲਿ ਕਰਿਯਉ ॥
ਜਹ ਕਹ ਤਹ ਭਰਪੂਰੁ ਸਬਦੁ ਦੀਪਕਿ ਦੀਪਾਯਉ ॥
ਜਿਹ ਸਿਖਹ ਸੰਗ੍ਰਹਿਓ ਤਤੁ ਹਰਿ ਚਰਣ ਮਿਲਾਯਉ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਕੁਲਿ ਨਿੰਮਲੁ ਅਵਤਰਿਉ ਅੰਗਦ ਲਹਣੇ ਸੰਗਿ ਹੁਅ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਤਾਰਣ ਤਰਣ ਜਨਮ ਜਨਮ ਪਾ ਸਰਣਿ ਤੁਅ ॥੨॥੧੬॥
Not only this sakhi, but when Guru Nanak Dev ji was sent to the pandha in his young days, there also Guru Sahib gave wisdom to him with the following shabad.
ਸਸੈ ਸੋਇ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਾਜੀ ਸਭਨਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਏਕੁ ਭਇਆ ॥
ਸੇਵਤ ਰਹੇ ਚਿਤੁ ਜਿਨ੍ ਕਾ ਲਾਗਾ ਆਇਆ ਤਿਨ੍ ਕਾ ਸਫਲੁ ਭਇਆ ॥੧॥
ਮਨ ਕਾਹੇ ਭੂਲੇ ਮੂੜ ਮਨਾ ॥ ਜਬ ਲੇਖਾ ਦੇਵਹਿ ਬੀਰਾ ਤਉ ਪੜਿਆ ॥੧॥
And this was before that age when the ceremony was held to wear a janeu.
Recently I came across a blog where a guy didn’t even think before calling the Sikhs who follow Sikhi according to Rehat Maryada as Talibani Sikhs. This blog was started back in 2011 and it doesn’t have more than 50 posts at the time of writing this. You can check everything here. I am yet to expose everything that he’s written, maybe I will include some part in the clichéd arguments.
Anyways, whoever is running the blog writes:
how on Earth can anyone believe how a 7yr old child would be in a position to ridicule this ancient sacred philosophy is truly beyond me.’
Here he claims Guru Nanak Dev ji to be a mere child. Before that he also mentions:
Looking closely at the Sloka sung by Guruji, it has a great philosophical meaning which has been mostly manipulated to make it appear as a rejection rather than an acception of the spiritual kind.
Also,
In an atmosphere when Brahmins were highly persecuted by the Muslim rulers, their sacred threads burnt by them, it would seem more sensible to assume that what Nanakji actually could have been referring to here is that a Janeu which can never be destroyed by the Maleshas [filthy barbarians]
Now read the last quote slowly. I mean literally slowly. ‘which can never be destroyed by the Maleshas.’ If you know how to make sentences that doesn’t mean you’re qualified to write anything. What type of moron the guy would be who thought of writing this before thinking! And also, he claimed Guru Sahib to be merely a child, then said that there’s a deep philosophical meaning of the shabad. On one hand you want Guru Sahib to be a child and at the same time you think there would be some philosophical message behind the shabad!
Those who are blind will never get the real meaning because they’ve been brainwashed so strongly that they think Singh Sabha Movements were started to separate Sikhism from Hinduism; it always was separate. Will come to that too by mentioning the sources. In the second group are those who without knowing anything just believing what anti-Sikh propagandists are writing about Sikhs and the translation of Gurbani.
According to the illiterate who thinks he knows about Sikhi says that Guru Sahib is asking to give that type of janeu which will never be burned, but according to the Vedas or the Hindu scripture a janeu would be made from kapah. But in the shabad, Guru Sahib is saying ਦਇਆ ਕਪਾਹ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਸੂਤੁ compassion be kapah (cotton plants?) and contentment be thread. How hard is it to understand? Now if you want to just turn the meaning for your own benefits, then tell me from where I am going to get compassion and at what rate so that I can make the thread, not only some simple thread but something which is made of contentment? Also, from where will I get the contentment to make a thread? If Guru Sahib had agreed to wear a janeu, then why he didn’t say that let me just wear the one which is made up of kapah? Why he mentioned compassion as kapah? Guru Nanak Dev ji also said that when the person who wears the janeu dies, he will go without any janeu on his body.
ਓਹੁ ਮੁਆ ਓਹੁ ਝੜਿ ਪਇਆ ਵੇਤਗਾ ਗਇਆ॥੧॥
And when that thread becomes old (worn-out), it will be thrown and a new will be worn by the person. If there’s any power in the thread, it wouldn’t have broken.
ਹੋਇ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ਸੁਟੀਐ ਭੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਹੋਰੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਤਗੁ ਨ ਤੁਟਈ ਜੇ ਤਗਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਜੋਰੁ ॥੨॥
Guru Nanak Dev ji also says what type of janeu will go in the afterlife. The janeu of naam of Waheguru.
ਨਾਇ ਮੰਨਿਐ ਪਤਿ ਊਪਜੈ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਚੁ ਸੂਤੁ ॥
ਦਰਗਹ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਤਗੁ ਨ ਤੂਟਸਿ ਪੂਤ ॥੩॥
The guru has put the condition in the verse (ਹਈ ਤ ਪਾਡੇ ਘਤੁ) to wear a janeu. ‘If you’ve this one, give it to me.’ That means the guru didn’t agree with the one that the pandit was trying to put on him.
Since the beginning of the Sikh Religion, the Sikhs believed in egalitarianism. This’s what’s taught by the guru. The Sudra can’t wear a janeu. The guru, in whose eyes every person is equal in terms of human beings, who doesn’t think anyone is better than others just because of the caste, would never agree to the philosophy of segregating the people by giving few people the rights to wear a janeu, and ignore the rest because they are ‘untouchable.’ This is the philosophical fist of the first guru that shattered the beliefs of the Hindu religion that’s maintaining a hierarchy in terms of the caste system.
I think that time is not far when the people who follow Jog Matt will say that Guru Nanak Dev ji was a jogi like they are and Guru Nanak Dev ji even went to talk to jogis to learn more, like many people are saying how the Sikhism was influenced by the Bhakti Movement and how Bhagat Kabir ji’s influence was there on Guru Nanak Dev ji.
I was reading some answer on Quora related to Hinduism. There’s a priest there who wrote an answer to say why Vishnu is great. He took the references from the Vedas and other religious books of Hinduism. There’s a guy who commented that you are just handpicking the lines to prove your point, not the whole thing you are telling. He even said what if some person who follows Shaivism picks another verse to say that Shiv ji is above all.
The same is what these anti-Sikh people are doing. They are trying to twist the meanings of Gurbani to prove a point.
We all know that Jap Ji Sahib was answers to the Sidhs. Soon people will change the meaning of the below verse into that you should be a jeweller because it’s a deep meaning in there. 😐
ਜਤੁ ਪਾਹਾਰਾ ਧੀਰਜੁ ਸੁਨਿਆਰੁ ॥
Not only to Hinduism, but to the followers of Islam too Guru Sahib showed the right path.
ਮਿਹਰ ਮਸੀਤਿ ਸਿਦਕੁ ਮੁਸਲਾ ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ॥
ਸਰਮ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਰੋਜਾ ਹੋਹੁ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ॥
Just wait before some fellows from Islam come and say here Guru Sahib is not talking against the circumcision but gives wisdom by explaining it in deep meanings that people understood wrongly. They might take a step further and says that Guru Sahib agrees that circumcision is okay to have, like these brainwashed Sikhs are saying that janeu is okay to have and the verses had some deep meaning. I will write the words from the verses to make it clear what Guru Sahib is saying and you can compare them and get the meaning.
ਸਰਮ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ
ਦਇਆ ਕਪਾਹ
Bhai Lalo: In Guru Nanak Parkash, it’s written that when Guru Sahib ji went to Bhai Lalo’s house and he prepared meals, then he asked Guru Sahib to come inside the house (kitchen?). Guru Sahib told him to bring the food where he was. Bhai Lalo said that you are wearing a janeu, it’ll be good if you eat in the boundary (don’t know how that whole janeu thing works in Hinduism. Maybe some boundary should be prepared to have food or something?)
Guru Sahib said that the whole earth is the boundary. Those who are connected with Waheguru are pure, others are not.
This sakhi might be to teach Bhai Lalo that there’s nothing like Brahman and other castes. Also, according to the so-called caste system Bhai Lalo ji was a Sudra, how could Guru Sahib had eaten in his house if he’s following whatever the Hinduism talks about the janeu? Is it not against the rules? So if I’m getting it correctly, the guru wore a janeu in his young age and when he met Bhai Lalo he didn’t believe in all the rules that he should have followed and denigrate the ‘sacred thread’?
Actually, Guru Sahib did so many things to show the Right Path to the people. In Hardwar, Guru Sahib ji started pouring water to the west to tell the pandits that there’s no importance of giving water to the sun; it’s not going to take them near Waheguru. In the same way Guru Sahib might have worn the janeu or the Maaya played its role to show Bhai Lalo that all these casts are nothing, or it’s not the real history.
If somehow we want to play according to the rules of the anti-Sikh people/organisations and believe that Guru Sahib actually wore a janeu, then let me tell you that firstly it’s against Gurbani, secondly there’re many incidents in the historical granths which are not according to gurmat, thirdly Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaars are more important and genuine than the other historical granths written by the Sikhs.
ਬਾਬਾ ਫਿਰ ਮੱਕੇ ਗਯਾ ਨੀਲ ਬਸਤ੍ਰ ਧਾਰੇ ਬਨਵਾਰੀ ॥
ਆਸਾ ਹੱਥ ਕਿਤਾਬ ਕੱਛ ਕੂਜਾ ਬਾਂਗ ਮੁਸੱਲਾ ਧਾਰੀ ॥
ਆਸਾ ਹੱਥ ਕਿਤਾਬ ਕੱਛ ਕੂਜਾ ਬਾਂਗ ਮੁਸੱਲਾ ਧਾਰੀ ॥
When Guru Nanak Dev ji went to Mecca, he’d a musalla, a rug used to offer a namaz. Does it mean that Guru Nanak Dev ji followed Islam and he’s a Muslim because he’d a musalla? Like these imbeciles who are claiming Sikhs to be Hindu, what if tomorrow a Muslim comes and says that Guru Nanak Dev ji had a musalla, so he’s a Muslim? Wouldn’t it be according to how some Muslims fellows say that Guru Nanak Dev ji was a Muslim? Because if he weren’t, then he wouldn’t have been allowed in Mecca, no?
Strange, right? That’s how the incidents are turned to prove a point by people.
If some Hindu fellows want to believe that Guru Nanak Dev ji wore janeu, then they have to believe too that he’d a musalla while going to Mecca (to offer namaz), and the rest of the part Muslims might fill, no?
The verses of the guru wearing the sacred thread is mentioned in Nanak Parkash, but not in Bhai Bale wali Janamsakhi, which’s the base of the Nanak Parkash. Only the following verses are mentioned in there:
ਲਾਲੋ ਰਸੋਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਸੱਦਣ ਆਇਆ ਤਾਂ ਲਾਲੋ ਕਿਹਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਪਰਸ਼ਾਦ ਤਿਆਰ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਿਹਾ ਭਾਈ ਲਾਲੋ ਏਥੇ ਹੀ ਲਿਆਓ ਤਾਂ ਲਾਲੋ ਕਿਹਾ ਜੀ ਇਥੇ ਚੌਕੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਜੇਵੋ ਤਾਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੀ ਕਿਹਾ ਭਾਈ ਲਾਲੋ ਜਿਤਨੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਤਿਤਨਾ ਚਉਂਕਾ ਏਥੇ ਹੀ ਲੈ ਆਓ ਤਾਂ ਤੇ ਲਾਲੋ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ਾਦਿ ਲੈਕਰ ਅੱਗੇ ਰਖਿਆ – ਭਾਈ ਬਾਲੇ ਵਾਲੀ ਜਨਮਸਾਖੀ
Picture of Guru Nanak Dev ji: I have been recently introduced to this evidence showing Guru Nanak Dev ji wearing a janeu. I do not know the originality of the picture, but a guy said that it’s present in some gurudwara. I need to have more research on this, but I can assure you that the pictures which are against the gurmat are not the history. Anybody can make a picture, should I believe in everything that someone is portraying in a picture? I do not even believe in the books written by many people, bringing the pictures is very far to be believable.
Can be either a picture or a piece of paper, if it’s not according to Gurbani, then it’s wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Not only this picture, there’re other pictures too that I have seen on the given blog, I need to search about them too because when I googled them, I couldn’t see any other website or blog showing the pictures but the same blog.
Some BHs and SSs also say the guru used to wear a tilak apart from the janeu, and they’ve pictures of them. Actually, the truth is, when the Puratan Janamsakhi was written down back in the 17th century, this’s mentioned in there that the guru wore a tilak. From then you will see the paintings having all these things, which’re not according to the Sikh beliefs. In the Guru Nanak Chamatkar, it’s written:
ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਲੇਖ ਤੋਂ ਪੁਰਾਣੇ ਚਿੱਤ੍ਰਕਾਰਾਂ ਨੇ ਬਾਬਾ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਮੱਥੇ ਤੇ ਤਿਲਕ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ ਹੈ । ਦੋ ਡੇਢ ਸੋ ਬਰਸ ਦੇ ਲਗ ਪਗ ਦੀਆਂ ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ ਤੇ ਇਹ ਚਿੰਨ੍ਹ ਕਿਤੇ ਕਿਤੇ ਦਿੱਸਦਾ ਹੈ ।
There is a picture of Guru Nanak Dev ji with a stole on which the Quranic verses are written. So in that way the guru will be Muslim, no? I think it’s beyond the human capacity to understand the guru. The part they see in the guru, they use that to define the guru. He’s Akaal; and you can never fully know Akaal!
Clichéd argument 4: Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t start any religion.
Reality: All the arguments that many people have is to deny the start of the Sikhism. There are two types of people in that.
1. People who say Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t start any religion and all the Sikhs are Hindus.
2. People who say Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t start any religion but Guru Gobind Singh ji did.
Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t start any religion: Recently, to be exact today, I was reading about something when I read a debate at sikhphilosophy site. There someone mentioned that when Guru Nanak Dev ji said ‘na ko Hindu na Musalman’ (will come to that later), (and he didn’t want to categorize the human beings), then how could he have started a religion when he himself didn’t agree with it?
Interesting, right?
This is one of the questions that can make you leave everything that you have learned so far in Sikhi and go against gurmat and stand with these people. The only way to stop going on that path is to read Gurbani and listen to the katha of Sikh history, I have said this so, so many times. Without it, the wrong interpretations and deductive reasoning might seem true. With the weapons of knowledge of Gurbani and history, you can beat anyone.
You have to snag the verses both from Gurbani and history to conquer these types of situations. Otherwise, even after reading the online articles or having a little bit of knowledge will make you plummet right down to the bottom where the anti-panthic people want you to be. Knowledge is power.
Let me give you some examples from Gurbani to make it clear for you.
ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ
ਦੁਸਟ ਦੂਤ ਪਰਮੇਸਰਿ ਮਾਰੇ ॥ ਜਨ ਕੀ ਪੈਜ ਰਖੀ ਕਰਤਾਰੇ ॥੧॥
ਸਗਲ ਤਿਆਗੈ ਦੁਸਟ ਕਾ ਸੰਗੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਉਤਮੁ ਨੀਚੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੩੩॥
If you have an eye to criticize anything without knowing something, then in the above-mentioned verses/word you can see the contradictions. But are they really there? Kaala Afgana, an illiterate who wrote many books with his anti-Sikh propaganda, has the same view of sowing the seeds in the minds of readers by bringing some verses and then claiming how the others, mainly Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji, are not according to what’s been written in Guru Granth Sahib ji. Using the same analytical skills, one can conclude that on one hand it’s said Waheguru doesn’t have any hatred towards anyone, on the other it’s said He kills dushat; on one hand Guru Sahib is saying there’s no good or bad, on the other he’s saying not to be in the company of bad people, so there’re contradictions in Gurbani. Isn’t what all the anti-Sikh organizations are looking for?
By reading the Gurbani you will have answers to the above questions.
ਕਰਮੀ ਕਰਮੀ ਹੋਇ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਆਪੇ ਬੀਜਿ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਖਾਹੁ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੀ ਆਵਹੁ ਜਾਹੁ ॥੨੦॥
ਆਪੇ ਬੀਜਿ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਖਾਹੁ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੀ ਆਵਹੁ ਜਾਹੁ ॥੨੦॥
I believe if you read Jap Ji Sahib, you will get almost all the answers that you are looking for. Sometimes I just read Jap Ji Sahib, and I get my answers to many anti-Sikh questions. That’s why it’s said to read Jap Ji Sahib every day.
Now coming back to ‘na ko Hindu na Musalman.’ I found no references of this line in Bhai Baale wali Janamsakhi. That was the first source that I looked into. Next, I checked in Gur Nanak Parkash. Even there was no mentioning. I found it on the internet that this incident of Guru Nanak Dev ji saying that there’s no Hindu or Muslim comes after he went to sachkhand and then showed up again (and the same I remember from my childhood.) So I just checked that part. No mentioning of this. I was losing it because I remember when I was a child, I used to write this line when there’s an essay to write about the life of Guru Nanak Dev ji. Then I checked in Twarikh Khalsa too. Again. No. Mentioning. Of. The. Incident. I was furious.
I considered that it might be a made-up story because it’s not mentioned in the popular books on Sikhism. I am not saying that all these books have everything, no. But they have a lot of details about the lives of the Sikh Gurus. Even if it’s not there in the books, I was okay, because I know the meaning of the verse and I can use the lines of Akaal Ustat to make my point. Anyways, I didn’t quit. I do not have all the sources or the popular historical Sikh granths at home. But I have some that many people don’t. The last source that I looked into was the Puratan Janamsakhi, edited by Bhai Vir Singh ji.
I turned the pages fast to check it in there. Bingo.
So, yes, it’s mentioned. It’s there. Here’s what is mentioned in there.
After one day passed, Guru Nanak Dev ji said there’s no Hindu and no Muslim. Someone went and told Khan that this’s what Guru Nanak Dev ji was saying. He said not to listen to him because he’s a fakir. A Qazi was sitting there, he asked why he’s saying that. Then Khan asked his men to bring Guru Nanak Dev ji to them. The men went to him and told that he’s asked to be there. Guru Nanak Dev ji refused. People said that he’s crazy, then Guru Sahib said this shabad.
ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ਭੂਤਨਾ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਬੇਤਾਲਾ ॥ ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ਆਦਮੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਵੇਚਾਰਾ ॥੧॥
ਭਇਆ ਦਿਵਾਨਾ ਸਾਹ ਕਾ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਬਉਰਾਨਾ ॥ ਹਉ ਹਰਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਨਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਤਉ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਜਾ ਭੈ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਏਕੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਦੂਜਾ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥ ਤਉ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਜਾ ਏਕਾ ਕਾਰ ਕਮਾਇ ॥ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ਖਸਮ ਕਾ ਦੂਜੀ ਅਵਰ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਕਾਇ ॥੩॥ ਤਉ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਜਾ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਧਰੇ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥ ਮੰਦਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪ ਕਉ ਅਵਰੁ ਭਲਾ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥੪॥੭॥
The men returned barehanded. Khan then told them to bring him and tell him to come here for God’s sake. When Guru Nanak Dev ji went there, the Qazi asked him why you are saying there’s no Muslim and no Hindu. Guru Nanak Dev ji said:
ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਕਹਾਵਣੁ ਮੁਸਕਲੁ ਜਾ ਹੋਇ ਤਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥
ਅਵਲਿ ਅਉਲਿ ਦੀਨੁ ਕਰਿ ਮਿਠਾ ਮਸਕਲ ਮਾਨਾ ਮਾਲੁ ਮੁਸਾਵੈ ॥
ਹੋਇ ਮੁਸਲਿਮੁ ਦੀਨ ਮੁਹਾਣੈ ਮਰਣ ਜੀਵਣ ਕਾ ਭਰਮੁ ਚੁਕਾਵੈ ॥
ਰਬ ਕੀ ਰਜਾਇ ਮੰਨੇ ਸਿਰ ਉਪਰਿ ਕਰਤਾ ਮੰਨੇ ਆਪੁ ਗਵਾਵੈ ॥
ਤਉ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਰਬ ਜੀਆ ਮਿਹਰੰਮਤਿ ਹੋਇ ਤ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥੧॥
They were shocked. The Khan said that it’s time for their namaz. All went, including Guru Nanak Dev ji. When they were praying, Guru Nanak Dev ji was smiling. After the namaz was offered, the Qazi asked why you were smiling at me. Guru Sahib said that you were not even offering the namaz, you were somewhere else in your thoughts.
This is a long story with so many shabads written there, but I think you got what it’s saying. I will go in more detail about the shabad where it’s written why it’s very hard to call Musalman because some people are bringing the verses which say that the Sikh Gurus were following Vaishnavism because Guru Arjan Dev ji mentioned ਤਿਸੁ ਬੈਸਨੋ ਕਾ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਧਰਮ ॥ It’s very devastating to see people so delusional about the message of Gurbani. Now think a Muslim coming and using the above verses to prove being Muslim is the toughest thing and Guru Sahib mentioned it, so that means Guru Sahib agrees with the holy scripture of Islam. 😐
In Akaal Ustat, Guru Gobind Singh ji mentioned that even being a Hindu or Muslim, we all belong to one race.
ਕੋਊ ਭਇਓ ਮੁੰਡੀਆ ਸੰਨਿਆਸੀ ਕੋਊ ਜੋਗੀ ਭਇਓ ਕੋਊ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਚਾਰੀ ਕੋਊ ਜਤੀ ਅਨਮਾਨਬੋ ॥
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕੋਊ ਰਾਫਜੀ ਇਮਾਮਸਾਫੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਚਾਨਬੋ ॥
ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰੀਮ ਸੋਈ ਰਾਜਕ ਰਹੀਮ ਓਈ ਦੂਸਰੋ ਨ ਭੇਦ ਕੋਈ ਭੂਲ ਭ੍ਰਮ ਮਾਨਬੋ ॥
ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ਸਭ ਜੀ ਕੋ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਏਕ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਜੋਤ ਜਾਨਬੋ ॥੧੫॥੮੫॥
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕੋਊ ਰਾਫਜੀ ਇਮਾਮਸਾਫੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਚਾਨਬੋ ॥
ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰੀਮ ਸੋਈ ਰਾਜਕ ਰਹੀਮ ਓਈ ਦੂਸਰੋ ਨ ਭੇਦ ਕੋਈ ਭੂਲ ਭ੍ਰਮ ਮਾਨਬੋ ॥
ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ਸਭ ਜੀ ਕੋ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਏਕ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਜੋਤ ਜਾਨਬੋ ॥੧੫॥੮੫॥
Guru Sahib didn’t deny the religions of different people. In the same way Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t say that there’re no religions. Some even say that Guru Sahib didn’t believe in religions at all. Read the following shabad then, which clearly talks about Hindus and Muslims and how they do the worshipping.
ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨਾ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਸਰੀਅਤਿ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਬੰਦੇ ਸੇ ਜਿ ਪਵਹਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਬੰਦੀ ਵੇਖਣ ਕਉ ਦੀਦਾਰੁ ॥
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਾਲਾਹਨਿ ਦਰਸਨਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਵਹਿ ਅਰਚਾ ਪੂਜਾ ਅਗਰ ਵਾਸੁ ਬਹਕਾਰੁ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੪੬੫
If we want to believe that Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t start the religion, then why Gurbani says it?
ਨਾਨਕਿ ਰਾਜੁ ਚਲਾਇਆ ਸਚੁ ਕੋਟੁ ਸਤਾਣੀ ਨੀਵ ਦੈ ॥ – ਅੰਗ ੯੬੬
Not only this, even in Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar it’s written.
ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿੱਕਾ ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਯਾ ॥
Guru Gobind Singh ji started Sikhism: In this category, according to me, come those who read AV’s blog. The reason behind that is to not know the difference between the date 1469 and 1699. We, at Sikhs and Sikhi, tried to give a brief view of these two years and the starting of Sikhism and Khalsa Panth on the first part of AV’s lies. Some of the excerpts from that article are as following.
There are two years in the history of Sikhs that are very important. First one is 1469 and the second one is 1699. 1469 was the year when Guru Nanak Dev ji was born and this is the year when Sikhism was started. How?
Starting of a religion is the time when the person is enlightened or born or starts preaching. In Christians, the year when Christianity was started was the year of the birth of Jesus Christ. In Islam, the year when Prophet Mohammad was born or the time when he’s enlightened was the year of the beginning of Islam (there are some scholars too who say that the first person who was born was a Muslim i.e. Adam, and some even claim Jesus Christ to be a Muslim according to the new definition of Islam which says that if you submit to Allah, you are a Muslim. Let’s not go there and have our discussion on the current topic.) In Hinduism, there is no specific time or person who started the religion. Hinduism itself is a word that you can’t see in the scriptures of Hindus. This was a name given by the Persians. So, the name which is there in the Hindu scriptures is ‘Sanatan Dharama.’
-
Coming back to 1469 year. This was the starting of Sikhism. And there was no enlightened year or someone who influenced Guru Nanak Dev ji. Guru Nanak Dev ji Himself was Waheguru, and Waheguru doesn’t need someone to tell Him what to do. But in the lives of Guru Sahibs, you will see so few examples that tell us that the Sikh Gurus’ all-powerful nature was revealed to the people. They didn’t do that to gather the people around them like the Sidhs were doing at that time.
-
Now let’s talk about 1699.
1699 was the year when the Khalsa Panth was created by Guru Gobind Singh ji. Ajit Vadakayil has not understood it so far that 1699 was the year of the creation of Khalsa, and 1469 was the year of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji and starting of Sikhism.
So the tenth guru didn’t start Sikhism but complete the religion. Many of the rules of the Khalsa were already given by the earlier gurus, the tenth guru gathered all those rules as this’s going to be the last guru in body, and added some new ones, so that the Khalsa should be the custodian of the Panth and be ready for all sorts of attacks, either physical or phycological.
Clichéd argument 5: Nirmal Panth, as mentioned in Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar, is a Hindu sect. It’s not a religion, but a panth, which is a sect. So Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism. Sikhism is not a Dharam but a panth as mentioned in Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar.
Reality: This argument was brought by a bot I was in discussion with on Quora. What he, and almost all the people who try to prove Sikhism to be part of Hinduism, which are nothing more than Google-search experts, did was he pasted the screenshots of Wikipedia.
In one screenshot it’s written that Guru Nanak Dev ji or Guru Gobind Singh ji started Nirmal Panth. On the second it’s said that Guru Gobind Singh ji sent five Sikhs to Kanshi, from them this came into existence.
Now read the above paragraph again. I mean seriously. You should read it and you will realize why these bots on the Internet who talk about Sikhi do not make much sense. If I am going to believe what the guy has pasted in the form of screenshots, I will have the following two questions:
1. If Nirmal Panth was started by Guru Nanak Dev ji, then why it’s stated that when Guru Gobind Singh ji sent the five Sikhs to Kanshi, then it’s started?
2. If Nirmal Panth was started by Guru Gobind Singh ji, why is it mentioned that it’s started by Guru Nanak Dev ji?
Sometimes their logic’s frailty is conspicuous. Not only you will laugh at the contradictions of their arguments but know the reality too that why it’s very lethal to give access of Internet to these Internet scholars who have nothing but stupidity to show.
Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar states the following:
ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿੱਕਾ ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਯਾ ॥
Here Nirmal Panth means Sikhi. Nirmal means pure, panth means a path. Some people might be referring it to say that panth and religion are different things. According to what I have learned so far, I find that panth is a path to achieve Oneness or to meet Waheguru. In Mahan Kosh, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha wrote one meaning as Dharam too.
The next confusing question that can arise or someone can put doubts in our heads is, does it mean that two Sikh Gurus started two different religions? Because in one hand we are saying that it’s Nirmal Panth and on the other hand we’re saying Khalsa Panth.
Confusing, right?
Sikhi or Nirmal Panth or Sikhism is like a garden you can say (fulwarri), and the Khalsa Panth is an army protecting this Nirmal Panth or Sikhism. And in that garden of Sikhi there’re many groups that we can read about in history. Nirmale, Sevapanthi, Udashi, etc.
Nirmale or Nirmal Panth (do not think of this as what’s mentioned in Bhai Gurdas ji’s var, because a confusion will come that we have already discussed) was started at the time of Guru Gobind Singh ji when Guru Sahib sent five Sikhs to Kashi to learn Sanskrit and other scriptures. There’s a pandit who used to teach the other languages and one day when he found out that some of the Sikhs were of lower caste, he stopped teaching and then Guru Sahib chose the five Sikhs to send to Kashi.
ਸਿੱਖਨ ਨਿਜ ਨਿਜ ਭਾਖੀ ਜਾਤੀ ।
ਜਾਟ ਕਲਾਲ ਅਰੋੜੇ ਖਾਤੀ ।
ਸੁਨ ਦਿਜ ਨਾਕ ਚਢਾਇ ਉਚਾਰੀ ।
ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਬੇਦਨ ਤੁਮ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ ।
ਦਿਜ ਨੇ ਦੀਨੋ ਛੋਡ ਪਢਾਨਾ ।
ਸਿੱਖਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਢਿਗ ਜਾਇ ਬਖਾਨਾ ।
ਬਿਪ੍ਰਕੋ ਗੁਰ ਪੁਛ੍ਯੋ ਬੁਲਾਏ ।
ਕਹ੍ਯੋ ਓਨ ਹਮ ਨਾਹਿ ਪਢਾਏ ।
ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਹੈਂ ਏਹ ਸਿਖ ਤੁਮਾਰੇ ।
ਜਿਨੈਨ ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਬੇਦ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੇ ।
ਜੇ ਹਮ ਸੂਦ੍ਰੋਂ ਤਈਂ ਪਢੈਹੈਂ ।
ਜਾਤ ਧਰਮ ਅਪਨੇ ਤੇ ਜੈਹੈਂ ।
ਬੋਲੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੁਨ ਦ੍ਵਿਜ ਅਭਮਾਨੀਂ ।
ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਕਹਿਤ ਜਿਨੈ ਤੂੰ ਬਾਨੀ ।
ਇਨਹੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਸਿਖਨ ਤੈ ਲਖ ।
ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਬੇਦ ਪਢੇਗੇ ਦ੍ਵਿਜ ਦਖ ।
ਨਿਗਮਾ ਗਮ ਲੌ ਚੌਦਸ ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ।
ਮੈ ਬਖਸ਼ੀ ਸਿਖਹਿ ਪਰ ਸਿਧਯਾ ।
ਜਿਨਕੋ ਤੂੰ ਸੂਦਰ ਬਤਰੈਹੈ ।
ਇਹ ਦਿਬਯਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਥੈਹੈ ।
ਪੁਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਚ ਸਿਖ ਚੁਨ ਲੀਏ ।
ਗੰਡਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਕਰਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀਏ ।
ਬੀਰ ਮਿਰਗੇਸ ਰਾਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੈਣਾ ।
ਇਨ ਪਾਚੋ ਕੋ ਪਿਖ ਬੁਧਿ ਐਨਾ ।
ਜਾਟ ਕਲਾਲ ਅਰੋੜੇ ਖਾਤੀ ।
ਸੁਨ ਦਿਜ ਨਾਕ ਚਢਾਇ ਉਚਾਰੀ ।
ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਬੇਦਨ ਤੁਮ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ ।
ਦਿਜ ਨੇ ਦੀਨੋ ਛੋਡ ਪਢਾਨਾ ।
ਸਿੱਖਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਢਿਗ ਜਾਇ ਬਖਾਨਾ ।
ਬਿਪ੍ਰਕੋ ਗੁਰ ਪੁਛ੍ਯੋ ਬੁਲਾਏ ।
ਕਹ੍ਯੋ ਓਨ ਹਮ ਨਾਹਿ ਪਢਾਏ ।
ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਹੈਂ ਏਹ ਸਿਖ ਤੁਮਾਰੇ ।
ਜਿਨੈਨ ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਬੇਦ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੇ ।
ਜੇ ਹਮ ਸੂਦ੍ਰੋਂ ਤਈਂ ਪਢੈਹੈਂ ।
ਜਾਤ ਧਰਮ ਅਪਨੇ ਤੇ ਜੈਹੈਂ ।
ਬੋਲੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੁਨ ਦ੍ਵਿਜ ਅਭਮਾਨੀਂ ।
ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਕਹਿਤ ਜਿਨੈ ਤੂੰ ਬਾਨੀ ।
ਇਨਹੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਸਿਖਨ ਤੈ ਲਖ ।
ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ਬੇਦ ਪਢੇਗੇ ਦ੍ਵਿਜ ਦਖ ।
ਨਿਗਮਾ ਗਮ ਲੌ ਚੌਦਸ ਬਿਦ੍ਯਾ ।
ਮੈ ਬਖਸ਼ੀ ਸਿਖਹਿ ਪਰ ਸਿਧਯਾ ।
ਜਿਨਕੋ ਤੂੰ ਸੂਦਰ ਬਤਰੈਹੈ ।
ਇਹ ਦਿਬਯਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਥੈਹੈ ।
ਪੁਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਚ ਸਿਖ ਚੁਨ ਲੀਏ ।
ਗੰਡਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਕਰਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀਏ ।
ਬੀਰ ਮਿਰਗੇਸ ਰਾਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੈਣਾ ।
ਇਨ ਪਾਚੋ ਕੋ ਪਿਖ ਬੁਧਿ ਐਨਾ ।
In katha, I heard from the Singh that Khalsa Panth is the army. Sevapanthi will build the gurudwara. Nirmale are like teachers. All are Sikhs. And it’s not like that they can do only these things like there’re different varnas in Hinduism. No. Even Khalsa Panth can build gurudwara sahib, or Udashi can fought in the battle. Like in Bachitar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote about Kirpal Chand.
Even after explaining that much if a person has a doubt that Sikhi is a panth, not a religion (means both are different somehow), then in Bachitar Natak Guru Gobind Singh ji made it clear that Guru Nanak Dev ji started Dharam, and then Guru Sahib gave the name of other Sikh Gurus after Guru Nanak Dev ji till Guru Teg Bahadur ji.
ਚੌਪਈ ॥
ਤਿਨ ਇਹ ਕਲ ਮੋ ਧਰਮੁ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਭ ਸਾਧਨ ਕੋ ਰਾਹੁ ਬਤਾਯੋ ॥
ਜੋ ਤਾਂ ਕੇ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਮਹਿ ਆਏ ॥ ਤੇ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹੀ ਪਾਪ ਸੰਤਾਏ ॥
ਤਿਨ ਇਹ ਕਲ ਮੋ ਧਰਮੁ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਭ ਸਾਧਨ ਕੋ ਰਾਹੁ ਬਤਾਯੋ ॥
ਜੋ ਤਾਂ ਕੇ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਮਹਿ ਆਏ ॥ ਤੇ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹੀ ਪਾਪ ਸੰਤਾਏ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਗਦ ਕੋ ਬਪੁ ਧਰਾ ॥ ਧਰਮ ਪ੍ਰਚੁਰਿ ਇਹ ਜਗ ਮੋ ਕਰਾ ॥
ਅਮਰ ਦਾਸ ਪੁਨਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਜਨ ਦੀਪਕ ਤੇ ਦੀਪ ਜਗਾਯੋ ॥੭॥
ਜਬ ਬਰਦਾਨਿ ਸਮੈ ਵਹੁ ਆਵਾ ॥ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਤਬ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਹਾਵਾ ॥
ਤਿਹ ਬਰਦਾਨਿ ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਦੀਆ ॥ ਅਮਰਦਾਸਿ ਸੁਰਪੁਰਿ ਮਗੁ ਲੀਆ ॥੮॥
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਗਦਿ ਕਰਿ ਮਾਨਾ ॥ ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਅੰਗਦ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥
ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਾਧਨਿ ਲਖਾ ਮੂੜ ਨਹਿ ਪਾਯੋ ॥੯॥
ਭਿੰਨ ਭਿੰਨ ਸਬਹੂੰ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਾ ॥ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥
ਜਿਨ ਜਾਨਾ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਸਿਧ ਪਾਈ ॥ ਬਿਨ ਸਮਝੇ ਸਿਧ ਹਾਥ ਨ ਆਈ ॥੧੦॥
ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਮਿਲ ਗਏ ॥ ਗੁਰਤਾ ਦੇਤ ਅਰਜਨਹਿ ਭਏ ॥
ਜਬ ਅਰਜਨ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਲੋਕ ਸਿਧਾਰੇ ॥ ਹਰਿਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਤਿਹ ਠਾਂ ਠਹਰਾਏ ॥੧੧॥
ਹਰਿਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਲੋਕ ਸਿਧਾਰੇ ॥ ਹਰੀ ਰਾਇ ਤਿਹ ਠਾਂ ਬੈਠਾਰੇ ॥
ਹਰੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥
ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਞੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
ਸਾਧਨਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਯਾ ਪਰੁ ਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥
ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰੁ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥
ਨਾਟਕ ਚੇਟਕ ਕੀਏ ਕੁਕਾਜਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਲੋਗਨ ਕਹ ਆਵਤ ਲਾਜਾ ॥੧੪॥
Clichéd Argument – Part II
ਅਮਰ ਦਾਸ ਪੁਨਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਜਨ ਦੀਪਕ ਤੇ ਦੀਪ ਜਗਾਯੋ ॥੭॥
ਜਬ ਬਰਦਾਨਿ ਸਮੈ ਵਹੁ ਆਵਾ ॥ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਤਬ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਹਾਵਾ ॥
ਤਿਹ ਬਰਦਾਨਿ ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਦੀਆ ॥ ਅਮਰਦਾਸਿ ਸੁਰਪੁਰਿ ਮਗੁ ਲੀਆ ॥੮॥
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਗਦਿ ਕਰਿ ਮਾਨਾ ॥ ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਅੰਗਦ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥
ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਾਧਨਿ ਲਖਾ ਮੂੜ ਨਹਿ ਪਾਯੋ ॥੯॥
ਭਿੰਨ ਭਿੰਨ ਸਬਹੂੰ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਾ ॥ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥
ਜਿਨ ਜਾਨਾ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਸਿਧ ਪਾਈ ॥ ਬਿਨ ਸਮਝੇ ਸਿਧ ਹਾਥ ਨ ਆਈ ॥੧੦॥
ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਮਿਲ ਗਏ ॥ ਗੁਰਤਾ ਦੇਤ ਅਰਜਨਹਿ ਭਏ ॥
ਜਬ ਅਰਜਨ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਲੋਕ ਸਿਧਾਰੇ ॥ ਹਰਿਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਤਿਹ ਠਾਂ ਠਹਰਾਏ ॥੧੧॥
ਹਰਿਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਲੋਕ ਸਿਧਾਰੇ ॥ ਹਰੀ ਰਾਇ ਤਿਹ ਠਾਂ ਬੈਠਾਰੇ ॥
ਹਰੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥
ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਞੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
ਸਾਧਨਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਯਾ ਪਰੁ ਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥
ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰੁ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥
ਨਾਟਕ ਚੇਟਕ ਕੀਏ ਕੁਕਾਜਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਲੋਗਨ ਕਹ ਆਵਤ ਲਾਜਾ ॥੧੪॥
Clichéd Argument – Part II
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please note there are couple of articles on different topics on this blog. There are very good chances that what you're going to bring in the comment section has already been discussed. And your comment will not be published if it has the same arguments/thoughts.
Kindly read this page for more information: https://sikhsandsikhi.blogspot.com/p/read-me.html
Or read the footer of any article: 'A request to the readers!'