Cliched Arguments - Part VI

Clichéd Arguments – Part VI

Cliched arguments – Part V

Clichéd argument 30: Well, Guru gobind Singh says Muhammad did not give the right name of the God (Parabrahm) to his people (meaning he lied) and so ‘Allah’ is not the right name. (sic)

Reality: Remember the time when I said some people are spreading hate among the Sikh youth about the Muslims? This is one of them. A BH mentioned on Quora, which clearly shows his lack of knowledge about the SHSs. These juveniles never disappoint me with their lack of understanding about the Sikh Religion. During my debates with the BHs, one thing comes out of them was the emphasising on the ‘Hindu gods’ in the verses of the Sikh Gurus, but denial about the ‘Muslim god.’

In the thread, the BH goes on misinterpreting many incidents about the Sikh history and the translation of Gurbani. Think for a second that the tenth guru is saying that Allah is not the right name, so the earlier Gurus used that name because they’re unaware of the True Name? Seriously? Doesn’t it point to this conclusion? Even the first guru, Guru Nanak Dev ji, the Founder of the Sikh Religion, used the name Allah for God in his verses! Not only this, the tenth guru himself used the name Allah! (ਅਲਹ ਅਭੇਖ ਸੋਈ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਔ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਓਈ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਬੈ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਬਨਾਉ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥੮੬॥)

To prove his point, the BH gives the verses from the writing of the tenth guru, and then mischievously comes to a conclusion without even going through the meanings, and skipping the most important part of Bachitar Natak, which is that the trinity of gods are not God.

 ਮਹਾਦੇਵ ਅਚੁੱਤ ਕਹਵਾਯੋ ॥ ਬਿਸਨ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਠਹਿਰਾਯੋ ॥

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਆਪ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਜਾਨਾ ॥੮॥...

ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਤਬ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਅਰਬ ਦੇਸ ਕੋ ਕੀਨੋ ਰਾਜਾ ॥੨੬॥
ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਏਕੁ ਪੰਥੁ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਲਿੰਗ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੀਨੇ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਾ ॥
ਸਭ ਤੇ ਅਪਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਹੂ ਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਯੋ ॥੨੭॥
ਸਭ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾਹੂ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥

The first part will be concealed by the BHs and SSs to make a point because it shows the actual image of the trinity of gods. But the below part will be shown to the masses. In the screenshot, you can check the word ‘everyone’ is mentioned in the translation. It doesn’t mean only Prophet Mohammed. ‘Everyone’ is not considered here as a singular noun. So who comes in ‘everyone’ then? It’s the many people, including the trinity of gods, to the fake rituals of the followers to the Sidhs to all the groups mentioned by the Guru before the verse. To elude the truthiness behind the verses, the BH only bolded some words including the Prophet and True Name and Parabrahm.

Isn’t it somewhat idiotic to showcase the paramount stupidity with the references which totally contradict their point of view? The same BH mentioned the Khalsa Panth is the Tisra Panth, different from Christianity and Islam, not Islam and Hinduism; but in the translation of the few sentences that he quoted from gives a clear picture where the latter part was mentioned – Islam and Hinduism.

About the avatars and Sidhs we all know from the Hindu scriptures that how they enchanted the people of the place. What about Prophet Mohammed? How his name appeared in the verses? Doesn’t he say only Allah should be worshipped? Good question, right? Can we conclude like the BH said that Allah is not the True Name? No, we can’t. Remember, we are Sikhs; we are not imbeciles like BHs and SSs. We use brains.

In Gurmat Sudhakar, Bhai Kahn Singh answers this question. He used the line ‘Mohammed Rasool Allah.’

If I’m not wrong, then this comes under Shahadah in Muslims, which is ‘There’s no god but Allah. Mohammed is the Messenger of God.’ So with the name of God, the name of the Prophet is also called. This link is avoided in Sikhism. When we read Gurbani, the Gurus never called themselves Messengers or Prophets but just the ordinary people to show their humility. Guru Gobind Singh ji who’s one with Waheguru, he called himself an insect in his verses. There might not be any other example in the religious books of the world where the Messengers or Prophets or Gurus showed this much humility. Yes, in the words of the later Gurus, the earlier Gurus were praised, or in the verses of the Bhatts in Guru Granth Sahib ji or Bhai Gurdas ji, but not one Guru praised himself in his verses.

By limiting the understanding only to Parbrahm, it can be concluded explicitly that the words like Ram, Gobind, Murari, etc., are not the True Names. Then what about those people who chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’, ‘Har Har Mahadev’ and ‘Hare Krishna’? Aren’t they all wrong because they’re not showing the reverence by using the True Name Parbrahm? And what about the Sikhs? We chant ‘Waheguru, Waheguru, Waheguru’, so we shouldn’t be using that because like Allah is a wrong word, the real name is Parbrahm, the word Waheguru should be wrong too, no? Then on what basis they say the word Waheguru is made up of the names of the incarnations? Remember, the words Ram, Gobind, Har and Vasdev are not the right name; Parbrahm is the right name! You see what I’m trying to say in here? So to belittle the religion of Muslims or the word Allah, these baseless stories are created by the BH to reveal his pea-sized brain. Using the same pea-sized brain, one can conclude only Allah is Parbrahm as the Gurbani says.

ਏਕੋ ਅਲਹੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ॥੫॥੩੪॥੪੫॥ - ਅੰਗ ੮੯੭

But the real meaning is Allah and Parbrahm both’re same.

Secondly, let’s focus on the first part of the verses where it’s written the Trinity started calling themselves God. Now, those who have been inclined to judge the Sikh Religion using theirs and concluding the Sikh Gurus praised these Trinity of Gods are proved wrong here. The tenth guru is saying the Trinity are not God. On the other hand, some BHs and SSs that I’ve talked to suggest directly that the Trinity are God, which is against what the Guru has written. So these Trinity gods are praised by the earlier nine Gurus which’re not God at all?! Seriously? Are you getting now why the earlier verses are removed by them?

For the Sikhs, the Trinity are not God and they should NOT be worshipped explicitly. The three of them – Brahma, Vishnu, and Shivji – they all called themselves God. Nobody called God God but these deities. So this is what the Guru is pointing at. What about them being part of Waheguru? Can’t the praises be done then? Of course, once you believe in the omnipresence of the One, you can praise Him in any way. But those praises are of the One, not the deities. And the worshipping is not limited to only one specific deity of your choice, because in this way you restrict the understanding of the omnipresence of the One. This is what differentiate the Sikhs and the BHs.

Clichéd argument 31: Waheguru is nothing but Ramchandra and Krishna. Read the verses on 1390. Gurbani says Krishna and Ramchandra are Waheguru. How can you deny this?

ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ ਬਾਵਨ ਭਾਇਓ ॥ ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਘੁਵੰਸੁ ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥

ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ਕੰਸੁ ਕਿਰਤਾਰਥੁ ਕੀਓ ॥ ਉਗ੍ਰਸੈਣ ਕਉ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਭੈ ਭਗਤਹ ਜਨ ਦੀਓ ॥

Reality: This comes in Savaiye Mahalle Pehle Ke.

These are actually in the praises of the first guru, Guru Nanak Dev ji. Khalsa ji, there’s a time in the 20^th century when the ‘Sikhs’ started calling that the verses of Bhatts should be removed from Guru Granth Sahib ji. Their hard-work to change the meanings as well as the scripture didn’t work out well then and we still have the intact Gurbani in the Granth. But in this century, their focus has changed to misinterpret the verses of Gurbani because they cannot convince the Sikhs anymore to stop reading Guru Granth Sahib ji. This attempt will also go in vain.

Not only the bani of Bhatts but also of the Bhagats were propagated to be removed from Guru Granth Sahib ji. These attempts in the earlier times have been misinterpreted by many BHs. On the Internet, they’ve implied it differently by suggesting the verses of the Bhagats were asked to be removed because they’re Hindus or they worshipped Vishnu or anything else which somehow proves the Sikh Gurus Hindus and their writing as the praises of the deities. At this point of life, I believe they not only trying to change the history and the Gurbani but also misjudging the historical incidents for their benefits.

In the Sikh historical scripture, it’s written that the Vedas became egotistical because of knowing many things. To wash their sins, the One asked them to born in the world including Brahma and praise the guru to get liberated. In detail, Bhai Saktokh Singh ji writes in Suraj Parkash including the names of the Bhatts. Each Veda was asked to have four forms. Samaveda: Mathra, Jaalap, Bal and Harbans; Rigveda: Kal, Jal, Nal and Kalashaar; Yajurveda: Tal, Sal, Jal, and Bhal; Atharveda: Keerat, Gayind, Sadroan, and Bhikha – Brahma.

They went everywhere to find the guru and met different sects like Yogis, Brahmcharis, Vairagi, etc., but couldn’t meet the guru. Near Amritsar, they got to know about the fifth guru and his praises, so they went to him. One important point here is Sikhi as a different and distinct Panth of the world. The Vedas in the form of humans had wandered in many places to find the guru. If the Sikh Gurus did the praises of the deities, then many of the gurus were there in India which’re doing the praises. Why the Vedas didn’t meet and satisfied themselves? Isn’t it obvious about the different and distinct aspect of the religion of Sikhs which’s overshadowed by the BHs?

Anyway, once near the Guru, they got to know about the One who came in the form of Guru Nanak Dev ji. So the praises that we’ve in Savaiye Mahalle Pehle Ke, they’re of the first guru, not of Vishnu or any other deity. And the ‘Pehle ke’ shows the truth behind that. Many people have taken the above verses to prove the reverence of the deity Vishnu. We will explore it more deeply later. The Vedas showed humility to the Guru by asking in which way the praises should be written so that they wouldn’t make the same mistakes again. The Guru showed his Savaiye before that and they started singing the praises.

Kal Bhatt starts it like this:

ਇਕ ਮਨਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਧਿਆਇ ਬਰ ਦਾਤਾ ॥ ਸੰਤ ਸਹਾਰੁ ਸਦਾ ਬਿਖਿਆਤਾ ॥

ਤਾਸੁ ਚਰਨ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਬਸਾਵਉ ॥ ਤਉ ਪਰਮ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਨ ਗਾਵਉ ॥੧॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੩੮੯

Read the last line. Here Kal writes that the Param Guru, Guru Nanak Dev ji, I will sing his praises. So at least this’s proof enough that the praises are of the Guru. You know what, the mistake that the BHs and SSs make about the praises of the jot of Waheguru among the deities, the same they’re making here. Here again, the praises are of the Guru, not the deity. In the similar fashion, the Gurbani has the praises of the One, not the deities.

Once the Bhatts learned there’s no difference between the One and Guru Nanak Dev ji, they praised the Guru in the form of the One, in a way of omnipresence of the Guru. Because of this reason, you can see the verses in which it’s written that Jogis, Jangam, Indra, Prahlaad, the sons of Brahma, Sheshnaag, Shivji, including the Bhagats like Jaidev, Ravidas, Trilochan, Kabir, etc., they all are praising Guru Nanak Dev ji.

ਗਾਵਹਿ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਧੀਰ ਮਤਿ ਸਾਗਰ ਜੋਗੀ ਜੰਗਮ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਧਰੇ ॥

ਗਾਵਹਿ ਇੰਦ੍ਰਾਦਿ ਭਗਤ ਪ੍ਰਹਿਲਾਦਿਕ ਆਤਮ ਰਸੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਜਾਣਿਓ ॥ ...
ਗਾਵਹਿ ਸਨਕਾਦਿ ਸਾਧ ਸਿਧਾਦਿਕ ਮੁਨਿ ਜਨ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਅਛਲ ਛਲਾ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੩੮੯
ਗਾਵੈ ਗੁਣ ਸੇਸੁ ਸਹਸ ਜਿਹਬਾ ਰਸ ਆਦਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗਿ ਧੁਨਾ ॥

ਗਾਵੈ ਗੁਣ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਧਿਆਨ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਜਾਣਿਓ ॥ ...
ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵੈ ਰਵਿਦਾਸੁ ਭਗਤੁ ਜੈਦੇਵ ਤ੍ਰਿਲੋਚਨ ॥ ਨਾਮਾ ਭਗਤੁ ਕਬੀਰੁ ਸਦਾ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਸਮ ਲੋਚਨ ॥

ਭਗਤੁ ਬੇਣਿ ਗੁਣ ਰਵੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਆਤਮ ਰੰਗੁ ਮਾਣੈ ॥ ਜੋਗ ਧਿਆਨਿ ਗੁਰ ਗਿਆਨਿ ਬਿਨਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੩੯੦

I don’t think I’ve to explain further why the verses in question were written by the Bhatts.

Anyways, so the Bhatts now see the Guru in everyone, including the incarnations of Vishnu. Once they realised the Divine Light in them was of the Guru, they praised the Divine Light. This is in the same regard like Bhai Nand Lal ji wrote in his Ganjnaama that the tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh ji, is the jot of all the bodies, light of all the eyes.

ਰੂਹ ਦਰ ਹਰ ਜਿਸਮ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ
ਨੂਰ ਦਰ ਹਰ ਚਸ਼ਮ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ॥੧੫੨॥

We Sikhs believe that the incarnations are below the One. Gurbani says it vehemently. Then why those incarnations are written in this way? Why can’t be something else than those incarnations? This is answered in the Gurbani Arth Bhandaar.

So to tell the world that there’s someone beyond these deities, the Gurbani talks about that these incarnations are low as compared to the One. To tell how they’re low, you have to show something which’s bigger than them. So the One came into picture. And Guru Nanak Dev ji is the Avatar of Waheguru. Other incarnations aren’t as big as Guru Nanak Dev ji. Other incarnations lived for some time and then died after completing their tasks and they lived longer than Guru Nanak Dev ji in human form. But in less time the Guru has done more than what they couldn’t do in thousands of years. In this way, the Guru is bigger than them. The Guru travelled in all the four directions to show the True Path to the people. Nothing that sort was done by Ramchandra and Krishna. Lastly, the Guru travelled through the bodies even after the Joti Jot of the first body. So making the Light sit in other bodies was not what these incarnations did. The praises of Guru Nanak Dev ji are more than what can be written in time.

The important aspect of saying the Guru to be present in those incarnations is also to tell that you don’t need to go to them but to the Guru. Like Guru Nanak Dev ji said in Jap ji Sahib that his guru is the One, and He’s Brahma, Vishnu, and Shivji for him. He doesn’t need to worship them.

ਗੁਰੁ ਈਸਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਰਖੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬਤੀ ਮਾਈ ॥

Clichéd argument 32: Bhagat Namdev ji writes it in his verses, and they’re present in Guru Granth Sahib ji, where the praises of Krishna are very much visible. He mentioned the praiseworthy who’s born in the house of Devaki.

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਤੂ ਮਾਤਾ ਦੇਵਕੀ ॥ ਜਿਹ ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਰਮਈਆ ਕਵਲਾਪਤੀ ॥੨॥ - ਅੰਗ ੯੮੮

Reality: Before reading this, you should read the Clichéd Argument 18, where the similar verses were talked about. There it’s for Ramchandra. Here it’s for Krishna. There also the verses were from the bani of Bhagat Namdev ji. Contrary to the assumption of Namdev’s praising of Ramchandra, he used the verses in some other shabad where he said ‘your’ Ramchandra, which emphasises to conclude that he didn’t worship Ramchandra.

Here is the complete shabad in discussion.

ਧਨਿ ਧੰਨਿ ਓ ਰਾਮ ਬੇਨੁ ਬਾਜੈ ॥ ਮਧੁਰ ਮਧੁਰ ਧੁਨਿ ਅਨਹਤ ਗਾਜੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਮੇਘਾ ਰੋਮਾਵਲੀ ॥ ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਓਢੈ ਕਾਂਬਲੀ ॥੧॥ ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਤੂ ਮਾਤਾ ਦੇਵਕੀ ॥

ਜਿਹ ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਰਮਈਆ ਕਵਲਾਪਤੀ ॥੨॥ ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਬਨ ਖੰਡ ਬਿੰਦ੍ਰਾਬਨਾ ॥ ਜਹ ਖੇਲੈ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਨਾਰਾਇਨਾ ॥੩॥

ਬੇਨੁ ਬਜਾਵੈ ਗੋਧਨੁ ਚਰੈ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਕਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਆਨਦ ਕਰੈ ॥੪॥੧॥

Recently, someone commented on our YouTube channel and posted a link of the video where someone commented the above verses to prove the praises of Krishna in Gurbani. So these verses are as widely used by the devotees of Krishna as the ones used in the Clichéd Argument 18 by the devotees of Ramchandra.

Ramchandra and Krishna both’re the incarnations of Vishnu, and they have some very distinguishable differences between the lives they lived and the actions they performed. If I’m not wrong, then the last incarnation of Vishnu was Krishna in Dvapara Yuga, one is yet to come. Some of the differences are below.

Ramchandra	Krishna
Ramchandra didn’t have a chakra.	Krishna had one.
Ramchandra didn’t have a flute	Krishan had one.

There’re two meanings of the verses. The one is the One is omnipresent, so He’s also residing in Krishna. So the praises are of the One. These are the same points that I’ve raised multiple times throughout this series. The word to catch here is Ramayeya – omnipresent. The Sikh Gurus didn’t leave any page unturned when it comes to have the writings included in Guru Granth Sahib ji. Throughout the SHSs, you’ll find the way of writing agreeing to the fact that the One is praised.

This’s the love of Bhagat Namdev ji which shows that he praised the One inside Krishna. The Sikhs have listened to a shabad numerous times that where my Guru sits that is a beautiful place. The Sikhs seek those places where the Sikh Gurus stayed or lived. This is the love of the Sikhs towards the Sikh Gurus.

ਜਿਥੈ ਜਾਇ ਬਹੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਸੋ ਥਾਨੁ ਸੁਹਾਵਾ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਜੇ ॥ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੀ ਸੋ ਥਾਨੁ ਭਾਲਿਆ ਲੈ ਧੂਰਿ ਮੁਖਿ ਲਾਵਾ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੪੫੦

A devotee’s attachment to the One is what’s making him ignore everything but accept the Divine Light inside everything. Sometimes a person’s love for someone becomes very hard to explain. Bhai Gurdas ji in his writing tells how Majnu loves the dog of Laila when he sees him. People laugh at him when he touches the feet of the dog and play with him. Just because the dog belonged to Laila, he loved him too. Once you love someone, you love everything of his.

ਲੈਲੀ ਦੀ ਦਰਗਾਹ ਦਾ ਕੁਤਾ ਮਜਨੂੰ ਦੇਖਿ ਲੁਭਾਣਾ ।
ਕੁਤੇ ਦੀ ਪੈਰੀਂ ਪਵੈ ਹੜਿ ਹੜਿ ਹਸੈ ਲੋਕ ਵਿਡਾਣਾ । ਵਾਰ ੩੭, ਪਉੜੀ ੩੧

In no way I’m comparing the two incidents. What I’m implying here is that Krishna is part of the One, so the One is praised in the form of Krishna. This is one way of interpreting the verses. But some people have concerns about this translation. They say in the first line the flute is mentioned. Had it been the praises of Krishna, the word shouldn’t be Ram there because Ramchandra (if Ram has to be translated into Ramchandra, not the One) didn’t have a flute. For this reason, I already wrote the differences between the two incarnations.

Here is the second translation with deeper meanings.

(ਧਨਿ) Praiseworthy, (ਧੰਨਿ) praiseworthy is (ਓ) that (ਰਾਮ) Omnipresent One whose Chetna-like (ਬੇਨੁ) flute is (ਬਾਜੈ) playing; 2) (ਧਨਿ) Praiseworthy is (ਓ) that (ਰਾਮ) Omnipresent One, (ਧੰਨਿ) praiseworthy is his Chetna-like (ਬੇਨੁ) flute which’s (ਬਾਜੈ) playing.

In whose hearts the (ਮਧੁਰ) sweet and (ਮਧੁਰ) sweet (ਧੁਨਿ) sound of the Naam is sung, the (ਅਨਹਤ) Imperishable One is (ਗਾਜੈ) revealed/known.

(ਧਨਿ) Praiseworthy is the One, (ਧਨਿ) praiseworthy are the (ਰੋਮਾਵਲੀ) parts of the One which grew in the form of vegetation because of the (ਮੇਘਾ) clouds.

(ਧਨਿ) Praiseworthy is the One, (ਧਨਿ) praiseworthy is the One who’s (ਓਢੈ) worn the (ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ) black (Maaya) (ਕਾਂਬਲੀ) blanket because of the Kalpatdatam bond (a bond in which the One put his Chetna in Maaya.)

Oh, the (ਮਾਤਾ) Wise Mind! (ਤੂ) You are (ਧਨਿ) praiseworthy, you’re (ਧਨਿ) praiseworthy, because you help to (ਕੀ) connect with the (ਦੇਵ) Parkash Saroop (the One.)

In (ਜਿਹ) whose (ਗ੍ਰਿਹ) house-like hearts/mind the Excellent Thoughts have sat, they (ਪਤੀ) find/meet the (ਰਮਈਆ) Omnipresent One who’s gotten by (ਕਵਲਾ) devotion.

Human body is a (ਖੰਡ) part of this worldly (ਬਨ) forest. In whose Antehkaran, a (ਬਿੰਦ੍ਰਾ) group of Excellent Virtues of garden is (ਬਨਾ) made, they’re (ਧਨਿ) praiseworthy, they’re (ਧਨਿ) praiseworthy.

In (ਜਹ) whose/their hearts, the (ਸ੍ਰੀ) Supreme (ਨਾਰਾਇਨਾ) One is residing and (ਖੇਲੈ) playing.

The One is (ਬਜਾਵੈ) playing the Chetan-like (ਬੇਨੁ) flute in everyone, and with that the (ਗੋਧਨੁ) cows-like senses are (ਚਰੈ) grazing the grass-like Good Thoughts.

The (ਸੁਆਮੀ) Master (ਕਾ) of (ਨਾਮੇ) Namdev is like this, I always (ਕਰੈ) do enjoy the (ਆਨਦ) bliss because of that.

Did Bhagat Namdev worship Ramchandra or Krishna in his verses in Guru Granth Sahib ji?

Ramchandra part is cleared in the clichéd argument 18. Those we’ve not read it, here’s the brief. The verse ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ is used by the devotees of Ramchandra to prove Namdev was the worshipper of Ramchandra. The reason being the word Jasrath, which’s translated into Dashrath, Father of Ramchandra. And then the word Nand, which’s translated as son. With plain reasoning, it’s been concluded by them that here it’s talking about the son of Dashrath, Ramchandra. By close examining, we find it absurd and contradicting with his other verses. On ang 875, Bhagat Namdev ji writes ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥. He’s pointing to the Ramchandra of the pandit. The one who’s the main character in the epic Ramayana.

How and why he changed the narrative? Suppose the Bhagat devoted his life for the devotion of Ramchandra. Why at one point he’d differentiate between the Ram he worshipped and the Ram of the pandit?! This is a clear distinction made by the Bhagat. He didn’t worship the son of Dashrath, but the One who’s omnipresent.

Let’s examine devotion of Krishna now.

On the same ang i.e. 988, another shabad was written by Bhagat Namdev.

ਮੇਰੋ ਬਾਪੁ ਮਾਧਉ ਤੂ ਧਨੁ ਕੇਸੌ ਸਾਂਵਲੀਓ ਬੀਠੁਲਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਕਰ ਧਰੇ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਬੈਕੁੰਠ ਤੇ ਆਏ ਗਜ ਹਸਤੀ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਉਧਾਰੀਅਲੇ ॥

ਦੁਹਸਾਸਨ ਕੀ ਸਭਾ ਦ੍ਰੋਪਤੀ ਅੰਬਰ ਲੇਤ ਉਬਾਰੀਅਲੇ ॥੧॥

ਗੋਤਮ ਨਾਰਿ ਅਹਲਿਆ ਤਾਰੀ ਪਾਵਨ ਕੇਤਕ ਤਾਰੀਅਲੇ ॥

ਐਸਾ ਅਧਮੁ ਅਜਾਤਿ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਤਉ ਸਰਨਾਗਤਿ ਆਈਅਲੇ ॥੨॥੨॥

Couple of names are mentioned there: Dropti, Gautam, and Ahalea. According to the Hindu beliefs, Dropti was saved by Krishna, but Ahalea is connected with Ramchandra. If he worshipped Krishna, he wouldn’t have mentioned Ahalea here. I’ve seen this that a person who worships Krishna doesn’t worship Ramchandra and vice versa. Assuming the praises are of Krishna will be wrong because Ahalea had nothing to do with Krishna. And Ramchandra was already said to be ‘your’ Ramchandra, not his.

Even the story of Dropti I’ve mentioned in some other post, I guess. Let me write again. When Dropti was getting stripped, she asked the help of Krishna. Nothing happened. When she prayed to the One, “Oh! The One, the Omnipresent One, help me.” Then the help arrived. For this reason, the word Ram is written in the verse, that Dropti learned about the True One then. Had Vishnu or Krishna be the Omnipresent One, then she would have gotten the help in the first place as she’s praying to Krishna. This’s the point when she learned in her life the difference between Krishna/Vishnu and the One. The words ‘Ram Naam Sudh’ are self-evident to make the point.

ਪੰਚਾਲੀ ਕਉ ਰਾਜ ਸਭਾ ਮਹਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਸੁਧਿ ਆਈ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੦੦੮

So neither Sikh Gurus nor the writings of the Bhagats suggest in any way the worshipping of the deities.

Clichéd argument 33: Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t like once he learned the Khatri left their religion because he himself was a Khatri and a Hindu.

ਖਤ੍ਰੀਆ ਤ ਧਰਮੁ ਛੋਡਿਆ ਮਲੇਛ ਭਾਖਿਆ ਗਹੀ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੬੬੩

Reality: Guru Nanak Dev ji never liked the idea of leaving the religion for political and other benefits, where a person does the things to earn his bread and butter. Once the Mughals won the battles and started ruling, they showed their open disgust for the ideas and beliefs which’re contradictory to theirs. Some kings were good though for certain reasons, others weren’t.

Guru Nanak Dev ji was in Lahore. A brahmin was sitting there with his eyes closed and an idol in front of him. Poor people who didn’t have knowledge of the True Path were coming to him and giving him money. The Guru asked him what he’s doing by closing his eyes, you close eyes when someone who’s not visible to you and you want to see Him, experience Him. In the case of brahmin, the idol was already there. With his egotistical and boastful nature, he told the Guru doesn’t know anything; when I close my eyes, I see all the world (Three Worlds). And he closed his eyes again.

The Guru wanted to show him the True Path. So he asked to remove his idols and other things.

When the brahmin opened his eyes, he was shocked to see his things missing. He started looking in every direction. The Guru asked him the reason of his anxiety. He told him everything. The Guru smiled and told him he knew everything, why can’t he see where his belongings went especially when he can see all the world? The embarrassed brahmin said he did all these things for his living. Without the hypocrisy and superstition, nobody would respect him.

Then the Guru uttered the shabad which’s in discussion.

The kshatriyas who should be fighting against the injustice, protecting the innocent, they forgot all the things and merged with the Mughals, and spoke their language. We’ve to understand the basics here that the Guru was not against any language. Some use these types of verses to suggest the Guru was against Arabic/Persian or other languages which’re not originated in the Ancient India. This is a lie. Because the Guru had his verses in Persian.

ਯਕ ਅਰਜ ਗੁਫਤਮ ਪੇਸਿ ਤੋ ਦਰ ਗੋਸ ਕੁਨ ਕਰਤਾਰ ॥ ਹਕਾ ਕਬੀਰ ਕਰੀਮ ਤੂ ਬੇਐਬ ਪਰਵਦਗਾਰ ॥੧॥ - ਅੰਗ ੭੨੧

This was the real reason and meaning of the verse. If you look at it from a different angle i.e. there’s no difference between the Sikh Gurus. Guru Teg Bahadur ji gave his life to protect the Hindus; he didn’t like the idea of someone leaving his religion, or to be more precise a person forcing someone to leave others’s religion. The similar type of concern was showed by Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Clichéd Argument 34: The Sikh Gurus worshipped cows that’s why they said God is also in the form of cow.

Reality: I read this statement today, from the same Puneet Chandra who’s hellbent to prove the Sikh Gurus Hindu with the propaganda of his libellous statements. Some Sikhs have debated with him that why he’s wrong, including me a long time back. But the propagandists will never stop unless they make a dent, which in the case of the Sikh Religion is not possible. In this century as well as in the last century, the BHs have two important works to do: one, Hinduize the Sikh Gurus as well as their writing; two, make the Sikh Gurus Indian Nationalists.

The BH gave many verses from the Gurbani. There’s mainly one verse which comes in Gurbani few times. Below is the verse:

ਆਪੇ ਗੋਪੀ ਕਾਨੁ ਹੈ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਬਨਿ ਆਪੇ ਗਊ ਚਰਾਹਾ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੬੦੬

Does the above verse show the Guru worshipping a cow?

See, how dimwit this BH is. Anyway, the essence of the shabad is Waheguru is doing everything in the world. He’d put His devotees to service, He would ignite the love for Him in the hearts of devotees, He would make His devotees sing His praises, etc. In the similar way, the Guru said the One created Krishna, or He Himself is Krishna, He Himself is jungle, and He Himself is the cowherd. Some also translate the verse as senses and He controls our senses.

So, nowhere in the above verse it’s written that the Sikh Gurus worshipped the cows. And this is very clear – right? – that those who worship the cows are imagining these stories and misguiding the people on Quora.

Clichéd Argument 35: The Guru says the Knowledge of Vedas is the True Knowledge.

(Nanak ji de hari..
ਏਕ ਸਮੇਂ ਸੰਗਤਾ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੀ ਤੋਂ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ਨ ਕੀਤਾ ? ਹੇ ਬਾਬੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਏਹ ਕਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ ਕਿ ਵੇਦਾ ਦਾ ਗਿਆਨ ਸੱਚਾ ਹੈ । ਆਪਦੀ ਵੇਦਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੇਹੜੇ ਗੁਪਤ ਗਿਆਨ ਦੀ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ , ਅਸੀਂ ਸਾਰਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਮਨ ਭੀ ੳਸ ਦਿਵ੍ਯ ਗਿਆਨ ਦੀ ਗੰਗਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਸਨਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਯੀ ਬੈਚੇਨ ਹੋ ਰਿਹਾ ਹਨ। ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸੰਗਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ੳਸ ਦਿਵ੍ਯ ਗਿਆਨ ਦਾ ੳਪਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ :-ਹੇ ਸਾਧ ਸੰਗਤ ਮੇਰੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਤੋਂ ਏਹ ਗਿਆਨ ਵਿਰਲੇ ਹੀ ਸਮਝ ਸਕਦੇ ਨੇ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਏਹ ਵੇਦਾ ਦਾ ਗੂਢ ਰਹਸ਼ਯ ਗਿਆਨ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਦਿਸ਼ਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਤੇ ਪਢ਼ਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ (sic) ਪਰ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਇਸ ਗਿਆਨ ਨੂੰ ਲਭਦੇ ਨੇ ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਰਦੇ ਨੇ।ਏਹੀ ਗਿਆਨ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਈ ਥਾਂ ਦਰਜ ਹਨ। ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ (੪੭੦)
❤ਸਾਮ ਕਹੈ ਸੇਤੰਬਰੁ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਸਚ ਮਹਿ ਆਛੈ ਸਾਚਿ ਰਹੇ ॥
ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਸਚਿ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥
ਰਿਗੁ ਕਹੈ ਰਹਿਆ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ॥ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੇਵਾ ਮਹਿ ਸੂਰੁ ॥
ਨਾਇ ਲਇਐ ਪਰਾਛਤ ਜਾਹਿ ॥ਨਾਨਕ ਤਉ ਮੋਖੰਤਰੁ ਪਾਹਿ ॥
ਜੁਜ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਰਿ ਛਲੀ ਚੰਦ੍ਰਾਵਲਿ ਕਾਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨੁ ਜਾਦਮੁ ਭਇਆ ॥
ਪਾਰਜਾਤੁ ਗੋਪੀ ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਬਿੰਦ੍ਰਾਬਨ ਮਹਿ ਰੰਗੁ ਕੀਆ ॥
ਕਲਿ ਮਹਿ ਬੇਦੁ ਅਥਰਬਣੁ ਹੂਆ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਭਇਆ ॥
ਨੀਲ ਬਸਤ੍ਰ ਲੇ ਕਪੜੇ ਪਹਿਰੇ ਤੁਰਕ ਪਠਾਣੀ ਅਮਲੁ ਕੀਆ ॥
ਚਾਰੇ ਵੇਦ ਹੋਏ ਸਚਿਆਰ ॥ਪੜਹਿ ਗੁਣਹਿ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਚਾਰ ਵੀਚਾਰ ॥ਭਾਉ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਨੀਚੁ ਸਦਾਏਤਉ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੋਖੰਤਰੁ ਪਾਏ ॥੨॥ 470)

We will not just answer the question but the other details of the Vedas which’re associated with the Sikh Gurus.

I was introduced to two profiles on FB by a Sikh-Quorian that how they’re doing the propaganda. The BHs have been trying for long to propagate that the Gurbani is inspired from the Vedas. Harinder Singh Mehboob wrote in his Sehje Racheo Khalsa that how the Vedas, along with other Hindu scriptures as well as scriptures from other religions, couldn’t compete with Gurbani and was always lower in rank and didn’t touch the Final Thought to talk about the Supreme Being. There’s always something missing in those scriptures.

The comparison of Gurbani and Vedas will consume so much time; I may write this in a different post.

Let’s not fool ourselves by saying the Vedas talk only about the One. They have so many stories of the deities and their praises. A person shouldn’t be naïve enough to weigh the Vedas and Gurbani, and then conclude the Vedas are the primary source of knowledge which’s used by the Sikh Gurus. In reality, the Vedas have very less to give to a devotee in terms of the praises of the One, if you compare it to full four Vedas. On the other hand, the Gurbani in Guru Granth Sahib ji is but Naam and Praises of Waheguru. Only a foolish will compare them and come to a concrete conclusion that they are same or Gurbani is inspired from the Vedas.

I really think sometimes if the Sikh Gurus had the inspiration from the Vedas, or any other holy books, they would have written the same in their writing that they’re getting the inspiration from those particular scripture. But nowhere the Sikh Gurus mentioned that. This’s the limited comprehension of the BHs that makes them think the inspiration part. Coming to the Vedas as the True Knowledge, the Sikh Gurus written it several times that the Vedas have the Three Gunns, and reading them one couldn’t get liberated. This was in no way to suggest that the Vedas are bad. I do not believe in that. I believe one must read all the holy scriptures of different religions, and then come to a subjective conclusion, and using the references make it an object conclusion. Giani Harpreet Singh ji, the Jathedhar of Akaal Takhat, is doing his PhD on comparative studies of the religions and told he found Sikhism great and distinctive.

Read the Vedas or any other books before coming to conclusions. Just bringing the similarities for the purpose of the alleged influence on the Sikh Gurus won’t work.

According to Gurbani the Vedas will not be there forever. If a person reads the Vedas, he will be divulging in the Three Gunns as the Vedas talk about them, which make them live in the dirty worldly matters.

ਸਾਸਤ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਬਿਨਸਹਿਗੇ ਬੇਦਾ ॥੩॥ - ਅੰਗ ੨੩੭

ਤ੍ਰੈਗੁਣ ਬਾਣੀ ਬੇਦ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਬਿਖਿਆ ਮੈਲੁ ਬਿਖਿਆ ਵਾਪਾਰੁ ॥ - ਅੰਘ ੧੨੬੨

Bhai Gurdas ji’s work is the Key to Gurbani. One may look into the vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji to understand who really Guru Nanak Dev ji is. And if he really needed some influence to write Gurbani.

ਸਾਸਤਰ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਤਿ ਵੇਦ ਲਖ ਮਹਾਂਭਾਰਥ ਰਾਮਾਇਣ ਮੇਲੇ ।
ਸਾਰਗੀਤਾ ਲਖ ਭਾਗਵਤ ਜੋਤਕ ਵੈਦ ਚਲੰਤੀ ਖੇਲੇ ।
ਚਉਦਹ ਵਿਦਿਆ ਸਾਅੰਗੀਤ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੇ ਬਿਸਨ ਮਹੇਸੁਰ ਭੇਲੇ ।
ਸਨਕਾਦਿਕ ਲਖ ਨਾਰਦਾ ਸੁਕ ਬਿਆਸ ਲਖ ਸੇਖ ਨਵੇਲੇ ।
ਗਿਆਨ ਧਿਆਨ ਸਿਮਰਣ ਘਣੇ ਦਰਸਨ ਵਰਨ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਹੁ ਚੇਲੇ ।
ਪੂਰਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਗੁਰਾਂ ਗੁਰੁ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਮੂਲ ਗੁਰ ਬਚਨ ਸੁਹੇਲੇ ।
ਅਕਥ ਕਥਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਬਦੁ ਹੈ ਨੇਤਿ ਨੇਤਿ ਨਮੋ ਨਮੋ ਕੇਲੇ ।
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸੁਖ ਫਲੁ ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲੇ ॥੨੦॥ - ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਵਾਰ 16ਵੀਂ, ਪਉੜੀ 20ਵੀਂ 

Groups of thousands of the readers of the Shastras, Smritis, Ramayana, Mahabharat, Geeta, Bhagwat Purana, Astrology, doctors, and the actors on the stage drama. Gather Fourteen Knowledges, singers of the songs of Gayatri, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shivji, thousands of sons of Brahma, Narad, Sukhdev, Vyasa, Sheshnag. There’re thousands of knowledgeable men, meditators, people who do Simran, varnas, gurus and servants of different groups in the world. They all are incomplete; only Guru Nanak Dev ji is complete. Words of Guru Nanak Dev ji are the root of all the mantras. Inexplicable is the discourse of the Words of Guru, they’re beyond everything, do namaskar to that to get the bliss. The Gurmukhs have the True Gift of Happiness which are given in the last part of the night.

Bhai Gurdas ji is known as the writer who puts everything in few words. The above stanzas cleared many things.

1.      Guru Nanak Dev ji is above all the religious people and the deities, including the Trinity of Gods. So the claim of some people that the Sikh Guru was a follower of Vaishnavism, or Vishnu, becomes a laughable stock.

2.      The first Sikh Guru was not merely some guru like the other sects of the society in the earlier times. He was the Complete Guru.

3.      The Words of Guru (Gurbani, the writing of the Sikh Gurus) are the base of everything. Not only it’s independent of all the Vedas and other religious scripture, but it’s the root. Won’t be wrong if I say Gurbani is the base of everything, all the religious books. The signs of Gurbani, in some places in abundance and in other less, are visible across the religions on Earth.

The below stanzas are again from the work of Bhai Gurdas ji.

ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਪ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਐਸੋ, ਪਤਿਬ੍ਰਤ ਏਕ ਟੇਕ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਨਿਵਾਰੀ ਹੈ ॥
ਪੂਛਤ ਨ ਜੋਤਕ ਅਉ ਬੇਦ ਥਿਤਿ ਵਾਰ ਕਛੁ, ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਅਉ ਨਖਤ੍ਰ ਕੀ ਨ ਸੰਕਾ ਉਰਧਾਰੀ ਹੈ ॥
ਜਾਨਤ ਨ ਸਗਨ ਲਗਨ ਆਨ ਦੇਵ ਸੇਵ, ਸਬਦ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਲਿਵ ਨੇਹੁ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੀ ਹੈ ॥
ਸਿਖ ਸੰਤ ਬਾਲਕ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲਕ ਹੁਇ, ਜੀਵਨ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਗਤਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬੀਚਾਰੀ ਹੈ ॥੪੪੮॥ - ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ ਕਬਿੱਤ

The relation of the Sikhs with the Sikh Gurus is like a married woman who believes only in her husband and doesn’t look at any other man. They do not go according to the astrology, Vedas, and the auspicious days according to the stars and planets. The Sikhs don’t believe in the ritualistic omens, and don’t follow the deities, their focus is always in the Words of the Guru for the love of Formless/Guru. The children-like Sikhs are always protected by the Guru, and he liberates the Sikhs within this life with the discourse of Waheguru.

Four lines, and so much information, which is likely the same that we discussed earlier. The importance of Vedas denied here, again. One might argue the Vedas are ignored only while talking about the astrology. Nope, the verse doesn’t go in that way. But let’s consider it’s true for the argument. Doesn’t it show the Vedas have something that’s ignored by the Sikhs as well as the Sikh Gurus? Why such an important literature was left by the Sikh Gurus or the Sikhs of that time? Does it mean that the Vedas have something that the Sikh Gurus didn’t believe in? If yes, how the Vedas are the True Knowledge if the Gurus ignored parts of that? If no, why the Sikh Gurus in their writing talk vigorously about the Three Gunns but not the impeccable and immaculate nature of the Vedas?

Vedas are kept by the Brahmins as supreme among the other scriptures, including the Puranas and Smritis. Anyway, the Vedas have to come again and again when the Sikh Scriptures would be talked about. The reason being the supremacy of the Vedas according to the BHs. Anything, and everything, which’s against the Vedas, or the norms of the Vedas, is wrong according to them. This is how much they have the importance of Vedas. But when the Sikhs say the similar thing that the Gurbani is the Final Verdict for us Sikhs and we agree with those things which’re according to Gurbani, but not the ones which’re against that, the BHs start bashing the Sikhs, calling names, and start arguing with the Sikhs as if the Sikh Religion is their prerogative property.

I can’t put more stress that one should read the Vedas and any other religious scripture of any religion. It gives plentiful knowledge to either condemn the beliefs or praise them. But in this world, that’s not the case anymore. The BHs are hellbent to prove Sikhism as Hinduism and the Sikh Gurus as Hindu. These BHs are ethnically Punjabi. They can read Punjabi, so it becomes easy for them to malign the Sikh History and Sikh Values with the propaganda. Every day I see their posts/answers on Quora that are repulsive for a Sikh.

The original stanzas in question should also be discussed. I do not know how the story before the stanzas came into picture, or its origin. But I can surely begin with the translation of the stanzas as they’re in Guru Granth Sahib ji. These are from Aasa ki Vaar that Sikhs read every day.

In the Satya Yuga, the Samaveda was there and the incarnation was Hansa Avatar. People had the truth in their hearts, they speak the truth, and lived in the truth. Everyone lived in the truth. In Treta Yuga, the Rigveda was there and Ramchandra was the avatar, he was a great warrior among the devatas; the name of Omnipresent One is the greatest among the devatas. Chanting the Naam takes away the pains. With the chanting of the Naam, one gets liberation. In Dvapara Yuga, Yajurveda was famous and the incarnation Krishna was born in the family of Yadava clan. He lured Chandravali and brought the Tree of Parjaat for his gopi and played in Vrindavan. In Kali Yuga, Atharvaveda was famous, the name of the One became Allah. Pathan rules over the Turks who wore the blue dress. The four Vedas showed the truthfulness. Those who read the Vedas and discuss about the One, they learn spiritually good things. But with the devotion and calling himself the lowest of lower, one can be liberated.

Atharvaveda was the last and the newest Veda. Earlier there’re only three Vedas. It doesn’t hold that much significance as the other three Vedas. Some even called it the lowest Vedas among others. This Veda is compared with the Muslims for a very long time and the same has been said in the stanzas in question. Before some halfwits start saying Muslims are bad or something because it’s the lowest of the Vedas, let’s read the below passage from Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, part 2, page 212 written in the 16^th century, to understand why the Atharvaveda is compared with the Muslims for a long period, even before writing of this book.

In this year a learned Brahman, Shaikh Bhäwan, had come from the Dak'hin and turned Musalmän, when His Majesty gave me the order to translate the At'harban. Several of the religious precepts of this book resemble the laws of Isläm. As in translating I found many difficult passages, which Shaikh B'häwan could not interpret either. I reported the same to His Majesty, who ordered Shaikh Fain, and then Haji Ibrähim to translate it. The latter though willing, did not write anything. Among the precepts of the At'harban there is one which says that no man will be saved unless he reads a certain passage. This passage contains many times the letter l, and resembles very much our Lä illäh illa'lläh. Besides 1 found that a Hindü under certain circumstances may eat cow-flesh: and also that Hindüs bury their dead but do not burn them. With such passages the Shaikh used to defeat other Brahmans in argument, and they had in fact led him to embrace Isläm (God be thanked for this!).

In the Atharvaveda, it’s also stated (9.5.27) that one woman can get married to more than one man. Although some people added ‘after death’ in the brackets or used this as a metaphor in the translations. Anyway, it’s not the point of discussion that whose translation is right, nor it’s the topic to know if a woman is allowed to marry more than one man or not according to the Atharvaveda. But people have different views of looking at this Veda.

The followers of deities might argue the incarnations of Vishnu are mentioned in here which suggests their worshipping. Well, treading on that path, in Kali Yuga the Guru mentioned the Muslims but no incarnation. Does it mean we all should be Muslim now, including the deity-lovers? The BHs stuck to the verse ਚਾਰੇ ਵੇਦ ਹੋਏ ਸਚਿਆਰ ॥ Why the Vedas are said to be true here? Not because of the superstitions or the acts of yajna but the Naam which is present in the Vedas. The similar type of verse can be seen for the Quran for misinterpretation purpose.

ਕਲਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੯੩੦

Does the above verse say in the Kali Yuga only Kateba or Quran is acceptable? No, this is not the essence of the stanzas. Validating the Core Values of Sikhism based on these half-written stanzas are nothing but blasphemous.

Guru Nanak Dev ji gave his Last Verdict in the last lines of the stanzas that one gets liberated when he calls himself the lowest of lower during his devotion to the One.

ਭਾਉ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਨੀਚੁ ਸਦਾਏ ॥ ਤਉ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੋਖੰਤਰੁ ਪਾਏ ॥੨॥

As this is the part of the vaar, we have the Salok, Mahalla, and then Paurhi. In the Paurhi, the Guru writes with conviction that those who get attached to others drown in this worldly ocean; so, the incarnations are out of the question.

ਪਉੜੀ ॥ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਵਿਟਹੁ ਵਾਰਿਆ ਜਿਤੁ ਮਿਲਿਐ ਖਸਮੁ ਸਮਾਲਿਆ ॥

ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰਿ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਗਿਆਨ ਅੰਜਨੁ ਦੀਆ ien@I ਨੇਤ੍ਰੀ ਜਗਤੁ ਨਿਹਾਲਿਆ ॥

ਖਸਮੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਦੂਜੈ ਲਗੇ ਡੁਬੇ ਸੇ ਵਣਜਾਰਿਆ ॥ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਬੋਹਿਥਾ ਵਿਰਲੈ ਕਿਨੈ ਵੀਚਾਰਿਆ ॥

ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਪਾਰਿ ਉਤਾਰਿਆ ॥੧੩॥