Cliched Arguments - Part IV

Clichéd Arguments – Part IV

Cliched arguments – Part I

Cliched arguments – Part II

Cliched arguments – Part III

Gurbani – Part I

I will try to write another post about the identity of Sikhs if I get more clichés from the Internet or from the people that I get the chance to talk to. Generally speaking, there are not many clichés regarding the identity of Sikhs compared to the mistranslation of gurbani by the BHs and SSs. This is the first part that I am going to write. So sit back and enjoy this journey to get into the empty brains of the SSs and BHs.

Clichéd argument 18: Gurbani clearly states that Ram is the son of Dasharatha, and Raja Ram comes few times in gurbani. Raja Ram was only one, the incarnation of Vishnu who’s born in Ayodhya.

ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਮ ਜਪਤ ਕੋ ਕੋ ਨ ਤਰਿਓ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫

ਦਸ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਆਇਆ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੨੭੯

ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਮ ਨ ਛੋਡਉ ਸਗਲ ਊਚ ਤੇ ਊਚਾ ॥੨॥੨॥੧੭॥੬੮॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੩੮

Reality: They do not even know the meaning of Ram word, and they are attaching Raja before that to expose themselves and the time they’d wasted to translate the verses of gurbani.

Let’s first get more ‘rajas’ from gurbani.

ਕੋਇ ਨ ਰਹਿਹੈ ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਨਾ ॥੧॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੧੫੭
ਰਾਜਾ ਬਾਲਕੁ ਨਗਰੀ ਕਾਚੀ ਦੁਸਟਾ ਨਾਲਿ ਪਿਆਰੋ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੧੭੧
ਉਬਰਤ ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਮ ਕੀ ਸਰਣੀ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੨੧੫
ਇਹੁ ਮਨੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਲੋਭੀਆ ਲੁਭਤਉ ਲੋਭਾਈ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੪੧੯
ਕੂੜੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਕੂੜੁ ਪਰਜਾ ਕੂੜੁ ਸਭੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੪੬੮

Who are Raja Raana, Raja Baalak, Ubrat Raja, Raja Lobhia and Koorh Raja? I will be so pleased if I get to know these rajas who ruled the land, like Raja Ram did for years. See, I never claimed myself to be a teacher who knows everything but a student who tries to learn, but I do not agree to something which’s against gurmat. I am all ears if I can be pointed to the books which had the lives of these rajas.

Now what does raja mean apart from king? The word raja is used to tell the Parkash Saroop of Waheguru. Many times, Raja Ram comes for Waheguru, which’s translated to the Parkash Saroop of Waheguru who’s omnipresent. Remember Sikhs believe in the omnipresence of Waheguru? Does that Omnipresent One have limbs and arms who’s residing in you? No. It’s the jot of Waheguru – the Parkash Saroop of Waheguru. This is the real meaning. If we are going to have the words translated as the King of Ayodhya, then it’ll directly go against the principles of the Sikh religion.

Let’s deep dive into this matter. First, let’s see the whole shabad where the first verse comes.

ਚਾਰਿ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਚਾਰੈ ਸਿਧਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਕੈ ਦੂਲਹ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਸਰਨਿ ਪਰਿਓ ॥

ਮੁਕਤਿ ਭਇਓ ਚਉਹੂੰ ਜੁਗ ਜਾਨਿਓ ਜਸੁ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਮਾਥੈ ਛਤ੍ਰੁ ਧਰਿਓ ॥੧॥

ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਮ ਜਪਤ ਕੋ ਕੋ ਨ ਤਰਿਓ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਸਾਧ ਕੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਭਗਤੁ ਭਗਤੁ ਤਾ ਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਰਿਓ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਮਾਲਾ ਤਿਲਕੁ ਬਿਰਾਜਿਤ ਦੇਖਿ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪੁ ਜਮੁ ਡਰਿਓ ॥

ਨਿਰਭਉ ਭਏ ਰਾਮ ਬਲ ਗਰਜਿਤ ਜਨਮ ਮਰਨ ਸੰਤਾਪ ਹਿਰਿਓ ॥੨॥

ਅੰਬਰੀਕ ਕਉ ਦੀਓ ਅਭੈ ਪਦੁ ਰਾਜੁ ਭਭੀਖਨ ਅਧਿਕ ਕਰਿਓ ॥

ਨਉ ਨਿਧਿ ਠਾਕੁਰਿ ਦਈ ਸੁਦਾਮੈ ਧ੍ਰੂਅ ਅਟਲੁ ਅਜਹੂ ਨ ਟਰਿਓ ॥੩॥

ਭਗਤ ਹੇਤਿ ਮਾਰਿਓ ਹਰਨਾਖਸੁ ਨਰਸਿੰਘ ਰੂਪ ਹੋਇ ਦੇਹ ਧਰਿਓ ॥

ਨਾਮਾ ਕਹੈ ਭਗਤਿ ਬਸਿ ਕੇਸਵ ਅਜਹੂੰ ਬਲਿ ਕੇ ਦੁਆਰ ਖਰੋ ॥੪॥੧॥

Those who do not know gurbani in detail, let me tell you that the central idea of the shabad comes in the verses of Rahao. This shabad talks about Sudama, Dhroo, Harnakash, Ambrik, etc., they all were not present at the time of Ramchandra. If Raja Ram means Ramchandra, then the above names wouldn’t have been mentioned. Here it means the Parkash Saroop of Waheguru. The shabad emphasises on the advantage of chanting the Naam.

During a talk with a bot, as he assumed the Sikh Gurus to be Hindu, he argued to prove that if somewhere the word Ram comes and the names of the people before or after the time frame of Ramchandra, it means Ram is for Vishnu. As many BHs and SSs follow this assumption to have all the words for Waheguru be translated to Vishnu, they become paranoid because of their religious scriptures and devotion to a demigod. If they somehow landed on this post, they will wilfully change the word Ram here to Vishnu, because according to their narrative, all those who’re mentioned above are linked to Vishnu. Their eyesight is limited upto that image, like the Sidhs were doing. But the gurmatt gives you wisdom and eyes to see beyond these demigods and demigoddesses. And once you see there, beyond them, you see Waheguru doing everything. All the avatars of any deity didn’t just happen out of their own will; it’s the One who’s telling them what to do. This is under His hukam. We read that every day in Jap Ji Sahib:

ਜਿਵ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਿਵੈ ਚਲਾਵੈ ਜਿਵ ਹੋਵੈ ਫੁਰਮਾਣੁ ॥

We can see a shabad of Guru Arjan Dev ji below, which, if seen according to the Muslims, means that Guru Sahib says if you don’t follow the teachings of Rasool (Prophet Mohammed) or don’t remember him, you will go to hell.

ਮ; ੫ ॥ ਅਠੇ ਪਹਰ ਭਉਦਾ ਫਿਰੈ ਖਾਵਣ ਸੰਦੜੈ ਸੂਲਿ ॥

ਦੋਜਕਿ ਪਉਦਾ ਕਿਉ ਰਹੈ ਜਾ ਚਿਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਇ ਰਸੂਲਿ ॥੨॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੧੯

But is it true? No. Rasool is like Ram. Ram has many meanings, so has Rasool. Here Rasool means Guru Nanak Dev ji. And another meaning, by dividing the word into two, is Rasaa da ghar.

I am sure this debate of Ram-Ramchandra is not going to end soon.

We will see other verses of Bhagat Namdev ji to tell if he really followed Ramchandra or not.

Gurbani clearly talks about not to worship the deities, but their worshippers never understand that. We’ve discussed that in the first cliché argument too with the verses from Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji.

One observation which is visible to the naked eye is that no person who doesn’t worship Ramchandra will say that Ram means Ramchandra when referred to Waheguru. It’s, and always will be, the followers of Ramchandra. The same is true for the worshippers of Krishna. A Krishna worshipper will bring the verse and mistranslate it to prove it’s talking about the incarnation of Vishnu. His focus will always be on Krishna, not Ramchandra.

We’ve written/talked numerous times that there’re many people in the past whose names were Ram. If they’d to be picked from the scriptures of Hindus, then Ramchandra, Balram and Parsram are enough. Why they point to Ramchandra, not Balram or Parsram? Did you think about it? Because they follow Ramchandra. I will not be surprised if a follower of Balram or Parsram translates the word Ram to the one that he worships.

They also have a story to convince the masses i.e. the Sikh Gurus were in the tradition of the Vaishnavism, a group who worships Vishnu. In that way, they bend the meanings, and it’s not limited to the Sikh Gurus. Their first part was always the Bhagats whose banis are included in Guru Granth Sahib ji. Later they focused on the Sikh Gurus. Contrary to their theories, the gurbani has clearly mentioned the state of the deities.

The second verse correctly translated which is to tell that Vishnu came in the form of king too. It’s not to tell to worship him or written for his praises. It’s just to tell even these incarnations haven’t found the end of Waheguru. Here are more verses before and after the verse.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹੇਸੁ ਦੇਵ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੇ ਦਿਤੇ ਬੇਦ ਪੂਜਾ ਲਾਇਆ ॥

ਦਸ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ਰਾਮੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਆਇਆ ॥ ਦੈਤਾ ਮਾਰੇ ਧਾਇ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਬਾਇਆ ॥

ਈਸ ਮਹੇਸੁਰੁ ਸੇਵ iqn@I ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥

If these people really had the correct translation, they would never misguide the people by bringing the above type of example. They’re working on an agenda which their ancestors had been doing their whole life; the descendants started doing the same. These clever BHs and SSs just show themselves why gurbani says they’re on the wrong path and they still call themselves the religious people; they’re nothing but blind.

In the rehatnaama of Bhai Chaupa Singh, following verses are written:

ਗੁਰੂ ਕਾ ਸਿਖ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਅੱਠਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਨਾ ਕਰੇ । ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਨਾ ਲਏ – ਤੁਰਕ, ਜੋਗੀ, ਪਗ-ਲੱਥਾ, ਸਿਰ-ਖੁੱਥਾ, ਲਿਟੀਆ, ਧੂੜੀਆ, ਟੁਪੀਆ, ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ । ਏਹੁ ਆਪਣਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਦਸਣਗੇ ਅਗਲੇ ਦਾ ਖੋਹਣਗੇ ।

The verses are true for the BHs. Isn’t this what they are doing? Changing the meanings of the words according to their religion even when the Sikhs have been telling them it’s wrong?

Apart from this sometimes they bring the verses from Guru Granth Sahib ji and Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji to confuse the young Sikhs. Read the below verses.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹ ਬਿਪਤਿ ਮੈ ਟੇਕ ਏਕ ਰਘਨਾਥ ॥੫੫॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੪੨੯

ਅਵਤਾਰ ਧਰੋ ਰਘੁਨਾਥ ਹਰੰ ॥ – ਰਾਮ ਅਵਤਾਰ, ਚੌਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ

Or some other verses they can also include, then their tongues will touch all parts of their mouths to convince the Sikhs that Guru Teg Bahadur ji is saying when in trouble go to Raghunath. Who is this Raghunath? To answer this, they will put the verses from Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji, mainly from the Rama Avatar in Chaubees Avatar.

Let’s have the meaning of Raghnath in the first verse, because here it doesn’t represent the incarnation of Vishnu. That’s why it’s very important to sit and listen to the discourse of gurbani. People just wander on the Internet to get the meanings and find the wrong translations, which they copy paste and show to the Sikhs while debating online. So the meaning of Raghnath is similar as Raja Ram. Ragh means light and nath means someone who’s supreme. It’s again representing the Parkash Saroop of Waheguru who’s infused in this world.

I am including a new verse here, which is brought to our notice and is used by many BHs online. They use this to say gurbani states that Ram is Ramchandra, son of Dasharatha.

ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥ - ਅੰਗ ੯੭੩

This shabad is said by Bhagat Namdev ji to give wisdom to a pandit who’s involved in karam-kaand. Bhagat Namdev ji told him many techniques which were practised by the Hindus and were of no use compared to Simran. This line comes at the end of the shabad. There’re few points that need to be mentioned for this because this verse has many meanings.

1.      The word is Jasrath, not Dashrath, although it’s translated into Dashrath also in many books, which is fine because the whole translation gives a clear message than just using the word Dasharatha to signify that the god which is worshipped here is Ramchandra.

2.      The translation of the verse is that the son of Dasharatha, Ramchandra, His King, Waheguru, is the one that I worshipped. The last half of the verse gives a clearer meaning that Bhagat Namdev ji took the nectar of Naam. (This meaning is popular, although Dr Sahib Singh didn’t agree to this. He built his argument on the basis of grammar, but he didn’t imply that it’s showing some kind of worshipping of Ramchandra too.)

3.      The second translation is Bhagat Namdev ji said to the pandit that you call Ramchandra your king, but I only take the nectar of Naam and it’s Ramchandra son of Dasharatha for me.

4.      The third and very deep meaning is doing kirtan (jas) is the only chariot (rath), implying in the mind the immense continuation of Naam is flowing. Also, the word Ramchand can be split into two words: Ram+Chand. Where Ram means Omnipresent and Chand means Parkash Saroop or Peaceful like moon.

The last meaning, which is not appropriate and seems against gurbani, is what the BHs and SSs are preaching to show here Ramchandra is talked about to tell Bhagat Namdev ji worshipped Ramchandra, so gurbani allows to worship the deities.

If we go into the bani of Bhagat Namdev ji, we will see that in one of the shabads, he used the word ‘your Ramchand’.

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੮੭੫

If Bhagat Namdev ji had worshipped or gurbani talked about the worshipping of Ramchandra, then he would have mentioned ‘his Ramchand’, not ‘your Ramchand.’ Like many BHs and SSs translate the verse at ang 973 to imply the bhagat was talking about the son of Dasharatha, then why the same bhagat didn’t use the word ‘my’ instead of ‘your’? Does it mean there’re two Ramchandra? Even if some people agree to that and try to make some story or bring some evidence to support this, then the shabad at 875 ang wouldn’t have mentioned Ravana.

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥

ਰਾਵਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਸਰਬਰ ਹੋਈ ਘਰ ਕੀ ਜੋਇ ਗਵਾਈ ਥੀ ॥੩॥

So two Ramchandra in the same story? Don’t think so. This proves that neither Bhagat Namdev or gurbani talks about the worshiping of Ramchandra. There’re many good qualities in Ramchandra, I am in no way saying that he’s not a good person. No. He’s good. But, still, the worshipping of someone is not based on if he’s good or bad.

Clichéd argument 19: Gurbani clearly says to worship Vishnu.

ਵਵਾ ਬਾਰ ਬਾਰ ਬਿਸਨ ਸਮ੍ਹਾਰਿ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੪੨

Reality: In almost all the mistranslation of the verses that the BHs produce for their claims end up with contradictory views of gurbani. Before we move on with the reality of this argument, I want to have it on the table that the BHs are very clever. I was reading some comments on some video where a person, who I suppose is a BH, said that he’s proud of his ancestry, or in general about being a Brahmin, and only 1% of the Brahmins were doing the ill-practices in the earlier times, especially the whole discrimination on the basis of caste. He said he didn’t like that and why he should suffer for their behavior in the past.

I totally agree with the person that a Brahmin shouldn’t be hated just because he’s a Brahmin. Maybe his ancestors were bad and he is not. It’s simple. I have said it many times that you can’t hate all the people from a particular group. Our abbreviation BHs (Brahmanical Hindus) is not to degrade the Brahmins and Hindus. It’s a term coined for those who’re trying to evaluate the Sikh scriptures by looking into the Hindu texts, which was/is usually done by the Brahmins. But the 1% is really a very bad number. You can’t just wipe that under the carpet. You might not be responsible for all the abhorrent rules of the religion at that time, but you don’t have the rights to change the whole narration with numbers just because you belong to a Brahmin family.

Anyways, I was in a talk with a BH who’s an SBH. He’s bringing the reasoning that even in Hinduism there’s no worshipping of the deities, and the deities and God are not two but one thing. I was like even if in the Hindu texts they were considered one why I should have any problem with it. Your texts, your beliefs. If you’re talking about Sikhism, why I need to consider your holy books? There’s a SS too who’s bringing the argument on the same point by saying that the whole Sikh Panth do not believe in the bani of Dasam Guru Granth Sahib, so the verse that I was bringing was irrelevant (will come to that later.) The thing is whoever is worshipping a deity can’t just accept the truth that there’s no worshipping of the deities in Sikhism. The issue with the SSs is that they do not want to leave Sikhism but pray to the deities, praise the deities. In Hinduism, you can do whatever you want to do. Why not join them? If you’re not following the Sikh scriptures and Code of Conduct, you’re not a Sikh. Simple. How hard is it to understand?

The aforementioned verse comes in Bavan Akhri by Bhagat Kabir ji.

Bhagat Kabir ji was one of those votaries who were against the social injustice practised by the Hindus and Muslims of that time. He strongly condemned the superstitions of both the religions. Many Brahmins and Qazis used to come to Bhagat Kabir ji to talk to him. More importantly if Bhagat Kabir ji’s verses were to imply the worshipping of Vishnu, they wouldn’t have been added in gurbani. It has to be understood that gurbani is not contradictory to itself. On one side it is written to worship a deity and on the other side clearly mentioned not to, seriously? No. It’s not like that.

What is wrong with many BHs and SSs is that they just go to the websites where gurbani is mentioned, preferably to searchgurbani, and just type words like Bisan, Shiv, Brahma (Brahma being the least favourite, don’t know why. They never talked about Brahma. The guy is left alone.) and copy-paste the verses without even reading the whole shabad to have an idea what it’s talking about. Just think for a moment that we’re going to translate Bisan/Visan to Vishnu, a deity, then what will the following verse mean?

ਜਿਉ ਜੂਆਰ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੮੩੮

Does it mean a gambler doesn’t let go of Vishnu?

No. Here Bisan means the vices. Like it’s been stated multiple times that one word can have multiple meanings, if we’re going to concentrate only on one, then we are doomed.

Here are the verses from Bhavan Akhri which say Bhagat Kabir ji worshipped the One who’s omnipresent, not someone there in the sky.

ਘਘਾ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਨਿਮਸੈ ਸੋਈ ॥ ਘਟ ਫੂਟੇ ਘਟਿ ਕਬਹਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥

ਤਾ ਘਟ ਮਾਹਿ ਘਾਟ ਜਉ ਪਾਵਾ ॥ ਸੋ ਘਟੁ ਛਾਡਿ ਅਵਘਟ ਕਤ ਧਾਵਾ ॥੧੦॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੪੦

There’re many verses in gurbani which point that the three main deities are under Maya. Why would Guru Sahib ask the Sikhs to worship someone who’s under Maya? It doesn’t make sense. Isn’t it what the Hindus were doing earlier? Why there’s a need to change that if Guru Sahib preached the same thing?

Let’s read more on what gurbani says about Vishnu/deities.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਮਹੇਸਰ ਬਿਸਨ ਸਚੀਪਤ ਅੰਤ ਫਸੇ ਜਮ ਫਾਸ ਪਰੈਗੇ ॥

ਜੇ ਨਰ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਪਤਿ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਸ ਹੈਂ ਪਗ ਤੇ ਨਰ ਫੇਰ ਨ ਦੇਹ ਧਰੈਂਗੇ ॥੮॥੨੮॥ – ਅਕਾਲ ਉਸਤਤ

ਮੈ ਨ ਗਨੇਸਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਮਨਾਊਂ ॥ ਕਿਸਨ ਬਿਸਨ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹ ਧਿਆਊਂ ॥
ਕਾਨ ਸੁਨੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ ਨ ਤਿਨ ਸੋ ॥ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ਮੋਰੀ ਪਗ ਇਨ ਸੋ ॥੪੩੪॥

There can’t be any clearer message than these verses. These are the verses which were ignored by a person who I was in talk with just because it’s contradictory to what he’s disseminating. To counter this, he talks how the ‘Sikhs’ do not believe in the writing of Guru Gobind Singh ji to be his. It’s not the valid reason though. The real issue was the words mentioning to not worship Krishna or Vishnu. Still, with that much assertion, some people do not understand this and undermine the meaning. In one of the posts, it’s already written how a BH was using his shrewdness to show how this verse does imply not to worship Vishnu and how the Hindus believe in the same thing. The old tricks didn’t work on me.

I don’t know how many you have seen this, but there’s a new trick of the BHs in the market. As it’s been proved and the whole theories of the BHs are debunked by the scholars with the bani of Guru Gobind Singh ji, they now say the guru worshipped the Shakti, so for the followers of the Shaktism, Vishnu is not important. They are trying to divide the gurbani and the vision of the gurus: they tell the first nine gurus, or Guru Granth Sahib ji, worshipped Vishnu, and the tenth guru worshipped the Shakti. Even by going with that notion, the truth is Shakti and Shakta are not two but one. And they are postulating the theory which is suggesting the contradiction in gurbani! Which is insidious in nature. Sikhs have been telling the sangat that the bani of all the gurus is same, now the BHs come up with a clever trick.

The truth is Guru Granth Sahib says the same that the deities are nothing, but the devotees can’t see that as of now.

During the discourse of gurbani, I’d heard so many times the writing of Bhai Gurdas ji is the tika of gurbani. For many of the arguments that the BHs and the SSs bring to deny the message of Sikhi, you just need to look into the vaars and kabitts of Bhai Gurdas ji. He writes in his kabitt that Gursikhs do not worship the deities, but also don’t go abusing them.

ਜੈਸੇ ਪਤਿਬ੍ਰਤਾ ਪਰ ਪੁਰਖੈ ਨ ਦੇਖਿਓ ਚਾਹੈ ਪੂਰਨ ਪਤਿਬ੍ਰਤਾ ਕੈ ਪਤਿ ਹੀ ਕੈ ਧਿਆਨ ਹੈ ॥
ਸਰ ਸਰਿਤਾ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰ ਚਾਤ੍ਰਿਕ ਨ ਚਾਹੈ ਕਾਹੂ ਆਸ ਘਨ ਬੂੰਦ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਗੁਨ ਗਿਆਨ ਹੈ ॥
ਦਿਨਕਰ ਓਰ ਭੋਰ ਚਾਹਤ ਨਹੀ ਚਕੋਰ ਮਨ ਬਚ ਕ੍ਰਮ ਹਿਮਕਰ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਹੈ ॥
ਤੈਸੇ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਆਨ ਦੇਵ ਸੇਵ ਰਹਿਤ ਪੈ ਸਹਜ ਸੁਭਾਵ ਨ ਅਵਗਿਆ ਅਭਿਮਾਨ ਹੈ ॥੪੬੬॥ – ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ, ਕਬਿੱਤ

ਲਖ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਅਕਾਰ ਕਰਿ ਤਿਲੁ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ਨ ਬਿਸਨ ਪਛਾਤਾ । ਵਾਰ ੧੮, ਪਉੜੀ ੧੩ - ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ

ਲਖ ਬਿਸਨ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਲੈ ਗਿਆਨ ਖੜਗੁ ਫੜਿ ਪਹੁਚਿ ਨ ਸਕੇ । ਵਾਰ ੨੯, ਪਉੜੀ ੧੬ - ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ

In the earlier verses, Bhagat Kabir ji writes about Allah too. Does it mean he worshipped two gods, one is Vishnu other is Allah?

ਅਲਹ ਲਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਆ ਕਹਉ ਕਹਉ ਤ ਕੋ ਉਪਕਾਰ ॥

ਬਟਕ ਬੀਜ ਮਹਿ ਰਵਿ ਰਹਿਓ ਜਾ ਕੋ ਤੀਨਿ ਲੋਕ ਬਿਸਥਾਰ ॥੩॥

ਅਲਹ ਲਹੰਤਾ ਭੇਦ ਛੈ ਕਛੁ ਕਛੁ ਪਾਇਓ ਭੇਦ ॥

ਉਲਟਿ ਭੇਦ ਮਨੁ ਬੇਧਿਓ ਪਾਇਓ ਅਭੰਗ ਅਛੇਦ ॥੪॥

Again, I am writing it: I heard from a BH that Allah is also the manifestation of God. This’s what happens when you just Google the things to learn and land on the anti-Sikh websites. Allah is not a manifestation of God. Allah is God. Vishnu, Brahma and other deities, including humans and the whole world, is the manifestation of God. So on one hand Bhagat Kabir ji worshipped God, and on the other His manifestation – merely a deity? No, the meaning of Allah and Vishnu should be same here, otherwise the translation should not only be going against the teachings of the Sikh Gurus but also show the contradictory views.

Vishnu is merely a deity, who’s no place in Sikhism to worship him. If the others believe that he’s so great and should be worshipped, it’s their choice. I am no one to tell not to worship him if he’s really a cool deity. My only point is not to talk about gurbani and mistranslate it for your own benefits. This’s like brainwashing the people with wrong intents.

At last, let’s have the meaning of Bisan mentioned in the verse. Bisan word can be split into two parts. Bis+An=the One who helps to do the chestha of the world.

Clichéd argument 20: Hari word comes in gurbani thousands of times. Hari is for Vishnu. So it’s said so clearly to follow and meditate on his name.

Reality: Actually, the word is Har; in some shabads the word Hari is also written, but they usually change Har into Hari because of their holy scriptures and the supremacy of Vishnu whom they worshipped.

I didn’t mention the verses in the cliché because they can bring multiple in this. But as we dive into this ocean of gurbani, we’ll see how they manipulate the verses to conclude something.

This is one of my favourite clichés because I’ve answered it multiple times and it also shows the knowledge of the BHs as well as SSs. Lately I read it in the comment on our YouTube channel that Har word is mentioned for Krishna in Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar. Hence, it’s proved that when gurbani talks about Har, it’s for Vishnu/Krishan.

ਦੂਰਹੁ ਦੇਖਿ ਡੰਡਉਤ ਕਰਿ ਛਡਿ ਸਿੰਘਾਸਣੁ ਹਰਿ ਜੀ ਆਏ ॥ - ਵਾਰ ੧੦, ਪਉੜੀ ੯, ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ

This is where a small story is mentioned of Krishna and Sudama, to tell even when Krishna was well-known in the later years of his life, he didn’t forget his friend. A very beautiful message.

I’ve been shown different verses from gurbani to convince me that it’s Krishna/Vishnu when it comes to Har word. Here, the very first time someone talked about the vaars of Bhai Gurdas ji. I believe that many BHs and SSs who talk rubbish are Punjabis, and they’ve believed that reading gurbani and Punjabi both are same; or if they know Punjabi, they can easily translate the verses of gurbani into English or give a clear message.

There’re a couple of points that I want to discuss here. The very first is to prove the masses wrong that always choose the meaning of Har as Vishnu or Krishna. Har word has so many meanings. Had they read Guru Granth Sahib ji or listened to the katha, they wouldn’t be so immature and childish when it comes to the different meanings. But devotion to Vishnu is more important than the truth to them. So they feel comfortable while misusing the words in the Sikh scriptures. It’s more like a habit and the genes that they’ve of those who’d been doing the lame interpretations since last century. Before that also, you can find evidence, but the bulk of them are in the 20^th century.

The first point is my favourite point. It’s from the bani of Guru Gobind Singh ji where Har word is used many times and had different meanings. We are going to have the correct meaning as well as the wrong meaning. The translation of the word Har into Vishnu would lead to the wrong meanings, and the correct one is the one that is important. Like in the above cliché, Bisan/Visan can’t be Vishnu every single time. It’s more meanings than what people think. Like vices. Likewise, we have it here for the word Har. (It’s been discussed in the first cliché, but I am writing this again.)

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.

One word and many meanings. This is the beauty of gurbani.

One BH even asked why the Sikh Gurus used so ambiguous names, meaning the ones which are same like what the Hindus believe. It’s so simple to answer. Guru Sahib didn’t use ambiguous names, it’s the limited knowledge of you guys which’s not letting you see beyond the deities. Once you can see beyond the deities, then you will know the true nature of gurbani and how it changes the lives of many around the world. Until then, you can just praise the deities that you wish. Sikhs do not have any issue with what you believe in.

I think this will be enough to open the eyes of those who really are looking for the answers or in some dilemma because of the BHs or SSs. Still, in my second point, I will show you the verses where Vishnu and Har word come, and Har doesn’t imply Vishnu every time. Read these verses.

ਰੋਗੀ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਸਰੁਦ੍ਰਾ ਰੋਗੀ ਸਗਲ ਸੰਸਾਰਾ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਪਦੁ ਚੀਨਿ ਭਏ ਸੇ ਮੁਕਤੇ ਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰਾ ॥੪॥ – ਅੰਗ ੧੧੫੩

Vishnu is diseased, and in the next verse Har word is used for Waheguru. Again, it shows the lack of knowledge that the BHs and SSs have.

You can also check the different meanings of Har word in gurbani.

Clichéd argument 21: Bhagat Kabir, who was a devotee of Vishnu, mentions in his writing that he worshipped the son of Nand. And it’s also written in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਜੀਅ ਜੋਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਭ੍ਰਮਤ ਨੰਦੁ ਬਹੁ ਥਾਕੋ ਰੇ ॥

ਭਗਤਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਅਵਤਾਰੁ ਲੀਓ ਹੈ ਭਾਗੁ ਬਡੋ ਬਪੁਰਾ ਕੋ ਰੇ ॥੧॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੩੮

Reality: How is it translated into the devotion of Bhagat Kabir ji to Krishna? Wait, I have the answer …

Yes, it’s not limited to the BHs, the BWSs have also come to play their role in it, especially those who are trying to shrink the gurbani into some very small granth by eliminating as many verses as possible, like Bhasauriye did in the 20^th century. I have seen some SSs who use these types of verses to show the reverence for a deity, Krishna. I find few SSs who are not much attached to Ramchandra but Krishna. The reason for that might be just randomly choosing one from the millions.

We’ve to comprehend the very important thing while trying to translate the verses of gurbani. And that is there’s no contradictory statements in gurbani. Again, gurbani cannot say to worship a deity in one verse, and in some other to not do it. It’s not some Hindu granths where the contradictions are visible to much extent like B. R. Ambedkar has mentioned in his Riddle in Hinduism about the origin of the Vedas.

Let’s hear the uthanka of the shabad first. Bhagat Kabir ji met with the brahmins who told him that he should chant the name of the son of Nand, Krishna; and stop recitation of Ram (Waheguru.) Bhagat Kabir ji asked him who’s the father of Nand. From there they started the ancestry and eventually went till Vishnu. Then Bhagat Kabir ji told that then you guys should be saying Krishna is the father of Nand, not the opposite, because saying that God has a father is not less than blasphemy.

The brahmins were shocked, and it angered them the way the bhagat ji said so. Then he told them this shabad whose lines are quoted by the unintelligent masses. And the aforementioned verses in the cliché is to tell that Nand roamed in many cycles of birth and death, and eventually Krishna was born in his house. This shabad, however, is not pointing to worship the deity. It will be clear if the whole shabad will be read.

ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਜੀਅ ਜੋਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਭ੍ਰਮਤ ਨੰਦੁ ਬਹੁ ਥਾਕੋ ਰੇ ॥

ਭਗਤਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਅਵਤਾਰੁ ਲੀਓ ਹੈ ਭਾਗੁ ਬਡੋ ਬਪੁਰਾ ਕੋ ਰੇ ॥੧॥

ਤੁਮ੍ ਜੁ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਨੰਦ ਕੋ ਨੰਦਨੁ ਨੰਦ ਸੁ ਨੰਦਨੁ ਕਾ ਕੋ ਰੇ ॥

ਧਰਨਿ ਅਕਾਸੁ ਦਸੋ ਦਿਸ ਨਾਹੀ ਤਬ ਇਹੁ ਨੰਦੁ ਕਹਾ ਥੋ ਰੇ ॥ ੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਸੰਕਟਿ ਨਹੀ ਪਰੈ ਜੋਨਿ ਨਹੀ ਆਵੈ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨ ਜਾ ਕੋ ਰੇ ॥

ਕਬੀਰ ਕੋ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਐਸੋ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਜਾ ਕੈ ਮਾਈ ਨ ਬਾਪੋ ਰੇ ॥੨॥੧੯॥੭੦॥

Here Bhagat Kabir ji mentioned it clearly that you’re calling Krishna – son of Nand – as God, then before there’s no sky, no earth, where this Nand was. They were silent on that. In the last lines, Bhagat Kabir ji confirms his beliefs, and it goes against the popular belief of many that he’s the follower of Vishnu or his incarnations, that God doesn’t come into any birth and death cycles. For God, the name Niranjan is written – One who’s not under the influence of Maaya. On the other hand, Krishna/Vishnu, or any other deity for that matter, is born because of Maaya, and we read that every day in Jap Ji Sahib. You can also find many examples in gurbani where it’s written. You can refer to our post to debunk the argument of people about the shabad on 1082 ang.

The easiest way to know if the worshipping of the deities is same as the worshipping of Waheguru or not is by reading the Mool Mantra. In there, you will see the first word. Ik Oan(g)kar. He’s One. There is no-one like him. On the other hand, gurbani talks about millions of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shivji. Even if the first word is read carefully which comes in the Mool Mantra, no doubt will have arisen in our mind.

And the last line of the shabad end this debate and put a stamp on the confirmation that Kabir ji worshipped that God, who doesn’t have any Father and Mother. Simple.

Clichéd argument 22: Vedas are better than the rest of the granths, and gurbani talks about the Vedas came from Oankar, Sikh God. That means the Sikh Gurus agreed that they’re better and they’d gotten the idea of writing gurbani or inspired from the Vedas.

ਅਸੰਖ ਗਰੰਥ ਮੁਖਿ ਵੇਦ ਪਾਠ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩
ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬੇਦ ਨਿਰਮਏ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੯੨੯

Reality: I’ve heard from some Hindus that all the other religious books of their faith are not as important as the Vedas. Recently, I found a post where a guy was saying Atharvaveda was not as important as the other three, because of some changes or something. Telling you the truth, I have not read the Vedas so far. But, as I’ve mentioned in some other post/video too, I love to read any religious book of any religion. I will have the Vedas soon.

The first verse is from Jap Ji Sahib, you must have known it by looking at it. But if the Vedas are said to be best, why the gurus didn’t give much importance to the Vedas but gurbani? If the Vedas were same as gurbani, why the gurus didn’t say that they’re getting the inspiration or have the influence of Vedas on their writing? Or is it just a conundrum to confuse the young Sikhs who’re not much aware of gurbani?

Many BHs just can’t accept that the other religions or cultures can have their own ways of living. They believe everything that happened in the world is because of them, and there’s no way of anything could have happened without their ancestors. They talk about inclusiveness, but they rather go to exclusiveness and ignore what other people are saying. I used to wonder how many Sikhs in the ninetieth century or a little bit earlier could have fallen for the whole propaganda of the BHs and changed themselves to SSs. By seeing the current situation and the Age of Internet, I find it very easy for these BHs to propagate what they want to do and change the mind of people with wrong conclusions and opinions.

Let’s first see if the Vedas are said to be best in gurbani or not.

ਪੰਡਿਤ ਮੈਲੁ ਨ ਚੁਕਈ ਜੇ ਵੇਦ ਪੜੈ ਜੁਗ ਚਾਰਿ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੬੪੭

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਇਫਤਰਾ ਭਾਈ ਦਿਲ ਕਾ ਫਿਕਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੭੨੭

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਚਾਰ ਹੀ ਬੇਦ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਸਰਬ ਲੋਕ ਤਿਹ ਕਰਮ ਚਲਾਏ ॥
ਜਿਨ ਕੀ ਲਿਵ ਹਰਿ ਚਰਨਨ ਲਾਗੀ ॥ ਤੇ ਬੇਦਨ ਤੇ ਭਏ ਤਿਆਗੀ ॥੧੯॥ – ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ

So the Vedas are not on par with gurbani. Then why sometimes gurbani says in Vedas something’s written, like Naam? Well, it’s simple. I’ve said it on Quora too. Think of this as a left outer join. Whatever is there in gurbani and is there among other religious scriptures, Sikhs follow that. If there’re some things mentioned in other religions and gurbani is against that, Sikhs do not follow them. Sikhs are not against the Vedas or Kateba. Sikhs read whatever they get their hands on, but they do not accept them as truth just because it’s written in other’s scriptures.

There’re two major points to mention here.

First one is that the BHs and SSs use confusing wordings like gurbani doesn’t say not to follow the Vedas but tell people are not reading them properly, or following them properly. For this, they bring the following verse of Bhagat Kabir ji to prove their point.

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹੁ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੩੫੦

This shabad was uttered by the bhagat when the Hindus and Muslims were fighting over whose scripture was better, which’s not different than today’s world where people are fighting over scriptures. If we read the verse carefully, it says both Vedas and Kateba. And in Kateba – the holy scriptures of non-Hindu people – the four books are included: Taurat, Jamboor, Anjil, and Quran. You can see on the Internet how many BHs will go against Quran and how it’s not scientifically correct and all. Not only BHs, I’ve seen some Christians too who talk much against Islam. So think of Muslims using the above verse to say gurbani can’t be false and it says you shouldn’t say Kateba are wrong. Is it true then? No.

It’s said that a person shouldn’t say anything wrong out of discrimination or hatred. Like these days some people will say how the Ayurveda is wrong just because it’s the book originated among Hindus. If the same book had been in other religion, they would be beating their chests that it’s from their religion, see how their ancestors were so advanced. This I have seen personally. And some Sikhs too do that, which is wrong as hell. You can’t say some religious book wrong just because it’s of some other religion.

In gurbani, many times the word Ved and Kateb come together. The BHs see only the word Vedas, not Kateb. Maybe they need to go and fix an appointment with an ophthalmologist. It’s not like you can take one thing that you like and forget the others. Sikhi doesn’t work in that way. You have to have the complete package. You can say you don’t follow it, but still it’s part of Sikhi. BHs and SSs do the cherry-picking a lot and ignore the complete meaning of either that specific shabad or the whole gurbani.

The verse mentioned above which comes on ang 727 is also written by Bhagat Kabir ji, then why is it contradictory? On one side you’re showing him following the Vedas, on the other hand he says it’s of no use because it doesn’t remove the anxiety of the mind!

Second point is, the BHs and SSs call the Sikh Gurus as the Vedantist. According to them, the Sikh Gurus got everything from the Vedas and they followed the Vedas. Like I said earlier, they show they believe in inclusiveness but are completely absorbed in exclusiveness. For them, there’s no world beyond what their scriptures say.

But when Guru Gobind Singh ji writes Rama Avatar, he says he doesn’t believe in the Vedas and follow any path of the Hindus or Muslims or their religious books.

ਪਾਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਯੋ ॥
ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥
ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਨ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਸਪਾਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੈ ਨ ਕਹਯੋ ਸਭ ਤੋਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥੧॥ - ਚੌਬੀਸ ਅਵਤਾਰ

Need more than that?

A TIGHT SLAP ON THE FACES OF BHs AND SSs!

This is the reason why the SSs are afraid of Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji. It breaks all the bonds that the SSs and BHs see by using their almost non-existing brains. All of their reasoning about the gurbani and history is just to prove Sikhs Hindus, nothing more than that they need. Only around the 2% of population in India is of Sikhs. Why these BHs and SSs are so much involved into labelling the Sikhs Hindu? What are they going to get out of it? Or is it something the 2% can change everything, so just make them as illogical and brainwashed as these groups are? It must be true. There’s no other reason I can think of.

So gurbani is not against Vedas, nor is it following Vedas. Gurbani doesn’t rely on any Vedas or other religious scriptures. If the Vedas had not been there on the Earth, the gurbani would still have come to be.

The origin of the Vedas is from Brahma. But somehow if it has to be written that the Vedas came from Waheguru, even then it will not be wrong because all and everything is because of Waheguru. Going by that way, all the religious books of all the religions and everything of any taste, interest, opinion, etc., came on this Earth or anywhere in Heavens or Hell is because of God. Without who the world would never had existed. But the Vedas are not of the highest order according to gurbani. Not only gurbani, if you read Vedas, you will see it talks mainly about karam-kaand, but it’s not like it’s nothing to do with the praises of God. No. It’s that too, but mainly it has the abundance of other things than the praises of God. In gurbani its main idea is about the Simran and Naam; this is missing in the Vedas.

ਸਾਮ ਵੇਦੁ ਰਿਗੁ ਜੁਜਰੁ ਅਥਰਬਣੁ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੇ ਮੁਖਿ ਮਾਇਆ ਹੈ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੦੩੮

For this reason, the Vedas are called to be under three gunns. You can see many examples in gurbani. The gurbani is not like that. Guru Sahib mentions to read/sing gurbani because of which you get closer to Waheguru.

ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਵਰਤੀ ਜਗ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਇਸੁ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਾਇਦਾ ॥੩॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੦੬੬
ਜੋ ਇਛਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਫਲੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਏ ॥੪॥੨॥੧੨॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੧੩੦

You can mark my words, you will see in future how the anti-Sikh groups will be changing the meaning of Gurbani too and point it to Vedas i.e. when the gurus talked about Gurbani, they talked about the Vedas. So before they confuse the new generation, let me put an end to their tiny brains’ mistranslation.

ਗੁਰ ਸੇਵਾ ਤੇ ਕਰਣੀ ਸਾਰ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਰਾਖਹੁ ਉਰਿ ਧਾਰ ॥

ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਵਰਤੀ ਜਗ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਇਸੁ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਾਇਦਾ ॥੩॥

ਵੇਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਵਾਦ ਸਮਾਲੇ ॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਨ ਚੇਤੈ ਬਧਾ ਜਮਕਾਲੇ ॥

ਦੂਜੈ ਭਾਇ ਸਦਾ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਏ ਤ੍ਰੈਗੁਣ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਇਦਾ ॥੪॥

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਏਕਸੁ ਸਿਉ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਏ ॥ ਤ੍ਰਿਬਿਧਿ ਮਨਸਾ ਮਨਹਿ ਸਮਾਏ ॥

ਸਾਚੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਸਦਾ ਹੈ ਮੁਕਤਾ ਮਾਇਆ ਮੋਹੁ ਚੁਕਾਇਦਾ ॥੫॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੦੬੬

The obnoxious minds of these people will not be able to comprehend the true meaning. If someone, in future, is going to change the meaning of gurbani to Bed/Ved, then why when it comes to the three gunns, the Vedas are written, not the gurbani?

Ved/Bed also has other meaning. Knowledge. For this reason, Swami Vivekanand had said in a paper on Hinduism back in 1893, as mentioned in the first book of Swami Vivekanand Complete Works, ‘The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas. They hold that the Vedas are without beginning and without end. It may sound ludicrous to this audience, how a book can be without beginning or end. But by the Vedas no books are meant. They mean the accumulated treasury of spiritual laws discovered by different persons in different times.’

On the other hand, the Vedas as the books have a different story. And in Riddles of Hinduism, Dr B. R. Ambedkar quoted the Vedas and the Brahmins about the origin of the Vedas, and how sometimes the stories are contradictory. So the BHs who’re calling themselves the experts in the translation of gurbani should at least look into their own books and see what has been written about them by B. R. Ambedkar and how they’ve failed to counter what’s been written by him. I saw only one blog who tried to answer the questions or opinions raised by the author, but he miserably failed to give any logical statement and bashed the author out of frustration.

It’s okay if the person hates someone because of his opinions or conclusion, but at least he should try to answer the questions in a way which makes it argumentative to a reader, which is not the case here. And on that also the guy defends everything and how Ambedkar was ‘Influence by the Britishers and it historians.’ These BHs when caught in some process of their own religious books, they try to answer how it’s wrongly translated and how it’s out of context and do all the logical fallacies available for the rescue. When the Sikhs tell them that they’ve translated the verses of gurbani incorrectly, they call us ‘Khalistanis’ or ‘separatists.’ Grow up, people. And talk logically and sensibly. This is the 21^st century, not some thousand years ago time when you could have deceived the people by telling them all types of stories and mantras.

So the Vedas are from Brahma or like the stories mentioned in the Vedas? My opinion is that it would have come from Brahma, but with the passage of time some changes might have been made, which no BHs – either HBHs or SBHs – is going to agree.

For the first verse, it’s many meanings: there’re many granths like Vedas and all, and out of them Vedas are main; there’re many granths like Vedas, and they’re read by the mouths; those who’ve recited the Naam of Waheguru who’s infinite names, they have read all the granths and the Vedas (means everything is in the Naam of Waheguru, it includes everything from all the religious books. That’s why Guru Sahib mentioned four pauris in Jap Ji Sahib about the Listening of Naam.); those who’ve recited the Naam of Waheguru who’s infinite names, they have known the main God (means the One who’s controlling everything.)

There’re other meanings too, but these many will be enough for this.

Mukh doesn’t always mean main. It means mouth too.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮੇ ਮੁਖਿ ਮਾਇਆ ਹੈ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੦੩੮

If I’m a follower of Brahma, I will definitely use the above verse and misinterpret it as Brahma is the main deity, and others are not.