Bijla Singh

Having more historical details does not mean more depth. It is the spiritual depth one must be looking at. Whether one knows his own father or ancestors (though good to know) does not change his own personal duties and goal of life. Semitic religions limit themselves to this planet only and start the creation from Adam whereas Gurmat advocates intelligent life forms on other planets, existence of infinite galaxies and solar systems where different life forms exist and practice truth. Guru Nanak Sahib travelled to many such planets. Gurmat connects all these life forms in spiritual realms because soul never dies and all these souls are connected with the Divine Being. Gurmat does not support the idea of God creating only one human (Adam) and then realizing his mistake decides to create another one for amusement. Then he (God) allows them to practice incest for the sake for spreading humanity. Is this what you call “depth”? How insensible and insulting to God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience. Gurmat advocates that the creation did not start from one human but has been created and destroyed many times and each creation is created in a different way. But souls do not change. What changes is the physical form. This is how “interdimensional” beings are interconnected. One soul of this planet can take the next birth on another planet, in another universe or in a different creation. To put an exact starting point to creation means putting limits on God's power. Your lack of ignorance about Gurmat is not a valid justification for rejecting Gurmat. Absolutely false. Your misunderstanding about Gurmat is the only reason why you are not right for this path yet.

Here is an old write-up by someone posted on this form many years ago. Even the present head of Baba Farid Jee’s spiritual order Prof. Khalil Nizami says the bani in Guru Granth Sahib Jee is that of Farid Sani. Bhai Vir Singh Jee, Prof. Teja Singh Jee, and Budh Singh all agree to this opinion that the Bani written in Guru Granth Sahib jee is that of Farid Sani the contemporary of Guru Nanak Dev Jee, and not Baba Farid the Afghan who lived during the 12th century. The proof of Baba Farid Jee meeting Guru Nanak Dev Jee is his Bani. Fareed Jee writes: JO GUR DASAY WAATH MUREEDA JOLEA|| (Asa sheikh farid 477) KAR KIRPA PRAB SAADHSANG MELEE|| (Farid soohi 794) Muslim sufis never use words such as Gur, Saadh or "Prabh". According to a book written by Prof. Khalil Nizami spiritual head of Baba Farid Jee’s spiritual order these words were written by Farid Sani because he was heavily influenced by Guru Nanak Dev jee, this is confirmed by the writer of "Swanay Farid". Proof from Janamsakhis, then ponder on the following Janamsakhi which mentions Guru Jee meeting with Farid Jee: SRI GURU BABA AUTHOU CHALIA| RAAVI CHANOU DEKH KAR AUJARH PAI CHALIA| PATTAN DESH AIE NIKALIA| PATTAN TO KOS TIN AUJARH THI, AUTHAY AIE BAITHAA| MARDANA NAAL AAHA, PATTAN DHA PIR SHEIKH FARID THA TISKAY TAKHT SHEIKH BRAM (IBRAHIM) THA| (Puraatan Janam Sakhi) -Besides this Janamsakhi, another Janamsakhi by the name of “Meherban Vali Janamsakhi” tells of a story of when Baba Farid jee once went to collect wood and there he also ran into Guru Nanak Dev Jee reciting the following Gurbani Tukhs: APAY PATTEE KALAM AAP, UPAR LEKH BHI THU|| EKO KAHIAE NANAKAA, DOOJA KAHAY KOO|| (Malar dhi vaar M: 1 -1291) -Another Janamsakhi which is now safely at Guru Nanak Dev University taken from the UK also mentions a meeting between Guru Nanak Dev Jee and Baba Farid jee. -Another Janamasakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Jee vali Janamsakhi mentions a meeting between Guru Nanak Dev Jee and Baba Farid Jee. I have given names of four different Janamsakhis all mentioning Baba Farid jee meeting with Guru Nanak Dev Jee. 1) All Pakistani scholars agree that this Baba Farid jee did not write any baani at all. He was not a poet. 2) He was not a native of Punjab and as such could not have written such purely native countryside Punjabi. It is like asserting that Shakespeare was not English but a German writer. A non-English person could not have written what Shakespeare wrote. Same way, a non-Punjabi could not have written the kind of Punjabi that is in Gurbani under Baba Farid jee name. 3) The Punjabi used in Baba Farid jee’s baani in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee is of the same time as Guru Nanak Sahib jee. All linguistics agree to this. If this baani had been written 300 years before Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee, it would have been drastically different. Just compare the Punjabi written today to Punjabi of Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee’s times. 4) Farid Shakarganj i.e. the Senior Farid, was a staunch Muslim who converted thousands of Hindus to Islam. He was very strict in Sharia and he would have never used non-Islamic words like “Saadh” in his baani. Now the question arises that if the baani in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee was not written by Baba Farid Shakarganj then who is the writer of this baani? The answer is very simple. As written in the Janamsaakhis, the writer of this baani was Farid Saani, who was sitting on the gaddi of the original Farid. His name was Sheikh Ibrahim but he was also known as Farid Saani and it was he who met Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee Maharaaj. It is this Sheikh Ibrahim, whose spiritual thirst was quenched by Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee. He wrote the following shabad to Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee: soohee lalith || baerraa ba(n)dhh n sakiou ba(n)dhhan kee vaelaa || . bhar saravar jab ooshhalai thab tharan dhuhaelaa ||1|| hathh n laae kasu(n)bharrai jal jaasee dtolaa ||1|| rehaao || eik aapeenhai pathalee seh kaerae bolaa || dhudhhaa thhanee n aavee fir hoe n maelaa ||2|| kehai fareedh sehaeleeho sahu alaaeaesee || ha(n)s chalasee ddu(n)manaa ahi than dtaeree thheesee ||3||2|| This shabad of Baba Farid jee portrays the thirst of Baba jee very clearly. He is literally begging for spirituality. In response to this shabad, Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee wrote the following shabad: soohee mehalaa 1 || jap thap kaa ba(n)dhh baerrulaa jith la(n)ghehi vehaelaa || naa saravar naa ooshhalai aisaa pa(n)thh suhaelaa ||1|| thaeraa eaeko naam ma(n)jeet(h)arraa rathaa maeraa cholaa sadh ra(n)g dtolaa ||1|| rehaao || saajan chalae piaariaa kio maelaa hoee || jae gun hovehi ga(n)t(h)arreeai maelaegaa soee ||2|| miliaa hoe n veeshhurrai jae miliaa hoee || aavaa goun nivaariaa hai saachaa soee ||3|| houmai maar nivaariaa seethaa hai cholaa || gur bachanee fal paaeiaa seh kae a(n)mrith bolaa ||4|| naanak kehai sehaeleeho sahu kharaa piaaraa || ham seh kaereeaa dhaaseeaa saachaa khasam hamaaraa ||5||2||4|| He cries that “bhar Sarvar jabb uchhalai, tabb taran dulela” but Guru Baba jee says “Na sarvar na uchhalai, aisa panth suhela”. He says that his spiritual path is very hard but Siri Guru jee says that the Gurmat path is very easy and full of bliss. He says "BeRa bandh na sakhiyo" Siri Guru jee says, "Jap tap ka bandh beRla". He says that he has not been able to build his ship to swim across this ocean of world. Siri Guru jee says that if he has not build it yet, then he can now build the ship of Jap-Tap. What a great shabad Siri Guru jee's is! Just amazing. This shabad is most beautiful. I wish some gursikh sing this shabad and I may just listen to it till eternity. Just compare the two shabads and no one can deny that one was written in response to the other one. After hearing Siri Guru jee’s shabad, Farid Saani jee became disciple of Guru Nanak Paatshaah. There is no doubt about it. Sirii Guru jee and he met 3 times in total.

Word AUM refers to trinity of Hinduism i.e. Vishnu, Brahma and Shiv who create, destroy and sustain the creation. This is not monotheistic. I agree Vedas have some element of truth but concept of God is monistic and sometimes pantheistic. Please study the difference between these. God is Upnishds is not personal, not actively involved in the world and without any attributes. Some mantras give completely pantheistic viewpoint of God making the creation an extension or body of God. In other words, they consider creation and the Creator equal and identical. This is against Gurmat. Sikh scholars and Hindu scholars fully endorse this viewpoint. Please see Daljeet Singh’s book on comparative mysticism, Shashi Bala’s book Concept of Monotheism, Dr. Rohi’s book on Monotheism and Dasgupta’s book on Indian Philosophy. Bhai Sahib, what do you mean by Nirgun gyan? At one point you say Nirgun is without attributes then you talk about Nirgun gyan. Two are contradictory. If Nirgun is devoid of any attributes then there is no gyan. All names of God are sacred and divine. I have no problem with any of the names. Please provide any proof that Bhai Daya Singh Ji used to give different mantars. This is contrary to Gurmat. There is only one Gurmantar. Sampardas may do whatever they wish but it does not become Gurmat. Gurbani does not support meditation upon just any name. Bhai Gurdas Ji also rejects this practice. I rather believe him than any samparda that has no proof to substantiate their lineage. Everyone’s avastha is different but this does not change Gurmat at all. All are and must be given the same Gurmantar for meditation. Please provide any proof. Your understanding of Nirgun and Sargun is wholly incongruent. Bhai Vir Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh, Subedar Baghel Singh and other gursikhs who have achieved union with Waheguru do not support your viewpoint. Bhai Vir Singh in his books (Guru Nanak Chamatkaar and others) states that as one meditates upon Gurmantar, he starts to acquire God-like attributes and eventually becomes one with God. Simran increases as spirituality increases. One remains absorbed in Naam forever. It never stops. I think those who claim otherwise are simply making empty claims without any proof from Gurbani. You still did not provide any proof from Gurbani. So you are stating that gursikhs like Bhai Gurdas Ji, Bhai Vir Singh and rehatnamas are wrong? Is Gurbani wrong to clearly give an injunction to meditate upon Gurmantar and not any other mantar? How can we call ourselves Sikhs and not follow Gurbani at the same time? Do you consider sampardas above Gurbani and Vaars? Please read some books by Bhai Vir Singh Ji and Bhai Randhir Singh Ji. No one can convince you but yourself. Guru Rakha

Bhai Sahib, I have already explained the reasons why Gurbani is superior to Vedas but you have not provided any reasons for equating them. I have read Pandit Ji’s teeka but he does not explain the context. So you decided to take the literal interpretation and apply it to Gurmantar but as I have already proven, Gurbani advocates meditation upon Gurmantar so your interpretation is not correct. Vedas do not preach monotheistic concept of God so how can one obtain God by reciting such mantras that invoke demi gods and goddesses? It is not possible. Bhai Sahib, you still have not studied Gurbani meanings independently. Why? Why do you keep relying on whatever a certain preacher says without scrutinizing it? Gurbani is very clear that only Gurmantar must be meditated upon. All mantars are not equal. This does not mean all other mantars (kirtam names) are bad or fruitless but Gurbani gives no option or choice to anyone to pick any mantar for meditation. At the time of Amrit, Gurmantar is given and all rehatnamas support Gurmantar only. Perhaps you can ask Baba Hari Singh for his reasons but without any Gurbani support, it is not possible to validate his statement. Daas has written a detailed article on Gurmantar and this subject is discussed also. Hopefully, it will be published on internet soon. In the meantime, please provide any quotes from Gurbani that prove that any mantar can be chosen for Gurmantar and in that case also explain the dichotomy of why Gurmantar is advocated at the same time. In my defense, following proofs are enough. Describing superiority of Vaheguru, Bhai Veer Singh states: Vaheguru is the most superior name and takes one to the original state uniting with God that is ineffable. Being capable to taking one to the Mansion of the Lord, the true Primal Name is Vaheguru. (Bhai Veer Singh, Amar Lekh. p. 29) Kavi Santokh Singh in his monumental work GurPartap Sooraj Parkash writes: ਸਤਿਨਾਮ ਮੰਤ੍ਰਨਿ ਸਿਰਮੌਰ। ਜਿਸ ਕੇ ਸਮ ਜਗ ਮਹਿਂ ਨਹਿਂ ਔਰ ॥4॥ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਇਹੁ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਮਹਾਨਾ। ਚਤੁਰ ਵਰਨ ਕੋ ਜੋੜਨਿ ਠਾਨਾ। Satnam mantar (Word) is superior to all mantras and none other is equal to it. Vaheguru mantar is great and unites the entire humanity. (Kavi Santokh Singh, GurPartap Sooraj Parkash. Rut 3, Ansu 35, p. 326) ਧ੍ਰਿਗ ਜਿਹਬਾ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦ ਵਿਣੁ ਹੋਰ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਸਿਮਰਣੀ॥ Fie on that tongue, which remembers mantras other than the Guru-mantra. (Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 27, Pauri 10). Bhai Prehlaad Singh in his Rehatnama states: ਥਾਪ ਚਲਯੋ ਜੋ ਜਗਤ ਮੇ ਤਿਨਹਿ ਨਿਵਾਵਹੁ ਮਾਥ ॥ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਬਿਨ, ਮਿਥਿਆ ਸਾਰੀ ਗਾਥ ॥

Bhai Sahib, I did not say that you call faults in Gurbani. I simply pointed out the fact that if Sikhs fail to take full advantage of naam simran then it is their fault. But the shabad under discussion rejects the jaap itself which means it cannot apply to Gurmantar. Let’s take a look at it again: ਜਾਪ ਕੇ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਜੋ ਪੈ ਪਾਯਤ ਅਜਾਪ ਦੇਵ This means that God cannot be obtained by doing jaap. How can a true Sikh claim that it applies to Gurmantar? It is ridiculous. Let’s assume that a person wants to become one with Waheguru. So what should he do? According to Gurbani, jaap of Gurmantar is fruitful but jaap of mantras of Vedas is fruitless. Jaap of Gurmantar requires one to keep full rehat and adhere to Gurmat principles. One can do jaap of vedas with a view of attaining salvation but he won’t be successful. On the other hand, the same person can do jaap of Gurmantar with same devotion and be successful. So when you point out the fact that Sikhs have made Gurbani practice a business, it is their own fault which is why they are not getting the full results. On the other hand, practice of vedas is fruitless regardless of one’s devotion. If one does not want to attain salvation or union with Waheguru then he will never get it. If he wants some worldly things from Gurbani then that’s what he will get. But practice of vedas will get him nothing. This is what makes Gurbani recitation different because it is fruitful according to one’s wishes. ਗੁਰਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਦਾ ਜਾਪ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਜਰੂਰ ਮਿਲੇਗਾ ਪਰ ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਦੀ ਇਹ ਭਾਵਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ । ਪਰ ਵੇਦ ਮੰਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਜਾਪ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਕਦੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲੇਗਾ ਭਾਂਵੇਂ ਜਿੰਨੀ ਮਰਜੀ ਭਾਵਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ । Therefore, Akal Ustat is not rejecting jaap of Gurmantar because it has the power of uniting with Waheguru. Jaap of Gurmantar starts off with mechanical repetition and eventually it becomes automatic. More of its practice elevates one spiritually but Vedic mantras do not have this power. Those who keep bare minimum rehat do not see the results because they are not doing enough simran. Consider a pure white cloth stained with grease. If one uses a glass of water every day to clean it, it will take him many years to completely clean the cloth. But if one uses buckets of water, the results will come much quicker. This is the difference between some Sikhs doing the bare minimum and not seeing results and some constantly engaged in simran and become pooran Gursikhs. Doing 7 banis is the minimum and like using a glass of water. While it does do its part of cleaning the mind, it is not enough to wash off filth of countless births. Those who want only worldly things use up their kamayee and those who practice Gurbani every day but don’t keep rehat are accumulating filth at the same time. The key is to keep rehat and then do simran. It is most fruitful this way. We both agree that Gurbani has its power and is always fruitful. It all depends on one’s mindset. Then how can the rejection of Akal Ustat apply to Gurmantar jaap. I agree it can be applied to Sikhs but not to the practice of Gurmantar jaap itself. Vedas have no power and keep people entangled in maya regardless of one’s wishes. This is why comparing Gurbani with Vedas is wrong and Gurbani rejection of mantar, tantar and jantar does not apply to Gurbani itself but to Vedas and Hindu rituals. Its application can be applied to Sikhs doing wrong things under the name of naam simran but naam simran itself can never be wrong. Hence, mechanically repeating Gurmantar while keeping all rehat is fully endorsed by Gurbani. I can post myriads of panktis if one requests. Guru Rakha

Bhai Sahib, I have never claimed that Gurbani does not apply to Sikhs. However, Gurbani does not reject itself. When Gurbani rejects Vedas it is because Vedas do not offer unity with Waheguru. When you criticize faults of Sikhs, it is not the fault of Gurbani or its principles but lack of properly following Gurmat. Gurbani is revealed and its power is not selective. Its nature does not change. Just as water clears filth, Gurbani cleanses one’s filth of sins regardless of who practices it. Just like air provides life to everyone, Gurbani provides spiritual awakening to everyone. Just like fire does not change its nature of burning, Gurbani does not change its nature of burning sins. All are welcome to practice it. I refuse to accept any notion that Gurbani practice without any love is fruitless. How can one have true love without practicing Gurbani first? Bhai Vir Singh Ji and Bhai Randhir Singh Ji have written in their books that Naam abhiyaas starts with mechanical repetition using tongue and slowly it starts to go down in throat, then in breaths and eventually submerges into every pore. As mind gets cleaned, it starts to get filled with love. Those who never get serious about achieving Waheguru will never get there but Gurbani practice is never fruitless. I personally started Gurbani practice with a viewpoint of achieving miraculous powers so I could use them for my own benefit. As some miracles started to happen, I started to feel more and more love for Gurbani and I stopped wishing for any worldly things. Of course, I sometimes ask for worldly things but this is not my objective of following Sikhi. Those who remain entangled with materialistic things use up their kamayee and they never make any effort for progress but this is not the fault of Gurbani nor is naam simran wrong. The fault lies with selfish and egoistic attitude of the so-called Sikhs who treat Gurmat like a business. I have seen many who practice Gurmat for some worldly things and when they get them, they stop practicing Gurmat. This proves that Gurbani practice works and it is not fruitless. I understand your point that Sikhs need to shed their worldly thinking and adopt Gurmat in all seriousness. External rehat by itself is fruitless and ritualistic which is why Gurbani does not focus much on it. Any external rehat that has connection with the inner self is approved in Gurmat. This is why Gurbani or Gurmantar repetition even for the sake of worldly achievement does not go wasted. However, the devotee must be making an effort to follow Gurmat properly once he achieves his objectives. If he does not then it is his fault. On the other hand, practice of vedas is purely ritualistic and external. It has no connection to the inner purification whatsoever nor is it fruitful. It keeps one tied to the Brahaminic system which is why it is rejected in its entirety. Gurbani is clear that one can read vedas for four yugs but his inner filth will not be washed away. Gurbani on the other hand does just that because it is revealed and one with Waheguru. I also understand your point about Sikhs being too stuck in their jathas. I have gone through this personally but again only Sikhs are to be blamed for this. Most Sikhs do not understand and follow Gurmat. My advice would be to seek sangat of elder gursikhs. I have found it to be better than sangat of my own age. I have also experienced the fact that more simran you do more sangat will be provided to you. In other words, your sangat will be based on your own avastha. So do more simran so that Guru Sahib puts you in touch with same type of Sikhs. However, I personally feel that you are stuck in some mindset that prevents you from making progress. I could be wrong but your posts sometimes do make it apparent but I rather not write it here and leave it to you to discover it. This jatha mentality is plain garbage and will eventually end. Only Khalsa shall remain. What I write is my understanding and I do not claim to be 100% correct. I am willing to change my mind if proven wrong. After all, learning Gurmat is our goal. Guru Rakha

Because Gurbani is not contradictory. Dhur Ki Bani cannot be rejecting its own teachings. Whenever Gurmantar is mentioned, it refers to being obtained from Satguru. It is also referred to as Naam. Whereas mantras of vedas are rejected along with tantra and jantra. You can study Gurbani to find this fact yourself. Gurbani says: ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੀਓ ਗੁਰਿ ਮੰਤ੍ਰੁ ॥ ਮਿਟੇ ਵਿਸੂਰੇ ਉਤਰੀ ਚਿੰਤ ॥੨॥ ਗੁਰ ਮੰਤ੍ਰੜਾ ਚਿਤਾਰਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੁਖੁ ਨ ਥੀਵਈ ॥੨॥ This means reciting Gurmantar is a mandatory. Sure, Gurmantar is a mantar but it is given by Guru and it is revealed. This is what makes it different. Mantras rejected in Gurbani do not refer to Gurmantar as it will amount to Guru Sahib rejecting His own teaching. Mantras that are rejected are written in Vedas not in Quran and Bible. Gurbani says: ਪੰਡਿਤ ਮੈਲੁ ਨ ਚੁਕਈ ਜੇ ਵੇਦ ਪੜੈ ਜੁਗ ਚਾਰਿ ॥ Filth of mind/sins cannot be washed away by reading Vedas. However, it is washed by Naam. ਭਰੀਐ ਮਤਿ ਪਾਪਾ ਕੈ ਸੰਗਿ ॥ ਓਹੁ ਧੋਪੈ ਨਾਵੈ ਕੈ ਰੰਗਿ ॥ It proves that Naam or Gurmantar has the power that Vedas do not. Vedas are not revealed nor do they have Naam which is only obtained from Satguru. Also, Vedas do not assume a personal God. Different mantras invoke different deities. A bird has no gyan of God and it cannot obtain Naam from Satguru. Attaining God is only possible in human birth. A child doing simran in the womb does not mean it recites Gurmantar. There are different kinds of simran and all are not equal. They have their own benefits but highest of all is Gurmantar. If you still insist that mantras in Vedas are not rejected then provide your evidence. You will be insinuating that Gurbani contradicts itself. Further, it will imply that Guru Gobind Singh Ji rejected the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib. “Tuhi Tuhi” is not a mantar in itself. Guru Nanak Dev Ji became vismaadi by saying “tera tera” but the word itself is not a mantar. So what exactly are you implying? That a bird says tuhi tuhi and cannot attain Waheguru but Guru Gobind Singh Ji said it and obtained immense bliss? Guru Sahib worshipped Waheguru but a bird does not know God. Reciters of Vedas do not know God. Vedas do not even preach monotheism. One needs a priest to recite such mantras and only a selected few are taught their recitation. Once again, read the entire shabad first before jumping to false conclusions. It talks about ritualism and their futility. First line rejects physical suffering, second ritualistic recitation of mantras (not Gurmantar), third rejects breathing techniques and last immolation and applying ashes on the body. All these are empty rituals and external in nature. It is foolish and pure manmat to use a pankti rejecting futile rituals and apply it to Gurmat principles. Missionaries are misusing Gurbani the say way to reject Naam Simran and Amrit Vela. Sikhs these days have stopped doing any veechar of Gurbani and resorted to misusing Gurbani to reject Gurmat while defending falsehood of other religions. This is why panth is not progressing. I cannot spend too much time on arguing over this. You need to study Gurbani first. Bhai Gurdas Ji says: ਧ੍ਰਿਗ ਜਿਹਬਾ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦ ਵਿਣੁ ਹੋਰ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਸਿਮਰਣੀ॥ Fie on that tongue, which remembers mantras other than the Guru-mantra. (Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 27, Pauri 10)

The pankti in Akal Ustat does not condemn Naam jaap of Gurmantar. Gurbani again and again stresses on obtaining Naam and practicing it. It cannot be rejected by Guru Sahib. Gurbani, however, rejects physical external rituals that are empty from within or devoid of any spirituality. Jaap in the pankti refers to uttering mantras of vedas which Hindus recite to attain some type of reward. Certain mantras in the Vedas (especially Rig Veda) are recited for particular purpose and to a particular deity. Indra is the main deity in the Rig Veda but other deities are also invoked by some mantras. These are purely ritualistic. Further, there is no personal God assumed in the Vedas who should be worshipped. No union is sought with God. Hence, Guru Sahib rejected repetition of such mantras because they are devoid of God’s love or prema bhagti. Anytime in Gurbani or Dasam Granth, repetition of mantras is rejected; it refers to Vedas and Hindu mantras. If you read the rest of the shabad, you will realize that it rejects all external rituals like taap (making the body suffer) and sati (immolation) etc. Repetition of Gurmantar is recommended for many reasons. It is obtained from Satguru. It is Naam. It refers to worshipping One Supreme Reality. It makes the devotee God-oriented and purifies the inner-self. Gurmantar is revealed whereas mantras of Vedas are not revelatory. Practicing Gurmantar is the highest of all deeds and it washes away our filth. Those who do not obtain it from Satguru but still recite it will also obtain bliss and experience peace and tranquility. But they will have to practice more and the benefits will be less. They also will not get salvation or union with Waheguru. Guru Rakha

I understand. That's what I meant. When you are not in samadhi, you feel this. I have gone through the same. Just two days ago I had a craving for pizza and I passed two pizza shops on my way to home. But Guru Sahib saved me from eating out. At home when I ate parshaday with daal, the anand was immense. The whole point of doing simran is to control your mind and stay in anand all the time. Amrit vela is just the starting point and if you are not feeling the same anand during the day then I suggest making some serious changes to help yourself so that your mind stays in your control all day long. Anything we consume affects our mind the same way it was prepared and with the same surti/birti it was prepared. The effect may be insignificant in the beginning if your naam simran is strong but over time it accumulates and becomes significant. Guru Sahib prohibited us from even touching tobacco. So would you touch tobacco and then prepare food? If no then why eat food from those who not only touch but consume it and engage in idle talks while preparing it. This body is of Guru Sahib and He has given us His roop then must we not consume the food that is acceptable to Him? Just a thought. Guru Rakha

I apologize if I make any false assumptions in advance. If you get temptations before or after simran then it seems to me like your surti/birti gets dispersed (in khindaah) and your mind runs towards what it longs for. If this is the case and there are no health related issues then I think you need to do some inner evaluation of jeevan and see what you can do to improve yourself. From my personal experience, sometimes I get cravings for a specific food and I want to eat it right away. It has gotten less frequent since I started keeping dietary bibek (though I am still dhilla). Now I get seldom cravings which I counter in different ways. If I am close to my home then I wait it out thinking that I will eat when I get home. So I just request my wife to make the same food. If I am away from home then I start reminding myself that the food is prepared by someone who is a meat eater, might be a smoker and may not have washed their hands after restroom break. There is also a great chance of cross contamination. Such food is also not prepared while reciting bani. Hence, this is not Guru Ka Langar. Since this food is not acceptable to Guru Sahib, I should not eat it either because my goal is to become one with Guru Sahib. If I am starving at that point and I cannot stop myself then I do a short quick ardaas to Guru Sahib to bless me with strength to stay strong and fulfill my hunger with Gurbani. After that I start reciting mool mantar. In a few minutes, my hunger and cravings go away. I take the same approach when I am attacked by five thieves. Baba Harnaam Singh has suggested this approach in his book and it works. I also keep in mind that the anand and peacefulness that I experience from simran might get lost or impacted from eating out. Since I do not want to lose that indescribable feeling, I choose to stay hungry. Now with Guru Sahib’s kirpa I am at the point where the mere thought of eating out sends a strange yucky feeling down to my stomach that makes me feel like throwing up. I feel as if I will be throwing poison in the same body I put Amrit in the morning. I have also experienced that by keeping bibek I have to spend less time in getting my mind concentrated during simran. My suggestion would be to keep bibek for a short while (maybe 30 days or so) and see how that makes a difference. Also, increase your spiritual activities and stop all others like watching tv (if you do), internet etc. I am sure this would greatly help. The biggest boost would come if you keep yourself immersed in sangat of practicing gursikhs during this time. One common excuse I have heard against bibek is that it is an AKJ practice. While this is not true but what difference does it make if it helps you spiritually. Rehat prohibits Sikhs from having roti beti di saanjh with non-Sikhs. These are just suggestions. Rest is your choice. Guru Rakha

Karma started when creation started. It is impossible to know the very first creation but whenever this happened, the karma of life forms that could make new karma must have been equal for a very short period of time. As they thought differently from each other, they committed different actions that yielded different results. Hence, everyone’s karma became different. Karma is not just related to past life but every action committed becomes our past karma regardless of our life. Whether one knows this or not makes no difference to our goal of life. Guru Rakha

I do not know if he had met any Sikh prior to meeting Guru Sahib but since Sikhs could be found in every part of the country, I would suspect he did but probably on influence occured on him. Usage of such words and language clearly point to the influence of Guru Sahib on him. Who else did he learn Gurmat from? Keep in mind that these terms are not used in general sense but employed to convey Gurmat ideology. All words used in Gurbani have consonance in terms of meaning and interpretation. Gurbani does not have any varied teachings and principles. It strictly preaches one way of life. During the first meeting, Farid Ji obtained Naam from Guru Sahib and Gurmat way of life. Second time Guru Sahib went to Pakpattan with Bhai Mardana Ji to ensure that Sheikh Farid was living and practicing the “updesh” given to him during the first meeting. It is clearly stated in the Janamsakhis. There are some criteria for revealing Gurbani. One is if a bhagat is united with Waheguru then he can reveal Bani in the state of Vismaad. Second is if Satguru blesses someone and serves as the medium for a person to receive Bani. Bhai Satta and Balwand and Bhatts fall in the second category whereas the bhagats fall in the first one. Bhagat Farid Ji could not have received any Dhur Ki Bani without becoming united with Waheguru. Thus, he used the Gurmat terminology. Bani composed prior to union with Waheguru was not considered Gurbani by Guru Sahib and was rejected. This is why much of the bani of Bhagat Kabir Ji found in other granths and saloaks of Farid Ji remain excluded from Gurbani. Also keep in mind that the epithet Farid was not used by Shakkar Ganj. The latter was always called by his name Masuood. Hopefully, more research will be done and more information brought to light on this subject. Guru Rakha

Still, his works cannot be denounced based on his association with any particular group. Validity of an argument rests on its own credibility i.e. premises and evidence provided. Since I have studied his books, I can confidently say that his interpretation of Gurbani is correct and well within Gurmat. His interpretation is always based on one main principle: Gurbani is not contradictory. Hence, any interpretation that violates this principle is false. I never said he is the only authority but pointed out the fact that assertions made by the Hindu author have been refuted by Bhai Sahib. If there are any refutations in Taksali literature then feel free to mention them. Guru Rakha

I do not belong to that group either. Bhai Randhir Singh was a great gursikh and being a gursikh he is my elder brother. Therefore, a Sikh must listen to what an elder brother has to say on the subject. You may disagree with him but his research of Gurbani must be refuted based on rationality not by categorizing him in a group. By your logic one can denounce Taksal’s interpretation just because it comes from Taksal. This is absurd. Have you even read his books? If you do not personally like him then read Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha’s refutations to Hindu Arya Samajists. You are only hurting yourself by keeping away from Gurbani grammar. Guru Rakha

Gurbani is highly misinterpreted in that article. Bhai Randhir Singh Ji has refuted these in his books and presented correct interpretation keeping grammar and Gurbani’s message in view.

For Gurbani vichar, pad-ched is acceptable. But not for the entire saroops of Guru Sahib because it introduces errors due to human intervention. I believe pad-ched saroops must be respected otherwise all those beadbis happening in Punjab wouldn’t be considered a sacrilegious act. A Singh many years ago put it very nicely. Ladivaar is like Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and pad-ched is like Guru Sahib’s head and body separate. The latter was respected in an utmost manner by the Sikhs and such should be the attitude of Sikhs towards pad-ched today. Satguru is poora and Ladivaar keeps it poora. Guru Rakha

It is written in early Sikh history books that while compiling Aad Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Sahib called bhagats from Sachkhand to recite their Bani for inclusion. I think the early Sikhs must have been curious to find out how Bhagat Bani was included and verified for authenticity when some bhagats lived centuries before 1469. So they came up with this explanation. It eliminates any questions of bani collection and authenticity because bhagats themselves spoke their bani and Bhai Gurdas Ji wrote it. This remained the widely accepted explanation until early 19th century. When Sikhs started to write history on western lines, they sought an empirical explanation. Bunch of theories were put forth by different scholars. At the same time Bhasaurs were attacking Bhagat Bani. Prof. Sahib Singh’s arguments in defense of Bhagat Bani are revolutionary but to say that Guru Sahib collected bani of bhagats who lived hundreds of years before Guru Sahib is the most unsound argument in my opinion. As more research was done, it was found that all bhagats were contemporaries of Guru Sahib. Guru Rakha

Let me clarify it better. There are two viewpoints I listed: Bhagat Farid Ji was born in 12th century whose Bani is in Aad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Bhagats were called from Sachkhand. I personally do not agree with both but it is the first statement that puts authenticity of Gurbani in question. I did not mean that the traditional belief that bhagats were called from Sachkhand goes against authenticity of Gurbani. This is why I wrote: I personally do not agree with these (above two) viewpoints because it (the first one) opens a gateway to myriads of questions on the authenticity of Gurbani. I should’ve written it better the first time. The point I was trying to make was that some sakhis were invented due to lack of research but more research in past 100 years has given us a better understanding of history of Gurbani and bhagats. The second viewpoint is not anti-Gurmat but it is historically incorrect. I intend no disrespect to anyone. Guru Rakha

I will try to find some time to type the quotes. Farid Ji learned Persian and Arabic and this is why he could not compose anything in a foreign language (Punjabi) without praising Mohammad and Islam. Farid Saani Ji uses non-Islamic words like Gur, Saadh and Prabh. All Muslim sufis use the word Murshid but not Gur. There are different reasons for different bhagats. Some common reasons are usage of Punjabi language and many words are same as that of the rest of Gurbani. Even the grammar of bhagat bani is of the same time period. Gurbani grammar of the 9th Guru’s Bani is a little different due to difference of 60 years or so. Language changes over time. Had bhagats like Farid Ji, Kabir Ji, Namdev Ji, Jaidev Ji and Ramanand Ji been born centuries before 1469 then their language would’ve been much different. Their concepts on ideal human being, God etc. are same as Gurmat. They use Punjabi alphabets as used in Punjabi. For example, Kabir Ji uses Kakka, Khakha, Gagga etc. instead of K, Kh, G as used in Hindi. Bani of bhagats itself has similar words which points towards them being contemporaries. For example, Kabir Ji has Aarti Shabad and so does Bhagat Ravidas Ji. Bhagat Dhanna Ji has that as well. Patti Bani of Kabir Ji is similar to Guru Sahib’s Bani. Most importantly, they emphasize on adopting Satguru to obtain Naam. In Gurbani and Vaars no one but Guru Nanak Sahib is Satguru. No human is praised as a Satguru in Gurbani and no avatar is granted this status. Bhai Veer Singh and Bhai Randhir Singh are firm on this point. Further, Gurbani has unison principles and there exists unity in thought and practice which means Guru Sahib and bhagats cannot be referring to different persons as Satguru otherwise there lies a contradiction and varied teachings. Bhai Randhir Singh has discussed features and traits of Satguru very elaborately in his books. There are historical proofs in Sikh and non-Sikh sources that all the bhagats met Guru Sahib. Some bhagats were contemporaries of the 3rd Guru. Finally, Guru Sahib’s own testimony in Gurbani is the clearest proof that all bhagats were blessed by Satguru who according to Gurbani is always one, has been and ever will be. There was an article posted on this site about 6 years ago proving Bhagat Farid Ji being a Sikh of Guru Sahib. You will have to search for it. If I find a copy on my computer, I will post it. Guru Rakha

I have the book but since I did not buy it from a bookstore I cannot reveal the source. See if you can find the one published in 1973. I may be able to get my copy scanned and upload it in the future but it won’t be anytime soon. There are plenty of quotes provided in Bhagat Bani itihaas. If you require them I can type some for you. Farid Ji of 12th century was a sufi and at the time Sufis had not split into two factions. Later on, one faction advocated the policy of forced conversion and rose to prominence during Jahangir’s reign. This Nakashbandi order was the main culprit behind Guru Sahib’s martyrdom. The other faction (Mian Mir, Buddhu Shah) was more on the side of Gurmat. These days, Sunnis consider all Sufis as heretics so they are being targeted. But it doesn’t change the fact that Farid Ji converted a lot of people to Islam. When I say he was a fundamentalist, I mean in terms of following Islam in strict sense so he couldn’t have composed anything in Punjabi and used non-Muslim words. Guru Rakha

The book is called "The life and times of Shaikh Farid-u'd-din Ganj-i-Shakar". As is clear from the title, Farid of 12th century was called Ganj-i-Shakar. He was a fundamentalist and is considered father of Pakistan because he converted loads of people to Islam who later supported a separate Muslim state. His native tongue was Arabic and composed no bani. People later used his epithet in their own compositions but only his successors had the right to use it. A fundamental Muslim would praise Mohammad and would not use words like Saadh, Prabh and Gur in his compositions. This debate is more than 100 years old. Most Sikh scholars just like Sant Ji believe that Gurbani belongs to the first Farid. Sant Ji also believed in the traditional viewpoint that Bhagats were called from Sachkhand. I personally do not agree with these viewpoints because it opens a gateway to myriads of questions on the authenticity of Gurbani. I think Sikh scholars are not studying this topic seriously. Just like they are confused about Bhagat Jaidev (there have been two) and Bhagat Naamdev (there have been 3 or 4) they are also confused about Bhagat Farid Ji. Surinder Singh Kohli, Gurbachan Singh Talib, Balwant Singh Anand, Prof. Sahib Singh and Dr. Trilochan Singh have written in favor of first Farid. But I think Dr. Preetam Singh’s recent book is better than all of them yet still very weak. Nihal Singh Soori and Giani Gurdit Singh have written in favor of Farid Saani. The latter’s book, a well-researched one, is still in the market. Guru Rakha

Gurbani of Bhagat Farid Ji in Aad Guru Granth Sahib is of Sheikh Braham Farid Saani. He was the 13th successor of Farid Ganj Shakar. Every successor adopted the name Farid. There is a lot of internal evidence in Gurbani to prove this such as grammar, use of similar Punjabi words and usage of words like Gur, Saadh, Prabh which are not used by Muslims or in Islam. Also authenticity plays a big role in it. Dr. Khaliq Ahmad Nizami in his Phd thesis has proved beyond the doubt that the Bani is of Farid Saani because Farid Ganj Shakar never composed any bani. This fact is accepted by descendants of Farid Ji (Farid Gharana). Read Bhagat Bani Itihaas by Giani Gurdit Singh. Guru Rakha

No single rehat can be or should be evaluated in a vacuum. Rehat is a big package and all rehats are connected to each other. Bibek is one of those rehats. Every physical act that we do has a spiritual impact to some extent. For this reason Guru Sahib gave us rehat such as not to look at women with lustful eyes, listening to Gurbani only, doing good things with hands and going to Gurdwara instead of clubs and bars. This is why external rehat is very important but it is not fruitful if not combined with internal rehat. Eating food from Amritdharis only is not brahminism because it is not a matter of superiority but matter of how food is prepared that is acceptable to a spiritual human being. Gurbani says that any food that brings “vikaar” or impacts mind to fall under the influence of five vices should not be consumed. Hence, food prepared by non-Amritdhari will have effects of vikaars because they do not adhere to Gurmat standard of preparing food. Take an example of Amrit. It is prepared by five rehatvaan gursikhs while reading Gurbani, concentrating fully on Amrit and then making an Ardaas. Five non-Amritdharis can follow the same rehat but they cannot make an Amrit simply because they lack rehat in their own lifestyle and they do not have the Guru’s authority. Guru Ka Langar is also prepared by gursikhs in similar way otherwise it is not acceptable. Degh prepared by a non-Amritdhari is not acceptable in Gurdwara. Since, every house of a gursikh is ‘dharamshaal’ then food prepared in it must be Guru Ka Langar. It follows that it must be cooked following the same maryada. This is why every gursikh is told not to have roti beti di saanjh with “sir gum” (monay), “nari maar” (those who take intoxicants), “kuri maar” (those who practice female infanticide), and dehdharis (those who follow human gurus). This rehat is always given at Amrit sanchaar. I do not know why this is widely ignored by gursikhs these days. Gursikhs are not supposed to eat food for taste only but to satisfy huger needs. This is why Guru Sahib in Gurbani gives the hukam to eating and sleeping less. Gursikhs are not supposed to eat food prepared by monay because they do not recite Gurbani and instead engage in idle gossip and slandering. Eating out is worse because those making food may not be washing hands after a smoke or restroom break. Mind of those who eat such food gets affected from such misdeeds. It definitely has a spiritual impact. Even if monay follow the complete rehat, it is still not acceptable because it is not guru ka langar so why should a Sikh eat food that is not accepted to Guru Sahib? When I say only food prepared by Amritdharis should be consumed, I do not mean those who take Amrit and never keep rehat. They are hypocrites and manmukhs. A gursikh by default keeps rehat otherwise he/she is not a gursikh. This is why bibekis always keep caution and do not eat food prepared by those whom they do not know because a person externally may look like a complete gursikh but may not be one in actual sense. Remember, Ajit Poohla looked like a real nihung. An interesting point was brought up regarding Guru Sahib keeping bibek. While it is true that Guru Sahib leads by example, it does not mean that He must be held to the same standard. Guru Sahib cannot get affected by any type of food but this is not to say that He never kept bibek. In fact, in Guru Nanak Chamatkaar Bhai Veer Singh clearly writes in many sakhis that Guru Sahib did not accept just anyone’s food but only from those who had reformed themselves to follow the true path. Guru Sahib would give Naam to a devotee and then eat food prepared by him. Guru Sahib rejected the food of Bhoomiya thief but when he became a Sikh, his food was accepted. Guru Hargobind Ji ate food prepared by a Sikh who earned his bread by hard honest work. Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not accept water from someone who had never done seva and in one sakhi did not eat food from someone who had not taken Amrit. Since all Gurus are the same spirit, it means that Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not do anything against Sikhi and followed the same principles taught by previous Gurus. This means all preceding nine Gurus must have kept bibek. The point being that an Amritdhari is supposed to earn his living through honest means and follow rehat. This means not selling tobacco, liquor or meat. When all Sikhs start doing this, we will not see few groups of Sikhs not eating from other Amridharis or at Gurdwaras. Bibek must be kept along with all other rehats such as simran, seva etc. We all need to understand rehat first and not criticize other gursikhs for following more rehat. We should not justify our weakness by demeaning those who keep full rehat because rehat pleases Guru Sahib. It is up to us how much we want to follow rehat. Those who do not want to keep bibek are welcomed to do so but please do not criticize other gursikhs for it. They do not do it due to superirotiy but to please Guru Sahib. Guru Rakha

Hari Ram Gupta is very prejudiced and biased in his books. He doesn’t accurately present the Sikh history of Guru Period and early 18th century. I couldn’t read his last 3 volumes because first 2 were more than enough to show how he misquoted many sources, twisted facts, added his own remarks and rejected some of the accepted ones. I’d recommend books by Sohan Singh Seetal, Prem Singh Hoti and Dr. Ganda Singh as best sources to study Sikh history of early 19th century. Even during Akali Phoola Singh, Nihungs never numbered to 32,000 in any battle. I think nangs are making up stories in a desperate attempt to have a claim at the glory. In 100 years they will state that there were many thousand nihungs in Harimandar Sahib in 1984 fighting against the Indian army. Guru Rakha

Others in this topic have also stated the same but you have failed to provide any evidence. Randomness is not a valid answer. Since you have ignored my question every time let me pose the same question differently. If past karma carries no weight then why does a human with bad karma gets birth in lower species i.e. animals, insects etc.? What is the basis of one getting human birth and one an animal one? Pick up Teeka of Prof. Sahib Singh and see how he interprets “Poorab Karam”. His interpretation is widely accepted. I agree she is hurting her baby and she will suffer for her karma but you di dnot prove how past karma does not affect past life. When life begins is a separate topic and irrelevant. I never claimed to be a mahapurakh. You can tell kids born in brothels that they have an equal opportunity as a kid born in a rich family. Whereas I would say that their birth was due to their past life but they can always change it by following Gurmat. Everything happens according to Hukam. As Gurbani says “Hukamay Andar Sabh Ko”. I never claimed that natural disasters occur due to karma. It is solely your assumption. I accept God as He is described in Gurbani. He is the most just and fairest of all. He is so loving that He even feeds all types of sinners. He is without hatred and enmity. He is full of love which makes Him fair and just. Can you provide any evidence that He is unfair? Still you did not address the pankti. How could one claim to believe in Gurbani and ignore it at the same point? I agree but this is not the subject. What is the basis of birth and different lifestyle if past karma has no significance? Stating “I think” makes it clear that you lack confidence in Gurbani. Your statement is false again just like all others. Gurbani is clear when it says ਜਨਮ ਜਨਮ ਕੇ ਕਾਟੇ ਕਾਗਰ ॥ It refers to all previous lives not just this one. In case of this life only it would not have word “Janam” twice and it would be singular instead of plural. Anyone can change their karma by following Gurmat but this does not negate the fact that past karma serves as the basis for many events of present life. There is a famous sakhi of a Sikh of Guru Nanak Sahib who due to sangat was able to reduce his karma from death sentence to just a mere bruise. It is written in Guru Nanak Chamatkaar by Bhai Veer Singh. You can study Gurmat Karam Philosophy by Bhai Randhir Singh. What a way to run away when you have no answers. I never claimed to be of a high spirituality. I have given you direct answers. You are the one who keeps arguing while at the same time admitting to have no evidence. A believer of Gurmat knows Gurbani and provides a reference to it whereas you have presented no shabad to prove that past karma plays no role in present life. And when confronted with Gurbani you attempted to ignore it. I guess you can keep living in your bubble. Guru Rakha