This man Karminder is a malaysian missionary parasite. He is a nindak of everything from Sri Dasme Patshah's granth Sahib to naam simran to every single sakhi there is on Sikhi.
That should be the least of your concerns brother. Focus on the lies coming out his mouth first.
Read this rebuttal I wrote some years ago to his Babur Bani lies: (https://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/19698-sick-parasite-network-spn-ਜੈਸੀ-ਮੈ-ਆਵੈ-ਖਸਮ-ਕੀ-ਬਾਣੀ/
(It is quite long)
This is another shabad that has come on the Sick Parasite Network, written by a learned doctor of that site - "Dr Karminder Dhillon." He is a great inspiration to his pet rat aman, who is an admin on that site, and is always looking to host his mentors thoughts on that forum.
I want to have a look at some of this great doctors thoughts and add my own thoughts to it. I will be posting the great doctors thoughts in black and my own in blue so readers can distinguish.
Dr Karminder starts by saying " Shabd is composed by Guru Nanak ji in Tilang Rag and is recorded on page 722 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji."
This Shabd stands high on the list of “wrongly translated Shabds."
I always wonder how did the Panth manage to follow the wrong translations for centuries until Sikhs of Dr karminders calibre were born to take us out of the darkness and into the light.
The Shabd is further (wrongly) described as “Babbur Vanee” by many translators. Babbur Vanee means it is composed for and narrated to Mogul conqueror Babur. Babur Vanee further means it predicts the end of the Mogul rule in India. - Babar Bani is just an informal title given to it, to distinguish it from the other shabads. When we hear the name "Babar Bani" then we understand it to be talking about this particular shabad. That is all. There is no conspiracy. Just as the "Lavan" shabads haven't been given the title of "Lavan Bani" but whenever we talk about the "Lavan" it is clearly understood that we are talking about which shabads. Similarly there are many shabads by Guru Nanak Dev Ji which are addressed with the word "Vanjara" in them. These also are not titled "Vanjara banis" but we understand them to be about the Vanjara shabads of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
You can see from the above thoughts of the great doctor, the depth of intellect, and the reasons why he is has god-like status on Sick Parasite Network.
Then the great doctor goes on to write "Gurbani is Sarab Sanji; by which is meant it is NEVER occasion, location, era or person specific. This means that while Gurbani is always composed at some location, may be composed to draw from specific occasions, and may be uttered in the presence of person or persons – the composition is NEVER MEANT for any specific location, any particular occasion or for a certain person(s).
ALL of Gurbani is composed for use in ALL locations, ALL occasions, ALL eras and ALL persons. Gurbani is spiritual in nature and meant for the WHOLE of humanity throughout time.
Specifying Gurbani for specific locations, occasions and person(s) is a human failing. It arises from our failure to explore the true spiritual messages of Gurbani. It originates out of our folly of wanting to understand Gurbani only in the literal sense."
Here is the doctor is partially correct. Gurbani is spiritual in nature and meant for the whole of humanity throughout time. However Gurbani is not restricted from, neither does it abandon the "uthanka" or background to such writings. Gurbani has many levels, and the historical aspect of Gurbani is also valid. Coming back on the great doctors thought that Gurbani is never occasion, location era or person specific, I would like to bring these lines of shabads to the reader so they can see if doctor karminder is correct.:
ਫਰੀਦਾ ਪੰਖ ਪਰਾਹੁਣੀ ਦੁਨੀ ਸੁਹਾਵਾ ਬਾਗੁ ॥
Bhagat Farid Ji Maharaj bani starts a lot with "Farida" where he is telling/educating himself. Did BHagat Ji tell these with others in mind? Possibly but the immediate instruction is to himself. So in the first instance this gurbani and many others of Bhagat Ji are person specific. But when we read them are WE telling Bhagat Farid what he must do, in order to find God?"
ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
Aasaa, Fifth Mehla:
ਪ੍ਰਥਮੇ ਮਤਾ ਜਿ ਪਤ੍ਰੀ ਚਲਾਵਉ ॥
First, they advised me to send a letter.
ਦੁਤੀਏ ਮਤਾ ਦੁਇ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਪਹੁਚਾਵਉ ॥
Second, they advised me to send two men.
ਤ੍ਰਿਤੀਏ ਮਤਾ ਕਿਛੁ ਕਰਉ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥
Third, they advised me to make the effort and do something.
ਮੈ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤੁਹੀ ਧਿਆਇਆ ॥੧॥
But I have renounced everything, and I meditate only on You, God. ||1||
This shabad by Guru Arjan Dev Ji Maharaj is person specific. Which Sikh who has read this shabad sent a letter and then subsequently two men? To whom did he send them?
ਕਹਤ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਸੁਨਹੁ ਤਿਲੋਚਨ ਬਾਲਕੁ ਪਾਲਨ ਪਉਢੀਅਲੇ ॥
Says Naam Dayv, listen, O Trilochan: the child is laid down in the cradle.
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਕਾਜ ਬਿਰੂਧੀ ਚੀਤੁ ਸੁ ਬਾਰਿਕ ਰਾਖੀਅਲੇ ॥੪॥੧॥
Its mother is at work, inside and outside, but she holds her child in her thoughts. ||4||1||
Here Bhagat Ji is addressing Bhagat Trilochan directly.
It's still a lesson that we as humans use, but the fact is that it is not addressed to us all at that specific time. It was specifically to one person.
ਮੇਰੇ ਸਿਖ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਪੁਤ ਭਾਈਹੋ ਮੇਰੈ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਣਾ ਆਉ ਮੈ ਪਾਸਿ ਜੀਉ ॥
Listen O my Sikhs, my children and Siblings of Destiny; it is my Lord's Will that I must now go to Him.
ਹਰਿ ਭਾਣਾ ਗੁਰ ਭਾਇਆ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਕਰੇ ਸਾਬਾਸਿ ਜੀਉ ॥
The Guru gladly accepted the Lord's Will, and my Lord God applauded Him.
So when we read the above lines from Ramkali Sadd, are we assuming the title and rank of Guru? Or is it Sunder saying it for a specific moment in the Guru's Life?
From the above few lines it is apparent that Gurbani does not share Doctor karminders views of what gurbani should be.
The great doctor karminder then writes :
"We shall start by looking at the final verse
ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਆਖੈ ਸਚੁ ਸੁਣਾਇਸੀ ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬੇਲਾ ॥ ੨ ॥ Sach Kee Banee Nanak Akhey Sach Sunayesee Sach Kee Bella.
Sach – The Creator. Sach Kee Banee – God Connecting Banee. Akhey – Pronounces. Sunayesee – Discourses. Bella – Time. Sach Kee Bella – Creator Given Time; Lifetime as Given by the Creator; ALL times, forever.
Nanak Pronounces God Connecting Banee and Conducts Godly Discourse at every God Given Moment."
This is entirely his own interpretation. How do we know this is wrong? Because Guru Sahib conducted his life in as one whole given moment in God. But yet Guru Sahib still slept, travelled, worked etc. During these times how was Guru Sahib conducting Godly discourse? Guru Sahib only conducted Godly discourse at certain times and places.
Lets look at Prof Sahib Singh's interpretation:
ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ = ਸਦਾ ਕਾਇਮ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ। ਆਖੈ = ਆਖਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਚਾਰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸੁਣਾਇਸੀ = ਸੁਣਾਂਦਾ ਰਹੇਗਾ, ਉਚਾਰਦਾ ਰਹੇਗਾ, ਆਖਦਾ ਰਹੇਗਾ। ਬੇਲਾ = ਸਮਾ, ਮਨੁੱਖਾ ਜਨਮ ਦਾ ਸਮਾ। ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬੇਲਾ = ਸਿਮਰਨ, ਸਿਫ਼ਤ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਦਾ ਹੀ ਇਹ ਸਮਾ ਹੈ ॥੨॥੩॥੫॥
(ਜੀਵ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਰੰਗ ਵਿਚ ਮਸਤ ਹੋ ਕੇ ਉਮਰ ਅਜਾਈਂ ਗਵਾ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ) ਨਾਨਕ ਤਾਂ (ਇਸ ਵੇਲੇ ਭੀ) ਸਦਾ ਕਾਇਮ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ, (ਸਾਰੀ ਉਮਰ ਹੀ) ਇਹ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਕਰਦਾ ਰਹੇਗਾ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਇਹ ਮਨੁੱਖਾ ਜਨਮ ਦਾ ਸਮਾ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਹੀ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਹੈ ॥੨॥੩॥੫॥
Faridkoti teeka translates it as :
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਹਤੇ ਹੈਂ ਸਚੇ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ (ਬਾਣੀ) ਹੁਕਮੁ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣ ਂਧੁਰਿ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਆਈਂ (ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬੇਲਾ) ਸਚੇ ਨਾਮੁ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਕੀ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਮੇਂ ਸਵੇਰੇ ਸੋ ਸਚ ਹੀ ਅਸੀ ਸੁਣਾਂਵਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਔ ਸੁਣਾਵੈਂਗੇ॥੨॥੫॥
Dr Sant Singh Khalsa in english translates this as :
Nanak speaks the Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this, the right time. ||2||3||5||
Now what karminder is saying is somewhat based on these but he gives a confused message to the reader. "Nanak Pronounces God Connecting Banee..." since when did Guru Nanak pronounce any bani that wasn't god connecting? karminder is trying to confuse the reader by saying that Guru Sahib at times, prounced gurbani that wasn't god-connecting.
Dr. Karminder Singh Dhillion Phd(Boston) then further writes about the whole shabad and towards the end says :
ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥ Avan Athathrey Jaan Satanvey Hor Bhee Uthsee Marad Ka Chela.
Avan – Coming. Athathrey – 78. Jaan – Goes. Satanvey – 97. Hor – More, Many, Others. Bhee – Also. Uthsee – Raise, Come to the forefront. Marad – Male, Masculine, Man-liness. Chela – Disciple, Follower, Subscriber.
This is the verse that has been subject to a great deal of wrong translations. A Commentary is therefore necessary to first critique the existing faulty translations.
The (wrong) translation is: Coming in seventy-eight (1578 Sammat, 1521 A.D.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1597 Sammat, 1540 A.D.), and then another disciple of man will rise up. (Sant Singh MD D Translation.)
Other translators – Prof Sahib Singh, and Manmohan Singh mention Emperor Babur as coming in 1578 and being defeated by Sher Shah Suree in 1597.
The Fareedkot Vedic Teeka says “the Moghuls will come in 1578 and go in 1597 and that the “Mard Ka Chela” refers to Guru Gobind Singh ji.
All the above translators translate the words ATHUTREY (78) and SATANVEY (97) to mean 1579 and 1597 Bikarmee.
How the 15 came to be added is anyone’s guess. Because 15 is NOT mentioned in the Verse, If we want to add 15 on our own, why not 1478 and 1479? Or 1678 and 1679?
After “assuming” that 79 and 97 is 1579 and 1597 Sammat respectively the years are then converted by the translators from Bikarmee (Indian calendar) to the western year 1521 and 1540 AD.
Then the translators say these are the years Babur came to Saidpur 1521 AD (where the massacre took place) and that Babur WILL GO in 1540 AD."
According to the great daktors thinking, the translation including the "15" is wrong. I can't beleive how Boston is handing out PHD willy nilly. I should get one. The text in Gurbani says 78 and 97 but if we are reading or understanding this 5 centuries later we need to add that "15" to know what time period we are talking about. For example, when we talk about partition now, we can just refer to it as 47. As I ask old people "Where you alive in 47?" Everyone knows that this is a direct reference to 1947 because 2047 hasn't happened yet. But in 500 years time will people still refer to it as 47? No, because it will not be clear. They will refer to it as 1947. The commentators on this line of Gurbani have correctly added the 15 to make it clearer for the reader. So the great PHD doctor starts off on a very weak foot here.
"SEVEN BASIC things are WRONG with such translations.
1) They show Guru Nanak making a PREDICTION of worldly matters (that Babar or Mogul Raj WILL go in 1540 AD). Our Gurus never do such. Predicting the future is not a Gurmat Principle."
Predicting the future for a Sikh is not gurmat principle, but for the Guru it is no effort. Guru Sahib has correctly told of the going of (end of) the moghals. So given that this shabad is focused entirely on an actual historical event, seen in the first person by the Guru, and written about factually by the Guru, it is unable to be refuted by the great PHD doctor karminder that it is against gurmat principles. We Sikhs are not the same as the Guru. Guru Gobind Singh Ji drew his sword and asked for 5 heads. Why don't Sikhs do that same thing now when doing khande ki pahul sinchar? Simple. We are Sikhs, the Guru is the Guru.
"2) Such translations make spiritually rich Gurbani into a ocassion specific “historical” narrative. This is never the nature of Gurbani. Gurbani is SARAB SANJHEE – for ALL ocassion, all persons, all locations etc. Most importantly Gurbani is spiritual."
This has been answered above in the composition of Ramkali Sadd. Ramkali Sadd IS a specific historical narrative. So it is very apparent that Doctor Karminder Dhillon PHD Boston is wrong. The majority of Gurbani is spiritual but not all.
"3) Such translations portray Guru Nanak as inconsistent. The translator says Guru Nanak depicts the “CRUELTY of Babur to innocent women and children” and YET calls BABUR as a MARD !! How is Babur an invader a MARD? And whose CHELA? What’s so MARD about massacring innocent people?"
Mard in persian means "man." That is all. Guru Sahib describes Babar as a man. Nothing else regarding his military prowess, personal habits, political standing etc. Chela means follower. All Guru Sahib is stating here is that one of Babar's followers will take his place.
"4) Such translations makes it seem that Guru Nanak got his history wrong !!!
Babur entered India in 1526 AD. The battle of Panipat took place in 1526. That’s the year he becomes emperor. So the massacre in Saidpur was AFTER 1526.
The year 1521 AD for ATHUTREY by the translator is off by 5 years! How could Guru Nanak have made this mistake?
Babur died on Dec 26 1530. So the year 1540 AD for ATHANVEY (the year Babur left Saidpur !!) is off by 10 years!! He was already in his grave."
The first thing to note here is the Gurbani mentions no names. The line is " ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ." There is no reference to Babar in name but as the shabad tells us the "wedding party" came from Khorasan at the same time Babar did, we know it is refering to Babur and his Mongol army. All the Gurbani tells us is that "they came in 78 (1521) and will return in 1540. So this has nothing to do with the lifetime of Babur itself. That is a very important thing to note here. This is where the PHD Boston of Karminder Dhillon has erred.
Babur actually entered Panjab way before in 1519 according to his autobiography. He scored victories and took some land but then had to return to Kabul to quell a rebellion there. His meagre force left in Panjab was then defeated in an uprising. He re-entered Panjab in 1521. The sacking of Saidpur was in 1526. It could hardly be called a battle. There was feeble or no resistance at all. Babur had used Saidpur as a warning to those who stood in his way. he made an example of Saipur to show the rulers of Hindustan his ruthlessness.
The Rt Hon Doctor karminder dhillon PHD Boston then writes: "The shabd is wholly spiritual. It uses multiple metaphors – marriage, junj, joree, daan, mighty human beings, power full beings etc etc. Guru ji also used IDIOMS. We need to understand the context of these metaphors and get to the spiritual messages. That is how we interpreted the entire Shabd as above.
This particular verse is NO EXCEPTION.
In English we may say SCORES come and DOZENS go. One score is 20. And one dozen is 12. This means whatever is being referred to comes and goes APLENTY.
IT DOES NOT mean someone particular came in 1820 and went in 1912!!!!
In our everyday language we say SAU AIYE TEY SAU GAYEY. SAU is one hundred. Or TEREY VARGEY KAYEE HAZAAR DEKHEY. Or TEREY VARGEY CHATEE (36) AIYEY.
These numbers are used idiomatically to portray unspecific multitudes. The shabd uses the numbers BOTH idiomatically to portray MULTITIDES and poetically to be within the poetic confines of the verses before and after.
ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥ Avan Athathrey Jaan Satanvey Hor Bhee Uthsee Marad Ka Chela.
Avan – Coming. Athathrey – 78, metaphor for unspecified multiples. Jaan – Goes. Satanvey – 97; metaphor for unspecific multiples. Hor – More, Many, Others. Bhee – Also. Uthsee – Raise, Come to the forefront. Marad – Male, Masculine. Chela – Disciple, Follower, Believer, Worshipper.
Unspecified Multiples Will Come and Multiple More Will Depart as Worshippers of Masculine Prowess. (Yet the Hukm of the Creator Will Remain as Permanent). "
To me, this just sums up the clutching of straws to build up a straw man argument. Using a specific non rounded number is NOT part of everyday talk. We use, and indeed Gurbani uses numbers like a hundred, thousands, and lakhs etc. But it never uses numbers like 78, 97, 146, 2685, 743872 etc. Using rounded numbers to portray a particular aspect or point is normal in any language.
But to try and use "78" and "97" for unspecified numbers is just nonsensical. But those rats like that admin aman on SPN live for this kind of nonsense.
The great doctor then ends with some of his musings on what gurbani should be with : "COMMENT ON THE NOTION OF SARAB SANJHEE BANEE.
When we say Gurbanee is NEVER occasion, location, time or person specific – we are saying the messages are NOT meant for a particular location, occasion, time or individual. We are saying ALL of Gurbani is meant for ALL of humanity for ALL times."
Again this is not bourne out by the inclusion of Ramkali Sadd. Although there is great teachings in that shabad for the benefit of humankind, there is no denying that the writing was an occasion and person specific event.
I wonder why it is, that these PHD's and ilk feel that there is a need to distort each and every aspect of Gurmat to their own particular thoughts. We had Angy on here some months ago doing it, and they have no shame in doing it.
Plenty have. I have on Sick Parasite Network, but they only ban you when barmy karmy is exposed.
Did you? And what did you find ?