ਵੇਦਾ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਉਤਮੁ

[Bijla Singh]

ਵੇਦਾ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਉਤਮੁ ਸੋ ਸੁਣਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਜਿਉ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ॥

The above pankti is usually translated as: "In the Vedas, the ultimate objective is the Naam, the Name of the Lord; but they do not hear this, and they wander around like demons."

The entire pauri is about wasting this precious life in rituals and maya. The translation does not fit in the context or with the rest of Gurbani. Wherever a person wasting his life is mentioned in Gurbani, seeking the guidance of Satguru is recommended. I have come across a better translation by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha in Hum Hindu Nahin. According to him, the correct way to read this pankti is:

ਵੇਦਾ ਮਹਿ, ਨਾਮੁ ਉਤਮੁ ਸੋ ਸੁਣਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ, ਫਿਰਹਿ ਜਿਉ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ॥

Meaning - ਨਾਮੁ ਉਤਮੁ ਸੋ ਸੁਣਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ, ਵੇਦਾ ਮਹਿ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ਜਿਉ ਫਿਰਹਿ

Those who do not listen to the supreme Naam, wonder about in Vedas and

ਕਹੈ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਜਿਨ ਸਚੁ ਤਜਿਆ ਕੂੜੇ ਲਾਗੇ ਤਿਨੀ ਜਨਮੁ ਜੂਐ ਹਾਰਿਆ ॥੧੯॥

Nanak says, those who abandon the truth (Naam) and cling to falsehood lose their lives in the waste (gamble).

The entire pauri talks about people who appear "nirmal" or pure from outside but they are impure from inside because they are attached to maya, worldly pleasures and wonder about in Vedas. Next pauri talks about being pure inside. It would be beneficial to note what Vedas overall talk about:

Rig Veda - talks about worshipping three devtas Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv.

Saam Veda - talks about rituals like havans and shraadhs.

Yajur Veda - talks about sacrifices of animals and humans to gods.

Athrav Veda - talks about ghosts and spirits.

All Vedas support eating of beef. Before Buddhism's downfall Hindu weddings were not considered complete unless a groom ate beef.

If anyone insists that Vedas have Naam then please specify which Vedas on which page talks about getting Naam. What is this Naam and how can one obtain it? What is the process? If Vedas give Naam then why aren't they consider Satguru and why were they rejected by Guru Sahib? Why didn't Guru Sahib preach the Naam of Vedas?

I have talked to some katha vaachaks from different backgrounds (including Taksal) and no one interpreted the word "Vedas" as referring to Hindu Vedas. All claimed that the word means "books of divine knowledge". This is also true

Really the books are not Vedas; Vedas means divine knowledge. He, who gains the knowledge and attains the sublime stage, can be called the knower of Vedas. (Brahat Parasar Sanheeta, Part 4)

Gurbani also uses the word Ved to refer to divine knowledge:

ਅਹਰਣਿ ਮਤਿ ਵੇਦੁ ਹਥੀਆਰੁ ॥

But the problem remains in the pauri of Anand Sahib. The meanings become "Books of divine knowledge contain Naam". Which book is the source of "Naam" and what is its name? Who wrote it and when? How do we get this Naam? If Guru Sahib knew about these books then he would've mentioned their names and preached that Naam. The fact is that Guru Sahib praises importance of Naam in Anand Sahib and rejects Vedas as the true books. Therefore, it is a must to become a guru wala Sikh and obtain Naam to get salvation.

[kam1825]

Bijla Singh can i ask where you are getting your meanings from because they contradict the meanings from the Faridkot, Nirmala Texts, Sampardai Teekas and Sant Giani Gurbachan Singh ji's Katha

[kam1825]

Another thing you have written about the context of the Vedas but have you actually read them as you have not written abything abou the Gian Khands and the Mahavakyas that are also contained within Gurbani and the Jap Ji Sahib

[ghorandhar]

Bijla Singh can i ask where you are getting your meanings from because they contradict the meanings from the Faridkot, Nirmala Texts, Sampardai Teekas and Sant Giani Gurbachan Singh ji's Katha

Veer jee thanks for another excellent post.

Veer Kam Jee I think the third paragraph will give you your answer.

[PAL 07]

bijla singh....you state in your first post in this thread that the Vedas are not real etc .etc.........but if you look at Dakhni Oangkaar

the first shabad talks about who the author of the vedas is......just looking at all your post i can just critically appraise your views so easily and i'm not even a vidvaan........yes the bhai kahn singh interpretation u have provided is fine but this is not the mukh arth.......you should not portray that the Gurus were extremist, all the Guru teaches is that Gurmat is higher than all the other religious scriptures , SriGuru does not call these false.......Gurbani states donot call anything bad these are all done by God NINDO NAHEE KAHO BATA ...so how can u claim that Guru is calling vedkatebh false. i request you only represent orthodox sikhi in your posts and so not confuse people and create extremism

IM NOT GONNA ARGUE ANYMORE WITH U

THE END

[Bijla Singh]

Bijla Singh can i ask where you are getting your meanings from because they contradict the meanings from the Faridkot, Nirmala Texts, Sampardai Teekas and Sant Giani Gurbachan Singh ji's Katha

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha's book Hum Hindu Nahin. His interpretation is correct because it does not contradict rest of Gurbani and Gurmat principles.

Another thing you have written about the context of the Vedas but have you actually read them as you have not written abything abou the Gian Khands and the Mahavakyas that are also contained within Gurbani and the Jap Ji Sahib

Because Khands or Vedas have nothing to do with the pauri in Anand Sahib. That's a different topic. I have not read the Vedas nor do I have to because I trust Guru Sahib fully and He rejected them. Other scholars have rejected them. I do not have to reinvent the wheel. Guru Sahib says Vedas will not give muktee and are not eternal which means Naam (which is eternal) is not within them. I will have to go with what Guru Sahib says. I reject them because Guru Sahib rejected them.

You are free to disagree but I would like to know if you have any valid reasons as to why sampardaic meanings are correct and Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha is wrong. It would be great if you can provide some info. Guru Rakha

[khalistan_zindabaad]

how about changing the sampardai picture then bilja singh and put one of kahn singh nabha

[xHarinder_singh]

Naam is way way way above Maya. Maya is AFRAID of Naam. Vedaas deal with Maya. One cannot get Naam from Vedaas. Naam can only be achieved from Satgur jee.

Guru Nanak Dev Jee Maharaaj is the HIGHEST SATGURU

[fatehe]

The Nirmala, Nanaksariya and those in line with Vedic thinking will say Guru Nanak is the highest Satguru.

The highest Satguru is Ik Oankaar who is Nir-akaar. Who is Pragat in the Shabad to give Prakaash to this Duniya about the Roohaniyat. Guru Nanak received the Gurshabad and preached it.

A person is a Moorakh according to Gurbani who calls the body a Guru. The Shabad inside Guru Nanak is the Guru.

[xHarinder_singh]

The Nirmala, Nanaksariya and those in line with Vedic thinking will say Guru Nanak is the highest Satguru.

The highest Satguru is Ik Oankaar who is Nir-akaar. Who is Pragat in the Shabad to give Prakaash to this Duniya about the Roohaniyat. Guru Nanak received the Gurshabad and preached it.

A person is a Moorakh according to Gurbani who calls the body a Guru. The Shabad inside Guru Nanak is the Guru.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

ik means ikankaar saroop of God and onkaaar is onkaar saroop of God. AFter God comes Satgur, after that comes Satguru Nanak Dev Jee Maharaaj Jee.

Guru Nanak Dev jee is not BODY. The shabad is NOT GURU. Shabad is GUR MOORAT.

The Nirmala, Nanaksariya and those in line with Vedic thinking will say Guru Nanak is the highest Satguru.

The highest Satguru is Ik Oankaar who is Nir-akaar. Who is Pragat in the Shabad to give Prakaash to this Duniya about the Roohaniyat. Guru Nanak received the Gurshabad and preached it.

A person is a Moorakh according to Gurbani who calls the body a Guru. The Shabad inside Guru Nanak is the Guru.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

ik means ikankaar saroop of God and onkaaar is onkaar saroop of God. AFter God comes Satgur, after that comes Satguru Nanak Dev Jee Maharaaj Jee.

Guru Nanak Dev jee is not BODY. The shabad is NOT GURU. Shabad is GUR MOORAT.