Idols In Darbar Sahib

[Bijla Singh]

Manni shouldn't they provide references as well? These 20^th century so-called "scholars" base their arguments on their own opinions not hard facts.

....the lines between who is hindu and who is sikh were a lot more blurred during and immediately after the (sikh) gurus times on earth, than they are today.

False. While Gurbani, Vaars, Rehatnamas clearly state who a Sikh is not a single source exists that defines who a Hindu is. A Sikh is someone who follows hukam of True Guru. True Guru is Gurbani or Shabad. Hukam is rehat or message of Guru. I will give few references.

ਸੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਖਾ ਬੰਧਪੁ ਹੈ ਭਾਈ ਜਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਭਾਣੇ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਵੈ ॥ (Ang 601)

ਸੇ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਧਨੁ ਧੰਨੁ ਹੈ ਜਿਨੀ ਗੁਰ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਕੰਨੀ ॥ (Ang 590)

ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖੁ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥16॥ (Vaar)

ਰਹਿਤ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਨਹਿ ਸਿਖ ਕਹਾਵੈ ॥ ਰਹਿਤ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਦਰ ਚੋਟਾਂ ਖਾਵੈ ॥

ਰਹਿਤ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਸੁਖ ਕਬਹੁੰ ਨ ਲਹੇ ॥ ਤਾਂ ਤੇ ਰਹਿਤ ਸੁ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ ਕਰ ਰਹੈ ॥ (Rehatnama)

Plenty more references can be give explaining what rehat is who a Sikh is and who the true Guru is. Guru Sahib started a distinct path and defined it clearly. However, word Hindu is not found in Vedas, Puranas, Simartis, Ramayan, Mahabharat, Upnishds etc. Word Hindu was given by foreigners to Indians. Read what it really means:

1. R. N. Suryanarayan, in Universal Religion, pages 1-2, (published from Mysore in 1952) commented:

The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this [brahminland], a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term "Hindu."

This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means "the black of the sky and Saturn."

In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.

2. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ed., in his introduction of Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, Lahore, 1898, said:

Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.

Further, in addition to "black" and "slave", Persian and Urdu dictionaries describe other demeaning or contemptuous meaning of "Hindu":

Persian Dictionary - Lughet-e-Kishwari, Lucknow, 1964: chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave).

Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, part 1, p. 615: Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter); Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).

Persian-Punjabi Dictionary (Punjabi University Patiala): native of Indian subcontinent, dacoit, waylayer, thief, slave, black, idol, beloved.

It is clear that word Hindu is not a religious term. It has no religious definition. Some worship idols some don't, some take rounds around fire some don't, some believe in Vedas some don't yet all are termed as Hindus which means it has nothing to do with religion. Word Sikh has a religious definition. So I say no we are not "black or slaves". We are Sikhs of the Guru.

Hindus from the Punjab who under the leadership of Guru Gobind Singh took up arms against the mughals, adorned the five kakkars of the guru, and took amrit would describe themselves as Khalsa - (PURE), rather than sikh.

ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਖ਼ਾਸ ਕਹਾਵੈ ਸੋਈ ਜਾਂ ਕੇ ਹਿਰਦੇ ਭਰਮ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥

ਭਰਮ ਭੇਖ ਤੇ ਰਹੈ ਨਿਆਰਾ ਸੋ ਖ਼ਾਲਸ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਹਮਾਰਾ ॥ (Rehatnama)

There is not a single evidence to prove the above statement. Hindus took up arms? This must be a joke. Hindus joined Mughals and fought against Guru Sahib. These Hindus were hill kings (22 in number) and all of them were against the Sikhs. A Hindu was responsible for children of Guru Sahib's arrest and a Hindu was responsible for their sentence which was to brick them alive. This shows Hindus held high positions and were against Sikhs so much so that they went as far as having young Sikh children killed brutally. Sikh holocaust which resulted in 10,000 Sikhs killed was due to Hindu Lakhpat Rai. Chandu and Bhagwaan Das were Hindus who conspired against Guru Arjan Dev Ji and had him tortured. Those who took Amrit became Sikhs and did not remain Hindus because they stopped idol worship, believing in hindu scriptures and abandoned their caste system.

When the fighting was over they would go back to their day to day duties and carry on with their Hindu rituals and festivals such as Diwali, rakhri, lohri and vaisakhi.

False. Sikhs always stayed at Anandpur Sahib when war was over. Can hindus provide names of these "hindu army men"? Most Sikhs were from lower castes who were not even considered part of the society. Lohri and Rakhi have nothing to do with Sikhism.

..they saw no contradictions in doing so either.....therfore it would be of no surprise that the eldest son of a Hindu family would join the Khalsa army whilst at the same time retaining his Hindu identity /religion during these times.

Hindu families started raising their first son as a Sikh for the sole purpose of getting benefits from the British government by enrolling him in the army. Sikhs had special privileges while Hindus did not. This happened in British Empire. Why Hindus are not doing the same now? During Mughal Empire whoever became a Sikh was abandoned by his family members. They thought of him as their dead son because he had become a Sikh. Read Ajmer Singh's book "Ik Gulaami Ton Dooji Gulaami" in which he explains this in details.

inter marriage was not seen as an obstacle either and was infact encouraged along the same caste lines....

Rehatnamas are clear that a Sikh must marry a Sikh. Inter-marriage doesn't prove Sikhs are Hindus. If a Hindu woman marries a Christian would they call Christian guy a Hindu or does it mean all Christians are Hindus? Simply a ridiculous claim.

1. Have relations with a Sikh of the Guru. (Rehatnama Bhai Chaupa Singh)

2. Killing a daughter or to give a daughter (in marriage) to a non-Sikh, such a person commits great offence. Sikh should give his daughter (in marriage) to a Sikh. Thus Gurmukh meets a Gurmukh. Giving a daughter to a Bhadni (non-Sikh) is like giving nectar to a snake. (Rehatnama Bhai Desa Singh)

3. A Sikh gives (in marriage) his daughter to a Sikh and does not accept any money in exchange. He is my Sikh and will reach in my presence. (Guru Pratap Surya)

4. When the daughter comes of age only then relations should be contracted, not for a very young girl. And the relations should be Sikhs of the Guru. (Prem Sumagar)

After Sikh-Hindu marriage why does a Sikh become a Hindu and not the other way around?

..it was only with the arrival of the British that words such as sikhi-ism and Hindu-ism were coined, largley to help the British differentiate between and understand the complex spirituality of the natives.....it was also during these times, towards the end of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire that the word sikh became more popular as a means to describe what was now begining to be seen as a more distinct religion, than the aforementioned khalsa which was more of an army/hieretichal description......

There are dozens of Sikh and non-Sikh sources such as Bansavalinama, Bhatt Vahis, Gur Bilas 6, Gur Bilas 10 (both), Siri Gur Katha, accounts written by Muslims throughout 18^th century and many more use the word Sikh to refer to followers of Guru Granth Sahib. Muslims used the word Sikh to refer to "Nanak Panthi". Further, Vaars and Gurbani use words Hindu and Sikh for two separate communities. Word "Sikhism" was termed by the British to refer to Sikhi but it doesn't mean Sikhs were not a separate religion. When Mir Mannu, Jakariya Khan and Farukh Siyyar ordered their armies to kill all the Sikhs they were called "Nanak Panthis" and all Hindus were ordered to shave off their hair and beards to make it easier for the Mughal army to distinguish between Sikhs and Hindus. This shows that Hindus and Sikhs were considered two different communities.

... therfore one should not be alarmed to note that the holiest shrine of the Khalsa panth (not religion) was named after a Hindu deity, and the practice of idol worship was implemeted by the largely hindu punjabi adherrents to the khalsa panth, soon after its construction...

False. There is no evidence to prove this. Word Har means God that is all pervading. Can Hindus provide with evidence proving if Vishnu even existed? Where was this Hindu deity when millions of Hindus were enslaved by couple hundred Mughal invaders? Where was this Vishnu when thousands of Hindu women were taken to cities of Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey to be sold as slaves? Can Hindus provide us with any painting or picture of Darbar Sahib from 17^th century showing Hindu idols installed? How about providing with 17^th or 18^th century sources to confirm this? No evidence exists. All the facts point to idols being installed during British Empire. Gurbani rejects idol worship and this is why Pothi Sahib was installed at Darbar Sahib. Had Guru Sahib accepted idol worship he would've brought in a big idol on the first day and put it right inside Darbar Sahib. All sources state that Pothi Sahib was brought in, Baba Buddha Ji was appointed first granthi who took first Hukamnama and then Suh Aasan was done at night. Same tradition has been in practice since then.

it was only centuries later after the onset of the British paid historians such as Kahn Singh Nabha that distinctions were formed forged and two seperate belief systems were formed ...this eventually led to idols of the Hindu deities and Guru Harigovind being removed.....largely under the influence of Wilheim Leitner, Kahn Singh Nabha and Max Arthur Macauliffe.....

No evidence provided. Macauliffe was student of Kahan Singh Nabha who learned from traditional sampardas. Guru Hargobind Ji's idol was never made. I have posted questions regarding this in my first post. Have "black slaves" (Hindus) provide answers. All they know is how to lie about Sikhi when they can't even prove existence of their own gods like Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiv, Indra, Brahma etc.

[apnepart2]

When the fighting was over they would go back to their day to day duties and carry on with their Hindu rituals and festivals such as Diwali, rakhri, lohri and vaisakhi.

looks like guru gobind singh was organising picnics for depraved hindus of the day. Have you wondered why would the Mughal authorities ignore these tax paying hindus who were back from fighting with the mughal govt? There was a law that if a Mughal wanted to spit a Hindu was obliged to open his mouth for the Mughal. So they fought them and came home to open their mouth again?

[manni007]

Nice effort bijla, I will copy and paste ur answers, and let's see what these guys, sadly mostly sikhs saying this stuff.s, they say this rehat that I keep referencing was only started by kahn singh over 150 years after guru gobind singh, so means nothing. Ps, u shud check out msn groups, and facebook groups and many other anti sikh sites out there. My mate showed me a pakistani site, and it seems sub human because of the garbage written, ie guru nanak was muslim, guru gobind never defeated aurangzeb , begged for mercy from him via zafarnama and was killed by pathans, I mean wat the hell?

[ms514]

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

Zafarnama, Dasam Patshah:

MANNAM KUSHTEH AM KOHI-AAN BUTT PRAST

KE O BUTT PRASTAND MAN BUTT SHIKAST

I am also the annihilator of the hill rajas, the idol

worshippers. They are idol worshipers and I am engaged in

defeating the very concept of idol worship.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf - Pg. 34.

Doesn't sound like Dasam Patashah would be advocating or allowing Parkash of Hindu idols in any Gurudwara. This verse alone should be able to demolish everything that those pseudo-scholars are trying to say.

[Inder Singh]

Nice effort bijla, I will copy and paste ur answers, and let's see what these guys, sadly mostly sikhs saying this stuff.s, they say this rehat that I keep referencing was only started by kahn singh over 150 years after guru gobind singh, so means nothing. Ps, u shud check out msn groups, and facebook groups and many other anti sikh sites out there. My mate showed me a pakistani site, and it seems sub human because of the garbage written, ie guru nanak was muslim, guru gobind never defeated aurangzeb , begged for mercy from him via zafarnama and was killed by pathans, I mean wat the hell?

People are either dumb or are part of those Hindus. They should know that rehat was started by Guru Gobind singh ji. Read rehatnamas.

They do not like Kahn singh nbaha because he wrote a book to fail their deceit .The book was Hum Hindu nahin.

[KEERPA]

Sikhs bow b4 a granth covered in Cloth that they have never read

We can tell they arent ever at an Akhand Paat :lol:

[Laadli Fauj]

^creator can free you, his creation cannot.

just to play devil's advocate

creator is creation

nirgun manifests itself as sargun

[apnepart2]

so can i be freed by mother earth?

[SachaSauda]

Manni, maybe you missed this, it was posted earlier. If our Guru had such strong views, there's no way his Sikhs would go against his wishes. From the most authentic reference of all, Guru Ji's own words:

From 33 Swaiyye, Sri Dasam Granth:

ਕਹੂੰ ਲੈ ਠੋਕ ਬਧੇ ਉਰ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੌ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਕਹਯੋ ਹਰਿ ਮੰਦਰ ਮੈ ਹਰਿ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਸੀਤ ਕੈ ਬੀਚ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥

कहूं लै ठोक बधे उर ठाकुर काहूं महेश कौ एस बखानयो ॥ काहूं कहयो हरि मंदर मै हरि काहूं मसीत कै बीच प्रमानयो ॥

Someone has tied the stone-idol around his neck and someone has accepted Shiva as the Lord; someone considers the Lord within the temple or the mosque;

ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨੇ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਯੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਕਹੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਨੈ ਅਵਤਾਰਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਸਾਰ ਸਭੈ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਜੀਅ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੨॥

काहूं ने राम कहयो क्रिशना कहु काहूं मनै अवतारन मानयो ॥ फोकट धरम बिसार सभै करतार ही कउ करता जीअ जानयो ॥१२॥

Someone calls him Ram or Krishna and someone believes in His incarnations, but my mind has forsaken all useless actions and has accepted only the One Creator.12.

ਜੌ ਕਹੌ ਰਾਮ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਅਜੈ ਅਤਿ ਕਾਹੇ ਕੌ ਕੌਸ਼ਲ ਕੁੱਖ ਜਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਕਾਲ ਹੂੰ ਕਾਲ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹਿ ਕੌ ਕਿਹਿ ਕਾਰਣ ਕਾਲ ਤੇ ਦੀਨ ਭਯੋ ਜੂ ॥

जौ कहौ राम अजोनि अजै अति काहे कौ कौशल कु्ख जयो जू ॥ काल हूं काल कहै जिहि कौ किहि कारण काल ते दीन भयो जू ॥

If we consider Ram, the Lord as Unborn, then how did he take brith from the womb of Kaushalya ? He, who is said to be the KAL (destroyer) of KAL (death), then why did none become subjugated himself before KAL?

ਸੱਤ ਸਰੂਪ ਬਿਬੈਰ ਕਹਾਇ ਸੁ ਕਯੋਂ ਪਥ ਕੌ ਰਥ ਹਾਂਕ ਧਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕਰਿ ਕੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਕੋਊ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਲੇਨ ਲਯੋ ਜੂ ॥੧੩॥

स्त सरूप बिबैर कहाइ सु कयों पथ कौ रथ हांक धयो जू ॥ ताही को मानि प्रभू करि कै जिह को कोऊ भेदु न लेन लयो जू ॥१३॥

If he is called the Truth-incarnate, beyond enmity and opposition, then why did he become the charioteer of Arjuna ? O mind ! you only consider him the Lord God, whose Mysetry could not be known to anyone.13.

ਕਯੋਂ ਕਹੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨਿਧ ਹੈ ਕਿਹ ਕਾਜ ਤੇ ਬੱਧਕ ਬਾਣ ਲਗਾਯੋ ॥ ਅਉਰ ਕੁਲੀਨ ਉਧਾਰਤ ਜੋ ਕਿਹ ਤੇ ਅਪਨੋ ਕੁਲ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਯੋ ॥

कयों कहु क्रिशन क्रिपानिध है किह काज ते ब्धक बाण लगायो ॥ अउर कुलीन उधारत जो किह ते अपनो कुल नासु करायो ॥

Krishna himself is considered the treasure of Grace, then why did the hunter shot his arrow at him ? He has been described as redeeming the clans of others then he caused the destruction of his own clan;

ਆਦਿ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਕਹਾਇ ਕਹੋ ਕਿਮ ਦੇਵਕਿ ਕੇ ਜਠਰੰਤਰ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਤ ਨ ਮਾਤ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਤਿਹ ਕਯੋਂ ਬਸੁਦੇਵਹਿ ਬਾਪੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥੧੪॥

आदि अजोनि कहाइ कहो किम देवकि के जठरंतर आयो ॥ तात न मात कहै जिह को तिह कयों बसुदेवहि बापु कहायो ॥१४॥

He is said to be unborn and beginningless, then how did he come into the womb of Devaki ? He , who is considered without any father or mother, then why did he cause Vasudev to be called his father?14.

ਕਾਹੇ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਮਹੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਭਾਖਤ ਕਾਹਿ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਹੈ ਨ ਰਘ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਜਦ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਰਮਾਪਤਿ ਤੈ ਜਿਨ ਕੌ ਬਿਸ੍ਵਨਾਥ ਪਛਾਨਯੋ ॥

काहे को एश महेशहि भाखत काहि दिजेश को एस बखानयो ॥ है न रघ्वेश जद्वेश रमापति तै जिन कौ बिस्वनाथ पछानयो ॥

Why do you consider Shiva or Brahma as the Lord ? There is none amongst Ram, Krishna and Vishnu, who may be considered as the Lord of the Universe by you;

ਏਕ ਕੋ ਛਾਡਿ ਅਨੇਕ ਭਜੈ ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਪਰਾਸਰ ਬਯਾਸ ਝੁਠਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਸਜੇ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੌ ਬਿਧ ਨੈਕ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੫॥

एक को छाडि अनेक भजै सुकदेव परासर बयास झुठानयो ॥ फोकट धरम सजे सभ ही हम एक ही कौ बिध नैक प्रमानयो ॥१५॥

Relinquishing the One Lord, you remember many gods and goddesses; in this way you prove Shukdev, Prashar etc. as liars; all the so-called religions are hollow; I only accept the One Lord as the Providence.15.

ਕੋਊ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਤ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਕੋਊ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਬਤੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਕੋਊ ਕਹੈ ਬਿਸ਼ਨੋ ਬਿਸ਼ਨਾਇਕ ਜਾਹਿ ਭਜੇ ਅਘ ਓਘ ਕਟੈ ਹੈ ॥

कोऊ दिजेश को मानत है अरु कोऊ महेश को एश बतै है ॥ कोऊ कहै बिशनो बिशनाइक जाहि भजे अघ ओघ कटै है ॥

Someone tells Brahma as the Lord-God and someone tells the same thing about Shiva; someone considers Vishnu as the hero of the universe and says that only on remembering him, all the sins will be destroyed;

ਬਾਰ ਹਜ਼ਾਰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਅਰੇ ਜੜ ਅੰਤ ਸਮੈ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਤਜਿ ਜੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਧਯਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਿ ਹੀਏ ਜੋਊ ਥੇ ਅਬ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਆਗੈ ਊ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥

बार हज़ार बिचार अरे जड़ अंत समै सभ ही तजि जै है ॥ ताही को धयान प्रमानि हीए जोऊ थे अब है अरु आगै ऊ ह्वै है ॥१६॥

O fool ! think about it a thousand times, all of them will leave you at the time of death, therefore, you should only meditate on Him, who is there in the present and who will also be there in future.16.

[SachaSauda]

Manni, maybe you missed this, it was posted earlier. If our Guru had such strong views, there's no way his Sikhs would go against his wishes. From the most authentic reference of all, Guru Ji's own words:

From 33 Swaiyye, Sri Dasam Granth:

ਕਹੂੰ ਲੈ ਠੋਕ ਬਧੇ ਉਰ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੌ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਕਹਯੋ ਹਰਿ ਮੰਦਰ ਮੈ ਹਰਿ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਸੀਤ ਕੈ ਬੀਚ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥

कहूं लै ठोक बधे उर ठाकुर काहूं महेश कौ एस बखानयो ॥ काहूं कहयो हरि मंदर मै हरि काहूं मसीत कै बीच प्रमानयो ॥

Someone has tied the stone-idol around his neck and someone has accepted Shiva as the Lord; someone considers the Lord within the temple or the mosque;

ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨੇ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਯੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਕਹੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਮਨੈ ਅਵਤਾਰਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਸਾਰ ਸਭੈ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਹੀ ਕਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਜੀਅ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੨॥

काहूं ने राम कहयो क्रिशना कहु काहूं मनै अवतारन मानयो ॥ फोकट धरम बिसार सभै करतार ही कउ करता जीअ जानयो ॥१२॥

Someone calls him Ram or Krishna and someone believes in His incarnations, but my mind has forsaken all useless actions and has accepted only the One Creator.12.

ਜੌ ਕਹੌ ਰਾਮ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਅਜੈ ਅਤਿ ਕਾਹੇ ਕੌ ਕੌਸ਼ਲ ਕੁੱਖ ਜਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਕਾਲ ਹੂੰ ਕਾਲ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹਿ ਕੌ ਕਿਹਿ ਕਾਰਣ ਕਾਲ ਤੇ ਦੀਨ ਭਯੋ ਜੂ ॥

जौ कहौ राम अजोनि अजै अति काहे कौ कौशल कु्ख जयो जू ॥ काल हूं काल कहै जिहि कौ किहि कारण काल ते दीन भयो जू ॥

If we consider Ram, the Lord as Unborn, then how did he take brith from the womb of Kaushalya ? He, who is said to be the KAL (destroyer) of KAL (death), then why did none become subjugated himself before KAL?

ਸੱਤ ਸਰੂਪ ਬਿਬੈਰ ਕਹਾਇ ਸੁ ਕਯੋਂ ਪਥ ਕੌ ਰਥ ਹਾਂਕ ਧਯੋ ਜੂ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕਰਿ ਕੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਕੋਊ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਲੇਨ ਲਯੋ ਜੂ ॥੧੩॥

स्त सरूप बिबैर कहाइ सु कयों पथ कौ रथ हांक धयो जू ॥ ताही को मानि प्रभू करि कै जिह को कोऊ भेदु न लेन लयो जू ॥१३॥

If he is called the Truth-incarnate, beyond enmity and opposition, then why did he become the charioteer of Arjuna ? O mind ! you only consider him the Lord God, whose Mysetry could not be known to anyone.13.

ਕਯੋਂ ਕਹੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨਿਧ ਹੈ ਕਿਹ ਕਾਜ ਤੇ ਬੱਧਕ ਬਾਣ ਲਗਾਯੋ ॥ ਅਉਰ ਕੁਲੀਨ ਉਧਾਰਤ ਜੋ ਕਿਹ ਤੇ ਅਪਨੋ ਕੁਲ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਯੋ ॥

कयों कहु क्रिशन क्रिपानिध है किह काज ते ब्धक बाण लगायो ॥ अउर कुलीन उधारत जो किह ते अपनो कुल नासु करायो ॥

Krishna himself is considered the treasure of Grace, then why did the hunter shot his arrow at him ? He has been described as redeeming the clans of others then he caused the destruction of his own clan;

ਆਦਿ ਅਜੋਨਿ ਕਹਾਇ ਕਹੋ ਕਿਮ ਦੇਵਕਿ ਕੇ ਜਠਰੰਤਰ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਤਾਤ ਨ ਮਾਤ ਕਹੈ ਜਿਹ ਕੋ ਤਿਹ ਕਯੋਂ ਬਸੁਦੇਵਹਿ ਬਾਪੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥੧੪॥

आदि अजोनि कहाइ कहो किम देवकि के जठरंतर आयो ॥ तात न मात कहै जिह को तिह कयों बसुदेवहि बापु कहायो ॥१४॥

He is said to be unborn and beginningless, then how did he come into the womb of Devaki ? He , who is considered without any father or mother, then why did he cause Vasudev to be called his father?14.

ਕਾਹੇ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਮਹੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਭਾਖਤ ਕਾਹਿ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਹੈ ਨ ਰਘ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਜਦ੍ਵੇਸ਼ ਰਮਾਪਤਿ ਤੈ ਜਿਨ ਕੌ ਬਿਸ੍ਵਨਾਥ ਪਛਾਨਯੋ ॥

काहे को एश महेशहि भाखत काहि दिजेश को एस बखानयो ॥ है न रघ्वेश जद्वेश रमापति तै जिन कौ बिस्वनाथ पछानयो ॥

Why do you consider Shiva or Brahma as the Lord ? There is none amongst Ram, Krishna and Vishnu, who may be considered as the Lord of the Universe by you;

ਏਕ ਕੋ ਛਾਡਿ ਅਨੇਕ ਭਜੈ ਸੁਕਦੇਵ ਪਰਾਸਰ ਬਯਾਸ ਝੁਠਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਸਜੇ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੌ ਬਿਧ ਨੈਕ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਯੋ ॥੧੫॥

एक को छाडि अनेक भजै सुकदेव परासर बयास झुठानयो ॥ फोकट धरम सजे सभ ही हम एक ही कौ बिध नैक प्रमानयो ॥१५॥

Relinquishing the One Lord, you remember many gods and goddesses; in this way you prove Shukdev, Prashar etc. as liars; all the so-called religions are hollow; I only accept the One Lord as the Providence.15.

ਕੋਊ ਦਿਜੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਮਾਨਤ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਕੋਊ ਮਹੇਸ਼ ਕੋ ਏਸ਼ ਬਤੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਕੋਊ ਕਹੈ ਬਿਸ਼ਨੋ ਬਿਸ਼ਨਾਇਕ ਜਾਹਿ ਭਜੇ ਅਘ ਓਘ ਕਟੈ ਹੈ ॥

कोऊ दिजेश को मानत है अरु कोऊ महेश को एश बतै है ॥ कोऊ कहै बिशनो बिशनाइक जाहि भजे अघ ओघ कटै है ॥

Someone tells Brahma as the Lord-God and someone tells the same thing about Shiva; someone considers Vishnu as the hero of the universe and says that only on remembering him, all the sins will be destroyed;

ਬਾਰ ਹਜ਼ਾਰ ਬਿਚਾਰ ਅਰੇ ਜੜ ਅੰਤ ਸਮੈ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਤਜਿ ਜੈ ਹੈ ॥ ਤਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਧਯਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨਿ ਹੀਏ ਜੋਊ ਥੇ ਅਬ ਹੈ ਅਰੁ ਆਗੈ ਊ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਹੈ ॥੧੬॥

बार हज़ार बिचार अरे जड़ अंत समै सभ ही तजि जै है ॥ ताही को धयान प्रमानि हीए जोऊ थे अब है अरु आगै ऊ ह्वै है ॥१६॥

O fool ! think about it a thousand times, all of them will leave you at the time of death, therefore, you should only meditate on Him, who is there in the present and who will also be there in future.16.

In Asa Di //

Second Mehl:

ayk krisanN sarab dayvaa dayv dayvaa ta aatmaa.

The One Lord Krishna is the Divine Lord of all; He is the Divinity of the individual soul.

aatmaa baasdayvsi-y jay ko jaanai bhay-o. naanak taa kaa daas hai so-ee niranjanday-o. ||4||

Nanak is a slave to anyone who understands this mystery of the all-pervading Lord; he himself is the Immaculate Divine Lord. ||4||

In my opinion our Gurus respected and accepted the Veda and Mahabharat, the existence of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva etc...but the fact of the matter we are in Kalyug, which is infested with greed, ignorance, egotism etc.. and We are the lowest of the low. The very ancient scriptures of our ancestors were for those who lived in Satyug when great humans lived who were spiritual beyond our comprehension, by the time Treta yug started Vyasa obsorved that people of that age did not have the spiritual and mental capability to understand the scriptures from Satyug, and due to this started wrong practices due to their ignorance. So he composed what today is regarded as the greatest literature work in the world today The Mahabharat, which was at a lower level for them to understand, in Dwapara the play of Mahabharat was played and after that Kalyug commenced, in the proceeding 1000s of years thousands of wrong practices started due to ignorance, finally the Absolute Truth blessed mankind with Sri Guru Nanak to show us the light, and correct our wrong practices. In reality we are a continuation of the same, because of this all Hindus (I don't like using the word Hindu, but that is a conversation for another day) should follow the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji because of this, however as this is Kalyug very few will see this light, the question I ask myself is, what if Guru Nanak was here now how many of our rituals superstitions and false practices would he correct? Would he say , no Hindu, no Muslim no Sikh?