Dissecting Vaheguru

By Karminder Singh Dhillon | Opinion |

On the 28^th of March, BJP leader Tejinderpal Singh Bagga issued a tweet about the make-up of the word Vaheguru. This is what he wrote.

Wa – meaning the first syllable stands for Vishnu Vasudev from Satyug. The second syllable ‘Hey’  comes from Hri Karishna from Dwapar. The third syllable ‘ Gu ‘ depicts Guru Govind from Kalyug. And the final syllable ‘Ru’ represents Ram from Treta.

His point was that the word Vaheguru was actually constructed from the names of Hindu Devi devatas.  And that this was true if the individual letters of the word – the W, the H, the G and the R, were taken into consideration. The root of the word Vaheguru was Snatan. That was, in essence, Bagga’s point.

The next day, the Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) sent a letter to Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). The letter reads, in essence:

Sir, the minorities commission has taken notice of the tweet of Tejinderpal Singh Bagga in which his definition of Waheguru  appears to be objectionable,  and not as per Sikhsim or Sikh maryada.

I am directed to request you to kindly clarify the meaning of Waheguru as per Sikhism or Sikh maryada. If it is contrary to the tweet of Tejinderpal Singh Bagga, the Minorities Commission will initiate action against Mr Tejinderpal Singh Bagga as per law.

The local newspapers carried the report of the incident. The Rozana Spokesman titled its report: Controversy  Through A Tweet Over Vaheguru. Minorities Commission asks SGPC to clarify the meaning of the word Vaheguru.  

The SGPC was given two days to respond.  It did, and issued a tweet to indicate so.  It reads: SGPC was asked to shed light on Sikh principles by the Delhi Minorities Commission after it took offence of a  social media post by BJP leader Tajinderpal Singh Bagga within which he compared the word Vaheguru to Hindu Devi Devtas. Information has been sent.

Now, for whatever reason, the SGPC did not reveal the nature or substance of the information it sent. So we won’t know what SGPC said about the definition of the word Vaheguru – until they decide to tell us. 

In 2022, I wrote an editorial for The Sikh Bulletin titled: When Our Lies Become The Truths of Others. You can read that essay here:  https://www.sikhbulletin.com/Bulletins/SikhBulletin2022Issue1.pdf.

The gist of the essay is that Sikh literature – especially what we mistakenly call “classical sikh literature” is full of untruths about Sikhi. Some 35 primary granths that make up this so called classical sikh literature are overflowing with false assertions and distortions about Sikhi. These 35 primary granths have been composed by Benares trained and benares based nirmlas for the purposes of corrupting, distorting and hijacking Sikhi. Their main objective was to deprive Sikhi of its unique principles, to hollow out Sikhi from within,  and to take Sikhi back to 1468 – meaning to take it back to the belief systems that existed prior to the birth of Guru Nanak in 1469. The root objective is to re-instate and re-install, on the pedestal of Sikhi and Gurmat – beliefs that were rejected by Guru Nanak. These so called classical granths – the Janam Sakhis, the Suraj Parkash, the Bansavlinama, Bhagat Maal, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Sarab Loh – and the whole gamut of it – were written in the 135 year period of 1765 till 1900 – when  nirmlas were in control of Sikh gurdwaras and institutions. The Sikh Reform Movement of the 1920s – the Singh Sabha Leher had alerted the Sikh world towards the need to discard, clean out, and rewrite these granths. The argument of the Singh Sabha was that if the Sikh Panth did not do exactly that, these lies, fabrications,  concoctions and untruths will become the truths of Sikhi, and worse – they will become the truths of the anti-Sikh elements.  Instead of doing what the Sikh Reform Movement asked, the Sikh world – especially our clergy – have accepted these 35 granths as true depictions of Sikhi. The Sikh world has already paid half the price – wherein the lies,  fabrications, concoctions and untruths of the so called classical granths have become rooted as the truths of Sikhi.  Now we are beginning to pay the greater price where these lies are becoming the truths of anti-Sikh elements.  

This essay (and video)  seeks to explain the tweet the BJP leader – and the letter of the Minorities Commission –  within the context of the lies, the distortions, and the fabrications pertaining to the word “Vaheguru” that are contained within these so called classical texts. Both the tweet and the DMC’s will be examined within the parameters of the lies, distortions and fabrications that are contained within our texts – that have now begun to become the truths of others like this BJP leader Tejinderpal Singh Bagga and the DMC.   

IT’S EVERYWHERE

Now, if we ask the Sikh world as to what  the name of God that was given to us by Guru Nanak or by Gurbani within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) ji is;  a full 100 percent of Sikhs will say the word is Vaheguru.  You will agree that this word is everywhere in Sikhi.  It is sung, it is chanted. It is recited. It is printed, framed and hung. It is tattooed. It is everywhere and in every thing. Every Sikh accepts the word Vaheguru as given to us by our Guru, by Gurbani, by the SGGS ji – as the name of God.

Our clergy – our ragis, kirtanias, granthis, parcharaks, dhadees, our writers, thinkers, poets etc have presented us evidence of this.  Here is one piece of the evidence.

TO VIEW THE VIDEO IN ENGLISH, CLICK HERE

TO VIEW THE VIDEO IN PUNJABI, CLICK HERE

ਸਾਰ ਮੰਤਰ ਚਾਰੌ ਕਾ ਚਾਰ। ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਮੰਤਰ ਨਿਰਧਾਰ॥ ਕਲਪ ਕਲਪ ਪ੍ਰਤ ਅਖਛਰ ਕਹੀ। ਸਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਪਾਯੋ ਸਹੀ। Sar Mantar Charon Ka Char. Vaheguru Mantar Nirdhar. Kalap Kalap Prat Akchar Kahi. Sri Guru Nanak Japayeo Sahi. The translation: The supreme mantar for the four ages. Vaheguru mantar is the savior. Contemplation upon contemplations resulted in the putting together of its alphabets. Guru Nanak put the alphabets together and Guru Nanak caused it to be chanted. Meaning that it was Guru Nanak who gave us the word Vaheguru as the name of God and gave it to the world for chanting. Very convincing indeed.  What we call solid proof. Indisputable evidence.

There is, however one major problem with this evidence. The problem is that these “verses” are not Gurbani. They do not exist within the SGGS. They are taken from one of the 35 granths of our so called classical Sikh literature I mentioned above. The name of the granth which contains these verses is Sarab Loh Granth – literally, the Complete Iron Granth.  The message of these verses from within this “Complete Iron Granth”  contradict the messages of Gurbani. Why do I say that?

YET, IT’S NOWHERE

Well, Guru Nanak has 947 shabds comprising some 5,600 verses in the SGGS. How many times do you think he used the word Vaheguru in these shabds and verses. The answer is zero times. Not at all. Not once.

So if Guru Nanak did NOT use the word “Vaheguru” even once in his entire bani – not for God, not for anything at all, how could he have undertaken “contemplation upon contemplations that resulted in the putting together of its alphabets?” ਕਲਪ ਕਲਪ ਪ੍ਰਤ ਅਖਛਰ ਕਹੀ। Kalap Kalap Prat Akchar Kahi. If Guru Nanak did not use the word “Vaheguru” even once in his entire bani how could he have “caused it to be chanted” as is the claim in the Sarab Loh Granth? ਸਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਪਾਯੋ ਸਹੀ।  Sri Guru Nanak Japayeo Sahi.

So the assertions of the so called classical granth – that Vaheguru was the supreme mantar for the four ages; that Vaheguru was the savior mantar; that contemplation upon contemplations resulted in the putting together of its alphabets; that Guru Nanak put the alphabets together and that Guru Nanak caused it to be rightly chanted is fake, is an untruth, is a concoction, a distortion. It sounds painful, but that is perhaps why the adage exists that the truth hurts. 

So Guru Nanak did not use it even once in his entire bani within the SGGS. What about Guru Angad ji. The second Guru has 63 Saloks comprising some 250 verses. He, too, did not use the word “Vaheguru” even once in his entire bani – not for God, not for anything at all.

Guru Amardas ji has 869 shabds comprising some 5,100 verses in the SGGS.  He did not use the word Vaheguru even once.

The fourth Guru Ramdas ji has 638 shabds comprising 3,800 verses. He, too, did not use the word “Vaheguru” even once in his entire bani – not for God, not for anything at all.

The fifth Guru Arjun ji has the most voluminous bani in the SGGS – 2313 shabds comprising some 13,900 verses. He did not use the word “Vaheguru” even once

The ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur ji has 115 shabds comprising some 690 Verses. He, too, did not use the word “Vaheguru” even once in his entire bani. 

All 15 Bhagats combined have 788 shabds comprising some 4,000 Verses. Three Sikhs have 11 shabds comprising about 100 Verses. None of them used the word “Vaheguru” even once in their entire bani – not for God, not for anything at all.

So the total for Gurus, Bhagats and Sikhs  is 5714 shabds comprising some 30,000 Verses – within which the word “Vaheguru” does not appear even once.

CLASSICAL GRANTHS

But All the 35 so called Classical Granths – all composed by nirmlas from Benares – but now accepted as Sikh Classical Literature – tell us that the name of God within Sikhi is Vaheguru. And then they tell us about the greatness of the word Vaheguru. Nirmla Kavi Santokh Singh tells us of the greatness in his granth – the Sooraj Parkash. The Sooraj Parkash Granth is the most massive and most voluminous granth that covers the life of all 10 Gurus – and is a collosal, enormous source of distortion, corruption and false hoods about Sikhi. Its author, Nirmla Santokh Singh has the following composition in  his Sooraj Parkash Granth telling us that   the word Vaheguru is composed from alphabets taken from the names of Hindu gods. He writes:

ਵੱਵਾ ਵਾਸਦੇਵ ਸੇ ਲੀਨੋ। Vava Vasdev Say Lino. Meaning: The letter “Vava” was taken from Vasdev. ਹਰੀ ਬਿਸਨ ਤੇ ਹਾਹਾ ਚੀਨੋ। Hari Bisen Tay Haha Chino.  The letter “Haha” from Hari Vishnu. ਗੱਗਾ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਤੇ ਲੇ ਜਾਨੋ। Gagga Gobind Tay Lay Jano. Gobind provided the letter “Gagga”.  ਰਾਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦ ਮਨ ਮਾਨੋ । ੬੬।  Rara Ramchand Mun Mano. and “Rara” came from Ramchand.

The next couplet advocates the benefits of doing such an act. ਚਤੁਰ ਬਰਨ ਕੋ ਏਕ ਬਨਾਯਾ। Chatur Barun Ko Eyk Bnaya. Meaning: The four letters (Vava, Haha, Rara and Gagga) were put together to create the word (Vaheguru). ਫਲਦਾਇਕ ਇਹ ਅਧਕ ਸੁਹਾਇਆ। ੬੬। Fuldayek Eh Adhuk Suhaya.   Meaning: It is an extremely useful, productive and beautiful word. ਚਤਰ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਯ ਏਕੂ। Chatur Nam Simran Kaiy Eyku. Meaning: Chanting this one word allows for the chanting of four names – Vishnu, Krishen, Ramchander and Govind.ਉਰਧਾਰੇ ਜਿਸ ਹੋਤ ਬਿਬੇਕੂ। Meaning: Urdharey Jis Hoat Bibeku. One who chants with focus will obtain wisdom.

The nirmlas did more than just writing scores of granths that distorted, corrupted and adulterated Sikhi concepts. They also corrupted other non-nirmla Sikh literature by fraudulently adding their own stuff to writings such as Rehatnamas and the writings of Bhai Gurdas ji. They could do all of this with impunity because they controlled our Gurdwaras, our institutions, our history, our literature and by extension the Sikh psyche for 250 years.

BHAI GURDAS

For example, lets take a look at the first Vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji. 

The Sikhi related subject matter of Vaar 1 for instance, as can be expected – begins with the coming of Guru Nanak from para 23 onwards:  ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਗ ਮਾਹਿੰ ਪਠਾਯਾ॥ Guru Nanak Jug Mahe Pthaya. Meaning: The Advent of Guru Nanak. The next 25 paras outline the life and travels of Guru Nanak – both within India and outside. The next three paras talk about the succession of Guruship from Guru Nanak to Gurus Angad, Amardas, Ramdas, Arjun and Hargobind.

The final para then – pauree number 49 – out of nowhere – suddenly brings in Vishnu, Krishen and Ramchander. One wonders if Bhai Gurdas’ writing style is so disjointed that he parachutes these unrelated entities into his first Vaar. It is clear that this final para is added on by someone. It is smuggled into his writing by some one.  Anyway the full final para is reproduced below:

ਸਤਿਜੁਗ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਵਾਸਦੇਵ ਵਾਵਾ ਵਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਨਾਮ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥ ਦੁਆਪਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਹਰੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਹਾਹਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮ ਧਿਆਵੈ॥ ਤ੍ਰੇਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਰਾਮ ਜੀ ਰਾਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਜਪੇ ਸੁਖ ਪਾਵੈ॥ ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗਗਾ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਨਾਮ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥ ਚਾਰੇ ਜਾਗੇ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗੀ ਪੰਚਾਇਣ ਵਿਚ ਜਾਇ ਸਮਾਵੈ॥ ਚਾਰੋਂ ਅਛਰ ਇਕ ਕਰ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜਪ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥ ਜਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਫਿਰ ਤਹਾਂ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥੪੯॥੧॥ Satjug Satgur Vasdev Vava Vishna Nam Jpavey. Duapur Satgur Hri Krishen Haha Har Har Nam Jpayey. Tretey Satgur Ram Ji Rara Ram Jpey Sukh Pavey. Kaljug Nanak Gur Gobind Gaga Govind Nam Jpavey. Charey Jagey Chou Jugi Panchayen Vich Jaye Smavey. Charon Achur Ek Kar Vaheguru Jup Mantar Jpavey. Jha Tay Upjeya Fir Thaa(n) Smavey.

Sikhs are expected to believe that this is Bhai Gurdas – the Sikh luminary and Sikh philosopher explaining the makeup of the word ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ Vaheguru by breaking it down to the letters ਵ, ਹ, ਗ, ਰ or V, H, G and R.

V came from: The Satguru of Satyug Vasdev Vishnu. H from: The Satguru of Duapur – Hri Krishen. R from:  The Satguru of Treyta – Ramchander. G from:  Gobind of Kaljug.

We are further expected to accept that Bhai Gurdas then declares that Guru Nanak combined the four letters into Vaheguru and caused the mantar of Vaheguru to be chanted by the world: Charon Achur Ek Kar Vaheguru Jup Mantar Jpavey. Meaning: The four letters were combined into Vaheguru and caused  to be chanted.

The degree of anti-Sikhi, anti-Gurmat and anti-Gurbani content of this one para is staggering. The more pertinent mind-boggling questions are as follows:

1) Would the real Bhai Gurdas ever refer to Vishnu, Krishen and Ramchander as “Satguru”?  Were these three the Satugurs of Bhai Gurdas ji?  Who else but a benares trained and benares based nirmla could infiltrate such a claim into the writings of Bhai ji?

 2) Would the real Bhai Gurdas ever decide to NOT use the word “Satguru” for Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind? Everyone else is Satguru, but when it comes to Guru Nanak – its just ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਨਾਨਕ Kaljug Nanak. Is this characteristic of Bhai Gurdas?

3) The letter H comes from Krishen? Really? How did a name that begins with K – Krishen – end up producing a Haha – a H.  Surely Bhai Gurdas ji would do no such ridicolous thing.   

4) How did the real Bhai Gurdas know that Guru Gobind Singh ji would be the final Guru in the Nanak lineage? He says ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗਗਾ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਨਾਮ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥ Kaljug Nanak Gur Gobind Gaga Govind Nam Jpavey. Bhai Gurdas passed on during the era of the sixth Guru. This is evidence that this para was composed and added on after the era of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

5) Why would the real Bhai Gurdas write a lie under his name that “Guru Nanak caused the mantar of Vaheguru to be chanted“? ਚਾਰੋਂ ਅਛਰ ਇਕ ਕਰ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜਪ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥  Charon Achur Ek Kar Vaheguru Jup Mantar Jpavey. He knew that Guru Nanak did not use the word Vaheguru even once in his entire bani in the SGGS. Neither did Gurus Angad, Amardas, Ramdas and Arjun. Neither did any of the 15 bhagats.  (Even Guru Teg Bahadur ji did not use it even once).

6) Bhai Gurdas ji knew that our Gurus had rubbished the notion of satjug, duapur, treyta and kaljug as being periods of times or eras. So why is he mentioning them in every verse of this final pauree?   Bhai ji was aware that Guru Nanak had critiqued such a notion in Asa di Vaar.

All the above six points are dead give-aways that this final pauree – pauree number 49 –  is added on much later by the nirmlas in their attempt to adulterate and corrupt Sikhi. The real Bhai Gurdas could not be the author of such deeply problematic verses. He could not have authored this paurri. The other point worth noting is that this paurri is found in nirmla literature – especially the Suraj Parkash of Nirmla Santokh Singh – albeit with minor differences.

There is plenty of distortion and corruption of the other 39 Vaars of Bhai Gurdas ji as well.  A large portion of the subject matter of his vaars is contrary to Gurmat and Gurbani. This is a matter for Sikh writers, intellectuals and researchers to take up. 

GOD’S NAME IN SIKHI

Then, there is the issue of God’s name in Sikhi. The foundational principle regarding God’s name is found in this verse on page 1,083 of the SGGS.

ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ ॥ Kirtem Nam Kthay Tayray Jehba. Sat Nam Tera Pra Poorbla.

Meaning: All the names that I utter (ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ Kthay Tayray Jehba) are descriptive of your virtues (ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ Kirtem Nam  ). Your foundational (ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ Pra Poorbla) virtue (ਨਾਮੁ Nam) is that you are eternal and permanent (ਸਤਿ Sat ) .

So we can derive the following 9 foundational principles pertaining to the name of God.

• 1. He has no proper name.
• 2. His names are given by his children (Bhagats).
• 3. All His names are “Kirtem” – desciptions of His perceived virtues (adjectives).
• 4. ALL such perceived virtues are acceptable.
• 5. One Virtue cannot be superior than the other.
• 6. His primary virtue within Gurbani is ਸਤਿ  Sat from the Sanskrit ਸਤਯ Satya – meaning: permanently in existence. The GGS thus begins with ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ. ੴ Sat Nam. This virtue is considered primary because if we don’t accept that He is indeed in existance, then the other virtues become irrelevant.
• 7. The debate of His “one” name is futile & Rejected. Because we humans created all His names.
• 8. All names are acceptable.
• 9. All names are used in the GGS. From the Puratan tradition we have Har, Raam. From the Muslim tradition Allah, Raheem and Khuda are used. From the Yogi tradition we can find  Alakh and Niranjan.  From the Bhagti tradition we have Beethal and Raiya. And from the personal tradition we can find, amongst others – Pita, Mata, Pritam, Priya, etc.

We have, on page 727 of the SGGS, a composition that uses a variety of names for God within just one shabd. 

ਮੈ ਅੰਧੁਲੇ ਕੀ ਟੇਕ ਤੇਰਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਖੁੰਦਕਾਰਾ ॥ ਮੈ ਗਰੀਬ ਮੈ ਮਸਕੀਨ ਤੇਰਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਹੈ ਅਧਾਰਾ ॥ ੧ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਕਰੀਮਾਂ ਰਹੀਮਾਂ ਅਲਾਹ ਤੂ ਗਨੀਂ ॥ ਹਾਜਰਾ ਹਜੂਰਿ ਦਰਿ ਪੇਸਿ ਤੂੰ ਮਨੀਂ ॥ ੧ ॥ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਤੂ ਦਿਹੰਦ ਤੂ ਬਿਸੀਆਰ ਤੂ ਧਨੀ ॥ ਦੇਹਿ ਲੇਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਤੂੰ  ਦਿਗਰ ਕੋ ਨਹੀ ॥ ੨ ॥ ਤੂੰ ਦਾਨਾਂ ਤੂੰ ਬੀਨਾਂ ਮੈ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ਕਿਆ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਚੇ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਬਖਸੰਦ ਤੂੰ ਹਰੀ ॥ ੩ ॥

Mein Andhley Kee Tek Tera Nam Khundkara. Mein Gareeb Mein Maskeen Tera Naam Hai Adhara. Rahao. Kareema Raheema Allah Tu Ganee.  Hazra Hazoor Dar Pesh Tu Mnee. Dariyao Tu Dihend Tu Bisiar Tu Dhnee. Deh Leh Ek Tu Digar Ko Nahi. Tu Dana Tu Bneena Mein Bichar Kya Karee. Namey Chey Suami Bhakshand Tu Hari.

There are many other such shabds. But the 35 so called classical texts first, and now our clergy who are schooled in these so called classical texts, and our deras and taksals – which are steeped in nirmla thought and who train and produce our clery based on these nirmla texts – insist that in the Sikh world, Vaheguru is the name for God.

SHABDS OF THE BHATTS

These clergy point to 4 shabds of the Bhatts who use the phrase Vah Guru and Vahe Guru. So who are the Bhatts? Here are the basics about the Bhatts. The word Bhat translates as bards, songsters, lyricists, poets. There were 10 of them who were followers of Krishen ji before they came before Guru Arjun ji in search of their spiritual objectives. They are said to have stayed in the sangat of the Guru for 2 years. They composed Bhatan dee Banee – 123 Saveaye (paragraphs) in total,  across 20 pages. All of their bani is in praise of the Guru (Shabd). The phrase Vahe-guru & Vah-guru used in 4 of the 123 paras.

Here is one. ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿ ਜੀਉ ॥ Vaheguru Vaheguru Vaheguru Vahe Jio. The meaning of it is: O Guru ! Wondrous Guru !  Magnificient Guru ! Wow !

The final verse of this para is:  

ਸਤਿ ਸਾਚੁ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਨਿਵਾਸੁ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਸਦਾ ਤੁਹੀ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਾਹਿ ਜੀਉ ॥ ੧੬ ॥

Sat Sach Sri Niwas Ad Purakh Sada Tuhi Vaheguru Vaheguru Vaheguru Vahe Jio.  SGGS 1402.

Meaning: The Creator Whose Existance is Permanent Resides Within You,  O Guru ! Wondrous Guru !   Magnificient Guru ! Wow!

Vah  means – Great ! Magnificient!  Vahe means – O Great ! O Magnificient. Great Guru!  Magnificient Guru! Wow Guru!

The phrase Vah Guru is actually a combination of two words from two distinctly different languages; making it improbable to be combined as a proper name.  Vah – Persian. Guru – Sanskrit.  More importantly, Vah is exclamation !!!!!  Its utterance is in-voluntary. So the Bhatts are expressing their wonder at the Guru by saying Vah Guru. To a Sikh, therefore,  the word Vah Guru would mean O Guru, O Wondrous Guru.

But the 35 so called classical texts and our clergy who are schooled in these nirmla texts insist that in the Sikh world Waheguru is the name for God.

But the same 10 Bhatts also used “Sri Guru” 9 times, “Sat Guru” 25 times and “Guru Guru” 15 times.

Here are the relevant paragraphs. ਸਿਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਿਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਿਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਤਿ ਜੀਉ ॥  …ਨਾਮੁ ਸਾਰੁ ਹੀਏ ਧਾਰੁ ਤਜੁ ਬਿਕਾਰੁ ਮਨ ਗਯੰਦ ਸਿਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਿਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਿਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਤਿ ਜੀਉ ॥ ੫ ॥  Sri Guru Sri Guru Sri Guru Guru Sat Jio…Naam Sar Heeye Dhar Tuj Bikar Mun Gayand Sri Guru Sri Guru Sri Guru Guru Sat Jio.

And ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਗੁਬਿੰਦ ਜੀਉ ॥  …ਨਾਮੁ ਸਾਰੁ ਹੀਏ ਧਾਰੁ ਤਜੁ ਬਿਕਾਰੁ ਮਨ ਗਯੰਦ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਗੁਬਿੰਦ ਜੀਉ ॥ ੪ ॥ Satguru Satguru Satguru Gobind Jio… Naam Saar Heeay Dhaar Tuj Bikar Mun Gyund Satguru  Satguru Satguru Gobind Jio.

In essence then, when the Bhatts use Vaheguru, Satguru, and Sriguru in their bani they are using these phrases to call out or refer to Guruji. They are using these phrases to express Greatness, Magnificence, Awe, Amazement of Guruji.

And when the Bhatts talk of God, they do not use Vaheguru, Satguru or Sri Guru – all of which refer to the Guru. This is what they use when they talk of God: ਅਗਮੁ ਅਨੰਤੁ ਅਨਾਦਿ ਆਦਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਕੋਇ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ॥…  ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੁ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨਹੀ ਦੂਸਰ ਕੋਈ ॥…  ਸ੍ਰੀ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਗੁਰ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਚਿਤਹ ਬਸੈ ॥ ੧ ॥  Agum Anant Anad Aad Jis Koe  Na Janey… Nirangkar Nirvair Avan Nahi Dusar Koe….Sri Sat Nam Karta Puirakh Gur Ramdas Chithey Basey.

They refer to God as Nirangkar, Nirvair, as Satnam, and Karta Purakh. These are the same names, descriptive names (Kirtem Naam) that Guru Nanak uses in the Commencing verse of the SGGS.

THE BIG QUESTION

So the question for the writers of the 35 so called classical texts and our clergy  is this. If we are going to let the Bhatts decide what the proper name of God is – then why is Sri Guru not the name of God? Why is Satguru not the name of God? Why Vaheguru?  After all, ass these three – Sri Guru, Satguru, and Vaheguru are used by the Bhatts on the same one page of the SGGS – all in paragraphs one after another – to refer to the Guru.

For the Benares based nirmlas, it could not be Sri Guru – because it did not have the Vava for Vishnu, and the Haha for Har Krishen.  It could not be Satguru either – because it too did not have the Vava for Vishnu and the Haha for Har Krishen. They wanted to infiltrate the Vishu, Krishen and Ram into the psyche of Sikhi at all costs.  So it had to be Vaheguru – and they wrote that into their classical texts in ther form of concocted stuff such as that Vaheguru was the supreme mantar for the four ages; that deep contemplation resulted in the putting together of its alphabets and that Guru Nanak caused it to be rightly chanted. This putting together of the alphabets part is the dead give away.  The nirmlas were interested in the alphabets – the Vava and the Haha – and in putting them squarely within the parameters of Sikhi.   

And they adulterated the first Vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji by adding the final – out of context – paurre that corroborated their own texts.

ANOTHER CONCOCTION

And these hijackers of Sikhi concocted another non-Gurbani term namely “Gurmantar.” They quote a verse from Bhai Gurdas ji (Var 13) which reads: ਵਾਹਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਹੈ ਜਪ ਹਉਮੈਂ ਖੋਈ॥ Wahe Guru Guru Mantar Hai, Jup Haumai Khoee. And mis-interpret to mean: The word Vaheguru Is A Gurmantar. Chant it to eliminate your ego.

This is not the correct translation. The correct interpretation of this verse is: O Wondrous Guru (Vaheguru), You (Guru) are my Mantar, Realizing You (Jup) I have Eliminated My Ego. 

There are TWO separate words here: Guru and Mantar. Only if one wrongly considered it as a one word would one come up with – Gurmantar or Gurumantar.

WHEN THEY ACCEPT OUR LIES

I want to conclude by reverting to the tweet by BJP leader Tejinderpal Singh Bagga in which he defines the make up or construction of the word Vaheguru. You will agree with me that he has accepted our lies as his truths. The lies within our Suraj Parkash, within our Sarab Loh and 33 other granths have become Bagga’s truths. In other words, Tejinderpal Singh Bagga has accepted – as his truths – the distortions, corruption and concoctions that are contained within our so called nirmla composed classical granths.  And that is because we Sikhs allowed these distortions, corruption and concoctions to stand.  We, Sikhs, accepted these so called classical granths, made them into our textbooks, wrapped them in rumalas, carried them on our heads, put them under palkees and chananees (canopies), and did their katha in our gurdwaras.  In other words, we, Sikhs, sanctioned the lies of the benarasi nirmlas. We put a stamp of approval on these lies.

What about the letter by the Delhi Minorities Commission to SGPC? Is this letter really what it appears to be – genuinely giving SGPC and Sikhs a chance to explain the word Vaheguru? Or is it asking Sikhs to admit that the lies and fabrications contained within their classical texts have caught up with the rest of the world? Is the letter really wanting evidence to take action against Bagga of BJP or wanting to validate Bagga by  getting us Sikhs to admit that what Bagga tweeted is according to the Suraj Parkash granth – the one that is carried on the head and discoursed in the Darbar Sahib Complex in Gurdwara Manji Sahib on a daily basis? 

There are thousands of anti Sikhs tweets and posts daily. But to take one tweet and within 24 hours ask SGPC to respond in 48 hours is the display of concern and efficiency than cannot possibly be to the benefit of Sikhs.

Finally, what Tejinderpal Singh Bagga of BJP has exposed is just one lie that is found in Sikh classical literature granths – all of which are written by the Benarsi nirmlas. By my own count there are tens of thousands more such lies waiting to be exposed and flung at us Sikhs to challenge the notions that Sikhi is unique indeed. The Sikhi of the SGGS is unique indeed.  It is unadulterated by the pre 1469 belief systems. But the Sikhi of our classical granths – the Sikhi of Suraj parkash, Sarab Loh,  Gurbilas Patshahi 6, etc, is distorted, corrupted and adulterated. The choice is ours if we want to adopt the Sikhi of the SGGS or that of Suraj parkash.  It is our choice if we want to adopt the Sikhi of Guru Nanak or that of the Benarsi nirmlas.  

Sikh thinker, writer and parcharak Karminder Singh Dhillon, PhD (Boston), is a retired Malaysian civil servant. He is the joint-editor of The Sikh Bulletin and author of The Hijacking of Sikhi. The author can be contacted at dhillon99@gmail.com. 

RELATED STORY:

Roles and functions of a gurdwara (Asia Samachar, 11 Dec 2015)

ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs / Punjabis in Southeast Asia and beyond. When you leave a comment at the bottom of this article, it takes time to appear as it is moderated by human being. Unless it is offensive or libelous, it should appear. You can also comment at Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. You can reach us via WhatsApp +6017-335-1399 or email: asia.samachar@gmail.com. For obituary announcements, click here.