Why Desire To End Reincarnation?

[ik-jivan]

Narayana Kaur ji and Findingmyway ji,
You realise that everything written below ‘. . . Hmmmm’ and above ‘The point’ are not my opinions, but quotes, right?

When I read, ‘After that, at the time of his death, Guru Angad entered into the body of Guru Amar Das. He in the same manner occupied a place in the body of Guru Ram Das who in the same way got united with Guru Arjan. ’ I get the impression that the person-soul, (identified as ‘he’ and not ‘it’) and not merely the joyte, light, knowledge, wisdom or mission was transferred and merged at the time of death.

What are your views on the quotes I’ve provided? Are these sources reliable, in your opinion? Can you point out how I might be misinterpreting them? Where can we go for further clarification on this matter?

Thanks for what I’m sure will be a really thought-provoking discussion!

Chardi Kala!
t

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh ji,
Oh, there is no need to ask for forgiveness for asking for clarification. I appreciate the opportunity to expand on the statement and perhaps gather more insight from yourself and others. Here is the basis for stating ‘I think if we believe that the spirit of Nanak Dev ji returned 10 times and resides now in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, we must also believe in reincarnation.‘

. . . Hmmmm. Perhaps ‘returned’ is a misleading word, for Nanak Dev ji never actually left. Anyhow, here are my references. . .

SikhiWiki: The succession of 'the light'
This awareness of one light acting through the successive Gurus was so permeating among the Sikhs that Mobid Zulfiqar Ardastani (d. 1670) wrote in his Persian work Dabistan-i-Mazahib, "The Sikhs say that when Nanak left his body, he absorbed himself in Guru Angad who was his most devoted disciple, and that Guru Angad was Nanak himself.

After that, at the time of his death, Guru Angad entered into the body of Guru Amar Das. He in the same manner occupied a place in the body of Guru Ram Das who in the same way got united with Guru Arjan.

They say that whoever does not acknowledge Guru Arjan to be the very self of Baba Nanak becomes a nonbeliever."

Guru Gobind Singh, last of the Gurus, himself wrote in his poetical autobiography called Bachitra Natak, "Nanak assumed the body of Angad. . . .

Afterwards, Nanak was called Amar Das, as one lamp is lit from another. . . The holy Nanak was revered as Angad, Angad was recognized as Amar Das. And Amar Das became Ram Das. . .

When Ram Das was blended with the Divine, he gave the Guruship to Arjan. Arjan appointed Hargobind in his place and Hargobind gave his seat to Har Rai. Har Krishan, his son, then became Guru. After him came Tegh Bahadur."

Source: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru#Guruship_-_the_one_candle_lights_the_next

Bachitra Natak - Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji, page 130
ਨਾਨਕ ਅੰਗਦ ਕੋ ਬਪੁ ਧਰਾ ॥ ਧਰਮ ਪ੍ਰਚੁਰ ਇਹ ਜਗ ਮੋ ਕਰਾ ॥
नानक अंगद को बपु धरा ॥ धरम प्रचुर इह जग मो करा ॥
Nanak transformed himself to Angad and spread Dharma in the world.

ਅਮਰਦਾਸ ਪੁਨਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਜਨੁ ਦੀਪਕ ਤੇ ਦੀਪ ਜਗਾਯੋ ॥੭॥
अमरदास पुनि नामु कहायो ॥ जनु दीपक ते दीप जगायो ॥७॥
He was called Amar Das in the next transformation, a lamp was lit from the lamp.

Source: http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=130&english=t&id=68206

The point I intended to make was that if the soul and spirit of Nanak Dev ji is thought to have transferred, along with the guruship, then the movement of soul from one body to another, (regardless of whether the first has perished ahead of the birth of the successive soul), must also be a valid concept. I suppose this is a stretch of inference on my part.

Does that clear up the questions you had? Do you feel I have I misunderstood?

Sat Sri Akal,
t

Ik-Jivan ji, ( btw I love your name which challenges the subject of reincarnation itself)

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response. Pardon my ignorance but I dod not understand at all what the above means. It seems very confusing for a moorkh praani like my self.

Do you believe in what you have read in Sikhwiki which you have copied and pasted above?

Have you done any other research regarding the subject or just by reading it you came to the conclusion that this is it?

Please do not take me wrong. I am not here to doubt your honesty and sincerity but I am sorry to say that the above is not convincing at all.

What do you think? Please share your personal opinions about it.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

ik jivan ji

In a small voice - because I have gone on too often about Bachittar Natak - what makes it a reliable source?

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022005/bachittar.htm

 

[findingmyway]

There are many many sources against the bachittar natak and much written in there is against the teachings of the Granth Sahib, so it is beyond me why people still quote it. After reading the bachittar natak myself, I was shocked that it has a following!

I remember reading on another thread on this network that sikiwiki is no longer a reliable source due to the way it can be modified by anyone without verification.

 

[jasbirkaleka]

Offcourse Ozark jeo, our only & only aim is to unite with HIM, the Creator and nothing else. Creator is always greator than HIS Creation.

:happysingh:Guru Fateh,
I am happy as I am without any ambition to reconcile with HIM.
With all due raspects why did HE saprate me from HIM in the first place?
Pls could someone enlighten an ignorant nincompoop like me?swordfight

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayana Kaur ji and Findingmyway ji,
So then, it looks like you both are sceptical about the reliability of the sources I quoted. The controversy over its veracity isn’t something I was even aware of. I did find, as a starting point of discovery, this : http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sitemap/f-227.html. I’ve been planning to read the Dasam Granth, but haven’t found the time yet, so I really can’t say much for or against it at this point.

What I can say, is that liking or not liking a fact isn’t necessary for me to accept it as a truth, if evidence exists to prove it. For instance, I don’t like violence, but that doesn’t prevent me from acknowledging it.

In reading the link you provided: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022005/bachittar.htm, I noted a statement that really confuses me and that is, ‘Nanakian philosophy rejects the concept of reincarnation.’ What?! SGGS ji is replete with advice on ending the cycle of birth and death and discusses frequently transmigration through the 84 lakhs of species. What am I missing here?

Are you’re being coy, Narayana Kaur ji? Will you give me just a few hints, in that small voice, please? _/ \_

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[spnadmin]

ik-jivan ji

I am not being coy. Just trying to be less vocal about Bachittar Natak.

What?! Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is replete with advice on ending the cycle of birth and death and discusses frequently transmigration through the 84 lakhs of species. What am I missing here?

You will find that the issue of reincarnation has been debated by Sikhs, and is being right now hotly debated here at SPN So you might want to check those threads.

If however you leave all reference to reincarnation out of the article by Dr. Baldev Singh on Bachittar Natak, you are still left with some amazing verses that cause one to question the ability of Guru Gobnd Singh to recall who his parents were, or whether his ancestry really was from Sita in a quite literal way.

The amazing claims made in Bachittar Natak, if taken seriously mean the Guru Gobind Singh had a bad memory, or was not the son of Guru Teg Bahadur, among other far-fetched possibilities

Here is another article, attached, this one by Dr. Devinder Singh Sekhon, Ph.D. This article is longer, but gives a detailed and blow by blow account of problems found in Bachittar Natak.

I can upload another article also if necessary

 

[findingmyway]

Narayana Kaur ji and Findingmyway ji,

What I can say, is that liking or not liking a fact isn’t necessary for me to accept it as a truth, if evidence exists to prove it. For instance, I don’t like violence, but that doesn’t prevent me from acknowledging it.

Dear Ik-jivan ji,
Unfortunately in this case it is not a matter of opinion. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our yardstick for whether we accept other texts. In the case of the bachittar natak, the evidence proving the book goes against Sikhi's fundamental principles is overwhelming so liking or not liking does not come into it. As GGSJ is our only Guru, we can only accept other sources of information if they agree with the principles and concepts in the Guru Granth Sahib. Anything that does not cannot be used to argue points of gurmat!! Sorry if I sound harsh. If you have any doubts I urge you to read it for yourself

YouTube- Reality of Bachittar Natak(Dasm Granth) Part 1

 

[ik-jivan]

Tejwant Singh ji,
You and I really do see things from opposite sides of the spectrum . . . this is good. . . we can learn a lot from each other’s perspectives.

I actually see ‘ik-jivan’, or ‘one life’ as a continuum. We move from one place-time to another, we change our form constantly . . . you know, how the cells of our bodies are completely replaced every 7 years, et cetera . . . and yet, the witnessing consciousness remains. . . wiser for the learning, but still reasonably intact throughout the journey.

Truly, I spent almost my entire life ‘feeling’ like I would not be returning after this lifetime, so thought my intuition was telling me that reincarnation is simply not a relevant issue. Last year, though, I did give it some thought and I stitched together the facts of my own life, with the various accountings of seeming past-life recollections and regression therapy research, and so on.

What I conclude is that there is only one shared consciousness. This idea is not my own, but has been theorized by C. G. Jung as the ‘collective unconscious’ and as the ‘noosphere’ by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I also find the Kabbalistic concept of there being just one created soul agreeable.

With regard to reincarnation, I am inclined to think of the unique and distinct consciousness we each possess as compositions . . . like a literary work or musical composition . . . like a Shabad. So, while the Shabad is a unique composition of words, the words are not unique to the composition. Souls and the bodies they accompany are arrangements of qualities and characteristic that are unique to the space-time they occupy, but the substance of a soul is universal. Passing from one life into another, one may or may not retain the memories of previous lives. It all depends upon the cohesive strength of the soul-substance in that form and whether there is a need for that particular arrangement to be repeated.

In the case of Guru Nanak Dev ji, there was a need for the arrangement to be repeated, seamlessly, without intermittence, as is the usual case with reincarnation. I have in front of me a book titled ‘God as viewed through Gurbani & Science’, written by Subedar Dharam Singh Sujjon. Page 49 reads:

"We have discussed that the Formless Being appeared in the Form of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s spirit changed into ten different bodies, to keep the sway of Sat-Naam going. Though the bodies changed, yet the technique of Sat-Naam (WAHEGURU) bestowing remained unchanged."

And from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, page 966

sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||
The King, while still alive, applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead. ||
lhxy dI PyrweIAY nwnkw dohI KtIAY ]
lehanae dhee faeraaeeai naanakaa dhohee khatteeai ||
Nanak proclaimed Lehna's succession - he earned it.
joiq Ehw jugiq swie sih kwieAw Pyir pltIAY ]
joth ouhaa jugath saae sehi kaaeiaa faer palatteeai ||
They shared the One Light and the same way; the King just changed His body.

Source: http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?SourceID=G&PageNo=0966

Lehna is Guru Angad Dev ji. I don’t know, but that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji statement sure seems to be saying the same thing that SikiWiki, Dasam Granth and Subedar Dharam Singh Sujjon are saying.

Sat Sri Akal,
t

 

[findingmyway]

The shabad states that the jyot was transferred. So the next question-are jyot and soul the same thing?

 

[ik-jivan]

But it also said, 'the King just changed His body'. . . the King, a person, changed his body. I would expect that the Light or Joyt would not be referred to as a King, nor given use of 'His' a personal pronoun. 'IT' is light. 'HE' is light.

Maybe we should research to see if the Joyt has ever been referred to with personal pronouns, rather than the neuter 'it'. Maybe it has.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

:happysingh:Guru Fateh,
I am happy as I am without any ambition to reconcile with HIM.
With all due raspects why did HE saprate me from HIM in the first place?
Pls could someone enlighten an ignorant nincompoop like me?swordfight

Jasbir ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let's check the meaning of Reconcile first.

rec·on·cile <script>play_w2("R0088000")</script><object style="margin: 1px;" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" height="21" width="13">
</object>(r

k

n-s

l

)v. rec·on·ciled, rec·on·cil·ing, rec·on·ciles
v.tr.1. To reestablish a close relationship between.
2. To settle or resolve.

What kind of dispute did you have with Ik Ong Kaar, which is not a deity, in order for it to be reconciled?

For me, merging with Ik Ong Kaar is here and now and only in this life I am aware of. I can make mends when I make mistakes in this life. I can reconcile with the people I have disputes with etc etc and Sri Guru Granth Sahib, our only Guru gives us the tool to get better.

I was merged with the Source when I was conceived in a biological manner. But as we know that miscarriages happen and what happens then? What Karams should be blamed on a lump which had the potential to be a human? Who is the culprit here?

Our language is very limited to define anything about Ik Ong Kaar. We always fail in these futile efforts of ours.

It is hard to meet the Creator of the Universe and beyond, our Divine Master. IK ONG KAAR's form is immeasurable, inaccessible and unfathomable. IK ONG KAAR is all-pervading everywhere.

IK ONG KAAR is above all formless and indescribable, so sublime as to be totally beyond human powers of recognition, description, or conception.

Hence it is called AJUNI- SEHBHUNG- THE CREATIVE ENERGY.

Religions are just the schools of thoughts for us to learn how to breed goodness within.That's all,if they teach divisiveness, then they should be discarded because IK ONK KAAR is in ALL,irrespective of their hue,creed or
faith.

Normally, I am not into Gurbani quotes to express myself but as you are a rationalist like myself, I feel compelled to share the rationalisation that Sri Guru Granth Sahib, our only Guru offers us.

Guru Arjan talks about the dogmatic religions which claimed the exclusive direct line to some deity-being that is called god by them in their own ways.

Of all religions,This is the best:Not one of rituals,Not one of words,But the Path of Deeds -Serving the truly pious. GGS, M5, 1182:14.

In the following, Bhagat Kabir talks about the reconciliation with the self, about the merger which can not be separated. If it would then the purpose of the omnipresence of The Source becomes self defeating prophecy.

I scoured the world Looking for the One ...Then, opened the doors of my heart,And found the Timeless One within. GGS, Kabir, 341:3.

Sheikh Farid ji goes further about what happens after we have discovered The One within. When we have reconciled ourselves with us, then only the merger with Ik Ong Kaar appears in the way of inner Aurorae whose sheen is shone in our body language.

Godly is the one who ...Shares with others,Even when he has nothing.Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Farid, 1384:17

I am a seeker and every seeker is a rationalist per se. Someone once wrote: Seek the company of those who seek truth. Fear the company of those who have found it.

This is worth repeating. So, for me the merger with Ik Ong Kaar happens in this very life that I know of and I am solely responsible for my actions. I can not pass the buck, nor can I give excuses and justifications of my shortcomings due do my past lives that I am not aware of. For me that is a cop out and we all know a Seeker, a learner, a student, a Sikh is never a cop out.Otherwise he is not a Sikh.

Let me end this by quoting Peter E. Hendrickson.

"When an honest but mistaken man learns of his error, he either [forthrightly] ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest." — Peter E. Hendrickson

Isn't Sikhi all about that?

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Both replies of ik-jivan and findingmyway, respected forum members, raise a key point. And I asked a related question on a different thread - the Reincarnation Thread. What is meant by the soul in Sikhism? How is it uniquely defined? I don't see the impasse as to whether a soul is transferred or the jyote is transferred from Guru to Guru without having a sense of what is meant by the soul? AND is it consciousness?

 

[ik-jivan]

Narayanjot Kaur ji,
I am researching Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji references to ‘soul’. To me, it seems that the soul is a living being created by the Supreme Soul, while the Light represents the Divine qualities that define the condition of a being, such as knowledge, love, wisdom, fearlessness imparted by and from the One Light. While Supreme Soul and One Light are synonomous, it is due to the homogenous 'Allness' nature of the Divine. Yet, a created soul can be without light, which are qualities of the Divine.

This isn’t yet a definitive concept of either soul or Light . . . I will do more research and return to this . . .

sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||
The King, while still alive, applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead. ||

lhxy dI PyrweIAY nwnkw dohI KtIAY ]
lehanae dhee faeraaeeai naanakaa dhohee khatteeai ||
Nanak proclaimed Lehna's succession - he earned it.

joiq Ehw jugiq swie sih kwieAw Pyir pltIAY ]
joth ouhaa jugath saae sehi kaaeiaa faer palatteeai ||
They shared the One Light and the same way; the King just changed His body.

Source: http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.as...=G&PageNo=0966

Also, the quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji says the One Light was shared, but does not mention if it was transferred. As a set of qualities that condition the soul, this is understandable. . . e.g. we share a common quality of character, virtue or way of being. The quote uses the statement, 'the same way', to expand the meaning of One Light.

I am tending to interpret that the pre-condition of sharing the One Light is what made it possible for the King, Nanak Dev ji, to 'just change His body'.

The statement, 'the King just changed His body' has caught my attention, as I wonder at how Nanak Dev ji is being referred to as the 'King' and how that fits in with the King of Kings appellation used to refer to God within Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

Chardi Kala!
t

 

[spnadmin]

ik-jivan ji

Thanks for starting the discussion regarding "soul" in Sikhi. But it has always been my understanding that Sikhism has never rejected common sense. That is why there is a wonderful story where Guru Nanak teaches the brahmins that if they can throw water toward the sun and expect the water toreach their ancestors, he can throw water toward his farmlands and expect it to reach his cattle. This is a facetious way of rejecting the impossible and asking us to keep our feet planted firmly on the ground.

Common sense dictates that Guru Nanak could not transform or share his his body with another person while he and Guru Angad were still alive. I am not sure how this idea crept into currency.

The pangatee does describe how spiritual consciouness is shared.

Another thing I am wondering about is whether the idea of "taking refuge" is manifesting in our conversation. Taking refuge is a Buddhist idea (as far as my limited understanding understands it). A student or chela takes refuge in the teacher or guru. Or anyone of in the dharmic tradition can take refuge in the Buddha. Here the idea is that one gives over ones consciousness to the best one can do given one's personal level of spiritual progress. However it is the less developed soul who takes refuge in the more spiritually developed soul when taking refuge in the Buddhist sense.

So even here - if we tried to apply this by analogy - Guru Nanak would not be taking refuge in Lehna -- given that Lehna became Guru Angad when Guru Nanak saw in him a very high level of spiritual consciousness. Coming back to a Sikh understanding, as opposed to Buddhist, why would Guru Nanak change into anything or anyone other than he was?

We also need to take a deeper look at the pangatee that you have quoted by looking at the entire shabad. This is important so that the pangatee is not misunderstood. Please post the entire shabad so we can discuss it. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to who "the King" is as described by Nanak 5 in the lines you have quoted above. And how the words "changed his body" fit into the story being told in the dhabad.

 

[ik-jivan]

<DL><DT>Narayjot Kaur ji,</DT></DL>You wrote, ‘Common sense dictates that Guru Nanak could not transform or share his his body with another person while he and Guru Angad were still alive. I am not sure how this idea crept into currency.’

Is that idea prevalent somewhere outside this thread? This is what I am thinking:

In the Shabad, there is no indication of two people sharing the same body while both are alive. But the Light, if interpreted to be a way - qualities and conditions - of thinking and being, or even simply as ‘intelligence’ as it is commonly interpreted, can be shared by any number of people.

The selection of Guru Angad ji as successor was made by Guru Nanak ji, while Guru Nanak ji was alive, at which time both Guru Angad ji and Guru Nanak ji were two separate individual beings.
To me, those are two rational, well-grounded statements.

The peculiar idea is within the statement, ‘the King just changed His body’. As you requested, the rest of the lines relating to the matter are added below. From them, we see, ‘Nanak established the kingdom’ and – at this point – could be the King referred to, or he could be an emissary, acting on behalf of the King. This question is cleared up below. Guru Nanak Dev ji goes on to initiate Lehna with royal canopy, chanting and Amrit. Reference to royal canopy, suggests Lehna’s status is raised.

In the two lines that follow, I am not at all sure if ‘Guru’ is God or Guru Nanak Dev ji:

The Guru implanted the almighty sword of the Teachings to illuminate his soul.
The Guru bowed down to His disciple, while Nanak was still alive.
​

However, ‘Teachings to illuminate his soul’ are suggestive of intelligence being the Light. And the second line does fit the sequence of events with Guru Nanak Dev ji handing over the kingship, while still alive, to Guru Angad ji, so the ‘Guru’ here is likely also in reference to Guru Nanak Dev ji, who 'bowed down to His disciple', Guru Angad ji.

The statement, ‘The King, while still alive . . .’ is confirmation that Guru Nanak Dev ji is to be understood as being the King referred to throughout and the forehead that received the ‘ceremonial mark’ most likely belonged to Guru Angad ji. This initiation process seems to have been followed up with proclamation of succession to the kingly throne and Guru’s shop.

I don’t interpret the next line, ‘They shared the One Light and the same way; the King just changed His body’ to mean that immediately upon proclamation of succession Guru Nanak Dev ji changed His body while both he and Guru Angad ji were still alive.

So, we’ve addressed:

• the sharing of the Light, interpreting it as intelligent qualities and conditions of being held in common by Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Angad ji while both were alive.
• the transfer of guruship, performed ceremoniously and with the imparting of teachings by Guru Nanak Dev ji upon Guru Angad ji

What remains mystical and defies common sense is the phrase ‘the King just changed His body’. Yet we are dealing with the subject matter of spirituality, so certainty of facts, is impossible for us. All we can really do in this exercise is try to understand what the Shabad recounts. As for how each of us understands spiritual reality, it’s an internal matter. All I can do is tell you what I have resolved to through my contemplation . . . to my way of thinking, it would need to be a soul merger. If we can believe that human souls merge with the Supreme Soul and a man and a woman become one soul in two bodies through Anand Karaj, is it so preposterous that ten men, sharing the same Light would merge into one soul? Of course, none of this meets with our understanding of the laws of nature, but we are not talking about natural phenomenon. We are examining and hoping to derive understanding of supernatural phenomenon.

Maybe you can derive more from the Gurmukhi than is clear from the English translation. The part of the Shabad relating this event is below. If you need the earlier slokas, the link is provided too.

<> siqgur pRswid ]
ik oa(n)kaar sathigur prasaadh ||
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

nwau krqw kwdru kry ikau bolu hovY joKIvdY ]
naao karathaa kaadhar karae kio bol hovai jokheevadhai ||
One who chants the Name of the Almighty Creator - how can his words be judged?

dy gunw siq BYx Brwv hY pwrMgiq dwnu pVIvdY ]
dhae gunaa sath bhain bharaav hai paara(n)gath dhaan parreevadhai ||
His divine virtues are the true sisters and brothers; through them, the gift of supreme status is obtained.

nwnik rwju clwieAw scu kotu sqwxI nIv dY ]
naanak raaj chalaaeiaa sach kott sathaanee neev dhai ||
Nanak established the kingdom; He built the true fortress on the strongest foundations.

lhxy DirEnu Cqu isir kir isPqI AMimRqu pIvdY ]
lehanae dhharioun shhath sir kar sifathee a(n)mrith peevadhai ||
He installed the royal canopy over Lehna's head; chanting the Lord's Praises, He drank in the Ambrosial Nectar.

miq gur Awqm dyv dI KVig joir prwkuie jIA dY ]
math gur aatham dhaev dhee kharrag jor paraakue jeea dhai ||
The Guru implanted the almighty sword of the Teachings to illuminate his soul.

guir cyly rhrwis kIeI nwnik slwmiq QIvdY ]
gur chaelae reharaas keeee naanak salaamath thheevadhai ||
The Guru bowed down to His disciple, while Nanak was still alive.

sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||
The King, while still alive, applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead. ||1||

lhxy dI PyrweIAY nwnkw dohI KtIAY ]
lehanae dhee faeraaeeai naanakaa dhohee khatteeai ||
Nanak proclaimed Lehna's succession - he earned it.

joiq Ehw jugiq swie sih kwieAw Pyir pltIAY ]
joth ouhaa jugath saae sehi kaaeiaa faer palatteeai ||
They shared the One Light and the same way; the King just changed His body.

JulY su Cqu inrMjnI mil qKqu bYTw gur htIAY ]
jhulai s shhath nira(n)janee mal thakhath bait(h)aa gur hatteeai ||
The immaculate canopy waves over Him, and He sits on the throne in the Guru's shop.

krih ij gur PurmwieAw isl jogu AlUxI ctIAY ]
karehi j gur furamaaeiaa sil jog aloonee chatteeai ||
He does as the Guru commands; He tasted the tasteless stone of Yoga.

Source: http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?SourceID=G&PageNo=0966

 

[findingmyway]

I find that English translations often lead me astray as moving between languages often causes problems so I've taken the liberty of pasting the shabad and Prof Sahib Singh's translation with my understanding in English underneath. I wish I had a Panjabi-English dictionary!! If anyone knows where to source a decent one I will be very grateful motherlylove

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
xxx

ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਇੱਕ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਨਾਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਾਦਰੁ ਕਰੇ ਕਿਉ ਬੋਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਜੋਖੀਵਦੈ ॥ ਦੇ ਗੁਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਭੈਣ ਭਰਾਵ ਹੈ ਪਾਰੰਗਤਿ ਦਾਨੁ ਪੜੀਵਦੈ ॥ ਨਾਨਕਿ ਰਾਜੁ ਚਲਾਇਆ ਸਚੁ ਕੋਟੁ ਸਤਾਣੀ ਨੀਵ ਦੈ ॥


(ਕਿਸੇ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ) ਜੋ ਨਾਮਣਾ ਕਾਦਰ ਕਰਤਾ ਆਪਿ (ਉੱਚਾ) ਕਰੇ, ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਤੋਲਣ ਲਈ (ਕਿਸੇ ਪਾਸੋਂ) ਕੋਈ ਗੱਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ (ਭਾਵ, ਮੈਂ ਬਲਵੰਡ ਵਿਚਾਰਾ ਕੌਣ ਹਾਂ ਜੋ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਉੱਚੇ ਮਰਤਬੇ ਨੂੰ ਬਿਆਨ ਕਰ ਸਕਾਂ?) ਸੰਸਾਰ-ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਪਾਰ ਲੰਘਾ ਸਕਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਆਤਮ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਦੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਸ਼ ਹਾਸਲ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਸਤਿ ਆਦਿਕ ਰੱਬੀ ਗੁਣ (ਲੋਕ ਬੜੇ ਜਤਨਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਆਪਣੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਹ ਗੁਣ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਤਾਂ) ਭੈਣ ਭਰਾਵ ਹਨ (ਭਾਵ) ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਤਾਂ ਸੁਭਾਵਿਕ ਹੀ ਮੌਜੂਦ ਹਨ। (ਇਸ ਉੱਚੇ ਨਾਮਣੇ ਵਾਲੇ ਗੁਰੂ) ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਸੱਚ-ਰੂਪ ਕਿਲ੍ਹਾ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਅਤੇ ਪੱਕੀ ਨੀਂਹ ਰੱਖ ਕੇ (ਧਰਮ ਦਾ) ਰਾਜ ਚਲਾਇਆ ਹੈ।

One who praises the lord-his words cannot be weighed (they are priceless). To obtain the mercy of the lord who can help you cross oceans, seek those people (mentioned before) as those brothers and sisters have the lord within them. Nanak (who praises the lord in the highest of terms) has built a fortress from the truth with strong foundations of faith to begin his rule.

ਲਹਣੇ ਧਰਿਓਨੁ ਛਤੁ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਵਦੈ ॥ ਮਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਆਤਮ ਦੇਵ ਦੀ ਖੜਗਿ ਜੋਰਿ ਪਰਾਕੁਇ ਜੀਅ ਦੈ ॥


ਗੁਰੂ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ (ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ੀ ਹੋਈ) ਮਤਿ-ਰੂਪ ਤਲਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ, ਜ਼ੋਰ ਨਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਬਲ ਨਾਲ (ਅੰਦਰੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾ ਜੀਵਨ ਕੱਢ ਕੇ) ਆਤਮਕ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ ਕੇ, (ਬਾਬਾ) ਲਹਿਣਾ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਉਤੇ, ਜੋ ਸਿਫ਼ਤਿ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਆਤਮਕ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਨਾਮ-ਜਲ ਪੀ ਰਹੇ ਸਨ, ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਨੇ (ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਦਾ) ਛਤਰ ਧਰਿਆ।

Guru Nanak used the teaching sword bestowed by Akal Purakh, to bestow on Lehna a spiritual life. Lehna's previous life (meaning as a devi worshipper) was completely removed and Nanak showed Lehna the umbrella of a spiritual life. Lehna, who drank the ambrosial name, was given Gurgaddi by Nanak

ਗੁਰਿ ਚੇਲੇ ਰਹਰਾਸਿ ਕੀਈ ਨਾਨਕਿ ਸਲਾਮਤਿ ਥੀਵਦੈ ॥ ਸਹਿ ਟਿਕਾ ਦਿਤੋਸੁ ਜੀਵਦੈ ॥੧॥

(ਹੁਣ) ਆਪਣੀ ਸਲਾਮਤੀ ਵਿਚ ਹੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਿੱਖ (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ) ਅੱਗੇ ਮੱਥਾ ਟੇਕਿਆ, ਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਜਿਊਂਦਿਆਂ ਹੀ (ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਦਾ) ਤਿਲਕ (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਨੂੰ) ਦੇ ਦਿੱਤਾ।੧।

While Guru Nanak was still alive and well, he bowed down before his disciple Lehna and gave hime the mark of the gurgaddi

ਲਹਣੇ ਦੀ ਫੇਰਾਈਐ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਦੋਹੀ ਖਟੀਐ ॥ ਜੋਤਿ ਓਹਾ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਸਾਇ ਸਹਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਫੇਰਿ ਪਲਟੀਐ ॥

(ਜਦੋਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਦਾ ਤਿਲਕ ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਨੂੰ ਦੇ ਦਿੱਤਾ, ਤਾਂ) ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਦੀ ਧੁੰਮ ਦੀ ਬਰਕਤਿ ਨਾਲ, ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਦੀ ਧੁੰਮ ਪੈ ਗਈ; ਕਿਉਂਕਿ, (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ) ਉਹੀ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਾਲੀ) ਜੋਤਿ ਸੀ, ਜੀਵਨ ਦਾ ਢੰਗ ਭੀ ਉਹੀ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਾਲਾ) ਸੀ, ਗੁਰੂ (ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ) ਨੇ (ਕੇਵਲ ਸਰੀਰ ਹੀ) ਮੁੜ ਵਟਾਇਆ ਸੀ।

When Guru Nanak marked Lehna with the mark of the gurgaddi and declared him successor, with the goodness of Guru Nanak, bhai Lehna's goodness was also recognised because Lehna contained the same jyot that was inside Guru Nanak. He also had the same way of living, just the bodies were different.

ਝੁਲੈ ਸੁ ਛਤੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨੀ ਮਲਿ ਤਖਤੁ ਬੈਠਾ ਗੁਰ ਹਟੀਐ ॥ ਕਰਹਿ ਜਿ ਗੁਰ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਆ ਸਿਲ ਜੋਗੁ ਅਲੂਣੀ ਚਟੀਐ ॥

(ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਉਤੇ) ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰੱਬੀ ਛਤਰ ਝੁੱਲ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਹੱਟੀ ਵਿਚ (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ) (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਪਾਸੋਂ 'ਨਾਮ' ਪਦਾਰਥ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਵੰਡਣ ਲਈ) ਗੱਦੀ ਮੱਲ ਕੇ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੈ। (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ) ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਫੁਰਮਾਏ ਹੋਏ ਹੁਕਮ ਨੂੰ ਪਾਲ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ-ਇਹ "ਹੁਕਮ ਪਾਲਣ"-ਰੂਪ ਜੋਗ ਦੀ ਕਮਾਈ ਅਲੂਣੀ ਸਿਲ ਚੱਟਣ (ਵਾਂਗ ਬੜੀ ਕਰੜੀ ਕਾਰ) ਹੈ।

Baba Lehna sits under the canopy (of learning given by Akal Purakh if we continue from above). He takes the seat of Guru Nanak and becomes the 2nd Nanak, always following the orders and example of the 1st Nanak. The work is not easy (like a tasteless stone) but he adheres to his role as the one to follow orders (I think!)

ਲੰਗਰੁ ਚਲੈ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦਿ ਹਰਿ ਤੋਟਿ ਨ ਆਵੀ ਖਟੀਐ ॥ ਖਰਚੇ ਦਿਤਿ ਖਸੰਮ ਦੀ ਆਪ ਖਹਦੀ ਖੈਰਿ ਦਬਟੀਐ ॥

(ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ) ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੋਈ ਨਾਮ-ਦਾਤਿ ਵੰਡ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਆਪ (ਭੀ) ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਨ ਤੇ (ਹੋਰਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੀ) ਦਬਾ-ਦਬ ਦਾਨ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੀ ਹੱਟੀ ਵਿਚ) ਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਦੀ ਰਾਹੀਂ (ਨਾਮ ਦਾ) ਲੰਗਰ ਚੱਲ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ, (ਪਰ ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਦੀ) ਨਾਮ-ਕਮਾਈ ਵਿਚ ਕੋਈ ਘਾਟਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈਂਦਾ।


Baba Lehna Ji shares his gift of enlightenment from Akal Purakh. He uses the knowledge of naam himself and also shares with others quickly. He starts the Guru's langar in Guru Nanak's abode but he never lets knowledge about the naam (shabad) run short.



ਹੋਵੈ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਖਸੰਮ ਦੀ ਨੂਰੁ ਅਰਸਹੁ ਕੁਰਸਹੁ ਝਟੀਐ ॥ ਤੁਧੁ ਡਿਠੇ ਸਚੇ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ ਮਲੁ ਜਨਮ ਜਨਮ ਦੀ ਕਟੀਐ ॥

(ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਵਿਚ) ਮਾਲਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦੀ ਸਿਫ਼ਤਿ-ਸਾਲਾਹ ਹੋ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਰੂਹਾਨੀ ਦੇਸਾਂ ਤੋਂ (ਉਸ ਦੇ ਦਰ ਤੇ) ਨੂਰ ਝੜ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਹੇ ਸੱਚੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ (ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ)! ਤੇਰਾ ਦੀਦਾਰ ਕੀਤਿਆਂ ਕਈ ਜਨਮਾਂ ਦੀ (ਵਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ) ਮੈਲ ਕੱਟੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ।


In Guru Angad's diwans, god praises were being sung. The diwan was illuminated by divine knowledge. Serving the true king (here meaning Guru Angad as he was chosen by Akal Purakh and appointed by Guru Nanak) the dirt from past lives is rubbed away (remember earlier that the past life of Guru Angad was his devi worshipping days rather than another lifetime).


ਸਚੁ ਜਿ ਗੁਰਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਆ ਕਿਉ ਏਦੂ ਬੋਲਹੁ ਹਟੀਐ ॥ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਕਉਲੁ ਨ ਪਾਲਿਓ ਕਰਿ ਪੀਰਹੁ ਕੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਮੁਰਟੀਐ ॥

(ਹੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ!) ਗੁਰੂ (ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ) ਨੇ ਜੋ ਭੀ ਹੁਕਮ ਕੀਤਾ, ਆਪ ਨੇ ਸੱਚ (ਕਰਕੇ ਮੰਨਿਆ, ਅਤੇ ਆਪ ਨੇ) ਉਸ ਦੇ ਮੰਨਣ ਤੋਂ ਨਾਂਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ; (ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਦੇ) ਪੁਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਨੇ ਬਚਨ ਨ ਮੰਨਿਆ, ਉਹ ਗੁਰੂ ਵਲ ਪਿੱਠ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਹੀ (ਹੁਕਮ) ਮੋੜਦੇ ਰਹੇ।


Guru Angad did whatever Guru Nanak commanded, he made it true and never said no. Guru Nanak's sons turned their back on the guru to rebel.


ਦਿਲਿ ਖੋਟੈ ਆਕੀ ਫਿਰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਬੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਭਾਰੁ ਉਚਾਇਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਛਟੀਐ ॥ ਜਿਨਿ ਆਖੀ ਸੋਈ ਕਰੇ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਤੀ ਤਿਨੈ ਥਟੀਐ ॥ ਕਉਣੁ ਹਾਰੇ ਕਿਨਿ ਉਵਟੀਐ ॥੨॥

ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਖੋਟਾ ਦਿਲ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ (ਗੁਰੂ ਵੱਲੋਂ) ਆਕੀ ਹੋਏ ਫਿਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਹ ਲੋਕ (ਦੁਨੀਆ ਦੇ ਧੰਧਿਆਂ ਦੀ) ਛੱਟ ਦਾ ਭਾਰ ਬੰਨ੍ਹ ਕੇ ਚੁੱਕੀ ਰੱਖਦੇ ਹਨ। (ਪਰ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੀਹ ਵੱਸ ਹੈ? ਆਪਣੀ ਸਮਰੱਥਾ ਦੇ ਆਸਰੇ, ਇਸ ਹੁਕਮ-ਖੇਡ ਵਿਚ) ਨ ਕੋਈ ਹਾਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਜਿੱਤਣ-ਜੋਗਾ ਹੈ। ਜਿਸ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਰਜ਼ਾ-ਮੰਨਣ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਆ, ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਸੀ, ਜਿਸ ਨੇ ਇਹ (ਹੁਕਮ-ਖੇਡ) ਰਚੀ, ਉਸ ਨੇ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਨੂੰ ਹੁਕਮ ਮੰਨਣ ਦੇ) ਸਮਰੱਥ ਬਣਾਇਆ।੨।


The ones who rebelled by disobeying the Guru with a hard heart, they get lost in worldly affairs and carry a load of bad deeds with them. Akal Purakh himself chose Lehna to be the enlightened one, he chose him to obey Guru Nanak's command (which he created). In Akal Purakh's will no-one is a winner and no-one is a loser.


ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਤੀ ਸੋ ਮੰਨਣਾ ਕੋ ਸਾਲੁ ਜਿਵਾਹੇ ਸਾਲੀ ॥ ਧਰਮ ਰਾਇ ਹੈ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਲੈ ਗਲਾ ਕਰੇ ਦਲਾਲੀ ॥

ਜਿਸ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ) ਨੇ (ਨਿਮ੍ਰਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਰਹਿ ਕੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਮੰਨਣ ਦੀ ਘਾਲ-ਕਮਾਈ) ਕੀਤੀ, ਉਹ ਮੰਨਣ-ਜੋਗ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ। (ਦੋਹਾਂ ਵਿਚੋਂ) ਕੌਣ ਸ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਟ ਹੈ? ਜਿਵਾਂਹ ਕਿ ਮੁੰਜੀ? (ਮੁੰਜੀ ਹੀ ਚੰਗੀ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਨੀਵੇਂ ਥਾਂ ਪਲਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸੇ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਜੋ ਨੀਵਾਂ ਰਹਿ ਕੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਮੰਨਦਾ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਆਦਰ ਪਾ ਲੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ)। ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਰਾਜਾ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ, ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ, ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਅਰਜ਼ੋਈਆਂ ਸੁਣ ਕੇ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨਾਲ ਜੋੜਨ ਦਾ ਵਿਚੋਲਾ-ਪਨ ਕਰ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ।


The one who remained humble and listened to Satgur's hukam (Guru Angad), became accepted. Which of the 2 was better? (comparing to Guru Nanak's son). The one who stays humble and follows orders is better. Guru Angad was king of faith but remained humble and remained steadfast in joining others with God.


ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਆਖੈ ਸਚਾ ਕਰੇ ਸਾ ਬਾਤ ਹੋਵੈ ਦਰਹਾਲੀ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੀ ਦੋਹੀ ਫਿਰੀ ਸਚੁ ਕਰਤੈ ਬੰਧਿ ਬਹਾਲੀ ॥

(ਹੁਣ) ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ (ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ) ਜੋ ਬਚਨ ਬੋਲਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਉਹੀ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਹੀ ਗੱਲ ਤੁਰਤ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ (ਜੀ) ਵਡਿਆਈ ਦੀ ਧੁੰਮ ਪੈ ਗਈ ਹੈ, ਸੱਚੇ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਨੇ ਪੱਕੀ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਕਾਇਮ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੈ।


Now whatever the true guru (Guru Angad) says, Akal Purakh does. Guru Angad was given the greatness/knowledge and this was confirmed/cemented by the almighty.


ਨਾਨਕੁ ਕਾਇਆ ਪਲਟੁ ਕਰਿ ਮਲਿ ਤਖਤੁ ਬੈਠਾ ਸੈ ਡਾਲੀ ॥ ਦਰੁ ਸੇਵੇ ਉਮਤਿ ਖੜੀ ਮਸਕਲੈ ਹੋਇ ਜੰਗਾਲੀ ॥ ਦਰਿ ਦਰਵੇਸੁ ਖਸੰਮ ਦੈ ਨਾਇ ਸਚੈ ਬਾਣੀ ਲਾਲੀ ॥

ਸੈਂਕੜੇ ਸੇਵਕਾਂ ਵਾਲਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਰੀਰ ਵਟਾ ਕੇ (ਭਾਵ, ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਸਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ) ਗੱਦੀ ਸੰਭਾਲ ਕੇ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਾਲੀ ਹੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ, ਕੇਵਲ ਸਰੀਰ ਪਲਟਿਆ ਹੈ)। ਸੰਗਤਿ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦਾ) ਦਰ (ਮੱਲ ਕੇ) ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਨਾਲ ਸੇਵਾ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ (ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਪਵਿਤ੍ਰ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਜਿਵੇਂ) ਜੰਗਾਲੀ ਹੋਈ ਧਾਤ ਮਸਕਲੇ ਨਾਲ (ਸਾਫ਼) ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇ) ਦਰ ਤੇ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ) ਨਾਮ ਦੀ ਦਾਤਿ ਦਾ ਸੁਆਲੀ ਹੈ। ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਸੱਚਾ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਦੀ ਬਰਕਤਿ ਨਾਲ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਮੂੰਹ ਉਤੇ) ਲਾਲੀ ਬਣੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ।


The jyot from Guru Nanak changed bodies (entered the body of Guru Angad), but Nanak continued to look after the people from his throne. The sangat serve him from love and make their souls cleaner. At Guru Nanak's door, the name of the saint Guru Angad is taken. Guru Angad loves the true name of Akal Purakh and his bani.


ਬਲਵੰਡ ਖੀਵੀ ਨੇਕ ਜਨ ਜਿਸੁ ਬਹੁਤੀ ਛਾਉ ਪਤ੍ਰਾਲੀ ॥ ਲੰਗਰਿ ਦਉਲਤਿ ਵੰਡੀਐ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਖੀਰਿ ਘਿਆਲੀ ॥ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾ ਕੇ ਮੁਖ ਉਜਲੇ ਮਨਮੁਖ ਥੀਏ ਪਰਾਲੀ ॥

ਹੇ ਬਲਵੰਡ! (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਪਤਨੀ) (ਮਾਤਾ) ਖੀਵੀ ਜੀ (ਭੀ ਆਪਣੇ ਪਤੀ ਵਾਂਗ) ਬੜੇ ਭਲੇ ਹਨ, ਮਾਤਾ ਖੀਵੀ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਛਾਂ ਬਹੁਤ ਪੱਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਵਾਲੀ (ਸੰਘਣੀ) ਹੈ (ਭਾਵ, ਮਾਤਾ ਖੀਵੀ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਪਾਸ ਬੈਠਿਆਂ ਭੀ ਹਿਰਦੇ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ-ਠੰਢ ਪੈਦਾ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ)। (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਸਤਸੰਗ-ਰੂਪ) ਲੰਗਰ ਵਿਚ (ਨਾਮ ਦੀ) ਦੌਲਤ ਵੰਡੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਆਤਮਕ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਨਾਮ-ਰਸ ਵੰਡਿਆ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ (ਤਿਵੇਂ ਮਾਤਾ ਖੀਵੀ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਸਦਕਾ ਲੰਗਰ ਵਿਚ ਸਭ ਨੂੰ) ਘਿਉ ਵਾਲੀ ਖੀਰ ਵੰਡੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਦਰ ਤੇ ਆ ਕੇ) ਗੁਰਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੱਥੇ ਤਾਂ ਖਿੜੇ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਵਲੋਂ ਬੇਮੁਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੂੰਹ (ਈਰਖਾ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ) ਪੀਲੇ ਪੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ।


Balwand says that Mata Khivi (Guru Angad's wife) is also a noble person like her husband. When close, she is very soothing. In the langar, Guru Angad serves the wealth of the naam. Likewise Mata Khivi serves the sangat the sweetness of kheer. When coming to the door, the faces of Gursikhs are radiant, but the faces of manmukhs are very pale.


ਪਏ ਕਬੂਲੁ ਖਸੰਮ ਨਾਲਿ ਜਾਂ ਘਾਲ ਮਰਦੀ ਘਾਲੀ ॥ ਮਾਤਾ ਖੀਵੀ ਸਹੁ ਸੋਇ ਜਿਨਿ ਗੋਇ ਉਠਾਲੀ ॥੩॥

ਮਾਤਾ ਖੀਵੀ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਉਹ ਪਤੀ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਐਸਾ ਸੀ) ਜਿਸ ਨੇ (ਸਾਰੀ) ਧਰਤੀ (ਦਾ ਭਾਰ) ਚੁੱਕ ਲਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਸੀ। ਜਦੋਂ (ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਨੇ) ਮਰਦਾਂ ਵਾਲੀ ਘਾਲ ਘਾਲੀ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ) ਦੇ ਦਰ ਤੇ ਕਬੂਲ ਹੋਏ।੩।


Mata Khivi's husband lifted the load of the world. He worked hard for humanity. The lord approved.


ਹੋਰਿਂਓ ਗੰਗ ਵਹਾਈਐ ਦੁਨਿਆਈ ਆਖੈ ਕਿ ਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਈਸਰਿ ਜਗਨਾਥਿ ਉਚਹਦੀ ਵੈਣੁ ਵਿਰਿਕਿਓਨੁ ॥

ਦੁਨੀਆ ਆਖਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਗਤ ਦੇ ਨਾਥ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਨੇ ਹੱਦ ਦਾ ਉੱਚਾ ਬਚਨ ਬੋਲਿਆ ਹੈ ਉਸ ਨੇ ਹੋਰ ਪਾਸੇ ਵਲੋਂ ਹੀ ਗੰਗਾ ਚਲਾ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਉਸ ਨੇ ਕੀਹ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ?


The world wondered what Guru Nanak (and therefore all the gurus) did as he turned the world upside down with his thinking, as if he had reverted the course of the ganges


ਮਾਧਾਣਾ ਪਰਬਤੁ ਕਰਿ ਨੇਤ੍ਰਿ ਬਾਸਕੁ ਸਬਦਿ ਰਿੜਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਚਉਦਹ ਰਤਨ ਨਿਕਾਲਿਅਨੁ ਕਰਿ ਆਵਾ ਗਉਣੁ ਚਿਲਕਿਓਨੁ ॥

ਉਸ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ) ਨੇ ਉੱਚੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਨੂੰ ਮਧਾਣੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ, (ਮਨ-ਰੂਪ) ਬਾਸਕ ਨਾਗ ਨੂੰ ਨੇਤ੍ਰੇ ਵਿਚ ਪਾ ਕੇ (ਭਾਵ, ਮਨ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਬੂ ਕਰ ਕੇ) 'ਸ਼ਬਦ' ਵਿਚ ਰੇੜਕਾ ਪਾਇਆ (ਭਾਵ, 'ਸ਼ਬਦ' ਨੂੰ ਵਿਚਾਰਿਆ; ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ) ਉਸ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ) ਨੇ (ਇਸ 'ਸ਼ਬਦ'-ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਵਿਚੋਂ 'ਰੱਬੀ ਗੁਣ'-ਰੂਪ) ਚੌਦਾਂ ਰਤਨ (ਜਿਵੇਂ ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਦੇਵਤਿਆਂ ਨੇ ਚੌਦਾਂ ਰਤਨ ਕੱਢੇ ਸਨ) ਕੱਢੇ ਤੇ (ਇਹ ਉੱਦਮ ਕਰ ਕੇ) ਸੰਸਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਸੋਹਣਾ ਬਣਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ।


By bringing the mind under control and spreading the shabads, he found the jewels and therefore made the world a wonderful place.


ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਅਹਿ ਵੇਖਾਲੀਅਨੁ ਜਿਣਿ ਐਵਡ ਪਿਡ ਠਿਣਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਲਹਣੇ ਧਰਿਓਨੁ ਛਤ੍ਰੁ ਸਿਰਿ ਅਸਮਾਨਿ ਕਿਆੜਾ ਛਿਕਿਓਨੁ ॥

ਉਸ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ) ਨੇ ਐਸੀ ਸਮਰੱਥਾ ਵਿਖਾਈ ਕਿ (ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਮਨ) ਜਿੱਤ ਕੇ ਇਤਨੀ ਉੱਚੀ ਆਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਪਰਖਿਆ, (ਫਿਰ) ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਉਤੇ (ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਦਾ) ਛਤਰ ਧਰਿਆ ਤੇ (ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ) ਸੋਭਾ ਅਸਮਾਨ ਤਕ ਅਪੜਾਈ।


Guru Nanak showed such greatness and power, he 1st touched and helped Baba Lehna's mind. He spread the royal canopy over him (metaphorically) and raised him to the sky.


ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮਾਣੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਾਹਿ ਆਪੁ ਆਪੈ ਸੇਤੀ ਮਿਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਪੁਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਘੋਖਿ ਕੈ ਸਭ ਉਮਤਿ ਵੇਖਹੁ ਜਿ ਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਜਾਂ ਸੁਧੋਸੁ ਤਾਂ ਲਹਣਾ ਟਿਕਿਓਨੁ ॥੪॥

(ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ) ਆਤਮਾ (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਦੀ) ਆਤਮਾ ਵਿਚ ਇਉਂ ਮਿਲ ਗਈ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ 'ਆਪੇ' (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ) ਨਾਲ ਸਾਂਵਾਂ ਕਰ ਲਿਆ। ਹੇ ਸਾਰੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ! ਵੇਖੋ, ਜੋ ਉਸ (ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ) ਨੇ ਕੀਤਾ, ਆਪਣੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਤੇ ਪੁਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਰਖ ਕੇ ਜਦੋਂ ਉਸ ਨੇ ਸੁਧਾਈ ਕੀਤੀ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਨੇ (ਆਪਣੇ ਥਾਂ ਲਈ ਬਾਬਾ) ਲਹਣਾ (ਜੀ ਨੂੰ) ਚੁਣਿਆ।੪।


The jyot of Guru Nanak combined with the jyot of Guru Angad so Guru Angad became indistinguishable from Guru Nanak. Look what Guru Nanak did! He tested his sons and his Sikhs and then chose Lehna as his successor.


A king is a leader. So the Guru's are spiritual leaders and therefore kings. Their kingdom is dharam (faith). This passage seems to be about how all the Guru's have one jyot as they have the same enlightenment and same lifestyle. Although Guru Nanak appointed Guru Angad as successor in his lifetime, he did not physically switch bodies. The jyot however was shared between the bodies and therefore the bodies are counted as one.


If I have gone wrong anywhere in my translations, I would be very grateful if you could please tell me! I am still a novice!

 

[spnadmin]

findingmyway ji/jasleen

In all the years Professor Sahib Singh's translation has been cited here as the gold standard of translations, no one before you has gifted the forum with a long and sturdy demonstration of how his understanding is applied to a problem before us.

I am so thankful to you. wahkaurwahkaur

And ik-jivan ji ...thanks for moving us beyond the idea of Guru Nanak and Guru Angad merging like shapeshifters ( ) The idea of souls merging makes more sense. With a bit more energy we may even tackle the idea of the soul in Sikhism to the max. wahkaur wahkaur The thread will glow.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Findingtheway ji,

Guru Fateh.

I can not add anything more to what Narayanjot ji has already mentioned. You have done a fantastic job because most of the literal translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib are quite misleading. This has been my drum beat in many of my posts since I joined this wonderful forum in 2004. The literal translation does not do any justice to this beautiful poetry. This is the reason I urge all to express the Shabads in their own words and share what kind of message they get from the Shabad. You have done justice to the Shabad,

The reason of my saying is in what you have expressed in English and what Ik Jivan ji has copied and pasted without giving a second thought if the literal translation matches what the Gurbani is talking about.

Many people claim the Tilak used in the below pangtee as the Hindu ritual of putting Tilak on the forehead which is not the case here. Tilak is not a Sikhi ritual nor its tradition.

Tilak exactly means the way you have expressed,"he bowed down before his disciple Lehna and gave him the mark of the gurgaddi".

In other words, Tilak means here passing the Gurgaddi to Guru Angad, as you have appropriately said.

Sahib Singh ji has also explained it in the right way. It is not Tilak Layah (which would mean putting Tilak on the forehead). It is Tilak ditah.

(ਹੁਣ) ਆਪਣੀ ਸਲਾਮਤੀ ਵਿਚ ਹੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਿੱਖ (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ) ਅੱਗੇ ਮੱਥਾ ਟੇਕਿਆ, ਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਜਿਊਂਦਿਆਂ ਹੀ (ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਦਾ) ਤਿਲਕ (ਬਾਬਾ ਲਹਣਾ ਜੀ ਨੂੰ) ਦੇ ਦਿੱਤਾ।੧।

While Guru Nanak was still alive and well, he bowed down before his disciple Lehna and gave him the mark of the gurgaddi

Following is what Ik Jivan ji wrote which shows the Hindu ritual of putting the tilak on the forehead and hence is incorrect.

sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||
The King, while still alive, applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead. ||1||

Thanks again for your great contribution.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[ik-jivan]

Findingmyway ji,
You wrote, ‘When Guru Nanak marked Lehna with the mark of the gurgaddi and declared him successor, with the goodness of Guru Nanak, bhai Lehna's goodness was also recognised because Lehna contained the same jyot that was inside Guru Nanak. He also had the same way of living, just the bodies were different.’

Still, ‘just the bodies were different’, is a peculiar statement in this context.

Here is an online English/Punjabi translator: http://www.ijunoon.net/. Merriam-Webster puts out a reasonable dictionary. . . lent mine to a Punjabi friend and I don’t think he’ll be giving it back. : (
------------------------------------------------------------
Narayanjot Kaur ji,
You wrote, ‘And ik-jivan ji ...thanks for moving us beyond the idea of Guru Nanak and Guru Angad merging like shapeshifters ( ) The idea of souls merging makes more sense. With a bit more energy we may even tackle the idea of the soul in Sikhism to the max. The thread will glow. ‘

Where does that ‘shapeshifter’ idea come from? Is that the meaning you thought I was conveying in part of my comments?


I’ll get back to the soul reference research, but I hope I can count on Findingmyway ji and others to examine the Gurmukhi to supplement whatever I can get out of the English.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tejwant Singh ji,
You wrote, ‘’Following is what Ik Jivan ji wrote which shows the Hindu ritual of putting the tilak on the forehead and hence is incorrect.

Quote:
sih itkw idqosu jIvdY ]1]
sehi ttikaa dhithos jeevadhai ||1||
The King, while still alive, applied the ceremonial mark to his forehead. ||1|| ‘

I would be more inclined to interpret the ‘mark to his forehead’ to mean a change in his state of consciousness and capacity of understanding, in line with the concept of God writing His Naam upon ones mind and heart.

The Daily Hukamnama refers to 'Hearing the Guru's Teachings, I obey them; this is the pre-ordained destiny written upon my forehead.'
------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you all.

Sat Sri Akal,
t