navjot2

so the only way you have of appreciating your own dharam is be criticising other peoples dharam? dont you have any intrinsic understanding of it? the point of any teacher is to lead you to God not to themselves. this is what i understood from Bachitar Natak. God doesnt depend on Anything or Anyone.

his trash was aimed at Hindus to be Anti Hindu (hence the Hindi) and neither of any worth nor interest to sikhs. you are calling me a liar? go look at satya prakash and what it says about vaishnavas, shaivas, devi pujaris etc obviously it fits your hateful fantasy/hero-complex that all Hindus are somehow 'enemies of sikhi' i told you im not interested in the false filth of Nabha Singh. you can read it yourself given you have basically schooled you self on the nonesense that these idiots followers have put up on the internet. i was wondering how long it would take you to start pasting the trash you have been reading directly then trying to pass it off as your own knowledge where is this copy and paste anything like what i have been saying? At least my arguements were my own. you can compare them. I already told you that Bhagauti ('devotee' according to your Nabha Baba) is Chandi, who spang froth from Durga's own form. You tell me what the word 'gharieaa' means from the BHai Gurdas quote? Lord and His Power differentiated as here in Guru Granth: "Kamlākanṯ karahi kanṯūhal anaḏ binoḏī nihsangā." ||6|| Lord of Maya (Kamlakanta), miracle-worker, absorbed in delightful play, unattached. (Ang 1082) You might get scared when you look at the above quote but rest assured a Vaishnava would 'get it' straight away, without needing to 'interpolate'. p.s. my interpolations are wrong but yours are right...because you say so? it just shows how perverted your intellect/approach is that rather then allow Guru Granth or Dasam Granth talk for itself you believe that it needs a commentary or external explanation. You fanatics have tried to create a Mullah culture where we have to get 'right explanation' of Bani from you. and one more thing you are saying 'these names are descriptive names'. well duh- descriptions- forms- of Him. Isnt everyname a description? But you are ignoring Sukhmani that says He and His Naams are One. oh well better to ignore what doesnt suit your arguement hey? you still havent explained how 'kirtam' is related to sanskrit word for 'artificial' or whatever tenuous connection they/you are claiming. also a shabad quoted by you yourself above is equating ਹਰਿ with Akal.

so just to clarify: the first sentence shows laughable denial. the second shows how you cant face up to what is written (why is it wrong to take literal approach?). (keep in mind SGGS is written in Hymns and Dasam Granth is sections, so neither necessarily read in order of layout, therefore your referencing inbetween bani's as if they are philosophphical treatises is flawed). my interpolations are direct and simple. yours are based on ideological 'interpolations', so you hide behind metaphor. Durga is represents His Shakti 'primordial power'). Clearly delineated in quoted sections above. But whats the point in argueing with someone in denial? What I said about Krishan /Vaishnavas is wrong? courtesy of www.SriGranth.org: "Cẖaṯurā▫ī na cẖaṯurbẖuj pā▫ī▫ai. Rahā▫o." (324) Through cleverness, the four-armed Lord is not obtained and just in case you dont know who four armed Lord is it is Vishnu rupa: "Ḏẖār kẖel cẖaṯurbẖuj kahā▫i▫ā." He has staged His play; He is called the four-armed Lord. "Sāval sunḏar rūp baṇāvėh beṇ sunaṯ sabẖ mohaigā. ||9||" He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed. ||9|| "Sankẖ cẖakar gaḏā hai ḏẖārī mahā sārthī saṯsangā. ||10||" He carries the conch, the chakra and the war club; He is the Great Charioteer, who stays with His Saints. ||10|| (1084) You see- conch, chakra, club- Vishnu Rupa. So when Guru Nanak met Chaitanya Bhagat at Puri and they dang kirtan together do you think they were singing to different Lords?

tell me this if a hindu or muslims group says that sikhs are part of them, why should/does it have any effect influence on sikhs at all? because modern sikhs are fixated on external idenity (who 'we' are) and insecure. and are being influenced by external things, rather than inwards facing/concentrated. if you really know who you are, why does it matter how other people define you? that is more their business. something has gone wrong in the structure of modern panth. they are outward looking rather than inward looking.

major denial alert. oh really? so why use the word Allah in the first place?

see what i mean using Guru's perosnliaty as prop for their own hatred. and theyy talk about enemies of sikhism. the real enemy of sikhism is the conduct of stupid, egotistical and misguided arrogant sikhs. bowing down humbly before Him and sincerely repeating naams and qualities of His with devotion is a fake act?

oh my God! Mekhane'ch Jannat!!!! i almost wept when reading your responses. i feel like i found a long lost brother/sister! these people are hateful and just see dharam as an extension of their ego. everything is ideological to them. hence why they are full of hate. how willn they understand what it means to be a devotee, think like a devotee etc

this never was in dispute! beautiful shabad.

since you used plural, the answer is no. but by writting or+ he was inviting elaboration. so it has already been answered

Arya Samajis are themselves Anit-Hindus. You would know that if you knew about Satya Prakash. Didnt they refuse to be categorised as Hindus when imprisoned in British time? actually what they were trying to do was put sikhs down by equating them with Hindus, who they had already insulted. you are acting as if he (Nabha) wrote that book for sikhs, when he actually wrote it for non-sikhs, as a violent gesture. hence its in Hindu. Nabha singh mirrors Arya Samaji in their fanaticism. they were competing. like minded people felt threatened by each other. what do we care how people external to us view us? unless the fixation is on external identity/politics

You are a funny fellow. first you say God does not take birth so we cannot give a naam to him. even before that you say we believe in shabadguru. and now after that you yourself call him Akal? Then you quote me a translation saying 'Sat Naam' is His Actual Naam? now you are saying that the names in Gurbani are functional names? Yet right the start of Sukhmani it says that He and His Naams are One. They are not seperate. How does Kirtam equate to 'merely descriptive' please explain? and what does 'para poorbala' mean? Its becoming clear to me that you put your manufactured ideology even above both SGGS and DG, and think these are to be interpreted in light of your own ideology, which someone else taught (brainwashed) you. 'Akal Purakhism'. The biggest give away to knowing that someone has been brainwashed by those people is there writting has 'Guru Sahib' in it. Yes God does not take birth, but- to paraphrase- 'adi ant eko avtaara'- He Is Everything. You cant seem to think of Him as anything except Transcendent. I already explained about deities relation to God. see above when I am explaining more about agreeing with Balbir. no point repeating myself. Also Jama is not hell, it is death. And Sri Pati is the word used in what you quote, as in The Auspicious Master. As in One Supreme. that is my understanding. And I accept 100% what He says there, just like I accept 100% when He says 'Tu Hi Bhavani' etc.

These deities fall under the above category. When they are not able to comprehend God how can they become God. How can Guru sahib ask boon from such devis? It is sheer ignorance to say like this.Moreover sikhs believe in shabadguru? if you learn this simple thing you will have no questions. lol see what I mean about it being you who runs around in circles. If There is Only One, then who are these deities? And arent they being refered to by Naams throughout Dasam Bani. They are all His Forms. Like you quoted 'Tu Hi Bhavani'. These Goddesses are His Boon-granting Form. that is what I Understand. Look say there is one man. when he goes to work he puts on a police unifrom so people reocgnise his job as policeman. we he goes on holiday he puts on casual clothes so people know he is carefree. it is one man but different forms. do you see? look, not every sikh was from the same background that time. Guru ji was above religions. He could use all these dharams language with ease, perceiving directly what they actually meant. If you wouldnt understand what he means in some of these texts a Hindu from one of those schools would get it right away. So it would confuse you but they would get it. At the end of the day these names like Bhavani, Shivaa, Saraada. The Author Himself utilised them. Why would he do this rather than just using the word Akal? why do you think you know better? I dont fundamentally disagree with you (He is Only asking Boons from the One). But you cant get over seeing Him as anything other than the word 'Akal', so you psychologically censor whenever you see a different Naam used.

If he does not manifest as avtar then vishnu and party are not Him. He creates and decimate crores of such characters. When Guruji says that Akal creates and destroys crores of Krishnas- the way I understand it is that it is Praise of the Unmanifest. Afterall is Krishna a small thing? Krishna is considuered one of/if not The Mightiest Forms. I understand that it is being said as Great as Manifestated Forms are, the Unmanifest is Much Greater- so we not limit or underestimate its potential. At all. So whereas I see this as gyana/ustat of Akal you see it as a hateful statement towards Hindus and an statement against Krishna. This shows your mindset.

The page numbers of those quotes are there, otherwise just google the translation lines. Does where these quotes appear somehow change their meaning? Follow the arguement, you will see how Durga refers to Shakti, as does Bhagauti. theres no circles just you running around clutching at straws. If it is saying Bhagauti di Ustat in a place where Bhavani is mentioned, also if like it says Bhagauti di Ustat in another part of Dasam Granth it says Devi di Ustat (like i quoted earlier) arent the two equatable you are like a broken record. you look at the actual words quoted. if you are just going to say every word used is Akal you are not even worthy of dicsussion. When are you going to face the fact that the Bani doesnt only use the word Akal it uses other specific words? Are you really so ignorant? It doesnt matter since what I am saying is that these are all forms of what you can only understand as 'Akal' anyway. What is the Devi doing in Krishna Avtar? Do you really have to ask? The Author is invoking her blessing to relate the events/descriptions. this is obvious. This happens continually thorught Dasam Granth it seems to me. "It is all praise of God and nothing more than that. Do not turn praise of god to make deities as God. " I agree with the first part, but these are different forms of the One, hence the different Names. Its the other way around to your second sentence. these deities are none other than forms of Him. It is Him being praised. Like page 96 I told you before. You are not accepting that these are His Forms, which is what the part of Dasam Granth bani (someonewhere Thou Art) seems to me to be saying. It seems like you cant accept Him being associated with the Holy Forms venerated by Hindus. Like you dont want to accept the two are related. This is your ideological bigotry.

Since when do swords ride around on lions or live on mountains? I already showed you these quotes. You people have played some funny mind games with yourselves. I am showing you what is written but rather than awknowledge that you run of and find a quote from somewhere else. my friend you are only deceiving yourself. Now you are trying to quote Naam Shashtra Mala. You have not responded to what I said just quoted another section! How does that constitute a discussion. Even now you are wrong because look here: "ਸਭੈ ਨਾਮ ਜਗਮਾਤ ਕੇ ਲੀਜਹੁ ਸੁ ਕਬਿ ਸੁਧਾਰਿ ॥੩੨॥" (line 32) the translator on SriDasam.org translated Jagmaata as Durga. "ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਸ਼ਕਤਿ " is also used (line 47). look here: "ਭੂਤਾਂਤਕ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗਵਤੀ ਭਵਹਾ ਨਾਮ ਬਖਾਨ ॥ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਵਾਨੀ ਭੈ ਹਰਨ ਸਭ ਕੋ ਕਰੌ ਕਲਯਾਨ ॥੬॥" It is described as the goddess bringing the end of all elements and the destroyer of all the sufferings; O the sword-Bhavani (goddess) ! You are the destroyer of fear; bring the happiness to all. (page 1360). This text- Shastra Jap Mala- is amazing dense where Guru ji appears to be equating weapons with mantras. You wouldnt know what it means and so shouldnt touch it. So Devi Naam (Bhavani) is clearly making an appearance. By the way the part you quoted didnt support what you were trying to say but dont worry I saw the part you meant to quote, but even then in light of the above- there you go! heres some more incase you are still doubting: "ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰ ਸ਼ੇਰ ਸਮਰਾਂਤ ਕਰਿ ਸਿੱਪਰਾਰਿ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੇਰ ॥ " Now tell me whose weapon- of which form- the lion (sher) is? Hint hint- she is depicted with four arms- as you put it. Durga aka Sherwani. look at line 23: "Thou art the sword and dagger chopping the enemies and considering Indra as Thy devotee; Thou didst bestow on him the position of the king of gods.23." (line 23) this is SriDasam.Org's translation. personally i do not knwo if it is correct, but if it is who is this form who helped Indra? Chandi Di Vaar. Durga rupa.

running in circles is your forte. Balbir put it beautiful. woudl you like me to elaborate on my personal take? There is Only One. All Great Names are His Names, All Great Forms are His Forms the Devas when looked at in one angle are His Creation- they sing his glories (Gavaaei like in Japji) when looked at in singularity they can become signifiers of the Supreme Himself. There person who devotes themselves to Shiva comes to the Essence of Shiva- the very self same Shiva your refer to.

its hilarious that your post has Bhagauti translated as 'primordial power'. you know full well that 'power' in panjabi would be 'shakti'. so who is this 'primodial power'? that same that was called Bhavani, like I quoted to show you earlier. The Goddess Herself is that Primordial Power personified. You are also claiming that a sword has been perosnified. Akal was before and Is Beyond Power, so it is differentiated from him. I can quote alot from Dasam Granth. But you will remain in denial. Here you go: in sections of other parts of Dasan Granth there are: "ਅਥ ਦੇਵੀ ਜੂ ਕੀ ਉਸਤਤ ਕਥਨੰ ॥" (p 645) -Now begins the description (kathan) in praise (ustat) of the goddess (devi) "ਰੇ ਮਨ ਭਜ ਤੂੰ ਸਾਰਦਾ ਅਨਗਨ ਗੁਨ ਹੈ ਜਾਹਿ ॥ " -Here Saarada (Sharada) is Saraswati, another aspect of the Goddess. "ਦੇਵੀ ਬਰ ਲਾਇਕ ਸਬੁੱਧਿਹੂ ਕੀ ਦਾਇਕ ਸੁ ਦੇਹ ਬਰ ਪਾਇਕ ਬਨਾਵੈ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਹਾਲ ਹੈ ॥੭॥" The same goddess is capable of bestowing the boon and good intellect; by her Grace this Granth can be composed.7. Look here can it be any more obvious for you: ਅੱਦ੍ਰ ਸੁਤਾ ਹੂੰ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਤਨਯਾ ਮਹਿਖਾਸੁਰ ਕੀ ਮਰਤਾ ਫੁਨਿ ਜੋਊ ॥ अद्र सुता हूं की जो तनया महिखासुर की मरता फुनि जोऊ ॥ She, who is the daughter of the mountain and the destroyer of Mahishasura; ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਕੋ ਰਾਜਹਿ ਕੀ ਦਿਵਯਾ ਕਰਤਾ ਬਧ ਸੁੰਭ ਨਿਸੁੰਭਹਿ ਦੋਊ ॥ इंद्र को राजहि की दिवया करता बध सु्मभ निसु्मभहि दोऊ ॥ She, who is the bestower of the kingdom on India by killing Sumbh and Nisumbh; ਜੋ ਜਪ ਕੈ ਇਹ ਸੇਵ ਕਰੈ ਬਰ ਕੋ ਸੁ ਲਹੈ ਮਨ ਇੱਛਤਾ ਸੋਊ ॥ जो जप कै इह सेव करै बर को सु लहै मन इछता सोऊ ॥ He, who remembers and serves her, he receives the reward to his heart`s desire, ਲੋਕ ਬਿਖੈ ਉਹ ਕੀ ਸਮ ਤੁੱਲ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਨ ਦੂਸਰ ਕੋਊ ॥੮॥ लोक बिखै उह की सम तु्ल गरीब निवाज न दूसर कोऊ ॥८॥ And in the whole world, none other is the supporter of the poor like her.8. How can Akal, in its form as Nirguna Akal, be called 'daughter of the mountain'? That refers to Durga/Parvati and you know it does. These are just random quotes. Im sure you can find the same. You are saying other compositons have nothing to do with Durga yet Bhagauti is invoked, yet other forms of the Goddess are also rememebered (above quote is not from CHandi di Vaar). Which basically equates the two. Also why would the Author keep invoking a sword when talking about say Krishna leela? Or non-war stories? Now instead of running hither and tither why dont you actually respond to the quotes I have given you for once? "God is manifest in his creation. He is manifest in you , me and others in the same way as he was manifest in Krishna, bhavani, durga. But we as well as Durga,krishna do not become akal purakh. In sikhism God is formless and his attributes are given in Mool mantra. He does not incarnate as avtars." Look ealier werent we looking at a quote from Dasam Granth where it says 'Tu Hi Bhavani'? 'You Are Bhavani'. Could it be any clearer? But you are saying the above? In Sikhism God is not always formless. This is your own conditioning. I would say God is beyond form and formless. in that respect your fanatical insistence on formlessness is irrelevant. yes Akal pervades everything, everything is in essence Him. There is Only One. No one is disputing that. I am saying the same. Krishna, Bhavani, Durga are in essence Him. Because there is only One. Go read page 96 on SirDasam.org i honestly think it will help clear your confusion about Akal's relation to all these Holy Forms. Yes He Himself does not manifest as avtars, in Dasam Granth it says Vishnu etc took avtar as per His command. Sying He manifests in you me and others- saying this theoretically is one thing but Realising the Truth of the statement is another thing (Jeevan Mukti). ApayGur Chela. (He Himself is Gur and Student). "Same Words will mean differenlty per context of use. Bhagauti means devotee some place as in SGGS and same word means power of akal purakh in Dasam granth. For example Ram is used for akal purakh and Ram is also used for Ram of ayodhaya. both are to be interpereted per context." you are just playing deceitful word games. e.g. Muraarey means of the flute, clearly refers to Krishan rupa. Likewise I have seen in Guru Granth the Lord refered to as Raghunatha (clear reference to Saguna Rama). Also like I already said, if Bhagauti means power of Akal Purakh =Shakti of Akal Purakh= Bhavni etc. See quotes above. I have dealt with Shivaa. you are in denial. I think you need to go look. Its Shivaa with a kanna. You are still saying Shiva for some reason. He wrote Sivaa, not Siva, not Akal, not Vaheguru etc You still dont admit it so go look at it for yourself You give the quote about the root of Devi Deva being Maya. But what is Maya? MahaMaya as they say? You are still refering to someonthing other than the Lord. In this case His power to deceive. Maya is to Vaishnavas as Shakti is to Shaivas. And how are you relating the quote about Bhavanis Origin to that of Gur in Japji? It doesnt even make sense You are anti Hindu to the core because the very route of yoru approach is to deny anything Hindu, you start from there and interpret all these quotes from that stance. the motvation is hatred. The quotes from Guru Granth- no one is disputing that. But your take on them is tinged with hatred, which you are someonehow equating with Divine Gyan of Kabir? Are you even accepting the full extent of what he is saying, that body and jeev are also polluted? see these are great statements but your approach is so petty. Guru Gobind Singh, who we attribute DasamGranth to, he Knew the Supreme Being. And He has given the correct understanding of Him in relation to Devas etc. It is His work we are refering to. You are trying to approach Gurbani lilke an ideologist your whole approach is polluted. These so called people like Nabha etc filled Sikhs minds with paranoia and fear for which they should be hated. Your fixation with 'enemies of sikhism' 'devouriong sikhism' is the pollution these people have put there. RSS, Kala Afghana are not a threat to sikhs, no matter how fanatical they become. When a devotee reads SGGS or Dasam Bani with pure mindset, how can they go wrong? Only when kathatks and others start acting as intermediaries between the masses and Gurbani. If theres no sincere Devotess then religions remains unaffected anyway.

Khalsa di Fauj that was a really sincere and honest response you just gave so thanks I liked reading that post. i also notice that you dont take to petty remarks in your post

Amardeep I agree with what Balbir said directly after your post.

Why does Gurbani need aarths/ externally explained or 'interpreted'? are you too scared to take it as it is? how many times did i ask you to explain your understanding of vyakaaran and you ran off. what exactly are you arths based on? what is so special about discussing it in person that you cannot say online? why does Madhusudan etc need an explanation? Clearly you dont rely on Guru Granth if you are hiding behind aarths. You are some Kathak ka chela. And what exactly have you contributed to this discussion before making these claims? oh look, nothing!

You people just like to project your own ideas on Gurbani. You dont have the guts to just shutup and let Guruji express Himself. Rather you get scared at the mention of a 'hindu' word and then go running to some steek or kathak to go get some kind of excuse or explanation for its presence. You basically fixated on the word Akaal because Hindus dont tend to use it much- but Gurus have not used it much either. You are not prepaired for a second to try and understand what Durga signifies. Nihungs have no problem talking baout Chandi, Durga etc because they live the warrior lifestyle, so they know what She signifies. Guru ji has chosen to use a certain word at a certain place, yet you are running of to say 'oh but he really means some other word' !

You say "Bahaguti is power of akal purakh symbolised by sword". so why has Akal purakh's power been differnetiated from Akal Purakh? and personified as a feminine word for sword? (that is to say why are we asking for help from Akal Purakhs power- because it has been differentiated from Akal Purakh himself!). I.e. it represents His Shakti. Now what I dont understand is why you find a sword is an ok representation of this but Durga is unacceptable as a symbol of this to you? You are just playing wordgames, i.e. using the word power rather than Shakti. Your translation doesnt correlate with what is written. My understanding that here Bhagauti refers to Chandi- who sprang forth from Durga. Chandi is an aspect of Durga. Earlier before this part we see Chandi being described as fighting alongside Durga and actually striking the killer attacks (page 307). and why is it, that given the length of this Vaar, only at this instance is the 'sword' called Bhagauti, which is right near the end of this section? Also is this the same word 'Bhagauti' as mentioned in Sukhmani, that Nabha says means devotee? So Bhagauti acoording to your ideology means both 'sword' and 'devotee'??? The context it is used in Sukhmani doesnt seem to imply it can mean sword. Also you are saying this is a different Jagmata. But at the end of this text look what the Author has written: ਚਉਦਹ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਛਾਇਆ ਜਸੁ ਜਗਮਾਤ ਦਾ ॥ "The praise of the mother of the universe spread over all the fourteen worlds." (325) The above is not the speech of Shiv but the author. also who is the 'ek maee' who 'jagat viaee' in Japji? Is it not the One Shakti, or MoolaMaya? "Please refer to the subject verse from Chandi charitra here." ??? not sure what you mean here sorry. i gave you the page number didnt I? Your quote from 'Charitropakhayan' the words are 'Tu Hi' the 'hi' is emphasis. So I would say that Guru is saying that 'You ARE Joga Maya'- i.e. that Akal Purakh is the Essence. There is Only One- and these are His Forms. I am not disputing that the text explains that Devas are his creation ('saaji'). Look let me try and illustrate. Look at Guru Nanak there are two ways of understanding him- 1. as Akaal's servant 2. As Paramata Himself. Arent both froms expressed in SGGS? Guru Nanak is in Essence the Lord Himself. do you see? However if you say to some people that Guru Nanak is the Lord, they will get confused, be cause they think of him as a man. But the devotee first sees Guru Nanak as a man, then as a Guru (Guru being aspect of God Itself) then as a form of God Itself. But also then Guru Nanak is a worshipper of the Lord. He is both! The Manifest, is in essence He Himself, but He Himself is Unmanifest (Akaal). Manifest such a Krishna, Bhavani, Shiva are none but He Himself. Now if Gurus can praise/venerate a devotee, why cant they praise a goddess who here is being described (in my opinion) as the Ultimate Devotee of Akal (hence the name Bhagauti)? One of your ideological buddys has graffitied Nabhas explanation of 'Shivaa' on Wikipedia. You can go search it out, Im not polluting my intellect by reading though his nonesense. "I go by what is written in Dasam granth. It is siva and not shiva or shivaa." You are deluded. I already copied and pasted for you and you can go look for yourself. The text says Sivaa (which is Shivaa). If you want to remain in denial its your choice. You can keep imagining explanations. The text I quoted says 'Namo' which means I salute you and then a Goddesses Naam. That is what is actually written. You can imagine differently if it makes you feel better. The word in the verse you quoted is Prakriti. The word is verse I quoted is Bhavani. Now look where the Author Himself has chosen to use Prakriti and where He hase chosen to use Bhavani. He Himself wrote it there. But you chose to interpret or substitute the word with whatever you want to see, which is ridiculous. If he wanted to mean prakriti he would use that word, but the fact is he used the word Bhavani. "They are not the same thing.In sikhism these demi gods are subordinate to akal purakh.They do not have independent potential. Mahakal in Dasam Granth does refer to great God of destruction. In tantrik hinduism maha kal is absolute God in the form of deity shiva. there is a big big difference. Sikh philosophy of creation is different from hinduism . Hinduism believes trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and shiva creates , sustains and destroys creation. Sikhism rejects that. In sikhism God whose attributes are in mool mantra creates, sustains and destroys creation" No, Krishna-Vaishnavas belive that all deities are subordinate to Krishna- go refer to the BHagavad Gita. Likewise Shaivas believe that all dieties are suboridnate to Shiva. They has two aspects of their Vishnu/Shiva- those that refer to the part of the trinity and those that refer to that Above this trinity. Why has Guru Nanak seen fit to use Vaishnava signifiers like Hari, Raam, Narayana for Akal? Or let me guess do those words actually mean 'something else' and he just used them- well why did he use those specific words? If they wanted to use only Akaal for everything they would have. btw sikhism doesnt necessarily disagree that Bhahma Vishnu Shiva trinity, but it says they are not Supreme. Arent they mentioned in Japji in this respect? Well I do not know what kind of bizarre imagined interpretation syou have of these things. Basically the import of the above statement if your is that you are anti-hindu, this is your starting point, and all you reasoning is based upon this point. likewise you want to project this on Sikhi. You are Nabha-fanatic ka chela.

the short 'a' sound (called 'mukta' in panjabi) does not have a signifier in Gurmukhi script but is implied. Though in modern speech it is usually not pronounced at the end of words. no offence but anyone with a basic understanding of panjabi (i.e. a school kid) would know this.

of course. same thing is reiterated in Guru Granth, right from the start in Japji. This is not in dispute.

some points ot answer what you have brought up: 1. at the beggining on the Vaar it says it is Bhagauti's Vaars. I.e. Bhagauti is the same Durga described in the text. ( Which is the same bhagauti that appears in the Ardas, itself lifted from this part of Dasam Granth). 2. Look at page 280 of Dasam Granth, this is part of the Vaars. Here Durga sends Shiva (spelt as Shiv) as her messenger to warn the demon. Shiv decribes Durga as Jagatmata. Now think back to the end of Chaupai where it says 'kirpa karo hum par jagmata'. So these are two different Jagmatas? Also note here that the spelling Shiva has appeared, as contrasted with Shivaa. Because Shivaa is a distinct word, refering to Durga ('Parabhram ka shakti' as Kahna Singh says- so ven that fanatic relents on this point). For some bizarre reason you are still not relenting that the word is spelt Shivaa and not Shiva. now look: ਨਮੋ ਅੰਬਿਕਾ ਤੋਤਲਾ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਵਾਨੀ ॥੧੩॥੨੩੨॥ O Ambika ! o Bhavani ! I salute Thee. (note the word Namo- as in Salute). ( page289) These are names of the Goddesses. So they are essenitally Akal Itself. Akal is their essence. Now look this exlplains the differentiation between Kaal and Bhavani: ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਕਾਲ ਸਭ ਜਗ ਕੋ ਤਾਤਾ ॥ First of all the Lord as KAL is the primal farther of the whole universe; ਤਾਤੇ ਭਥੋ ਤੇਜ ਬਿਖਯਾਤਾ ॥ And from him emanated the Powerful Lustre; ਸੋਈ ਭਵਾਨੀ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਹਾਈ ॥ The same Lord was considered as Bhavani, (That was given the name of Bhavani). ਜਿਨ ਸਿਗਰੀ ਯਹ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਪਾਈ ॥੨੯॥ Who created the whole world.29. (page 422) Now look here to see the 'rider of the lion', who fought the battle, being equated with the Lords Power Itself, and as the Granter of Boons: from page 295: ਪਲੰਗੀ ਪਵੰਗੀ ਨਮੋ ਚਰਚਿਤੰਗੀ ॥ O the rider of the steed-like lion; ਨਮੋ ਭਾਵਨੀ ਭੂਤ ਹੰਤਾ ਭੜਿੰਗੀ ॥ O Bhavani of beautiful limbs! Thou art the destroyer of all engaged in the war. ਨਮੋ ਭੀਮਿ ਰੂਪਾ ਨਮੋ ਲੋਕ ਮਾਤਾ ॥ O the mother of the universe having large body! ਭਵੀ ਭਾਵਨੀ ਭਵਿਖਯਾਤਾ ਬਿਧਾਤਾ ॥੩੫॥੨੫੪॥ Thou art the power of Yama, the giver of the fruit of actions performed in the world, Thou art also the power of Brahma! I salute Thee.35.254. ਪ੍ਰਭਾ ਪੂਰਨੀ ਪਰਮ ਰੂਪੰ ਪਵਿਤ੍ਰੀ ॥ O the most pure power of God! ਪਰੀ ਪੋਖਣੀ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੀ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ॥ Thou art the maya and Gayatri, sustaining all. ਜਟੀ ਜੁਆਲ ਪਰਚੰਡ ਮੁੰਡੀ ਚਮੁੰਡੀ ॥ Thou art Chamunda, the wearer of the necklace of head, Thou art also the fire of the matted locks of Shiva; ਬਰੰ ਦਾਇਣੀ ਦੁਸਟ ਖੰਡੀ ਅਖੰਡੀ ॥੩੬॥੨੫੫॥ Thou art the donor of boons and destroyer of tyrants, but Thou Thyself ever remain indivisible.36.255. ਸਭੈ ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰੀ ਬਰੰ ਬਯੂਹ ਦਾਤਾ ॥ O the Saviour of all the saints and the donor of boons to all; ਨਮੋ ਤਾਰਣੀ ਕਾਰਣੀ ਲੋਕ ਮਾਤਾ ॥ The one who ferries across all over the terrible sea of life, the primary cause of all causes, O Bhavani! The mother of the universe. ਨਮਸਤਯੰ ਨਮਸਤਯੰ ਨਮਸਤਯੰ ਭਵਾਨੀ ॥ I salute Thee again and again, O the manifestation of the sword! ਸਦਾ ਰਾਖਿ ਲੈ ਮੁਹਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਕੈ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨੀ ॥੩੭॥੨੫੬॥ Protect me ever with Thy Grace.37.256. Note that the epithets are in the feminine, e.g. Paarabrahmee! why didnt He just write Parabrahma? also note how all these things are equated= the Devi on the Lion is that same Parabrahmee. 3. So just like you say all demigods are subordinate to Akal, same way Durga devotees say all demigods are subordinate to Her, and all Krishna devotees say all demigods are subordinate to Him. Its essentially the same thing. These are also forms of the One. People use their language to appraoch and describe It. It seems to me that Gurbani uses all of these forms and limits itself to none. By saying Akal we speak of him as Unconditioned. But dont forget that in Dasam Granth epithet Mahakal is also used- which Shaivas and Tibetan Buddhists also use.