Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji - Part 1 - ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ

[BhagatSingh]

Right now I am in the mood to correct things. So in this 'Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji' series, I want to highlight shabads, poems from Guru Granth Sahib, that have been translated incorrectly, which give the reader the wrong impression about the belief system of the author or about the message in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

When I read the English translation of Guru Granth Sahib ji. I notice that there are certain mistakes embedded in these translations that are over-looked by most sikhs, who rely on them to make out the meaning of the shabad. These incorrect beliefs then become internalized and lead to incorrect understanding. The incorrect understanding is then propagated in real life and in online forums, it seeps into discussions and the mindset.
 
One of the shabads I see the most, is a botched translation of Sant Kabir ji's shabad, where Kabir ji talks about the importance of your approach to Naam Simran. Do you approach Naam Simran to get something? What is it that you want to get out of it? Bhagat Kabir ji talks about the correct approach to Bhagati. He highlights a distinction in two approaches - the approach of Saint and the approach of Miracle-worker, who may appear similar to those who are unfamiliar.


But what does the English Translation of this shabad say? Something completely unrelated. It is as I say, completely botched.

Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji  - Part 1

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
कबीर राम कहन महि भेदु है ता महि एकु बिचारु ॥
Kabīr rām kahan mėh bẖeḏ hai ṯā mėh ek bicẖār.
Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
सोई रामु सभै कहहि सोई कउतकहार ॥१९०॥
So▫ī rām sabẖai kahėh so▫ī ka▫uṯakhār. ||190||
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. ||190||

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
कबीर रामै राम कहु कहिबे माहि बिबेक ॥
Kabīr rāmai rām kaho kahibe māhi bibek.
Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction.

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
एकु अनेकहि मिलि गइआ एक समाना एक ॥१९१॥
Ėk anekėh mil ga▫i▫ā ek samānā ek. ||191||
One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself. ||191||

 

Now just read the Gurmukhi -
 

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
कबीर राम कहन महि भेदु है ता महि एकु बिचारु ॥
Kabīr rām kahan mėh bẖeḏ hai ṯā mėh ek bicẖār.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
सोई रामु सभै कहहि सोई कउतकहार ॥१९०॥
So▫ī rām sabẖai kahėh so▫ī ka▫uṯakhār. ||190||

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
कबीर रामै राम कहु कहिबे माहि बिबेक ॥
Kabīr rāmai rām kaho kahibe māhi bibek.

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
एकु अनेकहि मिलि गइआ एक समाना एक ॥१९१॥
Ėk anekėh mil ga▫i▫ā (verb) ek samānā ek (verb). ||191||
 

Notice these 3 things as you read the Gurmukhi.

1. It does not say "Son of Dashrath" anywhere in the Gurmukhi, nor is it implied.
2. It does not say "Only to speak of all-pervading lord" anywhere in the Gurmukhi, nor is it implied.
3. It does not say "pervading everywhere" or "contained only in himself" anywhere in the Gurmukhi, nor is it implied.

The English translation is mistranslated and is used to misrepresent this shabad.

This is not what Sant Kabir ji is talking about and these are not the views he holds. This is not what Guru Granth Sahib ji is talking about either, and this mistranslated  shabad is used to misrepresent the Guru.

So the big question -

What is this shabad actually talking about?
 

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
कबीर राम कहन महि भेदु है ता महि एकु बिचारु ॥
Kabīr rām kahan mėh bẖeḏ hai ṯā mėh ek bicẖār.
Kabir says there is a difference in how one says "Ram", let me share one thought.

So now he mentions Kautakahar. Kautakhar are those people who perform miracles to entertain. Kabir ji is saying -

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
सोई रामु सभै कहहि सोई कउतकहार ॥१९०॥
So▫ī rām sabẖai kahėh so▫ī ka▫uṯakhār. ||190||
All (saints) say "Ram" and so do the ka▫uṯakhār, those who perform miracles or entertain.

(i.e. the saints chant Ram because they have Prem/love for Ram. The kautakhar chant Ram to obtain ridhi sidhi, power to perform miracles, which they will show off. The latter have Prem for ridhi sidhi not Ram.)

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
कबीर रामै राम कहु कहिबे माहि बिबेक ॥
Kabīr rāmai rām kaho kahibe māhi bibek.
Kabir says do say "Ram" but in saying it recognize this difference/ this thought (bibek).

The difference is in intention!

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
एकु अनेकहि मिलि गइआ एक समाना एक ॥१९१॥
Ėk anekėh mil ga▫i▫ā (verb) ek samānā ek (verb). ||191||
That one merged in the many, and the other one merged in the One.

"pervading everywhere" (noun) or "contained only in himself" (noun) are incorrect translations of these Verbs.
ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ - is a verb, it's the act of doing ie. merging
ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ - is a verb, it's an act of doing ie. merging

That those who were after the power to perform miracles merged with (verb) those powers, meaning they never achieved mukti. But those (saints) who were after Ram merged with Him, the One (verb).

They are both doing Bhagati but their intentions are worlds apart, this is what Kabir is talking about in this shabad. The bibek you need to have to do Bhagati matters as it ultimately determines what result you get.

Why does Bhagat Kabir ji feel the need to point this out?

Since both Saints and Miracle-Workers can do kautaks, miracles, to the unfamiliar eye it might appear that they are the same. To new student of meditation, it might appear that meditation should be done to achieve these miraculous powers. They might think that it is miraculous powers that makes one into a Saint.

Sant Kabir ji guides his sikhs and tells them. There is a difference that must be recognized. The Saints are into Naam Simran, meditation, for Ram. The miracle-workers, kautakhars, are into Naam Simran for Kautaks.

He says that those who are in it for Ram, merge with Ram, and those who are in it for miracles, merge with the many miracles.

Bhagat Kabir ji is encouraging his sikhs to be in it for Ram.

So you see now what Bhagat Kabir ji is talking about? He's talking about differences in goals and aims, differences in intentions and purpose. And this is absolutely clear if you just read the Gurmukhi.

Just let that sink in. Bhagat Kabir ji is talking about aims and intentions.

 

It doesn't say the word Saint in the Gurmukhi, either. Where are you getting that from?
As you can clearly see, I wrote it as "(saints)"; I put it in brackets in my translation.

So I know it doesn't say "saints" in the Gurmukhi.

However it really is talking about saints even though Kabir doesn't use the word "saint". This is because in the very last tuk, he says that these "people" merge into the One, into Ram. Since they merged into the One, they can be called saints. 

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
"That one have merged in the many, and one have merged in the One."
One has become engrossed in the many kautaks/miracles, and the other one has merged into the One. Since the other one merged into the one, he can be called a saint.

Again, Kabir ji's point is this -
We know that Saints can also do miracles. We know that Kautakhars can also do miracles.
So the naturally the question gets asked - Is there a difference? If so, what is the difference between the two groups?
The entire shabad addresses this question.
Kabir ji answers that the Saints meditate on Ram out of pure love. Where as Kautakhars, meditate on Ram to gain ability to show kautak. And this difference is important to recognize because it ultimately leads to those goals. It has to be kept in mind while chanting "Ram, Ram".

If your goal is to achieve powers, then that's all you will get (ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ) .
If your goal is to get Ram, then that's who you will get (ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ) .

So here's same translation using different words. I won't use the word saint in brackets and you'll see that the meaning is the same.

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
Kabir says there is a distinction in saying "Ram", let me share this notion.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
That "Ram" everyone chants, that "Ram" the ka▫uṯakhār also chant.

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
Kabir says definitely say "Ram, Ram" but in saying it recognize the distinction.

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
That one group, the kautakhars, has become engrossed in the many powers, and the other group has merged with the One (with Ram).

 

 

It says ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ. Doesn't ਰਾਮੈ mean "all-pervading"? Isn't it an adjective?

That wouldn't change the meaning I posted because that's what Ram means but when we are translating from Gurmukhi, we have to stick to the words.

ਰਾਮੈ is not an adjective.  ਰਾਮੈ is the same thing as ਰਾਮ. They are both the same name.

For example, Kabir ji says -
ਮੁਆ ਕਬੀਰੁ ਰਮਤ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਰਾਮੈ ॥੫॥੧੫॥
I died meditating on "Shri Ram"

ਰਾਮੈ is the same thing as ਰਾਮ . In another example, Kabir ji says
ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਰਮਤ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਵੈ ॥੪॥
Chanting "Ram, Ram" one attains peace.
ਰਮਤ means to permeate ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ/Ram, Ram

ਰਾਮੈ is the same thing as ਰਾਮ
In this example, Guru Sahib says -
ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਰਾਮੈ ਨਾਮਿ ਬਸਾਈ ॥ ਅਸਥਿਰੁ ਰਹੈ ਨ ਕਤਹੂੰ ਜਾਈ ॥੪॥
Through the Guru's teachings, those who have enshrined "Ram Naam" (the name of Ram) in their hearts, they becomes Asthir, permanent, ie they become free of births and deaths.

ਰਾਮੈ is the same thing as ਰਾਮ. Just like how ਨਾਮੈ is the same thing as ਨਾਮਾ (Namdev ji's nickname)
ਜਨ ਨਾਮੈ ਤਤੁ ਪਛਾਨਿਆ ॥੩॥੩॥
Servant Namdev (ਨਾਮੈ) has recognized reality.


So keep those examples in mind and read the tuk again -
ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
Kabir ji says, do chant "Ram, Ram", and have this bibek while chanting.

 

 

But does Bhagat Kabir ji make any distinction between Ram and Ram in another shabad?

Bhagat Kabir ji makes absolutely no distinction. To Kabir ji they are the same.

Bhagat Kabir ji in his other shabads refers to Shri Ram, Son of Dashrath, as the Archer, Purushotam, the Leader of Raghu Dynasty, amongst His other epithets.

This is a big, multi-faceted discussion.

[amardeep]

Fantastic. Keep it up.

[BhagatSingh]

Fantastic. Keep it up.

Thanks.
There are many shabads like this. Some are translated incorrectly, some are translated fine but interpreted incorrectly and others are interpreted incorrectly due to other shabads being translated/interpreted incorrectly.

Like a domino effect.

Will try to definitively sort out the mess, one by one.

[amardeep]

Would it be true to say that the misinterpreted verses are often in regards to shabads that talk about other faiths? I've noticed for instance that many AKJ'ers interpret the "Ved Kateb Kaho Mat Jhuthe" as "Say the paths of the vedas and katebas are false" - and not as it is often translated "do not say that the vedas and katebas are false".

 

 

[jaikaara]

Would it be true to say that the misinterpreted verses are often in regards to shabads that talk about other faiths? I've noticed for instance that many AKJ'ers interpret the "Ved Kateb Kaho Mat Jhuthe" as "Say the paths of the vedas and katebas are false" - and not as it is often translated "do not say that the vedas and katebas are false".

 

 

Yes just like the anti brahmans talk ..kshatriyan ko poot houn baahman ko naahi..the next line is Kaiy Tapp Aavat Hon Jo Karon - I am son of Khatri and not of Brahman who does 'Tapp'

Does Maharaj criticize the brahman ? No. Maharaj is simply saying i am a son of a warrior not of brahman who would do penance..is Maharaj criticizing penance ? No. Maharaj is pointing out his karma. But see how it is used to curse brahmans .

[paapiman]

 

Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji  - Part 1

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
कबीर राम कहन महि भेदु है ता महि एकु बिचारु ॥
Kabīr rām kahan mėh bẖeḏ hai ṯā mėh ek bicẖār.
Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
सोई रामु सभै कहहि सोई कउतकहार ॥१९०॥
So▫ī rām sabẖai kahėh so▫ī ka▫uṯakhār. ||190||
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. ||190||

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
कबीर रामै राम कहु कहिबे माहि बिबेक ॥
Kabīr rāmai rām kaho kahibe māhi bibek.
Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction.

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
एकु अनेकहि मिलि गइआ एक समाना एक ॥१९१॥
Ėk anekėh mil ga▫i▫ā ek samānā ek. ||191||
One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself. ||191||

 

 

Bro, can you please tell us the uthanka of this shabad?

Thanks a lot.

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

Would it be true to say that the misinterpreted verses are often in regards to shabads that talk about other faiths? I've noticed for instance that many AKJ'ers interpret the "Ved Kateb Kaho Mat Jhuthe" as "Say the paths of the vedas and katebas are false" - and not as it is often translated "do not say that the vedas and katebas are false".

Yes and what is perceived to be a different faith. My next one was going to be "hindu anna turk kana", the author is critizing his own group of people here not people of a different faith.

Like Jaikaara gave an example of the verses used to malign Brahmins. Those guys are talking about their own people. Or talking very neutrally. But it is twisted to mean something else entirely.

Another example, the gurus actually speak favourably of the Vedas, Puranas, Bhagwad Gita etc. However people today use verses to misrepresent that.

The same goes for Ram Chandra ji also. He will be my major theme to begin with. He is perhaps the most misunderstood even amongst open-minded sikhs, and it is due to botched translations like the one above.

[BhagatSingh]

Bro, can you please tell us the uthanka of this shabad?

Thanks a lot.

Bhul chuk maaf

That's the incorrect translation you quoted. Keep reading further, I answer your question after I do a correct translation.

[amardeep]

Please do one on the "hindu anna turk kana" - or as it goes today ""hindu anna turk kana sikh siana".

[Guest]

Please do one on the "hindu anna turk kana" - or as it goes today ""hindu anna turk kana sikh siana".

In above quote, updesh is universal  gyani /bhramgyani who is not confined in labels and  realized his/her true Saroop regardless of dharm is siyana. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by N30 S!NGH

[paapiman]

Would it be true to say that the misinterpreted verses are often in regards to shabads that talk about other faiths? I've noticed for instance that many AKJ'ers interpret the "Ved Kateb Kaho Mat Jhuthe" as "Say the paths of the vedas and katebas are false" - and not as it is often translated "do not say that the vedas and katebas are false".

 

 

There is a possibility bro, that both the meanings you mentioned above, are right.

"do not say that the vedas and katebas are false" - They are not false, in their original form.

"Say the paths of the vedas and katebas are false" - They might not be completely true either, in their current form. It is fact that Bible and Quran were written many years after Jesus jee and Muhammad jee.

Anyways, let's stay on topic.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited August 27, 2015 by paapiman

[Ragmaala]

Regarding the Vedas , Baba Ishar Singh Ji said they are not false, they tell about the disease but do not provide the medicine.

The medicine for Ego/ Haumai is only present in Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj.

[Guest]

Regarding the Vedas , Baba Ishar Singh Ji said they are not false, they tell about the disease but do not provide the medicine.

The medicine for Ego/ Haumai is only present in Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj.

Sri guru granth sahib ji has many mahavaks/gyan shaloks of ekta of jiva and bhram which needs to contemplated but with that being said- Vedas/upanishads also have mahavaks of ekta of jiv and bhram, they have gyan slokas as well. Please see two very interesting threads below from japji sahib teeka on gurmat position on vedas by sant gyani gurbachan singh bhindranwale:

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/15768-gurbani-position-on-vedas-beautifully-explained-by-sant-gyani-gurbachan-singh-khalsa-bhindranwale/

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/15795-~~deep-gnosis-behind-mahavak-in-gurbani~/ 

[Ragmaala]

Pandit Narayan Singh ji would listen to katha of both vedas & SGGS.  When listening to katha of vedas, he would sit at the same level as the kathavachak, When listening to Katha of Guru Granth Sahib , he would sit lower. People asked him how come ? This incident was narrated by Baba Ishar Singh Ji in his Bachans. "...they tell about the disease but do not provide the medicine. The medicine for Ego/ Haumai is only present in Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj. "

Singho, have more shardha for your Guru than vedas, and have more shardha in Guru Nanak than Sri Rama Chandra jee :)

Lets not talk like brahmgyanis and start seeing Brahm in everyone everywhere when we have not even reached that state yet. We are still in Upashana phase.

A faithful wife has only one Husband, our Husband is Guru Nanak & Guru Nanak alone..and Guru Granth Sahib .

[Guest]

You are talking from sargun bhagti perspective which is fine as bhakti is integral part of Sikhi but nirgun gyan such as mahavak in gurbani is also integral part of Sikhi as well as they both go hand in hand two wings of sikh. As sakhi of Baba Buddha Ji being described as mukh bhagti hirde gyan. 

 

Gurmat is bhakti gyan samoocha vad. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by N30 S!NGH

[paapiman]

Singho, have more shardha for your Guru than vedas, and have more shardha in Guru Nanak than Sri Rama Chandra jee :)

Lets not talk like brahmgyanis and start seeing Brahm in everyone everywhere when we have not even reached that state yet. We are still in Upashana phase.

Excellent points paaji.

It is very easy to talk like Brahamgyanis (for people like me), but very hard to walk the talk.

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

You are talking from sargun bhagti perspective which is fine as bhakti is integral part of Sikhi but nirgun gyan such as mahavak in gurbani is also integral part of Sikhi as well as they both go hand in hand two wings of sikh. As sakhi of Baba Buddha Ji being described as mukh bhagti hirde gyan. 

 

Gurmat is bhakti gyan samoocha vad. 

Bro, which sakhi is that? Can you please provide details?

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

Sri guru granth sahib ji has many mahavaks/gyan shaloks of ekta of jiva and bhram which needs to contemplated but with that being said- Vedas/upanishads also have mahavaks of ekta of jiv and bhram, they have gyan slokas as well. Please see two very interesting threads below from japji sahib teeka on gurmat position on vedas by sant gyani gurbachan singh bhindranwale:

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/15768-gurbani-position-on-vedas-beautifully-explained-by-sant-gyani-gurbachan-singh-khalsa-bhindranwale/

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/15795-~~deep-gnosis-behind-mahavak-in-gurbani~/ 

Bro, Vedas must be respected by all Sikhs. There is no doubt about that, but they cannot be put on the same level, as Gurbani.

1. Vedas don't talk about Prema Bhagtee (devotion based on love)

ਭਾਉ ਨ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੈ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਚਾਰਿ ਬੇਦਿ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪੜ੍ਹਿ ਪੇਖੈ।

Bhaau N Brahamai Likhiaa Chaari Bayd Sinmriti Parhhi Paykhai.

भाउ न ब्रहमै लिखिआ चारि बेद सिंम्रिति पड़्हि पेखै ।

Having gone through the Vedas and simritis one finds that Brhama also has nowhere written about the Sentiment of love.

3 ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧ ਪਉੜੀ ੨੫ ਪੰ. ੩ [1]

[1] - http://searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/1/pauri/25

 

2. Vedas (most of it) do not talk about the fourth state of mind (Turiya pad), while Gurbani is written from the perspective of Turiya pad.

ਚਾਰੇ ਬੇਦ ਕਥਹਿ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥

The four Vedas speak only of the visible forms.

ਤੀਨਿ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਕਹਹਿ ਵਖਿਆਨੁ ॥

They describe and explain the three states of mind,

ਤੁਰੀਆਵਸਥਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਜਾਨੁ ॥੧॥

but the fourth state, union with the Lord, is known only through the True Guru. ||1||

 

ਵੇਦੁ ਪੁਕਾਰੈ ਤ੍ਰਿਬਿਧਿ ਮਾਇਆ ॥

The Vedas proclaim that Maya is of three qualities.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

I never mentioned that we should put vedas same level as gurbani, please read my post again. We were talking about mahavaks in gurbani and also in vedas..I have same position as sant gurbachan singh bhindranwale on gurbani on vedas, please see the thread below:

  

 

Edited August 27, 2015 by N30 S!NGH

[paapiman]

I never mentioned that we should put vedas same level as gurbani, please read my post again. We were talking about mahavaks in gurbani and also in vedas..I have same position as sant gurbachan singh bhindranwale on gurbani on vedas, please see the thread below:

Never said you did bro. Will go through the threads, if Daas gets time. Thanks for them.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited August 27, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

 

Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji  - Part 1

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
कबीर राम कहन महि भेदु है ता महि एकु बिचारु ॥
Kabīr rām kahan mėh bẖeḏ hai ṯā mėh ek bicẖār.
Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord's Name, 'Raam'. This is something to consider.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
सोई रामु सभै कहहि सोई कउतकहार ॥१९०॥
So▫ī rām sabẖai kahėh so▫ī ka▫uṯakhār. ||190||
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. ||190||

Bro, can you please let us know, who has done the above translation? What was the translation, done by Prof.Sahib Singh jee?

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

Uthanka of the above shabad, is as follows:

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited August 29, 2015 by paapiman

[BhagatSingh]

Uthanka of the above shabad, is as follows:

Bhul chuk maaf

Bro, can you please tell us the uthanka of this shabad?

Thanks a lot.

Bhul chuk maaf

Ah Uthanka galat hai. He ignored the key word Kautakahar.

I explained the uthanka 3 times in the opening post.

How can you miss it?

[paapiman]

Ah Uthanka galat hai. He ignored the key word Kautakahar.

I explained the uthanka 3 times in the opening post.

How can you miss it?

Paaji, sometimes the same shabad can have multiple uthankas.

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

Paaji, sometimes the same shabad can have multiple uthankas.

Bhul chuk maaf

Of course bro. But this shabad only has one.
The one you posted is not wrong per se. It is just incomplete.