Talk:Waheguru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Sikhism
Sikhism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article Waheguru, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] The Word WAHEGURU

The Waheguru in punjabi is written wrong. The spelling, of Waheguru, in the Punjabi language is wrong. Whoever understands the language. The sihari on "Guga" isn't supposed to be there. Its supposed to be on "Haha" instead.

Please see Wikipedia:Enabling_complex_text_support_for_Indic_scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Govind ji, Gobind ji

I'm going a bit on my own knowledge here, but my understanding is that Gobind and Govind are synonymous (differing transliterations), and Govinda is the Sanskrit transliteration (which keeps the final 'a' now dropped in Punjabi and Hindi). In doesn't however refer to Govinda in terms of Hindu tradition (i.e. Krishna) but to God as a single entity.

ਗੋਵਿੰਦ - "Gōvinda"

ਗੋਬਿੰਦ - "Gōbinda"

Both terms are used in the Guru Granth Sahib numerous times (and with alternative endings). Hope that helps! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm, better expand on this. I *think* Gobind as the 'G' in Waheguru refers to Krishna not in terms of Hindu tradition, but as an alternative name for god (just like Hari, Allah, Raam etc are used). However, I'm not certain of this and it probably needs someone with more expertise to answer it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
But followers of Gaudiya Vaishnavism do consider Krishna to be God as a single entity. The same goes with Vaishnavism which considers Vishnu to mean God as a single entity, with Hari being the name of Vishnu and Krishna His avatar.
Raj2004 01:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If Hari is a name of God in Sikhism, then it's likely Gobind is reference to Govinda. I am not sure.
Raj2004 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is a translation of the end of Bhai Gurdas Ji's first vaar:
In Satyug, Visnu in the form of Vasudev is said to have incarnated and ‘V’ Of Vahiguru reminds of Visnu.
The true Guru of dvapar is said to be Harikrisna and ‘H’ of Vahiguru reminds of Hari.
In the the treta was Ram and ‘R’ of Vahiguru tells that rembering Ram will produce joy and happiness.
In kalijug, Gobind is in the form of Nanak and ‘G’ of Vahiguru gets Gobind recited.
The recitations of all the four ages subsume in Panchayan i.e. in the soul of the common man.
When joining four letters Vahiguru is remembered,
The jiv merges again in its origin.
Gobind refers to the Gurus (all ten of them, since they had the same "jot")
In its original form it is written as ਗੋਬਿੰਦ - "Gōbind"
--Jghuman2 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. I checked up on this on SearchGurbani.com [1]. This is the exact Gurmukhi replication:
ਸਤਿਜੁਗ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਵਾਸਦੇਵ ਵਾਵਾ ਵਿਸ਼ਨਾ ਨਾਮ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥
ਦੁਆਪਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਹਰੀਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਹਾਹਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮ ਧਿਆਵੈ॥
ਤ੍ਰੇਤੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਰਾਮ ਜੀ ਰਾਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਜਪੇ ਸੁਖ ਪਾਵੈ॥
ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗਗਾ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਨਾਮ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥
ਚਾਰੇ ਜਾਗੇ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗੀ ਪੰਚਾਇਣ ਵਿਚ ਜਾਇ ਸਮਾਵੈ॥
ਚਾਰੋਂ ਅਛਰ ਇਕ ਕਰ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜਪ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਜਪਾਵੈ॥
ਜਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਫਿਰ ਤਹਾਂ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥੪੯॥੧॥
I still wonder however, why Bhai Gurdas made the distinction between ਗੋਬਿੰਦ "Gōbind[a]" and ਗੋਵਿੰਦ "Gōvind[a]"? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the original, Jghuman2, you have deliberately changed:
In kalijug, Gobind is in the form of Nanak and ‘G’ of Vahiguru gets Govind recited.
to:
In kalijug, Gobind is in the form of Nanak and ‘G’ of Vahiguru gets Gobind recited.
The distinction between Gobind and Govind is vital there. Raj, you are correct. The original refers to Govinda as in God. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, something I totally didn't pick up on before, but as these are Bhai Gurdas' Varan, how can they make a reference to Guru Gobind Singh? Bhai Gurdas died before Guru Gobind Singh was even born! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same God?

say, is Waheguru the same god as Allah/Jah/Jehovah/Ahura Mazda/Yahweh that we Abrahamic Monothiests Worship? -Mirza Al-Mahdi

Sikhs believe there is only one God, known and worshipped in many religions. If these religions believe in there being only one God, then yes, it would be the same God - known by different names of course. Incidentally, the Sikh holy book does have references to god using the word Allah, Khuda and maybe other Islamic names. There are of course, many Hindu names employed for God too (which occur far more frequently than either Islamic names or Waheguru itself!).
Here's a good quote for you:
ਕੋਈ ਬੋਲੈ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਕੋਈ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥
kōī bōlai rām rām kōī khudāi
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khuda'.
Gurū Arjun Dēv - Śrī Gurū Granth Sāhib Page 885
Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks My Beloved Friend.It seems Sikhism is a True Religion. -Mirza Al-Mahdi

[edit] Reliable Source

would someone explain, what constitutes this [2] to be treated as a reliable source.] WP:RS Ajjay (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't you clarify "same God" on the main page itself?

Dear Author,

Why don't you put the following verse from Sri Guru Granth Sahib

Koi Bole Ram Ram, Koi Khuda
Koi Seve Gosain, Koi Allah

on the main page itself, so that nothing is left to doubt in the mind of the reader.

I see you have used these lines above to respond to one of the questions above. It would be good to mention this on the main page itself, to show that all are the same : Ram, Pritam, Madhow, KHUDA, ALLAH, etc etc.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.185.109 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Patanjali claim

I asked at the Reliable source noticeboard of Wikipedia whether this website is a reliable source or not. I am placing a link to reponse regarding the reliability of the source.[3]

Besides the editors who created this page have placed four or five books from where they adapted this article. Nowhere in these books is mentioned this claim.Mahaakaal (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Read the first paragraph

It states that the word "WaheGuru" has its origin in the Sankskrit language, possibly the oldest language in the world. You are suggesting Nanak invented Sanskrit, Nanak appeared in medieval India, Sanskrit pre-dates Nanak by several Millenia. Your not even applying common sense