Arya Samaj

Devo

Swami Daya Nand on Guru Nanak

Obsessed by his over zealous reverence for Vedas, Swami Daya Nand had been critical of every religion of the world. Almost all the religions professed by Hindu Society those days--Jainism, Buddhism, Shivaites etc.--were the target of his onslaught. His contemptuous remarks against Mussulmans, Sikhs and Christians were the cause of great upheaval and the British Government had to concede to force the publishers to expunge some parts from his book, Satyarth Prakashm, especially in respect of Islam.

At this juncture I would like to deal only with his disdainful remarks perpetrated against Guru Nanak. In the Satyarth Prakash published in 1908 he says, "St. Nanak's motive was righteous but he had no scholastic knowledge at all. However, he certainly knew the language of the country, which prevails in villages. He did not at all know Vedas and other scriptures and Sanskrit. Had he known the Sanskrit language, how could he write the word nirbhaya as nirbho.... However he might have passed as a Sanskrit scholar by making those Sanskrit verses among the villagers who had never heard a word of Sanskrit before.... calumniation and praise of Vedas are found here and there in his book; for had he not done so, some one would have asked the meaning of the Vedas, and had he not been able to tell it, he would have lost his respect.... Since ignorant men are called saints, they can not know the worth of Vedas.... There were not many followers of Nanak in his time... ignorant make their teacher saint after his death.... St. Nanak was not a rich or noble man but his disciples describe him to be a great saint and a very opulent man...."

How far Swamy Daya Nand had read and comprehended the teachings of Guru Nanak? It is portrayed in the manner he had quoted one verse from Guru Granth Sahib. In Satyarth Prakash he says again, ".... in some places he (St. Nanak) spoke in favour of the Vedas in his book.... Thus:- ...Sukhmani, Porhi7, Chowk8....It means that Brahma died though versed in Vedas, all the four Vedas are tales. O Nanak, the Veda does not know the greatness of a saint. The knower of the Brahma is himself the Great God." What a pity the exponent of Vedas and critique of all the contemporary knowledge did not know the verse he was referring to was not written by St. Nanak but by Fifth Master, Guru Arjan.

Regarding the use of word nirbho instead of nirbhay, it does not need an explanation that a dialect changes its character and pronunciation after every hundred or so miles. Three other versions of the same word are available in Punjabi Encyclopaedic Dictionary; nirbhau, nirbho, and nirbhey. Above all, (Guru) Nanak's work... assumed the form of an agrarian movement. His teachings were purely in Punjabi language mostly spoken by cultivators. They appealed to the downtrodden and oppressed peasants and petty traders as they were ground down between the two milestones of government's tyranny and the Muslim brutality.' (History of the Sikhs by H.R.Gupta).

Obviously Swamy Daya Nand's knowledge of Sikh Scripture was very limited and he knew little about the life and history of Sikh Religion.

In the light of Swamy Daya Nand's remarks, "...all his (Nanak's) chatterings... are myth themselves," let us consider what were the views of a few European-writers, who were near contemporary of Swamy Daya Nand, on the philosophy, thought, and poetry of Guru Nanak.

Earnest Temple has been most critical of the Sikh Scriptures. Even he could not ignore the scholarship of Guru Granth Sahib, "...in a linguistic point of view, of the greatest interest to us, as it is real treasury of the old Hindui dialects, specimens of which have been preserved therein which are not to be found anywhere else. The Granth contains sufficient materials, which will enable us to investigate those old and now obsolete dialects, from which modern idioms have their origin, so that the gap, which hitherto existed between the older Prakrit dialects and modern languages of the Arian stock, may, by a careful comparative study of the same, be fairly filled up."

J.D.Cunningham writes in History of Sikhs, "Nanak combined the excellence of preceding reformers, and avoided the more grave error into which they had fallen.... He loftily invokes the Lord as the one, the sole, the timeless being; the creator, the self-existent, the incomprehensible, and the everlasting.... He addressed equally the Mulla and Pandit...that the only knowledge which availeth is the knowledge of God.... Nanak adopted the philosophical system of his countrymen.... He makes the same uses of the current language or notions of the time on subjects and thus says, he who remains bright amid darkness, unmoved amid deceit, that is, perfect amid temptation, should attain happiness...."

Among all the foreign writers, M.A.Macauliffe's contribution towards the elaboration of Sikh Religion is indisputably supreme. On the origin and progress of religion, until it received its monotheistic consummation accepted by Guru Nanak, Mr. Macauliffe writes, "In India a belief in an infinite, illimitable, and supreme power was...evolved...ages before the emigration of the Aryans to Europe. Prajapati...father of the gods, and lord of all living creatures...received exceptional human homage. There was also Aditi, as in one passage of Rig Veda, identified with all the deities, with men, with all has been and shall be born...he was one though the poets called Him by many names.... Before there was anything...there was that One.... Then was darkness, everything in the beginning was hidden in gloom, all was like the ocean, without a light. Then that germ which was covered by the husk, the One, was produced (Rig-Veda, X. 129).... Guru Nanak...gave expansion to this conception of the one God."

Consequently we infer that the Europeans, with their language and cultural limitations, understood the writings and the philosophy of Guru Nanak much more dynamically than Swamy Daya Nand Sarswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj.

Source: click here

Devo · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

Namaste,

What are your views on this matter?..

Please take into account the fourth principle of the Arya Samaj, and the author's bid to show Swamiji, as an individual with limited and poor knowledge of Guru Nanak & the Sikh Faith.

Shyena · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:

Namaste,
Being ignorant of the sikhi faith, it is definitely difficult to comment about it. I've encountered a dalitstan inspired sikh fanatic who thinks every religion in the world is inferior and the like. Swamiji's criticism was a bit biased too, that cannot be helped. Currently my mind is blank..
_________________

Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam meditate

Namaste

Shishya · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject:

Namaste,

In my opinion, the first thing that is required is that we examine the full text in which Swamiji reviews the Sikh Religion. Below, I present this passage:

______________________________________________

Sikhism - The Sect of Guru Nanak

Question: Nanak has founded a sect in the Punjab. He refuted idol-worship, and saved many people from embracing Mohammmedanism. Moreover he never became a sadhu and, instead, remained a householder. He taught the following Mantra:

"He whose name is Truth, is the Maker (of the Universe), the all-pervading Being who is Nirbhau (free from fear and enmity), is beyond the reach of time, is never born and is the all-glorious Being. Worship Him, (O Disciple!) May your preceptor help you to do so. That Supreme Spirit lived in the beginning of Creation, lives in the present and shall live in the future."
-Japajau Pauree

Answer: The aim of Nanak was, no doubt, good. But he did not possess any scholastic learning and was merely acquainted with the dialect (Punjabi) of the villagers among whom he was born. He was quite ignorant of the Vedas and the Shastras and of Sanskrit. Otherwise, why should he have written nirbhau instead of nirbhaya?

Another proof of his ignorance of the Sanskrit language is his composition called Sanskrit Hymns (Satotras). He wanted to show that he had some pretentions to the knowledge of Sanskrit. But how could one know Sanskrit without learning it? It is possible that he might have passed for a Sanskrit scholar before those ignorant villagers who had never heard a man speak Sanskrit. He would never have done so unless he was anxious to gain public applause, fame and glory. He must have sought after fame or he would have preached in the language he knew and told the people that he had not read Sanskrit.

Since he was a little vain, he may possibly have even resorted to some sort of make-believe to gain reputation and acquire fame, hence it is that in his book called the Grantha, the Vedas have been praised as well as censured, because had he not done so, some one might have asked him the meaning of the Vedic Mantra and, as he would not have been able to explain it, he would have been lowered in the estimation of the people.

Anticipating this difficulty, he, from the first, denounced the Vedas here and there, but occasionally also spoke well of the Vedas, because had he not done so, the people would have called him a nastika, i.e., and atheist or a reviler of the Vedas. For instance, it is recorded in the Grantha:

"Even Brahma who constantly read the Vedas died. All the four Vedas are mere fiction. The Vedas can never realize the greatness of a Sadhu."
-Sukhmani 7:8

"Nanak says that a man versed in Divine knowledge is himself God."
-Sukhmani 8:6

The scholars of the Vedas like Brahma are dead. Yet, has not Nanak and the other Sikh gurus shared the same fate? Did they consider themselves immortal? The Vedas are a mine of all kinds of knowledge. Whatever a man who calls the Vedas mere fiction says is pure fabrication. If the word sadhu is another name for idiot, how can they understand the greatness of the Vedas? Had Nanak held up the Vedas as the sole supreme authority, he would not have succeeded in founding his sect, nor would he have been recognized a guru (Master). As he was quite ignorant of Sanskrit, he would not have been able to teach others and thereby make them his disciples.

It is true though that in Nanak's time the Punjab was altogether destitute of Sanskrit learning and was groaning under the tyranny of the Muslims. He did save some persons from embracing Islam. Nanak in his lifetime did not have many followers, nor did his sect flourish much. But it is a habit with the ignorant that they make a saint of their Guru after his death, then invest him with a halo of glory and believe him to be an incarnation of God.

Nanak was neither a rich man, nor was he one of the aristocracy and yet his followers have written in Nanak Chandrodaya and Janamsakhi that he was a great saint who possessed miraculous powers, met Brahman and other (sages of yore), had long talks with them, all paid him homage on the occasions of his marriage when he went to marry his bride, had a long procession of horses, carriages and elephants ornamented with silver, gold, pearls and diamonds, etc. All this is recorded in the above-mentioned books. Now what are these but yarns spun by his followers? It is his followers who are to blame for this and not Nanak.

After his death, the sect of Udasees originated with his son, while that of Nirmalas with Ram Das. Many a successor to the throne of Nanak has incorporated his writings in the Grantha. The tenth guru of the Sikhs was Guru Gobind. Since his time no addition has been made to it, but, instead, all the smaller books that were extant then were collected together and bound in one volume (and the name of Granth was given to it). The successors of Nanak wrote various treatises. Some of them invented fictitious stories like those of the Puranas and, acting on the precept "The man versed in Divine knowledge is himself God," arrogated to themselves Divine privileges.

Their followers renounced the practice of good works and Divine contemplation and, instead, paid their gurus the homage due to God. Thus has been done a great mischief. It would have been very good had these men kept on worshipping God in the way pointed out by Nanak. Now, the Udasees claim to be superior to all others, while the Nirmalas make the same claim for themselves. The Akalees and Suthreshahees hold that they are above all.

Gobind Singh was indeed a very brave man among the followers of Nanak. The Mohammedans had oppressed his people very much. He was anxious to revenge himself on them, but he had neither the men nor the necessary material for the purpose whilst the Mohammedans were at the zenith of their power. He, therefore, resorted to a strategem. He gave it out that the goddess had given him a sword and a blessing saying: "Go forth and fight against the Mohammedans. You shall win." He gained many supporters from amongst the people. He appointed five kakars, i.e., five articles all beginning with the letter K as the signs of his faith just like five markers of the Vama Margis - and five sanskars of the Chakrankits. The five kakars of Sikhs were of great use in fighting. They are as follows:

Kesha - long unshaven hair - this protects the head, to some extent, against blows from sticks and sword thrusts.
Kangan - a big iron ring worn by akalees on their turbans. Kara - an iron bangle worn on the wrist which helps to protect the wrist and the head.
Kachha - a kind of knickers used in running and jumping, very commonly used by wreslters and acrobats for the same purpose. It protects the most vital parts of the body as well as keeps the movements free.
Karda - a double-edged knife, useful in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.
Kangha - a comb for dressing the hair.

Gobind Singh, through his wisdom, started the practice of wearing these five articles. They were very useful for the time in which he lived, but they are of no use at the present time. Those things which were required to be used because of there being of great service in fighting have now come to be regarded as part and parcel of the religions of the Sikhs. It is true that they do not practice the worship of images, yet they worship the Grantha even more than idols. Now is this not idolatry?

To bow down before or worship any material object is idolatry. They ply their trade just like all other idolators and make a good living by it. Just as the idolator priests show their idols in the temples to the visitors and receive gifts offered by them to idols, likewise do the followers of Nanak worship the Grantha and teach others to do the same and receive what is offered to it. The followers of the Grantha do not show the same amount of respect to the Vedas as do the Puanics. Of course it can be urged in their defense, that these people had neither even read the Vedas, nor heard them being read, and that they could not, therefore, be blamed for showing scanty respect to them. If they were to read the Vedas or hear them being read, those among them, who are free from prejudice and bigotry, would not doubt embrace the Vedic Religion. It is greatly to the credit of these people that they have done away with various troublesome and useless restrictions in the matter of eating and drinking. It would be a very good thing indeed if they would also free themselves from sensualism, vanity and false pride and advance the cause of the Vedic Religion.
__________________________________

Next, I would like to turn our attention to the 'Response' posted by Devo above:

First of all, this article has been composed upon the assumption that the universalism promoted by Sikhism is, in itself, correct. This displays itself in phrases like:

Devo · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject:

Namaste,

Thank you, Shishya.

I'm not well aware of the Sikh faith, hence my opinion will be biased, and not complete.

However, beside the very important points you noted, one could see clearly that the aim of the author was to portray Swamiji, as an individual who knew little or nothing, and hence his observations and analysis of the Guru Nanak & Sikhism to be foolishness.

Swamiji was not stupid, for he would not have placed analysis on something had he not studied it. It is only after having done a rational examination, then and only then would Swamiji give his opinion.

Before Swamiji was to begin his analysis of the Quran, he asked the Islamic Clerics, themselves, to translate for him, so that he would not have mis-quoted or biased towards the interpretation of their scripture.

The author clearly sees the truth in Swamiji's examination, and cannot bear to accept the facts of his views, and hence the need to react as such.

Shishya · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject:

Namaste Dev,

I hope I have been able to help others form a clearer understanding of this very important issue. As some may already know, there is a great deal of animosity between Sikhs and Aryas, and I can only hope that people inform themselves of the facts in regard to this matter before jumping to conclusions.

I have continued my research on the Sikh Faith with a view towards establishing the verity of Swamiji's remarks as I summarized them above.

Whether or not Guru Nanak studied the Vedas appears to be a point of contention. The following is a quote from a popular Sikh website:

Shyena · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject:

Namaste,
That is the fundamental reason I'm attracted to arya samaj - there is no deification of anyone, atleast according to principles and teachings. Guru Nanak never considered himself as 'divine messenger' or something as such - he had an inquisitive mind, so he made his quest. I can't help but laugh when they tell me we foolishly consider them gods, but they consider their own spiritual leader as 'god-sent'. When I read biographies of vivekaananda and dayananda, I was intensely attracted to their personalities because they weren't "born divine" - they were born humans, but attained the divinity.
_________________

Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam meditate

Namaste