Naam (ਨਾਮੁ) in Gurbani - This is what I think; what do you think?

[P J Singh]

ਕਈ ਬਾਰ ਪਸਰਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰ ॥ Gurbani tells us that this creation/cosmos is not a one-time occurrence; it has taken place many times ( and will take place many time in perpetuity).

This ਪਾਸਾਰ is the ਸਰਗੁਨ saroop of Akalpurkh.

When the ਪਾਸਾਰ is non-existent then there is no time, space or matter - it is state of nothingness - it is referred to as ਸੁੰਨ. When Akalpurkh is in this state (i.e. in this ਸਮਾਧ or ਸਮਾਧੀ ); he is in the ਨਿਰਗੁਨ state.

The state of "nothingness" - ਸੁੰਨ ( state of no time , space and matter) is beyond human intellect to imagine/conceptualize!!!

When Akalpurkh is in ਨਿਰਗੁਨ state; Gurbani calls him ਸਤਿ.

When Akalpurkh is in ਸਰਗੁਨ state; Gurbani calls him as ਨਾਮੁ

In essence, ਸਤਿ and ਨਾਮੁ both refer to Akalpurkh depending upon the context in which Gurbani is talking about Akalpurkh.

In this ਪਾਸਾਰ ( i.e. the ਸਰਗੁਨ state), ਨਾਮੁ is the collective essence of all HIS attributes/virtues - it is thus a functional potency of Akalpurkh with which the ਸਰਗੁਨ state functions; in the ਨਿਰਗੁਨ state, there is no such need.

 

[fellowsingh]

in gurbani i think sat naam means true is the name (everything else is false and will not save you). the name being vaheguru, which you chant with your rasna (tongue).

 

[P J Singh]

in gurbani i think sat naam means true is the name (everything else is false and will not save you). the name being vaheguru, which you chant with your rasna (tongue).

You are absolutely correct "Sat Naam" means "True is the Name" but when we interpret it this way, it presents a challenge - it is not clear what you are implying when you say "True is the Name": Are you saying:

1) That Akalpurkh's or Ek's name (whatever his name may be) is True or are you saying
2) "True" is actually the Akalpurkh's name; whatever entity Aklapurkh may be.

Please reflect for a couple of minutes on these two to see the subtle but important difference. It is for this reason I do not know what you have in mind when you say "true is the name". [Think it this way: (Existence of) God is Truth or Truth is God?]

Here are my humble thoughts:

ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥
ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ ॥

In first line Naam does not have Onkar ( indicating it is plural); in the second line it has Onkar, indicating it is singular.

The reference is being made to ਤੇਰਾ ( Akalpurkh) saying that your primal name is ਸਤਿ - it means whatever entity you are ; that entity is ਸਤਿ - i.e Akalpurkh is of Existential Permanency - Akalpurkh always exists - Akalpurkh existed in Aaad, it existed in Jugad, it exists now and will exit in future to perpetuity.

In other words, Akalpurkh whatever entity it may be, its permanent existence is an Absolute Truth (ਸਤਿ).

In Gurbani the word ਨਾਮ is used in two forms - one as an identifier ( eg. my ਨਾਮ is PJSingh - I am identified by my name) and in second form, ਨਾਮ is used for Akalpurkh, (who is identified by name ਸਤਿ) but when he is in Sargun Saroop, he is often identified as ਨਾਮ ( Please read 16 Astpadhi of Sukhmani Sahib)

In Asa Di Vaar, we learn that all Khands, Brahmands (i.e. Cosmos) is ਸਚੁ and in Mahla 9 Saloks, we learn that the Cosmos is ਕੂੜ ( false). Here Gurbani is talking in terms of relative truth and not Absolute Truth - there is only one Absolute Truth (ਸਤਿ) and that is Akalpurkh.

Hope this helps.

 

[fellowsingh]

[Think it this way: (Existence of) God is Truth or Truth is God?]

veerji im not capable of understanding the whole argument, but i can explain my viewpoint if it's helpful.
the bhangti "ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਨਾਮੁ ।। ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਦੁਨੀ ਗੁਮਾਨੁ ।।" ang 1137, in my explanation means true is the name, the name of vaheguru given to our panth for him (god), of which worship is true/fruitful. other endeavours are fruitless/false (but can still be followed through on, they just won't bring any happiness.)
im not capable picking up your argument but i encourage anyone else to jump in

 

[Warriorlight]

ਕਈ ਬਾਰ ਪਸਰਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰ ॥ Gurbani tells us that this creation/cosmos is not a one-time occurrence; it has taken place many times ( and will take place many time in perpetuity).

This ਪਾਸਾਰ is the ਸਰਗੁਨ saroop of Akalpurkh.

When the ਪਾਸਾਰ is non-existent then there is no time, space or matter - it is state of nothingness - it is referred to as ਸੁੰਨ. When Akalpurkh is in this state (i.e. in this ਸਮਾਧ or ਸਮਾਧੀ ); he is in the ਨਿਰਗੁਨ state.

The state of "nothingness" - ਸੁੰਨ ( state of no time , space and matter) is beyond human intellect to imagine/conceptualize!!!

When Akalpurkh is in ਨਿਰਗੁਨ state; Gurbani calls him ਸਤਿ.

When Akalpurkh is in ਸਰਗੁਨ state; Gurbani calls him as ਨਾਮੁ

In essence, ਸਤਿ and ਨਾਮੁ both refer to Akalpurkh depending upon the context in which Gurbani is talking about Akalpurkh.

In this ਪਾਸਾਰ ( i.e. the ਸਰਗੁਨ state), ਨਾਮੁ is the collective essence of all HIS attributes/virtues - it is thus a functional potency of Akalpurkh with which the ਸਰਗੁਨ state functions; in the ਨਿਰਗੁਨ state, there is no such need.

Puran Sat. The Nothingness/ the Silence is our origin. It's where Parbrahm Ji meditated for many ages before the beginning of this creation and it still exists all around us today, it's all pervading as it's God/ Truth.

If seen as the 3 energies, the 1st energy is the Nothiness/ Silence, 2nd energy is the astral world which is a projection of the 1st energy, 3rd energy is the physical realm which is a projection of the astral world. Gurbani teaches us that the 2nd and 3rd energies are a Dream, they're an illusion for God has no form, no colour, no sound etc- He is the Nothingness/ Truth.

Gurbani also teaches us that whats been projected as those two energies can be reabsorbed back into Waheguru/ Truth/ the Nothingness again at His will. Therefore merging with the God/ Truth/ the Nothingness without form is the way. God bless you.

 

[P J Singh]

veerji im not capable of understanding the whole argument, but i can explain my viewpoint if it's helpful.
the bhangti "ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਨਾਮੁ ।। ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਦੁਨੀ ਗੁਮਾਨੁ ।।" ang 1137, in my explanation means true is the name, the name of vaheguru given to our panth for him (god), of which worship is true/fruitful. other endeavours are fruitless/false (but can still be followed through on, they just won't bring any happiness.)
im not capable picking up your argument but i encourage anyone else to jump in

I will be more them happy to add some more detail for you reflect on in a couple of days. We all who love gurbani and are genuinely on this gurmat-inspired path are fellow-learners ready to learn from each other.

 

[P J Singh]

veerji im not capable of understanding the whole argument, but i can explain my viewpoint if it's helpful.
the bhangti "ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਨਾਮੁ ।। ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਦੁਨੀ ਗੁਮਾਨੁ ।।" ang 1137, in my explanation means true is the name, the name of vaheguru given to our panth for him (god), of which worship is true/fruitful. other endeavours are fruitless/false (but can still be followed through on, they just won't bring any happiness.)
im not capable picking up your argument but i encourage anyone else to jump in

I apologize for the delay in sharing my thoughts, as promised.

Let me start with the statement again and explain why I say:
"God is Truth"; I do not believe it is correct to say "Truth is God" based on what I little learnt from Gurbani..

Let us first focus on "God is Truth". { we will come back to the second statement "Truth is God" later}

For the sake of clarity, let us replace the word God by "Akalpurkh" and the word "Truth" by ਸਤਿ"

"God is Truth" means Akalpurkh is ਸਤਿ.

Our Mool Mantar [ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ] tells us Akalpurkh is ਨਿਰਭਉ, ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ , ਅਜੂਨੀ etc.

ਨਿਰਭਉ, ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ , ਅਜੂਨੀ etc are all Akalpurkh's ਗੁਣ. In the same way ਸਤਿ as listed in Mool Mantar is also Akalpurkh's ਗੁਣ

As we say Akalpurkh is ਨਿਰਭਉ or Akalpurkh is ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ; the same way we should say Akalpurkh is ਸਤਿ or Akalpurkh is Truth or God is Truth.

Here is something very subtle in Mool Mantar that most of us often overlook: All ਗੁਣ that are listed in Mool Mantar are Akalpurkh's ਗੁਣ when and only when Akalpurkh is in Sargun state. In Nirgun state ( by the meaning of the word Nirgun), none of these ਗੁਣ have any meaning EXCEPT for one and that is ਸਤਿ - which is the principal attribute of Akalpurkh - ਸਤਿ is the only ਗੁਣ that exists in both Nirgun and Sargun state as underscored in Gurbani.

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥

It is for this reason Gurbani says:
ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥
ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ ॥

Here in these two panktis and in Mool Mantar, the word the word ਨਾਮ is used as an identifier [ just like your name is fellowsingh by which you are identified, this label does tell me anything about you, how kind, caring person you ar. This ਨਾਮ does not have the same meaning that ਨਾਮ has in Astadpadhi 16 of Sukhmani sahib. this is a fundamental distinction, we need to understand { please see my follow up post in few days]

Let us close it by addressing the concern about the second statement: "Truth is God"

When we say "Truth is God" then it implies "Godliness" is an attribute of "Truth". For Godliness to be an attribute of "truth", it must emanate from "truth" which means "truth" must preexist Godliness. This is antithesis of Gurbani.

God is ਸਤਿ means God is an Absolute Truth which means God is an entity of permanent existence no matter if God is a Nothingness State or in Sargun State.

In the next post I will expand for you that in the Sargun state, God manifests as "Divine Energy" which Gurbani calls ਨਾਮ; it is this divine radiance/energy, a form of functional potency of Akalpurkh that is being referred to in Astapadhi 16.

Once you have digested this, I will come back to your specific question related to
"ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਨਾਮੁ ।। ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਦੁਨੀ ਗੁਮਾਨੁ ।।"

 

[P J Singh]

veerji im not capable of understanding the whole argument, but i can explain my viewpoint if it's helpful.
the bhangti "ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਨਾਮੁ ।। ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਦੁਨੀ ਗੁਮਾਨੁ ।।" ang 1137, in my explanation means true is the name, the name of vaheguru given to our panth for him (god), of which worship is true/fruitful. other endeavours are fruitless/false (but can still be followed through on, they just won't bring any happiness.)
im not capable picking up your argument but i encourage anyone else to jump in

WJKK WJKF
As promised, I am going to complete my line of thought on the topic of ਨਾਮ. Please note, this is my journey and my view alone; you don't have to agree with what I say. It is simply an attempt to genuinely engage in a spirit of sangat so that I can learn from others' inquiry into gurmat.

I am of the opinion that context is very important in interpreting Gurbani; quoting single panktis (without reflecting on the context) has the propensity of confusing the real message. A same word can have different meaning depending upon the context in which it is situated.

In Gurbani, the word “Naam” (ਨਾਮ) is one of the few words that have appeared with most frequency. As far as I know, ਨਾਮ has only two meanings in gurbani depending upon the context.

1) ਨਾਮ means Name ( as we use in a sentence in English) - an identifier - His ਨਾਮ (name) is PJ Singh ( In gurbani, as an example: ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ).

2) ਨਾਮ means attributes/virtues ( ਗੁਣ) of Akalpurkh. it is spelled in different ways based on gurbani grammar such as (ਨਾਮ, ਨਾਮੁ, ਨਾਮਿ, ਨਾਵੇ ).

Let us just focus on the second meaning of ਨਾਮ that has relevance to this exchange.

> ਨਾਮ has meaning only in Sargun state; it has no meaning in Nirgun state;
> when used in collective sense or plural form (ਨਾਮ) it refers to Akalpurkh in Action ( His functional potency - ਨਾਮ ਰਸ)
> when used in singular form as ਨਾਮੁ; it refers to any single ਗੁਣ of Akalpurkh through the Simran of which we can connect or merge into Akalpurkh just like rivers and streams merge into an ocean (ਨਦੀਆ ਅਤੈ ਵਾਹ ਪਵਹਿ ਸਮੁੰਦਿ ਨ ਜਾਣੀਅਹਿ )

ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਖੂਬੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਨਾਮੁ - repetition of the word ਖੂਬੁ in this pankti underscores the strength of Guru's belief in Simran of ANY Akalpurkh's Gunn (ਨਾਮੁ).

Simran means to remember - it can be done by kirtan, reading of gurbani, discussing gurbani or by simply focussing on Akalpurkh's Gunn and mediating on it or reciting it. However, simply repeating Akalpurkh's ਨਾਮੁ does not carry much weight in Gurbani ( besides mental conditioning through neuroplasticity that may be helpful over longer term) as cautioned in Pauri 32 of Japji (ਇਕ ਦੂ ਜੀਭੌ ਲਖ ਹੋਹਿ ਲਖ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਲਖ ਵੀਸ......).

For recitation to be meaningful, there must be a focus (ਥਿਆਨ)while meditating; focus invariably comes when there is ਭਾਓ in us or wonderment ( ਵਾਹੁ/ਵਾਹਿ) in our perception. The recitation of ਵਾਹਿ ਗੁਰੂ must be carried out with ਭਾਓ to connect with the divine energy/radiance that is embedded in all of us as ਨਾਮ.

Akalpurkh is called "ਸਤਿ" - an entity of irrefutable permanence. He is called "ਸਤਿ" no matter whether he is Nirguun state or Sarguun state. However in the Sargunn state Akalpurkh is is also called "ਨਾਮ".

In Sarguun state ""ਸਤਿ" and "ਨਾਮ" are used interchangeably in Gurbani. In Nirguun state "ਨਾਮ" has no meaning.

WJKK WJKF

 

[Dr. D. P. Singh]

Veer ji,

In the Sikh faith, Naam signifies the Divine Reality and Presence of Akalpurkh, not merely a spoken name. It represents Akalpurkh’s essence, creative power, and sustaining truth that pervades all creation (Sat Naam). Naam is realized through remembrance (Simran), where the seeker aligns mind, conduct, and consciousness with divine qualities such as truth, compassion, and humility. It is both the path and the goal of spiritual life, dissolving ego (haumai) and leading to inner peace (Sahaj) and liberation (Mukati). Lived through ethical action and grace (Nadar), Naam transforms everyday life into spiritual practice.

 

[Warriorlight]

Veer ji,

In the Sikh faith, Naam signifies the Divine Reality and Presence of Akalpurkh, not merely a spoken name. It represents Akalpurkh’s essence, creative power, and sustaining truth that pervades all creation (Sat Naam). Naam is realized through remembrance (Simran), where the seeker aligns mind, conduct, and consciousness with divine qualities such as truth, compassion, and humility. It is both the path and the goal of spiritual life, dissolving ego (haumai) and leading to inner peace (Sahaj) and liberation (Mukati). Lived through ethical action and grace (Nadar), Naam transforms everyday life into spiritual practice.

Good reply Bhaji. Naam is God, it's Truth.

 

[A_seeker]

A Simple Question
Does defination of something actually tells you what it is ??

 

[Warriorlight]

A Simple Question
Does defination of something actually tells you what it is ??

It can describe or explain it but Truth needs to be experienced to be truly known.

 

[A_seeker]

It can describe or explain it but Truth needs to be experienced to be truly known.

No .
The defination of something doesn't tell you what it is,it tells you what people are claiming about it .Definations are not presccriptive they are descriptive .
In all the thread above it certainly talks about what people thinks NAAM is .but it doesn't tell us what it is. .There is no one defination of NAAM .You want to give 'A' defination of Naam and assert that its the right one and that it solves some problem .But all the definations of NAAM needs to be demonstrated to be correct FIRST.

 

[Dr. D. P. Singh]

A definition explains a concept in words but does not fully capture its essence. It sets boundaries for understanding and communication, yet real knowledge comes through experience, context, and lived realization. Words point toward truth, but they cannot contain the complete reality of what a thing truly is.

A beautiful way to put it: "A definition is a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself."

 

[A_seeker]

A beautiful way to put it: "A definition is a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself."

It just brings to my earlier thread . "finger pointing at the moon,” we still need to know which moon is being pointed at. A finger pointing vaguely at the sky explains nothing. Ten people point and say .."That the moon " but each pointing to different directions --one at venus ,one at cloud,one at taj mahal ,one at reflection in water .Appealing to experience doesnt solve the problem .First we must agree on what counts as MOON .Only then those experience becomes meaningful .

It sets boundaries for understanding and communication

"sets boundaries.” O.K —but whose boundaries, and on what basis?

yet real knowledge comes through experience, context, and lived realization.

A hindu who claimed to be visited by two Hindu deities and grow up in that religion .Why would I say that your experience of NAAM is more valid than his experience .Either they are both true or both false .

 

[Dr. D. P. Singh]

Response to Comment 1.
Your concern is valid, but it actually reinforces, rather than weakens, the metaphor. Agreement on what counts as the moon is itself already a conceptual act, not direct access to the moon. Any prior agreement relies on definitions, conventions, training, and shared language; precisely the “fingers” you are questioning. These are necessary for coordination, but they remain provisional and revisable.

The point of the metaphor is not that experience is vague or anarchic, but that no definition can exhaust what it claims to indicate. Even when ten people agree that they are pointing at the moon and not at Venus or a reflection, that agreement still does not capture the moon’s reality; it only stabilizes reference. Experience does not replace definition; it tests and deepens it. Definitions make experience intelligible, but experience reveals where definitions fall short.

So yes, we need fingers to agree on where to look, but mistaking the finger for the moon is the philosophical error the metaphor warns against.

 

[Dr. D. P. Singh]

Response to Comment 2.
“Boundaries” are not imposed by reality itself, but by the human frameworks used to grasp it: language, culture, cognition, and purpose. A definition sets provisional boundaries based on shared usage, context, and utility, not on ultimate essence. These boundaries are pragmatic and intersubjective, not absolute; they help communication, not ontology. Reality exceeds them.

 

[Dr. D. P. Singh]

Response to Comment 3.
The issue is not whose experience is “more valid,” but how experiences are understood and tested. Gurmat does not ask others to deny their experiences; it asks the seeker not to absolutize them. Personal visions, Hindu, Sikh, or otherwise, remain subjective unless they lead to ego-dissolution, ethical transformation, and universality. Naam in Gurmat is not a private vision or divine encounter but an ongoing discipline that erodes haumai and aligns one with hukam. Two experiences can feel equally real, yet differ in what they produce: one may reinforce identity, another may dissolve it.

 

[Warriorlight]

A definition explains a concept in words but does not fully capture its essence. It sets boundaries for understanding and communication, yet real knowledge comes through experience, context, and lived realization. Words point toward truth, but they cannot contain the complete reality of what a thing truly is.

A beautiful way to put it: "A definition is a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself."

That's a good way to put it Bhaji, thanks

 

[Dr. D. P. Singh]

That's a good way to put it Bhaji, thanks

Thanks, Veer Ji, for your candid remark. Regards.