In the shabad "Jo Mange," Guru Arjan sings of the Govind whose power spreads in all four directions. He feels like Govind's hand is on his head. Whoever has sincerely asked for their vices to be removed, becomes a better person. Whoever has asked for a revolution of the mind has obtained it. He feels Govind's merciful eyes keeping a watch. He feels supremely protected. It is not a fluke that Guru Arjan uses the name of Hari that for generations has been used as the protector of the meek cows: Govind. "Guru Govind protects his own," sings Guru Arjan. "The Guru of all Gurus is One," reminds Guru Nanak.

Background on Raghunath

According to legend, Raghu was one of the great renowned King of Ikshvaku dynasty. According to the Vishnu Purana (4.4), Raam was the great grandson of Raghu: 

The son of Khatwánga was Dírghabáhu; his son was Raghu; his son was Aja; his son was Daśaratha. The god from whose navel the lotus springs became fourfold, as the four sons of Daśaratha, Ráma, Lakshmańa, Bharata, and Śatrughna, for the protection of the world. Ráma, whilst yet a boy, accompanied Viswámitra, to protect his sacrifice, and slew Tádaká.

Raghu itself means "fast one" and legend goes that it is derived from Raghu's chariot riding abilities. (More: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/raghu)

The Sanskrit word nātha (नाथ) literally means "lord, protector, master." The related Sanskrit term Adi Natha means first or original Lord, and is a synonym for Shiva, the founder of the Nāthas. Nath is a theological term found in all the dharmic religions that utilize Sanskrit. It is found in Vaishnavism (e.g. Gopinath, Jagannath), Buddhism (e.g. Minanath), and in Jainism (Adinatha, Parsvanatha).

So Raghu-nath means Lord of the Raghus, meaning Lord of the Dynasty of Raghu. Just like Lord Krishna is also called Yadunath meaning Lord of Yadavas, Lord Rama is called Raghunath meaning Lord of descendant of Raghus or the Lord of Ikshvaku dynasty.

What do I think of when I sing Raghunath

Earlier today I was hearing a debate between two people who were fervently fighting over what Raam means. One said it means the one that is ramaa hua or imbued within everyone, and the other one said it stands for Raam, the son of Dashrath as described above.  You can't say either one is completely right or completely wrong. I think both definitions are incomplete. In fact, any definition would be incomplete. Raam is not definable; you cannot put a box around Raam even if the box is infinite.  Tulsidas, who spent his life writing the story of Raam, the son of Dashrath describes this himself: he says Raam is "atarkya" ... cannot be understood by the mind, heart or words.

राम अतर्क्य बुद्धि मन बानी। मत हमार अस सुनहि सयानी॥
तदपि संत मुनि बेद पुराना। जस कछु कहहिं स्वमति अनुमाना॥

They all describe him according to their limited mind. Bhagat Tulsidas here sounds just like Guru Gobind Singh says:

Aap Aapni Budh Hai Jeti
Barnat Bhinn Bhin Tohe Teti.

I am glad that I don't define and translate words like "Raam" on my videos. It is because these words mean different things to people, and that is the beauty of it.

When I sing Raghunath in the shabad Tek Ek Raghunath I am remembering the one Ekonkaar (the primal sound energy) is called by many by different names. The one that is is within everyone and around everywhere. The one that is called by many different names but cannot be defined in words. But I also include all the stories and philosophies that I know about Raam; and I understand that I don't know.   

What I do know is that when I sing I do touch the essence of something that I cannot describe in words.  Raghunath touches that essence. In my experience, Raam, Krishna, Allah, Karima and all other names of the primal sound energy can all be used to touch the essence. The purpose of the singer is to sing, not to worry about which name it is. For instance Guru Nanak says, I love you through all your names: 

Balhaari Jaoon Jete Tere Nao Hain

The importance of Naam or Name from The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad -
More: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118304.html

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच, यत्रायं पुरुषो म्रियते किमेनं न जहातीति; नामेति, अनन्तं वै नाम, अनन्ता विश्वे देवाः, अनन्तमेव स तेन लोकं जयति ॥ १२ ॥

yājñavalkyeti hovāca, yatrāyaṃ puruṣo mriyate kimenaṃ na jahātīti; nāmeti, anantaṃ vai nāma, anantā viśve devāḥ, anantameva sa tena lokaṃ jayati || 12 ||

12. ‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?’ ‘Name. The name indeed is infinite, and infinite are the Viśvadevas. He (who knows thus) wins thereby verily an infinite world.’

Is it only the organs of a liberated man that are merged, or is it also all[9] that moves them to action? If it is only the former, but not the latter, then with the presence of these stimulating causes the organs would again be likely to function. If, on the other hand, everything such as desire and action is merged, then only liberation is possible. It is to bring this out that the next question is put: ‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?’ The other said: Name. That is, everything is merged; only the name[10] is left because of its relation to the type, for the name is eternal. The name indeed is infinite —the infinity of the name is its eternity— and infinite are the Viśvadevas, because they possess the infinity of the name. He (who knows thus) wins thereby verīly an infinite world. Having identified himself with the Viśvadevas who possess the infinity of the name, he wins through this realisation only an infinite world.

WHAT am I, after all, but a child, pleas’d with the sound of my own name? repeating it over and over;
I stand apart to hear—it never tires me.
To you, your name also;
Did you think there was nothing but two or three pronunciations in the sound of your name?

 

I shared my poem in Russian with my friend, Vladimir Korobov. And he sent this beautiful couplet back, from a Russian poet, Osip Mandelstam. I loved it. Here is a reflection on it.

Freedom by Osip MandelStam: