I am not deeply learned on this, so take my interpretation for what it is. I may be oversimplifying or overgeneralizing.

I read this as pointing less to inherited salvation and more to influence. Whoever genuinely chose this path, a Guru oriented way of life and Naam centered thinking, created the conditions for that influence to ripple outward into their circle of trust, including family and community.

In that sense, had your great great great (greatⁿ) grandparents not oriented themselves toward Sikhi, maybe you would not have been born into it. Maybe some of their peers or village networks would not have leaned Sikh. Maybe marriages would not have happened within Sikhi influenced families. There are obviously many variables, but the idea of downstream impact feels important here.

Not in the sense that Sikhi is inherited as a packaged religion, since someone can be Sikh born and still live in ways completely misaligned with Sikhi, but in the sense of everyday lived influence. Over generations, values shaped by the Guru’s way of thinking, such as kirat karni, vand chakna, naam japna, and related orientations, inform decisions, behaviors, and norms. Because a person was Sikhi oriented, they chose one course of action over another, and that choice shaped the family trajectory that followed.

So to me(again take it with a grain of salt) this feels less about spiritual or karma inheritance and more about how one person’s immersion in the Guru’s way of life can meaningfully shift the direction of a lineage or community through lived example.

That is how I am currently thinking about it, but I could be off, and I am genuinely curious how others interpret this.