Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Panth'.
Found 3 results
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh. I was reading quite a few articles and books in regards to Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Jee and I've discovered a few facts and I have a few theories about Sri Dasam Patshah's Granth. If one were to inspect the various Versions of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Jee ( SGPC version, Bhai Randhir Singh Version, Hazoor Sahib Version, Anandpur Sahib Version, and so on) we'd find quite a lot of discrepancies and consistency in Birs when compared to each other. As we all know, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib was with strenuous effort, compiled by Bhai Mani Singh Ji, who had managed to gather as much of Dasam Patshah Jee's Bani as he possibly could into his Bir. This what I've noticed so far from my reading: 1) We discovered Banis which aren't to be found in Bhai Mani Singh's Bir. 2) many texts are ascribed to Jaan-O-Dil-Raa-Raah Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee which don't seem to match Guru Sahib's more prominent texts, which has caused people to doubt some of these Banis and consider them as the work of other writers. For example: Asfotak Kabit, Sahansar Sukhmana, Naam Shastar Mala Mantar, etc. 3) We'd find that some of Guru Sahib's Bani is outside of any version of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, such as Sarbloh Prakash. 4) We also find that some Banis are incomplete (portions are missing). For example: Shastar Naam Mala Granth/Puran, Akal Ustat, and Gyan Prabodh. Bhai Mani Singh couldn't gather every Bani of Guru Sahib, but he did make an attempt, which was fruitful. Baba Gurbakash Singh Jee and Baba Binod Singh Jee also prepared their very own Birs, Followed by many other Gursikhs of the 1700s. This could explain why the Birs are inconsistent and have dissimilarities in content. Many of the writers must have found Banis ( which were not in the first Bir) and then added them into their own Sarroops. Others copied those Sarroops and produced their own. Some of the texts might have been of the Hazoori Gursikh Kavis and they were also added to Birs by writers thinking that they were Dasam Patshah's. Also, Some Pothis were left undiscovered and thus weren't added into any Bir of Dasam Granth Sahib, such as Sarbloh Prakash. I've noticed how many books containing the writings of Darbari Kavis are slowly going out of print and then out of Shelves. Would it be permissible to combine Sarbloh Prakash, Hazoori Darbari Kavis' Bani, and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib into one Bir? It could be HUGE, but that depends on the size of the letters and papers.
We have all plausibly heard the narrative of Akali-Nihung Guru Gobind Singh Ji's preliminary sojourn as 'Dusht-Daman' and the manifestation of the prior Nihungs. For those who are a bit lost, heres what I am talking about, http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/nihung-singhs-original-khalsa.html, http://www.nihangsingh.org/website/his-origins.html after studying this info I have a few questions. 1.) Which significant texts mention 'Dusht-Daman?' 2.) What is the traditional Nihung Singh perspective on 'Dusht-Daman?' 3.) Often esoteric scholars taxonomise Chandi as being an inherent mystical force which is employed to battle against inherent vices. How does the tale of Dusht-Daman reconcile with such a view? 4.) Does Singh originally mean tiger? 5.) How do we explain to a layman, who perceives transmigration as being repulsive, why the Gurus went through such a state? 6.) It is said that the Nihungs evolved through the four ages, it is also said they fought during these ages. Any more info on this? 7.) Whhere does it mention Nihung Singh's and their primary sojourn in Chandi Di Vaar?
Ok, to start (mods will filter this) admin cut government. admin cut it, its wife, and children. Ok, now to continue 10 maxims of law: Any good lawyer who has not sworn an oath to be British Accreditation Registry's phudi will tell you this is true: (also makes sense, also tested in court by me, with victories (Y)) http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3448 Or google 10 maxims of law cuz that guy is on prozac (which is reason for mass murders) and is talking about love, peace, let me get naked for that police to encounter me, etc. Pick up the good, shoot out the bad. I Vreak Downn Eech Vun Phor Ju. 1. A workman is worthy of his hire: Posession is 9/10ths of the law (won't get into last tenth which is just the legal right or wrong). I have ipod in my pocket, or let's say 2 bills cash. By law, (not any statute cuz law always win) unless there is a valid claim that the money is stolen, a valid claim filed by someone (real person only law, gov. is fiction) that money is yours. Nobody can come up to you and say I think you stole it, blah blah blah, prove you didn't. Doesn't matter in civil law places either where it guilty until innocent cuz the gov. can't rebut your affidavit (more on that below). 2. All are equal under the Law 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: "No one is above the law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few."). Force has meaning as for example you file lien on POTUS (obama) it probably won't be enforced, but you can destroy his credit with it and hit him the f up. Everything else, Prime minister, to police officer you can crank them with this. Obv. some places incl. states this is harder as some counties dont take liens vs gov. agents but I give you gun you find bullets. You have knowledge and info I have the lassi I am drinking. (Y) 3. In Commerce truth is sovereign 13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind." Few things, pretty much it's related to the things below but it also goes well it's related to the things below. Law is supposed to pplz telling truth for honesty or bcuz of consequences but remember they have to prove you lie. (More on this later). 4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12). Yes, an affidavit is supposed to be even 3 signatures or statement written with penalty of perjury but I encourage the panth to only go for bigger matters so spend the $5-10 per seal (find a good one) for a notary cuz it looks GOOD! (Some will say page, but it's per document a doc. can have multiple pages, blah blah blah, other party can't say shit anyway [gov. as in thing that can't speak by itself]) 5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He who does not deny, admits."). Main and HUGE thing, I submitted an affidavit where I said I am not subject to these gov. rules, they all gov. agents speak hog-wash, etc. etc. gov. did not rebut it in court. It is truth (post later on). 6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or "duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.). Basically, a judge can only judge what you let him, if both parties are talking judge has no power to come in between. If you two settle outside of court for example, judge has to be silent. Whether he'll try something depends on if this is India or not but I swear all you kukkars are in UK. 7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He who fails to assert his rights has none."). Yea, it's cool to scream (submit) cuz otherwise it's assumed that nun happen. As in this system is basically the word I'm looking for ignorantly corrupt. A judge can pretend to say I thought you were a gov. agent subject to Canadian law for example, cuz u didn't rebut it. It goes on and on but basically use this the other way too. There are things like without prejudice or something on docs mean it's in negotiation and can't be brought up in court. (Ain't fully research this part) so you can use this to your advantage (or your mother will beat you). 8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it."). Really just a repeat of points 5 and 6. 9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: "He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit."). This is long one, ADD kids please don't lose it here; basically it means that one who has no interest in the case has no reason to be there. You can fabricate interest for example you see cop abusing someone even verbally (I'll look up stuff for you) you can easily say you have interest blah blah, and ask the person a dollar for your help in which case you have interest now due to employment. Remember it is interest, no authority in the land has jurisdiction to challenge what that interest means. If you are there for someone you are there for someone. Remember this is battlefield, make your own weaponary. 10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved."). Yea, judge can't touch lien this is Sikhsangat.com not lawsangat.com so I won't post full commerical lien process here but google that exact thing you'll find stuff from everywhere I'll go into it later but probably only after I feel comfortable and done it once or twice which is most likely months away. My Story--- Youth robbery charges cuz they try to rob me, got sucked. Ok, house arrest learned this june last year, brought to feds, this that got them stuck in lien bill, met them somewhere too close to probation location. Admitted in court, yea I went there but can you prove it's me that probation addresses (all caps is fiction, also other party to contract ie. gov. has no respond see was it points 5 and 6)? Kinda nervous case dismissed due to my motion, they admitted they couldn't have convicted me, blah blah. Here this crazy kid is. Relevant Canadian Sections since I looked them up but really it doesn't matter. You don't need any of this I'll give example: I am 'charged' by state of New Mexico. For Idk Drunk Driving, Speeding, No License, w.e Ok but no-one is injured and they are not the injured party (see point 9). --- I would go in give letter to attorney say it's for the 'STATE' put in w.e song I was listening to blah blah, ask them is it not true that w.e make shit up and for so-so reason I am not subject to your bs. (Put like cuz ur not real, this that, common law, ABRA KADABRA). If you say nothing then it means you agree to this: Legal Maxim: Silence Is Acquiescence. Swear affidavit with all those points, file motion to dismiss serve them with it. Ok. Done. This doesn't get into how to not even be charged for statues again, as some people have on their names in CPIC (Canadian Stalkers People Database) do not arrest without express written consent of attorney general. But I ain't there yet, don't care to be and this is the basics that everyone can grasp and which don't vary and which are UN-BREAKABLE. (read again). Even peace officers in commonwealth swear to uphold law of land, keep peace, and stop it from being breached. Nothing about penal/criminal code (look it up, ask w.e). Law of land well the only law the land can have is that. Cuz it's all semantics this ish works, and I guess they get into cuz god's creatures live in harmony (humans) and this is how we live in peace. It's pretty much called law of land cuz law of sea is the statutes etc. in a way cuz ur signing up to board and there must be discipline tc. I guess (ain't research it but trust me). --- CANADIAN SECTIONS (let me stop rambling about the New Mexico thing, it's an ugly desert. ) s. 32 says something like parliament authority provinces. etc of charter (constitution act 1982 or something). Look up R V Dell 2005 line 6-8 admits that charter does not apply to private parties (us). S. 52 of const. act says this is supreme law of canada anything else no force or effect. R V Big Drug Mart 1982 or 1986 w.e w.e restates that any statutes against that don't matter. Ok Class, if charter don't apply to you and it is top? Vut else does. NOTHING. --- Ok, let me post this to other Sikh Sites and other sites now. Thank You. Remember tho in the largest 'common law' country of all an affidavit won't save you level iv ceramic plates might. Remeber our 2.5 strikes doctrine? one point for hit and run/guerilla/ambushes and only .5 for pitched battle. Teaching people is much more warlike and better so 1 point than going to jail even for less than 24 hrs getting bail and then getting out and beating it cuz u lost time, patience etc. It is NO FUN waiting to sign someones bail, or sitting in a admin cut small ass cell getting orange juice and tuna sandwich. But there is time for it, and don't let it scare you. Adult jail is soft, been there once for less than 24 like I said just talked about this stuff but wasn't in jail jail, we'll see. 99.99% + 1 of men are kaami khote attempting to trap women in marriages to don't worry about them. Girls respond to dominance, so mamis just act big and you'll be fine. Peace and Blessings. And please see my thread about christmas light on Nishan Sahib. F Rexdale. --- The nishan sahib thread refers to report beadbi section on sikhsangat.com