Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maha Kharag Singh

[split topic] Has Gurbani been Changed?

Recommended Posts

well brother the main consensus is that Satguru Granth Sahib is the unchanging word of God. This is because it came as a revelation to Satguru Nanak Dev Ji and the other Satgurus. However the context of Bani is that the style its composed in allows the person whos reading it to recite it in the first person therefore its more personal to each individual instead of it being like an instruction manual or law book.

Topic has been split from: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...pic.php?t=10303

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gurbani, Guru Nanak Dev ji writes that he expresses the word of God as it comes to him. So Gurbani comes directly from God, is even a form of God itself, and is expressed and written by beings who are sargun saroops of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maha Kharag Singh:

well brother the main consensus is that Satguru Granth Sahib is the unchanging word of God.

Xylitol wrote:

In Gurbani, Guru Nanak Dev ji writes that he expresses the word of God as it comes to him. So Gurbani comes directly from God, is even a form of God itself, and is expressed and written by beings who are sargun saroops of God.

Unchanging word of God? I beg to differ.

The very foundation of Sikhism lies in the the mulmantar which according to the standardized version of Sikh scripture today reads:

ik-omkar satinamu karta purakhu nirbhau nirvair akal murati ajuni saibham gurprasadi / japu / adi sachu jugadi sachu hai bhi sachu nanak hosi bhi sachu /

This version relies on the Damdami and Kartarpuri Birs. What the majority of uneducated Sikh seems to forget is the existence of the Goindval Pothis whose authorship is attributed to Guru Amardas. Famous sikh historical texts such as Giani Gian Singh's Tvarikh Guru Khalsa,Kavi Santokh Singh's Sri Gur PratapSuraj Granth and Sikhan di Bhagatmala all agree that these pothis were written under Guru Amardas AND that Guru Arjan consulted these pothis before composing the Kartapuri Bir. There is no doubt as to the authenticity of these pothis and Professor Gurinder Singh Mann from the University of California (Santa Barbara) has thoroughly studied them. (see his two books: "The Goindval Pothis" (Harvard University Press) and "The Making of Sikh Scripture" (Oxford University Press). Having analyzed the manuscripts themselves he has come to the conclusion that these pothis are indeed authentic.

Even though most of the content of the Kartapuri Bir and the Goindval Pothis is the same there are also great differences that cannotbe attributed to Baba Mohan.

- differences in spelling

- missing hymns

And most importantly the mulmantar. The mulmantar in the Goindval pothis reads as follows:

ik-omkar satiguru parsadi sachunamu kartaru nirbhau nirikar akal murati ajuni sambhau //

The Goindval Pothis are the earliest extant Sikh scriptures to this day. If gurbani is really the "unchanging word of God" as some people claim then how do these people explain these differences?

Did God change his mind about the mul mantar? Did the Gurus disagree among each other as to the wording of the mulmantar? If yes why? Aren'ts they supposed to be the same Nanak?

Enjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sword of Tabriz

As someone who follows Islam you should be aware that God/Allah changes his mind a lot during the creation of the Quran so I fail to see why you are attacking Gurbani for doing the same. Changing the direction of the Qibla comes to mind as is the problematic concept of abrogation in the Quran. That being said the view held by Gurinder Singh Mann are disputed by a number of Sikh scholars. Just because Mann accepts something as authentic does not make it so :)

Have you read Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition by B S Dhillon. A much more scholarly book which blows Mann out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear tony32hp:

1. I am well aware of the doctrine of bada' in certain schools of Islam. Pointing out at the concept of bada' in Islam is not an explanation for changes in Sikh scripture. First of all the the concept of bada' doesn't apply to the revealed verses of the Qur'an but to the injunction of changing the qiblah. As for tahrif of the Qur'an even those schools that say that the present Qur'an is truncated agree that it's content is nevertheless authentic. So your reply is misplaced to say the least.

2. Yes I have read B.S. Dhillon's book. I am a little surprised that this book hasn't been published by a more reputed academic publisher. This is probably a result of a conspiracy against the Sikh nation I suppose. What great academic publisher would refuse a book full of typos, spelling mistakes and ideological presumtionsA great piece of scholarship? I beg to differ. For the following reasons:

1. B S Dhillon spends a great deal of time expounding the differences between the Katarpuri Bir and the Goindval Pothis. This had already been done in far greater detail by Prof Gurinder Singh Mann. He dwells on details that have been mentioned by Prof Gurinder Singh Mann. As such he doesn't present anything new to the body of knowledge about the Goindval Pothis. Such a shame that Oxford or Harvard University press haven't published BS Dhillon's book, indeed!

2. There is no doubt that there are differences in arrangement, spellings etc but BS Dhillon's ideological predispositions make him interpret these differences as signs of heterodoxy which is a highly subjective interpretation. Here a few examples:

page 105: "6.5. Significantly, authorship of some hymns has been wrongly entered." He goes on to explain that they are "not in consonance with the Adi Granth".

How is that proof that they have been "wrongly" attributed? Different does not equate wrong especially when one knows that the Goindval Pothis precede the Kartapuri Bir. The author considers difference as a self evident proof that the Goindval pothis are "wrong".

pages 96-98: BS Dhillon fails to discuss Prof Gurinder Singh Mann's work on the Goindval Pothis when it is in fact the single most important book written on the subject. Had this been part of a doctoral student's upgrade from MPhil to PhD ,he/she would have been failed. This is quite serious academically speaking and would be interpreted as intellectual dishonesty by an examinator.

page 112 He addresses the issue of missing hymns in an inductive reasoning:

There are hymns that are present in the Adi Granth yet missing from the Goindval Pothis. Given the fact that the Kartarpuri Bir is more recent than the Goindval Pothis the issue of missing hymns is invalid. The opposite position makes much sense i.e. hymns from the Goindval Pothis missing in the Kartarpuri Bir.

p117 He argues that the signature "gulam mast taida Jeth Chand" must be spurious because he argues that Guru Ramdas was not known as Gulam Mast and that several scholars have not seen the signature before. He argues that Gulam Mast is Baba Mohan. Indeed Gulam Mast does also use the title Nanak in the hymns attributed to him and it would be tempting to attribute those hymns to Baba Mohan would claimed to be Guru. Then why would Baba Mohan write :"gulam mast taida Jeth Chand", Jeth Chand was Guru Ramdas his rival. It doesn't make sense! Also BS Dhillon’s claim that Guru Ramdas was not known under that name is false. Giani Gurdit Singh in 1991 in his Itihas Sri Guru Granth Sahib (published by the SGPC) clearly states and proves that gulam mast is Guru Ramdas’ penname before he became Guru.

p 132 He brushes away the issue of the M5 hymn in the Goindval pothis as a proof that the Goindval pothis are not older. According to him this hymn proves that the Pothis are not older than the Kartarpuri Bir. He fails to give a reply to Prof Gurinder Singh Mann's discussion of the issue (see pages 21-22 of his book). BS Dhillon’s “proof†is based on the fact that he considers that the handwriting of that hymn is that of the primary scholar. This is clearly disproved when one sees the Pothis oneself. There is a very clear difference in handwriting . I have been fortunate to see it for myself in August 2000. Also BS Dhilon claims that the Goindval Pothis are spurious and that Baba Mohan claimed guruship for himself. If so why would there be a M5 hymn in the Pothis and why would the Jeth Chand signature be there?

I don't like Prof Mann as a person but I have to admit that he is a good scholar.

Have you read Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition by B S Dhillon. A much more scholarly book which blows Mann out of the water.

Yeah...I am really impressed.

Now after contemplating the beautiful scholarship of BS Dhillon could we go back to the subject i.e. the claim that Sikh scriptures are the "unchanged word of God".

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tabriz is basing his entire argument on his belief that the Goindval Pothis are authentic.

He says "Giani Gurdit Singh in 1991 in his Itihas Sri Guru Granth Sahib (published by the SGPC) clearly states and proves that gulam mast is Guru Ramdas’ penname before he became Guru. "

Giani Gurdit Singh relied on the Goindval Pothis only to show that the Bhagats are described as devotees of Guru Nanak.

His assertion that Ghulam Sada Sevak, etc. are pen names of Guru Ram Das is based on the Pothi and not on any independent information. Using this assertion to prove the Goindval Pothis is ridiculous. It's circular: why does G. Gurdit Singh think Ghulam Sada Sevak was Guru Ram Das jee's pen name? Because he saw it in Goindval Pothis? Why are the Goindval Pothis authentic? Because the pen name is backed up by G. Gurdit Singh.

The fact is that no Puratan history or Granth refers to Guru Ram Das as Ghulam Sada Sevak or mentions any compositions before becoming Guru.

Reknown Gurbani researcher Dr. Sahib Singh rejects the Goindval Pothis as does the work of Pritam Singh of GNDU who says that the Pothis were specifically created to create doubts about the legitimate Guruship of Guru Arjan Dev.

The authenticity of the Goindval Pothis is FAR from clear-cut as Tabriz would have us believe. If we accept that Goindval Pothis existed, it still does not mean that THESE pothis are the authentic ones, that Dr. Mann has been studying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikh Answers wrote:

Reknown Gurbani researcher Dr. Sahib Singh rejects the Goindval Pothis as does the work of Pritam Singh of GNDU who says that the Pothis were specifically created to create doubts about the legitimate Guruship of Guru Arjan Dev.

Is that all you could come up with? It so happens that I talked to Prof Pritam Singh about the Pothis and although he (like me) doesn't like Prof Mann, he admitted that Gurinder Singh Mann spent more time than anyone else on these pothis studying and analyzing them.

As for the Ghulam Sadasevak argument it is isn't circular. It's based on the very simple reading of this clear sentence: gulam mast taida sada Jeth Chand: your intoxicated servant Jeth Chand (Guru Ramdas). If this were a book written by Baba Mohan why on earth would he have put Guru Ramdas' name in there? It doesn't make sense as he is supposed to have been Baba Mohan's rival. The only reason why I quoted Giani Gurdit Singh was to show that there are well established scholars within the Sikh community endorsed by the SGPC who consider the Pothis authentic. If these pothis existed to create doubts about the Guruship of Guru Arjan, the 5th Guru WHY ON EARTH IS THERE A M5 HYMN in the Goindval Pothis?

As for Prof Sahib Singh's work on the Goindval Pothis, Prof Mann has debunked his arguments.

The argument of puratan history makes no sense as you and your tapobani brothers pick and chose from puratan Sikh history when it is convenient for you. When puratan historians say that Guru Har Rai had eight wives you refuse to believe it and invent the usual conspiracy argument. And you really believe I should take your claim of using puratan Sikh history seriously? The goindval pothis surely are an historical document and like any good historian you take the first source as authoritative and the latter ones as less authoritative unless proven otherwise. The fact that other Sikh historical sources do not mention Guru Ramdas' penname doesn't invalidate the argument of the Goindval Pothis. No mughal source mentions 1699 amrit sanchar does it mean you people lie?

The authenticity of the Goindval Pothis is FAR from clear-cut as Tabriz would have us believe. If we accept that Goindval Pothis existed, it still does not mean that THESE pothis are the authentic ones, that Dr. Mann has been studying.

Oh now you even doubt they existed? lol If that isn't pure revisionism.

"Vee have problem wiith Goindval pothas! Vat vee do?

-Simpel joo deny they exist bass!"

The best way...the pindoo way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin: these last few posts should be in another thread - they've hijacked the original and taken it off-topic.

Bahadur, why have the traditional Sampardas not paid much attention, if any, to these pothis? And why are you bothered, since you found a new religion, for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you changed your mind about your claims of Guru Nanak Dev ji being a Muslim Saint? b/c He is the one who stated that he expressed God's word as it came to him. Are you calling the Guru a liar?

Nine Gurus have sacrificed to build the foundations, and the Tenth built the house. Neither you nor anyone else is capable of burning down this "house of lies" (as you referred to it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xylitol wrote:

Have you changed your mind about your claims of Guru Nanak Dev ji being a Muslim Saint? b/c He is the one who stated that he expressed God's word as it came to him. Are you calling the Guru a liar?

I have no doubt he was a Muslim saint. I just have doubts about your pretentions about gurbani being the "unchanged word of God"

Nine Gurus have sacrificed to build the foundations, and the Tenth built the house. Neither you nor anyone else is capable of burning down this "house of lies" (as you referred to it).

Sikhs are pretty good at destroying their own community and betraying their own Gurus as they have proved it times and times again. Don't blame others if your ship is sinking!

Mattheen wrote:

Bahadur, why have the traditional Sampardas not paid much attention, if any, to these pothis? And why are you bothered, since you found a new religion, for the time being.

Actually they have bothered. Tara Singh Narotam talks about them and so do did Kavi Santokh Singh and Giani Gian Singh.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are many people who research Sikhism academically without being Sikhs?

Anyways: none of you has replied to the question about the changes in the mulmantar. Any intelligent reply apart from " you're an ennemy of the Panth"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sword of Tabriz ,

it is quite simple , practice whatever religion you believe , understand the meaning of bani rather than going off topic and "trying" to pick faults

ONLY WAHEGURU knows the truth

ONLY WAHEGURU knows if the bani is suchi

ONLY WAHEGURU knows if we are reciting bani correctly

We on the other hand do our best to understand and practive bani , you could be here all year arguing your point what will it achieve- nothing

if you act on Gurus words , change your inner self , it would be much better

Dont get me wrong i'm no preacher , nor a scholar , keep it simple

there are alot of things we dont know and make alot of assumptions , but the main point being WE NEED TO CLEANSE ourselves , We may have all the knowledge in the world , and prove others wrong this will only feed your ego , BUT if we dont practive and change its worthless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSG wrote:

Sword of Tabriz ,

it is quite simple , practice whatever religion you believe , understand the meaning of bani rather than going off topic and "trying" to pick faults

ONLY WAHEGURU knows the truth

ONLY WAHEGURU knows if the bani is suchi

ONLY WAHEGURU knows if we are reciting bani correctly

We on the other hand do our best to understand and practive bani , you could be here all year arguing your point what will it achieve- nothing

if you act on Gurus words , change your inner self , it would be much better

Dont get me wrong i'm no preacher , nor a scholar , keep it simple

there are alot of things we dont know and make alot of assumptions , but the main point being WE NEED TO CLEANSE ourselves , We may have all the knowledge in the world , and prove others wrong this will only feed your ego , BUT if we dont practive and change its worthless

Nice to see that you have an opinion and that you are 1. not sure of what you do 2. lack guidance and hence rely on your own effort to guess what God wants.

You make the point about we having to try to clean ourselves. But Japuji Sahib clearly states that cleaning yourself won't result in anything you follow the Hukam and are in God's acceptance (ridha- razai). Human efforts are nothing without correct guidance.

But I appreciate the fact that you admitted to your lack of guidance. If only Waheguru knows and we don't then he is misguiding humanity...and then he's not God for God is just and fair and guides humanity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they have bothered. Tara Singh Narotam talks about them and so do did Kavi Santokh Singh and Giani Gian Singh.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are many people who research Sikhism academically without being Sikhs?

Anyways: none of you has replied to the question about the changes in the mulmantar. Any intelligent reply apart from " you're an ennemy of the Panth"!

ALL Sampardaye accept Guru Granth Sahib Ji as authentic. There is no doubt about the Mool Mantr. Bhai Gurdas' Vaaran also provide evidence to this effect.

Have you personally seen the pothis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Abdus' question, the following lines from Guru Sahib should help make things clear:

God Himself has adorned servant Nanak; his doubts and fears have been dispelled, and he writes the account of the Lord. ||2||2||131|

He Himself is the paper, He Himself is the pen, and He Himself is the writer.

I sing the Word which You have written; I do not know any other Word. ||1||Pause||

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have no doubt he was a Muslim saint. I just have doubts about your pretentions about gurbani being the "unchanged word of God" "

I'm the one being pretentious? really? Do you often accuse your saints of being liars?

http://sikhitothemax.com/Page.asp?SourceID...67&Format=2

thila(n)g mehalaa 1 ||

jaisee mai aavai khasam kee baanee thaisarraa karee giaan vae laalo ||

paap kee ja(n)n(j) lai kaabalahu dhhaaeiaa joree ma(n)gai dhaan vae laalo ||

saram dhharam dhue shhap khaloeae koorr firai paradhhaan vae laalo ||

kaajeeaa baamanaa kee gal thhakee agadh parrai saithaan vae laalo ||

musalamaaneeaa parrehi kathaebaa kasatt mehi karehi khudhaae vae laalo ||

jaath sanaathee hor hidhavaaneeaa eaehi bhee laekhai laae vae laalo ||

khoon kae sohilae gaaveeahi naanak rath kaa ku(n)goo paae vae laalo ||1||

saahib kae gun naanak gaavai maas puree vich aakh masolaa ||

jin oupaaee ra(n)g ravaaee bait(h)aa vaekhai vakh eikaelaa ||

sachaa so saahib sach thapaavas sacharraa niaao karaeg masolaa ||

kaaeiaa kaparr ttuk ttuk hosee hidhusathaan samaalasee bolaa ||

aavan at(h)atharai jaan sathaanavai hor bhee out(h)asee maradh kaa chaelaa ||

sach kee baanee naanak aakhai sach sunaaeisee sach kee baelaa ||2||3||5||

Tilang, First Mehla:

As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo.

Bringing the marriage party of sin, Babar has invaded from Kaabul, demanding our land as his wedding gift, O Lalo.

Modesty and righteousness both have vanished, and falsehood struts around like a leader, O Lalo.

The Qazis and the Brahmins have lost their roles, and Satan now conducts the marriage rites, O Lalo.

The Muslim women read the Koran, and in their misery, they call upon God, O Lalo.

The Hindu women of high social status, and others of lowly status as well, are put into the same category, O Lalo.

The wedding songs of murder are sung, O Nanak, and blood is sprinkled instead of saffron, O Lalo. ||1||

Nanak sings the Glorious Praises of the Lord and Master in the city of corpses, and voices this account.

The One who created, and attached the mortals to pleasures, sits alone, and watches this.

The Lord and Master is True, and True is His justice. He issues His Commands according to His judgement.

The body-fabric will be torn apart into shreds, and then India will remember these words.

Coming in seventy-eight (1521 A.D.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540 A.D.), and then another disciple of man will rise up.

Nanak speaks the Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this, the right time. ||2||3||5||

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tabriz/Bahadur/Lalleshwari etc. etc.,

You used the example of G. Gurdit Singh to say that other sources "prove" that Guru Ram Das used the pen name of Ghulam Sada Sevak but conveniently forgot to note that G. Gurdit Singh reached this conclusion by saying "the Goindval Pothis say so". He really went too far in concluding that these are the real Goindval Pothis since he had no real experience/study to suggest so. His purpose was only to show that Bhagats were disciples of Guru Nanak, as they were, and the fact that these Pothis, along with janamsakhis, etc. acknowledge it should have been enough.

The Pothis have a lot of problems with them, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. If these pothis were collections of the earlier Gurus' works, then why were the works of Ghulam Sada Sevak or Jeth Chand included in them (when he was not a Guru) but then not included in the Kartarpuri Bir? Why would they not contain Japji Sahib? Why would they not contain even the complete shabads of Guru Amar Das?

If Baba Mohan was obstinate and refused to accept Guru Ram Das as Guru (in contrast to his brother Baba Mohri), why would Guru Amar Das Sahib give him the pothis but at the same time pass Guruship to Guru Ram Das?

Why would the first folio of the Ahiya pur Pothi say, "If someone leaves the Guru who comes from our family (Bhalla family) and follows another, he will definitely go to hell".

I could repeat the numerous other points, but there really isn't a need.

And so, the conclusion remains: if there were Goindval Pothis, then THESE ones are certainly not the original ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guru Gobind Singh Ji recited the ENTIRE Guru Granth Sahib Ji as we know it today. That's enough evidence for me.

Some "scholars" resort to anything to get some attention. ADD perhaps........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Forgive me if i m wrong since i dont have factual evidence to address you as bahudar [ie- ip address match]. Nevertheless, one doesn't need rocket sceince to figure this out.

Its just boggles me, on one hand you are sick in tired of this forum want your name and posts erased fully.

quoting from series of your email requests:

a. I no longer wish to be associated with that forum in any way or form.

b. I know that many of my posts inspired people and as I view modern

Sikhism as total heresy I don't wish other people to dwell any further

into it because of some inspiration found in my posts.

c. I no longer wish to be anywhere present in a forum that has given

free space for haters of Ahl ul Bayt (as) to express their blasphemy.

d. There is of course a matter of injustice at hand given the fact

that I have never threatened anyone but have on numerous occasions

been banned even though I am a scholar and have taught Sikhism and

other Indian religions at university.On the other hand people who have

threatened me physically are still allowed to post freely on the

forum. As my presence is obviously not desired I am entitled to ask

that traces of my presence i.e. my posts may also be removed.

Then on other hand.. come back on this forum and start same old broken record debates - guru nanak dev ji was a muslim now muslim saint, whats next? sri guru nanak dev ji was a mere pir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iss Haram Khor de maare din aagaye

@ Admin, in punjabi those who first eat out of a thali and then do shekh in it are called haram khor, therefore please refrain from warniing or deleting that word as im sure most people would describe Kayar Ali Shah as.

Btw as per authenticity of Satguru Adhi Granth, wasnt the Koran origionaly written on BROKEN bits of pottery, ye thats a real reliable sourse to compile a book from.

Also to my fellow sikh brothers and sisters is it possible that the Govindwal pothi this fool is refering to, be the one which was modified by prithi chand and the following imposter Gurus.

THERE IS ONE FACT, SATGURU GOBIND SINGH JI DICTATED THE ENTIRE ADHI GRANTH THEREFORE CREASING OUT ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE BY IMPOSTERS. AND THAT BIR IS AVAILABLE AND UNCHANGED so admin cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This going to be a long reply

Matheen and Xylitol, you seem to have either misunderstood me or have a poor mastery of the English language. What I am questioning is your claim that gurbani is unchanged, not that it may (or may not) come from God. So your posting two shabads where Baba Nanak says he receives his inspiration is all fine and dandy but this isn't the topic. Rather the topic is : has gurbani changed?

Sikh Answers (I take it that "answers" here is a verb not a noun) discusses the issue of Giani Gurdit Singh's work but doesn't touch a word on that of Prf Gurinder Singh Mann who is to date the best specialist on the pothis. He then goes on to conclude that the pothis have many problems. Actually the pothis don't have a problem. It is YOU who has a problem connecting the Goindval Pothis with the Kartarpuri bir because you feel that intertextuality threatens your theological position. No scholar not even Prof Mann claims that the Kartarpuri bir is a rip off. Rather what is interesting is the way Guru Arjan proceeded in consulting manuscripts that contained hymns.

Sikh answers says it's a problem that the Goindval Pothis don't contain Japuji sahib.

1. It's a problem because the granth he believes in contains it. Otherwise it's just a difference in text.

2. The fact that it isn't contained in two of the four pothis doesn't mean it is a problem.

If Baba Mohan was obstinate and refused to accept Guru Ram Das as Guru (in contrast to his brother Baba Mohri), why would Guru Amar Das Sahib give him the pothis but at the same time pass Guruship to Guru Ram Das?

I am sure Sikh answers if familiar with puratan Sikh literature. Bhai Kavi Santokh Singh says in his Suraj Prakash Granth that Guru Amardas entrusted the Goindval Pothis to Baba Mohan Singh on purpose so that Baba Mohan could rectify the wrong of not having appeared at the succession ceremony of Guru Ramdas. By lending the pothis to Guru Arjan , Baba Mohan redeamed himself of his sin.This would also explain why the Ghulam Sadasevak hymns have been crossed (probably in a bad mood) and why Guru Arjan's first envoy to Baba Mohan went back empty handed and that Baba Mohan only accepted to hand over the pothis to Guru Arjan in person.

As you see Sikh answers here is your answer...

And yes the Goindval pothis discussed in Mann's work are THE Goindval Pothis. Not some other manuscript.

(btw Kavi Santokh Singh is the person you people love to quote about Ragmala)

Maha Kharag Singh I wonder who is the the haram khor: the man who works honestly and eats food that he paid for, or the Sikh who eats langar in a gurdwara that receives money from the National lottery fund?

No the Goindval Pothis are not the Guru Harsahai Pothis.

THERE IS ONE FACT, SATGURU GOBIND SINGH JI DICTATED THE ENTIRE ADHI GRANTH THEREFORE CREASING OUT ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE BY IMPOSTERS. AND THAT BIR IS AVAILABLE AND UNCHANGED so admin cut.

Actually the original Damdami bir has been taken away to Afghanistan during the Afghan invasion. So the original is not available.

Yes Guru Gobind Singh dictated (so your tradition says) the entire Kartarpuri Bir AND ADDED to it his father's bani.

As for the Quran it was written down already during the life time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) by his household. Other people kept parts of it on animal parchment or palm leaves.

Unchanged?

N3O, the correct spelling is Bahadur NOT bahudar. I don't see how your post is a reply to my question. Ad hominem attacks are not a reply.

Spiderman, try to learn English or stick to spinning.

My question remains. If gurbani is "unchanged" why is the mulmantar different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×