Jump to content
dalsingh101

Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

Recommended Posts

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

Well throwing it out of Sri Akal Takht Sahib onto the ground below wasn't really showing any respect either was it?

That's not established fact.  Jabbar didn't throw it out of Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib or spear it.  It was damaged in the scuffle that ensued there when the mahants and Nihangs were being removed.  This claim was circulated by the mahants, Nihangs, and their sympathizers.  You should look ask both sides their stories before passing it off as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

Anurag Singh says that the original was in Sanskrit and had no raagmala in it.

Ta fer saboot agge pesh kare ta.

 

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

Yet the SGPC have for their short-sightedness shown has their act of removing Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth from Sri Akal Takht Sahib been responsible for some of the vitriol against it for the last 5 or 6 decades. 

The SGPC did not believe in the Parkash of SDGS. Simple as that.  Their "short-sightedness" had them print SDGS since the beginning, as well as publish literature propagating it.  

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

One of the best ways to shut up the missionarys would be to re-start parkash of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth at Sri Akal Takht Sahib again. More and more sangat would learn from it being there.

They won't compromise their stance to shut missionaries up, they have no need to.  The literature they produced in support of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji was made for the Sangat to learn. 

 

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

If the Panth made this decision in the times of Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh, I wouldn't dare to differ.  I don't think that the SGPC (and they were a good bunch back then) would still be anywhere on the level of Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh Ji.

Where is this decision recorded? 

 

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

All sorts of text is a pretty wide range. There were only ever around 4-6 works found after Mundavni in various saroops. With raagmala the issue is a little more complex as it appears in so many birs whereas the others are more sparse.

No. I believe that's incorrect. Sarroops had sakhis, notes, references, and blatant kachi bani appended at the end of them. There may be 4-6 kachi bani compositions that are prominent among sarroops. We can't say for certain until all if not many extant sarroops are consulted.

 

Additionally,  Birs were being written up until the mid 1800s. Only the Birs that are old enough, written by Hazoori Sikhs, and/or from the time of Guru Sahib are to be taken into consideration in regards to this matter. If we have 500 Birs, of which 450 are written long after Guru Sahib, it's only reasonable to narrow down to the 50 most original and early sarroops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

Anyway both Ashok and himself can agree on the original being in Sanskrit.

No, they can't. Ashok's opinion is at odd's with Anurag Singh's.  I'm just going to post pages from his book here to clarify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Veer ji very interesting articles and i would like to add another similar view that the SGPC Singh Sabha had removed quite a few banis from the current saroop of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji the banis as das has read them personally includes Brahm Kavach, Uggardanti, Bhagauti Astotar and many more.

These banis and more are included in the Purtaan Sri Hazur Sahib Bir Granth and Budha Dal has preserved them in the Das Granthi Pothi.

 

This was all done by SPGC when the British rule was in place in punjab.

I will add some more links on the disscussion on these banis.

http://www.gurmatveechar.com/audio.php?q=f&f=%2FGurbani_Ucharan%2FKabaal_Singh_(Hazoor_Sahib_wale)%2FSri_Dasam_Granth_Sahib_(Hazoor_Sahib_Bir)

http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/59079-mising-banis-of-guru-gobind-singh-ji/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 4:58 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

They are not Gurbani, however.  These sampardas didn't raise any objection when they were excluded from the printed sarroops. Though there are certain groups that believe them to be Gurvaak.  Some of these texts are rather written in prose and are Sakhis, instructions, or records.  

Anything recited or approved (even though written by someone else) by Sri Satguru jee (whether included or not in the saroop) will be considered Gurbani or Gurvaak by Sikhs.

Most likely, the sampradas did not raise an objection as they believed that Sri Satguru jee himself did not include those banis in the saroop. No one can override the decision of the master himself. Like for example, in Sri Sooraj Prakash, it is mentioned that Maharaaj (Fifth Master) himself decided to not include Sri Pran Sangli in the Saroop. He decided to Jal Parvah it, but later a Sadhu was given the Bani upon his request.

Even if Sri Raagmala Sahib was written by someone else, as long as it was approved by Sri Satguru jee, it will be considered as Gurbani by Sikhs. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2017 at 7:20 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Ta fer saboot agge pesh kare ta.

 

Like I said, Anurag Singh is publishing a book very soon on raagmala whihc he says he has been researching for, for 11 years. Let's see what he comes out with.

 

On 28/12/2017 at 7:20 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

The SGPC did not believe in the Parkash of SDGS. Simple as that.  Their "short-sightedness" had them print SDGS since the beginning, as well as publish literature propagating it.  

 

It was still flying in the face of  200 year established sikh praxis. As for their literature of propating Dasam Granth, have you ever read any?

 

On 28/12/2017 at 7:20 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

They won't compromise their stance to shut missionaries up, they have no need to. 

 

Yes that stance is working out very successfully isn't it?

 

On 28/12/2017 at 7:20 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Where is this decision recorded? 

 

You want to go down that dangerous ground?

 

On 28/12/2017 at 7:22 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

No, they can't. Ashok's opinion is at odd's with Anurag Singh's.  I'm just going to post pages from his book here to clarify that.

 

I asked you what the original language was of the book as Anurag Singh  said it was written in Sanskrit. You said that Ashok beleived it to be written in Sanskrit as well. So then, I asked that is one thing they can agree on. Then you said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2017 at 7:00 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

That's not established fact.  Jabbar didn't throw it out of Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib or spear it.  It was damaged in the scuffle that ensued there when the mahants and Nihangs were being removed.  This claim was circulated by the mahants, Nihangs, and their sympathizers.  You should look ask both sides their stories before passing it off as fact.

 

Why was it only Dasam Granth that got damaged and not Guru Granth Sahib? Why are there no reports of anything else being damaged there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 6:18 AM, Soulfinder said:

Veer ji very interesting articles and i would like to add another similar view that the SGPC Singh Sabha had removed quite a few banis from the current saroop of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji the banis as das has read them personally includes Brahm Kavach, Uggardanti, Bhagauti Astotar and many more.

Those Banis were removed by the Sodhak Committee, composed of Snaatan Singh Sabha members, not the SGPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 10:04 AM, paapiman said:

Anything recited or approved (even though written by someone else) by Sri Satguru jee (whether included or not in the saroop) will be considered Gurbani or Gurvaak by Sikhs.

So then Hukamnamas must also be considered Gurbani by your standards?

 

On 12/30/2017 at 10:04 AM, paapiman said:

by Sikhs.

Not by Sikhs, but by some Sikhs (a demographic who's impressionable existence is questionable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 10:04 AM, paapiman said:

approved by Sri Satguru jee, it will be considered as Gurbani by Sikhs. 

So it's appendage to a Sarroop means its approval?

 

This view was never presented before, as far as I know, by personalities on the Pro-Raagmala side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

Like I said, Anurag Singh is publishing a book very soon on raagmala whihc he says he has been researching for, for 11 years. Let's see what he comes out with.

Great. It'd be nice to see what he has to say. Until then, citing him won't really be relevant. 

 

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

You want to go down that dangerous ground?

Yeah, I already have.

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

It was still flying in the face of  200 year established sikh praxis. As for their literature of propating Dasam Granth, have you ever read any?

What occurred in the 19th century is not reflective two centuries worth of Sikh practice. 

And of course, I've read the works of Randhir Singh (Research Scholar) which were published by the SGPC. Everyone has.

On 1/10/2018 at 3:48 AM, chatanga1 said:

Why was it only Dasam Granth that got damaged and not Guru Granth Sahib?

I don't know. However the scuffle occurred, the SDGS Bir was damaged. You expect that every possible theoretical variation and dynamic of that fight should result in both Birs getting damaged?

On 1/10/2018 at 3:48 AM, chatanga1 said:

Why are there no reports of anything else being damaged there?

I wouldn't know that either. Perhaps you should look into that. Find a few ripped curtains and pieces of Shattered glass.

 

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

Yes that stance is working out very successfully isn't it?

For them? Yeah, sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

I asked you what the original language was of the book as Anurag Singh  said it was written in Sanskrit. You said that Ashok beleived it to be written in Sanskrit as well. So then, I asked that is one thing they can agree on. Then you said...

I apologize for that confusion. 

 

I don't know why I said yes. Confusion on my part.

 

Ashok says the Kaam Kandla is written in hindi-Braj, not sanskrit. I mixed a few minor details up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

So it's appendage to a Sarroop means its approval?

Yes, if there is historical evidence to suggest that the appendage material was recited or approved by Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Those Banis were removed by the Sodhak Committee, composed of Snaatan Singh Sabha members, not the SGPC.

Thanks veer for clearing that as i knew it was one of those parties linked to it but couldn't remember which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 4:34 AM, paapiman said:

Yes, if there is historical evidence to suggest that the appendage material was recited or approved by Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Historical evidence requires dissertation, analyzation, and supplication. That applies to Raagmala as well.

every word uttered by the Guru Sahibans is considered Gurbani due to them being Gurvaak, Then why aren’t they recited, memorized, and chanted daily? 

 

Which Samparda recites Guru Sahib’s Hukamnamas as Gurshabad? 

There is a clear distinction between Gurbani and Hukamnamas. One is Dhur Ki Bani, Gurshabad. While the other is an edict related to matters and happenings of that time. 

Interestingly how the definition of Gurbani and views change to better accomodate Raagmala. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2018 at 4:11 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

So then Hukamnamas must also be considered Gurbani by your standards?

 

Hukumnamas are still Guru's bani (Guru's words) , but the message of them are for a specific purpose. We read Gurbani for our kalyan but we don't read hukumnamas for the same effect.

 

On 27/02/2018 at 4:35 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Great. It'd be nice to see what he has to say. Until then, citing him won't really be relevant.

 

It's ok to go on what Anurag Singh has said so far though isn't it?

 

On 27/02/2018 at 4:40 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Ashok says the Kaam Kandla is written in hindi-Braj, not sanskrit. I mixed a few minor details up.

 

No probs but the original language of the text is not a minor detail. According to Anurag Singh the original language was Sanskrit.

 

5 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Interestingly how the definition of Gurbani and views change to better accomodate Raagmala. 

 

I don't think that the pro-Raagmala side have ever changed their views on Raagmala.

 

On 27/02/2018 at 4:35 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Yeah, I already have.

 

And what have you found there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2018 at 1:01 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

every word uttered by the Guru Sahibans is considered Gurbani due to them being Gurvaak, Then why aren’t they recited, memorized, and chanted daily? 

No one is stopping any Sikh from reciting, memorizing and chanting the Hukamnams daily. It is up to a person's love and devotion. 

It is similar to someone doing kirtan of the Charitars. IMHO, the Charitars are mean't more to be studied/analyzed, than to be recited repeatedly. But, if someone wants to do it, he can. After all, they are a part of Gurbani.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paapiman said:

No one is stopping any Sikh from reciting, memorizing and chanting the Hukamnams daily. It is up to a person's love and devotion. 

True. We say "Waheguru ji ka khalsa" when we greet each other etc but there is no record of this being written anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×