singh2

mr seeker where are you. This is second reminder from me to show where did i state that Sri Guru Granth sahib is not my Guru. Now you keep mum to hide your lies. You are a liar and one of the the proofs of your lies is given below. This is question from you and below is reply from me. This is in addition to many assertions from me that do not lie on the status of Sri guru Granth sahib. Stop lying. quote http://www.sikhawareness.com//index.php?sh...t=0&start=0 post Jun 13 2009, 06:07 PM Post #15 QUOTE (Vaheguruseekr @ Jun 13 2009, 05:58 PM) * Inder Singh ji hiding under Singh2, Guru Fateh. Tell everyone the TRUTH here that you do not consider Guru Granth Sahib Ji as our ONLY GURU as bestowed to us by Guru Gobind Singh ji and also let them know that you did not know REHAT was mentioned in it till you were told about it.:-) Regards Tejwant Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply of singh2 Waheguruseeker There is no hiding here. I have registerd with my name. The forum has already another Inder singh. Is whaeguruseekr your real name. You have been frequenting forums with roadrunner,roadruuner2, whaeguruseekr etc etc. I have already stated in reply to your false propaganda that Only and Only SGGS is eternal guru for all sikhs. no sikh disputes that. You want me to post the relevant post here. But propagandist like you keep on creating imaginary issues like this to earn an ear. Stop doing this as every sikh considers SGGS as Our Guru. Nevertheless second most important scripture for sikhs is Dasam Granth. What is your view on this? We talked about khalsa rehat and that rehat along Gurmantra a sikh takes only from Panj piaras. have you done that. That is when sikhi satrts. unquote

matheen I agree. Individuals view point will vary per their faith. I asked someone how Pinderpal singh has a different view than other missionaries. He told that he changed his views. I do not know how far he is correct. But Pinderpal singh has good knowledge and dug deep in history of sikhs. may be that is the areson of his stance on dasam bani. Ghagha was a pricipal at missionary college Ludhiana. When he was hauled up for blasphemy in canada missionary college issued a statement that he is not from missionary college. They knew they were lying but they lied unashamedly. That shows they have very low ethics. What sort of standard they have when they lie.

Guru sahib was well versed in persian. There are many persian verses in dasam granth. Zafarnama and hikayats are in persian.

Dasam granth was compiled in 1697 and 1698 by Guru ji. There are these two birs which were looted during sack of Anandpur sahib. These two birs were sold by looters to sikhs at a later date. 1)The birs are called Anandpuri or hazoori bir This beer is held by a private party and location is secret. It was in Bombay and most probably in Punjab these days. There are a few Gursikhs who have been able to make digitized copies of this beer. 2) Patna bir This is available at takhat sri patna sahib. Charles wilkinson was Englishman who made a trip to Patna sahib sometime in eighteenth century arount 1783 and wrote " Seeks and their college". He wrote what he saw at patna sahib Takhat. He makes mention of two granths in parkash at patna sahib.

What about ghagha who is a super missionary. he was jailed for stealing cable when he was a driver with Punjab state electricity board. Is it a good thing in missionary terminology?

His books also show that 1) Waheguru is not Gurmantra and Gurmantra is not required for a sikh 2) Naam simran is a bogus act. 3) There is no atma 4) there is reincarnation and hence karma is irrelevant. 5) Sikhism has nothing to do with mystical experiences etc etc.

Kalyug ji Your posts make a lot of sense. Are you Bahadar singh who once participated on sikhe.com a few years back.

Mithar ji Sikh leader Simranjit singh Mann is well read person who has studied sikh scriptures and Sikh history. When he was a member of Indian parliament he spoke in the parliament and asked Govt to institute a chair on study of Braj bhasha so that sikhs could understand Dasam granth. I will post the video link if i am able to locate it. I will also post information about your query if i come across someone who has idea about this.

and also a thief. jailed in India when he was caught taking bribe and stealing engines of cars when posted as sub inspector at jandial Guru police station. made to jump bail and brought to Canada.

Do not beat about bush. Cite a post where i stated that i dont believe in SGGS ji. Be concise and to the point. Then we can talk about your lies about rehat. One point at a time.

Sants are of various types. Some are fakes but that does not mean that all are bad. To club them together is height of ignorance. Kala afghana has become a guru of missionaries. here is a complete court case against him where he was indicted for molesting a sikh bibi in Gurudwara sahib. Complete court case Judgement against Kala Afghana Here is complete story of Gurbakash Singh Kala Afghana's conviction in sexual assault case in a Gurdwara...... =================================================== Khalsa v. Bhullar http://q1.quicklaw.com/qItemp/C IDGLexk WVHmDlLe/... ** Unedited ** Indexed as: Khalsa v. Bhullar Between Gurbaksh Singh Khalsa, Plaintiff, and Taranjit Kaur Bhullar, Hariner Singh Bhullar, Gumham Singh Bajwa and Kahar Singh Pannu, Defendants Counsel for the Plaintiff: Douglas S. Cunliffe. Counsel for the Defendants: Christopher M. Considine. [1992] B.C.J. No. 378 Victoria Registry No. 89/1983 British Columbia Supreme Court Victoria, British Columbia Macdonell J. Heard: September 3 - 6, 9 - 12 and November 7, 1991 Judgment: February 24, 1992 (15 pp.) Torts - Defamation 2- Defences - Truth. Sexual assault - Damages - General damages - Punitive damages - Punitive damage award appropriate where a /1 priest of the Sikh religion breached his position of trust by sexually assaulting a parishioner. The plaintiff sued for damages for defamation of character. The defendants counterclaimed for damages for sexual assault. The plaintiff was a priest of a Sikh religious temple. The summer following the incident which was the subject of this lawsuit, the plaintiff was discharged. The plaintiff was 68-years-old, and resided in the living quarters with his wife and a daughter. His argument was that a faction in the temple wanted to get rid of him, so they attempted to put him in a compromising position with Mrs. B. He claimed that she wrongfully exposed herself before him and was sexually aggressive towards him, and that he took no part in it. He further argued that such a false accusation against a priest is particularly devastating; in fact it resulted in his being wrongfully dismissed and being unable to obtain further employment as a priest. The case for the defence was that the plaintiff was not defamed and that, in fact, the allegation of sexual assault was true. HELD: The plaintiffs action was dismissed. The defendant Mrs. B succeeded on her counterclaim, having proved that the plaintiff in fact sexually assaulted her. The court awarded her $5,000.00 in general damages, and $5,000.00 in special damages. The plaintiff had failed to prove his allegation of a wrongful accusation of sexual assault. The defendants had proved their counterclaim AND THE COURT FOUND THAT IN FACT THE SEXUAL ASSAULT HAD TAKEN PLACE. With respect to general damages for the sexual assault, the court had to bear in mind the gravity of the assault, the circumstances of it, and its effect on Mrs. B. The assault was of a relatively minor nature in the sense that there was only one incident. The assault here was committed by a priest in the living quarters of a Sikh temple upon a parishioner who was requested to attend by the priest. The emotional impact of the forceful touching of the plaintiffs chest and the attempt to remove her stockings was not only offensive but appalling, particularly as the priest in the Sikh religion is held in high esteem and the utmost in decorum is expected of him. He was in a position of trust and abused the trust. On the other hand, there did not appear to be any serious after-effects on Mrs. B other than distaste for the whole matter. The impact on Mrs. B would be lessened by her vindication in this lawsuit, allowing her to save face. MACDONELL J.:- The plaintiffs action against the defendants is for defamation of character arising out of an accusation by the defendant Taranjit Bhullar that she was sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, which accusation was published by the defendants. The defendant Mrs. Bhullar alleges that the plaintiff sexually assaulted her, and she and her husband counterclaim for damages against the plaintiff. The background, briefly, is that the plaintiff at all material times was the priest at the Topaz Street Temple of the Khalsa Diwan Society, which is a Sikh religious society. The plaintiff came to Canada in 1984 and resided for a year in Grand Prairie with his daughter. Prior to coming to Canada, he had been a policeman in the Punjab and retired with the rank of Inspector in 1981. He had no training in the priesthood but was a devout Sikh. There does not seem to be much dispute that he was knowledgeable in the religion and was qualified to act as a priest, as there does not appear to be any need for prior formal religious training to act as a priest in a temple. While in Grand Prairie, he saw an advertisement in an ethnic ne"",spaper advertising for a priest at Golden. He applied and was successful and presided as a priest there for some nine months. With this experience he was accepted as a priest at 1 00 Mile House where he presided for a year. He then heard of an opening at the Topaz Street Temple in Victoria and on October 1st, 1986, he was employed there as the priest on a contract basis which provided for two months' notice by either party. He continued as priest until the summer following the incident which is the subject of this law suit, when he was discharged. The plaintiff was sixty-eight years of age at all material times, was married and had children. He and his wife and a daughter resided in the living quarters of the temple. Following his appointment, things went along reasonably well, although there was friction with the executive of the Society - no doubt partly due to the plaintiffs rigidity in some areas. Toward the end of December, 1987 the friction between him and the Committee increased and the plaintiff became convinced that a group in the temple, including the defendants, wished to be rid of him. It is his position that there was a conspiracy to effect his removal, starting with their sending a white woman to the temple to compromise him sexually. That plot failed as she was drunk. He alleges that thereafter there was a meeting between the various defendants and others who plotted to have the female defendant compromise him, again with the purpose of getting rid of him. However, as part of his case, the plaintiff alleges only the slander and not a conspiracy to remove him as priest, which seems to be the subject matter of another lawsuit. The plaintiff testified that he met the Bhullars in 1986 and that they were regular attenders at the temple. They were helpful with his daughter's marriage and by 1987 he and the Bhullars became good friends. He testified that from time to time he saw Mrs. Bhullar alone and that at times they discussed problems she had with her husband. He described their relationship as that of a family membership. The female defendant is thirty-five years of age and her husband is a comparable age. The plaintiff said that in 1988, when Mrs. Bhullar left one night after visiting, she embraced him and kissed him on the cheek. He said that he was very upset by this. He said that following this she telephoned him and explained that such conduct was not unusual in Canada. He said that in January and February 1989 nothing of a sexual nature took place between them and that they did not meet privately during that time. He said that on March 25th, which was just prior to his and his wife's visit to Seattle, Mrs. Bhullar came to the temple at lunchtime in response to a call from him. He said they took food after her arrival and then he went to take a rest in his bedroom. He said that the defendant came into the room. At that time he was sitting on a chair removing his jacket. He said that she removed her blouse, exposing her naked breasts, sat on his lap, and put her hands around his neck. He testified that she said, "I know you need me". He said he was stunned and pushed her away, telling her that this was not the way for a daughter to act. The defendant left and the plaintiff then went to the temple and prostrated himself before the Holy Book. He said that he and his wife left for Seattle the next day, returning April 5th of 1989. He telephoned Mrs. Bhullar at her office but as she was busy she telephoned him the following day. He said he recorded the call on his answering machine. He said he told her he would tell her husband that she was not acting like a daughter. He said he did, in fact, telephone her husband on the 6th and told him that his wife was not faithful. He met her husband in the afternoon and spoke to him further. He said that on April 30th there was a meeting of the Committee and his employment and raise were discussed. He denied that there was any condition of immediate dismissal in the case of lack of moral turpitude. He said he did not speak to the defendants from April through to June. On July 22nd, there was a meeting of the Temple Committee and the plaintiff was advised by Mr. Bajwa and Mr. Pannu that Mr. and Mrs. Bhullar had lodged a complaint against him and that there was a tape of a conversation between the plaintiff and Mrs. Bhullar. The tape was apparently played, which resulted in the plaintiffs employment being terminated. After listening to the tape and hearing the accusation of Mrs. Bhullar, the Committee accepted as a fact that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted the female defendant. The plaintiffs position is that this allegation is false and that the true state of affairs is that it was the defendant who wrongfully exposed herself before him and was sexually aggressive toward him, and that he took no part in it. The plaintiffs position is that such a false accusation against a priest is particularly devastating; in fact it resulted in his being wrongfully dismissed and being unable to obtain further employment as a priest. A considerable amount of evidence was called with respect to various taped telephone conversations, produced by both the plaintiff and the defendants Bhullar, and other evidence of conflicts in the temple which do not relate much to the law suit. The plaintiff alleges that there was a conspiracy to remove him and that the conduct of the female defendant which he described was orchestrated by a group in the Committee, which included Mr. Pannu and Mr. Bajwa, to compromise the plaintiff. The plaintiff called Mr. Gurbakash Sihota, who testified that he met the defendants Bajwa and Pannu in February 1989 and that Mr. Johal, Mr. Ajwall and Mr. Sanhera were there. The meeting was at approximately 9:00 p.m. and was arranged to congratulate Bajwa and Pannu for their election to office on the Temple Committee. The last three mentioned come from Vancouver. He said they then discussed getting rid of the plaintiff, as there was a complaint by Mr. Bajwa about the priest interfering in a wedding ceremony when Mr. Bajwa sang a poem. Mr. Pannu's complaint was that the priest contradicted his mother-in-law. The consensus was that they should get rid of the priest and that they had a girl ready to entice him into making sexual advances. The name mentioned was the female defendant, Bhullar. Mr. Sihota said that Pannu had mentioned that they had tried a white lady but it did not work because she got drunk when she was sent to the temple and the plaintiff" got away". In cross-examination the witness tied himself to the meeting taking place on February 11 tho The case for the defence is that the plaintiff was not defamed and that, in fact, the allegation of a sexual assault is true. The Bhullars in their counterclaim ask for damages against the plaintiff for the sexual assault. The female defendant is thirty-five years of age, was born in India and came to Canada in 1962, where she took her education through Grade 12 at Oak Bay High School and Camosun College. She has been with the Workers Compensation Board for some seventeen years and is presently a Claims Adjudicator, a position she has held for some four years. She was married in 1985 and has one daughter of five years of age. Her husband works for the Municipality of Saanich. They met the plaintiff when he became a priest. They attended the Topaz Street Temple regularly from 1986 through 1988 and they became close to the plaintiff. Initially, Mrs. Bhullar and her husband responded to his need for help in the community as he was a stranger. In 1987 the plaintiff needed a drive to a religious ceremony. Mrs. Bhullar drove him there and said he put his hand on her hand and she asked him to take it off. He later asked, "How about a kiss?" and she said, "You've got to be kidding". She told her husband about this incident and they cut down their visits with the plaintiff and their attendance at the temple significantly. She said that at the end of 1988 the plaintiff called her to meet him in private to talk over his problems. She said they met at the temple and nothing untoward happened. In December of 1988 the plaintiff was persistently telephoning her and at times asked her to bring food. On one occasion she did take along Chinese food and it was consumed in his quarters. On leaving she said he asked for a hug and a kiss and that she pushed him away. Following this she received telephone calls at work and by January and February 1989 he was calling her as much as four times a day, two or three times a week. In addition, when she was not available, she received messages from time to time that "Father had called". She said that in early January the plaintiff had telephoned and was very angry and upset with her as somebody in his family had died and the Bhullars had not been available to help him. She said that in mid-February the plaintiff wanted to meet her at the library in the temple for lunch as he wanted to talk to her. She went and was met at the top of the stairs by the plaintiff, who said the lunch was laid on in the library. She asked where his wife and daughter were and he told her they had had their lunch and were sleeping. She said "We went to another room, which was the guest room, where lunch was laid out". There were two beds and a dresser. They ate the food sitting on the beds. He sat on one and she sat on the other. She said that the plaintiff came to the bed and put his arm around her and pushed her back onto the bed. She said he put his hand underneath her blouse and with his other hand tugged at her skirt. She said she tried to pull away. He told her he couldn't take her nylons off, although he was trying. She said she pulled herself together and pushed him away. She said she "got loud", meaning that she raised her voice. He said "Don't get loud, the bitches are sleeping in the next room". Mrs. Bhullar then left through the library and went back to work, very upset. At that time she did not discuss what had happened with Ms. Mettis, her case assistant, although Ms. Mettis asked her what was the matter. She said in April she received a call from the plaintiff threatening to blackmail her. He said that he had a taped conversation which incriminated her. She said she was devastated. She reported to work as usual, but while going over a file with Ms. Mettis she broke down in tears and then told her what had happened at the temple. She was advised to tell her husband, which she did. They did not attend at the temple after that. Following her disclosure of the assault to her husband they went to the police, who suggested that the matter be sorted out in the Sikh community. She said to protect themselves against a case of slander they purchased a recording device and that during conversations with the plaintiff she led him to believe that she had not told her husband. Various conversations were recorded. At the same time, the plaintiff was busy recording conversations on his machine. Mrs. Bhullar denies that she was a party to any conspiracy to compromise the plaintiff with the purpose of having him removed. The defendant husband was called and his evidence paralleled that of his wife. He also testified that he was not a party to any agreement to effect the removal of the plaintiff. The other defendants were called and they all gave evidence to the same effect. After hearing Mrs. Bhullar's accusation of sexual assault by the plaintiff, which they believed, and the taped telephone conversations, they concluded that he had in fact committed a sexual assault and this was the foundation for his being removed as a priest. The defendants deny that there was any meeting as alleged by Mr. Sihota. The defence called Ms. Mettis, who confirmed the evidence of the female defendant and, in particular, the numerous calls made by the plaintiff to Mrs. Bhullar, her emotional state following the visit to the temple, and what was disclosed to her later when Mrs. Bhullar broke down at the office. The defence called Mr. Rajinder Sihota, who is a senior accountant with the Ministry of Finance. He testified that on February 13th, 1989 he was in a police station in the Punjab with respect to a complaint concerning Gurbakash Sihota, the witness called for the plaintiff who alleged the conspiracy meeting. Mr. Rajinder Sihota testified that the plaintiffs witness was not only in the Punjab on the 13th February, but had been there for some time. Logistically it would not have been possible for him to be in Victoria on February lIth due to time changes and travelling time. Mr. Rajinder Sihota also testified that the plaintiffs witness Sihota was a cousin of his and had a bad reputation. In addition, he had information that his cousin had been in the Punjab for a few months at that time. The defence's position can be summarized as a complete denial of the allegation of defamation or of a conspiracy. With respect to the counterclai:t;n, the defence claims that the evidence of the defendants should be accepted and that the Court should find that the plaintiff sexually assaulted the female defendant. I have to assess the credibility of the various witnesses called and also consider the tape recordings which have been led in evidence and the allegation by the defence that the plaintiffs tape recordings have been tampered with and are, in fact, extracts from other conversations taken out of context. The defence also takes the position that the tape recordings that have been produced by the defence make it quite clear that the plaintiff admitted to the sexual assault. Both the plaintiff and the defence called evidence of experts dealing with the authenticity of the tapes. The defendants' expert listened to the tapes and conducted sound tests. In my view, his evidence should be preferred to that of the plaintiffs expert, who did not carry out this testing. The conclusion of the defendants' expert is that the tape of the plaintiff was not prepared, as he testified, by using a tape recorder or answering machine and speaking to an answering machine and telephone, but that in fact all the conversations were taken from a telephone line. I find this evidence credible. I accept it and conclude that the tape prepared by the plaintiff has been concocted by him and not recorded as he testified. Listening to the defendants' tapes with the assistance of the witnesses and the interpreter persuades me that the inference to be taken from them is that the plaintiff admitted to sexually assaulting the female defendant and that the Committee was well justified in accepting the evidence of Mrs. Bhullar and the tapes in concluding that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her. With respect to the alleged meeting between the executives at Mr. Sihota's house, I conclude that this evidence was fabricated and quite untrue and I accept the evidence of Mr. Rajinder Sihota called for the defence that the plaintiffs witness Sihota was in fact in the Punjab at the time when the supposed conversation and conspiracy took place. I conclude therefore that the plaintiff has failed to prove his allegation of a wrongful accusation of sexual assault and find that in fact the sexual assault did take place. The plaintiffs action is accordingly dismissed with costs. With respect to the counterclaim, I find that the defendants have proved their counterclaim and that the plaintiff in fact sexually assaulted the female defendant. The plaintiff - who, as a priest in a position of authority and influence, sexually assaulted a female parishioner in the tight-knit society of the Sikh community in Victoria - is guilty of an extremely serious offence. DAMAGES The counterclaim is advanced by both Bhullars against the plaintiff for the sexual assault. It is my view that the only one who can succeed in the counterclaim is Mrs. Bhullar. The defendant argues as if there is a counterclaim for defamation of character as well as sexual assault, but in fact that is not what the pleadings disclose. In any event, a case has not been made out to entitle Mr. Bhullar to damages. With respect to general damages for the sexual assault, I have to bear in mind the gravity of the assault, the circumstances of it, and its effect on Mrs. Bhullar. In this case, unlike a number of others where damages have been sought for sexual assault, the assault is of a comparatively minor nature in the sense that there was only the one incident, as opposed to cases where the assault was a rape or a similar crime of violence, or assaults on younger people, that have often continued over a number of years. Little is to be gained by trying to compare damages in cases that are not similar to the case at bar, so I do not propose to review the current authorities which are not bountiful. What I have to deal with here is an assault by a priest in the living quarters of a Sikh temple upon a parishioner who was requested to attend by the priest, who is the plaintiff. The emotional impact of the forceful touching of the plaintiffs chest and the attempt to take off her stockings is not only offensive but appalling, particularly as the priest in the Sikh religion is held in high esteem and the utmost in decorum is expected of him. He was in a position of trust and abused that trust. The assault was made possible because of the respect of Mrs. Bhullar for the plaintiff as priest and her being at the temple at all was at his request. With respect to the consequences or the effect on Mrs. Bhullar, there is very little evidence before me other than her feelings of humiliation, shock and degradation. There do not appear to be any serious after-effects other than distaste for the whole matter. Consequently, it is my view that the damages should reflect the seriousness of the assault but damages in other more serious cases should be borne in mind to keep a balanced perspective of damages under this head. To some extent the impact on Mrs Bhullard is lessened, as her success in this lawsuit vindicates her and face is saved in a society where it is very important. By the same token, the plaintiff is discredited and has lost all respect and credibility in his community. I award general damages to Mrs. Bhullar in the amount of $5,000.00 for the sexual assault. A claim has been advanced for punitive damages. In this case it is my view that it is appropriate that punitive damages be awarded. They are not awarded on the basis of compensation but on the principle of punishment. In this case no criminal proceedings were launched, although the Bhullars did report the matter to the police, who left it to the Sikh community to sort out the matter and did not proceed with charges. Consequently, the element of punishment of the plaintiff for his conduct has not been addressed. In this case punitive damages need be awarded to express society's disapproval of the conduct of the plaintiff as a priest in authority and trust breaching that trust and sexually assaulting a parishioner. His attempting, after that, to manufacture evidence and shift the blame away from himself and his harassment of Mrs. Bhullar is despicable. I award the sum of $5,000.00 as punitive damages. Mrs. Bhullar will have her costs of the counterclaim and pre-judgment interest at the rate set by the Registrar from time to time. MACDONELL J. (JUDGE) Because they are gurnindaks and hence sangat by and large do not wentertain them. Instaed of doing any missionary work their efforts are to destroy the sikh history.

Where did i write that i do not believe in Sri guru granth sahib ji. Please refer that post here.

For attention of sangat The language of Dasam Granth is so powerful and moving that no person other than Guru sahib can write such composition. Dr Balbir singh was elder brother of Bhai Vir singh ji. He wrote that in Dasam granth sparks are concealed and when they are released there will be a great fire that will take sikh kaum to charhdi kala. The above means that we sikhs have not been able to raed this granth so far because of its difficult language. We need a department in Punjabi university that should teach our children Braj bhasha so that we find the treasures of Dasam granth ji.

This is how Guru sahib describes the battle with hari Chand ਹਰੀਚੰਦ ਕੋਪੇ ਕਮਾਣੰ ਸੰਭਾਰੰ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਬਾਜੀਯੰ ਤਾਣ ਬਾਣੰ ਪ੍ਰਹਾਰੰ ॥ हरीचंद कोपे कमाणं स्मभारं ॥ प्रथम बाजीयं ताण बाणं प्रहारं ॥ Hari Chand, filled with rage, drew out his bow, he aimed and shot his arrow, which struck my horse. ਦੁਤੀਯ ਤਾਕ ਕੈ ਤੀਰ ਮੋ ਕੌ ਚਲਾਯੰ ॥ ਰਖਿਓ ਦਈਵ ਮੈ ਕਾਨ ਛ੍ਵੈ ਕੈ ਸਿਧਾਯੰ ॥੨੯॥ दुतीय ताक कै तीर मो कौ चलायं ॥ रखिओ दईव मै कान छ्वै कै सिधायं ॥२९॥ He aimed and shot the second arrow towards me, the Lord protected me, his arrow only grazed my ear. 29. ਤ੍ਰਿਤੀਯ ਬਾਣ ਮਾਰਿਯੋ ਸੁ ਪੇਟੀ ਮਝਾਰੰ ॥ ਬਿਧਿਅੰ ਚਿਲਕਤੰ ਦੁਆਲ ਪਾਰੰ ਪਧਾਰੰ ॥ त्रितीय बाण मारियो सु पेटी मझारं ॥ बिधिअं चिलकतं दुआल पारं पधारं ॥ His third arrow penetrated deep into the buckle of my waist-belt. ਚੁਭੀ ਚਿੰਚ ਚਰਮੰ ਕਛੂ ਘਾਇ ਨ ਆਯੰ ॥ ਕਲੰ ਕੇਵਲੰ ਜਾਨ ਦਾਸੰ ਬਚਾਯੰ ॥੩੦॥ चुभी चिंच चरमं कछू घाइ न आयं ॥ कलं केवलं जान दासं बचायं ॥३०॥ Its edge touched the body, but did not caused a wound, the Lord saved his servent.30. ਰਸਾਵਲ ਛੰਦ ॥ रसावल छंद ॥ RASAAVAL STANZA ਜਬੈ ਬਾਣ ਲਾਗਯੋ ॥ ਤਬੈ ਰੋਸ ਜਾਗਯੋ ॥ जबै बाण लागयो ॥ तबै रोस जागयो ॥ When the edge of the arrow touched my body, it kindled my resentment. ਕਰੰ ਲੈ ਕਮਾਣੰ ॥ ਹਨੰ ਬਾਣ ਤਾਣੰ ॥੩੧॥ करं लै कमाणं ॥ हनं बाण ताणं ॥३१॥ I took the bow in my hand and aimed and shot the arrow.31. ਸਬੈ ਬੀਰ ਧਾਏ ਸਰੋਘੰ ਚਲਾਏ ॥ सबै बीर धाए सरोघं चलाए ॥ All the warriors fled, when a volley of arrow was showered. ਤਬੈ ਤਾਕਿ ਬਾਣੰ ॥ ਹਨਯੋ ਏਕ ਜੁਆਣੰ ॥੩੨॥ तबै ताकि बाणं ॥ हनयो एक जुआणं ॥३२॥ Then I aimed the arrow on a warrior and killed him.32. ਹਰੀਚੰਦ ਮਾਰੇ ॥ ਸੁ ਜੋਧਾ ਲਤਾਰੇ ॥ हरीचंद मारे ॥ सु जोधा लतारे ॥ Hari Chand was killed and his brave soldiers were trampled. ਸੁ ਕਾਰੋੜ ਰਾਯੰ ॥ ਵਹੈ ਕਾਲ ਘਾਯੰ ॥੩੩॥ सु कारोड़ रायं ॥ वहै काल घायं ॥३३॥ The chief of Kot Lehar was seized by death.33. Bachitra natak, Dasam granth

We all know Guru gobind singh ji was not given bir by dhirmalias and he dictated SGGS ji from memory at damdama sahib. The above is another theory by gurnindak missionaries. This shows that these missionaries have no respect for our gurus and Sri Guru Granth sahib ji as their aim is to distort sikh history and traditions.

This so called baldev singh does not know how a text is evaluated for autheticity. Normally the parameters are available of manuscripts, internal evidence, mention in contemporary literature, acceptance and respect in traditions, evaluation of neutral writers etc. he has not taken any of such reasearch and from top of his head he writes he writes that this cann't be written by guru sahib. Utter nonsense. Bachitra natak details battle of Bhangani where guru ji had fight with Raja hari chand. hari Chand shoots an arrow and it is embedded in the belt of Guru sahib. Then guru ji strikes down Hari Chand. It is where Guru ji writes Jabe ban lagayo Tabe ros jagio ( When one is struck with an arrow Then one gets into striking back mood) Tell this heretic Baldev singh that the subject belt of Guru sahib with inscription of Dasam bani is in the treasure of royal house of Maharaja of patiala. Point here is that these uneducated missionaries have not attended any college and with their undeveolped psyche are making tall claims far from truth. Their crusade against sanskrit is that they do not know this language. Nirmalas were trained in sanskrit as they were prepared to debate with Hindus otehrwise sikhs would be caught on wrong foot if they did not know the language of Hindu scriptures. It was obvious that Hindus will not take this new religion lightly and will do their best to derail sikhs. That is when the language and knowledge of Hindu scriptures come in he picture. Example is debate of Giani ditt singh with arya samaj founder Swami daya nand.

The above is a piece of trash and is irrelevant to the topic. Dhanwant singh news is cooked one and far from truth. He was kicked out of Gurudwara as soon as it was known that he was Dhanwant singh. The gurdwara had nothing to do with Damdami taksal. Regarding Grewal it is equally untrue. grewal was a masand who had started his own sect. SGGS ji was taken from his dera and that Dera was shuit. Our history shows that dasam granth is embedded in sikh psyche from the time of our Gurus. Those who do not agree need to provide refrences form sikh history. You have nothing to show us. Your language for this scripture of sikhs shows that you only have a goonda character. May we ask the moderator to put this man under moderation and ban him as his aim is not to discuss but use a rogue's language for our scriptures. You deserve much more than that. Who are those intelligenstia. Can you post the names of such sold characters. Such greedy characters are not loyal to their parents also. Do not tell us Darshan ragi, Inder Ghagha put professor in front of their name they became professors. Can you tell us how they became professors when they are 10 class only.

Shame on you for supporting a person who is a die hard chela of kala afghana. I did not call him names. I commented on what he writes and preaches.

I second your opinion. These are not sikhs. They are goondas who have no respect of others feelings. Earlier one goonda, Fauji , wrote Dasam Granth as KK. KK is kanjar kavita in their goonda terminology. I brought this to moderator attention. That post is still like that.

Missionaries are destroyers of sikhism. They have not introduced a single soul into sikhism. I wonder why they call them missionaries. They are old communists in sikh guise and biggest enemies of sikhism.

Randip Instead of pasting up the posts of kala afghana chela, please put your view point.

When you cann't face the facts you attack the person. This is to hide your weakness of being upto the knowledge. It is not nindya. It is a fact and i am willing to puit my money on this. Are you willing to do that ?

Guru da sikh Have some ethics. You are the one who was touting a report from heretic newspaper spokesman that says that Baba Hari singh ji ran away and did not face Ragi Darshan. Kam ji provided a link that proves that you were spreading misinformation. You also brought in the name of Tehal singh. I wrote that i had enquired form Tehal singh and your information was a lie. If you are gentleman you need to tender an apology for spreading lies here.

He did answer the point and that answer proved him a liar of the first order. You need to follow all the posts in proper otherwise you are blindly supporting a liar.

You know nothing about dasam granth yet you have the heart to give your biased opinion. Do you know where these names appear? Can you show us where name kaal appear?