Niranjana

amardeep, "When you hear the word slave i guess you connect it to the 17. century definition of how the white slaveowners used to whip the black slaves and make them work for 16 hours a day, while they would get a minimum of food to eat, and maximum of whipping.. But how do you know that this definition can be applied to the defition of slaves in arabia in the 7. century?? You are using a modern mindset to define right and wrong... " I'll Tony to answer for himself - however, insofar as the shabd is concerned I would personally agree with you that it does appear more akin to a metaphor than any legalistic ruling. That said, the example of Guru Amar Das stands testimony to protocol for a Gurdwara, as indicated earlier we need to understand its underlying rationale. As per slave, if you were to follow the links shown in my previous post, you can find an interesting topic on the subject of "Slaves" on shiachat and in particular "slave girls" including the rights the 'owner' has over the 'slave girl' (e.g. sex with no formal requirement to be married or issues if already married - i.e. this is not polygamy, hence one could view it as little more than legalised prostitution since it is justified on the grounds that the 'slave' must be adequately renumerated) - I shall let you read the discussion for yourself to see how the discussion balances out between Shia Muslims, in the meantime, there lies a contradiction in this whole affair: 1) I certainly second your rationale to effectively account for time, space and circumstance (re: how do you know that this definition can be applied to the defition of slaves in arabia in the 7. century??). 2) The problem that arises here is that even whilst accounting for the above, we need to bear in mind that Islamic Law is intended to be a timeless command from God, hence the issue above really should not arise. This is different from the multiple wives of the Gurus or the fixing of their marriages by their parents, as these practices are not demanded by the Sikh Rehit Maryada or the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. I think we need to explore the whole thing more clearly and objectively.

"I suppose this also links into the arguement concerngin disabled people not being able to be Panj Pyare.... again, could this be to do with the good physical condition needed of a soldier?" This is fair enough, however again opens up another can of worms - "fat singhs!" Sorry if this offends anyone, however most amrit sanchars I've been to or seen photos of, whether the "SGPC-variety" or Nihang Dals and particularly Baba Deras, it is more common than not to see the Punj Pyare with 'buddha bellies', this is before we assess to want extent any of them would qualify for the "physical condition of a soldier", which is a little more than not having a belly.

"trap their victims into life long gratitude and allegiance to their dera etc helping them to invest more in their Chandigargh property portfolio" Spot on!

Internet cafe

Dancing Warrior, My initial comments were not directly to you per se, however I retract this statement, as you (like Karmjeet and Wahegurubol) feel it is acceptable to take a well-defined term and use it loosely and/or even re-define it (without indicating that you are doing this) and think that this is perfectly acceptable in terms of: (a) use of language ( form of communication © validation of your views

amardeep, Yes, you are right in seeking the underlying motive behind Guru Sahib's admonishment of the veil, which is something more than just because today it is a practice common amongst Muslims. Historically, one can find support for it being practiced amongst various, typically middle-upper class communities, irrespective of their religious identity. In fact, one can find reports during the 19th century that even Muslim women of 'lower classes', akin to their Hindu and Sikh brethren from villages etc (as opposed to those of Aristocracy) did not practice using the veil. As mentioned above, Guru Sahib's decree and example is clear, however I feel the matter concerns veiling of women and the implications therein rather a commentary on Islamic Sharia per se. On a separate note, leaving Mr Ali Sina and his infamous freedomoffaith to one side, the issues raised above are also discussed on shiachat by various practising Shia Muslims and in most cases endorsing the items: 1. Mutah experiences/questions http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234930611 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234934228 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234930726 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234931808 2. Marriage age, polygamy etc http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234935232 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234932383 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=63967 3. Islamic law: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234934802 I am sure you can find many more on the forum and see the arguments from the perspective of largely practising (Shia) Muslims themselves.

tonyhp3: "Trying to defend the reason why women cannot be part of the Panj Pyare by basing it on that fact that no woman stood up that day can then easily be used to imply that no one apart from Jats, Chimbas, Jhiwars, Khatris and Nais should be Panj Pyares." This is exactly the same argument I had with a Taksali Singh a few years back and his only response to this was I was an idiot, maybe he is right about that, however the statement still holds and he (and others who support this notion) have yet to provide a sensible response, whether I am an idiot or not! amardeep wrote: "Women give psychical birth, and men give spiritual birth - pure Equality." Please do provide a source for this quote - in the meantime, I doubt many women would consider the pain (physical, emotional etc) they have to endure during physical birth comparable to want men have to ensure to give someone "spiritual birth", but then again everyone's understanding of equality is their own, for some, a woman looking and dressing like a man is a sign of equality, for others, the statement "all...are equal, but some are more equal than others" has no apparent contradictions! Xylitol: "Giani Thakur Singh ji discusses this in one of his kathas. Every one of the original punj were bhagats from a past janam. Each one of them was bhramgiani and acting fully within hukam of waheguru." I am familiar with this account, it can be found in Rattan Singh Bhangoo's Panth Prakash. The questions that arise here are: (a) How did Bhangoo know of this "information"? ( If the Punj Pyare are reincarnations of certain Bhagats, then implication is that these Bhagats were not able to achieve 'mukti' and needed re-birth to receive 'amrit' from the Guru to 'reach sachkhand' - one can find plenty of commentary of this nature in AKJ literature and on Tapoban.org. There are several issues within the statements made - happy to expand if needed, but I'm sure everyone gets the point... © The Guru Granth Sahib has bani from more than 5 Bhagats, not to mention that there were several other Bhagats (the writings of whom are not contained with the Guru Granth Sahib), what happened to the other Bhagats - who did they 're-incarnate' as to 'receive Amrit from the true Guru'? "Naam de Jugti actually does not have to be imparted only by the punj, according to Baba Jagjit Singh ji. An individual Bhramgiani can as well. Possibly also a mahapursh, maybe." This is in total contradiction to the Sikh Rehit Maryada and the Maryada of most Khalsa Sampradhas/Jathas - in fact, the latter use this line of attack to argue against say Nirmalas and Udasis (amongst whom the "isth dev" will impart 'naam' to the neophyte) being some sort of 'pakhandis'. Given your avatar of Baba Thakur Singh (at the time of writing), presumably you have some affiliation with the DDT. In view of your comment above, perhaps you can explain what you see the purpose of the Amrit Sanchar being, if not to initiate the neophyte and impart 'naam' - or is it simply a case of 'signing up to an army'? Shaheediyan: "what are your thoughts on the role of Panj Pyare as soldiers as well as saints? Would you put your daughter, sister or mother on the front line as long as you had breath in your body?" The Punj Pyare serve to impart 'naam', every Khalsa Sikh, a member of the Punj or otherwise, is expected to live up to the "sant-siphai" ideal, how does this exclude women from the role? "Also, should we not consider the culture of the time, may this have had something to do with men coming forward, or possibly the ratio of men to women at the event, could it have been that there were predominantly men at teh event for a number of socio-political-security-cultural reasons... just some thoughts." I would concur, however most people here are keen to pin it on God.

das, "Guru Gobind Singh Ji has prepared Panj Payars by the order of GOD" OK, we can accept Guru's mission have a divine purpose given the hymns in the Dasam Granth. "It was also possible that any female have risen that day to give her sees/head to Guru, but GOD did raise only men" OK, fine, this is what happened historically. "All the Panj Payaras did NOT offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, GOD made them offer themselves to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, which means GOD could have risen Bibis to give their sees, but GOD decided NOT." Using this logic, there are a lot of things that happened during history and more specifically Sikh history that we can now start to pin on God... "We don't have any answer that why GOD did not raise Bibis" Fine, however, how does that prevent a woman undertaking the main remit of the Punj Pyare today - i.e. the distribution of Amrit. "Secondly, in initial times, one of the Panj Payaras give Naam de Jugti to the person who is taking Amrit. The bottom line is "Naam de Jugti" has to be given by a Brahmgyani (who has already attained GOD). In ancient times, Panj Payaras used to be Brahmgyani or at-least one of them. But these days, we cannot say that. So, my short buddhe is saying that a female Saint/Brahmgyani can give "Naam de Jugti", but a Brahmgyani/Sant female cannot be one of Panj Payaras". This statement raises the following questions: 1. Who qualifies the individual as a Brahmgyani? You seem to indicate that some sort of body was in place to ensure that "at-least one of" the Punj Pyare is a Brahmgyani - who determines this? 2. There is a contradiction in your argument, on one hand you suggest that only a Brahmgyani can impart the "naam", which for the Khalsa Panth in done via the Punj Pyare, on the other hand you concede that a female can be a "Brahmgyani" therefore can impart "naam", in which case what is the big deal if she is part of the Punj Pyare, or are you suggesting that it is within Khalsa maryada to have amrit from the Punj Pyare and then obtain the "naam" elsewhere? Please clarify. "You can confirm this from any true Brahmgyani/Sant either male or female that Bibis cannot be Panj Payaras." Who qualifies one as a "true Brahmgyani"?

Matheen, you're comments concerning "the time of month" are really unnecessary and stink of primative thinking - I am happy to explain further, but I'm sure everyone gets the picture. Neo, I note the arguments from both sides, however admist them I also question the way the Punj Pyare are made out to be today versus what their original purpose would have been, we should also distinguish between the original Punj from 1699 and the concept of the Punj Pyare for purposes of admistering amrit, maybe this will help clarify the debate.

If we take the precedence set by Guru Amar Das, then no, but in this day and age, my personal stance has always been to clean up one's own house first, which in this case would make the argument that if we are hypothetically going to ban a woman wearing a full body Burka or Niqab, let's first sort out the Batra Gurdwaras where the Sikh ladies are made to enter the Darbar whilst fully vieling their faces using a chunni (which falls down past their face to their waist).

Deep Singh, "All muslims bagats are in fact sikhs" This is an invalid and incorrect statement and more to the point has nothing to do with this discussion. Kam1825: "even better on the thread on shiachat is where he tells his fellow members to see www.sikhsangat.com and www.sikhawareness.com to see who vile Sikhs are towards Islam" I will not speak for sikhsangat, however there is plenty on this forum showing the open minded nature of "many Sikhs" including the "modern day" variety who have spoken highly of either the Prophet, their personal Muslim friends and sangat, likewise plenty here who have spoken against others who have come here to spread hatred against Mulsims (and any other denomination). It is however, unlikely for people filled with hate to notice this, since "selective" reading is a common trend amongst those with their own agendas, no different to say 19th century Euginicists and their "academic scholarship" on the different "races" in the world.

tsingh, Thanks for your contribution. I personally feel, further to several posts on this forum by various posters, that the need to spell out the differences between "Atma" and "mind" is important and would be grateful if you could do this here to avoid any further issues arises in other discussions given that this is such a crucial piece of information (and sadly overlooked) when it comes down to anything related to "Gurmat" or "Vedant".

amardeep, The Namdhari website bases its commentary "considering all Reliable Historical Sources such as Panth Parkash, Suraj Parkash, GurBilas Patshahi Dasvi, as well as Historical events that were recorded by Sikhs, Hindus and muslims, the following briefly describes what actually took place at Nander in 1708 A.D" This is no different to the Sanatanis on their website claiming to use "ancient texts" (i.e. those listed above), when in fact the vast majority of these are 19th century texts and not ancient or that matter "most reliable". I do not wish for this thread to move into a question concerning the Namdhari beliefs, that has already been done elsewhere and is not the purpose of my comments above, in any event, the Sanatani Nihang analysis of the said texts proves their take on history and the Namdharis theirs - therein also lies an interesting contradiction in view of the numerous aspects of Nihang behaviour (supported by the same text) which is directly opposite to Namdhari protocol...just food for thought...

I don't wish to sound like a broken record, and Dancing Warrior, no critique to you per se, however there has been a noted increase on the forum of psuedo-scientific language, with which I have a problem (I've outlined my reasons elsewhere in conversation with Maha Kharag Singh). Specifically here, the use of the term "energy" for anything that is not visible to the human eye or somehow "mystic" or "paranormal" to me seems to be a hangover from 19th century European thought, where “energy†was made out to be something spiritual and non-matter-like versus non-spiritual materialism.. It is a shame that we are still falling foul of this thought process in the 21st century, particularly seeing that during the 20th century, science demonstrated that energy is simply another form of matter. As mentioned to MKS elsewhere, these “new age†adoption of terms “energy†is frankly ignorant of fundamental scientific understanding and actually does more damage than it solves when addressing genuine religious and spiritual matters (which arguably this thread on “ghosts†probably is not, but I’m in the mood for a rant!) More specifically, the reasons for my rant, in addition to what I have already mentioned to MKS is that such a view is not only problematic in terms of its futility for assessing spiritual matters (which the discussion with MKS outlined, namely that science is always ‘evolving’ whereas all religious and spiritual texts claim to be “timelessâ€, therein lying the massive contradiction and hence several problems arise therein) but also, such views have also resulted in numerous socio-political issues, which specifically for Sikhs would be the black and white analysis of secular cultural traditions being Gurmat or “Anti-Gurmatâ€.

"whos to say traditionally women were 'amritdhari' ?" There are broadly speaking two schools of thought on this: 1. Yes, they (i.e. the wives of the Gurus etc) and everyone else (i.e. Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Ghanaya etc) were Amritdhari the lack of mention of "Singh" and "Kaur" with their names stems from popular names being retained and adopted by the historical chronicles. 2. No they were not, the Amritdhari Khalsa (initially) represented a body of committed soldiers. There are clearly problems with both views and we can discuss those at length if needed, however bottom line today, both men and women are permitted Amrit, it has been the case for several centuries now (so is not the invention of some British influenced SGPC marlarky) and is not the sole remit of the "Army" to have Amritdhari Singhs, since the Khalsa is not a "Kshatriya Dharam", rather the prinicipal duty of the Khalsa has always been to be a "Bhagat" over and above any leanings towards a soldier.

tsingh wrote: "For me i think you've missed the point...which is the amazingly petty motivation behind changing the calander - 'we don't want anything to do with hindus, lets not rely on them'. the calendar should be should be opposed on this reason alone" 100% concur - I have made my personal views clear on this subject in the past on similar threads.

I don't believe the "Nanakshahi" calender is the sole remit of the SGPC, even the DDT have agreed to this calender, despite their initial protestations, and the AKJ have been long championing this requirement.

Akaali, please rephrase your question, as it is not clear what you are asking. Thanks.

That is a nice composition - Gobind Sadan have a recording of the same being sung. Back to the topic of "Baba Sri Chand and Misconceptions" let's look at this again: - Many suggest (in books on Sikh History and on various websites) that the 'Udasi' sect, sampradha, religion (depending on their stance) was founded by Sri Chand. - Many suggest that Sri Chand accepted Baba Gurditta ji, the son of Guru Hargobind Sahib, as his first disciple and started the 'Udasi' sect. One such reference is Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha (see 'Mahaan Kosh', page 251 under 'Sri Chand Baba' and page 416 under 'Gurditta Baba'). - They, like Jassa Singh, indicate that the Udasi saints preached the Sikhism, remained in contact with other Sikh Gurus, namely that Guru Hargobind Sahib helped 'Almast', an udasi saint. - Udasis recite 'maatras', hymns allegded composed by Sri Chand, however one could question the authorship of these compositions as there is no tangible evidence to support it as the writing of Sri Chand. - Whilst Udasis as a whole are celibate, Baba Gurditta ji (who, as above is considered the first disciple of Sri Chand) was married and was the father of the seventh Guru, Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji. - Whilst the SGPC earlier this decade announced that Udasis are Sikhs, their motives are questionable, there are many Udasi deras which now regard themselves purely a branch of Hinduism, even those who suggest that this is some form of "camoflage" to avoid detection by the SGPC (as suggested by the Sanatanis and the DDT) cannot deny that the vast majority of Udasis today also allude to the belief that their founder was Shiv, who argubly is a non-aryan god. - Whilst conceding that the Udasis still display respect for the Guru Granth Sahib, this arguably doesn't make them any more Sikh than say Sindhis or others like them who also hold much love and respect for Gurbani. - One could even argue that Udasis prefer to use Gurbani as their scriptures since it is easier than Sanskrit, which many Udasis, despite having the title "Shastri" do not know, hence traditional Hindu texts being offlimits for purposes of their "parchar". - Whilst it may be true that certain Udasi Akharas were educational institutions in the past and that many Udasi Mahants are titled "Shaastri", it is worth noting, as anyone who is from India can tell you, that 'Shaastri' is an examination conducted by many Universities which one can take after their tenth class, it requires six months of study to complete. I personally have a hard time believing that one can master the Shaastras in six months. - During the Ardas, we all recall those Sikh men and women who "Gurdwareyaan di seva layee Qurbaaniyaan keetiyaan" (made sacrifices in the service of Gurdwaras). This poses the following obvious question; We are all aware that under the British Raj, many Gurdwaras were under control of corrupt 'mahants' (the text recently provided in PDF format by Shaheediyan title "The Sikhs" by John Clarke Archer also contains a chapter on this subject), several sikhs were killed during the agitatation to obtain control of their Gurdwaras (this forms the origins of the SGPC - the institution that it has become fashionable in Sikh circles today to insult). It is common knowledge that these corrupt Mahants were Udasis - not wishing to write-off an entire community on the actions of a "few bad apples", however where were the "majority" of the "good" Udasis when Sikhs were being brutally killed during the Gurdwara reform movement? How many Udasis themselves spoke out against the "bad apples"? - Sikhs forming the Gurdwara Reform Movement came from all schools of thought (contrary to the picture painted today of the Singh Sabha being united in their philisophical views), the only common goal and view amongst them was to protest against the system propagated by the Udasis. - Further to the reference provided above by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, it is also interesting to note that in the same text (Mahan Kosh), he states that Sri Chand died in Sanvat 1669, and Baba Gurditta ji was born in Sanvat 1670. The question then obviously begs an answer is how could Baba Gurditta ji become Sri Chand's disciple, when he was born after the latter's death? - amardeep is correct, Bhai Gurdas Ji (whose hymns are permitted for use in keertan) states the following: "Putreen kaul na paleyo, mann aakee, khotey nasiyaaraa" (stanza 38, Vaar# 1). "The sons (of Guru Nanak Dev Ji) did not obey his order. (They were) disobedient by their minds, (they were) impure, (who ran away (during the examination)". - In the same text, Bhia Gurdas Ji goes on to say in stanza 33, Vaar# 26 that Sri Chand is one of those in the list of disobedient sons of the Gurus. So what can we truly conclude about "Baba Sri Chand" and the "Udasis"...

I am grateful to Shaheediyan for his post last month providing various PDF copies of books on Sikhism, the following is taken from a book by John Clark Archer, Princeton Univeristy Press (1946): The Sikhs. Chapter 11: Western culture in the flood includes the following: “Sikhs were well placed…in relation to female education…there had been previously Hindu, Moslem and Sikh schools for females in…Punjab…but they were not recognised as part of the Indian educational system… The first school for females under Panjab Government tuition was opened at Rawalpindi in December 1856. Sikhs took unusual advantage of this new opportunity…contribut(ing) more pupils in proportion to their total numbers than any other faith. Women had in Sikhism from the time of Gobind Singh, at least, a status comparable to that of men… …the absence of the veil may have been itself…indication of the initially low level of culture of Sikhs (neither Hindu nor Moslem women of lower classes have worn the veil nor observed seclusion), but its absence afforded Sikhs a speedier avenue to education…their women were by the end of the nineteenth century as well educated as Christian women and both were better off than Hindu and Moslem women. This freedom among women is exhibited in the very form of marriage, in which women’s rights were publicly acknowledged. Women were not betrothed as infants nor married till maturity – among the Singhs, especially. In fact the Singhs observed since early days a form of marriage which other Indians, the Hindus and Moslems, in particular, thought irregular, but which expressed in its own way the genius of the new religion with its own communalism. This Anand form (of marriage) included a previous “engagement†celebrated by the girl’s own parents who invited kinsfolk of the bridegroom-to-be-but not himself – to gather at their home and in the presence of the…Adi Granth…to share sweetmeats and plan the wedding. The Government in no sense prescribed the rite – but recognition dignified the rite whose details the Sikhs themselves administered.†This account provides some interesting food for thought vis-a-vis: 1. The origins of the Anand Karaj are often attributed to the Nirankaris or Governmental Acts by various detractors of the Sikh people or within the Sikh community itself (usually by schismatic sects and orders, albeit claiming more authenticity over the mainstream body). 2. The role of women within the Sikh world is today widely debated, with some arguing for supposed ‘traditions’ to restrict their roles in certain aspects and others in their revisionist “feminism†end up over-emphasising to the point of exaggerating their positions in history. 3. Education is a key element amongst Indians in general, however within the context of Sikhs, there has been like in (2) above, two extreme camps – one critiquing the advent of British education in the Subcontinent to the extent that its recipients, including the formidable Bhai Vir Singh, are written-off as cronies of the British Raj and the other accusing traditional Sikh educationalists as demeaning to the position of women and their access to learning.

Ranjit Singh, Thank you for the photos capturing the Gurmukhi calligraphy of yesteryears - should you have any more examples (not necessarily related to Guru Sahib), please could you present these on another thread in the future. Best wishes for Gurpurb and 2008! Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

A nice recording of this shabd can be found on the Namdhari faithweb site sung by Baljeet and Gurmeet Singh Namdhari. cue now for: (1) anti-Namdhari voters and (2) pro-Gurmat Sangeet (anti-Khyal and Tabla) supporters...

karmjeet asked: "I wonder where is the original bir of Dasam Granth Ji that was compiled by Guru Gobind Singh ji himself. Has it been lost or destroyed or just been kept hidden ?" Guru Gobind Singh never compiled the Dasam Granth, it was done by Bhai Mani Singh under the Hukam of Mata Sahib. As Kam mentioned: "The Dasam Granth we see today is based on the version kept at Patna Sahib. Other puratan versions differ in the order of the banis and the banis themselves " gsingh wrote: "chandi dee vaar is in taksal sundar gutka and the beant baanian sundar gutka that you can get in sacha sauda. They also have das granthi pothis there published by SGPC (beware of spelling mistakes in these), I dont think they budha dal gutkae there." I would also add, to be aware of the Sundar Gutka published by Singh Sahib Baba Santa Singh Jathedar Buddha Dal 96 Crore, which contains several errors in its printing of the extended Chaupai Sahib (compare the version given in the morning liturgy with the that in Rehiras Sahib), the Jaap Sahib and Shastar Naam Mala. On the subject of Shastar Naam Mala, the famous Bhai Sukha Singh of Keshgar Sahib (as opposed to Sukha Singh of Patna) has written his account of doing "Ardasa" to Guru Sahib for aid with understanding the 'arths' of this bani in his text Gurbilas P10.

amardeep, Do you not consider it a fundamental flaw (amongst our community) that a line such as this "tuk" you have quoted and is used by so many pacharaks and frequently on the internet by those who, for better or worse, are partaking in "sikhi parchar" and freely attribute such a line to Guru Gobind Singh without even knowing or citing it's source. Many, like the authors of the link you provided, position themselves as the upholders of "tat gurmat maryada" and seek to portray their interpretation of Sikhism (which arguably is a little over 50 years old) as the most authentic version of Sikhism today, are known for their frequent use of this quotation, yet they are unable to: (a) provide a reference for where this quote comes from ( if they do manage to do so (i.e. the Sarabloh Granth), they are unable to stomach the other implications of this same text for their wider agenda (i.e. much of this Granth will contradict their take on "tat gurmat maryada"). As per the Sarabloh Granth, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, writes in his Mahan Kosh under the entry Sarabloh Granth: "According to the researches of Pandit Tara Singh ji Sarabloh Granth is the composition of Bhai Sukha Singh who was the Granthi at Patna. He disclosed that he was given this Granth by an Avdhoot Udasi living in the bush in Jagannath and that he claimed it to be Guru Kalgidhar's composition. We (Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha)however, are also not prepared to accept this to be the composition ot Dashmesh ji because it mentions within it a composition called "Roop Deep Bhasha Pingal". Roopdeep was composed in Sambat 1776 ( 1719 AD) and Guru Kalgidhar ji passed away in Sambat 1765 (1708 AD). And further if this Granth is from earlier than the Amrit Sanskar (1699 AD) then how could it mention the Prasang (narrative) of (cration of)Khalsa and that of passing Guruship to Granth and Panth. And if this Granth is from after the Amrit Sanskar then why (Guruji refer to himself as) Daas Gobind or Shah Gobind names?" We can discuss Bhai Kahn Singh's commentary on another thread, however, sticking with your wider discussion concerning the purpose and practice of the Sikh Kakkars, I believe I have presented my thoughts on your questions/views, however if further discussion is desired, let's ask Neo Singh to create this into a new thread.

"bottom line i think is just read gurbani with prem and jap naam with pyar" I think we would all agree with this, shame we need to muddy the waters with the cosmic superstitions and like.