Jump to content

~Sampuran Rehiras sahib signed by Sri Dasam Patsah~


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is the audio file, its taken from katha by sant jagjit singh ji harkhowale when they did katha at malton gurdwara. Baba ji talks about how they came across with gutka sahib of sri dasam patsah signed by sri dasam patsah himself. There were 19 banis in this gutka sahib and rehras sahib was sampuran. It's same sampuran rehiras sahib which is read by taksal through their seena-basina tradition(pramparaik tradition). One of the singhs from here will be going to stay with baba ji for couple of months. He will be bringing pictures of this gutka sahib and other sri guru gobind singh ji relics if baba ji gives him agya to do this but for time being, just listen to the audio file below:

Right click and save target as :

http://www.gurmarag.net/SikhAwareness/Audi...i%20maharaj.mp3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the Taksal Rehras Sahib is considered Sampooran by Taksal, but when I went to Hazoor Sahib and their Rehras Sahib is even bigger and they say theirs is sampooran while others are not, Nihangs have a different one too which I think is the longest one of them all. Nanaksar reads the same one as the Hazoor Sahib Rehras Sahib. So which one is Sampooran? They all say theirs is Sampooran.

I could be wrong, but I think that originally the Rehras which is found in Guru Granth Sahib Jee was Sampooran. But over time like during the Misl period Singhs would like to read more and more Bani, so they would add Shabads to their Rehras Sahib. Over time generation after generation those extra Shabads became an integral part of Rehras Sahib.

Personally I read the Hazoor Sahib rehras Sahib because it is the longest one available to me. But when I get the Nihang Gutka, i'll probably start reading that one. But I consider them all Sampooran including the SGPC one.

What the SGPC tried to do was that before their standardised Rehras Sahib, they got together all the Rehras sahibs in the Panth and included in their standardised version the Shabads which are common to all the Sampradahs while excluding the ones which are not common to all groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, then this evidence should be shared with the Panth without question - and SGPC should be requested to amend their maryada after appropriate parties have examined the said Gutka Sahib.

This sort of sharing/exposure is what will bring ekta on a number of issues in the Panth. Too many people out there are knowingly sitting on evidence that would resolve a whole number of issues. I am not accusing Baba Ji as they have obvioulsy already shared what they know, but the next step is for them to share the evidence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SGPC is a democratic system. Who ever has the democratic majority gets his way. I think that Sant Samaj, Nihang Dals and like minded organisations should get togather by forming a common coalition and contest the SGPC elections. Imagine if we had Sants, Rehetwaan Singhs and Nihang Singhs as elected members of the SGPC instead of the corrupt men right now. What a difference it could make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's really possible to compete toe to toe with moorakhs who buy votes with booze. If fools who are swayed in such a way are allowed to vote I doubt that they would vote for Sikhi. And there really is no way to prevent such peopel from voting, given the state of corruption that seeems to exist.

"What the SGPC tried to do was that before their standardised Rehras Sahib, they got together all the Rehras sahibs in the Panth and included in their standardised version the Shabads which are common to all the Sampradahs while excluding the ones which are not common to all groups."

I honestly doubt the motives of some SGPC members of that time, b/c sampuran Anand Sahib, which all the panth agrees on, was shortened. Some nefarious people got their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xylotol:

Prem Sumarag mentions a shortened version of Anand Sahib, so i do not know if you can call this SGPC innovation. A lot of people are criticising the current rehit maryada of not being sufficient because it only mentions japji, jaap sahib and sawaiye in the morning rehraas, but if one looks into the rehitnamas there is hardly any mentioning of Anand Sahib and Chaupai Sahib being part of the morning nitnem. Most rehitnamas only mention Japji and Jaap.

I think the current Rehit Maryada is based on scriptural sources rather than oral traditions etc of jathes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly doubt the motives of some SGPC members of that time, b/c sampuran Anand Sahib, which all the panth agrees on, was shortened. Some nefarious people got their way.

Yeah I agree with you that the SGPC nitnem is too short. Their morning Nitnem is only the follwing:

-Japjee Sahib,

-Jaap Sahib,

-Savaiye,

Afternoon is:

-Rehras Sahib

Nighttime:

-Kirtan Sohela

Their logic is that since the Panj Pouris of Anand Sahib are included in Rehras Sahib, then there is no need to make it mandatory to read Sampooran Anand sahib in the morning. They make the same arguement with Choupi Sahib, since it is included in Rehras Sahib, it does not need to be mandatory to read it in the morning.

Personally my Nitnem is exactly like the Taksal except for Rehras sahib which I do of the Hazoor Sahib/Nanaksar.

Just wondering what kind of Rehras Sahib do Nirmale beleive in. Do Nirmale have their own Gutke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xylotol:

Prem Sumarag mentions a shortened version of Anand Sahib, so i do not know if you can call this SGPC innovation. A lot of people are criticising the current rehit maryada of not being sufficient because it only mentions japji, jaap sahib and sawaiye in the morning rehraas, but if one looks into the rehitnamas there is hardly any mentioning of Anand Sahib and Chaupai Sahib being part of the morning nitnem. Most rehitnamas only mention Japji and Jaap.

I think the current Rehit Maryada is based on scriptural sources rather than oral traditions etc of jathes

That's also a very good point you got there Amardeep Singh Jee. like I said, originally I think that the Rehras sahib in Guru Granth Sahib Jee was Sampooran, but over time extra Shabads were added with each passing generation to the point where now those Shabads are mandatory. But more bani the better for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but i think that the original nitnem was only japji sahib an jaap sahib, as these are the ones mentioned in most rehitname. If one wants to read more bani, then fine that is only good, but i dont think people should say that Nitnem consists of 5 banis when there are no scriptural evidence to suggest this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't really think we should ONLY depend on old rehet namas. For our rehet, our oral traditions which are passed down from generation to generation coupled with rehet namas should be used to determine our rehet. BOTH should be consulted.

The five Bani of the morning time(Japji, Jaap, Savaiye, Choupi, Anand) are banis which are unanimously recognised and read by all in the Panth. There is no dubidhah or doubt about this in the Panth. Only the SGPC does not read those 5 banis in the morning, but the reason they give is that they feel since the shortened Anand Sahib and Choupi is included in Rehras sahib, those Banis are not mandatory to read twice, in this case their logic is not using old rehet namas but more in terms of efficiency and ease. No matter from which group, Sampradah you take Amrit from, the Panj Pyare when making Amrit in the Sarbloh Bata with a Khanda, all Panj read the 5 morning Nitnemi Banis, one Pyara doing one bani until all five banis are read. This is how it is and how it has been for generations.

There are some things that traditions should be followed. When the entire Panth unanimously agree upon a certain issue, then it should be followed by all. In this case Bibek Buddhi should be used to determine this.

When a rehet is not mentioned in old Rehet namas, but is unanimously practiced by all, then logically tradition should be followed here.

But when a rehet is mentioned in old rehetnamas and there is doubt in the panth about that certain issue then I think that ones Bibek Buddhi should be used to determine what is right and what is right should not go against Gubani's teachings, because only Gurbani is right while our Buddhi can be flawed no matter how Sianaa we may think we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is true, i agree on that to a certain limit but I have never heard of the explanation you mention regarding why anand sahib and chaupai sahib should not be read. A part of Japji sahib is also read in Rehraas, yet the Akal Thakt maryada has not cut japji sahib from the morning nitnem?

If 90% of the panth in 100 years agrees that keshki is kakaar, does it mean we should belive in this, inspite of the fact that there are no scriptural evidence to suggest so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, once i talked to a missionary Giani about why the SGPC maryadha does not make Anand Sahib and Choupi Sahib mandatory in the morning and that is the reason he gave me, and that is the reason they are given in their missionary colleges.

The Keski issue AKJ does use scriptural evidence as does those who day Kesh is kakar, since puraatan Rehetnamas mention both, some mention Kesh while some mention Keski. In this case ones own bibek Buddhi should be used.

Same thing with the meat issue. Some old Rehetnamas say meat should not be consumed while some say it can be consumed as long as it is not Kutthaa, but if one uses Bibek Buddhi and reads Gurbani(especially Bhagat Kabir Jee's Bani) one can determine what is right in this issue.

We also need to realise a thing about old Rehenamas is that many times they write things to make it very brief and short. For example many old Rehetnama say we should do Simran of "Guru Guru", when we all know that by "Guru Guru" they really mean "VaheGuru VaheGuru". Just doing simran of "Guru Guru" doesn't make sense, but if you use some logic, one can determine what "Guru Guru" really means "Vaheguru Vaheguru".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......a part of Japji sahib is also read in Rehraas, yet the Akal Thakt maryada has not cut japji sahib from the morning nitnem?.....

There is NO part of JapJi Sahib in Rehras Sahib.

Prem Sumarg is not credible and should not be relied on.

ALL Puratan Sampardas believe that Guru Ji gave the morning Nitnem of 5 Banis, evening Rehras Sahib, and Kirtan Sohila before bed. They also read the same (Taksali) Rehras except for the Nihang Singhs.

When Amrit is being prepared - each Singh reads one Bani hence we end up with 5 Banis. How can you say the old Nitnem was only JapJi Sahib and Jaap Sahib, were there only 2 Pyare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL Puratan Sampardas believe that Guru Ji gave the morning Nitnem of 5 Banis, evening Rehras Sahib, and Kirtan Sohila before bed. They also read the same (Taksali) Rehras except for the Nihang Singhs.

Not all Matheen Jee. Nanaksar and Hazoor Sahib also read a different Rehras Sahib from both Taksal and Nihangs. The Hazoori Rehras Sahib has been unchanged for as long as they can remember in their traditions and all Dakhani Sikhs read that one rather than the Taksali one. Unlike Punjab and north India, the Dekhan and Hazoor Sahib was untouched by the influance of Singh Sabha so their Rehras Sahib is puraatan. Plus, in the Hazoori Rehras Sahib which is not only longer than the Taksali one, but even their Choupi Sahib is longer than the Taksali one. The Hazoori Choupi Sahib starts from "Bahur Asur Kaa Kaatus Maatha".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nanaksar version of rehras has minor differences with hazoor sahib. In fact, nanaksar version of rehras sahib is taken from hazoor sahib. Sachkhand Hazoor sahib is one of takth sahiban. All the mahapursh in the past have encourage students never to criticize tatkh sahiban maryada and always do satkar of them despite of differences in samparda maryada. In Gurmat Maryada pustak, sant baba gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale mentions how one shouldnt criticize takht sahiban maryada.

One should take all panj takhth sahiban maryada at very high esteem when they do anything for the panth or in panthic circle but when it comes personal sikhi, one can follow sampardai maryada. It's very simple concept that is still used when you learn sikhi through mahapursh, that avoids all the conflicts of my samparda's maryada is right and others are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i havnt heard anyone saying any nitnem is better then anyone elses. kirpans are indeed made by people, but judging whos is better is subjective (from people who do not know proper shastar vidiya). there are differences on santhiya styles, but i havnt heard anyone outright say they are wrong.

i have heard the you are not a true singh, but again, subjective. same with the amrit.

you dont have to always be so pestimistic, if indeed everything is maharajs khel then he is smiling while everything is going on. this doesn't mean one can just sit back when bad things are happening, but the issues you are talking about you defiently do not have control over. so let it go.

when you compare to other dharmas/religions, we are divided yes, but not as much as others. atleast we are not killing ourselves in the thousands, blowing up each others gurdraway, etc. (ie. in iraq)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jsingh96 is right. Amongst Sikhs of various groups, we are not that different. Compared to other Dharms around the world we have more in common amongst each other as Sikhs. Amongst Christians they have had religious wars between Catholics-Orthodox and Catholics vs Protestents. The Muslims are still having this war between Sunni and Shia. Even the peace loving Buddhists have fought Dharmic wars with each other like the famous war in Tibet long ago between the Yellow hats and Red hats factions with the Yellows ultimately gaining victory after much bloodshed. I have not heard of Sikhs ever killing each other over religious issues. Political issues yes, but not Dharmic issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm wondering, don't all the sampardai nitnems include the same bani as the ddt nitnem, but in some cases have other pauris added as well? if so, it does seem to suggest some sort of minimum that existed in the past.

Well, the Hazuri Rehesras Sahib which although his longer does not have one shabad which is in the DDT Rehras Sahib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...