What Is Mukt Marag Granth?

[SURYADEV]

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

wait...........so many more granths will be appearing, amazing ....................surprise.

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

I'm sort of confused about your underastanding of who the 10th Guru was/is. On one hand you consider him to be a scholer, linguist, educated, poet (- as do we all) and then you deny any writings attributed to the guru? What type of writer is he who cannot produce a piece of literature.

Just because you do not agree with the contents does not mean that the writer has not produced it.

I do not agree with with men going to witches in the forest to seek raaj-gaadhi. Does that mean that I deny

that Shakespeare wrote Macbeth?

I say open up your mind: history/the world does not revolve around your limited human logic.

Fateh, Out!

[sanjhk]

I'm sort of confused about your underastanding of who the 10th Guru was/is. On one hand you consider him to be a scholer, linguist, educated, poet (- as do we all) and then you deny any writings attributed to the guru? What type of writer is he who cannot produce a piece of literature.

Just because you do not agree with the contents does not mean that the writer has not produced it.

I do not agree with with men going to witches in the forest to seek raaj-gaadhi. Does that mean that I deny

that Shakespeare wrote Macbeth?

I say open up your mind: history/the world does not revolve around your limited human logic.

Fateh, Out!

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

don't confused with what i said or consider,i am nothing...just follow or believe guru granth sahib ji (gyan)

guru gobind singh ji is my father.

please read and analyse any writings-any within the light of guru granth sahib ji(gyan)and if guru granth sahib ji accept it...then there is no question

but we are not ready.........what you say

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

[HarjasDevi]

"i am nothing...just follow or believe guru granth sahib ji (gyan)"

Your poor neech has God Himself in hip pocket but others don't? Wow, are you equating own opinions and understanding of Gurbani as same as Divine?

[chatanga1]

To ignorantly confuse early purataan Gursikhi, or even Sanatana Dharma with "brahmanism" is a mistake. Sanatan teachings in Sikhi reflect the highest and purest truths coming from the greatest saints and bhagats. These were part of the REFORM movement AGAINST brahmanism and were most often Vaishnav Ram-naamis of low caste or mleccha birth...blah blah blah and so on...

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

to ignorantly onfuse sikhi with what was happening in the immedaiete singhsabha period is also a mistake. you carteblanche demonise singh sabha ideology, while conveniently ignoring the cesspit that so-called snatan dharma was. or satan dharma, to be more accurate.

there are none so blind as those who are consciously blind, would be more apt in this case harjas kaur ji.

[Kaljug]

Can mods please delete or move the usual Kala Afghana nonsense from this thread as they are off-topic and add nothing to this discussion?

K.

[HarjasDevi]

to ignorantly onfuse sikhi with what was happening in the immedaiete singhsabha period is also a mistake.

[chatanga1]

i dont hate hindus. Nor do i reject everything snatan. I dont beleive in sanatan ideology to the extent that you do, but definitley you have an hatred for the singh sabha in absolutely every aspect. there's no denying that from your posts. even where the snatan soceity outrightly rejected GurBani vis-a-vis their treatment of the "lower" castes. This is not borne out in gurbani and guru and misal history but yet you refuse to accept this.

I am blind, accepted, but not to your snatan hogwash.

[HarjasDevi]

I have never called Singh Sabha as cesspool of shit or a satan. I also wrote an article to clarify that I will not speak against spiritual jeevan of respected Mahapurash from Singh Sabha oriented sampraday. My personal rejection of Singh Sabha ideology is substantiated in specific points with reference citations that anyone is welcome to disagree with. I have never used hateful and abusive language such as you are using to define in most disrespectful and hateful terms.

I believe the kind of hatred and blind opposition and constant mockery of anything Hindu or sanatani reflected on these forums is the PRODUCT of radical Singh Sabha rejections which is why I am against that philosophy. But I have already said in a previous post that I believe sant Mahapurash have come from Singh Sabha reform and should be respected. Explain how that is hatred compared to calling as cesspool shit and satan?

"even where the snatan soceity outrightly rejected GurBani vis-a-vis their treatment of the "lower" castes. This is not borne out in gurbani and guru and misal history but yet you refuse to accept this. "

Are you serious? And alienation of Mahzbi and Chamar populations by Jatt dominated Sikh institutions is not a form of "rejection of Gurubani by treatment of lower castes?"

Sanatan Sikhi and imagery and Vedantic associations in philosophy is all over purataan granths such as Prem Sumarag, Gurbilas, Janam and Sau Sakhis, Suraj Prakash and even Gurur Granth and Dasam Granth. It is evident in the vaars of bhai Gurdas and the murals left over from time period of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Why deny the obvious existence of it just to prove a point that you disagree with it and support the refomr movement?

Edited February 4, 2010 by HarjasKaur

[Kaljug]

Can mods also remove this "Seeks r hindoos!!!" and the Singh Sabha discussion and place it somewhere else in a more appropriate thread?

In fact, I'd suggest letting Harjas Kaur to have her own little "special" section of the forum where she can try to connect every single sentence in disparate threads into some grand U-R-all-Hindus-Singh-Sabha-is-evil conspiracy theory since we cannot seem to stop her from destroying any thread she replies in by making it into her personal "Everything is Sanatan Dharam!!!11" megathread.

K.

[HarjasDevi]

It's not a Sikhs are Hindu's discussion. It's a discussion of legitimacy of sanatan granths and sanatan history of Sikhi during the time period in which the granths were written reflecting far more tolerance than is expressed by this discussion forum. Stop trying to censor and derail legitimate discussion of this aspect of Sikh history.

In fact, I'd suggest letting Harjas Kaur to have her own little"special" section of the forum where she can try to connect everysingle sentence in disparate threads into some grandU-R-all-Hindus-Singh-Sabha-is-evil conspiracy theory since we cannotseem to stop her from destroying any thread

It is yours and others hateful intolerance of the legitimate established scholarly articles on this subject with personal attacks, rude comments, and degrading insults of my character which ruin the threads. I am blamed for ruining threads but people attacking Sanatana Dharma as a cesspool which is shit and a satan are NOT ruining and derailing the discussion? OBVIOUSLY none of you can refute the facts presented and degenerate into childish insults instead.

How can anyone have a discussion of legitimacy of sanatan granths MARGINALIZED by the Singh Sabha reform and deny there ever was one by labeling such history as some insane conspiracy theory? Why not discuss these issues up front? Or are you denying a Singh Sabha reform ever took place which removed sanatan version of Sikhi from prominence and succeed so much in disfiguring it that Sikhs literally hate and abuse anything Hindu nowadays and think that's "Gurmat?"

"Sanatan Singh Sabha is the original Singh Sabha formed in 1873 by Sikhs in Amritsar The Sanatan Sikhs regard Classical Sikhism as Sikhs to be a wider denomination of Sanatan Dharma by one who practices karma and bhakti [of God] in any way for the achievement of Moksha, or spiritual liberation.

As a purely political reaction to the formation of the Sanatan Singh Sabha, a second Singh Sabha was formed and named the Tat Khalsa ('True' Khalsa) by The Governing British Administration based at Lahorein 1879 [also called Lahore Singh Sabha]. The British Raj utilized the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhs to apply their ‘divide and rule’ policy which sought to negate Sanatan Sikhism in the name of ‘reform’ whereas Sanatan Sikhism is predominantly inclusive, the Tat Khalsa is not.

While Max Arthur McAuliffe achieved the position of Deputy Commissioner in Punjab in 1882, Macauliffe wrote the popular Tat Khalsa text. ‘It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of the people of India is a desideratum for the British officials who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be produced. It seems, at any rate politic to place before the Sikh soldiery their Guru’s prophecies in favor of the English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster their loyalty.’ ‘The Sikh Religion’,1909, M.A. Macauliffe, Preface xxii

From the above quote, it is clear that one of the main objectives for Macauliffe was to inculcate loyalty within Sikhs for the British Raj. At the time, the Sanatan Sikh Raj had been displaced by the British Raj, and as such, Sanatan Sikhs, especially the Akali Nihangs,were naturally very hostile towards the British." Sanatan Singh Sabha

If it is some unproved fantasy of my own invention, "i.e.," conspiracy theory, then why is this subject part of the scholarly controversies and history of the Sikh Panth? You are all so good at ganging up on me and demanding answers to endless questions. Why don't you stop spitting insults and answer WHY you think analysis of the Singh Sabha reform movement on modern Sikhism is some invalid crackpot conspiracy theory and not actual demonstrable history? You're an intelligent man, why not debate with intelligence?

Edited February 4, 2010 by HarjasKaur

[Kaljug]

Sikhs R Hindoos Singh Sabha is evil!!!11

Thanks for proving my point.

You're an intelligent man, why not debate with intelligence?

Countless people here have already tried to discuss things intelligently with you but it's clear to everyone that you are too brainwashed to take their comments on board.

Case in point is the quote in your sig in which all you manage to glean from a 9 page criticism of Fenech's views is that "Singh Sabha is teh evul!!11".

Did you even read Mukat Marg Granth before you typed your essay and hit reply?

If you want to learn anything, I suggest that you STHU and reply to threads only if you have something relevant to discuss rather than use them as a platform to propagate your "Sanatan" myth.

And stop playing the martyr when your contributions are criticised. It's a pretty pathetic tactic.

K.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Kaljug

[HarjasDevi]

Why don't you just grow up, lay off and stop telling people to STHU on a discussion forum instead of intelligently and non-insultingly discussing the issues presented. If you hate my posts then ignore and don't respond to them. But how juvenile it is to attacke me on every one of them by personal insults and bold claims without any intelligent debate.

Sikhs R Hindoos Singh Sabha is evil!!!11

Thanks for proving my point.

That is your quote after all.

[sanjhk]

Your poor neech has God Himself in hip pocket but others don't? Wow, are you equating own opinions and understanding of Gurbani as same as Divine?

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

please, i am sorry but i don't get what you want say.

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

[HarjasDevi]

I'm saying that yours is not the only legitimate and valid interpretation of Sikhi and that historically these granths which you have denounced have been an accepted part of it.

[sanjhk]

I'm saying that yours is not the only legitimate and valid interpretation of Sikhi and that historically these granths which you have denounced have been an accepted part of it.

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

i am really sorry(nimarta sahit)i am not getting what you want to say?

please accept my apologies.

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

[HarjasDevi]

When you condemn the granths as being invented and brahminvaad and accuse the Singhs who are studying them as brahmins that is your own particular interpretation of Gurmat Gursikhi and not everybody elses. You do not have Waheguru in your pocket as own special power to condemn other people with. In fact, you yourself may be wrong and are no judge of anyone elses's Sikhi.

These many granths which share sanatan philosophy and world view are historical part of Sikhi. It is related to Sant Mat movement of Vaishnav, Sufi and Shaiav bhaktas/bhagats and had influenced on Gursikhi as evidenced by inclusion of bhagat bani and heritage of sanatan granths. It has NOTHING to do with brahminism and actually was established as a reform against brahminism.

[sanjhk]

When you condemn the granths as being invented and brahminvaad and accuse the Singhs who are studying them as brahmins that is your own particular interpretation of Gurmat Gursikhi and not everybody elses. You do not have Waheguru in your pocket as own special power to condemn other people with. In fact, you yourself may be wrong and are no judge of anyone elses's Sikhi.

These many granths which share sanatan philosophy and world view are historical part of Sikhi. It is related to Sant Mat movement of Vaishnav, Sufi and Shaiav bhaktas/bhagats and had influenced on Gursikhi as evidenced by inclusion of bhagat bani and heritage of sanatan granths. It has NOTHING to do with brahminism and actually was established as a reform against brahminism.

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

first of all waheguru is not in my pocket.

sikh has only one guru that is guru granth sahib ji.

i am not judging anybody and maybe you are right i am wrong but can guru granth sahib be wrong.........from this isn't mean guru granth sahib ji is in my pocket.

waheguru ji ka khalsa

waheguru ji ki fateh

[HarjasDevi]

"you people are sikh or brahmin?"

"wait...........so many more granths will be appearing, amazing ....................surprise."

"guru granth sahib ji doesn't approve brahmanism."

Did you make these statements? Are you implying the Sikhs who study sanatan Sikh granths are brahmins? Yes or no? Is this a judgment poorly of them? Yes or no? Are you equating these granths as brahimnism? Why? Because Sanatana Dharm reflects Divine Truths not man-made opinions of power poolitics of brahmins. YES< brahminvaad is very much a part of Hindu Mat which is a part of Sanatana Dharma as coming from traditional worldview and teachings. But Hindu Mat is also including the man-made views mixed in with Divine truths, sectarian differences. I already gave you example of Vaishnav Mat which is part of Sikhi influence as coming from the Vaishnav bhagats who also influenced Sufi sants. Vaishnav Mat, for example, is not the same thing as brahminism but opposed it. So how can you equate sanatani wordl-view of purataan granths as being brahminism?

Who says these granths have been given Gurgaddhi or that any Sikh is accepting this heritage in the Granths as Guru Sahib? Or are you making a judgment again>?

See, you are judging how bad people are on basis of these granths as to give them no legitimacy. As if your personal interpretation of Sikhi is the only correct one, as if God is plaything for you to hide behind and judge other people with, like in your personal pocket.

Guru Granth Sahib is not wrong. Neither is Gurbani condemning these purataan granths or Sikh history. So why are you? Brahminism is not even the same as the heritage of traditional Sant Mat of bhagats.

[sanjhk]

Did you make these statements? Are you implying the Sikhs who study sanatan Sikh granths are brahmins? Yes or no? Is this a judgment poorly of them? Yes or no? Are you equating these granths as brahimnism? Why? Because Sanatana Dharm reflects Divine Truths not man-made opinions of power poolitics of brahmins. YES< brahminvaad is very much a part of Hindu Mat which is a part of Sanatana Dharma as coming from traditional worldview and teachings. But Hindu Mat is also including the man-made views mixed in with Divine truths, sectarian differences. I already gave you example of Vaishnav Mat which is part of Sikhi influence as coming from the Vaishnav bhagats who also influenced Sufi sants. Vaishnav Mat, for example, is not the same thing as brahminism but opposed it. So how can you equate sanatani wordl-view of purataan granths as being brahminism?

Who says these granths have been given Gurgaddhi or that any Sikh is accepting this heritage in the Granths as Guru Sahib? Or are you making a judgment again>?

See, you are judging how bad people are on basis of these granths as to give them no legitimacy. As if your personal interpretation of Sikhi is the only correct one, as if God is plaything for you to hide behind and judge other people with, like in your personal pocket.

Guru Granth Sahib is not wrong. Neither is Gurbani condemning these purataan granths or Sikh history. So why are you? Brahminism is not even the same as the heritage of traditional Sant Mat of bhagats.

Edited February 5, 2010 by sanjhk

[chatanga1]

I have never called Singh Sabha as cesspool of shit...

Are you serious? And alienation of Mahzbi and Chamar populations by Jatt dominated Sikh institutions is not a form of "rejection of Gurubani by treatment of lower castes?"

Bhenji, why have you lowered the tone of the forum by using such horrible words?

the treatment of the lower castes by the jats was not part of their religious obligation as it was by the snatan lot, adn you know that you didnt really have a point in bringing that up but you were trying to derail my post and subvert the focus from the sanantan sabha to the jats. The jats did so out of their ignorance, the sanatans did it cos they thought God wold love them more.

Use your brain.

[HarjasDevi]

"Bhenji, why have you lowered the tone of the forum by using such horrible words?"

Why are you playing games? Are you immature? Those are YOUR words. You aren't discussing anything, You are just wasting time insulting and playing games.

Cesspit; cesspool: a pit for garbage, excrement, etc.

</I>

chatanga1

Posted Yesterday, 08:44 AM #29 (this thread)

"to ignorantly onfuse sikhi with what was happening in the immedaiete singhsabha period is also a mistake. you carteblanche demonise singh sabha ideology, while conveniently ignoring the cesspit that so-called snatan dharma was. or satan dharma, to be more accurate.

there are none so blind as those who are consciously blind, would be more apt in this case harjas kaur ji."

Why are you calling Sanatan Dharma as Satan Dharma? Are you a Christian? That is a Christian belief. Why are you imposing Christian judgments and condemnations of the sanatan aspects within Sikhi? Yet playing games to accuse me, you admit you are using a low tone and degrading the forum quality with horrible words.

Stop insulting the very Dharma Guru Sahibaan died to defend!

"the treatment of the lower castes by the jats was not part of their religious obligation as it was by the snatan lot"

Here you go with ignorant and groundless accusations again. The treatment of lower castes is not a religious obligation according to Sruti. I have already proved the Gurbani definitions of caste as well as the Vaishnav are in agreement with Sruti which is what Sanatana Dharma is based on. The hateful abuses of powerful political leaders such as brahmins, the manipulations of texts like Manu Smritis by racist British, the codification of the caste system under British Raj, etc, have nothing to do with Sanatana Dharma.

And to think you can excuse the very blatent casteist abuses of own Jatt community by pointing a finger at someone else is juvenile. EVERYONE is responsible for their own misdeeds and cannot justify or prevent blame based on what someone else is doing. Vaishnav Sanatan Sants and Bhagats whose own bani is in Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is part of traditional philosophy and teaching of Sanatana Dharma. Is THIS what you are condemning as SATAN DHARMA AND CESSPOOL (WHICH MEANS EXCREMENT)?

I think you should stop now. If even having the wisdom teachings of Gurbani and the bhagat bani of enlightened Vaishnav sanatanis, own Jatts are behaving like brahmins to oppress lower castes in own Sikh community, then the culpability is even HIGHER! Every Sikh should condemn this behavior.

adn you know that you didnt really have a point in bringing that up but you were trying to derail my post and subvert the focus from the sanantan sabha to the jats. The jats did so out of their ignorance, the sanatans did it cos they thought God wold love them more.

Use your brain.

Bringing in derailing accusations about caste was entirely your doing. Why blame it on me? Anyone reading can see the truth. You are a nindak to make sladerous bold claims that people who believe in Sanatana Dharma think God will love them more if they behave abusively to lower castes. More fodder from your aggressive Christian anti-Hindu websites no doubt. Everything which Sanatana Dharma teaches about caste is clearly spelled out in bhagat bani and Gurubani, which has Gurgaddhi and which every Sikh bows hairs to as ABSOLUTE HOLY TRUTH.

Stop speaking in such low insulting ways. You are only degrading yourself.

[Mithar]

Why are you calling Sanatan Dharma as Satan Dharma? Are you a Christian? That is a Christian belief. Why are you imposing Christian judgments and condemnations of the sanatan aspects within Sikhi? Yet playing games to accuse me, you admit you are using a low tone and degrading the forum quality with horrible words.

I find it strange how you never feel as defensive about Sikhi and Panthic based issues as you do about Sanatan and Hindutva based issues, yet you call yourself a Sikh. Either you are confused, or you are deliberately trying to fool us into thinking you are a Sikh when it is clear to the whole world that you are no longer a Sikh.

[Kaljug]

blah blah

Well done. That makes 3 threads you have derailed and destroyed in the last few days with your incessant bullshit about Sanatan this and Sanatan that.

You are a completely ignorant and arrogant person. What does your bullshit have to do with Mukat Marg Granth? Have you even read it? Why bother to spread your verbal faeces all over this thread if you have nothing to add to the original topic?

The truth is that your so-called spiritual experience has derailed your mind so that you are no longer capable of thinking of anything in a rational manner. You are worshipping your experience as some kind of ultimate truth that you hsva to share with the rest of the world. It's too bad, but ... well, spiritual experiences, especially when they are forced upon you by some egotistical gooroo looking for new followers, can be dangerous to an unstable mind. It's why Gurbani recommends humility and complete surrender to Guru Ji (and not to a plethora of human gooroos), to prevent the ego from making an idol out of the experience.

The reason that you are repeatedly thrown off Sikh forums is not because you have unveiled some magnificently complex conspiracy and only you have the true form of Sikhi, but because you rudely and repeatedly pollute every thread with your obsession.

I'm sure that, if you are thrown off this forum (and no, there are not secret groups of people trying to have you banned - you are just not that important), you will pat yourself on the back and consider yourself a martyr of some sorts who fell trying to save Sikhi and Hinduism all in one fell swoop, but the truth is that you are simply rude and objectionable and are incapable of letting someone ask a simple question without trying to spread your own delusions.

Don't bother to reply to this post. I don't have time to read your confused and rambling 3000 word replies.

K.

[HarjasDevi]

Well done. That makes 3 threads you have derailed and destroyed in the last few days with your incessant bullshit about Sanatan this and Sanatan that.

You are a completely ignorant and arrogant person. What does your bullshit have to do with Mukat Marg Granth? Have you even read it? Why bother to spread your verbal faeces all over this thread if you have nothing to add to the original topic?

The truth is that your so-called spiritual experience has derailed your mind so that you are no longer capable of thinking of anything in a rational manner. You are worshipping your experience as some kind of ultimate truth that you hsva to share with the rest of the world. It'stoo bad, but ... well, spiritual experiences, especially when they are forced upon you by some egotistical gooroo looking for new followers,can be dangerous to an unstable mind. It's why Gurbani recommendshumility and complete surrender to Guru Ji (and not to a plethora ofhuman gooroos), to prevent the ego from making an idol out of the experience.

The reason that you are repeatedly thrown off Sikh forums is not because you have unveiled some magnificently complex conspiracy and only you have the true form of Sikhi, but because you rudely and repeatedly pollute every thread with your obsession.

I'm sure that, if you are thrown off this forum (and no, there are not secret groups of people trying to have you banned - you are just not that important), you will pat yourself on the back and consider yourself a martyr of some sorts who fell trying to save Sikhi and Hinduism all in one fell swoop, but the truth is that you are simply rude and objectionable and are incapable of letting someone ask a simple question without trying to spread your own delusions.

Don't bother to reply to this post. I don't have time to read your confused and rambling 3000 word replies.

Why are you people like this? What are you afraid of? There IS a sanatan history within Sikhism.

If I take exception to Tat Khalsa fanatics KILLING sanatan dera baba's, it is my right to have an opinion. If you don't agree, then voice your own opinion. But HOW can Ravidasias leave Sikhism if they are not accepted as some part of SIKHS? And if they are some part of SIKHS and you object to the Ballan community from leaving and forming a new maryada, HOW CAN I BE ACCUSED OF TAKING SIDE OF HINDU's AGAINST SIKHS?

Why in the world, even if it were true and I am incredibly deluded would that not be a point of sympathy for you having the superior and truer spirituality? Why would anyone want to trash and crap all over someone else's beliefs and understanding of God?

Why are you all destroying a discussion forum out of intolerance for another point of view? Is your Sikhi so weak?

And of course you go on with the martyr story, because if you bully someone, it can't be admitted. They have to be "over-sensitive and a martyr." And then using weapon of rude personal attack INTENDING to derail and ruin threads, blame me. How convenient.

You all need a good long look in the mirror. You should be embarrassed. But you have no consciousness of shame.

Edited February 5, 2010 by HarjasKaur

[Namaskaar]

I think it would be good if the more knowledgable people on this forum to discuss some of Harjas Kaurs views (without the childish name calling) Maybe you could start a thread as to why you think Sikhi is Sanatan or part of Hinduism in your view and then maybe a discussion can go on from there.