Purpose Of Dasam Granth

[paapiman]

That doesnt change the fact that he did not declare Dasam Granth as GURU.  Meaning he himself put SGGSJ as the HIGHEST AUTHORITY... who are we to question that?

Satguru jee, using three Gurbanis from Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee for amrit ceremony, is a clear indication that there is no difference between SSGGSJ and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee.

Choice is simple:

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee = SSGGSJ or Rejection of amrit ceremony?

Choose one

Bhul chuk maaf

[CdnSikhGirl]

Paapiman: Do you refer to Dasam Granth as "Guru Dasam Granth"?

Please refer to this very informative article which explains in great detail why (even if Dasam Granth is work of Guru Gobind Singh Ji), it can never be Guru Dasam Granth, nor can it be placed on equal level to Sri GURU Granth Sahib Ji:

http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Kashmir%20Singh%20SRI%20GURU%20GRANTH%20SAHIB%20AND%20DASAM%20Granth%20IN%20Legal%20Literature.pdf

[Crystal]

Crystal Paji, Harjot Paji and Paapi Ji

Are you aware that Bachittar Natak claims that all our Guru Sahibaan were Hindu Kings in their previous lives (from only the two clans of Bedi and Sodhi). It also claims Guru Gobind Singh Ji were descended from the Hindu Avatar King Ram Chander and the mythical Sun God dynasty (SuryaVanshi).

Are you further aware that Bachittar Natak claims that these Hindu Kings did a deal on how GurGaddi would be carved up amongst them (like a business deal) in their next incarnations between 1469-1708.

Do you not feel that the AKJ, Missionaries, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale and others are justified in insisting only those words which are in tandem with Gurmat should be considered authentic Dasam Bani.

Note that all 100% of the Panth are united in respect for authentic Dasam Bani. 

The overwhelming majority of the Panth do not believe that the 600 pages of sexually erotic tales in Charitropakhiyan were written by Guru Sahib. Only the minority Sanatan sects of Damdami Taksal, Nirmale, Udasi's, 3HO, Buddha Dal do.

And that was why Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar and the Akali Singh Sabha Lehar which freed our Gurdwara's from Hindu Mahant control threw out Charitropakhiyan that the Hindu Mahants were insistent upon reading daily so that the Hindu Mahants prostitutes could girate to it inside Darbar Sahib.

The juxtaposition of Sri Benti Chaupai Sahib (which i respect) into Charitropakhiyan is fully documented as having being done by the British and Arya Samaj sponsored Sodhak Committee of 1897 that was finalised by Amitabh Bachchan's ancestor Khemu Bedi.

 

 

we are khysatri so yyessuraj bansi. 

 

Akjs do not concern me as they are fools.

[amardeep]

If only 50 pages of the Dasam Granth are to be considered the writings of Guru Gobind Singh then why werent these 50 pages included into the Guru Granth Sahib when the Guru dictated the Granth Sahib from memory in 1704? Obvisoly the Guru would not be able to add the 1300 page Dasam Granth into the existing 1400+ page Guru Granth Sahib, but a few extra 50 pages of bani would'n be a problem .Why were these kept seperate?

And is there a difference between Japji Sahib and Jap Sahib? Are'nt both to  be respected the same way?

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

we are khysatri so yyessuraj bansi. 

 

Akjs do not concern me as they are fools.

AKJ are not fools. I have many friends who are AKJ.  And they are very very devout Sikhs who actually follow what is writtenin Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji! Not in words, but in actual practice. 

[Crystal]

AKJ are not fools. I have many friends who are AKJ.  And they are very very devout Sikhs who actually follow what is writtenin Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji! Not in words, but in actual practice. 

well that's great, kudos. I have distant relatives who are akjs HOWEVER they are from the first generation of akjs....they believe in raagmala so we don't have a problems. The fools of akjs are the ones who disbelieve in ragmala and dasam bani. Just to clarify. 

 

Crystal, bringing the meth.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Crystal
Need for comma

[CdnSikhGirl]

If only 50 pages of the Dasam Granth are to be considered the writings of Guru Gobind Singh then why werent these 50 pages included into the Guru Granth Sahib when the Guru dictated the Granth Sahib from memory in 1704? Obvisoly the Guru would not be able to add the 1300 page Dasam Granth into the existing 1400+ page Guru Granth Sahib, but a few extra 50 pages of bani would'n be a problem .Why were these kept seperate?

And is there a difference between Japji Sahib and Jap Sahib? Are'nt both to  be respected the same way?

 

 
I'm so glad you asked!!!!

Read the article I posted! THAT EXACT question gets answered!!! 
(Guru Ji HIMSELF actually requested that they be kept separate)

http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Kashmir%20Singh%20SRI%20GURU%20GRANTH%20SAHIB%20AND%20DASAM%20Granth%20IN%20Legal%20Literature.pdf

Bottom of page 11 and top of Page 12

As do a lot of other questions above...

well that's great, kudos. I have distant relatives who are akjs HOWEVER they are from the first generation of akjs....they believe in raagmala so we don't have a problems. The fools of akjs are the ones who disbelieve in ragmala and dasam bani. Just to clarify. 

 

Crystal, bringing the meth.

Majority of AKJ (at least ones I know) also believe in Raagmala... and at least 50 pages of Dasam Granth.  They do not revere Dasam Granth as Guru however they respect the banis that ARE 100% attributable to Guru Ji.  They would not however, ever think of placing DG on equal level to SGGSJ.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[SAadmin]

There is no way they can seperate from chaupi sahib and charitaropkyan as its part of each other other. One wants to reject charitaropkyan they automatically reject chaupi sahib as well as its chaupi sahib over lays on charitaropkyan

[amardeep]

Satkirin KAur:

Thanks for the link. It refers to an incident in the Bansavalinama written in 1769. The Bansavalinama is absolutely clear that the Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh and the Guru is even quoted as having said that the  two Granths are to be considered of the same light, - as two Brothers!. The question in the granth is not whether all of the banis were written by the Guru or not, but rather how to organize the two granths. Whereas you are saying that only 50 pages or so were by the Guru. These could easily have been incorporated into the Guru Granth. They were kept seperate as one deals with spirtualism and the other is a "khed" - a play of the natural drama that occours in the World. Since they are of two different types, they were kept seperate. The 50 pages you Refer to deal with the same content as the Guru Granth and therefoer they could easily have been ammended to the Guru Granth Sahib alongside the shaloks of Guru Tegh Bahadur

 

I'd recommend you to Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeGWTI8CNZ4

[CdnSikhGirl]

So how can there be two diferent quotes from Guru Ji. One stating he said to keep the two separate... and the other claiming he said to revere them as equal?

Answer me this, how can any granth be equal to the one we refer to as GURU?? I am not saying 50 pages only were from Guru Ji. What I said was that only 50 pages can be 100% authenticated as being from Guru Ji. Rest we can't know.  And because of that, and the doubt about chritopakyan by much of the panth (its only DDT, and a few others as Mr Singh above showed) that believe it was 100% from Guru Ji. 

The chritopakyan seems very very much like retelling of old Hindu stories.  Many Many Sikhs right from the beginning hard time to believe that Guru Ji would paint women in such a bad light as to make men have distrust of them. Of course DDT (and others) believes it, just look at their whole ideology of women being inferior to men and as such they use it as justification to give women less rights.  I had a 'Singh' (if you can call him that as his hatred towards owmen is even worse than Paapiman's) who claims to follow DDT ideology (of his own accord) actually tell me that women must be reborn as a male and become a 'husband' in order to achieve liberation... that bhagats are only male, therefore women have to be reborn as a male first and then do bhagti.  He actually said though the Gurus said not to treat women harshly, they did not believe women were spiritually equal and were incapable of attaining liberation while in a woman body.  Is THIS is what DDT teaching (based on Dasam Granth) is drilling into the minds of young Singhs???  btw if you think I am making this up, go to the video about Hari Singh Randhawa and read the comments, because that's where he wrote it! 
And this thinking is even evident on this very foum!  That women were never meant to be Khalsa, that women were never meant to take amrit, that Guru Ji did not give Kaur to his daughters, that women are not to do seva of SGGSJ, that women are impure because of biological functions created by God, that women are to bow to their physical husbands to respect their husband's so called higher status over them. 

 

[amardeep]

So how can there be two diferent quotes from Guru Ji. One stating he said to keep the two separate... and the other claiming he said to revere them as equal?

Yes Maharaj said to keep them seperate as they deal with different topics. One is mainly on worldly affairs whereas the other is spiritual. It is like Miri and Piri - two seperate entities yet Sikhs respect and engage in both.

 

Answer me this, how can any granth be equal to the one we refer to as GURU?? I am not saying 50 pages only were from Guru Ji. What I said was that only 50 pages can be 100% authenticated as being from Guru Ji. Rest we can't know.

The problem here is that the "true genuine banis" (Jaap Sahib, Akal Ustat and others) came to us  THROUGH the Dasam Granth manuscripts. There are no seperate manuscripts that only contain these 3-4 writings. They have come Down to us through the Dasam Granth manuscripts which Again begs the question if these were the only true writings of the Guru, why were they ammeded to writings that were not of the Guru?

And because of that, and the doubt about chritopakyan by much of the panth (its only DDT, and a few others as Mr Singh above showed) that believe it was 100% from Guru Ji.

 

The doubt about the Charitropakhyan is fairly recent. During the pre-colonial times there are no evidence that anyone had doubts on the Dasam Granth. In fact, British writers of the early 1800s say that the Sikh political leaders kept both Granths on equal terms since they considered both to be Gurbani. The Jaap Sahib of Guru Gobind Singh is as holy and pure as the Japji Sahib of Guru Nanak.

"The chritopakyan seems very very much like retelling of old Hindu stories.  Many Many Sikhs right from the beginning hard time to believe that Guru Ji would paint women in such a bad light as to make men have distrust of them"

That is not true. The early Sikhs had no problem with this bani, - most likely because they did not interpret it as bani that defames women but saw the higher morale/message of each story.

 

That guy you mention is an idiot. His idiocy can't be used as an argument against the Dasam Granth. He is an idiot on his own accord.

 

Your main problem is that you're mixing history with beliefs. Whether the Guru wrote the Dasam Granth or not - that is a question of HISTORY.. Its not about beliefs "Does one believe the Guru wrote it".  And a clear majority of historical evidence suggests that the Guru did in fact write the entire Dasam Granth and this was also the belief of the early Khalsa. See the video for the many evidence.

Edited July 20, 2015 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

Actually that aricle gets into the history... It's a fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji passed Guruship on to SGGSJ. He did NOT make the same statement about Dasam Granth. So while it can be revered as containing bani... it is still NOT given the title GURU. And it was Guru Ji himself who made this distinction and told us to consider ONLY SGGSJ as GURU.  Then how can we disobey by revering Dasam Granth as also Guru???  We can't. That doesn't mean it can't be revered as writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  But it DOES mean unequivocally that it can NEVER be equal to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - which is our Guru.  Therefore FINAL word always comes from SGGSJ only.
 

"The Tenth Master bestowed Guruship on Granth Sahib as is evident from

the account of Guru’s contemporaries who were present at Nanded till his

last moments. He did not make any mention of Dasam Granth.

Even assuming that Dasam Granth was existing at the time of Guru

Gobind Singh, it cannot be the object of same respect as that of Granth

Sahib which was elevated to the status of Guru by the Tenth Guru

himself."

---
It is also not only fairly recent as you say....
 

"When Guru Gobind Singh had to vacate Anandpur in 1705, multitudinous

literature including compositions of the Guru and 52 poets patronised by

him was destroyed. According to tradition, Bhai Mani Singh, the Head

Granthi of Sri Darbar Sahib from 1721 to 1738, collected manuscripts,

compiled the same which came to be known Dasvin Patshahi ka Granth.

Immediately after martyrdom of Bhai Mani Singh in 1737, some Sikhs

had questioned that some writings in Dasam Granth like Charitro

Pakhyan and Hikayats are not in consonance with the teachings of Gurus

and also with the spiritual and devotional compositions of Guru Gobind

Singh. They argued for the separation of these from the rest.

10 This ontroversy continued later on also."

-----
Further, there were some 32 differing versions and it wasnèt known as Dasam Granth until only the turn of the last century.
 

"Besides Bhai Mani Singh, Baba Deep Singh during the mid eighteenth

century and Bhai Sukha Singh, Granthi at Patna Sahib, around the closing

years of that century had made collection of such writings independently.

All these versions differed with each other. Towards the end of nineteenth

century, Singh Sabha Amritsar constituted a Revising (Sodhak)

Committee which found 32 different versions of the Granth and after

examination and rectifications of the same published a report in 1897.

The volume based on the report was published and was entitled, probably

for the first time, as Dasam Granth towards the turn of the last century."

[amardeep]

Satkirin Kaur:

You are mixing up many different Things here.

 It's a fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji passed Guruship on to SGGSJ. He did NOT make the same statement about Dasam Granth. So while it can be revered as containing bani... it is still NOT given the title GURU.

 

The GRANTH itself is not Guru. Its the Words within. The Guru is Gurbani and Gurbani is the Guru. It's not the pages, nor the ink. In the light that Gurbani was given Guruship, and the writings of Guru Gobind Singh is also Gurbani, many of the 18th Century Sikhs (especially the Nihangs) started revering the Dasam Granth as an expression of Guruship also. The logic given is that Gurbani os one - how can some Gurbani be Guru while other parts of Gurbani is'nt Guru? This is the logic.

 

 

And it was Guru Ji himself who made this distinction and told us to consider ONLY SGGSJ as GURU.

The distinction was made due to the different natures of the bani. Not that one is higher than the other.

 

Then how can we disobey by revering Dasam Granth as also Guru???  We can't. That doesn't mean it can't be revered as writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  But it DOES mean unequivocally that it can NEVER be equal to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - which is our Guru.  Therefore FINAL word always comes from SGGSJ only.

 

So tell me how should the Dasam Granth be treated? Our ancestors revered it as Gurbani .

 

The first quote you have from the article talks about the ritualistic practices sorrounding the Guru Granth Sahib and installment on a throne. Then the question Again is: How should the Dasam Granth be treated if one believes it contains Gurbani?

Regarding the second quote yes unfortunately much of the Court poetry is said to have been lost and looted by the mughal and rajput invaders. However, many copies were made and sent out of Punjab during the previous 20 years and many of these writings are still extant.

Bhai Mani Singh did indeed assemble a volume of Dasam Granth but it was a re-Collection. He was not the first one to compile it since there are many pre-1708 and pre -1721 manuscripts - based as far as Kabul and Central India (Aurangabad some 1000 kilometers South of Anandpur).

There are some differences in the Dasam Granth saroops - the reasons for these being that they were made at different times and different Places. The earliest saroops are from the 1680s and obviosly they dont contain the Charitro Pakhyan and all parts of the Chaubis Avatar since these were not compiled yet. The ones from the 1690s has more banis since they were compiled at that time. Many of the pre 1707 dont have the Zafarnama, while other pre-1707 had the Zafarnama and other banis appended later on. However, fact it that despite the variances of bani, ALL of them contain the Charitro Pakhyan and Chaubis avatar. The differences are regarding some of the smaller compositions that only make up some 2-20 pages in most cases.

 

The story that there was a debate at Damdama on whether the Dasam Granth should be split in two is based on Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha who wrote it some 200 years after the supposed incidence. There are no other earlier scholar to mention anything about this. And if you read his text properly, the debate was not whether the Granth should be split due to only some parts being those of the Guru. The debate was whether it shoul be split because some of the parts did'n seem appropriate. The discussion had nothing to do with authorship - only content. The debate was on whether it should be split into two granths, not whether one part should be discarded. But in any case, this story from Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha does'nt seem to have any tradition behind it.

 

Yes it it true that the term Dasam Granth is fairly recent. Before that it was called the Dasam Patshah Ka Granth (which Means the same thing - The scripture of the Tenth Master).

 

 

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

If Guru Gobind Sinhj Ji meant for Sikhs to revere Dasam Granth on the same level (as Guru ) he certainly would have proclaimed both granths to be Guru.  But he only proclaimed SGGSJ as such. And this is not in dispute at all.  That he alkso said to keep it separate is also not in dispute. So, if Guru Ji himself told us to keep it separate, and only proclaimed that SGGSJ is GURU, then how can we take Dasam Granth to also be Guru and equal level to SGGSJ?

Perhaps it would be appropriate to treat it the same as a nitnem gutka?? A Gutka contains bani and we respect it as such, but we don't matha tek to a gutka or place it on a palki... by your thinking we should also matha tek to our nitnem gutkas and refer tot hem as Guru because they also contain gurbani.  It's not individual shabads that make it Guru but the compilation as a whole which was declared by Guru Ji to succeed him as GURU.  Therefore a nitnem Gutka, containing gurbani is treated with respect because it conatins gurbani, but we don't call our nitnem gutkas Guru, we don't place them in a palki, or matha tek to them, or do parkash... and final say on ANY matter should be taken from SGGSJ, not Dasam Granth, especially if they seem to disagree.

and yes I am always the FIRST one to say it's not the physical pages but the wisdom contained within that we revere as Guru.  But that's my point... The wisdom contained in SGGSJ as a whole, that was what Guru Ji proclaimed as succeeding Guru...

[ibrute]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to treat it the same as a nitnem gutka?? A Gutka contains bani and we respect it as such, but we don't matha tek to a gutka or place it on a palki... by your thinking we should also matha tek to our nitnem gutkas and refer tot hem as Guru because they also contain gurbani.  It's not individual shabads that make it Guru but the compilation as a whole which was declared by Guru Ji to succeed him as GURU.  Therefore a nitnem Gutka, containing gurbani is treated with respect because it conatins gurbani, but we don't call our nitnem gutkas Guru, we don't place them in a palki, or matha tek to them, or do parkash... and final say on ANY matter should be taken from SGGSJ, not Dasam Granth, especially if they seem to disagree.

and yes I am always the FIRST one to say it's not the physical pages but the wisdom contained within that we revere as Guru.  But that's my point... The wisdom contained in SGGSJ as a whole, that was what Guru Ji proclaimed as succeeding Guru...

 

We should bow to Nitnem Pothi Sahib in our homes, it is closest thing to Guru sahib in our home. Every Gurbani Verse even written on a paper should be given same respect as Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj. Instead of just blurting out anything comes in our mind kindly contemplate. Take a break.

 

SGGS Ang 982.

ਬਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਬਾਣੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਸਾਰੇ ॥     Baṇī gurū gurū hai baṇī vicẖ baṇī amriṯ sāre. The Word, the Bani is Guru, and Guru is the Bani. Within the Bani, the Ambrosial Nectar is contained.

ਗੁਰੁ ਬਾਣੀ ਕਹੈ ਸੇਵਕੁ ਜਨੁ ਮਾਨੈ ਪਰਤਖਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਿਸਤਾਰੇ ॥੫॥     Gur baṇī kahai sevak jan mānai parṯakẖ gurū nisṯāre. ||5|| If His humble servant believes, and acts according to the Words of the Guru's Bani, then the Guru, in person, emancipates him. ||5||

Edited July 20, 2015 by ibrute

[amardeep]

Many Sikhs do keep their gutke in seperate rooms and matha dekh to them since its Gurbani.

[paapiman]

Paapiman: Do you refer to Dasam Granth as "Guru Dasam Granth"?

Please refer to this very informative article which explains in great detail why (even if Dasam Granth is work of Guru Gobind Singh Ji), it can never be Guru Dasam Granth, nor can it be placed on equal level to Sri GURU Granth Sahib Ji:

http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Kashmir%20Singh%20SRI%20GURU%20GRANTH%20SAHIB%20AND%20DASAM%20Granth%20IN%20Legal%20Literature.pdf

Sri Jaap sahib jee is also refereed to as Gurbani (Guru's bani), not just bani. There should be no issue in referring to Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee, as Guru.

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee = SSGGSJ or Rejection of amrit ceremony?

Choose one

Bhul chuk maaf

[mrsingh]

 

we are khysatri so yes suraj bansi. 

Ok Paji fair enough you consider the Sun God dynasty to be real.

Each Sikh has the choice to believe in that or the ideology of kul nash advocated by Guru Sahib.

But ... are you further aware that Bachittar Natak claims our Guru Sahibaan were all Hindu Kings in previous lives and that these Hindu Kings did a deal on how GurGaddi would be carved up amongst them (like a business deal) in their next incarnations between 1469-1708.

Do you not feel that the AKJ, Missionaries, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale and others forming the majority of the Panth are justified in insisting only those words which are in tandem with Gurmat should be considered authentic Dasam Bani.

Note that all 100% of the Panth are united in respect for authentic Dasam Bani.

The overwhelming majority of the Panth do not believe that the 600 pages of sexually erotic tales in Charitropakhiyan were written by Guru Sahib. Only the minority Sanatan sects of Damdami Taksal, Nirmale, Udasi's, 3HO, Buddha Dal do.

And that was why Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar and the Akali Singh Sabha Lehar which freed our Gurdwara's from Hindu Mahant control threw out Charitropakhiyan that the Hindu Mahants were insistent upon reading daily so that the Hindu Mahants prostitutes could girate to it inside Darbar Sahib.

The juxtaposition of Sri Benti Chaupai Sahib (which i respect) into Charitropakhiyan is fully documented as having being deliberately done by the British and Arya Samaj sponsored Sodhak Committee of 1897 that was finalised by Amitabh Bachchan's ancestor Khemu Bedi.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2015 by mrsingh

[Harjots8963]

 

Ok Paji fair enough you consider the Sun God dynasty to be real.

Each Sikh has the choice to believe in that or the ideology of kul nash advocated by Guru Sahib.

But ... are you further aware that Bachittar Natak claims our Guru Sahibaan were all Hindu Kings in previous lives and that these Hindu Kings did a deal on how GurGaddi would be carved up amongst them (like a business deal) in their next incarnations between 1469-1708.

Do you not feel that the AKJ, Missionaries, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale and others forming the majority of the Panth are justified in insisting only those words which are in tandem with Gurmat should be considered authentic Dasam Bani.

Note that all 100% of the Panth are united in respect for authentic Dasam Bani.

The overwhelming majority of the Panth do not believe that the 600 pages of sexually erotic tales in Charitropakhiyan were written by Guru Sahib. Only the minority Sanatan sects of Damdami Taksal, Nirmale, Udasi's, 3HO, Buddha Dal do.

And that was why Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar and the Akali Singh Sabha Lehar which freed our Gurdwara's from Hindu Mahant control threw out Charitropakhiyan that the Hindu Mahants were insistent upon reading daily so that the Hindu Mahants prostitutes could girate to it inside Darbar Sahib.

The juxtaposition of Sri Benti Chaupai Sahib (which i respect) into Charitropakhiyan is fully documented as having being deliberately done by the British and Arya Samaj sponsored Sodhak Committee of 1897 that was finalised by Amitabh Bachchan's ancestor Khemu Bedi.

 

 

As far as Bachittar Natak Goes.

End of Discussion. Mr Singh Ji.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg0iINCxces

[mrsingh]

End of Discussion.

Harjot Paji i have to say the video is a ridiculously weak attempt by those who stitched it together (not yourself) to dodge the issues discussed by Sarbjit Dhunda, simply by juxtaposing clips of Sant Ji and Giani Pinderpal Singh Ji, neither of whom are referring to or addressing any of the points mentioned in my post (in blue) below. As the topic referred to in context is Sri Hemkhunt Sahib which is now the number one tourist/pligrimage yatra for Sikhs from Punjab to visit after Amritsar (ahead of Sri Anandpur Sahib) when Gurmat clearly tells us that Sikhs should not partake in pilgrimages like the Muslims and Hindu's.

I fully agree with Sarbjit Dhunda that Sri Anandpur Sahib as the birthplace of the Khalsa Panth holds more historic resonance to the Panth than yatra's to snow-filled glaciers around Sri Hemkhunt Sahib. I fully respect that you might prioritise Sri Hemkhunt Sahib and the whole supposed Dusht Daman history and Sikhs who feel that way are entitled to that view.

But for the majority of the Panth the arguable previous life of Guru Sahib (claimed to be as Dusht Daman spent in isolation and prayer around Sri Hemkhunt Sahib) is not relevant (as Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj emphasised physical actions towards Sarbat da Bhala and the eradication of ancestry history and pride) and we should solely focus on Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj's lifetime in which they held GurGaddi and initiated the Khalsa Panth. If certain sects wish to focus their attention on debateable previous lives that again is their perogative. Hindutva forces and the RSS-supporting shopkeepers around Sri Hemkhunt Sahib are certainly more than delighted that Sikhs travel there from Punjab to spend their money and acknowledge the Dusht Daman ascetic story whilst none of the money wasted on these pilgrimages is used to fighting the societal problems the Sikh Panth faces in the form of female infanticide, drugs, biraderi apartheid, poverty or illiteracy.

Last but not least, you are aware that the clip of Sant Ji using the famous bemukh and nastik line referring to Babbar Khalsa Singhs is wholly irrelevant and from the era when Damdami Taksal supported Indira Gandhi and Congress in the 1980 elections. As via the Dharam Yuddh Morcha, Sant Ji turned their back on everything that DDT was doing in opposition to the Panth and focussed solely on Unity - whereby those Sikhs previously labelled bemukhs and nastiks came to comprise the majority of shaheeds of June 1984.

 

 

 

Ok Paji fair enough you consider the Sun God dynasty to be real.

Each Sikh has the choice to believe in that or the ideology of kul nash advocated by Guru Sahib.

But ... are you further aware that Bachittar Natak claims our Guru Sahibaan were all Hindu Kings in previous lives and that these Hindu Kings did a deal on how GurGaddi would be carved up amongst them (like a business deal) in their next incarnations between 1469-1708.

Do you not feel that the AKJ, Missionaries, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale and others forming the majority of the Panth are justified in insisting only those words which are in tandem with Gurmat should be considered authentic Dasam Bani.

Note that all 100% of the Panth are united in respect for authentic Dasam Bani.

The overwhelming majority of the Panth do not believe that the 600 pages of sexually erotic tales in Charitropakhiyan were written by Guru Sahib. Only the minority Sanatan sects of Damdami Taksal, Nirmale, Udasi's, 3HO, Buddha Dal do.

And that was why Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar and the Akali Singh Sabha Lehar which freed our Gurdwara's from Hindu Mahant control threw out Charitropakhiyan that the Hindu Mahants were insistent upon reading daily so that the Hindu Mahants prostitutes could girate to it inside Darbar Sahib.

The juxtaposition of Sri Benti Chaupai Sahib (which i respect) into Charitropakhiyan is fully documented as having being deliberately done by the British and Arya Samaj sponsored Sodhak Committee of 1897 that was finalised by Amitabh Bachchan's ancestor Khemu Bedi.

Edited July 21, 2015 by mrsingh

[Crystal]

 

admin cut but don't try press your anti dasam granth BS on me.

 

Crystal

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

Do you not feel that the AKJ, Missionaries, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale and others forming the majority of the Panth are justified in insisting only those words which are in tandem with Gurmat should be considered authentic Dasam Bani.

Note that all 100% of the Panth are united in respect for authentic Dasam Bani.

The overwhelming majority of the Panth do not believe that the 600 pages of sexually erotic tales in Charitropakhiyan were written by Guru Sahib. Only the minority Sanatan sects of Damdami Taksal, Nirmale, Udasi's, 3HO, Buddha Dal do.

And that was why Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar and the Akali Singh Sabha Lehar which freed our Gurdwara's from Hindu Mahant control threw out Charitropakhiyan that the Hindu Mahants were insistent upon reading daily so that the Hindu Mahants prostitutes could girate to it inside Darbar Sahib.

The juxtaposition of Sri Benti Chaupai Sahib (which i respect) into Charitropakhiyan is fully documented as having being deliberately done by the British and Arya Samaj sponsored Sodhak Committee of 1897 that was finalised by Amitabh Bachchan's ancestor Khemu Bedi.

Sri Jaap sahib jee is also refereed to as Gurbani (Guru's bani), not just bani. There should be no issue in referring to Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee, as Guru.

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee = SSGGSJ or Rejection of amrit ceremony?

Choose one

Bhul chuk maaf

Paapiman, read the above post by msringh and you will find your answer... all Sikhs are supportive of AUTHENTIC bani from Dasam Granth, but majority do not believe that Guru Ji could have authored all of what is contained within it.  Namingly, Chitropakyan - If only a minority believe that all 100% of DG is attributable to Guru Gobind Singh Ji, why should the entire panth be forced to follow beliefs and practices of a minority?

I have always said that I have no doubts that SOME of what is contained in DG is authentic.  So I fail to see why I would ever have to choose between Amrit and considering SGGSJ and DG as equal.  It was Guru Gobind Singh Ji humself who delcared SGGSJ as GURU. He did NOT say the same about DG.... he very well could have said both granths are to be declared as and respected as Guru.  But he didn't.  If both were to be revered on equal par and we are saying it is 'understood' that gurbani - guru... then why would he have even had to openly make the statement of SGGSJ succeeding him as Guru at all? 

 

[Crystal]

 

why should the entire panth be forced to follow beliefs and practices of a minority?


 

interesting point, can be also used to say about the pakhand kirtani jatha and other extreme vegetarians who push their veggie crap on the panth. Majority of Sikhs and Punjabi's eat meat, as akaal takht rehit says its finefine(so there should be no pick and chochoosingsing/debates), why do those nutcases ie akjs shout about we are a vegetarian panth? Idiots. 

This tread is going no where, in circles we go. 

 

Crystal

 

 

 

Satk, its about sharda....maybe you can find some on the websites you use to copy and paste rubbish. 

You don't even know how to read gurmukhi, so how can you get the gist of maharaj by reading the English translations?

Satk & mrsingh

[CdnSikhGirl]

 

 

Satk, its about sharda....maybe you can find some on the websites you use to copy and paste rubbish.

You don't even know how to read gurmukhi, so how can you get the gist of maharaj by reading the English translations?

Satk & mrsingh

 

You think I sit here by myself without any exposure to those who do speak Punjabi? You think I am just blindly accepting translations? Sorry to say that's not true. Not only am I devout in attending the Gurdwara here, which is 99% Punjabi, majority who can read Gurmukhi, but I am also on the executive for said Gurdwara. So it's not like my whole exposure to Sikhi is based on internet.  In fact, majority of my exposure to Sikhi is in real life.  And let me tell you, vast majority of them speak against Chritopakyan / Hindu tales in Dasam Granth, and they vehemently speak against categorically discriminating against women, least of all for natural biological functions. And they support 100% of what they say with Gurbani.  In our Gurdwara majority of kirtan is done by Bibis, women regularly take hukam, lead ardaas.  We don't have a full time granthi per say so sangat does everything.  And you won't find only women in the langar kitchen.  Men also cook and do the dishess... even the students from India who come here to study. Our Gurdwara was the first perhaps in the world, to have an ALL FEMALE executive management committee.  That means every single position from President down was a female.  This has happened twice in the last decade (and the Gurdwara didn't implode).  And each year there is usually at least two of the positions taken by women.  I was elected as Treasurer this year.

Anyway all of my responses were thought out and double checked by Punjabi members here... They can read Gurmukhi fluently, and they still disagree with you... and they still have the same views on Dasam Granth.  Which is that only some of it can be FULLY attributable to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. and that much of it seems to be retelling of Hindu stories, possibly inserted to subtly drive Sikhs back to Brahministical mindset.  Negative view of women is part of that and has been insidious... and also well documented - yes on the net - I won't bother posting links because you know it's true. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[Crystal]

You should put your bias towards men aside...read the chritars and understand the message of the stories. You cannot understand the messages because you are hung up onon the sexualness & feminism. You say real life...the stories are really life, its not made up fables, real life lessons!.

 

I don't think what you post is true, in fact your posts remind me of harjas kaur'skaur's...BS

Edited July 21, 2015 by Crystal