Why Does Volumes Of SGGS Does Not Need Parkash ?

[Guest]

I have this question on my mind for a while now,

I think Sikhs who makes rehat maryada (sgpc etc) in general are confused on concept of guru at the first place? is it jot shabad roopi ever flowing resosance or guru is only bound to mere certain bindings, certain format of caligarphy(laridvar/pad ched), ink?

My question and concern is - just because sri guru granth sahib (pandhar of wisdom) written in set of volumes , does that make those volumes any less valuable compare to sri guru granth sahib saroop in one binding? if no then why this hypocrisy of doing parkash of sri guru granth sahib saroop and not doing parkash of sri guru granth sahib in form of volumes (translations, explanation, historical spiritual meaning provided)?

I beleive some sort of protocol or procedure maryada need to be in place regarding sri guru granth sahib ji in volumes?

I saw similiar type of maryada in nanaksar where they also do parkash of sri guru granth sahib ji (faridkoti teeka).

what's sangat thoughts on it ?

[drawrof]

gurfateh ji, vishnu ji maharaaj!

as per our discussion (and I'm doing this to stir a conversation up).

One thing I have heard is that gurbani is 'nirol' and that when we matha teyk, we are matha teyking to the purity. Based on this logic, any interpretation would not be deemed pure as it is bound to linguistics, certain ideological influences, false/mythological stories, etc etc.....

The question then arises, what if a senchi has a printing mistake, or even more basic....when we bow, are we bowing down to the index as well as the publishers etc?

This is where I take the stance that guru granth sahib ji, being the atmic jot of guru nanak, plays the role of a sovereign of truth. The guru's institutionalized a 'court' where truth, humility, justice and love were the pillars. The Guru's theirselves were kings and established as well as demonstrated the aforementioned qualities. If we take that approach, the guru is the manifestation as well as the figurehead for truth.

Generally, a sovereign is only one. What one has to understand is what element of guru is gurbani?

This is interesting stuff

[unbreakable]

..

[Guest]

good post drawrof make sense actually.

However, i was looking at it from a adhyatmic view- like for example does volumes contains full sggs ji is it full complete from ikongkar to das bis tak? if it does regardless of authors, scholars trying to explain it via sakhi, methodology, ideology such volumes can be still given as Guru status because of Gurbani nirolata, atalta(firmness) written on book, volumes.

[fatehsingh]

The Guru Granths firstly contain Gurbani (Hukam) of the Gurus. Secondly is written in Gurmukhi which is also (Blessing) of the Gurus. So it goes without saying that they are Gur-Vastus and in the same way we (Namdharis atleast) stand with hands folded when Kara Parshad is brought into congregation so is the case with Sri Granth Sahibs. They are sacred/heavenly objects directly connected with the Gurus. Namdharis don't require Parkash for the sake of mathateking, so whether or not there's a 'need' for doing Parkash for mathateking I cannot comment, it's up to individual thinking. But my 2 cents on this issue is adding things like translations and unverifiable 'personal' messages as done in certain publishings of 'Amrit Kirtan' for example leaves bad taste in the mouths of people with a different opinion than the limited-brain-power author and pollutes the composition of Guru's pure words.

[Singh47]

Personally I think that only Guru Granth Sahib Jee can be considered the Satguru that Guru Gobind Singh Jee gave Gurgadhi to. If we now will start to consider a couple of volumes of Guru Granth Sahib Jee’s steeks as Guru, then tomorrow someone will go even further and start to give Guru status to a Guru Granth Sahib written in English, Spanish or some other language. And they might start to justify it by saying that since it is the message of Guru Granth Sahib jee that is important it does not matter if it is written in the Gurmukhi script or the English or Chinese script. For example, someday we might have a Guru Granth Sahib Jee similar to the King James version of the bible which is not even written in the original scripts of the Bible.

I think that if we really have respect or Shardha for Guru Granth Sahib jee then we should only accept Guru Granth Sahib Jee as given to us by Dasam Patsha instead of giving Guru Status to human deviations and innovations that began from the 20th century onwards.

[unbreakable]

..

[Xylitol]

I asked Giani Takhur Singh ji. He said that steeks that are separate but all in the same room = Full Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If some of the steeks are in diff rooms then no, normal steeks. Steeks themselves do deserve quite a bit of respect (i think more than gutkas imo).

[stopsingh]

I asked Giani Takhur Singh ji. He said that steeks that are separate but all in the same room = Full Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If some of the steeks are in diff rooms then no, normal steeks. Steeks themselves do deserve quite a bit of respect (i think more than gutkas imo).

That similar to what a giani who had studied at the DDT told me.

[Singh47]

Giving Steeks respect is one thing just like we give respect to a Gutka, but I dont know about giving it SatGuru Status. Who are we to give anyone or anything SatGuru Status?