Bijla Singh

Chatanga ji, many of the pauris in Vaar 1 explain many of the religions, paths, sects etc and their beliefs and philosophies. Purpose of this is to explain why their paths were false and incomplete. Bhai Sahib talks about prevalent condition of religions and society during the time when Guru Sahib pargat on earth. It does not mean Bhai Sahib believed or advocated all those paths. He talks about Vedant, Mimansa, Vedas, Shankhya, Buddhism, Islam etc but he doesn't believe in any of them. He is explaining all different paths that existed and what they believed in. Bhai Veer Singh has added some notes to this particular pauri which says: ਇਥੇ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ ਪ੍ਰਚਲਿਤ ਮਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਰਨਣ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ ਤੇ ਮਤਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੰਨੇ ਹਾਲ ਦਸ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ । ਆਪਣਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਕਿਤੇ ਹੋਰਥੇ ਦੱਸਣਗੇ । He further adds: ਏਹ ਇਤਰ ਮਤਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਮਨਾਉਤਾਂ ਹਨ । Similarly, Vaar 10 talks about popular stories attributed to bhagats. This Vaar is basically a summary of Bhagat Maal by Nabha Daas. Bhai Sahib doesn't endorse these stories. Once again, please don't take everything literally. Understand the context first. Bhai Sahib could not write anything that is not supported by Gurbani. We can start a separate topic to discuss Vaars which in my opinion is a vast treasure of Gurmat way of life. Jai tegang ji, I agree that Satguru doesn't enter the womb but Guru Gobind Singh Ji was not Satguru until He became Jot Nanak. My approach of study is not to reject our traditions but to find logics behind them. I study to justify our beliefs. If something doesn't sound right then we must find answers. I am not rejecting Bachittar Natak but if Raam was not born in current Ayodheya then there must be a correct answer somewhere else and we must try to find out if there is any context behind Guru Sahib's writings. Sardar Kapoor Singh's approach to chrittar of Anandpur is different (and correct) than those who took it literally. I am not correct all the time and neither is anybody else. I find your argument similar to what Harnam Singh Dhumma once said after discussing a topic with me for four hours. When he had no answers he started comparing me with Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji though Sant Ji had practiced what I was talking about but his personal ego refused to accept. We should not compare ourselves with each other but find answers by keeping Gurbani as the base. We should take information provided by previous scholars and sampardas and move forward to find out more. If on the way we find something that better explains Gurmat it doesn't mean previous scholars were inferior or they had less avastha. They are still respected the same way. They are still our mentor and we should never dismiss them. Our purpose should be to learn not to follow others blindly otherwise if everything sampardas have said is true and final then where does that leave the room for more research and study of Gurmat? We should be progressive and the works of sampardas and scholars should be used to help us move in the right direction. Dr Pannu says that it used to be a tradition of the religious saints that whenever they wrote their own biography they wrote a fiction story about their past life. A Buddhist once wrote a granth hundreds years ago on his own life and wrote a fiction story about his past life. Purpose of this was to relay the message that creation is continuous and they are part of it. This way the followers would not glorify them as God which is why I think Guru Sahib wrote "Jo Hum Ko Parmeshar Uchrehn..". Unfortunately, when I went to discuss it further with him he was not there and had gone to stay at his student's house. So I missed the opportunity. Perhaps Guru Sahib will do kirpa and bless me with a better and clearer explanation of the story. Guru Rakha

It could. It could also be that Akal Purakh picked the soul of Guru Sahib to enter the womb of Mata Gujri Ji. In either case, it does not prove that Guru Sahib was in a physical body as a Hindu saint or physically on a mountain. Even if we believe that it was the physical body and previous birth of Guru Sahib then what importance does that hold to us? Guru Angad Dev Ji was devi worshipper and Guru Amardas Ji used to go to pilgrimage prior to becoming a Sikh but we have not built any Gurdwara at those places or given any importance to their previous lives. Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not become our Guru until Jot Nanak was passed on to him. It also makes no sense why Guru Sahib rejected the very path he followed in previous life to reach Waheguru. Gurbani is roop of Waheguru. Hence it has existed since aad. It was revealed by the Gurus but it did exist before. Guru Sahib has existed since aad but just because He manifested in 1469 does not mean he didn't exist prior to that. Gurbani is clear that the way to reach Waheguru has always been the same through Naam. If God doesn't change then why does the way to reach him change? Please study Gurmat from the viewpoint of Gurbani not of Hinduism, Vedant or Sanatanism. Your statement tells me that you have not studied Gurbani so please spend some time. It will be beneficial. Waheguru sent many to propagate the true path but all failed. Dasam Granth is clear on that. Bhai Gurdas Ji also says that old ways had fogged the truth and none could realize it. People invented their own ways and none could guide the humanity. This is why at the end, Waheguru manifested himself as a Guru and revealed his own path. Again, prove from Gurbani that all other ways that are rejected in Gurmat were valid prior to 1469 or were the true ways to reach Waheguru. People followed different ways but it doesn't mean those ways were valid. Give me the date of the last day of Dwapar and first day of kalyug. What year was it? Why did people keep following ways of dwapar in kalyug? When satyug starts will Gurmat become invalid? What would be the way to get muktee then? Divine truth does not change over time. Naam created the creation and sustains all. Naam is the only way to be saved and has been since aad. No other way is valid. Truth is truth and remains so regardless of time. It does not change. Truth is Akal. Assume Kalyug ends next Wednesday, does it mean Gurbani will be outdated Thursday and a new way has to be revealed? No. Was there truly a Satyug when Prehlaad was tortured by his father? How was it a Satyug when Harnakash did not even follow a true way of life? Is there a kalyug when gurmukhs sit in sangat and sing praises of Akal? Gurbani does not advocate four yugs in literal sense. Age of Satyug, Treta, Dwapar and Kalyug is 1728000, 1596000, 864000 and 472000 human years respectively. Can you prove from Gurbani that this theory is accepted in Gurmat? Yug is not dependent on time but on behavior of people. When all become saints and true bhagats it will be satyug and when all follow maya it is kalyug. Hence yug alludes to avastha and doings of humanity. Yug is dependent on how people behave and changes based on their avastha not the other way around (people don't change behavior according to yug). Correct. In literal sense there is no fire or ice but in metaphoric sense there is suffering and pain (fire) or peace and calmness (ice). Please present that pauri and we can discuss it. Sin does not decrease one's life otherwise we would see the likes of Badal not living much longer than many true Sikhs. Okay, provide evidence that Pandu went to Hemkunt. He was not a yogi who could hold his breath for many years. His sons were born in the jungle. Had he been in mountains his sons could not have survived there. This is Gurmat viewpoint that one does not need to become an ascetic. Prior to advent of Guru Sahib, yogis, ascetics etc did look for such places. Yogis and siddhas went to high mountaineous areas. Which guru? Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji? In that case he was not an ascetic but a householder. He lived according to Gurmat. Which Ayodheya and which Raam? I have already stated that current Ayodheya has nothing to do with Raam Chandar. It remained a Buddhist holy city until 800 A.D. Is there any evidence to prove that caste system or Hinduism existed thousands of years ago? Where are species related to hanuman? What about other descendents of Raam and Bharat? Keep in mind, archeological evidence proves that cities related to Krishan are older than Ayodheya. If Raam really came before Krishan then at least his city would've been older too. There are many topics in one thread. Try focusing on one at a time. GPS ji, I agree with your points but dispute the theory of Raam ever being born in Ayodheya. Only Guru Sahib knows all. Guru Rakha

This is not correct. Gurbani is not limited to kalyug only and kalyug is not as same as what hindus believe it to be. Gurbani is independent of time and its principles apply to all four yugs. Gurbani talks about in many places that only Naam is the savior in all four yugs (meaning forever). There is not a single line in Gurbani which states that the revealed message is only valid in kalyug and will become outdated once the new yug starts (which is an absurd theory). This is a separate topic and can be discussed in details but Gurbani is jug jug attal. There is no fire in literal sense in the womb. It is a metaphor for suffering and pain. Gurbani calls maya trishna a fire too but again it is not to be taken literally. Guru Sahib on the other hand has described his experience as peaceful and relaxing rather than suffering. Scientifically, people are living longer now than they did a century ago. Human age is getting longer now so Hindu theory of people living 100,000 years is not valid. There is no mention of Guru Sahib doing bhagtee in physical form in the mountains. While in the womb he was absorbed in deep meditation and this, I think, is when the conversation took place. But to say that he was physically alive in previous birth alludes to him dying and taking birth again. Not in the case of Pandu. Watch Mahabharta and you will see that he went to jungles with his wives and when he wanted to have sexual union he died at the instance of touching his wife. He did not go to Hemkunt. My take in that seven peaks, mountains, snow, waterfalls etc are ideal places for a person to absorb his mind in Naam. All of this is metaphor for the womb where Guru Sahib enjoyed the same peace, calmness and was absorbed in naam. Each does not represent a certain part of the womb. It is the entire scene. My question is: If Guru Sahib was really from Raam’s descendents then which one as Dasam Granth says that there are many avtaars of Raam. I don’t think it should be taken literally. Those who have studied Dasam Granth should post. Guru Rakha

You are correct, I did read his work and agree with him on this subject. The link to the article is here: http://srec.gurmat.info/srecarticles/sridasamgranthsahib/hemkunt.html If you disagree with him and can provide a rebuttal I would greatly appericiate it and will read it with an open mind. There are simply too many questions that arise if taken this story literally. I tried to discuss subject of Guru's lineage to Raam with Gurcharanjit Singh Lamba but his exact answer was "pata nahin". I like viewpoint of Dr. Pannu better on this subject. Different scholars give different interpretations. Guru's work is agadh bodh. "gurmukhsodhi" ji, bhagats like Kabir, Ravidas, Farid, Naamdev etc were influenced by Gurmat. They first did Krishan bhagtee then Raam bhagtee and finally came into Gurmat. Their own bani is the clear proof of it. Please do a search on it since this topic has been discussed before. Guru Rakha

There is no way to prove that Raam was born in current city of Ayodheya. There are different versions of his birth. The reason I cannot write an article on this is because I am currently very busy and over occupied with current study of Gurmat. Also, if I have to write something, I rather write on Gurmat for the benefit of the Sikh youth. It won’t be for couple of years until I can write articles again. Only Guru Sahib knows best. I am not stating that Raam never existed. He was a king and back in old days kings were literally revered and considered God’s incarnation. Anyone who did something exceptional became an avtar. Now we have Hindus worshipping Amitabh Bachan and some advocating worshipping Sachin Tendulkar. As Gurbani clearly says: ਜੁਗਹ ਜੁਗਹ ਕੇ ਰਾਜੇ ਕੀਏ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਕਰਿ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ॥ Raam, Krishna etc were kings and later on they were raised to the level of incarnates and many mythical stories were attributed to them. Just look at Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s janamsakhis. You will many myths in these. Guru Sahib met a pandit named Kalyug whose descendents are still managing the dharamsaal but the common folklore is that Kalyug was the demon whose tuft touched the sky and wished to scare Guru Sahib. Stories develop and myths are added and this is how kings become legends. This is why Guru Sahib says many many (kings) have been like Raam and Krishan. Guru Sahib doesn’t say Raam of Ayodheya is the only one. It could be a different city Ayodheya that existed back then but current city Ayodheya has no relation to Raam and Raam Setu is not the islands that stand between India and Sri Lanka. Even Hindu scholars have proved this. Guru Sahib did not consider Raam to be of any importance. Gurbani says: ਅੰਧੁਲੈ ਦਹਸਿਰਿ ਮੂੰਡੁ ਕਟਾਇਆ ਰਾਵਣੁ ਮਾਰਿ ਕਿਆ ਵਡਾ ਭਇਆ ॥1॥ If we look at the lives of Raam and Krishan we find that they stayed within the framework of caste system and not only abided by it but also enforced its injunctions. Raam killed Shambhook (a low caste for meditating) and Krishan urged Arjun to raise arms against his brothers in the battle field because it was his caste duty. They were not even reformers let alone revolutionaries. There is not a single word that they have said or written that exists today. Raam bhagtee came much later (in 15th century) and 400 years after he was added in the line of avtaars of Vishnu. Prior to that only Krishan bhagtee was popular which turned many men into khusray and many women into prostitutes. Devdasi system is the result of that. So personally I don’t see medieval bhagtee or bhagtee movement anywhere near close to Gurmat prema bhagtee. I hope I have clarified that I am not disputing that Raam never existed but Raam never existed in current city called Ayodheya. Let me make one thing very clear. I have no doubt that Bachittar Natak is work of Guru Gobind Singh Ji but in this rachna there are many metaphors which if taken literally will produce ambiguous results and misguide gullible Sikhs. Guru Sahib never meditated on “Sapat Sring” or Hemkunt Mountain. King Pandu never even went there let alone doing bhagtee there. Many avtaars of Raam exist then to whom Guru Sahib’s lineage belong? Title of this rachna “Bachittar” or Vichittar and “Natak” (a play) should tell us something. Guru Sahib writing Raam Avtaar does not confirm anything about the life of Raam Chandar. Purpose of it is different. Only Guru Sahib knows best. Guru Rakha

Since Gurbani and its every word is revealed one cannot but conclude that every teaching of Gurmat is new and not an "old wine in a new bottle". Granted same words are used which appear in other scriptures but they are redefined and the concepts are vastly different. You can pick any one concept and we can discuss it in details. Gurmat is not only new but unique in every way. Vedas are rejected in Gurbani and therefore accepting anything they teach is simply contradictory. Whether we talk about karma, heaven hell, maya, soul, transmigration etc Guru Sahib had different interpretation. A true Sikh believes Gurmat is revealed. If Guru Sahib copied some philosophy from other religions then the implication is that Gurmat is not entirely revealed but partially. This reduces the level of Guru Sahib from revolutionary to reformist. Just think about one point; Gurbani redefines true Muslim, Pandit, brahmin, Yogi, Udasi etc but not a single line that tells us who a true Hindu is. Ponder upon it. Word "Hindu" is neither a religious term not does it have anything to do with various sects that existed in 16th century. Current Hinduism is simply s mixture of many contradictory teachings and philosophies. There are various versions of Ramayan and each one gives us different character of Raam. One says he was born in Varanasi, another says he was born in Ayodheya. Ayodheya was founded by Buddhists and remained a Buddhist holy city until 800 AD when Hindus started settling there. Raam was not added to the line of avtaars of Vishnu until 11th century and his bhagtee did not become popular until Ramanand Vaishnav. In the light of these facts accepting Raam as an avtaar is fallacious. Guru Sahib has used many metaphors in Bachittar Natak. In fact the very name of this literature should make us think why it was called Bachittar and Natak. Taking everything literally will misguide us and we end up building a Gurdwara in some mountain. I can reply to that article but it is a waste of time. Such articles appear every day but they can only influence those who don't know anything about Gurmat. Guru Har Rai Ji is the 7th Guru. Guru Har Rai Ji never forgave his son Ram Rai.

Majority of Sikhs believe that Guru Sahib completed Guru Granth Sahib at Damdama Sahib (takhat), sabo ki talvandi. The same saroop is said to have given gurugaddi and then brought back by Singhs. This Bir was lost during great holocaust of 1762. Correct version is that Guru Sahib completed the Aad Bir at Damdama of Anandpur Sahib. At least two saroops exist that were finalized prior to Guru Sahib leaving Anandpur Sahib. Dr. Trilochan Singh mentions about them in his book. Several copies were made of which four were written by Baba Deep Singh Ji. All four are said to exist even today. Daas had the privilege to have darshan of one such saroop at Damdama Sahib takhat and took some pictures. I was not allowed to closely examine it not that I am an expert but I had very limited time as I wanted to see Dasam Granth gutka of Baba Deep Singh also. Question that came to my mind was that since all four saroops were sent to each takhat how could it end up at Damdama Sahib since it only became takhat in 1967? My suspicion is that this saroop is not written by Baba Ji and some of its features (which I won’t mention) were different from the one at Hazoor Sahib. One bir that was given gurugaddi is said to exist in private custody and has stains of kesar on it which were sprinkled by Guru Sahib but I have no proof to prove it so I am really skeptical on this. Baba Hari singh can probably provide more info since he is the one to mention it to me. What I know is one important bir (which I think was given gurugaddi) was lost for sure in 1762. If the one given gurugaddi exists then many questions need to be answered such as how did it survive and how it traveled from the hands of the Singhs like Baba Deep Singh and Baba Banda Singh and ended up in private custody. I believe the one given gurugaddi always stayed with Khalsa Panth and was lost during the great holocaust. More research needs to be done on this subject. Many old saroops that bear the signature of Guru Sahibaans exist today. A committee should be set up to look into this matter and with honest research our major controversies can be resolved. Guru Rakha

I know what nirgun and sargun means. Problem is, we spend less time in understanding Gurmat from Gurbani and more in looking at Gurmat from spectacles of Vedant.

Suicide is a sin. One who ends their life loses a great opportunity to achieve union with Waheguru. All the karmas that they were destined to live through will have to be lived in the next life. Human birth is a rare opportunity and must be taken advantage of by naam abhiyaas and bani recitation to burn off good/bad karma and get closer to Waheguru. Suicide only ends the body not sufferings or happiness. The soul will get another body (if Waheguru wills) and the person will have to face the same karma as well as new bad karma of suicide. Only Shabad is the way to get freedom from karma. Every human being has sufferings of some sort in their lives and Sikhs are instructed to accept it as Hukam (Divine Reason). More naam abhiyaas in drastic situations help significantly by shortening and duration of suffering and decreasing its affects. Guru Sahib knows best.

It would be better to ask fewer questions and have him do detailed veechar. More questions give him less time. Next time ask him to clarify some of his statements which I found confusing. Way back Kulbir Singh started a topic on one of his answers, which stated that a person after becoming mukat loses his vajood and merges with Waheguru. Then your next question was how could the mukat people give darshan to some bhagats. His response was that it is Waheguru who takes the form and gives darshan. This, if true, means that the person after salvation has no existence and even the atma has no vajood and is gone permanently. In the current recordings, he also made some statements related to this topic which I found contradicting. First he said that atma never dies but also says it has no vajood. If merger takes place and first paragraph is true then the atma is gone whether we call it death or non-existent. If atma never dies then it can have some vajood and still be united with Waheguru. If no vajood is left of atma then it means that once atma merges it does not exist separately. Just like a drop in the ocean doesn’t remain a drop anymore. The drop is gone which means soul is gone forever. In another part he stated that those who become mukat are simply mukat forever. Your next question was that can they come back to which he stated that if Waheguru wills them to come back then they will for the purpose of helping others to get salvation. This now contradicts his answer in first two paragraphs. If Waheguru can send the mukat souls back then it means they remain united yet separate from Waheguru. They have some vajood to exist. A mukat soul can have some non-mayavic vajood. So next time ask him to clarify his statements and request him to clarify what he means and which statements are true. I don’t think all statements can be true. Either mukat atma has vajood or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then it cannot come back. If it can come back then it has some vajood and these same mukat souls can come give darshan. Waheguru doesn’t need to play the trick on bhagats in this world this way. Also, request him to reference Gurbani.

Buy Giani Ditt Singh Rachnavali published by Bhasha Vibhag. It has 8 books of Giani Ditt Singh. Go to libraries. They have many of the old books you would want. This is how I got some of the very old books and made copies. You have to know someone inside to get this treasure. Also try small book shops in Mayee Sewa Bazar in Amritsar. I found Durga Parbodh lying in trash in one of the small book shops. It was in terrible condition so I left it there. I got it from somewhere else. I have more books of Giani Ditt Singh than published by Bhasha Vibhag but they are not for sale.

Kachera is not a magic mantra that fights lust. It a symbol of chastity and serves as a reminder to be firm in pure conduct and not engage in adultery. It represents saintliness of the Khalsa while being a warrior dress. Naam is the way to control mind and avoid lustful thoughts. External symbols serve the purpose of reminders while having a practical use (kipan, kara, comb). Gurbani tells us how to control five thieves. Sant Harnam Singh Ji said that whenever any thief starts bothering, start reciting bani and keep your focus on it. If the thief persists and you find yourself failing then stop reading bani and immediately do an Ardas to Satguru to save you and then continue reciting bani. This would help you greatly. You can also engage yourself in some social activity like playing sport or take a walk outside or work out. Ultimately, naam is the only way to control lust permanently.

Short rebuttal to the front page. While Sikhi(sm), Gurmat or Nirmal Panth has a clear definition given by the Gurus in Gurbani and by Bhai Gurdas in his Vaars there is no single definition of Vaishnavism. It is a group of different cults and creeds with contradictory teachings. Also, Vaishnavism is different from the radical bhagati movement. Gurmat teaches chanting Naam to express love for God while Vaishnavs do it as a form of ritual to gain religious merit rather than as an expression of any love or devotion. Further, Vaishnavism teaches to read Vedas and Shahstras, taking baths in holy rivers and performing other hindu rituals. Gurmat rejects such practices. Words like Hari, Krishan, Kaishav, Gobind etc refer to the same one God who is Nirvair, Nirbhau and ajooni. Hence these names do not refer to any incarnate of God or any human form such as Krishna, son of Devaki. Guru Nanak Sahib himself cut off his path from Vedic roots by rejecting the ceremony of sacred thread. He preferred to eat at the house of Lalo instead of joining the grand feast of Sajjan. He rejected caste system which is the very root of Vedic system. Vaishnavism does not initiate Shudras and women. Both Ramanuja and Shankaradeva (a very liberal saint), did not initiate women to their cult. Ramanand made a change to this trend and started initiating women and low caste people in his group. Even then caste system was practiced and only Brahmins were allowed to cook the food and Shudras were not allowed to even have a glance at it for the sake of keeping the food pure. As stated above these names are redefined in Gurbani and do not refer to any human form. The idea of God taking human form was adopted by Vaishnavas under Buddhist influence. Over the time number of Vishnu incarnations increased and by 8th century Buddha was also included in the same list. This feature of Vaishnavism helped Brahmins to absorb other religions in the Hindu fold by declaring their prophets as the manifestations of Vishnu. So the statement on the front page of the website that their attempt is not to bring Sikhi in Hindu fold is false as it was Vaishnavism that has done the work of engulfing Buddhism, Jainism and various other creeds. No Sikh has rejected any name of God in Gurbani otherwise such names would've been taken out of Gurbani. In fact, Sikhs believe that God has all the names yet has none of His own. Names attributed to Him are accepted as Kirtam Naams. Guru Gobind Singh Ji has written many Karam Naams in Jaap Sahib but "Satnaam" or gurmantar is the true and highest of Naam. In Gurmat, Guru and God are synonymous and are the same. For God, Guru is His channel of communication to the humanity. Gurbani is full of verses that clearly speak of the need of having a guru from whom to obtain naam meditating upon which enables one to merge back with God. Word Waheguru is mentioned in Gurbani, Vaars and Rehatnamas. Wherever words like "Satnaam" "Har Har" "Gur Gur" or "Vaho Vaho" appear, they all refer to gurmantar. No need to do that since He is all pervading and permeates in every heart. Some features of Vaishnavism that are rejected in Gurmat. 1. Idol worship 2. Reading Hindu scriptures. 3. Incarnation of God in form of human and animals. 4. No moral responsibility, no social life duties 5. Asceticism, celibacy, mo marriage and complete withdrawal of life from the world 6. Except some few sects initiation of shudras and women is not allowed. In Bhagavad Bhasya, Ramanuja writes, "By putting trust in me, even women, the Vaisyas or the Shudras, though sin-born, do yet go to the supreme state." 7. Belief in caste system. Sudras and untouchables if and when admitted have to maintain and worship in separate temples. 8. Meditation is a mere muttering repetition of words. It involves no love, devotion or carrying out moral deeds 9. Initiates wander about in cities and go to homes of householders to beg their food. Gurbani condemns such hypocrisy. 10. One who has attained highest spiritual state has no moral duty or responsibility towards humanity. He lives life of no activity. On the other hand, Gursikhs are required to help others on the path of spirituality while performing their social and householder duties. 11. Only Brahmins have the right to cook food. Food cooked by lower caste is not accepted or eaten. 12. World in an illusion while for the Gurus presence of God in His creation makes this world real. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

This question has been addressed many times on this forum. I am sure if you do search you will find many topics on it. Bhagats whose bani is enshrined in Guru Granth Sahib were Sikhs of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji and some bhagats lived during the time Guru Amardas Ji was on guruship. Gurbani answers how Janak, Ganika etc obtained mukti. Gurbani doesn’t limit number of hells to 18 but I believe they do exist. My point was that Sikhs are not concerned about them. Whosoever follows Gurbani will never go to heaven or hell. Human birth is part of 84 joonis. Gurbani calls it a rare opportunity not hell. Sakhis told by Sants are written in Sooraj Parkash, Mahima Parkash etc. Sampardas are not always correct and the sakhi you posted is ridiculous because Gurbani states that only Naam is the savior and no one will be recognized with their religion in court of God. Only deeds count.

No one can become guru wala without taking Amrit from Panj. Without True Guru no one can attain anything. Gurbani is clear on this and this is the Gurmat way of life. Gursikhs are not concerned with heaven or hell. Gursikh life is to carry out the Will of Waheguru and follow Hukam of the Guru. Gursikhs don’t live pure way of life just for the sake of heaven. The sakhi that I have read and the way it is mentioned by sampardas is that Guru Sahib instructed Sikhs to keep hair so that in case they fall in hell, Guru sahib will grab their top knots and pull them out. Again, this is not a proof that can be accepted for your argument and sakhi is ridiculous. This is simply delusional thinking. Definition of Khalsa is very clear in Gurmat and Guru Sahib has given his own image, power and authority to Amritdhari Khalsa. Other religions don’t have the same concept. Guru Sahib started a distinct path and his aim was to unite the humanity under the same way of life. His entire life, mission and writings prove that he did not approve any other religion or way of life. Gurmat is love and does not believe in forcing others to leave their religion but this does not prove that Bhai Nand Lal Ji was not a Sikh. In fact, he was married to a Sikh woman who was a great influence on him. His own work and writings are ample proof that he was a Sikh. I do not know why you are judging him to be of other religion. Just like Bhai Gurdas Ji shed doubts about 6th Guru, Bhai Nand Lal Ji shed doubts about 10th Guru. Both played the same role. So the sakhi actually states that his avastha was as same as Sant Ji? Bhatt Vahis state that he took pahul and became a Sikh. What evidence do you have that he did not take Amrit and was a different religion? Again, his own work proves to whom he dedicated his life. Sakhis are not above Gurbani.

Bhai Gurdas Ji, newphew of Guru Amar Das Ji, was given charan amrit, gurmantar and other rehats to be practiced every day. He mentions it himself in his Vaars. Second Bhai Gurdas Singh was contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Bhai Nand Lal Ji was given charan amrit as well as is clear from Bhatt Vahis. Charan amrit was changed to Khandi Ki Pahul. Both served the same purpose i.e. going through transformation of life socially, morally, ethically and spiritually. It meant receiving naam gurmantar from the guru and living a disciplined life based on ideals set forth by the Gurus. Since Bhai Nand Lal Ji had taken charan pahul there was no need for him to do it again. Some historical texts mention him taking khandi ki pahul and his name became Bhai Nand Singh but his previous name stuck. Same happened with Bhai Kanhaeya Ji, Bhai Ram Kuar Ji (Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh), Mata Gujri Ji etc. Rehatnama and Tankhahnama by Bhai Sahib make it clear what the injunctions are. In either case he was guru wala Sikh. Bhai Kanhaeya Ji took pahul from Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and did sangat of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. There is no evidence to suggest that a Sikh who had taken pahul from one guru was required to take it again from the next guru. Again, he had received pahul and thus was guru wala. Dr. Trilochan Singh states that Sikhs who had taken charan pahul were not required to take Amrit again but it does not prove they were exempt. They were considered part of Khalsa. Sikhs these day are simply confusing themselves and undermining the importance of Amrit. Nirmalas, Udasis, Nihungs, Akalis etc simply meant one thing in early 18th century: Sikh or Nanakpanthi. Their roles were different but they were part of the same Khalsa brotherhood. No exceptions or exemptions. One cannot be a Sikh without becoming guru wala. Whether a Sikh took charan pahul prior to 1699 or khanday ki pahul after 1699 did not matter as both went through the same process. However, after 1699 charan pahul was discarded all together and only five beloved ones performed Amrit ceremony. If you have any shred of evidence that any Sikh was exempt from taking Amrit and becoming guru wala or wearing any of the kakkars, please bring it forward.

Given that you have already asked them your purpose of starting this topic is simply waste of time, isn't it? Tell me, why aren't Indians and Pakistanis living in USA, Canada, UK and other countries going back to fight for Kashmir? If a young child or anyone who was born around 84 started talking about Khalistan in Gurdwara or in public would you require him to go back and fight rather than educating the public and raising awareness? I see that you are still here spending much time on this forum rather than going back to Punjab to do anything constructive. No point in writing long posts here.

Common sense would be to ask them directly unless you are afaird. Asking forum members who don't even know most of them is simply ridiculous. Your statement is irrational whether we look at past 300 years of Sikh history or any independence movement world wide and I am sure it has been refuted many times on this very forum but as the saying goes "kuttay di pooch kadi siddhi nahin hundi".

Such distortion of history these days.

Follow your own advice first and stick to the topic. Answer the question first. Don’t go off topic. Provide proofs that I am advocating akhand paaths or it has anything to do with this topic. Reading baani is a pious act and Gurbani supports it. Sikhs read 5 banis in the morning. If this is not manmat then reading entire Guru Granth Sahib is also not manmat. Many panktis like “Gurbani Gavoh Bhai...” and “Aeyo Sunan Paran Ko Bani..”advocate reading bani but not a single verse suggests taking one line out of context and twisting its meaning like you did. My objection is not towards the pankti but towards you misinterpreting it. You are contradicting yourself line after line. If so much is received through Shabad (one word) then why worship an idol which serves no purpose? Your own statement rejects your own manmat. Bhagat Kabir Ji makes it clear that stone is carved out and fashioned into an idol but it still remains a stone, a lifeless object. Who are my preachers? Do I have a group of paathis? What proofs do you have to justify your accusations? You are the one jumping from one Shabad to another without discussing it or proving your point. Now are you diverting from topic. I guess your mind did not mature with your age. Shabad you posted was not even remotely related to idol worship. When proven wrong you diverted the topic and started posting your mumbo jumbo. Hating and worshipping are two different things. Even a child knows the difference. Sikhs follow rehat of Guru Sahib which rejects idol worship. Neither did Guru Sahib worship idols nor did they instruct us to do so. My Guru is Guru Granth Sahib and that is the only Guru in the world. If your guru is someone else then he is wrong. Manukha jooni is the only way to get liberation and meditate upon Naam. This is why it is superior. Here is just one couplet. ਅਵਰ ਜੋਨਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਪਨਿਹਾਰੀ ॥ ਇਸੁ ਧਰਤੀ ਮਹਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਸਿਕਦਾਰੀ ॥ Why did Guru Sahib give us the Granth if we should read only one Shabad? Why are you suggesting Sikhs to not read Bani? You have not provided a single proof from bani that idols or stones should be worshiped. I think the original poster has received his answer and it is not worth wasting my time on you.

Balbir Singh, you are the one spreading anti-Gurmat here. Taking one line out of the entire Shabad and twisting its meanings to suit your own manmat is not an act of a Sikh. Gurbani is replete with Shabads which speak against idol worship. I never wrote that God is not in idols but its worship is not Gurmat. Human being is much better than a stone since human jooni is the highest then why shouldn’t one worship a human body over an idol? Hating an idol and rejecting its worship are two different things and i thought you were old enough to know the difference. Here is the entire Shabad and tell me where does it advocate to worship idols or where does the word “moorat” in Gurbani refer to idols? ਜੋਗ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਸੁਨਿ ਆਇਓ ਗੁਰ ਤੇ ॥ ਮੋ ਕਉ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸਬਦਿ ਬੁਝਾਇਓ ॥1॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਨਉ ਖੰਡ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੀ ਇਸੁ ਤਨ ਮਹਿ ਰਵਿਆ ਨਿਮਖ ਨਿਮਖ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਾ ॥ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਮੁੰਦ੍ਰਾ ਕਾਨੀ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਿਓ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰਾ ॥1॥ ਪੰਚ ਚੇਲੇ ਮਿਲਿ ਭਏ ਇਕਤ੍ਰਾ ਏਕਸੁ ਕੈ ਵਸਿ ਕੀਏ ॥ ਦਸ ਬੈਰਾਗਨਿ ਆਗਿਆਕਾਰੀ ਤਬ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਜੋਗੀ ਥੀਏ ॥2॥ ਭਰਮੁ ਜਰਾਇ ਚਰਾਈ ਬਿਭੂਤਾ ਪੰਥੁ ਏਕੁ ਕਰਿ ਪੇਖਿਆ ॥ ਸਹਜ ਸੂਖ ਸੋ ਕੀਨੀ ਭੁਗਤਾ ਜੋ ਠਾਕੁਰਿ ਮਸਤਕਿ ਲੇਖਿਆ ॥3॥ ਜਹ ਭਉ ਨਾਹੀ ਤਹਾ ਆਸਨੁ ਬਾਧਿਓ ਸਿੰਗੀ ਅਨਹਤ ਬਾਨੀ ॥ ਤਤੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ਡੰਡਾ ਕਰਿ ਰਾਖਿਓ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਨੀ ॥4॥ ਐਸਾ ਜੋਗੀ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ਭੇਟੈ ਮਾਇਆ ਕੇ ਬੰਧਨ ਕਾਟੈ ॥ ਸੇਵਾ ਪੂਜ ਕਰਉ ਤਿਸੁ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਕੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਤਿਸੁ ਪਗ ਚਾਟੈ ॥5॥11॥132॥ The Shabad describes true yoga of Gurmat and all of the yogic words are redefined. Pay attention to the Rahao pankti which clearly says that Satguru through Shabad showed the true way to yoga in which Guru’s wisdom, following hukam, seeing God everywhere, singing bani and doing vichaar of baani is the essence. Such a person is true devotee of God and Guru Sahib says that he forever remains humble in his service. Moorat refers to true character or an ideal character of a true devotional bhagat. Words ਪਗ ਚਾਟੈ literally mean licking feet which is a metaphor for being humble and having nimarta. If the word moorat referred to an idol then you are insinuating that Guru Sahib advocates going to hindu temples and licking feet of idols. Your understanding of bani is either very poor or you are intentionally trying to confuse the Sikhs who are less acquainted with Bani.

Gurmat ideals speak strictly against idol worship or any type of sargun worship for that matter. When one truly realizes that God is everywhere he does not remain stuck in idol worship. He remains in highest spiritual state where he forever enjoys anhad shabad. There is no doubt that a human being is much better jooni than stone then shouldn't one start worshipping himself keeping the details you mentioned above in mind? A stone has no divine qualities or knowledge then what can it give to a human being to reach higher spiritual states. It is a false statement. Bani of Bhagats clearly speaks against idol worship, Vaisnavism, brahmanism, caste system etc. These bhagats speak against authority of Vedas and Upnishds, the same granths which advocate idol worship. Bhagats could not have contradicted themselves. Initially, they started off with Krishan bhagtee, them moved to raam bhagtee when Ramanand left his own guru and finally they came in the fold of Sikhi. Their own bani explains all of this in details. Guru Sahib never practiced idol worship and also wrote against it in bani. Therefore, he could not have accepted bani of those who did not agree with him in practice and philosophy. Gurbani is clear that one should not focus on creation but creator. ਚਚਾ ਰਚਿਤ ਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਹੈ ਭਾਰੀ ॥ ਤਜਿ ਚਿਤ੍ਰੈ ਚੇਤਹੁ ਚਿਤਕਾਰੀ ॥ ਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਇਹੈ ਅਵਝੇਰਾ ॥ ਤਜਿ ਚਿਤ੍ਰੈ ਚਿਤੁ ਰਾਖਿ ਚਿਤੇਰਾ ॥੧੨॥ (੩੪0) (ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ) ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਇਹ ਜਗਤ (ਮਾਨੋ) ਇਕ ਬਹੁਤ ਵੱਡੀ ਤਸਵੀਰ ਹੈ । (ਹੇ ਭਾਈ!) ਇਸ ਤਸਵੀਰ (ਦੇ ਮੋਹ) ਨੂੰ ਛੱਡ ਕੇ ਤਸਵੀਰ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਚੇਤੇ ਰੱਖ; (ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਵੱਡਾ) ਝੰਬੇਲਾ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਹ (ਸੰਸਾਰ-ਰੂਪ) ਤਸਵੀਰ ਮਨ ਨੂੰ ਮੋਹ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਹੈ । (ਸੋ, ਇਸ ਮੋਹ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ) ਤਸਵੀਰ (ਦਾ ਖ਼ਿਆਲ) ਛੱਡ ਕੇ ਤਸਵੀਰ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਵਿਚ ਆਪਣੇ ਚਿੱਤ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰੋ ਰੱਖ ।12।

People hardly know about true Sikhi in Punjab and jathedars are busy in their own politics. In any case, this document was referenced by Bhai Veer Singh in Devi Poojan Partal, Giani Dit Singh in Durga Parbodh, Macauliffe in his book Vol 5 and Sohan Lal Soori in Umdat-Ut-Twarikh Daftar 1. All are available in the market. None of these sources claim the document lies in Aligarh University. It was first discovered by Bhai Raam Kishan Singh. That is all I know. I am not making any claims. Siri Gur Katha, a much more authentic document on 1699 is available and so is its manuscript. I have no doubt Guru Sahib took five heads, severed them and brought them back to life.

I found the text in Persian (written in Gurmukhi script) along with its translation in Punjabi. Let me know if you still need it.

It is autobiography of Tahmas Khan written in Persian. He fought in the battle of 1757. Unfortunately two translations of this text are from a Hindu and a Muslim. I doubt they did justice to the text when they translated it. The reason I say this is because a quote from the very text was provided by a Sikh scholar, Bhagat Singh, but this quote is not found in the portion of the translation given in "Sikh History from Persian Sources". I think a copy of this text is in Aligarh University. Not finding the same information I turned to the other translation done by a Hindu scholar. Fortunately, a few days ago I have found a copy of the Persian text and its old translation and soon will be getting those. When I have acquired and read the text fully I will try to post it depending on what my schedule is. Guru Rakha