Singh132

Although I don't agree with everything in the Panthic Rehit Maryada, I don't think it can be changed by decree on a whim. There is a method of doing things. You can't resolve the mool mantar controversy simply by declaring a 'winner' without any process. Also, it's a fiction to think that Patna Sahib can issue hukumnamas like this. Major hukumnamas have always been issued from Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. To say otherwise is just fiction. As for no one except Sarbat Khalsa can remove Jathedars: ideally, I'd agree with you. But the fact is that these Jathedars haven't been appointed by a Sarbat Khalsa. The Committees that appointed them are the same Committees that reserve the right to remove them.

The Chola was presented to Guru Nanak by a Muslim admirer, certainly not Bhai Mardana. It has no significance beyond that. The fact that there are Quranic writings on the chola is really irrelevant. If there were Quranic writings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib or any mention of Mohammed in Gurbani, it might be argued that Guru Sahib had faith in him. But there is no such mention at all. Let me give an analogy. Today, when people of different religions come to Sri Darbar Sahib Amritsar, they are usually presented some literature on Sikhi, maybe a kirpan, a model of Sri Darbar Sahib or a picture. If someone after their death goes and finds these things among their belongings, would it make sense to suggest that they were really Sikhs ? In the same way, Guru Nanak Sahib was presented this chola by his admirers. It is no reflection of his own beliefs.

This isn't true by any standard. Guru Nanak Sahib traveled all over the world and people became Sikhs. Jahangir was upset that so many Hindus and even Muslims were becoming Sikhs and this was the reason he says in his autobiography he wanted to have Guru Sahib either killed or converted. Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi says clearly that Bhai Mardana became a Sikh. When Bhai Mardana was close to death Guru Nanak Sahib asked how his body should be handled: buried or cremated or put in water. Bhai Mardana said that it didn't matter to him because he was now Guru Sahib's Sikh. Guru Sahib cremated him. This is all from the janamsakhi. In Gurbani when it talks about a Muslim you'll see if someone were to follow the advice, they would not longer be practicing Islam but Gurmat. Just like Guru Sahib redefines pandit and yogi, he also redefines Muslim. If someone follows the new definition, they are no longer the original faith, but a Sikh.

The Mangals issue is totally different than the Bhasauria issue. The Mangals as they appear in the saroops that are printed today are not always correct. For example, in Sukhmani Sahib, the mangal appears after "salok" which is not shudh. I have not seen a single puratan saroop with the mangal in this way. In fact, in Guru Hargobind Sahib's own gutka sahib which is displayed at village Ghurani Kala along with Guru Sahib's chola and kharaanv, the mangal goes first. I have seen one puratan hand written saroop from the 1700s with all the Mangals first. I think that this issue was decided without enough consideration and research. I think we need to distinguish between making any changes at all to the status quo vs. making innovations.

Gurmukh can have 5 meanings 1) Vahiguru 2) Vaahiguru Naam 3) The giver of naam, Guru Satguru 4) One who is a very good Sikh 5) By way of the Guru. In this context, it means 'by way of the Guru"

If looking for answers to questions by Muslims about Sikhi, then please go to www.whyichosesikhism.com or http://www.searchsikhism.com/islam.html But a short answer to the original question is that when Muslims say something like Muhammed is the final prophet and Quran is the last revelation, it has no bearing on us. It would only matter if we accepted what they said as true but we do not. So, the answer to your question is simple: Muslims are wrong and we hope God gives them wisdom to recognize the truth one day.

It's a well known saying amongst Muslims that a Hindu sees a storm approaching and begins to prepare. The Muslim prepares when the storm has hit and the Sikh starts to think about preparing once the storm has passed. Once again we see how the Sikhs are being reactive instead of proactive. I know people don't like long posts so I'll try to make my message brief. Anti-Sikh forces want to see Sikhs become 'radicals' again. They want to create situations in which young Sikhs turn to violence. They want us to react. The leaders of this movement will already be bought by them and they can once again lead the Sikh youth to massacre and genocide. This hasn't happened once, it has happened over and over. How did we lose in 1849 to the British? It wasn't for not having a strong army. The leaders were bought and led us to destruction. Why didn't we get anything in 1947 when we had such power in the army? We couldn't even use our Sikh soldiers to protect the Sikh refugees coming from Pakistan. And in the movement from 78-94, who were the leaders? They were people like Zaffarwal, Chauhan, Dr. Sohan Singh and others whom I won't mention. Where are they? Doing just fine, thank you. There were enough sell-out traitors in the leadership that the entire "Movement" was a disaster and directionless. Once again, they're trying to get a reaction out of us. Once again, they have the structures thought-out and established to mislead us. The people trying to incite us within our community and outside are already hard at work. Not only will they get an opportunity to crush the amritdhari youth, they can shut down any parchaar and as an added bonus, we'll be terrorists in the eyes of the world and dismissed wherever we may be living as violent extremists. This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory of mine. I assure you it is the truth. And when we make stupid statements about "taking care" of people or people, we're playing right into their scheme. I hope Guru Sahib does kirpa on his Panth and our youth and we don't have to repeat history once again.

I agree with Namastang. Namastang and I have some different views. We have had many discussions in the past. I can say with honesty that I might have felt frustration at times in our discussions (when we couldn't agree) but in my heart I feel genuine respect and affection for him. In the same way, Namastang veer has never spoken to me with any disrespect or hatred. Both of us are moving on in age and we both have less and less time to have long debates and discussion. But if nothing else, I would ask that others when having discussions remember to speak like the brothers we are. We should never write with the aim to hurt the other person. This is a paap and I think we all can agree with that. We can have different veechaar and still respect each other.

My problem with this is that we are in no position to judge who is a Brahmgyani and who is not. Guru Sahib didn’t say anywhere that Rehit is optional depending on avastha. My point remains the same: who was a higher avastha than Sri Guru Gobind Singh jee? And he himself asked for amrit and kept Rehit. Guru Sahib has said “Rehit pyari mujh ko Sikh pyaara naahi”. Look at the place of Rehit. When Baba Harnam Singh Rampur Kheray Valay decided to do Sukhmani Sahib instead of Jaap Sahib, Guru Gobind Singh would not speak with him. In fact, we have been referring to Mata Bhag Kaur’s story where Guru Sahib tied a dastaar on her. The story is that Mata jee in her avastha had stopped caring about her clothes and they had fallen apart. Guru Sahib went specially to Mata jee and said she must always have at least dastaar and kacherra. She was not above rehit even at her avastha. Both these examples are not violating any maryada. If any Singh did these things, there would be no Tankha. But in both examples, I’m not sure where the source is. Nirmalas actually historically were known to wear white dress originally. But this is an aside. Rehit of Guru Gobind Singh is not any Shariat. That is an insult to Guru Gobind Singh. His Rehit is something that obviously greater. But I can tell you a story that shows Guru Gobind Singh himself was a strict adherent to maryada and Rehit. Are you familiar with the story of Guru Gobind Singh jee at Dadu Dwar? When Guru Gobind Singh tipped his arrow to the shrine of Pir Dadu, the Sikhs stopped him and said this was a violation of Maryada because Sikhs cannot revere any shrine of the dead. Guru Sahib was very happy and said that they had passed the test. He said that Khalsa was now ready. Guru Sahib asked for a Tankha to be put on him. The Sikhs did indeed put a small Tankhah on Guru Sahib himself. Guru Sahib through this example wanted to show that even he was not above or exempt from Rehit. With all due respect, if we follow the philosophy you are suggesting, the Sikhs would have said “oh, it’s against rehit, but he is another avastha. Who are we to question?” But Guru Sahib has taught his Sikhs that no one, not even he, is above rehit. My point is that Guru Sahib has given a very high place to Rehit and we as Sikhs can never be exempt from it. Brother, the Viyaakarn in Gurbani is unique and created SPECIALLY by Guru Sahib for Gurbani. Punjabi and Gurbani viyaakaran are totally different. There are some Shabads in Gurbani that are only understood in the light of Viyaakarn. An example would be Ramkali Sudd. I also don’t know that Prof. Sahib Singh rejected Bhatt Bani. He has given a translation of it. I’d be interested to see where he rejected it. As for your comments on Guru Nanak: I think the only difference between your thinking and mine is that I believe Guru Nanak, being the Aad Satguru only came in full avatar in 1469 but earlier worked through different agents. Only after 1469 did he reveal Gurmantar openly. I recall Bhai Freed some time ago posted a picture and quote from a Janamsakhi. I thought I’d re-post it here. Look at the status Guru Nanak is given. This hasn’t been started by the “Bhasaurias” but is in Puraatan Tat-Gurmat. The JanamSakhi says: "Baba Nanak with Bhagat Kabir. Kabir’s Words: “Guru Nanak is Eternal through the ages. Kabir is the small ant follwer. Hearing the message of the Perfect Satguru, the mind was in bliss. The giver of Salvation is Baba Nanak. Ramanand is very small (in comparison)…." Honestly speaking, someone who doesn’t know may claim Heaven is Sachkhand. People who reach Gyan Khand, seeing all the Parkash will say this is the highest. But Guru Nanak has revealed to us that place this is only “Gur prsaad” and reached by Gur Shabad. I personally believe it is different than anything any other Dharam has described. I never said that one word can NEVER have more than one meaning. But in the example you’ve given, “rat(u)” usually means blood and in one instance in Gurbani it means “colour”. Some bani like Ramkali Sad can only be interpreted in the light of Viyaakaran. Viyaakaran is created specially by Guru Sahib for us to understand Gurbani. It is a very important tool. Some shabads are only opened by it. Don’t get me wrong. I agree that history, etc. and experience can be used to understand deeper meanings. But Viyaakaran is a major tool DESIGNED by Guru Sahib. Not by anyone else. Sant Issue: I think that Sant is used far to frequently and abused in Sikh Panth today. We need to fix it. I think using this term as commonly as we do now is wrong. Should we fix it? Of course. Jatha and Dasam Granth: If you read Bhai Sahib’s books, you’ll note he has quoted from Dasam Bani very extensively. He hasn’t rejected it anywhere. If some Singhs in Jatha do reject it, then it is his own choice. Jatha has no policy on it. Please remember this for the future. Naam Jugti: We’ve discussed this before. I believe that there is one jugtee that all abhilakhis need to be given. If they are all accepted by Punj Pyaaray as candidates for amrit, then they MUST have met some minimum requirement and for this reason, they are given the method that has been described in many sources. Beginning with this method, some people might in one instant get to ajapaa jaap stage and another might have to use this method for many years before progressing.

You won't find mention of "kakaars" in very many puratan sources. Guru Kian Sakhian from 1790 is one exception. It was written by Sarup Singh Kaushish based on bhatt vehis in his family. Nihangs & Keski: I read some time ago in a Nihang piece of literature that they accept blue keski with kes as mandatory. I have also heard from some other Singhs that this maryada is given. Frankly I'm not hung up on the term 'kakaar'. If someone doesn't consider it a kakaar, it doesn't bother me. As long as they treat it like one ie. on the body all the time, then there is no problem. Old Taksali Singhs and Nihang Singhs do keep this maryada. I think it's sad that we have so much hatred between Gursikhs. The internet lets people do it. We can be nameless and faceless hate mongerers who are accountable to nobody. I truly feel that these controversies shouldn't divide up like they do. These have almost become gang affiliations. So much so that the "other side" is often not even given the respect owed to another Sikh. That's really too bad. These disputes that you've mentioned (ragmala and keski) can be lessened if not resolved if we sit down respectfully in front of one another and listen. If nothing else, we can at least then understand where the other person is coming from and appreciate why the believe what they do, even if we can't agree to it ourselves. Gursikhi teaches respect and tolerance. But I see it less and less in our young people on all sides of these debates. Charandhoor Singh, Thanks for your reply and I appreciate your clarification. Lets all try to use words that aren't designed to pinch each other. At the end of the day, I have confidence that if I ever needed help on the street you'd stand with me and I would stand with you. I have confidence that we both recognize Guru Gobind Singh as our spiritual father and so it's only a matter of time before we and all other Sikhs recognize each other as brothers. We may not agree on everything, but let's pledge to honestly discuss our differences and try to understand each other, rather than marginalize or dismiss each other.

I’ve spoken for the first time in this thread and without knowing a thing about me, you’ve decided to label me a “Bhasuria type”. Why? Is this the enlightened Gurmat you’re promoting? Is this the way you’ve decided to fight off the dogmatic and intolerant ideology you see in Sikhi? As far as I can see, you are in fact acting intolerant and dogmatic. I haven’t labelled you or Namastang anything, so why do you feel so free to label me? Especially in the context of a whole thread bashing “Bhasaurias”, labelling me one is essentially an attempt to marginalize me and any comments I may make. This isn’t vichaar you’re trying to do, it’s bullying. When Guru Sahib has himself said that “hukam” cannot be described, then who am I to try? I’m a simple person. Guru Sahib when he gave amrit said to keep kakaars at all times. All Gursikhs receive amrit on this condition. Even a child can tell you that a promise made is a promise that should be kept. Guru Sahib says the same thing when he says, “bachan karay tai khisak jai, bolay sabh kacha”. A Sikh can reach any spiritual height but he can never be equal to Satguru. He will always be a Sikh. And for all Sikhs, Guru Sahibs “aagiyaa” or rehit is essential. I have no doubt that there are many people who walk on the path of spirituality who follow no outer rehit at all. But Gursikh Spirituality is the spirituality of utter humility and surrender to Guru. So the Gursikh path of spirituality is where the Gursikh can be immersed in the Divine but at the same time considers himself nothing but the obedient servant or Sikh of his Satguru. If we say that removing of kakaars is permissible, then what if someone says “I am a realized soul. I can even shave my head.” What will we reply? Will that be ok? What if someone says they no longer need Guru Granth Sahib or Sangat? Will that also be ok? I don’t see inner rehit and outer rehit as mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. The reason someone has outer rehit is linked to the inner rehit of wanting to obey Guru’s bachan. Who is a brahmgyani? Can you or I determine it unless we are ones ourselves? I have no metre to measure it. I do however have Gurbani which tells me that every bachan of Guru Sahib is to be obeyed completely. This is the only thing I know. I can also gather that a real “brahmgyani” will indeed by “confided” by these bachans. I don’t think anyone should look down on anyone else. I do believe that rehit is important however. Can a bibi without a keski be spiritual? I think so. But that doesn’t mean that keski isn’t a rehit. Bhai Daya Singh Rehitnama clearly tells that a bibi should tie her kes in a jooraa on top of her head and not leave it in a braid. Guru Kian Sakhian from 1790 say that Guru Gobind Singh said keski is a kakaar. The issue is only whether keski is a rehit for women as it is for men. I think based on the evidence, it is. Respectfully brother, I think that your repeated attempts to label anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a sign of intolerance. In this context, it’s ironic that you despise the “Bhasaurias” for their intolerance but at the same time practice it yourself. Reflect on it. I am not a Bhasauria and reject their mangling of Gurbani, their beginning of the practice of pad-chhed and their attempt to distort Gurmantar. But if you insist of trying to label me, then it is your khushi.

I don't understand why we have to always attack each other in some way or form. It's out of habit I think. Bad habits should be broken. Before I address the points below, I want to say that Rehit is not optional for any Gursikh at any stage. The mark of a Gursikh is to be "hukami" or follow hukam. Who was at a higher spiritual stage than Guru Gobind Singh? But he adopted Khalsa Rehit. Same way, Gursikhs like Baba Gurbachan Singh and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh reached very high spiritual stages but never compromised on rehit. Because this is a promise a Gursikh makes to the Punj Pyaaray. That promise cannot be broken no matter what the avasthaa. As for keski kakaar: Please refer to Guru Kian Saakhian which clearly says keski was given by a kakaar. This is a puratan source. Other Bhatt Vehis say the same thing. Interestingly, Nihang Singhs still say that kes with keski is the kakaar. Unless rehit is different for Singhs and Kaurs, then keski is mandatory. Are you suggesting Viyaakaran isn't an authority for interpreting gurbani? What do you think the aunkarhs and sihaaris in words are there for? I doubt it's there for decoration alone. Using viaakaran, you learn the meaning of the words and you don't have 25 different people trying to read 25 different meanings into those words. By learning viyaakaran, you empower the individual to interpret and learn Gurbani as opposed to relying on someone else to feed meanings. Do you have any response to Svaiyay M: 5 kay which tells us "Siri Guru Sahib Sabh Oopar. Karee Kirpa Satjug jin Dhroo par. Sree Prehlaad Bhagat Udhreeang. Haso kamal mathay par dhareeang." It clearly means it was Guru Nanak's blessings on Dhroo and Prehlad. If you are pressing puraatan approach so much, why don't you look at all the Janamsakhis which say clearly how the Bhagats met Guru Nanak and became his Sikhs? Why don't you mention that the Goindval Pothis, wherever Bhagat Bani comes up, say "Bhagat Babay Kay" ie. Bhagat of Baba (Guru Nanak). There is no doubt that these Bhagats were very elevated souls before meeting Guru Nanak but why do you insist on trying to take away from the glory of Guru Nanak which is recorded in Janamsakhis and other sources which clearly say that these Bhagats became his Sikhs after recognizing him as the Satguru? NO other religion even talks about Sachkhand. No one before Guru Nanak mentioned it. If you think that getting to Sachkhand is possible without parsaad of Guru Nanak, I think you need to look again at what Gurbani says. The meaning of Gurbani is spiritual and depends on the person reading/hearing. The words however often have a single meaning. This meaning is clarified by the Viyaakaran. Please disprove it. Do you know what "sabh te uttam har ki katha" means? Gurbani is in itself katha of Vahiguru. The katha mentioned in Gurbani NEVER refers to a human being giving a lecture about Gurbani. It refers to Gurbani itself. I think in fact that it's a pretty sad state of affairs that today we have random people who often have no jeevan of their own going on stage trying to explain what Gurbani means. They themselves don't know it. Katha before used to be about history eg. Suraj Parkash, etc. Only a "jeevan vala" Gursikh can do "katha' on Gurbani because only they have experienced it. The fact that Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh has referred to many Singhs as "Sant" is proof that there is no absolute hatred of the term. But at the same time, most Singhs in the Jatha (and in the Panth in general I think) that the Sant culture we see today where any random person starts being called "Sant 108" is foolish. It is making a joke of the term "Sant". Do you disagree? Find me a single reference in any Jatha literature or any Jatha parchar that has expressed this "disbelief". Or admit you're mistaken. Singhs in the Jatha believe that the method one begins to jap naam with is taught at the Amrit sinchaar and has been passed down since Guru Nanak's time. When one progresses with this method, one goes through many stages and reaches "ajapaa jaap" . But the method to begin that is given at the amrit sinchaar is only one.

Even though you're just joking Babbar Shere, it's a very bad and inappropriate joke. Violence is NOT the solution to this problem. Even joking about it is inappropriate and reflects badly on you, this site and potentially the entire community.

I'm not sure if this post was supposed to be a joke or maybe you're trying to be sarcastic? I think a statement like this is like saying "hey, I heard Hitler is so bad, but do you have PROOF that he personally killed a Jew? He was a vegetarian so he can't be all that bad, right?" Just like the above statement is absolutely foolish, any statement trying to exonerate KP Gill from being the Butcher of Punjab is just as foolish. KP Gill was the head of the Punjab Police during the dark days of the early 1990s. The Punjab Police committed thousands upon thousands or extra-judicial killings, rapes and torture. If you want a collection of case reports read the book "Reduced to Ashes". As head of the police force, KP was known to personally supervise many interrogations (tortures). He was (and probably still is) a drunk. He was also fond of forcing young women to spend nights with him. The book "Sach Sunaisi Sach Ki Bela" tells about parties in which Police Officers were given Rs 50K each to bring a woman and liqour for KP's entertainment. Sometimes, KP would 'notice' a young girl who might be working at a store or an attendant at a Hotel. One older policeman tells that he saw that KP 'noticed' a young Punjabi girl who was working the desk at a hotel he had just entered. the older policeman felt pity for the girl and told her to get out and run away as quickly as possible. She agreed. Sure enough, 10-20 minutes later, some policemen came to the lobby looking for the same girl saying that the "Sahib" wanted to see her. Under KP Gill, the Punjab Police murdered an entire generation of Gursikhs. He personally supervised many of the killings. If you want eye witness reports, just do some research. It boggles my mind that someone could even think that because he is a coach of a hockey team it would mean he isn't "that bad". If nothing else, even the Supreme Court of India has held KP Gill responsible for having sexually assaulted Rupan Deol Bajaj. Just do a search on it. KP Gill is filth incarnate. For any Sikh to think any better of him is an insult to the memory of thousands of our butchered brothers and sisters.

I specifically said Gurmukhi. Modern day Punjabi is an evolving language. You're right that we've gotten rid of words or are changing words that use akhars like "Ungha" and "Yainyan" and also the sound of "z". Old Gurmukhi language or even old Punjabi used these sounds. In Guru Sahib's time, I think it's clear it was used. Just take the example of the name "Sahibzada Zoravar Singh" . We still pronounce it with the "z" even though very few of us say "zor" as opposed to "jor". Personally I find it too bad that our Punjabi is shifting towards Hindi and losing the Persian colours it had before. I find Pakistani Punjabi to be much more appealing for some reason.

Brother "AK 47", First, there's no reason to get upset. Secondly, how do you know how many puraatan Granths or gutkas I have seen? It might be possible that I'm speaking on some knowledge or research. Finally, you haven't addressed any actual point that was made but have simply repeated over and over, "talk to taksal" and "taksal teaches santhiya as maharaj himself did". In the end, we all should have bibek buddhi. When someone claims to be teaching 'shudh' uchaaran and santhiya, it doesn't seem right to accept that at face value. Everyone should do their research, ask the right questions and then decide what they feel is right. I'm not really here to argue any further. If someone has some substantive question or point, I'm more than happy to address it. But if someone insists that taksal knows best , no questions asked and that's final, I'm happy to let them rest with that belief.

I am sure that Bhai Gurdas jee's Vaaran and all puratan Gurmukhi script do NOT have bindian in the feet. A lot of Gutkas have started placing them but the original does not. I have an electronic version of a puratan Jaap Saahib and if someone requests, maybe I could try to paste some pictures of it and show that there are no bindian at all. Bindiaan were put in to simplify things in relatively recent times. In the present time, some people have started to put bindian under "Lulla" to differentiate the hard "L" sound vs. the soft for example "laal" means red but "laaL" means drool. I respect the Taksals but I don't feel they have an monopoly on the shudh uchaaran. Puratan Vidvaans who gave santhiya used to put bindiaan in the feet. I can give examples of them. To suggest that the Gurmukhi language had no "sh" or "z" sound is absolutely ludicrous. We didn't invent words like "shabad" and "sher" and "Shah". This is how they have always been pronounced.

I can assure you that in puratan hand written Dasam Granths, there is no bindi under the Jujja or under any other akhar. Bindis in the feet have been created after Guru Sahib's time. In modern print editions people have started putting bindis in Dasam Bani, but they're not there in the original hand-written. Even if the bindi was in the feet (which it is not), the Haha at the end would be pronounced "Zafarnameh" but no one pronounces it like this. We all know it's called Zafarnamah and we pronounce it like that. So if someone pronouces the Haha the same way in words like Dargah and Panah and Allah, they are pronouncing it correctly.

It's not that complicated. You learn the rules and you apply them. It's not memorizing every single occurrence of a bindi. You learn which words have a bindi and every time, you put one there. It's not that complicated at all.

Let's take one example. The title of Zafarnamah is written, if read exactly "Jaffernameh". No one pronounces it like this. The Bindis in the feet of akhars were read in automatically just like for example the letter 'c' in English can be pronounced hard like "Car" or soft like "Cease". The letter is the same but sounds are two. In the same way, akhars like Sussa has "sh" and "s" sounds. Jujja has "zzz" and "jjjj" sounds. The reader needs to add it in where it is needed. Going back to the original example of "Jaffernameh", because we know that this is a Farsi word, the Jujja is pronounced "Z" and the "haha" at the end is pronounced like a kunna. We see that in Gurbani also in words like "Dargah" and "Panah" and "Allah". People that don't know these rules are actually reading Gurbani a-shudh (funny how you can't say "shudh" without a bindi in the feet). You hear people saying "Alleh" instead of Allah, etc. I'm a little concerned to see where Gurbani uchaaran is going these days though. The mentality that no bindis can be pronounced and that there is no 'reading in' of sounds is a new one that is not borne out by old Gurmukhi. You HAVE to read certain sounds into Gurmukhi otherwise it's not proper. But nowadays, we have some usually very young people saying it's a paap to do it and words and names in our history like Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib and Sahibzada Zoravar Singh are even being altered to push this line of thought. The whole purpose of getting Santhiya is to know where to put the sounds. If you just "read it as it appears" then a lot of Santhiya wouldn't be necessary. It is essential to get Santhiya from Gursikhs to be able to correctly pronounce Gurbani. One final example I'll give. Shah Mohammed who wrote "Jangnama", if you read the old Gurmukhi text of it, his name appears as "Saah" Mohammed. There is no bindi under the Sussa. But we all know his name was Shaah Mohammed. You must pronounce the bindi otherwise it's not the correct pronunciation. You can't have "shudh" without the bindi ! <_<

Can we say how Guru Sahib has defined 'species'? I doubt "joon" is the same classification system as the scientists use for species.

I don't know of any vaar or other place where Bhai Gurdas talks about any past life of Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee. Namastang, I fortunately/unfortunately no longer have the patience/time/required effort to enter long debates with anyone so your beliefs are mubaarak to you and mine to me. Just briefly skimming your post though, I noticed a mention about how Gurmat and "Hinduism" share a karm philosophy and you referred to a post I made. To be clear, Gurmat Karam philosophy is totally different. It goes above the then known 3 types of karma from which there was no known escape (because even saatvic karam have a reaction) to the Chautha Pad Satguru jee introduced to the world which breaks free from all karam through naam. As for Krishna, Narsingh and the Dwarf being avtars of Guru Nanak, I don't have the desire to enter this debate. It seems rather clear to me; 1) There is no nistaaraa (salvation) without Gurmat naam 2) Guru Nanak is the only one who has Gurmat Naam and power to reveal it 3) Only Guru Nanak did in fact reveal Gurmat Naam to the world. Anyways, I close with the shabad below. It makes clear what the status of Satguru is in relation to the Avtars or Hindu gods. ਵਡਹੰਸੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੩ ॥ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਾਮੁ ਸਦ ਮੀਠਾ ਲਾਗਾ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦੀ ਸਾਦੁ ਆਇਆ ॥ ਸਚੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਣੀ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਾਇਆ ॥੧॥ ਹਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਸਤਗੁਰੂ ਮਿਲਾਇਆ ॥ ਪੂਰੈ ਸਤਗੁਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੈ ਬੇਦ ਬਾਣੀ ਪਰਗਾਸੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਮੋਹ ਪਸਾਰਾ ॥ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਵਰਤੈ ਘਰਿ ਆਪਣੈ ਤਾਮਸੁ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਅਹੰਕਾਰਾ ॥੨॥ ਕਿਸਨੁ ਸਦਾ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ਰੂਧਾ ਕਿਤੁ ਲਗਿ ਤਰੈ ਸੰਸਾਰਾ ॥ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਗਿਆਨਿ ਰਤੇ ਜੁਗ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਚੂਕੈ ਮੋਹ ਗੁਬਾਰਾ ॥੩॥ ਸਤਗੁਰ ਸੇਵਾ ਤੇ ਨਿਸਤਾਰਾ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਤਰੈ ਸੰਸਾਰਾ ॥ ਸਾਚੈ ਨਾਇ ਰਤੇ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ਪਾਇਨਿ ਮੋਖ ਦੁਆਰਾ ॥੪॥ ਏਕੋ ਸਚੁ ਵਰਤੈ ਸਭ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਭਨਾ ਕਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲਾ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਕਸੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਮੈ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ਸਭਨਾ ਦੀਵਾਨੁ ਦਇਆਲਾ ॥੫॥੫॥

For clarification purposes, I think it's important to understand that Narsingha and Krishna, etc. weren't avtars of Guru Nanak. The power that acted through them when they performed deeds like punishing Kans, was however Guru Nanak. I can't think of any good analogy so I'll try this one: it's like someone sitting behind a glass window, controlling machines on the floor of a factory but then eventually coming out of the control room onto the floor and doing tasks himself. In the same way, Guru Nanak's power worked through different mediums throughout history to perform certain deeds, but only in 1469 did Guru Nanak (Shabad Guru) take human form and start to act in the first person. Whereas the previous actors were essentially 'tools' for Guru Sahib's action Guru Sahib took direct avtar only in 1469.

I'd like to clear something up here. Our Guru is Guru Nanak who took 10 human forms and today resides in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Nanak has existed forever. He took human birth in 1469 to reveal naam openly for the world whereas in the past it was only for very select bhagats. Guru Nanak is not a human. Guru Nanak is Satguru and true roop is Shabad/jot saroop, which is part of Akaal Purakh and so the question of previous births or anything else does not exist. Now where the confusion starts is what about Guru Angad and Guru Amar Das and all subsequent Guru Sahibs. Who were they? Not to be fooled, the Satguru remained the same: Satguru Nanak. The body the jot went to reside in may have had a history. Guru Anagad Dev jee before receiving the divine jot of Satguru Nanak was a worshipper of the Devi. Guru Amar Das Sahib lived many years without a Guru and he had a history as well. The body probably had a history but we're not concerned with that so much. Once they became Guru, they were Satguru Nanak. I am not sure I can explain this clearly enough. I'll try to provide another example. Satguru Granth Sahib jee today holds the divine jot of Sri Guru Nanak Dev jee. But before Satguru Granth Sahib had bani written, the physical form was paper. Before it was paper, it was a tree and before it was a tree, it was a seed. That doesn't concern us because that's not Satguru jee. That's the physical form that Satguru jee eventually went to reside in. Once the Shabad was written on the paper, only then it became our Guru. So to clear any doubt, while the physical forms may have had a history, our Guru had no previous life. This is my understanding.

The point of laridaar is that Guru Sahib did not split the words. We must take santhiya and speak with Gursikhs to learn where many words are broken. If you're changing the colours of "words" you're essentially breaking the words (pad-chhed) by a different means. The point is that no one can claim to know the "correct" pad-chhed and if we break the words in the wrong way, we are putting errors in Sri Guru Granth Sahib which is maha-beadbi. Is the correct pad-chhed Ik Oankaar Sat Naam or is it Satnaam? Is it "Ik oankaar satgur parsaad" or is it "Ik Oankaar sat guprsaad" ? Reading Lareedaar is not that difficult. It just takes some effort like anything else in life. Let's not interfere or tamper with what Gurbani.