ghorandhar

Your telling people not to make generalisations, Yet you are the first to do this with missionarys. :lol: Veer jee im not misleading anyone, I asked you a simple question, which missionary school have these people studied at? There are many people who are destroying Sikhi these days, it includes those Taksalis who have joined hands with the RSS and Missionarys who do parchar against the panth.

If words from different language's are added to a line, would we change the whole grammar? For example the words Jungle (used in Baba Farid jees bani) has been bought into english, the word kismat has also been used in English, so because words from other languages have been bought into a system of language, it will not mean that where the word jungle comes into English we will look at punjabi grammar. Veer jee the reason why people called Guru jee uneducated was because they were looking at punjabi langauge (and its viakaran) rather than gurbani viakaran. Gumukhi is used, however the viakaran is differnt to Punjabi (there are some similarities) for example can you show me where oora noo unkar in sanbodan shabad indicates a bindi in punjabi grammar? Can you tell me what the word ikh with and without an unkar in Punjabi viakrana means? The point is that because a punjabi word is used, it does mean we will look at punjabi grammar, esp when it has no answer. The point of adding the unkar was to indicate that the meanings were different betweeen ikh.

Gurbani viakaran is the viakaran of gurbani, when looking at others language you are still reading in gurmukhi. For example a sanbodan shabad which ends with oora noo unkar has a bindi on. The oora nu unkar (sanbodan shabad) is the grammitical rule. For example in rehras sahib: Akhha jeeva visrai mar jaoo (bindi) If the sanskit words were written in devanagri then I could understand where you were coming from.

Good Post Veer V jee. Veer Inder Singh jee could you please tell us which missionary school these people studied at? Im sure you cant study at any missionary school if you have not taken amrit. If there are missionarys doing incorrect veechar then its good to discuss with them, however there are missionarys out there who are doing really good things. The following website has Giani Pinderpal Singh jees khata who studied at the Ropar missionary college http://gurmatveechar.com/katha.php Is that not a taksali website? Just as there may be some missionarys who do wrong parchar, not all taksalis hold hands with the RSS and not all Sants have secret meetings with the RSS, which im sure Sant hari Singh Randhawa was involved in. Veer Khalistan_Zindabad, I agree with you that paadd ched printing was a wrong thing to do. I have laarivar maharaj bir parkash and think its best if we try and go back to the way the maharaj birs were originally. However, you have to assess the good and the bad. just as one Veer jee said that the Sooraj parkash has mistakes, this does not mean we are going to burn it, just as the SGPC should not be burnt. We should remember that it was Singhs in the SGPC that died to free our gurdwaras from the mahants and Sants were also involved in the Singh Sabha and SGPC like Sant Attar Singh jee, alot of sants did not sit at home or hide in hills like Baba Vadbagh Singh when our gurdwaras was under attack by mahants killing Sikhs. We can pick faults in every organisation, but end of the day they also have good points, it just looks daft to be bias. For example Kala Afghana sent a letter (many times) to the takaal however no replies were given, his supporters say that Kala Afghana ripped the Taksal to pieces, in my eyes this tutu maih maih is serving the panth no good, all this sending letters then making it public that flanna flanna cant give me any answers is just about peoples egos. Its easy to pick faults in others rather oneself. But Kala Afghana supporters dont mention the book Sabh Dust chak mara where kala afghana is attacked and provides no answers. There seems like there is no end to this tamasha. Our affiliations to organisations means that we are willing to ignore good points in organisations and hide our defend the faults in the organisations we follow.

Veer Faujan jee, im not making any assumptions. The fact is that Sant Gurbachan Singh jee tries to prove Gurbani viakaran as being incorrect, however the failure to notice that examples such as Arjan was a noun totally destroys his argument. People like Bhai Vir Singh jee notice this error and mention that words such as Arjan are a noun unlike Band na and therefore Arjan will not be Arj na.

What a funny topic. Every jhata or group have been mentioned and all claim the other is part of a cult. For an individual who was introduced to Sikhi by a jhata, (Whether it be AKJ, Taksal, Missionary, Johlanwala etc) they were vital for him/her coming into Sikhi, for the opposition who wants to glorify his own jhata, the jhata is a cult.

Veer Inder Singh jee, firstly I dont follow any Bhuddal Dal but the Guru panth, Like I said before, because something was practiced 230 years after gurgaddi you cant give it legitimacy. Yes I acknowledged that you believe the dasam granth was parkash at Akal Takhat Sahib, but you fail to recognise that both matta number 1 (passed in the 1930s) and the panthic Sikh rehit maryada does not allow parkash of the Dasam granth. It was probably nihangs who started doing parkash of the dasam granth (as mentioned earlier) by using their bhuddi, which is also responsible for Sukh nidhan and jhatka etc.I also dont agree with putting labels such as nihang ahead of the Khalsa, We were Khalsa and all praise was given to the Khalsa (inhee kee kirpa ki sajai ham hai). It was Banda Singh Bahadur and the Khalsa who led the Sikhs after Guru Gobind Singh jee gave gurgaddi to the Guru GRanth Sahib jee. BTW im not disowning history, im disowning practices which Guru sahib did not practice, I dont believe we need to rectify anything which guru sahib did, rather we should follow our Guru. If you want to follow pramphara of what some mahants did, then good look to you. Where people from the nihang jhata made supreme sacrifices we should have praise for them (they have done something which I doubt any of us can or will), however this does not give them a monopoly to over the Sikh panth and neither do they have the right to override the hukam and actions of Guru Gobind Singh jee People who dont believe in the Dasam granth has nothing to do with this topic, why are you changing the topic? Your paranoid about these people who dont believe in Guru Gobind Singh jees bani, you dont need to be because no one listens to them. Ill try to break this down one last time. The point I raised about Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh and arguing over whether dasam granth should be parkash is an indication and dasam granth was never parkash, other wise there would have been no discussion whether to keep the dasam granth in one granth or numerous. The point being that the Sikhs recognised that dasam granth was not parkash. If Dasam granth had always been parkash they would not have needed to discuss whether the Dasam granth should be split into different volumes. Veer jee you said God entered history, the shabad you posted from Bachittar natak is very nice, however the point is that you are saying prior to Guru Gobind Singh jee Akal Purakh never entered history (this split between the Guru GRanth Sahib and Dasam granth has been made by you). Therefore you are saying the Guru granth Sahib is not a revelation. You need to re examine the consequence of your comments. It would also mean that the shabads such as the following make no sense: dharan gagan nav Khand maih, Jot sarvoopi rahio par, Bhan mathara kach bhid nahee, gur Arjan Partak har. No one is doubting that Dasmesh jees bani in relation to its referance to Akal purakh, however you are saying that everything prior to Guru Gobind Singh jee is not a revelation or not through Akal purakhs divine intervention. For example the shabad Sulhi ti narayan raakh (raag Bilawal) is an indication of what im saying. Bhagata di sada too rakhda har jee, dhur too rakh da ayaai (Akal Purakh from ages has been apart of our history) In your attempt to prove the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee you are making ludicrous comments, you dont need to do this, firstly no one is questioning guru Gobind Singh jees bani and secondaly the bani itself and its interpretation is enough to convince people that its the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee. Ive made my point, So if you want to continue to disown the Guru panth, (and Ill continue to disown your version of history) then good luck.

Veer Khalsaland jee, during the time of Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh jee there would have not been an argument whether the dasam granth should be in volume or numerous if the dasam granth was parkash from the time of Guru Gobind Singh jees. This point has been made many times. Im sure Veer V jee mentioned this many times. This is why contrary evidence was requested. The point I made about the Akal Takhat is that because something is practiced there during and before the 20s, 30s, it does not mean its correct, just as having idols and pandits doing raasam in the Darbar sahib complex. The fact is that what is happening 220 years after gurgaddi was given to the guru granth sahib has no legitimacy esp when we consider what else was happening. I believe that If I follow the updesh of Guru Gobind Singh jees bani, then Ive shown respect. If you want to talk about respect then im sure calling the dasam granth 'it' might also come under your definition of lack of respect. Erm......no veer jee, the panth has made it clear about the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee and In my opinion we should try to sing atleast one shabad from Guru Gobind Singh jees bani when doing kirtan because we are losing the shabad reets and purataan bandishs. You can try doing your investigations (because you have nothing else relevant to say) which is based on nothing just as your belief in doing parkash of the dasam granth and being able to contravene the panth. All that ive said is in accordance with the guru panth and the Akal Takaht, I will ask for muafee if I have said anything against its decisions.

You now agree at least that Dasam Granth is His bani.Since it his bani ,it is as precious as SGGS writings.Sikh rehat maryada does specify that all writings of our Gurus whether verbal or written are equally holy for us. In light of above sikhs have full authority to decide whtehr to do parkash of Dasam granth or not.I have earlier given you refrence that it was in parkash at akal takhat as late as 1940s. Would you also advocate bring idols back into darbar sahib complex because they were also there? I have also given you a referance saying that before your claim of the Dasam granth being parkash, the AKal takhat ruled against having it parkash. If you want to go back into history then you will not also bring idols back into the complex, you will also bring the pandits back into the complex, remember that it was not anand karag with took place, it was the rasaam created by brahmans and pandits. However im not sure there will be many people who will follow your lead to bring back what was practiced in the 20s, 30s etc. what happened in the 1940s does not really give much legitimacy to your argument. Esp when in 1708 it was not happening when gurgaddi was given to the Guru granth sahib jee Its not the first time Veer V jee made it clear that he is talking about the parkash and not the content. so there is no need to act like its a revelation, its just your failure to understand what others are saying.

The compositions have been written at different times over a span of a long time.Guru ji has given the date of their completion.If you take composition of Charitropakhayan and compare it with writing of Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji the dates of compleiton exactly match. Veer, Sorry I'm not sure how comparing rehitnama Chaupa Singh (out of All rehitnamas! The one who says there is not Khandey Batte di Pahul for women! They can "only" have Kirpan da Amrit, and includes many other obscure practises.) to prove it's reliability. I suggest you read Bhai Chaupa Singh's writings before "using it as a reference" No the point in this thread is whether or not the Dasam Granth should be parkash or not. Just like the Panth has issued a statement saying that the banis should be accepted (something we all should follow, until a new faisla is made); we have to accept that the Panth has decided that it should NOT be parkash. That's what the thread is about, not those questioning the banis of Dasam Granth. Let me remind you that the likes of Dr Jodh Singh, Dr Punnu and G.S Lamba; scholars you guys extensively use in your debate while proving bani in Dasam Granth is authentic. This thread isn't questioning the authencity of it, but whether it should be parkash or not. Fact remains, Maharaj decided not to do it. Our ithhas tells us no other Gurbani was parkash (whether by Bhai Gurdas Ji, or other writings accepted by Maharaj) There is no evidence to prove this. We KNOW that Guru Arjan Dev Ji did Parkash of the Aad Granth (now Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji), but there are absolutly no proof, no rehitnamas, not ithhasic writings (as far as I'm aware) of Guru Sahib doing parkash of both. If anything we have proof that Maharaj distinguished the two Granth by NOT adding his bani into it. If the Bani was the same; and to be treated the same, why a separate Granth - why did he distinguish his bani from bani in Aad Granth? There are questions that still haven't been answered. The question isn't whether Jaap Sahib or Akal Ustat or other bani are bani or not, because we've gone past that, the question is whether the Granth (which was still being argued whether to be one volume or several, up until Mehtab Singh Sukha Singh.) Also do you think the entire Panth was ignorant of the Granth og 1698, that they still argued whether it should be one volume or not? A lot of our rehitnamas show that dating wasn't the best. Take the example of Bhai Prahlad Rehitnama which mention Guru Granth Sahib getting Guru Gaddi 1695, whereas Sikh traditions tell us that those were Guru Gobind Singh Ji's last bachans. Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh is mentioned by singh is not for authenticating Dasam granth but for reference to disprove hoodlums who create doubts about Dasam granth. We know SGGS is ordained as Guru of sikhs.That does not put bani of tenth master as of no consequence.We obey guru's orders and do not seek written proof for that.Heavens are not going to fall if Dasam Granth is in parkash.How one will read dasam Granth if it is not in parkash.Sikhs revere this Granth as without this Granth sikhs will be abosrbed in Hinduism.Those who oppose parkash of this granth can form their own panth. Do not you raed the account of Charles wilkins posted by me.That account is of 1781.How come the slander lobby says that this Granth was not there in Punjab till 1860 and is planted by British?Can you answer that?How come you were writing negatively about this granth by citing some obscure book written by SMC ,Ludhiana. The point here is this Granth is of tenth amster.No one ,say no one can, ask sikhs wheter to parkash it or not. Let me tell you the diffference between these two granths.SGGS is about bhagti of akal purakh.Dasam Granth is about when God enters history to undo wrongs.In Dasam Granth God is known by functional names. Who has written here that the Dasam Granth was planted in the 1860s? what are you on about? this has nothing to do with the topic. Now that you have given agyai for people to form their own panth, im sure they will be relieved (whoever these people may be). Its simple, people who cant do parkash of Guru granth sahib at home (because they cant do the seva) still manage to do paat from Guru Granth Sahib jee (for example in potia), im sure they wont struggle with the dasam granth. (just like I do not) How can God enter history to undo wrongs? im really confused with what you are saying. We all believe the Guru GRanth sahib jee is a revelation, are you saying that Dasam granth is a revelation and Guru GRanth sahib jee is not (God himself gave us gurbani, therefore your history argument makes no sense, if gurbani is a revelation then he has entered history). BTW no one is asking about the difference of the two granths, it also does not prove why we have to rectify Guru Gobind Singh jees decision not to have Dasam granth parkash when Guru Granth sahib jee was given gurgaddi.

Some of the Veer and phen jees are asking some good questions. To add how do you pronounce the following: hau FwFI hir pRB Ksm kw hir kY dir AwieAw ] Why do people say Dhadi? Why not pronounce it the way its written which would therefore be Dhadhti? why is the second letter pronounced with a dhada d. Gurbani viakaran gives us the answer, just a clue, look at the words phaba, ghaga and the shabad above, when these words come second in the word, the pronounciation is of the letter which came before it in the alphabet. Another example is the following word which although spelt with a phaba, its prounced with a bhaba because its second in the word: pRBu myrw AMqrjwmI jwxu ] ] therefore words which come 3rd and 4th in the alphabet and they are second in the word (like prabh, the phaba comes second in the word), its pronounced as the letter which came before it (so in prabh u say a bhaba rather than a phaba). Serious Gupt jee, Todays taksal have major problems when it comes to this subject (which was supposed to be the purpose of its creation). Sant Gurbachan Singh jees own writings make it clear that he does not believe that words are pronounced the way they are written, the following are examples just from Jap jee Sahib: Gurbani paath Darshan: page 257 Pauri one Lakh (Sant Gurbachan Singh jee says an adhak it put on the word) GPD: P. 257 Pauri 2 Bujai (unkar is put on bujai) GPD: P.258, Gura (a bindi is put on the kana) Ikh deh bujai GPD: P.258, Pauri 6, Teerath nahva (phair haha), u will not hear people say nava GPD: P. 258 Pauri 6, vin bhani, ki nahi (phair haha) karee) However there were things which Sant gurbachan Singh jee missed out or he has written half which was correct, for example: GPD page 262: jini naam dhiyai, gai masakat Ghal. On the word Mashakat he puts an adhak on, but fails to put a sashai pair bindi. So its evident that Sant Gurbachan Singh not only added bindia, but also added many other things to words. However, Although Sant Gurbachan Singh jee did add these bindia, adhak etc, he failed to understand the reasoning behind it and in one place even trys to argue viakaran does not make sense, the following is what I wrote previous on this forum regarding the following shabad: ਲਾਖ ਕਰੋਰੀ ਬੰਧੁ ਨ ਪਰੈ (ang 264) where there is new research we must consider it. Baba jee did not realise that Band na is not a noun, Arjan for example is noun, therefore we do not pronounce Arjan as Arj na. If he knew the principles of Gurbani viakaran and Noun/verbs etc he would not written that gurbani viakaran is faulty. On the other hand Bhai Vir Singh jee did not contradict Gurbani viakaran and unlike sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jee, he does not say we should pronounce the above line as Lakh Karoree Bandna PAre, but it should be Band na pari.. In his panj granthi steek you will see this. There is no doubt that Sant Gurbachan Singh jee did alot for the panth, we should also note that before Sant Gurbachan Singh jee wrote his book, it was near impossible to find anything on the subject. However, It makes no sense to not understand what other Veer jees have written, if we dont read what they have then we will go back to the days when people were saying Guru Nanak Dev jee was uneducated, he could not even spell his own name correctly. Gurbani viakaran gives us these answers. One final thing to note is that bindia were added because there was a need for people like us who did not know whether the word was pronounced with a J sound or Z sound. The word rajai and Razai (in jap jee sahib) have two totally seperate meanings, the latter means Akal Purakhs will. There was also a need to represent sounds which although spoken did not have a letter, these additions came during Guru Gobind Singh jees time. Its clear that bindia were starting to come in during Guru Arjan Dev jees time and u will see bindia in Guru Granth Sahib jee. The lalhai phair bindi was introduced in the 60s and before this time, everyone used to used to say it with a lalhai phair bindi even though the letter did not exist (for example Patiala, Nhall, bhall). it was however introduced in written format so it was easier to identify when reading.

Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

The qoutations I feel refer to individual compositions and not an entire granth. for example the following qoutation was given: ਤਾਤੇ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਬਢਨ ਕੀ ਚਿੰਤ ਪਛਾਨੀ ॥ Keeping in mind the fear of making the Granth voluminous, I have not narrated the complete story of Rudra. The granth becoming big is referrring to the composition (this is why Rudra and the complete narration not being made), the first line makes it clear that its regarding the composition in question (and not the granth as a whole which would become really big). The doubt of the compositions is not a question for me, however the question is normally about the intention of gurgaddi and parkash being conferred onto the the dasam granth. I just wanted to give my views on the quotations, ive given my views on parkash therefore there is no point repeating them. The problem during mehtab Singh and Sukha Singhs time was whether the granth should be left in one granth or not. Its been a issue (Kahn Singh Nabha also makes referance to this), but im sure by standardising the dasam granth (which we have now) the panth has accepted that it can be in one granth.

Bhai Sahib jee I said you started this thread (therefore starting a discussion) and then when someone disagrees you are telling people to shut up. That is what I found very strange. Veer jee Like ive said before, this view of the dasam granth being parkash has not just jumpted out of no where, Jathedhar sahib of Akal takhat in 1934 has already made a decision on this matter, I feel this is a crucial piece of evidence which you seem to have not absorbed when claiming other people have started the topic. The Akal Takhat concluded the topic, we are merely disussing its reasoning. The problem is not that this issue is going to split the panth, but the fact that you said it will 'split it futher'. The fact that there is disagreements on nearly every issue in Sikhi only makes us conclude that the role of the Akal Takhat has become undermined and its decisions have been made a mockery. Those people who have split the panth further (which you acknowledge) will always claim to be legitimate, however there are people out there who believe that if we follow the Akal takhat we would have not been split in the first place and therefore this issue would not be splitting us futher. Veer jee we all do this ardass: kir aupdysu iJVky bhu BwqI bhuiV ipqw gil lwvY ] ipCly Aaugux bKis ley pRBu AwgY mwrig pwvY ]2] Veer K_Z jee im sure you would find alot of kurbania from 1920s to 1970s by those who you call the SGPC and Akali Dal etc. The point here is not whether you believe in dasam granth or not, its regarding parkash. Regarding parchar only being done if dasam granth is parkash is also backed up with no evidence, you will regualry hear people doing khata and kirtan from the dasam granth and all the time you will hear kirtan from darbar sahib from the dasam granth. Its also ironic that both Veer V jee and myself will do kirtan from the dasam Granth in Raag and according to gurmat sangeet. The issue of the content is therefore not the issue and neither in my opinion would not having parkash of the dasam granth reduce or inhibit parchar. Veer K_Z the role of defending the Bhagat bani and Dasam granth etc was not reserved to Sant Gurbachan Singh jee and Sant Kartar Singh jee, you should read Prof Sahib Singh jees responses to these people, esp his baghat bani sateek which is devoted to answering those who were against the bhagat bani. :D

Its really good you want to learn kirtan in nirdharat raags. I think this is really coming back into Sikhi. Veer jee I learnt kirtan on the vaja at first, It helped me progress quickly and im learning tanti saaz aswell. If you learn on the vaja first, I found that you learn the bandish and rhythm quicker. I find it easy to put bandishs onto my diruba. It might be best to try both out and see what you like.

hang on a second, this is a discussion forum, you start a topic and then expect everyone to fall at your feet saying you are correct? Then when some one gives their point of view which is contrary to yours you say what are you going to do about it and shut up :homer Our veer/phen jees might as well close the forum down because we have to stop veechara. I believe the double standards Veer V jee was referring to is that if Dasam granth jee being parkash is satkar of Guru Gobind Singh jees bani, why are you not doing satkar of the sarbloh granth. Guru Arjan Dev jee asked Bhai Gurdas jee to add his bani into the Guru Granth Sahib jee (making such a statement has a meaning). Therefore Veer V jee was making the point of bhai gurdas jees vara and kabitt sawayai as being same as gurbani. The statement of Guru Arjan Dev jee might help you understand what Veer V jee is saying. This issue has not just started, its been passed by Jathedhar Mohan Singh jee and discussed by the salayog committee. The Akal Takhat has made a decision on this issue before. Considering Bhai Gurdas vara and kabitt/swayaai as gurbani but being against parkash of dasam granth is not double standards. Considering the shabads as gurbani is a different issue of parkash, the problem with parkash is the following: We must consider this decision by Guru Gobind Singh jee to be wrong if we need to rectify the situation by doing parkash of the Dasam Granth jee with Guru GRanth Sahib jee. Bhavna in itself does not mean something is correct. If you want to do it then carry on (its you who are in violation of the Akal Takhat), no where does Sikhi tell us to point a gun at someones head if they disagree, however If you dont want this issue to be discussed and are telling us to shut up or abusing other members, why start the topic in the first place? Very strange. Veer Inder Singh, I have no agenda. I simply believe in following Gurbani and the Guru Panth. I think you have asked me this question many times. :6

Give me some time to gather my sources and i will definitly get back to you. A few more points. Chnth or Chunt in gurbani as stated is a six lined verse. In gurmat Sangeet it is IMPERATIVE that the whole shabad is sung all in one go i.e. there is no asthaee, so for example you sing the first line as your asthaee then you sing the rest of the shabad after each line you cannot go back to the first line. The rahao line as stated is correct, where its the central focus of the shabad and we must use it as the asthaee, because what we do nowadays is grab any line of the shabad and use it as the asthaee, when in fact what were doing is for example singing the answer before the question which makes no gramatical sence and alters the structure of gurbani. Veer jee you didnt reply regarding the ghar interpretation. If you could that would be good, i was really interesting in learning more about the meaning you have made of Ghar. Thanks

Gurmat Sangeet Veer jee is right about doing kirtan in the rahoo and raag. Doing kirtan in nirdharat raag is really coming back into our gurughar and its really good you want to learn this. I feel that the key to kirtan can be listening to as many Raagis (who do kirtan in Raag) as you can. There are thousands of recordings online. Its important to have an ustad, however Its also good to buy books and read what people write about the theory. You will find difference of opinion in some raags. As you advance you can start practicing the notations in the books. The following website is good because the recordings are based of Principle Dyal Singh and Bhai Avtar singh jees books, so when you practice you can hear what the bandish sounds like. http://www.gurmatsangeetproject.com/ I learnt baja first and still play it. Its taking me time to practice tanti saaj and to be honest I still do kirtan with baja at guru ghar because I feel I need alot more practice. If you first learn vaja the postive thing will be that you will learn shabads and raags quicker, you can later put these raags onto your tanti saaz with practice. If you can dedicate time, learn both baja and tanti saaz.

Ghorandhar ji Have you read Gur ki ninda sunne na kaan Bhetat de sang------- We are not pujari of muths ath we will keep quiet after listening to the fifth columnists abusing our scritptures under a conspiracy. We will give reply in appropriate language. Sorry for offending your sensibilities. Nice to see your post has been edited. If you are not going to read gurbani, atleast read the forum's rules. You might swear in your every day life, but on this forum there are children and its not something which Sikhi advocates either. However wrong you feel someones views maybe, learn to use the appropriate language. Anyways, the issue here was parkash of the Dasam granth jee, not what some people are saying about the content of the Dasam Granth jee.

Veer Inder Singh our Gurus didnt tell us to use the language you use either. I think those people who use such words regarding the dasam granth and people who use the language you have, should first read the Guru granth Sahib so such disgusting words dont come out of your mouths. imTqu nIvI nwnkw gux cMigAweIAw qqu ]

Veer Namstang jee, I feel that the issue has not been adressed at all. firstly the words varkar tul have been very left out of the translation of the panthic sikh rehit maryada. If we decide we can change what Guru jee told us to do, where will we stop? Like I said before: We must consider this decision by Guru Gobind Singh jee to be wrong if we need to rectify the situation by doing parkash of the Dasam Granth jee with Guru GRanth Sahib jee. Veer Just me jee personally I have Santosht in guru jees decision in giving gurgaddi to the Guru granth Sahib jee, therefore I do not need to make such statements. The question can easily be changed by Guru jee asking why are you doing parkash of my bani when I did not?

I agree with everything you said veer jee, Bhai Gurdass vara and kabbitt sawayai themselves are considered to be the key of Guru Granth Sahib jee and why cant we do namashkar to these bani? The Issue in the end is gurgaddi being given to the Guru Granth Sahib jee by Guru Gobind Singh jee. We must consider this decision by Guru Gobind Singh jee to be wrong if we need to rectify the situation by doing parkash of the Dasam Granth jee with Guru GRanth Sahib jee.

The rehit maryada uses the words vakar tul (which come after Guru Granth Sahib in the line), look at what these words mean in relation to the Guru Granth Sahib jee. Veer AK47 jee, im not saying look at the mat of vendanti or Badal, im saying look at what guru Gobind Singh jee did, he gave gurgaddi to Guru Granth Sahib, according to my knowledge there was no gurgaddi given to the dasam granth nearly 300 years ago. Therefore why would we look at what sikhs have done in the past, we first need to focus on what Guru sahib said and did. Veer jee if someone does something out of bhavna, how can that constitute beadbi? If someone does something with malicious intent knowing full well what they are doing is wrong, it should constitute beadbi (in my opinion). Even when we do things out of bhavna which are wrong or because of bhul, Guru maharaj is bakshanhar. Beadbi is another matter. The reason I was talking about amrit sanchar is because guru jee has the right to change a practice (as Guru Gobind Singh jee did in your example). However do we have the right to override Guru jees decision?

Sant Jarnails Singhs kurbani has nothing to do with Parkash of Dasam granth with the Guru Granth Sahib, they are two different topics. Giving your life for the panth does not mean your actions or beliefs have become a revelation. You need to seperate a persons shahidi from their personal convictions. Only Guru jees updesh is a revelation, every other persons beliefs are through a evolution of thought. (that does not mean we can take away the status of their shahidi) The issue of Guru Arjan Dev jee does not make sense, you are trying to compare Guru Arjan Dev jees actions to the actions of mere people (not gurus) in deciding to do parkash of the dasam granth. Guru Nanak Dev jee used to give amrit aswell (bhai Gurdas // 1) however Guru Gobind Singh jee changed the process and gave us rules by which we must abide. The guru Granth Sahib jees parkash is also apart of this code. Guru Gobind Singh jee could decide to Change the Amirt sanchar (not us) Guru Gobind Singh jee could decided to give gurgagadi to guru Granth Sahib jee (as he did), however we cant decided to do parkash of the Dasam granth when gurgaddi was given to the Guru Granth Sahib jee. If we use your example, then Guru Nanak Dev jees way of giving amrit was wrong. (in my personal opinion:)It does not mean any less bhavna is held by those who dont do parkash or those who believe in doing parkash, but sometimes we need to step aside and assess the situation, Bhavna itself does not mean what we are doing is correct. The issue for alot of people is that gurgaddi was given to Guru Granth sahib jee (by guru Gobind Singh jee) and at that time no other granth was parkash (therefore can we override Guru Gobind Singh jees decision?).

I agree with Veer Jarnail Singh Khalsa. Just to add, I think these shabads for us personally are to make us firm in Guru Gobind Singh jees message and purpose of coming to this world. When we reflect on what the shabads say and what guru jee did in his life, it can only make us praise our guru and fall to his charana, maybe these feelings (anbuv) is what made Bhai Nandlal Singh jee write the following words: Nasaroo mashoor Guru Gobind Singh, Izdee man soor Guru Gobind Singh.