ghorandhar

Jwaadi Taksal have published two books: The first books is: Guru Nanak Sangeet Padutee Granth: 31 Shudh Raag and 31 Mishrat Raag. This book has bandishs from panth di parsidh raagi Such as: Bhai Balbir Singh, Bhai Avtar Singh Bhai Gurcharan Singh Delhi vali, Prof Kartar Singh, Dr Gurnam Singh, Prof Paramjot Singh, Singh Bandhu, Principle Baldev Singh, Bhai Narinder Singh Benarswala, Dilbagh Singh Gulbagh Singh, Bhai Sarabjeet Singh Rangeela, Bhai Nirmal Singh Khalsa, Dr Ajit Singh Pental etc Guru Nanak Sangeet Padutee Granth volume 2: This book contains articles on gurmat sangeet.

Why do not preach this philosophy to Darshan lal bhatra. He considers dasam granth as his enemy. Veer jee Prof Darshan Singh jee said on the radio, if people want to read the dasam granth they should, Im not telling people not to read the dasam granth. however, he said he feels that there are bani in the dasam granth which cannot be Guru Gobind Singh jees bani. The main issue he said he feels is with parkash of any other granth with the Guru Granth Sahib jee, that is what he says he cannot agree with. (I dont know if you heard the discussion, but that was one of the points he made regarding the dasam granth) So I dont know where enemy comes in. I agree with his last point (which written in the panthic Sikh rehit maryada and reinforced in the gurmatta), but disagree with the first (which is a violation of the gurmatta). The problem is veer jee that neither you nor Prof Darshan Singh follows the Akal Takhat. Its a sad state of affairs. Just as you are picking and choosing parts of the Gurmatta, so are people like prof Darshan Singh (they qoute the part about not doing parkash of any other granth, yet still keep arguing over the contents).

Veer Akal_Sehna, ring next week. If beating up a person is a good thing (who apparently has a disability), then I feel sorry for you. If you are defending yourself or someone else from physical attack then I can understand, but other than such a situation we are committing a crime. If we read Guru jees maha vak we would not find it necessary to attack anyone. nw ko bYrI nhI ibgwnw sgl sMig hm kau bin AweI ]1] naa ko bairee nehee bigaanaa sagal sa(n)g ham ko ban aaee ||1|| | We dont know how to sit together and respect each other and if we disagree with someone we end up attacking the person. Guru Sahib never attacked anyone for having different views, even when Guru Hargobind jees father had been made shahid he never had this anger of attacking Jehanghir (which we would have done). Where Guru Gobind Singh jee or Guru Hargobind jee was attacked by others they defended themselves. ijQY jwie bhIAY Blw khIAY Joil AMimRqu pIjY ] jithhai jaae beheeai bhalaa keheeai jhol a(n)mrith peejai || I dont know what this radio presenter had done, but we should follow the updesh of Guru maharaj.

Ring them now, complaining here will get you no where. you have 10 mins left.

hang on hang on!! so basically people are talking rubbish then! How can you pass a mata and then not action it!?! It shows how empty and pointless the jathdhars at this point in time! What is the point in having this 'veechar', passing acts etc and then not wanting to implement them due to causing problems! wouldnt it be better not to say anything in the first place if your not going to do anything about it. there is one word for this ... and i wont type it here but we all know what it is! if they beleive something and can have these big meetings and abuse their positions, then they should have the 'footballs' to do what they say!! bundha thanks for the reply, what you said is 100% correct. it seems like were loosing the deep spirituality and understanding of our faith and become plain, simple and unintelligent rather then the wonderful sikhs maharajh wanted us to become! i repeat again, this whole episode is politics to split the panth again. no jathedhars or sgpc force will do anything, but the sangat outside will start arguing and fighting as usual. the panth needs freedom from the shackles of the indian govt, the akal takhat also needs freedom from the tentacles of the indian govt and other self serving politicians and individuals. I did not say the Akal Takhat should not take action. I said it was for the SIngh Sahiban to take action. As individuals I feel we should not.

Guror andhar(absolute darkness) What a funny post.I have given you the example of Gulshan not being able to understand the myth of creation as in Bachitra natak. Can i get a refrence that says that dasam Granth was a disputed granth?You need to know that Baba Deeep singh himself had compiled Dasam Granth.Keeping dasam Granth in one or two volumes i.e. seprating charitropakhayan from rest of compositions does not make it a disputed Granth. Please do not act like a crook.If you or your friend namak haram Gulshan has any refrence give it here.Otherwise say you do not have that. Bhai Sahib Inder Singh jee, the reason why I asked for Audio or written evidence (from giani Gurbax Singh own pen or voice) is because I was not aware of his views on the bachittar natak, So please send us this evidence so we can also see his lack of intellect as you claim. (you still keep ignoring this issue and provide no evidence) :gg: Like I said before, why did you not ring the radio programme? Or you could write him a letter or ring him. Before you do this you might want to read the following updesh from guru maharaj: imTqu nIvI nwnkw gux cMigAweIAw qqu ] So it might not be wise to use the language you do. To use the word disputed granth is incorrect, I assume you did not read Bhai Kahn Singh jees Mahan Kosh. The appropriate word is controversey regarding the compilation. Ive not discussing the contents as I believe in it and the Akal takhat give us directions on this issue (Ive made this point so many times). Where has the issue of disputed granth come from? Its not something which we have been discussing and it seems your trying to put words into my mouth and divert the issue. I was asked for a referance proving some evidence of controversey before 1970, ive provided it, so end of issue. :D If I have called the Dasam granth a disputed granth (meaning the content is disputed) I ask for muafee. Erm....Veer Inder Singh je, I said Baba Deep Singh jee compiled a dasam granth, so whats your point? Veer Sun jee the point is that Baba Deep Singh jee compiled the dasam granth (he had to do so because it was not present with him), therefore how was the dasam granth parkash right from the existence of the Taksal (Before Oct 1708). There is no doubt that these Gursikhs worked hard to collect the bani during a time where we could not even live out in the open (which must have made it so hard to find the different writings). K_Z its for the Singh Sahiban to take action if they wish. Your suggestion would only lead to beadbi and arguments in Guru granth Sahib jees hazari, I feel this would shameful. Veechar is one thing, what you are suggesting would lead to similar storys as the bistee a few years back at Akal Takhat (Maan was involved). Controversey on what?There was no controversey on the contents of Dasam Granth. There was an opinion by some whether to keep charitropakhayan along with other compositions or it should be separate.How does it become controversey?Please explain me. Bhai Kahan singh Nabha has himself acknowledged and revered Dasam Granth.Read his book "Hum Hindu Nahin" where he quotes extensively to prove Hindus wrong regarding banis of Dasam Granth. So Show me the controversey from sikh history where there was question mark on authenticity of Dasam granth. By the way are you an agent of these hidden forces like namak haram Darshan Lal bhatra and now Gulshan. Veer Inder Singh jee, You just dont understand anything. Firstly you have not read mahan kosh and for the 5th time, the controversey was not regarding the content, why cant you understand this simple point that im making? The controversey which I am talking about you have already touched upon. The discussion at that time was how compiliation was going to take place. End of the day the guru panth khalsa has made its decision, so we must follow, however you cant change the fact that this discussion took place and there was disagreements amongst people on the compilation. The whole reason for changing the discussion to this point is because you dont have any evidence of Gulshans lack of intellect. Until you can provide the evidence, what right do you have calling people names? Lol, you are a joker, youve been watching to many movies mate. I only follow the Akal Takhat, Im no agent of anyone. You still dont get it, the granth from 1697 could not contain all the shabads of Guru Gobind Singh jee. For example how could shabads concerning the Khalsa and Zafarnama be within this granth? Therefore some gursikhs undertook an amazing seva in collecting the bani. You claim that the Dasam granth was always parkash since the Taksal came into existence, you have provided no proof of this. Rather this point is contrary to logic, if the Dasam granth was parkash from when the taksal came into existence, Baba Deep Singh jee would not have had to collect the bani. End of the day you will either follow the Panth or you wont. If you have a problem with gulshan, contact him. If you have a problem with the Akal Takhat contact them. If you got nothing new to add (like the evidence requested), then there is no point continuing to discuss as we have discussed what Gulshan has written in his book and what we said on the radio.

You are 100% correct. An avastha wala Singh i know verified that the 300 salaa at Takht Sri Hazoor Sahib is being put on mostly by the sants. This is a real thorn in the minds of the politicians who try to control the panth. Very few politicians are involved in the 300 sal celebrations. All the games of nindya etc are done by govt. agents to weaken and divide the panth. And Ghorander, I don't want to take this off topic, but I don't believe what you are saying. A signature on a draft only means that people are willing to work towards a final version, it does not mean they accept the draft. I would like to see the final draft and its signatures, so I'll take you're advice and go take a look at it if I get a chance and have the time to in the future. But I don't believe for a second that Guru roop khalsa panth passed the SRM as the Sikh rahit. Rahit is what the guru gave us. Can you imagine the Guru saying that the rahit with regard to ragmala is believe in it or not, it's up to you? no mere human being or group of humans have the right to change the rahit. And for future reference, the Khalsa Panth, and the Punj Pyare are not the Guru. They are Guru ROOP. o/w with all the disagreements it would mean that our guru was disagreeing, would make no sense. Gurbani is the Guru. Veer Sun Singh jee, It would be incorrect to call it a draft, its been passed by the panth and the mata number has been given. Veer jee ive given my opinions and presented my beliefs in the decision made by the Akal takaht, end of the day we might have a different opinion, but we are still brothers and should respect each other. This year is the 300 years Gurgaddi divas of the Guru Granth Sahib jee, we have survived this long after such a struggle with guidance by Guru granth Sahib maharaj, Guru maharaj kirpa kari and we the panth continues.

Guror andhar(absolute darkness) What a funny post.I have given you the example of Gulshan not being able to understand the myth of creation as in Bachitra natak. Can i get a refrence that says that dasam Granth was a disputed granth?You need to know that Baba Deeep singh himself had compiled Dasam Granth.Keeping dasam Granth in one or two volumes i.e. seprating charitropakhayan from rest of compositions does not make it a disputed Granth. Please do not act like a crook.If you or your friend namak haram Gulshan has any refrence give it here.Otherwise say you do not have that. Bhai Sahib Inder Singh jee, the reason why I asked for Audio or written evidence (from giani Gurbax Singh own pen or voice) is because I was not aware of his views on the bachittar natak, So please send us this evidence so we can also see his lack of intellect as you claim. (you still keep ignoring this issue and provide no evidence) :gg: Like I said before, why did you not ring the radio programme? Or you could write him a letter or ring him. Before you do this you might want to read the following updesh from guru maharaj: imTqu nIvI nwnkw gux cMigAweIAw qqu ] So it might not be wise to use the language you do. To use the word disputed granth is incorrect, I assume you did not read Bhai Kahn Singh jees Mahan Kosh. The appropriate word is controversey regarding the compilation. Ive not discussing the contents as I believe in it and the Akal takhat give us directions on this issue (Ive made this point so many times). Where has the issue of disputed granth come from? Its not something which we have been discussing and it seems your trying to put words into my mouth and divert the issue. I was asked for a referance proving some evidence of controversey before 1970, ive provided it, so end of issue. :D If I have called the Dasam granth a disputed granth (meaning the content is disputed) I ask for muafee. Erm....Veer Inder Singh je, I said Baba Deep Singh jee compiled a dasam granth, so whats your point? Veer Sun jee the point is that Baba Deep Singh jee compiled the dasam granth (he had to do so because it was not present with him), therefore how was the dasam granth parkash right from the existence of the Taksal (Before Oct 1708). There is no doubt that these Gursikhs worked hard to collect the bani during a time where we could not even live out in the open (which must have made it so hard to find the different writings). K_Z its for the Singh Sahiban to take action if they wish. Your suggestion would only lead to beadbi and arguments in Guru granth Sahib jees hazari, I feel this would shameful. Veechar is one thing, what you are suggesting would lead to similar storys as the bistee a few years back at Akal Takhat (Maan was involved).

Veer Inder Singh jee, dont worry about me answering questions, Im still waiting for evidence that Gurbax Singh Gulshan does not have the intellect to understand the mataphors of the Dasam granth. And you cant blame your scanner on this one. Its easy to call people, lack in intellect, liars and crooks, but to then backing it up is something else. Veer jee simply look at Bhai Kahn Singh jee Nabhas Mahan Kosh under Dasam GRanth (page 616). Esp look at the arguments which took place on whether the Dasam granth should be in one granth or different pothi's. This was the issue which I was referring to. If the Dasam granth was parkash since the Damdami Taksal came into existence, then why was Bhai Mani Singh asked to gather Guru Gobind Singh jees bani? He should have simply gone to Damdama Sahib. Why did Baba Deep Singh also gather Dasam Guru jees bani, it seems odd, the jathedhar of the Damdami Taksal has parkash of the dasam granth and did not know? Its obvious that there was no parkash otherwise why would baba Deep Singh try to find something which is supposed to be lost, but right under his nose. Bhai Sahib AadSach I dont need such a light which you require and suggest, maharajs updesh is the light which we require, the following shabad makes it clear and will take me out of Ghorandhar: ਪਉੜੀ ॥ ਸਚਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਿ ਸਚੁ ਸਮ੍ਹ੍ਹਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਅੰਤਿ ਖਲੋਆ ਆਇ ਜਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਅਗੈ ਘਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਪੋਹਿ ਨ ਸਕੈ ਜਮਕਾਲੁ ਸਚਾ ਰਖਵਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਸਾਖੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਜਗਾਇ ਦੀਵਾ ਬਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਮਨਮੁਖ ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਕੂੜਿਆਰ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਬੇਤਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਪਸੂ ਮਾਣਸ ਚੰਮਿ ਪਲੇਟੇ ਅੰਦਰਹੁ ਕਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਸਭੋ ਵਰਤੈ ਸਚੁ ਸਚੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਨਿਹਾਲਿਆ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਨਿਧਾਨੁ ਹੈ ਪੂਰੈ ਗੁਰਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ ॥੧੪॥ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ਘਰੁ ੫ ॥ ਅਛਲ ਛਲਾਈ ਨਹ ਛਲੈ ਨਹ ਘਾਉ ਕਟਾਰਾ ਕਰਿ ਸਕੈ ॥ ਜਿਉ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਰਾਖੈ ਤਿਉ ਰਹੈ ਇਸੁ ਲੋਭੀ ਕਾ ਜੀਉ ਟਲ ਪਲੈ ॥੧॥ ਬਿਨੁ ਤੇਲ ਦੀਵਾ ਕਿਉ ਜਲੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਪੋਥੀ ਪੁਰਾਣ ਕਮਾਈਐ ॥ ਭਉ ਵਟੀ ਇਤੁ ਤਨਿ ਪਾਈਐ ॥ ਸਚੁ ਬੂਝਣੁ ਆਣਿ ਜਲਾਈਐ ॥੨॥ ਇਹੁ ਤੇਲੁ ਦੀਵਾ ਇਉ ਜਲੈ ॥ ਕਰਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਤਉ ਮਿਲੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਇਤੁ ਤਨਿ ਲਾਗੈ ਬਾਣੀਆ ॥ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਸੇਵ ਕਮਾਣੀਆ ॥ ਸਭ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਆਵਣ ਜਾਣੀਆ ॥੩॥ ਵਿਚਿ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਸੇਵ ਕਮਾਈਐ ॥ ਤਾ ਦਰਗਹ ਬੈਸਣੁ ਪਾਈਐ ॥ ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਬਾਹ ਲੁਡਾਈਐ ॥੪॥੩੩॥ ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਦੀਵਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਏਕੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੁਖੁ ਵਿਚਿ ਪਾਇਆ ਤੇਲੁ ॥ ਉਨਿ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਓਹੁ ਸੋਖਿਆ ਚੂਕਾ ਜਮ ਸਿਉ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੧॥ ਲੋਕਾ ਮਤ ਕੋ ਫਕੜਿ ਪਾਇ ॥ ਲਖ ਮੜਿਆ ਕਰਿ ਏਕਠੇ ਏਕ ਰਤੀ ਲੇ ਭਾਹਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਤਲਿ ਮੇਰੀ ਕੇਸਉ ਕਿਰਿਆ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ॥ ਐਥੈ ਓਥੈ ਆਗੈ ਪਾਛੈ ਏਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥੨॥ ਗੰਗ ਬਨਾਰਸਿ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਤੁਮਾਰੀ ਨਾਵੈ ਆਤਮ ਰਾਉ ॥ ਸਚਾ ਨਾਵਣੁ ਤਾਂ ਥੀਐ ਜਾਂ ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਲਾਗੈ ਭਾਉ ॥੩॥ ਇਕ ਲੋਕੀ ਹੋਰੁ ਛਮਿਛਰੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਵਟਿ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਖਾਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਬਖਸੀਸ ਕਾ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਿਖੂਟਸਿ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੪॥੨॥੩੨॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਦੀਵਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਬਾਤੀ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਤੇਲੁ ਲੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਪਸਾਰੇ ॥ ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ ਭਇਓ ਉਜਿਆਰੋ ਭਵਨ ਸਗਲਾਰੇ ॥੨॥ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਸੁਰਤੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਰਲਾਈਐ ਏਤੁ ॥ ਤਨੁ ਕਰਿ ਤੁਲਹਾ ਲੰਘਹਿ ਜੇਤੁ ॥ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਭਾਹਿ ਤਿਸੈ ਤੂ ਰਖੁ ॥ ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਦੀਵਾ ਬਲੈ ਅਥਕੁ ॥੧॥ ਐਸਾ ਦੀਵਾ ਨੀਰਿ ਤਰਾਇ ॥ ਜਿਤੁ ਦੀਵੈ ਸਭ ਸੋਝੀ ਪਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਹਛੀ ਮਿਟੀ ਸੋਝੀ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਤਾ ਕਾ ਕੀਆ ਮਾਨੈ ਸੋਇ ॥ ਕਰਣੀ ਤੇ ਕਰਿ ਚਕਹੁ ਢਾਲਿ ॥ ਐਥੈ ਓਥੈ ਨਿਬਹੀ ਨਾਲਿ ॥੨॥ ਆਪੇ ਨਦਰਿ ਕਰੇ ਜਾ ਸੋਇ ॥ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਬੂਝੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਤਿਤੁ ਘਟਿ ਦੀਵਾ ਨਿਹਚਲੁ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਪਾਣੀ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਬੁਝਾਇਆ ਜਾਇ ॥ ਐਸਾ ਦੀਵਾ ਨੀਰਿ ਤਰਾਇ ॥੩॥ ਡੋਲੈ ਵਾਉ ਨ ਵਡਾ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਜਾਪੈ ਜਿਉ ਸਿੰਘਾਸਣਿ ਲੋਇ ॥ ਖਤ੍ਰੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਸੂਦੁ ਕਿ ਵੈਸੁ ॥ ਨਿਰਤਿ ਨ ਪਾਈਆ ਗਣੀ ਸਹੰਸ ॥ ਐਸਾ ਦੀਵਾ ਬਾਲੇ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੋ ਪਾਰੰਗਤਿ ਹੋਇ ॥੪॥੭॥ Maharaj mehar kari. The masands which you refer to are called Singh Sahib jee and you should read what the Guru Panth Khalsa means before you call people masands. One last thing Veer jee, there is no such thing as the SGPC maryada, they have published it, this is the maryada of the Guru panth Khalsa (not any jhata) and signed by the AKal Takhat.. I hope this piece of information will take you out of ghorandhar :D . Nice post Veer Bundha jee. Veer Khalsaland jee we disagre on what Gurbax Singh jee said, however I dont understand why you did not ring the show? Also you can simply write a letter or ring Gurbax Singh. The controversy regarding the Dasam granth before 1970 can be found in Mahan Kosh. The controversy was mostly over issues as the Dasam granth being in one volume or more than one, the fact that this was discussed only shows that parkash was not done by Guru Gobind Singh jee, therefore the question was are we right to do what guru jee did not. Veer jee, I believe that the Dasam granth is the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee, however as the direction of the Akal Takhat has been made clear I feel we should follow this decision. Ive also read your views, however, veer jee its clear when we read the panthic Sikh rehit maryada and the direction now given by the AKal Takhat. The rehit maryada says the following: 'Sri Guru Granth SAhib jee di vakar (tull ) kishi pustaak.' The Rehit maryada does not allow any other granth other than the Guru GRanth Sahib (note that only the guru Granth sahib jee is referred to as being parkash), Vakar means same as (to the guru granth Sahib) Tull means: matching, like, equal, equivalent, similar, proportional resembling, comparable. The panthic Sikh rehit maryada does not allow parkash of the Dasam granth or any other granth/pothi etc, furthermore Mata number 1 from the Akal Takhat does not allow parkash of the Dasam granth.

If Gulshan had respected Akal Takhat directives, he woudlnt have uttered that the so called controversy of Sri Dasam Granth is there since its inception...This is utter nonsense and false. How did he forget the latest Akal Takhat directive which says that Sri Dasam Granth is an "inseparable part" ('annikharvaan ang') of Sikhi and its controversy is "unwanted" (belora vivad). This sentence alone is a slap on the face of Darshan Ragi, and the cult of Kala Afghana who want to keep this useless controversy alive. If according to Akal Takhat Sri Dasam Granth is an INSEPARABLE PART and its controversy is UNWANTED, then when Gulshan says that the "controversy" has to be addressed after the the gurgaddi celebrations are over, then he is clearly defying Akal Takhat's directives. If Gulshan had respected the Akal Takhat directives then he should also have known that Akal Takhat had excommunicated Bhag Singh, Kala Afghana, Joginder Spokesman for branding Sri Dasam Granth controversial. This is the panthic stand on Sri Dasam Granth. Sri Dasam Granth is an inseparable part and is non controversial. Anyone who does not believe in this is anti-panthic, and anti-Akal Takhat. Historically there has been controversy, you cant re write history. However he then goes onto say and makes it clear that this vahad vihvaad and arguing needs to stop. Gurbax Singh then clearly says: hath jor ki bhenti karada Prof Darshan Singh nuu to stop what hes doing. I like the way you are trying to edit what Gurbax Singh jee said (but its not going to work). He said rather than people calling each other to discuss here and there and challenging each other, all this should stop, we should wait until the gurgaddi celebrations are over and then a panthic smallen should take place rather than individual groups calling on each other. I cant see anything wrong with this opinion. I think its correct for a panthic smallen rather than the panth being split into 4 or 5 groups and just challening each other which makes us look daft. Everyone must be laughing at Sikhs, every day we are arguing and challening each other, first it was jhatas and individuals challenging each other, now its the jathedhars challenging each other. We need to stop all this. The same people who are arguing the dasam granth can be parkash with the Guru Granth Sahib are then supporting other parts of the Akal Takhat hukamnama, dont worry you are half way there. Veer jee you should have rang in and presented your views. Alternatively you can ring Gurbax Singh or write him a letter, all you are doing is presenting your veechar. Let me know what you want to do and ill give you the details. YOu are not challening anyone, all im suggesting is that you feel stongly about this person, so you should present your veecahra with him.

Veer S1ngh jee, what did I write which goes against the Akal takhat? I dont understand what your issues are, If ive written anything against the guru panth khalsa I ask for muafee, if not then you have some serious issues with the panth. The cult which you refer to is called Akal Takhat. Veer jee Baba Deep Singh has nothing to do with this discussion, the point is do you believe in the supremacy of the Akal Takhat? firstly I do read the dasam granth and secondaly I do kirtan from the dasam granth in different raags and bandishs (which Im willing to share with you) however, I follow the guru panth khalsa and the decision not to do any other parkash with Guru granth Sahib jee, this decision is not the creation of mine or Gurbax Singhs mind, it is a decision made by the Akal Takhat. Veer Inder Singh as normal you dont understand what other people have written. No one is saying Guru Gobind Singh jee did not recite 5 bania in the amrit sanchar. The only thing im saying (and Gurbax Singh jee said) is that the rehitnama do not record this. End of the day the Guru panth Khalsa concluded that 5 were read (at the Amrit sanchar over 300 years ago) and I stongly agree with this. Damdami Taksal have no record of their rehit maryada, its only recently been published. Its been edited and we dont know who edited the Taksal Rehit maryada and how did they have the authority to edit something which is claimed to be given by guru Gobind Singh jee. (what would you call that? maybe kuffar?) Do the Taksal have the right to edit and change what Guru Gobind Singh jee gave them? or Did Guru Gobind Singh tell the Taksal that in 250 years time you guys will be driving cars, so add that into the maryada. Veer jee what you say has no value, you just contradict yourself. One the one hand you say Darshan Singh has violated the Akal Takhats decision by discussing the dasam granth, on the other hand you attack the panthic Sikh rehit maryada (passed by the AKal takhat) and decisions made by the Akal takhat on parkash of other granths with the Guru Granth Sahib jee. Why did you not ring the radio programme and ask Gurbax Singh himself if hes read the Dasam granth rather than asking Veer V jee to ask him questions? Personaly I dont need to ask questions, the Akal takhat has made a decision, therefore those who attack the Dasam granth need to stop and people who keep doing parkash of Dasam granth with the Guru Granth need to stop. The fact that idols were also present harmander Sahib complex, would this fact make you conclude its correct? Just because something was done before 1942 is no evidence, if it was evidence then why dont we bring the idols back? You are just making irrelvant points esp when the guru panth Khalsa has made a decision. Inder Singh jee, some people claim there are 3 granths (not 2 as you claim) :lol: , this is the same people who you keep saying have the oldest maryada. Veer Khalsaland, Inder Singh jee and S1ngh jee, Why did you just not ring in the radio and present your views? Veer Khalsaland jee, Kala Afghana has nothing to do with this discussion, he is banned from the Sikh panth and people like Gulshan unlike yourselves 100% follow the panthic decisions and not pick and choose. Veer jee the Dasam granth does not need to be parkash to do khata, just as Bhai gurdas jees vara, Bhai nand Laal jees writings and Kavi Santokh Singh jees Sooraj Parkash is not parkash. How comes we still have khata of the above even though they are not parkash? Veer jee its not Gulshan who is starting this debate, he is simply following the directives of the Akal Takhat.

Gurbax Singh Gulshan said the following about the Dasam granth: My view of the Dasam Granth is exactly what the guru panth Khalsa says. I will only give answers according to the guru panth Khalsa. We should follow the Guru panth khalsa with sharda and piyar. The panth gave itts decision, the guru panth khalsa represents the Guru, the stamp has been given. Regading Nitnem bania: We should stay in accordance with the guru panth, the hukam of the panth regarding nitnem is clear, there is no question of these bania. Regarding The parkash of other granths with the Guru granth Sahib: Its not a suggestion (the hukamnama of the Akal Takhat) its an order to have no granth with Guru granth Sahib jee can be parkash . No other granth parkash when gurgaddi given……Guru manyioo granth said after ardass. We should follow the Guru panth Khalsa. Akal Takhat jathedhar has handled the whole Prof Darshan Singh well, and I agree with the decisions.It’s a syani ghall that we should not argue and quarrel about the dasam granth. I ask Prof Darshan Singh with folded hands not to do this quarrel. Jathedhar Mohan Singh has passed a mata at the Akal Takhat, no granth can be parkash with Guru granth Sahib when the question was bought to the jathedhar. Mata number 1 Dharamak salayag committee, the following question was asked: Some people do akhand path of dAsam granth Decision, is this correct? It was confirmed in the mata that no Akhand path can be done of the Dasam granth, however we can do veechara and read the dasam granth (not in the roop or way we do parkash of the Guru Granth Sahib jee) One jathedhar issuing a hukamnama like Patna Sahib is wrong. The panthic decision can only be made by all 5Singh Sahiban at the Akal takhat.

I was asked a question regarding the formation of the Sikh rehit maryada and Sant Gurbachan Singh jees views. If Ive missunderstood the question Veer jee asked me, I ask for muafee.

Veer jee could you provide some referances of what you claim Sant Jarnail Singh jee said. Neither Sant Gurbachan Singh or Sant Jarnail Singh are above the panth. Also the decisions are not man made, do you not believe in the guru panth khalsa and the decisions made by the panj? Do you not accept the authority of the Akal Takhat. Whatever the Guru panth Khalsa says should be parvan. Veer jee the SGPC never forced any maryada through. The simply published the maryada which was passed by the guru panth Khalsa. The following is the discussion which took place: quote name='Mehtab Singh' date='Feb 9 2008, 04:40 PM' post='324006'] Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Jee was indeed NOT there when this present maryada was drafted, as said by Sant Baba Hari Singh Ji Randhawae waale. The original title wasn't this, but the news article did refer to it pretty much. Bhai Sahib I suggest you go to the SGPC daftar and look at their books which records what was happening daily during those times. If Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee was not present then why is name printed (Each person who entered meetings was recorded and the discussions are also in the log book). Also why did Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee not protest the publication of his name? Atleast he could have protested that he was not consulted. Word of mouth is not enough to convince people, one person is saying one and historical references are saying another. It's like the Taksal and Sant HAri Singh Randhava saying no bindia can be pronounced in Gurbani when Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jees book shows that they should be pronounced. The same Hari Singh Randhawa (unless ive confused him with someone else) states 'I dont no where they have started putting these bindia in (this was in his khata i heard at the gurdwara, sorry I have no recording). So sorry, I do not listen to SAnt Hari Singhs opinions when facts are shown otherwise. Even if someone is not present in a meeting, I would why people make such a fuss, has that individual become the panth? SGPC is "panthic" maryada? since when? Akaal Takht Sahib Jathedars have not signed off on ANY maryada to state a single maryada as 'panthic'.. during the 1920's many prominent Sikh leaders walked out on the discussions because some people starting making so many changes that were not agreed with... therefore, it cannot be considered a panthic maryada... Akaal Takht Sahib has not 'endorsed' that maryada, meaning, it has not stated that maryada as panthic maryada.. even some of the other takhts go by different maryada then Akaal Takht Sahib.. i have a question...before 1920, how many times was there a 'meeting' like this arranged to discuss a 'panthic' maryada? Bhai SAhib jee if you write a letter the Akal Takhat, they will clear your confusion by stating the rehit maryada is the panthic Sikh rehit maryada. Please look at the following books: Darpan Sikh rehit maryada (Gurbaksh Singh Gulshan). The jathedar of Akal Takhat Sahib jee has written on page 11 slanajog karag. So he accepts this rehit maryada as being the panthic one, if not why has he written the foreword? Sri Akal Takhat Sahib ati Jathedhar Sahiban (Singh Sahib Giani Kirpal Singh sabka jathedhar Akal Takhat Sahib jee) Please go to page 99 right at the bottom of the page it is clearly written: 'on the 2nd of April 1958 I was appointed head granthi of Sri Harmander Sahib, Sri Amritsar. I approached Sant Giani Gurbachan Singh jee to ask him that 'our Jhatas maryada is different to that of the maryada at Sri Harmander Sahib je, what is your advise for me to do? Sant jee replied, 'You should follow the maryada which has been placed at Sri Harmander Sahib, because this maryada is the maryada of the Panth, the other maryada is mere our jhatas maryada, You should do palana of the PAnthic Rehit maryada. Note that on page 100 Singh Sahib jee says that Sant jee always supported this notion which he had told the Singh Sahib. Sant baba Gurbachan Singh jee also used the words panthic Sikh Rehit maryada. Singh Sahib jee was then made head granthi on the 2nd of April 1958. There was no maryada in 1920, it was only a karara, the Panthic rehit maryada was part of a process where dicussions would take place and then finally written down as a karara. It was only after the 1930s that the Rehit maryada was published not in the form of a karara for the first time 15th of March 1927 The JAtehdar sahib of Akal Takhat Sahib (Bhai Teja Singh jee) presented the list of Bidwan In that list includes the 4 Jathedhar Sahiban (Damdama sAhib was not a Takhat then). Look at 'Panja sahalia ithaas' Page 41-42. You can go to SPGC office sign in to read the book. In 1927 Babu Teja Singh Basour was excommunicated, according to my research he was the only one thrown out of the committee. Also note that Giani Sundar Singh jee Bhindra was present in meetings until he passed away in 1930. Until 1933 there were still discussions regarding the Panthic rehit maryda, on the 30th of December 1933 a panthic smallen at Sri Akal Takhat Sahib was called. Go to Page 111-114 Panja <admin-profanity filter activated> Ithas, when I looked at the records I counted 170 people at this meeting alone. This book by the way can be seen by all. After 2 days discussion continued however the Singh Sahiban decided that still more discussions should continue, Also note that Hazoor sahib jee was also represented in the meetings. For the next 3 years meetings took place. The karara was passed on the 1/8/1936. On the 12/10/1936 Akal takhat Jathedar Singh Sahib giani Mohan Singh jee along with other gursikhs (including the head granthi Sri harmander Sahib jee) under mata number 149 passed the Panthic Sikh Rehit maryada, these people signed the mata. Until 1945 Changes were made by the Panthic rehit maryada by the panth which included the Akal Takhat Sahiban.

Convenient is it not? So you have no poof for the sources that you have written. I also suggest you email and ring Gurbax Singh with your evidence, but atleast give him more than you are giving me. The Damdami Taksal and Nihangs dont follow the rehit maryada, your own sources (Taksal) attacks JAchak for saying women were allowed in the panj piyari, it seems they have also not read the rehit maryada. Not very reliable are they, these jhatas who dont even follow the panth.

His rejection for the post of Head Granthi of Harmandir sahib twice is an evidence for his distorted theories about Dasam granth.Is that not enough?Surely it is.I do not need to give any more evidence against this liar,hypocrite and a crook. Punjab heritage These are a bunch of thugs masquerading as sikhs and may be are on the payroll of anti sikh forces.The person who lies is not a sikh of the Guru.Gulshan is one of the lairs and traitor of sikh panth in the same way as kala afghana. Ok let me get this right, because he did not become a granthi at harmander sahib, not getting this post is evidence. :lol: So basically you have no evidence of Gurbax Singh not understanding the metaphors and bani of Dasam granth as you claimed.

What are you talking about, it seems you dont seem to understand what he is saying. He does not say its wrong to do panj bania (amrit sanchar), you are adding the words in yourself because you cant find them on the page. Firstly on page 204 he is not talking about nitnem and secondaly He says the following on page 204: sari pukha noo ghokhan veechar uprant' the panthic decision was then made on the amirt banis. Veer jee there is no rehitnama which says 5 bania and I have not come across any ithassic granth which gives the 5 bania, they all have different numbes with different bania. This does not mean its not 5 bania and neither does the writer say this. Veer jee could you scan Guru kian sakhiya and also tell us the author and publication as I have done with the book in question. Could you also do this with your 18th century documents. Ive not come across this. Thanks. The fact that he says 5 bania were decided after veechar and this is a panthic fainsla is something which you conviently miss out. What he says about the rehras is correct. Please read the Guru granth Sahib jee and you will come to the same conclusion. This has been concluded in the panthic sikh rehit maryada which he clearly says it is correct: Rather he says on page 64 at the bottom of the second paragaraph that neither the SGPC, any jhata or person has a right to change the maryada (either shorter or claiming its longer). Read the last sentence of that paragraph.

Maybe this will inspire Inder Singh to scan the pages once requested regarding Prof Darshan Singh. So Veer jee you believe everything newspapers and what people write on the net, why walk blindly? Ive sent u the pages since you keep ignoring the fact that you have not read his book and yet dont stop attacking the writer.

Its not my assertions, its what ive read from the book. You are painting pictures by making accusations from a book you have not read. That just dont make sense. Then your evidence is based on secondary sources rather than what the person either writes himself or says himself in khata. If you feel so strongly about this person, first read his book, then I suggest you contact him.

He has not violated the Akal Takhat yet, unless you have some power to know what he will say 2night. your first post makes no sense, because he does not say any of the things which are claiming. You should read the book veer jee and then make your opinion, its only 250 rupees.

Oh right, if someone says something about another person it must be true. (no audio or written proof needs to be provided from the person who is alleged to have written all this). Just like you saying he questions the nitnem, amrit bania and rehrass sahib, your sources are full of lies, the book Darpan Sikh rehit maryada is written in full support of the panthic Sikh rehit maryada and the jatehdhar of Akal Takhat calls it a salanayoog karag. When these sources make lies up about the book Gurbax Singh has wrote, you expect us to believe them when they say Gurbax Singh has an anti Dasam granth agenda. He is not good with his anti Dasam granth agenda when he says u should read Jaap Sahib, Swayaai and Chaupai. Seems to defeat the object dont you think? Basically you guys are just slandering some guy who has written a book which is on the panthic sikh rehit maryada and tells us to follow the Akal takhat. Then your source (Singhsabhacanada.com) is saying that Gurbax Singh will speak against the dasam granth. You have already made ur decision on his beliefs by the title of the post, I dont understand the point in this. If he does speak against the DG in the radio discussion then fair enough, say what you want, until then what right do you have to write posts and slander people? So there is supposed to be no debate on the DG, then you post an article which debates the issue of DG. :gg:

Well Said!! I Agree!! Also at one point, well documented by historical records at Hazoor sahib, the Singhs there locked the gates and came back to Punjab, as living there was very difficult in olden times. The managment was then taken over by Turks of Nizam of Hyderabad. They took care of the gurdwara with great devotion for many months or maybe year/s. When the singhs went back to claim the place , the turks refused to hand over the shrine saying they had abandoned the place and will not get it back. It was only after great difficulty that they got the gurdwara back from the Turks. This story i read in "Sachkhand Patra" printed from Hazoor Sahib. You think ragi Darshan singh is right then? :gg: Veer Apne jee you are 100% correct about Nizam of Hyderabad. Veer Khalistan_Zindabaad, You might find it interesting to read what Sant baba Gurbachan SIngh jee says about the panthic Sikh rehit maryada, Since he seems to be above the panth for you guys, you should read what he said to giani kirpal Singh jee about following the panthic Sikh rehit maryada. If you cant be bothered to read it, ive written a translation in another discussion, you can search for it.

This is not about jachak, you are just changing the topic and You have provided no proof. I dont know what his views on Dasam granth are, from reading his book ive not found the answer, you have come to a conclusion about him and have called him 'a crook, a liar', 'limited intellect' on the dasam granth, where is the evidence? please share it with us. Personally I will not make such statements about people when Ive not heard it from their mouths and ive not heard him make such comments. If he does make them in 2Nights show then fair enough, but until then, will you provide us with any referances? What has Prof Darshab Singh got to do with this discussion. You were talking about Gurbax Singh Gulshan have limited intellect on the dasam granth. Im simply asking for some audio or written evidence. why come online and bad mouth other people without providing proof. If Gurbax Singh speaks against Dasam granth on the radio he is wrong, however for you to make assumptions on his views is just disgusting.

Veer Punjab heritage jee, your sources say the following: 'The Damdami Taksal chief had alleged that except Giani Maan Singh, the other two priests had never served in any SGPC-run gurdwara. He had also alleged that Giani Jaspal Singh was instrumental in the allowing baptised Sikh women to be part of “Panj Pyaras” (five beloved ones) who administered “Amrit” in “violation” of the established “maryada”.' The first point ive already made. The second point does not contradict the panthic Sikh rehit maryada. Further I could not find any points where Gurbax Singh has questioned the panthic Sikh rehit rehit maryada or the Dasam granth in his book or in your sources. Ive read his book and he does not question the panthic Sikh rehit maryada, once again I suggest you read the book instead of relying on other peoples research. I dont know what Gurbax Singhs views on the whole dasam granth are, however its clear from his book that he does not question the banis which you claim he does. Veer Inder Singh jee what are you on about? The interview has not even taken place, yeah right im changing the topic :D the topic you have started is one day to early. In the first post by punjab heritage and links provided the following arguments have been made: nitnem bania, Amrit sanchar bania and rehraas sahib are questioned (this point was made in Punjab heritage's last post). All these issues are claimed to be written in the book darpan Sikh rehit maryada. However, I find it odd that Giani Gurbax Singh Gulshan does not even question any of these. Ive given the page numbers, so you guys can read up. So how am I changing the topic? Read the frist post and the links provided and you wont be confused. HAve you read the book? Veer Inder Singh can you provide us with some evidence that Gurbax Singh Gulshan does not understand the methaphors of the dasam granth, as you are sure his intellect is limited, I would like to see how you came up to this conclusion. Thanks. Veer Babbar Khalistani jee, I agree to a certain extent with you, however whatever the hukam of the Akal Takhat is parvan in my eyes. On the other hand look what happens when we do have debates as in this discussion, you've got people making comments about other people without even reading their books and then claiming the writer of the books has limited intellect :lol: . If there is going to be debate we first need to be able to sit together without shouting personal attacks and then we should read all the sources before we start a debate.

Veer jee, Ive found the page numbers, I suggest you now go and read the book because what you are saying makes no sense. Regarding amrit bania, go to page 204. Its clear he says that panj bania are read during amrit, he also gives the date when the panth decided to change the amrit bania. This was a panthic decision, there is no historical document which says panj should be read, however the panth has made this decision and Giani Gulbax Singh jee clearly says that these panj bania for amrit sanchar is a panthic decision. Regarding nitnem bania go to page 63. There is no discussion on the dasam granth in any of these pages, neither does he question, rather he is saying these bania should be read. So its incorrect to make the statements you are making. There is discussion on the Rehrass which is correct and in accordance with the panthic Sikh rehit maryada and the way its composed in the Guru granth Sahib. I dont know what singhsabhacanada is, but veer jee rather than listening to what others say, just go to the source, Has giani Gurbax Singh said he will talk against the Dasam granth? if not there is no need to make statements. If he does make such remarks and the radio show allows phone calls to be made, make a phone call and make your point, until then all this speculations is pointless. We believe too much what others say and we dont even consider whether its true or not, just like making comments about the amrit bania and nitnem bania when his books says the contrary. One of the reasons Giani jee did not become a granthi at darbar sahib was because he does not hold a post in any other SGPC gurdwara, it was claimed other people should be ahead of him. Im not suprised the granthis of Darbar sahib objected to someone who follows the Akal Takhat rehit maryada from becoming a granthi, just read Giani Jaswant Singh jees books, he totally shows disregard for panthic deicisons. It seems that its all about getting your own people into the positions. I hope you will be able to air your views on the radio station, also the following is the details of the book in question: Gurbax Singh Gulshan, 'Darpan Sikh Rehit maryada'. You can buy it from Singh Brothers www.singhbrothers.com. Or it says in the book you can email Giani Gurbax Singh: gsgulshan@swani.com It even has his phone number, I can give you that if you want. One more point, its suprising that the following people have written about the book and have said its good: Singh Sahib Joginder Singh vendanti; giani Gurbachan Singh (head granthi darbar Sahib, amritsar) Giani Tarlochan Singh jee (jathedhar keshgarh sahib), giani jaswant Singh parvana (sabka granthi Darbar Sahib, amritsar), and other people. Im suprised these people would do this if such objectionable things are written.