r.singh

By the way, about the original question... From all the sources that I've checked, the pronunciation is closer to daee. Bhai Joginder Singh Talvara Jee writes that it is close to deI. I'm not sure why they pronounce it like this. Other similar words, like jX are NOT pronounced with a long ee sound in them, according to these same sources.

The bindis in the foot did not exist during the time of the guru's and don't appear anywhere in gurbanee. One veer mentioned that they existed during the time of Guru Gobind Singh Jee, but this is not true. The bindi's in the foot were developed later. Why were they developed? Several reasons. But firstly, it should be made clear, that they were not developed by the British to write words like zebra. If they were, then could someone please explain what words the British needed a ^Z for. These are clearly not English sounds. They are Persian sounds. Basically, what we sometimes forget is that our language is not completely phonetic. There are letters with multiple sounds. These sounds have always existed and are not British inventions. For example, the letters G J F D B all have two sounds associated with them. Some people try to use just one sound, but an linguist will tell you that there are two sounds. For example, in isMG and Gr, the G sounds different. Similarly, the B in le='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Bgq and pRB sound different and is generally pronounced differently by most patees (including sampardai pattees). The different sounds for these letters follow a simple pattern (if the letter is at the start of a word, it has one type of sound, if it appears anywhere else in the word, it usually has the second sound). Most of the words that these letters appear in are quite familiar to punjabees, and have been familiar to them for centuries, and there is no confusion.With the sounds produced by the bindi letters, this is not the case. There is no simple rule and many of the words are foreign (usually Persian) and so, for many readers, it was difficult to tell when to make a sh sound or s sound (j or z, etc). For this reason, bindis were added, for ease of reading, especially when literacy began growing and many people unfamiliar with foreign based words began to read. Recently, some people have begun placing a bindi in the foot of l to distinguish the two different sounds. The sounds have always existed (ie, jl - water, and jl - burning), but there was no symbol to differentiate the sounds. Just because some people have now started using a bindi to differentiate the sounds doesn't mean that it's a new sound. Similarly, s K g j P, all had multiple sounds associated with them. For example, the word sharya (Islamic law) existed at the time of Guru Nanak Dev Jee and was undoubtedly pronounced with sh. The ru lers of the time were Muslim and I'm pretty sure they knew how to pronounce their own words. I'm sure Guru Jee also knew how to pronounce their words and wouldn't have said sarya, unless someone can come up with a good reason explaining why the Guru's would do this. Especially since Gurbanee was directed at everyone, including Muslims, and so, what would be the point of mispronouncing their words and not being fully understood? I sometimes find it confusing as to why some singhs get upset when somebody uses multiple sounds for s (shabad and sant) but not when they use multiple sounds for B (Bgq, pRB) or for X Adhak is also another example of a symbol which doesn’t appear in Guru Granth Saahib Jee, but whose sound effect is often used. The sound effect associated with adhak has been around since the start of Gurmukhi, but the symbol was made much later, to help people read properly. I may be mistaken, but I think that most people, knowingly or unknowingly, use the sound effect associated with adhak when doing paat, regardless of whether the symbol is there or not. Similarly, we all use vishraams (pauses) when we do paat. I don’t know of any good pattee who doesn’t. However, there are no commas in Gurbanee; each tuk is written continuously. We could say that if Guru Jee wanted us to use vishrams, they would have used some symbol to indicate this, such as a comma. In the end, we need to recognise that there are various schools of thought when it comes to gurbanee pronunciation. We should try understanding the possible reasons for the differences and l earn whatever we can. There is no point in fighting over things like this. Everyone is trying to read Gurbanee as shud as they can and with as much prem as they can, which is the most important thing. Another note: I'm pretty sure Sant Gurbachan Singh Jee was not in favour of pronouncing the sounds represented by the bindi letters. However, I'm pretty certain I read in their book that they did use bindis up top sometimes (the nasal sound) in places where it isn't written in gurbanee (although not very frequently). I believe (I don't have the book with me right now, so correct me if I'm wrong) that they advocated pronouncing a haha in the foot of some words, even though it may not appear in the written word. For example, in Japjee saahib, Teerth Nahvaa.... In fact where ever Nahva or nah (referring to bathing) appears, they place a haha. Navan (referring to Naam) is often spelt the same but Sant Jee says they are pronounced differently (unless I am remembering incorrectly. Please correct me if I'm wrong). They also used various methods for pronouncing yaeeya, as most people seem to. Sorry for the long post, but I find this topic quite interesting.

For Degh, use equal amounts (by weight, not volume) of sugar, butter and flour. Use 4 times as much water, so that the ratio is 1:1:1:4. The butter should be clarified butter (melt it and remove the lassee by straining it). Refined sugar works fine. If you use desi style sugar (that large grained, cane sugar available at indian stores), then strain the chanee (water, sugar mixture) through a cotton cloth to remove dirt and other particles. When making degh for Guru Jee's Darbar, follow the instructions that Tarunjeet Singh Jee posted. You should do as much paat as possible. Japjee Saahib and Anand Saahib are standard. Also, degh maryada for the guru's darbar requires the use of sarbloh utensils.

You still haven't explained how you can reach god without having faith in god, or believing in his existence. Also, how do you know he exists, without having faith in his existence? If you can't see god, smell god, taste god, touch god, how do you know god exists? Is it not 'belief' in god, faith, that is the basis of religion? How can you 'know of his existence' without having faith? And why in the world would you assume that knowing the effects of knowing god would be obvious??? Of course he's not dependent on you believing in him. However, I would disagree with your contention that he won't shower you with his grace for believing in him. He doesn't need your belief, but god will reward his sevaks for their faith. It's stated throughout gurbanee. Belief in god, worship of god (through japping naam) is central in Sikhi. Japping naam isn't simply another meditation method, which is totally focussed on just making yourself a better person, or gaining some sort of self realization. It is based on love for vaahiguru. You jap naam to vaahiguru, in devotion to vaahiguru, in love to vaahiguru, in surrender to vaahiguru. It's focused on the shabd, on vaahiguru, not yourself. By becoming the slave of vaahiguru, you will receive the grace of vaahiguru. There are many examples in gurbani and sikh history of the power of faith in vaahiguru and surrender to vaahiguru. It doesn't mean that vaahiguru isn't compassionate towards others, including buddhists. They will get theirs according to their karms and their kamaayee. But faith in vaahiguru is definitely rewarded. Sure, anyone can meditate. But meditate on what? In gurmat, everything is based around vaahiguru, including meditation. And yes, it requires belief in vaahiguru. Open up any ang of Sri Guru Granth Saahib Jee, and you will see the central theme of god. Everything is based around vaahiguru and your surrender to vaahiguru. This requires faith. An atheist may gain something, maybe even a lot, through meditation. However, it is not the same as a gursikh japping naam and living sikhi, and the results won't be the same either. Not even close. If islam or the yogi path or bhuddism could give you the same thing, then why did our guru's have to go to the trouble of starting the gurmat path? Why not just reform some of the earlier paths? Also, god may have many names, but for a gursikh, meditation on the gurmat naam is of utmost importance. Read Bhai Gurdass' varaan and you will hopefully realize the importance given to the shabd vaahiguru in gurmat. It's wrong because that's not what the tuk says. It's not even close. I can take a sentence, completely ignore it's content and structure and give it any meaning I want. That won't make it correct or acceptable. The svaayiaa and accompanying dhora that that tuk is from, is quite clear in content and meaning. Guru Jee wasn't being at all ambigious. It's quite straightforward. I gave examples of certain translations simply to give a reference. There ca n be disagreements on exact meanings, obviously, and some will even accept multiple meanings. However, these different meanings won't completely contradict each other, as is the case with the version you gave. Please do provide the recording you got this from. I would love to hear it.

This sounds good, but doesn't really mean anything at all. You don't have to believe in god, you just have to know? So I can know that god exists but yet have no belief in god and still reach god. That makes a lot of sense. I guess we can overlook the thousands of references in Sri Guru Granth Saahib Jee that mention faith in the creator and explicit meditation on god.I recall in a post some time back, you also gave some strange meaning to the 'ram raheem, puraan quraan inek kahin mat, ek na maniyo' tuk. You seem to just make up whatever meanings that suit you. I'm going to just repost what I posted last time.

?? That's nice. We complain about other ignorant people trying to hold on to outdated rules like this...... but a 'sikh' company doing this??

hahaha... that's good propoganda, Japnaam. Would, could, should.... he MIGHT have blown up the world, he COULD have destroyed all his neighbours,.... The sharp decline in suicide bombings by Hamas has to do with the assasinations of their leaders. They're too busy trying to regroup.

Interesting statistics. So how many people did the US kill since 1978, directly and indirectly (indirectly by setting up and funding wars, etc)? A lot more than the number of americans killed (of course, any innocent person killed is a travesty).

You've gotten this completely backwards. How is the idea of one meaning of gurbanee the basis of Lareedar? If you believe in more than one meaning, then you should be even more against padched. One of the main points raised against padched was that people will print different versions of padched, depending on how they take the meanings to be. If you do padched one way and print it like this in a saroop, then you are basically denying the possibility of any other padched for that tuk. Your point makes no sense. Also, if you want to discuss gurbanee ucharan and females in the panj, please start another thread. As far as grammar is concerned, read a book on viakaran and you'll realise that different grammatical systems of different languages are taken into account . Lastly, if you have a valid point in favour of padched, then present it. What does trying to bring in the views of people at Tapoban have to do with this? If your stance has any merit, it should be able to stand on it's own without you trying to shift the attention to other issues and trying to attack the people and personalities presenting the counter view, rather than attacking their arguements.

Noonespecial said Guru Saahib Jee gave us Shabad Guru/Gurbani and the physical form of Guru Granth Saahib. Shabad has been guru since Guru Nanak Dev Jee, but there was also a physical manesfestation, in the form of our Guru's. This Guru Ship was passed on by Guru Gobind Singh Jee to Sri Guru Granth Saahib Jee. That's why we read the dohra, 'guru manio granth'. Granth refers to the physical form. The shabad has always been the guru and Guru Gobind Singh Jee would never have had to pass on the guru ship if there wasn't a physical form as well. As to the many people who've benefitted from pad ched saroops... they would have benefitted a lot more if they'd learned to read from lareedhar. When you read from lareedhar, you have to make a greater effort and you learn a lot more gurbanee and a lot more about gurbanee. From padched, there is a lot more blind reading involved. People have made learning to read lareedhar seem like some momentous task. It isn't. If we have piaar for Guru Saahib and put in the amount of effort we should for our guru, it is quite simple. We devote so much time to learn other things in life, but to learn gurbanee, we want to s pend as little time and effort as possible. If you've learned how to read panjabee and gurmukhee, then reading from lareedhar isn't that much more difficult. Using padched saroops has made sikhs that much lazier and has lessened the experience of learning gurbanee. The main point about why saroops should be lareedhar is quite simple. Because this is the physcial form of gurbanee/guru shabad given to us by our Guru's. When we try changing it, we use our own mat to try and decide what the guru's meant. Nobody in the world, no matter what their avasthaa, has the authority, or giaan, to change the form of that guru. As has been shown in this thread already, there are many disagreements in the panth about proper padched. There are in fact hundreds of disagreements. Every publisher has there own version of guru granth saahib. You might make mistakes reading lareedhar, but those will be your own mistakes, which you can correct. In padched, those mistakes have been permanently and intentionally passed on to the saroop. In accepting pad ched, we are also implying that the form of Guru given to us by Guru Saahib was deficient. It was flawed and we have now tried making our guru better, by making it easier to read and more accessible. Singho, sikhs of the guru can't try changing their guru. They accept their guru as perfect. If singhs at the time of Guru Gobind Singh Jee or Guru Nanak Dev Jee had found aspects of the guru too difficult, they wouldn't have tried changing the guru. They would accept that there must be a reason for this and adapt themselves. We want to make our guru adapt to us rather than making the effort to adapt to our guru.

If we've done padched, we have made a decision for everyone about what the correct paat is and have put this decision not only on the sangat, but have tried forcing it on Guru Saahib by changing it permanently in Guru Saahib. If we keep it lareevaar, the Guru is not being tampered with and the possible mistake is not being preserved. The next patee to come along may do the paat correctly. The mistake will be that of the patees and will not be enshrined in the saroop itself.

Khalistani, you've mentioned several times that ik oaankar and ikoaankar sound the same and it's all banee, whether it's lareedhar or padched. Well, firstly, nobody is saying that the padched form is not banee. It's banee, but padched of Guru Granth Sahib Jee is wrong. Now to the point about it all sounding the same. If all we're concerned about is sound, than what if I made a saroop, with all the banee, but written in the romanisd alphabet. Like some of those gutkas that are in english. In fact, this may already have been done. Would doing prakash of this bir and doing akhand paats from this bir be okay, since the banee still sounds the same? Your point about Sant Kartar Singh Jee's comments makes no sense. He was against the act of doing padched, and condemned it in the strongest possible language, but once it's done, it's okay? Let me understand this: doing padched of gurbanee is utter manmat, but once you have a bir full of padched banee, this bir should be acceptable to the panth as our guru? That makes a lot of sense. :lol: Also, didn't Guru Gobind Singh Jee already decide on the guruship? Who has the authority to change that decision or tamper with the form of that guru, in any way? Sikh for life, the panth decided a long time ago that the pad ched of Sri Guru Granth Saahib saroops was wrong. It was banned. The official documents declaring this ban are still available from the SGPC. This ban was never lifted, but was slowly forgotten. Fort unately, most our historic gurdvaras still do prakash of Lareedhar saroops. However, this is changing, as the lax attitude of the majority of the sikh panth is allowing padched saroops to slowly make their way into our historic gurdvaras. That's why it is crucial for the sangat to be aware of this issue and work at restoring what has been lost. Lastly, khalistani and taksali1, it's really disappointing that you singhs use the name of Taksal and then make excuses for swearing. You need to control your krodh and wash out your mouths. And by the way, there is nothing shameful in admitting that you've made a mistake. If a gursikh makes a mistake, like swearing, and they have this pointed out to them, they will admit their mistake and apologise, rather than trying to justify their mistake.

Khalistani, Nobody is denying that pad ched saroops contain gurbanee. And of course, gurbanee should be respected. But, aren't you offended and hurt by the fact that sikhs decided that lareedhar saroop given by Guru Saahib was inadequate and decided to redo it in a different format? You keep saying that lareedhar saroop is the best and prakash of this should be encouraged but... you keep putting in these buts. Singh, this should hurt you more than the imposter comment. Why was the form of our guru changed and why do we all just blindly accept it? Our Guru was changed! There are no if's and's or but's. Prakash should be of lareedhar saroops only. We've tried making things 'easier' and have resulted in thousands of people who can barely form a word by putting two letters together, becoming akhand pattees and thus having hundreds of akhand paats going at the same time. This brings in massive amounts of dollars but very little in terms of spirtual growth in the panth. Nobody pays attention to the banee, including the paattees doing the paat. Many don't even know what they're reading. Today, there are more akhand paats being done than ever in the history of the panth. Many times more. Yet look at the state of sikhee. I'm not trying to say that doing paat from pad ched doesn't result in any laha. Doing paat is beneficial, but how much chardee kalaa can we expect as a panth if we've rejected the form of the guru given to us by Dashmesh pitta and used our own mat to remake the guru in the form we like. Khalistani Jee, are you also offended by Sant Kartar Sigh Jee's comments about padched printing being manmat? Sa nt Jee calls the production of these saroops, that are currently prakash in a large number of gurdvaras, manmat. Why do you seem to just ignore what doesn't fit your thinking and keep repeating the same thing over and over? Are Sant Jee's comments any less harsh than the imposter comment?

When someone writes a book and uses gurbanee tuks, they are using their interpretation of that gurbanee and will pad ched it as they see fit. When you read the book, you know that the author is writing their views and this is not necessarily how guru saahib would do it. So it's not that big a deal if it's pad ched. The point here is that the gur gaddi was given to a saroop that was lareedhar. If you make a gutkaa, a pothee or a book with pad ched, it's not the same thing as Sri Guru Granth Saahib Jee. It's still gurbanee and worthy of our utmost respect, but it isn't on the gurgaddee. We can write whatever banees we want in a gutkaa, in whatever order we want. You can't do that in Sri Guru Granth Saahib. The point is about which saroop was given gur gadee, not about whether it's gurbanee. Ideally, it would be nice if all gurbanee was written in lareedhar. However, the main issue is about the form of Sri Guru Granth Saahib Jee and whether we can make alterations to our Guru.

Just to add, the panth has never officially accepted pad ched saroops. The only official decision taken by the panth (by the SGPC and Chief Khalsa Diwan) was to ban publication of pad ched saroops. This decision has never been overturned, although the SGPC eventually started ignoring it's own decision.