00gurpreet_singh00

The parts of bhai veer singh's steek that I read were really, really good...probably the best steeks I've ever read...and I didnt need to be a scholar to understand it.

Gurmukh can have different meanings depending on context. In this context it seems that it means through the mukhi guru. After reading your message I double checked with faridkot teeka, and the arth they did are the same ਜਿਨੋਂ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੋਂ ਦਵਾਰੇ ਨਾਮ ਕੋ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾਇਆ ਹੈ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਮਨਮੁਖਾਂ ਨੇ ਬਿਅਰਥ ਜਨਮ ਗਵਾਇਆ ਹੈ॥ I haven't checked sahib singh's teeka, but I'm pretty sure it'll be the same too.

the pad chhed seems correct here there is a sihari on the khakhaa of gurmukh. Therefore it can mean whoever hasnt received naam through the mukhi guru...or the one that hasn't received naam through the path of becoming a gurmukh. im not any sort of linguist but making ji and nee seperate doesnt make too much sense to me.

there is no doubt that guru nanak is sargun saroop of akaal purkh, nor is there any doubt in my mind that Bhai Gurdaas's vaars are 100% correct. I think the confusion lies in the arth of this pauri. If anyone has Bhai Veer Singh's steek of bhai gurdaas jee's vaaran, it would be good if you could take a picture of the arth of this pauri and upload it. ਬਾਬਾ ਪੈਧਾ ਸਚ ਖੰਡ ਨਾਨਿਧਿ ਨਾਮ ਗਰੀਬੀ ਪਾਈ This line seems to be where the confusion is, and just while reading through it the arth that came to my mind is that bhai gurdaas jee is referring to the same story that comes in janamsakhis of Guru Nanak Dev Jee going into the river for 3 days and formally becoming satguru after coming out. It is said that when guru sahib went into the river (sachkhand) this is where Guru Sahib formally received gurmantar and mool mantar (naanidh naam gareebi paee) and then upon coming out starting doing udasis as referred to later in this pauri This does not mean that Guru Nanak Dev was not complete and perfect before going into the river for 3 days. In indic religions it is essential to take on a Guru, so from what I have heard, Guru sahib went into the river for 3 days and did the formality of taking akaal purkh as their guru.

Baba Makhan Singh of Bhai Mani Singh's Taksal katha (like Sant Gurbachan Singh's and Gyani Takhur Singhs katha, this one is also really good): Part 1 of this pauri: http://www.gurmatveechar.org/audio/katha/0...hya.Part.39.mp3 Part 2: http://www.gurmatveechar.org/audio/katha/0...hya.Part.40.mp3 Prof. Sahib Singh: http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/darpan1/0007.html Bhai Randheer Singh's arth (I believe) are the ones that Bijla Singh posted. Someone please correct if I'm wrong here as I've never read any of Bhai Randheer SIngh's books other than a bit of his autobiography. Faridkot Teeka: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.g...amp;p=0&k=2

gyani takhur singh isn't the be-all-end-all of arths. Baba Makhan Singh doesn't different arth of this pauri, sahib singh does different arth and bhai randheer singh does different arth.

gur kehihaa saa kaar kmaavahu. gur kee karnee dhaavahu. Guru sahib can wear and do whatever they please. There is no way that they can be bound to a maryada for sikhs.

self edit.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, what do you expect people to believe when you write "you cannot claim that bhagats had to come back as singhs and take amrit so that they can be mukht. this twisted logic is only used by sharia panthis, agyani." Maybe next time you should be clear with what you write. Even akirtghan obviously interpreted your msg the same way as me, as you can tell by the message he posted right after yours. Last time you accused me of putting words in your mouth when I wrote that you compared guru sahib with other avtaars, I even gave you a quote of how you compared the both of them, if you don't believe me you can check the old thread. Please find me someone that said hindus are wasting their time...no one has said that. People say that hindus will receive the fruit of their actions but not get to sachkhand...how is this the same as wasting time? If you don't get to sachkhand in this life does that mean you wasted time? Now who is putting words in someone else's mouth... Also, one last question. If old bhagats had to come back and take khande da amrit and before going back to sachkhand (you said you had no problem with this idea), then how can you say that khande daa amrit isn't required? The only logical conclusion that you can come to if you believe this scenario is that a 'socio-religious' ritual is required. whatever...this topic has gone way off topic, maybe mods should split it into 2 or 3 threads.

When it comes down to it, I am agyani, I got no problem admitting it, true gyan is brahmgian and I dont have it. Do you? You are basing your reasoning on what you have been told by Baba Jagjit Singh, I am basing mine on what I have learned from mahamurkhs katha and steeks. Do either of us know who is right? No. My only problem is you calling everyone that doesnt agree with you agyani or shariapanthi, Sant Gurbachan Singh states that some bhagats came back on form of panj pyarey...are you saying they were sharia panthi or agyani too? Maybe you should ask Baba Jagjit Singh if they were agyani, I know that they wouldnt say so. Would mahapurkhs debate these topics with eachother and call eachother agyani? I highly doubt it...then considering that you consider yourself a student of Baba Jagjit Singh why do you come and call everyone that doesnt agree with you agyani/shariapanthi?

Sikhi is not for me or you to define, it's Guru Sahib sikhi, and seeing that guru sahib is sutantar, guru sahib can make any maryada they wish and bhagats abide by it.

Thats my point. You can say vaahiguroo or you can say Guru Nanak Dev Jee, comes down to it, its all the same thing. Nirgun aap, sargun bhee ohee. Aap naarain kalaa dhaar jag mehi parvario. This whole argument about 'salvation' before guru nanak dev jee or not makes no sense to me because there is no before guru nanak dev jee...There has always been guru nanak dev jee. I was listening to katha a couple days ago by Baba Pooran Singh, vidyarthi of Sant Gurbachan Singh and he told a sakhi and said he got it from a janamsaakhi. The first time guru nanak dev jee met Bhai Lalo physically, Guru Nanak Dev jee didnt say 'I'm Guru Nanak', they said 'pacchan liya?' (did you recognize me?). Bhai Lalo was alredy mukt and had met Guru Nanak Dev Ji, just in a different roop. My point is that who are we to restrict what Guru can do and what god cant do...Guru Nanak Dev Jee and vaahiguroo have no difference between them and thus placing restrictions on them makes no sense.

Before guru nanak dev jee? I never knew there was a 'before sri guru nanak dev ji'...I thought sikhi was anaadi, Guru was anaadi...what happened to that?

With all this discrimination talk going around these days, I'd like to point something out. In mool mantar, and all throughout bani, god is referred to as a purkh. 10 gurus all had purkh saroop. Everyone else is called a female. Now does it not make sense for guru roop panj pyarey to have purkh saroop? If it is discrimination that bibian aren't pout in the panj pyarey, then I guess you are saying that Guru Gobind Singh Jee was discrimination by not putting a brahmgiani like Mai Bhago in panj pyarey. By historical accounts it seems obvious that she was worthy of such an honour, but why did guru sahib not put Mai Bhago in the panj pyarey, why were the panj pyarey always 5 singhs? All this discrimination talk is going WAY overboard these days. Even with the stuff of bibian not being allowed to do keertan in darbar sahib (by the way, I don't necessarily agree with the ban). If you are going to say its discriminatory that bibian cant do keertan seva in darbar sahib, are you also saying that Guru Sahib was also discriminatory because there is no historical account of a female keertani during guru sahibs times? Instead of jumping on the discrimination-bandwagon, please try to reason things out. By saying that men and women have different roles, does not in any way mean that someone is someone is discriminating, its just facing the realities that men and women and made different. That doesn't mean one is superior to the other, it is just facing the facts that due to certain differences, mean and women have somewhat different roles. Another thing I find interesting is that, on one hand you call Sant Jarnail Singh a sant, on the other hand you say he discriminated...aren't sants supposed to be sum-darshee?

chaoutha padh, turiya avastha, brahmgian....from my understanding is the same thing, when you go beyond mayas 3 guns and connect to akaal purkhs jot.

I'd get it if it was made out of sarbloh instead of steel. I wouldn't get a steel one though.

"Vaars written by Bhai Gurdas Ji (almost 100 years before 1699) state that Anand Karaj must be between two Sikhs." Can you please the vaar and pauri that this is stated in?

from what I know, there is an historical perspective. Listen to the katha of this shabad done by sant kartaar singh. http://www.gurmatveechar.org/audio/katha/0...ndrak.Vanaa.mp3

here you go. sorry for taking so long http://download.yousendit.com/D375B7443D75CE81 put it on gurmatveechar if u can.

goto gurmatveechar.com and there is a recording oh akaal ustat by giani parwinderpal singh. Tua prasaad chaupai is right at the start of akaal ustat.

I'll have it up somewhere by next week. If I forget just PM me and i'll do it. I just don't have access to internet at home right now.

I have it, but dont know how or where to upload it.

Agreed, Saroop of Guru Granth sahib jee should be larrever, there is no doubt in this. However, those of who that say pad-chhed saroop isn't satguru, I have a couple questions: 1. Do you even know how to read larrevaar? If the answer is no, then why you sitting on a forum and arguing about larrevaar, you should be embarassed that you can't understand what your Guru is telling you and go get santhiya 2. Have you ever seen a puraatan saroop? If the aswer is no, then I should let you know that puraatan larrevaar saroop and the modern printed one have differences in terms of how the lines are set out. For example, compare the following... (puraatan style) hukmeehovanaakaarhuk amnkahiaajaee.hukame ehovanjeeahukammilaiv adiaee. with (the new printed style) hukameehovanaakar hukamnkahiaajaee. hukameehovanjeea hukammilaevadiaee. See the difference? The new larrevaar saroops are made easier to read by ending each line with the end of a word but the puraatan ones would end whereever the writer ran out of space. Are you going to say the new ones are made easier to read and thus they are not Satguru? Bani is bani, saroops should be larrevaar but padcheed saroop is still Guru Sahib's saroop.

before you tell others to be careful what they say about Gursikhs, maybe you should watch you say about shaheed singhs. Writer of Pracheen Panth Prakash is SHAHEED rattan singh bhangu. I dont know if you wanna be comparing a shaheed with khushwant singh. Bhai Rattan Singh Bhangu got his information from his ancestors and older sikhs and then wrote it in pracheen panth prakash. However, people forget that panth Prakash was written like 150 yeare after the Baba Banda Singh Bahadur events. Just think how many times the story would have changed as it was passed from one person to the next in the 150 years it took before Bhai Rattan Singh wrote down the story in Panth Prakash. Play a game of telephone and see for yourself how easily stories can be changed.

if it's from darbar sahib, cant you goto sgpc's website and listen to recorded keertan from there?