Kharkoo4Life

The concept of jooth does not exist for someone who is a member of Khalsa. Being part of the khalsa means one is completely pure within, a purity which is achieved by the union of the sikh with his master. Such a purity can never be tarnished by mere physical means. The whole concept of jooth eminates from brahmnical teachings, that touching or even being near another makes one polluted. But Guru Nanak openly defied such baseless thinking by eating with the common people regardless of which religion or background they were from. WIth regards to the SarabLoh bibek, this has no importance in Sikhi. The only conditions placed for a sikh on eating is to eat only that which is healthy for the mind and body. The kind of utensils used to eat the food has no bearing on this. It could be made of iron, aluminum, plastic, styrofoam, glass, none are regarded as better than the other. These serve as mere trays to hold the food. With advancing technologly the number of different forms and materials of which these plates, utensils come in is ever increasing, and a sikh should not worry about which of these he or she chooses to eat. All are equal. With regards to ur specific questiosn about sarbloh utensils, the amount of beneficial inorganic nutrients ingested from the untensils themselves is not relevant for we get more than enought of the various metals, vitamins ions from the foodstuff themselves if we eat a healthy balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables. So sarbloh bibek has NO EFFECT on one's spirituality, nor does it serve any specific purpose. If one wishes to eat from sarbloh utenstils then by all means they can, but they shouldnt do so with a mindset that this is the proper or correct way for a sikh to eat, or that this method is better than ohter methods. SUch thinking is nothing short of following karam kaand. If one is truly worried about food, utensils, jooth etc. then one has to go no further than gurbani itself to find the answer and cure to this problem: Anidnu scu slwhxw scy ky gux gwau ] Night and day, I praise the True One; I sing the Glorious Praises of the True One. scu Kwxw scu pYnxw scy scw nwau ]2] True is the food, and true are the clothes, of those who chant the True Name of the True One. ||2|| swis igrwis n ivsrY sPlu mUriq guru Awip ] With each breath and morsel of food, do not forget the Guru, the Embodiment of Fulfillment Remembering the Lord at all times is the True Bibek a Sikh should follow.

After that lengthy read, hopefuly it makes the perspective and stance of Sikhi a bit more clearer. WIth that understanding let us look at the initial questions u posed: What is the Sikhi position with respect to Capitlism and the modern Corporation? (a corporation is an enitity that is solely centered on profiteering) Sikhi does not preach an absolute outright against anything in this world. It merely encourages us to understand that things proper use. Another words use that particular electronic device, that individual skill or talent, that institution, that company (whatever that thing may be) for the benefit of all humanity. To help make improve peoples lives and bring happiness and love for each other. IF we use this attitude then that coporoation which had becomed engrossed in greedy profiteering, will still strive to make profit, but not at the expense of exploting others. It will do so only by hard honest means. And if it makes a rather substantial sizable profit it will reinvest that profit amongs the employees as well thos members of society who may be in need. Thus not only has that 'evil' corporation become a tool for spreading Gods love, but if every business took this approach then the 'evil' system of capitalism itself will also become another expression of love and equality rather than greed and exploitation. Is the legal acquisition of goods permitted within Sikhi? or is a sikh not permitted to attain too much capital? (Should we be allowed to enjoy the fruits of our own labour or is this wrong?) A sikh is entitled to acquire anything he is able to so long as he does one thing: Keeps remembrance of God in his mind at all times. Because if he forgets God then that thing will become maya. eyh mwieAw ijqu hir ivsrY mohu aupjY Bwau dUjw lwieAw ] This is Maya, by which the Lord is forgotten; emotional attachment and love of duality well up. But if one keeps god in his mind while acquiring these good then that thing will no longer be seen as maya or a hinderece to realizing God, instead as teh guru states in the next line khY nwnku gur prswdI ijnw ilv lwgI iqnI ivcy mwieAw pwieAw ]29] Says Nanak, by Guru's Grace, those who enshrine love for the Lord find Him, in the midst of Maya. By remembering God at all times while acquiring these worldly goods a couple of things will occur: 1) He will only use honest means to acquire them, for God is the embodiment of truth and always remembering god the person will automatically practice truth at all times. 2) Whatever he acquire he will not use for selfish puposes or to harm others. He will use it for the benefit and good of eveyone. 3) He will not cling to that good as his own. He will realize that everything belongs to God and these goods are merely gifts from Him. So if He is kind enough to share them with us, then we should be willing to share these gifts with whomever else needs them, if any need arises. As Sikhs we are sometimes wrongfull told that a Sikh is above this world and shudnt gather any form of wealth. But they do not realize if this wealth (delicacies, material goods) were so evil to begin with, why would god have given them to us, and keep giving them to us. These goods were given to us to enjoy but with the one instruction, to use these goods for their inteneded use for humanities benefit. As long as we keep god in our mind at all times, n say thanks to him then there is nothing wrong in enjoying the pleasures he gives us. The 6th asthpadhi of Sukhmani sahib is filled with a list of wordly goods which man enjoys. Before each it says "By His Grace ", meaning we are fortunate to enjoy them. IF it was harmful or wrong then it wudnt be a grace of his. But it is. But after descrbigin each of these worldly goods, the immediate line after it is filled with an instruction to us to keep that god in remembrance while enjoyin that good. By doin that, the above mentioned 3 co-conditions will n ever be breached. ijh pRswid sugMDq qin lwvih ] By His Grace, you apply scented oils to your body; iqs kau ismrq prm giq pwvih ] remembering Him, the supreme status is obtained. ijh pRswid AwBUKn pihrIjY ] By His Grace, you wear decorations; mn iqsu ismrq ikau Awlsu kIjY ] O mind, why are you so lazy? Why don't you remember Him in meditation? ijh pRswid AsÍ hsiq AsvwrI ] By His Grace, you have horses and elephants to ride; mn iqsu pRB kau kbhU n ibswrI ] O mind, never forget that God. ijh pRswid bwg imlK Dnw ] By His Grace, you have land, gardens and wealth; rwKu proie pRBu Apuny mnw ] keep God enshrined in your heart. What FORCE should motivate us (AS SIKHS) to accumalate capital to ensure our physical survival? --> Should it be Maya (A word that is --- very unpopular amongst sikhs) or something else? ....note if you pick something else then I would like to know what it is? The key force behind whatever we do, be it schooling to get a degree, working to get money, volunteer work (seva) to help others, should always be the same: Namely the remembrance and devotion to the Almighty Lord who has made all this possible for us in the first place. The guru did not forbid any sikhs from working, or from making money thru their works. If the guru was so against ppl gathering wealth then he would have scolded every king and said it is a sin to become a king or queen. But he didnt. The guru merely said, whatever it is you do, do it while immersing yourself in the the love of god. When one is filled with nothing but love for god in them, then no matter what they do, it will be honest and pure. They can live a life as a simple farmer in a hut or a welathy raja in a palace. In either case, neither will exploit or harm anyone. THey will use whatever resources or means they have (be they small or large) to help all those around them. the driving force behind us shud never be maya: lwgI BUK mwieAw mgu johY mukiq pdwrQu moih Kry ]3] Driven by hunger, it sees the path of Maya's riches; this emotional attachment takes away the treasure of liberation instead it should be as follows: mnu kuMcru pIlku gurU igAwnu kuMfw jh iKMcy qh jwie ] The mind is the elephant, the Guru is the elephant-driver, and knowledge is the whip. Wherever the Guru drives the mind, it goes ANd once we start making the guru our driving force, then the end result will be: khu nwnk Brmu guir KoieAw qw hir mhlI mhlu pwieAw Qw ]4]3]12] Says Nanak, when the Guru drives out doubt, then the soul-bride enters the Mansion of the Lord's Presence.

Fateh, Good topic and good questions in relation to them. If we want to discuss this topic from a Sikhi viewpoint and the stance of Sikhi on subjects such as capitalism then the first thing we must understand is Sikhi itself. Sikhi is a lifestyle, a way of living. This lifestyle is learned from the guru, by reading and understanding gurbani. Now one of the first things we are taught is "Karta Purakh", meaning god Himself is the Supreme Creator of everything and He resides in every bit of that Creation. That being said nothing in this universe is inherently evil or wrong in itself. If God has created something there is a definite reason behind it. He does not create anything which is detrimental or harmful to us. It is only the way in which man chooses to use those things which can be wrong or harmful. It is only when we fail to realizy WHY He has created that thing and use that thing for our own individual selifsh benefits that the thign becomes harmful to us rather than a good thing for us. This holds true with everything in our life, including the social system in which we may live. In our case it is capitalism. Now capitalism on its own isnt rooted in evil. It was envisioned as a society where each person was entitled to be rewarded based on how hard he or she worked. If someone devotes 10 extra years to schooling, or spends extra 30hours a week working overtime why shouldnt that person be rewarded for their extra efforts? This goal to reward ppl based on individual merit is great! In fact it is supported by the teachings of Sikhi. HOwever, when people (be they individuals or coporations) became selfish they began to take advantage of this system and exploit others. After working hard they began to use the increased wealth they gather to exploit those with less means and power. While this system came bout with good intentions, obviously it is not perfect and has some ohter shortfalls as well. Some people by chance are born into environments where they never get opportunities to study, or get chances to show their talents and thus remain marginalized merely due to their unlucky birht into that particular pocket of society. Pure capitalism affords no avenue for equal opportunity for such ppl On the other hand the polar opposite of capitalism, communism, isnt wrapped in any sort of evil or harmful objective either. It was envisioned as a society where everyone would be treated equally and fairly regardless of where they were or what they did. Thus no matter what occupation one did, what kind of schooling they had, they would be paid in accordance to meet their daily needs of sustenance (food, shelter, clothing etc.). Thus chance for ppl to become extremely wealthy and exploit less advantaged ppl was reduced. However again, this system was not perfect in itself for ppl still found loopholes in it. The work being done in such a society was not far less or miniscule compared to purely capitalistic societies. And any where there is work done, services rendered, there will revenue/profit collected from that. This created a dillema since the profit was envisioned to be spread amongst everyone equally, those in power decided to give everyone very small amounts, albeit it was still equal to everyone in general. The extra left over they kept for themselves and thus also became powerful and rich as the elites of capitalistic society and used this power to exploit the less advantaged. Furthermore, because communism tend to hinder the axiom of u shall reap what u sow, n changes it into u shall reap only what we give u, it strangles the spirit of creativity and enthusiams of the average person crating a stranglehold on the growth and expression of the self and community. Now while both systems, were born with good intentions, both have failed because of one key central concept. They both failed to incorporate any spiritual element in them. Spirituality is akin to a permament, universal safegaurd where all shall be treated with fairness, compassion and love with no loophole for any form of exploitation or oppression. For a sikh this spirituality stems from the guru, gurbani. Guru Granth Sahib is the character building ground of a Sikh in which are firmly rooted his/her ethical values to run the daily affairs. It emphasizes the importance of gun (virtues), and obviously disengaging from any known vices in the society. nwnk Aaugux jyqVy qyqy glI jMjIr ] jy gux hoin q ktIAin sy BweI sy vIr ] AgY gey n mMnIAin mwir kFhu vypIr ]4]1] " All the vices that we have are like chains around our neck. Virtues, however, are our real friends as they are the ones, which help us to cut the chains of all our vices. There is no recognition of these vices in the next world. It is better to throw these Guru-less creatures." In the following hymn the need to develop virtues of contentment, humility and love in order to achieve Union with God Almighty are beautifully described: " mnu hwlI ikrswxI krxI srmu pwxI qnu Kyqu ] nwmu bIju sMqoKu suhwgw rKu grIbI vysu ] Bwau krm kir jMmsI sy Gr BwgT dyKu ] 1 ] " "Let your mind be the farmer, and good deeds the farming; and let your body be the farm; your hard work be the water; Let the sweet remembrance of God Almighty be the seed; and contentment the furrowing and let humility be the fence. And by the Grace of God the seed will sprout and will give birth to devotional Love. Fortunate are those homes, where such a situation exists." So how does this all tie in with the discussion of capitalism? Well captilasim runs on the foundation of business. Be it the business of a single person or a large company, and be it the business of large scale electronics manufacturing and sales or backyard farm of fruits and vegetables. For a sikh to live in a society of capitalism is not wrong, neither is it against sikhi. A sikh merely needs to ensure his actions and dealings within that capitalistic framework are in accordance with the teachings of Sikhi (ie. love, fairness, equality, tolerance). Therefore, on the basis of the above-mentioned short discussion on virtues, a Sikh businessperson, is duty bound to make sure that his or her business ethics do not conflict with the value system of his/her religion. ‘Truthfulness’ comes first in a long list of business ethics one should follow. According to our Scriptures: " schu ErY sBu ko aupir scu Awcwru ] 5 ]" " Truth, the Absolute Realty – God is the Highest of all Next in line comes the virtue of Truthful living." As per Nicolai Hartman, " Truthfulness is an agreement of one’s thought or convictions." Our Gurus added another significant item to it and evolved a new definition and that is, " One’s actions must support one’s words and convictions. The Virtuous Actions. In Sikhism, a family life is preferred to the life of an ascetic. And the guidelines to run the family affairs are: " One should earn one’s living by honest means, share one’s earnings with the needy and keep God Almighty – the Creator always in one’s mind – that is to be always thankful to Him." Guru Nanak refused a dinner invitation of a rich man – Malik Bhago, who sucked the blood of people to earn his wealth. The Great Guru preferred to dine an ordinary meal with a poor man – Bhai Lalo, who earned his bread by honest means. Apart from this, sharing of one’s earnings must be done with the spirit of responsibility towards our fellow human beings and not as a charity. Only God Almighty gives charity to all of us, we only share His Gifts. Service to humanity irrespective of their caste, creed, color, religion and nationality is the Sikh way to love people and enjoy the revelation of God. For example, in context with the present day business system, if, for some reason, we are forced to downsize our company and cut our workforce, we should bear in mind the principles of this rule. We should consider reducing the hours of our employees rather than terminating the services of a few. This should be the basis of all the professions – farming, business, manufacturing, retailing, medicine, engineering or any other job. Any or all professions are good, if one takes the guidance from a True Guru and follows the moral standards and code of conduct as explained by the Guru. I quote from our Scriptures below: " nwnk siqguir ByitAY pUrI hovY jugiq ] hsMidAw KylµidAw pYnµidAw KwvMidAw ivcy hovY mukiq ]" " O Nanak! by following a true Guru - Guide, one understands the real secret of a balanced life. Then, while leading a family life of a householder, earning one’s bread by honest means, one can get saved from vices." (The actual bondage) No profession is in any way a hindrance to our objective of reaching God or to have a complete Union with God as emphasized in our Scriptures – Guru Granth Sahib. " nwmw mwieAw moihAw khY iqlocnu mIq ] kwhy CIphu CwielY rwm n lwvhu cIqu ] 212 ] nwmw khY iqlocnw muK qy rwmu sMm@wil ] hwQ pwau kir kwmu sBu cIqu inrMjnu nwil ] 213 ]" When a devotee of God, Trilochan criticized another devotee, Namdev for spending his time doing work for living and not concentrating upon God’s Name, he replied: " The principle of life should be to keep God’s Name always in your heart while honestly performing the duties of your profession. " One thing which causes ppl to hate capitalism is the power imbalance and exploitation of it between employer and employee. However this not need be the case if both serve their roles in accordance with gurmat. The relationship between an employer and a employee should be: The mission of an employee should be to do the job sincerely with an objective to serve the humanity and not to earn money to become rich and then claim superiority over others. On the other hand an employer is duty bound to treat every employee equally and fairly without taking undue advantage of some one’s weakness. Age and/or gender discrimination is against the fundamental tenets of Sikhism Ethics are more important than other things. Cheating, lying, black-marketing, profiteering, bribing are not approved by the Father of the Universe – God. God’s displeasure can not bring peace and happiness in our hearts though such unethical actions may bring more money, and give temperory satisfaction. Riches thus collected increase our ego, which is the real cause of all the problems in human beings. It acts like a thorn deep down in our heart that can produce nothing but discomfort and pain and is the biggest hindrance on the way to God. To deprive someone of his/her due share or wages is strongly disapproved in the Sikh Scriptures: " hku prwieAw nwnkw ausu sUAr ausu gwie ] guru pIru hwmw qw Bry jw murdwru n Kwie ]" " To deprive someone of his/her due share is like eating pork (for a Muslim) and eating beef (for a Hindu). The Guru will stand by you, if you do not consume someone else’s share, which is deadly for you." In fact the best trade or business in the words of our Guru is: " scu vwpwru krhu vwpwrI ] drgh inbhY Kyp qumwrI ]"" The greatest business that will give you good name in the Court of God is your truthful dealing with absolute Truth – God."

Fateh, i think this sums up the essence of our dreams. Whenever we try to analyze our dreams there a couple of things we should always keep in mind. Firstly, at any given time while we are awake our minds are filled with innumerable thoughts. our ability to comprehend and focus on each of these thoughts (which may number in the hundreds, if not thousands) is severly restrained by our limited analytical capacities. If we think in terms of a computer, at any given time a computer is carrying out millions of simultaneous processes but we can only see a handful of these on the screen at any given time. If we try to run more programs with the limited software (windows) the comp will greatly slow down and thus limiting useful work it can get done. Though this is far from an exact comparison, a similar case exists with our minds. If we were to focus on each of the countless thoughts which take place in our day during the course of a single day, then most of our time wud be spent simply engrossed in thinking and almost no actual productive work would get done. So these thoughts get put on the shelves indefinitely. Another important thing to consider is mans response to any sort of stress which enters his life -- what is known as the fight or flight response. In the mental arena, fighting would equate to tackling the stresses directly and delaying with them while flight would equate to repressing and ignoring those stresses. These stresses can be anything from anger, hate, sadness, grief, regret, hope, uncontrollable euphoria etc., anotherwards almost anything. The third thing which is important to remember is that even if a person has desire or makes attempts to deal with some of these stresses we are usually so busy with day to day activities,being bombarded with school, work, family duties, that we have very little energy or room left to deal with these stresses. So again they get put off. Our mind is not completely rid of them, rather they continue to occur in our subconscious. Sleep is one of the few times, we have no responsilbilites at all. Our minds are free to wander and focus on whatever they have greatest desire for, which is often the things we cant deal with during the day. ALso, man exists in a finite physical world. All of our daily experiences are tied down to and limited by this finite physical world. Each of our senses can only appreciate whatever the limits of this physical world allow it. NOw our mind is not made up of the same phyical matter like this world. It is a non-physical entity, and while during the day it is restrained by our limited physical senses at night it is free to roam and experience our existence from a truly limitless perspective. THat is why in our dreams we can fly with ease, jump insane heights and muster up just about anything which would be unfathomable in our daily life. So what does this all mean? Well firstly, that we should not take our dreams literally. Yes we shouldnt completely ignore them either, but we should try and analyse them with the aforementioned understanding. IF we see somehting in our dreams it does not necessarily mean that we actually saw it or it actually happened. We may just have such strong feelings bout that thing or situation, that we yearn for it. And yearning for it our minds creates an environment in which that yearning is fulfilled. Now my point isnt to say that what ppl say they experienced in their dreams is lies. Only god has the answer to that. But with the example given of having guru jis darshan, this may actually just be an emotional manifetation of an actual inner desire filled with such love for the guru that they wish to be by their side. The guru as we know has always been and shall stay the bani-roop gyaan. No living person actually knows or has seen the physical roop of any of the gurus. Anyone who claims they have seen such is either talking from intense emotional love and confusing their imagination with reality or is fabricating the stories. That is why every artists painting of the gurus differs so much. They all feel they have seen the guru but they all fail to realize that the guru actually has no physical form -- he is only bani-roop gyan. Anyways, gettin off topic now, all i want to say is there is nothing sinister nor divine about our dreams. THey are usually just an extension of our regular daily thoughts, viwed in a light that is unhindered by the constraints of daily hustle and comprehension thru limited physical means. As a final note, with regards to the note bout curing of any sort of disease and relation to manifestation of guru/maha pursh in dreams, just remember that the power of suggestion and hope is more powerful a remedy than any pharmaceutical drug. This is the basis of ardaas, to give us the inner strength and renew our faith in waheguru. Is is this inner strength and faith which is capable of fighting off impossible odds in a battlefield, withstanding extremes of unbearable physical torture. So we simply need to ask ourselves, how miniscule is a simple physical ailment in comparison to these other obstacles and is it the actual 'physical darshan' (be it in dreams) of the guru which brings about miraculous chagne in a persons life or the inner love and faith symbolized by these images in our thoughts which brings about the change?

With all due respect, i understand ur concern that no sikh can tolerate someone challenging the authenticity of gurbani or calling one shabad of gurbani better or higher than other. And i agree that no one shud do this. However the point i am trying to explain and which everyone seems to keep forgetting or overlooking is very simple. To call something GURbani means we are saying it is GURU DHI BANI, and guru dhi bani without argument is our guru. We can not just go around calling anything gurbani simply because we feel like it, or that someone told us, or that we see the words patshahee dasmee at the beginning of the writing. The only thing we can EVER call gurbani is the gurbani Guru Gobind Singh told us to accept as our guru. Meaning ONLY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED WITHIN GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI. Guru Granth Sahib itself tells us that the gurbani alone can make one perfect for gurbani itself is perfect: siqgur kI bwxI siq srUpu hY gurbwxI bxIAY ] The Word of the True Guru's Bani is the embodiment of Truth; through Gurbani, one becomes perfect. Now if one considers that some outside compositions are of the same level or status as that of guru granth sahib ji then that implies that gurbani is not complete on its own, that it is lacking something, and hence is imperfect. But the guru himself is telling us that this gurbani we read in guru granth sahib is 100% complete and perfect. guru pUrw pUrI jw kI bwxI Aink guxw jw ky jwih n gxy ]1] rhwau ] Perfect is the Bani, the Word of the Perfect Guru. His Virtues are so many, they cannot be counted. Furthermore, the guru does not stop there. The guru tells us to accept this gurbani as being perfect: siqgur kI bwxI siq siq kir mwnhu ieau Awqm rwmY lInw hy ]14] Accept as True, Perfectly True, the Word of the True Guru's Bani. In this way, you shall merge in the Lord, the Supreme Soul. || If something is perfect it means it does not need anything else. It means that alone is enough on its own. So what authority does any sikh have to say well yes guru granth sahib is perfect but this composition (even tho we accept its not our guru) is also just as perfect as the guru? How does that make any sense??? There shouldnt even be need for argument on this point. Im sure even after this explanation many will continue to say this thinking is wrong that dasam granth is also of same calibre or status as guru granth sahib. Well i gave an example before. Bhai Gurdas ji's writings were deeply regarded even by the Guru himself as a 'kunjee'. No other writings have been mentioned with such respect n love (outside of guru granth sahib). However, even after saying this the guru did still not consider these writings to be the same status or even equal to that of guru granth sahib. The guru considered only compositions within guru granth sahib as guru and nothing cud even come close to comparing to it. So how now can we change this policy and say no the guru himself was wrong, for we have found something that whic can compare to it? I will leave u all with one simple message. THERE IS ONLY ONE GURBANI, THE SAME GURBANI WHICH IS OUR GURU, AND IT IS THIS BANI ALONE WHICH EVERY SIKH SHOULD FOCUS ON. And if anyone disagrees with this statement, then they are directly disagreeing with guru ji himself: iekw bwxI ieku guru ieko sbdu vIcwir ] There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate. If someone can still argue against this, the words of our own guru, then i shall say i am deeply sorry and that very little hope exists for such a person. sincerely.

Bijla Singh, thanx for the clarification. I too am not here to argue with anyone but merely wanting to engage in meaningful discussion about topics. And u are completely right that neither u or i have the authority to make panthic decisions. And i hope u do not take my discussing these topics as an attempt to make such a universally applicable decision for all sikhs. I just want to raise awareness aobut these topics in the average reader. Gyaan, knowledge is the true strength and armory of a Sikh. It is gyaan which enabled so many lost, confused ppl to realize the follies of their ways and change their life. It is gyaan which was passed on from guru to guru. And it is the same gyaan which the guru passed onto the khalsa panth in the form of Guru Granth Sahib. So i hope u appreciate that my goal is only to create an open environment where each pursues in acquiring this gyaan in an intelligent, rational manner based on open discourse of views, ideas and knowledge. Only thru sharing each of our own expereinces and understanding can we further our understanding of Sikhi. I too agree with many of ur points, but do as u urself do, differ on point 5. I am in no way saying that Guru Gobind Sinngh had a diff jot than Guru Nanak, for i am of firm faith that the two were one and are inseperable. And it is this very reason which compells me to question and challenge anyone who tries to rigidly attribute the entirety of Dasam Granth to our guru. Its contents, its flow, its subject matter, its tone, language differs much too greatly from Guru Granth Sahib for any honest, learned lover of Sikhi to accept it as coming from the same source. Regardless of which gurus bani we read in guru granth sahib, there is fundamental, undeniable unison in theme and tone. When one reads guru granth sahib, from start to finish one cannot but admit that the flow of it is continuous witout break. With regards to Dasam Granth the reader gets a totaly diff feel. The compositiions are staggered and incongruent. They jump around various topics, with varying tones and language use with no central unifying harmony. As to why i feel this is an important topic we should all be aware of and have knowledge to discuss, i think the following post highlights it. I have said repeatedly that only the bani in Guru Granth Sahib is our Guru and that no other bani, even if it be of Bhai Gurdas Ji or Bhai Nand Lal (which are panth parvaan) can be regarded as of equal status as guru granth sahib. Yes both are beautiful compositions which help us understand gurbani and can serve as an additional source of inspiration but neither can be viewed in the same light or givne the same status of Guru Granth Sahib. It is in thinking as the above where the danger lies. To say that both shud have the same status, this is a very slipperly slope. Say someone 'discovers' some rare manuscripts or purataan steeks with names of nanak or gobind singh in them are we to accept them as being gurus word also? For the precendent will have been set with dasam granth and no one cud stand on two feet and argue against anyone who chooses to make a claim that is the richnavaan of guru sahib. Once we set the precedent with dasam granth then it will open up all kinds of doors for others who may only have evil intentions towards sikhi to take advantage of this loophole. When we attribute the dasam granth as the works of guru gobind singh then countless problems arise. As seen by above remarks, on the one hand ppl maintain that yes guru granth sahib is our guru and dasam granth is not, but then at the same time they will say that the work of dasam granth shud not be regarded as lower than guru granth sahib. who are we kidding here. We all know that only guru granth sahib is our guru so how can we even think of comparing anything with it? How can we even fathom the thought of regarding any other work on the same level of it? There is a reason only guru granth sahib the saroop is given parkash on manji sahib, wiht palki and chaur because only it is worhty of being our true king. SO if we accept is as our only True King how then can we sit another king at the same level or even mention another king as being of the same status? This is where problems and division in the panth will start (and in many cases already has). So let me make it absolutely clear, NO BANI CAN BE REGARDED IN THE SAME CLASS AS THE BANI OF GURU GRANTH SAHIB. There shud be no argument about this. If one wishes to even argue this most fundamental of sikhi sidhaant then we can never expect Sikhi to ever flourish. It does not matter how great, famous, learned, or spiritual the person is but if they dare to challenge that some other bani (no matter who allegedly wrote that) is of the same status as guru granth sahib then that person has no right to call himself a sikh. Sorry to sound harsh, but this is the most fundamental of sikhi principles which no invidiual has the right to violate. As a final note, i concur with bijla singh that we shudnt get mad or fight. We shud remain open and tolerant to each other and listen each other out and counter reason with reason, not hatred or emotion. Rab Rakha

Fateh, Bijla Singh ji, i did not change the subject of the topic. Yes this thread started with someone simply asking a question but that question was asking about Guru Gobind Singh ji's PAST LIFE. Now the rest of the discussion on this thread has been regarding that past life. Regardless of who is right or wrong what kind of attitude is it where u state that if i disagree on others views on his 'past life' then i can choose not to respond? Isnt the purpose of any discussion forum to openly discuss ALL POINTS OF VIEW? I agree u and i may have differing views on the subject of Guru Jis past life but i do not take away ur right to express ur own views and likewise u shudnt be so quick to take away my right. And do not say that the place to discuss that is eslewhere for that is the very topic this whole thread is dealing with. We should all be able to share our points in a calm, rational tolerant manner and leave each reader to decide for themselves which viewpoint they feel more inclined to believe. Another thing which i find quite odd, everyone here seems to be ready to discuss the most oddest, strange and often miniscule of topics but when something meaningful pertaining to our gurus comes up everyone immediately adopts a 'hush hush' dont say somethin wrong or disrespectful attitude. Are we so scared and lacking confidence in ourselves that we cant even discuss the lives of the guru without feeling we ourselves are doing them diservice or accusing others of doing such? For all those who hold Dasam Granth as being the direct word of Guru Gobind Singh i bear no animosity towards u but why do the majority seem so reluctant even agrressively resistent towards those whose views differ from theirs? Is this lack of willingness to even discuss the subject matter the kind of attitude our gurus showed towards the various sidhs, yogis, brahmins or rajas who were dead set against the gurus ways? The guru was willing to always sit down n discuss things in an open loving exchange of views based on reason, logic and rational. It was becuase of this approach that so many people became convinced of the Truth behind Guru Nanaks message and began to follow his path. With regards to ur points: 1) Firstly at no point did i say that ALL of dasam granth is wrong or contradictory to gurmat. However ther majority of it is. At the same time, there may be some parts in it which are in accordance with gurmat and may in actuality be written by Guru Gobnid Singh Ji. These include the compositions u have recited. And yes these have been accepted by the panth and no individual on their own has the authority to over ride this. However, one very important point u shud be clear about is, even if these particular writings have been accepted by the panth, and have been agreed upon as being written by GUru Gobind SIngh they can NEVER be given the same status as the bani in GUru Granth Sahib. WE may choose to read it as aditional bani to help us increase our understanding of things but it can never regarded as anything more than that. And do not take this as an insult to the guru. Because we have only ONE GURU, PERIOD! Nothing comes close to comparing with it!! 2) I agree, all gurdwaras should play the same role in our life. TO serve as centers of reading, listening and learning of gurbani and if that is infact they serve that role in real life then by all means go there. But if we go the added step to add some kahani as to the significance of that particualr gurdwara in relation to others that is wrong! The problem with Hemkunt is not as a gurdwara and a place of Guru Ji's parkash, but rather that people treat it as a place of important pilgrimage, and as u urself cite even the most learned of men feel the need to 'pay darshan' to these sites. Why tho? Guru Is bani, and bani resides wherever there is saroop of guru ji present, including our homes. So why the need to travel up long grueling stretches of mountainous terrain to visit it? By undergoing this long climb up the cold mountain paths are we tryin to prove that we have more love or commitment to the guru? The guru cares not for outward displays of austerities or physical rigours. We have turned this place (and other sites) into nothing more than modern day teeraths of sikhi. That is what i have a problem with. 3) Bachittar Natak has nothing to do with our future. It talks only of past events. WHy shud we concern ourselves with those when the guru has given us the gift of guru granth sahib wich deals with something that is eternal - GOd? 4) If u think devi worship, or audalation of idols or hindu gods is not praised or mentioned in positive light in dasam granth, then i suggest u re read it. 5) i agree they wre the same with no difference. But if one accepts dasam granth then this position no longer holds for the writings and teachings of Dasam Granth are often completely contradictory at places with what is written in Guru Granth Sahib. All Gurus were the same with a single jot and thus cud not write anythin which disagreed with another guru. Only those who have difference of opinion or views (eg. with diff jot inside them) wud write differing views. ANd if we accept dasam granth as the writing of Guru Gobind Singh then that is exactly what we are saying with regards to the 1st Nanak and 10th Nanak (that they were different). I have not made this into a personal fight and nor is it my intention. I have tried to remain respectful and courteous of others views regardless how much i may disagree with them. And as i said eariler, i have been sticking with the first post, which is disccusing guru gobind singhs past life. Just because u disagree with my views on it is no reason to make an outlandish accusation that i am deviating from the original topic. U very well know that i am still on the same topic, the only problem is that u oppose my views and do not wish others to hear those views. Now in this last statement u urself admit that many scholars say these writings are of Guru Gobind Singh ji while many others say they are not. So leaving a topic undecided, how can that be called the end of it?? Whats need to be done is a panel of unbiased, impartial sikh academics, historians, gyanis etc to sit down and critically analyse all the writing of dasam granth and make a final permanent decision on the matter.

Fateh, Dear bundha, thank you for ur thoughts and the highly calm and courteous manner in which u shared them with me. Its wonderful to see that the bani of the Guru is having such marvelous affects on ur demeanor. As for your rebuttal analysing my remarks. This is an open forum and i welcome any and all questions, criticisms, challenges to my posts. Though i may not be blessed with the same ingenious gyaan as u have seemingly have been bestowed with i shall do my best to answer and respond to each of ur criticisms. I think we should start off with a simple lesson on punjabi/gurmukhi. The "word of the Guru" = Gurbani. And Gurbani is the sole Guru of a Sikh. And my friend, GUru Gobind Singh himself declared that the eternal Guru for a Sikh shall be ONLY GURU GRANTH SAHIB. So please tell me how it is you feel you have reached the point where you can call something else gurbani (guru) as well. If you do not consider dasam granth the guru, then u can not call it gurbani for gurbani and guru are synonomous. bwxI gurU gurU hY bwxI ivic bwxI AMimRqu swry ] The Word, the Bani is Guru, and Guru is the Bani. Within the Bani, the Ambrosial Nectar is contained So who where do u get off calling any other composition, wherever it may originate from as "the word of teh guru"?? Instead of question why i am a kharkoo we should more importantly question how u call urself a "bundha" when u fail understand this most basic of principle of Sikhi. These comments are pointless! Firstly i never said that each Guru had to live the EXACT SAME LIFE down to the dot. What i implied was that the LIFESTYLE was exact same. This means the thinking, the reasoning, and overall aim of their actions was the exact same in each case. One guru would not do somehting which would contradict the previous guru. And i never questioned why guru hargobind took to arms, in fact if u recall i said that others have tried doing this. Guru Nanak was the first to show resistence and rebellion against the tyranical rulers and Guru Hargobind merley followed that same path. Guru Nanak used voice and reason to give birth to this rebellion seed, and when the seed had matured and was strong enuff Guru Hargobind used physical force ONLY TO REINFORCE guru nanaks original game plan. Thus both actions tho seemingly different if viewed from physical standpoint were in fact based on the same theological reasoning And IVE NEVER QUESTIONED THE WISDOM OF THE ALMIGHTY as u state. I only question the wisdom of man!! I question the wisdom of a man who tries to make Guru Gobind Singh the creator of amrit, when in fact it was not he but Guru Nanak himself who prepared the amrit for the first time. True amrit my friend is not in pani mixed with patashay but is the bani, it is Gods Name. AMimRqu rsnw bolY idnu rwqI min qin AMimRqu pIAwvixAw ]3] They chant the Ambrosial Name with their tongues day and night; their minds and bodies are satisfied by this Amrit pIviq AMimRq nwmu jn nwmy rhy AGwie ]14] Drinking in the Ambrosial Amrit of the Naam, the Name of the Lord, His humble servants remain satisfied with the Naam This is the real amrit for a sikh. Once they attain this prabhu-naam, i.e. they begin to feel the lords name within their hearts then the only thing that person wants in his life is to stay in touch with this amrit (Gods name). Guru Gobind Singh merely gave this amrit an outward extenstion, a uniform to identify that the wearer of this uniform has TRUE AMRIT vibrating within their minds. Would you please oblige me and cite this shabad for me. Remember this one point when u do, that anywherere bani is written there is always first mention made of the writer. In the case of the Gurus this was transcribed as mahala 1-5, and 9 and for bhagats by their names. So please do show the rest of the sangat where it says mahala 10. I do not consider anything but Guru Granth sahib my guru so i am not sure what exactly it is that i have 'lost' that I shud be deemed a loser. WIth regards to bachiter natak a few quick questions if u wudnt mind. 1. Guru Gobind Singh already declared Guru Granth Sahib complete and our final guru so what was the guru tryin to accomplish by writing other 'bani' for us to read? If it was so important and necessary for a Sikh to read this wud he have not included it in SGGS when he added his own fathers writings in it? 2. ALl gurus spoke only of the mission of our PRESENT LIFE, what we shud do here and now in this life. None wrote about their 'previous lifes' for we cannot change our past. So what was the motive and purpose of Guru Gobind Singh feelin the need to write about his own 'past life'? 3. Have you yourself read the bachitar natak in its entirety or go only by kathas, and teachings of what others have told u about it Your reasoning and though processing seems to get weaker and more confusing the more u argue. Firstly, my contention was not about the Gurus in their births from Nanak to Gobind. I had clearly stated that IT WAS THEIR "PREVIOUS LIVES" in which we cannot consider them Gurus. If someone is worshiping an idol or asking for advice or following the advice of a devi/devta can we consider that person a Guru? The GUru openly rejects ALL IDOL WORSHIP. So because u feel that person 'was' the guru they are allowed to engage in any type of activity no matter how anti-gurmat it may be? As for the Bhai Lehna refernce, answer this simple question, why was he called BHAI lehna before and then called GURU angad after? Do u not think there was an important reason for this? Even Guru Nanak only bowed down to bhai lehna AFTER he had become GURU ANGAD. ONce lehna attained the gyaan which guru nanak himself passed down to him, only then was lehna considered as the Guru. lhxy DirEnu Cqu isir kir isPqI AMimRqu pIvdY ] He installed the royal canopy over Lehna's head; chanting the Lord's Praises, He drank in the Ambrosial Nectar. miq gur Awqm dyv dI KVig joir prwkuie jIA dY ] The Guru implanted the almighty sword of the Teachings to illuminate his soul It was after gaining this knowledge and understanding, after coming to this realization that Bhai Lehna became Guru Angad. To help make tihs point clearer consider ur doctor. Granted he is a doctor now, with full knowledge and understanding about medicine. But wud u regard him as a doctor when he was only 5 years old? WOuld u be willing to let the 5 year old operate on u? No. It is only later after the 5 year went to school, attained gyaan of medicine, that he became competent and fully qualified as a doctor. SImilary, the gurus each attained the status of guru at varying ages. SOme very young some very old. The reason being that it was when they reached the level of gyaan necessary to be the guru and proved it to the previous guru, only then were the sikhs told to now consider and call this person their guru. WEll yes, i agree the times were turbulent. Yet during these same turbulent times somehow Guru Gobind Singh was able to wrtie multiple copies of the final editions of Sri GUru Granth sahib. During these same turbulent times Bhai Nand Lal ji was able to write beautiful vaars/poetry about Sikhi. SO yes the envirionment was inhospitable but the sikhs were able to AND DID still write about the most important things pertaining to sikhi during those same times. And what does Himalayas have anything to do with this bro? Sikhs resides all across northern india, primarily in punajb, wher the climate is much more kind so could they have not even made a single mention of the glory of hemkunt here? Bhai Nand Lal ji wrote some of the most beautiful praises of Guru Gobind SIngh even to this date, and was one of the closest friends of the guru, so surely he would have read the gurus own autiobiography. So why did he not at least make even one mention of this hemkunt, or for that matter any other part of his autobiography in his writings?? This is absurd reasoning my friend. Firstly, how does this relate to me saying that "past lives" of any guru are irrelevant. We are to concern ourselves only with the GUru, and that happend during the tiem of 1469 -1708. Secondly, guru ji did not "leave this earth" ever. Only their body expired. The same guru that existed during time of guru nanak existed during time of guru gobind singh and that same guru STILL EXISTS TODAY. Ant that guru is the shabad guru. THis my friend is the eternal guru. Your comments only go to highlight how we as sikhs keep falsely regarding the dhay (body) as guru. The guru has told us that the shabad shall be our guru from now on, so how can u even bring up the argument that guru ji will come 'back again'. The guru wud not lie and change his mind later about this and furthermore the guru is already with us, he never left! Again, ur comments get more n more confusing and pointless over the course of ur post. What are u trying to say here? Yes Guru Nanak spooke withi sidhs and yes his bani is included in SGGS. No one questions that. And yes, most other gurus also very likely spoke with sihds, n yogies of their times as well. But my whole thing was bout 'past lives' and converstaion from these 'past lives'. It had nothing to do withe ilves of the gurus as we know it. You are talking about two completel diff things. So whose thinking seems to be twisted n confused here?? Is the creation of Khalsa not enuff glimps of his wonders? Is his wilingness to let his four sons fight to death not enuff glimplse of his wonders? Is his courage and steadfast faith in God even after Aurengzebs repeated attacks and murder of thousands of his loyal sikhs not enuff glimpse of his wonders? Or do u still feel that there has to be some 'special writing' of Guru GObind Singh to fully apreciate his wonders? I am not ONLY blaming them for the reason ppl try to dissociate guru nanak from guru gobind singh ji. Yes, there are many reason for why this type of thinking exists today. And we must try and explore and understand where it all comes from. It is in this light one must examine and read bachitar natak and other compositions and then decide wether they truly support our gurus or are attempts to devalue them.

Well thas the thing, our guru is not jus some regular individual whom we cal go n read stories about and assume to be true without any worry of dire consequence. To a sikh his guru is his life. Without his guru he is nothing. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we make sure that any story associated with the guru is actually true rather then just accepting it as fact. The problem in most cases is that everone has a lot of respect for the guru and whenever they hear the mention of the gurus name somewhere they automatically assume it to be true cuz they do not wanna challenge or question anythin to do with the guru. But if someone makes up false stories of our gurus is not the duty of a sikh to stand up and challenge that person to preserve the sanctity and honour of sikhi? Knowing things for educational or general purposes is good but when it comes to our Gurus we should be extra careful about wether the information is true or not. With regards to the story about hemkunt sahib, this also has is a fabricated story which because of great push behind it and being taught to everyone on a regular basis, has become wrongly accepted as being true. This story is mentioned in Bachittar Natak, which is told to the masses as being the "autobiography" of guru gobind singh. If we analyze this a bit closer some very strong questions come to mind. 1. No previous guru ever talked about their "previous life" so why would Guru Gobind Singh how was filled with so much humility that he did not even include his own writings itno Guru Granth Sahib deviate from this and feel the need to tell the world about his previous life? 2. Even if we accept that he did do bhagti at hemkunt in previous life he was not our guru at that point. He became guru only after he attained the gyaan which came from Guru Nanaks bani. Bhai Lehna before he met guru nanak and realized the truth worshiped many hindu idols so shud we build gurdwaras there as well? On the one hand the guru is telling us not to worship any devi/devtay or idols yet on the other hand we are celebrating the story of someone who did pooja of a devti and building gurdwaras in the name of guru nanak at those places. How hypocritical is that!! 3. If hemkunt is of such importance in sikh history, would not the bright, learned and spiritual sikhs of previous generations, including those of the time of guru gobind singh have mentioned this place and made some sort of shrine to commemorate this? If guru wrote this autobiography then surely his closest disciples would have read this as they loved the guru as their own father and were willing to die for him. Their love is what resulted in builiding of so many takhats all with links to guru gobind singh so would they have not done the same thing after having read this "autobiography" of him at that time? Yet how ironic is it that this "discovery" of hemkunt place has taken place only in the last 50 years ever since the brahmin took over control of india.... hmmmmmmmmm....mere coincidence?? 4.Guru Gobind Singh ji's supposed "life" "BEFORE' he even became BORN at Patna sahib is NONE OF OUR CONCERN. Didnt any of the other gurus have previous lives too? Didnt Guru Nanak have a previous life where he did meditation? So why only single out Guru Gobind Singh ji. This singling out is part of a deep rooted attempt to separate Guru Gobind from GUru Nanak. Even today many people say i am a sikh of guru nanak only, that i do not believe in guru gobind singh or amrit/khalsa. As long as i believe in Guru Nanak that is all i need. How has this thinking crept into sikhi? We as Sikhs must realize the ONE-NESS of Guru Nanak to GUru GObind Singh to Guru Granth Sahib. Ther is one jot in all of them. Any one who tries to separate them is NOT a SIKH of any GURU..becasue he breaks the fundamental rule of ONE JYOT.

NO SIKH GURU EVER WROTE ABOUT THEIR PAST LIFE. Gurbani tells us to focus all our efforts, in thoughts, words and actions on the present. Thinking about the past, what we did or didnt do is pointless for the past is not something we can go back in change. It is done and over with so why waste time discussing it or thinking about it. guxI Acwir nhI rMig rwqI Avgux bih bih rosI ] You have not adopted a virtuous lifestyle, and you are not attuned to the Lord's Love; you sit there, crying over your past misdeeds. Instead of repeatedly going over ones past (be it this life, or the previous life if one believes in that) we should focus on reforming and changing our present. In the same light as needlessly thinking about the past, there is no need to worry about the future either. Gurbani gives us a very simple and direct approach to life. It tells us that we cannot change the past nor control the future. So why waste time thinking or debating on either. Instead focus all ur energy on the present. You do good deeds today then tomorow those will become part of ur past and hence slowly over time u will build up a 'new' past consisting solely of good deeds. Similarly, the future is tomorow, that which we have not yet experienced or done. But if the only thing we ever think of is love and only actions we every carry out are good deeds then automatically this will be our future. For if all our energy is focused on good deeds at all times then how can our future ever go wrong (i.e. doing misdeeds). Firstly, anything outside of Sri Guru Granth Sahib can never be regarded as our guru -- i.e. it can never replace or even be considered on the same level as gurbani. Secondly, if there are compoisitions outside of guru granth sahib which one feels may be of value to a Sikh then we have a simple rule given to us by our own guru -- analyze those compositions based on the teachings contained in gurbani and if they agree with gurbani then one can accept them and gain use from them but if they are not in accordance with gurmat and in fact opposed to gurmat then we must discard them. Thus using gurbani as a refernce guide we will quickly see that most compositions consisting of stories or 'bani' outside sri guru granth sahib which are commonly taught and passed on do not agree with the fundamental tenets of sikh philosophy. And if they do not agree with what the guru has himself written in guru granth sahib and told us to accept as the supreme truth then how can we even dare to call these other compositions the writings of the guru?? The guru is not a hypocrit who would say one thing one place and then contradict himself later and say or do something totally different elsewhere. It is only our own weak understanding of gurbani which has led us to falsely attribute such contradictory statements as belonging to the guru. We must move away from this dangerous mindset and focus ourselves to reading, and udnerstanding gurbani as given to us in guru granth sahib.

Fateh, Firstly no one should feel any worry or anxiety if they have questions about anything, particularly about Sikhi. The whole life of a Sikh is that of a student, and every student at some point or another has questions which they dont know the answer to. So i commend you for having the courage to ask these questions to the sangat, and im sure many others have similar questions like you but may not feel as confident asking them. So keep up the questions! Now to try and answer the questions uve posed. 1) Sikh history and stories. You are right that the majority of sikh history was not recorded firsthand by the gurus themselves or by their contemporaries. Much of what we know has been passed down orally thru generations. With regards to the written accounts their are two major sources for this. First are various references and accounts made about the sikhs and the gurus by muslim historians in their own books. These were largely ignored for a long time but there has been lots of effort over last few decades to analyze these muslim records (an excellent example is the work done by Dr. Ganda Singh). The other major source are the sakhis we find in many old books written by various sikhs and others. Many of these date back nearly 300 years ago. The important thing to keep in mind when reading these is that the vast majority of these books were written based on stories passed down orally. Now anytime stories are passed on only by talkin and not written format then very quickly those stories can become distorted and false information enters it. Simple example is when we tell one friend something, they pass that story on to another friend and eventually it keeps being passed on and on and every persons version they tell the next is slightly different then the original n pretty soon the last person to hear it may get false information, n hence false rumours begin. And this is what happend with many sikh stories and why we hear so many unususual and confusing things linked to our gurus. The important thing to realize is the differnce between sikhaya (teachings) and sakhi (stories). Anything we read in guru granth sahib is sikhaya but not everthing we read or hear outside of it necessarily sikhaya. Sakhis function ONLY TO COMPLEMENT and SUPPORT the sikhaya, and not form the taching itself. That is why no guru wrote stories about their own life though they easily cud of. Instead they wrote only sikhaya in the form of bani to help us unite with god. The problem today is that we have become more attahed to the sakhis (stories) then the sikhaya (gurbani) 2) Hukamnama Hukamnama, literally means "Royal Order." As Akal Takht Sahib is the Throne of the Almighty, the orders issued by Akal Takht Sahib are called Hukamnamas. The letters written by the Sikh Gurus too were also called Hukamnamas. In the middle ages, the orders from the worldly rulers were also known as Hukamnama but the people carried out the orders under compulsion. When Sikhs have questions about an important matter or some serious problem arises they discuss that matter using the teachings of gurbani. They then reach a collective group decision which is based on gurus teachings and this decision is known as a "gurmutta" (the counself of guru sahib). Usually this applies only to the people or situation involved in that problem, (eg. when decisions were made to attack certain forts during mughal rule) but if the decision is of national importance it is then released as a "hukamnama" which applies to all sikhs (eg. when the guru asked all sikhs to meet up at anandpur during vaishaki, or when he forbid sikhs from having relations with dhirmaliay, child killers etc.) 3) Amrit This is a very confusing topic for most cuz most ppl assume that the water used during the baptismal ceremony (khanday dhi pahul) is true amrit. But it isnt. True amrit is not some sort of specially made water prepared while reciting gurbani, but rather true amrit is Gods Name. AMimRqu rsnw bolY idnu rwqI min qin AMimRqu pIAwvixAw ]3] They chant the Ambrosial Name with their tongues day and night; their minds and bodies are satisfied by this Amrit pIviq AMimRq nwmu jn nwmy rhy AGwie ]14] Drinking in the Ambrosial Amrit of the Naam, the Name of the Lord, His humble servants remain satisfied with the Naam This is the real amrit for a sikh. Once they attain this prabhu-naam, i.e. they begin to feel the lords name within their hearts then the only thing that person wants in his life is to stay in touch with this amrit (Gods name). For amrit is something that is pure, the purest thing is God, and when one is fully immersed with God then they see and remember God everywhere whatever their doing. AMimRqu Kwxw AMimRqu pYnxw nwnk nwmu vfweI hoie ]1] The Ambrosial Amrit is his food, and the Ambrosial Amrit is his clothes; O Nanak, through the Naam, the Name of the Lord, greatness is obtained With regards to the amrit ceremony, there is not direct mention of it in Guru Granth Sahib. But like many things in a Sikh's life, this is a hukam which was passed on to us directly by our Guru (same as not cuttin our hair, not drinking, no adultery, no smoking etc). And gurbani tells us, whatever hukam (order) the guru gives us, a sikh should follow it without question cuz the guru always says things with our best interest in mind. A sikh is supposed to model his life exactly like that of the guru. gurisK mIq clhu gur cwlI ] O Sikhs of the Guru, O friends, walk on the Guru's Path. jo guru khY soeI Bl mwnhu hir hir kQw inrwlI ]1] rhwau ] Whatever the Guru says, accept that as good; the sermon of the Lord, Har, Har, is unique and wonderful. So any one who wishes to call themselves a Sikh should make it their goal to follow the advice of the guru. And we shudnt look at this as an order or command but rather look at this as helpful advice one loving friend gives to another. As for rules about it, do not get worried or stressed that u have to do it rite away this weekend. Instead take ur time, learn about sikhi, read gurbani, try and understand it slowly bit by bit and trust me, over time u will automatically want to take khanday dhi pahul (amrit ceremony) on ur own. This shud be ur approach to sikhi. 4) Guru Gobind Singhs bani Guru Gobind SIngh DOES NOT have any bani of his written in guru granth sahib. Guru Granth Sahib contains only bani from the first 5 gurus, 9th guru and varoius other bhagats. HOpe this answers ur questions ( n sorries for the long post, have a habit of gettin carried away at times..hehe)

I agree, we both have different views on this matter and should be respectful of each others viewpoints, which i am. However, being respectful does not entail that we must remain silent or quietly accepting of something which has no logical basis to it. Firstly, i do not contest that nirmala do not exist. There are many things which exist today in the Sikh panth, a great deal of them having no relation to Sikhi at all. The important question isnt about arguing whether they exist or not but for us to actually critically analyze where these movements/jathabandis/sampardas originated from and why? What role if any do they serve in Sikhi, and if it is not a meaningful role than why are they so openly accepted by the masses? With regards to ur refernce to the Akaal Takhat, i do not wish to get into a debate into that for it is a long topic which wud be better suited to a new thread, but simply put yes Akaal Takhat holds heavy importance in the Khalsa Panth and is regarded as the central voice of reason for all issues pertaining to the Panth. But that being said Akaal Takhat itself is merely an institution (made to voice the stand of Sarbat Khalsa) and like any institution in Sikhi if that instittion is not based on and run according to Gurmat then the decisions made by that institution should be accepted with great caution. For instance, gurdwaras are considered centeres of sikhi parchaar, saadh sangat etc and we go there for support and advice on all matter related to a sikhs life. But if that gurdwara is run by a committee who have very limited if any knowledge about gurbani, who themselves do not properly practice Sikhi and in fact are hypocrites then what value can we place in the advice such a gurdwara hands out to the sangat? Very little! Similarly, one will be suprised to know to the degree and depth that such hypocritcal individuals have infiltrated Sikhi and the various institutions of Sikhi, particularly SGPC and its affiliated branches eg. Akal Takhat, Harmindar Sahib etc. This isnt to say we should just boycott and abandon all these instituation, but rather than blindly acceptin every word or judgement that come from their, we should excercise some own invdividual bibek budhi in seein how much those decisions actually concurr with the kusvutee of gurbani. I think your methods of researching seem to be somewhat tainted bro. First you say that my research is lacking and then you go on to say that proper research should include using puratan sources as a refernce guide. Well any student of history will tell u that just because somethin is old does not make it more authentic or true. If we were to simply use that research logic of yours that puratan=more truth, then y not go to the original puratan books n use the hindu shashtars n veds as the primal truths for everythin? The Gurus rejected those cuz the message had become tainted and clouded in all sorts of false myths n sakhis. That is why we were blessed with GUru Granth Sahib Ji. But how said is it that today 300 years after being blessed with this gurbani as our guru, we too are clouding the original message of nanak amidst a plethora of meaningless myths, sakhis n tall tales. Because somethin is NEW doesnt make it bad or against the original truths. Nanaks message was NEW and he made ppl rethink the original purpose and message behind the old veds n other puratan books. Ppl had become attached to all these associated fabricated stories and forgot the original message of love and tolerance. Guru Nanak was a reformist, someone with NEW approach so wud u consider him as a traitor to all theother indians jus based on his new approach? SImilarly this "neo-sikh" movements u so strongly seem to be opposed to was the foundation of the Singh Sabha lehar, a movement which if never took place, we would all be sittin in our homes in panjab bowing to statues of krishan and shiv ji This movment took place just over 100 years ago and would fall into the same anti-panthic neo-sikh movements u seem to hold animosity to. Their whole basis was to OPENLY CHALLENGE AND CRITICALLY ANALYSE the same purataan books n steeks u seem to acknowledge as pure truths. It was by exposing these purataan books/resources and the contradictions and baseless facts within them that they proved that so many of the stories and customs associated with Sikhi were all baseless and bhramincal based. So maybe it is you who needs to re-asses his own research methods rather than I. Such wording and accustaion are completely uncalled for bro. I did not spit (degrade or belittle) anythin to do with our GUrus. In fact, my whole aim has been to show the Gurus in their true splendour rather than attach such ludicrous tales to them which in fact are the things which are most degrading towards our Guru. This is utter nonsense!! By criticizing the nirmala movement i am rejectin half the panj pyaray?? lol Bro, again seems like uve let ur emotions get the better of u. I never rejected the existence of anything, i simply questioned the origins of that movement as to how we have alway sbeen taught they came about and wether that is true or not. How strange is this. Firstly, if the guru was willing to give the first panj khandey dhi pahul do u not think he'd make sure that thse people were fully knowledgable and firm in their understanding of sikhi sidhaant and gurbani? Would the guru hiimself be willing to bend down n take amrit from five ppl who were yet untrained in sikh philosophy and lacked full vidya? And granted saw we do accept he did, then would he not take this reponsiblity on himself? He was willing to sit himself by Bhai Mani Singh and Baba Deep Singh to get the whole of sri guru granth sahib written, so wud he not take such a great undertakin relating to the panj pyaray himself too? Why would he leave this task to someone else? ANd that too, in the hands of ppl who had to go to the centre of hindu thought/philosophy BENARES, to attain their vidhaya? SUch stories when looked closer seem utterly ridiculous and without any merit.

Fateh, Since uve made it a point to re-mention the "history" of nirmale, it seems you may have missed the previous discussion on them. So for your benefit in case u missed it, let me remind you of the actual TRUE HISTORY about the whole 'nirmale' movement. And before you disregard this is some sort of nirmala or jatha/sant bashing please try and read that entire post on nimrale history with a clear objective mind. Thanx http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showto...95entry134695

You raise excellent points in your posts Jagjit Singh Ji. Good stuff! I just wanted to add one thing, when Guru Nanak went on his travels, wherever he went he spread the message of gurbani. This included far off countries where the mother tongue was not punjabi. So are we to assume that Guru Nanak merely sang the kirtan and then got up and left? Or after gurbani kirtan did he sing other lines in simple local language, and if so then this must of been an important part of the sikhi parchaar formula so why werent these other lines also included in Guru Granth Sahib? The answer lies that none of the two aforementioned method were uses. Guru Nanak most likely sang the kirtan in their original form AND AFTER THAT held open discourse (katha) to explain the shabads and related them to the local peoples lives. Thus the formula as pointed out by Jagjit Singh, consisted of singing kirtan and speaking katha, and this was the tradition set by every guru. Katha is ESSENTIAL for the proper understanding of gurbani. This katha or discourse can be in the live format by a kathavachaak on stage, or it can consist of self-reflection by studying and understanding explanations written about gurbani in ones own home. igAwn iDAwn nwnk vifAweI sMq qyry isau gwl glohI ]2]8]129] O Nanak, spiritual wisdom, meditation and glorious greatness come from dialogue and discourse with Your Saints The gurus did not follow or mix the singing of gurbani kirtan with singing of other compositions. This has been a tradition passed on to us directly by the gurus. So why now do we feel the need break this tradition and come up with what we feel is a "better" format? Are we trying to improve on the Guru's own formula? As someone else stated, i am not attacking or against any particular person, baba or sant, be it past or present, i merely wish for everyone to take a careful look at the direction of sikhi parchaar and decide for themselves how far off we have deviated from the original game plan of Nanak.

Fateh, Which book are you referring to? And if you cud include an exerpt or short summary about the book i would be greatful. As for raaj of khalsa to understand what it truly means we have to remember one key thing: the difference between physical existence and spiritual existence. The whole focus of gurbani (hence the guru) is to reform our spiritual state. In human terms this deals with our minds. To truly be free means to be in a state where ones minds is completley free of all vikaar (vices). This is when one can truly be considered to be living in freedom. Thus a free, sovereign mind is the hallmark of being in 'raaj'. To equate freedom solely or even primarily with physical independence is utterly wrong. Even if a man is free from iron shackles around his feet, or cuffs around his hand, and is free to speak or do whatever he please (i.e. lives in a open democratic country) if his mind is still influenced and under the spell of any of the lust, greed, anger, attachment or ego then such a man can never be considered to be free. He may no longer be living in a country ruled by an oppresive regime but this point becomes irrelevant for the oppressor now has merely changed from a physical person or regime to the wandering ego of his own mind. Thus this person rather than being truly free or living in his own raj, is in actuality living under the raj of his haumay. Khalsa in simple terms refers to one who has become pure. And as we all know, gurbani whereve it mentions purity talks of the purity of the inner self, of the mind...phsycial purity alone is given no value by the guru. Thus to be considered a true khalsa one must be pure from within. This means a pure mind. This is the key! That is why no matter if the guru (or any sikh for that matter) was ever captured or held prisoner, or being tortured, he never gave in to the opressor and always stayed in chardhi kala. Because they each were living in true freedom. And they knew that no shackle or physical threats could ever take this freedom of theirs away. This is why when Guru Arjun was charged with crimes, even tho he knew the allegations were false, he never faltered or became scared. He openly confronted the authorities about the false allegations fully knowing that taking such a bold stance would mean being held captive and perhaps even death. He set the example for all Sikhs to come that true freedom is freedom of the mind for this is eternal and none can snatch this from u and that mere phsyical freedom is only temporary and can easily be taken or given. Now by saying this, i do not want anyone to get the false impression that we should focus solely on our spiritual existence and disregard all things phsyical. Because the colloray to the whole previous argument is that Sikh is set apart from many other faiths which also emphasize the importance of reforming ones mind by the doctrine of miri and piri. We have been told that when one actually dwells even deeper into Sikhi they will realize that true spirituality is not merely a single compartment of our life but rather the whole entirety of our life -- this means that all parts of our life, public, private, physical, mental they all should be grounded and revolving around a strong and pure spiritual base. This being said, it now becomes apparent that we cannot separate any part of our life from our spirituality, meaning if spirituality teaches us to incorporate noble virtues, gunn, in our life then we should apply these virtues and keep them in mind no matter what part of our life we are dealing with at any given time. At the same time tho, it is important to realize while we cannot separate anypart of our life from spirituality this does not mean that our spirituality is dependant on any particular part of our life. IN relation to this present topic, for example if we sit in a jail cell locked up, and thus not living in a state of 'indepdenat raj' physically it does not mean that any of our spirituality has been taken away from us and hence that we are no longer living in a state of indepedant raj spiritually. Essentialy the key point and our focus should be to attain spiritual raj within oursleves. That is the goal for each memebr of Khalsa. Once they do that, then each member will realize that no earthly force can ever take away this spiritual raj of ours and thus remain in a constant state of control of their own minds. They will each then realize that Raj of Khalsa is not somethin which can be defined by artificial boundaries drawn on a map book dealing with control of a limited piece of earthly land but rather Raj of Khalsa is the supreme spiritual state where one is in complete control of their mind and is limitless and unconquerable by any earthly force. This is why when Sikhs lived in jungles, being hunted day in night, without any specific 'physical soverignty' they still proclaimed Raj Karega Khalsa because in fact they truly were living in a state of Khalsa's Raj. IN summary, physical raj to a Sikh is secondary for a Sikhs life does not revolve around physical existence. If he has it he is content and even if he does not he is still content. He realizes that physical raj is not permanet and always comes and goes. No human force has ever retained physical raj forever. To a Sikh the primary ovjective is spiritual raj. This raj once attained is permanent. And once this raj is attained it no longer matters what piece of land he lives on, or who the ruler/owner of that land is for he remains in a state of complete bliss and remembrane of Waheguru. Hope this answers ur question. I realize some points may not have been clearly expressed and if such is the case feel free to ask more ?'s.

No Guru ever wrote or spoke about any prophecies. The only think the Gurus ever talked of was living in the Hukam of Waheguru, Bhana Man-na. Anyone who speaks of a prophecy goes against this very fundamental tenent of Sikhi because a prophecy by its very essence makes a guaranteed statement about the future. By stating that such and such thing WILL HAPPEN in future, it removes any motive or reason for people to engage in active karam. And honestly, what need is there really for karam then, if u already know that something is gonna happen, then one persons not doing something wont really change it. Slowly, this mindset infects everyone that why should we realy put any effort, cuz we already been told that the Khalsa will rule. But this was NEVER the intention of any guru. The whole central theme of gurus message revolves around the need for each individual to take charge of their lives and affect change around them, so why would they at the same time make a statement totally contradictory to this and say oh, regardless if u make that effort or not its gonna happen anyway?? Dont turn the guru into some sort of wizard or sorcerer who made predicitions or prophecies. By belieiving and spreading such false myths we are equating our guru to the likes of mystical men like nostradamus. The guru never spoke of the future cuz one who speaks of future becomes overtaken by ego. Even after reaching the supreme uvustha where they become completely one with waheguru such souls do not go around talkin of this n this will happen because god has told me. They remain forever humble and accepting of Gods Will. The focus of Sikhi, unlike other dharams, is not the future. Sikhi does not teach someone that do good deeds now so that later after u die u will attain salvation. NO. At the same time sikhi also places no weight on ones past life. It does not concern itself with and become engrosses in the past. The focus in sikh is only the present! That is why the Guru was willing to forgive even the most cruel of rulers as long as they admitted their fault and promised to change their ways. The Guru tells us that do good deeds now and u will reap their rewards now as well. When we become embroiled in stories about past or future that is how we are misled by those out to dismantle the beauty of Sikhi. This is how the now almost universally known myth of bachitar natak has been eroneously accepted as a truth. If we accept that the guru would prophesize about 960 million sikhs then it means we will also have to accept tht the guru was told the ridiculous prophecy in his "past life" that he wud take rebirth and fight in an epic battle to destroy evil. Why do we feel the need to add such fantasy kahaneez around our guru? These are all false. When we hear the words Raj Karega Khalsa, it doesnt mean that thre needs to be a billion man force of Singhs roaming the streets for this to occur. Because in actuality, Khalsa is already in Raj. WHy? Cuz Khalsa is a representaion of God himself, a manifestation of his loftiest of virtues. God is always in command and ruling the universe, so how can his Khalsa not be in the same position either? God is not so weak that he needs a miilion gods under him to carry out his rule (this is the faulty thikin of hindu dharma) so why have we made the khalsa so weak that it too needs 960million ppl to rule? Khalsa is a set of values, principles, gunn which come to reside in the individual in the form of amrit-ras bani. And this is not dependant or linked to any number count. SO i suggest you re read the history and meaning of these tuks before u use them to support any wild claims. (by the way, this "prophecy" u quote wasnt even written by Guru Gobind Singh)

Exactly. Namstang, rather than writing a response based on pure emotion again, why dont u instead try directly answering and responding to the points i raised in my last post. Making a post as ur last is not gonna serve any purpose. The purpose here is not to become defensive and use mockery or sarcasm to relay ur point, but rather to engage in a meaningful two-way dialogue so that we can learn from each other. Everyone on this forum is here to learn and gain a deeper understanding of Sikhi. No one is here to read pointless posts embroiled in emotion and irrational thought. Hope you will try and use the opportunity this time around to actually respond to my previous points rather then deviate the subject matter. Looking forward to hearing ur views.

Dear Namstang, You raise some good points in ur post and i will try to adress each of them. With regards to the mindset u state that not all need bibek budhi i ask u to name me a single individual who has magically attained the gyaan of gurbani without some sort of vichaar (be it with others thru converstaion, thru reading books, steekay, or thru self reflection of oneself on own). Every individual who has attained this gyaan attained it thru some sort of vichaar. We do not have to look any further but the examples of our own gurus. Did bhai lehna jus one day wake up n say eureka!! i understand gurbani!! ?? No. He attianed that gyaan thru many years of sewa and active discourse with Guru Nanak. Same with Bhai Jetha ji, was he born with that gyaan? DId he acquire it on his own? No. He acquired it by becoming a servant at the door of Guru Amar Das Ji. DO u think that the mahapursh of today are more capable or blessed then the gurus themselves that they are able to achive this gyaan on their own without any effort?? A sikh believes in the necessity of this need for active vichaar and understaning by the person themselves that we pray to Waheguru every day asking him for this gift: "Sikha noo sikhi dhaan, kes dhaan, BIBEK DHAAN"....if u feel that it is not important or not necesarry then perhaps you should rewrite this ardaas and give a new improved version of it for the sikh panth to recite. And in case you wish to toe the line that oh this ardaas was created by jus a select few who didnt understand gurmat i shud like to remind u that this prayer for this bibek budhi is not man made, but comes fromt he guru himself: hwir pirE suAwmI kY duAwrY dIjY buiD ibbykw ] rhwau ] I have collapsed, exhausted, at the Door of my Lord Master; I pray that He may grant me a discerning intellect I am glad to see that u have taken an active effort on ur own to study and understand gurbani. I respect that. And i agree with u that gurbani is avery deep language. That each word contains immeasurable meaning and value to it. WIth regards to dharnaas. I think u have missed by point. I never accused everyperson who sings them of being anti-sikh or anti-guru. I myself stated that im sure many of these people have honest sincere intentions behind them. However, jus because ones intentions are gud doesnt make the means they use to carry them out good as well. For instance, taken to a extreme say one wants to rid society of crime n violence, does it mean they can just go out n shoot every criminal at will? The intentions of the person are obviously good, to help society, but the means used to caryy out them, shooting carelssly, are not. Now using dharnaas, from its very basis is flawed and dangerous. U urself state in ur post that: Now this statement has some very seroius assumptions in it which are detrimental to the true essence of sikhi. 1) No guru was ever concerned with a number count of sikhs. Their goal was never to get as many ppl sikhs as possible, or to get the whole world amritdhari and follow their way. If they were so concerned bout gettin more sikhs then they wouldnt have made the sikhi lifestyle so unique and difficult. But they did. Because their goal wasnt to simply get a high number count of sikhs by name, rather they were focused on transforming society as a whole. And they made the path of sikhi very different and challenging cuz they wanted only the most able and committed of people to join this path. That is why even then, durin the times of Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind the sikhs were always a minority yet no GUru ever worried or exclaimed that we need to go out n make more sikhs. Even during the time of Amhed Shah and during the galugharas, when thousands of sikhs were wiped out in a few months, when the population of sikhs was nearly destroyed why did no one then feel a sudden danger that oh we should get more ppl initiated into Sikhi? SIkhs were hunted openly at will yet every sikh kept full faith in the gurus bani alone and it was enought to keep Sikhi alive and ultimately take over the tyrranical rulers. Yet today, when we are free to walk, talk as we like in these countries with full rights and freedom, y now do we feel a sudden danger that sikhi is being lost? Is it because ppl have become more dumb than before and are incapable of understanding gurbani or is it because no focus has ever been layed on the original gurbani and ppl have forgotten all about it? 2) Was guru nanak so short sighted that he didnt realize his message was too difficult for the average person to understand? Didi guru gobind singh not think of the fact that i am going to bestow gurushup for eternity on guru granth sahib that maybe i shud chek if ppl will even be able to understand it? Over the past 500 years were all sikhs blind and not realize oh gurbani is too dificult and no one will understand it? Y did this desire come up only within last 100 years? Do not belittle the value of Guru Nanaks bani by saying that it is too difficult and we need to simplify it. Are we wiser and more clever than Nanak himself that we can make his message better? IF there is any problem or something lacking, it is not in gurbani itslef but rather that we as a panth have not given proper focus on gurbani. Instead of trying to udnerstand gurbani ourselves and teach it to others we have chosen a simpler method of composing our own home-made rhymes n gettin ppl focused on those instead of gurbani. How many ppl in the saadhsangat who listen to thes dharnaas, or sit in sangat of ppl who focus primarily on singing these dharnaas can actually read,write and understand even the meaning of jap ji sahib?? Im sure they can all very well memorize and understand a few catchy lines form a dharnaa yet can they understand or even remember the various pauris of Jap Ji? Tell me this, if there is the possiblity that ppl might take it wrong why even create a situation where that potential exists. IF someone is so enlightened where they realize that people may misuse their dharnaas wudnt they also realize that to prevent any confusion at all, it is better to use and sing only gurbani? If they want to explain gurbani then there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it shuld be encourged. But what is the reason to have to sing and use music for ones own compositions? Cant they jus keep the singing limited to gurbani and anything else they wanna explain do it thru talkin alone? Why do they have to mix sining of dharnas with gurbani? Are there not enough shabads to sing? Are ther not enought raags in SGGS that we dont need to compose our own music? As for stating that i am accusing "mahapursh" of anti-gurmat show me once where i have used any one 'mahapursh's" name and directly accused him of being against the guru. It is very wrong for you to jump to such assumptions and accuse me of such things when there is no basis to it. I may not agree with all ur views, but have i accused u of being against the guru or respecting some human more then the guru? This is a very childish and immature attitude on ur part. If you have ever paid any attention or bothered to read my previous posts in their fullness u will realize that my whole focus HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON SHABAD GURU. Any discusion or comment i make, i always try to relate it to gurbani. SO where do get off on sayin i have less respect for sikhi and more for others? I hope u employ more reason and objectivity in ur words in future rather than gettin enraptured in emotional outburts.

There seems to be much confusion on this forum on the topic of whether Bhai Bala was a real person or not. This is not surprising since this same confusion exists in the Sikh Panth as a whole. We here are all some fortunate tho that we are all currently students or were students recently and have been taught the value of critical analysis. For that is the purpose of higher education. To give the individual the tools of rational thought and deductive reasongin and be able to apply them in every walk of their life. This skill that they possess is what makes university/college graduates more sought after by companies (not merely a paper diploma). Even today many people are so strongly supportive and die hard believers in the existence of Bhai Bala that they will openly use his name in their katha and sakhis within gurdwaras and if anyone dares to even challenge them or question the validity of these sakhis they label them as traitors to the panth and that they are tryin to change history. This is a very immature attitude. A sikh is defined by this very virtue that they do not live in blind faith. That a sikh cannot be fooled by anyone and will not believe anything they hear just cuz so and so said it. A Sikh always analyzes every situation on his own and then using the refernce guide of gurbani to ascertain wether it is true or not. So let us do the same on this topic WIth regards to dicussion on the topic of Bhai Bala, an excellent overview of the subject matter is given in Prof Sahib Singhs book, "Adhi Bir Barai". There is an english translation available and i hihgly encourage everyone to try and read it at some point in time. The book discusses a large number of false sakhis, banis, compositions, myths that have been associated with the Gurus and employs a very calm natured, clear and direct, scientific approach to analyzing each of them. After reading the book there should be no doubt as to the origin, motive and authenticity of all these fake, spurious additions to Sikh history. Below is the section from this book dealing with Bhai Bala. The Janamsakhi of Bhai Bala. The name of Bhai Bala is so popular that it is doubtful if any other Sikh is popular to that extent. Both learned and lay men believe that Bhai Bala was a Sikh of Guru Nanak Dev; he was also a resident of Talwandi; during the Gurus long tours, he was ever with the Guru. After Guru Nanak Dev's demise, Guru Angad Dev called him from Talwandi. He lived with the Guru and helped in writing the life history of Guru Nanak Dev, which book is called ``Janamsakhi of Bhai Bala.'' Everywhere in Punjab, in all gurdwaras, people daily hear the stories from this Janamsakhi. But it is most surprising that such a renowned Sikh of Guru Nanak Dev, called Bhai Bala, was totally ignored by the accepted topmost scholar poet of Sikhism, named Bhai Gurdas Bhalla, who in his 11th //, while giving the list of the devotees of Guru Nanak Dev, omitted the name of Bhai Bala! Bhai Gurdas even included the name of Nawab Daulat Khan Lodi, as the devotee of Guru Nanak Dev, but not of Bhai Bata. In the first //, Bhai Gurdas very briefly gave an account of Guru Nanak Dev's life. While describing the Third Missionary Tour of Guru Nanak Dev for visiting Mecca, Madina, Baghdad and other places, Bhai Gurdas states ``Baba went to Baghdad and stayed there at the outskirts of the City. There was one God Man, the Baba, and the second one was Minstrel Mardana.'' How strange it is! Every Sikh considers Bala as the great devotee of Guru Nanak Dev and the life history of the Guru as told by him was most authentic; and that this record was the oldest one. On the other hand the great Sikh historian, Karam Singh, in his book ``Katiak or Baisakh'', has stated the reality of Bala's Janamsakhi. By writing this book, Karam Singh has rendered singular service to the cause of Sikhism. Every literate Sikh should read this book and appreciate the real service rendered by him. By giving a number of references from the book of Bhai Baja's Janamsakhi, he wrote at the end With this history, one can say without fear that this Janamsakhi was made at the end of Guru Gobind Singh's time. It could not have been written earlier than Guru Gobind Singh's time. We give below some of the factors that led Sardar Karam Singh to draw the above conclusion. We will give references from the second edition of the book ``Katak or Baisakh'', which was published in 1932 and contains 270 pages -- 1. Page 197 : Names of certain selected cities and villages are changed from time to time. ``Eminabad'' is a new name of the city, which was previously known as Saidpur. Although the new name of this city had been decided, at the time of Guru Nanak Dev himself, but became current only after it was registered in official records. Before Ain-e-Akbari, the name of this city was famous as Saidpur. Even Mohd. Quasim Farishta, who lived during the time of Akbar, mentions the name of Saidpur. The Puratan Janam Sakhi written in 1691 Bikrami (1634 A.D) makes mention of Saidpur. But the Janamsakhi of Bhai Bala, stated to be the oldest, makes mention of ``Eminabad'' 2. Page 198: In Puratan Janamsakhi, wherever there was a mention of names of Bhai Jhanda and Bhai Lalo, word ``badhi'' was also used with their names. The word ``badhi'' is a Punjabi word. The word ``tarkhan'' was derived from the Balochi word ``darkhan''. When the Baloch people came to Punjab, being Muslims, they had a voice in the administration. As a result of their use of word ``darkhan'' for a carpenter, the Punjabis also began to use the word ``tarkhan'' for carpenter, instead of ``badhi''. This was much later development. In Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi word used is ``tarkhan'' -- this Janamsakhi apparently was not written during Guru Angad Dev's time. 3. Page 199 : The following Slok appears in Bala's Janamsakhi purported to have been uttered by Guru Nanak Dev during discussion with Pandit Braham Das (Kashmiri) gur miliyai man rahasiyai, lion vuthai dharan see gar. .... But this Slok is of Sri Guru Amar Das Ji. 4. Page 201 : When Guru Nanak Dev went to Medina, there he had discussion with the Quazis. The Guru was stated to have uttered the following Shabad alahu agam khudayi bande......... But this is Guru Arjan Dev's Shabad. 5. Page 210 : When Guru Nanak Dev in his First Tour, visited the country of devas, there Raja Devdoot became the Sikh of the Guru. During the discussion that followed between them, it has been stated: ``Guru Nanak said, `O Bhai Devloot, I appoint you a Masand of this place.'' But the Masand System came into existence from the time of Guru Arjan Dev. Before that time, this word had never been used by the Sikhs. 6. Page 210 : According to Bhai Bala, Mardana got the Rabab from a nomadic, and asked the Guru about Gurmukhi instruments. The Guru replied: ``O Mardana, Rabab and Dhadd are the Sikh instruments of music.'' But ``Dhadd'' was introduced by Guru Hargobind for singing Vars and other marshal tunes. During the earlier times, it was not used by the Sikhs. The Real Author of Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi Possibility of Confusion Guru Nanak Dev's demise took place in 1539A.D. The author of Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi showed to the people that Guru Angad immediately on becoming the Guru called for Bhai Bala, who started dictating this Janamsakhi. Sardar Karam Singh historian has proved that this book was written after 1750 Bikrami (1693 A.D). The author of this Janamsakhi had in his mind some ulterior motives. The author wanted to create confusion in Sikhs. Guru Nanak Dev's Date of Birth Sardar Karam Singh's book ``Kartik or Baisakh'' has clarified the confusion created by this Janamsakhi. He writes that all the old Janamsakhis had mentioned the date of Guru Nanak's Birth on Baisakh Sudi 3 (April 15), but Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi without any reason stated that the Guru was born on the Full Moon Day of the month of Kartik. It created confusion in Sikhs, which still continues. The old Janamsakhis mention the date of birth as Baisakh Sudi 3 (April 15), while we continue to celebrate the day on the Full Moon Day in Kartik. Regarding Baba Handal Karam Singh refers to the stories as given in Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi, relating to the departure for abode of God, story of discussion with Bhagat Dhrooh, and the story of visit to Kandhar in all these stories Guru Nanak Dev was downgraded and Baba Handal was greatly exalted. They have lifted Baba Handal to such an extent that he had reached the Court of God. Karam Singh writes on page 238, of his book, as under – The contents of Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi are clear. It is all in praise of Baba Handal and condemnation of Guru Nanak Dev. It is for this reason, the author of Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi can be none else but a Niranjania. But there are two things to bear in mind: firstly, to consider Sri Kabir higher than Guru Nanak Dev, secondly, Handal claiming to be the Sikh Brother of the Guru in Treta Yuga. Many people think that the Janamsakhi of Bhai Bala, which contains much praise of Sri Kabir, is a trick of the Kabir Panthis. But this is not true. In the Janamsakhi of Niranjanias, it has been clearly admitted that Kabir was the greatest of all the Bhagats, except for Baba Handal. Therefore, to suspect that the Kabir Pathis had their hand in it, is a baseless argument. The second point is all the more surprising. In this Janamsakhi, it is written that in Treta Yuga, the Guru was aservant of Raja Janak, used to worship images and tell lies. But in this account it has been stated that in Treta Yuga, the Guru and Handal were Sikh Brothers and both were the Masands of Raja Janak. From this it is clear that those who had written this Janamsakhi, never realised their mistake. The author of the Janamsakhi tied up both the ends one (Handal) was raised sky high and the other (Guru Nanak Dev) according to their mean thoughts, lowered to greatest depth of the underworld. Why we turned to this side? We were in search of the source which caused inclusion of spurious compositions into the copies of handwritten Holy Books. Who did this mischief and how did it happen? In this search, we came across Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi, which was written 20 25 years after the Martyrdom of Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1675 A.D. In this Janamsakhi, the date of birth of Guru Nanak Dev has been given differently from the previous ones and it is in this book that the Guru has been ridiculed and insulted to the extreme. The chief of the Niranjania sect, Baba Handal has been greatly praised and has been shown of much higher status than Guru Nanak Dev. Sardar Karam Singh reached the conclusion that Bhai Bala's Janamsakhi was written at the initiative of the Niranjania sect. But to keep the Sikhs in confusion, they were informed that this was written in the presence of Sri Guru Angad Dev Ji at the dictation of Bhai Bala. Compilation_of_SGGS.pdf

Fateh, I would like to add a few comments with regards to two things specifically as they relate to this subject of kachee bani. The first is with regards to the shabad referring to kachi bani in anand sahib and its meaning and relevence in the context of this current discussion and the second being the various arguments raised by some that no one is in a position to make disctinciton between 'dharnaas' and true bani and label it as kachee bani (including that noted in the audio link provided). I will try to cover both these points. First, with regards to WHAT IS GURBANI and what isnt and the value of true gurbani, the guru says: siqgur kI bwxI siq srUpu hY gurbwxI bxIAY ] The Word of the True Guru's Bani is the embodiment of Truth; through Gurbani, one becomes perfect. In the next line the Guru goes on to say, that even though the Word I share is that of the Lord himself, there remain countless people who enraptured in their own ego and jealousy try to duplicate it and pass it off as being the same: siqgur kI rIsY hoir kcu ipcu boldy sy kUiVAwr kUVy JiV pVIAY ] Jealously emulating the True Guru, some others may speak of good and bad, but the false are destroyed by their falsehood. Now this is where the difference of 'dharnaas' vs. katha comes. Katha is an open discourse, a regular dialouge of discussion where it is clear to all that the person is trying to explain gurbani and its meaning. With dharnaas however, the words are sung with music in the sam fashion as gurbani kirtan, and often mixed with actual shabads. To the average person they cannot differniate what is actually written in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and what was written by someone on their own. Thus ppl can easily be confused and start memorizing and reciting these 'dharnaa' compositions as gurbani which im sure u will all agree is a grave sin. Im not sayin that the people who write thse 'dharnaas' are necesarrily all bad, im sure many have gud honest intentions. But the problem and danger lies in the fact that the dharnas are sung in a fashion which emulates (rees kurni) of gurbani. Some go steps further and get teh sangat to actually openly recite and sing these "dharnaas' in the actual presence of Guru Granth Sahib!! Even then, during the times of the previous Gurus there were those who tried passing off duplicate nklI parts to the masses in hopes they would accept it as divine and hence pay subsequent homage to them. The Guru goes on to tell us that these people who claim to have the highest respect and love for the Guru and God on their tongues, inside their minds and hearts resonates a completely different thought and motive. En@w AMdir horu muiK horu hY ibKu mwieAw no JiK mrdy kVIAY ]9] Deep within them is one thing, and in their mouths is another; they suck in the poison of Maya, and then they painfully waste away The Guru is telling us that people like these, who choose to add on their own compositions and lines to Gurbani, and sharing them with the audience, some even to the extent of telling the listeners that it is in agreement with the Guru so they should follow and obey the message of these compositions, that these people are not bringing you closer to the Guru, but rather they are breaking you away from the Guru. On the one hand we have our Guru who is telling us: Awvhu isK siqgurU ky ipAwirho gwvhu scI bwxI ] Come, O beloved Sikhs of the True Guru, and sing the True Word of His Bani How do we know what is Sachi Bani and what is not? The Guru answered this questioned unequivocally in the next line when he said: bwxI q gwvhu gurU kyrI bwxIAw isir bwxI ] Sing the Guru's Bani, the supreme Word of Words. The Guru is telling us over and over that: ijn kau ndir krmu hovY ihrdY iqnw smwxI ] Those who are blessed by the Lord's Glance of Grace - their hearts are imbued with this Bani. pIvhu AMimRqu sdw rhhu hir rMig jiphu swirgpwxI ] Drink in this Ambrosial Nectar, and remain in the Lord's Love forever; meditate on the Lord, the Sustainer of the world. khY nwnku sdw gwvhu eyh scI bwxI ]23] Says Nanak, sing this True Bani forever. This is the Guru’s order. But the Guru does not stop here. In order to prevent any future confusion or debate on this topic, He gives an absolute ultimatum in the following lines, on which no Sikh can ever voice disagreement, because the Guru’s decision is final, and beyond amendment. As is God, so is the Guru, and as God is perfect so too the Guru is perfect and hence incapable of making a wrong decision. So those who ever doubt or are have the audacity to argue over what is Suchi Bani and what is Kachi Bani should read the following line from Sri Guru Granth Sahib. In it the Guru clearly tells us that there is a REAL and PRESENT difference between suchi bani and kuchi bani and that every Sikh should be aware of this difference so not to be led astray by any person. Guru Ji says: siqgurU ibnw hor kcI hY bwxI ]Without the True Guru, other songs are false. bwxI q kcI siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ] The songs are false without the True Guru; all other songs are false. Could the answer be any more clear or simple? There are many who will take offense to this. The majority of us respect and listen with great enthusiasm to a number of Sikh kirtanees, kathavachaks who incorporate ‘bani’ outside of Sri Guru Granth Sahib in their kirtan and kathas. The people who are devoted listeners of them will argue that who are we to judge the sincerity and love of a Sikh to his guru. That just because he chooses to incorporate some of his own words, writings into his kirtan does not necessarily mean that he is against the Guru or doing anything offensive or objectionable. But before I even counter this argument, it should be known that the vast majority of us are not True Sikhs but only those that call ourselves Sikhs. Being a Sikh is not some sort of birthright, or constitutional right. There are specific conditions for anyone who wishes to call themselves a Sikh. And the Guru himself has set out these conditions the most important of which being: so isKu sKw bMDpu hY BweI ij gur ky Bwxy ivic AwvY ] He alone is a Sikh, a friend, a relative and a sibling, who walks in the Way of the Guru's Will. The Guru’s will is clearly outlined in Gurbani. We have no moral authority to associate outside reasoning or views with the Will of the Guru. The Gurus Will is ONLY that which is written in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. And the Guru is telling us that: siqgurU ibnw hor kcI hY bwxI ]Without the True Guru, other songs are false. bwxI q kcI siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ] The songs are false without the True Guru; all other songs are false. Yet people continue to debate and argue over this point. Often they fail to see the lack of logic in their own arguments. Amongst these arguments is a common one that is often recited to support their logic. They state that, ”people argue that anything outside of Sri Guru Granth Sahib is Kachee Bani. That any word, any shabad, any poem not written in Sri Guru Granth Sahib is kachee bani. In that case, the names of the Panj Pyaray are not inscribed in the SGGS then they must be kuchay Panj Pyaray. Bol Vaheguru! The Chaar Sahibzadey are not mentioned in the SGGS then they too must be kuchay sahibzaday, Bol Vahguru!! Any Sikh whose name is not in SGGS is a kucha sikh”. How absurd is this logic! Yet this is the very logic that these ‘babay’, ‘sants’ etc are using to justify their use of kuchee bani in their kirtans and kathas. Even more excruciating is that as ‘Guru kay Sikh”, we are falling victim to this completely anti-Gurmat practice. The sole reason for this is that we as Sikhs have failed to understand and incorporate the Shabad Guru into our lives. Their faith in the Guru is still not unconditional. They place greater trust and faith in a dhaydhari (physical) being than the Shabad Guru. Now, this is the Guru’s decision, the Guru’s Hukamnama. He is CLEARLY telling us that: hukmu mMinhu gurU kyrw gwvhu scI bwxI ] Obey the Hukam of the Guru's Command, and sing the True Word of His Bani The decision as to what is the difference between kuchi bani and suchi bani has already been made by our Guru. There is need only of implementation of this decision. The Guru goes one to tell us that the gift of this Sachi Bani is a blessing to us only because of his Grace, and we should forever be grateful for and appreciative of it. What greater form of appreciation can one show than to continually sing this Bani and incorporate its message into every step of our lives.

To Sinister, As always thanks for your replies. Though at times many (including myself) may feel that your questions are indicative of one more concerned with the actual process of debate rather then the final conclusions of that debate i do still welcome your questions. Again i will have to reiterate that you seem to contradict yourself on many points. You start off by saying that "sikhs guru's were male for a reason" but then later on agree with me that the Guru was not the body but the gyaan within that body. The two statements cannot coeixst. EIther you accept the Guru to exist only in the form of gyaan or you can make the Guru out to be a gender specific human being. With regards to the comment that guru gaddi was kept "in the family" Guru Nanak made it 100% CLEAR right from start that the guru gaddi was not like other earthly seats of authority/power which one gained thru birthright. The guru gaddi WAS ALWAYS PASSED ONTO THE NEXT BASED SOLELY ON MERIT. Why did the first four gurus not choose their own children as succesors? And if you want to highlight this distinguishing factor from the 5th guru onwards then are you implying that the latter 5 gurus had some alterior motives or were overcoem with some sense of familial pride that they wished to retain the guru gaddi within their immediate family? The reason for this is that none of the children of the first four gurus proved themselves qualified and worthy of being successors. That is why all those gurus went AGAINST THE PREVAILING CUSTOMS oF THAT TIME and did not just pass it on their sons simply cuz they were their sons. They observed and tested who was the appropriate suitable candidate and passed the torch on to them. With regards to the latter 5 gurus, the guru gaddhi staying "within the family" is not a factor of anythin based on any sort of familial obligations rather if any son gained the gurgadhi it was because they wre the most qualified. When Guru Har Rai passed on the gurgudhi if he was concerned solely with keepin it in the fmaily he would have chosen his eldest son Ram Rai who was much older as well as physically capable then the much younger Harkrishan. But he didnt. Ram Rai though a brilliant and highly spiritual man had shown the slightest bit of ego and detraction from complete submissiveness and obedience to the Guru and thus was rejected. As for the comments about whre was this gyaan coming from and why the need for 10 vessels. Well this topic is much deeper one and would require extensive discussion and elabortaion of gurbani to truly understand it. Trying to summarize it in a few words will likely leave you disatisfied but it is the best i can do on a limited forum. In a nutshell gyaan is guru is god. Now you may quickly jump and say how is the guru our god? Or how can gyaan be our god? Well to understand this u must realize that God is omnipresent, i.e. everywhere at all times. He is observed and experienced thru the countless myriad of ways he manifests himself thru his creation. AMongst the most supreme and primal of these manifestations is that of His Word, i.e. His Gyaan. The gyaan we speak of is not jus religoius knowledge, or wordly knolwedge rather it is understanding of god himself. And to fully understand God one must be completley one with him. Thus when the gurus came to vibrate in complete harmony with God they completely understood Him, i.e. attained that gyaan of Him. This gyaan was not some intellectual wisdom that God magicaly imparted to a chosen few and kept hidden from the rest. Rather this gyaan has been present since the begining of time. This gyaan is a representaion of the qualities, virtues of God. All are able to see it but few every reach that state. And ones who do, they are known as guru. As for why 10 vessels were needed i cannot rightfully answer this. But on simple terms, for the formation of any nation, for any mass revolution to take place, it can never happen over night. Many years usually pass before the initial roots of that revolution finaly bear fruit. In the case of Sikhi, the revoloution was against a mindset and society which had been established over thousands of years. To changed somethin so firmly etched in every being both in thought and actions required an effort of magestic proportion. The goal was not merely to awaken people and get them to question themselves. Rather the goal was to completely transorm the psyche of the average man to the same level as that of the guru. Thus was the reason that 10 vessels were needed to accomplish this monumental task. Now the gyaan that was "passed on" was infact tHE EXACT SAME in each guru. If the gyaan of one guru was even slighly different from another than that would imply that the gyaan of one those gurus was incomplete. If one had certain gyaan and the other had slighlty different variant of that gyaan then how can that gyaan be considred to be complete in each case? But it was. For the gyaan as i stated earlier was a REALIZATION OF GOD, and to whomever this realization occurs (be they our sikh gurus, earlier prophets of other religions) it is ALWAYS THE SAME. That is why Guru ARjan when compiling the Guru Granth Sahib did not hesitate to include the gyaan expereienced by other bhagats of different origins much before him because he knew that the gyaan they had possesed was the exact same as that of Guru Nanak and each succedding guru after him. I agree with you completely that the Guru were men just as you as me. They lived, ate, worked just like any ordinary man did. And to creaty some sense of magical mysticism around them and making them out to be some sort of magicians or wizards is completley wrong. In fact, the whole message of the Gurus was that ANY MAN/WOMAN cud achieve the same spiritual heights as that of the guru. That is why they worked so hard to help the common man. That is why we hear unimaginable feats of bravery, wisdom and strength taking place in men and women of that time who were previously regarded as even less than human. The gurus proved that any man/woman on this planet was capable of reaching the same lofty heights as them and attain that same gyaan as them. And to help each person walk down that path and hopefully one day reach that same status they left behind the treasures of that gyaan in the form of Guru Granth Sahib. Lastly, i respect your candid honestly in that i have more faith in the Guru/GOd and that you may still be more of an eager skeptic on the first few steps of this path. And i agree that this seemingly opposing frame of mind and level of faith that we all have to some degree is a valuable asset to this forum for it shows that every person is at different stages in their lives. And this forum should not be directed solely to people at a specific stage but rather remain more open so that even the most unfamiliar and ignorant of people can gain as much insight and appreciation of Sikhi as the most advanced. We should all work together to stimulate the growth of each others knowledge and understanding and in light of this i respect on hold great regard for your efforts.

Dear Pheena and Bikramjit SIngh ji, Both of you make good points, and in a way both of you are correct. Firstly, covering ones head in a gurdwara is part of the maryada made by the collective panth and as such no one individual has the authority to challenge or change that practice. Secondly, why was this maryada of covering ones head in a gurdwara created? Actualy, the true maryada is that EVERY SIKH should keep their head covered AT ALL TIMES. We are to respect our hair as part of gift from God and should show them the highest level of satkaar. This means for a sikh to keep his head covered with a dastaar, and for ladies either to cover with a chunee, rumaal or dastaar (whichever they feel comfortable with). Now it is our own laziness that we have forgotten the orginal reasons for covering our heads, which is further compounded by the fact that majority of individuals wihtin Sikh fold cut their hair and thus have little need to wear dastaars or chunees. This has resulted in the present state where we mistakenly feel that one only has to keep their head covered in the gurdwara. This leads to the third point. It is our own foolishness to think that we are only in the presence of the guru inside a gurdwara (or any other venue, home where the saroop of guru granth sahib is seen). Regardless wether we try to distinguish this as 'physical' presence or not, the fact remains that we stil associate our guru more in terms of a physical bir/pothi rather than the shabad-gyaan within it. IF we realized that the guru is the shabad, and that this shabad has no form, and rather exists at all times, in all forms within our minds and hearts then we would never feel that that the guru is only phsyically present with us in a gurdwara and not in our homes or on the streets. We will not realize that: ibnu Bwgw siqguru nw imlY Gir bYiTAw inkit inq pwis ] Without destiny, the True Guru is not found, even though He sits within the home of our own inner being, always near and close at hand Our minds will become focused only on phsyical realm when our mind itself has no physical form. I think that is what the commentary of Osho was really aimed at. I do not think he would be so arrogant to openly insult the sentiments and feelings of Sikhs and openly attack their maryada for personal gain. I think what he was trying to do was make people think outside of their enclosed boxes and realize that the Guru/God is always with us all around. guru myrY sMig sdw hY nwly ] My Guru is always with me, near at hand. We do not have to rush to gurdwara, or to a physical saroop of Guru Granth Sahib to have the gurus darshan. We can have this darshan at anytime and any place so long as we keep the words of teh guru in our minds. so siqguru ipAwrw myrY nwil hY ijQY ikQY mYno ley CfweI ] That Beloved True Guru is always with me; wherever I may be, He will save me. It is not by keeping a physical copy of the shabads in our pockets or a bir in our home that we become close to guru. It is by keeping the teachings of the guru, his gyaan, within every moment of our lives that we come to feel the presence of the guru with us at all times. gurmiq aUqm sMig swiQ ] The most sublime Word of the Guru's Teachings is always with us. Taken further, once we realize that the guru is always with us, then we will also see that God is always with us. For the Guru and GOd are merged in one and never separate from the other. Thus when we enshrine the shabad in our minds we will realize that: siqguir nwil idKwilAw riv rihAw sB Qwie ] The Guru has shown me that the Lord is always with me; He is permeating and pervading all places. And this understandin can only be achieved thru the teachings, gyaan contained WITHIN THE SHABAD, not jus physically looking or sittin in the presence of the written shabad. So ultimately what this means is that if one considers themselves a Sikh, and accepts the GUru as their guide then they must also accept the teachings of that Guru and follow them. And this includes the teaching that: guir pUrY hir nwil idKwilAw hau siqgur ivthu sd vwirAw jIau ]2] The Perfect Guru has shown me that the Lord is always with me. I am forever a sacrifice to the True Guru. So if our Guru is always with us, and GOd is always with us should we not show them respect AT ALL TIMES? And if a sikh is to show respect to his guru by keeping his head covered, should he not keep his head covered AT ALL TIMES? Why should we limit our headcovering to just a few moments of a week while we sit in the gurdwara? Is that the only time our guru is ever with us? DUring the rest of the week is our guru/god far away from us that we can do whatever we please? This is the reason why inside a gurudwara we show utmost respect for Guru, i.e. cover our heads, dont drink alcohol, dont smoke, dont swear or yell out loud yet as soon as we step outside the doorway of the gurdwara its as if magically that guru is no longer with us and we are free to engage in whatever kind of immoral behaviour we want to. Its as if we have made our guru a prisoner of the gurudwara!! We must get away from this mentalitiy n realize that he is ALWAYS WITH US, and then we will start showing respect and following his teachings AT ALL TIMES n not just when we see the saroop in our presence. As stated earlier, i think too often we are victims of distortion of peoples true words and intention. I reiterate that what Osho was likely tryin to do was make us realize this concept that god/guru is always wiht us. The guru themselvs openly critcized the pandits/brahmins for preaching that the Lord can only be found in the mandir. THey said do not fall into this closed mindset that God only lives and can be only found in a mandir/temple. He is always with u. And this false belief of God/Guru being confined to any one place is what the Gurus tried to take us away from yet sadly we are falling deeper and deeper into that same pit once again. OUr state today is exactly like it was of the hindus 500 years ago ahwen bhagat Ramanand while asking a hindu why he was so keen on goin to the mandir go the reply from that person (from SGGS): eyk idvs mn BeI aumMg ] One day, a desire welled up in my mind. Gis cMdn coAw bhu sugMD ] I ground up sandalwood, along with several fragrant oils. pUjn cwlI bRhm Twie ] I went to God's place, and worshipped Him there. We are all victim to this mindset that our Guru/God can only hear us, or we can only see them when we are at the sacred gurdwara. But Bhagat Ramanand goes on to say that person that why do u run to mandir to find him. God is always with u. so bRhmu bqwieE gur mn hI mwih ]1] That God showed me the Guru, within my own mind. This understandin came thru the gyaan of the guru. Ramanand then told the hindu friend of his that do not get entangled in this rituals. Keep faith in God but do not let that faith become an empty repetitive ritual devoid of any benefit and meaning. Thus he ended by tellin that friend: byd purwn sB dyKy joie ] I have searched through all the Vedas and the Puraanas. aUhW qau jweIAY jau eIhW n hoie ]2] I would go there, only if the Lord were not here Do u think bhagat ramanand was trying to mock or disrespect his hindu friend when he said this? Obviously to a hindu goin to mandar n doing pooja is of utmost importance yet Bhagat Ji openly criticized them for this? Why? Cuz he wanted to make them realize what they were doing and why they were doing it rather then just repetitively doing it cuz everyone else said u shud. So do not take the words of Osho as an attack on Sikhi. Rather try to see them from this light and the deeper intention behind his words. Many times, when writing down the words someone speaks or trying to conver the actions/history into words the original meaning and spirit of the situation/person is lost. I think this is what has happend with regards to Osho's message. I am not telling anyone to not cover their head in gurdwara. For this is part of our maryada and we must all follow it. But ask yourselves why we follow it and know the reasons. Do not embroiled in oh he covers his head and he doesnt n let that be reason for arguments. Instead realize the greater importance of recognizing god resides in each of us at all times regardless of what religion we practice and what covering is on our head.

Sinister, Firstly i agree that a sikh is not to worship the guru, they worship only the Supreme Creator. Secondly, it is a weakness of our own social conditioning that we want to view everything with our eyes, and analyze it based on definable physical constructs. Anyone with a deeper understanding of Gurmat will come to realize that the GURU WAS NEVER A PHYSICAL BEING. Guru refers to the GYAAN which resided INSIDE the person. That is why today we follow the teachings contained within that gyaan, as given to us in the form of GUru Granth Sahib. Thirdly, with regards to why the guru came only in physical form, we must realize that no guru or sikh for that matter during their time ever worshiped or regarded the physical body as the guru. It was always the shabad-roopi gyaan inside that they regarded as their guru. This is proven countless times in gurbani. Nowhere in gurbani will u see a reference to a physical body as the guru. To ask why the gurus came in phys forms, is a result of failing to truly understand who/what a guru is. Yes during that time, the shabad-roopi gyaan was shared with us via the human vessel. As to why only male vessels were used and not female is irrelevent to the essence of Sikhi. We can argue for all time why only males were employed by God in this task but we can never arrive at a conclusive answer for only God knows the true answer. Yes we can question it, and if we do want to search for a partial answer than that can be provided only by the guru (i.e. Gurbani). All other debate/discussion on this mattter not derived from gurbani is without merit. And there is no need for me to 'elevate the gurus to non-human perfect entities' for they already were that. THE GURU WAS NOT THE BODY BUT THE GYAAN WITHIN THAT BODY. And this gyaan has no limited form, especially one which is so simple and temporary as the human body. That is why all 10 gurus tho each having different physical vessels were considered as one. This is not only an understanding amongst the sikhs of that time, but also some well known muslim historians who wer contemporaries of the GUrus also often referred to the succesive gurus as a roop of nanak. This also related to why no guru allowed pics to be made, cuz this wud further deteriorate to the point where we would start to view the gurus as 10 separate people when in fact they were the same jot/gyaan which merely transferred into diff vessels. Sadly, we ignored this instruction of the Guru and the result is evident today. We have countless paintings not only in homes but in gurdwaras defining each guru along physical lines. It is understandable that this notion of physical vs non-physical enitity can be confusing and difficult to grasp. This can lead to many questions related to the guru, amongst which is the one u posed above, as to why the gurus were all seen in male forms. Lemme give u an example that may perhaps help clear this confusion somewhat. We are all human beings, with physical bodies and like any living physical body it requires regular nourishment to sustain its survival. Now consider that the only fuel source our body needed was water. One day you go to someones house and are offered water in a regular glass cup. The next day you go to a different friends house and are given water in a steel cup. And the next day in a plastic cup at another friends house. Now in each case what u were drinking was the same water. The cup (vessel) in which u were served that water only changed. Now tell me, how important is it queston and worry about why we were served water in different types of cups, or maybe perhaps only in one type of cup. The cup is not what your body needs, it is the water within it that it needs. That is what gives the cup its value, for without that water inside, the cup is just an empty vessel. Similarly, besides being physical beings we are also spiritual beings. And this spiritual being of ours (our souls) also require nourishment to sustain its survival, and the only fuel source for it is gyaan. (note-gyaan does not merely mean knowledge, but rather something far beyond just academic knowledge and understanding. It implies knowledge and understanding about God, his virtues, and his manifestation throughout his creation. THus it is this type of gyaan which makes one highly spiritual and possessor of all the noble virtues which go along with such a person). ANyways, this fuel source called gyaan which our souls need can be delivered to us in many ways. For a sikh, it was given to him in the form of shabad-roop. This shabad-roop gyaan was contained in the 10 vessels we call Nanak to Gobind Singh and ultimately when it was seen that the people had become understanding and self-sufficent enought to maintain this understanding on their own there was no need for the vessel anymore and thus only the shabad-roop of that gyaan was left with us, i.e. Guru Granth Sahib. Thus like the case of why the water was only given to us in particular cup, questioning and worrying why the gyaan was shared with us only in male vessels will only serve to waste ones time and deter them from the real purpose which is to take in that fuel source (gyaan). And trust me sinister, as u take in more and more of this gyaan everything regarding gurbani, gurmat, guru will all become much more clearer. Your continued persistent questioning will be replaced by a deeper understanding and appreciation of sikhi which will ultimately serve u greater purpose in life. Jai Tegang, brother while you seem to claim that i am a victim of euro-centric brainwashing i would have to counter that and claim outright that you seem to be a product of cunning trickery carried out by numerous groups, all with their roots tracing back to brahmnical influnces. To support the theory that gurus practiced polygamy is absurd. This is saying that the Gurus condoned polygamy and felt it was permissible. No guru ever engaged in any act which they themselves did not support so if u argue that they practiced polygamy then it means they supported it. And everything that the guru supported they taught that to their disciples. So if they taught so many other things, why would they not teach this practice as well? Did they consider the sikhs as inferior to them and regard them as only subjects? Were they infested with some sort of egotistical mindset that they cud do what they wanted to but their sikhs couldnt? THus you will have to agree that going by your logic polygamy for a sikh is also acceptable. Which brings me to another point u made, u say polygamy is horrendous only to western feminist thinking, and obviously from ur words you are nto a feminist, and thus dont support their views. SO tell me this, how would u feel (if not already married) if your wife kept multiple husbands/partners? WOuld u still feel the same sense of self-respect and comfortabliity around her if she returns to you only on random nights after having spent the previous nights with her other male husbands? Which man alive today would be happy with such an arrangement?? So why do you think that it is ok for a man to behave in such a way with a woman? As to relationship between sikhs and guru, it must be understood that once a sikh realizes and incorporates the message of the guru in his/her own life then no difference remains between them and the guru. The two become one. Was Bhai lehna not an ordinary sikh first before he became guru angad? Was Bhai Jetha not a regular sikh before he became Guru Ram Das? Obviously this does not imply that sikhs should go around parading themselves as the next guru. For part of becoming a true sikh is having the utmost humility and realizng that the shabad-roop gyaan which enabled them to rise to the same spiritual status as a guru is not something that belongs to them and they shud use to sell themselves but rather they appreciate it as a blessing from GOd and only focus on sharing that gyaan of theirs with those around them. gurU isKu isKu gurU hY eyko gur aupdysu clwey ] The Guru's Sikh, and the Sikh's Guru, are one and the same; both spread the Guru's Teachings This notion that the sikh and the guru is a difficult concept to grasp to the novice on the path of sikhi. This similarity and oneness is not along physical terms but rather on spiritual terms. Just as mans soul can unite and becoem one with god, same way a sikhs soul can become one and the same as the guru. And this happens through undersstanding and following the teachings of the guru. ibrKhuM Pl Pl qy ibrK gurisK isK gurmMqR suhylw] As from tree the fruit and from fruit (seed) again the tree is grown i.e. (tree and fruit are the same), so is the simple philosophy that the Guru and the Sikh are the same. THis process can continue on endlessly, and is the process by which each succesive guru came to be. That is why GUru Gobind SIngh after seeing that the seeds of Sikhi were grown and well spread he entrusted the SIkhs with full authority to continue this process under the guidance of the original seed "Shabad" (guru Granth sahib). So as to ur last point which says that a sikh should follow the teachings of guru only in word but not in practice makes no sense. SIkhi is a complete lifestyle, and not jus a collecetion of doctrines and philosophy to keep on the bookshelf and read every so often. Everything the Guru teaches us is to be adopted in our physical lives. Otherwise a Sikh is no different than the mystics and saadhus who sit around reading the mantars yet never carry out any meaningful physical actions which benefit those around them. This seed known as the shabad is not jus somethign we put in a plastic bag and leave on our shelves. It is something that we plant into every action that we carry out. Every step that we take, action that we make should be rooted in the seeds of gurbani, otherwise that seed of gurbani is pointless. Amlu kir DrqI bIju sbdo kir sc kI Awb inq dyih pwxI ] Make good deeds the soil, and let the Word of the Shabad be the seed; irrigate it continually with the water of Truth. Finaly with regards to your reference about Guru Sahib kiling certain animals to give them mukhti, these too also owe their origins to the brahmnical influence and infestation which is so rampant in Sikhi today. IF it was so important to free these souls of the poor animals do u not think the Gurus would have done a lot more work on this front? Would they not have felt sympathy for these animals and also encouraged their sikhs to work alongside them to helping out these helpless animals? SUch stories have no basis when viewed from reference point of Gurmat. They are all merely concoctions of a clever bunch to confuse the masses and distort and devalue the Gurus into some sort of mystical superheros. Such people want to group the guru sahibaan in the same line as other mystics, saadhs, sants who engaged in miracles and feats of impossiblity to show that the gurus were not any different from them. NO GURU EVERY SUPPORTED ANY ACT OF MIRACLE AND NOR DID THEY COMMIT ANY. SO i encourage you to read gurbani, strengthen your understanding of it and thus make yourself able to challenge and defend the truth of Sikhi against any outside attempst to distort or devalue it.

Fateh, Sinister bro, i agree with many of ur points, eg. marriage being an essential component of society, and that many here are rigid conservatives with little room for outside discussion which challenges their mindsets. HOwever i disagree with u on one major point: THese comments of yours seem rather misplaced. You say biographies ACCURATELY depict him as having multiple wives yet those which state he had only one are false. On what logical reasoning did u arrive to this conclusion? Simply that most kings/nobles of that time had multiple wives? That is a very novice approach to critical analysis of history. You state here that polygamy amongst the elite was embedded into the social structure of that time so the GUru followed it, yet u urself in earlier posts had stated that the GUrus made people wake up and challenge the very exisiting social norms of that time. It is a fact that Gurus challenged the custom of satti, the prohibiton against remarriage/divorce, the resittance to alloweing girls to study and take on positions of high regard, particularly in religoius settings. The gurus made over one third of the intial masands women (ppl in charged of local sikh sangats n spreading of gurbani to them). Even many generals within Sikh army were women. On every stance the Gurus promoted equality of women, both in theory and practice, so why would the gurus be so hypocritcal on the stance of marriage?? Again you seem to be grossly confused about the lives of teh Gurus. How can you even put forth the suggestion that the gurus had to "mimic" other kings of their times so that ppl wud take them seriusly? Is silently protesting against the tyranical rules of other kings openly to their face without any army behind u "mimicing" other kings of that time? Is criticizing the heartless leaders in their own courts to the point where they face inhumane tortures "mimicing" the actions of typical elite figures of that time? How many kings, nobles of that time engaged in such actions and sacrificed their lives simply to uphold the freedom of choice as Guru Tegh Bahadur? Every action of the gurus, from time of Guru Nanak WAS AGAINST THE VERY RULING AUTHORITY of that time. Why would the on the one hand spend their entire lives protesting, fighting against the immoral and unjust actions of the kings, while at the same times in their private lives "copy" the actions of the same kings? Just to gain popularity amongst the ppl? If the gurus wanted popularity they cud of just said that any person can become part of khalsa and that hair, n rest of kakaar are unecssary. Im sure the number of ppl embracing SIkhi might be manyfold greater, but the gurus didnt do such. THEY NEVER COMPROMISED THEIR BELIEFS EVEN WHEN FACED WITH DEATH. So why would they compromise them on such a relatively small issue as marriage?? hehe...this agains seem rather absurd. You say we shudnt practice it, because its not part of our social system, yet you say its ok for the gurus to do it. Were the gurus beyond the same system of morality which we live by? Were they free to walk, talk and do as they like simply cuz they were "elite" leaders? If so, then what difference remains between GUru Gobind Singh and any modern day leader/king? What one wished to accept is entirely upto that person. And yes we should have sound reasons for accepting it. But at the same time, if we apply the technique of critical analysis to this subject matter then your argument my friend fails on all fronts. If u choose to accept that guru ji was an open propoent of polygamy then why would you even call such a man your guru? whatever the gurus did in their lives, was an examply for Sikhs to copy and live by, so either this means that it is ok for all sikhs to have multiple wives or it means that the gurus were hypocrites and did what they wanted to for selfish gains (popularity, acceptance) yet prohibited their followers from doing the same. EIther way u look at it bro, it makes no sense. Hopefully this reasoning has made you reevaluate your stance on this extremely dangerous fabricated myth about Guru Gobind Singh. Pleaser read closely and decide for urself.

Fateh, To Premakranti and Sinister bros, I welcome your views as anyone elses, and i also agree with ur sentiments that many on this site are staunch conservatives who often get engrossed in emotions rather than letting discerning intellect guide their reason. At the same time tho, as you say we must be open to hearing all viewpoints. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) if we disagree with the other views, it will force us to share and express our own views which in turn will strengthen and reinforce our own base and 2) if the others are right, then it will force us to admit our mistakes and learn from others. So please keep this in mind when reading this reply, for just like you guys i am for open logical discussion and not out to bash anyone. Firstly, with regards to premakranti, you seem like an intelligent person who has obviously spent great deal of time reading and reflecting about the true meaning of spirituality. There are many points you make that i agree with, for instance about the majority of Sikh leaders (particularly in Amritsar) being polluted with corrupt selfish people with no true care or love for sikhi, that gurdwaras have become a place for display of political and social prestige and place almost zero value on the spread of Truth, that many people within the sikh panth (for whatever reasons) have been exposed to such distorted views of Sikhi for so long that it has become permanently ingrained in their minds and any attempt to make them open up and think for themselves is felt by them as a direct attack on them. The current problems within the Sikh panth, and for that matter society in general, are growing everyday and discussing them here wud be tiring. However, just because a few bad apples are found in the basket doesnt mean one shud discard the entire batch. Even if the majority of apples are rotten there may still be a few fresh, ripe sweet apples amongst the midst so one shud not just blindly abandon that batch. SImilarly, in the Sikh panth today yes, it is overwelmingly infested with useless rituals, selfish politics and mindless arguments but it does not mean we should just abandon the faith. It is our duty as Sikhs to stand up and fight for and spread the message of Truth and to try and bring about reform to the present situation thru action, and not just simply criticize it and leave it at that. Brother, while the above points of yours i agree with there are many others i strongly disagree with. You seem to have only a superficial understanding of Sikhi. You say you are not for SIkhi or Gurmat that you are only for the person. Well i do not doubt ur sincerity and genuine concern for people however u must at the same time understand that if you are for someone who adheres to the Sikh Faith then you must realize that for that person EVERY BREATH OF THEIR LIFE IS CENTERED ON THE GURUS WORD (GURBANI/GURMAT). For u to appreciate the importance of this in a Sikhs life you must first be able to comprehend gurbani. And thus far it seems apart for some misquoted tuks from GUru Granth Sahib your knowledge base of gurbani is quite minimal. (if i am wrong than please feel free to show me otherwise). Secondly, as stated earlier this is an open discussion forum, and it is impossible that everyone will agree with everyone elses viewpoitns. We are all bound to have differing viewpoints which we should respect and if we feel they are seroulsy wrong then we should aim to show them the truth thru reason, tolerance, and patience. Therefore i take grave offense when you go and label a few individuals of being the equivalent of Aurengzeb and make them out to be the enemies of the Sikh Panth. Even if these individual may me confused/mistaken in their reasoning we should show them tolerance and try to educate them thru love and udnerstanding, not by ostracizing them and making them feel dejected. WIth regards to your references about GUru Nanak, you claim that he was only enlightened at age 36 and that all other accounts are mere fabrications to present him as some 'messiah'. Couple of things, Sikhi does not support theory of any mortal prophets/messiahs. The only messiah has been shabad-roop gyaan, and this is constant amongst all faiths during their conception, tho most have strayed far from this truth over time. Also you state guru being enlightend at young age is just false stories with no proof, well please do share with me how u were able to learn that Guru Nanak only attained the gyaan at age 36. Did u not also read this in a story or hear it based on stories others told u? Seems to me like ur only grounds for accepting 'stories' as true or not is wether u agree with them, otherwise u reject them as fakes. Lastly, the point that Guru Nanak being enlightend as a child is a farfetched concoction of historians let me remind you that 5 of the 10 gurus attained the spiritual gyaan (enabling them to the status of guru) at ages below 18, and two of them were only 5 and 9 years old respectively. So why is it so farfetched that the ACTUAL FOUNDER of this movement could not have attained this gyan at a smilar age? Your points about him not meeting his wife, or only crossing bak to see his mother are all baseless facts which can be considered jokingly at best. Granted if we go by ur logic that the first guru was forced to marriage and didnt realize that marraige was wrong UNTIL AFTER he beacme guru at age 36 then do u not think he would pass on this knowledge to each succedding guru, who wud do the same to the next and so on? They passed on so much gyaan to the successor so did they someohow accidently forget bout this small little topic of marriage? And furthermore, some of the gurus became guru at very young ages as stated earlier, and got married many years after so did they still knowingly say yes to marriage when they knew it was wrong? This would make the GUrus open hypocrites who preached one thing yet themselves didnt follow it. HOw ludicrous is that!!