Mahakaal96

The Kabba contains a Shiv lingham....

Before you decide to comment I think it's best to reflect on whether you have the capacity & knowledge to answer what you are about to answer. When those with less then adequate knowledge attempt to answer on a subject they know very little about then no one benefits, instead the questioner is given false information & the answerer entrenches falsehood. Kalki Avtar will be the 24th Avtar of Vishnu. Kalki will be a devta & not a devti as written above. Kalki will appear towards the end of Kalyug... the duration of Kalyug is 432,000 years... we have only gone through about 5,000 yrs or so. Kalki Avtar will appear in a place called Sambhal in UP. The story of Kalki Avtar is NOT a methaphor.... in Sri Dasam Granth Mahraj has written about all previous 23 avatars of Vishnu, there are many references to these avtars & their existence in Gurbani & other dharmic granths. Therefore it is absolute nonsense to dismiss the 24th Avtar of Vishnu as a methaphor when the 23 previous ones weren't. As for the argument about avtars in East vs West... it's nonsensical & childish really. Guru Nanak travelled to the west during their udasis & Sri Guru Granth Sahib resides all over the west... who says god doesn't appear in the west? My advice to OP, forget this site & its members.. you won't find anything of much substance on here... read Gurbani yourself & get the answers from the best possible source available

I was told this by sants/Singhs in Dal Panth. Giani Sher Singh has supposedly done katha on this as well but I've not heard it. If you count all the Charittars in charitropakyan then the total will come to 404 but at the end of the Bani mahraj says 405 charittars

When Guru Gobind Singh ji Maharaj was writing Charitrokhayaan, sitting on banks of Satluj, the weak-minded Masands went to Mata Gujri ji and complained to Mataji about Satguruji’s new rachna, Charitropakhyaan, saying that Maharaj was going against bachans of Guru Nanak Dev ji and was indulging in Ninda of women. Jagat Mata Gujri ji knew her son very well, so she said to Masands that she’ll go and talk to Guruji on this issue. Next day, Mataji went to the place where Maharaj had camped and Charitropakhyaan were being written. Seeing Mata ji, Maharaj got up and bowed his head to Mataji, asking the reason Mataji had come this far. Mataji smiled, looked and Masands, then turned to Maharaj and said ‘'Laal ji ( Mataji never in her life took Maharaj's name), I Heard you are writing Charittars, I dont think human mind is still capable of hearing the Truth, of being able to see the filth it is filled with in mirror of Guru's Shabad''. Mata ji returned to Anandpur Sahib saying these words, and Guru Gobind Singh ji went into Samadhi for some time. Guru ji has just finished 324th Charittar. Suddenly Maharaj opened his eyes and asked Likhari Singh to be Saavdhaan. Suddenly Maharaj stopped, and asked Likhari Singh to Jump to Charittar 326. Maharaj finished remaining Charittars and after writing 404 Charittar, in the end counted 405 charittars. Likhari Singh, Bhai Darbari asked,’’ Maharaj,We have written just 404 Charittasr, why have you counted 405 Charittars in the End? And where is 325th Charittar?’’ Guru Gobind Singh ji Maharaj smiled and said Sikha, ‘’ When Mataji left, I decided to write charittar of Maha Maaya, Sri Maya Lachmi ji, the power of Waheguru which preserves the universe. But Maharaj Akaal purakh stopped me from doing so, as when the Charittar would have been written, Maha-Maaya would have been overcome and finished. Earth, Moon, Sun, Stars, this Universe would have collapsed and there would have been Parlay (doomsday). No one has been able to imagine or explain the vastness of Maya, but I wished to write this Charittar of Maya, which has taken Human beings away from their real-Self, Sri Waheguru ji. Once the Charittar was finished, Maaya would have been rendered weak and helpless, all pure souls would have gone to Sachkhand and world would have ended.’’ Sikhs said, ‘’ Maharaj, Will this charittar be ever written and When’? ‘’Maharaj Said ‘Yes, when we come next time on this world, after finishing evil from this world, Akaal purakh Waheguru ji will complete ‘Sri Kaal ji ki Ustat’ Himself as I don’t have the power to comprehend limit of Waheguru Akaal’s Ustat, and after Akaal Ustat is completed, I will write this 325th Charittar of Maaya, after which, Maya will merge in Waheguru, there will be Maha-Parlay and whole Universe will be destroyed. We will take both Granths (Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and Sri Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji) with us to Sachkhand and parkash them there, and we shall all dwell in peace with our beloved gursikhs and when Hukam comes, take the Baani to next creation.’’ Sikhs asked ‘’Maharaj, Why did you wish to write Charittar of MayaLachmi’’? Maharaj replied, ‘’ Singho, Maaya didn’t wish its game to be revealed, and I was doing it, warning the people of world how it twists human minds to do sin, to walk on path of evil, to go away from Nij-Saroop, Waheguru, to fall in pit of hell, there fore it took Masands to Mataji. But Mataji is beyond the shackles of Maaya, still at the benti of Masands, Mataji had to come. Mataji returned after blessing me, but I was looking at Maaya’s game, how it had entered Our darbar, how the people who were supposed to be Parcharaks of Guru, The Masands, had been corrupted and weakened by Maaya, and if the Maaya had grown so powerful, it was better to finish it, for this reason I wanted to write the charittar. ‘’

Has she been found or still missing? Really hope our community wakes up soon & starts to educate our children.

And what fuels the thinking of amritdharis who fight inside gurdwaras?.... thieving from Gurus golak?..... or is it the false sense of superiority most get just because they have 'taken amrit'. The truth is most amritdharis these days are nothing more then the external form.... spiritually they are completely bankrupt & void of any genuine avastha. They look down on others, do more nindiya then most & use their image to hide all their own shortfalls whilst acting holier then thou. Most are cowards but think they are soorme because they wear blunt curved useless kirpans that can't even cut a banana. See how generalisations can work both ways? I'm sure most moneh are not how you generalised & not all amritdharis are as I described above..... but the illness of false sense of superiority is ripe... explains a lot

It's not always just masands/committee... been cases where the fighting started over disagreements on maryada, Saints etc. Been quite a lot of cases where Granthis have been caught consuming alcohol in their rooms at the gurdwara.

As opposed to 'amritdharis' who fight & swear in Gurdwaras. Attacking eachother with their blunt useless kirpans whilst using the most dispicable language imaginable & removing each others dastars..... whilst in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib!

I disagree... every second of the Anand Karaj ceremony is of equal importance & there is no active or inactive phase. The female sitting on the left & male on the right is not a coincidence.... there's significance behind that just as there is significance behind the reason why the male leads the lavan and the woman holds onto the pallan & follows.

This is also the reason why during Anand Karaj the female comes & sits to the left of the male so that he is to her right.

There's a few reasons for why Nihangs do parkarma from right to left. Nihangs were stationed all over anandpur Sahib & had their main quarters at Shaheedi Bagh which is a couple of minutes walk from Kes Garh Sahib. When sangat in their thousands used to come to do darshan of Guru Sahib then mahraj used to be seated at Kes Garh Sahib. Mahraj gave a hukam that the Nihang fauj did not have to que up with the rest of the sangat & could come straight to mahraj, do namaskar & parkarma & then take leave as & when they wanted. someone above mentioned that another reason is because of having our shaster facing mahraj as our shaster want to do namaskar of Mahraj as well but this is only half the reason. Mahraj loved shaster & seeing his ladli fauj carrying shaster pleased him a great deal. So it was a combination of Shaster doing darshan of Mahraj but also because of Mahraj wanting to do darshan of our shaster. Theres a sakhi told in the Dal Panth about a thief in the sangat who would pick people's pockets.... he was eventually caught by 1 of the Singhs doing parkarma right to left where as everyone else including the thief were doing in left to right.

Your being a d!ck by hijacking someone else's thread. The OP has reached out & asked for genuine help & advice. Start another thread or p!ss off to P.M system. Seen some of the cry baby threads you started because you are not man enough to deal with bullies at work (despite allegedly being a 'Singh'), no one hijacked your threads so show some decorum & respect to others. To OP my advice is to start listening to Gurbani... Chaupai Sahib would be a good place to start taking your current situation into consideration.

Then the Singhs comprehended the character of the Khans. Turks hordes were ravishing Indian women. If the Sikhs took revenge [by raping in retaliation] it should be recognised as good. Why does the Guru’s instruction (note: ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ implies a written code of conduct i.e. a rahitnama) prevent them [from doing this]? (18) Listen to what the Guru said on this matter: I have recognised this [Khalsa] path as an exalted one. Without base degradation assimilated within.That is why I prevent you from committing [such] sins. (19) That path which adopts Mohhamad, is one of demons.The ways of those lowly ones are not good.Observe how they commit outrages at every opportunity. (20) Suraj Prakash Granth

It's a shame you fell to this exact same thing when reading the original post. When Guru Gobind Singh Ji warned us not to trust the word of a Muslim, mahraj made that statement in the hope that most of his sikhs would have enough budhi (intellect) to know which Muslims that statement would apply to & not be of low intellect where they start applying that warning to Bhagats. How many sikhs do you think have come across a genuine Muslim bhagat in their lives & wondered if that warning should apply to them?? Mahraj knew exactly the type of Muslims we would be dealing with hence the warning. Anyone reading Bhagat Farid Ji's Bani can clearly see that taqqiya is not being deployed even remotely.... Bhagat jis Bani is inline with gurmat and therefore beyond any doubt or suspicion.

Akal Purekh parmeshvar never takes birth (ajooni) but takes 'avtar'. There is a massive difference between taking birth & taking an avtar. There are 6 types of avtar depending on the completeness of consciousness that parmeshvar deems necessary for that certain avtar. Six types of avtar are; Ansha Aveshya Kalah Nit Namit puran Guru Nanak mahraj is above these 6 & classed as a puran tam/ puran gur/ puran har avtar which means an avtar with complete supreme consciousness.

Spot on. In general sikhs are a very honest, non discriminating, trustworthy & friendly people who treat everyone equal regardless of religion etc... however the rest of humanity is not like that & we need to smarten up. Muslims are the worst because it is quite simply a part of their belief that everyone is not equal.. and that those who are not Muslim (kafirs) can be lied to, exploited, raped & even killed without the risk of any retribution from god.... there's a reason why Guru Gobind Singh Ji exposed their lieing & deceitful ways at Anandpur Sahib when the Muslim swore oaths on the Koran only to then break them at the first available oppurtunity. Guru Sahib did that to open our eyes & to make us aware. I urge all my brothers & sisters on this site to be more aware, cautious & extremely careful when having any kind of dealing with any Muslim. It's a testament to the greatness of our Guru that we as a community are very tolerant & respectful towards all... but our Guru also taught us to be budhi maan (of discerning intellect) & raj neetic (politically aware).

To all my sikh brothers & sisters on this site... there is no point in talking to a Muslim & there is certainly no point in ever trusting anything that comes out of their mouths! They consider us as Kafirs (non believers) and therefore are permitted under the laws of Islam to practice what is known as 'TAQIYYA' when having any dealing with us. I urge you all to research & learn about TAQIYYA for yourself but have added some info below. Also remember that Guru Gobind Singh Ji explicitly said the word of a Muslim is never to be trusted. Remember how the lowly dogs of Aurugzebs army swore oaths on the Quran but then broke them at the first chance at Anandpur & how Guru Sahib exposed their treacherous ways. It is in their blood to lie & deceive. TAQIYYA Deception, Lying and Taqiyya Does Islam permit Muslims to lie? Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences." There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. Quran Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie. Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way.. Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir (vol 4, p 49) Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers. Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21) Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose. Hadith and Sira Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below). Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means. Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy." Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)." Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered. From Islamic Law: Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more) "One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie." Notes Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are several forms: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32(that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression. Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others. Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims. At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981). Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

To all my sikh brothers & sisters on this site... there is no point in talking to a Muslim & there is certainly no point in ever trusting anything that comes out of their mouths! They consider us as Kafirs (non believers) and therefore are permitted under the laws of Islam to practice what is known as 'TAQIYYA' when having any dealing with us. I urge you all to research & learn about TAQIYYA for yourself but have added some info below. Also remember that Guru Gobind Singh Ji explicitly said the word of a Muslim is never to be trusted. Remember how the lowly dogs of Aurugzebs army swore oaths on the Quran but then broke them at the first chance at Anandpur & how Guru Sahib exposed their treacherous ways. It is in their blood to lie & deceive. TAQIYYA Deception, Lying and Taqiyya Does Islam permit Muslims to lie? Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences." There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. Quran Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie. Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way.. Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir (vol 4, p 49) Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers. Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21) Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose. Hadith and Sira Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below). Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means. Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy." Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)." Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered. From Islamic Law: Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more) "One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie." Notes Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are several forms: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32(that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression. Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others. Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims. At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981). Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

As I've already said Chandi Charitar & Chandi Di Vaar are a part of Bachittar Natak. when something is said in brief it is akin to a summary. Anyone who has read Chandi di Vaar & Chandi Charitar knows Chandi Di Vaar is a shorter & summarised account of Chandi Charitar. Anyone who has read Suraj Prakash knows that there are elements which are extensions of certain parts of Bachittar Natak, I.e mahraj history at hemkunt & the war from Chandi Banis When you are taught arths of Gurbani you are taught by the word so to speak, however, each Bani, shabad & pangti has an unthankia which gives the history & other Points of significance attached to them. If you are doing a word for word translation then you stick to arths only. If you are discussing the Bani as a whole or in general as was the case here, then you take arths & unthanika into consideration. More then happy to do veechar, charcha & even argue with those who have gyan & genuine desire to establish the truth.... not willing to engage with those who have none of the above as their laksh... no more replies to you

Chandi charitar & Chandi Di vaar are actually part of Bachittar Natak... this is how sampardas teach it (and what I was taught/told) although they are commonly perceived as seperate banis. When reading Chandi Charitar & Chandi Di Vaar it becomes quite obvious that Chandi Di Vaar is a shorter, summaried version of Chandi charitar although this is not explicitly said in that instance by mahraj. In Bachittar Natak mahraj says a few times about keeping everything brief, not just the war accounts, so as to avoid the Granth becoming to voluminous. some examples; 1. Page 114 Line 1 ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਕਥਾ ਸੰਛੇਪ ਤੇ ਕਹੋ ਸੁ ਹਿਤੁ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ॥ Parithama Katha Saanchhepa Te Kaho Su Hitu Chitu Laaei ॥ प्रिथम कथा संछेप ते कहो सु हितु चितु लाइ ॥ With the concentration of my mind, I narrate in brief my earlier story. 1. Page 115 Line 2 ਬਰੁ ਬਿਥਾਰ ਕਹਾ ਲਗੈ ਬਖਾਨੀਅਤ ॥ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਬਢਨ ਤੇ ਅਤਿ ਡਰੁ ਮਾਨੀਅਤ ॥ Baru Bithaar Kahaa Lagai Bakhaaneeata ॥ Garaantha Badhana Te At(i) Daru Maaneeata ॥ बरु बिथार कहा लगै बखानीअत ॥ ग्रंथ बढन ते अति डरु मानीअत ॥ If everything is described in detail, it is feared that the description will become voluminous. Following on from this is the reason why Sri Suraj Prakash is considered the extension to details about Rishi Dusht Daman & extention to Mata Durgas battles etc

Ok I think I've worked it out & why I thought it was Satyug.... the battle between Sri Sarbloh Avtar & Brijnath took place in Satyug... that's why Baba Santa Singh mentions Satyug as that katha is about the history of Sri Sarbloh Granth. Baba Ji also mentions that rishi's had the ability to go into samadhi for thousands of years & that in Satyug Rishi Dusht Daman was in deep samadhi.... but during that samadhi saw everything that was going on.... in that samadhi you have something called tre-Kal darshi.. which means the ability to see the past, present & future. what rishi Dusht Daman saw became the contents of Sri Sarbloh Granth & some other Dasam Bani. If you go to Sri Sarbloh Bunga in Hazoor Sahib they say that mahraj wrote Sri Sarbloh Granth as Dusht Daman then gave that Granth to the 9 naths to look after until they come again as Guru mahraj in Kalyug. Baba Ji also says that Sri Dasam Granth had been completely compiled but was lost when Mahraj crossed Sarsa Nadi during the storm & evacuation of Anandpur Sahib. Mata did fight rakatbheej in Treta yug but mahraj had already been in tappasya since Satyug.

There's no need to apologise.. doing veechar is one of the accepted forms of gaining knowledge. Watch this video, Baba Santa Singh Ji mentions the parsang briefly but the detailed account can be found in rut 3 adayai 35 of Sri Suraj Prakash Granth I'll say it again that Mata fleeing from the battlefield is not to be considered as a slight against Mata.... anyone who has killed 9 crore of the same demon (plus the others like chund, mund, dhumarnain etc) & they re-manifest themselves would become exhausted.

If you want to discredit the work of Kavi Santokh Singh & Sri Suraj Prakash then that is your choice. According to your logic we should remove some of our 5 kakars because there's no evidence from Gurbani... I'm happy to stick with the sampardai (nihangs, taksal, nirmalas etc) take on the subject.

I am familiar with Chandi Charitar.... it is a more detailed account of the battles mentioned in Chandi Di Vaar. The account in Sri Suraj Prakash is supposedly an extension of this Bani.... at least that's what I've been told & that's how it is taught in sampardas. Similarly the accounts about Rishi Samund & Rishi Dusht Daman are an extension of Bachiter Natak. By writing that Mata fled the battlefield to seek assistance from Parmeshvar is not to be regarded as a slight against Mata but rather exhaults the supreme power of parmeshvar..... however.... according to the Khalsa maryada it is forbidden for a warrior to take 1 step back on the battlefield let alone flee the battlefield.... even if it is to pray to parmeshvar. (At Sarsa nadi mahraj recited Sri Asa Di vaar on the battlefield but did not flee... Baba Ajit Singh, Baba Udai Singh & the rest of the fauj carried on fighting but no one left the battlefield) In Sri Sarbloh Granth mahraj praises the demon Brijnath when he refuses to back down from war against parmeshvar himself.... try to think outside of the box here.... there's a reason Sant Jarnail Singh Ji said in katha that the Bani of Sri Dasam Granth would not be understood by cowards.