V

N30, funny how you ignored the first three paragraphs of my post where I gave a concrete example of a Gursikh who removed his title 'sant'. I see such a person, as a person with a lot of nimarta. An ideal Gursikh who will not accept people treating them as if they're all of it. Very true, this is my conception of what a sant would be like, but I get this example from Sikhs from history who i KNOW have "got it all" who ARE pooran jot vich jot. One excellent example that comes to mind if Bhai Sahib Bhai Gurdas Ji (who I never see you guys calling "Sant Gurdas Ji" - was he any less than reru valey, or nanaksar valey, etc?) - AGAIN and AGAIN he calls himself the dust of the feet of the SERVANTS OF THE SERVANTS of the Guru. I'm sure you've read Bhai Sahibs Vaara N30, it is THESE vaars that explain to me the attitude and nimarta of these "sampooran purashs." I know that Bhai Sahib was at another stage; when all else was lost, there was not mai; yet he kept on calling himself a DOG of the Gursikhs. It is when I see 'sant' getting people bowing at their legs that I start wondering - would Bhai Sahib Bhai Gurdas Ji allow someone to do this to him? Basing on the humility in his writings, my "conception" says he would NEVER allow this to happen. You might disagree It does, my mindset does have a lot to do with gurmat, because my mindset comes from the acceptences that most of those claiming to be sants are actually 'benaras ke thug', funnily enough a shabad rarely explaind and sung by the sants of today Sukhmani Sahib speak about the status of TRUE sants, true brahmgyanis, yet we have spoken about the arth of brahmgyaini ki gat brahmgiani janey, where we know that only the brahmgyani can recognize the characteristics of brahmgianis; hence my conception is not really the most reliable, however to stay safe, I see what other people who were TRUE sant/brahmgyanis (Bhai Gurdas Ji) were like, and they had such humility, a humility yet to be seen in any living person, let alone people runnign after kursis As far as I understand it Baba Attar Singh Mastuana wasn't very happy with people matha teeking to him; and actually stopped them frequently. Anyway I'm not going to get into discussion with you about individual 'sants'; my issue is, my understanding about what a true brahmgyani is based on those who have been accepted by Guru Arjan Dev Ji. I do not have the buddi or samat to judge what sants are true and what are false. I know there is atleast one true sant out there who will always welcome me with open arms, which I can KNOW is not 'benaras ke thug'; I prefer to have a rishta with that true sant rather than risk becoming a chela of the likes of pehowa. I pehowa wasn't caught doing what he did, he would still be considered a sant up to date Makes sense. Yet, I believe, they would never see themselves worthy of being treated in that manner My twisted preconceived notions and standards are based on those Gurmukhs who I KNOW have realized "it all." I'd rather follow their footsteps than doing "bheed chaal" and run after sants who very well could be benaras ke thug. Why should I run after sants who (with even the slight possibility) may be false. N30, I'm not making up a maryada, nor have I stated a hukamnama or Gurbani says so. However Gurbani does say those who are real are very very few. Gyani Sant Singh Maskeen said that there are very few who are SIKHS, let alone sants. When Gurbani tells us to be aware of thugs, and when I know that its only by realising Guru and Gurbani that I'll get to the stage where I can distinguish real from false - why shuold I bow to sucha purash. Will it matter to that purash if I bow to him or not? No-one is talking about rigid things as "being allowed" or not being allowed. We're talking about how appropreate it is of a TRUE sant who will consider themselves as nothing but the DUST of the feet of the SERVANTS of the SERVANTS of the Guru (see Vaara Bhai Gurdas) titles such as the one mentioned. Our ithhas shows us that this was extremely scaresly used (if at all) on very respected Sikhs. There was no Sant Bachittar Singh, or Sant Gurdas Ji, or Sant Mani Singh, or Sant Matti Das Ji. Why was that so?

As Singhstah earlier on said; I really don't understand why a real sant would even accept a such title. A real sant wouldn't just from otuside say"apa koch nahi hege" but really make sure that no-one "overrespects" them. The example that comes to mind is Nawab Kapur Singh who despite being elected as the jathedar of the Panth, despite doign loads of "leadership-seva" still carried on picking up horsedung. That is humility an nimarta, where you personally do NOT see yourself and let other people treat you as a sant. When you realize that before parmatma you are nothing, though you are part of him, or infact ARE him; you are still nothing. A person I would consider very pious in this context is "Bhai" Niranjan Singh; who previously used the title "sant", excellent example of a person wit "sant subha", with a saintly character. I cannot judge his character; but AFTER being bestowed the title of sant, and being treated (and to a certaiin extent 'worshipped' like a sant; he decided to change his 'bhes' and his 'roop' to make people STOP calling him a sant; because he didn't consider himself one. You are right N30, for a sants JEEVAN it doesn't matter if he's called a sant or or a chatr of Guru Sahib - but he will ALWAYS consider himself as the DUST of the sangats feet, and not just say that he is sangats dhoor, but will not let sangat BOW to him, will not sangat treat him like he is patmatma, because he will realize that he is nothing. Is their such a sant today?

Ok, so bring them to Punjab in mass scale and take away the jobs the bhaiyas have taken. These bhaiyas although in the pace (and uncontrolled) pace they are comign in, in a way is "invading" Punjab, and in SOME way needs to be regulated - are a very very hard working people. They do drugs, only to being to do that extra ride for the next Punjabis to get to the cinema. So that they can get that extra ten rupies. Firstly; do these Sikhs tribes WANT to move to Punjab? If they do, you might want to start makign an effort in getting them to Punjab instead of critisizing those who are coming to Punjab and finding possibilities. Punjabis supermacy lol

1- Could you please give us the specific Gurbani tuk so that we can look into the context. 2- I find ir rather ironic that you are comparing Bhagat Prahlaad Ji and Bhagat Kabeer Ji, who have officially been accepted by Guru Arjan Dev Ji, with people who are being called sants today. I'm not saying there aren't good people in sant samaj, or those with an uchi avastha; but my question is: Who gave them this title? Who gave the person this title? If Sangat did - how does the sangat know that this person is indeed a brahmgyani, Gurbani tells us only a brahmgyani can know who another brahmgyani is. Hence why I have no problem with Guru Arjan Dev ji recognizing sants. Today we don't have Guru Arjan Dev ji here to specify which sants are real, and which are benaras ke thug. All I know is that Gurbani tells us that these individuals we are speaking about are virley ke-y ke - and I would hardly accept that all of the members of the sant samaj to be one with parmatma. My belief is that Guru Sahib told us to take a step towards HIM. though sants have had a role in increasing the parchar; the fact remains that a lot of us have more allegience towards our specific saint than Guru Panth and Guru Granth. That being said; We know that there are saint that have been doing great seva (incl Baba Attar Singh Ji, who ironically was also a founder of Singh Sabha); and those who have later on exposed as something else (Pehowa valey.) A spade is a spade. A human is a human; however who is a sant? Who will recognize who is true and who is not? Those who believed in Pehowa to be a sant; he was a brahmgyani for those people. Those who see Ranjit Singh as a sant (and recognized him as a brahmgyani) were also wrong; he wasn't beyond mistakes either. He was a Gursikh, a parcharc who got loads of people into the fold of sikhi, yet in the end of the day also a LEARNER of the truth. Yet is there any one single example pro 1850s where the tile sant was used? Sant Banda Singh Bahadur? Sant Gurdas Ji? Sant Kanieya Jee? Sant painda khan? Sant Buddha Singh? Sant jhujhar Singh Ji?, Sant Fateh Singh Ji? Our ithhas is full of the tile: Bhai and Baba. I could have missed out someone, please fill me in if that is the case if I'm not mistaken its used synonomously to the english word "a saint", not as a title. Was it Sant Madho Das?

Singh_bling although most people acknowledge that sants do exist and they are given much respect in Gurbani we also need to appreciate that Gurbani gives us a description of what a Sant is like. Rather detailed one, and I must tell you most sants of the sant samaj do not fall into this catagory. I'm not saying all of them are bad. Butjust like the SGPC basket, sant samaj includes many bad aplpes that although do organize morchas, a lot of them are to get increased support I'll give you the most obvious example, which I've repeated on the forum again and again. Baba Dhumma got his kursi (jathedari) and acceptence by taksalis because he followed the official line of taksal: baba ji is alive. Ram Singh said from the begining: baba ji is shaheed. Who got kursi? Dhumma. What happens once he gets his kursi? He goes back on his words and says baba ji is shaheed. If this is not double standards (read: pakhand) then I do not know what is. Veer SunSingh, I'm not here to find other people's mistakes as I'm full of them myself. I'm sure Baba hari Singh is too (perhaps hence why the closed door meetings with RSS) The reason why I posted was due to you veer jeeo again and again posting the same thing: those who do not believe in sants do not believe in gurbani. I have full faith in Gurbani, and Gurbani tells me there are those genuine heeras who dedicate their life to this cause; Bhagat Pooran Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Gurdas Ji etc etc but Gurbani also tells me that most people on this planet are subject to making mistakes. They are bhullanhar. I do not have the buddi or right to go and judge others and say: oh pakhandi eh, oh sacha hai. I believe my path to Guru Sahib is straight. There aren't any middlemen. My rishta is to Guru Sahib, end of discussion. Hence why some other persons avastha doesn't concern me. Again, don't get me wrong; I'm not saying all so-called sants are bad. I'm saying all parcharacs have many guns, however we should acknowledge that in the end of the day, they too have their awguns, and its Guru Sahib we are to be dedicated to. our mission shouldn't be to protect and hold allegence to a certain baba, sant or jathebandi

N30 if you had bothered reading my post carefully you would have noticed that the point being made was about the usage of the word sant being so loose. I've carried on speaking on the topic SunSingh Veer ji brought up. According to him, anyone not believing "in sants, do not believe in Gurbani." my point was: it's not that people don't believe in the existance of saints, because they exist. Gurbani clearly tells us that these do exist; however Gurbani also tells us that saints are "virley ke-y ke." That's why I find it so amusing to find an entire "samaj" of sant, when our Guru sahib tells us that there are very few who realize that light. There're very few who recognize and realize parmatma. My example was of one such case where people considered him to be, brahmgyani, to be one with parmatma, yet we know that he was not beyond mistakes. And Gurbani tells us this. I'm not sayign real ones don't exist. But fact is, vast majority of the once aliev toady are not. This can be seen in these sant baba jees own jeevans, where they do anything to get their kursi and their jathedaris (we all know who I'm talking about )

SunSingh Veer ji, you keep throwing these Gurbani quotes about saints being part of parmatma (infact BEING parmatma), yet you do not realize what most people have issues with. Not whether Sants exist or not. Ranjit Singh of Dhardhria has been called "sant" since the day he started to do parchar (which is fine if he truelly is the sant that Gurbani described; the sant that is one with akal purakh). I have no intention of saying Ranjit Singh isn't doing Panthic seva, or isn't "joRH-ing" people to Maharaj. He is does a lot of parchar and seva. However earlier on in his life (there are videos on youtube of this) people used to do matha tekna to him on his birthady; something he later on admitted was WRONG. Which is good. Admitting your mistake is great, but it tells me one thing: He was NOT the sant that Gurbani talks about. He was a human being (just like all of others) who did LOADS OF SEVA, but was not beyond mistakes. Gurbani tells us: Bhullan andhar sabh ko, Abhul Guru Kartar. We ALL make mistakes, its a part of human nature. its about worshippign people who might nto be one with akal. Who might not be one with parmatma. Despite the fact that he used to do loads of seva (soemthing he still does), he wasn't beyond mistakes, something he today admits. We need to realize that the word 'sant' is being used for every other parcharac in this kaum. I'm sure they doa lto of "bundagi" but we need to realize that ultimately our goal is to reach Parmatma. All parcharacs should be treated with respect, but we are using the word very loosely, in the context of Gurbani

Many Many Happy Returns of the Day :D May Maharaj keep blessing you with more pyaar, sharda, and gyan of Gurmat and Gurbani. Once again, Congrats :D

Inder Singh, none of there sources you have mentioned, about amritsanchar are contemporary. I believe Gur Kia Sakhia are from 18th centuary, and The Bhai Gurdas, is from 1760 something. None of them even lived during the time of Guru Gobind Singh. The Granth mentioned by Bijla Singh is new to me.

Totally irrelevant. Nothing to do whether its parkash or not. My question remains: Why wasn't parkash of Dasm Granth done during 1699 Vaisakhi if he held it in the same light as Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj How do you know that Bhai Gurdas Ji's vaars wasn't parkash. Your question is absurd. Our ithhas tells us Guru Arjan Dev Ji did Parkash of Aad Granth. Is there ANYTHING AT ALL that tells us that he did parkash of Dasam Granth. None that you have been able to provide, so as far as I'm aware, we know he did parkash of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but nothing tells us he did it with Dasam Granth. I'm not mixing up anything. I'm not even bringing up Gurgaddi. As I mentioned, I haven't used the word Gurgaddi for this reason. You will distort my post. I'm not talking about Gurgaddi, I am talking about doing parkash of Dasam Granth. Stop diverting the topic. I'm still waiting for historical evidence that Maharaj did parkash of Dasam Granth, and both of us know that this was not the case, yet you do anything to prove yourself correct That is an absurd thing to say. Just because you claim something doesn't make that the case. None of our ithhas tells us this was the case. NONE. Not Suraj Parkash, None of the muslim writers, none of the rehitnamas mention even the CONCEPT of Parkash of the two Granth (though they mention doing paath and learning the Banis) NONE of them mention the Parkash. Where all of the historics, the kavis asleep during the time of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib that they failed to write that, hey btw Guru Gobind Singh deos parkash of his Granth. We know Guru Arjan Dev Ji did, yet we KNOW that Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not. I suggest you call Dr Jodh Singh, Dr Punnu or G.s Lamba and ask them

Inder Singh, I'm still waiting for your reference that Dasam Granth was parkash at Akal Takhat up till 1940's. Fact that Akal Takhat banned parkash and Akhand Paath of Dasam Granth 1934, doesn't help your case either Fact remains: Maharaj decided not to Parkash it - who are you to change it? Maharaj decided not to treat the Banis the same way - who are you to change Maharaj Ji's way of doing things. Kaun ho tusi badlan valey? Also stop using Sikh Rehit Maryada as a reference. You don't adhere to it anyway

Khalsaland Veeray, have I ever said anyone is disrespecting Guru Granth Sahib Ji? stop throwing things into my mouth. Things I haven't even implied. Khalsaland, I question anything going against the kasvati of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, so yes I question when Bhai Desa Singh says the Khalsa was founded to protect Brahminds and the cow. I question it. I don't question Bhai Desa Singh when he says that "pritham rehit" is Khandey ki Pahul. I question a lot of Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnamas because its been vigorously edited, and contains very little truth (which might explain why websites such as <banned site filter activated> use such 'dubious sources'.) Again, I request you to actually read the rehitnama before asking me if I question it, because I'm sure you will too, once you bother to read it I didn't even use the word Gurgaddi in my post. I'm not even talking about Gurgaddi, nor am I saying you're questioning it. I'm saying Guru Gobind Singh Ji distinguished his bani from Guru Granth Sahib Ji, for a reason. What, I do not know, but I know he distinguished it; and did not treat it the same way he treated Guru Maharaj. He did not do Parkash of Dasam Granth, nor is there any evidence to prove that he did. We know Guru Arjan Dev Ji did parkash of Aad Granth. Did Dasam pita do parkash of Dasam Granth? If you want to divert the topic, I'll let you answer a very simple question: why did the Sikhs debate whether Dasam Bani should be in separate pothis or a Granth at the time of Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh? If you want to stay on the topic, then - fact is, Dasven Patsha Ka Granth might have been "very much present", why was it not used during the Amrit Sanchar of 1699? Why was it not always Parkash in Maharaj Ji's darbar? Why did Guru Arjan Dev Ji do parkash of Aad Granth, but his great grandson not do parkash of the Granth he had compiled? You have again and again failed to answer this.

Khalsaland, you have again diverted the topic. By writings half of your post on Rehitnamas. I agree that rehitnamas were the basis of the Sikh Rehit Maryada. I fully support this maryada (which ironically rejects many of the statements in the rehitnamas you have mentioned.) Do you fully accept the Sikh Rehit Maryada as it as? Why the hypocrasy. Since you are bent on accepting all Rehitnamas, I assume you accept everything Chaupa Singh has written. I suggest you start reading the rehitnamas before commenting on them. Do you accept that bibis cannot have Khandey da Amrit, but should have Kirpan da Amrit? Parkash of Dasam Granth is EXACTLY what the issue is about, considering Guru Gobind Sahib Maharaj made a decision to distinguish his writings from the first ten Gurus (of the same jyot.) It is YOU who are making an issue out of an issue already solved by the Panth - or does this faisla not suit your own belief? Maharaj Made the faisla. Panth clarified the faisla. The Sikh Rehit Maryada is clear about the issue. You are out their to misinterpret it to suit your needs. Again, I'm waiting for evidence that Guru Gobind Singh Sahib did Parkash of Dasam Granth.

The compositions have been written at different times over a span of a long time.Guru ji has given the date of their completion.If you take composition of Charitropakhayan and compare it with writing of Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji the dates of compleiton exactly match. Veer, Sorry I'm not sure how comparing rehitnama Chaupa Singh (out of All rehitnamas! The one who says there is not Khandey Batte di Pahul for women! They can "only" have Kirpan da Amrit, and includes many other obscure practises.) to prove it's reliability. I suggest you read Bhai Chaupa Singh's writings before "using it as a reference" No the point in this thread is whether or not the Dasam Granth should be parkash or not. Just like the Panth has issued a statement saying that the banis should be accepted (something we all should follow, until a new faisla is made); we have to accept that the Panth has decided that it should NOT be parkash. That's what the thread is about, not those questioning the banis of Dasam Granth. Let me remind you that the likes of Dr Jodh Singh, Dr Punnu and G.S Lamba; scholars you guys extensively use in your debate while proving bani in Dasam Granth is authentic. This thread isn't questioning the authencity of it, but whether it should be parkash or not. Fact remains, Maharaj decided not to do it. Our ithhas tells us no other Gurbani was parkash (whether by Bhai Gurdas Ji, or other writings accepted by Maharaj) There is no evidence to prove this. We KNOW that Guru Arjan Dev Ji did Parkash of the Aad Granth (now Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji), but there are absolutly no proof, no rehitnamas, not ithhasic writings (as far as I'm aware) of Guru Sahib doing parkash of both. If anything we have proof that Maharaj distinguished the two Granth by NOT adding his bani into it. If the Bani was the same; and to be treated the same, why a separate Granth - why did he distinguish his bani from bani in Aad Granth? There are questions that still haven't been answered. The question isn't whether Jaap Sahib or Akal Ustat or other bani are bani or not, because we've gone past that, the question is whether the Granth (which was still being argued whether to be one volume or several, up until Mehtab Singh Sukha Singh.) Also do you think the entire Panth was ignorant of the Granth og 1698, that they still argued whether it should be one volume or not? A lot of our rehitnamas show that dating wasn't the best. Take the example of Bhai Prahlad Rehitnama which mention Guru Granth Sahib getting Guru Gaddi 1695, whereas Sikh traditions tell us that those were Guru Gobind Singh Ji's last bachans.

How does taksal pronounce sahib and rang in - ਰੰਙਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਜੇ ਰੰਙੈ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਐਸਾ ਰੰਗੁ ਨ ਡੀਠ ॥੨॥ Since they pronounce everything as written - do they pronounce sahib as "sahibo" and rang as "rango"? Notice the "ignored unkaRs" Also Singh132 asked a very valid question yet not answered; if Gurbani is pronounced exactly like it's written, why take santhiya at all? Jao Punjabi parNi Sikho. Boht eh.