Cutting In Nitnem

[lovekhalistan]

Please listen to these tracks from start to finish and post your comments what you think.

http://www.4shared.com/file/39946154/c6d13...e_Vichhare.html

http://www.4shared.com/file/39946279/88109...th_Juranda.html

[ghorandhar]

I only could listen to the first link in full. I heard a few minutes of second link.

Firstly the second link mentions the rehras sahib. Simply go to the Guru Ganth Sahib jee and after the jap jee sahib you will find where Guru jee tells us to start Rehras sahib. Its clearly written in Gurbani. Those people who are reciting two shloks before rehras sahib should also recite the pauris which come after the slok. They are not reciting the whole shabad. Those people who take hukamnamas will know that the slok itself is not a complete shabad when recited, all the sloks and the pauri are recited to complete the composition. So if the extra shloks are to be recited then it will also be correct to recite the pauris and complete the shabads. So it makes no sense to argue rehras sahib has been cut and on the other hand, the same people are not even completing the full shabad.

The speaker has got himself confused with his timeline. Firstly it seems that there is no concept of Panth Khalsa/guru panth left. The chaupai sahib never in the panthic Sikh Rehit Maryada was published according to how the Taksal do it. So why he is saying its changed is beyond me. If someone can show that the panthic Sikh Rehit maryada was published in the 1930s with the longer version of Chaupai sahib, then maybe there could be a logical explanation of this change which is claimed. The other option is presenting a detailed report of old rehitnamas and hukamnamas to the Akal Takhat which proves that the nitnem should change. If people are not going to do that, then there is no point complaining about this on stages and taking people away from principles of the Panth and the Akal Takhat. The 6 pauris of Anand Sahib were changed to full Anand Sahib in 1995 I think. However you will note that no one was crying that it should remain to 6 pauri, the reason is because those people who follow the principle of the Panth do not have double standards and pick and choose when they feel they should follow the Panth and when not to.

The speaker saying sudh is a funny one. The word is Shudh. How will a coherant change in maryada be made by people who will make the things sudh rather than Shudh. Oral tradition is difficult to preserve, just look at Sant baba Gurbachan Singhs jees book on gurbani and the pronounciation of the Taksal today, BTW publishing rethe book means the Taksal is no longer based on oral tradition, but still they cant pronounce according to the tradition. My point is that what the speaker is saying is only based on an oral tradition, because the original source is not presented or published anywhere.

If you look from the Rehitnamas to the books written up to maharaja Ranjit Singh jees time, there is no consensus on the amount of bania for the nitnem. I can remember reading one rehitnama which stated that only 5 pauria of Jap jee sahib and 5 pauria of another bani should be read. If you look at all the rehitnamas and puratan books how can you complain that the standardisation of 3 bania (no one is saying dont do more) is wrong. There is hardly anyone who said that 5 should be recited, so the sangat should not be misguided by such speakers when he claims to be presenting old referances. If he producing what flanna flanna baba jee said, then he should say that, but no authority is being presented. If the panth changes the bania to five in the nitnem, I still would not complain, why? because once upon a time, a principle called Panth used to exist and everyone followed the panth.

No where does the Panthic Sikh Rehit Maryada say that we cannot read more gurbani. No one is stopping him. So he can carry on. But to attack the panthic maryada and the institution created by Guru Hargobind Sahib jee is another matter.

[V]

Totally agree with ghorandhar veer.

Reading a lot of Gurbani si very very good, and will help people advance in their avasta. It's really good. But the minimum is the minimum. Panth has decided three banis DESPITE the fact that old rehitname only mention Jap and Jaap (Prashan Uttar Bhai Nand Lal.)

Nowhere is five banis mentioned. It's easy to attack the institution (of Guru Panth) because "so and so said so" but when it comes to proving what happened in the "puratan days" most people end up calming down - because there’s nothing to support their views.

People need to get their priorities right; Guru Panth – which has made decisions based on historic documents/Gurbani /rehitnamas – or what some so and so baba ji says.

Don’t decrease your nitnem, but don’t say that anyone doing the bare minimum is doing too little.