Dasam Granth Parkash?

[Mkhalsa]

I think doing parkash of dasam bani is perfectly ok if one has enough sharda and not doing it for other reasons. BUT parkash must be done LOWER than guru sahib. I have heard of this in quite a few places. That parkash is done lower and also if hukam is taken it is always taken from guru sahib first, then dasam bani.

[Mkhalsa]

khalsa4eva has mentined bout the gyani hu set up guru gobind singhs suit, n ppl bowed 2 that. question 4 the sangat, y do ppl bow down 2 the gurus shaastras?

Jithae Shastar Namang Namaskar Tamang

[SaadhRayn Kaur]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

I noticed a very interesting thing yesterday when I was reading the saloks of Kabeer Jee and Fareed Jee.

Throughout the saloks of these great bhagats, the Guru Sahibaan's bani is also intertwined.

At some point one of the Bhagat says that in the body of a God-realized person there is no blood.

Then right after that, there is a shabad by one of the Guru Sahibs that says "the body is made up of all blood, the body can't be without blood. those who are realized of God have no blood of greed."

Therefore the Guru has EXPLAINED the Bhagat's bani more clearly while allowing the expression of the Bhagat.

There is another example of this where the Bhagat says "All my clothes have been ripped, I live on only what will bring me close to God."

Now this is the state of a BHAGAT, but Guru jee wants to make clear that just by ripping your clothes like that BHAGAT you will not Get God. Therefore, right after that shabad by the Bhagat, there is a shabad by Guru jee that says, "Why do you rip your clothes? You can achieve God in the comfort of your own home."

So what Guru Sahib has done is provide some "clarifications" to the Bhagat bani in order to make sure nobody gets mistaken - as these bhagats were such "uchee avasthaa" that these things happened with them and Guru jee wanted to clarify that you cannot just OUTWARDLY ACT like these people and become like them - you need the LOVE in

side, which these bhagats had.

MY POINT IS THIS...

when you look at these examples above,

when you look at all the raags,

when you look at all of the "ghars," and the mentions of "mahala,"

when you look at the standardized Gurmukhi script,

and the consistency in Guru GRanth Sahib,

and also when you look at the fact that some peoples bani were NOT included in Guru Granth Sahib,

It becomes obvious that from the birth of Guru Nanak to the Gurgadhee of Guru Granth Sahib, there was a lot of development in the structure of Guru Granth Sahib.

It becomes obvious that Guru Granth Sahib was compiled with a very very love-filled, difficult, painstakingly accurate, consistent, methodological, and time-consuming (more than 300 years !!!!) process.

Therefore it was a very deliberate and purposeful, meaningful and thought-out procedure when Guru Gobind Singh jee bestowed Gurgadhi on Guru Granth Sahib jee.

Your Guru has to ferry you across the world ocean.

Your Guru has to remove all your pains.

Your Guru has to enlighten, inspire and educate you.

Your Guru has to bring you close to the Almighty God.

Guru Gobind Singh jee realized that ONLY GURU GRANTH SAHIB JEE, in the full suroop, can do this and that is why it was given Gurgadhee.

Therefore, we should never waver from the ABSOLUTELY TRUE FACT, that above everything in the universe - all our respect should go to Guru Granth Sahib jee, and everything else is secondary.

I believe it's okay to bow to the Dasam Bani, it is the Guru's Bani (whatever has been confirmed by the Panth).

I believe it's okay to do Prakash of it and read from it.

However our Guru is Guru Granth Sahib, who has the "sacha takhat," (true throne) "vadaa darbar," (magnificent court) "nehchal chaur chhath," (unwavering canopy and chaur) and who commands our highest respect.

Bhul chuk maaf karnaa,

an style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

[Guest SikhForLife]

well i dont know if ur analogy is correct or not.. but my instincts tell me that none of the bhagats were "wrong" that Guru jis needed to clarify their views..

and i believe when Kabir ji said the blood line.. its metaphoric.. and each shabads have different meanings but obviously the same theme

[SaadhRayn Kaur]

Hanjee........ veerjee I absolutely did not mean that they were incomplete or wrong

What I meant is Guru Sahib has added "supplementary" bani to complete the message

Perhaps my choice of the word "clarifying" was incorrect

please forgive me for my mistakes

the general point was that Guru Granth SAhib was built with a lot of careful precision - it was Akaal Purakh's dhur kee bani (including the bhagat's bani)... so as a bottome line we should appreciate that Guru jee was not just "kidding" when he gave gurgadhee to Guru Granth Sahib Jee. It was a well-thought out decision in the hukam of WAheguru.

[harminder]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

cosmictej Sahib(a), you indicate that one should not bow down to the Dasam Granth, in which case why have it in parkash next to the (Adi) Guru Granth Sahib in the first place? Why not keep it wrapped up in a respectful place (just as one would with say Bhai Gurdas Jee’s Varan) and bring it out for purposes of Vichaar only? Clearly if parkash is being done on par with Adi Guru Granth Sahib, then is the status not raised to equal, leading to the presently controversial issue of whether it should be regarded as such or not.

The issue that arises here is that the very defining aspects of the Khalsa Panth rest on both Granths given the use of Bani from both during the preparation of Khanda-da-Paul and the daily nitnem liturgy. This has caused many arguments between the pro-and-anti camps, with the former viewing this as indicative of its status as Gurbani and hence as Guru and the latter expressing a view similar to that of JapNaam Singh in that it should be ‘respected’ but isn’t Gurbani in the same manner as the Adi Guru Granth Sahib.

Deep Singh Jee raised the question of the authentic Birs, however this problem can also be applied (albeit to a lesser extent, but still evident) to the Adi Guru Granth Sahib –the ongoing position over the Raagmala is a clear example of this

Veer ji,Yes Bani from Dasam Granth is there in nitnem and is recited du

ting amrit ceremony and theres is no doubt that its Bani and there is no argument over these banis between any within sikhs.but this does not mean that whichever Granth these Banis come from be accorded status of Guru.Guru Gobind Singh ji had knowledge of "aad jugaad" and if he wanted to accord His writings in Dasam Granth status of guru then either he would have included the Bani in SGGS(like he did for Guru Teg Bahadur JI Bani) or he would have accorded Guruship to both the granths.Now there is no doubt that he did not do that and we also know that the only authority to accord Guruship on anyone was ONLY Him.And since he accorded Guruship to only SGGS we have to just follow that.We dont know why he didnt accord the same status to His writings of Dasam Granth,but whatever it is it is HIS wisdom and only he knows it.

so even though Dasam Granth Bani is to be revered the gurus spirit which lies with SGGS does not lie with any other granth.ONLY SGGS is our "aad jugaad Guru".If we doubt this we are doubting wisdom of our Guru.The gurus spirit being in SGGS is eveident from th way great realized sikhs like Baba Nand Singh ji,Bhai Randhir Singh ji,Sant Jarnail Singh ji, treated SGGS.Baba Nand Singh ji had darshan of Guru Nanak Dev JI in flesh and blood from SGGS.Their respect and devotion to SGGS as only Guru even though including Dasam Garnth Banis in their daily Nitnem and in amrit ceremonies clears any doubts in this regard one might still have.

This is interesting, I've heard of Guru Sahib (and even seen the associated writings) indicating not to worship him as Nirankar, however never anything concerning his writings. Veer, could you please verify this statement.

It wasn't declared as Guru Granth at the time, but was certainly treated in the same manner. Amandeep Singh Munde and Dalip Singh, build upon a simila

r view indicating that Guru Gobind Singh divested Gurgaddi to the Khalsa Panth (Guru Panth) and to the Guru Granth, hence the practice keeping both Granths together follows...any thoughts?

About guru ji not indicating anywhere to not worship His Bani,well as I said he was not normal human with limitations like us,He was antarjami and well aware of past and future and if he thought it correct that His banis is to be worshipped as Guru he would have taken care of it right then.

About gurgaddi to khalsa panth and Guru Granth,i tend to disagree on this statement.I think we are mixing two aspects.As far as Guru Gaddi and Guruship is concerned it solely lies with SGGS.Our Guru is only SGGS and very clearly Gurgaddi was accorded by Guruji on to Guru Garnth Sahib.

Anyways, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib left no doubt as to the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib was to be the eternal Guru of the Sikhs. He,on his deathbed, summoned the Sikhs to bring the (at that time) the Adi Granth Sahib to him. He himself consecrated the Adi Granth Sahib in the EXACT manner as every Guru had passed on the Gurgaddi, namely by presenting the Adi Granth Sahib 5 paise, a coconut and finalized the act by bowing to the Adi Granth Sahib, which from then on, became the Guru Granth Sahib. It is even stated that the Dohira recited at the end of Ardaas are the words (or some variation) of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib which state to follow the Guru Granth Sahib as the Guru. This was NOT done to the Dasam Granth (as no such Granth was in existence at the time) or the Sarbloh Granth (whose very origin and status is still a mystery to many).

Very correctly said.Guru Gobind Singh ji formally passed guruship and the

spirit of guru which has been passing from Guru Nanak Dev Ji to Guru Gobind singh ji,to our eternal Guru SGGS.

In NO way should the knowledge of the Dasam Granth be ignored. It is the work of the Dasmi Patshahi and should be treated with respect, but the designation of Guru belongs only to the Guru Granth Sahib and not any other Granth Sahib. So doing parkash of Guru Granth Sahib alongside of the Dasam Granth at the same level would be to ignore the very last commandment of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib.

I tend to agree with this, how can we think we have more wisdom than Guru Gobind Singh ji and treat anything other than SGGS as our guru.It is not respecting His command for us.

I also agree that dasam Granth Banis have should be respected as its Bani of Guru Gobind Singh ji and I also very firmly beleive that they have great powers.

As far as certain Gurdvaras (Hazoor Saahib, Patna Saahib) doing prakash of Sri Dasm Granth, I personally don't think this has too much bearing. Sure, it indicates that this was a common practice at one point, but that doesn't mean that it was ever correct. A lot of things were prevalent at one point or another, especially prior to the Singh Sabhaa Movement, but it doesn't mean that these things were in accordance with Gurmat. Certain schools of thought now try to discredit the Singh Sabha Movement and all the reforms that took place. In my eyes, this movement saved Sikhism from being swallowed by hinduism.

Very true just because its been ha

ppening from a certain point in history doesnt mean its going correct.Damdami Taksaal has been carrying knowledge from time of Guru Gobind Singh ji and even they dont treat Dasam Granth as Guru.And again Many great sikhs who have been carrying knowledge from Sants of Guru Jis time have treated only SGGS as guru.And we are well aware of kamai of these Mahapurush.

As far as prakash of dasam granth along with SGGS ,I am short of information about whether this is correct or not accoprding to maryada.But its my guess since these two places are strongly associated with Guru Gobind Singh ji,they have done prakash of Dasam Granth to show thei respect and association with Guruji and it has become a tradition ahrd to break at some point in history.But if they are treating dasam Granth as Guru ,its certainly not in line with what our Guruji asked us to do.When I go to Hazoor Sahib i bow there knowing both Granths are in prakash,but in my heart I am seeing only SGGS as my Guru and bowing only to SGGS as Guru,though still paying respects to Bani of Dasam Graanth.and yes Hukamnama is always from SGGS first.

Okey for a seconde if we continue on the thought that was presented by Niranjana jee about Guru Granth Sahib been given Gurgaddi in 1604 at Guru Arjan Dev Sahib's time. Well then the Guru would be Sri Guru Granth Sahib and not Guru Hargobind jee after Guru Arjan Dev jee. therefore there is a need of some explaination. this makes me think that Gurmat has always contained the twin-Guruship model; Guru as the 'teacher', 'helper', 'prophet' or 'enlightener' and Guru Panth as 'collective responibility', sangat, brotherhood and the 'political/worldly power' etc. So the first five Guru Sahiban were both our teacher and our leaders in worldly matters, as both Miri-Piri in one. However after t

he Gurgaddi to Guru Granth the spiritual power has been with Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sehvi to Dasvi Patshahi have had power over Panthic matters/or been our sole leaders as in worldly matters. And when Khalsa was created the 'Guru Panth' authority was given to the Khalsa Panth...and today we still have this twin-Guruship; as Guru Granth and Guru Panth.

Veerji,please do more reserach on this to convince yourself,but there is no twin guruship model in Sikhi.There has been always one Guru at a time.Guru Granth Sahib JI was compiled by Arjun Dev ji but it was not accorded guruship it was just a granth and Guru Hargobind JI(or other gurus till Guru gobind Singh ji) were the only Gurus at their time,NOT SGGS.ONce again why this is upto wisdom of our Gurus and as a sikh i dont wanna have any questions on that.SGGS was revered and respected and our Gurus might have used Bani from it to enlighten people but it was NOT GURU before Guru Gobind Singh JI Gave Guruship to SGGS,and the moment he did that from that point on our ONLY GURU IS SGGS.

well i dont know if ur analogy is correct or not.. but my instincts tell me that none of the bhagats were "wrong" that Guru jis needed to clarify their views..

and i believe when Kabir ji said the blood line.. its metaphoric.. and each shabads have different meanings but obviously the same theme

Well its not right to say bhagats were wrong,otherwiose their bani wouldnt be in SGGS.SGGS hols bani for people of all spritual stages.It directs a beginner as well as an enlightened soul.Bhagats were obviously of very high spiritual stage and their Bani would have perfectly guided someone who is at that stage or near to it.And

obviously what they said was truth and truth is only one. But Guruji also added their bani along(which is again pure truth)so that someone whos at beginning stages doesnt get that wrong and doesnt start some ritualostic things.

So we just have to get guidance from SGGS according to what stage we are in.Certain concepts we will really understand if we have been able to raise our spiritual stage by Gurus grace.

I hope this helps in explaining your doubt.

These are just my views with from my very very limited knowledge of Bani,Guru and Sikhi.Please forgive me for any mistakes.

Gurfateh

[Niranjana]

Gur Fateh!

Harminder Jee thanks for your comments. The argument that Guru Gobind Singh didn't include any of his bani in the Sri Guru is something that I have seen only in modern Sikh history, as I recently came across the notion that there is line of thought attributing the closing Dohra to Salok M9 to him.

This is not a issue that is fully agreed upon, personally I would like to have this more authenticated, does anyone have any formal opinion on this?

As per the doctrine of "Guru-Panth and Guru-Granth", I recall on this forum under two separate Khalistani threads, Sardar MKhalsa mentioned that:-

Guru Khalsa Panth in Sarbat Khalsa declared khalistan free in 1986. Meaning all Sikhs MUST be under the banner of khalistan.

What kind of Sikhs are we if we cannot follow our gurus command?

and also, earlier made the statement:-

Niranjana Jeeo,

In 1986-87, Sarbat Khalsa aka Panth Khalsa aka Guru Panth aka Guru Sahib, declared Khalistan free from hindustan and that all sikhs should support it.

My guru said it, thats enough for me

Both of these were met with much approval from other members of the Forum, so why the different tone on this account? Please could we explore and explain?

Sardarni SadhRyanKaur, from my reading of everyone's comments, I don't think anyone considers Guru Sahib to be "kidding" about anything. I ask that you forgive my lack of intellect, but I really couldn't follow your line of thought concerning Bhagat Bani and its relation to this post?

You seem to retract your initial notions that Bhagat Bani somehow needed to be corrected by

our Guru Sahibs when challenged about your effective claim to them being wrong. Please could you clarify your stance on this matter to avoid any confusion.

You also mentioned Guru Granth Sahib in full saroop. Again, this is an interesting notion since earlier someone was pointing to variations in the Dasam Granth Saroops, but we also find these in the Sri Guru -sure, we have an agreed version by the Akal Thakt, but we all know of variations that continue to be used today with additional Banis, however more often than not, with Banis removed, usually RaagMala.

Gur Fateh!

[DhadiMania]

good replies harminder

[SaadhRayn Kaur]

Pyare Veerjee NIranjana Singh jee

Gurfateh parvaan karnee

waheguru ji ka khalsa ! waheguru ji ki fateh!

Veerjee,

I did not retract my statements in anyway. My statements were misunderstood and I clarified.

What I was saying is if you read the Bhagat Bani, interlaced throughout the Bhagat bani is supplementary Gurbani.

these nicely mould together, and they were deliberately put there due to the context and relevance of the Bhagat bani and Gurbani to each other.

Let me say here that I am calling it Bhagat bani for reference sake. It is part of Guru Granth Sahib and therefore it is Guru GRanth Sahib jee's bani and there for IT IS dhur kee bani and it is gurbani.

I do not believe in different Guru Granth Sahibs. I believe that the most authentic suroop of Guru Granth Sahib is the continuous script (ladivaar). I have no comments about rag mala, as I dont' have proper knowledge of it. Please don't assume from these comments that I am part of AKJ, as I actually grew up without any exposure to Sikhi and I still don't know very much about AKJ. I just agree with their stance that ladivaar suroop is the complete suroop.

The point I was trying to make about Bhagat Bani is this:

Guru Sahib has deliberately and purposefully, with reason and bibek budhee, interlaced Gurbani with Bhagat Bani.

This was a thoughtful process, and it shows that Guru Granth Sahib was created through a very systematic, orderly, thoughtful process.

I was only trying to say that Guru Granth Sahib was put together by the Gurus, with lots of hard work, and therefore its creation has 100% credibility.

The c

ompilation procedures of the Dasam Granth are less credible ONLY because over the last hundred-or-so years the composition has been manipulated to contain Banis that are not in fact by Guru Gobind Singh jee.

However, if we just look at Guru Gobind Singh jee's bani only, then definately we can do prakash of it. But still, it is not our Guru. We should appreciate that Guru Granth Sahib was so thoughtfully produced, and so exact, and Guru Gobind Singh jee gave gurgadhee to this suroop for a reason.

If Guru Gobind SIngh jee wanted us to treat Dasam Granth like the Guru, it is obvious he would have bestowed Gurgadhee to Dasam Granth.

please forgive my mistakes

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

[harminder]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

Dear veer Niranjana,

Thanks for your researchfull study on the issue of versions of SGGS.

we can see that there are at least six versions of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib

Well it will be no surprise to me if tommorow government of India or RSS comes out with few more versions of SGGS,or if some other group of people like the ones you have mentioned say that some other thing(like hymns of meera bai) is part of gurbani.

The reasons of such a thing happening would be:

1.propaganda by RSS like factions to malign the very base of sikhi.

2.Someone wanting to be self styled guru(like nirankaris and likes) might actually add his own bani in SGGS.

3.People with weak minds following such groups or gurus in the hope to get quicker materialistic results.

4.Some intelligent people like us trying to do hair splitting over such things without even following mool mantar.

5.some people following others and loosing faith and doubting guru on basis of historical references like the ones you have given.

Well the list could be as long as one might want.

Its well know fact that theres no question of six versions of SGGS ,anyone wanting to proove that or beleive that will only end up disrespecting such a great Guru.

Yes unfortunately the panth is not one on raagmaala yet but its my beleief that some day some mahapursh will clear e

ven this doubt. but lets ask ourselves one question.How much of SGGS do we read,understand and follow in life even upto before raagmala??Not doing that and starting to question and doubting about something like raagmala is foolish in my opinion. We dont wanna listen to what is being told so loudly and clearly in SGGS but we can spend endless time debating raag mala.Anyways let me not go more into that.

But that said even with this ,all one can say with his wordly knowledge from any source is that SGGS is with Raagmala(which includes the other version in totality) and without it.If we go little deeper Guru is "SHABAD"(shabad guru surat dhun chela) and one can obtain this shabad from just mool mantar or one cant get it even by reading whole SGGS.Gurus nadar mehar is required most of all.We with our limited senses,limitation of time and space we live in, will only praise Him and expereince Him as much as he has given us the wisdom to do it.

"Aaap aapni budh hai jeti barnat bhin bhin tohe teti"

For someone with faith and reverence for the "SHABAD",for the GURU,for SGGS there is no doubt and for someone who doesnt have this its all question marks.

"Ik bharam bhule fire deh dis ek naam laag sawareya"

If we want answers ,if we want Guru to guide us then lets do Simran and other things a sikh should do.If our aim is only to find faults then we will miss so much and we will have to regret in the end.

I dont find myself very confortable talking about my GURU like this so i might not participate more on this.My request to all sangat is that lets first see who we are talking about ,it our GURU,Lets not talk in anyway that might show disrespect for our Guru.

someone wrote something very wise on sikhnet:

"For a hungry person food does not have a meaning. Food has an impact, an effect and a result. This is experienced after one receives food. Those who seek a deeper meaning of the food names may remain hungry forever."

I apologise if I have gone off topic or have s

aid anything wrong.

Gurfateh