New So Called Gur Matta Re Dasam Granth Ji

[Inder Singh]

Veer Khalsaland jee, during the time of Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh jee there would have not been an argument whether the dasam granth should be in volume or numerous if the dasam granth was parkash from the time of Guru Gobind Singh jees. This point has been made many times. Im sure Veer V jee mentioned this many times. This is why contrary evidence was requested.

The point I made about the Akal Takhat is that because something is practiced there during and before the 20s, 30s, it does not mean its correct, just as having idols and pandits doing raasam in the Darbar sahib complex. The fact is that what is happening 220 years after gurgaddi was given to the guru granth sahib has no legitimacy esp when we consider what else was happening. I believe that If I follow the updesh of Guru Gobind Singh jees bani, then Ive shown respect. If you want to talk about respect then im sure calling the dasam granth 'it' might also come under your definition of lack of respect.

Erm......no veer jee, the panth has made it clear about the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee and In my opinion we should try to sing atleast one shabad from Guru Gobind Singh jees bani when doing kirtan because we are losing the shabad reets and purataan bandishs. You can try doing your investigations (because you have nothing else relevant to say) which is based on nothing just as your belief in doing parkash of the dasam granth and being able to contravene the panth. All that ive said is in accordance with the guru panth and the Akal Takaht, I will ask for muafee if I have said anything against its decisions.

There were two birs of Dasam Granth written in 1697 and 1698.Thrd bir was written by Bhai Mani singh ji.He compiled this bir by clubbing SGGS and Dasam Granth in one volumeWe have copies of all three birs here in USA.Bet on it and i will show you.That money we will use in enlightening misled sikhs by agents of anti sikh forces.

If you take updesh of dasam Bani why you are always opposing it in an indirect way.

It is like saying something and practicng the opposite.

[ghorandhar]

Veer Inder Singh jee, firstly I dont follow any Bhuddal Dal but the Guru panth, Like I said before, because something was practiced 230 years after gurgaddi you cant give it legitimacy. Yes I acknowledged that you believe the dasam granth was parkash at Akal Takhat Sahib, but you fail to recognise that both matta number 1 (passed in the 1930s) and the panthic Sikh rehit maryada does not allow parkash of the Dasam granth. It was probably nihangs who started doing parkash of the dasam granth (as mentioned earlier) by using their bhuddi, which is also responsible for Sukh nidhan and jhatka etc.I also dont agree with putting labels such as nihang ahead of the Khalsa, We were Khalsa and all praise was given to the Khalsa (inhee kee kirpa ki sajai ham hai). It was Banda Singh Bahadur and the Khalsa who led the Sikhs after Guru Gobind Singh jee gave gurgaddi to the Guru GRanth Sahib jee. BTW im not disowning history, im disowning practices which Guru sahib did not practice, I dont believe we need to rectify anything which guru sahib did, rather we should follow our Guru. If you want to follow pramphara of what some mahants did, then good look to you. Where people from the nihang jhata made supreme sacrifices we should have praise for them (they have done something which I doubt any of us can or will), however this does not give them a monopoly to over the Sikh panth and neither do they have the right to override the hukam and actions of Guru Gobind Singh jee

People who dont believe in the Dasam granth has nothing to do with this topic, why are you changing the topic? Your paranoid about these people who dont believe in Guru Gobind Singh jees bani, you dont need to be because no one listens to them.

Ill try to break this down one last time. The point I raised about Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh and arguing over whether dasam granth should be parkash is an indication and dasam granth was never parkash, other wise there would have been no discussion whether to keep the dasam granth in one granth or numerous. The point being that the Sikhs recognised that dasam granth was not parkash. If Dasam granth had always been parkash they would not have needed to discuss whether the Dasam granth should be split into different volumes.

Veer jee you said God entered history, the shabad you posted from Bachittar natak is very nice, however the point is that you are saying prior to Guru Gobind Singh jee Akal Purakh never entered history (this split between the Guru GRanth Sahib and Dasam granth has been made by you). Therefore you are saying the Guru granth Sahib is not a revelation. You need to re examine the consequence of your comments. It would also mean that the shabads such as the following make no sense: dharan gagan nav Khand maih, Jot sarvoopi rahio par, Bhan mathara kach bhid nahee, gur Arjan Partak har. No one is doubting that Dasmesh jees bani in relation to its referance to Akal purakh, however you are saying that everything prior to Guru Gobind Singh jee is not a revelation or not through Akal purakhs divine intervention. For example the shabad Sulhi ti narayan raakh (raag Bilawal) is an indication of what im saying. Bhagata di sada too rakhda har jee, dhur too rakh da ayaai (Akal Purakh from ages has been apart of our history) In your attempt to prove the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee you are making ludicrous comments, you dont need to do this, firstly no one is questioning guru Gobind Singh jees bani and secondaly the bani itself and its interpretation is enough to convince people that its the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee.

Ive made my point, So if you want to continue to disown the Guru panth, (and Ill continue to disown your version of history) then good luck.

[jassa]

The point I raised about Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh and arguing over whether dasam granth should be parkash is an indication and dasam granth was never parkash, other wise there would have been no discussion whether to keep the dasam granth in one granth or numerous. The point being that the Sikhs recognised that dasam granth was not parkash. If Dasam granth had always been parkash they would not have needed to discuss whether the Dasam granth should be split into different volumes.

it was not about parkash of sri dasam granth but about bhai mani singhs amritsari beer in which they joint guru granth sahib and sri dasam granth in one beer ... which was parkashed in khalsa panth for long till it got gupt in ghalughara !!!

[Inder Singh]

Veer Inder Singh jee, firstly I dont follow any Bhuddal Dal but the Guru panth, Like I said before, because something was practiced 230 years after gurgaddi you cant give it legitimacy. Yes I acknowledged that you believe the dasam granth was parkash at Akal Takhat Sahib, but you fail to recognise that both matta number 1 (passed in the 1930s) and the panthic Sikh rehit maryada does not allow parkash of the Dasam granth. It was probably nihangs who started doing parkash of the dasam granth (as mentioned earlier) by using their bhuddi, which is also responsible for Sukh nidhan and jhatka etc.I also dont agree with putting labels such as nihang ahead of the Khalsa, We were Khalsa and all praise was given to the Khalsa (inhee kee kirpa ki sajai ham hai). It was Banda Singh Bahadur and the Khalsa who led the Sikhs after Guru Gobind Singh jee gave gurgaddi to the Guru GRanth Sahib jee. BTW im not disowning history, im disowning practices which Guru sahib did not practice, I dont believe we need to rectify anything which guru sahib did, rather we should follow our Guru. If you want to follow pramphara of what some mahants did, then good look to you. Where people from the nihang jhata made supreme sacrifices we should have praise for them (they have done something which I doubt any of us can or will), however this does not give them a monopoly to over the Sikh panth and neither do they have the right to override the hukam and actions of Guru Gobind Singh jee

People who dont believe in the Dasam granth has nothing to do with this topic, why are you changing the topic? Your paranoid about these people who dont believe in Guru Gobind Singh jees bani, you dont need to be because no one listens to them.

Ill try to break this down one last time. The point I raised about Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh and arguing over whether dasam granth should be parkash is an indication and dasam granth was never parkash, other wise there would have been no discussion whether to keep the dasam granth in one granth or numerous. The point being that the Sikhs recognised that dasam granth was not parkash. If Dasam granth had always been parkash they would not have needed to discuss whether the Dasam granth should be split into different volumes.

Veer jee you said God entered history, the shabad you posted from Bachittar natak is very nice, however the point is that you are saying prior to Guru Gobind Singh jee Akal Purakh never entered history (this split between the Guru GRanth Sahib and Dasam granth has been made by you). Therefore you are saying the Guru granth Sahib is not a revelation. You need to re examine the consequence of your comments. It would also mean that the shabads such as the following make no sense: dharan gagan nav Khand maih, Jot sarvoopi rahio par, Bhan mathara kach bhid nahee, gur Arjan Partak har. No one is doubting that Dasmesh jees bani in relation to its referance to Akal purakh, however you are saying that everything prior to Guru Gobind Singh jee is not a revelation or not through Akal purakhs divine intervention. For example the shabad Sulhi ti narayan raakh (raag Bilawal) is an indication of what im saying. Bhagata di sada too rakhda har jee, dhur too rakh da ayaai (Akal Purakh from ages has been apart of our history) In your attempt to prove the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee you are making ludicrous comments, you dont need to do this, firstly no one is questioning guru Gobind Singh jees bani and secondaly the bani itself and its interpretation is enough to convince people that its the bani of Guru Gobind Singh jee.

Ive made my point, So if you want to continue to disown the Guru panth, (and Ill continue to disown your version of history) then good luck.

Ghorandhar

I am amazed at your induced ignorance.Kahlsa were Nihungs to start with.In fact all amritdhari sikhs were nihungs who were fighting in jungles for survival of sikh faith.Your negative remarks about nihungs are uncalled for.Akal Takhat was under the control of Nihungs till SGPC took over.

SGGS makes a sikh and others at large a saint.When we are baptized we are khalsa, a sipahi or soldier.That is the raeson banis of Dasam granth are read.When you accept these banis read at the time of becoming khalsa ,then why oppose these in one way or the other?That is hypocricy and khalsa is never hypocrit.

I never said to disown SGGS ji.Ialways say that it is our eternal guru as ordained by tenth master.I do not ask proofs for that as i obey tenth master's command.I say that leave it to sikhs whether they want to do parkash of Dasam granth or not.That does not diminish the status of SGGS ji that is our Guru.

If you believe in concept of saint-soldier in sikhi,you have to accept that SGGS is for saint part and Dasam Granth is for organized sikh religion or sipahi part.God of Dasam granth dispenses justice while accepting Dharam as the guide.Read it and you will know.Without reading it is futile debate.Have you read it?

[SunSingh]

the point I had pasted got cut off. Here it is again:

"According to Kesar Singh Chibber, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib had himself defined and explained

the relationship between Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth. And this Guru-vaak should

be our guiding force.

ਛੋਟਾ ਗੰਥ ਜੀ ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ।

....ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ “ਗੰਥ ਸਾਿਹਬ ਹੈ ਉਹ, ਏਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਖੇਡ ਹੈ”।

....ਸੋ ਦੋਨੋ ਗੰਥ ਸਾਿਹਬ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਿਕਰ ਜਾਨੋ।

ਵਡਾ ਹੈ ਿਟਕਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਟਕੇ ਪੋਥੀਆਂ ਪੁਤ ਪੋਤੇ ਕਿਰ ਪਛਾਨੋ।

[Inder Singh]

the point I had pasted got cut off. Here it is again:

"According to Kesar Singh Chibber, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib had himself defined and explained

the relationship between Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth. And this Guru-vaak should

be our guiding force.

ਛੋਟਾ ਗੰਥ ਜੀ ਜਨਮੇ ਦਸਵ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹ ਕੇ ਧਾਮ।

....ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ “ਗੰਥ ਸਾਿਹਬ ਹੈ ਉਹ, ਏਹ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਖੇਡ ਹੈ”।

....ਸੋ ਦੋਨੋ ਗੰਥ ਸਾਿਹਬ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਿਕਰ ਜਾਨੋ।

ਵਡਾ ਹੈ ਿਟਕਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਟਕੇ ਪੋਥੀਆਂ ਪੁਤ ਪੋਤੇ ਕਿਰ ਪਛਾਨੋ।

The fact is that there were banis from both granths in Gutkas and pothis for nitnem right in first decade of 1700s.When one opens a gutka having banis from both granths banis of both granths are in parkash.I am amazed when some people argue like children over issues that have been settled by pratan sikhs.

[SaRpAnCh]

There bigger issues then this facing the Koum, everyone has their own views this topic is just going in cricles never ending ,benti to close it