Jump to content

New So Called Gur Matta Re Dasam Granth Ji


Recommended Posts

Building of Harmandir Sahib is one of the events of sikh history. Now in 1604, Sri Aad Granth(104 years before getting gurgaddi) was parkashed in Sri Harmandir Sahib(House of God) and Guru Arjav Dev Jee gave it so much respect. The Aad Granth contained banis of first 5 Guru Sahibaan and it was given so much respect, then why cant Sri Dasam Granth which contains the bani Dashmesh Pita be given great respect and can be parkashed ??

The gurgaddi is with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj Jee, no body is doubting that but that does not mean that Sri Dasam Granth cant be parkashed

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

who started this whole topic? people saying dasam granth shouldnt be parkash start the topic, and all we did was respond (see thread by takshilak). the whole panth is in flames and all you and your fr

Posted Images

Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

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"

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

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)

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

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"

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

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)

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

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. :)

You dilly-dally on issues. First you claim that authenticity is a non-issue and then start questioning the rehatnamas which are the source of our current Sikh Rehat Maryada. Then you question the beerh of 1698.

Its not only Chaupa Singh Rehatnama which proves that Sri Dasam Granth as a ‘Granth’ and its banees have been integral to Khalsa rehat and maryada.

Some other prominent Gursikhs (some contemporary of Guru Sahib) whose writings prove this are Bhai Desa Singh, Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Daya Singh, Kavi Senapat, Bhai Koer Singh, Bhai Kesar Singh

Just contemplate how much history and historical accounts you will have to make questionable before questioning that Sri Dasam Granth has always been an integral part of Khalsa rehat.

Parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is a non-issue.

No one is forcing anyone to do parkash…So bringing this thing again and again just proves the weakness of the ones who are hell bent at opposing Sri Dasam Granth as a Granth in the garb of its parkash-issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

Hang on...Who diverted the topic? You questioned Rehatnama in order to prove your point and I gave you other sources and asked if you would like to question those too.

Keep your 'valuable' comments on others beliefs to yourself...Guru Maharaj made a decision to give Gurgaddi to Sri Guru Granth Sahib..and I havent come accross anyone who is challenging this.

As far as parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is concerned it is a non-issue...No one is forcing you to do parkash so cool down...

If you think those who do parkash of Sri Dasam Granth do out of disrespect to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, then you are so wrong!

The fact is, a 'Dasven Patshah Ka Granth' was very much present during the time of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Keep your 'valuable' comments on others beliefs to yourself...Guru Maharaj made a decision to give Gurgaddi to Sri Guru Granth Sahib..and I havent come accross anyone who is challenging this.

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?

The fact is, a 'Dasven Patshah Ka Granth' was very much present during the time of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

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"

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

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)

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

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. :)

Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh is mentioned by singh is not for authenticating Dasam granth but for reference to disprove hoodlums who create doubts about Dasam granth.

We know SGGS is ordained as Guru of sikhs.That does not put bani of tenth master as of no consequence.We obey guru's orders and do not seek written proof for that.Heavens are not going to fall if Dasam Granth is in parkash.How one will read dasam Granth if it is not in parkash.Sikhs revere this Granth as without this Granth sikhs will be abosrbed in Hinduism.Those who oppose parkash of this granth can form their own panth.

Do not you raed the account of Charles wilkins posted by me.That account is of 1781.How come the slander lobby says that this Granth was not there in Punjab till 1860 and is planted by British?Can you answer that?How come you were writing negatively about this granth by citing some obscure book written by SMC ,Ludhiana.

The point here is this Granth is of tenth amster.No one ,say no one can, ask sikhs wheter to parkash it or not.

Let me tell you the diffference between these two granths.SGGS is about bhagti of akal purakh.Dasam Granth is about when God enters history to undo wrongs.In Dasam Granth God is known by functional names.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

You now agree at least that Dasam Granth is His bani.Since it his bani ,it is as precious as SGGS writings.Sikh rehat maryada does specify that all writings of our Gurus whether verbal or written are equally holy for us.

In light of above sikhs have full authority to decide whtehr to do parkash of Dasam granth or not.I have earlier given you refrence that it was in parkash at akal takhat as late as 1940s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beginning of jaap sahib ,Guru sahib writes

ਜਾਪੁ ॥

जापु ॥

NAME OF THE BANI.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖਵਾਕ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੀ ੧੦ ॥

स्री मुखवाक पातिसाही १० ॥

The sacred utterance of The Tenth Sovereign:

ਛਪੈ ਛੰਦ ॥ ਤ੍ਵਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

छपै छंद ॥ त्वप्रसादि ॥

CHHAPAI STANZA. BY THY GRACE

ਚੱਕ੍ਰ ਚਿਹਨ ਅਰੁ ਬਰਨ ਜਾਤਿ ਅਰੁ ਪਾਤਿ ਨਹਿਨ ਜਿਹ ॥

च्क्र चिहन अरु बरन जाति अरु पाति नहिन जिह ॥

He who is without mark or sign, He who is without caste or line.

ਰੂਪ ਰੰਗ ਅਰੁ ਰੇਖ ਭੇਖ ਕੋਊ ਕਹਿ ਨ ਸਕਤਿ ਕਿਹ ॥

रूप रंग अरु रेख भेख कोऊ कहि न सकति किह ॥

He who is without colour or form, and without any distinctive norm.

ਅਚਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਨਭਉ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ ਅਮਿਤੋਜਿ ਕਹਿਜੈ ॥

अचल मूरति अनभउ प्रकास अमितोजि कहिजै ॥

He who is without limit and motion, All effulgence, non-descript Ocean.

ਕੋਟਿ ਇੰਦ੍ਰ ਇੰਦ੍ਰਾਣਿ ਸਾਹੁ ਸਾਹਾਣਿ ਗਣਿਜੈ ॥

कोटि इंद्र इंद्राणि साहु साहाणि गणिजै ॥

The Lord of millions of Indras and kings, the Master of all worlds and beings.

ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਮਹੀਪ ਸੁਰ ਨਰ ਅਸੁਰ ਨੇਤਿ ਨੇਤਿ ਬਨ ਤ੍ਰਿਣ ਕਹਤ ॥

त्रिभवण महीप सुर नर असुर नेति नेति बन त्रिण कहत ॥

Each twig of the foliage proclaims: "Not this Thou art.

ਤ੍ਵ ਸਰਬ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੈ ਕਵਨ ਕਰਮ ਨਾਮ ਬਰਣਤ ਸੁਮਤਿ ॥੧॥

त्व सरब नाम कथै कवन करम नाम बरणत सुमति ॥१॥

All Thy Names cannot be told. That is why wise people have called You by funcitonal names.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

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"

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

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)

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

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. :)

Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh is mentioned by singh is not for authenticating Dasam granth but for reference to disprove hoodlums who create doubts about Dasam granth.

We know SGGS is ordained as Guru of sikhs.That does not put bani of tenth master as of no consequence.We obey guru's orders and do not seek written proof for that.Heavens are not going to fall if Dasam Granth is in parkash.How one will read dasam Granth if it is not in parkash.Sikhs revere this Granth as without this Granth sikhs will be abosrbed in Hinduism.Those who oppose parkash of this granth can form their own panth.

Do not you raed the account of Charles wilkins posted by me.That account is of 1781.How come the slander lobby says that this Granth was not there in Punjab till 1860 and is planted by British?Can you answer that?How come you were writing negatively about this granth by citing some obscure book written by SMC ,Ludhiana.

The point here is this Granth is of tenth amster.No one ,say no one can, ask sikhs wheter to parkash it or not.

Let me tell you the diffference between these two granths.SGGS is about bhagti of akal purakh.Dasam Granth is about when God enters history to undo wrongs.In Dasam Granth God is known by functional names.

Who has written here that the Dasam Granth was planted in the 1860s? what are you on about? this has nothing to do with the topic.

Now that you have given agyai for people to form their own panth, im sure they will be relieved (whoever these people may be).

Its simple, people who cant do parkash of Guru granth sahib at home (because they cant do the seva) still manage to do paat from Guru Granth Sahib jee (for example in potia), im sure they wont struggle with the dasam granth. (just like I do not)

How can God enter history to undo wrongs? im really confused with what you are saying. We all believe the Guru GRanth sahib jee is a revelation, are you saying that Dasam granth is a revelation and Guru GRanth sahib jee is not (God himself gave us gurbani, therefore your history argument makes no sense, if gurbani is a revelation then he has entered history). BTW no one is asking about the difference of the two granths, it also does not prove why we have to rectify Guru Gobind Singh jees decision not to have Dasam granth parkash when Guru Granth sahib jee was given gurgaddi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

You now agree at least that Dasam Granth is His bani.Since it his bani ,it is as precious as SGGS writings.Sikh rehat maryada does specify that all writings of our Gurus whether verbal or written are equally holy for us.

In light of above sikhs have full authority to decide whtehr to do parkash of Dasam granth or not.I have earlier given you refrence that it was in parkash at akal takhat as late as 1940s.

Would you also advocate bring idols back into darbar sahib complex because they were also there?

I have also given you a referance saying that before your claim of the Dasam granth being parkash, the AKal takhat ruled against having it parkash. If you want to go back into history then you will not also bring idols back into the complex, you will also bring the pandits back into the complex, remember that it was not anand karag with took place, it was the rasaam created by brahmans and pandits. However im not sure there will be many people who will follow your lead to bring back what was practiced in the 20s, 30s etc. what happened in the 1940s does not really give much legitimacy to your argument. Esp when in 1708 it was not happening when gurgaddi was given to the Guru granth sahib jee

Its not the first time Veer V jee made it clear that he is talking about the parkash and not the content. so there is no need to act like its a revelation, its just your failure to understand what others are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

If you had known which banees constitute the Amrit Sanchar, you wouldnt even have asked this question.

How do you know that Dasvan Patshah Ka Granth was never parkashed during Guru Gobind Singh Sahib's time.

There are two things here 'Gurgaddi' and 'Parkash'. Time and again you are mixing up both these things.

Guru Sahib didnt give Gurgaddi to Sri Dasam Granth. This doesnt mean Sri Dasam Granth was never parkashed!

You ask for evidence that it was parkashed. Why not show evidence that it was not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to go back into history then you will not also bring idols back into the complex, you will also bring the pandits back into the complex, remember that it was not anand karag with took place, it was the rasaam created by brahmans and pandits.

Its not the first time Veer V jee made it clear that he is talking about the parkash and not the content. so there is no need to act like its a revelation, its just your failure to understand what others are saying.

Your comparing Sri Dasam Granth which is the source Granth of Amrit, Nitnem and Ardas with 'Pandits' and 'idols' speaks volumes about how much respect you hold for it.

You might cry loud that you are not against Sri Dasam Granth, but the fact is you cant hide it...can you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If you are in favor of agan-bhet generally, could I ask why? To understand the position.
    • In general, I don't. And it's not seva. It's a huge sin. When I said there's no reason to burn the Gutka Sahib, I mean simply there's no reason given in the post. I didn't come up with this. The venerable @neo was a hard core opponent of burning Gurbani. Some people in our Panth are on a agan-bhet bender (I'm not talking about posters on the board, I'm talking about the actual institutions mentioned in old threads).  It is really, really hard for me to understand a reason for burning birs of Guru Sahib or Gutkas in the vast majority of circumstances. If a page is torn, you can fix the tear. If really necessary, you can replace the single page. After a long time, the sides of pages become worn. But so what? I've done paath from older Gutkas. Why does it become necessary to burn the Gutka? It's not a car that you're trading in for a new model. 
    • Unfortunately, the poster Guest Komal doesn't have an account, but I would really like to ask him if he could articulate why exactly, in his mind, he can't do paath from that Gutka Sahib. I can only assume that the post recommending agan-bhet was sarcastic. If the argument is that if you accidentally touch a Gutka sahib to something unclean (like the floor), and then you should burn it, does that mean the same applies to, say, your father? If you were helping your father in some way, and accidentally tripped him, would you then conclude you should burn him? Obviously, you should say sorry. But not getting a new father, for crying out loud.
    • It's hard for me to dispute that with any specificity. It's maddening that a person can be so near to Guru Nanak ji, and yet so far. However, I'll still take even a 1% rate of adoption. The way I see it, non-strict Sikhs are the field from which devout Sikhs can grow. When a non-strict Sikh undergoes a life event that causes him to think about the meaning of life, he turns to Gurbani, and that's a good thing. By contrast, non-strict Muslims turn to the Koran and become Jihadis. That's why I'll take the non-strict Sikhs over Muslims, Hindus, etc. And in that way, on that  point, I agree with 1699 (forgot his username).
    • Do provide it written where. I don't see it Dasam Bani. which Bani in Dasam Bani is it written.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use