Huge Panthic Conference In Wolverhampton Today Exposed The Traitors In Coventry

[manni74]

Gurfateh Ji,

Something I found….

Q. Can we find any variations of SGGS that are available with us so that we can have any doubt on the authenticity of SGGS?

Q. Where as in the matter of DG the Sodhak Committee formed in 1897-1903 to clear doubts over the authenticity of DG had 34 variations of DG from all over India to compile what they thought were the writings of Dasam Patshah... In there they decided to omit seven banies from the then available copies of DG. The seven compositions that were removed from existing compilations were,

1. Sahansar Sukhmana

2. Vaar Malkauns

3. Vaar Bhagautee Kee

4. Sri Bhagwant Gita Bhaksha Guru Gobind Singh Kirat

5. Raag Asa and Raag Sorath Pt. 10

6. Asfotak Kabits Majh Pt. 10

7. Chakka Bhagautee Ka

Q. Who gave them the wisdom to remove those seven banies?

The most relevant question here is if Sikhs were open minded enough to set up a Sodhak Committee more than 100 years ago then what makes it an issue to form another to have have a relook at the working of that Sodhak Committee so that issue is resolved beyond reasonable doubt?

Let me first state that I have great respect for Bhai Mani Singh ji and Mata Sundri Ji. Unlike Sri Guru Granth Sahibji, there is no way anyone can authenticate that what is in Dasam Granth is the bani of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. At the time of Bhai Mani Singh Ji, Sikh religion was going through a very very difficult time. I am not sure what kind of documented evidence we have, as what was sent to Mata Sundri Ji by Bhai Mani Singh Ji and how the whole Dasam Granth was compiled.

Please note that when Guru Arjan Devji, compiled SGGS, Gurjuji knew such practices exists and Guruji made it impossible to penetrate into the writings of SGGS. There is no doubt that Dasam Granth has Bani of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, but my question to all of you is ‘can we with absolute certainty say that all the bani in Dasam Granth is By Guru Gobind Singh Ji and it had never been tampered with ’ and my second questions ‘what is the possibility that the work which Bhai Mani Singh ji started, was not tempered with’.

To my understanding I haven’t seen such evidence and I would like know these sources to establish the facts. Are we hiding these facts by quoting Bhai Mani Singh Ji and Mata Sundri Ji or we do have established facts.

[maimoorakh]

Kulwant Singh dhesi was not at yesterdays meetin, neither was major sandhu or babbu lol. Yes wring things were said at the meeting and the way the two lads who objected was way out of line, but a number of guys at today's conferance gave speaches that incited violence against the opposing crew, is that wat these guys are good for? Kicking off with their own? Both sides have acted disgracefully. Today's guys even said that those that don't accept all of dasam Granth and raagmala are not Sikhs. Those that diss their sampardas or leaders are not Sikhs? Is that wat sikhi is to them? Sad state of affairs Khalistanis fighting amongst themselves. Truly shameful

thats true though aint it!!!

its about time we stood up to these people who are trying to divide us from the inside

if people cant see that those named above are agents and are trying to kill sikhi as we know it then there blind as hell!!

So does that statement in bold include the likes of Bhai Randhir Singh who did not belive in Raag Mala?

Even Sant Jarnail Singh, who believed in Raag mala scolded a singh for reading it at Akal Takht when he read it there and the marayda said otherwise. This shows that Sant ji had more respect for the Guru roop sangat's decission than his own belief.

It's sad that we are all fighting about his when the Akal Takht could so easliy give some direction for all Sikhs to follow. But until Badal & his goons are running the show that aint gonna happen. Lets do something practical to eliminate the root cause rather than sit here fighting about the reprocussions.

i dont want to turn this into a raagmala debate.....but my views on this are clear cut and i fully agree with wat was said....no exceptions

with regards to sant jarnail singh ji.....if wat u said is true (because its the 1st iv heard of it) that shows that they had the upmost respect for guru hargobind sahibs thakht and didnt in anyway want to show it in a bad light...not anything else......in the same way they didnt matha tekh within the actual harmindir sahib because the akaal thakht stated guns could not be taken in there....it was out of respect for the thakht!!

I do not wish to turn this into a Raag Mala debate either, but was just commeingting the post which was posted earlier. My personal view is that whoever said/wrote that statement is not a sikh himself!

Guru sahib made us Lions not sheep, so don't follow what we have been told or what we read on internet forums, or even conferences for that matter. There is no point of slating other jathebandi who have different marayada - this is what our enemies want, we are giving it to them on a plate - so carry on if that's what you want!

If you believe in Raag mala/SDGS then good - but how many of you have read the preceding 1429 ang of SGGS, or all of SDGS? Are we too lazy to do our own research with the mat, the brain that guru sahib has given us? Are we just saying what we are told to say? Do your own research before judging anyone else.

If we don't agree with what a particular jathebandhi has said/done - lets approach them like brothers and sit down and have a logical debate, rather than holding conferences too engage in jatha-bashing!! It's going to get us nowhere!

And I bet even this post is going to fall on deaf ears - I doubt anyone will be bothered to do anything another than what we have been already doing in this post and others!! Ask yourselves really will it benefit you in anyway? is your post going to change anyone else's opinion? Are you psoting just to get one over someone? We are all here to help each other thorugh the journey of life, if you can;t do that and its your ego speaking then please - benti to keep your opinions to yourself.

But if you want to dicsuss issues logically and in a civilised way without getting personal then by all means, I look forward to your posts.

[AK47 JATHA LION]

Ive read all the topic carefully.

If I filter out all the insults and ranting I can make out some clear points.

From what I understand, as some of you even stated that some of the names mentioned in this topic were not even at the Coventry meeting.

I love it when people stick to facts, because when they dont, it leads people to make their own theories up with disastrous consequences.

As one singh mentioned earlier, Nindya of someone doing Nindya is still Nindya and no better.

So A confrence took place in Coventry in which people voiced their strong opinions.

Another confrence took place the day after in response in Wolverhampton where people also voiced their strong opinions.

It would be good if we had an idea of roughly how many people attended the Wolverhampton confrence, since we know how many attended the Cov.

I see Two sides of the same religion on the brink of war.

And they say Massa Ranghar was the one who tried to wipe out sikhs. He put 50 rupees on each sikh head. Cart loads of heads were presented to him.

To think sikhs came back from the verge of extinction at the hands of Massa Ranghar, only to destroy ourselves by our very own hands today.

We are our own worst enemy. I guess the old saying diddd have some truth to it afterall...

carry on... this post was just a short interlude...

[dass]

Manni74 post is off interest if they managed to have something like that all those years ago.. why not now ?? is a such a bad thing to have.. are we that rigid ??

[maimoorakh]

Manni74 post is off interest if they managed to have something like that all those years ago.. why not now ?? is a such a bad thing to have.. are we that rigid ??

That is exactly what we need - but the sad part is when our jathedars are chosen by anti-pathic leaders/people - they will not allow the true scholars to come forward into the debate forums.

We need a committee of scholars set up - who know about the topic in order to come to a resolution and present that to akal takht without becoming personal. This is what SGPC and dhram parchar comittee should be doing - but unfortunatley it looks as thought they are being puppetted also by Badal!

[Inder Singh]

Manni74 post is off interest if they managed to have something like that all those years ago.. why not now ?? is a such a bad thing to have.. are we that rigid ??

Why should have it again? We cann't have these committees now and again.It has been decided once for all.

Moreover this is not the point of discussion.

Manni74 post is off interest if they managed to have something like that all those years ago.. why not now ?? is a such a bad thing to have.. are we that rigid ??

That is exactly what we need - but the sad part is when our jathedars are chosen by anti-pathic leaders/people - they will not allow the true scholars to come forward into the debate forums.

We need a committee of scholars set up - who know about the topic in order to come to a resolution and present that to akal takht without becoming personal. This is what SGPC and dhram parchar comittee should be doing - but unfortunatley it looks as thought they are being puppetted also by Badal!

Who are these scholars who can analyse wrtings of our Guru. Tomorrow some deranged person will want SGGS to be analysed.

This is not the topic of discussion. Authenticity of Dasam Granth is beyond question.Moderators should note that.This is against forum guidelines.People are repeating same thing what those people seem to be saying in Coventry meeting.

[dass]

then why didn't the DTT, nihang, sant samaj ?? all kick up a fuss the last time it was done some of those writings were removed ??? obviously there wasn't this do or die attitude back then... Guru Sahib never compiled the granth - FACT... so the problem will always remain what is Guru sahibs bani and what isn't... there must have been a reason why they accepted the committees findings ?? I find it typical of the attitude today that has been instilled in some of the forum contributors... this can't be done, can't be so... the only thing that is beyond reproach is Guru Granth Sahib everything else isn't authentic as we would like it to be.... reading some of the translations in the dasam granth section which have been posted today raises some questions for me, as I hadn't read them, I couldn't find them anywhere.. had read some of dasam granth translation on websites and the baniya which I read didn't raise as half as many questions than the one's i've read today... still awaiting your views in that section...

[Inder Singh]

then why didn't the DTT, nihang, sant samaj ?? all kick up a fuss the last time it was done some of those writings were removed ??? obviously there wasn't this do or die attitude back then... Guru Sahib never compiled the granth - FACT... so the problem will always remain what is Guru sahibs bani and what isn't... there must have been a reason why they accepted the committees findings ?? I find it typical of the attitude today that has been instilled in some of the forum contributors... this can't be done, can't be so... the only thing that is beyond reproach is Guru Granth Sahib everything else isn't authentic as we would like it to be.... reading some of the translations in the dasam granth section which have been posted today raises some questions for me, as I hadn't read them, I couldn't find them anywhere.. had read some of dasam granth translation on websites and the baniya which I read didn't raise as half as many questions than the one's i've read today... still awaiting your views in that section...

Two beers were compiled during Guru sahib's time called hazuri beer and patna beer. The years were 1696 and 1698. One of the beer , Patna beer, is available on the net.

If you have any questions on Dasam granth post it in the section earmarked for the discussions for Dasam granth.Those questions would be as a seeker and not as a doubter.

This thread is not for raising doubt on Dasam granth. This site accepts Dasam granth in toatality. We need to respect forum guidelines.

Nihungs are the ones who were original dal khalsa and they were keepers of Dasam Granth.They have all banis in their beers.One need some study first before posing questions as it relates to our scritpure.

[Sewadar]

Topic Closed - SikhSangat Stand on Such Issues are clearly mentioned in our "Forum Rules & Guidelines". Those who don't follow the below rules, we ask them politely to refrain them-self from discussing such topics. Zero Tolerance !

Raag Maala: Raag Maala appears on the last Ang of Guru Granth Sahib Ji. There has been much conflict in the Panth over this for the last 150 years. Majority of the members on this forum are at young age. This is the age to learn about Sikhi so that we can follow Guru Ji's path. It is very easy for young members to go off topic and turn the debate into personal attacks which brings down the quality of the forum. Although Bani is very dear to us and we would like to see this matter resolved but many great scholars have written so much about it. Both sides have good intentions and respect Bani very much. Any insulting, jatha bashing or vulgar comments are not allowed and will result in banning the member without any notice or warning. If anyone wants to explore this topic he/she should read the books that have been written in the past and make up his/her mind. No topics about Raag Maala shall be discussed on SikhSangat Forum. Warning will be issued. We request everyone to respect each other's beliefs and learn from each other.

Dasam Granth March 1, 2008

Dasam Granth Bani: SikhSangat.com holds a Pro Dasam Granth stand. We believe that the Dasam Granth Sahib in its current form is the work of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. No provocative, insulting or derogatory language will be tolerated against Dasam Granth Sahib. Any topic or post questioning the authority and authenticity of the Dasam Granth will not be allowed. Not following the rule will result in Under moderation and possible ban without an issuance of warning.