pad-chhed

[Gupt daasan daas]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

someone said that if saroop is padched its an imposter

that hurt

major time

people still dont get the real essence of guru je

of course lareedar is the best

but wat was said

out of line

just makes me sad to the core

bhula chuka maf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[Gupt daasan daas]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

and the question was something like shud we matha tek to padched

not weather its right

bhula chuka maf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[Singh132]

Sorry to hurt your feelings khalistani, but heres the question: if someone took a saroop and re-arranged it so that it's organized by Guru and not Raag, would you want it to be parkaash? Of course every Sikh would bow to it, since it's baaNee, but it's not right to have it parkaash. And it was never right to change it in the first place.

The same thing has happened with pad-chhed. Then why do we go about and act as though nothing is wrong? We should demand that lareedaar saroop of Guru Granth Sahib should be parkaash. Pad-chhed is baaNee. But it is NOT the saroop of Guru Granth Sahib that was given gurgaddi by Guru Gobind Singh jee and does not deserve to be parkaash and presented as Sree Guru Granth Sahib. In this way, I still think that pad-chhed is an imposter.

I again apologise if I am too harsh, but I dont' think the Panth will see chardee kala until we return the real saroop of Guru Sahib to the gadee.

[Gupt daasan daas]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

its all bani

of course singh lareedar is best

nobody can say it aint

but that dont mean anyone has right to say guru je is an imposter

if i say ik oaankar

im still reading the same bani arnt I??

of course try to do parkash of a lareedar saroop

but have full satkar for pad ched too

its all the same bani

bhula chuka maf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[r.singh]

Khalistani,

Nobody is denying that pad ched saroops contain gurbanee. And of course, gurbanee should be respected. But, aren't you offended and hurt by the fact that sikhs decided that lareedhar saroop given by Guru Saahib was inadequate and decided to redo it in a different format? You keep saying that lareedhar saroop is the best and prakash of this should be encouraged but... you keep putting in these buts. Singh, this should hurt you more than the imposter comment. Why was the form of our guru changed and why do we all just blindly accept it? Our Guru was changed! There are no if's and's or but's. Prakash should be of lareedhar saroops only. We've tried making things 'easier' and have resulted in thousands of people who can barely form a word by putting two letters together, becoming akhand pattees and thus having hundreds of akhand paats going at the same time. This brings in massive amounts of dollars but very little in terms of spirtual growth in the panth. Nobody pays attention to the banee, including the paattees doing the paat. Many don't even know what they're reading. Today, there are more akhand paats being done than ever in the history of the panth. Many times more. Yet look at the state of sikhee. I'm not trying to say that doing paat from pad ched doesn't result in any laha. Doing paat is beneficial, but how much chardee kalaa can we expect as a panth if we've rejected the form of the guru given to us by Dashmesh pitta and used our own mat to remake the guru in the form we like.

Khalistani Jee, are you also offended by Sant Kartar Sigh Jee's comments about padched printing being manmat? Sa

nt Jee calls the production of these saroops, that are currently prakash in a large number of gurdvaras, manmat. Why do you seem to just ignore what doesn't fit your thinking and keep repeating the same thing over and over? Are Sant Jee's comments any less harsh than the imposter comment?

[Gupt daasan daas]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

yo

this isnt about if its right or wrong or if its manmat

people are saying u cant matha tek to padched saroop

thas messed

thas the issue

matha teking

let me say it again

matha teking

im against that

im all for lareedar saroops in all gurughars.

bhula chuka maf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[Singh132]

Khalistani,

this will hopefully be my last post on this issue. I'm glad you think that lareedaar is right.

Whether someone matha teks to a pad-chhed saroop is up to them. What I've tried to explain is why someone may choose not to. Let me summarise: the pad-chhed saroop is presented as Guru Granth Sahib and is occupying the throne of Satguru jee. It should not be there. BaaNee should be respected, but by putting a pad-chhed saroop on the Takhat is like putting an imposter for Guru Sahib on the throne i.e. something that looks very simmilar but is not the real thing.

When Sangat comes, there is a special way we approach Guru Sahib, that we normally wouldn't do for a gutka. If we do everything like normal in the presence of a pad-chhed saroop it is tacitly accepting that it is ok to be there, when it is not. So to treat the pad-chhed saroop the same way you would treat real Satguru jee is somethign some Singhs choose not to do.

If you want to, it's fine and no one is forcing you to change.

But there is a difference. I've heard the story of a chardee kalaa Singh who went to Bombay Smaagam many years ago. He sat in sangat for every program. At the end, someone came and asked him what he thought of the smaagam. The Singh replied, "It was good, but Satguru jee only came and gave darshan on the night of the ransabaaee". All week pad-chhed saroop had been parkaash, but on the night of the ran sabaaee, lareedar parkash was done. The Singh could tell just by sitting in sangat which was Satguru and which was not. We may not have that ability, but it is a fact that there is a difference.

Pad-chhed saroops are manmat

. Why are we allowing the products of manmat to be placed on the Takhat of Sree Guru Granth Sahib?? And then why would we be offended if some Singhs object to having it placed on the Takhat?

ADMIN NOTE: Just about all sides have discussed this issue -- thankfully in a somewhat polite and rational manner. We understand that sometimes these issues can get into heated debates that in turn only serve to divide rather than unite. We hope that this discussion has furthered the knowledge of the sangat in the issue being discussed. If there are still disagreements, hopefully we can leave this discussion on good terms and with a still open mind - ready to accept and analyze further arguments on either side of this issue. Waheguroo! Network advocates larivaar suroop, and anybody wishing to practice their skills in reading from larivaar bani can visit the appropriate sections of Sikhitothemax and Panthkhalsa.org where such services are provided.

Please feel free to add more points, if they are relevant. Please do not drag this issue if what you want to say has already been said. Thank you for your patience and support. - 8

[singh211]

which year was the first pad-chedd bir published? by whom? why did the dharam parchaar committee not pass any further resolutions on the matter?

[taksali1]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

Khalistani Jee, are you also offended by Sant Kartar Sigh Jee's comments about padched printing being manmat? Sant Jee calls the production of these saroops, that are currently prakash in a large number of gurdvaras, manmat. Why do you seem to just ignore what doesn't fit your thinking and keep repeating the same thing over and over? Are Sant Jee's comments any less harsh than the imposter comment

sant jee said the PRINTING of padchhed saroops is manmat. the saroop itself is not. please lets refrain from twisiting words. but calling padchhed saroops imposters is beyond rediculous....

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

[Simran9]

which year was the first pad-chedd bir published? by whom? why did the dharam parchaar committee not pass any further resolutions on the matter?

i wanna know the same thing.... :lol: @