Panthpreet Exposed

[singh598]

i'm still in shock that "Panthpreet" turned out to be a yellow coward......first they study, then become respected and at the highest point of their "life" they become deserters....whats most worrying is how normal humble hardworking Sikhs are influenced by these people and so continuosly become confused and disgruntled. I suppose this is what these gadhaars want to happen

[GPS]

UKlondonsikh

when they reject fundamentals of sikhism, they are no more sikhs.Then what is thhe need oof unity.they are out to finish our religion ,its traditions, history , ethos and everything else.

dhundha and party only talk about social issues like drugs etc. they should be preaching sikh philosophy such as how a seeker can meet god.what are the stages of naam simran.how naam goes to hriday.why in gurbani so many times comes charan dhoor etc etc. instead the rascals devoid of knowledge of gurmat ( sikhi is living experience) beat about bush such as so and so sadh was dancing, dogs bit someone and dhundha went to his resecue so menace of stray dogs should be taken care of etc. is that gurmat/let us not kid ourselves.

panthpreet is great gurnindak and i have dealt with him on sikhnet debate where he was condemning dasam granth sahib.unable to reply to my probings on dasam granth the demon ran away without a trace.and one thing why he writes himself s doctor when he is not a doctor.

sikhs are all for welfare of whole humanity then where the question of disunity comes in the picture.have not you seen the pathetic performance of dhundha who lacks basics of sikh knowledge and you still happen to be his fan.

Read it with impartial mind

www.panthic.org

SARBJIT DHUNDA FAILS TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS ON SIKHISM

PANTHIC.ORG | Published on February 11, 2013

STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA (KP) - Sarbjit Dhunda, the controversial preacher who last year was summoned and reprimanded by Sri Akal Takht Sahib for making blasphemous remarks regarding the sacred Gurbani Kirtan recited at Sri Darbar Sahib Amritsar, is now trying to save face on his Canada trip after his distressingly failed tour in California last month.

Placards Blackened in BC, Canada

Dhunda NOT Welcome - Placards in BC, Canada

Dhunda Placards posted on several street corners advertising his visit had been marked up by protestors with the words “Anti-Sikh” and his pictures crossed-out. Perhaps his visit to British Columbia might not be much better than the cold reception he received from the overall California sangat.

Rejected and Dejected in California

During Dhunda's visit to California, major Panthic Gurdwaras, including San Jose Gurdwara Sahib, Fremont Gurdwara Sahib, and the historic Stockton Gurdwara Sahib all barred him from speaking from their stages, and only a handful of privately owned “deras” and small establishments entertained him on a spree that was not only an embarrassment for him but also his dubious sponsors.

Trouble began on the first day of Dhunda's arrival when his supporters held his initial program under the protection of the Buena Park Police force, in Southern California, fearing the protesting Sangat might overtake the stage from heretic. In Central California, Dhunda was not allowed to hold a program in the Tracy Dashmesh Darbar's main hall as initially planned, and instead along with a handful supporter, he ended up holding an impromptu function in a small guest room on the property. In yet another setback, the entire Gurdwara committee of Turlock Gurdwara Sahib, which had earlier booked Dhunda’s program, was dismissed by the Sangat for inviting this anti-Panthic heretic to their Gurdwara.

Suspicious Credentials and Agenda

It is interesting to note that despite being characterized as a "scholar" by his cohorts, Dhunda has no formal education or a degree from any accredited college or university, but he is blindly being referred to as a “Professor” by his sheepish followers. While his admirers trump him as a “kathakar”, his superficial speeches can hardly to be considered religious exegesis when compared with other well known kathakars, as his speeches lack the key ingredients of faith, reverence, and depth in Sikh theology, and religious doctrine.

Instead of promoting the Gurmat principle of Khanday-Ki-Pahul, Naam-Simran Abhyaas, and recitation of sacred Sikh scriptures, this heretic’s mission seems to concentrate on raising doubts and creating divisions by stirring up endless trivial controversies within the community.

In the past Panthic.org has attempted to do its part by exposing similar fake parchariks, and fraudsters that have caused harm within the Sikh community. Sarbjit Dhunda should not be exempt from such scrutiny. Sewadars of Panthic.org had communicated their concerns to some of the Gurdwara committee's that were planning to host Dhunda during his recent California trip, and cautioned them to not allow this individual to misuse their stage. Fearing possible cancellation of Dhunda's programs, and in an effort to alleviate these concerns a small meeting was arranged by his handlers with some of the local Gurdwara committees.

Q&A Session with Dhunda Setup

Sewadars of Panthic.org were approached by a representative one of the local Gurdwara Committees and requested to accompany them to a one-on-one question and answer (Q&A) session that had been setup with Dhunda in a Central California town.

Panthic.org sewadars agreed to participate on the condition that only Sarbjit Dhunda should answer the questions that are put forth, and his supporters should not interfere in the discussion in any manner.

The Gurdwara representative also assured us that Dhunda would also be asked to reiterate those answers openly from the Gurdwara stages for the sake of public transparency.

On January 10th, 2013 evening Panthic.org sewadars along GurSikhs from Akhand Kirtani Jatha, and several local Gurdwara committees met Sarbjit Dhunda at a private residence in Ceres, California for a discussion on various Sikhi related topics.

Before the Q&A session even started, Sarbjit Dhunda indicated that he was not comfortable having this discussion video recorded and asked for any video recording equipment to be turned off. There were about 20-25 individuals present, including keys members of various Gurdwara committees, during this discussion that lasted a little more than an hour.

The questions posed to Sarbjit Dhunda covered several topics, including:

• Gurbani/Kirtan Recitation per Sikh Rehat Maryada
• Naam Simran-Abhyaas
• Nitnem Banees
• Association with Ex-communicated individuals
• Sri Akal Takht Sahib HukamNamays and Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee

For a man who was being touted as a "fearless scholar" by his chorts, in our opinion, Dhunda miserably failed to provide proper straight forward answers to the questions posed to him.

His responses included awkward retorts, and illogical justifications that further illustrated to us that this man was nothing more than a one-way stage act of a 'street preacher', and it was an insult for anyone to compare him to the likes of renowned kathakars such as Giani Pinderpal Singh, Giani Sant Singh Maskeen, and Giani Maan Singh Jhaur who were not only gifted with the depth of knowledge but with lived a life of deep devotion and piety that can only be achieved by someone with a virtuous jeevan.

Here is a written synopsis of the questions and responses from the January 10th discussion with this self-styled “Professor” Sarbjit Dhunda:

QUESTION 1: (Gurbani/Kirtan Recitation per Sikh Rehat Maryada)

PANTHIC.ORG - Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh. There are plans for you to visit and speak at the Gurdwara Sahib Stockton – which not only is historic base of the Ghadar Movement, but the this famous institution also played a key part in the formulation and ratification of the Sikh Rehat Maryada from 1930-1945.

You have routinely stated that you and your organization (Gurmat Gian Missionary Clg.) follow the Sikh Rehat Maryda, and abide by the tenants of this maryada.

On, June 5th, 2012, in Nagpur, India, you made the following statement on stage regarding which Banees can be recited in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, your exact words are as follows:

“ਉਸੇ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ* ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਅਜ ਸਾਡੇ ਰਾਗੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਮਜਬੂਰੀ ਵੀ ਬਣ ਗਈ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਤੁਕਾਂ ਲੈਕੇ…ਸਿੱਖ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਕਾਇਦਾ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਗੋਦ ਵਿਚ ਬੈਠ ਕੇ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਤਿੰਨ ਰਚਨਾਵਾ ਦਾ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ - ਇਕ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਦਾ - ਇਕ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਬਿੱਤ ਵਾਰਾਂ ਦਾ - ਇਕ ਭਾਈ ਨੰਦ ਲਾਲ ਜੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਗਜ਼ਲਾਂ ਦਾ, ਤਿੰਨ, ਏਸ ਤੋਂ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਰਚਨਾ ਦਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਤੁਕਾਂ ਪੜ੍ਹ ਕੇ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਦੇ ਉਲਟ ਹੈ ਪੜ੍ਹ ਹੋ ਰਿਹਾ ਸ਼ਰਿਆਮ ਹੋ ਰਿਹਾ, ਪਤਾ ਨਹੀ ਕਿਥੋਂ ਕਿਥੋਂ ਤੁਕਾਂ…ਕੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਨਹੀ? “
*(ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗਰੰਥ )

In the above video you are clearly stating ONLY Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s Banee, or Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Vaars, or Bhai Nand Lal Ji’s Ghazals are allowed to recited per the Sikh Rehat Maryada.

We have available the exact wording from the Sikh Rehat Maryada regarding this subject, and nowhere in the Sikh Rehat Maryada is that condition mentioned. The Sikh Rehat Maryada simply states in the “Kirtan” Section (ੲ) :

“ਸਿੱਖ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਯਾਦਾ - ਕੀਰਤਨ : (ੲ) ਸੰਗਤ ਵਿਚ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਕੇਵਲ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਜਾਂ ਇਸ ਦੀ ਵਿਆਖਿਆ-ਸਰੂਪ ਰਚਨਾ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ ਤੇ ਭਾਈ ਨੰਦ ਲਾਲ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਦਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।“

Another words, aside of Bhai Sahibs’ Vaars, and Ghazals, it states Gurbani (ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ) can be recited in Kirtan form. The Panth very well knows the definition of Gurbani is NOT limited to the contents of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but also include the Rachna of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji.

This definition is in line with MahanKosh (The Sikh Encyclopedia) by Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha, which clearly states that Gurbani connotes to the Sacred Bani revealed by the various Roops of SatGuru Nanak Dev Ji to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

In the same Nagpur video you also stated that “ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਰਚਨਾ ਦਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਤੁਕਾਂ ਪੜ੍ਹ ਕੇ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਦੇ ਉਲਟ ਹੈ “ and “ਕੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਨਹੀ? “

Can you let us know where in the Sikh Rehat Maryada does it state that Sikhs cannot recite verses from Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji’s Banee, and why have you purposely twisted and misquoted the contents of Sikh Rehat Maryada and mislead the sangat on this issue?

SARBJEET DHUNDA was not willing to answer our question directly and instead tried to change the subject to how much he was against sadhs and deras, and blind rituals in the society. At this time we redirected his attention back to the original question.

PANTHIC.ORG – You were asked a direct question, and so far you have not given us a straight answer. The topic on hand is simple, do you agree with the Sikh Rehat Maryada and the definition of Gurbani (ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ) per the Sikh Rehat Maryada, and Mahan Kosh? Did you not purposely twist and misquote the excerpts from the Sikh Rehat Maryada? Do you agree with this definition of Gurbani per Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha?


Mahan Kosh's Definition of Gurbani

SARBJEET DHUNDA seemed a bit irritated that he had been put on the spot, and was not willing to openly state that he believed Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji’s Rachna could be classified as Gurbani (ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ), and remarked that he believed that Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s contents were Gurbani, and if we wanted to get further clarification on what was 'Gurbani' we should contact Sri Akal Takht Sahib directly.

At this time we made it clear to Dhunda and the Gurdwara Sahib committees that this man has not answered a simple query on the Sikh Rehat Maryada and definition of Gurbani, and unwilling to admit or correct the misleading statements he made in the June 5th, 2012 video at Nagpur, and moved to the next query.

QUESTION 2: (Naam Simran-Abhyaas)

PANTHIC.ORG - On a separate video you made some objectionable comments on Naam Simran and stated:

“ਢਾਈ ਘੰਟੇ ਬੈਠ ਕੇ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰੋ, ਆਹ ਕਰੋ ਯਿਹ ਕਰੋ…ਕਿਸੇ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਨੂੰ ਬਾਰ ਬਾਰ ਮਕੈਨੀਕਲ ਰੈਪੀਟੀਸ਼ਨ ਚਾਬੀ ਵਾਲਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਹੀ…”

(SARBJEET DHUNDA at this time requested that we show him the video clip where he stated this words, so the sevadars provided the video clip which was then played before him on a notebook computer.)

PANTHIC.ORG - In the Sikh Rehat Maryada under the section of “ਸ਼ਖਸੀ (individual/personal) ਰਹਿਣੀ , it is stated:

“ਸ਼ਖਸੀ ਰਹਿਣੀ (੧) - ਨਾਮ ਬਾਣੀ ਦਾ ਅਭਿਆਸ - (੧) ਸਿੱਖ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲੇ (ਪਹਿਰ ਰਾਤ ਰਹਿੰਦੀ) ਜਾਗ ਕੇ ਇਸ਼ਨਾਨ ਕਰੇ ਅਤੇ ਇਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਧਿਆਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੋਇਆ ‘ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ’ ਨਾਮ ਜਪੇ”

It’s clear from the above passage that every Sikh is instructed to wake up early, partake in ishnaan, and recite the “WaheGuru” Gurmantar, and furthermore in Gubani it is stated that:

“ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥“

PANTHIC.ORG - How can you make such a statement on Naam-Simran that goes against not only the Sikh Rehat Maryada, but also against the very Hukams prescribed in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and them claim to be following Panthic Maryada?

SARBJEET DHUNDA, after watching his video in which he directly condemned the concept of Naam-Simran and the repetition of any single word as a Gurmantar, stated that his actual intention was to condemn the manner of Naam-Simran practiced by the “Tarmala” group.

PANTHIC.ORG sevadars along with committee members at that time asked Dhunda if he had made any reference to the “Tarmala” group in the video, and he admitted he had not but that was his actual intention. During this discussion he was chided by one of the committee members that he was a “kathakar” of Guru Sahib’s court, and needed to be very careful about what he says on stage and take responsibility for statements that are made as such irresponsible remarks can create doubts and divisions amongst the sangat.

SARBJEET DHUNDA at that time became defensive and stated that he purposely did not mention the name of “Tarmala” group in video because only he knows what it is like to make such remarks on stage and in such situations its not uncommon for him to receive 50-odd threats in person and via phone by the time he finishes a program and gets to his car. Another words, it was purely out of fear for his safety that he did not mention the “Tarmala” group by name.

Several individuals as that time questioned that if you are not even willing to mention the name of anyone you are questioning how can you declare yourself to be a “ਨਿਧੜਕ” or fearless kathakar?

SARBJEET DHUNDA was clearly irritated at that time, and stated that it is easy to talk about these things in these foreign countries, but not in India, ironically, admitting that he is not willing to speak the truth from various stages across India our out fear for his own safety.

SARBJEET DHUNDA now seemed baffled at all the questioning directed towards him, and became a bit defensive and resentfully claimed that in Gurbani such Naam-Simran is criticized and quoted the following verses:

“ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਤ ਕਪਟੁ ਕਮਾਵਹਿ ਹਿਰਦਾ ਸੁਧੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥“

PANTHIC.ORG sevadars at that time corrected Dhunda and clarified that these verses do not condemn the practice of Naam-Simran, but the practice of being deceitful and performing (ਕਪਟੁ).
If someone was reciting Sri Jap Ji Sahib with deceit in his heart, would you condemn Sri Jap Ji Sahib or the deceit itself? In the same manner how could he condemn the act of Naam-Simran?

SARBJEET DHUNDA, who was visibly uncomfortable even discussion the subject of Naam-Simran, then in the typical pseudo-Missionary style claimed that according to Gurbani Naam-Simran simply pertains to practicing good-deeds how can it be connected to a particular word or mantar?

PANTHIC.ORG - Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Vaars clearly state: “ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਹੈ ਜਪਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਖੋਈ॥“, it is obvious that recitation of “WaheGuru” Gurmantar Guru Sahib’s Hukam and a requirement of the Sikh Rehat Maryada that states “ਇਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਦਾ ਧਿਆਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੋਇਆ ‘ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ’ ਨਾਮ ਜਪੇ”

It is clear that you do not agree with the definition of “Naam-Simran” per the Sikh Rehat Maryada, so how can you claim to follow this Maryada on stage?

SARBJEET DHUNDA clearly declined to clarify his stance on Naam-Simran, and again attempted to digress into topics unrelated to our initial query.

QUESTION 3: (Nitnem Banees)

PANTHIC.ORG - You often state that you follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada, in fact you reference the Sikh Rehat Maryada every time you are questioned about Nitnem. As we all know three of the five Nitnem/Amrit-Sanchar Banees are not from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, can you elaborate what is the origin of this three Banees that the Sikh Panth recited daily?

SARBJEET DHUNDA again reiterated that all five banes that are mentioned in the Sikh Rehat Maryada are recited by him, and the staff at Gurmat Gian Missionary Clg. “We recite Jaap Sahib and the rest of the Banees mentioned in the Sikh Rehat Maryada and during Amrit-Sanchars“, Sarbjit Dhunda stressed.

PANTHIC.ORG - The question we have posed before you is simple, if these Banees are not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, where are they from? Who was the author of these three Banees? Can you please answer these simple queries?

SARBJEET DHUNDA was unwilling to answer the query regarding the authorship of those Banees and declined to elaborate any further.

PANTHIC.ORG - Bhai Sahib, your own ustad Inder Ghagga, who is connected to your Gurmat Gian Missionary group, has openly claimed that these three Banees (Sri Jaap Sahib, Twaparsaad Swaiyay, Chaupai Sahib) are derived from Hindu granths. On Chardi-Kala TimeTV (broadcasted from Patiala, Punjab), Ghagga claimed that Sri Jaap Sahib was present in Shiv Puran and Markande Puran.

Do you also agree with Ghagga, as you are unwilling to share your thoughts about the origin of these Banees? Are they Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji’s Rachna or not?

SARBJEET DHUNDA was unwilling to comment on the origins of Sri Jaap Sahib, Twaparsaad Swaiyay, Chaupai Sahib, and instead questioned us if we had any proof of their origin.

Several GurSikhs at that time stood up and stated yes, we have proof and we have faith that these are Dasam Patshah Ji’s Banees as they are included in the oldest Saroops of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib from Bhai Mani Singh Ji and Baba Deep Singh Ji’s time, and these Banees begin with the prefix of “ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖਵਾਕ ਪਾਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ ੧੦”, so there should be no doubt about their origins.

QUESTION 4: (Association with Ex-communicated individuals)

A representative from one of the committee members asked Sarbjit Dhunda about his association with individuals who have ex-communicated from the Khalsa Panth.

This question was in relation to Dhunda’s association with ex-communicated heretic Ragi Darshan who was dejected from the Khalsa Panth in January of 2010.

SARBJEET DHUNDA stated that he had attended a wedding where Ragi Darshan Sinh was also a guest, and that the host family asked him (Dhunda) to honor the Ragi with a Siropa on their behalf, and he had fulfilled their request at the end of the program.

SARBJEET DHUNDA attempted to justify this action by claiming that the siropa was not actually from him, but from the host family, and he was merely following their instructions and giving him the siropa on their behalf. Dhunda at this time stated that he does not even recall if this occurred before or after Ragi’s ex-communication.

Dhunda smiling with Ex-communicated Ragi Darshan

PANTHIC.ORG sevadars again corrected Dhunda and stated that this definitely occurred AFTER Ragi’s ex-communication and there was proof of this along with photographs.

Several Gurdwara committee members again scolded Dhunda for going against Sri Akal Takht Sahib Maryada and Panthic norms by honoring ex-communicated individuals who had done so much harm to the Sikh Panth.

SARBJEET DHUNDA, who was clearly dumbfounded by all the admonishment, could only lower his head and state that it is possible that this (honoring Ragi) occurred after his ex-communication, but provided not further justification or apology for his actions.

QUESTION 5: (Sri Akal Takht Sahib HukamNamays and Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee)

PANTHIC.ORG sevadars last question to Dhunda pertained to the ongoing criticism of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee and the HukamNamay from Sri Akal Takht Sahib forbidding such criticism.

PANTHIC.ORG - Here are copies of Sri Akal Takht Sahib Ji’s HukamNamas which clearly instruct the Sikh Panth to desist from criticism (kintoo-prantoo) of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji’s contents. If you claim to respect the authority of Sri Akal Takht Sahib, then even after appearing at Akal Takht Sahib, why did you continue to criticize Sri Dasam Banee from the Nagpur, India stage on June 5th, 2012, and violate the HukamNamas, when you stated:

“ਦੇਹ ਸਿਵਾ ਬਰ ਮੋਹਿ ਇਹੈ ਜਿਹੜਾ ਵਾ ਇਹ ਸਾਡੇ…ਮਤਭੇਦ ਹੈ ਸਪਸ਼ਟ ਗੱਲ ਹੈ ਇਹ ਗੁਰੁ ਦੀ ਲਿਖਤ ਨਹੀ ਹੈਗੀ ਪਰ ਗੁਰੁ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਜੋੜੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਜਿਹੜਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਖੁਦ ਆਪ ਗੁਰੁ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨਾਲ ਲੜ ਲਾ ਕੇ ਗਿਆ ਉਹ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਿਸੇ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਸ਼ਿਵਜੀ ਕੋਲੋਂ ਵਰ ਮੰਗਣ ਦੀ ਗੱਲ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਕਹਿ ਸਕਦਾ?”

Aside from violating the Takht Sahib’s Hukamana/Edict, how can you claim that these verses Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s in Sri Dasam Granth are promoting the Hindu demigod Shiva and not Akal Purakh Sahib? As you know Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s Bani similarly states:

ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭਏ ਦਇਆਲਾ ਸਿਵ ਕੈ ਬਾਣਿ ਸਿਰੁ ਕਾਟਿਓ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ (ਰਾਗ ਟੋਡੀ ਮ:੫ – ਅੰਗ ੭੧੪)

PANTHIC.ORG - Will you now claim the word Shiv (ਸਿਵ) Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Banee also pertains to Mahadev or Akal Purakh Sahib?

SARBJEET DHUNDA’s last comment in this discussion was possibly the least expected; he stated several times that here was no mention of the word “ਬਰ” in the verses quoted from Guru Granth Sahib Ji, clearly hinting that he was not willing to accept "ਦੇਹ ਸਿਵਾ ਬਰ ਮੋਹਿ ਇਹੈ" as Guru Ji's Rachna. In other words, despite being pointed out that Sri Akal Takht Sahib Ji’s HukamNama’s explicitly forbid the criticism of Sri Dasam Bani, Dhunda continued to question Sri Dasam Bani under the noses of the committee members and openly rejected the shabad which is considered the National Anthem of the Sikh Nation as Guru Ji's Rachna. The discussion quickly came to and end at this point, and as commotion arose as a result of these remarks.

After these last comments were made by Dhunda, the discussion was quickly stopped by Dhunda’s handlers, who immediately got up and escorted him out of the room, as one of them complained why was “Dhunda Ji” being targeted with so many questions?”

Before Sarbjit Dhunda left the residence, PANTHIC.ORG sevadars provided him with hard-copies of photos and articles of exposés from Panthic.org on rapist sadhs, and charlatons such as Lachman Chela Ram, Chaman Lal, and the Sarnas who were openly associating with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and providing Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s Saroops to Hindu Mandirs, and pointed out that not a single Gurmat Gian Missionary speaker, including Dhunda had ever spoken a word against this massive beadbi by these culprits.

Dhunda was given images of Guru Sahib's beadbi and challenged to expose Sarna's misdeeds.

Conclusion and Aftermath

After the meeting concluded with Dhunda, PANTHIC.ORG sewadars along with accompanying Singhs approached the committee representatives and reiterated to them this so-called “ਨਿਧੜਕ” (fearless) scholar and kathakar, was neither fearless nor a scholar, but a coward who is not even willing to honestly answer any of our queries and continued to distort and misinterpret the Sikh Rehat Maryada.

The representative was reminded that Dhunda failed to answer any of the questions posed to him in a candid manner, and:

Did NOT accept Sikh Rehat Maryada's Kirtan requirements and offered no apologies for twisting the Rehat Maryada's language.

Did NOT accept Sikh Rehat Maryada and Mahan Kosh's Definition of Gurbani

Did NOT accept Guru Gobind Singh Ji as the author of Sri Jap Sahib, Twaparsaad Sawayay, and Chaupai Sahib Nitnem Banees.

Did NOT take responsibility for purposely associating with anti-Panthic individuals who were ex-communicated from the Sikh Panth.

Did NOT accept Sri Akal Takht Sahib's HukamNama's prohibiting the criticism of Sri Dasam Bani, including popular shabds as: "ਦੇਹ ਸਿਵਾ ਬਰ ਮੋਹਿ ਇਹੈ" and continued to criticize them.

The illiterate “professor” with no answers.

After this discussion with Dhunda, there is no doubt that the Gurdwara committee members were shocked with his unwillingness to answer these basic questions on Sikhism. As a result, Dhunda's program at the historic Gurdwara Sahib in Stockton was promptly cancelled by the managing committee and announced publicly to the sangat.

Although Dhunda's plans have been temporarily derailed, his promoters and handlers will continue to look for sympathizers else where so they can continue spread his venomous mis-parchar. Efforts need to on all fronts to bring further awareness about the nefarious designs of fake parchariks such as Dhunda, and other pseudo-missionaries who are deceiving the Sikh sangat, so this type of malicious mis-parchar can be contained.

[InderjitS]

I'm not as learned as some of the folk on here but will attempt to cover some of the points raised. I've listened to a few of Bhai Panthpreet Singhs videos over the years and feel the originating post to be an inaccurate reflection of them as a Gursikh.

• "No mechanical repition of Naam"
  

Mechanical repetition of Naam and Gurbani without understanding or feeling is what we are trying to avoid and I feel this is the point they are making. They have on stage extolled the virtues of Naam Simran but prefer the repetition to be in a calm and controlled manner. I agree that they should not mock a particular style.

• Association and partnership with missionary Harjinder Sabhra and associates
  

No comment as I did not know they were linked

• No clear answer on Dasam Granth, putting doubt in Sangat's minds
  

It's ok to support Dasam Granth Sahib openly, I do as well. By the same token I also agree that the 'Panth' needs to decide as a whole on matters considered controversial, whether they be meat, Raagmala, Keski vs Kesh, Dasam Granth...etc. The current Maryada is acceptable to almost all Jathebandhies apart from say 1% of differences. Once a law (SRM) has been passed by leading Gursikhs of the time then it is not wise to quarrel over it, but to change it through legitimate means. This is a sticking point as we do not have a leadership worthy of making suitable Panthic changes as they bow to Delhi and Badal et al, none are Rehitvaan Gursikhs.

• We are all brothers and sisters, no such thing as Mahapurkh or enlightened ones
  

They stated a fact that, prior to the trend in this Century, no pursh was called a Sant. In one of their videos, they mention meeting an enlightened Gursikh and who upon meeting they could smell the most wonderful scent - cant recall the name, possibly agarvansh? If you disagree with the quotes in Gurbani or their meanings, its best to talk to them directly. Most of their DVDs have contact details.

• No clear answer on meat, putting doubt in Sangat's minds.
  

see above

[Mehtab Singh]

haiiii eddar latt maari singhaan ne, inni jor di vajji, haiii menu 3 mint saah ni aaya

[UKLondonSikh]

DSG = Please take note of the following points, they are each important and are in no specific order. There are many many more points, these are just a few that come to mind at the moment.

• DSG = When there have already been countless katha, discussions, articles and books on the topic of meat in Sikhi, why do these missionaries have to go and tell what they think when they clearly know it's a controversial topic? If they truly are not breaking up the Sangat, they would not even bring the topic up. But no, they are too egotistic, so they like to show that they are "knowledgeable in every topic, no matter how controversial it may be.

UK = Paji, I myself don't eat meat. However, I totally believe that the Khalsa Fauj was not restricted to vegetarian bhojan in the absence of such food being available to them. Neither do I believe it is wrong for some tribes in the poorer parts of the World to survive on meat when they don't have the luxury of plentiful wheat or other protein foods and supermarkets as we benefit from in the West. If they are pointing out their interpretation based from their reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj then I don't see a problem with it. But yes let both sides of the meat and Charitropkhiyan debates agree to peacably disagree and focus on matters where we need to unite in order to combat for the benefit of the Panth.

• DSG = If they are truly on Sikhs' side, then why do they make fun of the people who respect Dasam Granth Sahib and Sarbloh Granth Sahib and also treat the pothis/gutkaas with very little respect at all? They mock faithful Sikhs by calling them "Dasam Granthis" and "Kalka Panthis" and stuff like that. Now you tell me how that supposedly brings the Sangat together?

UK = Speaking for myself, I genuinely respect the vast majority of today's pro-DG Sangat as I see total reverance for Dasme PaathShah in their hearts. However, it must be recognised that many in the pro-DG Sangat label those who do not ascribe authorship of Charitropakhiyan fully to Dasme PaathShah as being non-Sikh. When we can see that someone heart is in the right place for the advancement of the Panth, it's wrong to doubt another's intentions (unless their actions prove otherwise) from either side of the debate.

• DSG = If they don't want to break the Sangat up, then why do they not hold discussions with Singhs who have opposite views than them? Instead they only meet with those who support their views, yet they don't hold back in critisizing others. They play a game of "keep away", where no matter how many fights and protests happen in and around Gurdwaras, they don't openly speak with those who question their views. Now you tell me how this connects the Sangat.

UK = I don't believe that holding an opinion or vichar about it should be interpreted as being with the intention of breaking up Sangat. Intellectually speaking, we need to roll with the punches (in a respectful manner in our to deepen our knowledge) - though, of course not physically speaking! :-)

• DSG = They openly speak against Giani Sant Singh Jee Maskeen, Bhai Pinderpal Singh Jee, Bhai Harjinder Singh Jee Sri Nagar Vale, Bhai Balwinder Singh Rangila, Bhai Inderjeet Singh Bombay Vaaley (Darbaar Sahib Hazoori Raagi), Bhai Baldev Singh Vadala (Darbar Sahib Hazoori Raagi), etc. Now you can tell me when 99% of Sangat loves these people, they are openly promoting hatred against them and now lots of the Sangat is split where people love them and people hate them. Just recently in USA, Sangat and Gurdwara rejected Bhai Pinderpal Singh Jee but welcomed Dhunda with open arms. You tell me how this joins the Sangat together.

UK = I respect all of the above mentioned Kathavachaks. However, if any anti-Gurmat position has been stated by any of the above, then I don't think it's a crime to point that out. The people protesting against a certain interpretation of Sikhi are equally guilty of making matters hostile. We all just need to take a step back and debate respectfully and without hostility - where it can be shown that people aren't actually dying as a result of a certain interpretation of Sikhi.

• DSG = They don't believe in Naam Simran, Naam Abhiaas and Amritvela. They call it "totaa ratan" (parrot blabbering/repetition) and "mechanical repetition". That is uncalled for and not necessary. It clearly divides up the Sangat. Please tell me how that kind of mockery and name-calling joins the Sangat together.

UK = I don't agree with the terminolgy "thotha ratan" but I absolutely do believe that Sarbjit Singh Khalsa (Dhunda) and Panthpreet Singh Khalsa are 100% correct when stressing on the need for positive practical actions towards Sarbat dha Bhalla after Naam Simran. After all, Sikh ik vakhri Qaum nay from Hindu's etc.

• DSG = Why do they play politics by always going after Badal and SGPC. Missionaries are clearly with Sarna. They never once criticized Sarna or DGMC even though many bad things have happened in Delhi and Delhi Gurdwaras in the past 10 years alone. They are clearly playing politics. And while doing so, they try and bring down Sikhs' faith in Takhats and Jathedaars. They openly stand against Takhats and Jathedaars. Is that what someone who wants to join the Sangat would do?

UK = I personally am glad that Sarna was defeated in the DGMPC elections. However, if the Delhi Sangat itself is more receptive to the pro-Gurmat ideology then that is no fault of the Kathvachiks in question. Parallel parkash of today's so-called DG with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj is why this has become a "hot button" issue. Obviously, you know what happens at Sri Hazur Sahib and Sri Patna Sahib.

• DSG = In one of your comments above you said that we should see which parts are authentic and which parts are not...but for heaven's sake....to try and put this much doubt in Sangat's mind that even Jaap Sahib and Chaupai Sahib are not Gurbani..come on.

UK = Personally, I don't see the issue with Sri Jaap Sahib and Sri Chaupai Sahib. My personal issues lie with the bulk of the remainder of Charitropakhiyan and the (imho fake) Ram Chander genealogy ascribed to Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj and the Hem Khunt story which tries to tell us that Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj's GurGaddi is not what we should be wholly concerned with and focussed upon but that a supposed past life in service of the Hindu's Mata Durga is somehow relavant compared to the founding of the Khalsa Panth and Sri Anandpur Sahib - which is what I believe all Sikhs should focus on more.

• DSG = The ardaas is accepted by the whole panth. Yet many of their associates have changed the ardaas in major ways and made their own ardaas. You tell me how this joins the Sangat together.

UK = Our Ardaas has evolved over time and historically has not remained static. Consultation at the Akaal Takht to agree a fully Gurmat universally approved Ardaas suitabke for today would not harm our Panth in any way.

• DSG = They over-state things and make things over-emmotional to get support. Like for Dasam Granth. "Oh no, the RSS is trying to bring in another Granth and trying to take away Guru Granth Sahib Jee". Like come on, that type of emotional-manipulation is clearly not trying to connect the Sangat. There has been no controversy on Dasam Granth in hundreds of years. YET, all of a sudden Kala-Afghana, Missionaries, etc come into the picture and act as if they are saving everybody from some horrible demon.

UK = Paji I disagree with you completely on the above paragraph. The RSS Durga Pujari's are overjoyed that in Bachhittar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh is flasely desrcibed by the anti-Sikh author of that segment as being descended from the Hindu God in human form - Ram Chander. The Hem Khunt and servitude to the Hindu Mata Durga of the father of the Khalsa Panth obviously makes the RSS rejoice. Up until a century the composition was known as Bachittar Natak in its totality. Then it's Dasam Granth. The Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji. Now Sri Dasam Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Given the increasing parallel parkash witnessed in recent times it seems inevitable that certain segments wish for equal credence to be given to all of Charitropkhiyan as much as to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj - which Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj already appointed as our sole Guru.

• UK = In conclusion, the much of the issue rests upon the following:
• UK = Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj who took Amrit from the Punj Piare ... and who emphasised ke "manas ki jaath sabhe ek pech'chaanbo" ... and dedicated his whole life to overturning tyranny, discrimination, the wretched caste system etc, etc and who the whole Panth knows was the Paragon of Nimrata and Humility ... suddenly out of nowhere decides to (allegedly) broadcast to the whole world that the Hindu's Avatar (or "God in Human Form") Ram Chander is his divine ancestor ... and some within our Panth cannot see this is a blatant interjection by anti-Sikh pro-caste forces aligned with the Mughals in order to malign Sikhi ... study Vasakhi 1699 rather than Dusht Daman or Durga or Charitropakhiyan stories and come to your own conclusion brother.
  • UK = Is Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj's life between the time of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji's shaheedi and the GurGaddi passing to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj more important or relavant ... or the alternative Dusht Daman + Charitropakhiyan type narrations?
  • UK = Which historical event is more important to what Sikhi is about fundamentally ... the birth of the Khalsa Panth at Sri Anandpur Sahib ... or the supposed slaying of demons by Dusht Daman in (allegedly) Uttarakhand as well as stories which are fairly common in bookshops?
• UK = Please bear in mind DSG Paji that those parts which do not contradict the ethos of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj are not in dispute, so it is the aforementioned adulteration that is the issue at hand and the parallel parkash of the same which is disputed.

[GPS]

Mechanical repetition of Naam and Gurbani without understanding or feeling is what we are trying to avoid and I feel this is the point they are making. They have on stage extolled the virtues of Naam Simran but prefer the repetition to be in a calm and controlled manner. I agree that they should not mock a particular style.

• He says that it is parroting and is of no use. But it is a sikh practice from guru sahib's time. Sikh rehat maryada states that getting early morning and repeat gurmantra. Undertsanding of gurbani comes afterwards on its own when you progress on the path of naam simran by repeating gurmantra.this is sikh way and he is denouncing it in political language.this fake doctor is misleading sangat.

No comment as I did not know they were linked

• All missionaries are linked.

It's ok to support Dasam Granth Sahib openly, I do as well. By the same token I also agree that the 'Panth' needs to decide as a whole on matters considered controversial, whether they be meat, Raagmala, Keski vs Kesh, Dasam Granth...etc. The current Maryada is acceptable to almost all Jathebandhies apart from say 1% of differences. Once a law (SRM) has been passed by leading Gursikhs of the time then it is not wise to quarrel over it, but to change it through legitimate means. This is a sticking point as we do not have a leadership worthy of making suitable Panthic changes as they bow to Delhi and Badal et al, none are Rehitvaan Gursikhs.

Dasam granth is not controversial.its bani form (three out of five) form part of nitnem. Ardas is from dasam granth. Sikh rehat maryada clearly states that its kirtan is to be done from panthic stages and harmandir sahib.

people like panthic panthpreet are making it a point to create controversy about it inspite of a clear cut hukamnama from akal takhat not to do it.

They stated a fact that, prior to the trend in this Century, no pursh was called a Sant. In one of their videos, they mention meeting an enlightened Gursikh and who upon meeting they could smell the most wonderful scent - cant recall the name, possibly agarvansh? If you disagree with the quotes in Gurbani or their meanings, its best to talk to them directly. Most of their DVDs have contact details.

• All gursikhs are gurbhais.no doubt on that.fact is that there are enlightened souls who have elevated themselves to higher level.At thet stage there is no difference between such souls and God.

har ka sevak har jeha

bhet na jane manas deha

SGGS ji

These missionaries can never know such stages as they come from a gang that do not beleive in , naam simran or repitition of gurmantra whom they mock at. their only work is do ninda of all including mahapurash like sant attar singh ji, sant jarnail singh ji, Bhai randhir Singh ji and many other enlightened souls. that is the main point of their katha.instaed of dwelling on gurmat they do ninda only.

[GPS]

UK = Speaking for myself, I genuinely respect the vast majority of today's pro-DG Sangat as I see total reverance for Dasme PaathShah in their hearts. However, it must be recognised that many in the pro-DG Sangat label those who do not ascribe authorship of Charitropakhiyan fully to Dasme PaathShah as being non-Sikh. When we can see that someone heart is in the right place for the advancement of the Panth, it's wrong to doubt another's intentions (unless their actions prove otherwise) from either side of the debate.

Each and every word of dasam granth is from dasam patshah. there are manuscripts still there that date to 1698 aD. Structure of dasam granth does not allow any alteration as all chhand are numbered in such a way.charitropkahyan is a character building bani and those who condemn it have not read it.and those characters like kala afghana who was charged ina rape case is certainly not

the person to criticize dasam granth or charitropalkhayan.

Sarbjit dhundha is being called khalsa by you here.do not bring disrepute to word khalsa.He does not acknowledge any bani of dasam granth.How can he be khalsa/ he is gurnindak.

he also criticizes bani SGGS ji doing katha against its taechings.read the article above.He sits with inder ghagha in a video and says that there is no need pf naam simran.thus he violates basics of sikhi and sikh rehat maryada. IT is not possible to defend indefensibles.

[GuptUnknown]

They stated a fact that, prior to the trend in this Century, no pursh was called a Sant. In one of their videos, they mention meeting an enlightened Gursikh and who upon meeting they could smell the most wonderful scent - cant recall the name, possibly agarvansh? If you disagree with the quotes in Gurbani or their meanings, its best to talk to them directly. Most of their DVDs have contact details.

again this is false, Guru maharaj ji calls young child prahlad "sant". It is an avastha, title doesnt really matter. Guess who fails to understand this?

[GPS]

Propaganda has limits.You cann't create miracles with propaganda.a person who even does not believe basics of sikhi such a s naam simran, reincarnation, karma, gurmantra how can he be called a kathavachak.and then they lie in presence of SGGS ji.

[UKLondonSikh]

UKlondonsikh when they reject fundamentals of sikhism, they are no more sikhs.

UK = Agreed Paji but I don't believe Sarbjit Singh Khalsa (Dhunda) or Panthpreet Singh Khalsa have rejected Sikhi in any way, shape or form. I truly believe that they want the Panth's Chardi Kallah. The fact that they emphasise that poisitive practical actions as the best way for our Qaum to defeat the drugs epidemic, the plague of female infanticide and upliftment of the Qaum on all other levels convinces me that they are committed to Sikhi 100%.

Then what is thhe need oof unity.they are out to finish our religion ,its traditions, history , ethos and everything else.

UK = I completely disagree Paji. I genuinely believe that Sri Anandpur Sahib is more important to our Panth historically and in the present and for the future than Sri Hemkunt Sahib. It's vital for us to place the founding of the Khalsa Panth in prominence when we interpret history as opposed to the Mata Durga "Dusht Daman" stuff. Note Paji that the words Dusht Daman need not be said for the story to be told.

dhundha and party only talk about social issues like drugs etc.

UK = I respect them for that. Sikhi is about practical action alongside spirtuality

they should be preaching sikh philosophy such as how a seeker can meet god.what are the stages of naam simran.how naam goes to hriday.

panthpreet is great gurnindak and i have dealt with him on sikhnet debate where he was condemning dasam granth sahib.unable to reply to my probings on dasam granth the demon ran away without a trace.and one thing why he writes himself s doctor when he is not a doctor.

sikhs are all for welfare of whole humanity then where the question of disunity comes in the picture.have not you seen the pathetic performance of dhundha who lacks basics of sikh knowledge and you still happen to be his fan.

Read it with impartial mind

UK = Paji I'm not sure if Dr Panthpreet Singh Khalsa was the person you were debating with on Sikhnet as no GurSikh should ever be scared of what they believe in. Sirf Rabh tho sanu darrna chy-dhaii. I don't believe Panthic.org to be an impartial site - however, i respect that they do their best for Sikhi as per their interpretation (which is staunchly in favour of 100% of Charitropakhiyan and Bachittar Natak)

In today's so-called DG the first chapter, the longest, comprising one third of the book, is devoted to the glory and greatness of Kal, emphasizing his destructive power and invincibility. At the outset the writer says that this is from the mouth of Patshahi 10 (Guru Gobind Singh) and then he invokes the blessing of sword (kharag) for the successful completion of the manuscript. It is replete with Hindu mythology. Most of the attributes ascribed to Kal are the attributes of God described in AGGS.

The next three chapters are about the ancestors of Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Govind Singh. Both Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are described as descendents of Sri Ram Chander, the mythical God in Human form who was a king in the mythical age of Treta. His sons, Lav and Kush founded the City of Lahore and Kasur in Punjab, respectively, and ruled over there for a very long time. Later on there was a war between their descendents. It was a long war. Shiv Ji with his army of ghosts and goblins witnessed the battle scenes. The Lavis, who were then called Sodhis, defeated their rivals, the Kushis, who then ran away to Kashi. The Kushis were called Bedis after they learned to recite the four Vedas (sacred Hindu scriptures). Later on a Sodhi king sent an emissary to them with the message, “Let us forget the past; come back to Punjab.” The Bedis came back and recited the Vedas to the Sodhi king. All his sins were washed away after listening to the Vedas. The Sodhi king was so much pleased that as an act of gratitude he donated his kingdom to the Bedis. This made the Bedi clan so happy that in return the head of the Bedi clan granted a boon to the Sodhi ex-king. “O pious one, when I will take birth in the age of Kaljug, I will make you worthy of world-wide veneration. As you first listened to the first three Vedas and then donated your kingdom while listening to the fourth Veda, so I will transfer the Guruship to you after I have become Guru three times, consecutively.”

This absurd story is an affront to commonsense and the sucession of GurGaddi on a spiritual basis.

The writer of Bachittar Natak implies that Guru Nanak (Bedi) and the six Gurus (Sodhi), Ram Das to Gobind Singh became Gurus because their ancestors were very pious Hindus, who studied Vedas or were very generous to those who recited Vedas to them. In other words, it was due to the blessing earned through the study of Vedas or the donation of kingdom to the reciter of Vedas, which was responsible for the reward of Guruship. On the contrary, Guru Angad Dev and Guru Amar Das acquired Guruship after they gave up their Hindu faith and study of Vedas and other Hindu scriptures. No wonder, the writer does not mention their lineage or how did they earn the Guruship?

The writer of Bachittar Natak does not know that belief in caste and lineage contradicts Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj’s own edict of Kul Nash (freedom from lineage) and the founding of the Khalsa Panth.

Besides, the first three Gurus did not come from a Bedi family, only Guru Nanak was born into a Bedi family, Gurus Angad Dev and Amardas were born in Trehan and Bhala family, respectively. The writer also implies that Guru Angad Dev was the reincarnation of Guru Nanak and Guru Amardas was the reincarnation of Guru Angad Dev, but the first three Gurus were contemporaries and reincarnation takes place after the death of a person. Moreover, Gurmat rejects the concept of reincarnation as interpreted in Manu Smriti. Furthermore, AGGS does not agree with the teachings of Vedas.

It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the concepts of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration. One reaps the reward in the next life for deed performed in this life – goes to hell or heaven according to the deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of caste and gender for the world.

AGGS, M 2, p 1243.

I have searched many Shastars and Simrtis; their teachings do not show the way to God, but the dwelling on God’s attributes is invaluable.”

AGGS, M5, p 265.

Brahma got tired of studying the Vedas, but they could not estimate even an iota of God’s greatness. Ten incarnations of Vishnu and the famous ascetic Shiv who got tired of smearing his body with ashes, could not fathom God’s extent.”

AGGS, M 5, p 747.

O brother, Simrti is the outcome on the Vedas. It has brought the chains of the caste system and the ropes of liturgy to entrap you.

AGGS, Kabir, p 329.

I shall not sing the endless songs and poetry of Vedas, Purans and Shastars. I shall play a steady tune on the flute of love for the Formless One Whose abode is Eternal.

AGGS, Namdev, p 972.

If one determines good or bad actions on the basis of Vedas and Purans, one’s mind is filled with doubt and worry. These scriptures do not tell how to cure self-conceit.

AGGS, Ravi Das, p 364.

Additionally, the Lav / Kush story is contradicted by Goswami Tulsi Das, the author of Ramayan, who was a contemporary of Guru Nanak. He has described the incidents from Sri Ram Chandher’s life in great detail. According to him, Sri Ram Chander or his sons never extended their rule beyond U. P. in the direction of Punjab. He does not mention any relationship between Sri Ram Chander and Guru Nanak Dev or Guru Gobind Singh. There is no evidence that he ever met Guru Nanak. Furthermore, Bedis or Sodhis never ruled over any part of Punjab in the recorded history of this region.

The writer has described the war between the ancestors of Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Gobind Singh going back thousands of generations. However, he makes no mention of the martyrdom Guru Arjan Dev and the victories of Guru Hargobind Sahib over his employers the Mughals.

The writer also does not say what happened to the ancestors of Gurus Nanak Dev and Guru Gobind Singh during the Duaper age when lord Krishna of the famous “Krishna Lila” was supreme. May be the writer does not like Sri Krishna because the he was a devotee of Shiv Ji.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Sri Ram Chander was a real person and his sons, Lav and Kush were born near the end of Treta age. And their descendents continued propagating through the Duaper age while enjoying Krishan Lila and continued propagating in the Kaljug age to produce Sodhis and Bedis. According to Mahan Kosh the duration of Duaper is 864,000 years.²⁹ According to modern science, the ancestors of modern man evolved not more than 250,000 years ago in Africa. There were no human beings in India during Treta. So the story that Lav and Kush lived in India more than 864,000 years ago is baseless.

In the sixth chapter in "his own story" the writer talks about his previous life and his communication with God. “I was meditating on Mahankal (Shiv Ji) and Kalika (goddess) on a snowy mountain called Hem Kunt while my parents were praying to Alakh (Formless, God) and perfecting their Yogic discipline. When God was pleased with them, He ordered me to take birth in the age of Kaljug. I did not want to come to the world; however, God persuaded me by expressing His helplessness and frustration. “Whatever I have created and whosoever I have sent to the world so far, did not bring Me glory. Son, all my hopes are on you, go there, straighten out the world and spread My glory.” After this God narrated the story of creation: “After creating the world, I created the demons, who turned out to be unfaithful. These tyrants stopped My worship. So I got angry at the demons and destroyed them in a moment and replaced them with Shiv Ji, Vishnu, and Brahma. They too turned out to be untrustworthy; as they refused to recognize Me and instead proclaimed themselves to be God. Then I created eight witnesses to monitor the actions of living beings. But they too proclaimed that there is no one else other than them worthy of worship. Instead of worshiping Me, stupid people started worshiping gods, sun, moon, air, and fire. Many of them started worshiping stones and performing rituals. Then I created human beings, who got enchanted by the material world (maya) and started worshiping idols.”

Here, the storyteller is confused. If human beings were the last in the sequence of creation then who were worshiping sun, moon, fire, and air and stones and performing rituals? Were they not human beings? Did they belong to another kind of human species? Besides, why did God choose the writer of “his own story,” who was also a worshiper of Mahan Kal and Kalika, to glorify His name?

Moreover, the God described in “my own story” is helpless, frustrated and confused. He is more like an incompetent manger without control over his subordinates. Now let us compare the God described in “my own story” to the God described in AGGS, Who is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

Nanak says, “The Self-Exitent God created nature and manifested Itself as Naam (Immanent) therein to enjoy it... God created the world of life and manifested Itself as Naam therein to promote righteousness.”

AGGS, m 1, p 463.

God creates all, fills all and is yet the Infinite Creator is unattached.

AGGS, M1, p 937.

“My own story” raises questions that defy commonsense and repudiate the teachings of AGGS. How could anybody survive up on a snowy mountain in that severe cold weather sitting in meditating posture for a very long time as the writer of the story claims to have done? Moreover, the type of mediation described in “my own story” is rejected by Gurmat. It has no spiritual merit whatsoever.

Pilgrimage, austerity, compassion and charity alone earn very little spiritual merit.

AGGS, M 1, p 4.

In what is nowadays called Dasam Granth, God Himself created the successors of Baba Nanak and Babur. Recognize the former as spiritual and latter as temporal sovereign. The successors of Babur punished and looted the property of those who failed to tithe the house of Nanak. When these penniless wretched ones begged Sikhs for help, the Mughals looted Sikhs who helped them. The Guru also shunned them. The Mughals punished and killed those who turned their back on the Guru, but those who remained faithful, were saved by the Guru.

From the above it is quite obvious that the writer was an apologist for the Mughals, one of those who used to sing paeans to the rulers “Eeshvro va Dilishvro va, (The emperor of Delhi is as great as God).”

Moreover, either he was ignorant of Babur Bani (Guru Nanak’s composition about Babur’s invasion) and Sikh history or he indulged in gross distortion of both. For example, Guru Nanak denounced the invasion and atrocities committed by Babur’s forces.

O Lalo, Babur the groom has invaded with a marriage party of sin from Kabul and demands the surrender of India as a bride by force. Shame and morality have disappeared and falsehood has overtaken. Instead of Qazis and Brahmans the devil is performing the marriage ceremony.

AGGS, M 1 p 722.

Moreover, Guru Nanak denounced the rulers of his time very forcefully.

The rulers are like ferocious tigers and their officials as wild dogs, who harass and persecute the innocent subjects.

AGGS, M, 1, p 1288.

Unless the petitioner bribes, even the king does not accept the petition. If someone petitions only in the name of God (justice), no body listens.

AGGS, M 1. P 350.

The Gurus opposed the tyranny and bigotry of Muslim rulers and took up arms against them. Guru Gobind Singh’s great grandfather, Guru Arjan Dev was tortured to death on the orders of Jehangir,his grandfather Guru Hargobind Singh fought against Shah Jahan, and Auragnjeb was responsible for the death of his father, mother, four sons and hundreds of Sikhs. From the time of Jehangir, the Mughal rulers tried to destroy the movement started by Guru Nanak.

Thus, the analysis of the contents of BN described above demonstrates unequivocally that BN is not the autobiography of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj.

Conclusion

The author(s) of spurious parts of the Bachittar Natak was grossly ignorant of Gurmat and Sikh history. The Mughals purpose in those parts was to subvert Sikhism for anti-Sikh forces by subliminally denigrating Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj. These clearly Mughal paid scribes were quite successful in misleading gullible but sincere Sikhs. For anyone to suggest that Bachittar Natak is a 100% authentic autobiography of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj is an affront to common sense and insult to Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj as the father of the Khalsa Panth and an unabashed repudiation of Gurmat - just as anti-Sikh forces like the Mughals and elite Hindu's would hae wished.