5 Ks In Sikhi

[Kully]

Dear All

I would like to start a topic on the 5 Ks and when they came to be a part of Sikhi.

I'm talking about the time of 10th Guru's time. What written evidence from Guru Sahib's own hand is there that we have to say that Guru Sahib blessed the Sikhs with the 5 Ks?

This topic is in the same vein as "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai..." . I would be interested to see how the discussion pans out.

Please stick to verifiable sources only.

 

[chazSingh]

Dear All

I would like to start a topic on the 5 Ks and when they came to be a part of Sikhi.

I'm talking about the time of 10th Guru's time. What written evidence from Guru Sahib's own hand is there that we have to say that Guru Sahib blessed the Sikhs with the 5 Ks?

This topic is in the same vein as "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai..." . I would be interested to see how the discussion pans out.

Please stick to verifiable sources only.

there is only really one true verifiable source, waheguru
if we do what SGGS Ji says, maybe we can find out the real way...to your question...

 

[Harry Haller]

Kullyji,

I get the point you are trying to make, it makes no sense to dilute the same point on two threads, can we keep it to the other one, thanks.

 

[Kully]

Kullyji,

I get the point you are trying to make, it makes no sense to dilute the same point on two threads, can we keep it to the other one, thanks.

Thanks, I will and it's good to see that someone see what I am trying to get across.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

The original Punjabi manuscript can be seen in the: S.G.P.C. Library, Amritsar (Punjab, India). It was one of the major sources referred to when developing the Sikh Rehet Maryada.

 

[Harry Haller]

Thanks, I will and it's good to see that someone see what I am trying to get across.

you don't do yourself any favours with clarity,let us keep to the core issues rather than getting bogged down in the base

 

[Kully]

Harkiran Ji, thanks very much for that post. I was looking for a Panjabi version of that for a while.

The original Punjabi manuscript can be seen in the: S.G.P.C. Library, Amritsar (Punjab, India).

Do you mean the original hukumnama can be found at Amritsar or the Panjabi manuscript of the above text?

It was one of the major sources referred to when developing the Sikh Rehet Maryada.

Great info. One of the things that spring to mind is if this hukumnama is legit, why none of the other writers of rehitnamas/texts in the following 100 years were not able to produce this in full. Some texts mention 3 mudras, some mention 5 shashtars. The first time that all five are mentioned in any text is almost 100 years after the original historical Vaisakhi.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran Ji, thanks very much for that post. I was looking for a Panjabi version of that for a while.



Do you mean the original hukumnama can be found at Amritsar or the Panjabi manuscript of the above text?



Great info. One of the things that spring to mind is if this hukumnama is legit, why none of the other writers of rehitnamas/texts in the following 100 years were not able to produce this in full. Some texts mention 3 mudras, some mention 5 shashtars. The first time that all five are mentioned in any text is almost 100 years after the original historical Vaisakhi.

I have actually seen a photo posted of the original. I can't however vouch that the original is authentic, but I'll leave that up to Akal Takht / SGPC and their scholars and historians. Someone did post a photo of it online awhile back but the link is broken now. However I did see it prior to the link being broken. (It was supposed to be the original, but I see some have claimed it was punjabi manuscript). Easy, just contact SGPC and ask!

 

[Ishna]

Perhaps people back then either didn't have direct access to the information.. or more likely, they wanted to put their own spin on things. India is a diverse place in terms of religion. Uniqueness and religious expression seem to be valued more than scholarly habits in terms of doing what just one Guru tells you to do. And to add legitimacy to ones own creations and views, one can attribute them to whichever Guru they like.

That's why SGGSJ is so foundational for Sikhs. It's the touchstone. It's all that can really be relied upon, imho.

 

[Kully]

Perhaps people back then either didn't have direct access to the information.

Whenever Guru Ji sent hukumnamas or letters they were always carried by dependable Sikhs and these Sikhs would be fully conversant with the message contained, if there were to be any questions asked from the recieving party. Sri Gur Sobha details the taking of a hukumnama ot the Delhi sangat.

I asked an Afghan Sikh friend about this hukumnama. He was from kabul, and says no Gurdwara has this hukumnama, but it is an oral tradition passed down amongst Afghan Sikhs that Guru Sahib sent them a hukumnama.

Given the state of the country now, and the situation of the Sikh community, it would be very hard to conduct a search for it. Hopefully if the situation gets better.

 

[Kully]

or more likely, they wanted to put their own spin on things.

And to add legitimacy to ones own creations and views, one can attribute them to whichever Guru they like.

Yes, the masands did this and Guru Sahib abolished the masand system.

That's why SGGSJ is so foundational for Sikhs. It's the touchstone. It's all that can really be relied upon, imho.

Even up to the 1930 there were saroops of Guru Granth Sahib found with different banis in after Mundavni, and at least one other difference that I know of. In 1930s or 40s the saroop of SGGS was structured to the one we see today.

 

[Admin]

Even up to the 1930 there were saroops of Guru Granth Sahib found with different banis in after Mundavni, and at least one other difference that I know of. In 1930s or 40s the saroop of SGGS was structured to the one we see today.

Why were those removed and on what basis?

 

[Kully]

Why were those removed and on what basis?

As far as I know, it was to produce a standard saroop and SGGS was looked at. There were differing banis after Mundavni which were looked at, and I don't know the basis for removing them as I have not researched these banis or the whole episode.

 

[Admin]

Even up to the 1930 there were saroops of Guru Granth Sahib found with different banis in after Mundavni, and at least one other difference that I know of. In 1930s or 40s the saroop of SGGS was structured to the one we see today.

So, in other words, its just a hearsay...

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

So, in other words, its just a hearsay...

I find it hard to believe that anyone could have made changes in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, as using an example, there is an account of Guru Har Rai actually disowning one of his sons (Ram Rai) for merely altering the wording of one shabad, when explaining Gurbani to the Moghul Emperor Aurangzeb. For that transgression, Guru Har Rai disowned his own son, and forbade Sikhs to associate with him, or even his descendants! (ref Bains, K.S. "A tribute to Bal Guru". The Tribune.) I find it highly unlikely then that several versions of SGGSJ existed with differing contents. The total angs referred to all throughout its history, has always been 1430 as far as I have ever seen.

 

[Kully]

I find it hard to believe that anyone could have made changes in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji,

It was the SGPC when they were formulating the Panthic Rehat maryada in the 1930s or 40s.

I find it highly unlikely then that several versions of SGGSJ existed with differing contents.

Yes there were differing banis at the end of some saroops after Mundavni. These included "ratanmala", "Jit dar lakh muhamada" and another I can't remember. Some of these texts were in some but not all saroops, as was Raagmala. The committee looked at the texts and decided to remove all except Raagmala.

Do a search on the internet and see what comes up. I will as well and see if I can shed any more light on it.

The total angs referred to all throughout its history, has always been 1430 as far as I have ever seen.

No Ji, the angs all differed between saroops as the writers didn't copy the Granth page for page. Also the sizes of granths differed. I have seen many saroops of different sizes and number of angs on the net. The biggest number of angs I have seen in a saroop of SGGS is 1800 angs.

1430 angs only came about when the SGPC standardiazed the printing of SGGS in the 1930/40s. Before that there was no regularity on the ang numbers or size. It is only a very recent move to have 1430 angs. 60 or 70 years at most.

Sri HariMandir Sahib has a very big saroop on the first floor, for those who will be visiting Sri HariMandir Sahib soon, make sure you go upstairs and have darshan of it.

 

[Harry Haller]

if we are to base our discussions on internet hearsay, we could be here for some time.

 

[Kully]

..:: Panjab Digital Library ::..

Please go to page 2232 of this historical copy of Guru Granth Sahib to see a saropp with the banis of "Ramkali Ratanmala", and "Haqiqat Rai Raja Shivnabh Ki" amongst others.

There are many saroops on PDL which you may look through to look further into this.

Also Harkiran Ji, look at some of the size of these saroops and their number of angs which is also listed. The one that i have posted the link for has 2249 angs. Biggest saroop that I have seen on net.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

..:: Panjab Digital Library ::..

Please go to page 2232 of this historical copy of Guru Granth Sahib to see a saropp with the banis of "Ramkali Ratanmala", and "Haqiqat Rai Raja Shivnabh Ki" amongst others.

There are many saroops on PDL which you may look through to look further into this.

Also Harkiran Ji, look at some of the size of these saroops and their number of angs which is also listed. The one that i have posted the link for has 2249 angs. Biggest saroop that I have seen on net.

So you are willing to think that SGGSJ has been changed throughout time and that some of the contents might have been adulterated or added by erroneous sources etc and were removed to create a standardized version, but you are completely a.ok with an entire Granth attributed to our Guru, that was put together after he left this world, by third parties, and even the sources mentioning what is his and where it came from are vague even up to 100 years l'after Guru Gobind Singh was gone? And where the source you quote even says Charitropakhyan was brought from multiple sources by poets and that they were given a new form (translated) from Sanskrit by Guru Ji and that means the work is his and he somehow meant for that to be moral teaching for us??? Even when he himself never included any such thing in SGGSJ and told us to not have any other as Guru and that ALL our needed knowledge is in SGGSJ??

Hmmm so if I rewrite the works of tesla in my own language (they were German originally I believe) that means I can claim the works are mine?? Awesome I'm gonna be rich!!!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

It was the SGPC when they were formulating the Panthic Rehat maryada in the 1930s or 40s.

Yes there were differing banis at the end of some saroops after Mundavni. These included "ratanmala", "Jit dar lakh muhamada" and another I can't remember. Some of these texts were in some but not all saroops, as was Raagmala. The committee looked at the texts and decided to remove all except Raagmala.

Do a search on the internet and see what comes up. I will as well and see if I can shed any more light on it.

No Ji, the angs all differed between saroops as the writers didn't copy the Granth page for page. Also the sizes of granths differed. I have seen many saroops of different sizes and number of angs on the net. The biggest number of angs I have seen in a saroop of SGGS is 1800 angs.

1430 angs only came about when the SGPC standardiazed the printing of SGGS in the 1930/40s. Before that there was no regularity on the ang numbers or size. It is only a very recent move to have 1430 angs. 60 or 70 years at most.

Sri HariMandir Sahib has a very big saroop on the first floor, for those who will be visiting Sri HariMandir Sahib soon, make sure you go upstairs and have darshan of it.

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Would you be kind enough to give us references about your claims so they can be crosschecked?

And also for the future, please give the references while declaring your claims. It would be easier that way.

Thanks.