5 Ks In Sikhi

[Kully]

So you are willing to think that SGGSJ has been changed throughout time and that some of the contents might have been adulterated

Harkiran Ji, like yourself, i can only say what I have read in my own research.

This PDF will be of interest to yourself and others :

http://www.anpere.net/2008/3.pdf

PLease go to book page 208 (at the bottom), or PDF page no 226, and there you will find more information on this.

and told us to not have any other as Guru

Remember that I asked you where Guru Gobind Singh had written this? If you have found a source since that time, please share it.

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?

Why are we going over the same ground again and again? You brought the source initially, when you felt it supported what you feel about Charitropakhyan, When it actually didn't then you dismissed it.

Rather than go over this source again, why not look for any sources (in that same period) that support what you are saying and share them with us here?

What are we actually learning by just repeating ourselves?

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!!!

If you rewrite the works of Tesla in your own ords but use Tesla's work as a source, then you can claim that you used Tesla's works as the basis for your work.

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.

Absolutely, as of when and where I can I will certainly give references. I had mistakenly thought that it was common knowledge amongst Sikhs that SGGS was standardized about 50 odd years ago to the saroop that we see today.

Another change the SGPC made was substituting larivar for pad-chhed.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Absolutely, as of when and where I can I will certainly give references. I had mistakenly thought that it was common knowledge amongst Sikhs that SGGS was standardized about 50 odd years ago to the saroop that we see today.

Another change the SGPC made was substituting larivar for pad-chhed.

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please give the references of which angs were taken out and why as that is your claim and who were they written by?
Who took them out in the SGPC and what reasons did they give?

You said.

"I had mistakenly thought that it was common knowledge amongst Sikhs",

When we stop with the assumptions about others, then only can we have a fruitful interaction where all become winners as Sikhs.

Another change the SGPC made was substituting larivar for pad-chhed

You are incorrect in your assumption above. Larivar Beedh was not substituted with Padh-chhed but the latter was added.

Thanks

 

[Admin]

If you rewrite the works of Tesla in your own ords but use Tesla's work as a source, then you can claim that you used Tesla's works as the basis for your work.

No, ethically, we cannot make a claim of an idea /or ideas borrowed from other sources just like that, it simply amounts to plagiarism.

Please show us in which country's law book, it states that you can use ideas based on someone's original work and claim them as your own? Maybe @Original ji can shed some light on this.

Taking a queue from your analogy, then why do you think Sikh Gurus, incorporated the Banis of 32 Bhagats/Bhatts and took immense care, while translating them to Gurmukhi, to credit each and every shabd to its original author in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, our only Guru, whether it was using terms like Mahala 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 9 or Bhagat Bani. Each and every Ang in SGGS is credited to its original author, absolutely no question of any kind of plagiarism.

And then why the author of DG did not bother to even mention about the various sources from which the most of its contents were borrowed from?

Do you think it is ethically OK to borrow ideas from someone's original work and claim them as our own?

Bhul chuk maaf

 

[Kully]

Please give the references of which angs were taken out and why as that is your claim and who were they written by?
Who took them out in the SGPC and what reasons did they give?

It's in the PDF Ji.

When we stop with the assumptions about others, then only can we have a fruitful interaction where all become winners as Sikhs.

Beautiful.

And then why the author of DG did not bother to even mention about the various sources from which the most of its contents were borrowed from?

Where Guru Sahib has used older texts (purans etc) in the writings of DG, there is a endnote to each chapter saying "this is from such and such text". There is no such endnotes to the the Charitropakhayn. The absence of such endnotes, and the chapter in Mehma Parkash make it clear. The original stories that feature as part of Charitropakhyan come from all over the world, as folk-tales and such.

As I have said many times, the source was older tales, but the words into which they have recorded as Charitropakhyan is Guru Gobind Singh's work. Please stop covering the same ground over and over. If you can't accept my answer, then accept I have no other answer and stop asking the same questions over and over.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

It's in the PDF Ji.

The original stories that feature as part of Charitropakhyan come from all over the world, as folk-tales and such.

Good glad you finally admit this!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh said: ↑
Please give the references of which angs were taken out and why as that is your claim and who were they written by?
Who took them out in the SGPC and what reasons did they give?

It's in the PDF Ji.

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please indicate the specific page numbers of your claims above with your personal view.

And what do you know about the Swedish Author of the PDF,Kristina Myrvold?

What does she know about Sikhi pysche?
Is she a spiritualist, religious (of what religion?) or just an outsider trying to take a peek in Sikhi with the red tinted Abrahamic glasses?

Do you know anything about the authors during our Gurus' times who wrote about our Gurus, in this case our 10th Guru?

Please specify your claims so we all can learn from it.

Thanks

 

[Kully]

Good glad you finally admit this!

Harkiran Ji, your use of the word "finally" shows me that you have not been reading my posts properly. I have always said this form the start, so where you see "finally" you were a little late.

Still, late is better than never!

Please indicate the specific page numbers of your claims above with your personal view.

Tejwant Ji, I did specify very clearly what page in the pdf/what page number in the book you can go straight to, to read about this, in post #21. Kindly read.

And what do you know about the Swedish Author of the PDF,Kristina Myrvold?

Nothing.

What does she know about Sikhi pysche?

I don't know.

Is she a spiritualist, religious (of what religion?) or just an outsider trying to take a peek in Sikhi with the red tinted Abrahamic glasses?

I don't know.

If you know anything about her that you feel needs sharing, please do.

 

[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 Ji, Admin Singh Ji, harry Ji, have any of you looked through the PDL page that i shared ?

 

[Original]

Please show us in which country's law book, it states that you can use ideas based on someone's original work and claim them as your own? Maybe @Original ji can shed some light on this.

...Admin Ji, sorry for the late response, been busy !

As regards reference above, "no can do" because IPR [intellectual Property Rights] legislation will deem it copyright theft.

Admin Ji, am I at liberty to treat Kully as a UFO [unidentified foreign object] ? Polite request if you were to entertain because I honestly don't know what Kully's agenda is and who Kully the character ? Sorry - UK flag alongside his name don't tell me much.

Okay, I'll walk the mile; just as an exercise then, let us assume SGGSJ is also shrouded in mystery and SDGSJ in its entirety is authentically belonging to Guru Gobind Singh, what next ? Make your case, Kully Ji !

For the avoidance of doubt and clarity of subject matter [Sikhism], the nuclei of Sikhism is "shabd", meaning sound. It predates developed form of writing, does it matter who wrote what, when, where, why and for who ?

Pls be reminded to construe this email as truth seeking and not offensive. I've deliberately worded it for fermenting the essential elements to Dialectal progress.

Goodnight n Godbless

 

[Harry Haller]

Harkiran Ji, Admin Singh Ji, harry Ji, have any of you looked through the PDL page that i shared ?

Sorry, been upto my eyeballs, I will read it now, hope its not too long!

 

[Harry Haller]

Well I found the reference you quoted, but I am a bit confused, in order to support your argument you have quoted from this PDF, but without knowing anything about the author, or her agenda in writing the book, it seems a pointless reference. In order to get the real gist of what she is saying, one needs to know where she is coming from, otherwise anything read is completely out of context. I think it is too much to ask anyone to read such a long PDF in order to grasp the actual message rather than a glimpse of it.

Have you read this in its entirety yourself?

 

[Kully]

Well I found the reference you quoted, but I am a bit confused, in order to support your argument you have quoted from this PDF, but without knowing anything about the author, or her agenda in writing the book, it seems a pointless reference.

Sir, methinks you are getting confused. I am talking about the PDL - Panjab Digital Library, where there a very old saroop showing banis that are not part of SGGS today, which were removed during standardization of SGGS in the 1940s.

 

[Kully]

but I am a bit confused, in order to support your argument you have quoted from this PDF,

I shared it for everyone to read, because it seemed to me that some were a little dumbstruck at hearing it.

but without knowing anything about the author, or her agenda in writing the book, it seems a pointless reference.

It 's there for your reading only. To help you know/understand more about this episode.

In order to get the real gist of what she is saying, one needs to know where she is coming from, otherwise anything read is completely out of context.

Why not just concentrate on the historical info given, and use it to try and help learn more about it.

I think it is too much to ask anyone to read such a long PDF in order to grasp the actual message rather than a glimpse of it.

I agree but the "glimpse" is all you need to read for this discussion.

Have you read this in its entirety yourself?

Absolutely not. It's a very long work, and I have just looked at the info concerning the standardization history.

 

[Kully]

Okay, I'll walk the mile; just as an exercise then, let us assume SGGSJ is also shrouded in mystery and SDGSJ in its entirety is authentically belonging to Guru Gobind Singh, what next ? Make your case, Kully Ji !

The case is that applying certain critiques to ascertain whether DG is Guru Sahib's work is dangerous, because if we apply those same critiques to SGGS/5k's/khande ki pahul vidhi/nitnem banis etc then we will have a real mess on our hands.

 

[swarn bains]

original jee. you are a lawyer. here on our subject there are two types of issues. first is private or personal domain. In this case the copy right applies and no one can copy from it and use it for his or her own purpose. the second version is public domain such SGGS. In this case it is open to anyone whoever wants to copy and use it, it is accepted because the copy right was surrenedered right in the beginning. I give you an example. Baba Nanak collected poetry of other saints. He paid rs 50 for Fareeds bqani. So he purchased that right and then the other bani was given to him by someone and then it got published in SGGS. And now it is public p[roperty and no one has copy right to it. I translated SGGS in English and published it. I was asked by the publisher if it has a copy right. I told him that it is public property and then he said that it is ok and no one has copy right to it. So it was published and others such as bible. quran ramayan etc all fall in the same category. The copy right does not apply here to the public domain. I am not a lawyer, may be it is correct or wrong and that is my experience and opinion. s s a

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

original jee. you are a lawyer. here on our subject there are two types of issues. first is private or personal domain. In this case the copy right applies and no one can copy from it and use it for his or her own purpose. the second version is public domain such SGGS. In this case it is open to anyone whoever wants to copy and use it, it is accepted because the copy right was surrenedered right in the beginning. I give you an example. Baba Nanak collected poetry of other saints. He paid rs 50 for Fareeds bqani. So he purchased that right and then the other bani was given to him by someone and then it got published in SGGS. And now it is public p[roperty and no one has copy right to it. I translated SGGS in English and published it. I was asked by the publisher if it has a copy right. I told him that it is public property and then he said that it is ok and no one has copy right to it. So it was published and others such as bible. quran ramayan etc all fall in the same category. The copy right does not apply here to the public domain. I am not a lawyer, may be it is correct or wrong and that is my experience and opinion. s s a

I think the issue comes into play if you claim to be the author of it. You also need to give proper reference in bibliography even with publicly available content. If you notice in SGGSJ the shabads all proper credit IS given.

 

[Original]

Good evening Everyone -

The case is that applying certain critiques to ascertain whether DG is Guru Sahib's work is dangerous,

..as I said before, no conclusive evidence has been adduced to prove facts in issue. In the absence of such credible [conventionally recognised] evidence, one is led to conclude there isn't any conclusive argument either for or against the facts in issue. Should you and Harkiran think you've found one only think that because you want to believe it, full stop. That doesn't mean you don't have any evidence, indeed you do, but not sufficient enough to warrant absolute determination.

As for it being "dangerous", I don't think so. Please reread the original post furnished by khalsa1469, in which the author argues his case well and sustains it through n through.

because if we apply those same critiques to SGGS

..I'm afraid you can't and hence the reason I asked whether rational deliberations can be had of religious belief [note, not literature]. Putting SGGSJ on stand will potentially violate conventional legislation.

then we will have a real mess on our hands.

..we will never have real mess because our only Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, come what may !

Goodnight

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Original Ji my argument is not based on my having any evidence, rather my argument is precisely the lack of evidence to support all of DG being the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

 

[Original]

original jee. you are a lawyer. here on our subject there are two types of issues. first is private or personal domain. In this case the copy right applies and no one can copy from it and use it for his or her own purpose. the second version is public domain such SGGS. In this case it is open to anyone whoever wants to copy and use it, it is accepted because the copy right was surrenedered right in the beginning. I give you an example. Baba Nanak collected poetry of other saints. He paid rs 50 for Fareeds bqani. So he purchased that right and then the other bani was given to him by someone and then it got published in SGGS. And now it is public p[roperty and no one has copy right to it. I translated SGGS in English and published it. I was asked by the publisher if it has a copy right. I told him that it is public property and then he said that it is ok and no one has copy right to it. So it was published and others such as bible. quran ramayan etc all fall in the same category. The copy right does not apply here to the public domain. I am not a lawyer, may be it is correct or wrong and that is my experience and opinion. s s a

Respected Swarn Singh,

You are right on both counts. Baba Nanak did not pass-off Baba Farid's work as his own, I think that was the case in point. I answered within the legal framework of such poor academic practices.

Thank you

 

[Original]

Original Ji my argument is not based on my having any evidence, rather my argument is precisely the lack of evidence to support all of DG being the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

Harkiran Kaur Ji

There is a presumption that the writings contained within SDGSJ are by n large, as those pertaining to be Guru Gobind Singh Ji's own handwritten [wide genre] literature or, that of His scribes [my understanding]. This literature was collated and complied by Bhai Mani Singh to form what is now, Dasam Granth. To rebut this presumption you are required to satisfy the evidential burden, meaning, show reasonable cause and back it up with credible evidence.

Hope you're getting to grips with that !

Goodnight