- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
As for Bhai Gurdas his vaaran were not added to SGGS because Bhai Sahib, is supposed to have requested it not to be added out of humility, but Guru Sahib gave it approval as the Key to SGGS. Therefore Bhai Gurdas' writings, separate as they are, are still a relevant source.
References / Proof please...
---
Yes it is my personal opinion. But it stands to logic. If Guru Gobind Singh wrote another granth identical to Guru Granth Sahib, what would have been the need for it?
ALL of the previous Gurus wrote of the same ideology. The difference is that if Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote DG, then his ideology was in disagreement to that presented in SGGSJ. So are you saying Guru Gobind Singh Ji had a different idea than was presented by our previous 9 Gurus, and was trying to change Sikhi into something completely different?
---
There are several references to charan pahul not only by the Guru's but also by the 22 Manjis that the Guru established.
Yes, there were. And women were even sent out as masands! The authority to confer Charan Pahul was given to masands (including these women - one of which was in charge of all Kashmir). That means women had the Guru given authority to confer amrit to initiates prior to 1699 by the way (since many try to say women cant do seva as Panj Pyaras)
The reason the charan pahul was replaced with kande de pahul was severalfold: the masands had become corrupt (reference Page 135, The History of Sikh Gurus, Prithi Pal Singh, Lotus Press, Jan 1, 2006) They started to accept money for initiation, and starting viewing themselves as Gurus. The idea of a single person initiating others then, made it too easy for that one person to become corrupt. Hence one reason why we have 5 now. Another was, with the lineage of human Gurus ended, there needed to be a way to give authority to the panth to make decisions. A single person should never have full control to do that. So decision making authority was given to five Sikhs (notice I never said Singh... Sikhs includes Kaurs) who are Amritdhari. This authority of self-sufficiency was give to the panth, and the panth includes women. The other reason was that through kande de pahul, all differences were removed from the initiates. Differences that caused people to treat some with preference and privilege over others.
---
It is interesting that she has not responded to my questions, whilst still contributing to this topic, which makes me think that she made those statements knowing she had no response and has since decided to ignore them.
I mean I have asked 4 or 5 times now, over the space of several days.
I have answered. Please scroll back. I gave you two separate references mentioning the hukamnama, not only that I gave you the exact Akal Takht Jathedar's name who signed it. Just because you won't accept those references is not my problem. I also gave you the names of several granthis, including the head granthi of Darbar Sahib who also were in agreement with the fact that Charitropakhyan were not written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. And they came to their agreement based on research by numerous scholars. I think I even gave you the name of the Singh who requested the research into the authenticity which started the whole thing. If you want more, then email akal takht! There are numerous references to that decision, from different sources. I find it funny though that you immediately jump on the source because it doesn't agree with you, and insulted the Sikh Bulletin (and Sikh Institute) the lowest because they are in agreement that this piece of women degrading, pornographic work was never written by Guru Ji.
---
But I will not take that same approach. If I don't know the answer/information that can help us to get to the closer to the discussion I will not respond.
There area sp{censored} number of texts written in the 18th century that refer to what we are discussing ie Kesar Singh Chibbers bansawalinama
Chibbers writing has already been refuted. Its unreliable, as he jumps around in topics and he himself even admits he is going by here-say (what he was told) rather than first hand knowledge. Moreover, he infused his own Brahminical thinking and angle to what he wrote and it's highly apparent.
(reference the article I sent you earlier that Sikh Coalition was goaded into removing - if you need a link to read it again here, its one of the first comments below the article by 'Anonymous': What is the reality of Dasam Granth? - Quora
---
Mehma Parkash
States that the stories were 'collected' from other sources.
Gurbilas Patshahi 10
Guru Kian Sakhia.
May I enquire as to whether you have looked at any of these writings at all?
---
When you say judgement you make it sound like I have closed my mind to any debate or shift from my position on the matter. I have simply taken the steps of lloking at the evidence before me. I have not made any judgements.
Who knows? I could be wrong, once Harikiran Ji and yourself respond the questions I posed to you good selves.
Already did.
If Harkiran Ji feels that the proof is not enough for DG, what is the proof for SGGS?
SGGSJ lineage is not in question as it was created prior to Guru Ji leaving this world, and remains unchanged. DG however, up to later 18th century had 32 copies all differing from each other - which were compiled into one which was then declared to be from the Guru. (Originals reference, above) 32 copies??? ALL different??? What authority did they have to 'decide' what was Guru Ji's work or not, so long after the fact? It says they 'clarified differences'... based on what???? The very fact that there WERE differences SPEAKS VOLUMES! What if they made a mistake? That time period it was well known the Brahminical influence in Sikhi! So you can bet your booties, that thinking would love to have a whole section of writing designed to denigrate women into an inferior role! Its what Laws of Manu had been saying! SGGSJ never had multiple copies all differing from each other (ragmaala issue aside) meaning nobody had to 'decide' anything regarding its authenticity as SGGSJ in its current form was the same form all through the history from time of Guru Ji. Up till only about 120 years ago, it was not even agreed upon which bits from all these different DG copies were even true!
References / Proof please...
---
Yes it is my personal opinion. But it stands to logic. If Guru Gobind Singh wrote another granth identical to Guru Granth Sahib, what would have been the need for it?
ALL of the previous Gurus wrote of the same ideology. The difference is that if Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote DG, then his ideology was in disagreement to that presented in SGGSJ. So are you saying Guru Gobind Singh Ji had a different idea than was presented by our previous 9 Gurus, and was trying to change Sikhi into something completely different?
---
There are several references to charan pahul not only by the Guru's but also by the 22 Manjis that the Guru established.
Yes, there were. And women were even sent out as masands! The authority to confer Charan Pahul was given to masands (including these women - one of which was in charge of all Kashmir). That means women had the Guru given authority to confer amrit to initiates prior to 1699 by the way (since many try to say women cant do seva as Panj Pyaras)
The reason the charan pahul was replaced with kande de pahul was severalfold: the masands had become corrupt (reference Page 135, The History of Sikh Gurus, Prithi Pal Singh, Lotus Press, Jan 1, 2006) They started to accept money for initiation, and starting viewing themselves as Gurus. The idea of a single person initiating others then, made it too easy for that one person to become corrupt. Hence one reason why we have 5 now. Another was, with the lineage of human Gurus ended, there needed to be a way to give authority to the panth to make decisions. A single person should never have full control to do that. So decision making authority was given to five Sikhs (notice I never said Singh... Sikhs includes Kaurs) who are Amritdhari. This authority of self-sufficiency was give to the panth, and the panth includes women. The other reason was that through kande de pahul, all differences were removed from the initiates. Differences that caused people to treat some with preference and privilege over others.
---
It is interesting that she has not responded to my questions, whilst still contributing to this topic, which makes me think that she made those statements knowing she had no response and has since decided to ignore them.
I mean I have asked 4 or 5 times now, over the space of several days.
I have answered. Please scroll back. I gave you two separate references mentioning the hukamnama, not only that I gave you the exact Akal Takht Jathedar's name who signed it. Just because you won't accept those references is not my problem. I also gave you the names of several granthis, including the head granthi of Darbar Sahib who also were in agreement with the fact that Charitropakhyan were not written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. And they came to their agreement based on research by numerous scholars. I think I even gave you the name of the Singh who requested the research into the authenticity which started the whole thing. If you want more, then email akal takht! There are numerous references to that decision, from different sources. I find it funny though that you immediately jump on the source because it doesn't agree with you, and insulted the Sikh Bulletin (and Sikh Institute) the lowest because they are in agreement that this piece of women degrading, pornographic work was never written by Guru Ji.
---
But I will not take that same approach. If I don't know the answer/information that can help us to get to the closer to the discussion I will not respond.
There area sp{censored} number of texts written in the 18th century that refer to what we are discussing ie Kesar Singh Chibbers bansawalinama
Chibbers writing has already been refuted. Its unreliable, as he jumps around in topics and he himself even admits he is going by here-say (what he was told) rather than first hand knowledge. Moreover, he infused his own Brahminical thinking and angle to what he wrote and it's highly apparent.
(reference the article I sent you earlier that Sikh Coalition was goaded into removing - if you need a link to read it again here, its one of the first comments below the article by 'Anonymous': What is the reality of Dasam Granth? - Quora
---
Mehma Parkash
States that the stories were 'collected' from other sources.
Gurbilas Patshahi 10
Guru Kian Sakhia.
May I enquire as to whether you have looked at any of these writings at all?
---
When you say judgement you make it sound like I have closed my mind to any debate or shift from my position on the matter. I have simply taken the steps of lloking at the evidence before me. I have not made any judgements.
Who knows? I could be wrong, once Harikiran Ji and yourself respond the questions I posed to you good selves.
Already did.
If Harkiran Ji feels that the proof is not enough for DG, what is the proof for SGGS?
SGGSJ lineage is not in question as it was created prior to Guru Ji leaving this world, and remains unchanged. DG however, up to later 18th century had 32 copies all differing from each other - which were compiled into one which was then declared to be from the Guru. (Originals reference, above) 32 copies??? ALL different??? What authority did they have to 'decide' what was Guru Ji's work or not, so long after the fact? It says they 'clarified differences'... based on what???? The very fact that there WERE differences SPEAKS VOLUMES! What if they made a mistake? That time period it was well known the Brahminical influence in Sikhi! So you can bet your booties, that thinking would love to have a whole section of writing designed to denigrate women into an inferior role! Its what Laws of Manu had been saying! SGGSJ never had multiple copies all differing from each other (ragmaala issue aside) meaning nobody had to 'decide' anything regarding its authenticity as SGGSJ in its current form was the same form all through the history from time of Guru Ji. Up till only about 120 years ago, it was not even agreed upon which bits from all these different DG copies were even true!
