What Is Really In The Contents Of The Dasam Granth? | Page 4 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

What Is Really In The Contents Of The Dasam Granth?

Luckysingh

Writer
SPNer
Dec 4, 2011
1,633
2,750
Vancouver
Luckysingh ji

Neutrality takes one only so far.

And yes, your sentences do seem to suggest that prayers in rehat are bani. Otherwise, what are you saying when you say

.

So if I got it wrong, please rephrase so I can understand. A double negative is a positive. You say CANNOT and NOT in the quote above. That means to me at least that you are saying the Jaap, tav prasadh, akal ustat are bani, are shabad guru.

And I am asking how someone can be neutral on this point?
I know !!
That's the confusion I'm highlighting, because the majority of us will accept the rehat banis as ALL being gurbani.
Which is why I specifically stated 'personal opinion', because that is the only way we can answer from what I gather.

I have asked my mother and many other elders and they answer the same which is '' All rehat paath is bani, but we are NOT sure about DG!!""
***Confusion***or what ??


My point specifically was that, if I tell an upcoming sikh that they are not gurbani because they come from DG, then he will immediately question, exactly what Justosh did with '' Why are they part of Daily rehat??''

Then it starts to get complcated doesn't it !!
Sometimes, it becomes easier to just say yes, instead of not sure or 'yes, it is bani''- Because I don't want to encourage an upcoming young sikh to disobey the rehat. That itself would be a bujjer kurehit !!


Do you see what I'm getting at here ??

Sometimes, it becomes easier to answer these questions posed by the young by saying ''This is it here, these are the facts, BUT this is also a paath that should be done daily in nitnem''

Then let Waheguru ji take care of the rest.
As long as we lay the facts and don't instruct new recruits which side to bat for, then I'm sure that this would be Waheguru's preference.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,203
I know !!


I have asked my mother and many other elders and they answer the same which is '' All rehat paath is bani, but we are NOT sure about DG!!""
***Confusion***or what ??

Isn't the way out of confusion to research and deliberately invite the opposing side to speak?

My point specifically was that, if I tell an upcoming sikh that they are not gurbani because they come from DG, then he will immediately question, exactly what Justosh did with '' Why are they part of Daily rehat??''

So why not teach? Teach the history of the rehat and how the jap sahib, and the other prayers became part of daily paath. Teach the history of the Aad Granth and explain how it was sealed by Dasam Pita and given as Guru in 1708.

Then it starts to get complcated doesn't it !!

I don't see it as complicated. I see it as a matter of tracing developments in history.

Sometimes, it becomes easier to just say yes, instead of not sure or 'yes, it is bani''- Because I don't want to encourage an upcoming young sikh to disobey the rehat. That itself would be a bujjer kurehit !!

Sometimes, it is saner to say "think." Obedience to the rehat does not rule that out.

Do you see what I'm getting at here ??

No.


As long as we lay the facts and don't instruct new recruits which side to bat for, then I'm sure that this would be Waheguru's preference.

How does Waheguru have "preferences?" Omnipotent and formless Waheguru neither needs preferences nor would express preferences. Preferences are part of human nature.
I would instruct new recruits "to bat on the side" of Guru Arjan Dev, Guru Gobind Singh, and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. One can't lose between them because they are all on the same side.
 
Sep 21, 2010
44
79
Gyani Jarnail Singh

“And to add to the Interesting points rasied by Chan pardesi Ji above...If I may add..the BANDA SINGH BAHADUR was also SABOTAGED by the so called TATT KHALSA LOBBY of Mughal Friendly Sikhs...IF the SIKHS had been UNITED..nothing could have stopped Banda Singh form establishing the Khalsa Raaj there and then. SIRHIND ( HEAD OF HIND ) had FALLEN..the Mughals were on the RUN..the Empire was in a shambles.....These Tatt Khalsa Lobby of Sikhs employed in Mughal Service or friendly to them also tried to "broker a peace deal" before the Final battle of muktsar in which the 40 muktas got martyred. Guru Gobind Singh ji refused such a deal and the battle was fought”.

This episode in Sikh history was very tragic. Whereas Baba Banda Singh Bahadur and his loyal companions were being hunted by the Mughal armies, there were other former sikh leaders supported by Mata Sundari who defected to the Mughal rulers and were enjoying all the comforts and pampering. Baba Binod Singh Trehan, a descendent of Guru Angad Dev ji was the seniormost. He left Baba Banda and escaped from Gurdas Nangal with ten thousand Sikhs and was allowed to stay in comfort at Amritsar. He was pressurised by rulers to join the Mughal army to attack Baba Banda at Gurdas Nangal. He joined them but half way felt bad remembering tenth Guruji’s command to stay with Baba Banda. He tried to return back but he and thousands of Sikh in his group were massacred as told by Muslim historian.


This is how a famous historian Hari Ram Gupta writes about this incident.

“In October 1714, Binod Singh with 10,000 followers parted company from Banda Bahadur. But he was in two minds. He wanted to obey Mata Sundari’s command, and at the same time was opposed to fight against Banda. He remained at Amritsar. He was taken to Gurdas Nangal in the Mughal army to fight on their side. There he tried to retire without fighting. No sooner had Binod Singh started moving away at the head of his 10,000 men, than he was attacked by the imperialists on all sides. According to Khafi Khan three or four thousands of his men were massacred at once. Binod Singh lost his life.” (History of the Sikhs, Vol IV, page 8, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982).

Binod Singh is mentioned by the Nihangs as the first Jathedar of the Nihang sect. The fact is that, Binod Singh and his grandson Miri Singh both were given handsome grants and their Sikh soldiers were also rewarded handsomely. Each horseman was paid Rs. 30 a month, a footman, Rs 5, and a Sardar Rs. 5 daily. A body of 5000 Sikhs under Binod Singh’ son Kahan Singh and grandson Miri Singh took up service with Abdus Samad Khan, governor of Lahore.

However, all this pampering was done for this under just one condition that the Sikh soldiers and their commanding officers would have to wear uniforms like those of the Mughal army. That meant that they could only wear blue uniforms. To this Kahan Singh and Miri Singh gladly agreed. From them on the Sikhs under these defector Sikhs began wearing blue dresses only. Guru Gobind Singh ji never adored blue dress. It was only when he had to escape from Machhiwara that a roll of white Khaddar cloth offered to Guruji by an old lady was quickly dyed during the night and Guru ji got a dress made to look like a Muslim Soofi Pir of Uch. If Guruji had always born a blue dress as most Nihangs want him to portrayed in pictures then there was no need to get a new blue dress to be prepared.

All this was happening because of Mata Sundari’s arm twisting by the emperor to get Baba Banda excommunicated and helping the Mughals with the help of defector Sikhs. I have also always wondered as to why Mata Sundari chose to stay in Delhi under the very nose of the Mughal emperor whereas the ordinary Sikh were being hounde for their heads in Panjab.

Humbly
Serjinder Singh
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chaan Pardesi

Writer
SPNer
Oct 5, 2008
428
769
London & Kuala Lumpur
SERJINDER writes;-''This episode in Sikh history was very tragic. Whereas Baba Banda Singh Bahadur and his loyal companions were being hunted by the Mughal armies, there were other former Sikh leaders supported by Mata Sundari who defected to the Mughal rulers and were enjoying all the comforts and pampering.''

This part of Sikh history has been either ignored, covered up or just too embarrasing for mentioning.I have written about this many years back.That this and the part played by the Sikhs east of the Satluj known as Angrezi Punjab is full of Sikhs' stabbing Sikhs in the back situation.

Apart from Mata Sundri ji, the mughals made use of a Ajit Singh, husband of bibi Tara Kaur, widowed wife of Sahibzada Ajit Singh, who the Guru Sahib had then remarried to a Sikh from Burhanpur and had renamed him as Ajit Singh.This Ajit Singh has been named as Ajit Singh Palit, close to Mata Sunder Kaur, and in some instance, I understand has been refered to as her adopted son, if I recall correctly.Ajit singh was well looked after by Mughal Bahadar Shah; as Ajit Singh had declared his loyalty to the Mughal emperor.

To cut the nitty gritty out, Ajit Singh Palit was encouraged to preach against Banda Singh Bahadur, which he did with Mata Sundri's blessings and encouragement initially, however later he was disowned by Mata Sundari and the Sikhs due to other reasons or fall out over the support that was given by both him and Mata Sundari to the Mughals, against Banda Singh Ji.

However, I dont think there is factual evidence to support the theory that Banda Singh and Binod Singh[also refered to as Baz Singh in Moghul records] really parted from each other on difference or Binod Singh defected to the Moghuls.The records says the differences arose at Gurdas Nangal between April, 1715-to December 1715.

But according to a report sent by a Moghul government official, Anand Rao on the 9th of July 1714,to Bahadur Shah in Delhi says..''Baz Singh [not Binod Singh] has separated from Banda Singh.He is now camped at Makhowal, near Anandpur.He has the support of Kahloor's Raja Ajmer Chand.He is now daily raiding and killing in the nearby villages, and killing off the enemies and robbing their riches and animals.

The following week the reporter reports of the same Baz Singh and his camp at Ardoon and Mehlook principalities, one hundered miles away.

In August 1714,Baz Singh is recorded to have been attacked by the mughal armies
of Sirhind.Baz Singh and his soldiers instead of fighting the enemy are reported to have retreated into the hills of Nahan.

There is no further mughal record of Baaz Singh or Binod Singh.Baz Singh is reported to have been martyred on the same day as Banda Singh ji on the 9th of June 1716.

It is possible that the Mughal records may have mispelt or misunderstood or made an error of some sort over Binod and Baz.Other Sikh names in the record appear to be all correct.

But the most important point that needs highlighting is, there is absolutely no mention of the disagreement between Banda Singh and Baz Singh [or Binod Singh].

Neither is there any mention that Baz Singh[ or Binod Singh ]is in coperation with or pay of the Mughals.This is very important as the names of the Sikhs who coperated with the Mughals are recorded in the Mughal records.

Having covered the Sikh history of this era and Banda Singh very extensively, I believe that Binod Singh [or Baz Singh]are the same person.I believe that Binod Singh[Baz Singh] did not have any fall out with Banda Singh.Their parting of ways was for strategic and tactical military reasons, and long before Gurdas Nangal.

Their parting would have split the Mughal Army to fight on two fronts, against two different armies, thus stretching their resources.

While the Mughals chased after Binod Singh[Baz Singh]Banda Singh managed to escape; and fight at Ropar with the Mughals before he headed off towards the hills, and Saharanpur, according to the book, by Irwin Latter,'Mughals', Volume 1,Page 311.

Around August 1714, the Mughal record talks of the Sikhs of Eminabad making peace with the Military Chief Iradatmand Khan. The Sikhs would plunder Kabul,Kashmir, Lahore and Gujrat and would share half their bounty with him.,was one of the terms of the peace.

On 20th of April 1711, a letter sent to Mata Sundari by Bhai Mani Singh makes a scant mention of rumours, at the end, that Banda has escaped from Lohgarh.However the fact is Banda Singh had already escaped 5 months earlier and was already mobilising forces.Many historians feel this letter is fake and was written long afterwards by someone or Bhai Mani Singh himself.The question is WHY?

It is also on record that many Sikhs had defected and were fighting their own Sikh brothers for a price and reward from the Mughuls.There is no doubt about that.But to avoid embarrasment the reallity of Sikh history of this period has been silent or destroyed.

I go as far as to say, it was not simple arm twisting of Mata Sundari, but there is more, that we may never find as evidence.It's best left where it is, as any new evidence that could factually emerge would simply throw the whole Panth into disrepute and embarrasment.

I believe the rumours spread about Banda Singh, turning to be a guru etc were ONLY rumours [?spread with help of perhaps Bhai Mani Singh,[no evidence], but his approval against Banda Singh ji seems strange;jealousy?] and certainly it appears on the directions and help from Mata Sundari.

Records do state that Mata Sunder Kaur and mata Sahib Kaur ji was under house arrest and pressure applied by Farukhshiar to use them against Banda Singh.He got them to write letters to Sikhs to abandon Banda Singh, and urged him to stop the war.Banda Singh refused to ahere to the calls by Mata Sundar kaur ji and Mata Sahib Kaur.It was as result of this that they issued a Hukamnama gainst Banda Singh;and this is how the Panth became divided over opinion.Most Sikhs refused to accept the Hukamnama.They were aware of Ajit Singh Palit's relations with the Mughals and the fact the Mata Jis' lived with him.


Many of us will not accept, but the support to the Mughals by Sikhs against Sikhs was not simply confined to soldiers shifting loyalties and getting rewards from the Mughals, it was more than that meets the eyes, sadly.

This is why the Kurbani and Martyrdom of Banda Singh lay unrecognised until about 6 years ago.Even to this day, some still insist with unsubstantiated claims that he went against the Gurus orders and that he wanted the Gurgaddi;there is absolutely nothing to support such thinking, quite the contrary, he was penalised for trying to establish a Sikh raj and rights of the poor people. Sikh, hindu and muslims.Bad rumours about him were spread deliberately..with or without the mata Jis' knowledge ..I leave the readers to decide.


Gurcharan Singh
Kamuning Hills
 
Last edited:
Sep 21, 2010
44
79
ChanPardesi ji

I appreciate your interest in the history of this tragic period of Sikh history. I certainly do not claim to have read as extensively as you have. However, the feelings about different personalities of the period are similar. I remember having read about the adventures of this 'Baz Singh' but cannot place where was it mentione. However, we know that Baz Singh was martyred along with Banda Singh Bahadur in Delhi. Incidentally, on the basis of entries in the Bhat Vahis (Bhat Vahi Bhadson) there is an entry that places Baz Singh in the family of the Bhats. It writes, "Kanwar Singh Beta Nathia ka, Baz Singh Beta Nathia ka, Sham Singh Beta Nathia ka, Pote (grandsons of) Balloo ke, Chandarbansi Bhardwaji Gotrey Puar saal sataaraan sau tihattar (1773) asaadh sudi ekam ke divas Dilli ke mallahan Jamana nadi ke tir Baba Banda ke gail shahi hukam saath mare gaye."

About Binod Singh however we know from various Sikh sources was a Trehan descendent of Guru Angad Dev, father of Kahan Singh (Captured not from Gurdas Nangal but from Lahore itself serving in th army of Lahore governor) who was brought to Delhi along with Baba Banda ji however at the right time Mata Sundari arranged for him to escape by bribing the guards and putting another sikh in his place (read the story near the end part of Gurpartap Sooraj Granth). What a cowardly act by Kahan Singh and immoral on the part of Mata Sundari to barter anothe innocent Sikh's life.


Serjinder Singh
 

Chaan Pardesi

Writer
SPNer
Oct 5, 2008
428
769
London & Kuala Lumpur
Dear Serjinder Singh Ji, I said COVERED , and not ''claimed read'', as alleged.


I would not pay any importance at all nor take the writings in Suraj Parkash by Santokh Singh written in 1843; or Panth Parkash by Giani Gian Singh also written in the late 19th century as gospel truths.These books are written based on oral history passed on a few generations later;certainly has been expanded, reduced and many more irrelevant facts have been added to it, as it took the writers fancy.

Too much importance placed on these books in the past has created the confusions we see these days.

Baz Singh was martyred in 1716.The bhatts commonly recorded deaths, births and any milestones of history.That was their trade.Being mentioned in a bhat vahi does not make Baz Singh to be a bhat.

Many Gurus and other prominent Sikhs have been mentioned in bhat vahis too.That does not make them bhat, if we follow your logic.Some miles stone dates in the bhat vahis are more accurate than the later Sikh writers entries.Bhai Garja Singh opened up the secrets of these bhat vahis.The Bhat vahis stretching one hundered years after Guru Gobind Singh ji have offered more information than any other sources.

Bhat is not a gotra, or caste,it was simply a trade not confined to any group but anyone who took an interest in being a ministrel.There are two words in Punjabi, Bhatt -means warriors or the bhat,meaning ministrels or bards, which is the relevant one here.

You say
"Kanwar Singh Beta Nathia ka, Baz Singh Beta Nathia ka, Sham Singh Beta Nathia ka, Pote (grandsons of) Balloo ke, Chandarbansi Bhardwaji Gotrey Puar saal sataaraan sau tihattar (1773) asaadh sudi ekam ke divas Dilli ke mallahan Jamana nadi ke tir Baba Banda ke gail shahi hukam saath mare gaye."

It is possible this may be some other Baz singh, as Baz Singh was martyred along with Banda Singh in 1716;why mention if it was the same baz Singh 66 years later??What years are you using?Shudh Bikarmi???

Gurfateh,

G Singh
 
Last edited:
Sep 21, 2010
44
79
The year that is given for the execution of Baz Singh is Bikrami 1773 that is 1716 AD given the difference of 57 years between the two calendars. The precise date for the execution as per that yantri of Pal Singh Purewal works out to be 9th of June 1716. The execution of BabaBanda is given on 19th June. The difference of ten days due to the fact that earlier writers did not take into account the fact that in 1753 AD the AD Calendar was offset by ten days.

Serjinder Singh
 

Kully

SPNer
Jan 3, 2016
273
25
I was reading through this old thread and would like to add a few thoughts.

Just one practical question which is inspired by the point by point considerations of history so far. Some are calling Dasam Granth "Sri Guru Dasam Granth," and some are calling it the Second Canon of the Sikhs. However, we each have only one head to give to the guru. The entire controversy boils down to just that. We give our head to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or we engage in a ludicrous juggling act.
The title of "Sri Guru Dasam Granth" for DG was only coined when it was printed for publication. The oldest saroops do not bear this title, they title DG as "Dasme Patshah Ju ka Granth Sahib."

Some people saw the word "Guru" in the title and were not happy with it, (me included.) Today we just for our own convenience call it by its short title of Dasam Granth.

Can any give his head to 2 gurus? So which "Guru" will it be?
We do matha tek to SGGS and accept it as Guru. Yet when we do many things which are not in SGGS, ie saying fateh, keeping kes and turban, taking khande ki pahul, reciting aagia bhae akaal ki are we not giving our head to that which is not is SGGS?

Tell me! Anyone who had time to write Chaubis Avtar had more time on his hands than Dasam Pita.
This a oft repeated question I have seen. Remember Guru Sahib had SGGS dictated and did katha of it at Sri Damdama Sahib in 9 months, so there is no reason why Guru Sahib could not have completed Chaubis Avtar, which is around a third of SGGS. Guru Sahib was an accomplished poet as well as a warrior. There is no reason to suspect that time would have hindered Guru Sahib in this respect.


Or they say, read like we do and YOU will understand.....BUt what is the way they read like, they have never ever explained ..I have seen this repeated over and over and over again and again...
Is brother Chaan Pardesi still active on this forum? If he isn't would he receive any notifications from us> I would certainly like to engage brother Chaan on some of his explanations of DG.

Maybe admins could contact him?


The 5% of the writings found in the DG is accepted as that of Guru Gobind Singh by the panth!
The learned of the panth agreed on that.
The learned of the Panth agreed on no such thing. The Panth even in the 1940s when formulating the new maryada of the Sikhs never questioned the writings in DG, rather the learned of the Panth saw that parts of DG were used in khande ki pahul rasam through their extensive research into Sikh maryada.

At no point ever during this period was there any suspicion of DG not being Guru Sahib's work.


The panth did NOT say this is bani, the people have termed it as bani.
The Panth saw DG as "Guru -Krit."

If we are to accept Guru Gobind Singh Ji's instructions, then Guru Ji himself did NOT declare his writings to be included in the Guru Granth sahib.He specifically asked it to be kept out!The Gurus bani is in the Guru Granth sahib!The Guru Ordered the sikhs to only believe in one Guru Granth sahib!
This is something I would like to discuss with brother Chaan. On the one hand the above post is recognising that Guru Sahib wrote some works, but then there are others from the same line of thinking as brother Chaan who claim that Udasis, Brahmans, English people created DG.


Therefore technically anything outside it cannot be bani; but writings of the Guru.The correct term is rachna of Guru Gobind Singh!
Guru Rachna is also used.

Ardas is always completed in every Sikh karaj, but the ardas is an additional supplication prayer,it is NOT bani.
How could something that is not bani really be supplicated by let's say "kachi bani"?
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 14, 2012
740
214
44
UK
tHE "divisions" BEGAN WITH bABA sri chand oPENLY REVOLTING AGAINST guru nanak jI AND STARTING THE udasiS.....and this DIVISION CONTINUED..dasu dattu. mohan mohrris.prithi chnad meennas masands dhirmalliahs ramrais..namdharees nirnakarees ram rahims ..and WILL CONTINUE....BUT those who followed GURU ANGAD..never "accepted" Sri Chand and his udasis..those who follwoed Guru hargobind Ji never accepted dhirmallih sodhis ..those who followed Guru har rai ji never follwoed Ram rai..and those who followed GURU TEG BAHADUR ji never accepted the 22 gurus..and so on...those who FOLLOW SGGS will NEVER ACCEPT the DG....because it belongs to the SRI CHAND SIDE of the "family"..those who have OPPOSED GURU NANAK from DAY ONE.:happysingh:japposatnamwaheguru:swordfight
So if baba Sri chand is the cause of the problem may I ask you why guru arjun dev ji in all his wisdom, who was far wiser than any of us invited Sri chand ji to harminder sahib, why guru Hargobind sahib kept relations?

Maybe just maybe we are limited in our imagination to understand the complexity of the beauty of the message..

Guru gobind singh ji forgave ram Rai and proclaimed even he is my sikh..

Here is a very radical and I would say fresh analysis of a small part of dasam Granth..

Episode 5 - Headless Heroics with Jvala Singh
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,619
5,208
SPN
So if baba Sri chand is the cause of the problem may I ask you why guru arjun dev ji in all his wisdom, who was far wiser than any of us invited Sri chand ji to harminder sahib, why guru Hargobind sahib kept relations?
Please provide any reliable resource...

Guru gobind singh ji forgave ram Rai and proclaimed even he is my sikh..
Please provide any reliable resource...

Thank you
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 14, 2012
740
214
44
UK
Please provide any reliable resource...



Please provide any reliable resource...

Thank you
The existence of brahm boota akhara at harmandir sahib

Guru gobind singh ji oral history punishing the mahants who succeeded ram Rai . I have seen a photo of a hukumnama to the same effect..

Just for transparency I would like to state that I had a very black and white view about this

Now I'm not sure if it actually matters
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,619
5,208
SPN
Was baba gurditta not a son of guru Hargobind?
@sukhsingh ji, this is not a answer to my request for verifiable resources.

Gurditta Ji being a son of Guru HarGobind Shaib ji proves nothing about Guru Hargobind Sahib ji's relationship with the udasis sect of Sri Chand. What if Gurditta ji also defected from Sikhi just like Sri Chand and joined the Udasis sect...

So if baba Sri chand is the cause of the problem may I ask you why guru arjun dev ji in all his wisdom, who was far wiser than any of us invited Sri chand ji to harminder sahib
The following shabad was incorporated by Guru Arjan Sahib ji in SGGS...

ਸਚੁ ਜਿ ਗੁਰਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਆ, ਕਿਉ ਏਦੂ ਬੋਲਹੁ ਹਟੀਐ ॥
ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਕਉਲੁ ਨ ਪਾਲਿਓ, ਕਰਿ ਪੀਰਹੁ ਕੰਨ੍‍ ਮੁਰਟੀਐ ॥
(ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਰਾਇ ਬਲਵੰਡ ਤਥਾ ਸਤੈ ਡੂਮਿ ਆਖੀ, ਪੰਨਾ 967)

Was Guru Arjan Sahib Ji unaware of status of sons of Guru Nanak Sahib's Sikhi while inviting Sri Chand? Your above statement and what Gurbani says are totally contradictory.

why guru Hargobind sahib kept relations?
What relations?

Guru gobind singh ji oral history punishing the mahants who succeeded ram Rai .
Sorry i am missing your point of the statement... What oral history?

I have seen a photo of a hukumnama to the same effect..
Who wrote this hukamnama? Who authenticated? To what affect? What were its contents?

Guru gobind singh ji forgave ram Rai and proclaimed even he is my sikh..
Any verifiable resource?
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 14, 2012
740
214
44
UK
@sukhsingh ji, this is not a answer to my request for verifiable resources.

Gurditta Ji being a son of Guru HarGobind Shaib ji proves nothing about Guru Hargobind Sahib ji's relationship with the udasis sect of Sri Chand. What if Gurditta ji also defected from Sikhi just like Sri Chand and joined the Udasis sect...

The following shabad was incorporated by Guru Arjan Sahib ji in SGGS...

ਸਚੁ ਜਿ ਗੁਰਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਆ, ਕਿਉ ਏਦੂ ਬੋਲਹੁ ਹਟੀਐ ॥
ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਕਉਲੁ ਨ ਪਾਲਿਓ, ਕਰਿ ਪੀਰਹੁ ਕੰਨ੍‍ ਮੁਰਟੀਐ ॥
(ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਰਾਇ ਬਲਵੰਡ ਤਥਾ ਸਤੈ ਡੂਮਿ ਆਖੀ, ਪੰਨਾ 967)

Was Guru Arjan Sahib Ji unaware of status of sons of Guru Nanak Sahib's Sikhi while inviting Sri Chand? Your above statement and what Gurbani says are totally contradictory.



What relations?



Sorry i am missing your point of the statement... What oral history?



Who wrote this hukamnama? Who authenticated? To what affect? What were its contents?



Any verifiable resource?
Fine bro so maybe my evaluation logic to arrive at giving the benefit of the doubt is wrong . But by your own measure you have nothing to suggest or support it is wrong.. So it at least is possible?
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 14, 2012
740
214
44
UK
Guru Arjan Sahib ji clearly states in SGGS, our only Guru, our only verifiable resource
Fine so based on this and the fact you accept sggs as a body of work post compilation by guru arjun dev ji, do you also question the inclusion of bani of guru tegh Bahadur ji?
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,619
5,208
SPN
do you also question the inclusion of bani of guru tegh Bahadur ji?
No I don't. Do you?

Is there anywhere in SGGS, where this shabad was denounced after Guru Arjan Sahib ji? Please provide a quote.

There are umpteen examples in SGGS, where Guru Sahibaans expounded a shabad to remove an iota of doubt in the mind of seekers.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

Literal translation from Sant Singh Khalsa in black followed by my interpretation in green.

ਕਾਨੜਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ Kaanarraa Mehalaa 5 || Ang 1298

ਕੀਰਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਗਾਉ ਮੇਰੀ ਰਸਨਾਂ ॥ Keerath Prabh Kee Gaao...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top