5 Ks In Sikhi

[Harkiran Kaur]

He is trying to disprove the authenticity of SGGSJ, in order to use it to say "see we cant prove SGGSJ, so therefore DG must be true"

which, wont work.

or else I could write something and then say Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote it. Maybe I'll do that, write a bunch of stories painting men as the ones who do all the deceit and immorality (the baddies as Harry Ji calls them), and then say that Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote it. By his OWN criteria, Kully Ji would have to say that since nobody can prove it was not written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, then it must be written by him! Oh I will include a second book corroborating it with vague references. Then he'd have to take that same authority as Mehma Parkash!

Sorry but in the case of DG, the lack of evidence FOR (like actual RELIABLE evidence) the onus is on you Kully Ji o prove it was from Guru Ji. Belief is not enough. The onus is never on the negative. Belief in something doesn't change that. People, even large groups of people, can be swayed to believe in just about ANYTHING.
 
Besides, the 5 k's are mentioned in numerous historical rhetnamas.

 

[Kully]

Please give us a list of your questions/ grievances regarding the subjects you have mentioned so we can start pitching in one by one.

It's not a list of grievances. It's an alarming observation that some people are ready to undermine the whole practice of Sikhi because they do not have the concrete irrefutable proof they desire to beleive in something.

It started with DG, but the same parameters when applied to Guru Granth sahib/the 5 K's/Nitnem/khande ki pahul etc then these are all in the same situation.

I hope you are starting to see this, I have said it many many times.

On this forum, you are the only person, who time and again, does not even blink an eye while creating doubts about the authenticity of Gurgaddi given to to SGGS.

Wrong Sir, I'm opening your eyes as to the dangerous ground you tread upon (not you personally Admin Singh Ji) when you start to reject DG on the grounds of meagre proof.

This obsession with irrefutable proof is causing all sorts of problems. Look at your statement about me "creating doubts". All I have done is ask a question which nobody has been able to answer (and nobody really can answer). So in your mind, I have started to "create doubts". But when someone asks the same question about DG, are they not creating doubts?

We all have an obligation here to learn and share as Sikhs, not destroy and weaken.

Let''s say, I turned around to my parents and said "I will only accept you as my parents if you can show me irrefutable proof that you are my parents". Today they can by using DNA etc, but then what if I said I will only accept that your parents are my grandparents if you can prove it. They wouldnt't be able to prove that. So does that give me the right to say "they are not my grandparents, because you have been unable to prove it"?

A large part of Sikhi is about faith. We cannot even prove a basic bedrock of Sikhi, that SGGS was given gurgaddi by Guru Sahib, but we, as Sikhs, all have faith that Guru Sahib gave SGGS gurgaddi, even though we can't prove it.

Similarly, we can't prove whether the 5 ks were given at vaisakhi 1699, or after, as no text even mentions the complete 5 k's for almost a century later. Shall we give up on the 5 k's as they are not mentioned in our "complete" Guru or they are not mentioned in any text for almost a century?

What about Nitnem? We do Nitnem don't we? But we have to wait for almost a century after Vaisakhi 1699 to be able to prove what the nitnem of a sikh is? So does that mean that we can doubt Nitnem because the earliest record is almost a century after it was supposed to have been started?

you are the only person, who time and again, does not even blink an eye

Wrong Sir! I am that person who goes to bed worried every night thinking what is going on with the Sikh nation today, and what Sikhs themselves are doing to harm the future of the Panth.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Kullly ji,

Guru fateh

It's not a list of grievances. It's an alarming observation that some people are ready to undermine the whole practice of Sikhi because they do not have the concrete irrefutable proof they desire to beleive in something.

It started with DG, but the same parameters when applied to Guru Granth sahib/the 5 K's/Nitnem/khande ki pahul etc then these are all in the same situation.

Please share with us the list of your alarming observations and the remedies so we can all pitch in. After all it is our duty as Sikhs who participate in this forum to find the truth so we can practice Guru Nanak words,"Truth is higher but even higher is truthful living".

I need your help with the proofs of your claims so we can practice the teachings of our Gurus enshrined in SGGS, our only Guru.

Thanks

PS: It is also a duty of a Sikh or any other participant in this forum to respect the fellow members. I would request you to do that here.

 

[Kully]

He is trying to disprove the authenticity of SGGSJ, in order to use it to say "see we cant prove SGGSJ, so therefore DG must be true"

I am asking a qiuestion that you cannot prove. What i'm using is your assertion that absence of absolute proof means that we can't say that SGGS was given gurgaddi.

Besides, the 5 k's are mentioned in numerous historical rhetnamas.

Great. Let's see these rehatnamas.

Please share with us the list of your alarming observations and the remedies so we can all pitch in.

Tejwant Singh Ji, what do you think we have been discussing here for the last month? There are some people on this forum, who are prepared to only accept aspects of Sikhi that can be proved in full. That is what is my observation. My remedy so far is to apply this thinking to certain aspects of sikhi i.e. Gurgaddi of SGGS, and you can see the results.
 

By his OWN criteria, Kully Ji would have to say that since nobody can prove it was not written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, then it must be written by him!

There is enough proof internally and externally to dispel any doubts that DG was written by Guru Gobind Singh. it may not be a whole lot, but it is enough.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Tejwant Singh Ji, what do you think we have been discussing here for the last month? There are some people on this forum, who are prepared to only accept aspects of Sikhi that can be proved in full. That is what is my observation. My remedy so far is to apply this thinking to certain aspects of sikhi i.e. Gurgaddi of SGGS, and you can see the results.

Firstly, let's have a meaningful interaction so we can learn from each other because that is what Sikhi is all about. Sadly, your comment in bold does not do justice to it. Please refrain from being argumentative because it impedes us to open our learning door within.

Lastly, let me request you as done before, please share with us your personal opinion about your observations and the proofs on what they are based.

Thanks

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji my disbelief in DG being written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji is not based solely on the lack of evidence to support such a claim. Its only one facet of why I know in my heart he did not write it.

It's the content and the fact that much of it disagrees with SGGSJ our ONLY Guru.

It's the fact that it's NOT an established part of Sikhi as you claim. It's only accepted as so by a small number of Sikhs. In order for something to be considered 'established' then certainly the majority must believe it throughout the history of Sikhi? So it's not exactly established as part of 'Sikh practice'. Pretty much EVERY Sikh I know in person both here in Canada and in India either outright do not believe it, or they don't know anything about it. It's mainly damdami taksal and nihungs who revere dasam Granth.

That's not to say I reject all writing in there. When put to litmus test of agreement with SGGSJ only about 50 pages passed.

When seceral high profile jethedars including Akal Takht head and one of which was the head granthi of darbar Sahib and other granthis of darbar Sahib all male a statement saying that charitropakhyan can not be writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, I think that disqualifies it as being established 'Sikh practice'

For me it comes down to the belief in actual deities as actual entities in dasam granth (Hindu deities) when Sikhi does not believe in deities, and the hatred towards women evident in charitropakhyan. These things do not agree with Gurbani.

Gurbani presents creation as having two aspects, nirgun and sargun. Formless (ONEness) unmanifest, and form or manifest. Ultimate reality is ONEness and creation is born from, or form arises from the formless. Creation is within the Creator and the Creator is in turn within EVERY form.
Now that means every form is equally a carrier of the same ONE divine light / conscious energy however you want to look at it. That means no single entity within the Creation can be a God. But ALL forms carry the light of God. No form carrying part of that light within the Creation can ever be wholly a God. There is only ONE God. So you see why there can't be dieties as actual entities having form wandering around as separate beings within the Creation? They would be no more Gods than we are because ultimately ALL forms ARE God!!! The concept of all these Hindu dieties flying around goes against ESTABLISHED Sikh philosophy. Meaning Dasam Granth is in contradiction! Now you already said you believe these dieties were real because of dasam Granth. So now you yourself are in contradiction with SGGSJ. (Paraphrased another members post on the philosophy from another forum but the philosophy is sound).

And of course we won't beat the dead horse on the denigration of women. It's blatant to anyone who opens those pages. I don't know how someone can ignore the literal writing so easily (and even then are you really ignoring it or just telling yourself you are? Phycholigist who read it has said it attacks male subconscious to create contempt and hatred toward women). To try to derive some deep spiritual message out of sexually explicit stories which paint women as whores and deceivers and to say our Guru wrote that is a huge disrespect to our Guru.

You can't take something that IS established right from the start as Sikh practice and somehow compare it like the 5 Ks and gurgaddi of SGGSJ which are accepted by 100% of Sikhs all through its history, unlike the spotty history of dasam Granth which has only a small amount of believers.
By the way kesh is mentioned in Gurbani and so are turbans. All the kakkars are mentioned in Bhai Daya Singh Jis rehetnama you can start there if you are really interested to read it.

Anyway I'm done with these conversations. You can argue it with Tejwant Ji and others.

 

[Kully]

Kully Ji my disbelief in DG being written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji is not based solely on the lack of evidence to support such a claim.

Good, because the evidence we have, does support the existence of, authorship of, and status amongst the Sikhs since it was written. It may not be much, but it's enough.

Its only one facet of why I know in my heart he did not write it.

Harkiran Ji, the cold facts as we have them are that Guru Gobind Singh is the author of Charitropakhyan. What you feel in your heart cannot dictate to the Guru or the Sikhs. There are many Sikhs who say "dil saaf hona chahida" - you need a clean heart, to be a sikh, not a turban and beard. It means nothing.

It's the content and the fact that much of it disagrees with SGGSJ our ONLY Guru.

I asked you this before and you never responded. I'll ask you again (that again is a common theme in these discussions), how much of DG have you actually read. I mean read, as in read the text, not translations.

Maybe you would finally share exctly how much of DG you have read?

Because to make a blanket statement like that "much of it" should mean that you have acheived some kind of progress with it, not only in reading it, but understanding it.

Remember the quote by Epictetus, and progress in reading.

When seceral high profile jethedars including Akal Takht head and one of which was the head granthi of darbar Sahib and other granthis of darbar Sahib all male a statement saying that charitropakhyan can not be writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, I think that disqualifies it as being established 'Sikh practice'

Don't bandy that around please. There was no proof that such a response was given. We have no record of it in SGPC hukumnamas, which you tried to claim it was. We have no book, no authors name, or no original letter sent to the SGPC to back it up. All we have is one person saying he wrote a letter and recieved a reply.

It's very worrying when you feel you can ignore writings 80 odd years after the event, but want to rely on writings 270 years after the event. We can at least produce Mehma Parkash to back up the original claim. But you can't back up this 1973 letter, so it would be best to not bring it up. It gets us nowhere.

For me it comes down to the belief in actual deities as actual entities in dasam granth (Hindu deities) when Sikhi does not believe in deities, and the hatred towards women evident in charitropakhyan. These things do not agree with Gurbani.

And this is why I know you haven't read DG. The belief in deities is clearly explained in DG. As for the Charitropakhyan, try reading the original text. Relying wholeheartedly on Bindra's book is why you can't understand it properly.

You can't take something that IS established right from the start as Sikh practice and somehow compare it like the 5 Ks and gurgaddi of SGGSJ which are accepted by 100% of Sikhs all through its history, unlike the spotty history of dasam Granth which has only a small amount of believers.

I'm not taking the establishment of anything. I'm asking you for proof of that establishment, that is irrefutable. Otherwise why does anyone have to beleive it, if you can't prove it. I assert that Dasam bani was part of Sikhi since it's creation, but you want proof of that from me. All I'm doing is using your argument and asking you the same question about SGGS. If SGGS was established as Guru right from the start, there would have to be some concrete proof right? But there isn't so does that mean we should refuse to recognise SGGS as Guru? Of course it doesn't because we Sikhs have faith in the tradition. I can't prove it anymore than you can but that doesn't mean I will say I don't accept it.

I'm really upset at how you have tried to paint me as trying to disprove the authenticity of SGGS in post 61. I haven't done anything of the sort. I haven't wrote anything to that effect.

By the way kesh is mentioned in Gurbani and so are turbans.

In describing Waheguru, who has no form.

All the kakkars are mentioned in Bhai Daya Singh Jis rehetnama you can start there if you are really interested to read it.

If you want to use rehitnamas for evidence then please bring it here. Don't just mention it, and expect me to find it.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

We already established that Mehma Prakash and Banasavalinama are not reliable enough to use, that majority of Sikhs don't even believe in DG or have heard of it to know what's in it.

And no there is no evidence our Guru would never write such hateful things about women. If you believe so then I don't want to associate with you any more. Next you will be saying women were never supposed to take Amrit like the rest of your buddies at you know where. Guru Gobind Singh did not paint women as whores and deceivers out to trick men. Guru Gobind singh ji would NEVER write that God regretted creating females!!!! What a great way to undo everything all the previous Gurus did to uplift women. What a great way to get men to never trust even their own wives and treat women as lesser and the embodiment of evil and deceit. I'm so sorry if you think our Guru could do that.

I'm done interacting with you. Please don't reply expecting me to answer as I am now blocking you.