Bachittar Natak Insight On Dasam Granth (bachitar Natak) | Dr Karminder Singh

[Harry Haller]

Now I can understand why something like CharitroPakhyan is way beyond you.

thats not strictly true, a better statement would be


Now I can understand why something like my understanding of CharitroPakhyan is way beyond you.

Ok, so according to you whenever a man goes to the doctor to have his prostate checked there is sexiual activity between the two? You do know that this check involves one pushing two fingers into the others {censored}? Is this sexual activity? Or is it to do with health.

given the number of doctors being struck off for this sort of thing, I don't think the scenario is as cut and dry as you might think!

 

[Kully]

You obviously have no idea how metaphors work.

Yes you must be the only one who knows how metaphors work. The one who couldn't answer even the basic questions of CharitroPakhyan setting would be the only one who knows how they work.

You said it yourself it was UNDERSTOOD that in normal condition the tortoise could NEVER win in a race with a hare. It’s UNDERSTOOD that the hare is much faster. Without that understanding you could never see how the hares ego caused him to lose.

I said that under normal conditions a hare would never race with a tortoise to begin with. Thats the bit you can't seem to get your intellect around.

Thats why I said earlier, you really really think that hares and tortoises go around racing each other.

In the case of seeing women as Maya in random stories which have nothing to do with the supposed deeper meaning, there MUST be an understanding to grasp what the metaphor is. Or else nobody would be able to put two and two together that was any deeper meaning at all.

But that's only your warped trhinking. You can't even see that the first Queen, yes a female, represents "Hukam." You are only focused on the negative aspect of Maya representing woman. This is all to do with you. No-one else.

CharitroPakhyan is like a mirror. It reflects the readers own intellect. Yours is clear to see. You an't even hold a discussion together without jumping from pillar to post to pillar. You run around in a circle from one argument to another without even basic understanding.

You are the type of person who would hate hares just because of the aspect of humanity that the hare represented. And then go around making up stories about them to others. You need to look past the hare Harkiran Ji.

You and I both know that women have been seen throughout history as temptresses and obstacles to men’s spiritual advancement.

Don't you dare claim any such thing on my behalf.

I do not beleive in any such thing. That kind of warped thinking is in your own mind.

Now we KNOW this Brahminical mindset thinking actually made it into the Chaupa Singh rehetnama..

Now it's onto another post. After that another pillar.

You are the one who has been continually disputing Gurgaddi of SGGSJ on here in the past...

Again, another lie. What do you gain from telling lies Harkiran Ji? How much further do you get in Sikhi by telling lies?

 

[Kully]

given the number of doctors being struck off for this sort of thing, I don't think the scenario is as cut and dry as you might think!

Of course. There are also "gurus" who have taken advantage of others. But the point is that when a person is bing examined by a doctor, is that in itself part of a sexual relationship? That is the point that harkiran Ji seems to overlook or just plain not understand.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

There is and has never been any professional medical association to sticking your tongue in any part of any animal let alone its genitalia. Come on you honestly can’t believe that? And then trying to justify it you are failing miserably. By the way why don’t you just use your real name Chatanga1? We all know it’s you. Your writing is identical even down to accusations of lying now LOL. By the way I am sure every regular member easily recalls your numerous posts calling into question Gurgaddi of SGGSJ in order to support DG. In fact you were given a warning by Administrator more than once regarding that.

You still have not answered this one easy question:

Is SGGSJ our ONLY Guru which Guru Gobind Singh Ji told us to bow to NO OTHER, is SGGJ our ONLY Guru complete or not? If the SAME message regarding Maya, Ego etc exists already in Gurbani, in a medium which does NOT need to paint any gender in a bad light, then why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji rewrite the SAME message in an entirely different Granth, using a very obscene medium which paints female gender as bad?? Or is SGGSJ NOT complete???

Of course. There are also "gurus" who have taken advantage of others. But the point is that when a person is bing examined by a doctor, is that in itself part of a sexual relationship? That is the point that harkiran Ji seems to overlook or just plain not understand.

 

[Kully]

There is and has never been any professional medical association to sticking your tongue in any part of any animal let alone its genitalia. Come on you honestly can’t believe that?

Re-read the same PM you sent to me explaining the story. Was there any suggestion that the man did this action for any kind of sexual stimulation or sexuak satisfaction?

And then trying to justify it you are failing miserably.

I'm failing miserably at making you understand that there was no sexual connotation to this story. Because of the involvement of the sexual organs of an animal you have jumped straight to bestiality. If that isn't failing miserably in understanding the story, then what is?

Your writing is identical even down to accusations of lying now LOL.

Yes I'm sure that I'm the only one who has been able to recognise lies you tell on this forum. You said that I doubt that Gurgaddi went to SGGS which is a lie. I have never said or insinuated that.

What I called you out on amongst other members was your dismissal of DG on certain basis that could easily be applied to SGGS. Then when I applied to same parameters of yours to SGGS you didn't have a leg to stand on. All you could feebly respond with was a copy and paste job.

That was the reality that I bought home to you and other members here. And you something? It did not go down well! It felt so bitter to you and the others!

I was hoping it would have opened your eyes and mind a little but sadly, true to form, you took it and applied some distorted angle to it.

By the way I am sure every regular member easily recalls your numerous posts calling into question Gurgaddi of SGGSJ in order to support DG. In fact you were given a warning by Administrator more than once regarding that.

The Admin couldn't answer it either. He was in the same boat as you. Personally I don't have a problem with people not accepting or dismissing DG. Thats their own choice. But what I do have a problem with is the lies that are told about DG to dismiss. Yours included.

The warning given was not a reflection of my own stance. It was given because the Admin was unable to answer the question that I put to you.

You still have not answered this one easy question:

Is SGGSJ our ONLY Guru which Guru Gobind Singh Ji told us to bow to NO OTHER, is SGGJ our ONLY Guru complete or not? If the SAME message regarding Maya, Ego etc exists already in Gurbani, in a medium which does NOT need to paint any gender in a bad light, then why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji rewrite the SAME message in an entirely different Granth, using a very obscene medium which paints female gender as bad?? Or is SGGSJ NOT complete???

One question? There are 3 there.

 

[Kully]

Ok, so according to you whenever a man goes to the doctor to have his prostate checked there is sexiual activity between the two? You do know that this check involves one pushing two fingers into the others {censored}? Is this sexual activity? Or is it to do with health.

You never answered this yet went on with questions of your own.

You and I both know that women have been seen throughout history as temptresses and obstacles to men’s spiritual advancement.

You never even apologised or retracted the above statement even though I have made my feelings clear on this.

What kind of way is this to discuss anything?

 

[Kully]

I watched a little more of this video and have some more points that I would like to share with SPN family.

Watching this video from the start really made me laugh as DKS says "there may never have been a gathering of intellectuals with such knowledge in the field of Sikhi before..." Thank God I wasn't drinking anything at that time.


At 29 mins Doctor Karminder Singh claims that "Gurbilas Patshahi Chhevin was banned in 2003."

He fails to say who banned it, or who had the power to ban it. Its simple why. There was no ban.

Vedanti wrote a preface to, and edited this book, which he himself recalled. However there are other publications of the same book which I myself bought only a year ago in Panjab. There was never any such ban in place. It is being sold openly in SGPC and private bookshops outside Darbar Sahib. Vedanti himself did recall his own publication which he edited and wrote a preface for. To say that there is a ban on it is outright misleading and mischeivous.

At 31 mins, and this is now getting onto ridiculous. DKS now talks about "Rehitnamas" and such as distorting Sikh history. Yet these very same rehitnamas are used on a daily basis everywhere inc this forum to "prove" certain things in Gurmat. Indeed I remember Harkiran Ji copy and pasting such material in order to "prove" that gurgaddi went to SGGS.


At 32 mins DKS says that "Bhai Nand Lal's Sakhee Rehat Ki" which states "istri de jame te visah nahi karna" and asks how could Guru Gobind Singh Ji say these things?

I'm a little perplexed at this as this means "Do not perform any trade in women" ie do not buy and sell women, or make make money from from women. The following lines of this part that DKS is trying to misrepresent here says :

"Elder (woman) look on as mothers, Those in similiar age look on as sisters. Do not look on others daughters and sisters with evil intentions. Do not get involved with any other woman (than your wife.)

Its quite simple here to assess that DKS has like some others have (including some members on this forum) taken one-liners and tried to present them as something else. If you take the whole verse into account then the statement is much more clearer.

 

[Admin]

You said that I doubt that Gurgaddi went to SGGS which is a lie. I have never said or insinuated that.

You have made umpteen similar posts like this... "Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

By your clause of inclusivity, everything written in this world will become part or extension of SGGS, our only Guru.

The Admin couldn't answer it either. He was in the same boat as you.

Care to explain?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Kully ji,

Guru fateh.

You write,"

Refuse to rehash it again? Please oblige me. After all, we are all here to learn share and grow. Why wouldnt you want to help another Sikh? You seem a little upset and angry with me, that I have in some way dared to question DKS video.

Let's stop distorting what I have said. Re-read it again. I never said I would not help. That is not a Sikhi way for me. I cannot say the same thing for you. All I said was that I have said everything about DG, hence I refuse to rehash. I also told you to check my posts regarding it.
Let's try to be honest while having this interaction.

What is your opinion of this video? You can certainly share that on this thread. The video is under discussion. Do you think that DKS has given accurate info in the video?

I agree with the context of the video regarding so-called DG wholeheartedly. The only things I can see you masticating, again and again, are some historical events which can always be disputed no matter who says what because history was not that important to our visionary Gurus. If it were, then they had the availability of the best scholars, writers, historians and portrait painters of the time but refused to use them.
Why do you think they refused this on purpose?
I am sure you must have the answers for that as you claim to know.

Respected Tejwant Singh Ji, I'm not.

Maybe that's your perception. I apologise profusely if it comes across that way. Maybe you could re-read my posts towards others, and notice where I have written "respected" before their names.

Using 'Respected' before addressing someone means nothing when one reads your ire coming out of your words rather than disagreements to further the interaction in order to learn from each other.
Please do not use this word when you address me. It seems very phoney. Thanks

Tejwant Singh said: ↑
Please share where and how this all started because "Ik onkar" simply means, One Source.
How does it fit in a greeting?

Your response-

A greeting can be any word or group of words can't it? What better than to greet another Sikh with the first words of our holy Guru?
Unless "Guru fateh" is in SGGS?

Once again you are distorting what I asked for the reasons only known to you. Please re-read what I said, then you would be able to respond if you wish to.

Thanks

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

You have made umpteen similar posts like this... "Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

By your clause of inclusivity, everything written in this world will become part or extension of SGGS, our only Guru.



Care to explain?

By his clause of inclusivity, anyone could write something tomorrow and claim it’s a previously unknown writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and using his own logic we have to accept that it is writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and he could never dispute it. This thinking is automatically in err. The burden of proof is in proving not disproving it or else we have to accept that everything on the planet is writing of Guru Ji until proven otherwise.

SGGSJ is different. Its the ONLY holy scripture of any religion which was written by its own Gurus and not many years later (DG was supposedly compiled many years after Guru Ji was gone). As far as Gurgaddi it was documented.

In Nanak Chandr Udai Mahaa-kavyan' by Pandit Raaj Sharma the details of the event are documented. Guru Kian Sakhyan p 220-221 also describes it in detail. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji was present at the time and recorded what Guru Ji said in a rehetnama (its reiterated by Giani Gian Singh Ji in his book Tavareek Khalsa in 1891 for reference but original can be found) So it was well witnessed and documented without any break in time from occurrence to documentation.

We can’t say the same for DG as the first mention of any writing by Guru Gobind Singh a Ji occurred many years AFTER he was gone from this world, by heresay. The letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji was discounted as being fake by means of dating the writing style and materials used. If we go to the next references of any writing from Guru Gobind Singh Ji it’s now 3/4 of a century after Guru Ji was gone. Just look even in recent history at how much we have inaccurately recorded from even 50 years ago!! And this too when Guru Ji himself never mentioned any such writing while he was alive. Not to mention why would all the other Gurus sign as Nanak why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji sign differently?

Anyway his reasoning is flawed. And yes the burden of proof is on proving existence of and assuming it’s legit until proven otherwise. Or else we could end up with some seriously spurious texts attributed to our Gurus.

 

[Kully]

You have made umpteen similar posts like this... "Dasam" Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

Like what? I'm not sure which post you are refering to.

The topic you have linkied above was a very good discussion even though Harkiran Ji did her best to derail it. There is certainly a lot to learn from that topic.

By your clause of inclusivity, everything written in this world will become part or extension of SGGS, our only Guru.

No, there is no eternal or limitless inclusivity. We can set these boundaries but, and it is a big but, we have to be extremely careful of these boundaries we set, because they could work against some the core principles of Sikhi. I don't want to be the person who fell on his own sword. I don't want you to be either Aman Singh Ji.

Care to explain?

Gladly.

One of the things that people who are against DG say is that there is a lack of historical proof from secondary sources (even though this is somwhat true, in that we don't have many sources that do talk of DG, but the few resources we DO have, all provide proof of the historicity of DG) and as you yourself said (correctly) that some of these sources were written some time after Guru Sahibs passing. But these same sources also provide the proof that Guru Sahib passed Gurgaddi onto SGGS.

My further question was to any forum member to provide any proof that Guru Sahib did, and although Harkiran Ji did to her credit find some copy and paste articles on the net, they were easily refuted. No-one else responded apart from your good self who warned me not to repeat the same line again.

I knew that nobody would be able to provide any proof that was 100% dependable. I already knew that before I asked the question.

I didn't ask it to question whether SGGS is Guru or not. I think Aman Singh that you also knew that as well. I know that there is no proof that Guru Sahib gave gurgaddi to SGGS (outside of the sources that also supprt DG) but the difference is that I have faith in the story that has been passed down through time.

I believe that Guru Sahib gave gurgaddi to SGGS, and I don't care who in the world I can't prove it to. You can ask me Aman Singh Ji, and my response to itwill be "I believe that Guru Sahib gave gurgaddi to SGGS." Ask me to prove it and I can't.

The same applies to DG. Some people here are asking for 100% concrete, solid proof of DG and its historicity, whereas the fact is that as Sikhs, we can't do the same for SGGS. All I was doing was opening your eyes and mind to this.

Now some people want to hold different criteria over both Granths. This is just because of their own personal thinking of DG.

And remember, I will repeat, I have no problem with any Sikh not believing in DG or not reading it, but I do have a problem with the falsehoods that are created about DG to influence others.

I never said I would not help.

Respected Tejwant Singh, of course you didn't. But you didn't want to help me to help myself. You know where the info is on this site and you could have provided a link as Aman Singh has done above. But you would rather me just search a forum with thousands of posts and articles. That's not really helping.

All I said was that I have said everything about DG, hence I refuse to rehash.

You don't need to rehash. You just to need to discuss and share your thoughts on the topic. Who's to say you haven't learnt anything new since the last time you discussed a subject? Learning is a continual process. Sharing should be as well.

The only things I can see you masticating, again and again, are some historical events which can always be disputed no matter who says what because history was not that important to our visionary Gurus.

Historical events can be disputed as to when and where, who and how. But they cannot be dismissed. History may not have been that important to the Gurus but there was still a certain amount of history involved for the Sikhs to learn lessons from.

Once again you are distorting what I asked for the reasons only known to you. Please re-read what I said, then you would be able to respond if you wish to.

You seemed a little unsure about how I greeted respected Gyani Jarnial Singh. All I said was that I didn't want to greet him with "kachi bani". As "Guru-Fateh" is not in SGGS, it is kachi bani isn't it? And as "Waheguru Ji ki Fateh" appears in DG, it must be the greetings that Udasis/Nirmalas/Brahmans/Sakat-Panthis/English used. That is what DKS is trying to say in his video isn't it?

 

[Kully]

By his clause of inclusivity, anyone could write something tomorrow and claim it’s a previously unknown writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and using his own logic we have to accept that it is writing of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and he could never dispute it.

No we couldn't. The texts that were written by the Gurus are very limited to SGGS, DG and hukamnamas. There are other manuscripts written by Sikhs and historians that do pop up from time to time, and these have to be researched.

he burden of proof is in proving not disproving it or else we have to accept that everything on the planet is writing of Guru Ji until proven otherwise.

Original did also correct you on this "burden of proof" in one of our past discussions. I would re-read that. If you can't find it, then perhaps Original could once again write it here. I hope he doesn't mind. I'm sure its not the first time someone has had to repeat themselves to you over and over.

SGGSJ is different. Its the ONLY holy scripture of any religion which was written by its own Gurus and not many years later (DG was supposedly compiled many years after Guru Ji was gone).

Why are there many different variants of SGGS then? When the SGPC in the 1940s studied the various sarops they found in total that there were 570 differences in spelling, banis and structure of the various saroops.

And there is a difference in written and compiling. Nowhere is it said that Bhai Mani Singh wrote anything in DG but collected it from various sources.

As far as Gurgaddi it was documented.

Two of the Darbari Kavis "Kavi Sena Singh aka Senapati" an Dhadi Natha Singh who were with Guru Sahib for the last 10 years of his life make no mention of giving gurgaddi to SGGS.

In Nanak Chandr Udai Mahaa-kavyan' by Pandit Raaj Sharma the details of the event are documented.

Provide a link to that work here. Don't just post random names here as if they hold any merit.

Guru Kian Sakhyan p 220-221 also describes it in detail.

Harkiran Ji, I give you credit. Even though you seem to have realy no idea of what you are talking about, you still try and come with something, no matter how futile these attempts are.

Guru Kian Sakhi was written in 1791. Almost 85 years after the event. How can this be any more accurate than other texts written almost half a century before?

Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji was present at the time and recorded what Guru Ji said in a rehetnama

I'm getting used to repeating myself to you. When you brought this up in the other topic, I pointed out to you that this rehetnama is dated in 1697. 11 years before the actual date. I didn't really think you would bring it up again...

(its reiterated by Giani Gian Singh Ji in his book Tavareek Khalsa in 1891 for reference but original can be found)

The original date of the work is 1697. So how can Gyan Singh who wrote almost 190 years after the event be a creditable source?

So it was well witnessed and documented without any break in time from occurrence to documentation.

So was DG. So why the two attitudes on both? Apply the same criteria.

We can’t say the same for DG as the first mention of any writing by Guru Gobind Singh a Ji occurred many years AFTER he was gone from this world, by heresay.

Again you expose how little you know. The first mention of "any writing" by Guru Gobind Singh Ji is 1711 in a book. 3 years after the event. The other places are various rehatnamas, the more plausible one with matching dependable dates in 1719.

Anyway his reasoning is flawed.

"his?" A little rude isn't it.

I like that you can see my "flawed" reasoning but still try provide inconsistent texts or texts written 190 years after the event to try and prove it.

And yes the burden of proof is on proving existence of and assuming it’s legit until proven otherwise.

Again I will refer you to originals response.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully (chatanga1) please refrain from personal attacks. (Like using the word ‘derail a topic’ when someone disagrees with you). However your tone and language (and personal attacks) indicate your actual identity and though another forum may have given you freedom to use derragatory language, false accusations and personal attacks to the point I had to leave, this forum doesn’t tolerate such behaviour. Just putting Ji by my name does nothing when your intentions are very clear.

Just as you are so sure Guru Gobind Singh could write what is in DG, there are those of us who using SGGSJ as the litmus test, are 100% sure he did not write those things.

As I have asked before, Gurbani aka SGGSJ is considered fully wholly or Guru. If it’s our ONLY Guru then it is 100% complete. When Gurbani is 100% complete and already contains the EXACT same messages as DG, and in a way which is not in some hidden cryptic method then why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji ever think it was necessary to rewrite the SAME knowledge in a way which outwardly denigrates the entire female gender, especially when at that time females were already seen in a bad light by the vast majority as being temptresses and obstacles to men’s spiritual progression, knowing that the majority of readers would never understand some supposed hidden deeper spiritual message, and instead only see the countless times where it tells men that women are deceivers to be distrusted???? When the SAME messages about mind/ego/Maya/ etc exist in SGGSJ in a way which doesn’t need to denigrate anyone or use lewd stories!!!

You also seem to have a bad memory and a huge ego regarding past posts on here.

And with that I am done. Since you can’t interact in a civilized manner I’d prefer not to interact with you.

No we couldn't. The texts that were written by the Gurus are very limited to SGGS, DG and hukamnamas. There are other manuscripts written by Sikhs and historians that do pop up from time to time, and these have to be researched.




Original did also correct you on this "burden of proof" in one of our past discussions. I would re-read that. If you can't find it, then perhaps Original could once again write it here. I hope he doesn't mind. I'm sure its not the first time someone has had to repeat themselves to you over and over.




Why are there many different variants of SGGS then? When the SGPC in the 1940s studied the various sarops they found in total that there were 570 differences in spelling, banis and structure of the various saroops.

And there is a difference in written and compiling. Nowhere is it said that Bhai Mani Singh wrote anything in DG but collected it from various sources.




Two of the Darbari Kavis "Kavi Sena Singh aka Senapati" an Dhadi Natha Singh who were with Guru Sahib for the last 10 years of his life make no mention of giving gurgaddi to SGGS.




Provide a link to that work here. Don't just post random names here as if they hold any merit.




Harkiran Ji, I give you credit. Even though you seem to have realy no idea of what you are talking about, you still try and come with something, no matter how futile these attempts are.

Guru Kian Sakhi was written in 1791. Almost 85 years after the event. How can this be any more accurate than other texts written almost half a century before?




I'm getting used to repeating myself to you. When you brought this up in the other topic, I pointed out to you that this hukumnama is dated in 1697. 11 years before the actual date. I didn't really think you would bring it up again...




The original date of the work is 1697. So how can Gyan Singh who wrote almost 190 years after the event be a creditable source?




So was DG. So why the two attitudes on both? Apply the same criteria.





Again you expose how little you know. The first mention of "any writing" by Guru Gobind Singh Ji is 1711 in a book. 3 years after the event. The other places are various rehatnamas, the more plausible one with matching dependable dates in 1719.





"his?" A little rude isn't it.

I like that you can see my "flawed" reasoning but still try provide inconsistent texts or texts written 190 years after the event to try and prove it.





Again I will refer you to originals response.

Ji

 

[Kully]

Kully (chatanga1) please refrain from personal attacks. (Like using the word ‘derail a topic’ when someone disagrees with you).

it's a statement made from past proof Harkiran Ji. Some topics we barely get started on, and you change the focus of it by repeating statements.

Case in point, this very topic. it's about a video by DKS. The video is under discussion, nothing else, yet you have again repeated the very same statements you have already received answers for. Example, the burden of proof AND Bhai Prehlad Singhs rehitnama.

As I have asked before, Gurbani aka SGGSJ is considered fully wholly or Guru.

Ok, so...

If it’s our ONLY Guru then it is 100% complete.

maybe you can explain where in SGGS the requirement for Khande ki pahul is, to start with?

And with that I am done.

Of course you are Harkiran Ji. But this isn't the first time you've been "done" on this forum is it? You seem to have a manner of getting involved in discussions yet finding some way out when you can't get past a certain point. It's like you have an agenda here. You want to press your point of view on everyone without any discussion taking place. Well guess what? This is a forum for discussion. It's a forum to learn, share and discuss. If you are against learning, sharing or discussing anything on this forum then you alone can make the decision what you are here for exactly.

Since you can’t interact in a civilized manner I’d prefer not to interact with you.

Ascribing words to other members is a civilized manner?

Have I ever said that you say/claim such and such?

Refering to other members as "he" is civilized?

have I ever refered to you as "she"?

Writing outrageous lies such as "he doubts the guruships of SGGS" when i have never intimated anything towards that , is civilized?

Have I ever made up any outrageous lies about you ?

Writing that you hoped "i never get married" only a week or two after I congratulated you on your marriage, is a civilised way to conduct yourself?

Why would anyone write something so despicable?

You don't have to agree with anything I write. You have the right to voice your opinion and write any rebuttals you see fit. But don't deny me that same opportunity you seek for yourself. And you need to think about what behaviour of yours falls outside civilized and not repeat it. You should really apologise for the way you have treated me on this forum.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Guru Fateh Kully ji,

Respected Tejwant Singh, of course you didn't. But you didn't want to help me to help myself. You know where the info is on this site and you could have provided a link as Aman Singh has done above. But you would rather me just search a forum with thousands of posts and articles. That's not really helping.

As said before not to use Respected before my name because it is phoney especially coming from you. Please adhere to my request as an adult. No bacha Bazi here.


I am sorry to say I am more confused than ever before about your response.

Respected Tejwant Singh, of course you didn't. But you didn't want to help me to help myself.

Thanks for agreeing that I never said I would not help you. However, under the same breath, you say-

But you didn't want to help me to help myself. You know where the info is on this site

Here you are contradicting yourself and are accusing me of something false. You seem to act like Ms. Cleo (she spent years behind the bars because of her claim to mind reading)
Where did I say I did not want to help you?

You know where the info is on this site

Are you sure about the above or are you making a futile attempt to read my mind again?
How do you know I know where the Info is?
The fact is I do not.
Did you ask Aman Singh ji for help who is the Admin here where to find them?

You don't need to rehash. You just to need to discuss and share your thoughts on the topic. Who's to say you haven't learnt anything new since the last time you discussed a subject? Learning is a continual process. Sharing should be as well.

This is the reason, I asked you to read all that I have written about the so-called DG here so any questions could be answered. It is as simple as that.

You seemed a little unsure about how I greeted respected Gyani Jarnial Singh. All I said was that I didn't want to greet him with "kachi bani". As "Guru-Fateh" is not in SGGS, it is kachi bani isn't it? And as "Waheguru Ji ki Fateh" appears in DG, it must be the greetings that Udasis/Nirmalas/Brahmans/Sakat-Panthis/English used. That is what DKS is trying to say in his video isn't it?

It seems you have the habit of claiming to know more about the others than about yourself. I am not confused at all. I have no idea about you.
I asked you a simple question and it seems you are not capable to find the answer. No one is talking about Kachi Bani here. That is from your own imagination.

 

[Original]

Pyari saad sangat ji

Forgive me for intersecting but I have something to say. I haven't thoroughly followed the argument between all the parties save skim read bits n bobs to get the gist, suffices however, an overview which I now make below.

In academic writing expressing a point of view as a subject must be supported with evidence. This evidence can be in various forms, that is, facts, experiences or data of any reasonable assumptions that can be given to support the claim. Sadly however, Indian histories often begin with a gripe about the poverty of the available sources that can legitimately stand up to rational examination. There is considerable documentational void and inconsistencies, deeming them as it were, airy fairy. As a result, academics have concluded that 80 per cent of the attestable literature cannot be counted as "good" history. With that in mind, I'm mindful as to how conclusive are the two arguments [K v HKJ] ? They both can't be conclusive because there either is a Guru Gobind Singh writer or there isn't ?

People like me who sit on the fence and listen to the two agruments unfold will usually conclude that there isn't any conclusive argument for or against the claims made and rebutted. And those who think they have found "one" only think that because they want to believe it.

My own view

The institution of "Guru" in Sikhism is fundamental. So fundamental that without it there is "no" Sikhism. Given Guru Gobind Singh had conferred the "guru ship" upon the present SGGSJ to the exclusion of ALL else. Resurrecting or equating DG to SGGSJ will go against Sikh belief n value.

Many thanks - enjoy Sunday !

 

[Harry Haller]

The institution of "Guru" in Sikhism is fundamental. So fundamental that without it there is "no" Sikhism. Given Guru Gobind Singh had conferred the "guru ship" upon the present SGGSJ excludes ALL else. Resurrecting or equating DG to SGGSJ goes against Sikh belief n value.

just out of curiosity does anyone have a differing view?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Pyari saad sangat ji

Forgive me for intersecting but I have something to say. I haven't thoroughly followed the argument between all the parties save skim read bits n bobs to get the gist, suffices however, an overview which I now make below.

In academic writing expressing a point of view as a subject must be supported with evidence. This evidence can be in various forms, that is, facts, experiences or data of any reasonable assumptions that can be given to support the claim. Sadly however, Indian histories often begin with a gripe about the poverty of the available sources that can legitimately stand up to rational examination. There is considerable documentational void and inconsistencies, deeming them as it were, airy fairy. As a result, academics have concluded that 80 per cent of the attestable literature cannot be counted as "good" history. With that in mind, I'm mindful as to how conclusive are the two arguments [K v HKJ] ? They both can't be conclusive because there either is a Guru Gobind Singh writer or there isn't ?

People like me who sit on the fence and listen to the two agruments unfold will usually conclude that there isn't any conclusive argument for or against the claims made and rebutted. And those who think they have found "one" only think that because they want to believe it.

My own view

The institution of "Guru" in Sikhism is fundamental. So fundamental that without it there is "no" Sikhism. Given Guru Gobind Singh had conferred the "guru ship" upon the present SGGSJ to the exclusion of ALL else. Resurrect or equating DG to SGGSJ will go against Sikh belief n value.

Many thanks - enjoy Sunday !

You are talking a lot but saying nothing which is expected.

So why are you on the fence after your proclamation,” Resurrect or equating DG to SGGSJ will go against Sikh belief n value?”

Why this cop out of being on the fence while admitting SGGS is our only Guru?

Thanks.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

DG supporters automatically equate it with SGGSJ they have no choice because they believe it’s written by the Guru and anything written by the Guru they consider as bani. Along with a third Granth Sarbloh Granth. They equate the three together as Gurbani.
Where DG is in prakash they mathatek to it same as SGGSJ.

I too wonder how Original Ji can be ‘on the fence’ while also stating that SGGSJ is our only Guru to exclusion of all else, and that DG cannot be equated to it.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just say you prefer not to comment either way?

You are talking a lot but saying nothing which is expected.

So why are you on the fence after your proclamation,” Resurrect or equating DG to SGGSJ will go against Sikh belief n value?”

Why this cop out of being on the fence while admitting SGGS is our only Guru?

Thanks.

 

[Harry Haller]

I would also like to make a statement, it is my position regarding Brexit.

I haven't thoroughly followed the argument between all the parties save skim read bits n bobs to get the gist, suffices however, an overview which I now make below.

In poltical writing expressing a point of view as a subject must be supported with evidence.This evidence can be in various forms, that is, facts, experiences or data of any reasonable assumptions (that I feel reasonable) that can be given to support the claim.Sadly however, UK politics often begins with a gripe about the poverty of the available sources that can legitimately stand up to rational examination.There is considerable documentational void and inconsistencies, deeming them as it were, airy fairy. As a result, politicians have concluded that 80 per cent of the attestable literature cannot be counted as reliable.

With that in mind, I'm mindful as to how conclusive are the two arguments Brexit Vs Remain ? They both can't be conclusive because there either is a benefit in leaving or not.

People like me who sit on the fence and listen to the two agruments unfold will usually conclude that there isn't any conclusive argument for or against the claims made and rebutted. And those who think they have found "one" only think that because they want to believe it.

My own view

The institution of democracy is fundamental. So fundamental that without it there are no politics. Given that we have a sovereign Queen, the issue of Brexit or Remain is irrelevant as long as we believe in the Queen.

I hope I have made my position fully clear, thank you