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

[Original]

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.

Harkiran Ji,

Intellectual excursions can be had by millions and indeed they do for human knowledge grows out of such differences of opinions and scholars worldwide debate over what may be counted as "true, real or right" - in their respective fields. It is this kind of critical analysis that underpins philosophical treaties, but not religious. Religious belief is rooted in ones' faith and not knowledge. The ongoing debate falls within the ambit of "knowledge" and not "faith". I'm sitting on fence for two reasons:

1. by definition a Sikh is he/she who believes in both Guru Granth n Guru Panth. This rules out Kully's argument from a Sikh perspective because the panth has set aside much of the literature contained within DG and for Kully to argue to the contrary is purely subjective and not objective.
2. The arguments so far centres around analytical statements [true or false] and the juxtaposition offered on the fence is synthetic [looking to empirical evidence for verification]. Sadly, none has been tendered to render it all together conclusive.

Good day !

 

[Kully]

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?

Nobody is equating DG to SGGS. DG is that. It is not Guru Dasam Granth, nor can it ever have parkash done of it separately. DG can only parkash done of it in SGGS hazoori. Nowhere in any Gurdwara is DG parkash done by itself. Never has been so there is no question of it being equated to SGGS.

DG supporters automatically equate it with SGGSJ

No equates DG witrh SGGS. Us "supporters" give it the same respect the Sikh Panth has shown for the last 2 centuries.

because they believe it’s written by the Guru and anything written by the Guru they consider as bani.

Correct, we beleive it to be the Guru's word.

Where DG is in prakash they mathatek to it same as SGGSJ.

Absolutely, just like at Sri Akal Takht Sahib, we do matha tek to the shastars that are in central position as well as doing matha tek to SGGS.

What is wrong with that? I do mathatek to my parents everyday.

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.

To the exclusion of all else doesn't mean we can't respect or learn from DG.

If Original wants to take this "to the exclusion of all else" then he can also tell us why we need to wear turbans or keep the 5K's as this is not in SGGS.

Also Tejwant Singh Ji, if he agrees to this exclusion could respond to my previous question of using "Gurfathe" when there is no such thing in SGGS.

I feel tempted to ask you the same Harkiran Ji, but seeing as you couldn't answer the same even though I asked you many times, I'll leave it.

I'm sitting on fence for two reasons:

1. by definition a Sikh is he/she who believes in both Guru Granth n Guru Panth. This rules out Kully's argument from a Sikh perspective because the panth has set aside much of the literature contained within DG and for Kully to argue to the contrary is purely subjective and not objective.

I'm afraid you're wrong here Original. The definition of a Sikh is he "who believes in the utterances and teachings of the 10 Gurus." This is from SGPC own definition. This includes DG. At no stage ever has the Panth set aside "much of the literature contained within DG."

 

[Kully]

But let's not forget the focus of this topic. The false information that is presented by DKS should be under discussion as well.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Correct, we beleive it to be the Guru's word.

I'm afraid you're wrong here Original. The definition of a Sikh is he "who believes in the utterances and teachings of the 10 Gurus." This is from SGPC own definition. This includes DG. At no stage ever has the Panth set aside "much of the literature contained within DG."

You said it right there YOU believe it to be Gurus word. YOU are not EVERYONE and not even a majority.

Therefore to say that anyone who considers themselves to be Sikh must also believe in DG is fallacy. You think it’s bani because you personally believe it was written by Guru Gobind Singh. For rest of us, we don’t so therefore it doesn’t fall under ‘utterings and teachings of the ten Gurus.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Nobody is equating DG to SGGS. DG is that. It is not Guru Dasam Granth, nor can it ever have parkash done of it separately. DG can only parkash done of it in SGGS hazoori. Nowhere in any Gurdwara is DG parkash done by itself. Never has been so there is no question of it being equated to SGGS.

Kully ji,

It seems your self-contradictions have become your mode de vie.

So, are you trying to say that we are not equating SGGS and DG when we do their prakash together? However, if we do them separately, then only we are equating them. How so?

It is not Guru Dasam Granth

Well, then why are you doing the prakash of two together? Does that mean none of the two is Guru or both of them are?
And more importantly, in the so-called DG, we have 'Patshai 10th' which is found nowhere else. I am sure you are aware of that.
What does that make DG if not someone's Guru?

 

[Kully]

Therefore to say that anyone who considers themselves to be Sikh must also believe in DG is fallacy.

It is not fallacy. According to the SGPC it falls under the "definition of a Sikh."

You think it’s bani because you personally believe it was written by Guru Gobind Singh.

Yes. Bani means word. It was written by the Guru which makes it Guru Bani- Guru's word.

For rest of us, we don’t so therefore it doesn’t fall under ‘utterings and teachings of the ten Gurus.

Thats upto you. Like I said before, i dont' have a problem with anyone not reading/accepting DG. What I have aproblem with are the lies told by DKS and co in trying to paint a wrong picture of DG.

It seems your self-contradictions have become your mode de vie.

It's your (lack of) understanding respected Tejwant Singh.

So, are you trying to say that we are not equating SGGS and DG when we do their prakash together? However, if we do them separately, then only we are equating them. How so?

If you cared to understand my post, you would see that DG can ONLY have its parkash done in SGGS hazoori. What is there that's not to understand?

Well, then why are you doing the prakash of two together?

Me? I haven't done the parkash of it together.

Does that mean none of the two is Guru or both of them are?

No. it means that SGGS is our Guru, and DG is the respected granth of the 10th Guru.

And more importantly, in the so-called DG, we have 'Patshai 10th' which is found nowhere else. I am sure you are aware of that.

So what?

What does that make DG if not someone's Guru?

If not somone's Guru? My mother was my first Guru. Even now everyday I listen to her and receive wisdom from her. I do matha tek to her every day.

Has SGGS been replaced?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

It is not fallacy. According to the SGPC it falls under the "definition of a Sikh."

Yes. Bani means word. It was written by the Guru which makes it Guru Bani- Guru's word.

It’s ONLY Gurus word for you because you BELIEVE it is!!! For others it’s NOT his word, it’s adulterated material, therefore it’s NOT bani.

Definition of a Sikh covers writings and uttering of the ten Gurus. For those who do not believe DG was written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, it does NOT fall under the definition of utterings and writings of the ten Gurus. For you it fits in that definition only because you, personally, believe it does.