# Did Guru's Have Different Teachings?



## kds1980 (Nov 25, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Kds ji,
> In Guru Granth Sahib it says that the Gurus are God's incarnation. "In Satyug, You taught humility to Bali raja. In treta, You defeated Ravan as Sri Ram. In Dwapar, You defeated Kans as Krishan Murare. In Kaliyug, You have arrived and established your sovereign rule as Guru Nanak, Angad and Amardas. " Even Sri Ram and Krishan had different personalities yet they are also Jot of God.
> 
> I think people already know that the Gurus are different. Some were writers, some warriors, some ruled, and some went on udasis, some initiated through charan pahul, some treated the sick, some treated the wealthy, some through khande di pahul, some asked for horses and weapons, some gave their life.
> ...





Sikhism clearly says that all ten Guru's should have been considered as single entity

c. Regarding ten Gurus as the effulgence of one light and one single entity.

http://sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_four.html

And yes it will raise plenty of questions if we start considering Guru's as different.For example why are we mostly following Guru gobind singh's version of sikhism and not of other Guru's?

Which Guru's teachings were right which were wrong?

Why should we consider so and so as Guru when we belivee that their teachings is wrong

The above are just sample questions there will be many many more


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 25, 2012)

kds1980 said:


> Sikhism clearly says that all ten Guru's should have been considered as single entity
> 
> c. Regarding ten Gurus as the effulgence of one light and one single entity.
> 
> ...



This comes from the Fools wrangle thread right?

I think Bhaghat Singh is right and wrong on this. He tends to get part of the facts, and then draws a conclusion from this, which then is going to be wrong ofcourse. He's not alone. I've done it and still do it.:grinningkudi:

The above  stemmed out of what the Guru's ate i.e. some ate meat and others didn't. 

In this same way, we could say some were warriors and others weren't or some lived in palaces and others didn't.

The point is, the teaching is exactly the same. Although some ate meat and some didn't this does not mean their teaching was different, because it is consistent with the Guru Granth Sahib ji which *clearly states* that issues to do with diet are for individual own preferences. In this way some Guru's ate meat and others didn't. In the same way some may have worn blue clothes and others maybe saffron. Personal choice, but nothing inconsistent in their teaching.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 25, 2012)

The 'jyot' is about the message of gurbani and the continuation of the teachings.
Some gurus ate very basic simple lentils whilst others didn't.
What they wore, how they looked, how they slept and how they travelled was different for all of them. 
The complete unity given by the the jyot then and the jagdi or living jyot now, is so that we don't start making differences and we don't start picking out our own favourite Guru's whilst ignoring the rest.

Now if someone says that there were too many differences between them in how they conducted themselves or asks, how can there be a common light given all these differences??
-Then one only needs to look at the uniformity in the teachings as mentioned above.
If you want to look at something more evidential then you need only look at the Guru Granth Sahib ji.
Although it doesn't have writings of all 10 gurus, it was compiled over the same time span of between 2-300yrs.
If some non-sikh scholar were to study it, then they would immediately assume that it was written by ONE same person !!!
This should explain the 'jyot' a little better.

This is what out primary focus should be on before we start wandering and doubting the the gurus authenticity.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Nov 25, 2012)

> we don't start picking out our own favourite Guru's whilst ignoring the rest


Haha this is impossible. Parents tend to have favourite children and Sikhs have favourite Gurus. You are never going to get rid of this one Lucky Singh ji. 

How many Sikhs to you know of that wear a Dhumalla to resemble Sobha Singh's paintings of Guru Gobind Singh ji? And how many Sikhs do you know that wear a seli topi, because the first Guru Sahibs wore it?
This relates back to Kds ji's question:


> For example why are we mostly following Guru gobind singh's version of sikhism and not of other Guru's?


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 26, 2012)

BhagatSingh said:


> Haha this is impossible. Parents tend to have favourite children and Sikhs have favourite Gurus. You are never going to get rid of this one Lucky Singh ji.
> :


 
Hey yeah, I reckon we all have our favourites but I hope we don't ignore the rest of them or ignore their teachings.
Or to put it better, we wouldn't say that one is more of a guru than the other.

I certainly hope that people don't do that. 
It's not anything that you hear people speaking against nor does anyone advise it !!


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Nov 26, 2012)

The real character of Banee  can be understood from a Quote as

ਮਃ ੩ ॥ ਇਕਾ ਬਾਣੀ ਇਕੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਇਕੋ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥ ਸਚਾ ਸਉਦਾ ਹਟੁ ਸਚੁ ਰਤਨੀ ਭਰੇ ਭੰਡਾਰ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਈਅਨਿ ਜੇ ਦੇਵੈ ਦੇਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 646}


Poster has been warned regarding discussions of gur/guru/gurU. Please refer to this link http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurban...tml#post176243 Edited by spnadmin. 


Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Ambarsaria (Nov 26, 2012)

It is ironic and bordering on stupidity when, as suggested by some, we create our own rules for Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji banis classification and differentiation.  None of the Guru ji and others ever put down anyone or show their superiority vis-a-vis others within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  We the stupid, sometimes think we are so wise to put down this or that.  This is all divide and rule and reeks with mal-intent.  I wish anyone of these so called pickers show example of complete living following any one of the contributors in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  When they do that they will find out the futility of doing the selection or picking.  They will find links to others within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, consistency with others so strong that the whole exercise will end up being futile.  This is all frustrated chatter aimed at pinching nerves to create reaction from others if not simple disrespect.  There is plenty of history in this regard with different panthiye or maliayes.  Some spattering from SRM below,





> mIxy, msMd, DIrm`lIey, rwmrweIey, Awidk pMQ ivroDIAW nwl jW nVI mwr, kuVI mwr, isrguMm nwl vrqx vwlw qnKwhIAw ho jWdw hY[
> 
> Anyone maintaining relations or communion with elements antagonistic to the Panth including the minas (reprobates), the  masands (agents once accredited to local Sikh communities as Guru’s representatives, sine discredited for their faults and  aberrations), followers of Dhirmal or Ram Rai, etc. users of tobacco or killers of female infants.


  Perhaps the lists need to be updated as new renegades mature in their anti-Panthic activities.   Whole bunch off and on show up  here at spn too to divide, to introduce wedges, to introduce backdoor trojans in the name of scholarly discourse.

Some plain and simple decline to see the Sikhism taking shape from Sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji's Khalsa with comments above like "seli topi" and "dhumalla".  Only if wearing anything on such heads were to ever instill any Sikhi wisdom of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  I am simply aghast to see such nonsense.

That is how I feel but I so want to be wrong and be corrected.

Sat Sri Akal.

*PS:  *Trying to stay positive and below the complete shabd that prakash.s.bagga ji referred to,

ਮਃ ੩ ॥
मः ३ ॥ 
Mėhlā 3. 
Third Mehl: 
ਤੀਜੀ ਪਾਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ। 
xxx
xxx

ਇਕਾ ਬਾਣੀ ਇਕੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਇਕੋ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥
इका बाणी इकु गुरु इको सबदु वीचारि ॥ 
Ikā baṇī ik gur iko sabaḏ vīcẖār. 
There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate. 
ਅਦੁੱਤੀ ਗੁਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਇਕੋ ਹੀ ਈਸ਼ਵਰੀ ਕਥਨ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਲਈ ਇਕੋ ਹੀ ਨਾਮ ਹੈ। 
ਇਕਾ, ਇਕੁ, ਇਕੋ = ਕੇਵਲ, ਸਿਰਫ਼।
ਕੇਵਲ ਬਾਣੀ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣੀਕ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ, ਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਵਿਚਾਰੋ-

ਸਚਾ ਸਉਦਾ ਹਟੁ ਸਚੁ ਰਤਨੀ ਭਰੇ ਭੰਡਾਰ ॥
सचा सउदा हटु सचु रतनी भरे भंडार ॥ 
Sacẖā sa▫uḏā hat sacẖ raṯnī bẖare bẖandār. 
True is the merchandise, and true is the shop; the warehouses are overflowing with jewels. 
ਸੱਚਾ ਹੈ ਸੌਦਾ ਸੂਤ, ਸੱਚੀ ਦੁਕਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਸੱਚਾ ਹੀ ਜਵਾਹਿਰਾਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਭਰਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਮਾਲ ਗੋਦਾਮ। 
xxx
ਇਹੀ ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਸੌਦਾ ਹੈ, ਇਹੀ ਸੱਚਾ ਹੱਟ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਰਤਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਭੰਡਾਰੇ ਭਰੇ ਪਏ ਹਨ।

ਗੁਰ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਈਅਨਿ ਜੇ ਦੇਵੈ ਦੇਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
गुर किरपा ते पाईअनि जे देवै देवणहारु ॥ 
Gur kirpā ṯe pā▫ī▫an je ḏevai ḏevaṇhār. 
By Guru's Grace, they are obtained, if the Great Giver gives them. 
ਜੇਕਰ ਦਾਤਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਪ੍ਰਦਾਨ ਕਰੇ, ਤਾ ਹੀ ਉਹ ਗੁਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਦਇਆ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ। 
xxx
ਜੇ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲਾ (ਹਰੀ) ਦੇਵੇ ਤਾਂ (ਇਹ ਖ਼ਜ਼ਾਨੇ) ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਦੇ ਹਨ।

ਸਚਾ ਸਉਦਾ ਲਾਭੁ ਸਦਾ ਖਟਿਆ ਨਾਮੁ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥
सचा सउदा लाभु सदा खटिआ नामु अपारु ॥ 
Sacẖā sa▫uḏā lābẖ saḏā kẖati▫ā nām apār. 
Dealing in this true merchandise, one earns the profit of the incomparable Naam. 
ਇਹ ਸੱਚੇ ਸੁਦਾਗਰੀ ਦੇ ਮਾਲ ਦਾ ਵਣਜ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਆਦਮੀ ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਾਸਾਨੀ ਨਾਲ ਦਾ ਨਫਾ ਕਮਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ। 
xxx
ਜਿਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਸੱਚਾ ਸੌਦਾ (ਕਰ ਕੇ) ਬੇਅੰਤ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਲਾਭ ਖੱਟਿਆ ਹੈ,

ਵਿਖੁ ਵਿਚਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪ੍ਰਗਟਿਆ ਕਰਮਿ ਪੀਆਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
विखु विचि अम्रितु प्रगटिआ करमि पीआवणहारु ॥ 
vikẖ vicẖ amriṯ pargati▫ā karam pī▫āvaṇhār. 
In the midst of poison, the Ambrosial Nectar is revealed; by His Mercy, one drinks it in. 
ਇਸ ਜ਼ਹਿਰ ਦੇ ਜਗਤ ਅੰਦਰ ਹੀ ਨਾਮ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪ੍ਰਤੱਖ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਕੇਵਲ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਮਿਹਰ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਹੀ ਇਹ ਪਾਨ ਕੀਤਾ (ਪੀਤਾ) ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। 
ਵਿਖੁ = ਵਿਹੁ, ਜ਼ਹਿਰ। ਕਰਮਿ = ਮੇਹਰ ਨਾਲ।
ਉਸ ਨੂੰ (ਮਾਇਆ) ਜ਼ਹਿਰ ਵਿਚ ਵਰਤਦਿਆਂ ਹੀ ਨਾਮ-ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਮਿਲ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪਿਲਾਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਆਪਣੀ ਮੇਹਰ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਪਿਲਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚੁ ਸਲਾਹੀਐ ਧੰਨੁ ਸਵਾਰਣਹਾਰੁ ॥੨॥
नानक सचु सलाहीऐ धंनु सवारणहारु ॥२॥ 
Nānak sacẖ salāhī▫ai ḏẖan savāraṇhār. ||2|| 
O Nanak, praise the True Lord; blessed is the Creator, the Embellisher. ||2|| 
ਨਾਨਕ, ਤੂੰ ਸੱਚੇ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਦੀ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ ਕਰ। ਧੰਨ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਸ਼ੋਭਤ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ। 
ਧੰਨੁ = ਸਲਾਹੁਣ-ਯੋਗ ॥੨॥
ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਉਸ ਸਲਾਹੁਣ-ਜੋਗ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਸਿਮਰੀਏ ਜੋ (ਜੀਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਾਮ ਦੀ ਦਾਤਿ ਦੇ ਕੇ) ਸਵਾਰਦਾ ਹੈ ॥੨॥

ਸਤਿ = ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ ॥੧੧॥
ਦਾਸ ਨਾਨਕ ਇਹ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਦੱਸਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਦਾ-ਥਿਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਹਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਰਾਹੀਂ (ਸਿਮਰਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ) ॥੧੧॥


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 26, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji, I totally agree.
This should not even be a thread and it has only stemmed off from one of the others because differences in eating habits of the gurus were mentioned.

If anyone cannot see the uniformity in teachings and they cannot understand why the Nanak numbers were used instead of actual names of gurus, then they should re-learn the very basic foundations or dummies guide to sikhism in my opinion.

We should be spending time discussing the bani and not what the guru ate after or before he wrote it.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 26, 2012)

Ambarsaria ji

You are concerned That is how I feel but I so want to be wrong and be corrected.​ but don't worry too much. Sometimes we are looking at the work of chronic wind-up artists who don't mean any harm but just enjoy a good romp on the information highway. In this case the wind-up would be "romping with the gurus," almost creating the experience of a tv reality show.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 26, 2012)

From time" immemorial"...elements have been trying so very hard to "divide and separate" the Gurus...sometimes via their "birth"..bedis and bhallas...and sodhis - (Bachitar Natak)..sometimes via ..arm chair philosphies/theories...like..
Sixth Guru Hargobind wore two swords and took the Path of Militancy, turning the "peaceful" rleigion into a WAR ZONE ....abandoned the simple clothes and began to wear Royal clothes, began to ride horses instead of WALKING ABOUT on foot...kept soldiers, bore arms, made Takhats to sit on etc etc.. (Gurbilas Patshai Chhevin)
Then the next 3 Gurus are sort of kept in "low profile" mode even though Guru Har rai ji kept an armed Guard of 1000 of the best soldiers, Guru HarKishan ji even as a child REFUSED to see the Mughal Emperor and ignored his call..and the Guru teg bahadur Ji gave his head...and the DIVIDE separate policy again came into force with even greater strength...Guru Gobind Singh was BUSY doing Tapaiysiyah ( It doesnt matter that he was supposedly a Dusht Daman in a previous LIFE-FORM (NOT HUMAN), but the PLACE is right here on EARTH !!....when He was called upon by the Supreme to GO DOWN ?? from Hemkunt to HEMKUNT ?? and begin a BRAND NEW PANTH...( when Guru nanak Ji had already begun a BRAND NEW PANTH called the NIRMAL PANTH and which PANTH was nurtured and grown by the Nine Gurus following Him...which PANTH already had a Central Place called Akal Takhat-Harmandar Sahib, several other centers of propogation, the AAD GRANTH SGGS all ready)....so the Supreme is saying that NOBODY HE SENT DOWN EARLIER had a GOOD WORD TO SAY ABOUT ME !! each only talked about HIMSELF..IF this statement is not about Completley IGNORING the 1429 page HUGE TOME AAD GRANTH/SGGS in which EACH WORD is about ONLY the SUPREME and nothing else..and the words/actions of the 9 Guru Sahibs over the past 200++ years..then whats it about ??? and that ONLY DUSHTDAMAN going down form his Hemkunt mountain..can do the JOB (which means Guru nanak ji and his 9 following GURUS FAILED to do what they were sent down for ??).
And then the plot thickens...the Last Guru has not only a New GAME PLAN, is a former Dusht daman (not Human ) turned HUMAN, He is also a DEVI Worshipper, has his own "Granth"..etc etc..  The Last Scene of this ACT of the Strange Drama (Bachitar Natak ) is being actively played out NOW...the DG and resulting controversies DIVIDING the NIRMAL PANTH/GURU KHALSA PANTH are a continuation of this scenario from Gurbilas Patshai chhevin and so on...Several Hukmnamahs which are based on hearsay, fake writers who wrote and added vaars to established and respected writers like Bhai gurdass ji,..etc etc are all spokes of this nefarious wheel of division... We have always had Sikhs who...."Oh i am a sikh only of Guru nanak ji..I love wearing a TOPI..becasue Guru nanak ji wore one....OH I am a sikh only of Guru ramdass Ji..Ilove amrtisaree daall..oh I am Sikh only of the first 9 Gurus..I dont like keeping LONG HAIR...etc etc..BUT what these dont get is the 10 Gurus are ONE, the SGGS is ONE, gurbani is ONE, Akal Purakh is ONE..our vichaar is ONE..we worship ONE..and always be ONE...we just cannot pick and choose what we want...its either ONE or NOTHING.

TRUTH is that the 10 Gurus are ONE JYOT, they preached the EXACT SAME MESSAGE thats now in the SGGS and thats why SGGS is called the *JYOT of all 10 GURUS* even IF 3 didnt write a single word in it - they still get the CONNECTION/in the LOOP... because they followed it to the Letter and in Spirit - Shabad Guru all the way form 1469-1708.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 26, 2012)

Bingo! Gyani ji. No one can explain it as well as you do.



kds1980 said:


> And yes it will raise plenty of questions if we start considering Guru's as different.For example why are we mostly following Guru gobind singh's version of sikhism and not of other Guru's?
> 
> Which Guru's teachings were right which were wrong?
> 
> ...



kds ji, You started a good discussion and I would like to add a question that has always been a serious matter for me. Why did Guru Gobind Singh declare the Guru Granth as Guru, to follow him? Why did he do that instead of appointing a loyal follower? I have my own theory but am interested in what other forum members think about this.


----------



## Kanwaljit.Singh (Nov 26, 2012)

I think Guru Gobind Singh thought maybe one human Guru could not be at all places and at all times. With growing and spread over numbers, and a formalized Adi Granth Sahib, He realized it was time to spread the Word.


----------



## Luckysingh (Nov 26, 2012)

spnadmin said:


> kds ji, You started a good discussion and I would like to add a question that has always been a serious matter for me. Why did Guru Gobind Singh declare the Guru Granth as Guru, to follow him? Why did he do that instead of appointing a loyal follower? I have my own theory but am interested in what other forum members think about this.


 
The message of how to be gurmukh and how to live gurmat had been done. All corners had been covered from inward spiritual to outward bana and behaviour.
What would have happened if a loyal had been appointed ?
Eventually, we would have had an ongoing sequence that would most likely have resulted in it's own destruction.

When Guru Gobind Singh ji created the forever 'amar' panth khalsa, then the completion was done for us to continue in that manner.
We were all set and there were no empty gaps that needed filling.

If after this, there was still another physical Guru, then I'm not sure what this person could have taught us that already had not been covered !!

That's what I think first hand as I have never given the question much previous thought before.
Maybe there are some more rock solid reasons!


----------



## harcharanjitsinghdhillon (Nov 26, 2012)

truth is only naam the rest is just a shadow play


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 26, 2012)

Kanwaljit Singh said:


> I think Guru Gobind Singh thought maybe one human Guru could not be at all places and at all times. With growing and spread over numbers, and a formalized Adi Granth Sahib, He realized it was time to spread the Word.




The Human GURU lineage had to come to an end...and the CIRCLE wouldnt be Complete..IF the BEGINNING - Shabad Guru surat dhun chela of GURU NANAK Ji was left out of the LOOP...hence the SGGS (Shabad GURU) is the LOGICAL END ( IF a Circle can have an end/beginning ???. Guru Gobind Singh ji did exactly what GURU NANAK JI had planned.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 26, 2012)

And here are the BRAHMIN SABHAS...doing a Yatra to PAY BACK Guur teg bahdur Ji for his sacrifice....and....calling Bhai mati das, Bhai sati das and Bhai Dyala ji as BRAHMIN SHAHEEDS (ala Bhagat singh )....BUT *DROPPING the BHAI prefix* becasue that would ID them as SIKHS !!!   
And supposedly PROMOTING hindu-sikh *UNITY..by DIVIDING the UNITED* writers in SGGS..into BRAHMINS,non-Brahmins etc...The SGGS treats all as ONE..the Gurus as Nanak..Mh 1 / 2/ 3 /4 /5/9 etc...and all BHAGATS as BHAGAT..BUT these people want to "UNITE" via DIVIDING....
http://sikhspokesman.com/


----------



## Luckysingh (Dec 4, 2012)

spnadmin said:


> Why did Guru Gobind Singh declare the Guru Granth as Guru, to follow him? Why did he do that instead of appointing a loyal follower? I have my own theory but am interested in what other forum members think about this.


 
After giving this some thought, I have come with a slightly different explanation.-
- Guru Gobind Singh ji had lost his father, mother and his only 4 at the hands of the moghals. 
The four were all lost 6 years after the khalsa had been created. They were martyred within a very short space of time with eldest two going together and then the youngest two.

Guru Gobind Singh ji took it as act of hukam and accepted the divine will as being sweet (tera bhana mitha).
I would say after witnessing all this he knew that it was the hukam for him to not pursue any further gurgaddi to a person. 
The message he recieved from akal purakh was a clear indication of the message to be given.
It was the completion and that is how he probably saw it. If he didn't do the completion now, then there would forever be ongoing gurgadee issues and diversions.

To appoint the Guru granth sahib ji as guru was the most solid and profound step to take so that khalsa could continue as one.
Everything was complete as in the khalsa and the  Sri Guru Granth sahib ji.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 4, 2012)

Luckysingh said:


> Hey yeah, I reckon we all have our favourites but I hope we don't ignore the rest of them or ignore their teachings.
> Or to put it better, we wouldn't say that one is more of a guru than the other.
> 
> I certainly hope that people don't do that.
> It's not anything that you hear people speaking against nor does anyone advise it !!


Lucky Singh ji,
I hope so too. 
You and I may understand that the Gurus are teaching the same thing. So yes no one Guru is any better than the other. But that's not how it works in the world. Don't mean to be depressive and realistic but most people don't understand that. They don't understand the teachings at all. Many don't even care. Those who do care have been studying for lifetimes without really getting it. The world works on superficiality. That's how He has made it.

Now the real question to me is "What is Jyot?" It is the same Jyot that we share with the Gurus. ਮਨ ਤੂੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੂਲੁ ਪਛਾਣੁ ॥ The answer cannot be written down because it is not superficial but must be searched within oneself. Deep within we find the Jyot, and once it is known then the teachings are known. I understood the teachings when I understood Jyot. Discussions then seemed pointless and further understanding of Jyot became way more important!


----------

