# Integrity And Honesty In Discussion



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Dear All,

I had opened a topic "Sabh sikhan ko hukam hai guru maneo granth" under the intention of the origins and written evidence of this dohra from Guru Gobind Singh's hand.

I knew before hand that there is no such dohra written by Guru Sahib hand. In fact I was just seeing how the topic would go. 

The tradition is the Guru Sahib said this (or something similiar) and then it found its way to being written down. 
But if we ask for written evidence, in the same vein that harkiran Ji said she needed something concrete, beyond doubt, to say that Charitropakhyan was Guru's own words, then nobody will be able to produce evidence. So what if other Sikhs started to say (as Harkiran did) that if that is the case then they are giving up Sikhism? What would we think then?


You see, my main intention was to fathom how people, under the garb of intellectualism and learning, will maintain any academic integrity when the subject matter is one they don't doubt.

I have no doubt that SGGS is the Guru after the 10 jamas. But I wanted test the reaction of applying the same rationale or methodolgy for rejecting DG to SGGS, to see whether the members on this forum would be able to, firstly see that their same scrutiny is being applied, and also whether their rationale or methodogy is fair. 

Seeing as how the topic went, it does rather display the objective that I set out to test. The same rules when aplied to SGGS, as applied to DG, resulted in sensationalism and accusations. 

It is intellect fraud to do this. We need to be more honest and work with more integrity when discussing things, and not resort to hooliganism. 

For those who have looked into both granths, and studied them carefully will notice that if you make one realisation about one then it will apply to the other. It astounds me that the Admins will take sides with a members hooliganism and accusations of "publicly demeaning SGGS" but remain mute when someone refers to DG as "a porn book". 

Remember how important "honesty" is in life.


----------



## Ishna (Sep 9, 2016)

So you *have* read the Dasam Granth, inclusive of the Charitropakhyan.  Despite claims of only being a beginner to lead Harkiran Kaur into your trap. 10/10 for honesty and integrity, mate


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Ishna said:


> So you *have* read the Dasam Granth, inclusive of the Charitropakhyan.



No, I haven't read ALL of it. Neither have I claimed to do so. 

But reading is one thing, and understanding is another. 

I havent read ALL of Charitropakhyan either. Harkiran has read ALL of it. I have only started on the beginning so far, as I said in my posts. But do I feel she has understod it? No. not because  want to feel that, but simply from the response given to the questions I asked her. I mean, she couldn't even explain the background to the text correctly. 



Ishna said:


> Despite claims of only being a beginner to lead Harkiran Kaur into your trap.



Trap? I'm not a hunter, and Harkiran is not a prey. Why would asking questions be like laying a trap? If you want to see traps, then see the trap she laid for herself, by rejecting DG but accepting SGGS on the same premise. 



Ishna said:


> 10/10 for honesty and integrity, mate



Thank you but please, it's not necessary. I am always open for debate and discussion. Things I don't know the answers to, I will come straight out and say it. Thats where honesty is important. We are all here to learn after all. And as for intergrity, thats very important. I won't use sources to bolster something I claim and then discard the same source if it has been proved wrong. Nor will I jump from pillar to post to pillar to keep changing the ethos o the topic. Nor will I use sources that are untraceable. To me, that is an insult to discussion and certainly not the actions of an intellectual.

Let's keep the topic moving without resorting to cheap shots like " traps" and "publicly insulting SGGS". It just ruins a good forum, not just for us, but for any future visitors to this forum.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully Jee

Are not you contented with SGGS our only Puran Guru and that you are desparately trying to challenge and bring it at par with SGGS. Tell me do you find anything extra in DG to be sachiar that we contemplate and research. With first glance I find DG is full of contradiction. On one hand it swaeyee it condemns pilgrimage, ' ਕਹਾ ਭਯੋ ਜੋ ਦੋਊ ਲੋਚਨ ਮੂੰਦ ਕੈ ਬੈਠਿ ਰਹਿਓ ਬਕ ਧਯਾਨ ਲਗਾਇਓ। ਨ੍ਹਾਤ ਫਿਰਿਓ ਲੀਏ ਸਾਤ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰਨਿ ਲੋਕ ਗਯੋ ਪਰਲੋਕ ਗਵਾਇਓ। ਬਾਸੁ ਕੀਓ ਬਿਖਿਆਨ ਸੋ ਬੈਠ ਕੇ ਐਸੇ ਹੀ ਐਸ ਸੁ ਬੈਸ ਬਿਤਾਇਓ। ਸਾਚੁ ਕਹੋਂ ਸੁਨ ਲੇਹੁ ਸਭੈ ਜਿਨ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀਓ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਇਓ।   on the other hand it glorifies pillgrimages by saying, 'ਮੁਰ ਪਿਤ ਪੂਰਬ ਕੀਯਸਿ ਪਯਾਨਾ॥ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਕੇ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਨਾਨਾ॥ ਜਬ ਜੀ ਜਾਤ ਤ੍ਰਿਬੇਣੀ ਭਏ॥ ਪੁੰਨ ਦਾਨ ਦਿਨ ਕਰਤ ਬੀਤਏ॥੧॥  ਤ੍ਰਿਬੇਣੀ -  ਪ੍ਰਯਾਗ, ਅਲਾਹਾਬਾਦ ਤਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ ਹਮਾਰਾ ਭਯੋ॥ਪਟਨਾ ਸਹਰ ਬਿਖੈ ਭਵ ਲਯੋ॥


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> Are not you contented with SGGS our only Puran Guru



I am totally contented with SGGS as puran Guru.




japjisahib04 said:


> that you are desparately trying to challenge and bring it at par with SGGS.



Respecting DG does not in any way mean you are disrespecting DG. The Sikh Panth has been following DG since it was written in 1696. To claim what you are saying would mean that the Panth has disrespected SGGS from day one.




japjisahib04 said:


> With first glance I find DG is full of contradiction.



You have listed what you percieve to be a contradiction, by posting one line from one bani and one line from another.

If the Admins are agreeable then we can loook at it here, or shall we start a new thread for it? Admins please advise.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> The Sikh Panth has been following DG since it was written in 1696. To claim what you are saying would mean that the Panth has disrespected SGGS from day one


Please advise when was the first inaguration (prakash) of DG took place and did it had anything extra that it was required?


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> Please advise when was the first inaguration (prakash) of DG took place and did it had anything extra that it was required?



Thanks for the question. Although the DG was written before SGGS was finalised by Guru Ji in 1706, Guru Sahib never inaugareted DG because it was never destined to become our Guru. Pothi Sahib was always destined to be our Guru, so the only inaugaration was for SGGS in 1708.

We can learn a little more about this, I think it is Bansawlinama, but I will have to take another look to confirm, where Guru Sahib says "Aad pothi is Tikka Sahib...", so the need for any inaugaration of DG was not necessary. 

Hope that goes someway to answering the first part of your fascinating question. 



japjisahib04 said:


> Please advise when was the first inaguration (prakash) of DG took place and did it had anything extra that it was required?



Forgive me, I do not understand what you are asking.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

Kullyji

I like you, I like your discussions and I like the way you debate, its very exact, very easy to read, to understand, but let us not deviate what could be a good discussion on a good topic with focus on personalities, I like the stuff you write, but lets keep it cool, otherwise it looks like you have an agenda, which of course, is not the case. 

back to topic, your argument is a good one, I look forward to calm, polite and respectful debate.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> I am totally contented with SGGS as puran Guru.


Then what is your point?



Kully said:


> Respecting DG does not in any way mean you are disrespecting DG. The Sikh Panth has been following DG since it was written in 1696. To claim what you are saying would mean that the Panth has disrespected SGGS from day one.



Can you clarify this, I find it hard to understand


Kully said:


> You have listed what you percieve to be a contradiction, by posting one line from one bani and one line from another.
> 
> If the Admins are agreeable then we can loook at it here, or shall we start a new thread for it? Admins please advise.



no need, both have areas of perceived ambiguity, some knowledge of background, of language, and to have a blessed heart helps, but there is point bandying about random quotes unless you are prepared to quote the whole shabad and a personal explanation of your understanding, in which case I would be delighted.


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> back to topic, your argument is a good one, I look forward to calm, polite and respectful debate.



Thank you. I cannot stress enough the need for honesty in discussion. This is very important in a forum, as people will come here to learn. Our honesty here is an obligation, because in my opinion, you can't search for the truth whilst telling lies. 




Harry Haller said:


> Then what is your point?



I accept SGGS as my puran Guru. It was a response to another post which asked if I did.



Harry Haller said:


> Can you clarify this, I find it hard to understand



Certainly. Let me try it this way. 

Queen Elizabeth has 3 sons, but only Prince Charles will be King. He will be the King of Britain. Does that mean that we need to have no recognition of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward?

If I were to acknowledge Princes Andrew and Edwards as the children of the Queen and therefore princes in their own right, would that be denigrating King Charles position?

In the same way, can't I say that DG being the writings of Guru Sahib is very important to me, without being accused of "abandoning SGGS, or "making DG on par with SGGS" or as has been stated above "not be content with Charles as King"? 

Will I stop accepting KIng Charles as King? 



Harry Haller said:


> but there is point bandying about random quotes unless you are prepared to quote the whole shabad and a personal explanation of your understanding, in which case I would be delighted.



Yes, I would second that. If the poster could put up a little more of the texts and their placings in DG, it would help to look at them more closely.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

ok I am now debating the same topic on two different threads, so you believe in the DG is written by the tenth Guru, but is not in any way on a par with the SGGS?


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> but is not in any way on a par with the SGGS?



I don't think anything is on a par with SGGS.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> I don't think anything is on a par with SGGS.



so what exactly is your argument?


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> so what exactly is your argument?



Argument? It's not an argument, I'm asking the forum to have some integrity and be honest in thier activity on this forum. I see that my post detailing Harkiran's activity on here recently has dissappeared. That's exactly what i want to see in this forum. People posting honestly and not posting mistruths to mislead others like Harkiran did. 

It's more of a plea than an  argument.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> Argument? It's not an argument, I'm asking the forum to have some integrity and be honest in thier activity on this forum. I see that my post detailing Harkiran's activity on here recently has dissappeared. That's exactly what i want to see in this forum. People posting honestly and not posting mistruths to mislead others like Harkiran did.
> 
> It's more of a plea than an  argument.



I have never mislead anyone. The sources you want to use are not reliable. At least they would not hold in a court of law lets put it that way. There is no mistruth in the fact that DG OUTWARDLY denigrates women, and that goes against what ALL the Gurus said about equality and male / female. Even if it was just to use metaphor, our Guru would never *knowingly *drag one gender under the bus just to illustrate a point that is completely unrelated. (In fact none of our Gurus would knowingly denigrate ANYONE where it isn't warranted, just to make a point) Our Guru does not need to completely degrade women in order to put forth some hidden ideas - the same ideas already contained in SGGSJ - Nor would there be direct commands to men, to distrust women. There is no misleading there. Now, certain members on another forum claim that Guru Ji is not denigrating women.... for the fact that they see woman as DESERVING of that treatment. In other words, they believe what Charitropakhyan says about women, therefore women ARE immoral and deceitful therefore there is no denigration because they see it as being true. Do you fall in that camp??

It would be like me writing a story about how men are all rapists and murderers and that women can't trust any man and women should never share their secrets with men, and men should be kept under lock and key and only do what their wives tell them to.   -----  And I'll just leave it like that with no explanation. And then think someone in 100 years will say hey, she never meant the outward story, there is a big hidden spiritual meaning there. She isn't denigrating men if you really knew the hidden meaning! Now imagine if I had a status as elevated as our Guru (in any religion). How would men feel reading that???


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> Argument? It's not an argument, I'm asking the forum to have some integrity and be honest in thier activity on this forum. I see that my post detailing Harkiran's activity on here recently has dissappeared. That's exactly what i want to see in this forum. People posting honestly and not posting mistruths to mislead others like Harkiran did.
> 
> It's more of a plea than an argument.



Do you wish to debate the point, or enter into a personal war of words with Harkiranji, if the former, get on with it, if the latter, take it to PM


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Queen Elizabeth has 3 sons, but only Prince Charles will be King. He will be the King of Britain. Does that mean that we need to have no recognition of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward?
> If I were to acknowledge Princes Andrew and Edwards as the children of the Queen and therefore princes in their own right, would that be denigrating King Charles position?
> In the same way, can't I say that DG being the writings of Guru Sahib is very important to me, without being accused of "abandoning SGGS, or "making DG on par with SGGS" or as has been stated above "not be content with Charles as King"?
> Will I stop accepting KIng Charles as King


Kully Jee
Why Guru Nanak didn't give acceptance to his own real and authentic sons. I hope this clears your doubt.


Kully said:


> Forgive me, I do not understand what you are asking.


 I mean, Is the message in SGGS incomplete to be sachiar that we need to bring DG at par with SGGS? Do DG has any additional information or any mantar for us to be sachiar?


Kully said:


> Guru Sahib never inaugareted DG because it was never destined to become our Guru. Pothi Sahib was always destined to be our Guru, so the only inaugaration was for SGGS in 1708.


Then who are we to bring DG at par with SGGS and treat like Guru?
I don't list anything out of context. And I have noticed you are the master of DG, may bring the whole sabd for clarity.

Further on one hand DG criticizes jap tap and says, 'ਕਹਾ ਭਯੋ ਜੋ ਦੋਊ ਲੋਚਨ ਮੂੰਦ ਕੈ ਬੈਠਿ ਰਹਿਓ ਬਕ ਧਯਾਨ ਲਗਾਇਓ। ਨ੍ਹਤ ਫਿਰਿਓ ਲੀਏ ਸਾਤ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰਨਿ ਲੋਕ ਗਯੋ ਪਰਲੋਕ ਗਵਾਇਓ। ਬਾਸੁ ਕੀਓ ਬਿਖਿਆਨ ਸੋ ਬੈਠ ਕੇ ਐਸੇ ਹੀ ਐਸ ਸੁ ਬੈਸ ਬਿਤਾਇਓ। ਸਾਚੁ ਕਹੋਂ ਸੁਨ ਲੇਹੁ ਸਭੈ ਜਿਨ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਕੀਓ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਇਓ। and on other hand glorify jap tap by saying, 'ਅਬ ਮੈ ਅਪਨੀ ਕਥਾ ਬਖਾਨੋ। ਤਪ ਸਾਧਤ ਜਿਹ ਬਿਧਿ ਮੁਹਿ ਆਨੋ। ਹੇਮ ਕੁੰਟ ਪਰਬਤ ਹੈ ਜਹਾਂ। ਸਪਤ ਸ੍ਰਿੰਗ ਸੋਭਿਤ ਹੈ ਤਹਾਂ।1। ਸਪਤ ਸ੍ਰਿੰਗ ਤਿਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਹਾਵਾ। ਪੰਡੁ ਰਾਜ ਜਹ ਜੋਗੁ ਕਮਾਵਾ। ਤਹ ਹਮ ਅਧਿਕ ਤਪੱਸਿਆ ਸਾਧੀ। ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਅਰਾਧੀ।2।

Have you ever noticed DG is the cause of division in our maryada


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I have never mislead anyone. The sources you want to use are not reliable.



Harkiran Ji, the post I made was deleted for some reason. It was not about the sources we have been discussing. It was about the Sikh Coalition article which you said they had been hounded and goaded into removing by members on another forum. By chance I happened to visit that forum and see that this was not the case. There was one member who brought it up and and also the reply from the Sikh Coalition. 

At the time I read your post, I felt very upset about this, but even more upset that it turned out to be overblown and totally exaggerated by yourself. This is one of the reasons I started this topic. 

We have to have integrity and be honest when posting here. We are all searching for the truth but we cannot base that search on mistruths. I think it was deleted (not sure why) before you had a chance to see it.


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> Kully Jee
> Why Guru Nanak didn't give acceptance to his own real and authentic sons. I hope this clears your doubt.



 Guru Nanak's test was for the best Sikh. Unless I'm wrong I haven't heard of the UK Monarchy conducting any such tests for their next inheritor of the throne. I hope this clears your doubts.



japjisahib04 said:


> I mean, Is the message in SGGS incomplete to be sachiar that we need to bring DG at par with SGGS? Do DG has any additional information or any mantar for us to be sachiar?



No, SGGS is complete to be sachiar. But sachiar is is only half of the Miri Piri of Gurmat. We have to balance sachiar by Miri. That is where DG plays a part. 




japjisahib04 said:


> Then who are we to bring DG at par with SGGS and treat like Guru?



Respecting DG is not treating it like Guru. 




japjisahib04 said:


> I don't list anything out of context.



I know. 



japjisahib04 said:


> And I have noticed you are the master of DG, may bring the whole sabd for clarity.



I'm no master. But it would be better than anything you quote, you bring the whole shabad and also where we can find it for our own ease. 




japjisahib04 said:


> Further on one hand DG criticizes jap tap and says,



Where? In your quote? 

No it doesn't. It says that without prem all is futile. 



japjisahib04 said:


> Have you ever noticed DG is the cause of division in our maryada



I have noticed that the rejection of DG over the last few decades and constant disrespecting of it, is causing division in our maryada.

But before that I have not noticed any division amongst the Sikh for the 200 odd years before that over DG.


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> Do you wish to debate the point, or enter into a personal war of words with Harkiranji, if the former, get on with it, if the latter, take it to PM



I wish to debate this point (and others) firstly and only. 

I do not wish to get into a war of words with anyone, but like I said, we have to be honest when we are discussing things. I know that Harkiran ji is big enough to accept this and I will not be bringing it up again myself.  I have made my feelings clear on this already. If I do it will between Harkiran and myself.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Harkiran Ji, the post I made was deleted for some reason. It was not about the sources we have been discussing. It was about the Sikh Coalition article which you said they had been hounded and goaded into removing by members on another forum. By chance I happened to visit that forum and see that this was not the case. There was one member who brought it up and and also the reply from the Sikh Coalition.
> 
> At the time I read your post, I felt very upset about this, but even more upset that it turned out to be overblown and totally exaggerated by yourself. This is one of the reasons I started this topic.
> 
> We have to have integrity and be honest when posting here. We are all searching for the truth but we cannot base that search on mistruths. I think it was deleted (not sure why) before you had a chance to see it.



How can you say that when I never mentioned which forum it was? There are countless Sikh forums online! And I never said which. Nor have I ever said a name. There was a specific member on 'a' forum who said outright he personally was the one who went after sikh coalition to remove it. And other members applauded what he had accomplished. I am not after a forum or a specific member. Rather it's the implications that any group can steer a Sikh body into only posting things that give one sided beliefs.

I don't think it's anyone's business to make a Sikh educational body remove any piece of research by anyone just because they don't happen to agree. That's why I am upset that happened. His article had many well researched points that need to be pondered! Making Sikh coalition remove it because it hurts the sentiments of those who believe in DG is wrong. Just like staunch vegetarian Sikhs and let's say there is an article on how Gurbani doesn't actually say you must be fully vegetarian. I can name the verses myself. But if someone wrote an article on that and posted it on Sikh coalition the fully vegetarians then go and complain until Sikh coalition removes it? That is wrong. Everyone has rights to freedom of research and sharing what they learn especially in Sikhi. So it was wrong to force Sikh Coalition to remove that article. Just like many DG believers feel it's beadbi to suggest anything otherwise than it is Gurbani, the non DG believers consider it nindya to associate such crude and woman hating writing to our Guru. And both sides have the right to have a voice.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> I think it was deleted (not sure why) before you had a chance to see it.



it was off topic, as it clearly says, Kullyji


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> How can you say that when I never mentioned which forum it was? There are countless Sikh forums online!



Harkiran Ji, I know you never mentioned the forum, but there are only around 5-6 forums online. I was researching a recent topic on this site, which took me there. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> There was a specific member on 'a' forum who said outright he personally was the one who went after sikh coalition to remove it.



There was a member who said he had emailed the SC to ask why the article was there, as it had nothing to do with the aim of SC which is to help Sikhs in the USA in any interaction/altercation with the US govt departments/bodies/institutions. I have read that members post, but you portrayed it as the SC being goaded and hounded by individuals on that forum. But it was only ONE person who sent ONE email and had a reply to it from the SC. The member says that the SC agreed and removed it. You said that the SC did it to keep the peace, which again was misleading.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> And other members applauded what he had accomplished.



Again, there was ONE person who agreed with him. But you claimed there were members applauding. 

Any future discussion on this Harkiran Ji, we can do it over the PM if you wsh.



Harry Haller said:


> it was off topic, as it clearly says, Kullyji



Harry Haller, many apologies, just realised you are an admin here. I thought that it was very on topic as the topic is about being honest and having integrity when posting. I used it as an example of how we shouldn't be misleading each other.

We all, in contributing to this forum have to remember that we are setting standards for future members to come here, learn, enjoy and discuss but if we stray from that, then who will want to come here? If a member tells some mistruths people will wonder what to believe. 

That was one of the reasons why this topic is so important.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 10, 2016)

> Harkiran Ji, I know you never mentioned the forum, but there are only around 5-6 forums online. I was researching a recent topic on this site, which took me there.



--- sure you were.  I have suspicions that you are actually a member from one in particular where I was brutalized, and came here just to cause trouble. Your agenda is apparent. You came here two months ago claiming to have very little knowledge of DG at all and now two months later you all of a sudden proclaim to know more than the rest of us, and are on a one man crusade to prove it's Guru Ji's work. Nobody becomes THAT vested in a piece of writing they hardly knew about only two months prior!



> There was a member who said he had emailed the SC to ask why the article was there, as it had nothing to do with the aim of SC which is to help Sikhs in the USA in any interaction/altercation with the US govt departments/bodies/institutions. I have read that members post, but you portrayed it as the SC being goaded and hounded by individuals on that forum. But it was only ONE person who sent ONE email and had a reply to it from the SC. The member says that the SC agreed and removed it. You said that the SC did it to keep the peace, which again was misleading.



--- Again, you are assuming we are talking about the same site. Maybe that person posted on several sites. I don't think I read the post you are talking about. The wording was very different on the post I read which involved abundant usage of words like 'guru nindaks' etc. (and I am having trouble even finding it again on the forum I originally saw it - so suuuuuure you just 'happened' across it?? LOL) Without knowing which site you went to however, I can't comment.



> Again, there was ONE person who agreed with him. But you claimed there were members applauding.



--- I don't think we are talking about the same forum (though possibly we are talking about the same member). Just like I have been on several sites, I am sure its quite likely they have been as well.


----------



## Original (Sep 10, 2016)

Can someone nail this guy to "one" post ! I'm touched with what he has to say and would like to hear more.

Regards


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Your agenda is apparent.



My agenda is to learn and discuss. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> You came here two months ago claiming to have very little knowledge of DG at all



I still have very little knowledge of DG. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Nobody becomes THAT vested in a piece of writing they hardly knew about only two months prior!



Vested? Thanks for the support, but like I said I don't have much knowledge on DG. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> and now two months later you all of a sudden proclaim to know more than the rest of us, and are on a one man crusade to prove it's Guru Ji's work



I never said I know more than anyone. I have read others views and added my own. That is what a forum is about isn't it? But please do not insult truly knowledgeable people by saying that I have some knowledge of DG.


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> --- sure you were.  I have suspicions that you are actually a member from one in particular where I was brutalized, and came here just to cause trouble. Your agenda is apparent. You came here two months ago claiming to have very little knowledge of DG at all and now two months later you all of a sudden proclaim to know more than the rest of us, and are on a one man crusade to prove it's Guru Ji's work. Nobody becomes THAT vested in a piece of writing they hardly knew about only two months prior!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you want to continue this over PM ? I have said pretty much all I wanted to say on it regarding this topic publically.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> No, SGGS is complete to be sachiar. But sachiar is is only half of the Miri Piri of Gurmat. We have to balance sachiar by Miri. That is where DG plays a part.


So far I have seen this copy of so called DG only confuses, distorts sachiar part even. The author did not had knowledge that as per ideology of SGGS without parents there is no child but DG contradicts and says, 'ਪਉੜੀ ॥ ਸੂਰੀ ਸੰਘਰਿ ਰਚਿਆ ਢੋਲ ਸੰਖ ਨਗਾਰੇ ਵਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਚੰਡ ਚਿਤਾਰੀ ਕਾਲਕਾ ਮਨ ਬਾਹਲਾ ਰੋਸ ਬਢਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਨਿਕਲੀ ਮੱਥਾ ਫੋੜਿ ਕੈ ਜਨ ਫਤੇ ਨੀਸਾਣ ਬਜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਜਾਗ ਸੁ ਜੰਮੀ ਜੁੱਧ ਨੂੰ ਜਰਵਾਣਾ ਜਣ ਮਰੜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥... ਪੰਨਾ ੩੧੭. So let us first talk of tobe truthful


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Guru Nanak's test was for the best Sikh. Unless I'm wrong I haven't heard of the UK Monarchy conducting any such tests for their next inheritor of the throne. I hope this clears your doubts.


But you have brought DG at par SGGS without proving  that it is meant for equality, humanity.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 10, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> But you have brought DG at par SGGS without proving  that it is meant for equality, humanity.



How can it be for equality when it tells men to distrust women, and says wives should do nothing in life without their husbands permission, even going to washroom!? How can it be for equality when it says that God regretted creating the female gender? How can it be for equality when it condemns a woman who was a victim of 'severe beating' and calls her the lowest because she fought back in self defence, however the beating is not even mentioned let alone condemned (as if it's just an insignificant part of the story (you know like walking in the park)?? How can it be for equality when it depicts women as being so filled with lust that we will do anything to sha-g a man, even kill for it? Plus much much more.

If it was for equality, where are the stories depicting men in the same light as above? Where are the moral messages telling women to never trust any men even their own husbands? If it was for equality where are the messages saying men should have to ask their wives for permission to go potty? Where does it say that God regretted creating men?


----------



## Original (Sep 11, 2016)

Dear All - beautiful Sunday morning !

Justice must be done. Kully Ji must be given the opportunity to make his case and distinguish the facts in issue  from facts in controversy. In my view he should be given the opportunity to be heard. Contents of the subject matter are not an issue, however, if some of us view the contents as an issue and want to base their reasoning upon them to determine authenticity, then a separate claim should be made supported by credible evidence.

Kully Ji, kindly attend to QA so that clarification on my part be sought to swiftly move forward with adjudication.

Many thanks


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 11, 2016)

Original said:


> Justice must be done. Kully Ji must be given the opportunity to make his case and distinguish the facts in issue from facts in controversy. In my view he should be given the opportunity to be heard. Contents of the subject matter are not an issue, however, if some of us view the contents as an issue and want to base their reasoning upon them to determine authenticity, then a separate claim should be made supported by credible evidence.
> 
> Kully Ji, kindly attend to QA so that clarification on my part be sought to swiftly move forward with adjudication.



No one is censoring Kullyji, he has never been denied the opportunity to be heard, however, this is not a playground for score settling, it is a forum, not Coronation Street, keep to the facts, keep it tight and cool, it makes good reading for everyone, descending into personal attacks and issues will always end up in deletion.


----------



## Ishna (Sep 11, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> descending into personal attacks and issues will always end up in deletion.



This 10000x.  This is the biggest issue recently.


----------



## Kully (Sep 11, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> But you have brought DG at par SGGS



I haven't. The Khalsa Panth did so, 200 years before I even got round to learning about it.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> How can it be for equality.....



Harkiran Ji, why do we have to cover the same ground in more or less every post/topic? 

I have asked you very politely, several times, to start topics on the particular charitars you are posting selective quotes from. 

What are you achieving by posting the same info over and over? Does it get you closer to the meaning or understanding of what is being discussed, or its it just a way of prolonging this merry-go-round so that eventually the core questions are not discussed ?


----------



## Kully (Sep 11, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> So far I have seen this copy of so called DG only confuses, distorts sachiar part even.



DG does not distort, it's our own undertstanding that has shortomings in which we see what we want to see. 




japjisahib04 said:


> The author did not had knowledge that as per ideology of SGGS without parents there is no child but DG contradicts and says, 'ਪਉੜੀ ॥ ਸੂਰੀ ਸੰਘਰਿ ਰਚਿਆ ਢੋਲ ਸੰਖ ਨਗਾਰੇ ਵਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਚੰਡ ਚਿਤਾਰੀ ਕਾਲਕਾ ਮਨ ਬਾਹਲਾ ਰੋਸ ਬਢਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਨਿਕਲੀ ਮੱਥਾ ਫੋੜਿ ਕੈ ਜਨ ਫਤੇ ਨੀਸਾਣ ਬਜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥ ਜਾਗ ਸੁ ਜੰਮੀ ਜੁੱਧ ਨੂੰ ਜਰਵਾਣਾ ਜਣ ਮਰੜਾਇ ਕੈ ॥... ਪੰਨਾ ੩੧੭. So let us first talk of tobe truthful



 The only distortion I see here is yours. The quote that you have selectively shared is pertaining to one of the Chandi Banis, which are based on the existing Chandi Purans. Guru Sahib has just translated what was written there already.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> The quote that you have selectively shared is pertaining to one of the Chandi Banis, which are based on the existing Chandi Purans. Guru Sahib has just translated what was written there already.


So you admit chandi puran is not dhur ki baani  but merely a translation of dismissed and rejected mythology by gurbani  and guru sahib had no other job but to entertain himself by translating this dismissed stories and you are blindly propagating these as guru's word. In similar way charitar 108 also contradict ideology by SGGS by stating, 'ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
ਏਕ ਦਿਵਸ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਪਿਲ ਮੁਨਿ ਇਕ ਠਾ ਕਿਯੋ ਪਯਾਨ ॥ ਹੇਰਿ ਅਪਸਰਾ ਬਸਿ ਭਯੋ ਸੋ ਤੁਮ ਸੁਨਹੁ ਸੁਜਾਨ ॥੧॥ ਰੰਭਾ ਨਾਮਾ ਅਪਸਰਾ ਤਾ ਕੋ ਰੂਪ ਨਿਹਾਰਿ ॥ ਮੁਨਿ ਕੋ ਗਿਰਿਯੋ ਤੁਰਤ ਹੀ ਬੀਰਜ ਭੂਮਿ ਮਝਾਰ ॥੨॥ ਗਿਰਿਯੋ ਰੇਤਿ ਮੁਨਿ ਕੇ ਜਬੈ ਰੰਭਾ ਰਹਿਯੋ ਅਧਾਨ ॥ ਡਾਰਿ ਸਿੰਧੁ ਸਰਿਤਾ ਤਿਸੈ ਸੁਰ ਪੁਰ ਕਰਿਯੋ ਪਯਾਨ ॥੩॥ that a lady could become pregnant by remote control. Please note with the invent of internet and awareness, this small group who is undermining and are all bent on humiliating the logical dhur kee bani will soon be exposed.


----------



## swarn bains (Sep 11, 2016)

Either you are teasing the scholars, toying with them or you are mentally unstable. Which one?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> The only distortion I see here is yours. The quote that you have selectively shared is pertaining to one of the Chandi Banis, which are based on the existing Chandi Purans. Guru Sahib has just translated what was written there already.



So you admit that is just a translation? That it is NOT Guru Ji's word? But you will still say Charitropakhyan IS from our Guru and not a translation?

Please tell us, Why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji bother to translate for us his Sikhs, beliefs from other ideologies which were already rejected right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> I have asked you very politely, several times, to start topics on the particular charitars you are posting selective quotes from.



It would be inappropriate to discuss the individual charitars in full because this site is accessible to minors.

And also you are the one who keeps saying the story must be taken over all as a theme because of the background story of the king and advisor.  Therefore the message must be general throughout and common in all the stories. That theme that just jumps right out - is that women are not to be trusted and are deceitful and lustful and will stop at nothing to get what (who) they want. This is apparent because the advisor is trying to convince the king to not trust his new wife - and hence stop the execution of his son. The damage is that the message to all men is to never trust any woman even their own wives.


----------



## Kully (Sep 11, 2016)

japjisahib04 said:


> So you admit





Harkiran Kaur said:


> So you admit



Japji sahib Ji, Harkiran Ji, if the author has hismeslf written that the Chandi banis are taken from Chandi purans that what need is there for for me to admit or deny anything?

Japjisahib ,  it's apity that you can select a part of the text and try to misrepresent it, but can't work out what the writer has said blatantly said himself. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> It would be inappropriate to discuss the individual charitars in full because this site is accessible to minors.



That is not an excuse. Minors are taught about reproduction and such in their early teens. I doubt that any people in their early teens would be members on this or any other Sikh forum. 

But, if you truly beleive that to be a viable excuse, then please don't post any more text from Charitropakhyan here as we cannot discuss it, and there will be no purpose or need to to post things that we cannot discuss.

I will find the relevant charitars and create separate topics for them, as I feel that you are afraid that as your study into the text background was not accurate, your study into the meaning of the actual Charitars may not be accurate either.


----------



## Kully (Sep 11, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Please tell us, Why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji bother to translate for us his Sikhs, beliefs from other ideologies which were already rejected right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji?



It wasn't their ideology that Guru Sahib was promoting with writings of DG. In fact it was completely the opposite. Remember you said that the DG was written by Hindus in the 1800s to bring SIkhs back into the Hindu fold? And then when I posted 2 lines from DG that showed that your assertion could not be the case?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> I will find the relevant charitars and create separate topics for them, as I feel that you are afraid that as your study into the text background was not accurate, your study into the meaning of the actual Charitars may not be accurate either.



Oh please start with the with the horse one!!!  I'm dying to know the deeper meaning of that one LOL  no please don't...

Btw I am not afraid of anything! I just don't think it's appropriate to post vulgar stories that involve subjects which go way outside what constitute  normal human relations where younger members can see it.  Honestly you want young teens reading about subjects like bestiality? Not just reading about the subjects but actual descriptive stories which describe the acts in full (disgusting) details? Since when is beastiality part of normal reproduction taught to minors??



> That is not an excuse. Minors are taught about reproduction and such in their early teens.



By the way we have had at least several young members that I can recall in the range of 13-15 years old.

Honestly I agree with Swarn Bains Ji...


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> It wasn't their ideology that Guru Sahib was promoting with writings of DG. In fact it was completely the opposite.



So why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji promote ideology which you say is 'completely opposite' to what the rest of the Gurus taught? Wouldn't that suggest he was not of the same light as the rest of the Gurus? All the Gurus had same ideology and teaching becaus they were the same light - we call them all Nanak for this reason. So why would Nanak 10 all of a sudden deviate to belief in an ideology that is 'completely opposite' to the rest? That would make him a false Guru - which we know can't be true.


----------



## Kully (Sep 11, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Oh please start with the with the horse one!!!



All in good time. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> I just don't think it's appropriate to post vulgar stories that involve subjects which go way outside what constitute normal human relations where younger members can see it.



Then why is it appropriate to talk about that stuff on forums and possibly excite the readers curiosty? By talking about it, aren't you really leading them to read about it? Maybe it would be better from now on if you don't throw selective snippets of Charitropakhyan around. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Honestly you want young teens reading about subjects like bestiality?



I would give teens more credit than you give them and say that they would already be aware of such acts. 

Where would you draw the line though? SGGS mentions the words vagina, prostitute, breasts etc, so would young teens not need protecting from that?


----------



## Kully (Sep 11, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> So why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji promote ideology which you say is 'completely opposite' to what the rest of the Gurus taught? .



Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, Guru Gobind Singh promoted an ideaology that was completely against the Hindus and what they believed., not the Gurus.


----------



## Admin (Sep 11, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> It would be inappropriate to discuss the individual charitars in full because this site is accessible to minors.



@Harkiran Kaur ji, i agree with @Kully ji on this point. Let there be thorough and in-depth discussion on every Charitar so that readers can make up their own mind... However, there is no compulsion or obligation on you to be a part of such discussions.

@Kully ji, nobody is stopping you from starting new individual threads on every Charitar. However, as the ball is in your court, going forward, in every charitar, first you must present your own full interpretations line by line and then, provide the theme or moral of each charitar based on your understanding.

And then readers can read these interpretations under the light of the Gurmat Principles laid down in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, our Only Guru.

Shall we?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> Where would you draw the line though? SGGS mentions the words vagina, prostitute, breasts etc, so would young teens not need protecting from that?



There is a huge HUGE difference between knowing about something as a concept and reading a full on pornographic story depicting the act in full descriptive language. I am sure you will agree!!!

There is a huge difference between mentioning the word prostitute as a descriptive, and full on describing sexual acts in full details. Including sexual acts that fall outside of normal reproduction.



By the way breasts are not actually sexual. They are a symbol of providing sustenance - feeding children is their primary function. We dont get all excited talking about milking cows do we?? You mean tuks like this one? I see nothing sexual about this at all. It's talking about being absorbed in pride so much you no longer provide anything of sustenance to others... Breasts no longer yield milk.

Page 242, Line 9
ਮੈ ਮਤ ਜੋਬਨਿ ਗਰਬਿ ਗਾਲੀ ਦੁਧਾ ਥਣੀ ਨ ਆਵਏ ॥
Mai maṯ joban garab gālī ḏuḏẖā thaṇī na āv▫e.
Intoxicated with the wine of youthful pride, she has been ruined, and her *breasts* no longer yield milk.
*Guru Nanak Dev* 

That is a far cry from what is contained in DG.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 11, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> @Harkiran Kaur ji, i agree with @Kully ji on this point. Let there be thorough and in-depth discussion on every Charitar so that readers can up make their own minds... However, there is no compulsion or obligation on you to be a part of such discussions.
> 
> @Kully ji, nobody is stopping you from starting new individual threads on every Charitar. However, as the ball in your court, going forward, in every charitar, first you must present your own full interpretations line by line and then, provide the theme or moral of each charitar based on your understanding.
> 
> ...



I would maybe suggest to create a new sub forum in hard talk for it and put a disclaimer for 18 + or at least say it deals with descriptive sexual subjects.


----------



## Admin (Sep 11, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I would maybe suggest to create a new sub forum in hard talk for it and put a disclaimer for 18 + or at least say it deals with descriptive sexual subjects.



We already have a section setup for Charitropakhyan. Based on your suggestion, we will put a little notice to comply with your reservations. Thank you


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 11, 2016)

Kully said:


> Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, Guru Gobind Singh promoted an ideaology that was completely against the Hindus and what they believed., not the Gurus.



If I may interject, it is utterly pointless bringing in exact quotes and wordings from the DG, Kullyji, you say the DG speaks in metaphors, unless you wish to go round and round in circles, can you proceed with your interpretation and the meaning of these metaphors, we can start with something that our younger readers can read, say deception of women, etc, you do not have to choose any animal related content, just keep it clean and make your point so that we can continue the discussion.


----------



## Original (Sep 11, 2016)

Thank you for that H -

Yes, for legal reasons, I'd like us to be mindful of the rights and responsibilities of the individual/organisation when exhibiting material of religious sensibility. Any material which represent a real and immediate threat to security and sensibility should be censored. This would mean respecting boundaries and controlling expressions accordingly. 

Goodnight


----------



## Admin (Sep 11, 2016)

Original said:


> Thank you for that H -
> 
> Yes, for legal reasons, I'd like us to be mindful of the rights and responsibilities of the individual/organisation when exhibiting material of religious sensibility. Any material which represent a real and immediate threat to security and sensibility should be censored. This would mean respecting boundaries and controlling expressions accordingly.
> 
> Goodnight



@Original ji, you are here to guide us in that aspect!


----------



## Original (Sep 12, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> @Original ji, you are here to guide us in that aspect!


Thank you Admin Ji ! 

What I'd like us to be careful of is the sensitive nature of the literature in question and how delicately it ought to be expressed; bearing in mind of course, expressor's own stance. And, from what I gather so far, there is a good reason to treat such literature as incidental and not actual articles of Sikh Faith. That way, both the letter and the spirit of the literature can be preserved and freedom of expression exercised.

Good day !


----------



## Parma (Sep 13, 2016)

The GGS isn't based on the concept of laws like the 10 commandments, but on a council of mohabbat of the ultimate spiritual guidance. I believe that the DG is a try to look into the area and prospect of law within Sikhi. As the Guru Granth Sahib ji is based on mohabbat in its fullest definition and the Dasam Granth could be a collective thought process to look into the process of implementation of some type of laws upon the view and basis of love to the extremist of thought processes in the field of love. The Devine has no Asool on love in the Guru Granth Sahib ji and so it seems like the prospect of a chance to display asool=law for humane interaction between the lord's spiritual and physical presence of the Akaal, the timeless soul.


----------



## Admin (Sep 13, 2016)

Parma said:


> I believe that the DG is a try to look into the area and prospect of law within Sikhi.



Please purport your comments with some supporting extracts from the scriptures in consideration. Otherwise, your statement just comes as a little ambiguous.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 13, 2016)

Parma said:


> The GGS isn't based on the concept of laws like the 10 commandments, but on a council of mohabbat of the ultimate spiritual guidance. I believe that the DG is a try to look into the area and prospect of law within Sikhi. As the Guru Granth Sahib ji is based on mohabbat in its fullest definition and the Dasam Granth could be a collective thought process to look into the process of implementation of some type of laws upon the view and basis of love to the extremist of thought processes in the field of love. The Devine has no Asool on love in the Guru Granth Sahib ji and so it seems like the prospect of a chance to display asool=law for humane interaction between the lord's spiritual and physical presence of the Akaal, the timeless soul.



Please explain how this analysis would work when it seems it is aimed only at males as a means to control females? If the divine wishes to give HUMANS laws governing love, then why would it not be both ways and for all humans? It's written with messages directly given to males (don't trust females, don't give your secrets to females, women should never do anything independently without their husbands permission etc) and the messages are one of control and domination of male over female. (The message is if the female has any control then you will be deceived, ruined or killed even). Do you think the Divine thinks this way about the female? Is this a warning to men about women? Was the line in charitar 312 correct? That God regretted creating females?


----------



## Parma (Sep 15, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> Please purport your comments with some supporting extracts from the scriptures in consideration. Otherwise, your statement just comes as a little ambiguous.



I am discussing the nature of the work. I don't feel that it is necessary to quote anything that I am trying to explain, it is a kind of a simple explanation and it is up to the writer on what they wish to debate and point they want to make. Without being rude. Please give consideration to others and use your own method or writing style to express yourself.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Please explain how this analysis would work when it seems it is aimed only at males as a means to control females? If the divine wishes to give HUMANS laws governing love, then why would it not be both ways and for all humans? It's written with messages directly given to males (don't trust females, don't give your secrets to females, women should never do anything independently without their husbands permission etc) and the messages are one of control and domination of male over female. (The message is if the female has any control then you will be deceived, ruined or killed even). Do you think the Divine thinks this way about the female? Is this a warning to men about women? Was the line in charitar 312 correct? That God regretted creating females?



The point of the Dasam Granth seems to be enabled at the expression of the most barbaric and basic human interaction the fact that the stories are gender typed is a point worth noting. Who implements laws males or females to the most basic thought process is something worth debating. Then I guess it would be fitting to debate the seed from where the debate starts and so you see the Dasam Granth doesn't debate laws but the scenario types and expressions and in the end it comes down to this simple point. It doesn't matter what has bought your birth what matters is how you live your life and to hurt and disregard each other no matter how much we want to or castracize each other is against the most basic hukam of the Siri Guru Granth Sahib ji's value, which is mohabbat of Ek Onkar and that is why the Guru Granth Sahib ji is the King above all. Baba
Fariduddin Ganjshakar ji's points I guess we could analyse in the Guru Granth Sahib's ji's gurbani but I cannot do a disserving to self learning as the religion is Sikhi and I am a Sikh always learning. Nirankar.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 15, 2016)

Parma ji,

Guru Fateh.

I gather from your posts that you claim your certainty that DG was written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji .

What made you come to that conclusion?

Could your share some concrete examples please?

If I am not mistaken, that is what Adminsinghji is trying to ask. 

Thanks


----------



## Parma (Sep 17, 2016)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Parma ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



I can only go by trying to understand its interpretation the actual factual evidence of how the literature is regarded as acknowledgement of authentication on the Guru ji's work I can only gain by trying to understand its context. Any law that has ever been made or applied has been after human interaction and the Granth has literature more on actions then it does on the implementation of actions in its defence of being seen as a form of guidance on spiritual literature, (before actions(=Dasam Granth) comes feelings(= Guru Granth), (my few thoughts)).  The rest I guess is for individual interpretation some individuals don't claim any benefit after reading the alphabet, is the glass full or empty that's for the reader to decide and how they perceive views.

STILL - DR. DRE = Development of Religious Education, We still use Doctors lol

Thank you.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 17, 2016)

Parma ji,

Guru Fateh.



> ="Parma, post: 210174, member: 4724"]I can only go by trying to understand its interpretation the actual factual evidence of how the literature is regarded as acknowledgement of authentication on the Guru ji's work I can only gain by trying to understand its context.


One can only gain by knowing, firstly its authentication in the same way we have about the SGGS, our only Guru. What would one understand  what the author is trying to convey when one has no idea who the author is?



> Any law that has ever been made or applied has been after human interaction



Would you care to elaborate what you mean by the above and how it is related to this?



> and the Granth has literature more on actions then it does on the implementation of actions in its defence of being seen as a form of guidance on spiritual literature, (before actions(=Dasam Granth) comes feelings(= Guru Granth), (my few thoughts)



Sorry, need your help to comprehend the above part.



> The rest I guess is for individual interpretation some individuals don't claim any benefit after reading the alphabet, is the glass full or empty that's for the reader to decide and how they perceive views.



Well, the interpretation is only valid after the authentication of DG as we are comparing in a way, DG and SGGS by taking them as par. The fact is we know the authors of the latter. The former is nothing but hearsay which may be fine with any other belief system but not for Sikhi.

No one reads the alphabets. We memorise them with their corresponding sounds, so we can use them to express ourselves in the languages of the alphabets. This has also nothing to do with the analogy of half full, half empty glass in my opinion.

Please elaborate your thoughts on this.

Thanks.


----------



## Parma (Sep 18, 2016)

Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Parma ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


That can only I guess be taken into account when reading an entire book on who the author is if the author is disputed, I'm trying to understand it too. Having said that I am not defending a value mechanism. The Dasam Granth Stands as it does.




			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Would you care to elaborate what you mean by the above and how it is related to this?
> 
> Sorry, need your help to comprehend the above part.



Nothing quite simple really the Dasam Granth is being classified as a religious text of Sikhi and to add weight to the debate I can see how actions represent value to that idea at the end of the day the Guru Granth Sahib doesn't have a law system attributed to it like lets say the 10 commandments to administer Sikhs, I can understand that when it comes to the langar and so forth how these interwoven systems can have issues and problems this maybe taken into account as we had 10 Guru's rein acting the verse and values of mohabbat and yet no law mechanism and the Dasam Granths interpretation on human interactions however offensive are a sort of reimbursement of the point no point having a go I can only elaborate on what I find an intriguing subject matter as well. 




			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Well, the interpretation is only valid after the authentication of DG as we are comparing in a way, DG and SGGS by taking them as par. The fact is we know the authors of the latter. The former is nothing but hearsay which may be fine with any other belief system but not for Sikhi.



That's fine if it really is just hearsay.




			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> No one reads the alphabets. We memorise them with their corresponding sounds, so we can use them to express ourselves in the languages of the alphabets. This has also nothing to do with the analogy of half full, half empty glass in my opinion.



I cannot understand the above statement. My thoughts are quite clear in trying to state a message your writing as there is something for me to defend on this issue. I have no intention of disputing a alphabet or a teaching method. There could be a issue with trying to show self worth in this posting. God bless. My value is at nothing hope you can explain yourself more wisely to the sat sangat of the dispute on this. Waheguru ji ki khalsa, waheguru ji ki fathe.



			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Please elaborate your thoughts on this.
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## Kully (Oct 19, 2016)

Kully said:


> I accept SGGS as my puran Guru. It was a response to another post which asked if I did.





Kully said:


> Certainly. Let me try it this way.
> 
> Queen Elizabeth has 3 sons, but only Prince Charles will be King. He will be the King of Britain. Does that mean that we need to have no recognition of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward?
> 
> ...





Kully said:


> I don't think anything is on a par with SGGS.



It seems from feedback that this forum has taken me to be an advocate of putting SGGS and DG on an equal par. I wish to state that I could never do this if my own Guru has stated it is not to be. I have never once called for DG to be shown the same reverence that SGGS has. I do not beleive in it. Nor have I ever called the DG by the title of Guru. 

Hopefully the above quotes will make that clear where they should already have.


----------



## Admin (Oct 19, 2016)

Bansawalinama In Regards To Dasam Granth


----------



## Kully (Oct 19, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> Bansawalinama In Regards To Dasam Granth



I don't understand.


----------

