# 5 Ks In Sikhi



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Dear All

I would like to start a topic on the 5 Ks and when they came to be a part of Sikhi.

I'm talking about the time of 10th Guru's time. What written evidence from Guru Sahib's own hand is there that we have to say that Guru Sahib blessed the Sikhs with the 5 Ks?

This topic is in the same vein as "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai..." . I would be interested to see how the discussion pans out.

Please stick to verifiable sources only.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> Dear All
> 
> I would like to start a topic on the 5 Ks and when they came to be a part of Sikhi.
> 
> ...




there is only really one true verifiable source, waheguru 
if we do what SGGS Ji says, maybe we can find out the real way...to your question...


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

Kullyji, 

I get the point you are trying to make, it makes no sense to dilute the same point on two threads, can we keep it to the other one, thanks.


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> Kullyji,
> 
> I get the point you are trying to make, it makes no sense to dilute the same point on two threads, can we keep it to the other one, thanks.



Thanks, I will and it's good to see that someone see what I am trying to get across.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 9, 2016)

The original Punjabi manuscript can be seen in the: S.G.P.C. Library, Amritsar (Punjab, India). It was one of the major sources referred to when developing the Sikh Rehet Maryada.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> Thanks, I will and it's good to see that someone see what I am trying to get across.



you don't do yourself any favours with clarity,let us keep to the core issues rather than getting bogged down in the base


----------



## Kully (Sep 9, 2016)

Harkiran Ji, thanks very much for that post. I was looking for a Panjabi version of that for a while. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> The original Punjabi manuscript can be seen in the: S.G.P.C. Library, Amritsar (Punjab, India).



Do you mean the original hukumnama can be found at Amritsar or the Panjabi manuscript of the above text?



Harkiran Kaur said:


> It was one of the major sources referred to when developing the Sikh Rehet Maryada.



Great info. One of the things that spring to mind is if this hukumnama is legit, why none of the other writers of rehitnamas/texts in the following 100 years were not able to produce this in full. Some texts mention 3 mudras, some mention 5 shashtars. The first time that all five are mentioned in any text is almost 100 years after the original historical Vaisakhi.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 9, 2016)

Kully said:


> Harkiran Ji, thanks very much for that post. I was looking for a Panjabi version of that for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have actually seen a photo posted of the original. I can't however vouch that the original is authentic, but I'll leave that up to Akal Takht / SGPC and their scholars and historians.  Someone did post a photo of it online awhile back but the link is broken now. However I did see it prior to the link being broken. (It was supposed to be the original, but I see some have claimed it was punjabi manuscript). Easy, just contact SGPC and ask!


----------



## Ishna (Sep 9, 2016)

Perhaps people back then either didn't have direct access to the information.. or more likely, they wanted to put their own spin on things. India is a diverse place in terms of religion. Uniqueness and religious expression seem to be valued more than scholarly habits in terms of doing what just one Guru tells you to do. And to add legitimacy to ones own creations and views, one can attribute them to whichever Guru they like.

That's why SGGSJ is so foundational for Sikhs. It's the touchstone. It's all that can really be relied upon, imho.


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Ishna said:


> Perhaps people back then either didn't have direct access to the information.



Whenever Guru Ji sent hukumnamas or letters they were always  carried by dependable Sikhs and these Sikhs would be fully conversant with the message contained, if there were to be any questions asked from the recieving party. Sri Gur Sobha details the taking of a hukumnama ot the Delhi sangat. 

I asked an Afghan Sikh friend about this hukumnama. He was from kabul, and says no Gurdwara has this hukumnama, but it is an oral tradition passed down amongst Afghan Sikhs that Guru Sahib sent them a hukumnama.

Given the state of the country now, and the situation of the Sikh community, it would be very hard to conduct a search for it. Hopefully if the situation gets better.


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Ishna said:


> or more likely, they wanted to put their own spin on things.





Ishna said:


> And to add legitimacy to ones own creations and views, one can attribute them to whichever Guru they like.



Yes, the masands did this and Guru Sahib abolished the masand system.



Ishna said:


> That's why SGGSJ is so foundational for Sikhs. It's the touchstone. It's all that can really be relied upon, imho.



Even up to the 1930 there were saroops of Guru Granth Sahib found with different banis in after Mundavni, and at least one other difference that I know of. In 1930s or 40s the saroop of SGGS was structured to the one we see today.


----------



## Admin (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Even up to the 1930 there were saroops of Guru Granth Sahib found with different banis in after Mundavni, and at least one other difference that I know of. In 1930s or 40s the saroop of SGGS was structured to the one we see today.




Why were those removed and on what basis?


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> Why were those removed and on what basis?



As far as I know, it was to produce a standard saroop and SGGS was looked at. There were differing banis after Mundavni which were looked at, and I don't know the basis for removing them as I have not researched these banis or the whole episode.


----------



## Admin (Sep 10, 2016)

Kully said:


> Even up to the 1930 there were saroops of Guru Granth Sahib found with different banis in after Mundavni, and at least one other difference that I know of. In 1930s or 40s the saroop of SGGS was structured to the one we see today.



So, in other words, its  just a hearsay...


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 10, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> So, in other words, its  just a hearsay...



I find it hard to believe that anyone could have made changes in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, as using an example, there is an account of Guru Har Rai actually disowning one of his sons (Ram Rai) for merely altering the wording of one shabad, when explaining Gurbani to the Moghul Emperor Aurangzeb. For that transgression, Guru Har Rai disowned his own son, and forbade Sikhs to associate with him, or even his descendants! (ref Bains, K.S. "A tribute to Bal Guru". The Tribune.) I find it highly unlikely then that several versions of SGGSJ existed with differing contents. The total angs referred to all throughout its history, has always been 1430 as far as I have ever seen.


----------



## Kully (Sep 10, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> I find it hard to believe that anyone could have made changes in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji,



It was the SGPC when they were formulating the Panthic Rehat maryada in the 1930s or 40s. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> I find it highly unlikely then that several versions of SGGSJ existed with differing contents.



Yes there were differing banis at the end of some saroops after Mundavni. These included "ratanmala", "Jit dar lakh muhamada" and another I can't remember. Some of these texts were in some but not all saroops, as was Raagmala. The committee looked at the texts and decided to remove all except Raagmala.

Do a search on the internet and see what comes up. I will as well and see if I can shed any more light on it.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> The total angs referred to all throughout its history, has always been 1430 as far as I have ever seen.



No Ji, the angs all differed between saroops as the writers didn't copy the Granth page for page. Also the sizes of granths differed. I have seen many saroops of different sizes and number of angs on the net. The biggest number of angs I have seen in a saroop of SGGS is 1800 angs. 

1430 angs only came about when the SGPC standardiazed the printing of SGGS in the 1930/40s. Before that there was no regularity on the ang numbers or size. It is only a very recent move to have 1430 angs. 60  or 70 years at most.

Sri HariMandir Sahib has a very big saroop on the first floor, for those who will be visiting Sri HariMandir Sahib soon, make sure you go upstairs and have darshan of it.


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 11, 2016)

if we are to base our discussions on internet hearsay, we could be here for some time.


----------



## Kully (Sep 13, 2016)

..:: Panjab Digital Library ::..

Please go to page 2232 of this historical copy of Guru Granth Sahib to see a saropp with the banis of "Ramkali Ratanmala", and "Haqiqat Rai Raja Shivnabh Ki" amongst others.

There are many saroops on PDL which you may look through to look further into this.

Also Harkiran Ji, look at some of the size of these saroops and their number of angs which is also listed. The one that i have posted the link for has 2249 angs. Biggest saroop that I have seen on net.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 13, 2016)

Kully said:


> ..:: Panjab Digital Library ::..
> 
> Please go to page 2232 of this historical copy of Guru Granth Sahib to see a saropp with the banis of "Ramkali Ratanmala", and "Haqiqat Rai Raja Shivnabh Ki" amongst others.
> 
> ...



So you are willing to think that SGGSJ has been changed throughout time and that some of the contents might have been adulterated or added by erroneous sources etc and were removed to create a standardized version, but you are completely a.ok with an entire Granth attributed to our Guru, that was put together after he left this world, by third parties, and even the sources mentioning what is his and where it came from are vague even up to 100 years l'after Guru Gobind Singh was gone? And where the source you quote even says Charitropakhyan was brought from multiple sources by poets and that they were given a new form (translated) from Sanskrit by Guru Ji and that means the work is his and he somehow meant for that to be moral teaching for us??? Even when he himself never included any such thing in SGGSJ and told us to not have any other as Guru and that ALL our needed knowledge is in SGGSJ??

Hmmm so if I rewrite the works of tesla in my own language (they were German originally I believe) that means I can claim the works are mine?? Awesome I'm gonna be rich!!!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 15, 2016)

Kully said:


> It was the SGPC when they were formulating the Panthic Rehat maryada in the 1930s or 40s.
> 
> Yes there were differing banis at the end of some saroops after Mundavni. These included "ratanmala", "Jit dar lakh muhamada" and another I can't remember. Some of these texts were in some but not all saroops, as was Raagmala. The committee looked at the texts and decided to remove all except Raagmala.
> 
> ...



Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Would you be kind enough to give us references about your claims so they can be crosschecked? 

And also for the future, please give the references while declaring your claims. It would be easier that way.

Thanks.


----------



## Kully (Sep 15, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> So you are willing to think that SGGSJ has been changed throughout time and that some of the contents might have been adulterated



Harkiran Ji, like yourself, i can only say what I have read in my own research.

This PDF will be of interest to yourself and others :

http://www.anpere.net/2008/3.pdf

PLease go to book page 208 (at the bottom), or PDF page no 226, and there you will find more information on this. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> and told us to not have any other as Guru



Remember that I asked you where Guru Gobind Singh had written this? If you have found a source since that time, please share it.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> And where the source you quote even says Charitropakhyan was brought from multiple sources by poets and that they were given a new form (translated) from Sanskrit by Guru Ji and that means the work is his and he somehow meant for that to be moral teaching for us?



Why are we going over the same ground again and again? You brought the source initially, when you felt it supported what you feel about Charitropakhyan, When it actually didn't then you dismissed it. 

Rather than go over this source again, why not look for any sources (in that same period) that support what you are saying and share them with us here? 

What are we actually learning by just repeating ourselves?



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Hmmm so if I rewrite the works of tesla in my own language (they were German originally I believe) that means I can claim the works are mine?? Awesome I'm gonna be rich!!!



If you rewrite the works of Tesla in your own ords but use Tesla's work as a source, then you can claim that you used Tesla's works as the basis for your work. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> Kully ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, as of when and where I can I will certainly give references. I had mistakenly thought that it was common knowledge amongst Sikhs that SGGS was standardized about 50 odd years ago to the saroop that we see today.

Another change the SGPC made was substituting larivar for pad-chhed.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 15, 2016)

Kully said:


> Absolutely, as of when and where I can I will certainly give references. I had mistakenly thought that it was common knowledge amongst Sikhs that SGGS was standardized about 50 odd years ago to the saroop that we see today.
> 
> Another change the SGPC made was substituting larivar for pad-chhed.



Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please give the references of which angs were taken out and why as that is your claim and who were they written by?
Who took them out in the SGPC and what reasons did they give?

You said.





> "I had mistakenly thought that it was common knowledge amongst Sikhs",



When we stop with the assumptions about others, then only can we have a fruitful interaction where all become winners as Sikhs.



> Another change the SGPC made was substituting larivar for pad-chhed



You are incorrect in your assumption above. Larivar Beedh was not substituted with Padh-chhed but the latter was added.

Thanks


----------



## Admin (Sep 15, 2016)

Kully said:


> If you rewrite the works of Tesla in your own ords but use Tesla's work as a source, then you can claim that you used Tesla's works as the basis for your work.



No, ethically, we cannot make a claim of an idea /or ideas borrowed from other sources just like that, it simply amounts to plagiarism.

Please show us in which country's law book, it states that you can use ideas based on someone's original work and claim them as your own? Maybe @Original ji can shed some light on this.

Taking a queue from your analogy, then why do you think Sikh Gurus, incorporated the Banis of 32 Bhagats/Bhatts and took immense care, while translating them to Gurmukhi, to credit each and every shabd to its original author in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, our only Guru, whether it was using terms like Mahala 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 9 or Bhagat Bani. Each and every Ang in SGGS is credited to its original author, absolutely no question of any kind of plagiarism.

And then why the author of DG did not bother to even mention about the various sources from which the most of its contents were borrowed from?

Do you think it is ethically OK to borrow ideas from someone's original work and claim them as our own?

Bhul chuk maaf


----------



## Kully (Sep 15, 2016)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Please give the references of which angs were taken out and why as that is your claim and who were they written by?
> Who took them out in the SGPC and what reasons did they give?



It's in the PDF Ji.




Tejwant Singh said:


> When we stop with the assumptions about others, then only can we have a fruitful interaction where all become winners as Sikhs.



Beautiful.




Admin Singh said:


> And then why the author of DG did not bother to even mention about the various sources from which the most of its contents were borrowed from?



Where Guru Sahib has used older texts (purans etc) in the writings of DG, there is a endnote to each chapter saying "this is from such and such text". There is no such endnotes to the the Charitropakhayn. The absence of such endnotes, and the chapter in Mehma Parkash make it clear. The original stories that feature as part of Charitropakhyan come from all over the world, as folk-tales and such. 

As I have said many times, the source was older tales, but the words into which they have recorded as Charitropakhyan is Guru Gobind Singh's work.  Please stop covering the same ground over and over. If you can't accept my answer, then accept I have no other answer and stop asking the same questions over and over.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 15, 2016)

Kully said:


> It's in the PDF Ji.
> 
> The original stories that feature as part of Charitropakhyan come from all over the world, as folk-tales and such.



Good glad you finally admit this!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 15, 2016)

Tejwant Singh said: ↑
Please give the references of which angs were taken out and why as that is your claim and who were they written by?
Who took them out in the SGPC and what reasons did they give?



Kully said:


> It's in the PDF Ji.



Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please indicate the  specific page numbers of your claims above with your personal view.

And what do you know about the Swedish Author of the PDF,Kristina Myrvold?

What does she know about Sikhi pysche?
Is she a spiritualist, religious (of what religion?) or just an outsider trying to take a peek in Sikhi with the red tinted Abrahamic glasses?

Do you know anything about the authors during our Gurus' times who wrote about our Gurus, in this case our 10th Guru?

Please specify your claims so we all can learn from it.

Thanks


----------



## Kully (Sep 16, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Good glad you finally admit this!



Harkiran Ji, your use of the word "finally" shows me that you have not been reading my posts properly. I have always said this form the start, so where you see "finally" you were a little late.

Still, late is better than never!




Tejwant Singh said:


> Please indicate the specific page numbers of your claims above with your personal view.



Tejwant Ji, I did specify very clearly what page in the pdf/what page number in the book you can go straight to, to read about this, in post #21. Kindly read. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> And what do you know about the Swedish Author of the PDF,Kristina Myrvold?



Nothing.



Tejwant Singh said:


> What does she know about Sikhi pysche?



I don't know.




Tejwant Singh said:


> Is she a spiritualist, religious (of what religion?) or just an outsider trying to take a peek in Sikhi with the red tinted Abrahamic glasses?



I don't know.

If you know anything about her that you feel needs sharing, please do.


----------



## Kully (Sep 16, 2016)

Kully said:


> ..:: Panjab Digital Library ::..
> 
> Please go to page 2232 of this historical copy of Guru Granth Sahib to see a saropp with the banis of "Ramkali Ratanmala", and "Haqiqat Rai Raja Shivnabh Ki" amongst others.
> 
> ...



Harkiran Ji, Admin Singh Ji, harry Ji, have any of you looked through the PDL page that i shared ?


----------



## Original (Sep 16, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> Please show us in which country's law book, it states that you can use ideas based on someone's original work and claim them as your own? Maybe @Original ji can shed some light on this.


...Admin Ji, sorry for the late response, been busy !

As regards reference above, "no can do" because IPR [intellectual Property Rights] legislation will deem it copyright theft.

Admin Ji, am I at liberty to treat Kully as a UFO [unidentified foreign object] ? Polite request if you were to entertain because I honestly don't know what Kully's agenda is and who Kully the character ? Sorry - UK flag alongside his name don't tell me much.

Okay, I'll walk the mile; just as an exercise then, let us assume SGGSJ is also shrouded in mystery and SDGSJ in its entirety is authentically belonging to Guru Gobind Singh, what next ? Make your case, Kully Ji !

For the avoidance of doubt and clarity of subject matter [Sikhism], the nuclei of Sikhism is "shabd", meaning sound. It predates developed form of writing, does it matter who wrote what, when, where, why and for who ?

Pls be reminded to construe this email as truth seeking and not offensive. I've deliberately worded it for fermenting the essential elements to Dialectal progress.

Goodnight n Godbless


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 17, 2016)

Kully said:


> Harkiran Ji, Admin Singh Ji, harry Ji, have any of you looked through the PDL page that i shared ?



Sorry, been upto my eyeballs, I will read it now, hope its not too long!


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 17, 2016)

Well I found the reference you quoted, but I am a bit confused, in order to support your argument you have quoted from this PDF, but without knowing anything about the author, or her agenda in writing the book, it seems a pointless reference. In order to get the real gist of what she is saying, one needs to know where she is coming from, otherwise anything read is completely out of context. I think it is too much to ask anyone to read such a long PDF in order to grasp the actual message rather than a glimpse of it. 

Have you read this in its entirety yourself?


----------



## Kully (Sep 17, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> Well I found the reference you quoted, but I am a bit confused, in order to support your argument you have quoted from this PDF, but without knowing anything about the author, or her agenda in writing the book, it seems a pointless reference.



Sir, methinks you are getting confused. I am talking about the PDL - Panjab Digital Library, where there a very old saroop showing banis that are not part of SGGS today, which were removed during standardization of SGGS in the 1940s.


----------



## Kully (Sep 17, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> but I am a bit confused, in order to support your argument you have quoted from this PDF,



I shared it for everyone to read, because it seemed to me that some were a little dumbstruck at hearing it. 




Harry Haller said:


> but without knowing anything about the author, or her agenda in writing the book, it seems a pointless reference.



It 's there for your reading only. To help you know/understand more about this episode.




Harry Haller said:


> In order to get the real gist of what she is saying, one needs to know where she is coming from, otherwise anything read is completely out of context.



Why not just concentrate on the historical info given, and use it to try and help learn more about it. 




Harry Haller said:


> I think it is too much to ask anyone to read such a long PDF in order to grasp the actual message rather than a glimpse of it.



I agree but the "glimpse" is all you need to read for this discussion.




Harry Haller said:


> Have you read this in its entirety yourself?



 Absolutely not. It's a very long work, and I have just looked at the info concerning the standardization history.


----------



## Kully (Sep 17, 2016)

Original said:


> Okay, I'll walk the mile; just as an exercise then, let us assume SGGSJ is also shrouded in mystery and SDGSJ in its entirety is authentically belonging to Guru Gobind Singh, what next ? Make your case, Kully Ji !



The case is that applying certain critiques to ascertain whether DG is Guru Sahib's work is dangerous, because if we apply those same critiques to SGGS/5k's/khande ki pahul vidhi/nitnem banis etc then we will have a real mess on our hands.


----------



## swarn bains (Sep 17, 2016)

original jee. you are a lawyer. here on our subject there are two types of  issues. first is private or personal domain. In this case the copy right applies and no one can copy from it and use it for his or her own purpose. the second version is public domain such SGGS. In this case it is open to anyone whoever wants to copy and use it, it is accepted because the copy right was surrenedered right in the beginning. I give you an example. Baba Nanak collected poetry of other saints. He paid rs 50 for Fareeds bqani. So he purchased that right and then the other bani was given to him by someone and then it got published in SGGS. And now it is public p[roperty and no one has copy right to it. I translated SGGS in English and published it. I was asked by the publisher if it has a copy right. I told him that it is public property and then he said that it is ok and no one has copy right to it. So it was published and others such as bible. quran ramayan etc all fall in the same category. The copy right does not apply here to the public domain.  I am not a lawyer, may be it is correct or wrong and that is my experience and opinion. s s a


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 17, 2016)

swarn bains said:


> original jee. you are a lawyer. here on our subject there are two types of  issues. first is private or personal domain. In this case the copy right applies and no one can copy from it and use it for his or her own purpose. the second version is public domain such SGGS. In this case it is open to anyone whoever wants to copy and use it, it is accepted because the copy right was surrenedered right in the beginning. I give you an example. Baba Nanak collected poetry of other saints. He paid rs 50 for Fareeds bqani. So he purchased that right and then the other bani was given to him by someone and then it got published in SGGS. And now it is public p[roperty and no one has copy right to it. I translated SGGS in English and published it. I was asked by the publisher if it has a copy right. I told him that it is public property and then he said that it is ok and no one has copy right to it. So it was published and others such as bible. quran ramayan etc all fall in the same category. The copy right does not apply here to the public domain.  I am not a lawyer, may be it is correct or wrong and that is my experience and opinion. s s a



I think the issue comes into play if you claim to be the author of it. You also need to give proper reference in bibliography even with publicly available content. If you notice in SGGSJ the shabads all proper credit IS given.


----------



## Original (Sep 17, 2016)

Good evening Everyone -


Kully said:


> The case is that applying certain critiques to ascertain whether DG is Guru Sahib's work is dangerous,


..as I said before, no conclusive evidence has been adduced to prove facts in issue. In the absence of such credible [conventionally recognised] evidence, one is led to conclude there isn't any conclusive argument either for or against the facts in issue. Should you and Harkiran think you've found one only think that because you want to *believe* it, full stop. That doesn't mean you don't have any evidence, indeed you do, but not sufficient enough to warrant absolute determination.

As for it being "dangerous", I don't think so. Please reread the original post furnished by khalsa1469, in which the author argues his case well and sustains it through n through.



Kully said:


> because if we apply those same critiques to SGGS


..I'm afraid you can't and hence the reason I asked whether rational deliberations can be had of religious belief [note, not literature]. Putting SGGSJ on stand will potentially violate conventional legislation.


Kully said:


> then we will have a real mess on our hands.


..we will never have real mess because our only Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, come what may !

Goodnight


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 17, 2016)

Original Ji my argument is not based on my having any evidence, rather my argument is precisely the lack of evidence to support all of DG being the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.


----------



## Original (Sep 17, 2016)

swarn bains said:


> original jee. you are a lawyer. here on our subject there are two types of  issues. first is private or personal domain. In this case the copy right applies and no one can copy from it and use it for his or her own purpose. the second version is public domain such SGGS. In this case it is open to anyone whoever wants to copy and use it, it is accepted because the copy right was surrenedered right in the beginning. I give you an example. Baba Nanak collected poetry of other saints. He paid rs 50 for Fareeds bqani. So he purchased that right and then the other bani was given to him by someone and then it got published in SGGS. And now it is public p[roperty and no one has copy right to it. I translated SGGS in English and published it. I was asked by the publisher if it has a copy right. I told him that it is public property and then he said that it is ok and no one has copy right to it. So it was published and others such as bible. quran ramayan etc all fall in the same category. The copy right does not apply here to the public domain.  I am not a lawyer, may be it is correct or wrong and that is my experience and opinion. s s a


Respected Swarn Singh,

You are right on both counts. Baba Nanak did not pass-off Baba Farid's work as his own, I think that was the case in point. I answered within the legal framework of such poor academic practices.

Thank you


----------



## Original (Sep 17, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Original Ji my argument is not based on my having any evidence, rather my argument is precisely the lack of evidence to support all of DG being the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.


Harkiran Kaur Ji

There is a *presumption* that the writings contained within SDGSJ are by n large, as those pertaining to be Guru Gobind Singh Ji's own handwritten [wide genre] literature or, that of His scribes [my understanding]. This literature was collated and complied by Bhai Mani Singh to form what is now, Dasam Granth. To rebut this presumption you are required to satisfy the evidential burden, meaning, show reasonable cause and back it up with credible evidence.

Hope you're getting to grips with that !

Goodnight


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 17, 2016)

Original said:


> Harkiran Kaur Ji
> 
> There is a *presumption* that the writings contained within SDGSJ are by n large, as those pertaining to be Guru Gobind Singh Ji's own handwritten [wide genre] literature or, that of His scribes [my understanding]. This literature was collated and complied by Bhai Mani Singh to form what is now known as, Dasam Granth. To rebut this presumption you are required to satisfy the evidential burden, meaning, show reasonable cause and back it up with credible evidence.
> 
> ...



Actually the burden of proof is on those who have the 'presumption' since they are the ones who are 'presuming' something without proof.

Instead you are suggesting that the burden of proof should be on the criminal to prove his innocence, when being 'presumed' guilty without any evidence - that is, if presumption is enough in court - but it's not is it??

The 'presumption' is also based on unreliable evidence that would not hold in a court of law today:

- The letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji has already been proven to be a fake by linguists as language was used in it, that dates it as being written far later than it claims
- Chibber's Banasavalinama is from decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world, does not give any sources, and Chibber himself states in it that he only wrote what he 'heard' (not experienced first hand). That means it's already considered hearsay.
- Mehma Parkash was written several decades after Banasavalinama, also does not quote any sources, seems to draw heavily on Chibber's account, and itself states that charitropakhyan was only older stories sourced from other places and was 'translated' (given a new form) by Guru Ji. However, no sources given to back these claims up at all in Mehma Parkash. So it could be anyone just writing anything and claiming what they want at that point.
- I could write a book today claiming that Guru Gobind Singh Ji spoke to purple aliens with pink polka dots who came from Mars. It would not make it true! And it could never be used as evidence to support anything.

Seems to me all they have is 'presumption' which as I said, won't hold in a court of law. The burden of proof is on them to prove their theory, not on everyone else to disprove it.


----------



## Original (Sep 18, 2016)

Good morning Harkiran Ji,

No, not quite like that ! You see the general rule is that everyone is "presumed" innocent until proven otherwise. This presumption is held on part the decision maker to treat everyone as if nothing had happened. The burden is on the party who "rebuts" [challenges] this presumption to prove to a reasonable standard [criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt and civil cases, on the balance of probabilities] their case by discharging the evidential burden. And since, someone is challenging the authenticity of what is otherwise "presumed" to be Gobind's literature, they'd be the party held responsible to prove on the balance of probabilities that it isn't all as it is made out to be. Indeed, you have adduced evidence to that effect, some of which is circumstantial and consistent with Sikh belief n value, but not in its entirety, sufficient to tip the balance in your favour and hence inconclusive.

As I said before, I'm new to this controversy and can only deliberate on facts provided. So far, I'm of the view that the disputed texts be treated incidental and not actual part of Sikh Faith save those incorporated institutionally. 

Much obliged -


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 18, 2016)

Original said:


> Good morning Harkiran Ji,
> 
> No, not quite like that ! You see the general rule is that everyone is "presumed" innocent until proven otherwise. This presumption is held on part the decision maker to treat everyone as if nothing had happened. The burden is on the party who "rebuts" [challenges] this presumption to prove to a reasonable standard [criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt and civil cases, on the balance of probabilities] their case by discharging the evidential burden. And since, someone is challenging the authenticity of what is otherwise "presumed" to be Gobind's literature, they'd be the party held responsible to prove on the balance of probabilities that it isn't all as it is made out to be. Indeed, you have adduced evidence to that effect, some of which is circumstantial and consistent with Sikh belief n value, but not in its entirety, sufficient to tip the balance in your favour and hence inconclusive.
> 
> ...



@Original   ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please let's not try to mix apples with Jamuns in order to prove our point how irrelevant it may be.

*Presumption of innocence or guilt as used in legalese*, which you use quite often at SPN btw, needlessly, because it has no relevance whatsoever to the  subjects being discussed here.

Your legalese term 'Presumption'   has nothing to do with the book, in this case DG.

According to you,  DG  was written by  our 10th Guru. Your presumption  sans proofs forces  the whole burden  on you.  It lies with the one with the presumption because once again we are talking about a book, not a crime that may have been committed by a person who is being tried in a court.  I am sure a sharp barrister like you knows the difference between the two.

The only fact here is that the writer/s broke the norm  set by our Gurus- One Jyot.  This is not a presumption from my side but a fact  contrary of your presumptive claim, disguised with a wrong term,'presumption'. I am sure you understand the meaning of One Jyot.

Some of us our guilty of not grasping this notion and hence fail to know the difference between the legalese and a common human trait of presuming. The latter is being used here no matter how much legalese is forced fed where it is not required nor needed but rather it is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed..

Coming back to DG, please elaborate what made you *presume* that DG was written by our 10th Guru? After all even any presumption requires some foundation which is missing here.

Please offer concrete examples.

Thanks.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 18, 2016)

Original Ji it's only presumed by a small percentage of Sikhs. Many Siks don't even know what's in DG let alone have enough knowledge to make any presumptions. In this case sorry, but presuming something without any evidence the burden is on those with the presumption as the lack of evidence in their favour is evidence in the favour of it it NOT being from Guru Gobind singh Ji.  The very lack of evidecne to show that it is from Guru Ji IS evidence to show that it's NOT from Guru Ji!!


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 18, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> Taking a queue from your analogy, then why do you think Sikh Gurus, incorporated the Banis of 32 Bhagats/Bhatts and took immense care, while translating them to Gurmukhi, to credit each and every shabd to its original author in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, our only Guru, whether it was using terms like Mahala 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 9 or Bhagat Bani. Each and every Ang in SGGS is credited to its original author, absolutely no question of any kind of plagiarism.


Not only giving credit to the original author but where ever clarification was required guru sahib added their own sloke after farid jee sloke from stanza No.108 to 113.(page 1383) Why there is no clarification in these alleged charitrophkhayan?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 18, 2016)

@Original    ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please let's not try to mix apples with Jamuns in order to prove our point how irrelevant it may be.

*Presumption of innocence or guilt as used in legalese*, which you use quite often at SPN btw, needlessly, because it has no relevance whatsoever to the  subjects being discussed here.

Your legalese term 'Presumption'   has nothing to do with the book, in this case DG.

According to you,  DG  was written by  our 10th Guru. Your presumption  sans proofs forces  the whole burden  on you.  It lies with the one with the presumption because once again we are talking about a book, not a crime that may have been committed by a person who is being tried in a court.  I am sure a sharp barrister like you knows the difference between the two.

The only fact here is that the writer/s broke the norm  set by our Gurus- One Jyot.  This is not a presumption from my side but a fact  contrary of your presumptive claim, disguised with a wrong term,'presumption'. I am sure you understand the meaning of One Jyot.

Some of us our guilty of not grasping this notion and hence fail to know the difference between the legalese and a common human trait of presuming. The latter is being used here no matter how much legalese is forced fed where it is not required nor needed but rather it is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed..

Coming back to DG, please elaborate what made you *presume* that DG was written by our 10th Guru? After all even any presumption requires some foundation which is missing here.

Please offer concrete examples.

Thanks.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 18, 2016)

> According to you,  DG  was written by  our 10th Guru. Your presumption  sans proofs forces  the whole burden  on you.  It lies with the one with the presumption because once again we are talking about a book, not a crime that may have been committed by a person who is being tried in a court.  I am sure a sharp barrister like you knows the difference between the two.



And even then, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.  A suspect is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty - and that too - beyond all reasonable doubt. Can we say the same for DG? Is it proven to be of the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, beyond all reasonable doubt? Far from it actually! 

- Letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji is proven to be fakery based on linguistics which dates it much later. 
- Banasavalinama by Chibber - Chibber quotes no sources, was written many decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji lest this world, admits he writes what he 'heard' (hear say) and even then, gets some historical accounts mixed up with dates etc. 
- Mehma Parkash - also quotes absolutely no sources whatsoever, seems to draw heavily on Chibber's accounts, makes claims that court poets brought stories back from many sources around the world which Guru Ji translated into a new form. We don't even know if what is in Charitropakhyan are the stories that were mentioned in Mehma Parkash or not. They could be entirely different material! And even then, where did the authour of Mehma Parkash get their information? There are no sources mentioned, and when Mehma Parkash was written, it was now over 100 years after Guru Ji was gone!  
- Neither Banasavalinama or Mehma Parkash make reference to a 'Dasam Granth' a all. Banasavalinama mentions a 'Samundar Sagar Granth' which was thrown in a river. Mehma Parkash mentions a 'Vidya Sagar Granth'. There is no way to know if either of these are what is considered to be DG today! 
- The EARLIEST traceable birs of DG can only be traced back to 4 copies which were all found (coincidentally??) at the same time, in 4 different locations, in the late 1800s! No earlier examples can be found! 

Does the above sound like it's beyond all reasonable doubt, that DG is written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji?




> The only fact here is that the writer/s broke the norm  set by our Gurus- One Jyot.  This is not a presumption from my side but a fact  contrary of your presumptive claim, disguised with a wrong term,'presumption'. I am sure you understand the meaning of One Jyot.



Very true! Most of what is written in DG goes against what is written in SGGSJ. 

In SGGSJ for example, Creator is said to be beyond all description, and to try to describe God is futile. Yet in DG, "Mahakaal" is given as one that has a "dark body bedecked beautifully with ornaments, with four beautiful arms, long hair bound in a knot, a tongue red like fire, grinder teeth and fleshy red eyes. He adorns a rosary of skulls in which blood oozes out which seeing even the god Shiva feels abashed. His movement is that of an elephant, intoxicated with wine. He wears anklets and has many gongs which resound and make the clouds feel ashamed. He has a mace, a sword and a bow and arrow. He produces a very loud roar in which the great monarchs are frightened and his conches and drums resound like the thundering sound of the sea..."  ------ Remember Mahakaal is the Creator God worshipped in "Benti Chaupai" - apparently God is not beyond all description after all since DG seems to describe every little detail for us!


----------



## Original (Sep 18, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Original Ji it's only presumed by a small percentage of Sikhs.


..consider Kully Ji a minority and proceed on those basis.


Harkiran Kaur said:


> In this case sorry, but presuming something without any evidence the burden is on those with the presumption


..please take this up with the Jews. Judaism works on the God presumption. The presumption that there is God. Similarly, the small percentage of Sikhs [statistical data according to you] works on the presumption that the whole of SDGSJ was written by Gobind. And, since you're objecting to this presumption, [note, the operative word is presumption] it is you who need to persuade otherwise. The inconsistency found in the contents of SDGSJ with wider Sikh belief, value and practice does not validate or invalidate its authenticity. Indeed, they'd be persuasive and rational when based on credible evidence.

The idea that we've evolved to argue and persuade, sometimes at the expense of truth, may seem to offer a pessimistic view of human reasoning. What is required in the instant case is an appeal to reason and not to one's disposition.

Harkiran, please afford me the liberty to exit this debate until such time Kully Ji decides to come back.

Much obliged


----------



## Kully (Sep 26, 2016)

Original said:


> .I'm afraid you can't and



Yes I can...



Original said:


> we will never have real mess because our only Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, come what may



but what about aspects of Sikhi that fall outside of SGGS?

Keeping kes?
Taking Khande ki pahul?
Ardas?
Greetings?
the 5k's?

and the biggest one of them all....Was Pothi Sahib given Gurgaddi, by Guru Gobind Singh?




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Original Ji my argument is not based on my having any evidence, rather my argument is precisely the lack of evidence to support all of DG being the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.



There is evidence to show that all of DG is the writing of Guru Gobind Singh. The ones you specifically mention, shows the evidence to prove this. It may only be one piece of evidence, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't the Guru work. Not even one. Just wild accusations, like your "the hindus wrote it". Where is the evidence for that?




Harkiran Kaur said:


> The 'presumption' is also based on unreliable evidence that would not hold in a court of law today:
> 
> - The letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji has already been proven to be a fake by linguists as language was used in it, that dates it as being written far later than it claims
> - Chibber's Banasavalinama is from decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world, does not give any sources, and Chibber himself states in it that he only wrote what he 'heard' (not experienced first hand). That means it's already considered hearsay.
> ...



Original, this is where the danger is. This criteria if apllied to SGGS would reuslt in the same.

No can prove that Guru Gobind Singh said "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai". It's not written anywhere.

No-one has seen Narbad Bhatts text, we only have Gyani Gyan Singh's word for this text and that was 200 years after the event.

The rehatnama that calls Pothi Sahib as "Guru" has a written date of 1696, 12 years before the event. How can this be?

The first writing that mentions Pothi Sahib as "Guru" is Gurbilas Patshahi 10, which was written several decades later in 1751, almost 40 years after the event.

So, by Harkiran's own criteria by analysing the factual data we have, we can't even prove that SGGS was given gurgaddi by Guru Sahib.

This could never be upheld in a court of law.

We have to be very careful about applying criteria in one aspect that could damage the very foundations of Gurmat. That is what is happening with the constant denigration of DG. It's a challenge to the doctrine of Gurmat as practised since the 1700s.





Harkiran Kaur said:


> Many Siks don't even know what's in DG let alone have enough knowledge to make any presumptions.



Many Sikhs don't know what SGGS is about even though they bow to it throughout their lives.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> The very lack of evidecne to show that it is from Guru Ji IS evidence to show that it's NOT from Guru Ji!!



There is more evidence to show that it is from Guru's hands than not.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> In SGGSJ for example, Creator is said to be beyond all description,





Harkiran Kaur said:


> apparently God is not beyond all description after all since DG seems to describe every little detail for us!



Beyond all description doesn't mean there are no descriptions of Waheguru. It means that no description will ever be complete. many times in SGGS there are descriptions of Wahegure, but none are them are complete as Waheguru cannot be described in total.

ਤੇਰੇ ਬੰਕੇ ਲੋਇਣ ਦੰਤ ਰੀਸਾਲਾ ॥
Your eyes are so beautiful, and Your teeth are delightful.

ਸੋਹਣੇ ਨਕ ਜਿਨ ਲੰਮੜੇ ਵਾਲਾ ॥
Your nose is so graceful, and Your hair is so long.

ਕੰਚਨ ਕਾਇਆ ਸੁਇਨੇ ਕੀ ਢਾਲਾ ॥
Your body is so precious, cast in gold.


ਸੋਵੰਨ ਢਾਲਾ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮਾਲਾ ਜਪਹੁ ਤੁਸੀ ਸਹੇਲੀਹੋ ॥
His body is cast in gold, and He wears Krishna's mala; meditate on Him, O sisters.

ਜਮ ਦੁਆਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਹੁ ਖੜੀਆ ਸਿਖ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਮਹੇਲੀਹੋ ॥
You shall not have to stand at Death's door, O sisters, if you listen to these teachings.

ਹੰਸ ਹੰਸਾ ਬਗ ਬਗਾ ਲਹੈ ਮਨ ਕੀ ਜਾਲਾ ॥
From a crane, you shall be transformed into a swan, and the filth of your mind shall be removed.

ਬੰਕੇ ਲੋਇਣ ਦੰਤ ਰੀਸਾਲਾ ॥੭॥
Your eyes are so beautiful, and Your teeth are delightful. ||7||

Raag Vadhans Guru Nanak Dev Ang 567

As you can see Guru Sahib has used some descriptions of Waheguru to describe his beauty. But we know that from SGGS , Waheguru doesn't actually look like this. The case is the same with DG.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> apparently God is not beyond all description after all since DG seems to describe every little detail for us!



It's very apparent that you don't like DG, but at least refrain from making sniping/sarcastic remarks about it, if you can't find anything positive to say.  It's not a way to behave on any learning forum.



Harkiran Kaur said:


> which seeing even the god Shiva feels abashed.



Well at least we can say that the "God" of DG is not Shiv.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 26, 2016)

Kully Ji you are asking everyone to go on basis of Absense of proof against must mean proof for. Sorry doesn't work that way, and besides the supposed proof you bring to the table and the basis you want us to take it as proof is dangerous. I could write a book tomorrow making bold claims about our Guru. I won't cite any sources just like both Banasavalinama and Mehma Prakash. In 100 years should everyone take that book I wrote as an authority on the subject and as 'proof'? Using your reasons why you consider Mehma Prakash to be evidence proving it to be from Guru Gobind Singh Ji then you can't discount the book I am about to write! You did say use what evidence you have right? I'll add another to the mix! In another 100 years my book will be evidence for whatever bold claims I want to make!

Sorry but you can not do that. Evidence must have reliable sources for its information and must be clear on the content it's actually speaking about. In case of Mehma Prakash it's not even mentioning a dasam granth but makes vague claims to writing and even then admits it was gathered by others from other sources meaning it's admitting that whatever writing it's talking about (we can't be sure) is not authored by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, but just translated. And where did this information originate from (since it's now over 100 years since Guru Ji left this world)? Who knows because no sources are cited!!


----------



## Kully (Sep 27, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Kully Ji you are asking everyone to go on basis of Absense of proof against must mean proof for.



In the case of established practice, the onus is not on anyone to prove, but on those wish to disprove. DG has been part of Sikh religious practice since 1700. If 300 years later you say it wasn't then the onus is on you to prove that is wasn't.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> and besides the supposed proof you bring to the table and the basis you want us to take it as proof is dangerous.



It is dangerous, I agree, because if you apply it to SGGS and "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai" then you are automatically setting the grounds for rejection of SGGS as our Guru. That is dangerous.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> I won't cite any sources just like both Banasavalinama and Mehma Prakash.



Absence of sources in itself is no source of proof. Both text contain meagre information, but essentially enough to inform us, that:

a) Guru Gobind Singh wrote a granth
b) that granth contained certain named writings.

Bhai Desa Singh's rehatnama goes to the extent of naming many writings in DG.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Evidence must have reliable sources for its information and must be clear on the content it's actually speaking about.



Yes, I agree, but there is no evidence which is reliable for Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. So by the criteria that you are using against DG, are totally and equally applicable to SGGS. In't that dangerous?

That's not to mention Nitnem banis, the procedure to take pahul, the 5 k's etc.

Do you still not see how dangerous it is to ask for the kind of concrete proof you are looking for?




Harkiran Kaur said:


> In case of Mehma Prakash it's not even mentioning a dasam granth but makes vague claims to writing and even then admits it was gathered by others from other sources



Mehma Parkash gives us enough information to make an informed decision. I'm surprised that you keep bringing this text up, as you originally great hopes on it, as some kind of proof for you.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> And where did this information originate from (since it's now over 100 years since Guru Ji left this world)? Who knows because no sources are cited!!



Sabh sikhan ko hukam hai guru maneyo granth was written almost 200 years after the event. Why should we beleive that SGGS was given gurgaddi when the information and sources are not verifiable?



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Most of what is written in DG goes against what is written in SGGSJ.



Have you read "most" of DG? Have you read "most" of SGGS? Only someone who has could make that kind of statement.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> There are no sources mentioned, and when Mehma Parkash was written, it was now over 100 years after Guru Ji was gone!



Mehma Parkash was completed around 70 years after Guru Sahib's joti jot.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> The EARLIEST traceable birs of DG can only be traced back to 4 copies which were all found (coincidentally??) at the same time, in 4 different locations, in the late 1800s! No earlier examples can be found!



Not true. Charles Watkins in his travels through India records seeing DG in 1780 at Patna Sahib, and another traveller (his name escapes me) wrote in 1812 after seeing the Sikhs attending a gurmatta, that the Sikhs took the pledge in front of the granth of Nanak, and the granth of Gobind.


----------



## Admin (Sep 27, 2016)

Kully said:


> Yes, I agree, but there is no evidence which is reliable for Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. So by the criteria that you are using against DG, are totally and equally applicable to SGGS. In't that dangerous?



@Kully ji, do you doubt the authenticity of SGGS being given Gurgaddi?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 27, 2016)

Kully said:


> In the case of established practice, the onus is not on anyone to prove, but on those wish to disprove. DG has been part of Sikh religious practice since 1700. If 300 years later you say it wasn't then the onus is on you to prove that is wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all DG was not even compiled till long after Guru Gobdind Singh was gone. Supposedly by Baha'i Mani Singh Ji.  If you think it was fully compiled in 1700 then you are going against your own evidence.

Also That account of a Granth seen in 1780 does not mention any dasam granth. You are assuming that the Granth spoken of is the dasam Granth when it could be anything. It could have been a copy of the Vedas for all he'd know!

And wow I love how you try to skew things in your favour! You can't compare it to SGGSJ as the lineage was never broken!!! The history of it and birs can be traced back! So please don't bring our only Guru into this! Birs of supposed dasam Granth were not brought into it until much later. Any prior accounts of Granths or writings do not mention 'dasam Granth'. Not Mehma Prakash, not banasavinama, not the forged letter supposedly from bhaibmani singh, and not the account you just brought up. Just saying there is a second Granth there doesn't mean it's automatically dasam granth.

And yes it IS dangerous to make assumptions based on very sp{censored} and limited evidence which does not even mention something by name! You can't apply the same with SGGSJ as there are birs with a very known history right from our Gurus time where those birs still exist! And I had the privilege of photographing one!

But to assume that sp{censored} references to some writing by Guru Gobind Sugh Ji must mean what we have now as dasam granth is dangerous. To use books which have no sources cited is very dangerous ......as I said I can write a new book of my own, saying Guru Ji didn't write Dasam Granth. Then using your reasoning my book must also be taken as evidence in this case against DG. Even if I don't cite any research or sources! And you can't say that my book is any less of an authority than Mehma Prakash etc because you'd have to apply the same litmus test on those other sources you are using on mine!  Just because someone writes something vaguely referencing something doesn't mean it's referencing what you are assuming, and also it doesn't mean they are correct.

In case of SGGSJ the lineage and history however is unbroken!!! Also I showed you proof where it was recorded that Guru Gobind Singh gave gurgaddi to SGGSJ alone. It was recorded on bards scroll AS it was being dictated. So there is no doubt there!

The event on 20 October 1708 at Nanded (in present-day Maharashtra), when Guru Gobind Singh installed Adi Granth as the Guru of Sikhism,* was recorded in a Bhatt Vahi (a bard's scroll) by an eyewitness*, *Narbud Singh,*[2][3][4] and is now celebrated as Guru Gaddi (Guru Gaddi Divas), and statement is part of the central chant, _Sabh Sikhan ko Hukam Hai, Guru Maneyo Granth_. - Sikhiwikki 

An eyewitness recording something as it happens is way different than a book written decades and decades afterward and citing no sources. In the case of SGGSJ being given guruship it was EYEWITNESS account and recorded straight away!! So your argument against SGGSJ being our only Guru does not hold. We don't have any eyewitness accounts for dasam granth at time it was compiled. Instead we have vague references to 'writing' never mentioned by name as dasam Granth, written 70 years after Guru Gobind singh Ji (in case of banasavalinama) and another couple decades later for Mehma Prakash, with no sources cited at all, and you are assuming they are talking about dasam Granth or that the author even knew what they were writing about!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 27, 2016)

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.


Kully said:


> In the case of established practice, the onus is not on anyone to prove, but on those wish to disprove. DG has been part of Sikh religious practice since 1700. If 300 years later you say it wasn't then the onus is on you to prove that is wasn't.



The fact is that one can not prove a negative, the  straw you have been holding on to as your 'trump card'.

Please share a viable fact for your claims.

Thanks.


----------



## Kully (Sep 28, 2016)

Admin Singh said:


> @Kully ji, do you doubt the authenticity of SGGS being given Gurgaddi?



What makes you ask that Admin Singh Ji?




Harkiran Kaur said:


> If you think it was fully compiled in 1700 then you are going against your own evidence.



The texts were completed in 1696. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Also That account of a Granth seen in 1780 does not mention any dasam granth. You are assuming that the Granth spoken of is the dasam Granth when it could be anything. It could have been a copy of the Vedas for all he'd know!



It doesn't mention it by name, but the details of the scenario given the later eye-witness writing in 1812 mean it could be no other. 

As for the vedas, never in sikh history has this occured, so it would be more unlikely that this 2nd granth was any other than DG.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> You can't compare it to SGGSJ as the lineage was never broken!!! The history of it and birs can be traced back!



I can compare it to SGGS. Where is the original Damdami bir dictated by Guru Gobind Singh, and scribed by Bhai Mani Singh?




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Just saying there is a second Granth there doesn't mean it's automatically dasam granth.



On the basis of probability there would not be a stronger contender.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> You can't apply the same with SGGSJ as there are birs with a very known history right from our Gurus time where those birs still exist!




Ok, where are those birs?




Harkiran Kaur said:


> But to assume that sp{censored} references to some writing by Guru Gobind Sugh Ji must mean what we have now as dasam granth is dangerous.



It is dangerous, I'm in total agreement with you. There are only sp{censored} references to Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. That's why it is so dangerous because anybody who rejects DG on this basis will be rejecting SGGS on the same basis.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Also I showed you proof where it was recorded that Guru Gobind Singh gave gurgaddi to SGGSJ alone.



No you didn't. You copied and pasted something from sikhiwikhi. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> It was recorded on bards scroll AS it was being dictated. So there is no doubt there!



Ok, so where are these records now? Clear my doubts.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> The event on 20 October 1708 at Nanded (in present-day Maharashtra), when Guru Gobind Singh installed Adi Granth as the Guru of Sikhism,* was recorded in a Bhatt Vahi (a bard's scroll) by an eyewitness*, *Narbud Singh,*[2][3][4] and is now celebrated as Guru Gaddi (Guru Gaddi Divas), and statement is part of the central chant, _Sabh Sikhan ko Hukam Hai, Guru Maneyo Granth_. - Sikhiwikki



Another copy and paste form sikhiwiki? Where is this bhatt's record now? 

If this bhatt's record was available then, why did the Panth only start using this "Sabh sikhan" in 1890s after Gyani Gyan Singh wrote it? Don't you think it would have been in use much earlier? i.e. in 1708?




Tejwant Singh said:


> The fact is that one can not prove a negative, the straw you have been holding on to as your 'trump card'.



Tejwant Singh, fancy words aside, maybe you would like to offer some evidence in SGGS being given gurgaddi?
 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> Instead we have vague references to 'writing' never mentioned by name as dasam Granth, written 70 years after Guru Gobind singh Ji (in case of banasavalinama) and another couple decades later for Mehma Prakash, with no sources cited at all, and you are assuming they are talking about dasam Granth or that the author even knew what they were writing about!



The name Dasam Granth is only a recent thing, since around 1890s. Before that it was known as "Dasve Padshah ka granth".


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 28, 2016)

Kully said:


> What makes you ask that Admin Singh Ji?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Prove it.



> It doesn't mention it by name, but the details of the scenario given the later eye-witness writing in 1812 mean it could be no other.
> 
> On the basis of probability there would not be a stronger contender.
> 
> The name Dasam Granth is only a recent thing, since around 1890s. Before that it was known as "Dasve Padshah ka granth".



Oh what about Sarbloh granth? What about the names given in Chibber's account and Mehma Prakash? Chibber only mentions a Sumandar Sagar Granth and writing that were lost in a river. Mehma Prakash speaks of a Vidya Sagar Granth. Are all of these the same one Granth? Why would a Granth so important which you say existed prior to Guru Gobind Singh Ji leaving this earth, have so many different names and such an uncertain history? (Vague references in unprovable sources by authors who were around long after Guru Gobind Singh Ji was gone and one of which admitted he only wrote what he 'heard' from others and the other was decades later again and so could not have had any first hand experience or be a reliable witness. If this Granth is authentic and important then why the sordid history, vague references and multiple names?

The fact is just because YOU think those references are speaking about the book we have now before us, doesn't make it true.

As for SGGSJ I had the privilege of photographing a hand written bir in Kashmir in Anantnag, Mattan Sahib called the golden bir (sunehri bir) which is proven to be from 17th century and was held there for that time until today where it still resides. That alone is older than the oldest birs available of the so called dasam Granth.

The original was completed in 1604 and was installed at darbar Sahib. The final version the Damdama Sahib Bir was installed at Nanded in 1705 by Guru Gobind Singh and was recorded there and it's history is most definitely not in question.

As for Guru Granth Sahib Ji being Guru, it's also mentioned in Bhai Nand Laal Ji's rhetnama which was compiled before Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world in 1695. 

"This Rehatnama is written in *December 1695C according to the 39th line but the interesting thing is it mentions Ad Granth as Guru Granth Sahib Ji in line ਸੀਸ ਟੇਕ ਗੁਰ ਗਰੰਥ ਜੀ ਬਚਨ ਸੁਣੇ ਸੋ ਹਜ਼ੂਰ ॥ (੧੬)And after bowing your head to Guru Granth Jee, listen to the celestial teachings." Quoted from Sikh Sangat. 

So SGGSJ status as Guru for all time was evident even before that day in 1708.

There exists no such evidence in support of dasam Granth even as a Granth let alone having equal or even important status in Sikhi. Only assumptions that vague references to 'writings' which were referred to by many different names, assumptions that these are in fact what is surfaced now as dasam Granth.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 28, 2016)

Kully said:


> Tejwant Singh, fancy words aside, maybe you would like to offer some evidence in SGGS being given gurgaddi?



Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am a bit surprised that you have no comments of your insistence onto others to prove a negative. One wonders why!

The subject of this thread is DG not SGGS. We can discuss about the latter in another thread after the completion of this one in any manner.

So please stick to the topic in hand which is DG and give proofs of your claims.

Thanks


----------



## Kully (Sep 28, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Prove it.



The last internal date of the texts of DG is dated 1696. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Oh what about Sarbloh granth?



This granth was so secretive that apart from Nihangs i don't think any Sikhs know it existed. Apart from that I know very little about this granth.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> What about the names given in Chibber's account and Mehma Prakash?



They were names of various texts from DG such as "Bachitar Natak" or "Avtar leela" etc. Guru Granth as well had more than name.




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Why would a Granth so important which you say existed prior to Guru Gobind Singh Ji leaving this earth, have so many different names and such an uncertain history



There is no uncertainty. The only uncertainty is by those who wish to sideline this granth from the Sikhs because they don't understand it. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> one of which admitted he only wrote what he 'heard' from others



By this he doesn't mean he heard it in a market, or from some people. This is what is called seena-baseena tradition. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> As for SGGSJ I had the privilege of photographing a hand written bir in Kashmir in Anantnag, Mattan Sahib called the golden bir (sunehri bir)



And yet you failed to notice it has more than 1430 angs. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> That alone is older than the oldest birs available of the so called dasam Granth.



This Sunheri bir could not have been form the 17th century because Guru Gobind Singh did not add Guru Tegh Bahadur's shabads until 1706. So it wold automatically be from the 18th century, unless it is a copy of the Kartarpur Bir, which means it is a copy of Aad Pothi, not SGGS.

Plus being "sunehri" marks it out as being from a later period when Granths were copied with creativity and splendour. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> The final version the Damdama Sahib Bir was installed at Nanded in 1705 by Guru Gobind Singh



1705?

Wow. How could this happen when Guru Sahib compiled the Granth in 1706, and reached Nander in 1707? 


Harkiran Kaur said:


> As for Guru Granth Sahib Ji being Guru, it's also mentioned in Bhai Nand Laal Ji's rhetnama



I'm not interested in Bhai Nand Lal's words. I'm interested in in Guru Gobind Singh's writing "sabh Sikhan ki hukam hai...."




Tejwant Singh said:


> One wonders why!



Stop your wondering and contribute to the topic Sir. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> The subject in this thread is DG not SGGS




Actually Tejwant Ji, the topic is the "5k's". 

The topic theme is where is the evidence for the 5 k's ? There is not one piece of evidence/writing upto 1790 that lists the 5 k's. 

That is one of the reasons I made this topic, because it's very easy to dismiss DG for lack of concrete evidence, or sp{censored} existing proof. But it's not just with DG that we find ourselves in this situation. 

With Nitnem, vidhi on taking pahul, the 5k's, saying fateh to each other etc. These are not covered in the granths/literature that we have today. To me, if you dismiss anyone of these for lack of evidence you have dismissed them all. 

Look at how we are struggling to find any tangible evidence that Guru Gobind Singh wrote "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai".


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 28, 2016)

Kully ji,
Guru Fateh.

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

However, one thing must be added to the above is your personal two pence worth which is vital for furthering the interaction.

Thanks.


----------



## Admin (Sep 28, 2016)

Kully said:


> What makes you ask that Admin Singh Ji?



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


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 28, 2016)

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

which, wont work. 

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

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


----------



## Kully (Sep 29, 2016)

Tejwant Singh said:


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



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

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

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




Admin Singh said:


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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Admin Singh said:


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



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


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 29, 2016)

Kullly ji,

Guru fateh



Kully said:


> It's not a list of grievances. *It's an alarming observation that some people are ready to undermine the whole practice of Sikhi because they do not have the concrete irrefutable proof they desire to beleive in something.*
> 
> *It started with DG, but the same parameters when applied to Guru Granth sahib/the 5 K's/Nitnem/khande ki pahul etc then these are all in the same situation.*



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

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

Thanks

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


----------



## Kully (Sep 29, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



Great. Let's see these rehatnamas.



Tejwant Singh said:


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



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


Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 29, 2016)

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.




Kully said:


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



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

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

Thanks


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 29, 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Kully (Sep 29, 2016)

Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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

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

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

Remember the quote by Epictetus, and progress in reading.




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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

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




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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

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




Harkiran Kaur said:


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



In describing Waheguru, who has no form.



Harkiran Kaur said:


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



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


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Sep 29, 2016)

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

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

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


----------

