Dasam Granth: Twisting Bones Till They Snap

Dr Karminder Singh Dhillon responds to arguments by Gurmukh Singh on Dasam Granth.

12
2513
| Opinion | 30 June 2016 | Asia Samachar |

dasam-granth-fb2By Karminder Singh Dhillon

Reading Gurmukh Singh’s response to my Father’s Day and Dasam Granth article brought Fiction Factory lyrics to my mind: Twisting the Bones Till they Snap.

Trying to justify 404 Chritars or tales of sexual debauchery that are written in crude, graphic and often times vulgar detail; presented as abhorrently derogatory to women; and based on accounts as immoral and decadent as one can imagine; does indeed require one heck of a lot of twisting.

Especially because such repulsive tales sit as the central core of the Dasam Granth (DG) – occupying one third of this book under the title of Chitro Pakhyaan (CP) and spread over a full 578 pages from page 809 till 1386.

 

GURMUKH SINGH’S JUSTIFICATIONS SUMMARIZED.

Gurmukh Singh provides three justifications for the 404 Chritars as follows:

  1. The Chritars are educational in nature. He writes: “Each Chariter has a moral message.”
  1. The depictions of the repulsive Chritars are reflections of the sexual deviations that occur in society on a wide level. He writes: “All of the “despicable” or objectionable scenarios which virtuos (sp) men like yourselves object to, are a given ..a norm today.”
  1. Thinking Sikhs must rise above the literal meanings of the Chritars. He writes: “You will not appreciate this (Chitro Pakhyan) if you suffer from an inability to read beyond the sexual content. Rise above your baser senses……..Rise above literal and simplistic translations and you will truly appreciate the deeply caring and holistically educative Father, that is Guru Gobind Singh.”

 

THE JUSTIFICATIONS EXAMINED.

The argument that the Charitars have moral messages or are educational or spiritual is a common one; albeit dubious in my view – advanced by those who support CP in particular and the DG in general.

The only way to put this argument to test is to look at the subject matter of the Chritars one by one and ask what the “moral message” is.

But we know fully well that NONE of the Chritars can ever be read out in the presence of a second person.

Their language and content is such that no one can read it in the presence of one’s mother, sister, wife, daughter, brother, son, parent and elder. No one has. At least not openly.

Even those who do the “parkash” and “akhand paath” of the DG switch to silent mode when they come to Chritro Pakhyan. The “hukumnama”- if it comes from CP – is “taken in silence.”

Consequently then, my question is simple. How can a Chritar that cannot even be READ out due to its decadent language have a moral MESSAGE? How does one talk about, expound, or discourse on morality using a narrative composed in the language of vulgarity?

The next question then – for those who advance the “moral message” argument” is: Are you hiding behind the “non-readability” of the Chritars to make your argument?

If so, then your argument is dubious. It is dubious because what cannot be read cannot be moral. What is dishonourable to read cannot have anhonourable message. What is objectionable to read cannot contain an acceptable message. What is vulgar in language cannot be spiritual in content. What is immoral in narrative cannot be moral in its message.

 

BUT TEST WE MUST.

With apologies for offending the moral conscience of Asia Samachar readers, I append below two couplets taken from Chritar number 68 which appears on page 899 of DG. The Punjabi translation is taken from Dr Rattan Singh Jaggi’s Teeka of DG, Vol. 4 page 242.

In feeble defence of my choice of Chritar, I can only say that it is perhaps among the LEAST offensive since it does not, at least, involve a woman.

Dohra. Ya Ghoree Ko Bhug Bikhey, Jeebh Dayee Sau Baar.

I inserted my tongue into the Bhug of the female horse one hundred times.

Note: The Punjabi-English dictionary published by Punjab University Patiala on page 633 defines the Punjabi word “Bhug” as “genital organs of females, vulva, pudendum, vagina, anus.

Turat Rog Hamro Kateyo, Suno Baed Upchaar.

Listen, O Baed (medicine man), with this treatment my disease was cured in an instant.

Chaupayee. Tabey Baed Sou Kriya Kamayee.Ta Ko Bhug Mein Jeebh Dhasayee

Then the Baed performed the same act. He thrust his tongue into the horse’s Bhug.

 

NOW MY QUESTIONS.

  1. So pray, someone tell me what is the moral message of this repulsive, repugnant and disgusting Chritar?
  2. Gurmukh Singh argues that “All of the “despicable” or objectionable scenarios which virtuos (sp) men like yourselves object to, are a given ..a norm today…… what is written in Charitropakhyan whence the various permutations expressed therein are today’s happenings.

My question then is this.  Is the “permutation” expressed in Chritar 68 – namely sticking a tongue into the behind of a horse one hundred times – a “given, a norm today, today’s happenings”?

Or was it even a “norm” when the author(s) of CP were taking up the burden of providing “moral messages” in the 404 Chritars”? How many people go around sticking their tongues into animals?

  1. Gurmukh Singh writes: “Thinking Sikhs must rise above the literal meanings of the Chritars. You will not appreciate this (Chitro Pakhyan) if you suffer from an inability to read beyond the sexual content.”

My questions then are: Is Dr Rattan Singh Jaggi’s translation guilty of providing a “literal meaning” of Chritar 68?  Is the Punjab University of Patiala also guilty of providing a “literal” translation of the word “Bhug.” After all the word is neutral and is just the name of a body part.

And in accepting the meanings provided by the above two authorities am I guilty of understanding only its literal meanings as well?

Do we all (Dr Jaggi, Punjab University and I) suffer from an “inability to read beyond the sexual content”? Pray tell us, what exactly is “beyond” the repulsive sexual content of sticking one’s tongue into wherever it is being thrust into in this Chritar.

 

HAVE GURMUKH SINGH’S JUSTIFICATIONS FAILED THE TEST?

The argument that CP is “holistically educational” and contains “moral messages” that are to be found “beyond the literal” is therefore phony.

It is bogus because it only works for those who have NOT read the 404 Chritars and don’t know of the depraved content. The sham of this argument disappears the moment one gets down to reading and understanding the 404 Chritars.

The 404 Chritars mention a total of some 200 woman; many by name. A search in Kahn Singh Nabha’s Encyclopaedia of Sikhism Mahan Kosh reveals no entry for any one of them; except for two women who share the same name by pure co-incidence.

It is obvious therefore that the Chirtars are the work of fiction. Sexual fantasies in other words. The term “holistically educational” would have to be given a mother of all twists to make it applicable to any one of these raunchy Chritars.

So to those who want to use the argument that “Each Chariter has a moral message,” I ask that they (1) write out the entire Charitar (2) provide the meanings in accordance with either Dr Jaggi’s, Dr Jodh Singh or Pandit Narain Singh’s Teeka. (3) most importantly: Provide the EXACT verses WITHIN the Charitarwhich contain the so called “moral messages.”

 

BRINGING SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB INTO THE TWISTED JUSTIFICATIONS

Gurmukh Singh writes “A virtuos lady is a Suchejji. The opposite is termed Kuchejji. The attributes of both are found in SGGS ji & in elaborate detail in Dasam Granth. You may have also come across Shabads such as Kusudh; Kulakhni; Kunaar in SGGS ji. Tria Chariter is but an exposition of this.”

Using Gurbani and the SGGS to support the content of CP is wrong. I don’t accept the validity of the comparisons, but since the matter has been raised, clarification becomes necessary.

The SGGS is written largely from the feminine perspective. Thakur Ek Sabai Naar (SGS:933).  The Lord Master is one (and male). The rest of us (male and female) are all females. Even Guru ji puts himself in the category of females.

When Guru ji says “Avho Milho Saheleyo”(GGS: 38)  he is not calling upon his female friends (saheliyo). He is calling all seekers of spirituality – male and female.

When Guru Nanak ji says “Galeen Aseen Changeeyan, Acharee Bureyan” (SGGS: 85) the gender of Changeeyan (good) and Bureyan (bad) is feminine but all males are included in equal measure within both terms. By using the word Aseen (We), the Guru also puts himself in the category of females.

So the terms Kucheji, Ksudh, Kulakhnbi, Kunaar etc in the SGGS are NOT used for women with negative character. They are meant to refer to ALL Sikhs – male and female – who are deficient in their spiritual behaviours towards God.

On the other hand, ALL the women who are the main characters of Chitro Pakhyaan are morally corrupt, sexually deviant, cheaters, cunning, vile, two timers, liars, murderers and deficient in character. And they are ALL physical women in female gender, with female names.

The CP and DG is thus NEVER an “elaboration” or an “exposition” of any of the terms in the SGGS.

 

NO COMPARISON TO SGGS POSSIBLE.

In fact the CP is NEVER an elaboration of anything that is found in the sacrosanct SGGS. The CP is in reality a repulsive and abhorrent contradiction of all that the SGGS stands for.

The message of SGGS in relation to woman is “So Kio Munda Aakhyeay Jit Jamey Rajaan” (GGS: 473); namely that Woman is the birth-creator of every single human being that is Kingly in his or her accomplishments.

The ultimate message in relation to woman of Chirtrpo Pakhyaan sits on page 1267 of DG at the close of Chritar 312 as follows:

Ant Triyan Ko Kahu Na Payo. Bidhnaa Sirraj Bahur Pashuttaayo. Jin Eh Keyau Sakkal Sansaaro.Vhai Pashaan Bhaidd Triyyah Haaro

He who created the entire creation regretted having created woman. Even He failed to understand the trickery of woman. (Translation from Dr Jaggi’s DG Teeka, Vol 5 Page 389).

This immoral message is an insult to women. It is an insult to mankind – half of which constitutes woman.

This immoral message is also an affront to the core messages of SGGS which deploys the female gender as the chosen gender within its spiritual compositions.

The same immoral message is a slur to the Sikhi of Guru Nanak till Guru Gobind Singh Ji which gave prominence to women from Bibis Nanaki, Khivi, Bhani,Gujri ji and countless others right down to Maee Bhago.

At the very crux of it, to say that God “regretted having created woman” is to utter an ultimate insult to the Creator Himself.

Taken as a whole, this then is what Chirtro Pakyaan of DG is all about – an insult to the morality of humanity and to the humanity of its Creator.

 

Karminder-mugshot2Karminder Singh Dhillon, PhD (Boston) writes on Gurbani and Gurmat issues in The Sikh Bulletin, USA. He also conducts Gurbani Katha in local Gurdwaras. He is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  • This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of the Asia Samachar.

 

[ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and surrounding countries. We have a Facebook page, do give it a LIKE. Follow us on Twitter. Visit our website: www.asiasamachar.com]

RELATED STORIES:

Twister to Father’s Day message (Asia Samachar, 25 June 2016)

Father’s Day and Dasam Granth (Asia Samachar, 21 June 2016)

Guru Granth and Dasam Granth: A comparison (Asia Samachar, 12 June 2016)

AWAT: The Terrible Two’s Again? (Asia Samachar, 28 May 2016)

Dasam Granth again (Asia Samachar, 29 April 2016)

Khoj Gurbani at two (Asia Samachar, 29 April 2016)

Q&A with Dr Karminder Singh on Dasam Granth issue (Asia Samachar, 22 April 2016)

MGC fears Akaal Ustat Semagam can split Sanggat, cause disunity (Asia Samachar, 21 April 2016)

‘One Granth One Panth’ call from Global Sikh Council (Asia Samachar, 11 April 2016)

False lure of the past: Lap dogs, watch dogs & attack dogs? (Asia Samachar, 5 April 2016)

When our quirks define us: A parable revisited (Asia Samachar, 10 March 2016)

Questioning faith (Asia Samachar, 26 Feb 2016)

You want to respect Guru, make shabad accessible (Asia Samachar, 14 Jan 2016)

12 COMMENTS

  1. Points that are always side stepped as well:

    1. Why and who altered the Numberings….its clear that its skullduggery at work….Example A: There is no Mukhvaak Patshai das in the ORIGINAL placeholder form where the Kabiobach benti Chaupaii is LIFTED…but those words are inserted in the GUTKA EDITION.

    Secondly the Earlier Slok Number: is deleted / removed…and the Chaupaii is RENUMBERED beginning with No. 1- onwards. the actual numbers are 377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390, till 404…But in the GUTKAS..we find these have been changed to 1,2,3,etc.. IF this is NOT crafty underhand tactics to hide the truth..??? what is it and why..and who..and when ?? (btw exact same trick is used in the Raagmala….Raagmala is lifted from a book by Madhav naal kaam kandla and simialrly its slok numbers were removed and replaced by 1,1,1,1,1 in SGGS !!! Not a very intelligent plagirist…

    Thirdly: the 8 compositions REMOVED from present dsm also have the words Bhakha/Mukhvaak/Patshai dasveehn attached..BUT that didn’t save them from being THROWN OUT. Again subterfuge and craftyness ….THOSE compositions that have those titles..are REMOVED…but those that didn’t have them are ADDED…underhand magic ?? ..as the clever lawyer once remarked..It looks like me, talks like me, sounds like me..BUT its not me..correct correct correct….Legal eager beavers trained to see “hidden messages” should respond to these basic questions. Then we can go on to literal and lessons from thereon..

  2. Just one charitro or for that matter one line that does not conform with the philosophy and divinity of GGS ji , is enough to reject DG. It is so straight forward and some of us, among whom, who even claim to be the custodians of sikhs, can’t see it. Sad and shameful!!
    Excellent write up by Dr Karminder Singh ji. Satguru hor kirpa karre

  3. Additional and interesting…MANN VICH KHYAAL AIYAH..a strange thought struck me today….the SGGS contains the GURBANI-DHUR KI BANI-Bani GURU,..Guru hai bani..vich BANI AMRIT SAREH…all very clear and transparent so far….GURU is SGGS…its the JYOT of ALL contributors to SGGS…and there are 35 in total.

    Guru sahib makes no distinctions..no differences between the various contributors…for themsleves Guru nanak ji chose to be just NUMBER+ NANAK. For the others it had to be NAME due to necessity..the Gurbani of Kabir Ji Ravidass Ji dhanna ji etc etc had already been written under their various NAMES…and secondly they are INDIVIDUALS..thus no “Numbering: necessary either. And Guru ji being no plagirist/copycat/pirate..wrote the right name of the right bahgat author. No cutting/pasting or changing anything. DHUR KI BANI kept intact and LOCKED IN in exact same manner as that done to Mehla Pehlla..Mehla Dooja etc tec. In fact any reader of the SGGS will find it very difficult to find any visible marker/distinctive marking that divides or acts a s a boundary to show..Here Sikh Guru Gurbani ENDS…and BHAGAT GURBANI BEGINS. Strangely..it were SIKHS that went around setting up divisions hwere none existed..it was Sikhs who picked out all Bhagat writings and published them separately as BHAGAT BANI…Bhagat bani STEEK etc !! These were the very first attempts made by vested interests to begin the “Divide and Conquer meaning Divide and BREAK !! The Gurus divided on basis of RAAG….the clear and distinctive division is there at each RAAG END. Each NEW RAAG begins with the FULL MOOLMANTAR (Up to GURPARSAAD and NOT as the derawadees insist to nanak hosee bhee sach !!..well thats another plot by itself) After the Raag begins..Mool mnatar is followed by Gurbani of Mehlla Pehllah..dooja, teeja chautha, panjvan, nauvan….and then Bhagat Kabir ji…and so on. This arrangement is strictly followed in each Rag consistently and indicates to convey the Principle that Bhagat Kabir ji is Sharomani Bhagat. But there is no special spacing/line/etc to indicate that the Gurbani is different in any way. When a Sikh Bows his head to the SGGS..he bows to the GURU and the GURU is all inclusive – all 35 contributors are authors of the same DHUR KI BANI which has all the AMRIT and all the Goodness of the GURU.

    This artificial segregation of Bhagat bani in teekas etc, led to the second step…attempts were made to actually EDIT the SGGS and REMOVE all Bhagat bani !! Luckily for us all, the SIKH Panth at that time was very vigilant and degradation wasnt that deep because that time the POLITICAL POWER was in the hands of the BRITISH (Not like now where the political master is also one of us)..and this sacrilege was cut short..nipped in the bud and the person responsible was excommunicated. The attempt died still born…..BUT the small bacteria managed to creep inside via the Bhagauti Pauree from DSM Vaar Bhagauti Ki..which essentially but in a cleverly hidden way (hidden message !!) kept to the exact same plot…to EXCLUDE the Bhagats and DIVIDE the SGGS into SIKH GURUBANI and BHAGAT GURBANI. This hidden cell of the saboteur managed to bury itself deep via the SIkh Rehat Maryada which was actually a “Compromise” with the DERAWADEE GANG to keep Panthic Unity intact under which the RAAGMAALA was allowed to stay insdie the SGGS despite being recognised as NOT GURBANI. This was a major concession to the Taksali Group which didnt give recognition to the SRM anyway even after winning this concession and kept their own dera maryada intact. Because of this shortcoming, we Sikhs are actually dividing the GURU and the GURBANI based on BIPPAR lines and our ardass reflects this shortcoming.

    So far so good..Now comes the intriguing part….HOW and when and WHO introduces.. “DISCRIMINATION…DIFFERENCES…and DISTINGUISHES between the SINGLE JYOT of the 35 in SGGS ???

    The First paurree of the ARDASS…The Bhaugautee writer does that. He has very cleverly BROKEN the UNITY of the SINGLE JYOT in SGGS by mentioning ONLY the 9 Sikh GURUS….and leaving out all the remaining contributors. The BREAKDOWN then continues with the words..DASSAN GURUAN DEE JYOT !!! Isnt the JYOT also inclusive of the others whose GURBANI is bowed to by us all ?? Its beside the point that out of the 10 Gurus..only 1,2,3,4,5 and 9 WROTE GURBANI which is right before us in the SGGS sharing the SINGLE JYOT of DHUR KI BANI. Its also besides the POINT that IF Gurus 6,7,8 can be GURU JYOT without a single tuk of Gurbani..then WHY make so much out of the non-existent bani of the 10Th ??? ALL 10 are one single GURU JYOT..regardeless of Gurbani written or not.period. We miss the point that when Guru Gobind Singh Ji called upon the highly respected and educated GYANI Bhai Mani Singh to be the scribe to REWRITE the entire KARTARPURI BIR of GURU ARJUN JI/Bhai Gurdass scribed…to INCLUDE the GURBANI of GURU TEG BAHADUR JI…..the Mahalla Nauvahn Gurbani was INSERTED after the Gurbani of Guru ARJUN Ji at HUNDREDS of APPROPRIATE PLACES…in all the different RAAGS..and its a fact that Guru Teg bahadur Ji wrote GURBANI in 31 raags..one MORE than ALL the other contributors !! This means that in every Raag where the Gurbani of Guru Arjun Ji ended….SPACE was made to INSERT the Gurbani of Guru TEG BAHADUR JI…before the link was closed again by rejoining Gurbani of Bhagat Kabeer Ji. This was done in all Raags, all sloks, all ashtpadees, all vaars etc etc…. This is not a small operation.. And Final Step….Guru Gobind Singh Ji added the Final SLOKS Mahlaala nauvahn right at the Conclusion of the SGGS, and placed back the SEAL MUNDAWNNI Mahalla PANJVAHN in the EXACT SAME PLACE as put by Guru Arjun Ji sahib 100++ years earlier in the Kartarpuri Bir. The SGGS Begins with a SLOK….AAD SACH JUGAAD SACH….NANAK HOSEE BHEE SACH..and in perfect symettry ENDS with the SLOK Mahalla Panjvahn..TERA KITA JATOH NAHIN….. THIS IS HOW BEAUTIFUL THE ARRANGEMENT OF SGGS REALLY IS. NONE MANAGED TO SNEAK IN EVEN A SINGLE WORD DUE TO THE LOCK IN SYSTEM EMPLOYED BY GURU ARJUN JI AND FOLLOWED EXACTLY BY GURU GOBIND SINGH . This leaves no room for doubt..Guru Gobind Singh Ji is GURU JYOT of Nanak and he has every RIGHT and OPPORTUNITY to INCLUDE his own Gurbani in SGGS as mahalla Davahn at every page after mahalla nauvahn..BUT HE DID NOT do so. And Bhai Mani SINGH was present and he knew the real intentions of the GURU SAHIB…thus the Letter later produced is a clear FAKE. All the trickery and skullduggery came LATER….when SIKH heads were being sold for Rs80….and Sikhs had fled to the Jungles of Himachal and the deserts of rajsathan to escape the daily hunting…the SGGS came about after 239 years of Hard work..and the skullduggery and trickery also came about in the next 200+ years AFTER 1708 !!! A process of OPEN HOSTILITY that actually began right after Guru Angad ji was sat on the Gurgadee by Guru nanak ji.

    The NEXT step then came in the shape of the DSM…becasue Sikhs have unwittingly swalloed the LIE that the JYOT in SGGS is only of 10 GURUS….and NOT the Full line up of the 35 JYOT of Akal Purakh that had DHUR KI BANI sent down to them in various languages and various states etc.

    Have we fallen Hook Line and sinker into Disrespecting our GURU Ji..by falsely claiming daily that the GURU..the SGGS is JYOT of only 10….????

    Apologies for some repetitions but the full plot has so many angles and links…it becomes necessary to repeat here and there…

  4. SOME COMMENTS BY READERS AT THE ASIA SAMACHAR WEBSITE:

    READER 1:

    To say that Chritropakhyan has moral messages is to say that porn is educational and should be allowed in our school curriculum.
    Academy, you can stop promoting this nonsense.

    Stop trying to get your so called top gun to hood wink Sikhs.

    As Gurcharan Singh pointed out, all your top gun did was fire some blanks and create some hot air.

    READER 2, KALWANT KAUR:

    The wrongly named Sri Guru Granth Sahib Academy (SGGSA) has become the biggest promoter of DG in Malaysia. They are doing the promotion behind the scenes while getting others to take on Dr Karminder Singh’s attempts to educate the Sikhs. On Asia Samachar they have Gurmukh Singh and on a particular Whatsapp group they have a Sage of a fool who keeps barking at the moderator to shut out Dr ji. Keep up the good work Dr ji.

  5. A big Double BINGO GIANI JI. WELL SAID AND DONE. I do wonder HOW the SGGSA can barely and hardly speak Punjabi thru Gurmukhi. let alone Hindi or Farsi or Brajh Bhasha has become such TWISTER experts…over a dead issue and suddenly over night are pushing thru people’s throats as if they are the EXPERTS -. ALMOST ALL THESE HAVE NEVER SEEN THE SO CALLED COMPOSITIONS that was removed…perhaps this is the first time they have remotely heard..let alone read.

    I have spent many years in libraries in India searching these writings and o m still to come across one of them. ….thete is saying on Punjabi jhoothian de per nah krde.

    My request to these misled is …abandon the stupid rat warrens you are wondering through….stop this division of the panth and creating brainwashed youngsters..and follow the simple clear message of Guru Granth and leave the rest aside …read if you want to but stop mallicious falsrhood….stop splitting the small community .through warped ideas..thst there is a shota Guru or there the bir rss and sant rss’Both of these and other qualities are in the Guru Granth Sahib.

    Your activities will only support the agenda of anti panthic powers ..Since 1860 Sikhs have been in Malaysia 98% have never heard of these cock and bull filth book …suddenly over night…you are no experts..Bingo!

  6. The Spiritual MESSAGE in SGGS is as clear and transparent as the rising sun……BUT. DG supporters claim there is a deep hidden message in DG. But I wonder why the “hidden message” is very deeply buried in heap of dung ?? Why couldn’t the message be uncovered put in the beautiful language ?..and.. one more vital difference.. the DG subject matter (charitars with hidden message etc) can be easily found in the Bible. etc etc. and in similar literature all around and in all languages…Hikayats are common in the Middle East and freely available to all and they are the same as the 404 Charitars.. As a matter of fact many of the Hikayats have the exact same story..only difference being in the Hikayat language is farsee and characters have Persian names….and in the Charitars..the language is Hindi/Brij Bhasha/ Sanskrit and the characters have Hindu names. In contrast the SGGS is UNIQUE…its subject / similar compositions is not found anywhere else . Even the compositions of earlier Bhagats like Kabeer ji Ravidass ji that Guru Nanak ji collected to be included in SGGS are unique and easily distinguishable from the rest of Kabeer’s works which are revered by Kabeer Panthees.

    A separate question of authenticity arises form 8 HUGE banis with similar titles such as Bhakha/mukhvaak/Patshai dasveehn GURU GOBIND SINGH were REJECTED/DELETED/REMOVED form the revised DG . WHY were these banis rejected/deleted ? Sikhs deleted banis titled Patshahi das/Bhakha 10/carrying the name of GURU GOBIND SINGH !! How is this different from the claims of simply Mukhvaak pat 10 as proof that its Gurbani ?? How is one Mukhvaak Pat 10 different from another ?? One reason being given is had these 8 huge compositions been included.,.the DG would be much larger than the SGGS..while the whole idea behind it was to create a SIMILAR GRANTH..exactly 1429 pages !!!..so these 8 banis suffered the CENSOR CUT !!! despite having the titles Guru Gobind Singh/Mukhvaak Pat10/Patshai dasveehn etc etc.. The PLOT thickens…BINGO ??

  7. When one is basically ignorant of Gurbani Grammar and is merely a shabad repeater accompanied by vaja then its easy to make such a basic mistake. Gurbani is all about the MIND….and MIND is gender free..so kucheji, sucheji kunnar etc are descriptions of the state of the MIND..and not real persons per se.

    Prof sahib Singh ji has amply explained how such ignorance has led to people thinking that the word MAI used by Bhagat Kabir ji refers to his “MOTHER”..or that the word LOI is actually Kabeers WIFE…and that Leleh ko chunnggh gayee bhed actually refers to a physical Lamb suckling his MOTHER sheep.

    Its an undeniable fact that Gurbani is bound by the rules of a special Gurbani Grammar and also thats its almost 99,9% about the Mann/Mind and not physical body. As an example there is a tuk in SGGS…”JION zoru sir navhhnneeh aveh baro baar…the word JION used at the beginning means..AS an Example..like..and the Basic premise Guru ji wants to convey is that..Like a woman getting her monthly period every month like clockwork….( Natural law, natural act unavoidable ..unchangeable .. unstoppable.. and VITAL for Human existence and reproduction)……

    the Habitual LIARS have lies slipping off their tongues like clockwork day after day..month after month..year after year…BUT WITH ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE…..unlike the Natural Monthly period ordained by Nature….telling LIES is an act of the MIND..an act which is totally unnecessary…totally avoidable..totally stoppable..totally under ones control. The Bottom line is Guru ji is COMPARING the two and the Divine Message is AVOID FALSEHOOD. But those ignorant of this ( or deliberately pretending to be ignorant under biased agenda)…take the First Tuk independently and claim that GURU JI is telling how a woman is UNCLEAN during that period and thus shes unfit to do paath, take part in akhand paaths, do kirtan or chaur or take hukmnamah etc etc ( Which is the usual anti-Woman position of the earlier religions both Abrahmic and Hindu mannu simrtee etc etc) BUT which position is unequivocally REJECTED by Guru ji who declared..SO KION MANDDAH akheeyah jit jammmeh RAJAAN !!!

    Derawadee and DG camps led by people like SANT HARI singh randhawa even go to the extent of causing ruckusses in the presence of SGGS and disrupt diwans to push home this ignorance. Ladies are not allowed Palki sewa, Kirtan sewa at darbar sahib based on this view.

  8. The wrongly named Sri Guru Granth Sahib Academy (SGGSA) has become the biggest promoter of DG in Malaysia. They are doing the promotion behind the scenes while getting others to take on Dr Karminder Singh’s attempts to educate the Sikhs. On Asia Samachar they have Gurmukh Singh and on a particular Whatsapp group they have a Sage of a fool who keeps barking at the moderator to shut out Dr ji. Keep up the good work Dr ji.

  9. To say that Chritropakhyan has moral messages is to say that porn is educational and should be allowed in our school curriculum.
    Academy, you can stop promoting this nonsense.
    Stop trying to get your so called top gun to hood wink Sikhs.
    As Gurcharan Singh pointed out, all your top gun did was fire some blanks and create some hot air.

  10. Whipping a dead horse by SGGSA goes on, I would say.

    It was all an attempt to repair damage done by the Sri “””Guru Granth”” Sahib Academy, when they misrepresented the initial charitter with the names of the Gurus falsely added, but got caught out.

    When that was exposed , they brought in, what someone else, has described as the big “TOPP”-Canon-but used a bore .32 bullet-after waffling around with legal jargon experience.Which just dropped at the mouth of the canon.

    The “big”canon turned out to be a big HOLLOW, with nothing more than another attempt to lie and mislead the sangat.I would say it was only a catapult from some common tree that grows around the rivers in Malaysia.

    The canon did not know the difference of anything at all -leave alone the word guru from sanscritic language and the word Guru within Sikh context-which was turned into an unexisting GUR!

    However, this topp did try to mislead and manipulate that word in order to support the misleading of people by this extremist SGGSA organisation.But, it knew no difference between a bore.32 bullet and a cannonball.

    I would like to ask this big TOPP of the SGGSA-PLEASE explain HOW is that in 1895, CORRECTION of the Potha that is SUPPOSED to be written by a Sikh Guru, were made by dubious men.Many contents found in among the original 32 copies were excluded ,{ if indeed this was writings written by a GURU?}

    What was the criteria to cut “out” writings of the Guru?
    Who decided their choice to do so?
    Were they acting as the GURU?

    What happened to 8 main writings found among the 32 dsm pothas prior to 1895,that were no longer in that vile book?

    Why were the following 8 rachnas omitted in 1895?

    1] SANSAHAAR SUKHNA

    2]VAAR MALKHAUS

    3]VAAR BHAGAUTI -[this is DIFFERENT from VAAR DURGA found in the current false book ]

    4]SRI BHAGWAT GITA, BHAKHA SRI GURU GOBIND SINGH KIRT

    5]RAAG ASA & RAGH SORATH PATHSHAHI DASVI’N

    6]ASFOTTAK KABIT-this is still found in the book dsm potha; by Randhir Singh, & [published by Punjabi University]

    7]MAAJH PATSHAHI DSVI’N

    8]SHKA BHAGAUTI JI KA

    Can this SGGSA deviants along with the BIG, but hollow topp explain?I bet many of them have not even heard of these writing, other wise they WOULD have offered courses on these as well.

    If you are not able to answer these simple questions, I say SGGSA and its henchies LIED blatently.

    The exclusion of these writings was done to imitate the dsm potha to look like the GURU GRANTH SAHIB-so Sikhs are then easily misled. They even made this false book look like Guru Granth sahib, basing the contents and layout as it was in the Guru Granth sahib.

    If the above writings were added, the book would have doubled in size and not look like Guru Granth sahib.

    It is all a dead horse issue, used by deras to keep their excitement abd ability to mislead the sangat.

LEAVE A REPLY