Translation of Section IV of SRM regarding establishment of other book

moralawakening — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:46:32 +0000

In Gurmukhi:

” Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji de vaakar (tul) kisay pustak nu asthapan nahi karna”

In English:

No Book should be installed LIKE & AT PAR with the Guru Granth.

Meaning of word “At par” : “an equality in value or standing; a level of equality”

First of all when referring to SRM people use words like “EQUAL TO” etc. whereas its “LIKE and AT PAR” and they delibrately dont use “LIKE” when translating.

Even if we consider only “AT PAR” , the logic of these organisations/elements of smaller/different Palki is a bogus.

“At Par” doesnt implies on physical status but the “value or standing”

Concept is same (of palki sahib, chandoa, rumala sahib, chaur, akhand path and mukhwak) irrespective of size or shape of paki etc. its a childish/rubbish logic in favour of asthapan in presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

Shady article by Sant-Sipahi Magazine

moralawakening — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:26:14 +0000

Read this article by Sant-Sipahi Magazine with title as “No book can be installed at par with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji“

First of all I would like to mention that this magzine was founded by “Panth Gaddar” Master Tara Singh.

Now coming back to the article. After giving just one look at it one can see what are they trying to achieve.

I will quote some points and then try to elaborate the possible consequences of that ideology.

“Chapter IV of Sikh Rahit Maryada which deals with Gurdwaras and the maryada to be followed there lays down quite unambiguously therein that no book (pustak) is to be installed at par with Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

(ਸ􁴆ੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ􁴆ੰਥ ਸਾਿਹਬ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਵਾਕਰ ਤੁੱਲ ਿਕਸੇ ਪੁਸਤਕ ਨੂੰ ਅਸਥਾਪਨ ਨਹ􁶣 ਕਰਨਾ).

This is the mandate of the panth and ought to be honoured by each and every one. The text and its intent are awfully simple and there is no scope of any confusion about it.”

The original translation of SRM in english is like this:

” No book should be installed like and at par with the Guru Granth”

vey celeverly they have missed the word “like”.

and word “at par” means “an equality in value or standing; a level of equality”

“But lately it is seen that this simple clause is being distorted and misinterpreted. Hence this sincere effort to clear the doubts.”

who are they to decide that others are distorting and misinterpreting the clause, isnt same logic applied on them also?

they wrote “no book (pustak) is to be installed at par with Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji“ instead of “No book should be installed like and at par with the Guru Granth”.

leaving that word “like” out of translation changes whole thing.

and word “at par” means “an equality in value or standing; a level of equality”

“First of all this provision in the Sikh Rahit Maryada is about the maryada that is to be followed in the Gurdwaras. There is an obvious difference between a Gurdwara and a Takhat and their maryada. A Takhat is not a Gurdwara and vice versa. Sachkhand Sri Harimandir Sahib is a Gurdwara and Sri Akal Takhat Sahib is a Takhat, hence the difference in the maryada of these two most pious institutions of the panth. The maryadas of these two institutions, though mutually exclusive are complementary to each other. This is what embodies the Miri-Piri and Sant-Sipahi concept of the Khalsa. Sachkhand Sri Harimandir Sahib was there but still Guru Hargobind ji gave to the panth Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. Whatever could not be said or done in the Harimandir Sahib was said and done at Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. Sri Harimandir Sahib was the seat of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Akal Takhat Sahib became the seat of the nagaras, and shastras.”

so what they are trying to say is that the SRM implies only INSIDE a Gurdwara Sahib and not outside it. Lets suppose we have Parkash at our home, so we can do whatever we want against SRM because its our Home not a Gurdwara.

any clause of SRM which is for RESPECT of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is automatically implemented where ever we have Parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The walls of brick and paki sahib etc are not what makers a Gurdwara, its our Guru which makers a place Gurdwara.

And we can say that Sri Akal Takht Sahib is symbol of Miri (sikh polity) and Sri Harmandir Sahib is place of Piri. But same is not true regarding Sant-Sipahi concept. Sant-Sipahi is a parrallel/equal relationship whereas in Miri-Piri we have Piri on higher status than Miri.What they trying to say that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is not enough GURU to make a sikh a SANT-SIPAHI. Guru sahibs complete on its own and have all characteristics of Sant-Sipahi. Need no support of any other book aka granth to be complete as a Sant-Sipahi Guru.

“The Granth of the Sikhs that embodies the warrior spirit of the Khalsa is Sri Dasam Granth Sahib. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to propose that Sri Dasam Granth Sahib has the same status with relation to Sri Guru Granth Sahib what Sri Akal Takhat Sahib has to Sri Harimandir Sahib. Interestingly, maybe it is for this reason that at Hazur Sahib the palanquin (palki) that has the parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib has the design of the dome of Harimandir Sahib and the one having the parkash of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib has the design of Akal Takhat Sahib. Also the palki having the prakash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib is much bigger in size than the one having the prakash of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib.”

again a self-made assumption regarding DG being warrior spirit of Khalsa. this implies that all other Guru Sahibaan were just Sants and had a charcter without warrior spirit. Guru Hargobind Sahib was first Guru sahib to go on war with tyrants and sikhs at that time were SANT-SIPAHI wihout DG, werent they? and Guru Gobind Singh ji gave Gurgaddi to Sri guru Granth Sahib and Panth Khalsa so he gave Gurgaddi to Granth which lacked Warrior spirit in it? and needed help of soem other book/granth to be complete, which wud be compiled after Guru Sahib?

“At every Takhat, though the parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is there but it is not on the main seat or singhasan, but at a lower level. This decision was not made by the Sikhs but by the divine wisdom of the Guru. There is no denigration here but the true philosophical spirit of the proper appreciation of the status of a Gurdwara and a Takhat. The Guru’s wisdom has to be understood and applied in its true perspective.”

In Guru Hargobind Sahib ji’s time parkash was at Sri Harmandir Sahib Only Sri Akal Takht Sahib was just a “tharra” or “Bunga” (the pre-84 buliding was built by Maharaja Ranjit Singh) and Guru Gobind Singh never visited Sri Akal Takht Sahib. So which Guru’s wisdom are we talking about? all other Takhts were made by Panth Khalsa after Guru Sahib.

“Parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib at Takhat Sri Hazur Sahib. Even the shape, size and structure of the palkis are conspicuously different and symbolise the embodiment of Sant Sipahi concept of the Khalsa.”

how does shape, size and structure matterz? palki is palki no matter which size, design or height its on.

SRM clearly states “No book should be installed like and at par with the Guru Granth”.

putting DG in a palki, do all time parkash, do akand path and do sukh-asan and take mukhwak. doesnt all this sound “LIKE and AT PAR” with Guru Sahib?

and again they are pressing upon that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is not a Complete Guru which can make a sikh a SANT SIPAHI and it need help of DG for this cause.

“Coming back to the provision of Sikh Rahit Maryada that no book (pustak) is to be installed (asthapan) at par with Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, there is no denying that Khalsa is the creation of two source granths Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth. To initiate a person into the fold of Sikhism and to make him remain in this fold the banees of amrit sanchar and nitnem are required and the sources of these are the two pious granths. We as Sikhs don’t address our granths, Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth as mere books.”

they are again ignoring LIKE from “like and at par” of SRM. and “granth” is other name of book/kitab/putak.

from mahan kosh:

in 1699 there was no DG and Guru Ji’s baani (panth parwanit Amrit Sanchar and nitnem Baanis) was kanth to sangat or written somewhere else. and if now someone later put it in a book with writings of others, how can we say that These baani are from DG, these are Guru Sahib’s Baani’s not DG’s. and putting some baanis of Guru Sahib in a book doesnt make that whole book to be of Guru Sahib.

“Lately, some anti-Sikh forces have misused and misinterpreted this clause of Sikh Rehat Maryada and have used it as a tool to attack the banees of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib contained in Sri Dasam Granth.”

one can see who these forces are from this article itself.

“Notably, whereas in Hinduism an idol or book is installed but in Sikhism such installation is neither permitted nor takes place. Parkash simply means to open a granth for the purpose of reciting (???), studying (?????), teaching (?????), and discourse (??????). Without opening or parkash of the granth, none of the above can be done. So the usage of word parkash should not be narrowed down literally otherwise if we say that in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib nothing else can be parkashed then will it bring the dahrha parkash (flowing beard) under its mischief too?”

SRM talks about ASTHAPAN not parkash, parkash is only possible when there is asthapan.

10)

“There are certain respected jathebandis such as Nihangs and Damdami Taksal who do the parkash of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib but do ensure that the solo parkash of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib is not done. The parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is always done in the presence and auspice of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. This gesture in itself ensures supremacy of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and is a declaration that there is only one Guru and that is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. Hence the parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is a non-issue. And surprisingly enough this issue has suddenly germinated under the patronage of a controversial ragi when the panth is concentrated on celebrating the tri-centenary of the Guruship to Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The whole hue and cry by certain quarters regarding the parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is nothing but a calculated move motivated by mischief and is void of any logical discourse. And this mischief is often cashed by instilling the pseudo fear of challenge to the supremacy of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The supremacy of Sri Guru Granth Sahib is eternal and the prakash of Sri Dasam Granth when done in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib only ensures and reiterates this supremacy. The uncontroverted fact is that Sri Dasam Granth Sahib is the assurance of the separate entity of Khalsa, and the real ulterior motive of the blasphemous anti-panthic forces raising the hoax of parkash is basically to disown and wean away the Sikhs from the powerful banee of Guru Gobind Singh ji, thus making the Khalsa a real and reformed Hindu.”

doing parkash of DG in presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is NOT insure supremacy of Guru Sahib.

again an attack on Sri Guru Granth sahib being PERFECT and Complete Guru. they enforce that Sikhs can only be separate entity when we have DG , Guru Granth Sahib alone is unable to do so.

why parkash is non-issue ?

parkash is only possible when there is asthapan.

11)

“According to Kesar Singh Chibber, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib had himself defined and explained the relationship between Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth. And this Guru-vaak should be our guiding force.”

so kesar singh chibbar is there source now?

Moral Awakening's Weblog

Translation of Section IV of SRM regarding establishment of other book

Shady article by Sant-Sipahi Magazine