chatanga1

Its not important who they are or where they are. What difference will it make to your life? By knowing such information will it enable you to tell us what “brahmanism” is? 
 
Re second part I can understand why you are afraid to discuss it, and hide under the pretext of “finding” that family. 

At the moment the uk govt is in a crisis over brexit. Boris Johnson the foreign sec has agreed to meet Jaggis' MP to discuss the case, although it has been over 7 months since Jaggi's arrest.

So is the word “Guru”. Does that mean now that we are all Brahmans for using a Brahman term @angy15?

If you want a debate then define the words. I can say everything you're saying is Brahmanism, all you're doing is throwing words around as you dont have a leg to stand on. We're not asking for other people's definition, we're asking for yours. 
So you're fine if they speak ill about the writings of Bhai Gurdas Ji? or Sri Dasam Granth Ji (let me guess, the Dasam Granth was a Brahmin's rouse to lead the sikhs astray blah blah blah). 
"Great" Scholars is actually hilarious. You've yet to answer my question. You started talking about Science so tell me, if Guru Gobind Singh Ji appeared before you and said the world is flat and only 700 years old, what would you say?
Ahead of his time? What a load of nonsense. Texts dating back well before the british take over of the Sikh empire all state the same things as the texts written during it. The funny thing is Dhillon is so far up his own rear end he dismisses anything written prior to Singh Sabha that doesn't agree with him. That dude is about ahead of his time as the Catholic church was in medieval times.
The fact that you quoted this Sakhi (I asked you for the source of your version and im still waiting for it btw) and still don't realise that the stick wasn't magic because it was a magic stick but powerful because it was held by Guru Ji, is another sign that you have no idea what you're talking about. 
So...I'll recap for you since its apparent you lack the intelligence to read things and stay on topic. My questions are the following for you, please answer them as simply as possible (I'm sure that won't be too hard). If you refuse to do so, I'll take it you have no reply. 
1) What is your defination of Brahmanism?
2) if Guru Gobind Singh Ji appeared before you and said the world is flat and only 700 years old, what would you say? Would you say "Yes Guru Ji you are right" or something else?
3) The Sakhi about Guru HarKrishan Ji, please provide the source for your one. Thank you. 
4) Bhai Gurdas Ji said that in the presence of a congregation Guru Nanak Dev Ji melted into thin air and disappeared. Was Bhai Gurdas Ji making stuff up in your professional opinion?
 
That's is also Brahmanism as Brahmins used that phrase long before Sikhs.

From my recollection the recording of katha /kirtan started with Sant Gurbachan Singh and Sant Ishar Singh Ji around the 1960s. Someone gave the Taksal a tape recorder and from then on the katha was recorded. Haven't heard anything before the 1960s.

In this charitar, we are seeing a similiar tale. The "Moghal" comes to the house of what seems like a Hindu woman. One of the ruling class coming to the house of a commoner. There whilst he is protecting his own honour by not acqueising to the womans desires, he is put in an unfortunate position. When the other people hear his cries the woman pacifies them by saying he was choking and gives him water to make it look like she is caring for him. Again we see in this situation it was not only the Moghal who was a victim, but the neighbours who gathered at her house were also decieved.

@paapiman @amardeep @Soulfinder
An interesting paragraph that I wanted to share with you concerning these lines :
 
ਦੋਹਰਾ Dohira
 
ਕਾਮਾਤੁਰ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਜੋ ਤ੍ਰਿਯਾ ਆਵਤ ਨਰ ਕੇ ਪਾਸ ॥
(She said,) ‘When a sexually distressed woman comes to a male,
ਮਹਾ ਨਰਕ ਸੋ ਡਾਰਿਯੈ ਦੈ ਜੋ ਜਾਨ ਨਿਰਾਸ ॥੧੮॥
‘And that male who turns her back disappointed, is worthy of hell.’(l8)
 

@paapiman @amardeep @Soulfinder
An interesting paragraph that I wanted to share with you concerning these lines :
 
ਦੋਹਰਾ Dohira
 
ਕਾਮਾਤੁਰ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਜੋ ਤ੍ਰਿਯਾ ਆਵਤ ਨਰ ਕੇ ਪਾਸ ॥
(She said,) ‘When a sexually distressed woman comes to a male,
ਮਹਾ ਨਰਕ ਸੋ ਡਾਰਿਯੈ ਦੈ ਜੋ ਜਾਨ ਨਿਰਾਸ ॥੧੮॥
‘And that male who turns her back disappointed, is worthy of hell.’(l8)
 

Well I hate to burst your bubble but it’s wrong.
 
 I think it’s very shallow to accept the views of one person and believe it to be gospel? Why haven’t you researched other meanings of brahmanism? 
If you truly believe that Brahmanisn is a virus I can understand somewhat why you like dhadri as he himself has quite perverse views.
 
 
Research itself doesn’t hold any value if the outcome doesn’t mean anything valid. How many people do you know from “my” sant Samaj and how much time have they spent in research in order for you to make that comparison?

Well I hate to burst your bubble but it’s wrong.
 
 I think it’s very shallow to accept the views of one person and believe it to be gospel? Why haven’t you researched other meanings of brahmanism? 
If you truly believe that Brahmanisn is a virus I can understand somewhat why you like dhadri as he himself has quite perverse views.
 
 
Research itself doesn’t hold any value if the outcome doesn’t mean anything valid. How many people do you know from “my” sant Samaj and how much time have they spent in research in order for you to make that comparison?

Because Brahmanism does not mean a virus. Simple. Why have you accepted it as an explanation of Brahmanism?
 
I understand his work, and his intellect is fake. There are certain topics where I would easily tear his fake intellect apart. But let's leave that and concentrate on this fantastic discussion that you and I are having. I'm asking you a question 10 times and you can't answer.

no offence but @chatanga1 has been very patient towards you. You want to discuss Brahmanism that's fine, so the members of this forum will indulge you. In return we asked you to define what Brahmanism is, posting videos of Jhatka and other things isn't a definition. Put it into words, What is Brahmanism? That's all anyone has asked on this thread, yet you scuttle around the topic.
Again its apparent you either struggle to understand what is being asked or are purposely being dense about it so let's just be upfront. 
Define what is Brahmanism like a dictionary defines what the word "Planet" might mean. I'm sure you're capable of this since it seems to be your favourite word.

@paapiman did you get a chance to look this up?
 
also I want to add two further snippets from Mahabharat in relation to this background story :
Please read the last part of page 1 :

 
 

Good stuff. Any further details on this manuscript?

No you have posted an opinion of some videos that share practices with other religions without specifically saying what "brahmanism" is.
Until you tell us exactly what "brahmanism" is you are not contributing to keeping this discussion healthy. So, rather than throw new things in the mix, just tell us all what "brahmanism" is.

What is up with this poster? He seems to just throw random stuff into a discussion and then run away so that he won't have to give any answers.
Look at the Gurbani he has quoted above with HIS own interpretations of it.
This is what STTM say that line means:
ਧਨਾਸਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਹਮ ਆਦਮੀ ਹਾਂ ਇਕ ਦਮੀ ਮੁਹਲਤਿ ਮੁਹਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਬਿਨਵੈ ਤਿਸੈ ਸਰੇਵਹੁ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਜੀਅ ਪਰਾਣਾ ॥੧॥ ਅੰਧੇ ਜੀਵਨਾ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ਦੇਖਿ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇ ਦਿਨਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਸਾਸੁ ਮਾਸੁ ਸਭੁ ਜੀਉ ਤੁਮਾਰਾ ਤੂ ਮੈ ਖਰਾ ਪਿਆਰਾ ॥ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਸਾਇਰੁ ਏਵ ਕਹਤੁ ਹੈ ਸਚੇ ਪਰਵਦਗਾਰਾ ॥੨॥ ਜੇ ਤੂ ਕਿਸੈ ਨ ਦੇਹੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਸਾਹਿਬਾ ਕਿਆ ਕੋ ਕਢੈ ਗਹਣਾ ॥ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਬਿਨਵੈ ਸੋ ਕਿਛੁ ਪਾਈਐ ਪੁਰਬਿ ਲਿਖੇ ਕਾ ਲਹਣਾ ॥੩॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਖਸਮ ਕਾ ਚਿਤਿ ਨ ਕੀਆ ਕਪਟੀ ਕਪਟੁ ਕਮਾਣਾ ॥ ਜਮ ਦੁਆਰਿ ਜਾ ਪਕੜਿ ਚਲਾਇਆ ਤਾ ਚਲਦਾ ਪਛੁਤਾਣਾ ॥੪॥ ਜਬ ਲਗੁ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਰਹੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੁਣੀਐ ਕਿਛੁ ਕਹੀਐ ॥ ਭਾਲਿ ਰਹੇ ਹਮ ਰਹਣੁ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ਜੀਵਤਿਆ ਮਰਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੫॥੨॥

This was a little difficult until I read the Panjabi arth of it. It seems here that the couple are known for being wealthy, and the woman is very aware of it as well. Her visit to the Jogi does not go too well, as she is deprived of her wealth, amongst other things there. When she gets to the store to purchase her items she realises that she has dust tied up in her knot instead of the rupee. So she returns home and tells her husband that the rupee has been lost and in order to save face amongst the other people of the city she disguised this by tying up some dust in the scarf and returning home.
Her husband checks her scarf but cannot find the money.
What I'm getting from this is that, the woman has had the money stolen, but because she was in a place where she shouldn't have been, she has had to disguise her loss by making up the first lie that the rupee was lost on the way, and the second lie that she prevented herself (and her husband) from being humilated in the city by having no money to purchase anything from the store. Basically, because of her own deceit, she has had to further cover up a deciet played on her by another deceit.
Ever heard of the Panjabi saying "ਇਕ ਝੂਠ ਲਕਾਉਣ ਲੇਈ ਇਕ ਸੌ ਝੂਠ ਬੋਲਣੇ ਪੈਂਦੇ " ?

It's almost as bad as dhadhriwala giving his "katha" of ant kaal jo lachhmi simre...

Bhagat Singh Ji, do you know there is a place in Gurdaspur called "Qadian" which is pronounced just as it is written in Gurmukhi. Even the Muslims pronounce it this way with a "d."
 
I do not believe that what you have written is correct, and have never heard any paath with it said as such.
 
In Arabic there are 4 ways to pronounce "z", even though in Persian there is only 1. It may be that a different pronunciation of the arabic "z" resulted in it becoming a "d" but that is exactly what it is.  

Again, in this charitar, I see how a person getting into a difficult situation manouvered to avoid getting caught. The man underneath the bed is hearing or feeling some pushes on the bed, and asks the woman what it was. She replies that she was beating her husband with a shoe. This should also here bringing to the mans attention that beating someone with a shoe is a humiliating thing in Indian culture, and that if she can be like this with her husband what can she be like with any other man?
Plus with him being a Qazi, an esteemed member of the upper Islamic society, he would have had a great deal of respect from people. He could in some respects be a King/ruler. See where I'm going with this?
 
It says at the end, that the man was left scratching his head. I think here it is telling us that the man was left bewildered at what was going on and also the excuse that the woman gave.

Have you mentioned “brahmanical” here or has your posted been hacked?