Eye Witness Account Of Amrit Ceremony Of 1699

[chatanga1]

In relation to one or two accounts supporting a particluar view, you cannot conclude that the one or two account is wrong and the majority is correct. When does history first mention Goats being killed? Why is there no mention of goats being chatka for so many years?

If you follow the majority vote when looking at history then Sant Singh/Sangat Singh was given the kalgi at Chamkaur Sahib yet contemporary sources state that they became shahid before reaching Chamkaur and Shahid Bhai Jeevan Singh jee was given the Kalgi. Nihang Singh jathebandi also preach that Bhai Jeevan Singh was given the kalgi. Go to the gurdwara controlled by Nihangs at Chamkaur where guru jee used to drink water from the khoo in Chamkaur. But the majority vote would say otherwise.

in the oldest text of sikh history by Khazan Singh written around 1910, it mentions goats being killed, but i have not read it in any older texts.

Also another traditional episode is that of Uch da pir, where most believe that Guru Ji himself was disguised as the Pir, whereas i have heard some preachers and one or two older sources say it was Pyara Bhai Daya Singh ji disguised as the pir.

[kdsingh80]

http://www.ik13.net/PDFS/Rut3.pdf

page 200

In't it mentioned in Gur partap suraj granth That goats were killed?

Someone posted it on SS.

[Only five]

There is no doubt on Sants mind on what took place. Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa says in an interview that the sword of Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Sahib Ji Maharaj cut the heads of the Punj Pyare. The interview is up on youtube.

Satguru is not like those that says one thing and does another or goes back on his word. If these historical account searchers can say Satguru never asked for heads with proof then it never happened. Until then we know Satguru asked for heads and these historical account searchers should put down their dubious ways and contemplate over Gurbani as to what Satguru is.

[amardeep]

Satguru is not like those that says one thing and does another or goes back on his word

Thats a rather weird way to put it and to look beyond the original purpose of the test. So you think that Guru Angad ate a human corpse since Guru Nanak asked him to do so, and Guru Nanak would never go back on his word??

[Only five]

Thats a rather weird way to put it and to look beyond the original purpose of the test. So you think that Guru Angad ate a human corpse since Guru Nanak asked him to do so, and Guru Nanak would never go back on his word??

You call it a test. Do you know Bhai Mani Singh ji was in sangat and other Gursikhs were in the sangat at that time. By you calling it a test then Bhai Mani SIngh ji failed the test because he didn't give his head. Do you want to add anything else that slanders Gursikhs. Satguru Hukam was at play on 1699 and there was no test. The chosen ones, self elects came forward with there head in hand.

By your understanding your caling Satguru a lair. Say one thing and then do another, a fake Guru. Bhai Lehna ji went to eat the corpse and Satguru changing the corpse into something else doesn't make him go back on his word. Satguru would have went back on his word if he did not make Bhai Lehna ji eat and stopped him half way to the blessing. This means when a Sikh follows the Guru, then what a Sikh might see as dead will be blessed if he completely follows Satguru. Satguru takes care of those that follow him completely. Do you get it!!!!! Satguru changed a corpse into a blessing, then he has no problem taking heads and then giving the KHalsa form. This is not on what Satguru can do or can't, but on follow Gurbani as Satguru wrote it. Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj and Shabad Guru are one form that act out the Hukam in the same way, but in different forms. But nothing is contradiction between them, so Guru Sahib can't say one thing and do another himself.

[dalsingh101]

By your logic, when satguru asked for a Singh to come forward as a target to test the accuracy of some musket and two Sikhs were squabbling over the privilege. They become liars - because they never went ahead and shot at the Singhs with the guns.

More unnecessary accusations, negativity and superciliousness from you. Give it a rest.

Edited April 28, 2011 by dalsingh101

[Only five]

By your logic, when satguru asked for a Singh to come forward as a target to test the accuracy of some musket and two Sikhs were squabbling over the privilege. They become liars - because they never went ahead and shot at the Singhs with the guns.

More unnecessary accusations, negativity and superciliousness from you. Give it a rest.

Point to us where this sakhi is coming from mr. histical account seeker. So we can get the account as to what happened and not to what you want it to be. Give the name of these two Singhs, what year it happened. If you want eye witness accounts for Maharaj's Hukam on 1699, then give proof of an eye witness account of the above. Why the double standard?

But here just like on sikhsangat you run, when your caught in your foolishness, let's see what you do here. When Maharaj over the years issues Hukams the Hukams are to be followed and he delivers them. In 1699 when he took his sword out that was a Hukam being issued by Maharaj. Over the years Maharaj does test his Sikhs, but the test are different from Hukams and those with an ounce of Gurbani know this. When Maharaj disrespected a grave, he was testing his Khalsa. When Maharaj said keep hair uncut, that was not a test, but a Hukam. Do you see the difference!!!!! When Maharaj says I will get one SIngh to fight 125 000 then that is not a test, but a Hukam. When Maharaj tells you to stand infront of a gun to test it, then its a test on the person.

Take your foolishness back to SPN. They gave you their collars and these should stay at the nastik site.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Only five

[amardeep]

Come on stop being so black and white.. this is the most idiotic approach towards Sikhi i've ever come across.

Its like saying "Guru Arjan must have been a greater Mahapursh than Guru Hargobind since Guru Arjan accepted the hukum of his martyrdom while Guru Hargobind tried to change the conditions at the time"... this is a faulty logic.. or that Baba Deep Singh must have been a greater mahapursh than Bhai Mani Singh since Baba Deep Singh lived on after his death... come on give it a rest..

[Only five]

Come on stop being so black and white.. this is the most idiotic approach towards Sikhi i've ever come across.

Its like saying "Guru Arjan must have been a greater Mahapursh than Guru Hargobind since Guru Arjan accepted the hukum of his martyrdom while Guru Hargobind tried to change the conditions at the time"... this is a faulty logic.. or that Baba Deep Singh must have been a greater mahapursh than Bhai Mani Singh since Baba Deep Singh lived on after his death... come on give it a rest..

Actually you have a faulty logic by saying it's a test (1699). If it was a test then your saying Bhai Mani Singh ji failed not me cuz i don't say it was a test. What I said is that it is a Hukam of Maharaj. Test and Hukams are two different things. Maharaj used both and we can't say what is for one is for the other.

[dalsingh101]

Point to us where this sakhi is coming from mr. histical account seeker. So we can get the account as to what happened and not to what you want it to be. Give the name of these two Singhs, what year it happened. If you want eye witness accounts for Maharaj's Hukam on 1699, then give proof of an eye witness account of the above. Why the double standard?

But here just like on sikhsangat you run, when your caught in your foolishness, let's see what you do here. When Maharaj over the years issues Hukams the Hukams are to be followed and he delivers them. In 1699 when he took his sword out that was a Hukam being issued by Maharaj. Over the years Maharaj does test his Sikhs, but the test are different from Hukams and those with an ounce of Gurbani know this. When Maharaj disrespected a grave, he was testing his Khalsa. When Maharaj said keep hair uncut, that was not a test, but a Hukam. Do you see the difference!!!!! When Maharaj says I will get one SIngh to fight 125 000 then that is not a test, but a Hukam. When Maharaj tells you to stand infront of a gun to test it, then its a test on the person.

Take your foolishness back to SPN. They gave you their collars and these should stay at the nastik site.

Here it comes! The frothing at the mouth. lol

You haven't got a clue about what you are talking about.

Besides I think people come to a forum like this to get a break from the narrow minded like yourself. But give us a laugh anyway. Carry on. Vaddha aiya.

Edited April 28, 2011 by dalsingh101

[amardeep]

Everything is hukam.. You can't make a distinction between a hukam and "then a test".. all tests are hukam. You dont know if Bhai Mani Singh was in the crowd that day, its just something you assume.

[Only five]

Everything is hukam.. You can't make a distinction between a hukam and "then a test".. all tests are hukam. You dont know if Bhai Mani Singh was in the crowd that day, its just something you assume.

Then what about the time when Maharaj disrespected a grave. If everything Maharaj does is a Hukam then there is nothing wrong with disrespecting a grave. But Maharaj was testing his Singhs to see if they stick to Gurbani and speak up. When Maharaj pointed his feet to the Kaaba was that a Hukam?

Bhai Mani Singh ji was in the crowd forsure. Satguru sent out the call to get the sangat all together on 1699. Bhai Mani Singh ji would be there, along with other Gursikhs.

Also there is two sides to Hukams and test are one sided where the Sikhs have to complete. Hukams are two sided because Maharaj completes them in form and the Sikhs follow them.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Only five

[Only five]

At the end you can take the pseudo scholar dalsingh 101 take on this or take Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa.

So dalsingh 101 when are going to harass another person on Sikhsangat and then again get put under moderation.

[dalsingh101]

At the end you can take the pseudo scholar dalsingh 101 take on this or take Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa.

So dalsingh 101 when are going to harass another person on Sikhsangat and then again get put under moderation.

In the end you can stop going on like some know it all brahm giani yourself.

You make me laugh. Only 5? What is that, your mental age?

Edited April 28, 2011 by dalsingh101

[Only five]

In the end you can stop going on like some know it all brahm giani yourself.

You make me laugh. Only 5? What is that, your mental age?

This is the kind of behavoir that got you caught for harassement on Sikhsangat. No joke this guy was caught for harassment. And then he was also caught on Sikhsangat for disrespecting Guru Sahib. The mods had no choice but to delete this creepers comment. Stop creepering people and get off the net. Again im not making jokes here. It's all true.

[laalsingh]

Online Sikh sangat should be given privilege of buttons like 'punch', 'push', 'poke with kirpan', 'poke with chimta', 'hit with hammer' etc.

Edited April 29, 2011 by laalsingh

[dalsingh101]

Online Sikh sangat should be given privilege of buttons like 'punch', 'push', 'poke with kirpan', 'poke with chimta', 'hit with hammer' etc.

Do you think we're in some New York Gurdwara or something?

Edited April 29, 2011 by dalsingh101

[jaikaara]

haan ji ohnu ak47 vi de dyo te naal hi post karan waale da address vi..gal pasand nai aundhi ta jaa ke sodh deo ohnu !

[dalsingh101]

Going to add this to the discussion. The idea that our ithihaas actually records and refers to multiple Amrit bestowing events is quite a powerful one, and could help us conceptualise the variations we see in extant accounts, instead of having them at odds with each other. I'm surprised no one has commented on this?