Kuttabanda2

I'm always left in Irony when Muslims feel the need to target other faiths by misconstruing certain events and accounts, ignoring other evidences altogether, and not looking in their own yard when criticizing. How Pathetic. They did the same with the Kartarpuri and Goindwal Pothi article. They relied heavily on Pashaura and McLeod and ignored all current discoveries and research.

Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindrawale doesn't ever mention Taksal, he never even used that to claim authority. He respected Sri Akal Takhat Sahib Ji. and yes, he had respect for Singh Sabha Lehar as well. and yes, Baba Sundar Singh Ji was a part of It. He does Ustat of the Singh Sabha in his books as well. So even in his eyes, they weren't the satanic, "colonial", "British" agents people make them out to be.

It's a Teeka By Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji on JapJi Sahib, based on his conversations with Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

I don't discard the whole lineage idea, I just don't think that should be used to claim authority. Kavi Santokh Singh was a student of Gyani Sant Singh (whom Taksalis attach to their lineage) and his views on Raagmala are quite clear, contradictory to today's Taksal. Bhai Mani Singh's JapJi Sahib exposition puts the Mool Mantar up to Gurprasad whereas today's Taksal goes on to include the Salok following it. There are clear inconsistencies and fallacies. I don't see how they're a better choice over the SGPC (of old).

There is hard evidence for numerous practices, and historical events in Sikh History. A large chunk of it. Just look at Dr. Ganda Singh's reference library, He has a heap of historical sources from numerous areas. Others Scholars have done something similar. For example, the author of 'Sakhi Mahala Pehla' relied partially on Sakhis found appended to Puraatan Birs and Pothis written by contemporary Sikhs. We have a very firm and well defined structure/framework of Sikhi, that's irrefutable. As for Oral Tradition, I'm not one to entirely dismiss Oral Tradition. Kavi Santokh Singh, Gyani Gyan singh and Rattan Singh Bhangu didn't only rely on what was passed down orally, they had a bit of textual work to look into, with them as well. There are certain historical events that we do not have a clear picture of, but they're not overshadowing all that our Scholars have collected and researched over the years. The Singh Sabha came in at 1873 not the 1880s. The Singh Sabha didn't need to be an ancient archaic Order of Saints to authenticate their findings and legitimacy in many places. They did Khoj. They're not the English nurtured (Ridiculous and ahistorical assertion), double horned, red skinned, demonic entities the Sampardas have portrayed them as.

Yet, they don't seem to get a list of things right.

Yeah.

Punjabi.

Yeah, he translated part of it.

Suraj Prakash is not the oldest record, Gur Rattan Mal (Shudh and Puraatan version/form) and Malwe Desh Rattan Di Sakhi Pothi is what Kavi Santokh Singh used when writting about the ninth and tenth Patshahis. Malwe Desh Rattan Di Sakhi Pothi was first thought to have been written in between 1700-1730s, It contains quite a few anecdotes and narrations that are written like travelogues and records, as in quite a few places, the author is most likely a close associate and contemporary of Mahala 9-10th as his work indicates.

A lot of Charitropakhyan was derived from Panchtatar, and Triya Charitar, two preceding works (from the 1680s-1690s) of Guru Sahib's Darbar.

From what I read, not a single reference was made to bring dishonor to one's family. Did you derive this from Suraj Prakash? Guru Sahib explicitly told her to wear a Kacherra in Malwe Desh Rattan Di Sakhi Pothi.

Which old reference is this from?

That's asserting all Rehatnamas must be explicit and contain either injunctions for both genders or use gender-neutral pronouns in order to be applicable to women of the Khalsa Panth. When reading Rehatnamas in that manner, we can assumed that the Kacherra and Keski is only meant for men. In Malwe Desh Rattan, and Gur Rattan Mal we find that Mata Bhag Kaur Ji was given Hukam to adorn a Kacherra, Baana, and Keski-Dastaar. The Bhai Chaupa Singh Rehatnama is heavily adulterated. There are instances where entire paragraphs and stanzas are omitted, edited or inserted. However, it is fair to say that's based off the very first official Rehatnama. To what extant, is unknown but can be conjectured. Even at the end of that Rehatnama a statement claims "The Rehat applies to both Sikh and Sikhnees." Implying that with the exceptional injunctions in 'At Sikhnee Rehat', the rest is the same for all Khalsas. Prem Sumarag Granth is from the end of the 18th Century and or the early 19th century, and a product of certain mindsets, views, and influences of that time.

Neither does Taksal or Nanaksar, and they still don't admit that. A claim of an unbroken, unadulterated, and fallacy devoid lineage with a claim of a 3 century long game of telephone isn't really reliable. Singh Sabha is older than DamDami Taksal.

contemporary, Historical evidence, and contemporary-textual evidence. why would I care What Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Ji was saying in regards to what he was taught and his individual beliefs?

You are aware that's not evidence, right?

The Rehat applies both to men and women. So it would make no difference.

'Rehatnameh' by Piara Singh Padam.

because they just are.

of the translation? Nowhere, no one translated it completely.

I'm not denying any of the Seva Taksal did in the 80s and 70s. I respect the fact that Baba Gurbachan Singh and his 2 successors respected the Maryada at Akal Takhat. However, that doesn't mean I'd like them to be in charge of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib as the authority over the Panth. Indeed I won't know what they would do in such situations, no one would. But a track record is sufficient to provide insight in to what might've happened. I haven't made any hyperbole as of now. I've been careful not to.

I don't think so.

Yes. Not directly.

....... wonderful.