Kuttabanda2

11 hours ago, tva prasad said:

if the birs were "too old to read and maintain" how did they know if raagmala was included or not? They obviously couldn't read it if it was "too old to read". It is possible that the birs could be written before raagmala was composed.

It's not like the ink wore off, you just had birs that were apparently crumbling.  It wasn't hard to tell if Raagmala was in them or not. Besides, "Too old to read and maintain" was an excuse for them to do agan bhet/sanskar.  It wasn't a coincidence that the many Puraatan birs and sarroops Shamsher Singh Ashok and Gyani Gurdit Singh recorded (that were missing Raagmala) became "too old to maintain" thus had to be cremated.  

On 2/7/2017 at 2:05 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

No problems with that list except "brahmanical influences" is very vague and can be very wide-reaching. The Sikh Panth has a phobia about "brahmanical influences." Only at the weekend I was at a wedding, where the kirtani whilst talking about wedding practices, used the words "bip-reet" three times, yet played the european harmonium, singing lavan and anand to some filmy tune.

The literature studied by the SS was studied under their own parameters (which was also shaped by the ongoing political situation in Panjab). Not like in the Samprdais, where (I beleive) the parameters were set by Guru Sahib himself. Because of this people even began to doubt Bhagat-bani, bhatt-bani, raagmala etc.

As mentioned before the literature/scriptures read in the samprdais is much more than the SS studied, or the SGPC use today.

 

 

I don't think it was either, it was a reaction to things going wrong in the Panth. But, the measure of it is, whether it has acheived any betterment for the Panth in todays times.

By braminical influences, I mean moorti puja, tilak, dhoop-dheep, conch shells, dhoti, sacredness of the cow, the idea of Guru Sahib ordaining multiple panths, devi puja, reverence for the Hindu Pantheon, casteism,  and legitimizing multiple sub-Panths, snaatan mat, not the extremes of Ghagga and new age Singh Sabhas are saying.

And you are aware that the harmonium is frequented by the Nihungs, Taksalis, Hazooris and Patna Sikhs as well, right?

You're also wrong about The Singh Sabha's literary study, they read a large portion of literature for Sikh history, philosophy, ideology, and tenets, starting with Guru Sahib's Bani itself.  The SRM, Mahan Kosh, Gurmat Sudhakar, Gurbani Vyakaran, Mundavni, Singh Sabha Patrikas, Raagmala Darpan, Bhai Randhir Singh's research, Devi Puja Partal, Ham Hindu Nahin, Guru Granth Darpan, Gurmat Prabhakar, etc. is solid proof of that, along with their steeks and teekas.  These guys studied Persian, sanskrit, hindi, and Punjabi (with it's various dialects) along with it's history and literature.  They dug up old dictionaries and encyclopedias of Persian and medieval Indian languages to implement in their study of Gurbani, their primary source for identifying the framework and skeletal system of Sikhi.  You can read their early literature yourself and see how much they've referenced and studied for yourself.  You're severely underestimating them.  They have a better line of logic and reasoning (the kind we need for research, and analysis).

The Sampardas on the other hand have set their parameters with texts like Bhavsamarit, vichar mala, saruktavali, fareedkot teeka, etc along with the elucidations and interpretations their mahapurakhs gave them. they study and reference their own texts to validate and supplicate their lens, from which they view/contextualize Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib. The Sampardas additionally falsely validate their veracity by claiming they've been in a 150+ year game of telephone, so they somehow have more authority.  That's conjectural, not factual.  Whereas the Singh Sabhas started from scratch and went back to the original source to interpret it as it is.  

As for the bhatt bani and bhagat bani issue, that was only one group, the Bhasaurias who later on (when they lost their marbles) were rejected by the other Singh Sabhas (who were becoming uncomfortable with them a decade before their excommunication).  As for Raagmala, there have been doubts on Raagmala before the Singh Sabha even existed, and even outside of the Singh Sabhas, from Nirmalas for example.  A lot of evidence backs the anti-raagmala brigade. 

On 2/7/2017 at 1:55 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

There were 2 phases to the Singh Sabha lehar, the first was in the 1880s which started the rmission of spreading Gurmat on a wider and more rigorous platform, the 2nd was in the 1920s which was more widely known as the "Gurdwara Sudhar Lehar".

 

 

OK, that's good to hear. When you approach it from a western perspectice, thing can go badly wrong. There is no rationale or logic for "sharda". Western concepts of evalution incude tearing everything down to the last atom. And even then, trying to split that atom further. There was a great thread on here about "Science and Sikhi" many years ago.

 

 

But you have to ask yourself did any of that truth rub off on Bhai Lehna?

Bhai Lehna Ji witnessed kautaks from Guru Sahib. That was his truth.  The Sampardas aren't the Guru. The form of the Guru we have now is Gurshabad/Gurbani, which we interpret according to the rationale and Budhi Guru Sahib bestowed on us, whilst keeping faith in Guru Sahib. 

How do you use that Sakhi to defeat the idea of using logic and rationality with the ideas the Singh Sabha dealt with and proposed? Didn't Guru Sahib also teach a lesson to the brahmins when they splashed water towards the sun for their deceased ancestors? Was he not using logic when explaining to them the fallacy of their actions?  The idea is to have faith in your Guru, i.e. Gurshabad as we have it now, The Sampardas aren't the Guru.  We are predisposed to use our critical thinking skills and sense of reasoning. As Sikhs, we do that in light of Gurbani, which we interpret with the credible tools available to us. 

Now yes, I do believe in the karamaats and kautaks associated with the Guru Sahibaans.  But just because those feats, that I believe the Gurus did, defy rationale and logic (due to my predispositional belief that Guru Sahib was Akaal Purakh's jyot) doesn't mean I'm going completely stop using my brain.

The Singh Sabha dealt with issues that required one's basic sense of logical reasoning and critical thinking, for issues such as Raagmala, brahminical influences, Mool Mantar, Nitnem Banis, definition of a Sikh, identifying and exposing rudimentary Sikh principles and concepts, etc. required reasoning as they studied numerous texts such as Janamsakhis, Rehatnamey, SGGSJ, SDGSJ, Suraj Prakash, Panth Prakash, Sau Sakhi, bijay mukat Khalsa Dharam Shastar, etc. 

It wasn't made to destroy the Panth, but give it an underlying basis that we could all have common grounds on. 

As far as the evils of the SGPC go, no one's clean here.  A while back Patna Sahib, they did sanskaar of hundreds of ancient Birs that were "too old to read and maintain", coincidentally a lot of them didn't have Raagmala in it.  Everyone's got dirt on them. Just a harsh reality. Every Jathebandi now is in someway influenced, l restricted, in favor to, linked to, or controlled by Badal, or the RSS.  You wouldn't get Khalistan, Khalsa Raj, or a prospering Panth just because a certain Jathebandi is in control of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib.

On 2/3/2017 at 7:23 AM, paapiman said:

Sri Satguru jee vested his power into the Panth. All the Gurmukhs of the Sampradas form the Panth. So they do have a lot of power. We cannot equate anyone with Sri Satguru jee, but they are very close to him.

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf 

That again, is your opinion.  Paapiman, not everyone here holds your Samparda Gurmukhs to be the flawless, unquestionable, indisputable, epitomes of Sikhi you believe them to be. 

On 12/21/2016 at 5:42 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

The SGPC are a the legitimate heirs, or even the Singh Sabha in their evolving form. If the SGPC made these changes, why did the Singh Sabhas all over the world accept them? They could have refused. But when the maryada was being discussed the main people involved were the Singh Sabha people.

 

 

 

By using sensical reasoning you wipeout half of Guru's history. How could Guru Nanak have moved the Ka'aba? Made reethe, meethe? How could Guru Sahib have taken brought the Moosan back to life after his head had been chopped off? Sensical?

 

 

True love leads to blind faith. Bhai Lehna loved Guru Nanak so much, that when in broad daylight Guru Sahib said, "It is night, go to sleep," Bhai Lehna never questioned or thought about Guru Sahib's adesh, but accepted it straightaway. Blind faith is a big measure of love for the Guru.

The SGPC absorbed the remaining Singh Sabhas, at the time of it's inception. The Singh Sabha members of the 1870s-1890s weren't in the SGPC of the 30s-50s. Sure, you could say they're heirs, in the same way Dhumma is the heir of the DDT and Sant Jarnail Singh.

When I speak of reasoning, logic, rationale, etc. I'm speaking of it in the confines of Sikhi. Accepting the Gurus to be the manifestation of  the divine (an entity that controls everything). The DDT and any other Samparda or organization isn't the Guru, they're Sikhs, and humans.  There's no comparision here. So when they propose an idea or make a bold claim, we're going to have to use our intellect to evaluate what they're saying is true or not.  Bhai Lehna Ji witnessed and discovered Guru Sahib's kuatak, kalaa, and ilaahi, which is why he accepted what he said without question, because Guru Sahib was all truth himself. 

But what does that have to do with the Sampardas? Are they collectively the Guru themselves? 

On 12/20/2016 at 8:16 AM, amardeep said:

According to your research is there anything to substantiate the presence of 5 K's as a part of the original Khalsa Rahit? Most often mention that the early texts only talk about Trai Mudre and Giani Gian Singh is the first to mention 5 K's as a specific Khalsa rahit.

The only texts that mention all 5 Kakkars together are the Bhatt Vahi of Pargana Thanesar, and Sri Gur Katha, and and they differ from each other on the Kes-Keski issue. There's also Bijay Mukat, but it seems touched up and can't be any earlier than Guru Kian Sakhian, probably early to Mid 1800s.

On 12/12/2016 at 5:10 AM, paapiman said:

Most likely, you must be aware that how much science has changed from those times to 2010's.

Blind faith and love are more important in religion than rationality.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Blind faith is dangerous to an extant, love is great for Sikhi.

when you say "those times" what times are you speaking of?

We're at a period where science can't be disproved, it's either denial or acception of the truth. 

20 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

This is part of the Singh Sabha ideology.

This is simply a continuation of the Singh Sabha ideology.

You watch now, they will start questioning Nam Dev ji's bani.

Then they will start questioning Guru Arjun Dev ji's bani.

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0&Param=1082

 

They are ignorant, they don't understand how Mythology works, what the worship of Devi Devte is about and so they foolishly cut out sections of banis.

They cannot explain a lot of things in Guru Granth Sahib even. And Chaupai Sahib is just an easy target because it's not part of Guru Granth Sahib. So they can get away with cutting parts of it.

Yes, an ideology based on sensical reasoning. 

I don't see how the latter was a continuation of "Singh Sabha Ideology". 

They actually do know what diety worshiping is, along with Indic Mythology, as well as the explanations of those Shabads (No one's raised doubts to in regards to it as of now so....), they've written about this and given their input. It's all in their literatures. Do you assume them all to be Bhasaurias or Kala Afghana types?

Guru Kian Sakhian are authentic in the sense that they were written by Sarroop Singh Kaushish in 1790, however, they aren't entirely reliable.  The accounts of the Amrit Sanchar, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, Dasmesh Pita Ji's jyoti-jyot are reliable because they're corroborated by actual Pandd and Bhatt Vahees.  If you compare the accounts with the ones in the Bhatt Vahees, it's supported.  The rest of the accounts are fishy. 

The reason why Keski is mentioned in Guru Kian Sakhian (based off of some Vahees), Pargana Thanesar Bhatt Vahees, and Bhatt Narbad Singh's accounts is due to the fact that Guru Sahib did indeed tie a blue keski on the Panj Pyare and probably instructed them to keep one.  But that doesn't mean it's a Kakkar.  The Bhatts and Pandds historically recorded incidences from afar or from what they heard around that very moment.  It's almost a tradition for them.  Their job was to record what they witnessed.  The Amrit Sanchar was witnessed by them from amongst the Sangat or on the outskirts of the area from where they could still view and hear (as they have been doing in battles, royal courts, or hearings in India). So when they saw Guru Sahib give the Panj a Sarbloh Kara, a Karad, a white Kacherra, a wooden kanga, and blue keski, they assumed it to be the fifth Kakkar. 

On 11/18/2016 at 11:36 AM, chatanga1 said:

Yes, and their research to substantiate this was so poor. I read a book from the SGPC where they have tried to explain the cutting down of banis read in Rehras. It is so sad to see their pathetic reasoning to stop Chaupai sahib after verse 25. When I read this I thought to myself what kind of knowledge did these people have.

That's actually wrong.  What the SGPC did with Chaupai Sahib isn't even representative of the Singh Sabhas.  Panch Khalsa Diwan, Chief Khalsa Diwan, Rawalpindi Singh Sabha all read and preached Chaupai Sahib to conclude at Arril, as it actually does.  In 'Milgobha Sudhaar' and 'Gurmat Prakaash Sanskaar' The Chaupai Sahib is mentioned to start from "Hamri Karo Haath Dai Rachya...." up to "Ho jo yaaki eik baar chaupai ko kahai".  The change brought by the SGPC isn't representative of the Singh Sabhas.  Even Bhasaurias, after losing their marbles, read Chaupai Sahib till Arril and made a specific injunction to do so. So that can't be used against the Singh Sabhas, as it's not their belief, let alone their doing.

On 11/17/2016 at 10:07 AM, paapiman said:

It is a fact that coercion was used during the Akali Lehar to change/modify certain aspects of Sikhism.

On the other hand, look at the bighearted and broad minded nature of Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale. Giving vidhya daan to Naamdharis and also not forcing Sikh Rehat on them.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

It had to be done. To establish, ratify and firmly ground their views. It was quite strategic and plausible to me. There was no other appropriate treatment that could be given to those who thought prostitution, Devi-Devte worship, and caste discrimination was acceptable in the Panth. Essentially going against Gurmat.

Well, Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji sadly wasn't able to bring them back into the Panth now, was he?

On 11/17/2016 at 10:07 AM, paapiman said:

It is a fact that coercion was used during the Akali Lehar to change/modify certain aspects of Sikhism.

On the other hand, look at the bighearted and broad minded nature of Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale. Giving vidhya daan to Naamdharis and also not forcing Sikh Rehat on them.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

It had to be done. To establish, ratify and firmly ground their views. It was quite strategic and plausible to me. There was no other treatment that could be good be given to those who thought prostitution, Devi-Devte worship, and caste discrimination was acceptable in the Panth. Going against Gurmat.

Well, Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji sadly wasn't able to bring them back into the Panth now, was he?

On 11/17/2016 at 7:51 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Avtar Singh vahiria wasn't a scholar as far as I know. He was an out and out sanantist. But as to call them Gyanis ? I wouldn't go that far. Scholars are not about getting knowledge but dissecting it. A "Gyani" to me is one who has Gyan. The British lense that Sikh scholars began to look through was one of rationale, science and historicity.  They applied either/all of these to Guru Granth Sahib/janamsakhis.

 

Look forward to having a look at this Granth.

I never said that that my fear of Arifi would/will cloud my judgment of Sri Gur Katha. I said, and I'll reiterate, scna some pages and we can look at them.

 

My bad. I confused him to be the Jathedar of Rawalpindi/Thoha Khalsa Singh Sabha. 

Yeah, i'd call them Gyanis. They had Gyan. In what esteem you hold them is not entirely my concern. 

historicity, rationale, and science isn't british, it's human. It's essential for our advancement and improvement. It's a lense of humanity, not of the British.  It's what makes them credible and sensical.

And i'll do so in a bit.

On November 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, chatanga1 said:

We also, as Sikhs use faith to navigate through this world. More than logic I would say.

Faith is necessary for a person of any spiritual or religious tradition. However, when it comes to analyzing a faith/or religion, we need the application of logic to some extant, as well. Depriving ourselves of rationality, critical thinking, and reasoning (which isn't fundamentally subjective) is detrimental and counter-productive for the intellectual, societal, and overall evolution of humanity.

On November 12, 2016 at 11:52 AM, chatanga1 said:

It's funny because that is exactly what I'm getting from you and your "misogynist" label for anyone who sees differently.

 

I don't say it. I have never said it. Another thing you share with my darling. The ability to put words in others mouths.

 

 

No I didn't know you were refering to these but thanks for telling me. it's made things a little clearer. Some of these people were scholars. They are not the same as samprdaic gyanis. Some of these scholars applied a British lense to analysing Sikh praxis and literature. You are right these scholars are not pendu gyanis, but scholars are not the same as Gyanis.

 

 

It doesn't, but the grounding is there before they even begin to look at both Granths. THis means they are able to give a wider and more detailed katha of Gurbani, rather the linear translations you find being told today.

 

They were in the beginnning, but as time went on, there became a strong emphasis on anything that was shared with Hinduism ie. lighting dhoof and deeve/jyot and narial.

 

 

I have no opinion on Sri gur Katha. If you look up the topic "debunking Sri Gur Katha" on this forum, you will see that I stressed the need to look at the granth and then form opinions rather than go with the approach of "debunking" it from the outset.

Let's discuss Sri Gur Katha further. If you have the granth, scan a few pages, post them on one of the existing topics of this granth and we can look at them.

 

Niranjan Singh Arifi on the other hand scares me. He is a "low-caste" Sikh who has sought to re-write history and claim the supreme status for low-castes only. Some of his writing is extremely biased and has no basis historically. He makes up a lot of things as well. He has tried to make out that Baba Bir Singh Naurangabadi was the same Bir Singh (a mazhabi) who offered his head to test a gun for Guru Gobind Singh Ji, in the sakhi of Bhai Dalla.

"some of these people were scholars". 

Actually, they were all scholars. Regardless of one's opinion towards their beliefs and assertions. And I would say they're Gyanis as well. 

what's the definition of a 'Gyani' according to you?

Could you clarify this "British praxis" and lense you speak of? How would you say they applied it? And How do you define it? 

Also, the ground you speak of, How are we to determine it's necessary and needed? How are we to conclude this is what the Gurus meant? Or if this "wider scope" is accurate and well grounded? What's the veracity of this ground work?  

I'll scan the Granth and post it along with Malwe Desh Rattan's excerpts within this month. 

in regards to Arifi's claims, I don't recall him making such claims. Do you know where he made that assertion? 

No academic is inerrant. People are bound to form conjectures and claims that can be poorly substantiated. Unless it's frequent, we shouldn't cast doubt upon all of their work. I have no doubt that Arifi was biased, but he wasn't dubious. 

Secondly, Your fear of Arifi shouldn't cloud your judgement of Sri Gur Katha. As he wasn't the only one who came across it or studied it in the first place. Five academics so far have studied the manuscript(s) and have written about it. 

On November 10, 2016 at 1:30 PM, chatanga1 said:

The SS. They started off with good intentions of strenghening the Panth through education.

 

 

Too convenient and far too stretched historically.

 

 

But the Masands were disbanded. After that came the Panj Pyare. All male. Always male. No matter what false reasoning you employ.

And this picture is from a Nagar kirtan. Nice attempt to try and pass it off as as Khande ki pahul sinchar.

 

Jaspreet, if you think this is down to male ego, then you are very wrong. Ego has nothing to do with this at all. Do you think Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala was egoistic in that video?

 

 

Our "mahapursh" interpret Gurbani is a far wider scope than the rest of the Panth. And it is not an opinion. It is based on understanding. You can listen to a PHD holder, and see the difference from a nursery teacher. The SGPC or missionary donkeys, they are not a patch on Samprdaic Gyanis when it comes to Gyan. You can do 2 years and learn 25 shabads at the missionary college and become a gyani. In the Taksal you have to get vidya in something 9 Granths before you even start learning from Guru Granth Sahib. You can reach for the stars, or scrabble around in the dirt.

 

The SS wanted a distinct identity for the Sikhs (the Singh /Khalsa identity) which is why they started to dismiss anything connected with Hinduism as and where they could. To them anything that Sikhs shared with Hinduism was anathema. The level of Gyan amongst SGPC gyanis is very poor, very pendu compared to samprdaic gyanis. There's no contest.

 

The rationality is depending on an individuals own level of intellect. The Saprdais offer a level of education that the SGPC or pendu granthis cannot match.

LOgic has no place in Sikhi.

 

Even that is not free of doubt. Personally I havent read it myself. I would love to read it, but there are already topics on here about Sri Gur Katha. If you want to , visit one and add your opinions.

 

No they are not. We had a woman head of the SGPC who in her capacity would have made major decisions affecting the Panth.

Like I said earlier, go to Sri Akal Takht sahib and ask them how many of their sinchars involved women. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

It was NOT the soul that volunteered. It was the body, thaat gave it's head for amrit. We don't give our soul to take amrit, we give our head, therefore the act is completely physical. Guru Sahib asked for heads at Vasisakhi, not for souls. Guru Sahib took the heads of the 5 sikhs, not their souls. Taking Pahul is completely a physical act.

 

I hope you know I'm referring to the likes of Bhai Vir Singh Ji, Professor Sahib Singh Ji, Avtar Singh Vahiria, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Dr. Ganda Singh, Dr. Trilochan Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh, Gyani Hazara Singh, Bhai Karam Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh (SGPC), Joginder Singh Talwara, Piara Singh Padam, Gurbachan Singh Talib, Gyani Ditt Singh, Professor Puran Singh, and numerous others. A number of them had Sampardaic origins. The substance lies in their books, articles, columns, and newspaper articles. These people aren't "pendu Gyanis". They had a good grasp of the topics they had written about, discussed, and propagated.

 These vidhvaans studied 4 languages, various dialects, history-evolution of Indian literature/language, Indian History, linguistics, literary/textual analysis, and Indian culture. They weren't a group of cognitively dissonant ignoramouses that certain individuals portray them to be. As a matter of fact, they were open for research, input and new discoveries. Open discussions, conventions, and debates in Majha, Malwa, Pothohar, Rawalpindi, and Lahore Diwans were frequent. 

 As for the 9 Granths they read, that's literature of their circles and ideology, which isn't a problem to read, but it doesn't give them any sort of superiority to read texts that shapes their approach to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji over those who favor a different approach.

I don't refer to pendu Granthis when I say "scholars", Nor do I refer to the Sikh Missionary College. I'm not speaking of the SGPC or Singh Sabha of today, I don't know how many times more I'll have to restate that.

The Singh Sabha wanted to rid Sikhi of cultural influences that crept in due to the proximity Sikhs had with their Hindu neighbors and the practices brought in by Hindu converts to Sikhi, They were quite successful.

They even fancied Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, something viewed as quite brahminical by a deluded few today.

As for Sri Gur Katha, don't form your opinion based on what someone typed up online, this forum isn't a scholar hub. Buy the books, read them, and then formulate an opinion. It's authentic, not because it seems appealing, but because of the evidence Arifi provided and it's manuscript still being extant and accessible. I've already made clarifications in regards to it. One would actually read something before forming an opinion on It. 

rationality is also not very malleable. 

Logic doesn't have a place in Sikhi, that's correct. It has a place in humanity and society above all. Logic is what we use to intellectually navigate our world. Using it allows for the advancement of the human race, then to Sikhs. Whether or not you decide to use it, is your personal preference.

On November 9, 2016 at 4:53 AM, paapiman said:

What is the rest of the Panth you are referring to? Please name the sampradas (blessed by Sri Satguru jee) who claim that the Taksali arths are wrong. 

People who interpret Gurbani solely based on grammar, doubt parts of Gurbani, change Gurbani, bark against Gurbani, fiddle with maryada, hide evidence, destroy religious artifacts, etc, will definitely have problems with the great Vidya Martands of the Panth.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

When I say "your Brahmgyanis/mahapurakhs" I mean your Sampardas. By "rest of the Panth" I'm referring to AKJ, Singh Sabha, etc.

"Those people" didn't do anything of that sort. Their interpretation  makes more sense than Sampardas, their vein of reasoning is more consistent and logical. 

Tuhadeya da Ki? Eik Tukk Nu chakk Ke Das Das Arth Kadd Dinne aa, Jithe Bishram te Bhaavic Arth aam takhsheelta  anusar penda hee nahi, outhe tokk Dinne aa. 

if you believe in Taksal and Sampardaic intpertretation of Gurbani, good, but don't walk around with a sense of superiority. 

Te Raagmale Di Gal Tu Naa hee karre, Bhala va. 

I believe Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji was a great Gurmukh too, But his belief in Raagmala indicates to me he didn't reach "the highest level". 

Bhai Vir Singh isn't Taksali, by the way. He just Believed in Raagmala.

I do occasionally listen to their Katha and read parts of their teekas, but I also appreciate Singh Sabha works. Professor Sahib Singh for example is an amazing scholar in my opinion

On November 5, 2016 at 2:20 PM, chatanga1 said:

When SGPC started was when we had jathedars of Sri Akal Takht. They looked for the person with good leadership qualities who was respected throughout the SS and also a person of qurbani.

No such thing these days. Things going wrong with the Panth but the jathedars do not provide clear leadership or solutions or quite frankly, even admit there are problems.

 

But what if this "evidence" is not uniform? What about when you have 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, saying different things.

I don't beleive that the research gone into the Panthic maryada was even 10% of the research done in Gurmat, that is carried out in the Taksals and Samprdais. Even now you can tell the difference between your average Gyani and a Taksali. Also if you didn't know, most of the paathis who did sewa at Sri Darbar Sahib uto the 1980s were from taksal of Gyani Mohan Singh and Sant Kartar Singh.

Look at the Gurdwaras run by the Samprdiais and compare them with Gurdwaras run by the SGPC/SinghSabha and look at the difference, in terms of Gyan, Sangat, and attendance.

 

yeah, that's a "What if". 

The Janamsakhis are hagiographical, yes. But that doesn't mean we dismiss it. Do Sampardas not preach hagiographical accounts of the Gurus? Do we need biographies devoid of miracles and anecdotes? As a Sikh, I have no problem accepting miracles and hagiographical accounts.  Many Sakhis in Bhai Mani Singh's Janamsakhi and it's preceding Janamsakhi record Guru Sahib giving instructions on morality, spirituality, and faith. Not entirely miracle.  

As as for the 5ks, Sri Gur Katha is what I would refer to. 

As for Panth Prakash and Suraj Prakash, It's not entirely rooted in oral tradition. The author of 'Bhatt te ouhna Di Rachna' suggested and gave clues to how Bhatt and Pandey Vahis were used by these authors , as their accounts were very similar to Rattan Singh Bhangu's, 

Suraj Prakash is undeniably partially sourced in some Janamsakhis, Gur Rattan Mal and Malwe Desh Rattan.

On November 5, 2016 at 2:08 PM, chatanga1 said:

There is and there isn't. It just depends on how we take it as individuals. Go right back to the start. There is not evben common consensus over when Guru Nanak Maharaj was born. Many sources are divided between Baiskhi and Kattak.

 

I remember seeing a post on this forum about Ganda Singh and how his writing of history was quite different to events described in historical writings. I haven't read any of his books, so I can't say for sure but like all historians we should still  apply our own critical analysis of it.

I am reading Hari Ram Gupta's "History of the Sikhs" (vol 1) at the moment. He also did a lot of khoj especially of Persian writings and texts, and has pointed out things that even seasoned katha vachiks or historians don't/can't tell you. I don't know how much it differs from Dr Ji's but it is certainly worth a read.

 

I'm not too sure about that ( but i haven't read it so can't say for sure) about Sakhi Mahala Pehla but the Sakhis esp from Janamsakhis about Guru Sahib's lives are hagiographic and don't really tell us much about the framework of Sikhi.

 

Yes they did, but that work may well have been passed down orally before it came to be written.

 

I agree somehat because as the Panth has evolved we have managed to get things written down and formed some kind of tradition as a result. But scratch under the surface and you will find that those very sources may not contain much about what we have evolved into. Look at the 5 ks for instance. They are mentioned in no particular order or completely until Saroop Singh wrote Guru Kian Sakhian.

 

The SS was a reaction by Sikh notables to conversion or abandonment of Sikhi for 4 Sikh youths. At that time, the SS reacted by having to go through all the resources/material they could find on Sikhi before reproducing it themselves. At the beginning  of the lehar, I would say that the SS would no better educated than your average pendu Granthi. They had to learn in order to teach. Even by starting in 1873, doesn't really mean much. It was in the 1890s when they really got going.

The reaction was because of the conversions to Christianity, but the brunt of the lehar was aimed at removing any connections to Hindu/Hindus religion. This overzealousness at removing any connections with the Hindus has led to some problems in the Panth. Even today there are fools are say that we have become an completely separate Quam from the HIndus because we have replaced the Bikrami calendar with this fraud Nanakshahi calendar.

 

We have a problem of blaming everything on the british. The SS blamed the british for the samprdaies, the samprdaies call the SGPC british offspring etc. Both sides are wrong in this.

The SS lehar had to do their own khoj and quite frankly some of it was very wrong. Some of it was very good. But it has created a lot of problems we see in the Panth today.

 

There mostly is. Controversy should not leave ambiguity, to an individual. We have well documented Janamsakhis, many of which Dr. Trilochan Singh even noted down. Due to McLeod and a batch of other Scholars, the debate has been left open, when it should have been closed decades ago. And Again, I would state We have fairly enough evidence to make conceive and make out a framework of Our Guru Sahibans, Their Jeevan, Philosophy, and actions. 

I would insist reading his and other scholar's works on history and checking their references. 

The Singh Sabha wasn't hellbent on removing anything that seemed like Bahmanvaad or bharam bhulekhe. Also, comparing them pendu Granthis is Incorrect. These people weren't uneducated, many even learned from Nirmalas and Sampardas themselves.  This is evident in their literature. 

I still don't see the rationality in choosing the Sampardas over Singh Sabha either. The Snaatanists arent flawless themselves, They would be in no position to lead or place authority over the Panth. During their influence, Karam kaand, brahmincal rituals, and anti-Gurmat (like caste discrimination, idol worship, etc.) was rampant. Not one Mahant or Nihang spoke out against that or even went as far as lead a lehar against it. Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Dr. Gurmukh Singh, and others had to step in and do Shudai. I would see them more as revivalists than reformists. 

Additionally, they have been more logical and consistent in many places than these Sampardas. 

On November 5, 2016 at 2:08 PM, tva prasad said:

he is a brahmgiani WHY would he lie!?!? He is one with god!

 

srimaan baba deep Singh ji was indeed the jathedar of ddt at one stage

I didn't say he lied. 

Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji, Gyani Ditt Singh Ji (who have conflicting views with Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji) could be Braham Gyanis in my eyes, in which case, I would be prompted to ask Why would they lie or be wrong?

On November 2, 2016 at 3:09 AM, paapiman said:

A Panthic Maryada needs to rely heavily on Gurbani (all three Granths). Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale and Baba Amir Singh jee Sato ki gali wale were among the best (if not the best) scholars, when it came to exegesis of scriptures. Their input was a must in formulating a document for the Panth.

Available evidence and research are relative to the time we live in. A Maryada cannot be solely dependent on that.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Your Mahapursh interpret Gurbani far more differently than the rest of the Panth to begin with. Them being the best scholars, is solely an opinion. As for three Granths. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji ( from Jaap to Hikaayats) were all relied on, so don't undermine their research and effort. As for the third Granth, there has been no proper research done regarding it. Not even a standardization. relying On Sarbloh Granth isn't much of an option. What research did they have to include their injunctions in the Panthic Maryada. 

As as for the relativity of available evidence, I'd rather trust what I have available now rather than empty claims. That's just logical.

14 hours ago, amardeep said:

Have you read it? What do you think about it?

No, I haven't read it in it's entirety, I was able to read the first page and I got to skim through seven more. It's handwritten and in Larrdivaar so it's difficult to decipher at some places. But it's not very foreign to what we've been reading in most steeks. The explanation of the Salok was consistent of what we interpret today, and at some places it looked like the author gave anecdotes, references, or an example from or with metaphors. 

On October 30, 2016 at 4:59 AM, paapiman said:

Every Sikh has to respect Sri Akal Takht Sahib jee. That does not mean that we always have to agree with the people (who might be incompetent) in power at that sacred place.

Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale did not agree with the so-called Panthic Maryada.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

How are we to decide who was more competent for Jathedari back then?

The so-called Panthic Maryada only needed approval from available evidence, reality, and research. Not a Sampardaic figure. 

18 hours ago, amardeep said:

Genuine or ? A lot of books appears to be written/attributed to Bhai Mani Singh.

Yeah. it's Genuine, from Dr. Anurag Singh's analysis.