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. 

On October 28, 2016 at 3:12 PM, paapiman said:

Taksali/Nirmalay scholars also do khoj. Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Bhindranwale did a lot of khoj in his life.

IMHO, Gurmukhs in Sampradas do give due respect to Singh Sabha Lehar. You might also be aware that some saints such as Sant Attar Singh jee, Sant Sundar Singh jee Bhindranwale, etc, actively supported the Singh Sabha Lehar.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

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. 

On October 28, 2016 at 0:42 PM, amardeep said:

Singh it's good to have you on board to share your knowledge with us.

I agree with you that it should not be used to claim authority - critical discussion is always to be done. 

Scholars like Kavi Santokh Singh and Giani GIan Singh are quite late in history and as far as I know they did'n use that much oral history - most of their writings manifest a compilation of all previous writings. 80-85% of his sakhis in Nanak Prakash can be found in the 17th century Janam Sakhi books, whereas only the remaining 15-20% are entirely new and never heard of before sakhis. These were most likely oral traditions written down for the first time.

What is this japji sahib exposition of Bhai Mani singh?

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

On October 26, 2016 at 2:28 PM, amardeep said:

Rattan Singh Bhangu writes the following in his Hanuman Steek regarding his lineage, - he uses the word taksal though it probably means something else in this context.

"HISTORY OF TAKSAL: According to Akali Nihang Rattan Singh Bhangu, the Taksal of the Khalsa Akali Nihang Singh's started with the 52 court poets of GURU GOBIND SINGH, Pandit Panjaba, Kavi Saina Singh (Sainapat), and continued in succession with Kor Singh, Mehtab Singh (Same as Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh), Rai Singh, then Rattan Singh himself:

ਸੋ ਭਾਈ ਤੇ ਹਮ ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਇਮ ਚਲੀ ਸੁ ਗੁਰ ਟਕਸਾਲ।
ਸੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਦਯਾ ਤੇ ਹਮ ਭੀ ਭਏ ਨਿਹਾਲ।21।

From 'Hanuman Natak Sateek' handwritten manuscript folio 6."

The Damdami Taksal were known as the Giani Sampradaya in the past and can be found in historical writings under that name. Whether it was an organisation or not can be discussed but I dont think there is much discussion to whether there was a lineage of people who kept teaching in a consistent manner descending from Bhai Mani Singh... Kavi Santokh Singh's Gurbhai Baba Megh Singh has also provided similiar lineage to what taksalis claim today and he wrote his book Bhai Sahib Chandarka in the 1830s or so... also see this post I made earlier:

 

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). 

On October 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

There is nothing concrete that the taksal can provide in terms of their lineage apart from what has been passed down thorugh oral tradition. There have been many discussions on here about the origins of the taksal. I'm afraid when it come to contemporary evidence of what we beleive is the practice of Sikhi today, then there isn't much evidence to say anything with concrete evidence. Some have faith in oral tradition, others don't. Some don't beleive in taksal as there is no evidence of the name Taksal in those years (which is correct). Some beleive it is. Each to their own. The history we have of the origins of Sikhi will give us all something different.

 

Singh Sabha came about in the late 1880s. The earliest reference I have seen to the taksal as the "taksal" is in Gur Prem Pad Parkash which I think is around 1880 as well.  But before that this taksal was known as the gyani samprdai. There are references to Gyan samprdai in historical texts, I have read them myself but cannot remember where.

 

trying to prove some things in Sikhi is very hard, as they are passed through oral tradition of guru-shish.

 

This is one of the ploys that Missionaries use, as they say there is no evidence for such and such. Even where there is some writings about certain events, like Guru Nanak Sahib and meetha reetha etc. They say "prove it" and it's hard to. So it's upto the individual if they want to discard it because there is no hard evidence.

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. 

On October 26, 2016 at 3:34 AM, paapiman said:

Gyani Sampradai (another names of DDT) is definitely older than Singh Sabha.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

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

17 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Very nice. Can you post excerpts talking about Mai Bhago and even other famous personalities?

Yeah. 

14 hours ago, paapiman said:

Has it been translated into English?

Language - Hindi (Brij) or Punjabi?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Punjabi.

3 hours ago, amardeep said:

Is that the one Sir Attar Singh translated for the British in the late 1800s? He called it the travels of Guru Tegh Bahadur or something similiar.

Yeah, he translated part of it.

6 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Yea it was Suraj Prakhash. I read that portion a while ago, couldn't remember where it came from.

When was - Malwe Desh Rattan Di Sakhi Pothi - written?

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.

On October 18, 2016 at 9:11 AM, chatanga1 said:

http://www.talesofpanchatantra.com/works/book1-the-separation-of-friends

 

Reading this is amazing. You can the ethos and structure in this text that we see in Srii Charitropakhyan.

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

22 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Mai Bhago ji did so much bhagti she lost attachment and worry of clothes, and walked around naked.

When this was brought to Guru Gobind Singh ji's attention Guru Sahib then intervened and told her to cover her body and her head and that walking naked would bring dishonour to her family.

That's the original and oldest reference we have to this sakhi.

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. 

22 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Mai Bhago ji did so much bhagti she lost attachment and worry of clothes, and walked around naked.

When this was brought to Guru Gobind Singh ji's attention Guru Sahib then intervened and told her to cover her body and her head and that walking naked would bring dishonour to her family.

That's the original and oldest reference we have to this sakhi.

Which old reference is this from? 

On October 18, 2016 at 7:35 AM, chatanga1 said:

But the rehatnamas don't across as being for both genders.

 

 

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.

On October 17, 2016 at 7:02 PM, paapiman said:

Groups such as AKJ, Missionaries, etc did not begin during the times of the Satgurus and neither do they claim that. It is good that they are being honest about it. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

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. 

On October 17, 2016 at 6:54 PM, paapiman said:

What other evidence are you looking for? Do you think that all these Sampradas are lying and have fabricated their lineages?

So when Sant Jarnail Singh jee Bhindranwale said that our first Jathedar was Srimaan Baba Deep Singh jee. What was he implying?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

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? 

On October 16, 2016 at 5:22 AM, paapiman said:

Rara Sahib's unbroken lineage, going back to Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master)

http://www.rarasahib.com/sg.htm

 

DDT's unbroken lineage, going back to Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master)

Bhul chuk maaf

 

You are aware that's not evidence, right? 

On October 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM, chatanga1 said:

Why are more or less of all these injunctions aimed at men?

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

On October 11, 2016 at 0:17 AM, JasperS said:

No I mean a copy of the original in full. Is there anywhere I can get this? 

 

'Rehatnameh' by Piara Singh Padam.

On October 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM, chatanga1 said:

Why are more or less of all these injunctions aimed at men?

because they just are.

On 10/4/2016 at 0:17 PM, JasperS said:

Where can I get the full version? 

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

On October 3, 2016 at 11:50 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Stop adding hyperbole to these discussions. The fact is that neither you or myself would know what the Taksal would do in this situation. In 1982-84 when Taksal was based at Darbar Sahib did they try to change the Rehit Maryada there? Didn't one taksal student read Raagmala at a service at Sri Akal Takht Sahib and suffer a severe rebuke from Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala for doing this? Didn't Jarnial Singh also warn his students that Sri Akal Takht Maryada was to be upheld whilst they were there?

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.  

2 hours ago, paapiman said:

Has it been digitized?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

I don't think so.

7 hours ago, paapiman said:

So you are saying that Sewanpanthis, Nihangs, Nanaksar, etc, cannot be traced back to Sri Satguru jee?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Yes.

Not directly.

1 hour ago, Singh123456777 said:

Yea 

.......  wonderful.