Kuttabanda2

Make note of the fact there have been changes made in many DDT books, especially from the Mehta Faction. It's best to get hold of an old copy, perhaps one of the first editions. The Bhinder Kalan faction also have the same books which are said to have differences and discrepancies with the Bhindra Mehta faction's version. 

According to Dr. Harbhajan Singh's research in linguistics, 'Kaur' doesn't meant 'prince'. 'Kaur' comes from 'Kuer' or 'Koer' which originally meant 'purified', 'uplifted', 'strengthened', 'pure', 'made Great', etc. 

The Panj Pyares had to have been Grisht at one time in their life, as it shows that they have and uphold their family responsibilities. 

that's what I have heard of as requirements from some Singhs.

Most of the Jathedars of that time either had to live in very hard times ( wars, invasions, fighting for Raj, need for rapid Parchar, etc.) that there was little or no time for family lives, or it was out of their choice of living, it's not compulsory. I don't believe it's a requirement to be celibate for Jathedar's position as Sant Baba Ram Singh Khalsa Bhindrawale isn't celibate himself.  

Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindrawale's reasoning wasn't that women can't do Sevadaar because women didn't stand up when Guru Sahib asked for Sikhs, therefore they should be punished for that.  

During that time in the Taksal, there was a staunch view of the Panj Pyares being men only because that would "better" represent the first Panj Pyares. In addition, many times, Panj Pyares were required to be Grisht men, for obvious reasons. Another really important detail is that the Panj Pyares had to wear a very very VERY specific Bana, and they took it seriously. Which meant: only Yellow Cholas, Kamarkassas of a specific color only, Hazoorias of a specific color only and no Kadaiy (design), White Kacherras of a specific length, Dastaars could only be Gurmukhi Pagg, Dumallas or Gol Dastars only, Etc. the one Panj Pyare Bana requirement to note here is that the Panj could not wear Pyjamees at all. It was strictly prohibited, especially in Guru Sahib's Hazoori. The problem that would arise with this is that if a women did Seva, she would have to meet these Requirements, and wearing just a Kacherra isn't seen to be modest. Same Jarnail Singh jee just gave a brief explanation of the Bibiya in Panj Pyare thing, as a question was directed at him about the role of women in the Panth.

This view is not only held by DamDami Taksal, but also by some Nihangs, Nanaksaris and some factions of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha ( AKJ.org's California faction for one). 

I have an old copy of the Gurmat Rehat Maryada ( un"edited", not the "summarized" one.) 

Interestingly, I don't remember reading any "women should look at their Husbands as god" bull crap in it, as it is present in the "summarized" version.

 'Bhagauti' does not refer to Durga at all. In the Markande Puran, Vishnu Puran, Padam Puran, and Devi Bhagwat, nowhere is Bhagauti used to refer to Durga, it refers to the Sword. Bhagwati and Bhagauti are two distinct Sanskrit words. Additionally, out of the 108 names given my Rishi Markande to the pre-Aryan Goddess Durga, Bhagauti is not one of them, though Bhagwati is.

Follow DDT, even if it is under indirect RSS and GOI control?

DDT or Hindu Taksal?

the formula is anything that is not agreeable is rss ..

This morning, I tried this new mixed fruit Jam with my toast, it was disgusting, I have no doubt that RSS made that Jam.

How come Gur Sobha was written in '1701' but mentions events from1708 too?

'1701' is out of question.

And I didnt say Gur Sobha mentions Devi, I just said "by some of these accounts", meaning some of these so called puratan books. Das Gur Katha is fake too just like Sri Gur Katha. [don't want to discuss on this point]

Exactly my point about Arab and Iraqi Sikhs, they did not have connection with Sikhi after Guru Nanak (or limited) but yet maintain Kesh and recited Japji. They used to say Guru Nanak asked them to keep their hair.

There were dozens of such nanakpanthi families last century, but yes they follow their faith in secrecy in Islamic countries.

Sri Gursobha was finished in 1711, the writer had previously chosen to conclude it in 1701, but later on added more chapters to it as many more important events had taken place. That's what I've read in regards to the dating issue.

I would agree, Das Gur Katha is indeed fake.

These Arab and Iraqi Sikhs have been isolated for a long while. Has anyone Made attempts to contact them and connect them to the rest of the Sikh Panth?

The Sikhnet post mentions Sri Gur Sobha. It was most probably not written in 1701 but 1741 as claimed by some scholars. Thus the claims made in those post may not be valid given the gap of 42 years.

The book by Purnima dhavan also quotes Sainapati which is the same source as above.

And if we were to go by some of these accounts then Guru Gobind Singh also meditated on Devi before creating Khalsa or sought her blessings? Just saying that these accounts are not the final word.

Why would Guru and his close Sikhs keep kesh but not more? Why did Arab Sikhs have kesh till the 20th century when they even did not take khandi di pahul? They said they are followers of Nanak and keep kesh as he ordered them to.

What is the evidence in regards to Sri Gursobha's date of completion presented by Scholars for this claim? From what I've heard two manuscripts had two different dates penned on them.

Das Gur Katha mentions the praying to the Devi, not Sri Gursobha or Sri Gur Katha.

The Arab Sikhs weren't connected with the rest of the Sikhs of India, so all the developments of the Sikh Panth hadn't reached them. Might have been a reason why Baba Deep Singh Ji was said to have prepared a Bir In Arabic.

Many were Muslim Gujjars, Dalit Christians, and some kind of Hindus.

However,Does it matter what the hell their religious views were? They need to be punished, that's the end of it.

I have many AKJ friends and I asked them... I showed them the video. Trust me... they were as surprised as rest of us. They said they don't do that!

Tapoban AKJ (Akhandkirtanijatha.org) are actually against this kind of stuff. They do Swaas Swaas Simran, but they don't practice dhunee in the middle of Kirtan, they don't do it at all, they also strongly oppose the shaking of heads and "Simran" escalating into mere screams and weird noises.

I am not doubting that Guru Nanak or or his very close sikhs kept hair. The question whether there was a sizeable population of sikhs who kept kesh pre 1699

here is discussion on sikhnet about the reaction of Delhi sikhs about khalsa creation

http://www.sikhmatrimonials.com/Sikhnet/discussion.nsf/All+by+Date/35D9143179D11ACD8725734C00530C61!OpenDocument

And also a book which mention

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=q0ZpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=mughal+court++creation+of+khalsa+fight+between+khatri&source=bl&ots=IvYDkf7nKw&sig=0Z2g-jD6l4vp50AEvevRfWF2bjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qlNaVcj4B9OwuATcuoG4Cw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

That many sikhs were surprised and some even refused to accept the code of conduct of khalsa

also there are hukamnama's of Guru gobind singh telling his sikhs to stop bhaddan ceremony

From that it clearly look that bhaddan was widespread among sikhs pre 1699

It may have been widespread but it doesn't equate to it being accepted by the Guru.

K-Banda, do you accept that historically there was a large community called Sahejdharis who did not maintain the external Khalsa Rehat but were still a part and played a huge rule in our Panth i.e. Bhai Moti Ram Mehra, Todar Mal, Bhai Kanhaiya, Diwan Mittha Mal and many more.

Yes I do accept that. They preserved many artifacts, historical places, and shrines of the Guru.

I have been in talks with the person who has them, they will be published soon. Till then no information. Some of the names are available online (Siyahto, etc) but there are many more Arabic Granths obtained and kept safely with some Sikh historians.

About time. I heard there were manuscript copies kept in England By family members of Sant Sayed Pritpal Singh.

In my opinion ugardanti is guru di bani

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਿਰਚਿਤੇ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗਵਤੀ ਛੰਦ ਖਸਟਮੰ ਸਮਾਪਤੰ ਸਤ ਸੁਭਮ ਸਤ॥੬॥

Guru Sahib hasn't added the prefix 'ਸ੍ਰੀ' before his name anywhere else in Dasam Granth Sahib.

Maybe Guru Gobind Singh Jee probably had it written down by a kavi whilst he Enunciated it.

Afterwards the Kavi added that closing tuk?

It's probably a flawed theory.

Gur Sobha follows similar writing style to Bachittar Natak in many parts. So Sri Gur Sobha is Guru krit too?

What kind of arguments are being used.

Speaking of Gursobha, It's theorized that Kavi Senapat based some of It's chapters off of Bachitar Natak.

I would consider it to be 'respectable' literature.

The problem with these other texts is that they're all under 'ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ੧੦', but are inconsistent with the rest of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib (Jap-Hikaayats).

Writing style (Poetic meters and language employed) doesn't entirely prove them to be authentic.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

I was reading quite a few articles and books in regards to Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Jee and I've discovered a few facts and I have a few theories about Sri Dasam Patshah's Granth.

If one were to inspect the various Versions of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Jee ( SGPC version, Bhai Randhir Singh Version, Hazoor Sahib Version, Anandpur Sahib Version, and so on) we'd find quite a lot of discrepancies and consistency in Birs when compared to each other.

As we all know, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib was with strenuous effort, compiled by Bhai Mani Singh Ji, who had managed to gather as much of Dasam Patshah Jee's Bani as he possibly could into his Bir.

This what I've noticed so far from my reading:

1) We discovered Banis which aren't to be found in Bhai Mani Singh's Bir.

2) many texts are ascribed to Jaan-O-Dil-Raa-Raah Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee which don't seem to match Guru Sahib's more prominent texts, which has caused people to doubt some of these Banis and consider them as the work of other writers. For example: Asfotak Kabit, Sahansar Sukhmana, Naam Shastar Mala Mantar, etc.

3) We'd find that some of Guru Sahib's Bani is outside of any version of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, such as Sarbloh Prakash.

4) We also find that some Banis are incomplete (portions are missing). For example: Shastar Naam Mala Granth/Puran, Akal Ustat, and Gyan Prabodh.

Bhai Mani Singh couldn't gather every Bani of Guru Sahib, but he did make an attempt, which was fruitful.

Baba Gurbakash Singh Jee and Baba Binod Singh Jee also prepared their very own Birs, Followed by many other Gursikhs of the 1700s.

This could explain why the Birs are inconsistent and have dissimilarities in content. Many of the writers must have found Banis ( which were not in the first Bir) and then added them into their own Sarroops. Others copied those Sarroops and produced their own. Some of the texts might have been of the Hazoori Gursikh Kavis and they were also added to Birs by writers thinking that they were Dasam Patshah's.

Also, Some Pothis were left undiscovered and thus weren't added into any Bir of Dasam Granth Sahib, such as Sarbloh Prakash.

I've noticed how many books containing the writings of Darbari Kavis are slowly going out of print and then out of Shelves.

Would it be permissible to combine Sarbloh Prakash, Hazoori Darbari Kavis' Bani, and Sri Dasam Granth Sahib into one Bir?

It could be HUGE, but that depends on the size of the letters and papers.

Question would be who were in sodhak committe? were they fully qualified? What's was the reasoning for them taking out this text along with other 8? Was it ideological difference or writing style, binding indifference etc?

The primary reasons they took out some these compositions were because they were inconsistent with other Birs ( like Bhai Mani Singh Bir), for example, Uggardanti was found in one or two Birs, and not the others. They only included Banis which were found in almost every Bir.

2) the writing style of some of these Banis didn't match that of rest of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Jee.

I don't see the purpose of that though. Some of The Rehatnamas are Gurvaaks and authentic. It would be like saying, "Here is Bhai Gurdas Jee's Bani, and now I'll summarize it all".

It wouldn't be just since how can we "summarize" a poetic composition written or uttered with such love by the Guru or Hazoori Gursikh?

Personally, I think the Khalsa Rehatnama should be including all of Bachan Prakash, Bachan Pragas, Bachan Veechar, Prashanuttar, Naseehatnama Bhai Nand Lal Ji, Sikhi Rehat Patshahi 10, Sri Guru Katha's Rehatnama portion, Mukatnama, Bhai Prahlad Singh Rehatnama,

Bhai Daya Singh's Sri Satguru Vach etc. whichever ones seem authentic to the author.

Just my opinion.

From my poor and limited understanding, Bhagauti is a conceptual force/power, a quality that can be instilled, a feminine aspect, and a shade of the entity of the Divine multiplex known as Akaal, Waheguru, Parbraham, Mahakal, and an endless list of other names for the being who is the origin of everything and anything, yet is everything and anything. The paradoxical and oxymoronic being which makes complete sense on a level of thinking which is beyond us to grasp in totality.

1) the primal power, which is a branch and arm of Waheguru.

2) The strong feminine ( in origin ) adoptable trait of a character which instilled the virtue for one to rise to defend the oppressed and uphold/defend Dharma, Righteousness, and Justice. The character who is and lives by ਪਤਿਤ ਉਧਾਰਨੰ, ਦੁਸ਼ਤ ਮਾਰਨੰ, and ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰਨੰ. I don't see Chandi ( the goddess) as Bhagauti itself, rather I see her as a Bhagauti.

3) the totally indescribable Femine aspect of Waheguru.

4) a Conceptual power which is manifested in that which can punish, annihilate, and defend.

5) The Sri Sahib and/or Shastar of the righteous Khalsa.

I have heard of people being married in Gurdwara but not by Anand Karaj is ok... but that anand karaj is between two Amritdhari Sikhs.

In the case of interfaith, they still had the wedding in the Gurdwara and the Granthi gave blessings (their own) but they did not do lavans etc.

Not sure how people view that idea though...

But yes Anand Karaj should be two Amritdhari Sikhs, man and woman.

I would whole heartedly agree. People think of Anand Karaj as a a simple cultural marriage ceremony. However, it's a religious practice, it's between not only the couple but the Guru as well.

It's disrespectful and meaningless tojust bow down to Guru Sahib without even accepting it as a spiritual guide. It just degrades the whole purpose and meaning of Anand Karaj.

Aa ki aa veera ?

The external Rehat is a Hukam from Patshahi 10, including the 5 Kakkars. However, this is only fruitful if the inner Rehat is kept, the Rehat of keeping good Charitar, Naam and Bani Abhyaas.

The Guru didn't give these Hukams for no reason, they're meant to be followed.

Since I have no credibility maybe you can respond to the scholars below, for the record 'commander', none of us are experts meaning you have no credibililty either.

I endorse Sr. B.S. Mahalâs views expressed in his article âSikhs : A Nation Dividedâ (S.R. May 1995) that :

âThe current definition of Who is a Sikh? appears inadequate, too restrictive and perhaps outmoded. The writer feels that, in the name of communal peace and growth, consideration should be given to the idea of extending the term âSehajdhariâ, or some other terms, to embody the Monais within the Sikh fold.â

This is possible only if the term âKhalsaâ were to be interpreted in the light of the Hukumnamas issued by the Gurus before Guru Gobind Singh administered Khande-da-Amrit, replacing Charan Pahul, on the Baisakhi day in the year 1699. I quote below from Prof. Ganda Singhâs book Hukumnamas :

* Guru Hargobindâs Hukumnama : Purab di Sangat Guru da Khalsa hoe. (P. 66.)

* Guru Tegh Bahadurâs Hukumnama : Patna di Sangat Sri Guru Jida Khalsa hai. (P. 76).

* Guru Gobind Singhâs Hukumnama dated 12th march, 1699 - prior to Baisakhi day : Sarbat Sangat Machhiware ki Guru rakhega. Sangat mera Khalsa hai. (P. 153.)

This historical evidence undoubtedly means that the term âKhalsaâ included the whole Sikh Sangat (Amritdharis as well as Sehajdharis). Why should they be excluded now?

Bhai Kahan Singh in his book âSikh Ceremoniesâ referring to the Sikh community as a whole, writes :

âThe general body of the Sikh community is divided into two classes. The Sahajdhari or Civilian Sikhs and Keshdhari Singhs or the warrior Sikhs.â

In this background I make an earnest appeal to all the Sikh scholars, theologians, leaders and, especially, the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee to embrace our Sehajdhari Sikh brethren and bring them into the fold of the broad-based Khalsa Sikh Sangat as commanded by our Gurus in their Hukumnamas. They must form an integral part of the mainstream of the Sikh community.

In fact, the answer to âWho is a Sikh?" is exquisitely and meticulously laid in the following Shabad by Guru RamDas Ji :

Gur-Satgu(u) ka jo Sikh akhaye

so bhalke uth Har Naam Dhiyave

Udam kare bhalke parbhati

Isnan kare Amritsar Nhavey.

(S.G.G.S. 305)

Similarly, âWho is a Khalsa?â is defined by Guru Gobind Singh

Jagat jot jappey nis-basur, ek bina man naik na aney (33 Swayyas)

The emphasis on the basic and fundamental mandate : Hari Naam dhiyaway andJagat jot jappey must be noted.

Prof. HARMINDAR SINGH

46 Sudbury Court, Harrow

Middlesex HA1 3TD

London (UK)

If I'm not wrong, Guru Nanak Dev Ji gave Hukam to the Sikh followers of Arabia to keep Kes as well as Jap Naam, as cited in 'Siyahto Baba Nanak Shah Fakir', a primary account of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. So the Khalsa of the Guru was Kesdhari from the beginning, as the Hukam of Kes was given by Pehli Patshahi himself.