Singh47

hhmm, never knew "Sanatan" Sikhism allows its followers to refer to thier leaders as "FAT SLOB" even if it is in the context of humour. I could never imagine a Taksali using this type of language against Baba Takhur Singh Jee.

Guv anyone who blaims the British for every wrong doing is British phobic. By calling people "British influanced" or "Protestent" just because they dont agree with his/her opinion is British phobic (and narrow very minded).

But Narsingha, your “articles†if you could call it that, never have any references. They just seem to be based on your opinions rather then being supported by scholars.

Please check out the following links in which the “Sanatan†Sikhs deny that Damdami Taksal is puraatan http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...ighlight=taksal Moderator's note: As i said wait for the video!

I'm not talking about Nirmalay, I'm simply stating the fact that Taksal and Nanaksaris do not follow the same Maryadha. And none of those three Sapradhahs you've mentioned are considered puraatan by "Sanatan" Sikhs.

Beast Siah, the Gora I'm referring to is a Valaiti.

Strangely, the ones that come up with these British phobic conspiracies are themselves British, heck one of them is even a Gora!

I guess our "Sanatan" friends might answer that these news papers are also British influanced, part of a wider British conspiracy to take over the world.

Puraatan? N30 Singh your "Sanatan" friends dont even consider these three deras Puraatan... and Nanaksar and Taksal dont even follow the same Maryadha!

This proves that Budha Dal recognizes the authority of the Akal Takht Jathadar even though he was appointed by the SGPC.

Lalleshwari, I can provide references but unfortunately you are narrow minded into thinking that only contemporary sources matter. If that is the case then I guess over 90% of the history books we find in libraries are all false and useless as hardly any of them are of contemporary times.

Lalleshwari, I have already given my reference and so has Sikh princess. The rest the other members can decide of what kind of man Baba Khem Singh Bedi was, whether or not he tried to conserve Sikh traditions or not.

Baba Khem Singh Bedi claimed to be the Guru of the Sikhs. He made this claim in 1883. At the height of his influence, he had large amounts of followers in the Pothohar and frontier region. This influence was decreased considerably due to the Prachaar done by Singh Sabhias. He and his followers were the modern versions of Dhir Malias and Ram Raias who tried to install a Dhe Dhari Guru in place of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee the one and only SatGuru of the Sikhs.

Lalleshwari, that doesn’t make any sense. Dr Sangat Singh earned his PhD. in history. Citing from his work is credible enough. He has won the prestigious Akali Phula Singh award for his historical research. It’s strange you do not even know that Baba Khem Singh Bedi proclaimed himself as Guru at 1883, this was one of the main reason for the division of the Singh Sabha of Lahore and Amritsar. There are alteast a dozen websites on the net which also say the same thing. It’s simply a fact of history whether a new or old source is provided. By asking for a book from the times of Baba Khem Singh Bedi is like asking me prove to me that the partition of India took place by only providing sources that were written from that era, if I don’t then you might say “that proves that partition never took place since you only quoted from books with second hand informationâ€. Whether the source is new or old, it still cannot change a historical fact, and in this case the fact remains that Baba Bedi in 1883 proclaimed himself a Guru of the Sikhs.

Here is an excerpt from “The Sikhs in History†by Dr. Sangat Singh. “The Lahore Singh Sabha successfully met the challenge from within, by trying to erode the base of Baba Khem Singh Bedi, who, even in 1890s, persisted in his efforts to get recognized as the fifteenth Guru of the Sikhs.â€(pg 120)

Veer Lalleshwari, that 5% as I pointed out earlier includes calling himself a Guru of the Sikhs, demanding a cushioned seat installed at Darbar Sahib just for him in the Hazoori if Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee (the one and ONLY true Guru of the Sikhs). This is no different than the false Radhaswami and Kuka Gurus who claim to be the “true†Gurus of the Sikhs. How are these false Gurus of the last 150 years any different than Dhir Mal or Ram Rae who had similar claims? Veer Jee, one of the main reason why Baba Khem Singh Bedi was against Bhai Gurmukh Singh is because Bhai Gurmukh Singh would never let unchallenged Baba Khem Singh Bedi’s claim of being the 15th Guru of the Sikhs and his claim (as the Guru) for the right to have a cushioned seat installed for himself at Sri Darbar Sahib.

Lalleshwari, if there is no such thing as a Hindu, then how do you explain the many references to the Hindus in Gurbani? If the term Hindu just refers to ethno-geography rather than religion then why did Guru Jee write “Naa hum Hindu, naa Musalmaanâ€, indicating that he is neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. Surely if the term Hindu only meant ethno-geographical then Guru Jee would have no problem calling himself a Hindu since he was ethnically and geographically the same as the Hindus. But no, since Hinduism is a religious idealogy distinct from that of Gurmat, Guru Jee specifically said he is not a Hindu. The Singh Sabha was first convened at Guru ka Bagh, Amritsar by prominent Sikhs of Punjab such as Kanwar Bikram Singh (of Kapurthala), Baba Khem Singh Bedi, Giani Sardul Singh etc. But the Amritsar Singh sabha only remained zealous for two years, after which it showed signs of being inactive. It was Bhai Gurmukh Singh who later became the driving force behind the Singh Sabha movement and was even one of the founders of Lahore Singh Sabha. Unlike the Amritsar Singh Sabha, the Lahore Singh Sabha was democratic in nature with Sikhs from all sections of society and not just the elite casteists that were in Amritsar Singh Sabha. Baba Khem Singh Bedi as you pointed out had only 5% of his views that were not in agreement with Gurmat. But that 5% outweighed the rest of the 95% of his Good views. That 5% is nothing but pure blasphemi that is also seen in the false Radhaswami, and Kuka gurus. No matter now much good they do, but claiming to be the Satguru instead of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee cannot save someone in the end time.

N30 Singh, it is all related to this thread. Maybe not directly, but indirectly YES! Baba Bedi who is now being claimed as some kind of a “savior†of Sikh traditions was of the opinion that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. Knowing this, some here are now trying to say that one of the major world religions to which a staggering 85% of Indians adhere to is non-existent! I find that hard to swallow! Truth of the matter is Baba Khem Singh Bedi was very heretic in his beliefs, yet he is being claimed as a "hero" at the expense of the true heroes of the Sikh Quam i.e. the Lahore Singh Sabhias.

Take it easy… you don’t have to get so excited! Then why did you say that Baba Bedi conserved "Sikh traditions" when in fact he did not even follow the root traditions of Sikhism. By saying there is no such thing as Hinduism, does that mean that one of the worlds major religion that 85% of Indians adhere to is non-existent?

Lalleshwari in other words, you agree with Baba Bedi that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism?

Beast, Lalleshwari wrote: I in response wrote: What I dont understand is, what kind of "Sikh traditions" did Baba Khem Singh Bedi promote when most of what he promoted were against Sikh traditions?

Lalleshwari, what kind of Sikhism is baba Khem Singh Bedi trying to “promote†when he promotes himself as the 15th “guru†of the Sikhs. This is the kind of twisted version of Sikhism the false Radhaswami Gurus are also trying to promote. Lalleshwari is this what you think “Sanaatan Sikhi†is? Because I had a totally different idea of what Sanatan Sikhi was. I doubt any true Sikh who wants to promote the traditions of Gurmat would want a seat with cushions installed specially for him at Darbar Sahib. That is not the tradition of Sikhism, not even by a long shot. As for the word “Hinduâ€. When saying Hindu, we are not talking about its meaning in terms of where it is derived from. But “Hindu†as in the meaning we know of today. I doubt the meaning of the word “Hindu†has changed in the last 150 years. Sikhism is a separate religion than Hinduism. Who could deny that? Yet Baba Bedi the so-called 15th Guru promoted the idea of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism. This is exactly what the Arya Samajis tried to propagate as well. Giani Ditt Singh in case you didn’t know was actually a Nirmala. His knowledge in Sanatan Dharm was so immense that he was probably the only person to have defeated Daya Nand Saraswati in a debate. I don’t know why you are using his caste beliefs (if any!) against him as "Sanatan Sikhi" itself promotes casteism.

Veer Lalleshwari, I don’t know why you are saying Baba Khem Singh Bedi was a “true†defender of the Sikh faith, while the Singh Sabhias of Lahore who took on the challenge of Chistian Missionaries, Ahmadiyas, and Arya Samajis as being fake Sikhs. Baba Khem Singh Bedi was to a large extent very heretic in his beliefs. -He claimed he was the 15th Guru of the Sikhs! and expected the Lahore Singh Sabhias to recognize him as such. -Since he declared himself the 15th Guru of the Sikhs, he also claimed that he somehow deserves a seat with cushions in Darbar Sahib in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. -His son Baba Gurbaksh Singh Bedi in his presidential address in 1910 at the Punjab Hindu Conference at Multan said “the Sikhs were Hinduâ€. The Lahore Singh Sabhias saved Sikhism with prachaar that was unseen at the time. Because of this Prachaar the Sikh population grew from a population of 2.1 million in 1901 census to 2.88 million in the 1911 census. That’s an increase of 37.1 %. Blessed are the Lahore Singh Sabhias. One day, I hope Sikhs start another such Singh Sabha movment all over the world.

bamboo/wood frame underneath the damallas? So that’s why the puraatan dumalaas were so pointy on top? Lalleshwari, you must know…. When you look at old sketches/paintings done by European travelers, usually they always show the puraatan Akalis wearing Dumallas like this: Why and how did the puraatan dumaalas get so pointy on top? Did puraatan Singhs put something underneath to make it so pointy?

You are right about that Veer Lalleshwari. I have also noticed that when comparing todays cholas to the puraatan ones we see in old pictures. Maybe one day the puraatan style cholas can be revived. But have you also not noticed how the puraatan dumalaas were also different then today’s dumalas? The puraatan ones were very pointy on top and facing forward.