sikh princess

How about going yourself!

That way you'll be fit and healthy as well as be DOING THE RIGHT THING!

Jamuka

Your spot on! I had a Tamil friend at school and for a Panjabi learning it is difficult as hell. Each sentence is like learning a new tongue twister. I've always read that Tamil and other south Indian languages belong to a separate language group than Sanskrit. I think the language scholars should re-write all their books in the light of Lalleshvari's views

and sikh princess...your point??

What's wrong with community colleges?!

Classic Rupy that's just classic.

Tussin Kaamunitty Kalaaj parhay hovonge!!!

The best uni in CANADA is....equivalent to a community college in US!!

LOL

Baba Santa Singh accepts ‘tankhah’

Varinder Walia

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, March 17

After 17 years of his excommunication from the Sikh panth for carrying out construction of Akal Takht against “Sikh Maryada†(after Bluestar) Baba Santa Singh chief of Baba Budha Dal today accepted the “tankhah†(punishment for religious misconduct) pronounced by Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar from the rostrum of the Akal Takht today.

However, Giani Puran Singh, head granthi, Golden Temple did not attend the meeting of five high priests in which the written petition of Baba Santa Singh seeking unconditional apology from the panth was discussed at length.

Baba Santa Singh, Budha Dal chief, appears before Akal Takht on Saturday. Photo By Rajeev Sharma

The move of the rejoining of the Khalsa Panth by Baba Santa Singh was kept top secret as it was being opposed by some of his followers.

The five high priests, including Jathedar Vedanti, Prof Manjit Singh, Giani Kewal Singh, Giani Bhagwan Singh, Giani Gurbachan Singh announced that Baba Santa Singh would be re-admitted into the Sikh fold after five days of “tankhah†which include recitation/listening of Japuji Sahib and arranging Akhand path at Gurdwara ‘Likhansar’ (part of Takht Damdama Sahib) and offering “Ardasâ€.

Baba Santa Singh, who is not keeping good health was brought in a wheel chair in front of the Akal Takht.

For full story

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010318/punjab1.htm

Doesn't this just show how far the Buddha Dal has fallen in the eyes of Sikhs. Historically the Buddha Dal jathedar used to give 'Tankhah' to Sikhs. Akali Phula Singh even gave 'tankhah' to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the most powerful sikh at that time. Now the Jathedar Santa Singh had to give Tankhah himself!

Off topic from another thread

1. Baba Santa Singh did NOT apologise but came to call for harmony in the Panth

Lalleshvari it is this sort of 'spin' on this event which makes the vast majority of Sikhs doubt the honesty of sanatans. By coming forward for 'Tankhaah' Santa Singh is admitting that he did wrong!. Unless of course you have totally different interpretation of what a Tankhaiya is and what 'pesh' before the Panj Pyare entails.

Your attempting to make his admission of wrong doing into some sort magnanimous act on the part of Santa Singh for 'panthic unity' is total propaganda. You waste no time in accusing SGPC as Ram Raiyas so why did Santa Singh feel the need to be judged by a Ram Raiya? As the Akal Takht jathedar is in your eyes?

2. Ram Raias are clearly defined as anyone taking the example of Ram Rai. The historical have been re-integrated into the Sikh Panth by the Udasis on request of Mata Panjab Kaur. Had the prohibition been limited in time there would have been no point in stating the 5 mel in the rahit!

No they are not. Ram Raiyas are followers of Baba Ram Rai. Ram Raiyas have never been re-integrated into the Panth. Some may have come over to the Panth but those that still believe in the Guruship of Ram Rai are the ones which the rehat speaks of. Read your books at your university. Ram Raiyas still believing in Ram Rai have been around even after Mata Panjab Kaur. Who were the Ram Raiyas Masands of Ghudani against whom Banda Singh took action after their assault on a Sikh? Ram Raiyas were numerous in the Malwa area even during British rule and it was the Singh Sabha that brought them into Sikhi and not the Udasis. Ram raiyas are virtually unknown apart from in large cities like delhi or at their centre in Dehra Dun.

Moderator note: EDITED

Sikh princess.

Was i just speaking gibberish that you didnt get my fat red fonts????????!???????????????????????????????? :roll:

Your one word smart alec remarks might make a bigger impact if you actually knew how to spell. Lol

You're such a funny gyal! You even edited your misspelling in my quote. Ki Hoya Sharamah gai?

It's not the term Hindu but the concept of Hinduism that was created by Western Orientalist scholars.

The term Hindu since the Islamic rule in India meant 1. Indian 2. non-Muslim but it never referred to one single religious group.

Strange, is Guruji saying I am neither Indian ( or non-Muslim ) or Muslim?

If there was no such thing as a Hindu in the way we see it today then why didn't Guruji use words such as Saivite, Vaishnavite, Nath in order to claim not to belong to the Hindus as we know them

If Hindu meant Indian, then why would Guruji say that he was not when it is clear that he were Indian?

If Hindu meant non-Muslim then why claim not to non-Muslim when he clearly was not a Muslim?

Lalleshvari first you asked for a contemporary source and then a quote from Baba Khem Singh and now something from his secretary. Will any contemporary source do or will you again move the goalposts.

You said that you are not saying that such sources do not exist! So does this mean that you are not sure whether Baba Khem Singh claimed Guruship or not? I thought you read all the available books so am surprised you now claim there might be others you have not read. If such a contemporary source is found that how will this affect you claim that Baba Khem Singh was a protector of Sikhi?

You said that Baba Khem Singh was a protector of Sikhi and that he did sewa for Sikhi. Vaguely you referred to education especially female education? What else according to your knowledge makes Baba Khem Singh a protector of Sikhi?

h y p o c r i s y

Your one word smart alec remarks might make a bigger impact if you actually knew how to spell. Lol

Sumeet Kaur penji

Can you tell me what narsingha's arguments are apart from panthic sikhs are blah blah blah

Is Guru Nanak now to be known as Akali Guru Nanak?

tsk tsk, do all so-called 'Panthic' Sikhs harbour such narrow-minded, bigotted and racist views?

This is not the first time that self-proclaimed 'Panthic' Sikhs have hurled racist comments towards lalleshvari. This seems to be a trend amonst so-called 'Panthic' Sikhs, or perhaps its the effect of lalleshvari's deoderant that induces such paranoia :wink:

Considering the sad state of affairs that is mainstream modern Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-endorsed Sikhism, Sanatan Sikhs are only too happy to be labelled as "anti-Panthic" by such groups. For Sanatan Sikhs, the 'Panth' of Akali Guru Nanak represents truth, love and wisdom - three words that are completely alien to these so-called modern 'Panthic' Sikhs.

At least this 'list" makes a clear distinction that Sanatan Sikhs in no way represent the hipocrisy, blatent ignorance, paranoid delusions, dirty politics and stupidity that exists within post British Raj-nurtured jathas/committees and institutions.

If anything, it is a compliment.

Narsingha looks like you swallowed a dictionary!

I can just imagine Narsingha looking up in a dictionary all the big words he could use to make it look like he knows what he's debating about.

Akali Guru Nanak :shock:

If you can't even get the Guru's name right what do you know of Sikhi

I agree with lalleshvari here. SGPC was born out of nothing but bunch of evil frangiii's (european descent) to divide and rule the panth!

Neo that is a disgusting thing to say. Look at the post by Naunidhi Penji and how much the Sikhs suffered for getting their gurdwaras back and you say it came out of nothing. If the SGPC is so corrupt now doesn't mean that the sacrifices of the Sikhs was nothing. Do you know how totally screwed up Sikhi would have been had we still had Lalleshvaris mahant buddies in charge of our Gurdwaras?

Now I know why Naunidhi kaur said that she thought that Lalleshvari being a gora might not appreciate the sacrifices that Sikhs went through in history. Lalleshvari just proved that point by sneering at the sacrifices of hundreds of Sikhs. Pitaji told me a story of a Sikh bibi whose baby was shot by the police during the Akali movement and she laid the baby by the roadside and continued march with the Akali jatha to liberate the Gurdwara. Neo and Lalleshvari think that was 'nothing'. Sad Sad Sad.

As far i know muslim (sufi sect), buddhist and hindu all give importance to amrit-vela!

Dont really know about orhodox chrisitans but i have a jew freind who wakes up early morning to mediate on naam using rosary 108 bead.

Neoji

Can you read my post before replying.

Do Muslims, Jews and others believe in GURBANI or GURU UPDESH ( Guru's teachings ) ?

Hinduism gives importance to karma and reincarnation

Islam gives importance to the belief in One God.

The Mughals gave impmortance to the warrior spirit.

Al Qaeda believes in making reliigion their number one priority

Timothy Mcveigh Attended church on a weekly basis.....

according to your theory N30 Singh, all the above are sikhs...:S

Quite right JSB veer

I think Aurangzeb had some sort of Muslim holy man or Mullah as his Murshid. So according to Neo Aurangzeb was a Sikh as well!. lol

I think that giving blood is not against Sikhism. As orchids veerji said, it is sewa

Neoji

I like the fact that you take a lot of time out to write some of the articles you got in that booklet but you are wrong on this one

You complain about fanatics giving a limited defination of a Sikh but then you do the complete opposite and make anyone and everyone a Sikh. You defintion doesn't fit in with the definition of a Sikh that the Gurus left us with. Maybe you know better than our Gurus :shock:

You need to differentiate between a sikh and a Sikh. A sikh as the word originally meant can be anyone who is a student, a school is full of sikhs. A university is full of sikhs. But a Sikh is the followers of the Ten Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib.

The first definition of a Sikh is given in Gurbani. Guru Ram Das says

Fourth Mehl:

One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru, the True Guru, shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name.

Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar.

Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased.

Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name.

One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind.

That person, unto whom my Lord and Master is kind and compassionate - upon that GurSikh, the Guru's Teachings are bestowed.

Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and inspires others to chant it. ||2||

Can Jews, Muslims and Christians and Hindus be called under this definition?. You can try and modify the meaning of Updes Guru ( instructions of the Guru) to mean the instructions given by the prophets of these religion but then you are giving Gurbani a meaning which the Gurus or the Sikh scholars like Bhai Gurdas did not give.

As Gursikhi was was revealed through each successive Guru then the definition of a Sikh was added to. Finally you have the Khalsa who is both a Singh and a Sikh. The others are just on their ways to becoming a Khalsa.

As for Namdharis, can anyone who messes with the history of our Guru have the right to call himself a Sikh?

I read but this whole article doesnt making sense into this thick mind.

I m not really good with history

Are you getting all these articles from the booklet you got from the Sikh conference?

Jahan Veer

You are right that others religions have also done violent acts to others as well as between themselves. But what people are saying is that these religions apart from Islam have reformed themselves. The Catholic Church has a history of apologising for things that it did in various parts of the world. It has apologised and expressed regret for what happened in the Americas, as well as its part in the crusades. I have yet to see any Islamic organisaation express regret for what Islam did around the world. What of an apologise, these organisations have not even admitted that anything wrong was done by Islam!

So you believe that a verse from Gurbani can be put in a taveet and used as some kind of talisman to ward off evil?

1. "a waggish person made the statement"

waggish means someone witty or humourous. Waggish does not mean a nindak or liar.

Stop moving the goalposts, you said that there is no mention of Baba Khem Singh Bedi claiming to be the 15th Nanak. There is mention made of it in that quote. Yes, a waggish person made the statement but if it was a true statement or did not have some element of truth in that person's statement then surely Bhagat Lakshman Singh would have made added a comment disputing this fact.

2. regarding taviz etc... even though I am not a fan of it pelase read the Sampradaya tika of teh Sevapanthis of Guru Granth Sahib where a whole chapter is dedicated to it. It's better people put quotes of gurbani in boxes rather than going to a pandit to get some mantar.

So then it follows that if a Sikh has to worship idols, it is best that he worships an idol of Guru Nanak than go to a mandir and worship the idol of a Hindu God?

Look Singh 47, I have as far as my research goes not seen a single evidence of your claim that Baba Khem SIngh Bedi declared himself to be 15th Nanak. The "Autobiography of Bhagat Lakshman Singh", which gives a very good account of what went on at that times, does not even mention that.

Relevant quoted made bold by myself

" He ( Baba Khem Singh ) rode out daily for Shikar with a hawk perched on his left hand. His position he carefully maintained even when presiding at the daily congregations. And if his idea was to actually look like the illustrious Guru Govind Singh, it may be safely stated that he succeeded in this endevour to no small extent. His followers believed him to an Avatar whose mere touch would save them. Most men believed in charms those days. Baba Sahib also seemed to believe in their efficacy. At first he would scribble something on small bits of yellow paper. But later, when his influence spread over the whole frontier, in addition to Dhanni and Pothohar, he devised a rubber stamp and the services of many a distinguished man who would come to pay respects to him were requistioned to obtain its impression in any number.. a waggish person told me long ago that Baba had made it a study to look great and influential and impress officialdom of those days that he was the premier Sikh Guru and that no contemporary of his wielded such an influence over them as he did"

The above quote states that Baba Khem Singh Bedi gave 'dhaggay' and 'taveets' which are against Sikh principles. With the spread of the Singh Sabha movement the influence of Baba Khem Singh declined.

1. The first SIngh Sabha' date=' the Amritsar Singh Sabha or Sanatan SIngh Sabha as you rightly said was founded to counter-act the ffects of Christianity by emphacising traditional Sikhi. The other SIngh Sabhas or Tat Khalsa who did take over the institutions of the Panth imitated Protestantism.[/quote']

The Singh Sabha started by sanatan Sikhs was very ineffective against the Christian missionaries. Just after annexation, when the 'puratan' Sikhs had total sway over Sikhi and had over 50 years of peacefully preaching their version of Sikhi. Yet the first 'puratan' Sikh to convert to Christianity was Daud Singh prior to any 'protestantization of Sikhism'. Later he was followed by another 'puratan' Sikh who was renamed a Shamaun giving up his Guru given name of Kesar Singh. What should be noted is that he was a GRANTHI of a Gurdwara. So why would the christian missionaries need to protestantize Sikhi when they were already gaining success?. Where was the bulwark of faith in Sikhi that Nirmalas, Udasis, Nihangs should have built up in 50 years of peaceful preaching? You may know this but one of the first acts of the missionaries was to rent a Bunga from the 'puratan' Sikhs to use as a base to preach Christianity to the Sikh pilgrims coming to the Harmandir Sahib. The 'puratan' Sikhs complied with this request.

In the first instances of writing about Sikhi in English, it is to be expected that the writer would translate words such as Gurdwara into Church. Muslim writers referred to Mosques as a Church as well at that time. One of the first instances of comparison of Guru Nanak with Martin Luther was by Sir John Gordon for his book 'Sikhs' written in 1904. Rather than a sinister protestant plan as you portray it was because Guru Nanak was a contemporary of Martin Luther. What is also interesting is that rather than follow the Tat Khalsa line that Guru Nanak was the founder of a new religion, Gordon follows the 'puratan' Sikh line that Guru was just a reformer.

" He (Guru Nanak) was a contemporary of Luther and like the German reformer, he preached no new faith but contended that religion had become obscured and transformed during the course of centuries "

Yes there is blasphemy here, but it isn't the blasphemy of 'protestantizing' Sikhi but following the 'puratan' Sikhi view that Guru Nanak was just a reformer!

Your pet theory of protestant influenced Sikhi is wrong. You should look at the history of the Nirankaris of Rawalpindi, they had beliefs that can be taken as proto-Tat Khalsa yet they may never even have seen a protestant!. This movement started in the North West Frontier Province during the rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and were as far removed from the British Rule as you could get.

Doubt over the Ragmala were raised by Kavi Santokh Singh in his work in 1843, much before the Tat Khalsa came into being in the 1880's and much before the Christian missionaries were allowed to function in the soon to be annexed Panjab. If Kavi Santokh Singh could write about the doubts over Ragmala in 1843, it follows that this must have be an issue for at least a decade before since it took him many years to write his work. This will give Neo nightmares, before AKJ, even the 'puratan' Sikhs had doubts about Ragmala!

I don't want to debate whether Ragmala is Bani or not. I just pointed out that you cannot blame everything wrong with Sikhi to the British or Tat Khalsa.

I don't understand this point? Please elaborate.

Parts of the Dasam Granth were being subjected to intellectual debate based on whether the concepts contained in some parts of it were in line with the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikh literature such as the Gurbilases were also subjected to such debate and stories such as Guru Gobind Singh worshipping the devi were rightly rejected. It wasn't protestant values but the teachingss of the Guru Granth Sahib that determined what was accepted or rejected

As with the Masands, when the sampardayas started to lose the purpose for which they were formed they became irrevalent. People or organisations with a strong sense of purpose and self belief are very difficult to repress. The Sampardayas had a head start on Tat Khalsa, they had 150 years of preaching their version of Sikhi, they had resources such as land grants, buildings and personnel. They also had the support of the Sikh Rajas and the Sikh aristocracy who wanted to keep the status quo and had no real regard for Sikhi. Yet, they lost the fight to the Tat Khalsa, who were men of mostly modest means and without recourse to much resources. What the Tat Khalsa had were men who were determined to preach the Sikhi of the Gurus and not the Sikhi of of the sampardayas. Men such as Gyani Ditt Singh a so-called lower caste Sikh who in the congregation of the 'puratan' Sikhs would have to leave the diwan when the Bhog was to be distributed. What men like Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Jawahar Singh and Prof. Gurmukh Singh discovered was that the Sikhi of the sampardayas was totally at odds with the Sikhi of the Gurus. We all know how even the Budha Dal now discriminates against lower caste Sikhs when giving them Amrit. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this sort of discrimination would have been suicidal for the Dal Khalsa to have practicised when they faced the oppression of the Mughals. Yet, the Budha Dal Maryada is being espoused as being 'authentic'.

This has nothing to do with Singh Sabha. With the increase in the number of Sikhs due to conversion to Sikhism from Hindus and Muslims, the new congregations had to be catered for with regard to Kirtan. So many Kirtan Jathas took the easy way of adopting the harmonium, an easy instrument to learn and use.

The leadership of the Singh Sabha were some of the most educated men in Panjab. Gyani Ditt though a so called 'lower caste' Sikh was one of the most educated Panjabis of his time. Bhai Kahan Singh, Bhai Vir Singh, Arjan Singh of Bagrian, and countless others were scholars of Persian, Braj, Panjabi and Sanskrit. These scholars never asked Sikhs not to study other languages. In fact they did their level best to get as many Sikhs as possible educated.

On the theme of education it is established that Sikhs were more iliterate than the other religions of the Panjab at the time of annexation. Yet with the Tat Khalsa and the espousal of education amongst Sikhs both males and females, by 1947 the number of educated Sikhs were 17.03 % whilst Hindus were 16.35 %, Muslims 6.97 % and Christians 7.76 %. These figures are all the more impressive as in the previous 50 years the Sikhs has absorbed many millions of Hindus into their religion and these Hindus were for the most part from less educated castes.

Representive management and responsibility is a core belief of Sikhi. What are the Panj Pyare?. The sampardayas adopted the non-Sikh concept of leadership by one man, a Sri Mahant or a Jathedar.

8. Destruction of religious artitistic heritage! Look at all the white-washed old churches in the UK and compare that with what the SGPC does...

This is a great shame and one of the many failures of the SGPC

I think your are displaying the anti protestant bias of a catholic. Can I assume that before Sikhi you were a catholic? It is not good to bring previous bias when you become a Sikh. Have you heard of the Nashan?, Karam Nash, Kul Nash. I mean the protestant method of conversion is at least more humane than the catholic method of forced conversion practicised in the Americas and in catholic enclaves such as Goa.

l

I am sure you know what the beliefs of Baba Khem Singh were. Didn't he claim that Sikhs were Hindus in a public address at a Hindu gathering?. His son repeated this blasphemy to another meeting of Hindus. Could this be the reason that Baba Khem Singh Bedi in the end had to retire to Rawalpindi and out of Sikhs affairs. What the Baba failed to realise was that as Sikhs became more educated and able to read the Guru Granth Sahib they were not prepared to allow their former leaders to make such anti-Gurmat remarks. Didn't Baba Khem Singh Bedi also allow his version of the Maryada to have such anti-Gurmat teachings as discrimination against lower caste Sikhs?.

There is nothing surprising in this:

1. Protestants want to convert Sikhs!

2. Protestants influence SIkhs who create a Protestantised from of Sikhi (SGPC< AKJ etc...)

3. Protestantised SIkhs join the Christian version of their modified SIkhi

4. Sikhi dissapears in Panjab!

So Lalleshvari is saying British protestants influenced some Sikhs into making up their religion which is mainstream Sikhi today. This makes it easy for Protestants to convert Sikhs today

Can anyone see the flaw in his argument?

Singh Sabha 'creates protestant influenced Sikhi' in 1870's, why weren't these protestants so successful in converting Sikhs from 1880s to 1947 when they had lots of missionaries in Panjab as well as British rule to help them as well as Sikhs following the christians game plan and making up 'protestant Sikhi'

Maybe Lalleshvari doesn't know much history, the Singh Sabha or 'protestant influenced Sikhi' was started as a direct response to Sikhs being converted to christianity in 1873, and what was the reason for Sikhs converting to christianity? It was the failure of 'puratan' Sikhi to face up to christian missionaries. See how lalleshvaris attempts to re-write history!! Those that saved Sikhi from Christianity in the 1880's are now the bad guys whose tactics are making it easy for christianity to convert Sikhs.

The main converts to christianity are 'lower caste' Sikhs many of whom are illiterate. I doubt these people know 'puratan' or 'protestant influenced' Sikhi.

The reason for the decline in Sikhi is

Sikh leaders using Sikhi to their own ends

Divisons in Sikhi due to jathaism

'puratan' Sikhi inroads in mainstream Sikhi

Christian missionaries and their unlimited funds

Christian use of modern media and 'miracle' stories being spread to influence iliterate sikhs

But why let the facts get in the way of Lalleshvari hijacking every problem Sikhi has and then putting it down to AKJ, Singh Sabha, SGPC or anyone who doesn't agree with him!

It must be great to be always right, Lalleshvari!!