Maha Singh

Tu kee karna odha naam lehkeh? Jeh tere seeneh vich golia bajniya see, tu vee karda uthey?

http://news.ukpha.org/2008/11/bulldozing-of-heritage-at-hazur-sahib/ http://news.ukpha.org/2008/03/razed-to-the-ground-hazur-sahibs-sacred-spaces-demolished/ When someones wife and kids are dragged out of their homes by their kesh and a gun put to your head, and your voice falls on deaf ears, what can you do? The aftermath

Image 4 from the original poster also includes the Mahala 1 - Jit Dar Lakh Mahammeda Lakh Brahmeh Bishan Mahesh salok

Based upon the numerous differences in spelling and words between the current standardised Aad Guru Granth Sahib and the 5 hand written granths in a single Dohra, I have no doubt that there will be similar discrepencies throughout the Granth. From my knowledge, the standardisation of the Guru Granth Sahib was done by the SGPC using a single bir, Baba Gyan Singh had carried out years of research regarding the Guru Granth Sahib by travelling throughout India and studying hath likhat granths, tracing out the bani onto tracing paper and then arduosly studying and picking out the differences in spelling, wording and bania. According to his research there are thousands of differences in the current standardised version of AGGS. He offered the SGPC access to these granths so they could compare and study each of the granths with the help of his research and compile a granth which held all the correct spellings and wordings. The SGPC didnt want to know and they just went ahead by copying a single granth. Mistakes are easily made by the writers of the granth, having been practising gurmukhi caligraphy for a while Ive noticed how easy it is to write mistakes. Each writer would make mistakes and then the person copying it would add more mistakes, a written chinese whisper you could say. When the printers came into running, the operators of the printers could easily put the incorrect blocks on the press, leading to more mistakes. Some study definitly requires the need to be done, however with many birs in bad state, in private collections or cremated, its gonna be a harder task.

On http://www.ragmalagurbanihai.info/gallery3.htm if you click the image "3-16" it has the dohra (not refferenced as Mahala 10) with ਨਾਨਕ included, ਬਲੁ ਹੋਆ and ਹੋਤ ਸਹਾਇ as with the standardised Aad Guru Granth, however there are still some spelling variations. What is this bir?

In the book, does Niddar Singh state that Baba Kulwant Singh isnt a Brahmgyani? Page number please.

Thanks for posting up these images, however it raises a question, if this Dohra is accepted as authored by Guru Gobind Singh and it has Mahala 10 in the hand written birs, why is it missed out in the current standardised version of Aad Guru Granth Sahib. I had a look over the Dohra and compared it to the standardised version and there is obvious discrepancies. Text from Srigranth.org ਬਲੁ ਹੋਆ ਬੰਧਨ ਛੁਟੇ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਹੋਤ ਉਪਾਇ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਤੁਮਰੈ ਹਾਥ ਮੈ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਹੋਤ ਸਹਾਇ I compared the above text with Guru Granth Darpan and Faridkot Wala Teeka and the text is the same (maybe because the same text file has been reused?) however when you compare it with the images posted you can see the differences. [i stupidly mixed up the order of the above images posted, however here are the various texts. I have split the words up to allow for easier comparison] ਬਲ ਹੂਓ ਬੰਧਨ ਛੁਟੇ ਸਭ ਕਛੁ ਹੋਤ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਭੁ ਕਛੁ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਹਾਥ ਮੈ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਸਹਾਇ ਬਲ ਹੂਓ ਬੰਧਨ ਛੁਟੇ ਸਭ ਕਛੁ ਹੋਤ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਹਾਥ ਮੈ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਸਹਾਇ ਬਲ ਹੂਓ ਬੰਧਨ ਛੁਟੇ ਸਭ ਕਿਛੁ ਹੋਤ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਭ ਕਿਛੁ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਹਾਥ ਮੈ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਸਹਾਇ ਬਲੁ ਹੂਓ ਬੰਧਨ ਛੁਟੇ ਸਭ ਕਛੁ ਹੋਤ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਤੁਮਰੈ ਹਾਥ ਮੈ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਸਹਾਇ Akaal Takht image posted by Kam ਬਲੁ ਹੂਓ ਬੰਧਨ ਛੁਟੇ ਸਭ ਕਛੁ ਹੋਤ ਉਪਾਇ ਸਭ ਕਿਛੁ ਤੁਮਰੈ ਹਾਥ ਮੇ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਸਹਾਇ The most obvious difference it the addition of "Nanak" in the second line, "ਹੋਤ ਸਹਾਇ" instead of " ਹੋਇ ਸਹਾਇ" in the second line, "ਬਲੁ ਹੋਆ" instead of "ਬਲ ਹੂਓ" in the opening. There is also a few variations of spelling between the old birs however the differences are not that much as the current standardised AGGS. Is there a hand written bir which includes "Nanak", or has this been added? Has anyone got an image of the dohra from a current standardised AGGS to compare?

You would expect a Khanjar to be heavy as it is designed for armour peircing through close combat grappling and body mangling, they arent designed for hack and slash or gatka twirling. The weight makes sense when you know the techniques to drive them into someone.

The second volume is due to be out but the first volume needs to be sold enough to recoup the money spent on its publishing before it goes to print.

Baba Kulwant Singh is the head pujari/jathedhar of Sri Hazoor Sahib. He is mentioned in the last chapter.

True tulwars and daggers have an edge, Taksali Kirpans (and every other Sri Sahib designed for carrying by Sikhs) dont. A Shastar is "that which cuts", if it doesnt have an edge how can it be called a Shastar? With more tendancy to associate the Kirpan with non-violence, peace and as an article of faith the Kirpans have been mass produced to be symbolic rather then practical. People have even gone to the extent to call the Kirpan as the "hand of mercy", whereas Kirpan really means "merciless", look it up in Mahan Kosh.

I said Weapons

Even tulwars all have their own nuances, not every tulwar is balanced, curved, and shaped in the same way, their banns is always in a different place,some handles tip forward etc. A good swordsman will notice these straight away and adapt his yudh vidiya accordingly. For example using a bayonetted gun, you would do the same, most likely a blend of barsha techniques for pinning and thrusting and khanda techniques for close combat. Your experience will tell you how the weapon would be used best, but underlying your technique is the actual skill, principles, strategys and penthras you have learnt which allow you to adapt it. Nihangs are never shy from taking other peoples weapons and learning them, in the case of the Singhs they became masters of the Muskets which were brought to India by the Muslims, weapons have all been adaped over time, the Turkish Yataghan is called a Souson Patta or a Kaati, the Indians would get a blade and put a hindustani handle on it, same case with the Kukris, Khyber knifes etc. The sword "Firangi" is a european blade fitted onto a indian khanda hilt, a similar indian weapon is the Kathi which has a normal tulwar hilt on it with a flexible straight edged blade . If we look at it, non of the traditional weapons are actually "sikh weapons" they have all been adapted from somewhere.

I believe it was the 22nd

Normally young children are brought to the Akhara to just "hang around", through this they get used to the environment where people are training, they see techniques going on and youll be suprised at how quickly they absorb them unconciously. They are taught basic training games,and basic unarmed blocking techniques. A little while in they may be taught basic strike blocks and they slowly develop from there on. Normally a child is brought in at the age of 3-4, and by 6 he will be put onto some formal svai rakshah training. To learn the vidiya is very hard, and most of the time its a matter of karam if someone can pick it up naturally. Else, we just need to put in the practise and train as hard as you can to get good.

Hes good, seems to have the ability to fight both sides, good distancing, evasion techniques and great patience.

The reason why Singhs get slapped up nowadays is because the robh that they had before has died away. The Sirdars who were known for taking heads are no longer around and the mentality of Sikhs nowadays is that of the constant victim. If Singhs had the reputation of no nonsense and people knew of the vidiya they held, the amount of attacks on Singhs would reduce as their potential attackers fear of broken bones and worse. Knowing how to fight is there when you require it, not so that you go out and beat people up for the sake of making a reputation. If I went through my life without getting into a fight I would be content. When I saw the Ludhiana attacks, I was sad that Singhs who were respected as great warriors are now being beaten in the streets by unfit, fat, idiot policemen who would be slaughtered by a single singh if he knew how to use his sword (not the gatka that one of them started performing) I think myself, shaheediyan and dalsingh are all hinting at the same thing, however our approach to it is different. Brute strength and having a rough fighting mentality is great, but throw in a bit of fantastic technique and your all round ability to rumble is that more successful.

I dont do bad man talk, I stated that if you dont believe it then come along to the Akhara to witness it yourself, nothing confrontational,so no need to be paranoid. Niddar Singh is respected by his students for the vidiya he holds, it is the vidiya that speaks for itself. Why would anyone put him on a pedestal. He doesnt demand respect from anyone, he is just one man teaching something he loves and believes in as part of his maryada and tradition. In the same way, his students do the same satkar for the vidiya that the Gurus themselves promoted. Boxing and everything else is fine but the hukam of the Guru is to learn the use of weapons. If you think the vidiya of the Gurus is not good enough to deal with Muslims with weapons (like the old singhs) then that is your own choice.

Meaning that you should always know that your actions are open to prosecution by the law, if you seriously hurt someone in a fight you will be arrested for it. Use your neeti and bibek budhi to understand how much force is required to deal with a confrontation which justifies your actions. As you become a better fighter, your ability to control your opponent becomes good enough to defeat your opponent without hurting them, this is the ideal and you can always justify that against the law. If you disagree, then feel free to pop into the Akhara and im sure Niddar Singh will oblige to show you. All martial arts show you how to punch, so taking and giving a punch in the face is not exclusive to boxing.

I didnt say go to the police.

I will say that there is no art or form of fighting which is the best, it all depends upon the student and how much he trains and to what level. Modern day sport based arts focus allot on stamina, cardio, strength. Whereas the battlefield arts move away from these, emphasising the need for little strength, stamina is not a key issue aslong as you can control ur praan and expend as little energy as possible to defeat your opponent, they focus more on strategy and awareness of your surroundings to calculate the best possible way out, or the best way to avoid damage. As most battlefield arts are weapons based they focus on not even being touched by the weapon let alone the hand, whereas sports arts promote a bit of "take a hit and get in". Both work, but in the street the "take a hit" approach wont get you far when the weapons come out. In the streets, sports based arts fall apart because they do not cater for real life situations in the gym, that is why there is a recent boom for "self protection" schools. People hype the effectiveness of MMA, however in the street you arent gonna risk going to the floor to do a kimora or a arm bar, cos someone will just put the boot into your head. They dont take into account the countless posibilities such as circumstatial weapons found in the street, hidden weapons, being ambushed, tripping over curbs, being pushed into traffic, being up against a wall, fighting in crowds, someone pulling out a bat, someone breaking into your house, how to protect your home, how to protect children that are with you etc. Above that, there are no rules, if someone is boxing as soon as you control their hands their techniques reduce considerably and will rely on kicking or wrestling which they aint probably practised. The reason why MMA seems good is because people dont focus on what you cant do, a shoot to the legs is great in the ring where you cant hammer the back of their neck as they come in or put on a spinal twist and wrench their necks. People may call it dirty fighting, we call it survival, no battlefield art worth its salt tells you to avoid using technqiues which can end a fight, esspecially if your smaller and weaker than your opponent. All arts have their good aspects, I will not try to take that away, but to be a good all round fighter you must have experience in all ranges of fighting, all types of strikes, grappling, ground and standup, weapons and multiples, something which sports arts do not offer. Practise your training with the street in mind where there are no rules, no banned strikes and no mercy. Above that is awareness of your surroundings, knowing how to avoid confrontation before it happens, if you go around looking for fights you will easily find them, and the most key aspect is respect of the law, fighting is one thing but if you end up behind bars for it, was it really worth it? A opponent can be easily defeated without hurting them and ending up behind bars, if you can show you have control of your weapon and your strikes you can avoid the heavy hand of the law which is a neccessity in todays society where knife crime is rampant.

The rani and wazir do not have as much freedom in Chatranj, they can move in the same directions as chess but they are limited to the number of spaces they can move and cannot fly accross the board like you can in chess. This makes the game much more tactical and players cannot be caught out by a lone queen taking out the whole board. Another difference is if the Raja is left by himself with no one surrounding him the game is over rather than in chess where a sole king is allowed to run around one space at a time until he is killed.

Here is an online version of Shatranj (albeit with firangi chess peices).

Shaheediyan you are right to say that Singhs should train in whatever martial art they can find, as long as it is battle effective and is proven to take lives. Philipino arts are good for weapons, however due to them being fairly commercialised there is a heap of instructors about, most of which arent good enough to teach the higher levels of the arts. I met some Kali instructors a while ago from a recommendation of a work colleague, these guys were awful but where spouting that they had learnt from Krishna Godainia. Krishna himself provides a set ciriculum which spans about 2 yrs and that allows his students to teach. Anyone with knowledge in true weapons arts will know it takes far longer than 2 yrs to learn let alone be in the position to teach it on. When he tried to set me up on a Direct Debit I was out the door lol. My point being, go out to different schools and see what they can offer you, is the instructor knowledgeable in terms of technique, strategy, multiples, weapons etc and how clear and concise is the teaching method. The instructor should not be in it for the money and should be able to advance students who show potential. As you have said, it is the Hindus and the Muslims who carried on the Raag tradition, and the Naamdharis went to learn from them, which was then slowly disolved back into the Kirtan tradition of the Sikhs. Fine, however due to the break in lineages the bandishes which have been disolved are the bandishes of the Muslims and Hindus, not the Sikh Gurus. There is no doubt that aspects of Shastarvidiya have also been lost, however there is a huge amount which can still be retained if people put the effort in to learn. A similar example would be if a number of Singhs went to Escrima schools and learnt their stickwork techniques, and then a decade or so later began teaching it in the form of "Sikh Stickfighting", at one level it is still stickfighting, however it is not the same stickfighting which is done in Shastarvidiya or the stickfighting which would have been done by puratan Singhs. If we are to truely preserve our arts and vidiya, it must be done with the intention to do seva to preserve it, not with the intention for ego or jathedhari, association or labels. To preserve any art and display it within the world is only doing the mehima of our Satguru, that they were this great and that they were masters in these arts. Sorry for moving away from the original topic but I just wanted to throw my thoughts in.

The book is a great read, however I think for a person who has not contemplated certain things it will be a jump in the middle/deep end. It discussed the various types of advait philosophies, how gurmat advait differs from the advait of adishankara. Some background knowledge in adishankaras philosophy would make appreciating the gurmat stance more easier. Dalsingh, there is a portion of the text on the website where you can order it from. However as Shaheediyan mentioned, to jump in at Page X is harder to grasp because you have not gone through the build up to the current question.