navjot2

hi your translations do not seem very senseitive to the original wording also why are 4 hort sloaks ending up as a long paragraph in 'english translation'?

question mark because i offered that answer tentatively i assume the word 'piyaree' is not refering to naam?

guys we're all sikhs at the end of the day we can agree to disagree

Balbir ji' you are right it is significant from what i can deduce (via Google!) Nara means 'Man', Naara 'water' and Yaana measn residing? i guess water refers to water as in an ocean as in whole universe/existance?

an army that puts aside any Dharmic consideration and merely goes in for military training is liable to egotisitical corruption the Dharmic part instills in them what they are fighting for, how to behave, and whose support they can rely on. as someone said earlier that Guru ji was actually awknowledging Chandi and giving her due respect, and mentioned Krishna doing same thing. hence the formal ceremony. this does not mean he was gong bak on his priciple of woshipping only Akaal. In Dasam Bani it explains who Bhavani (Devi) is in relation to Akaal.

whilst Chandi veneration was in Panjab''s fauji it was the strongest state in India and British had to win it by political machinations and not might. then they decided 'oh we dont do this 'Hindu things'' and started worshipping British instead. inbetween Singhs went from being respected even by their enemies to being widely considered a joke.

*accidental repeat post

Dalsingh your reasoning is flawed anyway China is a communist (non-theist state) but have probably the largest army in the world not to mention great affluence. so if they get these power without awknowledging God Himself on any official level, by your reasoning worship of God is also redundant for an army. Appeal to Chandi was a dharmic occurance.

"regarding your other points, to suggest that Gurbani would say one thing, and the Guru do another is just wrong. " what are you refering to? when did i make this claim? are you confusing what Guru ji says and what people interpret him as saying as one and the same?

Matheen i already answered your questions, above. Its already widely understood, even here, that we do not find much use of Kaur in this way before 1850-ish after which is became all pervasive. We also do not find it in an early rehit. We do not find any contemporary or near contemporary sikh female of Guru Gobind Singh holding this title in the manner described.

panjabi writers of the mid to late 1800's mutilated punjabi by trying to turn it into psuedo-hindi and pseudo-English.

actually i wasnt even aware of your typo. subconcious referencing. neither Ganda or Kahan are impressive to me as they are also propagandists. but this isnt relevant to this discussion. i do not understand why you keep gong off on tangents? what you are essentially doing is offering more excuse: 1. 'its not so black and white'. urm well yes it is? one word 'deception'. 2. 'we must look at things in context'. why, this doesnt alter tha fact that he deceived people. 3. 'history is enitrely subjective anyway'. this is called opportunistic reasoning. in this case you should do away with all historical narratives. 4. 'Singh Sabha saved sikhs from going astray' the typical Singh Sabha myth for its raison d'etre. If someone sincerely reads Gurbani how is it possible that they can go astray? 5. 'Vir Siongh did alot of panjabi'- so he published a few novels. so what? this isnt even relevant to this discussion. i already said this. or are you saying that fiction was his strong point? maybe he should have stuck to the fiction. The average sikh today probably hasnt even heard of this or other historical texts, so your assertions about Vir Singh popularising them are rubbish. the 'you people' is you, because its obvious by the attempts to make excuses on his behalf that you sympathise with these people and their aims.

its true why wasnt this original post deletd? why the violent posts agianst Harjas Kaur? so much violent response against her posting yet nothing about original post?

Singh 2 is in major denial. he only sees what he wants to see and ignores anything to the contrary. There is explicit reference to Devis multi-armed form in Dasam Granth itself which I have quoted and shown to them on occasion. but they chose to ignore it. they can only understand Sikhi according to their own petty matt is one thing, but they have some kind of missionary zeal to enforce it on others.

Harjas Kaur first i just want to say hi! i remember how you ran circles around the singhs on Tapoban lol and got me you and about a dozen other people banned in the process legendary!

Dalsingh you are confusing your ideological interpretation of sikhi with 'what Dasmesh pita intended'. this is the whole crux of singh sabha. when you examine Singh Sabha, you find a slyness and deception at work. you see that they made 'Kaur' a normative practise is not the point. The actual point is that they have made all sikhs to believe that this was started by Guru Gobind Singh. this is the deception. the trend of Singh Sabhaist is based on assertion that Gurbani provides a set ideology, and from this ideology Singh Sabha leaders can add further teachings and guidance of their own and pass them off as if the came from Gurus themselves. this is what i understand anyway. so modern person decides 'Gurus were scientific, rationale, dneounced all rituals' then can go around purgating sikh history and altering peoples understanding based on their own modern convictions.

Matheen rehits themselves are not stable, so citing a modern rehit isnt convincing. e.g. someone brought up the example of how all sikhs now use circambulation around SGGS rather than aag (fire) as how one 'evolution' in a single panth can become universal in nearly the whole panth. can you point out the old rehits that say women should take name of kaur? where are these women of sikh history you named cited witht he name Kaur? how do you know it wasnt retrospective changes to their names? The same way Mata Sahib Devan and Mata Sundari are now refered to with name Kaur also? thats interesting about your family tree, but when was this tree actually writtend down?

This 'singh sabha vs sanatan' divide is itself Singh Sabha conjecture. why do you assume that non-'Singh Sabha' people must be Sanatan dharmists?

is Rani Jindan did write 'Kaur' in her name (not that i know if she did) thats probably because she was an actual princess. that doesnt prove anything. I have read so many references to Hindu Rajputs but not heard of a single one with 'Kaur' is her name

Matheen there was a really nice poster at Sikhnet discussion site, Serjinder Singh, who was very well read. infact he was the best thing about that board. he posts were always clearly delineated and he was very respectful yet clear about his personal views. i learned fascinating stuff from his posts. here are two ludicly explained posts: http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/78f5a2ff8906d1788725657c00732d6c/FAEA7813A656537787256D670058810F!OpenDocument http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/78f5a2ff8906d1788725657c00732d6c/8E5441153A999EA687256D6500610BF7!OpenDocument was he wrong? please enlighten me. please show me the 'honest research' you have, e.g. old rehitnamas. please tell us more baout your great grand parents. were they born before 1850? have you seen their birth certificate?

why does a person who censored reported speech of Guru Gobind Singh ji and that too on the sly- deserve a 'sympathetic appraisal'? if this historical text was so unreliable why refer to it in the first place?

Again- If you think its okay for him to edit it then why is it not okay for others to edit stuff according to their biases? because whatever suits your own bias is ok? i wasnt aware that people were 'manipulated' into worshipping Pirs etc. yet I also dont see what this has got to do with this discussion? Are you implying that Vir was right to lie about things so that he could 'manipulate' sikhs 'the right way'? the word 'edit' is wrong anyway. he didnt edit he altered the texts. it seems to me that you are implicitly agreeing with him that history is somethihng that can and should be altered according to ideology, which is actually propaganda not history. why should we call him a historian? vir singh was a propagandist actually it is you people who cry about brahmans, british, Afghana etc altering stuff when Vir boy does its all chup-chup lets make excuses on his behalf? The authors of artical have done a very nice service to learn about Singh Sabhas 'weakness' as you euphemistically put it. That he played a big part in 'develoiping' Panjabi language and modern literature is not only your highly subjective statement but isnt even relevant to the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with sikh history or Singh Sabha. It is like saying 'oh so and so might lie about their research but they write really good one liners'. and isnt it rubbish to say we wouldnt have heard of panth parkash if he hadnt popularised it?

Older schools of Christianity- Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox Chruch, etc have fascinating aspects that most sikhs would recognise use of malas (rosary), prominence of Virgin Mary (Adi Shakti), Christ washed the feet of his disicples (Guru Nanak saying he is the dust on the feet of saints), Theosis (absorption into God).

if you wanted to be frank you would admit that Vir Singh deceived people. instead you make paragraphs of excuses on his behalf. you still dont get it do you? it 'sounds dubious' to who? to yourselves? even this rationale that he did it in the interss of historical accuracy doesnt stand; you can see yoruself where he has edited the text because he didnt like Guru ji describing sikhs as economically poor! the authors of this artical (and thanks for putting it up) clearly line by line write about what he did. compare this to glib approach of usual sikh books articals where you cannot even find the source material let alone reference to actual lines.

sycophantic artical written by his brother