navjot2

too easy to blame the british anyway interesting note: one thing i ws reading on another thread was someone trying to be snide at poster Harjas Kaur was calling her 'Harjas Devi'. what the person didnt realise is that use of name 'Kaur' for women is a Singh Sabha invention. however see how sly their propaganda and manipulation is that 99% of sikhs are unaware of this, thinking that this tradition is from Guru Gobind Singh. innocent sikh panth duped after trusting so called leaders.

new years resolution for sikhs- and non sikhs alike- (for those who dont already): Naam abhyaas Naam abhyaas Naam abhyaas!

all three (sargan) and neither (nirgun, nirankar) ?

yes when initiated into monastic life its the norm in that part of Nepal for the monks to shave their head but he refused. so i read

bingo which is EXACTLY the point of the artical.

here we have an article detailing line by line how vir singh rewrote a text (obviously for ideological reasons) and how do you people respond? by cliaming 'on british must have tampered with original'. which firstly doesnt make any logical sense anyway (why would they want to unite brahmans and sikhs?), but more importantly isnt even the relevant point you completely chose to miss the point. this implies to me that you actually agree with vir singhs actions, which is sad.

beautiful. really inspiring read thanks for typing it up!

(second page spread) (quote continued:) "satiguy chaaro day akhaaee. panth laee nij ans gavaaee. dohraa: Chandee sevay sarani nij dayhee dayhin bhach. tab usko Chandee kupai, leh sabhee tis kuch." (authors say:) Khaalsay noon kaniaan da prtaap hai jis karkay eihday vich kuRee maarn de koee thaan naheen: (The Maidens (Kaniaan?) are the Majesty/ruler (prataap) to the Khalsa, and in being so there is no place for killing girls)? (quote from panth prakash:) "hai kniyan ko panth prtaap. kaniaa sayvee satigur aap." einj hee 'daivee kaniaa hai maat hamaaree' kaT dittaa hai. sikh shaheed aap daivee noon aapnee bheTaa dinday han: (in the part quoted above the line 'The Virgin Goddess is my mother' has been edited out.) ? (the sikh matyrs give themselves as sacrifices to the Devi)? (quote from bhangoo?): "Devee ham ko raati santaaey. sees maanas ham to chahai khaaey. THagh chor aou kaidee n hoei. kusee hoei aavo naaei dhoie. "Chandan charach anthee ratan, pahir pusaak dhraaei. man mai karai nisank kich, thami us ko khaaei. satigur karay mnjoor tab, dayvee bhee dyaal. satigur singh bheTaa dee singh sees dayo hit naal." ok im not much use anymore over to you lot

nice contribution DTF. here is a type up of section you refered to. i given their text in roman text so those who can speak (but cant read) Gurmukhi can help/read aslo: (last quatre of first page) Aggle band vich Chandhee dee thaan Sree Mukh shabad pa dittaa gia hai: (in the next part? in the place of "Chandi" the phrase 'Sri Mukh' has been put) "jo sree mukh te aakhio... /jo Chandee Sree aakhyo" (e.g. Vir Singh wrote the former, the handwritten text says the latter) Agg dittaa pad Chandee noon katai jaaN naal behaahnee ho giaa hai: (in the next line, he cut out the word 'Chandi' -knowningly?) (the authors now offer quotes:) "te Sree Satigur sochio" hm sut deenay sop thaaei/ tab Sree Satiguroo sochyo hm Chandee sopai thaaei" (again former is Vir Singh's editing, latter is original wording) (dalsingh i thing this is 'sopai' as in sacrifice?) Bhangoo anusaar guroo saahib dai chaar saahibzaaday Chandee dee bheT san. hethlaa band bhaaee veer singh nay kaT dittaa hai: In Bhangoo's opinion (anusar) Guroo Saahib's four princes (saahibzaaday- i.e. sons) were sacrifices to Chandi (Chandee dee bheT san). In hethlaa (?) section Bhai Veer Singh has cut out the following: "Chandee sevhi maaeit. Chahai Chandee put bhaT kraahee. maataa manyo n eik sut jothaa. satigur kar dey chaaro bheTaa"

dalsingh you made typo "In the next section 'Chandi' has been placed where the words'Shri Mukh' existed previously its the other way around isnt it? they say phrase 'Sri Mukh' has been placed by Vir Singh where it says "Sri Chandi"

was refering to the photo images on the website. the website itself was of no interest

but compare to first salok of Japuji are you saying there are four kinds of 'sach' also? of course not. the Guru is ONE.

wow easy length response of bitching. thanks for exhibiting your mindset. thanks also for clarifying the kind of trash you have been reading.

Hi Matheen let me show you: go to: http://www.patshahi10.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=245:sri-dasam-granth-beerh-1698-ad-takhat-sri-patna-sahib-&catid=62:historic-beerhs&Itemid=106 this is apparently the oldest Bir of Dasam Granth. If you scroll down you will see they have typed up teh actual wording (in black and red font) and you will note that it says PaatiSaah not PaatiShaah (Sassa not Shasha). i read in a sikh grammar book about shasha, zazza, etc being introduced in 1800.

dear HSD if you are able to read any Gurmukhi why dont you demonstarate as much? if you can 'put it into action' where is this evident from your demeanor? i feel nauseated even communicating with half the people on this board. you have to 'breakdown' my comments to give your 'answers' shows the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. with you the fact is that you start 'mouthing off' when presented with any arguement. you can reread yourself what you wrote, it looks like mentally ill person wrote it. you think that because there was idols in/around SGGS it proves that the sikh panth was going to be destroyed as part of some hindu 'plan'? you must feel embarrased for presenting such stupid arguements hence the aggression. so tell me what was this plan, was SGGS going to eventually replaced by a idol too? you have not even responded to the fact that they were in the periphery. people on this site cannot seem to follow a line of argument. they just dash from one thing to another. acting like that is called desperation, not dicussion. the sad fact is that all you have to do is read some hindu/muslim forum you see how generally more intelligent they tend to be then this and other sikh forums. even sadder but i bet most of you reguarly are reading some muslim or hindu forums. Gurbani can only be mispresented /incorrectly quoted by partially quoting or mistranslating. how will this present itself if someone approaches SGGS direct? and how is going to some other forum to be presented with twisted interpretation different form going to some sikh forum to get the same thing? you do not think sikh forums are doing the same thing? when i say 'literal' i mean adhering to the original wording in original context. duh! funny the examples you pick is not what 'sikh scholars' tend to pick up on when telling peole their nonesense, because they are self evident. they tend to pick up on othr stuff. but you probably know at least this much. Why shouldnt I present opinion with explanation on Singh Sabha, on a thread about Singh Sabha? because you dont like it ? The freaks on this board and their 'agenda' crap. If anyone your precious Singh Sabha were agendaists, so admin cut off. F.Y.I. I am not blaming the British at all. Am I talking about Hindustan or Islamic republic? again idiots ont his stupid site cannot comprehend anything without comparing it to Hindus or Muslims. are you really so psychologically retarded? Sorry but when i say religion i mean Sikhi with its own terms of reference. Its your desperation to be like other religions that is part of your insecurity. 'we sikhs'? Typicall modern mentallity of you idiots to say 'we' when refering to people of past. its your sad paranoia that i or anyone else has some agenda to 'stamp out sikh idenity'. stop imaging things you coward. P.S. Its not my fault if Macauliff played such a central role in Singh Sabha. and if you are so secure in your knowledge of 'sikh identity' why do you have cling so much on Singh Sabha to affirm it? did actual 'sikh identity' only come into existance 100 years ago?

??? you saying burial is a part of sharia then saying that Prophet Himself said it is Namaz (prayer) that makes a Muslim? so you are answering your own question.

i did not slander Gurbani, i dont even know what you are talking about. if you want to know what the edit was, i noted that Dasam Granth is Vidiya if people dont 'get it' they should just keep quiet adn stay away from it likewise if people are interested in it they should study it in private and not talk about it. There is no need to discuss it. i deleted this statement because i dont think ist right for me to advise people like this in this respect

alot of pictures and websites from Google, nto much indepth info there is a site dedicated directly to him, http://gosaiji.com famous Holyman of Bengal around 1800s?

Any and every Sikh historical text you can think of pad ched of SGGS is obvious, But you try getting you hands on a published copy of ANY sikh historical text/account, published in India, and you see how heavily edited it is (not that they will explicitly state as much). That is the small amount they even bothered to release to public. McLeod had the obvious idea of publishing a book of translated rehits (but he didnt edit them- he gave them as they were). Now will you find any a sikh history book from panjab/india that is anything near as simple? Singh Sabha as an ideology carries on to this day.

Singh Sabha= ideological movement, NOT religious movement

HSD, how could sikhs forget 'who they are' (whatever that means in your stupid mind) in presence of SGGS? Probably you cannot even read Gurbani hence how insecure and idiotic you are. how is a person who reads SGGS gong to go astray? I can tell you how, when some 'profs' start educating people that they shouldnt take SGGS 'literally' but need a 'scholar' to 'interpret' for them... you're just a coward, hence the hysterics. fear is the problem among sikhs that was calculated into them by Singh Sabhas. divide and conquer games. yes state and religion are seperate. Trying to reduce Khalsa to some socio-political entity is the legacy of Sabhias. As is the myth of unified 'Khalsa raaj' (panjab before the british was neither unified nor a Khalsa raaj). The idea of 'scocio political identity' is another Macaulifism that you have lapped up via sikhlions.com or whatever site you schooled yourself.

no. who told you that? Singh Sabha introduced them so that they could use their Urdu vocab in Gurmukhi script. The British state schools were Urdu medium schools.

Singh Sabha was not 'sikhs standing up for themselves'. of course thats what theirpedigree want you to believe in retrospect so you respect them as an institution. whilst other indians- bengal, tamil etc were taking a conservative approach to reviving, protecting and rstoring their language culture and religion what were sabhias doing? during their time so many historical documents went missing. where was their good intention? they initiated editing sikh historical texts. they mutilated the panjabi language by introducing 'sh' z' sounds etc

DEAR 'HSD' AKA LSD 'MAJORE HALLACUNIATORY STATE' HEAD "hindu dogras had destroyed 'sikh rule' and the next logical step was to target the sikh community." 'next logical step'? see what i mean about paranoia. the Dogra brothers clearly sold out panjab for material gain and not for the good or benefit of hindus (whatbenefit did hindus get?) yu have got some deepset hindu fixation thinking that they have some compulsion to 'destroy' sikhs. so what was their next step and how did they do? you say the list of threats is endless, but can only name two? Idols in Guruduara were put their by mahants etc and maybe no difference to sikhi education, otherwise how would sikhi still be existing at that stage? as some one mentioned earlier, they were around the interior and not centrally placed. all this proves is that Hindus came there is worship too and control were lax. as for 'hindus worshipping british officers and trying to convince sikhs to do the same' i really dont know what you're on about. more hindus didnt mean more power, as you could probably see form looking at nawab states etc and power in Indian sense had long cessed meaning any kind of consequence of religious affairs. but you have missed the point. how does end of sikh state effect how sikhs understood and practised religion? sikhi is independant of material affairs. where is this 'load of hindustani apes' that are hurling abuse at this discussion? can you name them for me please? funny i dont see anyone doing that

okay sorry for my bad language. actually there was alot of bad languae in that post you are seeing a heavily edited version. sikhs arent to do nindya of anyone. so i apologise. where did 'Hindu mindset' accusation come from? in actual fact you people are fixated with Hindus not me.