dalsingh101

Found this absolutely fascinating. Strongly recommended. Really brings home the scale of our planet and even milkyway in relation to the rest of cosmos: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=QA1JLVCQ I wonder how advanced Indic knowledge of the cosmos was around the time of our Gurus?

Interesting point about dynamism in Sikh organisation during our Guru's time. You probably know however, that the mere mention of any significant change would almost certainly result in a shrill clarion call against the suggester most likely involving accusations of blasphemy and some insidious agenda involving the RSS..... The greatest tool for control of our people is the manipulation/mobilisation of age old esteemed institutes. It's true that some people do voice this concern in private conversations, esp. that Badal controls the Akal Takhat, but actually challenging, winning and creating an alternative platform is no mean task. Sikhs will resist any dramatic change: 1) due to a feeling of loyalty and uncertainty about change- call it conservatism, 2) due to the actions of those already entrenched enjoying a privileged position in the current set up. People have to think twice about trying to realise dramatic change too, as they can lead to even more serious fissures and internal conflicts as the langar hall chairs and table issue clearly highlights. I don't know, a Gurdwara I go to still serves langar (on a daily basis) to people who are economically challenged by virtue of being freshies struggling to find work. I notice a lot of other nonPanjabi immigrants frequent the Gurdwara and take langar these days too. Okay, so these people aren't exactly starving but still, langar does help them stay afloat so I'd say it still does serve a function of helping out those in need. But I have heard some people comment about the tendency for some Gurdwaras to host what seems to be 'lavish banquets' for langar and the suitability of this. I've never witnessed this myself mind you. I don't see any problem with holding onto things our Gurus instigated. Actually I think it is important we do. What I do find disappointing however is how we just fail to implement the inherent principles or ideas behind these institutes into, not only wider Sikh society, but society as a whole. It's great that we've kept things going but we need more - we need to elaborate on (ਵਿਸਤਾਰ) and develop these ideas into our daily practices, culture and the very fabric of our society instead of reducing them down to symbolism. PS - From what one hears regarding practice in villages these days, people don't even want to share crematoriums with 'lower castes' let alone a meal.. So I wouldn't get too cosy with the idea that things are now dandy regarding jaat paat amongst us.

Whilst I agree that institutes like langar did indeed provide sustenance for the poor, sadly within century of the initial formation of the Khalsa, it's vehicle like nature for uplifting those oppressed at the lowest rungs of society seems to have waned. People quickly drew back on former hierarchies as well as developing new ones. Leading to the current situation where so called Sikh 'low castes' are on the receiving end of much supercilious attitudes and behaviour - leading to all manner of reactions, from rejecting the faith to increased insularity within the panth. If I ask the question of whether we have achieved an egalitarian, flatter society based on meritocracy - the answer has to be no. Today our own society plays its part in oppressing those at the most vulnerable end of our panth.

Lack of water seems to be an issue but I thought they were supposed to wash themselves before prayer at every opportunity? Wuzu I think it's called.

The guy is such an embarrassingly simple minded dick that I'm not even sure if I'm unhappy about him leaving the faith.

What if the reality is that we will never know exactly what happened based on contemporary and near contemporary accounts. Why is it that some people can live without knowing every last detail, whilst others start throwing around accusations of lack of faith when someone doesn't fully accept the traditional narrative? Strange phenomena. Causes even more tension for no reason.

Even so, given the epochal nature of 1699, it is surprising they didn't go into more detail. Kankan does however say "5 Sikhs were asked for". If the 5 were taken into tents then only they and Guru ji really know what happened, what makes me laugh is when people today talk as if they actually witnessed the day itself. I don't know what the big fuss is about myself. All accounts seem to point at 5 people being chosen. Amrit being given with a khanda. Keeping of kesh and weapons and following some injunctions especially in terms of avoiding certain schismatic groups. Goats or no goats, it doesn't change the test and the fact that they came forward not knowing what was to happen to them. A test of loyalty, bravery, conviction etc.

We have to face it. We aren't a very social, accepting people even amongst ourselves. That's the truth. Whilst I actually don't mind this, I know people are VERY social creatures and often this plays a central role in their choice of faith. I've lost count of people who've converted after mixing with sullay, or dating them etc. I've yet to meet someone who has converted to Sikhi after mixing with groups of Panjabi Sikhs in this way. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are going lose some numbers due to this. The more I look at my people the more I realise that they are essentially small minded pendus. Being a part of these people, I have just enough brains to realise that these are probably characteristics I have myself to some degrree! lol A lot of factors play a part in the expansion of a faith. Contrary to what some people may think, it isn't just spiritual 'magic' that makes faiths grow but conscious and willful planning as well as purpose play a big role. Then the characteristics of the people in the faith dictate how easy and comfortable new comers and even strangers from within the faith are treated. We fail miserably in that department from what I've seen. We don't have any sort of pastoral care and are probably the most judgmental people around. I've noticed that we are so obsessed with that 'izzat' thing, that we would rather suffer in silence and live in denial than face up to things. I now realise that the trajectory is set, we have to live with this because there is no real will for change in the panth. We are all stuck in these little battles with each other over interpretations of the faith, religiosity, orthodoxy, caste, status etc. I might be off the mark but I can't help but think that some progressive, educated, spiritual, global minded people at the helm of our premiere institutes might help us move in a better direction, but I know this wont happen. I guess this is the test of faith and loyalty for our generation. Today the battle is mainly psychological.

What moron is coming out with this?

Again, we need to find out what makes Sikhs like this. My money is on them having close Muslim friends and not wanting to offend them, or these relationships effecting their perceptions of Mohammad. What I find strange is how they often fear coming out with it openly like men, and instead prance about the issue. If I felt Mo was a cool geezer, I'd say it, regardless of what others are saying and how they might feel about it. But these people seem to have no backbone (sorry to say). The biggest danger is some of these geezers converting and slying pretending they are still Sikh. I know some 'hero' sullah did that to some other quom back in Mo's time. So there is a precedent.

No problem, it was a simple misunderstanding on my part. No one really considers the opinions of those people you mention seriously so lets leave them out of it. I don't think they represent any 'majority' view or even scholarship based on a 'majority' of sources. Fair enough, but it is pretty surprising that even people like Kavi Kankan, Sainpati, Sewa Das don't explicitly mention what happened in 1699 in the way we understand it today. What shocked me most was that even Bhangu, writing in the early 1800s doesn't. Kavi kankan seems to repeat the story of worshiping devi on the eve of creating the Khalsa. What I recall of his mentioning of 1699 didn't go into lots of detail. Do you have his work so you can share it with us? I've attached the small portion I have to this post. Personally I'm not accepting the account by Abul Turrani until it's provenance is properly established. Seeing as a number of people have contacted Aligarh uni about it with no success, I remain unconvinced about it until further evidence emerges.

Why long it out? Just say what you feel about it? The accusations are hardly something new are they. If you feel affection for the guy, just come out with it. No need to hide it.

Granted, it would still be interesting to see how you reconcile/view these things. It might help us establish what degree of impartiality or bias you hold towards all thing related to Mohammad? Then we can view your comments in related matters in proper perspective. I do find it strange that it appears as if you are willing to jettison sources most Muslims wouldn't when Mohhamad ends up looking less than wholesome in them?

Well what can I say? You want to talk disrespectfully throwing the word 'vidwaan' about sarcastically, is it worth it? In the end you have to face the fact that historical sources themselves don't support the black and white interpretation of Sikh itihaas you are espousing.You can take that however you want. So if I (or anyone else) don't share your perspective, it shouldn't really come as a big shock to you. It isn't worth people here acting like they have some magic ability to time travel and talk with absolute authority on what happened in the past.

Interestingly there are times when the rhythm seems very similar to parts of Jaap Sahib.

There may well be some undiscovered texts out there. I hope so and I look forward to learning about them. As far as I am aware no original manuscripts of bhatt vahis are extant.

I have heard of one of them before. When I read some scanned pages of Bhai Jetha's text on another forum the language seemed very modern. Besides I'm not talking about modern published versions. I'm talking about original manuscripts. Plus bringing out one or two acccounts that support one position still doesn't explain why the vast majority of the rest of them don't corroborate them.

What about valid Muslim historical sources that portray him as a paedo, rapist, warmonger etc.? Do you just ignore them? Mithar, problem with what you say is that it comes down completely to faith and any independent party is likely to draw the conclusion that biased Sikh sources are just trashing another faith to make themselves look better. Do we even need this when sullah accounts themselves aren't exactly flattering from an outside perspective?

There are a number of ways to verify the manuscripts. Why hasn't this been done? It isn't a bad thing to be a bit cautious. If these manuscripts are extant and real, you really do have to ask why they haven't been studied and dated properly yet. Then when people do do this, if things appear that put question marks on the authenticity, they get upset. Some of us want to truly khoj our itihaas, not just reinforce traditional narratives.

There does seem to be evidence that portrays him as a paedo, rapist and general brute though, no? That too from Muslim sources.

Care to elaborate?

Who me?

Lol@ Sarbat, sort your head out mate. Don't be a plum.