Singh132

A reply to the "blue" article: http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1...042&t=61042

What does "OM" mean? Is it the same as Omkar? Are you going to claim that it is the same as Ik Oankaar?

I'm not sure where the theory that Guru Sahib's bodies were not cremated came from. This is not in line with any existing history. Guru Nanak, according to the Sakhis, did indeed not leave behind his body and some stories say Guru Gobind Singh ji did the same, but others have proven from old sources that he was cremated (See Dr. Ganda Singh's book on this issue). Guru Angad Dev jee was cremated at Khadur Sahib where exists Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Angitha Sahib. Guru Amar Das Sahib was cremated at Goindwal Sahib and there exists Joti Jot Asthaan P: 3. Guru Ram Das Sahib also merged with the light at Goindwal Sahib but I don't recall the place. Guru Arjan Dev Sahib's body was not found as it was put in the Ravi. Guru Hargobind Sahib and Guru Har Rai Sahib were both cremated at Gurdwara Patalpuri Sahib at Keeratpur Sahib. Guru Harkrishan Sahib was cremated at Gurdwara Bala Sahib at Delhi and Guru Tegh Bahdur Sahib's body was cremated at Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib (Delhi) while his sees was cremated at Gurdwara Sees Ganj Sahib (*Anandpur Sahib). So, I'm not sure where this theory comes from that all the Gurus left with their bodies. It certainly doesn't have any basis in history or fact.

Kamalroop, You're very clever. You're straight out lying about editing spelling mistakes. I recall your first post did not have any name and it was only a few lines. Anyways, it is not relevant. I was wondering on what basis you're calling me a "Babbar Khalsa Singh". I never claimed to be a member and have never claimed to have any link. How are you making this statement? You have a member list? I'm surprised the moderators have let this through since an accusation as as this one has legal ramifications. As for my comment on "old darjee". You are again trying to cleverly misrepresent me and my intentions. I made the comment in reference to his link to the jathebandi: if Singhs in the organization (ie. fighters) did not know about the Jathedar's location, why would someone with no link to anyone or anything (ie. an old darjee) know it? You claimed he didn't reveal the location, but how could he reveal something he would have no idea about?? In the rest of the post I referred to him as a "Baba". Even if you post this video and it tell 101 lies about Bhai Sukhdev Singh being a characterless person and a horrid criminal, it makes no difference. If you come out with this video, I'd be happy to give you references to countless other people who say he was a hero. And narsingh, thank you very much for links to KP Gill's website. I'm sure all readers would be very happy to find out about terrorists from the sadistic killer of thousands of innocent Sikh youth.

First you seemed to indicate that you met this baba at "rainsbais" and now you seem to say that you met him in Buddah Dal. Which is it?

Kamalroop, Very big "wow" that you've edited your orignal post and now identified me as Balpreet Singh. It wasn't much of a secret to begin with, but oh well...if it makes you feel better you may call me by my real name. Anyways, I was wondering why would this Baba from Sukhdev Singh's pind know ANYTHING about his whereabouts? Singhs in the organization had no idea where the Jathedar was and you are trying to claim that an old darjee from Dasuya was aware of it? And he told you about the "location pind" of his wives. Again, if he's so knowledgeable and you're telling the truth, why wouldn't he know that Sukhdev Singh's wife and kids have been in Canada for years? Not to say that this Baba wasn't tortured, because it's very likely he was, but to suggest he knows anything about Sukhdev Singh simpy by virtue of being from the same village doesn't make any sense. Unless you're claiming this Baba was/is a high-up in Babbar Khalsa command. Anyways, I'd be very happy to see the video.

I made my comment while taking the following moderator statement into account: And so it seemed unlikely to me that any comments that seemed to "defend" these Singhs would be allowed. I'm glad they were though.

Mod's Note: Veer Ji that above statement is bias. When is the last time we edited or deleted your message?. If you have queers against the site just say so.. no need to make up fairy tales-bias info regarding moderation. 1) Sukhdev Singh Babbar NEVER had a farla. Find me a picture of him with on. He wore a dumalla only. Or has that become a crime as well? 2) 2 wives: kamalroop, you found out the information about his wives' "location pinds" did you? Really? His wife and kids are in Canada. What pind would that be? 3) Babbar Khalsa (Parmar) is the group accused of blowing up Air India. This group is a separate entity from the Babbar Khalsa group Sukhdev Singh and the Babbars in India belonged to. 4) N30 claimed that one of the accused in the Air India trial was found to have had an extra-marital affair. The accuser herself admits this "affair" was never physical and the defence later showed that she had a grudge against the accused and was lying. 5) Babbar Khalsa was and is still seen as the most "puritanical" group that was NEVER accused of raping etc. There are examples of Babbars having set ambushes for rapists and having public trials and executions for them. 6) Because the UK, USA and Canada have put Babbar Khalsa on a list of "banned" organizations does not mean much to me. Are these countries next to God? And yes, the USA and UK are very much ones to talk about "terrorism". Hello??? This thread was about American soliders RAPING INNOCENT IRAQIS?? 7) And finally, Bhai Randheer Singh and the Gadhar movement fighters were fighting for "Khalsa Raj". Not for a free "India". Bhai Sahib writes about what he fought for and it was not for the artificial entity today known as India. Get your facts straight before opening your mouths

I got interested in the much touted "Khalsa Dharam Shastra" and decided to go do some research at my University. I found some interesting stuff in my review that I thought I should certainly share and perhaps the Sanatanists can answer.... Gurmantra is most important (agreed), and must be received in the EAR from a personal "Satguru" (pg. 72). The "Satguru" should be a distinguished member of a Guru Lineage. If one is going to live as Grahisti, then the person giving the Mantra must also be Grahisti and if the person is a recluse/ateet, then the giver of the Mantra must also be ateet (pg 70). Paahul is not as important as receiving Gurmantra. Paahul is simply the preparation of the soul for gurmantra (54-55). The "Satguru" who gives the mantra should also then be a life long guide. Sikh Women indeed do not receive Khanday Kee Paahul. They instead should receive Charan Paahul. Unlike what has been said here, the ONLY condition in which Kirpaan Amrit should be administered to a woman, is if she has a SON. No other situation (pg. 134). At the age of 9 or 10, the male child should be given Kirpaan Amrit. Sikhs of "lower castes" can sit in the same sangat, but not in the same Pangat ie. Langar. Vahiria argues that if the lower castes were given equal rights, "those already in the ranks of the Panth might renounce their faith in disgust" (pg. 235). The Gurus didn't eliminate caste (God forbid), but just wanted to reduce the pride of the higher castes (pg. 242). Furthermore, All Sikhs are in fact Hindus according to Vahiria. Anyone who does not believe in killing cows and does not believe in "non-Indian religions" is a Hindu (pg. 25-27). So now, I was wondering, do Laleshvari and Narsingh also believe that ONLY a woman with a SON can receive kirpaan amrit? This "reference" of yours is a manual on how to become a Malechh Khalsa. Thank Satguru Gobind Singh that he has had this much kirpa on his Khalsa that nonsense views like this have died away. And I'm certain he, nor his Khalsa, will let them come back up again.

Narsingh, I don't think you understand the conecept of "debate". I also can clearly see you don't know when to give up and admit defeat. I've asked you again, besides the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, what other source have you given? I can't find them? The others you provide are the "Khalsa Dharm Shastra" of 1914 and the Hazoori Maryada Prabodh of 1967. Those are hardly "puraatan" sources. I've already shown you two puraatan sources that clearly say women should receive Khanday Kee Paahul. Now Narsingh, it's up to you to give me any more sources you have. Let's for a moment assume I didn't discredit the Chaupa Singh reference you've been going on about. Please show me any, ANY reference to women receiving Kard Amrit. The Chaupa Singh reference you cited shows this amrit being given to men. Nothing about women. In fact, the same Chaupa Singh rehitnama goes on to say that anyone who does not give a Sikh woman Khanday Kee Paahul is a tankhaiyaa. This totally destroys your point. A request to the moderators: lets either have some new facts from Narsingh/Laleshvarai or shut down this thread and let the readers decide for themselves who has the more convincing case.

Narsingh, Nice try. Read the literature before debating. No scholar accepts any version of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama in its entirety. Padam, Randhir Singh, Ashok, McLeod all write that the Chaupa Singh rehitnama has been changed. No one (except it seems you) would accept the entire rehitnama in its entirety. Go read what I wrote above. Back to the topic though! Show me your proof that "kard amrit" was given to women and this was the accepted method for them. The debate over Chaupa Singh is really an aside. Even the version that speaks of the Kard Amrit doesnt' indicate that it was given to women. Answer the question or admit you have no more proof. Let's do this: list the sources you have that indicate kirpaan amrit must be given to women or was given to women. These sources must be pre-20th century as well.

Narsingh, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your comments. Laugh because they're so misguided or cry because I am to stubborn to just give up and not bother explaining AGAIN. See, there are 2 (TWO) versions of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama in regards to the incident of kirpaan amrit. Clearly he didnt' write a volume 1 and a volume 2, so one must be adulterated or fake. The one in the Padam version is a recounting of Khanday Kee Paahul where a Khanda is used and amrit adminsitered to punj pyaaray. This account is the same as in other historical accounts and rehitnamas. There is then a 2nd version of the rehitnama in which a kard is used by chaupa singh to make amrit, he then is administered this amrit by Guru Sahib, and then Chaupa Singh further gives to 4 other Sikhs. This version is not seen anywhere else. This story is not found anywhere but here. Various scholars have commented that this version seems to have been created to give Chhiber Brahmins a prominent place in the Panth, by making Chaupa Singh a big hero. So, simply by the facts, it's clear this is not "historical fact". Make sense? More proof for kirpan amrit though? anything? Even if we accept the Chaupa Singh version that has kard amrit, this type was given to men. How do you conclude it was given to women? Where is support for this belief?

What would make more sense? One version of the "kes amrit" matches all other accounts, more or less, in terms of punj pyaaray, khanda, etc. The other version that glorifies Chaupa Singh is found nowhere else. Which one, logically, seems to be the adulteration? That's right. The one that glorifies Chaupa Singh. That eliminates the use of a kard for amrit completely. As for your "other sources" , I don't recall any other except the Khalsa Dharam Shastar. Please tell me of others. And if you can, refute the mention of Khanday Kee Paahul beind administered to women found in the Chaupa Singh rehitnama and also in Prem Sumarag.

Really? Fact eh? Based on what? What do you base your assertion on that women received kirpan amrit? You havn't addressed the fact that the Padam version says "kes amrit" was prepared with a Khanda. You also havn't addressed the fact that the Ashok version is so completely different from anything written anywhere else and seems to glorify Chaupa Singh as the creator of the kes amrit and the first to receive and give it. This is in clear contrast to the Padam version where the kes amrit story is in fact the story of the first Khanday Kee Paahul. This is a clear example of a rehitnama being changed, in this case to give the Chhiber Brahmins prominence in the Panth. So let's sum up: "kes amrit" is in fact prepared with a khanda in the version generally accepted as unadultered and is the story of khanday kee paahul. The only version that refers to a "kard" is an adultered version , and this "kes amrit" is not mentioned anywhere else. And on top of that, the "kes amrit" is given to men. Please do show me now where it says women should receive kirpan amrit. Anywhere.

I've got Piara Singh's book right here. What the heck are you talking about? This is not spoon-feeding, it's giving some direction to what you're talking about. I wasn't able to find any reference for kirpaan amrit, because now you've told me that I'm looking for "kes amrit". According to the version of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama in the Padam book, Kes Amrit, is not kirpaan amrit, and has nothing to do with this topic. In fact, the description of Kes Amrit says "Hath khanda pakar kay vich fayroh..." ie. Take a Khanda in your hands and stir it within (the bata). And on top of that, IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN BUT ALL SIKHS. There's no mention of this being for women at all. Khanday Kee Paahul is prepared and then given to Daya Singh, Sahib Singh, Himmat Singh, Dharam Singh and Mohkam Singh. After them, it is given to Dhanna Singh, Hari Singh, Meva Singh and Jodh Singh by the Punj Pyaaray. In fact, the story of "kes amrit" is the same as the one for Khanday Kee Paahul. He dates the event as 1754BK when the traditional account says 1756BK. This is not a big difference since some accounts even put it at 1752BK ie. Bhai Nandlal Rehitnama and Bhai Prehlad Singh Rehitnama and Bh. Rattan Singh Bhangoo. "Kes Amrit" is prepared by a Khanda and in fact, can be referred to as "Khanday Kee Paahul" as well. In another version of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, edited by Shamsher Singh Ashok, indeed the rehitnama does mention that Chaupa Singh prepares "kes amrit" with a kard. But this amrit is also not made for women, but made for male Sikhs who receive it. Chaupa Singh prepares this amrit and then Guru Gobind Singh administers it to him and then Chaupa Singh gives it to 4 other Sikhs by the names of Dhanna Singh, Hari Singh, Sewa Singh, Jodh Singh. This version in Ashok's book and the version in Padam's book are totally different. It seems to me the Ashok version glorifies Chaupa Singh as the first one to prepare amrit and then first to receive it. The version in Padam seems very much more like the version in all other sources. It seems that the Ashok version of Chaupa Singh's rehtinama has been changed to give chhiber Brahmins a more prominent role in the Panth. The Padam version is clearly more accurate. Laleshvari, that was a pathetic attempt at getting out of a blatant lie. Your "kes amrit" reference has been shown to have nothing, NOTHING to do with this topic. Even if we accept the version in Ashok, even then, this Kard-Amrit/Kes Amrit of yours was administered to men, and has nothing to do with being given to women. You have been discovered. Just admit you have no basis to your belief in Kirpaan Amrit for women. Next, I suspect you will begin to declare that amrit for women is wrong. Women and Men are both Khalsa of Satguru Gobind Singh. Both receive Khanday Kee Paahul and both keep the same Rehit. This is Khalsa. Khanday kee paahul for women has been acknowledged in various rehitnamas. Kirpaan amrit for women cannot be found anywhere. Please keep your sanatanist Brahmanized version of Khalsa to yourself.

Laleshvari, That's an awfully ignorant argument. Of course I havn't read all the Khalsa Dharm Shastar. I've read enough to know what it says in summary and who wrote it, and why etc. This is no puraatan granth. It's a book published around 1914. As for me taking things out of context; please give the context in which "low caste Sikhs" shouldn't bathe in the Sarovar and the context in which people in Guru lineages should be given special seating in darbaar and revered by all Sikhs. Please provide the context I'm missing. Stop beating around the bush: WHERE IN CHAUPA SINGH REHITNAMA IS KIRPAN AMRIT MENTIONED???? This is the traditonal debate method I've seen used by Lalesh. and Narsingh. Change topic, and when you've lost, try to end the debate by making some crazy demand "go learn english!" or "wait for the website to come out!" and now "go read a book that is out of print and largely unavailable!". Great technique. Just admit you have no point and let's move on.

lalleshvarai and Narsingh, If someone asks for a quote from a source ie. Where is "X" written? And the answer is "It's in Sree Guru Granth Sahib!!", that's not much of an answer. The person has to provide a direct quotation. I have read the Chaupa Singh rehitnama more than once and I have YET to come across any reference to Kirpaan Amrit. Either provide the quotations from this rehitnama with references, or admit you have lost this debate. I have no real issue with the "Amrit" article on kirpaan amrit. He has not tried to prove that this was some puraatan maryada, he has just explained what he saw and doesn't try to convince anyone that this is the correct method. "Actually, the writer of ‘Pram Satra Granth’ is trying to say that even ‘Kirpan Da Amrit’ was not allowed for the women. The ‘Charan Pahul’ was the valid baptism for them. " I have never heard of a Pram Satra Granth. I can't find it anywhere in any literature. If this is the only source for the concept of kirpaan amrit, then those quoting it must give some information on it. Where can it be found? Who wrote it? When? etc. The Khalsa Dharm Shaastar: That's a great document. Besides advocating caste, it also has interesting ideas like giving special seating arrangements for those in the lineage of the Gurus. And Narsingh: my approach to rehitnamas is the same as ALL scholars of Sikhism. Padam himself writes that he doesn't take any rehitnama in its totality and all we can do is compare between them and use them as supplementary texts. I expressed the purpose of referring to them: it was to show that multiple documents refer to khanday kee paahul for women, yet none, NONE refer to kirpaan amrit. I've had the same trouble with you before, please don't side-track the debate with other questions and information. Answer the question put to you: where is the reference to Kirpaan Amrit in Chaupa Singh rehitnama? What other proof do you have? Either answer these questions or admit you have lost this debate.

Narsingh, I'm pretty sure you're aware of my approach to rehitnamas. When looking at a rehitnama, I never accept or reject one in its totality. I use rehitnamas as supplementary documents. In this case, we were examining whether women receive Khanday Kee Paahul or Kirpaan Amrit. So looking at some older sources, we find that they mention khanday kee paahul for women, but kirpaan amrit is mentioned no where. I do not consider Prem Sumarag a document I would accept in its entirety as I don't agree with everything in it. But the fact remains that no where can I find any reference to kirpaan amrit anywhere, while references to khanday kee pahul for women can be found in different places. But please stick to the topic and answer the question: where is kirpaan amrit mentioned ANYWHERE.

Laleshwari, I havn't posted here for quite some time, but now I have to. Please show me where in the Chaupa Singh rehitnama it says anything about kirpaan amrit. Anywhere. It mentions this: "Jo Sikh, SikhNee noo(n) khanday dee paahul naa dayvay, so Tankhaiyaa" (105) meaning, "that Sikh who does not give khanday kee paahul to a female-Sikh, is a Tankhaiyaa". You keep whining about taking things out of context. You learned this phrase from some book and keept parroting it. Explain what part of the Chaupa Singh article was out of context. And please do offer the context it lacks. I have never, NEVER read about kirpaan amrit. I've read this in Prem Sumaarag about giving women Khanday Kee Paahul, "Fayr, Sikh kareeai, jougat naal paahul khandai kee deejeeai. Ar Ardaas kareeai: "Jee! Eh jee man bach karam kar Khalsay kaa jama pehar kay SikhNee hoee hai. Khushee karho! Jo Sree Akaal Purakh apnay marag kaa rang bakhshay. Anand saath rahai" Meaning, "Then, make her a Sikh, by giving her Khanday Kee Paahul with the proper method. Then do ardaas" "Lord! This one has by word and action taken on the form of a Khalsa and become your Sikhnee (female Sikh). Be pleased! May Akaal Purakh give her the divine colours of his path. May she live in bliss." Then you ask why Muslims/Christians don't get influenced by Hindu practices in that area. What are you talking about??? The Muslims of Bombay celebrate Diwali and are considered very Hinduised. Kung writes, "Hindu forms of song, postures, gestures, dances, decoration", and "appropriate texts from the Vedas, which attest to the transition of humanity to the transcendental dimension" have found a place in Christianity in India (Kung, 283). Christian missionaries lament how many "Christian" homes have idols of Hindu gods inside. Anyways, please do post some proof/evidence of the authenticity of kirpaan amrit. Arguments like "wait for the website" or "I don't like your English style" are not acceptable. Either show kirpaan amrit's authenticity or give up and continue to believe in this deviant practice privately.

Bhai Sahib Randheer Singh jee died peacefully and gave everyone his fateh and then took his swaas to dasam duaar with clear repition of gurmatnar a couple times. He had told those around him that the "sangat was calling him" and left. It was by no means a hard death. All this garbage of KeeRay in his mouth is utter nonsense. Baba Gurbachan Singh jee passed away at night. He had heart palpitations and desired to be taken inside. He too died in a Gursikh way by giving everyone his Fateh. He did NOT die doing Katha.

Ok Narsingh, Same option for you: you accept all of Kavi Santokh Singh's material or none of it. So which will it be? Ragmala was a hot topic of debate because Ragmala was added to beeRs at such a late date. It was something Kavi Santokh Singh had first hand knowledge of and he condemned its addition. Was Kavi Santokh Singh around when Guru jee supposedly took cannabis? Was he a witness? And according to this, Goolaba was the first Akali! Wow. So are you trying to say Guru Sahib was an "amlee" or drug addict? Kavi Santokh Singh wrote all this stuff from information heard 4/5th hand. He wrote on ragmala first hand. Which is more reliable?

Unfortunately, the doctored excuse doesn't work for Kavi Santokh Singhs work, since the Gur Partap Sooraj Granth was completed around 1843. A work that's that recent can be traced and the originals are available. Unfortunately the same can't be said about the rehitnamas. Sorry, but nice try.

Kavi Santokh Singh wrote that Ragmala was NOT Gurbani. And I quote from Sree Gur Partaap Sooraj Granth Raas3, Ansoo 48: "Ragmala sree Guru Krit neh, hai mundaavaNee lag gur bain. Is meh neh sansay kuchh kareeaih, jay sansay avilokoh nain. Madhavnal Aalam Kav keenas tis maih nritkaare keh tain. Raag raaganee naam ginai teh, ya tay Sree Arjan krit hai na||40|| " I'll translate the most important first line, "Ragmala is not the creation of Sree Guru..."

Jasdev Singh, I was wondering why the close companions of Bhai Sahib were never informed by him that he accepted ragmala? I think it's deluded to think that the Singhs in Jatha have some agenda to never accept ragmala, and if Bhai Sahib came to such a realisation, then he surely would have shared it with other close Singhs. But no. All the close companions continued to reject ragmala. Who was closer to Bhai Sahib then Baoo Mul Singh jee and Baba Surjan Singh jee? No one. They rejected ragmala. So then why didn't Bhai Sahib tell them? As for Bhai Jeevan Singh jee: was he to run away when ragmala was read? What would have been the suitable action? If you ask Bhai Sahib wether ragmala is baaNee he'll say it is not. And finally, regarding the parcheean to settle the ragmala issue: If this was a Panthic decision, why is this the first time I've ever heard of it? Why hasn't Akaal Takhat implemented this decision in the whole Panth? A Panthic decision is one where everyone is consulted and the outcome is made known to all and implemented. This was no panthic decision. And finally, I don't understand the concept of maas being a bujjer kurehit but then in some circumstances it being ok. That's like saying, cutting kes is a bujjer kurehit but if it comes down to saving your life, go for it. It's not really sensible. A bujjer kurehit is a bujjer kurehit isn't it? Regardless of circumstances.

I can't say anything about that saroop photographed unless the location of it is given and its history is also described. But if this saroop does have ragmala, I'm not sure what it proves. Panjab Times published a photograph of a saroop that had other non-BaaNee before ragmala appeared in an issue last fall. I have that photograph still. I know Singhs in India that have saroops without ragmala. See, at that time, people did indeed add extra things to saroops. Many saroops that are very puraatan have "siahhee kee vidh" or recipe for ink. Many others have the shabad "Jit dar lakh muhammadaa(n)" and others have Shabads by Mira Bai. These are all puraatan saroops, but have extra things added. Oddly enough though, ragamala always follows the extra stuff. Anyways, providing a picture of one saroop, without giving any information on the saroop is no proof of anything. Like I said, if this saroop has ragmala, others do not. Unless you're claiming this is the original Damdami Beerh, ragmala being present in this beeR proves nothing.