randip singh

I see what you are saying. My intention wasn't to ridicule, but I can see how my abrupt style can be seen to be ridiculing. I will watch that in future. Thanks

Fatehsingh, this behaviour really is too much. You really have to learn some manners when writing on discussion boards. If you have evidence to the contrary then provide your sourse. Do not refer to me as talking "BS".

The point I am trying to make is that there is not a problem with the opposite sex i.e. they lead us into temptation, but the problem is within (which is pretty much what you have said). Kaam = obsession with sex. It is abnormal behaviour. It is not the basic desire to procreate, but something more than that. It is like a glutton with food. So averting one's eyes from teh opposite sex will not clear up the problem. I know people who are so obsessed with Kaam that they find the touch of leather starts their obsession with sex. Hope I have made myself clear.

Hmm I don't buy this or the examples. We need to differentiate between pure Love (which can occure between a man and woman), and Lust (Kaam) which can occur between a man and a woman. I don't buy all this looking down business. What next Burkha's for men and women?

Hmm I don't buy this or the examples. We need to differentiate between pure Love (which can occure between a man and woman), and Lust (Kaam) which can occur between a man and a woman. I don't buy all this looking down business. What next Burkha's for men and women?

I think many mistake the different emphasis reincarnation in Sikhi with the belief there is no reincarnation. A very learned man I met in India explained to me that reincarnation in Sikhi is akin to "matter cannot be created or destroyed but only changes form".

So true. I think the Singh Sabha movement was trying to stop Sikhi being absorbed into Hinduism, but some of the proponents may have gone a little far. Compounded by what happened in 1984 Hindu phobia seems rife. One only has to go onto sikhsangat or Panthic weekly to see this.

Correct but it gives an insight into the behaviour of Sikhs from other accounts. A long time since I read it, but I must have included it for a reason. In The Master Presence - The Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib is very interesting>>I started reading it today. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Masters-Presence-S...b/dp/0956016804

Stop getting personal!!! You brought Namdhari accounts into this and I have dismissed them based on the fact Namdhari's don't believe Guru Gobind Singh ji died when he did in the Deccan. Infact they believe Guru Gobind Singh didn't die until he was well over 100 years old and passed the mantle to Balak Singh: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aeKWQze...snum=5#PPA59,M1 You asked me to provide evidence I have, and I have full knowledge of Namdhari traditions through a relative in our village who succumb to Namdhari propaganda, and he himself has told me of the above. I am not saying Namdhari's are right or wrong, but for Namdhari's Hazoor Sahib would serve no purpose and therefore would not want to go there. Hence their writings on this matter hold no water. Going back to the thread I have provided a small reading list and sources which provide evidence of what I have stated. -Joginder Singh Moni - Sri Hazoori Maryada Prabodh. -Khuswaqt Rae, Twarikh-e-Sikhan (1812) - Sikh History from Persian Sources - Irfan Habib and Dr JS Grewal (2001) - The People of India - J Forbes Watson and William Kaye (1868-72) - A Journey From Bengal to England, thriough the Northern Part of India, Kasmere, Afghanistan and Persia and Into Russia, by the Caspian Sea - George Foster (1798) - In The Masters Presence - The Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib (2009) One final point, I note you normally write some quite intelligent remarks and insulting someone like this does not do you justice. I will acknowledge Mithar's point of the influence of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Sikh's around the 1840's. I do wonder though about Maharaja Ranjit Singh sometimes and hsis adoption of some Brahmanical traditions (eg Sati).

Well as Mithar pointed out, some of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Sikhs came some 20 to 30 years earlier. Maybe they added some practices. Also where are your sources for this and what are these "conflicting reports"?. In anycase Joginder Singh Moni kept a pretty good record of traditions - Sri Hazoori Maryada Prabodh. No offence but Namdhari traditions hold no water. Namdhari's should not even believe in Hazoor Sahib because they believe Guru Gobind Singh never died at that time so there is no point to Hazoor Sahib. In anycase there are records from teh 1800's that record tradition (and prior to that and they totally debunk the Namdhari's): -Khuswaqt Rae, Twarikh-e-Sikhan (1812) - Sikh History from Persian Sources - Irfan Habib and Dr JS Grewal (2001) - The People of India - J Forbes Watson and William Kaye (1868-72) - A Journey From Bengal to England, thriough the Northern Part of India, Kasmere, Afghanistan and Persia and Into Russia, by the Caspian Sea - George Foster (1798) There are many many more records from the time and they all would disagree with you accounts. I also understand In The Master Presence - The Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib has many references in the back, but I haven't had a chance to look through as yet.

The interesting thing about Hazoori Sikhs is that they have been unblemished by the inroads Vaishavism and Dera Culture have made into Punjabi Sikhism. Hazoori's are descended from the original Sikhs who accompanied the 10th Master some 300 Years ago to the Deccan. They have carried on traditions unblemished since that time. I know that Punjabi Sikhs have been blemished, because my own family who are a long lineage of Amritdhari Sikhs, describe how in the 1920's and 1940's Namdhari's and then AKJr's tried hard to stop Amritdhri's in our village from doing Jhatka (my family are not Nihangs but ordinary tillers of the soil). Our family politely told them to "get lost". I heard this from our Grandfathers brother. He said it was as if these Namdhari's and then AKJ people were trying to compete with Brahmin's as to who is the more purer. My Grandfather and his Thya's answer was simple, "we shall not play the Brahmin's game of purity and we shall not give up our Sant Siphahi (Sikh Warrior Saint) tradition!". Alas many people in Punjab are trying to play the Brahmin purity game. Regards

Yes precisely. No to Sacrifice Yes to Jhatka

Tilak is seen a blessing too, if I am not mistaken?

Do Namdhari's believe in the Gurudwara at Hazoor Sahib, because surely they cannot if they believe Guru Gobind Singh ji lived on?

OK. The Guru's were from Kshatriya/Khatri lineage. The tradition of Jhatka would not have been alien to their lineage. Jhatka has been used in India for thousands of years for: 1) Just killing and animal for food 2) Demonstrate a warriors prowess with a sword (similar to what Samurai's would do) 3) Kill an animal for sacrifice (Bali) Jhatka would be used in all 3 areas, but for a Sikh an animal killed in sacrifice is not permissible. Forms of sacrifice are Halaal, Bali, Kosher (collectively known as Kuttha and mistakenly just thought of as Halaal). The aim of these sacrifices is to ennoble the flesh. The Sikh Guru's took an enlightened view on this and stated, how can mere men ennoble or purify further something created by God? The same would apply to even vegetarian food which is sometimes purified in various ceremony's. The Guru's would laugh at such folly. Now going back to the author: Those who advocate vegetarianism among Sikhs is deliberately overlooking the provisions of Sikh Rehat Maryada, which clearly prohibits consuming Kuththa (halal meat) and does not in any manner prevent Sikhs from being non-vegetarians. It is the discretion and liberty of Amritdharis to consume meat, if they choose to do so. Also, any Sikh, who chooses to be vegetarian, is welcome to remain so, but it is foolhardy, naïve and wrong to attempt to amend the Sikh religious ethos according to this choice. He is not saying Jhatka should be banned, but rather saying this is Jhatka and is NOT sacrifice (Bali). As the Following book state: We must give the rationale behind prescribing jhatka meat as the approved food for the Sikhs. According to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke of the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption. However, with the coming of Islam into India and the Muslim political hegemony, it became a state policy not to permit slaughter of animals for food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran - the kosher meat prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the throat of the animal while reciting verses from the Quran. It is done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter. Guru Gobind Singh took a rather serious view of this aspect of the whole matter. He, therefore, while permitting flesh to be taken as food repudiated the whole theory of this expiatory sacrifice and the right of ruling Muslims to impose iton the non-Muslims. Accordingly, he made jhatka meat obligatory for those Sikhs who may be interested in taking meat as a part of their food. Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press and also And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not. Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers. When I went to India two years ago, I asked various people these very questions and the answers that came back were very clear. Sikh's do not sacrifice/purify in the name of God. Whener, a Sikh has food he (veg or non-veg) he gives thanks to God. A subtle but VERY important point.

Put it in context. All tilak is/was a method of passing leadership from one person to another. Used by Kings and Warriors of that time. Probably pre-dates Hinduism. Just a ceremony, like for example a Knighthood.

oh dear, please doon't call me a Bhai or eople will start making offering at my house and start worshipping me. I must admit I am anti-Bhai/Jatha/Baba type organisations, and I wasn't actually thinking about AKJ specifically when I wrote this, but some other organisations.

I must admit I find the actual personalities I have met of some Namdhari's I have met to be truly odious, but that is not to say all Namdhari's are bad. Some of their traditions focus to much on personality, and they use the word Guru to describe their leaders, but is that any different from these Jatha's that have so called Bhai's/Sants as leaders. All you have to do is substitute Bhai/Sant for Guru as a word.

Most of the people I know refer to Panthic Weekly as "Nindya" Weekly! Incidently, I have read Niddar Singh/Parmjit Singh's book "In The Masters Presence - Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Masters-Presence-S...b/dp/0956016804 and it seems to be very well researched and put together. A good job all round.

Precisely (and all his Avtars for which some say the Guru's are).

Ekh Musafir Ji but seriously http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html#what

Problem with Jatha's and Sant believers is just this as you have stated. They started off as the united Waheguroo network and have slowly fragmented into sects further and further. They do not concerned about the welfare of the Panth as a whole or the SRM but just their own paartisan agenda's. The are anti-Nihang, anti-SRM, anti-Akali, anti-Meat, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, anti-Mona, anti-this, anti-that, but what are they positive for and actually for? But where is this the Gurmatta (Consensus)? Are they actually for anything? Unfortunately this is the sad state of Sikh affairs on sikh sangat. That at Panthic.org (nindya.org) are just bad news and it is best to stay well away. Regards

There are are that many Bhai's Sant's and Baba's I tend to lose track. :-) Actually there is a massive difference between a Vegetarian Sikh who accepts the SRM and a Vashnavite. It is like the Sun and the Moon. Examples of vegetarian Sikhs are Aman Singh (SPN), N30 Singh. Examples of Vaishnavites Ekh Musafir ji. Like N30 Singhji says, pm me about my signature. Regards

I do not doubt the intention, it is just we have to be careful. In the case I highlighted of Bhai Randhir Singh and Dr Ganda Singh 2+2= 4, but they did not consider it maybe 2-2 =0 or 2/2 = 1. It is human nature, and I am the biggest one guilty of it when I am doing my research. It is only when I cross refernce I usually find the truth.

There is no burden of proof on me because I seek to prove nothing. I am merely reiterating what the author said, and I am more inclined to believe an academic researcher than someone on the internet. You also assume too much, I have read Bhai Randhir Singh's autobiography, of which some parts I find outrageous (meeting with Bhaghat Singh), to downright comical (theories on why teeth get eroded). As you can see I am not a big fan of his, but then again there were many of his ilk around at that time. Incidently there is a presentation here on the development of the Sikh Code of Conduct and another Bhai Randhir Singh ( or is it the same one) seems to sit along Dr Ganda Singh: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6375523/Kirpal-S...hsabha-Sikhswim Could it be the same one who walked out over the "Kuttha" issue? Maybe not, probably yet another Bhai Randhir Singh and there must have been 20 or so Bhai Randhir Singh's running around at that time with similar agenda. :rolleyes: The point still stands, the Hukamnama was never verified, and the "Bhai Randhir Singh" (whoever he was out of the hundreds running arund at the time), seemed to take the Hukamnama as gospel. Recent research have shown these Hukamnama's (in Dr Ganda Singh's book) to be fake's or not verified (as shown in the book mentioned above).