SikhKhoj

Its true, used to happen. Don't know about now. But thats not Sikhi.

In that sense, yes. We could also argue that langar is cooked from the hands of both brahmins and shudras (all castes), and all castes consume it equally? It is a very weak argument imho.

1. Multiple people drink from langar pitcher too, I don't get your logic? 2. Yes same bowl as written in manuscripts which talk of Guru Nanak giving Charan Pahul.

​1. In langar you eat food made from same cauldron and drink water from the same pitcher too. So invalid argument. 2. Yes ofcourse? Do you think the Gurus gave charan pahul differently to people of different backgrounds?

Look, I have stated earlier on this very topic too that no single Sikh source is fully authentic. But when we pick the topic of Sehajdharis and quote from various sources, from various different times we can generally paint a picture about the concept of sahejdharis in Sikhi. I nowhere said that Sau Sakhi is acceptable, it contains the vilest and dumbest Sakhis BUT on the other hand it has the Mukatnama, Rehatnama and a few other Sakhis that have some value as 18th/19th century documents therefore we can't discard the whole source. The earliest copy of Rehatnama Chaupa is 1764, so even if I discard the possibility that it might have been written in the Guru Darbar the reality remains that the oldest copy we have is from the mid eighteenth century which is a quite old source. Therefore if it mentions something it can at times be a valuable statement of our panth in the 1760s if not earlier. anyways, TSingh on this forum earlier stated that sevapanthis were cleanshaven generally if I am not mistaken. He is quite an authority on the topic.

Why didn't the other Gurus initiate through Charan Pahul? How did they initiate new Sikhs then?

That manuscript lies in my hometown Ludhiana.

***

Could you elaborate on the 'comparative military history perspective' thing? On what basis did you term them 'skirmishes'?

Fascinated? lol. low standards

1. It would be wrong to call Guru Hargobinds battles mere 'skirmishes'. Skirmish is what happened during Guru Har Rais time. Some of 6th Patshahs battles involved more than just a few hundred soldiers. Commanders of the opponent side were killed and important Sikhs at our side were martyred too. 2. I agree that Khande di Pahul was intended to eliminate the bhed-bhav (caste discrimination etc) but didn't the Sangat Pangat did that before too? If the Gurus could ask emperors and high officials to first partake in langar sitting with the common people before seeing them, queens to remove their purdah etc then I doubt any other step were left to 'remove' discrimination. And Charan Pahul, the preceding form of Khande Di Pahul, was distributed to all regardless of caste too. Anyways seems like there was no major change post 1699 (or whatever year the ceremony happened) and Khande Di Pahul ceremony didn't happen out of nowhere but was a gradual event and thus not as important, path breaking as we deem it to be. Thats why Granths like Gur Sobha mention it so casually, some Granths even say Guru simply selected 5 people (Panth Parkash, Das Gur Katha etc) and 'created' the Khalsa.

Santokh Singh gives Karad in Trai Mudra while Sarabloh Granth and Naveen Panth Parkash give Kirpaan.

Can you elaborate on the difference between Trai Mudra and Panj Kakkaar? I know the Mudra is the Kach Kes Kirpan found in puratan Granths (as opposed to 'Kakkaar' which is found in more recent works). But what do you mean by 'difference' in regards to that? Shudaran Granth? Or Suddharm Granth by Bhup Singh?

There is an author who claims Guru Harkrishan had a group of soldiers and even deployed them once but he actually mixed it up with Guru Har Rai (author in question is the late Surjit Singh Gandhi) I have also talked to a scholar who claims Guru Hargobind actually inherited a group of bodyguards that later transformed into his army.

And some say Gurus prior to Guru Gobind Singh did not have long hair or turbans.

Can also have a kanghi lol

Haha not formal training. But they had to be strong... In any case I don't agree with the theory that village boys were trained (what anandpuria said). If Bidhi Chands training was prior to becoming Guru Ka Sikh it had to do with his dacoity days not village level.

Oh I completely missed out Anandpurias post. Shaster vidya simply means knowledge of weapons. The 'myth' that Baba Buddha taught Guru Hargobind also predated Niddar. Secondly you grew up in a 'Sikh' village or after Sikhi was revealed, don't think such sports were common amongst Hindus at those times, it existed but was rare. Bidhi Chand was a daku thus he must have had some kind of training even before joining the Sikh forces.

Is the Kangha also in Patna or elsewhere? The Kirpan is at which Gurdwara in Patiala?

^ bla bla bla

What has that got to do with the topic ?

I agree. Gokul Chand Narang put it beautifully when he said: "The seed, which blossomed in the time of Guru Govind Singh, had been sown by (Guru) Nanak and watered by his successors. The sword which carved the Khalsa's way to the glory was undoubtedly, forged by Guru Govind [Singh] , but the steel had been provided by Guru Nanak" I am aware of Guru Hargobinds Kachehra, Guru Tegh Bahadurs Kara. What else do you know of?

Very interesting questions & observations. I know of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's talwar. Where is Guru Tegh Bahadurs kept? It is quite possible that Guru Ji retained the kirpan that they used during earlier battles where they earned the name Tegh Bahadur. And I have only heard about Baba Buddha learning SV from Guru Nanak but have no sources for this. The Yudh Akhara was more about wrestling than training with weapons in my opinion, altough I have read bachans of Guru Angad contained within old Granths and they speak with alot of bir ras. I have read that some of the elder Sikhs with Guru Hargobind were instructed by Guru Arjan to train young Sahibzada Hargobind. And they had been Sikhs since 3/4th Gurus time. Maybe the akharas kept running? I am fascinated by this topic and it also negates people who claim that the mission of Guru Gobind Singh was different to that of earlier gurus.

There is this theory that 'perhaps because the Khalsa event just happened and it was fresh in peoples minds the authors did not deem it necessary to include details about the ceremony in the (near) contemponary sources'. It is not really a convincing theory, you could say that about most contemponary things the authors wrote, weren't those fresh in peoples minds too? Perhaps, it was simply because the divide in pre 1699 Sikhi to post was not deemed as big as we perceive it to be now?

It might sound a stupid question to some, but what are the main differences you see in Sikhi (psyche/soch, rehat, etc) that changed post Guru Gobind Singh administering Khandi Di Pahul. I am asking this because the more I delve into history (and oral sources) the more I notice that Khandi Di Pahul was not a complete u-turn from earlier traditions and Gurus. Some authors have 'criticized' Guru Gobind Singh ji for making Sikhi more militant and what not, but they forget that the first militant were Guru Nanak Dev himself. There are so many traditions we link to post Khalsa Sikhi that were actually in vogue prior to the Pahul ceremony too. A very important point came into my mind; perhaps this is why near contemponary sources do not lay that much stress on the first Khande Di Pahul ceremony as we wish to see? It is mentioned quite casually in some early Granths and it is only later that it is made into more details with added hoo haa. PS. I respect the Amrit Sanchaar ceremony and Guru Gobind Singh as much as all Gurus because they were all Nanak Jot so don't even try to get there. Dal, neo, amardeep, singh123.., chatanga, paapiman - give your opinions.