Niranjana

Neo: "according to viakaran- yes but according to adhyatamic arth or uthanka- NO!." 1. Please could you define in English the terms "viakaran", "adhyatamic", "arth" and "uthanka". 2. Please could you explain the difference between "Beej" and "Mool" and also define "Pra Poorbala". Thanks, N.

Neo: "according to viakaran- yes but according to adhyatamic arth or uthanka- NO!." 1. Please could you define in English the terms "viakaran", "adhyatamic", "arth" and "uthanka". 2. Please could you explain the difference between "Beej" and "Mool" and also define "Pra Poorbala". Thanks, N.

karmjeet, SMS above asked: "<<if>> Please could you expand on this point, what exactly does "Increasing your Personality" mean? What is one's "tej" or "parkash"? This is rather unclear... " That was back in 2004, it is now 2008, please could you shed some light on the matter?

This is the same Baldev Singh as the "Taboo of Halal meat for Sikhs" chap - I have made my views clear on this 'writer' under that thread. Laal Singh - thanks for the Prof. Sahib Singh quote.

Shaheediyan, The Halal ("Kuttha") item has long been taboo amongst the Sikhs and the repeated insistence of this within rehitnama literature and its current position within the Sikh Rehit Maryada should serve as a final and unifying seal on the matter.

Shaheediyan, The Halal ("Kuttha") item has long been taboo amongst the Sikhs and the repeated insistence of this within rehitnama literature and its current position within the Sikh Rehit Maryada should serve as a final and unifying seal on the matter.

amardeep, The language (not to mention the analysis) on the link you provided is also "based on personal subjective thoughts" and suffers from being tainted with "pendu like" language - then again, it is hardly surprising, given it is little more than a revisionist "sikh women must wear a turban" because they are "equal" website. Which rehitnama is the quote taken from and have we considered the contents of the rehitnama in totality? Please could you indicate the rehitnama and its author. The question of the Sarabloh Granth was brought up since the contents of this Granth are often used by various revisionist and "traditional" groups when it suits them and ignored when it doesn't (in which case they usually begin to cast doubt on its authenticity!), much like the use of the quote above.

Baldev Singh is the primary example of the modern day "Bhasauria" mindset, where anything remotely sounding "Hindu" gets him uptight and out comes his pseudo-intellectual knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. This man denies the Sri Dasam Granth being Sri Mukhvak Gurbani and has several non-issues with the Sikh Rehit Maryada such as that highlighted above. With all due respect for him as an elderly man, it is best to ignore him - he is the typical retired "pharmaceutical research scientist" who thinks his academic achievements in a completely unrelated field qualify him to be some sort of scholar on Sikhism. Another character of similar nature is the much celebrated Pritpal Singh Bindra, who: "In the UK he taught at the Secondary Technical School, Willsdon, London, N.W.10 for two years, 1961-63, and later went into his own business of Motor and Commercial Insurance" And now is lauded as an eminent scholar on the Dasam Granth (he is firmly in the anti-Dasam Granth camp and his writings are intended to somehow alarm the reader into this mindset).

amardeep, Before we discuss that item, are you sure that this "tuk" you have quoted is in fact from the Sarabloh Granth? The next obvious question that arises is what makes the Sarabloh Granth the legitimate writings of Guru Gobind Singh? We cannot ignore these two questions with regard to your above post.

amardeep, For the 'indentity' explanation, here is an article which will run through these items: http://www.amritworld.com/eng/articles/amrit/trai_mudra.html "kakaars and outer apperance are elements one wears on one of the first levels of sikhi where one is still "entangled" by rehat and rituals etc, and later on it is ok to remove without breaking any rehit" Neo Singh is better placed to explain himself, however I think most Sikhs, of any "avastha" will have an issues with the above statement. "look at naamdharis for instance. their "new" identity is a special tied turban, and they still keep their kesh along. they havent breaken any rehit in doing so, and still we are able to regocnice them in a crowd" This doesn't really mean very much, since Namdharis, Nihangs, Nirmalas, Neeldharis etc are simply sampradhas, sects, jathas etc present within the Sikh People, not a brand new religion in themselves, whereas Radhosoamis, Nakli Nirankaris etc are distinct religions as you can see no external markers are deemed necessary for these religions. "the term "haram halal hajamat hookah" where is it to be found?" This can be found in a set of Svaiyaye which are considered by "mainstream" scholars not to form part of the Dasam Granth, however one can find copies of the Dasam Granth with this Shabd, just like it is easy to found copies of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib with Rattan Mala and other compositions, or even copies of the Sri Dasam Granth with Jaap Sahib composed of 200 verses rather than the standard 199 or with Uggardanti included within its main body.

Malwe da sher, Taking each item in turn: "History suggests that only 6 paureea have been in Rehras Sahib since begining. I havent come across any old gutkay where Rehras Sahib has full anand sahib, this is not an area of debate but rather of personal choice" How does History suggest this? What you are doing is the classic mistake of placing your historical marker half way through the timeline! History in fact would indicate that the original Rehiras Sahib is as appears in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, hence no Chaupai or Anand Sahib! These and the various later (and preceding shabds ahead of the Sodar Pauri) were added later by various individuals and institutions. I see no problem with this, however let's get our basic facts straight as per history. "On the contrary, history suggests that Choupai Sahib in Rehras never stopped before 'kirpa kari hum bur jug mata*'. Unless I have missed a collection of puratan gutkay which have rehras sahib with shortened choupai sahib." As above, and this doesn't answer the question that why "historical" sampradhas all have variations in the point at which they start the Chaupai Sahib and end it, compare the liturgy of the Nihangs (argubly the longest) with Nanaksarias (who can also argue for a maryada relating back to Thakt Hazoor Sahib) with the Taksalis (who have their own claim to history) with the Namdharis (another group who can lay claim to "Hazoori Maryada") and so on and so forth. Underlying point being that made above, history would appear to point to the Rehiras being changed frequently over the course of time and most of these changes being made post the Guru Period. "By who? Why? and how the Choupai Sahib was shortened is what the sampradavas have a problem with. Agreed that this may have become a wider political issue; however, that does not mean one should ignore the truth of the matter." I feel you are missing the crux of the argument, the Chaupai Sahib is not shortened, the last two stanzas are argubly references rather than the "prayer" itself. I have asked several questions above which are more than valid, if one is to adopt your mindset and rationale, please answer those (FYI. I personally, thought exactly along the same lines as you for several years, further research into the subject would indicate that this is a totally fruitless argument and 100% politically motivated). "The same arguement does not apply here (same as arril) and to suggest it does is nothing short of ridiculous, a fundamental error" Please explain why you do not consider this to apply?

If this is the case, then let's clean up our own house first: STOP ALL NAGAR KIRTANS!!! There is no protocol or maryada justifying this practice, even the illustrious revisionist preacher Manvir Singh Khalsa in his account of the origins of this "Maryada" shows it to arise from "parbhat pheris" organised by lo and behold, the AKJ! The AKJ are a 20th century organisation, hence any maryada originating from them can hardly lay claim to being authentic! Nagar Kirtans "expose" Sri Guru Granth Sahib to the public where there is no control over who is smoking, has their head uncovered, is drinking, wearing shoes, etc etc etc, yet every year Sikhs of all communities, jathas, sampradhas, organisations etc all flock for these "nagar kirtans", which are a joke to be frank and do more harm than good (i.e. disrupt traffic, which in itself poses health risks and problems for the emergency services, not to mention problems for businesses and other services having their roads closed down, before we even get to the subject of that awful noise that get blared out over the loudspeakers when XYZ Singh decides to "shout" rather than "talk" into the mic! Oh, and let's not forget the piles of super healthy "vegetarian" food that gets served - what are they called, yes, Samosas, Pakoras, Bhaturas!!!). Why are we busy fighting families and making a public mockery of our community in the press through the various "acronym(ed)" organisations of Chardi-Kala Sikhs, if they are really concerned about these issues, then let's face facts and sort out our own institutions - these Nagar Kirtans are fully supported by the very same people who oppose the activities highilghted in the main post!

Shaheediyan, There are two kirpan created by Victorinox, the smaller one appears to be fair enough in terms of balance and weight and quality of the blade, particularly when compared to "Taksali" and "SGPC" kirpans.

Laal Singh, you asked/wrote: "Do you really want me post this erotic story?" I think we are all adults here, so why not - please bring forward your sources. "You don't hear word 'context' with Buddha and Jesus's life histories that much" This doesn't nullify the need for putting things in context! I can find numerous shabds (From the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) for you which will make items of Rehit such as keeping Kesh, giving Daswand, wearing kakkars etc seem unnecessary and even 'anti-Sikhi" yet you will be the first to argue for keeping things in context. I fail to understand the rationale behind your statement.

Shaheediyan, I will try to locate a more definite reference for you, however in the meantime, I trust the following will help you with your own searches: As you may be aware, Gurdwara Baba Atal Sahib in the earlier parts of last century was used as a cremation ground and had surrounding it numerous "samadhs", particularly for notable Sardars, Sants and Warriors. Following the Gurdwara being taken over by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee in August 1921, in order to widen the "parikrama", the majority of these samadhs were demolished, fuelled in part by the rationale described above, that Sikhi does not permit one to worship Samadhs and Graves. Bhai Vir Singh is reported to have admonished this act stating that whilst Sikhi doesn't permit worshipping Samadhs etc, those that existed were a memory to great personalities worth honouring and this act is akin to immense disrespect. I believe amongst those that are still to be found include those belonging to Jassa Singh Ahluvalia and Nawab Kapur Singh.

amardeep, Always happy to discuss, but first a few more questions to you: You wrote: " think it is from the Sarbloh Granth but i am not sure" Q1) Please could you double check and locate the precise source for the quotation being used. "That is why i said that i think of religion X starts to keep kesh and dastaar and wear 5 Kakaars, then it will be allowed for sikhs to make "new kakaars" so that once again we will look distinct from these new people" Q2) Do you really believe that the Kakkars all function as indentity markers? If that is so, it would appear that you imply: (a) Guru Gobind Singh 'invented' the Kakkars, since to serve as 'indentity markers' they would have had to be totally unique as at 1699 - is this what you believe to be the case? If so, please clarify your rationale and/or support with necessary sources. ( Sikhism implicitly makes its followers develop a tribalistic identity and make a show of their religious beliefs. However, numerous verses in both the Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Sri Dasam Granth Sahib point to the folly of keeping external garbs and costumes - what do you make of this seeming contradiction between scripture and practice? "outer apperance was to prohibit sikhs to hide among crowds" Q3) This is fine rationale, but it only goes so far - I mean, let's put it in context today. The standard UK "Trim Singh" with his starched black turban and neat trimmed beard is more than identifiable as a Sikh to the masses, despite not bearing all the Kakkars (i.e. in most cases Kirpan and Kachera) and violating the Kesh by trimming his beard, therefore arguably the need for all the Kakkars is nullified by simply wearing a turban (even a starchy "hardhat") even though one may not adorn the other kakkars or even maintain kesh in its proper format? Using your rationale, that the kakkars are markers of identity and that if "religion X starts to keep kesh and dastaar and wear 5 Kakaars, then it will be allowed for sikhs to make "new kakaars" so that once again we will look distinct from these new people", presumably a dastaar is enough today to be identifiable as a Sikh, since no one else wears one (and if they do, it is rarely one that looks anything like those worn by modern day Sikhs)? I can go on, however I'm sure you get the picture.

"commong guys, whats funny about it?" Nothing funny about Kirpans, but everything about you is hilarious!!!

Malwe da Sher, The same applies, the last two stanzas refer to the composition and the Granth itself rather than being the 'prayer' per se. This argument is going to be fruitless, since the Sikh Rehit Maryada aims to set 'minimum standards', hence discussions like this and the meat vs. vegetarianism, keski etc are all a grand waste of time. The Sikh Rehit Maryada can, if Sampradhas and Jathas got off their high-horses, unify the Sikh populace quite easily as their individual rehits and quirks (vegetarism, keski, colours, bibek, Sant or no Sant etc) can all be considered elaborations and developments on top of the basics eluded under Sikh Rehit Maryada. If we turn it on its head and accept that the Sikh Rehit Maryada is absolutely wrong in its setting out of the Nitnem, then Sampradhas, Jathas and Organisations should address the following: 1. Why is it acceptable to cut and paste only portions of the Anand Sahib in the Rehras? This then leads to the contentious issue raised by the famed 3HO, to recite 5 only or all 40 pauris or to recite 5 + last pauri? 2. Why do the various Sampradhas have their own quirks on the composition of Nitnem? And, if for purposes of discussion, we assume that the Buddha Dal Nitnem is the most authentic since they have been "proven" to be the 'original form of the Khalsa', then why do they cut and paste only portions of the Jap-ji Sahib and Jaap Sahib in their Kirtan Sohila? What premise is available for doing this? Why does the Rehiras in the Buddha Dal gutka choose selectively portions of the Dasam Granth which in themselves are incomplete with respect to the compositions from which they are taken? 3. Presumably the Taksali and Nanaksaria Rehiras is incorrect, since they also cut short the preceding Chaupai and Dohra ("Mahakaal ki saran..." etc), however these two institutions are also quick to jump on the anti-Sikh Rehit Maryada bandwagon? Fundamentally, this is a non-issue, which has been hijacked by certain Sampradhaic/Jatha/Organisation political elements to vie for their rule over the Akal Thakt or by the new-age Bhausauria rationalists to justify their stupidity in "rejecting" parts of Bani which contradict their petty mindset. There is no 'rejection' here, it is a very simple matter being unnecessarily politicised.

Laal Singh wrote: "If you ask hindus about character of Krishna (he lied, he raped, he decieved as per hindu scriptures). Still they will say it was his Leela" Please could you show where Krishna "raped" anyone and what you understand by the term "Leela"? "Similarly if you ask muslims, they will start talking about contexts. Recently one of my cousin asked me why Guru Gobind Singh had more than one wife" What is wrong with 'contexts'? Your posts do not appear to make your issue with taking things into context clear? Also, what is the problem with Guru Gobind Singh, Guru Har Rai and Guru Hargobind Sahib Jee have more than one wife? "You must have heard about a sakhi where Guru Gobind Singh moved his spear a little to pay respect to a Samadh and sikhs objected to it. I am not bashing Islam. But you should learn about truth" Laal Singh, this Sakhi aimed to assess blind faith and not have any objection to Islam. Early Khalsa rehitnamas clearly show that Sikhs are not to attach themselves to Graves and Samadhs, but taking the whole thing out of context was exactly why numerous Sikhs from villages in Punjab during the Singh Sabha heydays smashed numerous Samadhs of various Shaheeds to which even Bhai Sahib Vir Singh Jee had to object as wreckless activity.

Where are Baba Deep Singh's Gutkas? Please also look into the rise of Baba Deep Singh and his shaheedi in the Sikh public eye and when and how this happened (i.e. please show the earliest reference to Baba Jee).

Who removed it? This is typical sampradha-influenced petty politics: 1. If not reciting the Arill after the Chaupai Sahib is tantamount to "removal", then surely all are guilty of "removing" a large portion of the Anand Sahib when reciting it in its shortened form?!!! Or the JapJi Sahib, when only reciting the first 5 stanzas or the last pauri! 2. The Arill is a reference to the text rather than the devotional content of the text, which is the real reason for it not being a mandatory piece for recitation. What has happened since, is a mix of Sampradha-driven politics and Bhasauria influenced parchar both clouding the issue for their own base ends.

"But I have also heard whoever is a nitnemi of Japji Sahib path , they will never get possessed by a Ghost" This statement can be found in the Suraj Prakash Granth of Bhai Santokh Singh, he actually makes the following quite clear: 1. Jap Ji Sahib Nitnem is a basic must for any Sikh of any description. 2. One who recites Jap Ji Sahib daily will never be affected by possessions etc. 3. Therefore, if one is affected by such things, then that one is by definition, not a Sikh. That probably clarifies the 19th century Sikh "view" on the subject.

sant khalsa, What jurisdictional powers Nihang Niddar Singh may or may not have on the Buddha Dal in any of its outfits is really of no significance to this debate. The bottom line is that the Buddha Dal amrit sanchars and langars in Hindustan have the above mentioned practices of singling out the "Chautha Paur", what Nihang Niddar Singh does or doesn't do is of no influence on this wider aspect, likewise if the revered Baba Sukha Singh, Buddha Dal UK himself may not ascribe to such practices is also of no consequence as that is simply Baba Jee demonstrating his outlook as a Gursikh, it doesn't change the fact that the Buddha Dal, the "true form of the Khalsa (Tat Khalsa" and the "Ladli Fauj" of Guru Gobind Singh undertake the practice of caste discrimination in their langars and amrit sanchars. Nihang Niddar Singh was bought up here, since he does not deny the existence of the "Chautha Paur" within the Buddha Dal, what his personal status is on the issues mentioned above really doesn't matter, he has witnessed the above and spoken about it freely (even justifying it!)

"It came to me as a surprise that there are'nt any websites that goes into details on certain philosophical issues on Gurmat" This is an issue I have as well. Every other religious group will have 1001 sites about the basics and external aspects of their beliefs, but one can find websites about their Philisophy, Metaphysics, Vedant, Sidhant etc etc, however all Sikhi websites simply love to reduce "Gurmat" down to the following: 1. External Rehit - 5 Ks and then some elaborations into over-analysed and often pseudo-scientific rationale for these items and sometimes even others (the sarablohias are the best for bringing everything back down to this one item!) 2. Do your paath and don't be bad!!! And that's about it!!!

w-bol and karmjeet, Thank you! You are just proven my point from the earlier debate - it's just funny to see you are both unable to see it!!!