Niranjana Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 Q2) Do you really believe that the Kakkars all function as indentity markers? If that is so, it would appear that you imply i have not done a "research" on this subject myself, but this is what i have always been told, that they serve the purpose of identity markers, and ofcourse represent certain values as well. Bhai Gurdas talks about the keshara as the symbol of chastity, the rehitname talk about the symbolic value of kesh etc. ( 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? i actually thougth of this a few weeks ago, and a few weeks later i read neo singh on sikhsangat.com saying that when you reach a specifik level of spiritualy, then you can actually remove those kakaars etc, as there are no sin and virtues on that level. i found this to be the reason, that 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.. 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. i understand your point, but i was not saying that one should break the former rules in order to attain a "new identity". 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 btw. .the term "haram halal hajamat hookah" where is it to be found? i have not been able to find it anwyhere.. Taksal websites says it can be found in the Dasam Granth along with the mentioning of the kakars, do you know what bir they are talking about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 interesting,- i was not aware of these different compositions of banis and granths. but how do you interpret the hymns of Maharaj in sarbloh Granth talking about the nescity of "staying distinct" ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 i have tried to search for it and this website says it is from a rehitnama: http://www.sikhism101.com/printable/node/179 i found this quote on three other pages and they all use it as "proof" that women has to wear dastaar. they all say it is from a rehitnamma, so i guess i was wrong when i said it was from the Sarbloh Granth, i apologice for that. 2. i have read some of the arguments against the sarbloh granth and i considered all of them to be vague and based on personal subjective thoughts rather than objective scholarly arguments (language is pendu like etc). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted January 2, 2008 Report Share Posted January 2, 2008 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 2, 2008 Report Share Posted January 2, 2008 im sorry i have not been able to discover what rehitnama this tuk is taken from. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 amardeep, Do you not consider it a fundamental flaw (amongst our community) that a line such as this "tuk" you have quoted and is used by so many pacharaks and frequently on the internet by those who, for better or worse, are partaking in "sikhi parchar" and freely attribute such a line to Guru Gobind Singh without even knowing or citing it's source. Many, like the authors of the link you provided, position themselves as the upholders of "tat gurmat maryada" and seek to portray their interpretation of Sikhism (which arguably is a little over 50 years old) as the most authentic version of Sikhism today, are known for their frequent use of this quotation, yet they are unable to: (a) provide a reference for where this quote comes from ( if they do manage to do so (i.e. the Sarabloh Granth), they are unable to stomach the other implications of this same text for their wider agenda (i.e. much of this Granth will contradict their take on "tat gurmat maryada"). As per the Sarabloh Granth, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, writes in his Mahan Kosh under the entry Sarabloh Granth: "According to the researches of Pandit Tara Singh ji Sarabloh Granth is the composition of Bhai Sukha Singh who was the Granthi at Patna. He disclosed that he was given this Granth by an Avdhoot Udasi living in the bush in Jagannath and that he claimed it to be Guru Kalgidhar's composition. We (Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha)however, are also not prepared to accept this to be the composition ot Dashmesh ji because it mentions within it a composition called "Roop Deep Bhasha Pingal". Roopdeep was composed in Sambat 1776 ( 1719 AD) and Guru Kalgidhar ji passed away in Sambat 1765 (1708 AD). And further if this Granth is from earlier than the Amrit Sanskar (1699 AD) then how could it mention the Prasang (narrative) of (cration of)Khalsa and that of passing Guruship to Granth and Panth. And if this Granth is from after the Amrit Sanskar then why (Guruji refer to himself as) Daas Gobind or Shah Gobind names?" We can discuss Bhai Kahn Singh's commentary on another thread, however, sticking with your wider discussion concerning the purpose and practice of the Sikh Kakkars, I believe I have presented my thoughts on your questions/views, however if further discussion is desired, let's ask Neo Singh to create this into a new thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 yes please do that. it is a very interesting topic, i always assumed that the whole issue of distinct identity was started with the Gurus. Do you consider the Sarbloh Granth to be the works of Maharaj? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amrikingh Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 smokings bad phor juings! lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Kharag Singh Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 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. can anyone who has read shri satguru sarbloh granth tell us if there are any "mukhvaaks"in it, if there are then i think thats sufficient reason to believe that satguru sarbloh granth is shri dsatguru gobind sungh jis bani 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Kharag Singh Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 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. can anyone who has read shri satguru sarbloh granth tell us if there are any "mukhvaaks"in it, if there are then i think thats sufficient reason to believe that satguru sarbloh granth is shri dsatguru gobind sungh jis bani 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 everyone can write Sri Mukhvan Patshahe dasme...... this is not evidence though, as far as i recall, the charitro pakhyan does not start with sri mukhvak, and it is still gurbani though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Kharag Singh Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 then if thats the case then all bani can be pointed at with a crooked finger. Come on people lets have some bloody ekta, its funny how khalsa mahima is regarded bani but the ranth from which it comes from is being questioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.