Question On Sikh & Khalsa

[shaheediyan]

"I don't have my translation of Bhai Gurdas Dhiya Vaaran by Bhai Vir Singh with me right now as I've given it to some one to borrow but I've seen him also make the same translation of this tukh (ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । ) as mentioned in this link. I am human and I can be wrong, but as far as I know all make the same translation of this tukh as I have mentioned. Your translation seems revisionist, not traditional."

Mithar - Bhai Vir Singh did some great seva for the Panth - but he himself was part of the 'modern' Sikh era, so if anyone was a revisionist - he was.

I have given the source of the Sakhi, you will need to check Darbari Rattan to see from where Padam Sahib referenced it.

[fatehsingh]

What is his arguments for not beliving so (apart from the anti-gurmat content included )

He just declared them unauthentic. No specific reason given. Perhaps he knew who fabricated them? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Mithar]

"I don't have my translation of Bhai Gurdas Dhiya Vaaran by Bhai Vir Singh with me right now as I've given it to some one to borrow but I've seen him also make the same translation of this tukh (ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । ) as mentioned in this link. I am human and I can be wrong, but as far as I know all make the same translation of this tukh as I have mentioned. Your translation seems revisionist, not traditional."

Mithar - Bhai Vir Singh did some great seva for the Panth - but he himself was part of the 'modern' Sikh era, so if anyone was a revisionist - he was.

I have given the source of the Sakhi, you will need to check Darbari Rattan to see from where Padam Sahib referenced it.

That doesn't prove anything Shaheediyan, you just replied with an ad hominem. You didn't reply addressing the issue, instead you attacked Bhai Vir Singh Jee for supposedly being born in the ‘wrong’ time period. If Bhai Vir Singh was born 10 or 20 years earlier that would make his views more legitimate? This is the first time I've seen someone's time period being used against them. Old does not always necessarily mean Gold. Have you read his work? Is there something in particular about his views that you do not agree with?

At for the Tukh ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ, even Giani Thakur Singh Jee of DDT has translated this tukh with Dekhiya meaning initiation. Surely now even DDT cannot be accused of the ‘crime’ of belonging to the modern world.

I have Darbari Rattan with me in my collection. I read the section of Bhai Nand Lal Jee. I did not see the Sakhi you mentioned. What page number is it on?Maybe I missed it.

[shaheediyan]

As I said, I have respect for Bhai Vir Singh for specific reasons - but anyone who writes critical editions of classic Sikh texts i.e. Suraj Prakash, Pracheen Panth Prakaash etc is a revisionist. His complete Victorian/Christian education had the same affect on him as it did on most other revisionist Singh Sabiya members.

Anyhow this is a different subject, everyone has there own opinion.

Please provide reference (audio/textual) to Giani Thakur Singh Jis transaltion, better still, if there is an older and more authentic Taksali view i.e. that of Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji. I don't have a problem with being proven wrong, on the contrary, I would be grateful.

Darbari Rattan, I have provided the page reference, see my previous posts.

[Guest]

I think despite of difference of opnions regarding bhai gurdas ji vara above. I think both parties can agree on one thing which is satguru/satgur/guru shabad in gurbani is been used to describe atamdev vahiguroo nirgun roop ishatdev- das guru sahiban along with gurdev- bhagat's gurdev unless you subscribe to giani ditt singh half baked theories which makes sikhi as another semetic religion.

[Mithar]

As I said, I have respect for Bhai Vir Singh for specific reasons - but anyone who writes critical editions of classic Sikh texts i.e. Suraj Prakash, Pracheen Panth Prakaash etc is a revisionist. His complete Victorian/Christian education had the same affect on him as it did on most other revisionist Singh Sabiya members.

Can you give any specific examples of where he has unjustly written editions of Suraj Prakash or Panth Prakash. I'm not aware that he made translations of those texts. He believed in Dasam Bani, Ragmala. In fact, if it wasn't for Bhai Vir Singh Jee's power and influence in the Panth at the time, Ragmala would have been taken out of the SGGSJ. His contributions to the area of language and literature through his novels and poetry are immense and still studied in universities across Punjab. Because of his vast knowledge he was nick named the 6th river of Punjab. This is just another (Ad hominem) fallacy of attacking someone's views by saying they are somehow influenced by victorian/christian elements instead of actually proving his views wrong, it's like beating a dead horse.

Please provide reference (audio/textual) to Giani Thakur Singh Jis transaltion, better still, if there is an older and more authentic Taksali view i.e. that of Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji. I don't have a problem with being proven wrong, on the contrary, I would be grateful.

So now even Taksal is different on the bases of time period??? How is this so? They still have the same nitnem, same ardas, same Gurbani ucharan and even the same dress code since the time of Sant Giani Gurbachan Singh Jee.

I heard Giani Takhur Singh Jee say this live in person while he was doing Katha on the importance of taking Amrit. I will try to find this Katha for you.

[tonyhp32]

Neo,

I have to disagree with you on this. Basically you are saying that for some there is no need to take Khanday Baatay da Amrit they can still call themselves Sikhs provided they take naam from a Brahmgiani. Now no one can doubt Guru Gobind Singh, as there was only one Guru Gobind Singh but which 'brahmgianis' should a Sikh take instead of Guru Gobind Singh? Can someone take that Sirsa Saadh fellow as many believe that he is a 'brahmgiani'?

Shaheediyan

That victorian argument is one used by our old wannabe Iranian friend. Just being critical of Sikh texts such as Sooraj Parkash doesn't make him revisionist. Are you saying that Sooraj Parkash is 100% accurate?

Although it is possible that Guru Gobind Singh did not give Amrit to Bhai Nand Lal or Bhai Ghanaiya but this does not preclude them having taken Amrit later in life. The descendents of Bhai Nand Lal were keshdharis during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The spiritual descendents of Bhai Ghanaiya became Keshdharis around the same time.

Using the Sakhi of Bhai Nand Lal to justify that some can still remain Sikhs without Amrit is faulty logic. There is a sakhi that many in the congregation of 1699 especially the high born Brahmins and Khatris refused to take Amrit saying that they would not leave behind the rites and rituals of their ancient religion. Now if Guru Gobind Singh was offering Amrit as a voluntary act then why would these people feel the need to protest against having to take Amrit? The same is the case of Sainapat's Sri Guru Sobha, some Sikhs of Delhi mainly Brahmins and Khatris socially boycotted some of their neighbours who had taken Amrit and returned to Delhi. This goes in the face of Khanday Baatay Da Amrit being a choice for a Sikh and not a requirement.

Guru Sangat Keeni Khalsa (var 41) It isn't Aadhi Sangat Keeni Khalsa!

[amardeep]

Some say that the reason Bhai Nand Lal and the recievers of the various non-singhs in the hukamnama were considered Khalsa was because they had taken Charan di pahul prior to 1699..

[tonyhp32]

Khalsa was a term that the Mughal emperors used for land that was in the direct control of the Emperor ie not farmed or leased out to someone else. The Emperor received the income direct from these villages without middlemen like the Chaudharis. The use of the term Khalsa by Guru Tegh Bahadur in his hukamnamas is in reference to Sangats who were in direct linkage to the Guru ie there was no Masand acting as an intermediary. In 1699 when the Khalsa was created this was not show that the Masands as a system were to be abolished and henceforth all Sikhs would have a direct relationship with the Guru. Even after 1699 the term Khalsa was still being used in the Hukumnamas for Sikhs who from their names it is clear that they had not taken Amrit but this is natural as the Guru would not deprive the old Khalsa Sikhs from being referred to as such after 1699.

[Guest]

Neo,

I have to disagree with you on this. Basically you are saying that for some there is no need to take Khanday Baatay da Amrit they can still call themselves Sikhs provided they take naam from a Brahmgiani. Now no one can doubt Guru Gobind Singh, as there was only one Guru Gobind Singh but which 'brahmgianis' should a Sikh take instead of Guru Gobind Singh? Can someone take that Sirsa Saadh fellow as many believe that he is a 'brahmgiani'?

I m not saying there is no need to take khanda da amrit. Please don't take me out of context. I am simply discussing that the fact that khanda da amrit is known as outer intiation- sanskar amrit, then naam amrit and bhramgyan amrit. Sant isher singh ji rara sahib talks about this along with many sants in the panth. As gurbani promotes the universal hood of man kind, it talks about naam amrit and bhramgyan amrit as there are different types of outer intiation for eg- bhagats were given sanskar amrit based on ritta/ravaz of their socio-religious culture. According to gurbani, they were sikhs.

Just to re-itrate what i said,

To live lifestyle of Khalsa/Singh as given by sri guru gobind singh ji maharaj, you must take khanda da amrit- (5 kakars, recite 5 baniya, mool mantar, naam abhyaas gurmantar, do nishkam seva)

To live lifestyle of Sikh you may or may not take khanda da amrit but as per gurbani but you must take gurmantar/naam mantar from puran bhramgyani/sant.

Sikhi from socio-religious context requires student to take khanda da amrit, encourages student to be Khalsa and have only one ishatdev which is sri guru granth sahib ji and beleive in all 10 guru's/khanda da amrit/rehat maryada.

Sikhi from wider context, same context where all the muslim and hindu bhagats were consider Sikhs in Gurbani. They were consider sikhs regardless of their various different types of initiations, socio cultural life style, rehni-behni, outer kriya, inner maryada. That is blunt truth no one can deny that. Ones who deny this very fact want to bind sikhi in their little box. But parkash of sri guru nanak dev ji sikhi destroy their little box that they live in, sikhi is anadi (aad sach, jugad sach, hai bhi sach, nanak hosi bhi sach).