Panjvan Takht

[Guest Javanmard]

It is now known that the Nihang order or sampradaya considers itslef to be the cakravarti or moving fifth takht keeping the dynamic and interactive nature of Sikhi together. This conception colides with the SGPC's declaration in 1963 od Damdama Sahib as the fifth Takht. As such this declaration does not have historical foundations.

Why four building-takhts and one human-takht.

I tought a long time about that. Then one evening when I was quite bored I watched the 5th element and suddenly I understood. Remember how at the end they discover that the fifth element is the girl??? and not a "thing".

The interaction between the four element and the girl brought about the salvation of mankind. I think that with the Panjvan Takht we are dealing with a similar idea, the idea of interaction between the Guru Panth and the Guru Granth, the need for Sikhi to remain in our hearts and not just in buildings. Having the Panjvan Takht as human takht implies an everlasting dynamisms that brings the other four takhts alive. The living Khalsa as the throne of Akal Purakh

pyar

[CaNaDiAn_jAtTi]

Wow, that is one deep thought....but it makes a lot of sense in that, if the takhts are all buildings, then the foundation for sikhism would become very mechanical (which is what is actually happening if u look at the avg sikh)... Ppl in control will twist words and bani to manipulate the people, hence the original meaning of sikh and khalsa is mainly lost upon the younger generations...

And one should realize that our Guru Ji was an extremely smart and he had obvious foresight....

If the 5th Takht is a moving one with people involved, it would keep the spirit of sikhism, of khalsa alive... as well they would be much closer to Guru Ji himself, if he's the one to have bestowed such an honor on them....

Mate, Ur incredible smart, and I love reading ur posts....

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

lalleshwari

For someone who seems to have researched a lot of Sikhi I am surprised by your post. Do you actually know when the term takht came into being ?. There was only one Takht ( Akal Takht ) well into the 19th century. Hazur Sahib, Keshgarh Sahib, Harmandir Sahib at Patna and Talwandi Sabo were not Takhts. I think your post is meant more as a justification for the likes of Narsingha than any serious attempt at research.

The fact that comes out is that if there was only One Takht upto the 19th century then there is no justification for a Nihang 'Panjva Takht'. Obviously the 'Panjva Takht' of Nihangs is of recent vintage and wasn't created by Guru Gobind Singh as you seem to imply.

GurFateh

Bikramjit Singh

[Guest]

*Ahem* I agree, exactly what I was going to say :shock:

[CaNaDiAn_jAtTi]

Damn...obviously my history isn't my strongest subject...

Oh well...then when were the other 4 takhts brought into the picture and why????

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Up Until the late 19th Century only One Takht, the Akal takht existed. All political decisions effecting the Sikhs were decided there by the process known as Sarbat Khalsa.

The most important aspect of a Takht is it's decision making and decision enforcing aspect. This was always done at the Akal Takht. This is done through a Hukumnama.

Hazur Sahib was not considered a Takht until the 1920's. In a letter written in 1901 to endorse Bhai Kahan Singh's book 'Hum Hindu Nahin', the Pujaris refer to the place as Sri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib. There is no mention of it being a Takht. Although the Gurdwara at Muktsar sent a Hukumnama as endorsement of the book and refers to Muktsar Sahib as Bada Darbar Sahib and as a Takht.

Sri Keshgarh Sahib was under the control of the Sodhis for a long time upto the 1920's. Although they also sent Hukamnamas but only in the late 1880's and not before that.

The Harmandir Sahib as Patna refered to itself as Takht Darbar Hazur Sri Harmadir Sahib in a Hukumnama to Bihari Sikhs in the villages around Kantnagar in 1862.

So the contention is this. Upto about 1862 no 'Takht' other than Akal Takht issued a Hukumnama or declared itself to be a Takht. Akal Takht was the only Takht in existence from 1606 until 1862. Other places started to issued Hukumnamas and to refer to themselves as Takhts only in the last 140 years or so. It was only with the Akali movement in the 1920's that the other three Takhts of Keshgarh Sahib, Patna Sahib, Hazur Sahib were recognised. So for the Nihangs to now have a 'fifth' Takht it follows that it must be only since the 1920's that they have been referring to themselves as such. So Lallesvari is on shaky ground trying to imply that the Nihang Takht was a creation of Guru Gobind Singh.

GurFateh

Bikramjit Singh

[Guest Javanmard]

Dear friends,

the facts you have presented are right but you seem to forget one very very important thing: oral history and traditions. India has a very strong tendency for oral tradition, meaning that the written documents very often reflect oral traditions that existed before. When the Nihangs declare themselves as panjvan Takht this does not mean that they just did it recently. The only reason I am saying that Damdama Sahib as a Takht is contested is because the only mention of it as a Takht is in P. Tara Singh Narotam's Gur Tirath Sangrahi. Now this can mean two things: either he did a mistake or Damdama Sahib had to be considered as the headquarters of the Nihangs as a chakravarti Takht. I am glad you responded so well to the topic, your research is well ground but I would just like to remind you of this fact. The facts that you present are dangerous in the sense that one might see the Takhts as just a modern construct. This is what lead Prof. Gurinder Singh Mann to try to declare a gurdwara in New York as the sixth Takht!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that's really going too far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Lallesvari

The facts speak for themselves. There was only ONE Takht during the times of the Gurus and well after that. The Nihang claim to be a 'Takht' would have some substance if they were claiming to be a 'Doosra Takht' since the only other Takht was the Akal Takht. This is why I take their claim with a pinch of salt.

You are right that Tara Singh narotam refers to Takht Sahib at Damdama however he doesn't refer to a Takht Sahib at Patna even through that had been issuing Hukumnamas for at least a few decades before his book. Very confusing.

GurFateh

Bikramjit Singh

[Guest Javanmard]

well I think we're all discussing constructed history in some way. I am not rejecting your information at all and in the end the whole takhat story itself is to be read with hermeneutics. There is no reason why different perceived histories would not be able to coexist. What I am discussing here is not so much the validity of each individual takht from a historical point of view but rather the hiero-history behind the very notion of takht and specially the Nihang notion of panjvan takht which I think makes sence totally in the whole Guru Granth/Guru Panth set of ideas. Don't get me wrong I am not rejecting history but I am placing the debate at the level of hiero-history which is more relevant when it comes to religious matters. I do enjoy the debate as finally I do find a forum with people who are well read and informed. It's a pleasure discussing things with you people.

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Lallesvari

There is no doubt that there can be two sets of traditons existing side by side. The problem is when there is no oral or written tradition which alludes to Guru Gobind Singh giving the status of a Takht apart from Akal Takht to the various places which now claim to be Takhts. In fact the tradition is that Guru Gobind did not wish for the construction of any buildings at Hazur Sahib let alone a Takht.

On your other point of the Guru Panth - Guru Granth, I agree that this would make some sense to have a Takht consisting of a set of people. But as you may be aware this would entail the collective ' Amritdhari Sikh Panth, which is not solely the Nihangs. It makes some sense to have a building as a Takht as well as a collective of people, but then it begs the question, who will be the person in charge of the Takht as a building. If it is the collective of people then there is no reason to have the two separate.

Gurfateh

Bikramjit Singh

[Guest Javanmard]

Dear Bikramjit,

you have made a good point. The existence of the human takht is already mentioned in Bhai Gurdas' Varan, where the sangat becomes the takht. No w regarding the post Guru Gobind Singh period I agree that it was Akal Takht that was the main takht but then again the Takht was not always accessible for the Khalsa because of the Mughal and Aghan. The Akali Khalsa Panth had to take the decisions and it makes sense to consider the most prominent politico-military institution of the Panth, namely the Nihang sampradaya as the human manifastation of the Takht, as decisions could only be taken at the Takht.

Now who should lead the Panth. I think that before we answer this question we should be aware of two notions: democracy and meritocracy. If we look at the puratan sampradayas the system was based on meritocracy meaning that the most knowledgeable, the bravest and the most experienced were those who had leading positions like in an army. Some form of election did exist but not everyone could have been elected in a leading position. YOu need the above mentioned qualities and parampara i.e. proof of an unbroken chain of transmission between you and the Gurus. The problem with the SGPC is that any alcoholic, child abusing idiot can be e;ected on the pretext of "democracy". Meritocracy just makes more sense. And as far as I know the the puratan sampradayas, despite internal problems (one has to be realist) has still preserved the parampara as well as the vidya. I am not offering a solution here but I think we should really think about those issues.

[nogroup singh]

I agree with you lalleshwari that SGPC has no credibility these days. They have become political party rather than becoming leaders of Sikhs they are into dirty politics of their on chair-powers....

I guess we should read this article about Akal Takat Sahib.

http://members.pgonline.com/~mpurewal/akal.html

[Guest Javanmard]

The article has many valid points.

[Nihang Gargaj Singh]

BUDDHA DAL 96 KARRORR CHALDE VAHEER DEE KAMAEEE DA DHIAN DHAR KE BOLOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

SIRI VA-EHGURU!!!!

SIRI AKAAL JI SAHAI!

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Uh...is not one of the Thakats, Thakat Hazoor Sahib, completely under the control of Nihungs? If the Nihungs want so desparately to be called the Panjvah Thakat, then...their demand has already been met, no?

[Undergroundsikhi]

Sikh Authority

(The Four Takhats)

A very informative and highly researched article by Sirdar Kapur Singh ICS about the Five Takhats of Sikhs. Article courtesy 'Sikh Review' Dec.1971

THERE are and legitimately remain only four High Seats of Sikh Authority, the 'Takhts' and a recent innovation of fifth takht set up by ignorant heresiarchs and new con-trollers of the official Board of Management of the Sikh historical shrines (S.G.P.C.) is al-together repugnant to and unwarranted by the true Sikh doctrine or the metaphysical postulates and mythological traditions of India.

Sirdar Kapur Singh ICS

Takht is a Persian word signifying 'the imperial throne,' a concept of total and all-pervasive focus of worldly temporal power such as was supposed to inhere in the shahinshah, the emperor, of the Achaemenian throne. Ex-hypothesis there cannot be more than one takht in the empire and indeed, in the entire world, for, a true and logically whole empire must tend to acquire a total ecumenical sway and the doctrine of co-existence of more than one takht, which is a true Takht, is a self-stultification. But since the Sikh doctrine of Double Sovereignty, miri- piri envisages a sway over the minds and souls of mankind, the entire world and does not contemplate a coercive bondage of the bodies of men, it validates and promulgates a plurality of takhts, coexistent, coeval and complementary.

These takhts, thrones of Double Sovereignty spring from a Hindu tradition of religious dominion, which are grounded in metaphysical postulates of ancient acceptance.

Dominion of religion in the world of phenomena is bound up with the concept of 'space' and the Hindu 'space' is a flat four-directional extension innocent of Einsteinium curvature of depth impregnated into it by the progression of 'Time'. This Hindu 'pure space' is con-ceptual samkaIapbhu, detached from the progression of 'time'. This 'space' is four-directional, east, west, north, south. It is this 'space' in which is encompassed the entire phenomenal world, samsar, the reality that is appearances and the religion as it impinges upon the minds of men-while it is permanently there in the souls of all men-flourishes in relation to his 'space'. The spread and sway of religion in this world, therefore, must be comprehended and described as four directional.

Again, 'numbers' occupy a prominent place in Hindu occultism and the concept of 'num-bers' permeates a great deal many branches of Hindu speculation. Infinities are of particular fascination, circumscribed in cyclic concepts of Time and cosmic ages of the universe. The branch of knowledge, Numerology, ganati is conceived as a branch of Ontology, and the numeral '1', as the first signature and word in the Sikh scripture is grounded in this modality of Hindu metaphysical thought.

According to this Hindu Numerology, while the symbol 'zero', sunya, being the absence of all, comprises all things, the number, 'one' is the number of Divinity, of the fundamental symbol, lingam, of the Sun, signifying bright-ness, light, unity, wisdom. Number 'four' in this system of thought is the perfect number, as it represents all the four directions of the space. Satpath-brahman tells us that, 'as the cow requires four feet, so the yama, sacrifice must have four Vedas and four officiants' Commenting on the description of the 'mind-stuff' in the Upanisads as, caturpada, Samkara, explains, "like the four feet of a cow."

These concepts about the nature of the 'space' and numerological significations are then linked-up with the spread and sway of religion in the world in the Hindu tradition and history, and that explains why whenever a Hindu sect or denomination of religion has laid claim to ecumenical status, it has set up or recognized four chief or primary places of its reverential foci. In the Guru Granth, it is to this mode of understanding of the matter that a reference exists to the ornnipotent omnipresence of God: catur disa kino balu apna (Dhanasri; V) and it is according to this mode of thought that in the ancient Vedic tradition four raj tirath, royal centres of holiness, were recognized, such as Pushkarraj, Prayagraj, Katasraj etc. to each of which one of the cardinal directions E, W, N or S was assigned. Likewise in Brahmanism, caturdham, four residences of the gods, Prayag (E), Dwarkavati (W), Badrinath, (N) and Ramesvaram (S) are recognized. Samkaracarya established catur-math four abbeys, to represent his true inter-pretation of Vedas, Vedanta, such as Jagan-math (E), Dwarkamath (W) Badrimath (N) and Sringerimath (S). Of Vaishnavite Hinduism, there are recognized caturpuri, the four holy towns, beloved of the God, Jagannath Pun, Dwarkapuri and so on. Gautam, the Buddha before his mahaparinirvan, the great demise, specified four places, that of his birth, his enlightenment, his first sermon and his demise as the places worthy of homage for the Buddhists, Lumbanivan, Gaya, Sarnath and Kusinar representing four directions of the Hindu 'space' and hence signifying ecumenical claim.

Again, there are recognized two categories of holy places in our Hindu tradition, sthapat, established or appointed and svayambhu, ever-there, self-existent. A centre of holiness may be set up or created by historical accident, association or appropriate ceremonies, or it may be there since the beginning of creation but may be discovered through a sign, or authoritative pointing out. There are temples of Vishnu and Siva of hoary antiquity that were so discovered through a royal dream or yogic flash and then magnificent buildings and idols were set up there and there are temples that were definitely 'established' at a contingent point of time

It is in this context that the significance and validity of char takht, the Four Seats of Sikh authority, must be appreciated. These takhts do not originate and are not validated by historical occurrences, though they may be accidentally associated with the birth or sojourn of a Sikh Guru or it may be the case, that as Akal Takht, it was 'built-up' and signified by a Sikh Guru. These takhts essentially are and remain svyambhn, ever there and no body or no contingent occurrence has created them.

There cannot be more than Four Takhts because '4' is a perfect number, ecumenical in signification and grounded in the ancient metaphysical postulates of our race, while number, '5' is not a perfect number, and it is not a significator of 'space' or territory while a takht must be such a significator. '5' reduces much diversity to meaningful measure, and hence signifies men and things, Pancajana, pancatattava, pancagavya etc. and 'panj-takht' is a wholly unwarranted concept.

Nor does the word, "takht" inscribed on some seal used by the keepers of a historical Sikh shrine, such as occurs in the seal preserved at-Damdama Sahib in Punjab, can make the place a takht a 'seat of Sikh authority' of the category to which the traditional four Takhts belong. In this seal the word, "takht" occurs in its dictionary meaning, in the sense that a royal personage, technically a Sikh Guru, rested, sat or held audience here. Indeed, the inscription on this particular seal itself makes the matter quite clear when it says that it is the seal pertaining to "takht, jagah Guru Gobind Singh ji," that is, 'the throne-locus of the place where Guru Gobind Singh stayed'. On the basis of such a citation to declare the holy Sikh shrine Damdama Sahib as the fifth seat of High Sikh authority is the height of absurdity. Bhai Kahan Singh also in his Mahankosh, 'the Encyclopaedia of Sikh Literature', gives precisely these as the true meanings of the word "takht" as it occurs in Sikh writings. Kiratpur, there is a historical Sikh shrine known as Takht Sahib but it has never be deemed or claimed as one of the High Seats of Sikh Authority.

Damdameh Sahib, now in the Bhatinda District of Punjab is a holy and historical shrine of great historical importance sanctity, but it is not the fifth takht, in meanirig of a 'Sikh seat of authority,' and there is no human authority, now or ever, who can create new takhts valid in and accept. to the Sikh doctrine.

Taken from

http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk

Just call me Mr Copy and Paste :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Guest Javanmard]

Dr. Kapur SIngh is so right:

THERE are and legitimately remain only four High Seats of Sikh Authority, the 'Takhts' and a recent innovation of fifth takht set up by ignorant heresiarchs and new con-trollers of the official Board of Management of the Sikh historical shrines (S.G.P.C.) is al-together repugnant to and unwarranted by the true Sikh doctrine or the metaphysical postulates and mythological traditions of India.

Yes they are ignorant heresiarchs: head of heretics!!!! Death to the neo-Masands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gur bar akaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal hi akaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallll :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

[Guest Javanmard]

Sant Jarnail SIngh was head of the Damdami Taksal not Damdama Sahib :roll:

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Sant Jarnail SIngh was head of the Damdami Taksal not Damdama Sahib :roll:

Mod's Note: No Blaming...just get your point across.. No Mud Slinging please...use pm feature.

[Narsingha]

Even the Ardas as done by Baba Gurbachan Singh Khalsa, Nihang of the 96 Crore Budha Dal, speaks of FOUR Takhts, not 5.

..may be worthwhile consulting Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji's works (for all you avid Bhindrawaley fans out there)

:wink:

[Guest inderjit]

oh yeh i remember "sant gurbachan singh ji was a nihang cus he wore... wait for it... a blue bana! so he must obviously have been a nihang as taksali singhs were white!!!"

taken from "the mighty utterings of the great nidar"

if he was a nihang he was a real nihang not like the jokers pretending like in this country.

[Narsingha]

"oh yeh i remember "sant gurbachan singh ji was a nihang cus he wore... wait for it... a blue bana! so he must obviously have been a nihang as taksali singhs were white!!!" "

-Inderjit

It may be worth you reading up on your Taksal history before making a fool of yourself, then again...maybe its too late for that :wink:

"taken from "the mighty utterings of the great nidar"

- Inderjit

"if he was a nihang he was a real nihang not like the jokers pretending like in this country."

- Inderjit

Your inherent hatred against Nihangs is evident, try not to let it cloud your values. Have you ever confronted Nihang Niddar Singh about this? I guess its easier hiding behind a PC and slandering him behind his back?

[Guest inderjit]

lol joker!

i just gave a quote from him! whats wrong with that? and how am i making a fool out of myself?

and no i havent spoken to nidar yet, but we have spoken to a number of his "students" ie english nihangs..... and guess what??

they didnt wanna errm talk with us!

suprise suprise!!! so they must be jokers!

and the same applies to you, mr warrior man, (slightly off topic now for which i apologise), i asked u on another posting if u did or did not go to see baba takhar singh ji and ask them about the taksal while they lived in london last week? are u also happy to hide behind ur pc and nidar rather than see the people face to face?

and as for hating nihangs (poor baby.. you want a tissue?) i dont like idiots running around chattin crap, acting the mighty warrior but then when it comes to it dont have the bottle to do the deeds. if sant gurbachan singh ji is to be called a nihang then a great nihang he would have been, and as i repeat not like the ones running around in this country.

you have a problem with that?? then do something about it!

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

One thing that I will never understand about these UK Nihangs, whenever you ask them a question about anyone to do with their beliefs, they will always accuse you of being 'arrogant', 'egotistical' 'displaying hatred' etc etc. Narsingha more that anyone else displays this characteristic.

Don't know why they just can't answer the question like any other normal human being.