Ganda Singh On Guru Gobind Singh Ji

[Singh123456777]

In dasam Granth guru ji is writing about the female aspects of waheguru,not another entity such as a Devi.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Singh123456777

[chatanga1]

Chatanga then just focus on this point for the moment.

What was happening to warriors back then was that during times of peace they would be out of work. Being householders with large families to take care of, they carried a huge responsibility. But during peacetime no one really needs warriors and so they were not paid. In order to continue to make a living they took up another profession. Many of them took the professions you mention, but most of them got involved in trade and business. Ie the profession of the Vaishya. As time progressed many of them didn't return to being a warrior. And they stayed with their new profession.

And Guru sahib describes this in Bachittar Natak, this he says is what happened with the Bedi and Sodhi clans and says that this was happening to other clans as well.

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥

दोहरा ॥

DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥

बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥

The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥

बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥

The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

Anyways coming back to Panj Pyarey, they were all Kshatriya. Their ancestors had taken up other professions to continue to make a living during times of peace.

Dharam Das' ancestors turned to farming.

Himmat Chand Kahar's ancestors turned to trading.

Mohkam Chand's ancestors turned to cloth printing.

Daya Ram's ancestors also turned to trade.

Sahib Chand's ancestors became barbers.

Das, Chand and Ram are all Kshatriya clans.

Bhagat Singh, the notion that warriors became shudras in times of peace just to survive sounds riduculous. If this was the case, why did the hill-rajas, proud of their khashatriya caste refuse to take amrit from the same bata as the shudras?

In BN , Maharaj has not said that anyone changed their varna, he says that their actions became more base, and they lives were wretched like the low-castes. Like Gangu Brahman, who tradition says was a cook in Gurus kitchen. He never became a cook in caste, he was always regarded as a Brahman.

Can you show any evidence about the 5 pyares ancestors turning to anything other than their original caste-based occupation?

[dalsingh101]

What Bhagat wants to avoid facing is the complete and utter failure of the Ksyattri to perform their traditional role of protection in the face of the Islamic invasions of India. Simply put, they where overwhelmed and left the populace to the mercy of the conquerors. We can see how they operated by the tales of the hill rajahs.

What this failure did was starkly highlight the inadequacies of the varna system. Today we have a better grasp of genetics too, and we know that variation means that coming from perceived 'long line' of warriors is no guarantee that one would be a doughty fighter themselves. Nothing is static like that. Societies are always in a flux and changing. Same way the descendants of Spartans today are inconspicuous as fighters, same with the dreaded aggressive Vikings whose descendants are peaceful people.

Guru ji had no qualms about recognising this reality and didn't imprison himself with the failed organisational system. His practical solution (based on Sikh ethos) was to inspire and elevate as many people as he could to raise their character and fight. He CLEARLY organised along egalitarian principles; he worked with what he had. And it is complete bullshit to think that the bulk of his forces consisted of those from Khatri backgrounds as Bhagat contends. The more we look, the more we see a surprising variety under dasmesh pita. That's why Bhagats attempt to hammer (or re-imagine) Sikh itihaas along caste lines is flawed. In the face of indisputable bravery and prowess by those considered beneath the Khatris according to the varna system, he simply remoulds them as Khatris to keep his thesis together. This is exactly what whites did in reaction to perceived sophistication and indisputable military prowess of North Indians; they remoulded them as descendants of Europeans (Aryans, Scythians) to keep their wobbly white supremacist theories intact.

Another serious flaw of Bhagat's theories is that it doesn't transport well across cultures. It pins Sikhi in a strictly Indic context. What sense does that encapsulation make to people outside of the varna system? What about people from non-Indian backgrounds entering Sikhi? Are we to try and hammer them into the ancient Indian societal organisation in some way? How does this work? The perspective is myopic, not least because it fails to perceive Sikhi in more globalistic terms outside of the Indic.

[BhagatSingh]

Can you show any evidence about the 5 pyares ancestors turning to anything other than their original caste-based occupation?

Chatanga I believe I just showed you. Read the BN. There it says that Guru Nanak Dev ji's ancestors were kshatriya but he was trading all his life. Same with the Panj Pyarey. Google it. Find out which clans were kshatriya. Look up Das, Chand, Ram. The latter two should immediately raise your eyebrow as they are take from Ram Chandra ji's name, who himself was a kshatriya and belong to a kshatriya clan. You can imagine Gangu becoming a cook but a not kshatriya becoming a vaishya? lol

Anyway, you tell me why does a barber have a kshatriya clan name. You tell me why our Gurus had kshatriya clan names (even the ones who never fought). Truth is our people were more focused on survival than anything else. If being kshatriya ensured survival they did that. If being trader did, they did that.

[BhagatSingh]

In dasam Granth guru ji is writing about the female aspects of waheguru,not another entity such as a Devi.

You got it. However, in Dasam Granth the male aspect of Waheguru is called one thing, and the female aspect is called something else.

[BhagatSingh]

Dally

What Bhagat wants to avoid facing is the complete and utter failure of the Ksyattri to perform their traditional role of protection in the face of the Islamic invasions of India. Simply put, they where overwhelmed and left the populace to the mercy of the conquerors.

Complete and utter failure? Lol you seem quite oblivious to the actual history, and the gross complexity of it.

What this failure did was starkly highlight the inadequacies of the varna system. Today we have a better grasp of genetics too, and we know that variation means that coming from perceived 'long line' of warriors is no guarantee that one would be a doughty fighter themselves. Nothing is static like that. Societies are always in a flux and changing. Same way the descendants of Spartans today are inconspicuous as fighters, same with the dreaded aggressive Vikings whose descendants are peaceful people.

You failed to describe the inadequacies of the varna system. And I seriously doubt your understanding of genetics and its limitations. You do however get one thing right here, which is that societies change and kshatriya took up other professions, according to the circumstances.

And it is complete bullshit to think that the bulk of his forces consisted of those from Khatri backgrounds as Bhagat contends. The more we look, the more we see a surprising variety under dasmesh pita.

Actually I just gave you a very strong reason. However you have shown a "complete and utter failure" to recognize it. The reality is not laced with khand as you seem to think.

This is exactly what whites did in reaction to perceived sophistication and indisputable military prowess of North Indians

Their Christians missionaries also argued that the various Indian religious leaders and scholars like Gandhi, Aurobindo Ghosh and Vivekanand were inspired by Christian values rather than their own native values. They saw their reform as a Christian one, working from the outside in rather than inside out. This of course was total BS.

I suggest you take a hard look at your approach, and the similarity it has the with these Christian missionaries.

Another serious flaw of Bhagat's theories is that it doesn't transport well across cultures. It pins Sikhi in a strictly Indic context. What sense does that encapsulation make to people outside of the varna system? What about people from non-Indian backgrounds entering Sikhi? Are we to try and hammer them into the ancient Indian societal organisation in some way? How does this work? The perspective is myopic, not least because it fails to perceive Sikhi in more globalistic terms outside of the Indic.

Let me remind you of what this discussion is about. We are discussing whether Guru Sahibs were working within tradition or not. And what is the reality of Dasmesh Pita's army composition and rituals. Let's stick to that shall we?

At no point did we talk about what that has to do with with the current globalization.This topic requires a considerable time to discuss, it cannot all fit into one post or even one thread. So chill out, one thing at a time.

Anyways this is a disappointing response from you. I suggest you follow on your plan to focus on your exam, rather than getting into silly debates online. We'll discuss this topic at length at a more convenient time.

Edited November 1, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[Singh123456777]

You got it. However, in Dasam Granth the male aspect of Waheguru is called one thing, and the female aspect is called something else.

And the Devi guru ji talks in DG is not the same Devi as Devi mata etc.We both have come to this understanding I believe.Correct me if I'm wrong.

[BhagatSingh]

And the Devi guru ji talks in DG is not the same Devi as Devi mata etc.We both have come to this understanding I believe.Correct me if I'm wrong.

What's "Devi Mata"?

[dalsingh101]

Complete and utter failure? Lol you seem quite oblivious to the actual history, and the gross complexity of it.

You're back in la la land again.

You could hardly call the failures of the traditional 'warrior caste' to halt the repeated Muslim incursions into India a success.

Then the years of British subjugation that followed.

You're over complicating the matter to simply feed your caste pride perhaps? You should know better.

Ksyattris were meant to protect. They failed miserably. Countless Indian women were raped and kidnapped as a consequence. Countless men died at the hands of the invaders.

Sikhi doesn't posit the idea of greatness based on inheritance - in fact it warns against caste pride repeatedly.

It's an indisputable fact that the bulk of the Khalsa came from peasant, artisan and 'lower' caste backgrounds. This was because the Khatris were not living up to their role. In an attempt to alleviate the dissonance created from this truth, you've reconstructed history to make the above Khatris in some way. By doing so, you ride roughshod over one of the remarkable things about our Gurus and Sikhi: the ability to uplift common people to higher ideals/standards and rank shattering acts of bravery.

Let me remind you of what this discussion is about. We are discussing whether Guru Sahibs were working within tradition or not. And what is the reality of Dasmesh Pita's army composition and rituals. Let's stick to that shall we?

No let me remind you of what the thread was aimed at. I should know, I started it:

It concerns the attitude of dasmesh pita towards egalitarianism and oppression. In the Indic context, a part of this may be concern attitudes towards the traditional varna system but the discussion is broader, as the original text quoted in the OP suggests.

You seem to maintain that Guru ji upheld it and wanted to propagate the varna system, I'm suggesting that Guru ji was at least indifferent to it, or actually attempted to define Sikhs/Khalsa outside of it.

I was trying to allude to the point that the varna system was a corrupt system that degraded many human beings. Another form of oppression for many. As well as those in the lower stratas, it also seems to have bought out the worse in the Brahmins and Khatris too, who formed elevated opinions of themselves; with many of the former becoming parasitical and the latter largely ineffectual as soldiers. Centuries of being colonised and/or invaded is hardly a ringing endorsement of Khatri military prowess is it....

At no point did we talk about what that has to do with with the current globalization.This topic requires a considerable time to discuss, it cannot all fit into one post or even one thread. So chill out, one thing at a time.

No, my point is straight forward one. If you continue to maintain that Sikhi is confined to the traditional Indic varna system; it suggests that our Guus were short sighted and couldn't imagine the faith outside of the narrow geo-political and social framework around them. That's not even going into the inherent inequalities of the system! Which you are suggesting the Gurus accepted. This jars with the actions of dasmesh pita, like getting loads of Hindu texts translated and 'rebooted' for all and sundry - including the so-called 'low castes'.

You side step such important angles in your theories.

And don't take the devi episode as given; the contemporary Sewa Das doesn't mention it (as far as I am aware), nor Sainapati.

[BhagatSingh]

You're back in la la land again.

You like the "la la" song don't you?

la la laal sheep, have you any wool?

Why you ain't focusing on exams bro? They are more important than this.

You could hardly call the failures of the traditional 'warrior caste' to halt the repeated Muslim incursions into India a success.

What failures? Kshatriya's dharam is to fight, and that they did. You don't look at whether someone won or not that brings in other factors like technology and terrain and army sizes and weather conditions.

Purushotam lost against Alexander not because he was any less of a kshatriya. It was because his elephants, chariots and archers could not function in the heavy rainfall, with the slippery soil.

Ibrahim Lodi lost against Babbar not because he was any less of a kshatriya. It was because of the Babbar's superior terrain management. Babbar funneled him through a narrow passage whilst his archers and artilelry, destroyed Lodi's elephants and artillery.

Kshatriya is referring to the temperament where one that seeks to go against an opposing force. It's about strength, bravery, valour, and sacrifice and all dem fancy words, but ultimately Kshatriya is one who does not shy away from a fight. As Sri Krishna reminded Arjan in the battefield. The kshatriya's dharam is to fight without seeking any particular outcome of battle. Battle's are won or lost as per His kirpa, the warrior's duty is just to fight.

Then the years of British subjugation that followed.

And yes Kshatriya also fought the British as well. Brahmins fought their missionaries. And in their campaigns they used materials supplied to them by Vaishya and Shudra.

But the large majority of people are not significantly affected by changing governments, that's why they don't usually revolt. It's only the kings and his army that is annihilated by invaders not his people. Their people couldn't care less. They have their own everyday life issues to worry about. They only raise a finger when their lifestyle is negatively affected.

Sikhi doesn't posit the idea of greatness based on inheritance - in fact it warns against caste pride repeatedly.

I believe I mention that in the caste thread. But somehow you missed it. Gurus and Sants not only warn against caste pride but also religious pride, and self pride (all kinds of pride) and even the idea of self, and identity. Did you miss those as well? These are spiritual elements. But this no way implies that they weren't coming from within their tradition. it doesn't mean they didn't have an identity, caste, religion, etc. They were rooted in their tradition. 1. They allowed all castes to sit in their congregations. (yes this was a tradition before the gurus came) 2. They married within their caste. 3. They passed the guruship only within those of their caste. 4. Guru Gobind Singh ji even emphasized his own kshatriya lineage (and nature).

Im only talking about caste related traditions above. There were other traditions like being vegetarian, not taking certain plants/drinks, and religious traditions (the bhagti tradition), that the first five Gurus and the ninth Guru adhered to.

It's an indisputable fact that the bulk of the Khalsa came from peasant, artisan and 'lower' caste backgrounds.

This is BS. It was only under Banda's raj that other castes started joining his forces (and even then it's hard to determine how many of them weren't already from warriors castes). And this is not because of some ideal to have non-warriors in the army. This was because during his raj he basically plundered and looted everywhere he went. And there was plenty of money to be made by the lower castes in this endeavour... not to mention the power they could gain!

Of course i am not denying that the kshatriya spirit can also be found in members of other castes and can be lacking in members of the kshatriya caste. That is natural. That is one reason why someone might choose to leave their profession and take up a different one.

But largely everyone is (pretty much) the same as their parents. They also learned their profession from their fathers back then. So it ensured a strong tradition within the family.

No let me remind you of what the thread was aimed at. I should know, I started it:

It concerns the attitude of dasmesh pita towards egalitarianism and oppression. In the Indic context, a part of this may be concern attitudes towards the traditional varna system but the discussion is broader, as the original text quoted in the OP suggests.

You seem to maintain that Guru ji upheld it and wanted to propagate the varna system, I'm suggesting that Guru ji was at least indifferent to it, or actually attempted to define Sikhs/Khalsa outside of it.

You are not at all suggesting that the Gurus are indifferent to it. If that were the case I would say "yes" and move on. Being indifferent to the world and everything in it, is what their message was!

But you go beyond that into BS like this:

was trying to allude to the point that the varna system was a corrupt system that degraded many human beings. Another form of oppression for many. As well as those in the lower stratas, it also seems to have bought out the worse in the Brahmins and Khatris too, who formed elevated opinions of themselves; with many of the former becoming parasitical and the latter largely ineffectual as soldiers.

Lol if you think you don't live in a caste system over there at UK you have not understood what caste really is.

Anyways elaborate on all these points. Let's look at this more closely, at what you think think is the "corrupt system" "degradation" "oppression" "brings out the worse", etc etc. Let's go over it. This time you start.

No, my point is straight forward one. If you continue to maintain that Sikhi is confined to the traditional Indic varna system; it suggests that our Guus were short sighted and couldn't imagine the faith outside of the narrow geo-political and social framework around them.

That is entirely your view dude. You think, that if someone follows tradition that they are short-sighted and narrow minded and whatever. This could not be further from the truth. Like you say yourself Guru Sahib was "getting loads of Hindu texts translated". I wonder why . As we continue to converse hopefully it becomes clear that Guru sahibs were operating from their native traditions, that they were rooted in it.

Edited November 2, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[Singh123456777]

What's "Devi Mata"?

Lol I forgot to add a comma.Its supposed to be Devi,mata,etc

[chatanga1]

Chatanga I believe I just showed you. Read the BN. There it says that Guru Nanak Dev ji's ancestors were kshatriya but he was trading all his life.

Anyway, you tell me why does a barber have a kshatriya clan name.

Bhagat Singh, the Guru's were trading but their caste never changed did it? they were still Kashitriya no matter what enterprise they undertook.

the chand or ram surname has nothing to do with caste. its just a common name, and not specific to any set of people based on tribe or clan.

[chatanga1]

It's an indisputable fact that the bulk of the Khalsa came from peasant, artisan and 'lower' caste backgrounds. This was because the Khatris were not living up to their role. In an attempt to alleviate the dissonance created from this truth, you've reconstructed history to make the above Khatris in some way. By doing so, you ride roughshod over one of the remarkable things about our Gurus and Sikhi: the ability to uplift common people to higher ideals/standards and rank shattering acts of bravery.

there's the truth.

[GtLoc]

http://patshahi10.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=245:sri-dasam-granth-beerh-1698-ad-takhat-sri-patna-sahib-&catid=62:historic-beerhs&Itemid=106

[BhagatSingh]

Lol I forgot to add a comma.Its supposed to be Devi,mata,etc

Devi, mata, etc? Ok my question is still there.

What/who is Devi and mata?

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat Singh, the Guru's were trading but their caste never changed did it? they were still Kashitriya no matter what enterprise they undertook.

Exactly in the same way:

Dharam Das - Das is a kshatriya name but his ancestors had taken up farming.

Himmat Chand Kahar - Kahar also descend from kshatriya

Daya Ram was a Sobti Khatri

the chand or ram surname has nothing to do with caste. its just a common name, and not specific to any set of people based on tribe or clan.

I think it maybe both. Thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chand_kings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Meena

[dalsingh101]

I think it maybe both. Thoughts?

If so, why have to jumped to the conclusion that they were all Khatris?

[BhagatSingh]

Check the links.

[Singh123456777]

Devi, mata, etc? Ok my question is still there.

What/who is Devi and mata?

Some people call shiv jis wife as the jagat di mata and guru ji is talking about her in dasam granth(which he is not).Some people say guru ji prayed to naina Devi for help creating the khalsa(which again is wrong).

There aren't one particular Devi but I gave an example of naina Devi.

[BhagatSingh]

Some people call shiv jis wife as the jagat di mata and guru ji is talking about her in dasam granth(which he is not).Some people say guru ji prayed to naina Devi for help creating the khalsa(which again is wrong).

There aren't one particular Devi but I gave an example of naina Devi.

Who is Shiv ji's wife? why do people call her jagat di mata?

[kdsingh80]

Exactly in the same way:

Dharam Das - Das is a kshatriya name but his ancestors had taken up farming.

Himmat Chand Kahar - Kahar also descend from kshatriya

Daya Ram was a Sobti Khatri

I think it maybe both. Thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chand_kings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Meena

Chand , Das , Ram are many common surname among hindu's .You can even find many sweepers in India with surname singh.Un less you find solid evidence that they all were from Kshatriya background you can, tsay on the basis of Internet that Panj pyare ancestors were kshatriya'. Also this ancestor argument can even go further as Ambedkar use to believe that Dalits were lost tribe of Kshatriya's .So many lower caste may end up claiming that their ancestors were from upper caste

[BhagatSingh]

Chand , Das , Ram are many common surname among hindu's .You can even find many sweepers in India with surname singh.Un less you find solid evidence that they all were from Kshatriya background you can, tsay on the basis of Internet that Panj pyare ancestors were kshatriya'. Also this ancestor argument can even go further as Ambedkar use to believe that Dalits were lost tribe of Kshatriya's .So many lower caste may end up claiming that their ancestors were from upper caste

Indeed, you always make good points Kds. However, many "castes" did actually have ancestors from a "different caste". Just look at our Gurus. If we don't consider their surname and the history of the surname, we'd think they are vaishya. Indeed some scholars do think khatris are vaishya. But once we look at their surname we find their ancestors were actaully kshatriya.

I'll come back to Bachittar Natak ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ kshatriya were doing vaishya's duties. Chatanga said Gangu brahmin was a cook, doing shudar's duties. These examples fit right into this:

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥

दोहरा ॥

DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥

बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥

The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥

बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥

The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

Anyway if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Edited November 7, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[jaikaara]

you are right and Khatris are those warriors who turned to business, a part of our community turned to business and then the relations with the other who was not into business got strained and they stopped marrying their daughters with us.

[dalsingh101]

I even met a Guyanese guy recently whose family originally hailed from UP and he said a few of his family had the surname Singh but they were so-called 'low castes'.

Bhagat's theory is so tenuous; he should own up to it instead of prancing about like he has any substance to it. Truth is that caste has never been as concrete as people make out today. Like all societies things were in a flux due to all manner of external circumstances with people dropping in and out of jaats. This has been the situation from day one. Only at some point in history certain people got so desperate about this natural flux that some twat came out with unbelievably harsh rules to try and maintain the status quo of that moment (hence manusmitri). And fudus have been trying to maintain that ever since. lol

Edited November 7, 2013 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

Indeed, you always make good points Kds. However, many "castes" did actually have ancestors from a "different caste". Just look at our Gurus. If we don't consider their surname and the history of the surname, we'd think they are vaishya. Indeed some scholars do think khatris are vaishya. But once we look at their surname we find their ancestors were actaully kshatriya.

I'll come back to Bachittar Natak ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ kshatriya were doing vaishya's duties. Chatanga said Gangu brahmin was a cook, doing shudar's duties. These examples fit right into this:

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥

दोहरा ॥

DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥

बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥

The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥

बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥

The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

Anyway if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

A cook is not shudra's duty. Kitchen was always a sacred place for upper caste and only castes which are acceptable were allowed into kitchen.According to above Dohra there should have been Vaishya warriors and kings and shudra priests. But I don't think I have heard about them

Also Gangu Brahmin is controversial character , some say he never existed