Ganda Singh On Guru Gobind Singh Ji

[chatanga1]

I am open for a discussion of the facts, whatever they maybe. We agreed right from the start that we are after the ones most supported by evidence. This is task is difficult enough. There's no room for the kind of behaviour that you are displaying. Am I clear? So you are either going to discuss the topic in a civil manner or there will be no discussion.

in my honest opinion, there isnt much to discuss here, the idea that the the 5 pyare were all khashatriys is just prepostorous. There is nowhere you could go with it.

[BhagatSingh]

New religions , sects of religion , movements start with breaking of traditions atleast few of them.Sikhs guru's broke many traditions O/W I Don't think there was even need of sikhism.Forget about Castes of Panj pyare even it is doubt full that

whether Khatri's are kshatriya's or not

Firstly, thanks for sharing that. But what you posted doesn't surprise me. Remember kshatriya have been involved in vaishya professions from before Guru Gobind Singh ji's time, before Guru Nanak Dev ji's time even! Not just khatri but others as well. So this material is not surprising to me after the generations of vaishya-hood that they have been involved in.

Let's recap.

One of things that Guru Gobind Singh ji was actually trying to do was bring everyone back and remind them of their Suryavanshi kshatriya lineage and remind them that they are actually warriors. So there's two direct supports to this argument. There's the starting of Bachittar Natak. The other is that Guru Sahib's army were largely kshatriya, who had forgotten their kshatriya-hood. Now I have argued that Das, Ram and Chand of the Panj Pyarey are Kshatriya caste names. They were changed to Singh to create a unified kshatriya group. The names are related to arguably the most famous Kshatriya, and what I have read of their history suggests they are kshatriya. There are also indirect supports, such as the rituals, which resemble the (Shakat) Kshatriya traditions. Also, the mentality of Khalsa is that of a kshatriya, they follow kshatriya dharam.

in my honest opinion, there isnt much to discuss here, the idea that the the 5 pyare were all khashatriys is just prepostorous. There is nowhere you could go with it.

Chatanga its upto you if you want to discuss it. I see the value in discussing this. For me this is just the tip of the ice berg. There's a lot of things happening below this that underlies and explains how our community evolved.

But I don't recommend this kind of discussion to anyone who cannot remain indifferent to the world, whilst discussing it. As I said in the beginning of the thread, bhagti is more important. It is also preliminary requirement to being able to address issues without becoming entangled with them.

Edited November 13, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[GtLoc]

Firstly, thanks for sharing that. But what you posted doesn't surprise me. Remember kshatriya have been involved in vaishya professions from before Guru Gobind Singh ji's time, before Guru Nanak Dev ji's time even! Not just khatri but others as well. So this material is not surprising to me after the generations of vaishya-hood that they have been involved in.

Let's recap.

One of things that Guru Gobind Singh ji was actually trying to do was bring everyone back and remind them of their Suryavanshi kshatriya lineage and remind them that they are actually warriors. So there's two direct supports to this argument. There's the starting of Bachittar Natak. The other is that Guru Sahib's army were largely kshatriya, who had forgotten their kshatriya-hood. Now I have argued that Das, Ram and Chand of the Panj Pyarey are Kshatriya caste names. They were changed to Singh to create a unified kshatriya group. The names are related to arguably the most famous Kshatriya, and what I have read of their history suggests they are kshatriya. There are also indirect supports, such as the rituals, which resemble the (Shakat) Kshatriya traditions. Also, the mentality of Khalsa is that of a kshatriya, they follow kshatriya dharam.

Chatanga its upto you if you want to discuss it. I see the value in discussing this. For me this is just the tip of the ice berg. There's a lot of things happening below this that underlies and explains how our community evolved.

But I don't recommend this kind of discussion to anyone who cannot remain indifferent to the world, whilst discussing it. As I said in the beginning of the thread, bhagti is more important. It is also preliminary requirement to being able to address issues without becoming entangled with them.

You can be a warrior, riddled in 'caste' (as in knowing your lineage) and still be fair and equal to all. A lot of groups are kshatriya related, and the same way many whites are related to nobles (the offspring of poor not surviving) it is not as far-fetched as you think.

@DalSingh I'm not a jat, I'm a Singh. Jats are marrying first cousins in Pakistan, and raping those of others in Haryana, UP, Rajasthan. Where am I related to that?

Same way, some things are related.

@BhagatSingh so did sikhs traditionally practice inter-caste marriage, or was it that only certain castes were mostly in Sikhi so it was never discussed/worried about?