SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Yes but Muhammad used a sword too, why didn't Gurbachan Singh mention 'oh Muhammad the prophet' also used this Kirpan? No, he wanted to link it with Hindu mythology as he had read in Bhai Daya Singhs Rehatnama and Bup Singh Nirmalas Granth from 1812. Bhagats had already met 1st Nanak why the need to come back at time of tenth Nanak? And I'm sure some person on Sikhsangat mentioned that Bhagats were refused entry into Sachkhand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 'Sochai soch' has several meanings, some say its 'thinking, thought' others say soch as in sucham 'outer purity'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 I had read Gurbachan Singhs book ages ago and I found alot of anti Gurmat stuff in it. Why did he find the need to link Hindu deities to our kakkaars? Ofcourse even vikings were using swords, and I'm sure other people were wearing kahcheras too? It is just their nirmala background... It doesn't matter to me if Hanuman wore a kachehra. And Rehatnama Daya Singh clearly says chandi gave kes etc etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 And then I've heard katha of Gurbachan SIngh where he says Prophet Muhammad was a thief stealing work of some Hindu sadhu (which later formed the Quran). And where did he get this from? Bansawlinama by Kesar Singh. No research nothing, he read its and starts saying it in Katha. Thats what Im talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 And then I've heard katha of Gurbachan SIngh where he says Prophet Muhammad was a thief stealing work of some Hindu sadhu (which later formed the Quran). And where did he get this from? Bansawlinama by Kesar Singh. No research nothing, he read its and starts saying it in Katha. Thats what Im talking about. Can you please provide us with the above mentioned katha? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Historical information aside, sant gyani gurbachan singh gurbani katha is top notch especially antriv arths(deep meaning arths) of gurbani. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) I had read Gurbachan Singhs book ages ago and I found alot of anti Gurmat stuff in it. Why did he find the need to link Hindu deities to our kakkaars? Ofcourse even vikings were using swords, and I'm sure other people were wearing kahcheras too? It is just their nirmala background... It doesn't matter to me if Hanuman wore a kachehra. And Rehatnama Daya Singh clearly says chandi gave kes etc etc Please state any culture/religion (other than Hindu/Sikh), where Kachera was used as a sign of celibacy? With references please? Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Taksal reads an old granth, believes it to be 150% true. Can't question because it is 'puratan' while your own beloved website sarbloh questioned Taksals origins linked to Baba Deep Singh. They say DDT only came into being in 20th century. Thinks kakkaars are gifts from Hindu deities, Bhagats whose banis was in GGS needed to be reincarnated (so their bani is futile?) and what not. Bro, I never said, all the information on sarabloh is true. I just gave a reference from it. For example, if I talk about Jesus, it does not mean that I worship him. Edited April 12, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Neo, I respect the stance you take on SikhSangat and thank you for allowing voices differing in thought than yours on this forum. The Katha is there, I have heard it. You can ask Neo, or Kam Pardesi who knows much about kathas. And whether others have kachehra or not is of no importance. I am asking why Hanuman is mentioned and linked to our kakkaars in the same manner as authors of Daya Rehatnama and Bup Nirmala Granth mention kakkaars being a gift from those deities. Do I care whether Muhammad had a sword like the Khalsa? Do I care whether Hanuman wore a kachehra or not? No I do not. And I think Sarbloh for once is right when saying that DDT is not an puratan samparda. Mahan Kosh mentions the slightest of terms and has so much detail, yet it missed out on this famous organisation or school created by Dasam Pita? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Satkirin, only 3HO allow women panj pyare as far as I know. Akhand Kirtani Jatha does. Also in Kashmir all of the gurdwaras follow only Sikh Rehet Maryada and at least one that I know of has had females as panj payres (my fiancé was on executive who rallied for women to do it). They do not follow any specific Jatha. Here also in Canada at our Gurdwara if we actually had enough amritdhari to do it, would allow women. We also don't follow any specific Jatha but follow sikh rehet maryada. In Toronto there have been numerous females as panj for years now. (Mostly AKJ) Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Gurbani is for all not instructions for women on how to be subservient to their husbands. In context of the shabad the second translation is the one that's correct. But you can believe what you want. You said you don't plan on being married anyway so that's good. Today, some Sikh women cannot fathom the greatness of Satguru jee as they have not lived in those time where women were treated so badly. There is an example of this in history. There were two women,who listened to a katha and they were caught. It was decided to pour hot wax into their ears as they had broken the so-called laws. Even Brahmin and Khatri women did not have certain rights, you can imagine the status of so-called low caste women (JYI- approximately more than 80% of today's Sikhs are derived from so-called lower castes like jatts, tarkhans, chamars, Chimbay, etc)Bottom line - Women have been given optimum rights in Sikhism. Whatever was given to them during the times of Satguru jee was revolutionary. Some examples are listed below. Today we see, Sikh women are allowed to listen to Katha. Sikh women can recite mantars (Women and Shudar people were not allowed to recite mantars) Sikh women are allowed to listen to kirtan. Sikh women are allowed to do seva in langar. Sikh women are allowed to attain shaster videya. Sikh women are allowed to attain shaastar videya. Sikh women can be part of gurudwara committees. Sikh women can receive the same amrit, as given to men. Sikhism has done a lot to uplift the status of women. Dhan Dhan Satguru Sri Guru Nanak dev jee Maharaaj. Edited April 17, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Neo, I respect the stance you take on SikhSangat and thank you for allowing voices differing in thought than yours on this forum. The Katha is there, I have heard it. You can ask Neo, or Kam Pardesi who knows much about kathas. And whether others have kachehra or not is of no importance. I am asking why Hanuman is mentioned and linked to our kakkaars in the same manner as authors of Daya Rehatnama and Bup Nirmala Granth mention kakkaars being a gift from those deities. Do I care whether Muhammad had a sword like the Khalsa? Do I care whether Hanuman wore a kachehra or not? No I do not. You just can't come here and say all this and not leave links or anything to back up these claims and expect us to find it our selves... If you say something you back it up... That's how this stuff works... This is the stance of kakars according to damdami taksal http://www.damdamitaksaal.org/code-of-conduct#h3-10-five-kakkaars 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 And whether others have kachehra or not is of no importance. I am asking why Hanuman is mentioned and linked to our kakkaars in the same manner as authors of Daya Rehatnama and Bup Nirmala Granth mention kakkaars being a gift from those deities.Do I care whether Muhammad had a sword like the Khalsa? Do I care whether Hanuman wore a kachehra or not? No I do not. The reason for mentioning Sri Hanumaan jee is because he had a very high spiritual level and was one of the greatest celibates. His name is mentioned in Gurbani too. We as Sikhs, are suppose to learn from everyone. This is a basic fundamental of Sikhism. Next, someone will ask, why is there so much reference to Hindu Deities in Gurbani? What will you say then? Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 If you ran a quick google search it would lead to this very forum, confirming my views. And please don't be a victim of 'cognitive dissonance' just because you like Bhindranwale. Bhindranwale had no historical basis for his assumptions but he read it in Bansawlinama and so he parrots that. I have read Bansawlinama myself, now don't ask me to produce Bansawlinama, its something you'll have to buy because I don't think its available online. But being a Sikh you should take my word for it. I have read it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Fact remains that just like Gurbachan Singh copies and parrots stuff from Bansawlinama he made other assumptions too. Just because he read in a puratan granth about Bhagats being reincarnated he states it in Katha. Same goes for other stuff. My main point is not to attack Taksal. just saying both missionaries and taksalis are detrimental to our panth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 http://sarbattkhalsa.weebly.com/bhai-daya-singh-ji-rehatnama.html This is bhai daya Singh rehitnama.... Where is it shown that kes was given by chandi????????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 If you ran a quick google search it would lead to this very forum, confirming my views. And please don't be a victim of 'cognitive dissonance' just because you like Bhindranwale. Bhindranwale had no historical basis for his assumptions but he read it in Bansawlinama and so he parrots that. I have read Bansawlinama myself, now don't ask me to produce Bansawlinama, its something you'll have to buy because I don't think its available online. But being a Sikh you should take my word for it. I have read it. I trust you bro. I don't think you will lie, but this is Kaljugee time. There are some trolls out there to cause rifts and confusion among people. It is always good to have references ready before passing an opinion, especially on a public forum. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 To Paapi, I respect Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale & even the predecessors. I like what they did, but we got to seperate views from actions. I don't believe humans are infallible. Everyone is, only our Gurus and Kartar isn't. To Singh1234, thats not the complete Daya Singh Rehatnama. You should buy or find an online version of Rehitname book by Pyara Singh Padam which has almost all Rehatnamas of the 18th century (complete ones). It is there online but can't find it. If you try you might find it and also the mention that Chandi gave Kes etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnSikhGirl Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) This is not equality. Just because some rights were given is not equality. However this disagrees with Gurbani. Same divine light in all equality. It doesn't pass the litmus test!!! Therefore your "women were given a few rights so they should be happy" theory doesn't hold water when it's in disagreement with what's written in SGGSJ because Gurbani says all are equal. Today, some Sikh women cannot fathom the greatness of Satguru jee as they have not lived in those time where women were treated so badly. There is an example of this in history. There were two women,who listened to a katha and they were caught. It was decided to pour hot wax into their ears as they had broken the so-called laws. Even Brahmin and Khatri women did not have certain rights, you can imagine the status of so-called low caste women (JYI- approximately more than 80% of today's Sikhs are derived from so-called lower castes like jatts, tarkhans, chamars, Chimbay, etc)Bottom line - Women have been given optimum rights in Sikhism. Whatever was given to them during the times of Satguru jee was revolutionary. Some examples are listed below. Today we see, Sikh women are allowed to listen to Katha. Sikh women can recite mantars (Women and Shudar people were not allowed to recite mantars)Sikh women are allowed to listen to kirtan. Sikh women are allowed to do seva in langar. Sikh women are allowed to attain shaster videya. Sikh women are allowed to attain shaastar videya. Sikh women can be part of gurudwara committees. Sikhism has done a lot to uplift the status of women. Dhan Dhan Satguru Sri Guru Nanak dev jee Maharaaj. Edited April 12, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 To Paapi, I respect Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale & even the predecessors. I like what they did, but we got to seperate views from actions. I don't believe humans are infallible. Everyone is, only our Gurus and Kartar isn't. That's good to hear. In the same, one should also respect other prophets, saints, Hindu deities, etc. We can learn a lot from them. We should not worship them, but we must also not have any form of hatred against them. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 You are dodging the main theme of discussion. If Gurbachan Singh made wrong statements then the Taksal Rehat can be wrong too? One of the things I just remembered that Gurbachan Singh wrote in his book as well was Guru Har Rai marrying 7 or 8 sisters when he was an early teenager... Erm yeah sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Which book of sant gurbachan Singh are you referring to? Also you said you heard him say in katha can you post that katha up here??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted April 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 You are dodging the main theme of discussion. If Gurbachan Singh made wrong statements then the Taksal Rehat can be wrong too? One of the things I just remembered that Gurbachan Singh wrote in his book as well was Guru Har Rai marrying 7 or 8 sisters when he was an early teenager... Erm yeah sure. Even if Satguru jee had married 1000's of women, it would have been fine as he is the Almighty. Waheguru jee kaa Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 This is te rehat maryada of damdami taksal... http://www.damdamitaksaal.org/code-of-conduct What is wrong with it??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 * Guru might have married multiple women but Gurbachan Singh is saying something baseless without any historical evidence. Many Babas are known to sprout such stories out of nowhere to encharm the masses. There is no logical explanation for an 11 or 13 year old boy marrying 7 sisters. And what were the ages of those girls then? The fact is not about question the Gurus but questioning people making false claims about the Gurus without any historical evidence, so many centuries later. * Gurbachan Singh lied regarding Muhammad, the audio is straight on the link (to this very forum) I posted. He just reiterated what he read somewhere, without actually researching it. He did same when making tall claims about bhagats reincarnating. * I almost never make claims that I can't back up. So here you have the Daya Singh Rehat which says Kes were given by Chandi. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/75953-rehatname-compilation-in-1-book/ It starts on page 69 in the booklet - or 35/100 on scribd. On the very first page it mentions kakkar being given by hindu deities (kes by chandi etc). And the rehatnama clearly says Hanuman gave Kachehra. Now Gurbachan Singh reads this old book, then indirectly links Kachehra to hanuman in his own book. I request both of you to sit down and read this carefully because I can't keep making on long posts. Either you have cognitive dissonance and will ignore the truth or you will open your minds. 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.