SikhKhoj Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Since paapi, as usual, is polluting the other topic with his mindless and baseless allegations, this topic has been created. Solely for discussing the historical importance of Sahejdharis based on puratan granths, traditions and other information we have.* Sevapanthi chiefs have always been sahejdharis. You can check their names from Bhai Kanhaiya onwards. They never became 'amritdhari'.* Sant Gurbakh Daas was the head priest of KesGarh during the early 1700s (source: Mahan Kosh).* Many other sahejdhari sikhs led congregations according to the remnant Hukamnmas of the Guru. In 1704, Mani Ram, a sahejdhari, was appointed as the head of congregation in Haryana (Hukamnama Guru Gobind Singh).* Even Sau Sakhi says there are 3 type of Sikhs: khand, charan (non existent after 1708) and sahejdhari.I have backed up my every claim by quotes & sources. Come back with historical proofs and don't quote Desa Singh Rehatnama because I am sure people like you drink sharab and then quote Desa Singh Rehat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 * Sevapanthi chiefs have always been sahejdharis. You can check their names from Bhai Kanhaiya onwards. They never became 'amritdhari'.I am almost sure that Baba Ghaniyaa jee Maharaaj was an amritdhari. There is a sakhi related to that too. Baba jee had said that if someone comes to kill him, he will give him his kirpan to attack him. This will ensure that he dies by the kirpaan.Can someone please provide a reference?Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Bhai ghaaniya ji was sevapanthi and sehajdhari/keshadhari, he was given medical supplies to help out as their main premises is to do karam(Seva) , sevapanthi have different rehat than 5 kakari rehit of khalsa. I will try to invite someone who has studied sevapanthi order. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think there are books with utterings of the second/third Seva Panthi chief. Bachan Gobind Loka de or something. Haven't got the chance to read it but they were far from the 5 kakkaari rehat altough they had no other religion and were Sahejdharis. Bhai Kanhaiya was a Sikh since 9th Gurus time.These people are twisting Sikhi to fit in the black - white 'amritdhari versus patit'. In the last 100 years these people/approach have caused the number of Sahejdharis to decrease by millions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) These people are twisting Sikhi to fit in the black - white 'amritdhari versus patit'. In the last 100 years these people/approach have caused the number of Sahejdharis to decrease by millions.What about the decrease in the number of keshdharis and amritdharis? Most likely, even that number will be in millions. Edited June 4, 2015 by paapiman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 That is true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 * Even Sau Sakhi says there are 3 type of Sikhs: khand, charan (non existent after 1708) and sahejdhari. Do you believe in all the sakhis mentioned in Sau Sakhi?If no, then what wrong did I do, if I quoted Bhai Desa Singh Rehatnama? I never said that this Rehatnama (in its current form) was free of errors.Bhul Chuk Maaf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I support my fact with many sources, not one source unlike you. That dilutes the chance of having a deformed view on a topic because of one bad source. Sau Sakhi is not too authentic in its present form but it forms an additional evidence along the dozens of other proofs I have given. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I support my fact with many sources, not one source unlike you. That dilutes the chance of having a deformed view on a topic because of one bad source. Sau Sakhi is not too authentic in its present form but it forms an additional evidence along the dozens of other proofs I have given. It is possible that many sources that state one theory, can all be wrong.For example, if 100 students, all from missionary colleges, write a book each, on Gurmat. Don't you think, they will all be similar to each other in content. Will you count them as 100 different sources?Bhul Chuk Maaf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 It is different books, different authors, different sampardas (from Hukamnamas to Sevapanthis) & different periods. Do some research on my sources before commenting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I quoted Sevapanthis who are a sect, I quoted Hukamnamas from Guru Gobind Singhs period, I quoted Sau Sakhi which is from the 18th century, I quoted Mahan Kosh which is from the 20th century.Different mentality, different authors and different periods. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) It is different books, different authors, different sampardas (from Hukamnamas to Sevapanthis) & different periods. Do some research on my sources before commenting.I never said that your sources are from the same period or same samprada. The sources provided, give good information. You seem to have plenty of knowledge (definitely more than me) of Sikh scriptures. It is a shame that you did ninda (a heinous crime in Sikhism) of Gurmukh Brahamgyanis on a public forum.Bhul Chuk Maaf Edited June 4, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 I am just a Khoji as my name suggests...I still stand by my stance that previous 'sants', bhais and parcharaks didn't get their knowledge from God but from their own learning and thus were prone to learning and then imparting some false teachings.Bhulan andar sab ko, abhul guru kartaar.I was mean to you about Guru Har Rai having several wives. I do know that some sources like Suraj Parkash do mention 7 marriages but historians say that those 'patras' in the Pothi have been added later on. Besides that Sarup Das Bhalla mentions Guru Har Rai having only one wife - 1773 A.D (which is 70 years before Suraj Parkash). Other sources also confirm that 7th Guru Ji had only one wife. Thereby I am not denying that Guru Gobind Singh for example had more than one wife. So don't think that I deny Guru Har Rais marriages because of 'anti polygamy stance' but rather due to historical and logical reasoning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I support my fact with many sources, does even having a source mean it will be accurate? re: the Gursobha dating ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I do know that some sources like Suraj Parkash do mention 7 marriages but historians say that those 'patras' in the Pothi have been added later on. Besides that Sarup Das Bhalla mentions Guru Har Rai having only one wife - 1773 A.D (which is 70 years before Suraj Parkash).Do you think it would be easier to tamper with the older granths who's writers are long gone, or with the more modern granths? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Are you dumb or just pretending to be? There is no correlation between tampering of manuscipts and their age. Suraj Parkash is the most tampered Granth out of all, historians have even found manuscripts where the reference of 7 wives being added in different pen, ink and pages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 * Sevapanthi chiefs have always been sahejdharis. You can check their names from Bhai Kanhaiya onwards. They never became 'amritdhari'. * Sant Gurbakh Daas was the head priest of KesGarh during the early 1700s (source: Mahan Kosh).Majority of Sewa Panthi names ive read are sehajdharis. However the one of the latest sewa panthis the Sikhs have had was an amritdhari Bhagat Puran Singh . If i'm not mistaken Gyani PinderPal Singh refers to Gurbaksh Das as an Udasi Sant, not sewapanthi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Historically all sevapanthi head until recently have been sehajdhari. So my point remains valid.Where did I say Gurbaksh Das was a Sevapanthi? I was just pointing out references to Granths or 'famous' Sahejdharis after Khalsa 'saajna'. Gurbaksh Das was a Sahejdhari, thats what I was saying. Edited June 12, 2015 by SikhKhoj 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Are you dumb or just pretending to be? There is no correlation between tampering of manuscipts and their age. Suraj Parkash is the most tampered Granth out of all, historians have even found manuscripts where the reference of 7 wives being added in different pen, ink and pages. Yes Im dumb. what source(s) do you have or did you conduct your own study to conclude that Suraj Parkash is the most tampered granth?Historically all sevapanthi head until recently have been sehajdhari. So my point remains valid.Where did I say Gurbaksh Das was a Sevapanthi? I was just pointing out references to Granths or 'famous' Sahejdharis after Khalsa 'saajna'. Gurbaksh Das was a Sahejdhari, thats what I was saying.Apologies. I thought we had moved onto sevapanthis. Your point remains valid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuttabanda2 Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Since paapi, as usual, is polluting the other topic with his mindless and baseless allegations, this topic has been created. Solely for discussing the historical importance of Sahejdharis based on puratan granths, traditions and other information we have.* Sevapanthi chiefs have always been sahejdharis. You can check their names from Bhai Kanhaiya onwards. They never became 'amritdhari'.* Sant Gurbakh Daas was the head priest of KesGarh during the early 1700s (source: Mahan Kosh).* Many other sahejdhari sikhs led congregations according to the remnant Hukamnmas of the Guru. In 1704, Mani Ram, a sahejdhari, was appointed as the head of congregation in Haryana (Hukamnama Guru Gobind Singh).* Even Sau Sakhi says there are 3 type of Sikhs: khand, charan (non existent after 1708) and sahejdhari.I have backed up my every claim by quotes & sources. Come back with historical proofs and don't quote Desa Singh Rehatnama because I am sure people like you drink sharab and then quote Desa Singh Rehat. To begin with, how do you define Sehajdhari? as a Mona? Of all these sources, have any of them mentioned whether these sehajdharis were Kesdharis or not? And are they proven authentic? Quoting the Sau Sakhi is the equivalent of quoting a Modern Protestant Bible, it's heavily diluted, far from original and authentic. Even if Sau Sakhi mentions Sehajdhari, it doesn't serve as concrete evidence, since it has been tampered with and polluted to such an extant that not even one Sakhi can't be considered authentic. It's Ironic how you speak of and define "Authentic Sources" but later on quote Sau Sakhi. Additionally, do you know if the Hukamnamas you quoted are authentic or not? If I'm not wrong, Scholar(s) threw most of these out the window. Keeping Kes was considered one of the minimum requirements of a Sikh, a Sehajdhari is supposed to gradually adopt Rehat and strive towards becoming an Amritdhari/Khalsa, as the name implies, so even if they did exist in the Guru's time, they were supposed to take Amrit sooner or later. Furthermore, Old does not equal Authentic. How can you be so sure that someone drinks Sharab if they're quoting Desa Singh's Rehatnama? I am most certainly sure that you stuff your mouth with a good steaming dose of sh*t before spewing it all over these forums. Edited June 13, 2015 by Kuttabanda2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Historically all sevapanthi head until recently have been sehajdhari. So my point remains valid.Where did I say Gurbaksh Das was a Sevapanthi? I was just pointing out references to Granths or 'famous' Sahejdharis after Khalsa 'saajna'. Gurbaksh Das was a Sahejdhari, thats what I was saying.I confirmed with a scholar that Baba Ghaniya jee was an amritdhari. Baba Adan Shah jee and Baba Jagta jee were Sehajdharis, but they were still Keshdharis.Bhul chuk maaf Edited June 13, 2015 by paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Keeping Kes was considered one of the minimum requirements of a Sikh, a Sehajdhari is supposed to gradually adopt Rehat and strive towards becoming an Amritdhari/Khalsa, as the name implies. Good point.A Sehajdhari is either a Keshdhari person, who is striving to become an Amritdhari ORA person of another faith, who has immense love for Satguru jee.A Mona/Rhoda/Dhari katuaa cannot be classified as a Sehajdhari Sikh. Kesh (uncut hair) is the root of Sikhi.Bhul chuk maaf Edited June 13, 2015 by paapiman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) To begin with, how do you define Sehajdhari? as a Mona? Of all these sources, have any of them mentioned whether these sehajdharis were Kesdharis or not? And are they proven authentic? Quoting the Sau Sakhi is the equivalent of quoting a Modern Protestant Bible, it's heavily diluted, far from original and authentic. Even if Sau Sakhi mentions Sehajdhari, it doesn't serve as concrete evidence, since it has been tampered with and polluted to such an extant that not even one Sakhi can't be considered authentic. It's Ironic how you speak of and define "Authentic Sources" but later on quote Sau Sakhi. Additionally, do you know if the Hukamnamas you quoted are authentic or not? If I'm not wrong, Scholar(s) threw most of these out the window. Keeping Kes was considered one of the minimum requirements of a Sikh, a Sehajdhari is supposed to gradually adopt Rehat and strive towards becoming an Amritdhari/Khalsa, as the name implies, so even if they did exist in the Guru's time, they were supposed to take Amrit sooner or later. Furthermore, Old does not equal Authentic. How can you be so sure that someone drinks Sharab if they're quoting Desa Singh's Rehatnama? I am most certainly sure that you stuff your mouth with a good steaming dose of sh*t before spewing it all over these forums. Sahajdhari is not bound by outwards rehat. So he can be mona.Stop with the usual lie that sahajdhari means slow adopter, how would you explain people like Kanhaiya, Seva Ram and Gurbaksh Das dying as sehajdharis? I am not an opponent of Kes, search on this forum and you will see I have been defending Kes and saying Sikhs (most if not all) keep it since Guru Nanaks time. But we can't deny Sahajdharis existence.If you start rejecting every source, then no single historical source will remain because ALL of them have things you won't agree with, most have been tampered with. Then where will you write your history from?We have to READ all Puratan Granths, distill the good facts and form our view of history. How else are you supposed to know Gur and Sikh ithaas?That way, we will read even the most interpolated Granths but take out facts and if they tally with several other sources then accept them after evaluation.And stop being a phuddu, you call me out for quoting Sau Sakhi but this Paapi is quoting Desa Rehat which says you can drink sharab and what not. Do you give choopay before commenting on topics ? Edited June 13, 2015 by SikhKhoj 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 And stop being a phuddu, you call me out for quoting Sau Sakhi but this Paapi is quoting Desa Rehat which says you can drink sharab and what not. Do you give choopay before commenting on topics ? What do you mean by choopay....just curious 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhKhoj Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) mod edit: edited as its based on rumours not any proof, evidence. Edited June 15, 2015 by N30 S!NGH 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.