Difference in Sikhi post 1699?

[paapiman]

 

Using your logic above, I could easily argue that you are creating differences by suggesting some forms of God allowed janju, whilst another banned it (or preferred some other 'articles' in its place)  

​Most Sikhs of first master did not carry weapons, but many Sikhs of tenth master did --- this is not creating differences.

Sikhs of first master were docile and placid, but Sikhs of tenth master were brave --- this is creating differences.

One cannot compare the above two statements. One is talking about outward appearance, while the other is about the actual state of human mind.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 2, 2015 by paapiman

[Singh123456777]

A person who becomes a true sikh of the guru is willing to sacrifice their whole mind and body. It does not matter if that guru is the first guru or the tenth guru. The true Sikhs had the same bravery in their hearts.

[dalsingh101]

You lot are straight papus. 

 

[paapiman]

You lot are straight papus. 

 

​Bro, what does Papus mean? I apologize, my mother tongue is not English.

Bhul chuk maaf

[dalsingh101]

If you think that Sikhs weren't infinitely more ready and capable for large-scale war under dasmesh pita than under previous mohals you've got a very skewed understanding of the Sikh movement in my opinion. Sikhs were steadily conditioned socially, spiritually, physically as well as psychologically and militarily over the 10 mohals. 

 

This would obviously have an impact on the community. 

 

I notice a  lot of people who are internally very cowardly like to hide behind the illusion that Guru ji will wave a magic wand in dire circumstances and they will become expert, hardcore warriors like that! Just saves them ever having to actually do anything risky and brave (as well as hard training) in real life in my opinion. 

 

Military training/ martial arts was a major component of amritdhari life until annexation. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by dalsingh101

[Singh123456777]

Dal Singh nobody is questioning that martial arts yudh vidiya is a major component. What we are trying to get at is that the true Sikhs even in guru Nanak dev Ji's time would be willing to get shaheed if necessary like qazi ruqandeen. He became shaheed cause he did not want to change his beliefs of sikhi.

[dalsingh101]

​

​See now the whole things been shifted. 

 

Paapiman said: Do you seriously think that the Sikhs of first master were in anyway, less brave than that of tenth master?

 

They were different, the latter Sikhs were a lot more physically capable of dealing with violence than the earlier ones. If we consider bravery in terms of their willingness  to openly revolt and take on an organised, well funded, experienced, military outfit (the Moghuls and Afghans), then yes they were braver, but only because the community had been built up to be over successive centuries. 

[paapiman]

​

They were different, the latter Sikhs were a lot more physically capable of dealing with violence than the earlier ones. If we consider bravery in terms of their willingness  to openly revolt and take on an organised, well funded, experienced, military outfit (the Moghuls and Afghans), then yes they were braver, but only because the community had been built up to be over successive centuries. 

​I do agree that Sikhs of the tenth master were more physically capable of dealing with warfare, but Sikhs of the first master were as brave as the Sikhs of the tenth master. A physically weak person is also capable of being very brave.

Your point makes sense, if we talk about Sikh community as a whole (which includes idiots/cowards like me too). But, if one claims that the previous Satgurus did not have any Sikhs, who could fight with millions in a battlefield would be wrong.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 3, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

Dal Singh nobody is questioning that martial arts yudh vidiya is a major component. What we are trying to get at is that the true Sikhs even in guru Nanak dev Ji's time would be willing to get shaheed if necessary like qazi ruqandeen. He became shaheed cause he did not want to change his beliefs of sikhi.

​Bro, can you please share the sakhi of Qazi Ruqandeen?

Thanks

[paapiman]

 

I notice a  lot of people who are internally very cowardly like to hide behind the illusion that Guru ji will wave a magic wand in dire circumstances and they will become expert, hardcore warriors like that! Just saves them ever having to actually do anything risky and brave (as well as hard training) in real life in my opinion. 

 

Maharaaj did infuse courage into ordinary people.

 

 

Quote
 

On seeing the valour of Lal Chand boatman one Lal Chand sweet-meat seller picked up weapons and reached there. The Pathans knew that the first one is a boatman but the second one is a sweet-meat seller. How has he got the courage to fight?
 

Unquote [1]

[1] - Gur Balam Sakhian

Quote
 

Their forces consisted of veteran soldiers and warrior Pathans.

While the Sikhs constituted poor unskilled rustics, barbers and carpenters.
 

Unquote [2]

[2] - Sri Gur Panth Prakash

 

Satguru jee has the power to convert cowards into hardcore warriors. One must never doubt that.

Having said the above, one must also learn shaster vidya.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 3, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

 

 

I notice a  lot of people who are internally very cowardly like to hide behind the illusion that Guru ji will wave a magic wand in dire circumstances and they will become expert, hardcore warriors like that! Just saves them ever having to actually do anything risky and brave (as well as hard training) in real life in my opinion. 

 

​Let's have a look, at what Gurbani says about warriors.

 

ਨਾਨਕ ਸੋ ਸੂਰਾ ਵਰੀਆਮੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਵਿਚਹੁ ਦੁਸਟੁ ਅਹੰਕਰਣੁ ਮਾਰਿਆ ॥

O Nanak, he is a brave warrior, who conquers and subdues his vicious inner ego.

 

ਜਾ ਕਉ ਹਰਿ ਰੰਗੁ ਲਾਗੋ ਇਸੁ ਜੁਗ ਮਹਿ ਸੋ ਕਹੀਅਤ ਹੈ ਸੂਰਾ ॥

He alone is called a warrior, who is attached to the Lord's Love in this age.

ਜੋ ਸੂਰਾ ਤਿਸ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਮਰਣਾ ॥

He alone is a warrior hero, who remains dead to the world.

ਜੋ ਭਾਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਜੋਨੀ ਫਿਰਣਾ ॥

One who runs away will wander in reincarnation.
 

ਸੂਰੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਅਹੰਕਾਰਿ ਮਰਹਿ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ॥

They are not called heroes, who die of egotism, suffering in pain.

Edited July 3, 2015 by paapiman

[Singh123456777]

​Bro, can you please share the sakhi of Qazi Ruqandeen?

Thanks

Well after guru Ji met with the qazis in Mecca and medina the qazis guru Ji met became Sikhs of maharaj Ji. When the qazis and mullahs who never met guru Ji questioned qazi ruqandeen why he does praise and speak guru jis bani(they think guru Ji was a kaffir). Then qazi ruqandeen Ji said that guru Ji maharaj is God themselves etc and the other mullahs and qazis were thinking that qazi ruqandeen started talking blasphemous things so they stoned him to death. Qazi ruqandeen could most likely be the first sikh shaheed. 

I read this Sakhi a long time ago.

[amardeep]

Here is the text from Panth Prakash

 

Chaupai : Sri Guru Gobind Singh, being an expert omniscient psychoanalyst,

Had diagnosed the root cause of his Sikh’s psychic malady.

Since these Sikhs had been peaceful followers of a Charan Pahul4 tradition,

There was no spark of self-assertion and retaliation in their psyche. (29)

Dohra : They had been used to wearing a black woolen silken cap as head cover,

As they had been indoctrinated to call themselves as servants or slaves,

They being grounded in excessive compassion and humility,

It would be futile to ask them to pick up swords. (30)

Chaupai : He should first bring about a transformation in their character,

And make their appearance formidable that evokes fear and awe.

He should give his organisation a charismatic nomenclature,

And administer a heavy dose of heady elixir to them. (31)

So Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh arrived at a firm resolution,

And made efforts to implement it after deep contemplation.

They must adopt the dress code of a martial warrior race,

And grow hair and wear turbans on their heads. (32)

 

The warrior Kshtriyas had been suffixing the epithet “Singhs”

The same suffix “Singh” would suit his followers’ names as well.

He resolved to administer them the “Khandey-ki-Pahul”5 ,

In order to make the Khalsa formidable and resolute. (33)

In this way, they would learn the art of wielding power,

And develop a feeling of having become rulers and sovereigns.

From people weak as straw and reeds, he would turn them into men of steel,

After partaking of sword-initiated elixir, they would not be scared to pick up swords. (34)

Dohra : The Khalsa must be as autonomous and self-respecting,

As embodiment of all the Divine attributes in plenty.

Never submitting to the sovereignty of anyone else,

Except the sovereignty and autonomy of God alone. (35)

 

Chaupai : Hence forth, the Khalsa would not worship any spirits and graves of Pirs,

Nor would they be worshippers of “Gugapir Sultan”6 .

They would no longer wear saffron mark, sacred thread or lose apparel (dhoti),

Eliminating all caste distinctions, they would dine together. (36)

 

The Gurmukhi text can be found on page 80 here:

http://sikhinstitute.org/gpp_v1.pdf

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by amardeep

[BhagatSingh]

Here is the text from Panth Prakash

​Amardeep that first bit is clearly hyperbole verging on untruth.

We know Guru Arjun Dev ji practiced horse-riding and tent pegging.
We know before that Guru Amar Das ji used to have akharay and wrestling and organized these kinds of events. Guru Amar Das ji had a lot of fervor and power. There's a sakhi that took place in Khadoor, where briefly during a drought period he made it rain.
Even though guru sahibs call themselves slaves and servants of Hari, that does not sound like "slave-mentality" or docile behaviour to me.

So this - "It would be futile to ask them to pick up swords. (30)" - sounds like a load of rubbish.

The puratan sikhs held these interests as well. Guru Hari Gobind ji didn't find an army out of nothing. He had warriors sikhs of Guru Arjun Dev ji to work with.

PS "lose apparel (dhoti)" dhoti isn't lose apparel lol. Dhoti is a wrapped version of the Kachera. Warriors used to wear it before someone figured out how to stitch the dhoti shape into a kachera.

Edited July 3, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[chatanga1]

Are you saying 50,000 people were involved in these battles? I'm not clear.

​"The Sikh Religion" by the Sikh Missionary Center USA, quotes 50,000. No source given.

Hari Ram Gupta quotes Macgregor in the first battle of the Sikh army being 700 against 7000. IN the battle of Gurusar Gupta gives 1200 Sikhs dead.

Gupta then quotes Dabistan re the battle of Kartarpur of the Sikh army being 5000 strong.

I will look up more sources but feel 50,000 is looking excessive. Baba Banda Bahadurs' army in Sirhind Fateh is given as 30,000 strong.

 

 

​

​For example, lets say we have 100 people (10 majhbis and 90 non-majhbis) ready to take khanday da amrit. Now, suppose the non-majhbis say that they will not take amrit with the majhbis and they request the Panj Pyaray to keep their bowl separate. Do you think, it would be prudent to reject them, just because of this reason?

​

I hear what you are saying but 10th Master rejected the Rajputs who were willing to take Amrit if their baata was seperate from the jats, gujars, jheevars etc. Guru Ji totally rejected them. Even in the face of hosiltities at that time, and considering the arsenal these hill chiefs were packing, they still could not have a seperate baata.

 

[chatanga1]

What we are trying to get at is that the true Sikhs even in guru Nanak dev Ji's time would be willing to get shaheed if necessary like qazi ruqandeen. He became shaheed cause he did not want to change his beliefs of sikhi.

​I have read the sakhi you posted about Rukandin, but does it apply here? Qazi Sahib had the sidak to forfeit his life rather than  religion, but he put up no resistance to his fate, whereas by the 6th Guru and 10th Guru (possibly a little earlier) this passive thinking was gone and physical resistance was a norm.

[SikhKhoj]

Phuddus don't realise that we are not talking about 'numbers' or capability to wage large scale wars but the actual concept of Sikhi, if Rehat or other teachings changed. If latter Gurus 'diverted' Sikhi towards another side.

[SikhKhoj]

The first aim of the topic was to discuss whether the Sikh tradition was diverted during the 6th Gurus and 10th Gurus times (something what the likes of Arnold Toynbee believed. Arnold Toynbee held Guru Hargobind responsible for violating the “spiritual trust” of his predecessors by entertaining vulgar worldly ambitions” and for transforming the “embryonic church into embryonic state”.)

But in this topic we have ascertained that the Sant Sipahi aspect was present since Guru Nanak Devs times, opposing tyranny (which can be done in varying forms) & shahadat were part and parcel of Sikhi since day one.

The discussion has been diverted to another side now, where we are trying to compare the Soldier aspect of Sikhi based on 10th Gurus battles compared to the non militarized Sikhs pre Guru Hargobind. No one is denying that the Sikhs under 10th Patshah were generally (much) more prepared for attacks and battles under the 10th Guru for example but we also have to keep in mind that no such situation even existed during the times of Guru Nanak-Guru Ram Das. The emperors were generally positively 'inclined' towards Sikhi; Humayun came to seek Guru Angads blessings and Akbar visited the Guru on a few occassions as well. It is only during Guru Arjans reign that Jahangir acceded to the throne, and within 2 years Guru Ji was martyred. The earlier Gurus didn't need to maintain a regular army because there was no threat as such, the fifth Guru resisted peacefully but as our history says, Guru Ji foresaw the coming period of conflict and thus started preparing sahibzada Hargobind for the coming time (hunting, etc).

It is interesting to note that alot of prominent soldiers of Guru Hargobind were from the times of the earlier Gurus (Bhai Peeraga, Bhai Mathra, etc. The first battle of Guru Hargobind occured around 15-16 years after his fathers martyrdom. The first battle of Guru Gobind Singh occured 13 years after his fathers martyrdom. These 13-15 years are not a that long time and with the added facts that many important soldiers were of the previous Gurus times it is not right to ignore the fact that previous Gurus did train Sikhs physically, perhaps not that militarily but Mal Akharas are a proof that the Sipahi aspect was present.

Thus I think we can conclude the discussion on the note that while the earlier Sikhs did not prepare for battles because there was no constant threat, they were not meek and cowardly as Bhangu or DalSingh try to imply either. They were capable of giving shaheediyan & opposing tyranny. The case of Qazi Ruqn Deens Shaheedi can be taken as an isolated example, just like the Shaheedian of Guru Nanaks Sikhs in Eminabad - it was not persecution as faced by latter Sikhs. And as Sikhs we always first tried to reply tyranny with sabar, and when it failed the sword was drawn. 5th Patshah was peace, 6th Patshah replied with war. 9th Guru was a brave warrior, he also had a limited set of soldiers. He was also arrested once in Assam prior to the Shaheedi, he could've prepared for a battle but I think it had more to do with 'not raising sword untill all means have failed'.

Guru Gobind Singh could not get justice for the Shotay Sahibzade via the Mughals (peaceful) thus Banda Singh was sent to Sirhind. I think it all makes sense.

 

[paapiman]

​I have read the sakhi you posted about Rukandin, but does it apply here? Qazi Sahib had the sidak to forfeit his life rather than  religion, but he put up no resistance to his fate, whereas by the 6th Guru and 10th Guru (possibly a little earlier) this passive thinking was gone and physical resistance was a norm.

​Bro, Singh gave an example of bravery. It just proves that there were Sikhs before tenth master, who were as brave as the famous shaheeds after 1699.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 4, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

I hear what you are saying but 10th Master rejected the Rajputs who were willing to take Amrit if their baata was seperate from the jats, gujars, jheevars etc. Guru Ji totally rejected them. Even in the face of hosiltities at that time, and considering the arsenal these hill chiefs were packing, they still could not have a seperate baata.

​

​It also depends on the way, people request. It is possible, Rajputs did not request with utmost humility and love, while non-Majhbis (during the times of Baba Sundar Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale) did so. Baba Sundar Singh jee Khalsa Bhindrawale had access to tenth master, so most likely, he must have taken permission from master, before conducting such an amrit sanchaar.

When one makes a request to Satguru jee or a Brahamgyani, one has to be full of love and in utter humility, in order for his request to have a chance, to be fulfilled.

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 5, 2015 by paapiman

[SikhKhoj]

Rattan Singh Bhangu's makes an interesting statement that dasmesh pita introduced Khande amrit because he perceived the charan version was making Sikhs docile and placid. 

Not every controversial statement is interesting and worth considering. Stop being a pseudo intellectual.

guru hargobind put resistence to mughal for several battles (more than 4 as popularly believed), they were in scale not much smaller than guru gobind singhs defensive battles.

When Guru Har Rai was summoned by Aurangzeb, the elders of the Sikh court discussed that in case the army tries to forcibly take Guru Har Rai a prisoner, the Sikhs would retreat to the Shivalik Hills and put up a fight. (source: Suraj Parkash)

so stop denigrating our early sikhs and insulting charan pahul you dalla