Sikhs visiting graves - opinions

[JustAnotherSingh]

I said certain facets, and I stand by that statement. Being in awe of extraordinary people is something I can believe is universal (I genuinely get shivers when I read or listen to the stories from our history), but concocting stories about the ghosts of those people stopping tanks or preventing people from entering barbershops is another thing. I have my respect for shaheedan but it's sometimes just excessive within our panth especially when it comes to 1984. I am overall supportive of the Kharku lehar but it's sad how the [minority] group of genuine scumbags who infiltrated the movement for their own personal incentives but were killed in action get the shaheed card and thus all genuine debate about their legacy is shut down. 

 

What I label as "Jatt culture" is pretty much what you refer to as anparh Apne. Most habits are universal across cultures, but some are more susceptible to extremes than others. 

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, paganvegan said:

I thought about it and IMHO it makes a lot of sense to me.  I don't know why people misinterpret the Gubani so much.  How can Guru's Shabad be Guru's Murti? But when you say becoming one with the Guru, do you mean dehtarry Guru?

No such distinction is ever made in Guru Granth Sahib.

It's a stupid trend to make such distinctions that has arisen recently. This Ram is different that Ram is different. This guru is dehdhari that guru is not.

Dehdhari means Deh - body, dhari - wearer. Someone who wears a body. A dehdhari Guru is the same as any other Guru. All Gurus wear a body.

Obviously your physical body cannot physically combine with another physical body. Nor will you shapeshift to look like the Guru whom you are meditating on.

It is about your soul. Your soul is merging into theirs, your qualities are becoming like them, etc. It is always a merger of souls. The body however is the vehicle for that merger. And when you become the Guru, your body then becomes an insignia of the Guru.

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, dalsingh101 said:

That's not really a definition of Sikh shaheed though, really it refers to someone who has sacrificed their life for the Sikh cause. 

Well they refer to all spirit guides as Shaheed sikhs ("as someone who has sacrificed their life for the Sikh cause"), whether or not they really are in reality.

I am including the reality in my definition. That those spirits being referred to as Shaheeds, may not be martyrs. They maybe their relatives who had passed away recently or something.

 

[dalsingh101]

1 minute ago, BhagatSingh said:

Well they refer to all spirit guides as Shaheed sikhs ("as someone who has sacrificed their life for the Sikh cause"), whether or not they really are in reality.

I am including the reality in my definition. That those spirits being referred to as Shaheeds, may not be martyrs. They maybe their relatives who had passed away recently or something.

 

Who are the 'they' referred to in your first sentence?

I honestly don't know where you are getting these definitions from. It's someplace I am unaware of. 

'Shaheed Sikhs'  had a clear meaning when I was growing up, it meant those who died as a result of protecting, fighting for or maintaining their faith. A lot of people feel affinity for the prominent amongst these (like say Baba Deep Singh or Baba Gurbaksh Singh), but in reality there were loads more shaheeds than just the now famous ones (i.e. all the nameless Singhs that accompanied Babas Deep and Gurbaksh Singh).

Like I said, I don't know where your definition is coming from?

[BhagatSingh]

10 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

Who are the 'they' referred to in your first sentence?

As the other Singh said - Jatts. They are into Shaheed Singh worship.

10 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

A lot of people feel affinity for the prominent amongst these (like say Baba Deep Singh

 

Take a guess as to why Shaheed Baba Deep Singh ji is so famous.

10 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

I honestly don't know where you are getting these definitions from. It's someplace I am unaware of. 

'Shaheed Sikhs'  had a clear meaning when I was growing up, it meant those who died as a result of protecting, fighting for or maintaining their faith.

You are right but we are talking about ghosts too... what the martyrs did (and perhaps still do) after their passing.

That's one concept - martyrs come back to help people.

I am adding another layer - that the ghosts who are guiding people may not all be martyrs, even though people think that those who are guiding them are the martyrs.

In reality it maybe so that the ghosts are their relatives who have passed away recently (so they are not martyrs). But those guys will say they are martyrs - "shaheed singhs" - simply because that is the easily available concept or the go-to terminology and because they can't tell the difference between who is who, they just know someone is guiding them and they call them "shaheed singh".

[dalsingh101]

Quote

 I am overall supportive of the Kharku lehar but it's sad how the [minority] group of genuine scumbags who infiltrated the movement for their own personal incentives but were killed in action get the shaheed card and thus all genuine debate about their legacy is shut down. 

I would say 'that' is a consequence of modern jut culture, in that it doesn't allow for any questioning of a simple, black and white narrative (perfect good guys versus evil bad guys). I'd guess it's a consequence of today's jut insularity and simplicity.  Maybe itself derived from a century of being dumbed down by the British? What's interesting is that Rattan Bhangu doesn't represent Sikh itihaas like this AT ALL. He has loads of shades and nuances going on. That's why I think it is a modern thing. I mean look at the ambivalence shown towards Banda Singh Bahadur in Bhangu's work for example. He has no problem with showing Sikhs doing bad things or even regretting actions.

With the modern  narratives all of our lot are perfect and act emplary at all times.... lol

 

Plus, if the movement really was heavily infiltrated and some of the heroes were actually government/police plants (happened to the IRA at the highest level), then it's no surprise that people don't have the stomach to face up to that. 

[das]

let me ask you this: How many of you have spent couple of years in any village in India? By definition/dictionary Shaheed refers to someone who has laid out his/her life for the benefit of others in wars.....but if you've had a chance to spend some time in any village, then you would instantly see that these days people refer to Shaheed's place as the place where there is some cremation place with some power (good or bad).

Some years back, Shaheeds were refereed as the Protective/Guardian Spirits (not ghosts) who help people, but nowdays people have tagged every place associated with wish fulfilling as Shaheed.

The important difference is:

* Ghosts (has its own levels) are negative entities who does posses power that they use to harm people and sometimes they also fulfill anyone's wishes (obliviously conditions attached) if that person can make the ghost happy or something.

* Good entities (again has its own levels) are positive entities who always work under some higherup forces (mostly associated to Saints). Their intentions are always help us in our main aim (merging with God) but along the way they also help us (but within some protocol). They would NOT affect your free-will.

* Wandering entities: who are just wandering (without physical bodies). Sometimes they act as good and sometimes bad......but their overall energy is almost negative.

And all the above is coming from direct experience with both Good entities and Bad entities.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

Take a guess as to why Shaheed Baba Deep Singh ji is so famous.

What I find REALLY weird is no mention of Baba Deep Singh's shaheedi in Panth Prakash.

[amardeep]

2 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

What I find REALLY weird is no mention of Baba Deep Singh's shaheedi in Panth Prakash.

Baba Deep Singh is mentioned many times in the Panth Prakash. His shaheedi is given in GIani Gian Singh's Panth Prakash:

 

ਅਧਿਕ ਦਮਦਮੇਂ ਰਹਿ ਤਲਵੰਡੀ । ਹੁਤੋ ਬੀਰ ਬਰ ਬਲੀ ਘਮੰਡੀ ।
He would remain at Damdama Sahib in Talwandi. He was a great and brave warrior.

ਸੁਨਿ ਬੇਅਦਬੀ ਬਹੁ ਗੁਰੁਦ੍ਵਾਰੈਂ ।ਚੰਡੀ ਚਢੀ ਤਾਂਹਿ ਅਤਿ ਭਾਰੈਂ ।੯।
When hearing about the disrespect at the Gurdrawa [Harimandar], The spirit of Chandi arose within him.

ਸੁਨਿ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਾਠ ਅਖੰਡ ਕਰਾਯੋ । ਹਮਨ ਕਰਯੋ ਕੰਗਨਾ ਬੰਧਵਾਯੋ ।
Baba Ji organized an Akhand Paat and completed a Havan [before heading towards the battle] and tied a wedding bracelet around his wrist [a preparation for martyrdom as death is seen as a merging with their beloved Lord]


The battle that ensued was quite ferocious.


ਬਿਲੱਛ ਲੱਛ ਸਾਯਕਾ ਸਪੱਛ ਸਾਂਪ ਸੇ ਫਿਰੈਂ ।
Arrows, Battle standards, and Double edged swords move throughout the battle field like snakes.

Giani Gian Singh continues to describe the greatness of Baba Deep Singh Ji by saying,


ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੂ ਮਹੀਪ ਪੰਥ ਮੈਂ ਤਹਾਂ । ਜਿਤੈ ਪਰੰਤ ਦੌੜ ਕੈ ਕਰੰਤ ਚੌੜ ਹੈ ਮਹਾਂ ।
Shahid Deep Singh was the great king of the Panth ! Wherever he ran he caused great destruction [to the enemy forces]

Giani Ji later on speaks about the famous event where Baba Ji lost his head in battle.


ਚਲੀ ਤੇਗ ਅਤਿ ਬੇਗ ਸੈਂ । ਦੁਹੂੰ ਕੇਰ ਬਲ ਵਾਰ । ਉਤਰ ਗਏ ਸਿਰ ਦੁਹੁੰ ਕੇ, ਪਰਸ ਪਰੈਂ ਇਕ ਸਾਰ ।੫੬।
The sword moved very quickly from both warriors [Baba Ji and his enemy]. Because of the strikes were at the same time, both of the warriors heads came off.


ਨਿਜ ਸਿਰ ਬਾਮ ਹਾਥਿ ਨਿਜ ਧਾਰਾ । ਦਹਿਨੇ ਹਾਥਿ ਤੇਗ ਖਰ ਧਾਰਾ ।
His head was picked up and placed on his left hand, and with his right hand he held his sword.


When the Jatha of Singhs arrived at Amritsar at the Ramsar sarovar the cries of victory were heard.


ਫਤੇ ਗਜਾਈ ਊਚਿ ਉਚਰ ਕੈ । ਅਏ ਬਿਵਾਨ ਦੇਵ ਗਨ ਲੈ ਕੈ । ਸੁਮਨ ਸੁਮਨ ਬਰਖੇ ਹਰਖੈ ਕੈ ।੬੬।
The loud cries of victory were yelled ! Extremely happy the Gods and Goddesses came to greet them and were dropping flowers like rain [upon the warriors]


ਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਕੀ ਗਾਥਾ ਸੁਨਿ ਸੁਨਿ । ਧੰਨਯ ਧੰਨਯ ਸਭਿ ਕੈਹੈਂ ਪੁਨ ਪੁਨ ।੧੦੩।
Oh listen to the story of [Baba] Deep Singh Shaheed. Everyone over and over again cries, [Baba ji is] Blessed Blessed !

http://www.manglacharan.com/manglacharan/nglacharan.com/2010/01/baba-deep-singh-shahid.html

 

[Guest Morni]

Everyone has a different definition of a Shaheed Singh.

The most popular is that they are non-physical entities with great powers who have been present since eternity.  Bu I personally have no experience

Only genuine person who can comment is one who has had personal experience with them. so I will go with das explanation

[dalsingh101]

1 minute ago, Guest Morni said:

Everyone has a different definition of a Shaheed Singh.

The most popular is that they are non-physical entities with great powers who have been present since eternity.  Bu I personally have no experience

Only genuine person who can comment is one who has had personal experience with them. so I will go with das explanation

So seriously, you just take someone's word at face value??  Even if you don't know them or have never met them. 

 

I have one problem, from my experience the vast majority of people who talk about familiarity with ghosts like this have been people with mental health/psychiatric issues.

I'm not saying I don't believe these things are possible, just that a big percentage of people who go on about their personal experiences in such matters seem to have mental health issues. They could be imagining stuff due to this? Hallucinating and stuff. 

[Guest guest sharpie]

Some food for thought about ancestors

1. Ang 223 Line 18 Raag Gauri: Guru Nanak Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਆਪਿ ਤਰੈ ਪਿਤਰੀ ਨਿਸਤਾਰੇ ॥੩॥

Aap Tharai Pitharee Nisathaarae ||3||

आपि तरै पितरी निसतारे ॥३॥

They swim across, and save their ancestors as well. ||3||

2. Ang 332 Line 11 Raag Gauri Bairaagan: Bhagat Kabir
or Go to Shabad

ਜੀਵਤ ਪਿਤਰ ਨ ਮਾਨੈ ਕੋਊ ਮੂਏਂ ਸਿਰਾਧ ਕਰਾਹੀ ॥

Jeevath Pithar N Maanai Kooo Mooeaen Siraadhh Karaahee ||

जीवत पितर न मानै कोऊ मूएं सिराध कराही ॥

He does not honor his ancestors while they are alive, but he holds feasts in their honor after they have died.

3. Ang 332 Line 11 Raag Gauri Bairaagan: Bhagat Kabir
or Go to Shabad

ਪਿਤਰ ਭੀ ਬਪੁਰੇ ਕਹੁ ਕਿਉ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਕਊਆ ਕੂਕਰ ਖਾਹੀ ॥੧॥

Pithar Bhee Bapurae Kahu Kio Paavehi Kooaa Kookar Khaahee ||1||

पितर भी बपुरे कहु किउ पावहि कऊआ कूकर खाही ॥१॥

Tell me, how can his poor ancestors receive what the crows and the dogs have eaten up? ||1||

4. Ang 332 Line 13 Raag Gauri Bairaagan: Bhagat Kabir
or Go to Shabad

ਐਸੇ ਪਿਤਰ ਤੁਮਾਰੇ ਕਹੀਅਹਿ ਆਪਨ ਕਹਿਆ ਨ ਲੇਹੀ ॥੨॥

Aisae Pithar Thumaarae Keheeahi Aapan Kehiaa N Laehee ||2||

ऐसे पितर तुमारे कहीअहि आपन कहिआ न लेही ॥२॥

Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want. ||2||

5. Ang 472 Line 7 Raag Asa: Guru Nanak Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਜੇ ਮੋਹਾਕਾ ਘਰੁ ਮੁਹੈ ਘਰੁ ਮੁਹਿ ਪਿਤਰੀ ਦੇਇ ॥

Jae Mohaakaa Ghar Muhai Ghar Muhi Pitharee Dhaee ||

जे मोहाका घरु मुहै घरु मुहि पितरी देइ ॥

The thief robs a house, and offers the stolen goods to his ancestors.

6. Ang 472 Line 7 Raag Asa: Guru Nanak Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਅਗੈ ਵਸਤੁ ਸਿਞਾਣੀਐ ਪਿਤਰੀ ਚੋਰ ਕਰੇਇ ॥

Agai Vasath Sinjaaneeai Pitharee Chor Karaee ||

अगै वसतु सिञाणीऐ पितरी चोर करेइ ॥

In the world hereafter, this is recognized, and his ancestors are considered thieves as well.

7. Ang 496 Line 3 Raag Goojree: Guru Arjan Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਜਿਸੁ ਸਿਮਰਤ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਨਾਸਹਿ ਪਿਤਰੀ ਹੋਇ ਉਧਾਰੋ ॥

Jis Simarath Sabh Kilavikh Naasehi Pitharee Hoe Oudhhaaro ||

जिसु सिमरत सभि किलविख नासहि पितरी होइ उधारो ॥

Remembering Him, all sins are erased, and ones generations are saved.

8. Ang 856 Line 7 Raag Bilaaval: Bhagat Kabir
or Go to Shabad

ਘਰ ਕੇ ਦੇਵ ਪਿਤਰ ਕੀ ਛੋਡੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੋ ਸਬਦੁ ਲਇਓ ॥

Ghar Kae Dhaev Pithar Kee Shhoddee Gur Ko Sabadh Laeiou ||

घर के देव पितर की छोडी गुर को सबदु लइओ ॥

I have renounced the gods and ancestors of my house, for the Word of the Guru's Shabad.

9. Ang 904 Line 15 Raag Raamkali: Guru Nanak Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਆਪਿ ਡੁਬੈ ਕਿਉ ਪਿਤਰਾ ਤਾਰੈ ॥

Aap Ddubai Kio Pitharaa Thaarai ||

आपि डुबै किउ पितरा तारै ॥

You drown yourself - how will you save your ancestors?

10. Ang 1026 Line 13 Raag Maaroo: Guru Nanak Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਆਪਿ ਤਰੈ ਜਨੁ ਪਿਤਰਾ ਤਾਰੇ ॥

Aap Tharai Jan Pitharaa Thaarae ||

आपि तरै जनु पितरा तारे ॥

He Himself saves His humble servant, and saves his ancestors as well.

11. Ang 1230 Line 18 Raag Sarang: Guru Arjan Dev
or Go to Shabad

ਮਾਤਰ ਪਿਤਰ ਤਿਆਗਿ ਕੈ ਮਨੁ ਸੰਤਨ ਪਾਹਿ ਬੇਚਾਇਓ ॥

Maathar Pithar Thiaag Kai Man Santhan Paahi Baechaaeiou ||

मातर पितर तिआगि कै मनु संतन पाहि बेचाइओ ॥

I have abandoned my mother and father, and sold my mind to the Saints.

[JustAnotherSingh]

@dalsingh101, maybe we approach this from different frameworks. The sort of pindu insularity we see in the panth today, I see as endemic to Jatts/uneducated stemming back to the Gurus' time. It's true that the Angrej preyed upon this, and thus the modern manifestations we see are usually directly linked to the British, but some of the cultural characteristics are core, I would think. Let's take the fascination some idiots have with racializing castes and trying to paint Jatts as being Europeans or whatever. That specific type of regressive mentality is obviously very much taken from the British, but this desire to prove a superior bloodline has gone back for a while. Muslim Jatts all claim to be Sayyids, and Sikh Jatt misldars frantically tried to link their family trees to the Rajputs once they acquiesced the smallest bit of political power and forgot where it *actually* came from (i.e., the Gurus' blessing). 

 

Regarding Bhangoo, I also contextualize him in a different way. For one, I think he was a bit brighter than the average bloke and was more aware of the nuances in these events in the first place. Secondly, his narrative to me actually shows that this tendency within our community to pick enemies/allies. Bhangoo isn't too harsh on Banda, but he still is very much against him, being part of the generation that saw Banda as someone who went against the Guru, created the Bandai, and purposefully disobeyed everyone for the sake of it. I personally view a lot of the destruction of Banda's legacy as stemming from the fact that he had some tension with Bhai Binod Singh, and everything sort of exploded after Gurdas Nangal and after the altercation with the Bandai Khalsa in particular. That's why we have writers from so many books that try to even deny that he took Amrit as an extra character assassination. 

One thing Bhangoo doesn't hold back on is describing the brutal and gruesome details that would make modern uncles and aunties gasp, but I too have always contexutalized that in a different way. In fact, it seems like many of the Khalistanis who lived in the 80s and 90s accepted some of the gruesome realities of the things they did, such as killing innocent Hindus, as necessary for paving their path to a Sikh nation-state. The only reason people have tried to hush it up in the modern day is because they're raised in a Western liberal context as opposed to a rough-and-tough pind one (note that I do not condone the killing of innocents, just explaining what others deemed acceptable or not).

To explain more clearly, let's take the killing of Chamkila by let's say, XYZ Singh. Group A will say "oh no, Chamkila was killed by the Punjab Police and it was all just a scheme to scapegoat Bhai Sahib amar Shaheed XYZ Singh Ji Sahib."  Group B will say "Yeah, Shaheed XYZ Singh fucked up Chamkila because he had it coming." Group C will say "yeah, it kind of sucks that XYZ Singh did that to Chamkila, and is exemplary of some bad things happening under the rug, but don't use it to malign the movement as a whole." My impression from reading PPP (and again, I'll admit I probably don't have as thorough of a reading of the text as you and others) is that Bhangoo would be more along the lines of group B, while you're saying he was in group C (I think we can both agree that the modern pruned narratives are from group A). I still prefer group B to group A because it's more intellectually honest, but it doesn't address the original concern regarding Jatt culture and insularity/anparhness/whatever else. 

[dalsingh101]

33 minutes ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

@dalsingh101, maybe we approach this from different frameworks. The sort of pindu insularity we see in the panth today, I see as endemic to Jatts/uneducated stemming back to the Gurus' time. It's true that the Angrej preyed upon this, and thus the modern manifestations we see are usually directly linked to the British, but some of the cultural characteristics are core, I would think. Let's take the fascination some idiots have with racializing castes and trying to paint Jatts as being Europeans or whatever. That specific type of regressive mentality is obviously very much taken from the British, but this desire to prove a superior bloodline has gone back for a while. Muslim Jatts all claim to be Sayyids, and Sikh Jatt misldars frantically tried to link their family trees to the Rajputs once they acquiesced the smallest bit of political power and forgot where it *actually* came from (i.e., the Gurus' blessing). 

 

I hear that, and I think it has been going on for a long while - all the way from juts being represented as stemming from Shiva Ji's dreadlocks. lol 

Shameless, extreme self-aggrandisement is definitely a trait here. So is a rejection of egalitarianism outside of the insular group. 

 

Quote

Regarding Bhangoo, I also contextualize him in a different way. For one, I think he was a bit brighter than the average bloke and was more aware of the nuances in these events in the first place. Secondly, his narrative to me actually shows that this tendency within our community to pick enemies/allies. Bhangoo isn't too harsh on Banda, but he still is very much against him, being part of the generation that saw Banda as someone who went against the Guru, created the Bandai, and purposefully disobeyed everyone for the sake of it. I personally view a lot of the destruction of Banda's legacy as stemming from the fact that he had some tension with Bhai Binod Singh, and everything sort of exploded after Gurdas Nangal and after the altercation with the Bandai Khalsa in particular. That's why we have writers from so many books that try to even deny that he took Amrit as an extra character assassination. 

I don't know much about this. Who were the original people who represented Banda as a non-Amritdhari?? Is it a modern thing? Does it have more contemporary antecedents? 

 

Quote

One thing Bhangoo doesn't hold back on is describing the brutal and gruesome details that would make modern uncles and aunties gasp, but I too have always contexutalized that in a different way. In fact, it seems like many of the Khalistanis who lived in the 80s and 90s accepted some of the gruesome realities of the things they did, such as killing innocent Hindus, as necessary for paving their path to a Sikh nation-state. The only reason people have tried to hush it up in the modern day is because they're raised in a Western liberal context as opposed to a rough-and-tough pind one (note that I do not condone the killing of innocents, just explaining what others deemed acceptable or not).

He's a realist! And an uncommonly brilliant writer. What he has put down could f**k with today's Sopranos or Games of thrones scripts. I agree that previously, our historians/writers had no impulse to hide away the brutal blood, gore and dark side of our history. The logical explanation is that whitewashed narratives only start appearing after annexation, coming from quarters closely associated - and let's be frank, educated by repressed, Victorian colonialist protestants who were expert at producing propaganda that painted themselves whiter than white despite acting to the contrary. It's imbibing these literary standards and norms that led to Sikhs creating a fairytale account of their 'dashing' past. lol Whites made them strangely so ashamed of their real bloody history that they felt compelled to occlude large parts of it.  

 

Quote

To explain more clearly, let's take the killing of Chamkila by let's say, XYZ Singh. Group A will say "oh no, Chamkila was killed by the Punjab Police and it was all just a scheme to scapegoat Bhai Sahib amar Shaheed XYZ Singh Ji Sahib."  Group B will say "Yeah, Shaheed XYZ Singh fucked up Chamkila because he had it coming." Group C will say "yeah, it kind of sucks that XYZ Singh did that to Chamkila, and is exemplary of some bad things happening under the rug, but don't use it to malign the movement as well. My impression from reading PPP (and again, I'll admit I probably don't have as thorough of a reading of the text as others) is that Bhangoo would be more along the lines of group B, while you're saying he was in group C (I think we can both agree that the modern pruned narratives are from group A). I still prefer group B to group A because it's more intellectually honest, but it doesn't address the original concern regarding Jatt culture and insularity/anparhness/whatever else. 

I hear you. Again,  this may be the residual effect of my own infection with whitewashed accounts growing up. It also explains why so many apnay get their kasheray in a proper twist when they encounter some dark and grimy accounts from our history that is in stark opposition to the Disney style accounts they've been raised with.  Now that I'm better read and can see what our people are really like without the rose tinted blinkers - I'd be inclined to agree that group B thinking is very common amongst us. We can be a savage bunch of mfs when we are ready. I don't particularly like this (in fact I detest it mostly) but it's true, and I think we are better off facing it squarely. 

When Bhangu wrote PPP he wasn't constrained by the morality and politics of the invaders that would effect later writers, I think he wrote more freely as a consequence. 

By the time goray finished with us, our own intellectuals seem to have become obsessed with scrubbing out any mention of things like opium or cannabis use, flirting with various deities, brutal revenge attacks, drinking, looting and rioting, dissension within the ranks (which is what the Tat and Bandei Khalsa thing was maybe?) 

It's this need to try and represent all of our ancestors and their actions as clear cut whiter than white, and the weird dissonance certain apnay feel at learning things were sometimes otherwise that causes people to have a faulty impression of Sikhs and Sikh history. 

[amardeep]

Quote

He's a realist! And an uncommonly brilliant writer. What he has put down could f**k with today's Sopranos or Games of thrones scripts. I agree that previously, our historians/writers had no impulse to hide away the brutal blood, gore and dark side of our history. The logical explanation is that whitewashed narratives only start appearing after annexation, coming from quarters closely associated - and let's be frank, educated by repressed, Victorian colonialist protestants who were expert at producing propaganda that painted themselves whiter than white despite acting to the contrary. It's imbibing these literary standards and norms that led to Sikhs creating a fairytale account of their 'dashing' past. lol Whites made them strangely so ashamed of their real bloody history that they felt compelled to occlude large parts of it.  

I was thinking about that the other day. Much of Sikh history have been written by the nirmale (Kavi Santokh Singh, Giani Gian Singh etc) and their "liberalism" is interesting in the sense that they would'n cover up things of the past even though it did'n fit in with their own view of Sikhi and their own rahit. Nirmale for instance are vegetarians but they had no issue writing that the Singhs of old were keen hunters and ate meat..Thats just one example.. Modern Sikhs however will censor most things of the past that does'nt agree with the way we percieve our rahit to be....Thats quite impressive that these authors were able to write down history as they had heard it without the usual "this is manmat. we not gonna record this".

[dalsingh101]

Quote

Baba Deep Singh is mentioned many times in the Panth Prakash. His shaheedi is given in GIani Gian Singh's Panth Prakash:

I meant Bhangu's that's where I would have really expected to see it. 

[amardeep]

In Bhangus account Nihang Gurbaksh Singh is the main character of that battle.

[dalsingh101]

4 minutes ago, amardeep said:

In Bhangus account Nihang Gurbaksh Singh is the main character of that battle.

That's a different battle I think. In that one, Gurbaksh Singh was already waiting at the Akal Bunga when the sullay came. There is independent verification of this too in a Persian manuscript.

Baba Deep Singh's incident appears to take place after Harmandir Sahib has been over run?

[amardeep]

Hmm maybe you're right.

Maybe some members can contribute in terms of chronology of that battle?

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, amardeep said:

I was thinking about that the other day. Much of Sikh history have been written by the nirmale (Kavi Santokh Singh, Giani Gian Singh etc) and their "liberalism" is interesting in the sense that they would'n cover up things of the past even though it did'n fit in with their own view of Sikhi and their own rahit. Nirmale for instance are vegetarians but they had no issue writing that the Singhs of old were keen hunters and ate meat..Thats just one example.. Modern Sikhs however will censor most things of the past that does'nt agree with the way we percieve our rahit to be....Thats quite impressive that these authors were able to write down history as they had heard it without the usual "this is manmat. we not gonna record this".

Gotta love em!

I fell in love with nirmale after I discovered fareed kote teeka. It was much closer to my reading of Guru Granth Sahib. But these guys went above and beyond that!

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

That's a different battle I think. In that one, Gurbaksh Singh was already waiting at the Akal Bunga when the sullay came. There is independent verification of this too in a Persian manuscript.

Baba Deep Singh's incident appears to take place after Harmandir Sahib has been over run?

Source?

[BhagatSingh]

4 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

So seriously, you just take someone's word at face value??  Even if you don't know them or have never met them. 

I have one problem, from my experience the vast majority of people who talk about familiarity with ghosts like this have been people with mental health/psychiatric issues.

How do you know you are diagnosing them accurately?

[das]

6 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

I have one problem, from my experience the vast majority of people who talk about familiarity with ghosts like this have been people with mental health/psychiatric issues.

that's a bold statement and sounds like coming from the one who knows everything....... your statement is like of scholar without practical knowledge: If the exhaust/silencer of a motorcycle is throwing lot of smoke, then definetely the problem is within the exhaust, right?..........No, the correct statement would be there might be an issue inside the working of engine due to which the smoke is coming as a symptom...............I think you got the idea where I'm going with this................If you study the energy deeply, then you would easily understand that a possesed OR person under the influence of negative entities does show the symptoms of mental problems but that does not mean that mind is the problem.....its just a symptom...............e.g if a Car is running erratically, then car is NOT the problem.......and problem is the driver who is driving it.

I'm here NOT to promote or sell the idea of ghosts etc....as lot of other people have already suggested that these kind of experiences DOES underline the importance of Spirituality and that's it.....nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover, visting grave is not the same for everyone. e.g A thief, a murderer resides in a jail; but the jailer, a doctor also visits jail....not because they are punished or something like that. They (doctor/jailer) have a different purpose. Same way, visting  a grave could mean the following.......its' all about the intention.

* Your Soul wants to show you that one day you will end up here, so do something when you can. Or

* Your bad karma is pulling you there; where a negative entity is just waiting for someone like you who could be the executer of their will (they may want you to do something and you will do it without knowing)

* You are there to help some negative entitity (but rare as one needs to be very high in Spiritual state). Or

* Just something where our mind is not able to understand...but at the end of the day, it is the play of karma where we do NOT realize that we're just doing as written in our karma.

[kdsingh80]

8 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

So seriously, you just take someone's word at face value??  Even if you don't know them or have never met them. 

 

I have one problem, from my experience the vast majority of people who talk about familiarity with ghosts like this have been people with mental health/psychiatric issues.

I'm not saying I don't believe these things are possible, just that a big percentage of people who go on about their personal experiences in such matters seem to have mental health issues. They could be imagining stuff due to this? Hallucinating and stuff. 

 

 

Better go and visit him , If that man's ghost read this discussion then he may rise from his grave to visit you , so better hurry

[BhagatSingh]

^ That video is fake.