Jump to content

Ogardanti


Guest BikramjitSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest BikramjitSingh

that council eliminated those texts because it threatened their ideology. Ugardanti is still recited by Nirmala and Nihang who have an unbroken parampara going back to Guru Gobind SIngh.

lallesvari I would like to discuss the Ogardanti with you.

I might be wrong but from reading your previous posts I understand that your research has allowed you to conclude that there is no such thing as 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism'. You also seem to admire the Koran as well as Mohammed and the Shia Imams. How would you translate the following lines from the Ogardanti or perhaps you could share how the Nirmalas and Nihangs translate these lines and whether the three translations are the same or different.

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha translates these verses as -;

Mittay Ved Shastar Atharan Purana

Mittay Baang Salwaat Sunnat Kuranan ( Ogardanti Chakka 5, lines 17-20 )

The Vedas, the Shastar and the Puranas will all disappear ( or be destroyed ). The Muslim call to prayer, circumcision and Korans will also disappear ( or be destroyed )

and

Sagal Jagat mein Khalsa Panth Gaajai

Jaggai Dharam Hindu Sakal Dand Bhaajai ( Ogardanti chakka 1, lines 39-40 )

The Khalsa will be supreme in the entire world, and the Hindu religion will be destroyed in this world.

Some RSS fools translate the word 'Jaggai' ( in the world ) as 'Jaagai' ( to awake ) but there is no 'kanna' between the 'jajja' and the 'gagga'

I would like to know your views about the Ogardanti and how it fits in your belief system.

Khalsa Soulja

Good research pointing out that Ragmaala controversy was not a result of some evil British plan to divide Sikhs. Some people just don't live in the real world do they :)

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

before going into any discussion about this issue I expect veryone who would like to join this conversation to read the following book:

King, Richard.1999.Orientalism and Religion, London:Routledge.

In this books read the chapter on Hinduism specially the part called "the myth called Hinduism".

The discussion of Ugradanti will only follow after the ones interested have read this chapter which is essential to understand the use of certain terminology. Otherwise the discussion has no point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Right. So to discuss an issue you need us to read some other book. I can understand you asking me to do this in the light of my question about your belief that Hinduism and Hindu are erronous definations. But how about the fact that the Ogandanti uses these terms , Hindu Dharam thereby confirming that a Hindu Dharam did exist in the mind of the writer ?. Also the book you asked us to read is not any help in my questioning your personal admiration of Mohammed and the Koran and you love for the Shia Imams. Or is that also answered in that book ??

To be honest I didn't really expect you to answer my questions given the fact that you are well known to bypass anything that questions your hippy views of Sikhism. Well we all live in hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

lallesvari

I understand your dilemma, and what a dilemma it is. On the one hand you need to believe that the Ogardanti is the work of Guru Gobind Singh in order to stay within the sanatanist framework but then you have to believe that your favourite Nirmala scholar, Tara Singh Narotam is wrong when he claims that the Ogardanti is the work of Bhai Sukha Singh of Patna and NOT Guru Gobind Singh. In fact one of his arguments is that the language of the Ogardanti is the language used by 'uncultured' people and could never have been written by Guru Gobind Singh. Remember Tara Singh Narotam was a scholar who, unlike the Singh Sabha scholars who were according to you were 'influenced' by the British, did not modify his Nirmala beliefs to please anyone.

Considering you place great reliance on Tara Singh Narotam's work as shown in a number of threads where you have quoted him, threads as wide ranging as the type of clothes worn by the Guru's wives to the argument that the Nihangs constitute the 'fifth' Takht, this is indeed a dilemma for you. This dilemma is greatly compounded by the fact that you have a soft spot for Islam, Mohammed and the Shia Imams. But the Ogandanti states that the Koran, the Muslim circumcision, the call to prayer will all be destroyed. It also claims that 'Hindu Dharam', something which you have endlessly claimed doesn't exist will also be destroyed and the Khalsa ( not the four sampardyas you believe in ) will be supreme. How can something you claim doesn't exist then be destroyed ? Quite a dilemma my friend and so your attempt to wriggle out of discussing this by referring me to a book which is only relevant to half the argument is quite understandable.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

read the indicated book first before we move further into the discussion

hindu and Hinduism are context-sensitive words. Their semantic content changes from century to century. In Uggardanti the word Hindu is used associated with Turk not Muslim. In Sanskrit poetics used profusely in Dasam Bani two antithetic terms have to be of the same category. Turk being an ethno-greographic term the word Hindu must hence be of ethnogeographic nature meaning here "Indian". Pakistani and Indian Muslims who work in the Gulf States are called Hindu by the Arabs. HUndu is a Persian word and it denotes an ethnogeographic reality first. What Ugardanti describes is the fight of Indians (of all backgrounds including Muslims) against the Turks or Mughals. Hindu Dharm here means "Indian religiosity", as in an Indian attitude to religion where beliefs fo different kinds can coexist without dissolving themselves into a greater artificial ensemble called "Hinduism" and without having to revert to bigotry and communal hatred.

Now regarding the destruction of Islamic and "Hindu" institutions these are part of a messianic message. Maharaj will destroy them not because they were bad but because there won't be any need for them as He is the one who is the origin of all religious wisdom. The same predictions exist about the 12th Imam who is said to come back and kill 40000 mullahs and abolish the previous existing laws as he is the Paraclet.

ps being a Nirmala is about scholarship not beliefs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Lallesvari

Your argument is on very weak ground. So your only reason for assuming your far fetched view that Hindu refers to a collective of Indian religiosity ( including Muslims ) and Turk to mean the Islamic government ( ie Mughals ) is the fact that two terms in Sanskrit poetry must be of the same category !. How about Hindu meaning Hindu and Turk meaning Muslim ?. Aren't they both of the same category, in this case religious rather than ethno-geographic ?

There are many factors which wash away your flimsy argument.

1. The Ogardanti itself refers to the Khalsa as a Teesra Panth. So the other Two Panths must necessarily be Hindu and Muslim. Not Hindu Dharam ( Hindu and Muslim ie Indian religiosity ) and the Mughals ?. How could the Mughal empire be referred to as a Panth ?

2. Historically the term Turk in religious literature has been used to denote a Muslim. Bhagat Namdevji and Bhagat Kabirji both use the term for a Muslim and the interchangability of the term with that of Musalmaan can been seen when they use both words in the same Shabad.

Turk tareekat jaanee-ai hindoo bayd puraan (Kabairji SGGS page 340)

The Muslim is known by his path and the Hindu by the Vedas and Puranas

Hindu anhaa Turkoo kanhaa, duha tay gianee sianaa ( Namdevji SGGS page 875 )

The Hindu is blind and the Muslim is one eyed, the knowledable one is wiser than both

The fact that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir who were writing only a couple of centuries after the end of the Turkish empire used these terms to denote a Muslim further weakens your argument. The Ogardanti which was written 600 years after the end of the Turkish rule is hardly likely to refer to the Islamic rule as Turk when it is so far removed historically from the actual rule of the Turks.

Other Sikh literature of that time such as the Rehatnamas and Panth Parkash and Gur Partap Souriye also use the term Turk for a Muslim rather than for the Mughal power. You have alluded to the Bhai Chaupa Singh Rehatnama and so I assume that you have read it. How is it possible that it could specify an admonishment for a Sikh such as the one below-;

Jo Sikh Apnay Ghar Dey Kamm Vich Turk Mukhtiar Karay, So Tankhaiya

This can only refer to a Sikh employing a Muslim to do his household duties for him or a Sikh who was lax and allows a Muslim to worm his way inot his household and assume responsibility for it. Can this line be translated so that the Turk is actually a Mughal official ?.

The Panth Parkash and the Gur Partap Suriye both use the term Turk to denote Muslim.

Pun Hindu Turkan tey Nyara

Racho Panth yeh Balli Apaara ( Panth Parkash )

Poorab Hindu Turk hain Doie

Ab tey teen Jaaniye Hoie ( Gur Partap Suriye )

Your attempt was a good example of how it is possible to put your own matt above that of the Guru's matt. Rather than making ones beliefs in accordance with the Guru's teachings, you have shown how it is possible to make the Guru's teachings 'fit into' your personal belief system

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

It's amazing how people ignore my injunction to read Richard King, an acclaimed scholar on Indian Religions, and hence totally misunderstand my argument.

Ugardanti is written in verse hance poetics as described in the alamkarashastras are to be used as an hermeneutical tool.

Turk and Muslim are two different categories.

had certain people read Richard King I would not have to make my point clear: so please read it.

The points Bikramjit is raising have to do with thought constructs. The mughal empire much like the british raj constructed identities and these were adopted in language though people were very conscious of the heterogeneity of Indian religious reality. Go to Tamil Nad and Kerala, regions not affected by Mughal constructs, and you'll see will consider themsleves Vaishnavs or Shaivas. The concept of Hinduism has only recently entered SOuth India. Otherwise how would you explain the battles between Shaivas and Vaishnavas at the Kumbha Mela. We're not talking here about two different "Hindu sects' but of two separate religions whose rituals, theologies sacred texts etc.. ARE TOTALY DIFFERENT. The Gurus and the bhagats use the language of their region and that language transport the thought constructs of the Mughals. The use of binary oppositions is from a poetic point of view easier to use than listing all the different Indic religious communities. The word Hindu has undergone two major semantic changes or constructs: 1. during the Mughals 2. duringthe British Raj. These constructs were a reality only for the dominating class but not for the people who actually practiced those religions.

This is now the stand of South Asian scholarship on that issue as represented by Richard King, Edward Said, Romila Thapar, Simon Weightman and other acclaimed Indologists.

Nothing to do with the recreational scholarship of people who sit behind heir pc all day at home instead of learning Sanskrit, Braj or Persian to able to participate into a proper scholarly debate. :wink:

Bikramjit has translated

Turk tareekat jaanee-ai hindoo bayd puraan (Kabairji SGGS page 340)

The Muslim is known by his path and the Hindu by the Vedas and Puranas

the original text says turka (ISO transliteration) while he translates it as "Muslim" which is absolutely inconcistent from a semantic point of view. This is amaterish scholarship!!! People who wish to translate gurbani should have a good training in clasical Indian philology first but these same people are just too busy spending their boring lives at home behind a pc instead of working hard for that knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

I see Lalleshvari. The ego of the professional scholar. I have shown you that in writings from the times of Bhagat Kabirji to Panth Parkash (14th to 19th Century ) that that word Turk has been used for Muslim rather than an ethno-geographical term for the Mughal empire. Unfortunately rather than disproving using a logical argument you go off on your usual tangent. You make a blank statement that Turk and Muslim are two different categories yet fail to prove this but rely on the work or Richard King to show that Hindu meant something totally different to what it means today. Granted that Hindu could mean one thing to someone in Tamil Nadu or Kerala and something else to someone in North India.. But what is important is what 'Hindu' meant to the person in North India as this is the place where the writings I gave as references were written. Using the Tamil Nadu argument you are clutching at straws!. You have also disregarded the fact that in all these writings that I have referenced the word Turk and Musalmaan is used interchangably and the context is always the religious practices. I am using references from both the Guru Granth Sahib, the Rehatnamas and from the writings of Rattan Singh Bhangoo and Kavi Santokh Singh. In the references from these texts I have given the word Turk is used to denote a Muslim and not the Mughal state.

If you wish to progress this discussion any further I would expect you to use the references I have given or some of your own and then logically prove that the word Turk used in these writings means the Mughal state. You also need to show that in the Ogardanti the writer is so confused that he calls the Mughal state a 'Panth', uses the word Hindu to mean 'Indian religiosity ( both Hindu and Muslim )' and that Teesra Panth ( Khalsa ) is a term to distinguish between the 'Indian religiosity' and the Mughal State. You cannot use these terms in isolation, you should also show that other writing by Sikhs of the same period are also familiar with or use these same concepts.

To be totally honest, I was disappointed with your counter argument. I expected more from a 'professional scholar'. I myself don't pretend to be one. Yes, I do sit at home reading books from my personal library and using the Internet for research in my spare time. My job is such that I have a great deal of free time which I use to the best of my ability to research Sikhism. Perhaps you feel that I should be in awe of you since you are a professional and I am in all sense of the word an amateur. I have come across the such same attitude before, the attitude that since I am a professional scholar and attend SOAS than I am always right and you people are just amateurs. I take my research seriously, this is why to your constant annoyance I alway ask for references. Your attitude is that you don't need to give references as you are a professional and we should take what you say as gospel. But my experience with you is such that more often than not when I have checked your references with the original sources I have found that you have either taken them out of context or to be totally honest LIED and what you state a text says is NOT TRUE. You have explained this away by saying that you do not have the texts to which you referred at hand or that your memory is 'faulty'. I thought the true mark of a professional scholar is that he never makes a statement or reference to something of which he is not totally sure of. Obviously such a limitation doesn't apply to someone like you !. Credibility is the mark of a scholar, if he loses it then even when what he is stating may be 100 % true, others will always take what he says with a pinch of salt. It is a sad fact that the few times that I have tested your scholarship it has been found wanting. I have a great deal of respect for institutes of learning such as SOAS, but unfortunately you do not make a very good advert for it's teaching standards. Maybe along with your classes in Classical Arabic Grammer and Islamic hermeneutics you could take one in 'improving your memory' :)

Now I can understand your fits of pique when people whom you probably consider as amateurs question your knowledge. You probably spend hours on end in the library and have been taught by world famous experts in their respective fields. So, technically you should have more knowledge than us. But this is not always the case. Yes, you do come up with some words which totally go over the top of my head, you bring in terms and concepts of which I am not familiar but I do my best to research them. But the true test of knowledge is not the ability to remember long words and terms and concepts of which amateurs like myself are unfamiliar, the true test of knowledge is having an argument which is consistant and for which you have the references and the ability to use these references to if not proving it to be right but at least not having it proved wrong or inconsistant. Your theories of Kirpan Da Amrit, British inspired Singh Sabha, infiltration of Victorian puritanical values into Sikhi etc etc have all be proved to just hot air. Where you have been challenged for references you have not given any. What kind of a scholar are you ?.

So for us poor amateurs like myself, Khalsa Soulja, MS514, Sidak and Inderjit to question your statements makes you have your fits of pique. You feel that your reputation is being questioned. You probably expect us to be in the same awe as some of our neo-Nihang friends are.

Of all that I wrote on my previous post all that you could pull me up on is not using ISO conventions of transliteration !. My transliterations of Gurbani or other writings are written the way they are pronounced. I do not wish to confuse those who are not familiar with ISO conventions.

As much as I'd love to see Lalleshvari rip your arguement to shreds.....can we please stick to the topic which is "Modern Ram Rae"...thank you :D

Hey, I've been here six months and the only arguments that I've seen lallesvari 'rip into shreds' are his own :)

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is veechar meant to have a winner and loser...Khlasa Soulja we are not talking bout the egg and spoon race here!!! Debates about baanido not have winnners and losers.....they are there in order to help search through the truth. Anyone who uses an arguement about gurbani to gratify himself or another human being is sorely mistaken and is obviously oblivious to the guidance on gurmat veechar in the Guru Granth Sahib.

" aavahu bhainae gal mileh a(n)k sehaelarreeaah ||

Come, my dear sisters and spiritual companions; hug me close in your embrace.

mil kai kareh kehaaneeaa sa(n)mrathh ka(n)th keeaah ||

Let's join together, and tell stories of our All-powerful Husband Lord." - Guru Nanak Ji

" giaan gosh charachaa sadhaa anehadh shabadh out(h)ae dhhunakaaraa||

Discussions for the sake of knowledge and the melodies of unstruck sound were ever heard there." Varaa Bhai Gurdas

" lok dhaev gun giaan vich pathith oudhhaaran naa(n)o suna(n)dhae||

They, from people during their discussions over good and knowledge, listen to the name of the Lord, the saviour of the fallen ones;

hasathee neer navaaleean baahar nikal shhaar shhara(n)dhae||

But, it is like the elephant who is bathed in water but coming out of it spreads dusts all round.

saadhh sa(n)g gur shabadh sun gur oupadhaesh n chith dhhara(n)dhae||

The cheats listen to the teachings of the Guru in the holy congregation but do not adopt them in the mind. " Varaa Bhai Gurdas

" parr parr pa(n)ddith jothakee vaadh karehi beechaar ||

After all their reading, the Pandits, the religious scholars, and the astrologers argue and debate.

math budhh bhavee n bujhee a(n)thar lobh vikaar ||

Their intellect and understanding are perverted; they just don't understand. They are filled with greed and corruption." - Guru Amardas Ji

" vaadh vakhaanehi mohae maaeiaa ||

Intoxicated with Maya, they argue and debate." - Guru Amardas Ji

" vaadh virodhh n paaeiaa jaae ||

Through argument and debate, He cannot be found." - Guru Amardas Ji

" baath cheeth sabh rehee siaanap ||

But all debates and clever tricks are of no use at all." - Guru Arjan Dev Ji

" parr pusathak sa(n)dhhiaa baadha(n) ||

You read your books and say your prayers, and then engage in debate;" - Guru Nanak Ji

" parr parr pa(n)ddith vaadh vakhaanehi bin boojhae sukh n hoee ||

Reading and studying, the religious scholars argue and debate; but without understanding, there is no peace." - Guru Amardas Ji

" kaahoo bihaavai baedh ar baadh ||

Some pass their lives in arguments and debates about scriptures." - Guru Arjan Dev Ji

" vaadh vakhaanehi thath n jaanaa ||

they argue and debate, but do not know the essence of reality." - Guru Nanak Ji

" khojee oupajai baadhee binasai ho bal bal gur karathaaraa ||

The seeker comes forth, and the debater dies down; I am a sacrifice, a sacrifice to the Guru, the Creator Lord." - Guru Nanak Ji

do we want to be seekers or debaters???

Siri Akaal Ji Sahai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Turk=ethnic group of the turcophone family

Muslim= follower of Islam

obviously two different things except of course if for certain people Panjabi means Sikh whcih pure non-sense....

translating Turk by Muslim is not correct. It may correct at the Sikh World University and other pseudo-institutions but in the real world Turk does not mean Muslim.

Bikramjit obviously ignores the opposition in the Mughal court between the Turani and Iranis. Wasn't it Guru Gobind SIngh who helped Bahadur Shah, from the Irani party, to come to power....

seems quite clear though :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

ps.1. never said that Turaj meant the MUghal STATE

2. what did I say about the two constructs? the Mughal and British ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Lallesvari

My point is simple, SHOW me that the writer of the Ogardanti uses the word Turk to mean an ethno-geographic group. If the writer is using this word then he must be very confused because why didn't use the word Mughal as the ruling power of that time were the Mughals. The reason that the writer of the Ogardanti uses the word Turk is because in popular Sikh usage Turk meant Muslim. Bhagat Namdevji and Bhagat Kabirji use the word Turk to mean Muslim. They use Turk interchangably with Musalmaan. So I must take it that these Bhagats as well as the writer of the Ogardanti, Chaupa Singh Rehatnama, Panth Parkash, Gur Partap Suriye are all confused. I see that you have not chosen not to show me by translating my quotes in order to justify your view that Turk doesn't mean Muslim.

ps.1. never said that Turaj meant the MUghal STATE

Earlier you wrote

What Ugardanti describes is the fight of Indians (of all backgrounds including Muslims) against the Turks or Mughals. Hindu Dharm here means "Indian religiosity",

But in that quote you stated that Turk is not a religious term and you denote the term Hindu Dharm as 'Indian reliogosity', so if Turk doesn't mean Muslim then it must mean the ruling Muslim power. Or are you now going to modify your argument !!

Lalleshvari instead of relying on your professional scholars maybe you should actually get hold of the Ogardanti and read what it says. The language is pretty simple and straightforward, so anyone who has relied on Christopher Shackle's book to learn the vocabulary of Gurbani should be able to understand what it says.

Turk=ethnic group of the turcophone family

Muslim= follower of Islam

obviously two different things except of course if for certain people Panjabi means Sikh whcih pure non-sense....

translating Turk by Muslim is not correct. It may correct at the Sikh World University and other pseudo-institutions but in the real world Turk does not mean Muslim.

Yes, if someone used the word Turk today it is likely to mean the ethnic group BUT we are discussing what the word meant to the Bhagats and the writer of the Ogardanti. What does the World Sikh University have to do with this discussion :shock: . Or is this just another one of your displays of the professional scholar's arrogance.

You remind me of that scene in 'Good Will Hunting' where some arrogant MIT student tries to show of his learning by regurgitating whole paragraphs of books and trying to pass it on as his own opinion. Will Hunting then shows him that what he is saying is from the various books and gives him the page numbers and even finishes off his quotes. In the end Will Hunting says words to the effect of ' one day you will realise that you wasted all that money on an education that you could have got for a $1.50 at the public library' The same books and the same research is available to the amateur scholar as is available to professional scholars like you. I can sense your deep fustration, you spend all that time and effort and money on trying to gain knowledge and sometimes, just sometimes someone who works, provides for his family and pays his taxes makes a 'monkey' out of you.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

The Bhagats use a construct. Is it so difficult to understand? I mean just read Said and King and you'll see what I mean. After that you may or may not agree with me but at least try to understand what I mean by construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

The Bhagats use a construct. Is it so difficult to understand? I mean just read Said and King and you'll see what I mean. After that you may or may not agree with me but at least try to understand what I mean by construct. My way of proving my point was to have read Richard King. I just can't copy whole chapters from his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points to consider with regards Oogardanti bani itself:

1) 'Hind' is referred to in Oogardanti bani as a place ('sukul hind siio turk dusht bidaarhu').

2) The request is made for the removal of 'my enemies' and for them to be 'destroyed', hence the Mughal regime.

3) Equally the writer criticises the particular followers of Islam for having fallen from the correct practice of listening to the muezzin's call to prayer (baang) and listening to the kuran. The writer does not criticise the practices themselves.

4) Equally in the descriptive section in Bhagwati Chand Panjwa, immediately after the 'two panth' section, the text begins to describe the attributes of Sri Bhagauti ji again, in which is included 'Tuhi Rikh Muneesur Tuhi Gauns Peer. The last bit states 'You are Gauns Peer', Gauns is an arabic word for those with great sanctity, Peer is a the term for an Islamic Sufi 'saint/master'. This last statement is put on a par with 'you are the mother of the universe'. Therefore, Peer is held with much respect.

5) Towards the end of Bhagwati Chand Panjwaa, it is stated that 'the Mughal raj will be ended' and immediately afterwards to destroy the Turks.

Going by this internal evidence of Oogardant bani, I would agree with Lalleshvari's version, otherwise it creates great inconsistencies such that there is great respect for Gauns Pir, criticisms those failing to follow the Islamic path correctly, yet wanting to destroy all Muslims. The fact that destroying Mughals (using the word Mughal) and Turk occur repeatedly together suggests Lalleshvari is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Jt Singh

At last someone who actually has the text that they wish to discuss !!

You've provided your own views based on the internal evidence of the Ogardanti. Perhaps you would be good enough to transliterate the relevant quotes.

You state that you agree with Lallesvari about his conclusions. Can you provide the quotes and translations to show the following-;

1. That the word Hindu Dharam used in the Ogardanti means 'Indian religiosity', a collective of both Hindus and Muslims.

2. What do you understand by the term 'Teesra Panth' used in this work, as opposed Hindu and Turk. If Hindu Dharam means Indian religiosity and Khalsa is Khalsa then what is the second Panth ?( Turks ), is it as Lallesvari implied the Mughals ?

Thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Bikramjit wrote:

1. That the word Hindu Dharam used in the Ogardanti means 'Indian religiosity', a collective of both Hindus and Muslims.

sakala jagata mo khAlasA pantha gAjai /

jagai dharama hinduka turakan dunda bhAjai //

There are two ways of looking at this verse. The first part is quite easy to translate:

In the entire world the Khalsa Panth will roar

The difficulty is the second part because of the work hinduka. One thing is for sure: because of its combination with the word turakan in a relationship of opposition both words belong to the same category: they are to be understoof as ethno-geographical. This is further confirmed by the fact that, as Richard King clearly shows in his Orientalism and Religion, the word hindu was used predominantly in its original ethno-geograofical meaning. It is true that for the Mughals the word Hindu started having a consructed religious conotation (the opposite of Muslim) yet this essentialist construct remained contradicted by religious practice. If there had ever been any such thing as "Hinduism" how is it then that classical and medieval India never conceived the idea of one religion called Hinduism. The Harshacharita, a biography of emperor Harsha, says that although he had converted to Shaivism he remained tolerant towrds other religions: a clear example of the total lack of religious homogeneity in India.

The word hindu hence means "Indian" and not "Hindu" in its modern semantic meaning. The problem with the second part of the verse consist in determining if hinduka is used as an epithete to dharama or as a noun.

if it is taken as an epithete the translation is:

The Indian Dharma will arise, the Turks will flee in tumult.

Dharma, derived from the root DhR, dharati literally means "the thing that bears". Inclassical India it is used to define the order of the universe or a moral code. In his edicts Ashoka proclaims the supremacy of dharma. dharma is not to be understood as a specific religion but as a moral attitude linked with piety. People where encouraged to be good and pious whatever their religion was. Because of the context-sentitive nature of the word Dharma it should not be translated. For sure it does not mean as various scholars such as Julia Leslie, Richard King or Jean Renou have pointed out a specific religion. The nearest semantic equivalent would be the Latin pietas or religiosity. The best translation is hence "Indian religiosity" vs. the repressive attitude of the Mughal state.

Nevertheless the translation is problematic. Dharma is never qualified as Hindu (the word Hindu to qualify "Hinduism" starts only being used by Indians in 1823 see Richard King). Buddhsits, Jainas, Shaivas and Vaishnavas use the term Dharma but never link it to an adjective qualifying their own religion. The Dharma is above restrictions be they geographical or religious. The Dharma ahs no colour and cannot hence be qualified in such ways. an alternative to thsi impasse is to look at hinduka as a noun.

If taken like that the translation will be:

The Dharma will arise, the Indians and the Turks will flee in tumult.

In relationship with the first part of the verse it just makes more sense. The coming of the Khalsa that reinstates and protects Dharma or righteousness breaks with the selfish infighting between the Indians and the Turks.

2. What do you understand by the term 'Teesra Panth' used in this work, as opposed Hindu and Turk. If Hindu Dharam means Indian religiosity and Khalsa is Khalsa then what is the second Panth ?( Turks ), is it as Lallesvari implied the Mughals ?

duhUn pantha main kapaTa vidayA calAnI

bahuRa tIsrA pantha kIjai paradhAnI

it is important to see that the "two panths" are not qualified neither by Turk or Hindu or Muslim etc... The two Panths or two ways represent two religious families: the Abrahamic tradition and the Indic tradition. This is confirmed by the fact that in Majma al Bahrain, the Confluent of the Two Oceans, prince Dara Shukoh (friend of Guru Hari Rai) tries to present a way of conciliating the two traditions. SIkhi is the tisra Pant or third way, expected to appear to conciliate the two Oceans. DuHun Panth refers to the two main religious traditions because they are the ones that dominate the world. Most religions fit into one or the other of these two traditions. Sikhi presents itself as the conciliation (not a mix!!!), an alternative to these two.

Ugardant has been used by the RSS and BJP to present SIKHI as the armed branch of Hinduism against the Muslims which is of course absolute non-sense. Most of the soldiers of the Mughal army were non-Muslims coming from different Indic backrgrounds and as shown above Hinduism is a concept that only starts being used at the beginning of the 19th century.

The question is not: are sikhs hindus?

the real question is: is there any such real thing called "hinduism"?

the answer is clearly no!!!

Hindutva is the son of a sterile woman.

we Sikhs are the tisra Panth and our role is to uphold righteousness or dharam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

but thanx for letting lallesh put down his arguement!

Nihang Ji

Many a true word said in jest ! :LOL:

lallesvari

Firstly an observation, I have asked you many times to provide a reference which can then be checked with the relevant text. You have provided two quotes but do not reference which Chhakka of the Ogardanti they are from. It would help matters greatly if you could provide the chahakka.

The reason I ask this is that you have provided a quote from the Ogardanti which conforms only partly to one that I have been able to find.

Your quote was

sakala jagata mo khAlasA pantha gAjai /

jagai dharama hinduka turakan dunda bhAjai //

The closest quote I have been able to find is the one below-;

Sagal Jagat mein Khalsa Panth Gaajai

Jagai Dharam Hindu Sakal Dand Bhaajai ( Ogardanti chakka 1, lines 39-40 )

The first line is correct but for your use of 'Sakal' instead of 'Sagal' however in the second line some of the words which you state such as 'Hinduka' and 'Turkan' are not in this verse.

You have translated the word Jagai as 'awaken'. This is similar to the way that the RSS translates it BUT the correct word for 'awaken' is 'Jaagai', there is no 'kanna' between the 'jajja' and the 'gagga'. The best translation ( in my view ) for Jagai is 'jag mein' or in the world.

So the best translation ( in my view ) would be that the Hindu Dharam will be obliterated from this world.

Next you have tried to show that the word Hindu for the religion has only been used in this sense since 1823. But what is important when discussing the Ogardanti is to try and perceive as we best can to what was in the mind of the author and what the word meant to him. What is important is to see the Ogardanti with reference to Gurbani, the writings of the Bhagats, and the Sikh writers writing as close as possible to the time when the Ogardanti was written. I am unaware whether Richard Temple is a scholar of Gurbani or whether he has traced the use of these words through Sikh literature. You cannot take one Sikh text and then apply the definations thought up by a modern scholar. For that defination to hold true then it must apply equally to the Rehatnamas and Gurbani.

In Gurbani in many places the words used to describe the 'Abrahamic' faith by reference to it's religious books is 'Kateban' or the 4 books of the semitic religions. But the writer of the Ogardanti refers to just Muslim rites and rituals and not ones of other two semitic faiths. It refers to Koran specifically and not to the Kateban when writing about their destruction. He also refers to specific Muslim beliefs such as Baang ( call to prayer ), Sunnat ( circumcision ) etc.

You have then implied that the use of the word 'Panth' translates as 'Indian' ( Hindu ) and Turk ( semitic ) religious traditions, but you have glossed over the fact that Panth has a very restricted meaning. Panth can refer to a religion, but never a collective of religions. There is no such thing as Semitic Panth ( collective of Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions ). You are giving the word Panth a much larger scope of meaning that could ever have been envisaged by the writer of the Ogardanti. Ostensibly the term Panth during the medeval period in India referred to a follower of a a particular religious figure. So you have people described as 'Nanak Panthi', 'Kabir Panthi' and 'Dadu Panthi'. The word Panth is very restricted and it's widest meaning can only be used to describe a particular religion. Muslims can be technically referred to as 'Mohammed Panthi' and Christians as 'Jesus Panthi' but a Christian and a Muslim as well as a Jew cannot be collectively described as being 'Semitic Panthis'. A Panth can be a sect or it can be an entire religion but it can never be a collective of religions no matter how similar their beliefs.

It is also interesting that you state that Khalsa is an alternative to the other two Panths or a conciliation but the whole strain of this part of the Ogardanti is the obliteration of the Hindu and Muslim Panths and the triumph of the Khalsa Panth ?.

I hope you will ignore the advice of your resident 'Groupie' Nihangji and continue this discussion.

To The moderators

Is it possible to remove the posts relating to the Ogardanti and place them on a new thread perhaps called 'Ogardanti' so that Nihang can be kept happy :LOL:

GurFateh

Bikramjit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

1.

The first line is correct but for your use of 'Sakal' instead of 'Sagal' however in the second line some of the words which you state such as 'Hinduka' and 'Turkan' are not in this verse.

the orthography of certain words changes in certain manuscripts

2.

You have translated the word Jagai as 'awaken'
that's what the Braj dictionary says. and it makes sense. In Braj the locative is rarely expressed by en ending as it in the language used in Adi Guru Granth Sahib so Jagai means to awake. Locative in Braj is expressed by useing postpositions like mo.

3.

You cannot take one Sikh text and then apply the definations thought up by a modern scholar.
questionable statement unless we're able to travel through time.

4.

I am unaware whether Richard Temple is a scholar of Gurbani or whether he has traced the use of these words through Sikh literature.
Richard King (not Temple) is one of the greatest authority of critical theory in the field of South Asian religions. His work is relevant for all South Asian religions. He also has developped a genuine academic interest in the SIkh religious tradition and has been recently invited at conferences on SIkh STudies such as the one held in New Jersey by Dr. Arvindpal SIngh Mandair.

5.

But the writer of the Ogardanti refers to just Muslim rites and rituals and not ones of other two semitic faiths.
Islam is used as a synecdoche for the Abrahamic traditions.

6.

You have then implied that the use of the word 'Panth' translates as 'Indian' ( Hindu ) and Turk ( semitic ) religious traditions, but you have glossed over the fact that Panth has a very restricted meaning
I said that Hindu and Turk were NOT used to qualify panth

7.

Panth can refer to a religion, but never a collective of religions
Panth meaning literally way (english 'path' or german pfad' same indo europen root). Panth is context-sensitive.

8.

I hope you will ignore the advice of your resident 'Groupie' Nihangji and continue this discussion.

People like or don't like what I write. All I can say is that I have received a lot of love from people on sikhawareness and I thank them for that. I don't need groupies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

1.

the orthography of certain words changes in certain manuscripts

Yes it may be possible to read Mein as Mo but it's stretching it a bit far to make the words 'Hindu Sakal' as 'Hinduka Turakan'. Also why the varient readings ? Why haven't the Nihangs who seemed to have guarded this text jealously not ensured that all manuscripts are consistant ?. Surely if a text is kept secretative then it is less likely to be corrupted but that appears to have happened. Perhaps Narsingha could shed some light on this. Wouldn't the Budha Dal also qualify as Ram Raiyas for allowing the text to be corrupted ?.

Whereas I find your ISO transliterations faultless perhaps you could provide Chakka numbers with the similar diligence

2.

that's what the Braj dictionary says. and it makes sense. In Braj the locative is rarely expressed by en ending as it in the language used in Adi Guru Granth Sahib so Jagai means to awake. Locative in Braj is expressed by useing postpositions like mo.

I can understand your difficulty. Punjabi, Hindi or Braj are not your mother tongues so that is why you need to check a dictionary. For anyone whose mother tongue is one of these laguages, they will tell you that there is no such word as 'Jagai' for 'awaken', it is 'Jaagai'. Even Punjabi which has a tendency to shorten the 'aa' sound of Hindi still retains the 'aa' sound in the word to 'awaken'

3.

questionable statement unless we're able to travel through time.

Huh ?. :shock: What has time travel to do with this debate. If you read the full comment you will realise that I stated that you cannot use the definations of Richard King on just the Ogardanti in isolation, you need to also apply it to other Sikh texts of that period. Have the same definations been applied to the Prem Sumarg, Bhai Gurdas II Var 41 or the Tankahnama of Bhai Nand Lal ?. How about the Rehatnamas which belong to the same period in history. If Richard King's definations do not hold in these texts then they are faulty. Is that so hard to understand ?.

4.

Richard King (not Temple) is one of the greatest authority of critical theory in the field of South Asian religions. His work is relevant for all South Asian religions. He also has developped a genuine academic interest in the SIkh religious tradition and has been recently invited at conferences on SIkh STudies such as the one held in New Jersey by Dr. Arvindpal SIngh Mandair.

Apologies for writing the wrong surname. Richard King may be an authority as you state but being an authority on South Asian religions does not make him an authority on Gurbani or Sikh texts. Richard King's specialisms may be Hinduism and Buddhism but he cannot claim authority of Sikhism just because it also is a South Asian religion. As far as I am aware Richard King has not written any work on Sikhism and most of his works are based on the other two South Asian religion. I look forward to reading any papers that he has submitted to the Sikh Studies conference.

I understand that there is a widespread notion in Sikh studies that one has be a European or someone trained and educated in a Western University to have any merit when it comes to scholarship in Sikhism. This explains your earlier tirades against 'amateur scholars', the Doctors, Dentists or Engineers or former government officials who had the gall to challenge the writings of WH McLeod and other European scholars. Knowledge is not restricted to race or origin or main profession. A Doctor studying Sikhi in his spare time can be as much a scholar as a full time professional at a university.

Jeevan Deol in his paper The Foundations of Dharma: Community, Identity, Religious Antagonism and Rule in Eighteenth-Century Punjab has also found fault with theories which attribute the term 'Turk' to be solely an ethno-geographic or political term

One of the most vexed issues in the study of Mughal (and occasionally of pre-Mughal) religious antagonism has been a terminological one. A fair amount of space has been devoted to understanding the valence of the term ‘Turk’ in studies of Mughal-period India and, more recently, in medieval Andhra. Most of the attention given to the term so far has concentrated on its use in explicitly political texts such as inscriptions, state documents and letters. The term does also have a set of valences that derive primarily from and proliferate in a more clearly religious context, that of fifteenth- to eighteenth-century nirguna devotional poetry. The context is an important one, since we know from extant manuscripts from regions as diverse as Rajasthan, Punjab, Braj, Avadh and Maharashtra that the poetry in question had a wide circulation through north India and was in fact one of the major poles of religious discourse during the period. As such, its evidence should not be taken lightly. The genre as a whole almost invariably uses the term ‘Turk’ to define a religious identity, one of two monoliths defined in terms both of text and praxis.

and later

We have already seen, however, that the identification of the term ‘Turk’ with Muslim religious practice is grounded in earlier nirguna religious discourse, and this text brings the discourse of religious antagonism forward to the beginning of the eighteenth century itself.

5.

Islam is used as a synecdoche for the Abrahamic traditions.

This is your theory. As far as I am aware there is nothing in the Ogardanti that leads to the conclusion that the tearing down of Mosques and Muslim graves and the Koran necessarily means a similar treatment to Churches and Synagogues. I understand your need to have a 'fall back' on this theory as you have a soft spot for Islam and Shia Islam in particular. But you also need to believe that the Ogardanti is Bani as per your sanatan beliefs so then the clear need to make the Ogardanti 'fit in' to your varied beliefs.

6.

I said that Hindu and Turk were NOT used to qualify panth

So if there is a line in the Ogardanti which has the words 'Turk' or 'Hindu' followed by the word 'Panth' this would demolish your theory?. Perhaps JtSingh could lend you his copy and you can check whether such a line exists which would cause you to be reformulate your views.

Here is a view from another western scholar Roger Ballard about the word 'Panth'

with this in mind I shall use the term panth to refer to a body of people drawn together by their commitment to the teachings of a specific spiritual master, be he living or (more usually) dead. Whilst this definition is somewhat wider in scope than is everyday usage, the expansion is quite deliberate, since my objective is to establish a categorical term which can be deployed to identify the followers of any spiritual teacher, regardless of whether he takes the title Guru, Sant, Yogi, Mahant, Sheikh, Pir or more generic Baba

So it is not possible to state that by referring to 'Panth' the writer of the Ogardanti is referring to the Abrahamic religions.

7.

Panth meaning literally way (english 'path' or german pfad' same indo europen root). Panth is context-sensitive.

See comment above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...