Beast Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Singh47 wrote: Lalleshwari, what kind of Sikhism is baba Khem Singh Bedi trying to “promote†when he promotes himself as the 15th “guru†of the Sikhs. This is the kind of twisted version of Sikhism the false Radhaswami Gurus are also trying to promote. Lalleshwari is this what you think “Sanaatan Sikhi†is? Because I had a totally different idea of what Sanatan Sikhi was. Lalleshvari wrote I do not agree with everything he did but at least he was not Protestantised! Lalleshvari wrote Didn't I just say that I did not agree with everything Baba Khem Singh Bedi said or did? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Beast, Lalleshwari wrote: “The only reason why I like Baba Khem SIngh Bedi is that he was the man behind the movement against missionaries and tried to conserve Sikh tradition†I in response wrote: “Lalleshwari, what kind of Sikhism is baba Khem Singh Bedi trying to “promote†when he promotes himself as the 15th “guru†of the Sikhs. This is the kind of twisted version of Sikhism the false Radhaswami Gurus are also trying to promote. Lalleshwari is this what you think “Sanaatan Sikhi†is? Because I had a totally different idea of what Sanatan Sikhi was. I doubt any true Sikh who wants to promote the traditions of Gurmat would want a seat with cushions installed specially for him at Darbar Sahib. That is not the tradition of Sikhism, not even by a long shot. “ What I dont understand is, what kind of "Sikh traditions" did Baba Khem Singh Bedi promote when most of what he promoted were against Sikh traditions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 That's the first time I've heard Gyani Ditt Singh referred to as a Nirmala - what's your source? He was originally a gulabdasia sadhu (who were a rather fascinating sub-group of Udasin samprday) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Sorry guys but you are actually confusing two Giani Ditt Singhs. There is the Nirmala (AKaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal) who defeated Dayananda-the-prophet-of-hatred and then there is "GIani" Ditt SIngh the Lahore SIngh Sabha guy, born in a Gulabdasi (atheist materialists of teh Charvaka kind), converted to Arya Samaj and one of the most prolific eaders of the Lahore SIngh Sabha and ennemy of Baba Khem SIngh Bedi. For a discussion of the word Hindu see Richard King.1999. Orientalism and Religion, London Routledge. Read the chapter on the concept of Hinduism and you will realise how stupid it is to use that term!!! Regarding Baba Khem SIngh Bedi: are you guys saying that creating Sikh schools and giving amrit to hundreds and thousands of people is anti-gurmat? :roll: I read a lot about Baba Khem Singh Bedi and never did I read anythingabout him claiming him to be 15th Nanak!!! Even though the British did try to create that propaganda about him! Why wouldn't an old man have the right to have a cushion to lean on? I see many gurdware with chairs at the back for elderly and disabled people so I don't see what the problem is with the gadila even though I think Avtar SIngh Vahiria went a bit over the top and chose the wrong arguments for the gadila! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 ah...tell me the source for that, because the ex-Gulabdasia Lahore Singh Sabhia Gyani Ditt Singh is the one who wrote the text 'Sadhu Dayanand te Mera sanbad' which is said to be the compilation of those very debates with Swami Dayanand at the park in Lahore in which Dayanand was beaten. I can't find a reference for another Gyani Ditt Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Sorry my mistake: There is a Giani Ditt Singh Nirmala but it was Sant Nihal Singh who defeated Dayananda whilst Ditt Singh Gulabdasi still celebrated havans with his Arya Samaji brothers. Regarding Ditt SIngh claiming to defeat Dayananda, well other SIkhs did it before him and he definetly never was a Nirmala. He was born a Gulabdasi, joined the Arya Samaj and later on joined the Lahore Singh Sabha, but he never was linked to the Nirmalas in any way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Lalleshwari in other words, you agree with Baba Bedi that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Singh 47 are you blind or what? 1. I am not a Baba Khem SIngh Bedi-panthi. I just acknowledged some good things he did that's it. Even though I disagree with some other stuff he did. 2. Lalleshwari in other words, you agree with Baba Bedi that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism? For me to believe that I would have to believe that there something called Hinduism: which is not the case! I think Sikhi is and has always been a distinctive path different from Islam, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism and Shaktism. I just don't believe there is any such thing as Hinduism. Please read the reference I gave you earlier: Richard King (1999). people complain when I don't give references but when I give them no one read them. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Take it easy… you don’t have to get so excited! "I am not a Baba Khem SIngh Bedi-panthi. I just acknowledged some good things he did that's it. Even though I disagree with some other stuff he did." Then why did you say that Baba Bedi conserved "Sikh traditions" when in fact he did not even follow the root traditions of Sikhism. By saying there is no such thing as Hinduism, does that mean that one of the worlds major religion that 85% of Indians adhere to is non-existent? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 By saying there is no such thing as Hinduism, does that mean that one of the worlds major religion that 85% of Indians adhere to is non-existent? Singh47, This thread is not about hinduism. Open up a new thread if you like to! Stick to the topic Off-topics will be deleted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 N30 Singh, it is all related to this thread. Maybe not directly, but indirectly YES! Baba Bedi who is now being claimed as some kind of a “savior†of Sikh traditions was of the opinion that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. Knowing this, some here are now trying to say that one of the major world religions to which a staggering 85% of Indians adhere to is non-existent! I find that hard to swallow! Truth of the matter is Baba Khem Singh Bedi was very heretic in his beliefs, yet he is being claimed as a "hero" at the expense of the true heroes of the Sikh Quam i.e. the Lahore Singh Sabhias. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 I told you to read Richard King! Hinduism has only become constrcuted reality during the British Raj and even then it remains a mainly middle class thing. The notion of Hinduism cannot be found in any original writing before the presence of the British even though the term Hindu existed but then again it referred mainly ethno-geography rather than religion. In my opinion both Kahn SIngh Nabha and Baba Khem SIngh Bedi are wrong. One says: Ham Hindu Nahin! whereas the other says: Ham Hindu hain! My point is : Koi Hindu nahin. There surely are Vaishnavas, Smartas, Shaivas, Shaktas etc.... But there never was an underlying unity between these distinctive religions until British Orientalists backed up by Smarta Brahmins invented this construct of Hinduism and taught it in the British established schools where the new Indian elite and middle class was trained. It is only then that a "Hindu" conscience came up! The best way to fight against RSS is not "Ham Hindu Nahin" or "Ham Hindu Hain" but cut their legs straight away and send them to the shrink with "Koi Hindu Nahin". I have done it enough times with "Hindus" both in the Uk and India to know that it works!!! I never said Baba Khem SIngh bedi was a saviour or hero, I just called him a defendor of Sikh traditions. Out of all he said there may be 5% of stuff I may not agree with but if you read Khalsa Dharam Shastar and take away the stuff on caste (with which I certainly don't agree) all the puratan maryada is there. After all he was the initiator of the Singh Sabha movement wether you like it or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh_fauge Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 please read parasaraprasna too by kapur singh! hinduism is not a relegion! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Lalleshwari, if there is no such thing as a Hindu, then how do you explain the many references to the Hindus in Gurbani? If the term Hindu just refers to ethno-geography rather than religion then why did Guru Jee write “Naa hum Hindu, naa Musalmaanâ€, indicating that he is neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. Surely if the term Hindu only meant ethno-geographical then Guru Jee would have no problem calling himself a Hindu since he was ethnically and geographically the same as the Hindus. But no, since Hinduism is a religious idealogy distinct from that of Gurmat, Guru Jee specifically said he is not a Hindu. The Singh Sabha was first convened at Guru ka Bagh, Amritsar by prominent Sikhs of Punjab such as Kanwar Bikram Singh (of Kapurthala), Baba Khem Singh Bedi, Giani Sardul Singh etc. But the Amritsar Singh sabha only remained zealous for two years, after which it showed signs of being inactive. It was Bhai Gurmukh Singh who later became the driving force behind the Singh Sabha movement and was even one of the founders of Lahore Singh Sabha. Unlike the Amritsar Singh Sabha, the Lahore Singh Sabha was democratic in nature with Sikhs from all sections of society and not just the elite casteists that were in Amritsar Singh Sabha. Baba Khem Singh Bedi as you pointed out had only 5% of his views that were not in agreement with Gurmat. But that 5% outweighed the rest of the 95% of his Good views. That 5% is nothing but pure blasphemi that is also seen in the false Radhaswami, and Kuka gurus. No matter now much good they do, but claiming to be the Satguru instead of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee cannot save someone in the end time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 So 5% outweight 95%: how logical? Baba Khem SIngh BEdi never claimed to be 15th Nanak. The use of "Hindu" in gurbani has a religious conotations (that's true) but it refers to a Mughal construct that you can easily identify in the Majma ul Bahrain of Dara Shukoh. The word "Hindu" is like the word "Asian" in the UK. You and I know that it's the gore who invented it and that for us it doesn't mean much (we rather think in terms of Panjabi, Gujarati, Bangala etc..). Yet we still use it when interacting with others. In gurbani it is true that you have the term Hindu (Mughal construct like the UK Asian) but at the same time there is plenty of opportunities where the proper terminology (Vaishnav, Siddh, Jain etc...) is being used. The reason why the term "Hindu" is used also has to do with its easier use in poetic compositions to create effects of contrast etc... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 “So 5% outweight 95%: how logical? Veer Lalleshwari, that 5% as I pointed out earlier includes calling himself a Guru of the Sikhs, demanding a cushioned seat installed at Darbar Sahib just for him in the Hazoori if Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee (the one and ONLY true Guru of the Sikhs). This is no different than the false Radhaswami and Kuka Gurus who claim to be the “true†Gurus of the Sikhs. How are these false Gurus of the last 150 years any different than Dhir Mal or Ram Rae who had similar claims? Baba Khem SIngh BEdi never claimed to be 15th Nanak.†Veer Jee, one of the main reason why Baba Khem Singh Bedi was against Bhai Gurmukh Singh is because Bhai Gurmukh Singh would never let unchallenged Baba Khem Singh Bedi’s claim of being the 15th Guru of the Sikhs and his claim (as the Guru) for the right to have a cushioned seat installed for himself at Sri Darbar Sahib. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Look Singh 47, I have as far as my research goes not seen a single evidence of your claim that Baba Khem SIngh Bedi declared himself to be 15th Nanak. The "Autobiography of Bhagat Lakshman Singh", which gives a very good account of what went on at that times, does not even mention that. Instead it shows quite a nice portrait of Baba Khems SIngh bedi even though the author was one of the main Tat Khalsa leaders. We are back agian to the gadila episode which I find ridiculous. I just think that the whole matter went over the top because to be honest I know plenty of gurdware that offer seats for disabled and old people.Can't an old man lean on the cushion? I think that Bhai Avatar Singh Vahiria went over the top by saying that Baba Khem SIngh deserved it because of his Bedi origins ( I think any old person irrespective of descent deserves one if needed) but the claim Baba Khem Singh declared himself 15th Nanak is not to be found in any of his speaches or writings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Here is an excerpt from “The Sikhs in History†by Dr. Sangat Singh. “The Lahore Singh Sabha successfully met the challenge from within, by trying to erode the base of Baba Khem Singh Bedi, who, even in 1890s, persisted in his efforts to get recognized as the fifteenth Guru of the Sikhs.â€(pg 120) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Please quote primary sources of Baba Khem Singh's time like the Autobiography of Bhagat lakshman SIngh or any other source of the late 19th begiining 20 the century. Dr. Sangat Singh's book has numerous methodological problems attached to it and honestly 80 years after the facts he could write what he wants! Quote primary historical sources please not secondary sources! Avatar Singh Vahiria (Baba Khem Singh's secretary) clearly states in Khalsa Dharam Shastar that there are ONLY ten Gurus in SIkhi. Again Singh 47 show me one credible passage from a work written around Baba Khem Singh's time showing that HE (not anyone else) claims to be 15th Nanak! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Lalleshwari, that doesn’t make any sense. Dr Sangat Singh earned his PhD. in history. Citing from his work is credible enough. He has won the prestigious Akali Phula Singh award for his historical research. It’s strange you do not even know that Baba Khem Singh Bedi proclaimed himself as Guru at 1883, this was one of the main reason for the division of the Singh Sabha of Lahore and Amritsar. There are alteast a dozen websites on the net which also say the same thing. It’s simply a fact of history whether a new or old source is provided. By asking for a book from the times of Baba Khem Singh Bedi is like asking me prove to me that the partition of India took place by only providing sources that were written from that era, if I don’t then you might say “that proves that partition never took place since you only quoted from books with second hand informationâ€. Whether the source is new or old, it still cannot change a historical fact, and in this case the fact remains that Baba Bedi in 1883 proclaimed himself a Guru of the Sikhs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 singh47, perhaps u could look in the book/article in which the statement is made & find dr sangat's source in the bibliography. he must have had a source upon which to base his work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 1. I have not seen any such contemporary source even though I know about the claim and that many of Baba Khem Singh Bedi's opponents said that but again when I read literature of his party such as the Khalsa Dharam Shastar (1914) I find no evidence. 2. In any case even as a Bedi he had no right to claim leadership over the rest of the Panth as it was in the hands of the Budha Dal. Don't get me wrong: the fact that I said Baba Khame SIngh Bedi defended SIkh tradition does not mean I hold him as my fabvorite authority: he just remains a detail in Sikh history. 3. If ever your claim is true then I align myself in saying that this is (in case Baba Khem SIngh Bedi actually said that) definetly wrong: we only have 10 human Gurus, Guru Granth and Guru Panth. 4. I am not saying that you are necesseraly wrong but I am just stating that it is a principle in history to quote the most ancient source available. I have seen the most ancient sources and I haven't seen evidence of your claims.I would be more than happy if you proved your point to me. But until now I have no satisfying evidence and until the opposite is proven I cannot accept your claim that Baba Khem SIngh bedi actually said that. Again I am not here to defend Baba Khem SIngh Bedi. I definetly don't consider him to be the saviour of the Panth in any way but I have to credit him for some of the good stuff he did in the same way that I would say that Kahn Singh did do some good even though I don't heroworship him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Look Singh 47, I have as far as my research goes not seen a single evidence of your claim that Baba Khem SIngh Bedi declared himself to be 15th Nanak. The "Autobiography of Bhagat Lakshman Singh", which gives a very good account of what went on at that times, does not even mention that. Relevant quoted made bold by myself " He ( Baba Khem Singh ) rode out daily for Shikar with a hawk perched on his left hand. His position he carefully maintained even when presiding at the daily congregations. And if his idea was to actually look like the illustrious Guru Govind Singh, it may be safely stated that he succeeded in this endevour to no small extent. His followers believed him to an Avatar whose mere touch would save them. Most men believed in charms those days. Baba Sahib also seemed to believe in their efficacy. At first he would scribble something on small bits of yellow paper. But later, when his influence spread over the whole frontier, in addition to Dhanni and Pothohar, he devised a rubber stamp and the services of many a distinguished man who would come to pay respects to him were requistioned to obtain its impression in any number.. a waggish person told me long ago that Baba had made it a study to look great and influential and impress officialdom of those days that he was the premier Sikh Guru and that no contemporary of his wielded such an influence over them as he did" The above quote states that Baba Khem Singh Bedi gave 'dhaggay' and 'taveets' which are against Sikh principles. With the spread of the Singh Sabha movement the influence of Baba Khem Singh declined. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 1. "a waggish person made the statement" 2. regarding taviz etc... even though I am not a fan of it pelase read the Sampradaya tika of teh Sevapanthis of Guru Granth Sahib where a whole chapter is dedicated to it. It's better people put quotes of gurbani in boxes rather than going to a pandit to get some mantar. 3. Again I want a quote from BAba Khem SIngh himself or even Avtar Singh vahiria that he claimed to be 15th Nanak 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 1. "a waggish person made the statement" waggish means someone witty or humourous. Waggish does not mean a nindak or liar. Stop moving the goalposts, you said that there is no mention of Baba Khem Singh Bedi claiming to be the 15th Nanak. There is mention made of it in that quote. Yes, a waggish person made the statement but if it was a true statement or did not have some element of truth in that person's statement then surely Bhagat Lakshman Singh would have made added a comment disputing this fact. 2. regarding taviz etc... even though I am not a fan of it pelase read the Sampradaya tika of teh Sevapanthis of Guru Granth Sahib where a whole chapter is dedicated to it. It's better people put quotes of gurbani in boxes rather than going to a pandit to get some mantar. So then it follows that if a Sikh has to worship idols, it is best that he worships an idol of Guru Nanak than go to a mandir and worship the idol of a Hindu God? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.