Babbar Khalsa

[xkwizit]

Mr Balpreet Singh and Mr Kamalroop Singh, being Singhs under the banner of the Same Guru Khalsa, I suggest you both show more respect to the Khalsa Panth and to the Brotherhood that lies within it. And that starts by respecting one another. False is the one that wears the Chola. Look at yourselves, and reflect upon this. Balpreet Singh, with regards to your comments about moderators of this site, I suggest you carry that same advice with you back to the tapoban site and impliment it also.

To each a good day

[tableji]

lol all i can say is, you lot like looking at other ppls vikaraa, instead of focusing on ur own.

Yeah ppl did bad things and gud things, bt irrelavant, arguing about them wnt help you, or them or anyone.

[Singh47]

I would like to thank Singh123 wholeheartedly for setting the record straight. I’m just surprised at the level of ignorance that some people here have. I don’t expect a non-Punjabi to understand our pain that started in 78 and struggles which started in 47 all the way to the present. Sad thing is when some of “our†own start supporting these outsiders in their attempt in trying to tarnish the reputation of the Shaheeds of our Quam.

[Beast]

Same old crap. Were u there? If not, how can u feel more pain? You have got hold of a pathetic and racist argument that one needs to be Punjabi to understand the pain that Punjabis were made to endure at the hands of the Indian govt and of the Sikh terrorists.

[palm_w1]

and hindu terrorists

[Beast]

sorry,

...and Hindu terrorists.

[Singh47]

Look “beastâ€, unlike you who was born and raised in the UK, I was actually born in India. So I know what I’m talking about buddy…it really surprises me of how some people in foreign countries raised in air-conditioned houses can point fingers at us. In colonial times, we had a word for people who supported the foreigners, they were called toadies. Back then the toadies supported the foreigners of Europe, and the current ones support the ones in Delhi. In Punjabi theses toadies are referred to as “Jhollee Chakâ€, and even “Boot-Chattâ€.

Furthermore, I would like to add, it was not intended to be a racist comment. The truth of the matter is, unless a quam has a country of its own, it has little or no sympathy in this world. This is how the Jews were before 47, and currently this is how other nationless Quams are around the world such as the Sikhs, Dalits, Kurds.

[Beast]

I don't understand - whats the history lesson in aid of? I was not born in Punjab and yet I feel tremendous empathy to the injustice suffered by Sikhs. My empathy has arisen from my understanding of history - this was something I learnt using my own time and effort.

I disagree abt having a nation of our own - will potential inefficiences/malpractises be wrongly construed as a representation of our faith?

[Singh47]

Truth of the matter is the Babbars (Bhai Sukhdev Singh group) were man enough to fight and die for what they believed in. They died in the true spirit of the Khalsa, instead of bowing to Indira Gundee and her Napaak dynasty. If you think having Anakh and fighting for the Izzat of your Quam makes the Babbars into supposed “terrorists†in your eyes, then you have been living the west for too long. You have forgotten our ways and manners in which Anakh and Izzat are an integral part of who we are.

[Guest]

Furthermore, I would like to add, it was not intended to be a racist comment. The truth of the matter is, unless a quam has a country of its own, it has little or no sympathy in this world.

I do not agree with the above statement. Just look at the buddhism... how flourish and popular they are?? Do they have a country? :roll:

Khalsa belongs to the whole world just like buddhism.

[Narsingha]

...fighting for land...must be a jatt thing

[Singh47]

"Just look at the buddhism... how flourish and popular they are?? Do they have a country?"

Bhutan, Burma, Japan and other south east asian countries. The reason why Buddhism is so popular in the west is because of Hollywood and its portrayal of the mysterious east.

fighting for land...must be a jatt thing

Nah, it's just the thing that oppressed people are sometimes forced to do.

[drawrof]

"fighting for land...must be a jatt thing"...

If I recall correctly, much of the misl period was spent fighting for land....people became sardars (land owners).....oh yes, that makes sense...the buddha dal were doing it so it was okay! (lets not forget, many of the dal-panthi's were jatt too)

[Narsingha]

"fighting for land...must be a jatt thing"...

If I recall correctly, much of the misl period was spent fighting for land....people became sardars (land owners).....oh yes, that makes sense...the buddha dal were doing it so it was okay! (lets not forget, many of the dal-panthi's were jatt too)

Try not to let your ignorance of Sikh history get the better of you...

:roll:

[Singh47]

Try not to let your ignorance of Sikh history get the better of you...

:roll:

Please Narsingha, enlighten us with your timeless "wisdom" and tell us what they were fighting for dear…

[drawrof]

ignorance of sikh history?

please elaborate.... (with sources please)

[Guest Javanmard]

For everyone's information Buddhism became popular in the West in.. the 19th century due to Indologist scholarship and the writings of many Western philosopher who influenced by it. Some examples of Western philosophers who were influenced by it in teh 19th and 20th century:

1. Schopenhauer

2. Emerson

3. Thoreau

4. Hesse

5. Rolland

6. Leconte de Lisles

7. Burnouf

8. Malraux

9. Camus

10. Daumal

and many others...

No Richard Gere and Madonna did not introduce the trend!!!

[Guest]

i would take the first two links with a pinch of salt. any website which promotes KPS Gill must be biased.

That site is run by Gill himself.

I do not agree with the above statement. Just look at the buddhism... how flourish and popular they are?? Do they have a country? :roll:

Plenty. Among them Burma is supposed to have a very pro-Buddhist military which is in conflict with other religions.

...fighting for land...must be a jatt thing

Didnt know Banda Singh Bahadur or Maharaja Ranjit Singh, among countless others, were "Jatts". If we are talking about 'caste designations' (despite the fact that our religion rejects this) then those two rulers belonged to Rajput and Sansi caste respectfully.

Fighting for sovereignty is the term you are apparently looking for.

Sovereignity which Punjab was robbed of in 1849 and again in 1947.

Perhaps asking for liberation of all of East Punjab is asking for too much. Sikhs of Malwa have often bent over backwards for outsiders and betrayed their own kind by siding with these aliens. Perhaps those who advocate a Khalistan should omit Patiala, Ludhiana, Faridkot...

Jiyo,

[palm_w1]

I do not agree with the above statement. Just look at the buddhism... how flourish and popular they are?? Do they have a country? :roll:

Khalsa belongs to the whole world just like buddhism.

burma, japan are buddhist. even india was buddhist until the buddhist empire was undermined by a brahmin.

furthermore buddhism does not survive today in the form in which the buddha created it, perhaps this is a result of lack of state sponsorship. in inida today buddhism is a branch of hinuism.

[Guest Javanmard]

1. Buddhism in Japan does not have state sponsorship since the mid 19th century and it still flourishes.

2. Most of the Buddhist teachers in India were Brahmins and so were some of the closest disciples of Buddha. Most of the great Buddhist teachers who taught at Nalanda were Brahmins. To say that a "Brahmin" destroyed Buddhism in India is hence non-sense. In Kashmir Shaivas and Buddhists shared common places of worship as they still do in Nepal.

3. The brahmin you mention is supposed to be Adi Shankara who was accused by other Vedantic philosophers of being a "crypto Buddhist" himself. The decline of Buddhism in India has nothing to do with Brahmins but rather with the fact that Bhakti had taken over in India wheread Indian Buddhism did not leave much space for Bhakti.

4. There never was a Buddhist empire in India. Even Ashoka's empire can by no means be called Buddhist as his concept of dharma was universal and not restricted to Buddhist definitions.

5. You talk about about an original form of Buddhism: please define!

[palm_w1]

It was under Ahokas tutelage that buddhism became the dominant religion in 'india'. Perhaps ashokas emire was not a buddhist empire as such, but from his ancester chadragupta to the reign of ashoka buddhism had been gaining popularity in 'india'. By the time ashokas empire was at its height buddhism overshadowed brahmanic vedism. Another 'heresy', Jainism was also quite big. From the hindu standpoint one may argue that their emergence was not of special historical importance as both remained within the girth of hinduism, their questioning of brahmanic orthodoxy and the authrotiy of the vedas meaning only a formal separation.

The brahmins kept knowledge to themselves and where loathosme to teach others as you claim. unlike the socially egalitarian buddhism, brahmanic society cultivated a sacred language with complex grammar. Buddhism was given away freely to everyone without restrictions of caste etc whereas brahmainc vedic hinduism was only propogated amongst other brahmins.

During the gupta age aryan brahmanism proliferated into popular hinduism. the cults of shiva and krishna were non-brahmanic but their popularity led the oppurtunistic brahmins who were of relegated importance during the buddhist period to contrive them as part and parcel of their own system.

You refer to shankara, i don't know what you been by 'crypto-buddhist'. the brahmins have been attempting to destroy buddhist' heresy' long before shankara started his propoganda. A south indian brahmin, Kumaralia, in an effort to destroy buddhism in the south of 'india', had initiated a revival of brahmanism that without the help of vedic ritual their could be no salvation. Brahmins like shankara and kumarila succeeding in persuading kings and other influential people to withdraw their patronage of buddhist monastries and even turn hostile.

bhakti never destroyed buddhism as you claim. vaishnava bhakti (amongst other forms) only spread to north 'india' after buddhism had already started to decline. The old buddhist monastries, already on the decline due to brahmanic interference; started to be replaced by various devotional schools centred on the worship of rama and krishna.

its also slightly erronous for you to say most buddhist teachers were brahimns as by becoming buddhist they had given up caste hieracrchies etc. The brahmins lost their importance wherever the political and commercial elite preferred to patronize the proselytizing buddhist (or jaina) monks and their institutions. whilst many brahmins where lost to their community because they joined the ranks of the buddhist monks (perhaps more oppurtunism) some went to try their fortunes elsewhere. these brahmins who became buddhists can therefore no longer be classed as brahmins. Around 700 ad king adisura of bengal tried to revive bramhamism and bring down the influence of buddhists. how? he started to import brahmins en masse from kanauj. he was succeeded by the palas under who buddhism flourished (not braminsim) until the muslims came in and killed everyone.

p.s apologies for spelling mistakes but i am in a rush.

p.p.s this thread seems to be going a bit off topic. shaka if u want to continue debating buddhism/'indian' history perhaps you should start a new thread.

[Guest Javanmard]

Sorry to contradict you but:

1. Buddhism and Brahmanic practise have always co-existed and "Brahmanism" was NOT overshadowed by Buddhism. Buddhist kings still performed Brahmanic marriages ceremonies, havan sacrifices etc... and the most renowned Buddhist scholars were Brahmins. The king of Thailand, a Buddhist king, is still crowned by Brahmins!!! Coronation cannot take place without Brahmins!!!!

2. You talk of Brahmins as an organised united group which they simply aren't.

3. Your romantic ideas about Buddhism are just simply ridiculous. Hinayana Buddhism is probably one of the most elitist religions in India as only male monks can achieve nirvana. The Buddha himself did not wich to have nuns in his order until his disciples convinced him and he sad: The era of the Buddhist Dharma will now be reduced by half because of the presence of women.

4. The language used by Buddha was still by popular standards extermely elitist and the metaphysical partsof the Tipitakka cannot be understood without a strong knowledge of Sanskrit and philosophical terminology. Read Budhagosa's or Nagarjuna's writings and you'll see for yourself.

5. Buddhism put a clear hierarchy that stiipulates that men are superior to women and that monks are superior to lay people whose only function is to serve the monks.

6.Caste alegiance is eliminated by initiation into the monastic order but most hagiographies of famous Buddhist saints will mention their caste and say how important it was for them to be born either as kshatriyas or Brahmins.

7. Bhakti also existed in Mahayana and vajrayana Buddhism thorugh the notion of the Adi Buddha, the yidams and the Boddhisattvas. The names of the these Boddhisattvas coincided with those of divinties like Krshna or Shiva. Avalokitshvara is a boddhisattva but is also a form of Shiva. Buddhists and non-Buddhists shared the same places of worship in Bengal, Nepal an Kashmir. The notion of the Adi Buddha, created by Buddhist philosophers was identical to that of Paramatman and the idea of having this concept was more appealing than the meatphysical concepts of Nagarjuna.

Brahmins have been on both sides and worked for both sides. Your dalit arguments are simply not credible enough.

[Guest]

Guys!

Please discuss about Buddhism in separate thread. It will help us to organize discussions. If you want me to change the title then let me know but please keep this thread for Babbars.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...pic.php?p=45888

[nirguniaare]

Are all Babbars AKJ? and does BK have some sort of constitution? If some members are AKJ why do they fight for a Khalistan when Bhai Randir singh stated in jail chitian that its not in accordance to the teachings of the guru granth? (I do not seek kingdonm, i do not seek salvation, i seek the love of my guru's feet).

[Mehtab Singh]

Are all Babbars AKJ? and does BK have some sort of constitution? If some members are AKJ why do they fight for a Khalistan when Bhai Randir singh stated in jail chitian that its not in accordance to the teachings of the guru granth? (I do not seek kingdonm, i do not seek salvation, i seek the love of my guru's feet).

and which page number would that be?