Mata Sahib Kaur Not The Giver Of Pataseh!

[Kharag Singh]

i went on the naamdhari website and they said this

"Often it is mentioned in various medias that Mata Sahib Deva Ji was the one who put Patasas in Amrit in order to make it sweeter.

But if the facts are considered, it becomes clear that such an event never took place. Guru Gobind Singh Ji created The Khalsa on the First of Baisakh 1756 Bikarmi (1699 AD). whereas Mata Sahib Deva Ji came to Satguruji's Holy Feet on 17th of Baisakh 1757 Bikarmi, 1 year and 17 days later. Thus it was impossible for Mataji to put Patasas in the Amrit."

this cannot be true!

check some more "lies" out at

http://namdhari.faithweb.com/lies

[amardeep]

why cant it be true?

[Kharag Singh]

because then that makes the entire event of vaisakhi 1699 have a question mark over it!

[amardeep]

sorry what i mean is,

Naamdharis often use the puratan Granths as evidence for what they belive in, so it must be written in many of the granths that our Holy Mother did not wed Guru Maharaj untill after Amrit Sanskar, and that is why they believe in it.

If there is one thing naamdharis have, then its knowledge from books

[Kharag Singh]

theek ya bhai saab i get what ur sayin but then this totaly nullifies some theories which say that without the touch of the feminine a balance cant be made to create amrit eg shiv shakti.

[drawrof]

there are many things different groups omit, and many things different groups submit....very rarely does one say "I'm not 100% right, I admit'

[chatanga]

woss Shiv Shakti?

[Guest Javanmard]

Well the Namdharis are right I am afraid. Something did happen in 1699 but the details do differ from one text to another.

[Kharag Singh]

care to explain svp?

[Guest Javanmard]

Well the documents are full of different details.

Some say goats were chatkaed others that the panj pyare themselves were chatkaed. In some texts the names of the panj pyare are not even the same. Some even say it happened before 1699.

In any case we do know when Maharaj got married to Mata Sahib Devan and there is simply no way she could have been there when she only Maharaj AFTER 1699.

[Niranjana]

This is correct, the accounts vary significantly upto and including the date, one thing I would add is that the most significant item to note is that Kavi Sainapati's Sri Gur Sobha, which is perhaps (imho) one of the more reliable source of Sikh history (written in c. 1711, 3 years after the passing of Guru Gobind Singh in 1708) completely omits any grand reference to the event as we current know it.

The account that perhaps most closely reflects modern day interpretations is one found in the works of Gyani Gyan Singh Nirmala.

What does all of this mean, well a lot of things, but I fail to see how it invalidates the concept of the Vaisakhi of Guru Gobind Singh, the Amrit Sanchar initiation or the establishment of the Khalsa Panth.

Moreover, the pseudo 'shiv-shakti' ramblings are themselves recent innovations introduced by certain cult personalities, which will not find too much support in Sikh literature or history...oh I forgot, it must be one of those "gupt vidiya thingies"!

[Guest Javanmard]

The whole ritual I am afraid is completely Shi'a. Attempts have been made later on to reinterpret it the Hindu way but it's really unconvincing for anyone well versed in Hinduism.

[shaheediyan]

"What does all of this mean, well a lot of things, but I fail to see how it invalidates the concept of the Vaisakhi of Guru Gobind Singh, the Amrit Sanchar initiation or the establishment of the Khalsa Panth."

That's correct, and I would add that it does not in fact compromise the "facts", rather than the concepts.

It's not a case of the emergence of the Khalsa Panth and Khande de Pahul being questionable, but rather, (of minor significance in my opinion), the chronological details not being conclusive.

Whether or not Khande de Pahul resembles any extinct historic Persian traditions is also of little to no importance - as our Guru's felt no need to mention it, and it plays no part in a Sikh achieving his/her goal/s.

The only important factor is that "this is" a divine tradition given to us directly from Akaal Purkh - and one that we should cherish, preserve and live (in which ever way we "best" understand it. Vaheguru knows all.

[Niranjana]

Shaheediyan wrote: "I would add that it does not in fact compromise the "facts", rather than the concepts."

Precisely.

Javanmard writes: "Attempts have been made later on to reinterpret it the Hindu way but it's really unconvincing for anyone well versed in Hinduism."

Please clarify what you regard as the 'Hindu' interpretations of the event?

Bhangoo (and subsequent authors)'s association of the Amrit Sanchar with the Devi? The introduction of "Aape-Gur-Chela" and fanciful stories of how this corresponds to the relationship that existed between Hanuman and Sri Ram Chandar Ji, or the above mentioned "Shiv-Shakti" pseudo tantrik mumbo-jumbo?

The majority of these 'interpretations', if not all, are closely related to each other and certain segments of the wider Sikh community which hardly represent a leading opinion today, let alone the past (regardless of glossy presentations of selective facts to assert otherwise).

As for it being linked to Shia ceremonies that you have made references to recently, for information purposes, please could you expand a little more in terms of their practising adherents today and the community of such initiation in the present era.

[shaheediyan]

Although this discussion has been had many times already, I disagree that the Khande de Pahul is entirely Shia sourced.

The biggest and most evident fact remains that upon baptism, the name historically reserved for Kshatriyas - was adopted and given to the new Khalsa initiates - Singh.

I'm not saying that everthing is "Indian", simply that it is foolish for anyone to claim Guru Gobind Singhs tradition in it's entirety.

Sri Dasam Granth contains Bir Ras invkoking bani - we can see that Guru Ji's references are multiple in faith and culture - as I believe is reflected in many facets of the Sikh tradition.

[Guest Javanmard]

Yes but that of course is part of an ishraqi reintegration of Indian heritage within a larger Imamocentric cosmology. Singh is first of all a Rajput name not just ksatriya but then again the title of Shi'a knight was often asadullah: lion of God, as can be read on many Safavid swords.

[shaheediyan]

Please explain what you mean by "re"integration... also I don't understand what Ishraqi (I believe you are refering to the 12c movement)has to do with Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

The use of Singh is an ancient Indian tradition, which of course Rajputs inherited from their warrior predecessors.

Reference to Lions, Tigers etc as concepts to bravery and strength have been common in Africa and Asia for many millenia.

[Guest Javanmard]

ah...denial...

India went through an ishraqi phase where Indian spirituality was reintegrated within a wider Shi'a spirituality as seen in the works of Dara Shikoh, Mir Fendereski and works like the Ginans and the Madhumalati.

India is not Africa so let's leave the Zulus aside here. The name Singh is not a tradition it's a gotr name. It's not like people would earn that title. Guru Gobind Singh's Khalsa was the first to make that name accessible to non Rajputs. Secondly it translates asadullah perfectly i.e. it gives and Indian equivalent of the Persian title.

[shaheediyan]

I think to say that "India" went through this Shia spiritual reintegration is overly optimistic, India is a big place.

Certainly there were some mystical Islamic movements in North West India.

Fact remains that the use and parallel of/to Lion, Eagle, Tiger i.e. master predators, is common amongst the warrior traditions of the world.

The name Singh has been used for the warrior classes in India from ancient times, and as you rightly say, Guru Gobind Singh Ji took that inherited monopoly/privilege away from those that no longer deserved it - and gave it to those that promised adherence to the truth - irrelevant of caste. As Guru Ji did with the ancient religious texts from the Brahmans, as Guru Ji did with religious, political and social rights from Mughal enforcers.

It would be more realistic to say that the ancient use of Singh was in fact what inspired the use of Asadullah if we are going to go down the route of auditing religious traditions.

Rather than waste time always linking (and trying to create ownership) of beautiful God given rites to now historic traditions, is it not better to simply admire those traditions and their similarities, that through the grace of God, may sometimes be revealed directly to his truth givers, at different times…

If not then, can it not be claimed that the majority of what the Prophet Mohammed revealed, already existed during his time via Jewish, Christian and local traditions?

Just because someone doesn't agree with what you say doesn't mean that they are denial, it may be that they just genuinely don't agree with you!

If I am in denial, then so are you my brother, if you have an opinion or theory, then so do others… - only Vaheguru has the facts.

It would be nice if you could discuss without always trying to demean those opponents who are discussing in a civilised fashion- , it's not very chivalrous.

[amardeep]

i found this in the book of Mcleod( Dont know if the translation he is using is correct or not)

Khalsa Mahima, Sarbloh Granth:

By his command, The Lord created that panth which is the Khalsa..... 366. (Created By Akaal, not Imam Ali or holy Prophet Muhamad)

Worshippers of Akaal, and followers of the Kshatriya way.....367 (No mentioning of Shia chivalry)

From forty men, five leaders of the Khalsa emerged. They were the beloved Ajit Singh, Jujhar Singh, Fateh Singh and Zorawar Singh. The Fifth leader of the Khalsa was the Satguru Gobind Singh, who revealed this noble path....367 (no mentioning of any of the holy Imams as leaders. if the Khalsa and amrit sanskar was a continuation of shia chivalry, would Imam Ali not be the leader? )

further it says:

Forty men are the seed of the Khalsa.

Akaal Purakh and Bhagavati is the Father and Mother of the Khalsa.

371

Hearing what God tells them in the scriptures in the noble words of the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishadas they follow the auspicious, avoiding what is evil and live as devout and knowledgeabe people.

It further goes to say the Khalsa avoids Halal meat.

It gives one more refference to a conversation between Sri Krishna and Arjuna on the topic of the perfect saint.

[amardeep]

The principles of the Khalsa can also be found in the Ksiatrya maryada and also the samurais .. the way i see it is that the principles of the Khalsa is not anything new, but rather a universal principle of Chivalry ariginating from God Almighty..

[chatanga]

have we not strayed form the discussion once again, going back to sikhi/shia origins?

[Guest]

thanks for reminding the sangat chatanga, guys please stick to the orginal topic all the topics regarding sikh/shia orgins will be deleted.

again i must remind sangat- topic is on "Did Mata Sahib Kaur gave patsah in amrit sanchar in 1699?"

[amardeep]

Kharag Singh, Mata Sahib Ji's name was not kaur, but devi ... Mata Sahib Devi, our beloved Mother for eternity. Let our love towards this fabolous Mother increase day by day.

[shaheediyan]

The discussion is completely relevant - we are discussing the origins of the Khalsa - directly linked to and naturally evolving from the topic of Mata Sahib Devi.

Javanmard, could you please respond to Amardeep Ji's response re Sarbloh Granth Sahib quotes in the Khalsa.

Thanks.