Jump to content

Singhballer

Members
  • Content Count

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Singhballer last won the day on August 30 2011

Singhballer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

82 Excellent

2 Followers

About Singhballer

  • Rank
    Mai Andulae Kee Tayk Thayraa Naam Khundkaaraa

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto Canada
  • Interests
    Reaching that peak

Recent Profile Visitors

2,864 profile views
  1. I have responded to the views and arguments expressed by Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji in the above video. I apologize for the length. Maryada Guru Gobind Singh Ji made one maryada Correct, he gave the Khalsa one maryada How do we as Sikhs determine what that maryada is? The first step is to compile and analyze all historical documents and literature that shed light on the Khalsa's maryada at the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and the early 18th century. Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji has not presented any historical research or analysis to prove what was the original Khalsa maryada If people take Amrit at different places, can their views ever be the same? They can be the same and are the same for a vast majority of topics. Udasis, Nirmale, Taksaal/Giani, Nihang Singhs all have maryadas that differ, however all of these sampardas agree on the foundational principles and values of Sikhi. The areas they have differing views on (meat, length of mool mantar, keski as a kakaar) are all smaller details and subsidiary aspects of maryada. The sampardas agree on the core of how to understand, practice, and experience Sikhi. Sampardas/Babas claim their maryada is supreme I have never heard any Samparda/Baba make the claim that their maryada is above all others. Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji must provide evidence of showing that a specific Samparda/Baba has claimed this Sampardas may voice the merits of their maryada, that it is based on historical rehitnamas or has been in place and untouched for hundreds of years, but that does not mean that they come from an egotistical position of "holier-than-thou" as Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji is trying to paint their position as Babas put their own views into maryada and spread it using Amrit/Panj Pyare. They do this in order to build a unique identity, to avoid making one Panthic maryada, and get "Star Baba" treatment Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji is relying solely on his perception to reach the conclusion that what Sampardas/Babas are doing is undoubtedly with nefarious intentions Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji may be using a logical fallacy here related to apophenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia). Specifically, he is connecting patterns of behaviour (Sampardas/Babas preaching their maryada) with meaning and intention (doing it for selfish reasons + to divide the Panth) without providing any evidence to prove that supposed intention In order to make this claim, Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji must have evidence that can prove the intention, motives, and mental thoughts the Samparda/Babas he is pointing to Without providing any evidence, Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji has created a toxic narrative about Sampardas/Babas which then will transplant into the minds of his followers/listeners fermenting further disdain for fellow Sikhs Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji believes everyone should conform to the Akal Thakt Maryada because he believes it is the closest to Gurmat Is the Akal Thakt maryada the one that was given to the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh Ji? Obviously not. So then why is this maryada considered the most accurate one by Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji? He offers no historical historical research or written sources to prove that this maryada is most in line with the maryada Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave us Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji, and the missionary parchariks at large, are interpreting Sikhi using western philosophy (logic/science). This results in a distorted, warped, and inaccurate understanding of Gurmat. Thus, we cannot believe his assertions of a particular maryada being in line or out of line with Gurmat because his understanding of Gurmat is, at its core, flawed Background on Akal Thakt Maryada Sources: The Sikh Reht Maryada, The 50 Year History of the SGPC by Shamsher Singh Ashok Is this maryada Panth Parvanit? Has it been passed and approved by the Panth? Or the Akal Thakt? The answer, which may surprise many, is NO. The SGPC created a committee in 1927 to create a Sikh Rehit Maryada The 29 original members of this committee included: Sant Sundar Singh Ji of Damdami Taksal, Akali Kaur Singh of the Nihangs, Sant Sangat Singh Ji of the Sevapanthis, Bhai Kahan Singh Ji Nabha, Sant Gulab Singh Ji Gholia, Bhai Vir Singh Ji, Sant Man Singh Ji Khankhal of the Nirmale, Bhai Randhir Singh Ji of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha + more 11 of these original members, including representatives from Taksal, AKJ, Nirmale, and Sevapanthis, as well as, Bhai Vir Singh Ji and Prof. Jodh Singh Ji, were never present at the deliberations that took place Over the years additional comments and opinions were incorporated from dozens of other Sikhs, but whole sections of the Panth still were not part of the deliberations Committees were constituted over the years and discussions/debates took place in 1927, 1931, 1932, 1933, The 1933 deliberations were at an impasse and they were put on hold for a undetermined amount of time. These were the last deliberations In 1936, without any further deliberations taking place to get full consensus and approval from the Panth, it was passed by the SGPC The current version you see today is everything the Panth could agree upon as being the "at minimum" maryada. They still were deliberating on other details and aspects where they couldn't build consensus. At no point was this maryada passed by the representatives of the Panth to be the governing maryada for all Sikhs. It was still a work-in-process document As pointed out earlier, sections of the Panth did not even have the chance to take part in the deliberations, therefor the resulting document is still incomplete in that respect too Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji believes the Akal Thakt Maryada is supreme and "is the best one to make us one" He wants everyone to conform to the Akal Thakt Maryada as a prerequisite for Panthic unity, yet this is a maryada that is incomplete and left halfway through deliberations Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji views other maryadas as "going backwards" He has already decided that other maryadas from different Sampardas are nonsense He wants all Sikhs to conform to the Akal Thakt maryada first, and then make any changes This is illogical. Why not deliberate and agree on a maryada first before making it applicable to the whole Panth? It seems he wants one Panthic maryada but only on his terms. Not with the samvaadh and consensus of the entire Panth. He is unwilling to consider the merits of other Sikhs' views and any historical/philosophical evidence they might present Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji says "Babas divided the maryada" How can Babas have divided the maryada if there was never one singular maryada to begin with? Before the 1936 SGPC passed maryada, there were already numerous versions being followed Rather, one singular maryada has never been constituted and passed by the entire Panth Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji makes numerous claims of "you believe in x, y, z" which is against Gurmat Instead of addressing the individual person who may have said what he finds frivolous, he paints all those who disagree with his viewpoints with the same brush He generalizes here to depict all those who don't agree with him to be nonsensical. He does not distinguish. This creates animosity in his followers/listeners for everyone who disagrees with him Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji says "I say what seems right to me" He shouldn't say what seems right to him. He should say what is right according to the Guru If others in the Khalsa Panth think the viewpoint and philosophy he is using to determine "what is right" is incorrect and flawed, he should want to genuinely hear out critiques, not dismiss them The excuse that all those who don't agree with him are violent is a farce. There are plenty he could have a genuine conversation with History Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji says "he only accepts history that is correct" He brings forth no historical evidence, new research, documentation, or archaeological discoveries to disprove accounts in Suraj Parkash He does not even mention that Suraj Parkash is an unedited Granth and the Brahmin assistants of Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh Ji inserted their own writings into his work He either does not know the history behind Suraj Parkash or is purposely withholding these facts from his followers/listeners The tall tales the Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji is referencing in Suraj Parkash is not accepted BY ANYONE in the Panth. However, Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji seems to be implying that the Samparda parchariks do believe in those tall tales Can Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji provide a single example when anyone has done Katha of those sections in Suraj Parkash? These parts are entirely omitted from katha or an explanation of the inaccuracies are given. He is using this point to show other parchariks in a negative light by implying they believe and do katha of these tall tales If Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji thinks something in our history is false, he must prove his case. It is foolish to state you think something is wrong but not show your opinion is based on evidence To disprove those written accounts one must: Do their own historical research, find additional written sources, do archaeological studies, that result in differing evidence Bhai Vir Singh Ji did that in his Suraj Parkash Steek There are inaccuracies in Suraj Parkash due to: 1. Incomplete information compiled by Bhai Santokh Singh Ji 2. Tampering and alteration of his work by his Brahmin assistants  Bhai Vir Singh Ji brings forth additional evidence through his own historical research to show that some things in the Granth are inaccurate. Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji says "they already killed one of our guys" He's implying with "they", that everyone who disagrees with him or find inaccuracies in his views are of the same group of people who tried to kill him Card Stacking Card stacking is a method of argumentation in which important counter-arguments are purposefully omitted, creating an imbalance of evidence in an effort to bias the argument This is a logical fallacy that Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji seems to make use of over and over in his arguments. I don't know if its intentional or unintentional but it misleads people and is a deceitful tactic
  2. Your views and points may be 100% sound, but others who think differently (even if they're mistaken) will resist actually giving your thoughts any due consideration if you take an adversarial tone. Referring to any parcharik and those that share their line of thinking in a belittling or degrading way will have them go deaf to any legitimate and factual points you have. If you talk to them in an impolite way they will reject every point you make and become even more firm in their own views. If your aim is to show others that they may be misled or have an incorrect understanding, than that is completely counterproductive to your goal. I say this as your haami, not your virodhi.
  3. Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries are very evasive to having any discussion. Whenever someone has gotten a chance to sit with them and pose some questions to them they become combative, begin leveling allegations at others, finger pointing, speak over the questioner, stray away from the question, and ultimately don't address any question/point being raised. Here is one such example involving Sarabjit Singh Ji Dundha not addressing the questions raised to him and avoiding giving a straight answer: Try your best to keep emotions out of it. I can relate to your feelings of exasperation and frustration. In those cases, just put up all the arguments, evidence, and facts you have. If the person genuinely is considering the points you raise, continue having that conversation. When they aren't genuinely trying to engage with you, end the discussion and don't waste any further time. But leave all your arguments and ideas for others to see, hear, read, etc. wherever you're having the conversation. At least that's what my short experience tells me is best to do.
  4. I appreciate it! But one thing I really believe is that when we have differences in opinion or we think people in our Panth are heading down the wrong track, we must do our best to try and have a constructive conversation with them. It shouldn't be an adversarial or hostile exchange. When you antagonize someone who opposes you via name calling, snide comments, or projecting them in a negative light, they just dig in and become more entrenched in their views. That neither helps you in trying to introduce them to different ideas or convince them that their current opinions may be wrong. It pumps our ego when we 'stick it' to someone but it changes nothing. Opinions just become more polarized. People need to try and more plainly state their views, provide arguments, reference evidence, and let others engage with your ideas. I find it's the only way to really get through to others. There are scholars in our Panth that would be more than capable to have such discussions on all these philisophical/historical debates, but I find Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries are very evasive when it comes to sitting down for a discussion. Imagine a 1-2 hour discussion on a single topic Two sides can make their opening statements about what they're views are on the topic Each side is then capped to 10-15 minute periods to make their arguments and respond to the opposing side A neutral person can moderate, to keep everyone on time and force everyone to address and respond to the arguments raised by either side Debaters would be kept accountable. They'd have to respond to every point raised Viewers would be able to easily see who's arguments are backed up with facts and evidence Such a discussion would actually be fruitful to dispelling peoples' misinformed views
  5. Yes, but I should also add that some parts are also not accepted and criticized by vidhvaans and kathavachiks from the Nirmale, Taksal, Nihang Singhs, and other samparda. These parts are entirely omitted from katha or an explanation of the inaccuracies are given. As mentioned previously, there are historical inaccuracies in the Suraj Parkash due to information that wasn't possessed by Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh. However, Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and missionaries don't often pinpoint these issues (I doubt they've done the research in order to do so) but instead point our the writing in Suraj Parkash they believe to be against Sikhi. Many of such writings are tamperings with the granth done by Kavi Ji's Brahmin assistants. A bit of background on Suraj Parkash Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh, who was sponsored by the Raja of Kaithal to complete Suraj Parkash, employed five (if I recollect correctly) Brahmin assistants to transcribe his rachna/poetry Those assistants were necessary as Kavi Ji needed learned persons who knew Brij and the technicalities of poetry The assistants inserted their own writing into Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh Ji's poetry Some of this is obvious to those knowledgeable in Poetry. The tamperings sometimes don't follow the matra/meters of Kavi Ji's own writing Kavi Ji left Kaithal three times in protest of this happening. But was convinced to stay as this huge undertaking of compiling all Sikh history was too important not to finish Kavi Ji finished the Suraj Parkash, with the tampered writings still in the granth and did not undertake any editing of it (he was in poor health) When Kavi Ji presented Suraj Parkash to the Panth he stipulated that the granth has tampering and mistakes in it, and that the Khalsa Panth should do sudhaayi/editing of the granth as they see fit All of the above details are to the best of my recollection from listening to Suraj Parkash katha. So are there false accounts in Suraj Parkash? Yes. To this day the Panth has not edited Suraj Parkash, as per Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh Ji's wishes Bhai Vir Singh Ji did a full steek/translation of Suraj Parkash and pointed out these mistakes and inaccurate accounts Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji Bhindranwale agreed with Bhai Vir Singh Ji's conclusions But the Panth never started a samvaadh to edit Suraj Parkash once and for all The issue with Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries' rejection of Suraj Parkash They bring forth no historical evidence, new research, documentation, or archaeological discoveries to disprove accounts in Suraj Parkash The accounts they view as being false (due to it being against Sikhi), may well be, but one has to be weary of their opinions because: Their understanding of Sikhi/Gurbani is distorted, warped, and inaccurate due to their nazariya/viewpoint being rooted in western philosophy (logic, science, etc.), as I discussed in my previous posts Since they have an inaccurate understanding Sikhi/Gurbani, their assertions that Suraj Parkash is against Sikhi are hard to trust They excessively demonize Suraj Parkash. Their listeners greatly detest Suraj Parkash as they have no knowledge about the background of our historical texts They fail to realize that without these granths they have no source material for talking about any Guru history It seems to me that Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries want to throw the baby out with the bath water. To throw out our entire history because of tamperings/mistakes in an unedited Suraj Parkash
  6. No worries. Listening yes, no reading/santhiya. In particular, the end of the Suraj Parkash, Guru Gobind Singh Ji's and Baba Banda Singh Ji Bahadur's history is what I have the most recollection of.
  7. Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh Ji, was a poet indeed, but beyond that he was an immense vidhvaan of the Panth. He was a great scholar and theologian too, as is exemplified by his Japji Sahib translation in his Garab Ganjani Teeka. I would say Bhai Santokh Singh Ji also fits the mold of an historian. It was immense work and research he did compiling historical literature/records, recording oral accounts, visiting historical sites, and then analyzing all the information, scrutinizing it for accuracy, and compiling it all into the poetic masterpiece that is Suraj Parkash. He may even be the Panth's foremost historian!
  8. The main fault that Sikhs find with Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji's parchaar, I think, is the following: He is redefining Sikhi, Gurbani, our history, our traditions, our culture, our literature, by using western philosophy (logic, science, etc.), that too with an incomplete comprehension of it Specifically, he is interpreting Sikhi through a lens that is not Gurmat, but a foreign philosophy. Thus it leads to: His interpretations causing him to change core principles and values of Sikhi His distorted understanding of Sikhi leads him to renounce and discard Panth-approved Sikh history Is it wrong to "call out" history/sakhian? In short, no. But to disprove accepted history, you have to have evidence the written history is factually incorrect, that the Poet's research was flawed, or that the written history is philosophically incorrect, that it is plainly against Sikh values and principles. Our written history is compiled in many granths (Suraj Parkash, Panth Parkash, Gurbilas Patshaahi 6, etc.), and each written by different poets (Bhai Santokh Singh, Bhai Rattan Singh Bhangoo, etc.) To disprove those written accounts one must: Do their own historical research, find additional written sources, do archaeological studies, that result in differing evidence Bhai Vir Singh Ji did that in his Suraj Parkash Steek There are inaccuracies in Suraj Parkash due to: 1. Incomplete information compiled by Bhai Santokh Singh Ji 2. Tampering and alteration of his work by his Brahmin assistants Bhai Vir Singh Ji brings forth additional evidence through his own historical research to show that some things in the Granth are inaccurate. For example, some of the battles of Baba Banda Singh Ji Bahadur are stated to have taken place in the wrong villages I don't believe Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji has done any santhiyaa/adhyaain of any of those historical granths. You may notice he doesn't present any new historical or archaeological evidence when denouncing historical accounts. To prove them to be inauthentic it requires immense work and research, which he is not doing. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of Sikhi/Gurbani, but for it to be accepted in the Panth's court, it has to be rooted in the Guru's Mat. As I said in my original post, even the RSS has their own interpretation of Sikhi and the Khalsa (as the military wing of Hindus created to protect Hindustan). But their interpretation comes from the viewpoint of Hindu philosophy In the same way Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji, and the missionary parchariks at large, are interpreting Sikhi using western philosophy (logic/science). This results in a distorted and skewed understanding of Sikhi that is incorrect. The Panth largely agreed on a vast majority of Sikhi values, principles, and history. Its okay to challenge these if done with sound evidence and relying on Gurmat, and not a foreign philosophy. Sikhs are upset with Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji because his challenges are not evidence based and are rooted in non-Sikh philosophies. There have been differing interpretations of Sikhi/Gurbani for hundreds of years. But you will notice the differences of the interpretations are not that large. All the different Viakhiya or interpretations by the Udasis, Nirmale, Gianis/Taksaal, and Nihang Singhs are within the same spectrum of thought. Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries are creating a completely new off-shoot and spin-off of interpretation that is not based on the Guru's mat. To understand the different branches of interpretation within Sikhi, how western philosophy found its way into our interpretations, and an analysis of our current state, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND listening to the following video of Sardar Prabhsharandeep Singh. It will be well worth your 40 minutes. Start at 7:51.
  9. Using logic/science as your fundamental tool to understand Sikhi, Gurbani, Gur-ithihaas, or Gurmat is wrong and misguided. Why is it wrong? When someone uses a philosophy, ideology, or doctrine that does not originate from the Guru to try to develop an understanding of Sikhi/Gurbani, the resulting "understanding" of Sikhi they develop will be distorted, warped, and ultimately incorrect If you use any Mat (a philosophy, like Hindu-Mat, Budh-Mat, Marxism, Existentialism, Western Logic, etc.) to understand Sikhi/Gurbani, you use their viewpoint/principles to define and understand Sikhi/Gurbani To truly understand Sikhi/Gurbani, you must use the world view that the Guru has given us. You must take on the nazariya (perspective, viewpoint, frame of reference) of the Guru and use that to learn, understand, and analyze Sikhi What problems occur when you use a Non-Sikh philosophy? Some Hindus including the RSS use their own philosophical principles to define Sikhi They view the Khalsa as being a sena (fighting force) for the protection of Hindus, that Sikhs are merely a military arm to the wider Hindu community They develop this understanding by using THEIR philosophy/ideology as Hindus, to define US as Sikhs Using Western Philosophy/Logic/Science to define Sikhi is wrong in the same way Specific problems with using Logic/Western Philosophy to define Sikhi Not just Sikhi but can any Dharam be truly understood using logic/science? 1.The subject of Sikhi/Dharam and Logic/Science are two separate things Sikhi's subject matter is the invisible, transcendental (spiritual, non-physical) world, Waheguru, the divine, metaphysics, that which you experience internally, beyond the material world. Logic/Science's subject matter is the visible world. The world you can experience through your five senses, that you can count, measure, observe, and analyze. 2. The foundation of Sikhi and Logic/Science are two separate things Sikhi is anchored in Vishwaash, a faith in the Guru that is unwavering. Logic/Science is anchored in Shanka, in questioning. You begin with suspicion, ask why for everything 3. By using Logic/Science as your benchmark to test what ideas you accept/reject, you've consciously or unconsciously accepted that Logic/Science has as a higher importance than Sikhi If you test Sikhi/Gurbani by using Logic/Science, you automatically are accepting that Sikhi/Gurbani is only correct if it is acceptable by the standards of Logic/Science 4. Logic/Science has a negative/dark side to it Logic/Science brought great acceleration in technologies and development. Along with the many benefits, it has also caused damage to society and our world. Proliferation of nuclear weapons that annihilate nature itself, the creation of extremely potent and fatal recreational drugs, the exploitation of natural resources, climate change that will cause havoc all over the world, etc. If Sikhi is compatible with Logic/Science, than just as Logic/Science has a negative/dark side, Sikhi too must have a negative/dark side. But Sikhi does not For more discourse regarding the interpretation of Sikhi/Gurbani and how Western Philosophy/Logic/Science relates to us as Sikhs I recommend listening to Prof. Prabhsharanbir Singh, Prabhsharandeep Singh, and Sardar Ajmer Singh. The following videos cover these topics if anyone would like an in-depth analysis and explanation by some of our leading Sikh thinkers. Many of the above points are derived from these videos.
  10. On this thread, I was trying to shed light on the view that current discourse/activity by Sikhs is being dominated by issues that are of the surface level and less vital to the long-term health of the nation. The deep rooted issues that is festering like termites in the trunk of the tree is not being addressed. Our energies are going into the wrong directions and our leaders of all sorts and stripes have failed us in corralling our energies toward the most pressing problems of our nation. I recently was listening to this and the speaker points out exactly what we've gotten lost in and what we should have been working on instead. Just a quick listen from 8:15 if you're short for time.
  11. I don't know how much business you've studied but Laissez-faire is an economic term and philosophy specifically referring to the belief that the less involved government/management is in economy and society at large, the better it is for the economy/society. The underlying belief being that self-regulation will guide people to the best possible actions. Being laissez-faire is caring about the consequences; one believes that not getting involved will result in the best possible outcome. It's really not the word you want. Nope, that doesn't bother me. You seem to be forming an opinion about my views without even reading my views. Instead of resorting to conjecture and speculation, just ask. I did show appreciation (you may have overlooked it past my first paragraphs), but as the paltry victories they were. They are miniscule in comparison to the immense, dire, and severe issues of the Panth. The decline of Sikhi in Punjab Due to things like: Proliferation of drugs, lack of parchaar and spiritual sustenance, government suppression of Sikh movements, corruption of Sikh institutions Lack of justice and healing from 1984 and following genocide Tens of thousands Sikhs killed, tortured, detained, made political prisoners, and continued mass impunity for perpetrators Corruption at the Akal Thakht, SGPC, and Sikh institutions Disunity and polarization of Sikh thought and people It's really impossible to sufficiently critique my views (which I welcome and encourage) without reading and analyzing them. Let's end this merry chase here!
  12. Laissez-faire* refers to the attitude of letting others do as they choose; it's probably not the word you're looking for. Perhaps using French may not best serve your purpose. You actually believed me to be angry (as noted below). I can't view these events as being unimportant and, at the same time, be angry that it did happen. I'd be seriously confused and contradictory if that were the case. What caused it to fester in the first place? If that illness has not been addressed in the past, what plan is there to address it going into the future? I haven't come across any evidence of such planning. In any of the concerns I raised about how the symptom was addressed, do you see no faults? There is disagreement on the Sikh Calendar and Dasam Bani/Philosophy that has morphed into animosity and hatred between Sikhs. By unilaterally making decisions, as Sarna did or Dhumma/Sant Samaj/Badal have done now, does it not expand that divide in the Panth rather than closing it? Would the following strategy not have been better? If there was disagreement on which calendar to use, then that should have been resolved through a Panthic gathering to discuss, debate, and build consensus. With a Panthic consensus the decision being made would be happily taken by all The same goes for Dasam Bani - have a gathering where all the dubious points that detractors make on Dasam Bani can be cleared. Have that discussion and build consensus. That brings people of different thoughts together. The response can't be to shout or hit back. Just restarting parchar is not enough to eliminate the problem. The response has to clear doubts and bring people toward consensus. The people who were already against Dasam Bani or the Bikrami Calendar have not come closer to those ideas but are further alienated and entrenched in their views. They have animosity toward the other side and vice versa. The strategy employed did not help in bridging this divide. Before anyone ever makes a decision on behalf of or in service to, the Panth, they should be doing a mental checklist of standards those decisions should meet. One of which should be: does this act bring the Panth closer toward unity or further away from unity? That consideration should be an integral part of the decision making process. The Sant Samaj's goal is panthic unity. The evidence is in Baba Hari Singh Randhawe Wale's explanation in my last post. As President of the Sant Samaj, it is also Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma's goal. Is having discussion and discourse on different ideas, viewpoints, and issues not something you are pursuing by being on this message board? I've written responses to your and others' points. By voicing your points and not attempting to consider mine, it begs the question: are you even interested in sincere, genuine, honest discussion? I attempted to provide thoughtful and researched responses that may provide some usefulness to yourself and others. Am I failing? I responded to your assertions regarding the Jagir and Nawabi in one of my previous posts which you might have ignored. Instead of the discussion progressing further its back to ground zero.
  13. My original contention below - while these may make for good acts they leave the solution to the Panth's problems unfulfilled. The memorial is great to have, but we should not think that it will bring the Panth great progress or growth. Memorials should be made, but with them should not come the consideration that it will provide betterment or amelioration. Sure, it's awesome that even though the government didn't want you to make, you made it anyway. But what re-occuring value does it give us? It doesn't next to nothing in telling our history and educating those who do not know our struggle. It is no Yad Vasehm (http://www.yadvashem.org/). The Jews have done so much to spread knowledge of their genocide and provide resources to educate the world. It would have been a better use of funds to create a digital library/media platform where our history could be collected, preserved, and displayed for the world to learn from. Building of the memorial does not help very much in disseminating our history, uplifting the victims of our genocide from their struggles, or ultimately getting justice for the Panth. It should be built but we should not feel giddy and jolly over its supposed impact. As for the calendar and parchar of Dasam Bani: The Nanakshahi calendar was removed without any proper consultation, discussion, debate, or agreement in the Panth. Its lunacy to push the change through without taking into account the opinions of the Panth. Thus, all those who have been convinced of the merits of the Nanakshahi calendar have animosity toward Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma and the Sant Samaj for doing it. Even if the Bikrami calendar is the best choice, or maybe a 3rd alternative calendar being better, but to make the decision unilaterally shows that Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma has no meaningful desire to build connections, bridges and unity in the Panth. If there was disagreement on which calendar to use, then that should have been resolved through a Panthic gathering to discuss, debate, and build consensus. With a Panthic consensus the decision being made would be happily taken by all, without it we have the discord and hate that are extremely obvious. The same goes for Dasam Bani - have a gathering where all the dubious points that detractors make on Dasam Bani can be cleared. Have that discussion and build consensus. That brings people of different thoughts together. People complain about all the hate and lies being spread on Dasam Bani but the response can't be to shout back. Just restarting parchar is not enough to eliminate the problem. The response has to clear doubts and bring people toward consensus. Whether its our calendar, maryada, or history/philosophy, no one can unilaterally decide what it correct and what isn't. The Guru gave us the Guru Granth-Guru Panth system, which is a tradition long dead and not up for re-installment by the political overlords. Until such time that the entire Panth can assemble Sarbat Khalsa, create a plan to debate and discuss these issues, and come to a conclusion and consensus, these issues will only fester and grow worse. Shouting back and forth at each other will not unite the Panth on these issues, no matter how true and correct one side might be in the debate. He was doing it strategically; his strategy was foolhardy. If Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma was truly a visionary, he would see that trying to work within Badal's political setup is futile. You're getting cents on the dollar. Peanuts. Little progression for all your time and effort. The revolutionary change to ideas centuries old is what is needed. Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma knows of our history ten times better than any of us yet fails to see that the only time multiple factions of the Panth were truly largely united was when the Sarbat Khalsa system was in place and operating. Think of the biggest Panthic problems and issues - none can be solved while working under corrupt politicians like Badal and others. Baba Hari Singh Randhawe Wale and the Sant Samaj have for almost two decades trying to get one Panthic Rehit Maryada implemented to unite all Sikhs but the SGPC leaders and their political overlords have no inclination or urge to do that because it does not serve their interests. Disunity is good for the politicians. All their attempts have been futile. Baba Hari Singh Randhawe Wale speak on this below: The better strategy is to unite all factions of Panth and put control back in the Panth's hands away from the corrupt politicians. I don't believe any of them are agents. I only believe that Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma has some character flaws and lack of knowledge/wisdom in certain areas that don't serve him or the Panth in the best possible way.
  14. Blase means to be indifferent or unconcerned. However, you perceive my writing on Dasam Bani being reintroduced to be both nonchalant (why don't we bring in another French word) but also emotional and angry at the same time. That kind of makes for an oxymoron; contradictory terms. When attempting to have any genuine and fruitful discussion I have experienced it is helpful to not speculate or make conjecture about the viewpoints of another. If curious or in doubt, just ask; ask with the innocent interest of a child. Other genuine level-headed people will gladly oblige. Fools like myself may otherwise find injury in your guesswork. Bringing in Samparda Kathavachaks fixes the symptom not the illness. The root problem that will fester and multiply is unaddressed. Is this a strategy for the long term that will bring unity and togetherness in the Panth? No. I have posted an excerpt of my last post on this topic below for your convenience, often my arguments become TL;DR. Again, conjecture and scorn for a person you genuinely want to have dialogue with may not be useful. Some may misinterpret your heartfelt intentions. If I'm not mistaken, it was rescinded after just two years! Here is the difference: When the Sikhs took the jagir from the Mughals, they took it after deliberation, discussion, and the approval of the Sarbat Khalsa Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma has built no such discussion and consensus building into his strategy, not even with the Sant Samaj. Heaps of them condemn his political choices. Getting the discourse changed to Gurmat is good. But the underlying problems remain unaddressed; problems that do the most to hold the Panth back as outlined in my above post. The jagir allowed the Sikhs to consolidate different jathas under the leadership of Kapur Singh into the Dal Khalsa. Factions were brought together. They used the political calm to develop their autonomous power and establish their sovereignty This was political power and control that they were able to grow for the Panth. The jagir was taken away very quickly, but look at what they accomplished in that time. The Khalsa was brought together in unity to fight for our future prosperity. I highly doubt the SIkhs who had been hunted down by Zakariya Khan suddenly became enthralled by his friendship. They took the jagir in a collective, panthic decision and likely knew they could be double-crossed. But they mustered their forces and were in a stronger position for when it did happen. In all the major issues of the Panth that I have outlined in my previous posts, Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma has made little headway in ameliorating them. No political autonomy is established for the Panth. The Indian government regulated the SGPC, the SGPC in turn is run by Badal and the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal). There is no autonomy or control of the Panth in its own affairs, we are led by the string where the political elite wish to go. As I stated previously: Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma's strategy gives the Panth no autonomy, no control, and he has not pushed forward the Panth's interests in any worthwhile long-lasting way.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use