Mahakaal96

2 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

Nihangs also studied riflemanship trying remembering Guru Pita ji's weaponery , also unarmed combat, wrestling  from Guru Arjan Dev ji time . Stop being so snooty ... I'm pretty sure you are still learning just like everyone else but your attitude is very unbrotherlike.

In puratan Shaster Vidya Riflemanship falls under the category of yantramukta weapons... these are considered the highest form of weapons & is the highest form of shaster Vidya.

Unarmed combat & wrestling is the 5th & lowest form of Shaster Vidya... it is to be avoided & only used as a last resort but it is still important to learn to be a complete warrior.

Learning these vidyas from a bhagat tappasvi & dharmi gurdev is completely different to learning them from commanders in a robotic adharmic army. 

As old Singhs say... putting weapons in the hand of a soldier is nothing more then creating a killer... but putting weapons & shaster Vidya in the hands of Bhagats & tappasvis is creating & real yodha & dharam purush 

1 hour ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

Lmao ??? Way too deflect, bro. Just admit you have no physical army/warfare experience, aside from playing gatka. 

Gatka is played by circus performers & showmen. Real Singhs & Shasterdhari yodeh practice Shaster Vidya & gain mastery over the 5 types of weapons. Real Singhs also study raj neeti & yudh neeti (there's a specific Granth that covers this)

42 minutes ago, Kira said:

And again as I pointed out, even if they were summarised accounts Had she fled Guru Sahib have put that down, yet its never said she ran from the battle and sought help, the account says she fought him off alone, The places where the account is sumarised Guru Pita already puts it down, that's not present there. Trust me I'm not a know it all, thus far you're presenting a source that isn't coinciding with Gurbani, you're arguing that Sant Ji got it based off that but you can't prove it, for all we know he did other forms of research. While I admit my oversight in the Suraj Partap incident (and I do apologise wholeheartedly).

 

That's what I'm having trouble explaining here. Both are the same demon. Chandi Di Vaar mentions Sronatbeej because there's a metaphorical meaning behind the bani as well. But if you read Chandi Charitar the demon mentioned there is Rakatbheej and his destruction comes at the hands of Durga and Durga alone (She and Kali are the same person). They are the same but the name was changed by Guru Sahib for a reason to convey a whole different meaning in a later bani.

 

Chandi Charitar Bilas

ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥
ਜੁੱਧ ਰਕਤ੍ਰ ਬੀਜ ਕਰਿਯੋ ਧਰਨੀ ਪਰ ਯੌ ਸੁਰ ਦੇਖਤ ਸਾਰੇ ॥
ਜੇਤਕ ਸ੍ਰੌਨ ਕੀ ਬੂੰਦ ਗਿਰੈ ਉਠਿ ਤੇਤਕ ਰੂਪ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਧਾਰੇ ॥
ਜੋਗਨਿ ਆਨ ਫਿਰੀ ਚਹੂੰ ਓਰ ਤੇ ਸੀਸ ਜਟਾ ਕਰ ਖੱਪਰ ਭਾਰੇ ॥
ਸ੍ਰੌਨਤ ਬੂੰਦ ਪਰੈ ਅਚਵੈ ਸਭ ਖੱਗ ਲੈ ਚੰਡ ਪ੍ਰਚੰਡ ਸੰਘਾਰੇ ॥੧੭੦॥
ਕਾਲੀ ਅਉ ਚੰਡ ਕੁਵੰਡ ਸੰਭਾਰ ਕੈ ਦੈਤ ਸੋ ਜੁੱਧ ਨਿਸੰਗ ਸਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥
ਮਾਰ ਮਹਾਂ ਰਨ ਮੱਧ ਭਈ ਪਹਰੇਕ ਲਉ ਸਾਰ ਸੋ ਸਾਰ ਬਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥
ਸ੍ਰਉਨਤ ਬਿੰਦ ਗਿਰਿਓ ਧਰਨੀ ਪਰ ਇਉ ਅਸਿ ਸੋ ਅਰ ਸੀਸ ਭਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥
ਮਾਨੋ ਅਤੀਤ ਕਰਿਓ ਚਿਤ ਕੋ ਧਨਵੰਤ ਸਭੈ ਨਿਜ ਮਾਲ ਤਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥੧੭੧॥
ਸੋਰਠਾ ॥
ਚੰਡੀ ਦਇਓ ਬਿਦਾਰ ਸ੍ਰਉਨ ਪਾਨ ਕਾਲੀ ਕਰਿਓ ॥
ਛਿਨ ਮੈ ਡਾਰਿਓ ਮਾਰ ਸ੍ਰਉਨਤ ਬਿੰਦ ਦਾਨਵ ਮਹਾਂ ॥੧੭੨॥

 

Chandi Charitar Ustat
 

ਨਰਾਜ ਛੰਦ ॥
ਜਿਤੇਕ ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰੀਯੰ ॥ ਤਿਤੇਕ ਦੇਬਿ ਮਾਰੀਯੰ ॥
ਜਿਤੇਕ ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰ ਹੀਂ ॥ ਤਿਤਿਓ ਦ੍ਰੁਗਾ ਸੰਘਾਰ ਹੀਂ ॥੪੨॥੧੧੯॥
ਜਿਤੇਕ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਵਾ ਝਰੇ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਹ ਸ੍ਰੋਨ ਕੇ ਪਰੇ ॥
ਜਿਤੀਕਿ ਬਿੰਦੁਕਾ ਗਿਰੈਂ ॥ ਸੁ ਪਾਨ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਕਰੈਂ ॥੪੩॥੧੨੦॥
 

ਰਸਾਵਲ ਛੰਦ ॥

ਹੂਓ ਸ੍ਰੋਣ ਹੀਨੰ ॥ ਭਯੋ ਅੰਗ ਛੀਨੰ ॥
ਗਿਰਿਓ ਅੰਤ ਝੂਮੰ ॥ ਮਨੋ ਮੋਘ ਭੂਮੰ ॥੪੪॥੧੨੧॥
ਸਭੈ ਦੇਵ ਹਰਖੇ ॥ ਸੁਮਨ ਧਾਰ ਬਰਖੇ ॥
ਰਕਤ ਬਿੰਦ ਮਾਰੇ ॥ ਸਬੈ ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰੇ ॥੪੫॥੧੨੨॥
ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕੇ ਚੰਡੀ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰੇ ਰਕਤ ਬੀਰਜ ਬਧਹ ਚਤੁਰਥ ਧਿਆਇ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਮਸਤੁ ਸੁਭ ਮਸਤੁ ॥੪ ॥ ਅਫਜੂ ॥

 

Edit: If people want to argue with Gurbani now and trust a non-Gurbani source over actual words of Guru Pita then its on them. Since Sant Ji has passed on we can't exactly ask him where he got the basis of the Dusht Daman Saga from (as there were various strands circling). I've presented Gurbani, if someone can present Gurbani where Durga is forced to flee from Rakatbheej and seek help elsewhere then please do so.

 

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/animal-jam-clans-1/images/1/17/Hang_Up.gif/revision/latest?cb=20160412000722

 

 

I personally think mahraj chose not to write about Mata fleeing in Chandi Di Vaar for a few reasons.

Chandi Di Vaar is known as shaheeda Di Bani as it is the Bani that Singhs recited the most before going into battle. Singhs who have Chandi Di Vaar memorised can recite it in about 8-10 mins... so the summarised theory has some credibility. 

Also, Chandi Di Vaar was composed for the purspose of inciting Bir Ras (warrior spirit) inside the reader.... it's not very warrior spirit inciting if you are reading above someone fleeing the battlefield because of becoming exhausted.

Sri Suraj Prakash was written as a Granth which gave the Panth our historical framework & timeline.

47 minutes ago, chatanga said:

 

This is correct to my understanding as well. I have read this episode, but I coluldn't remember the granth which it was in as it was a long time ago.

 

 

The katha that I listened about this mentions sronatbeej.

 

 

Thankis for the info. Do you know if Suraj Parkash Granth is the first granth to mention Dusht Daman?

 

 

 

You can also listen to the katha of this sakhi by Baba Santa Singh in "Guru Nanak aap Parmeshwar" where Baba Santa Singh has done katha of Sri Sarbloh Granth. I can't find a link to it online but have downloaded a few years ago. It is definitely worth listening to.

 

 

I've only come across Dusht Daman history in Sri Suraj Prakash & from around Hazur Sahib. 

I've got Baba Santa Singhs jis katha on cd & agree that it is definitely worth listening to... it's really really good.

19 minutes ago, Kira said:

Then please paste it here, Find the point where it mentions Rakatbheej. 

What proof do you have of that? because its mentioned in the Granth as well? For all we know he could have sought more external sources.

lmao. I laughed a little here, its obvious you don't even read these Banis because if you did you'd know that after Durga kills them and more Rakatbheejs came out, Kali was eating him alive before they re-spawned. Honest question but have you ever read Chandi Charitar or even Chandi Di Vaar. Really if you did you'd know who killed Rakatbheej. Right now you're arguing against Gurbani and saying that's false and that Guru Gobind Singh Ji got it wrong, that Durga and Kali didn't  beat  Rakatbheej alone.

 

Do you want the translations of Chandi Charitar? You're arguing against Gurbani because it made 1 detail in your narrative false. lmao. 

As I tried to explain to you earlier the account of war written in Dasam Granth are summarised accounts... mahraj themselves says as much.

Read or listen to Suraj Prakash rut 3 adhyai 35.... rakatbheej is mentioned along with the other demons. It clearly says Mata fled the battlefield after not being able to kill the re-manifested forms of the 9 crore rakatbheejs that she had already killed.

If my recollection of events about which Yug this all took place in is not correct or doesn't not add up that does not mean everything else presented is incorrect... everything I have said is based on Sri Suraj Prakash Granth... which is an extension of the summarised accounts given in Sri Dasam Granth.

I'm not arguing against Bani but rather wasting my time arguing with someone who has minimal knowledge on this subject but is trying to pass themselves off as someone who knows it all. Your arguing with me about Dusht Daman without even reading Suraj Prakash Granth!! 

21 minutes ago, Kira said:

No it started in Tretayug, Gurbani says that. Stop trying to twist it all to fit your narrative. 

You mentioned Rakatbheej, they're the same Demon. Stop trying to change the topic, you said Rakatbheej overpowered Durga and forced her to flee, Gurbani says otherwise. Chani Charitar says she slew him alone with Kali. End of story, did Maharaj get it wrong?

Have you even read Chandi Di Vaar? There's not a single mention of Nihangs, Can you really stop fabricating stuff? Sri Suraj Prakash Granth mentions her fleeing from demons, it never mentions Rakatbheej.  Did you not read the Gurbani? do you need the translations? 

 

Dasam Granth says she slew him. Dusht Daman and Durga incident happened well before that in Satyug and it didn't involve Rakatbheej. So either Kavi Santokh Singh Ji was wrong or Dasam Granth. Pick one.

Suraj Prakash doesn't mention rakatbheej??...  That's a complete lie!!!  Obvious you have no idea what you are talking about....you've already been exposed as someone who said mahraj wouldn't leave out important things in Gurbani but then accept Sant Jis account of Dusht Daman even though mahraj doesn't mention Dush Daman in Gurbani.

You then accused me of relying on a Granth that was nothing more then a Granth that was written in 19th century..... but like a typical fanboy you without any hesitation beilieved Sant Jis video about Dusht Daman even though what Sant Ji was saying unknown to you was based on Sri Suraj Prakash Granth...!

You keep harking on about rakatbheej but are oblivious to the fact that at 1 point Mata Durga Killed 9 crore rakatbheejs.... who then manifested themselves at an either greater number..... who were then killed by 96 crore Singhs led by Rishi Dusht Daman.

So I suggest you go do some more reading... 

25 minutes ago, Kira said:

And again. Read Chandi Charitar, the demon there is Rakatbheej. Durga kills him, once again the army with Durga was Devtas not "Nihangs".Your source is nothing more than a granth written in the 19th century, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji already explained who Dusht Daman was. The battle occurs in Tretayug, not Satyug, your time lines don't match up, how could a war that started in Tretayug, finish in the era of Satyug, considering Tretayug comes after Satyug. You're linking events to try aand discredit Durga's victory now.

Do you want the Gurbani as well? Go read Chandi Charitar, then tell me it was Dusht Daman who killed Rakatjbheej. I'll save you the trouble.

 

Chandi Charitar Bilas

ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥
ਜੁੱਧ ਰਕਤ੍ਰ ਬੀਜ ਕਰਿਯੋ ਧਰਨੀ ਪਰ ਯੌ ਸੁਰ ਦੇਖਤ ਸਾਰੇ ॥
ਜੇਤਕ ਸ੍ਰੌਨ ਕੀ ਬੂੰਦ ਗਿਰੈ ਉਠਿ ਤੇਤਕ ਰੂਪ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਧਾਰੇ ॥
ਜੋਗਨਿ ਆਨ ਫਿਰੀ ਚਹੂੰ ਓਰ ਤੇ ਸੀਸ ਜਟਾ ਕਰ ਖੱਪਰ ਭਾਰੇ ॥
ਸ੍ਰੌਨਤ ਬੂੰਦ ਪਰੈ ਅਚਵੈ ਸਭ ਖੱਗ ਲੈ ਚੰਡ ਪ੍ਰਚੰਡ ਸੰਘਾਰੇ ॥੧੭੦॥
ਕਾਲੀ ਅਉ ਚੰਡ ਕੁਵੰਡ ਸੰਭਾਰ ਕੈ ਦੈਤ ਸੋ ਜੁੱਧ ਨਿਸੰਗ ਸਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥
ਮਾਰ ਮਹਾਂ ਰਨ ਮੱਧ ਭਈ ਪਹਰੇਕ ਲਉ ਸਾਰ ਸੋ ਸਾਰ ਬਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥
ਸ੍ਰਉਨਤ ਬਿੰਦ ਗਿਰਿਓ ਧਰਨੀ ਪਰ ਇਉ ਅਸਿ ਸੋ ਅਰ ਸੀਸ ਭਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥
ਮਾਨੋ ਅਤੀਤ ਕਰਿਓ ਚਿਤ ਕੋ ਧਨਵੰਤ ਸਭੈ ਨਿਜ ਮਾਲ ਤਜਿਓ ਹੈ ॥੧੭੧॥
ਸੋਰਠਾ ॥
ਚੰਡੀ ਦਇਓ ਬਿਦਾਰ ਸ੍ਰਉਨ ਪਾਨ ਕਾਲੀ ਕਰਿਓ ॥
ਛਿਨ ਮੈ ਡਾਰਿਓ ਮਾਰ ਸ੍ਰਉਨਤ ਬਿੰਦ ਦਾਨਵ ਮਹਾਂ ॥੧੭੨॥

 

Chandi Charitar Ustat
 

ਨਰਾਜ ਛੰਦ ॥
ਜਿਤੇਕ ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰੀਯੰ ॥ ਤਿਤੇਕ ਦੇਬਿ ਮਾਰੀਯੰ ॥
ਜਿਤੇਕ ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰ ਹੀਂ ॥ ਤਿਤਿਓ ਦ੍ਰੁਗਾ ਸੰਘਾਰ ਹੀਂ ॥੪੨॥੧੧੯॥
ਜਿਤੇਕ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਵਾ ਝਰੇ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਹ ਸ੍ਰੋਨ ਕੇ ਪਰੇ ॥
ਜਿਤੀਕਿ ਬਿੰਦੁਕਾ ਗਿਰੈਂ ॥ ਸੁ ਪਾਨ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਕਰੈਂ ॥੪੩॥੧੨੦॥
 

ਰਸਾਵਲ ਛੰਦ ॥

ਹੂਓ ਸ੍ਰੋਣ ਹੀਨੰ ॥ ਭਯੋ ਅੰਗ ਛੀਨੰ ॥
ਗਿਰਿਓ ਅੰਤ ਝੂਮੰ ॥ ਮਨੋ ਮੋਘ ਭੂਮੰ ॥੪੪॥੧੨੧॥
ਸਭੈ ਦੇਵ ਹਰਖੇ ॥ ਸੁਮਨ ਧਾਰ ਬਰਖੇ ॥
ਰਕਤ ਬਿੰਦ ਮਾਰੇ ॥ ਸਬੈ ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰੇ ॥੪੫॥੧੨੨॥
ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕੇ ਚੰਡੀ ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰੇ ਰਕਤ ਬੀਰਜ ਬਧਹ ਚਤੁਰਥ ਧਿਆਇ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਮਸਤੁ ਸੁਭ ਮਸਤੁ ॥੪ ॥ ਅਫਜੂ ॥

 

No one's denying that Durga was saved IN Satyug by Dusht Daman. You're the one trying to link 2 completely different events to diminish her battle feats.

No ones saying it started in treta & finished in satyug (although this is possible as a mahajug includes the 4 yug cycle completing & restarting 9 times continuously). It is possible the battle started at some time in Satyug.. went on for thousands of years & finished in Tretayug... but Devi Devte timescales are not the same as Earth realm timescale. 

Read chandi Di vaar... the demon is swarnatbheej.

So you have no problem in accepting history of Dusht Daman even though mahraj doesn't mention Dusht Daman in Dasam Granth... but you believe the history because Sant Ji talks about it..... he talks about it based on Sri Suraj Prakash Granth.... the same Granth that says Mata Durga fled the battlefield from Rakatbheej & sought help of Rishi Samund who in turn sent Rishi Dusht Daman & 96 crore Singhs to fight against the demons (hence why Chandi Di vaar mentions an army of nihangs). Mata also fought alongside the 96 crore Singhs & then killed the demons she was unable to kill earlier.

Yes my source is nothing more than a Granth written in the 19th century as you said, but it's the same Granth Sant Ji is basing his katha on in that video you posted above. The history of 'Dusht Daman' is in Sri Suraj Prakash Granth'.

31 minutes ago, Kira said:

Sant Jarnail Singh Ji explains that Dusht Danam is completely different than perceived. He was both a monarch and a Tapisi.

There's no difference in perception... only for you there is because you don't know the complete history..... Sant Ji & some of us do.

Before appearing on  hemkunt Rishi Dusht Daman was a king who's kingdom was where Hazur Sahib is now. Dusht Daman gave up his kingdom & began to do tappasya next to Godavari river/jungle. When Rishi Samund did ardas at hemkunt Sahib for the assistance of Mata Durga it was then that Dusht Daman answered that ardas & appeared at hemkunt Sahib.

The whole sakhi & background is huge... Sri Suraj Prakash gives much more detailed account as does local history & knowledge around Hazur Sahib 

21 minutes ago, Kira said:

He left in important facts, omitted mundane details. Yeah I'm pretty sure Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji was suddenly a mundane detail.

Durga's battle with Raktbheej happened in Treta Yug, not Satyug. Rakatbheej was killed completely by Durga, as were the other demon. The Dusht Danam incident happened in Satyug. Please stop lumping them together. Durga killed Rakatbheej (or coordinated with Kali to do it) alone, period. Dasam Granth says that. 

There's 2 names... rakatbheej & swarnatbheej... they both had the same ability... from drops of their blood another form of theirs appeared. Chandi Di vaar  the battle was with Swarnatbheej. Some say that rakatbheej & swarnatbheej was the same demon but some say they were 2 seperate demons. The battle between Mata Durga & these demons lasted for thousands of years... but the time of Devi Devte is not the same as time on Earth.

In Dasam Granth Mahraj touches briefly on their time on Hemkunt Sahib but never mention 'Dusht Daman' name. According to your logic this must have been because Dusht Daman history is mundane (facepalm)

Read Chandi Di vaar carefully & you will realise that Mata Durga had an army of Nihangs fighting along side her.

Certain Bani mahraj wrote just for the purpose of Bir Ras & nothing else... Nihangs & other puratan sampardas know this & know why... you are free to believe what you want & call it 'mundane'.

40 minutes ago, Kira said:

Really? Because last time I read Chandi Di Vaar she didn't retreat.  Nope, not in Chandi Charitar too. Please point me to the Gurbani where it says that She ran from Rakatbheej because all the accounts I've come across in Dasam Granth say she slew him along with all the other various demons. Nice try. 

Dusht Daman incident is something completely different.  

In Sri Dasam Granth mahraj says in several places that for the sake of not allowing this Granth to become to voluminous I will say what needs to be said in a summaried way. 

The background to the battle between Chandi Mata & the demons & the connection to Rishi Samund & Rishi Dusht Daman is told in Sri Suraj Prakash Granth.

13 minutes ago, Kira said:

Akal Purkh's army had woman in it. Still does. You serve Kalyug, so does Satkiran. Your own rehit calls Guru Sahib's Mehal's as being the embodiment of Deceit.

 

The protagonist in a bani all NIhangs read daily is a woman. Are you going to argue she's a weak woman? I would love to see you tussle with Durga. I wonder how that would end. Akal Purkh's army serves dharam and the world. I have no idea which faction you belong to considering you seem to revel in Sant Nindya and consider yourself the lord and master of woman.

In Satyug when Mata Durga was fighting rakatbheej & the other demons Mata Durga exhausted from battle fled into the mountains. There she came across Rishi Samund ( Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji). Recognising Rishi Samund as the embodiment of the Lord Mata Durga pleaded for help in defeating the demons... Rishi Samund hearing her plea answered her ardas by commanding Rishi Dusht Daman (Guru Gobind Singh Ji) to reveal himself. Rishi Dusht Daman with folded hands asked what his orders were from Rishi Samund... Rishi Samund then commanded Dusht Daman to destroy all the demons. On hearing this Dusht Daman removed his khal (tiger skin) from around his body & upon shaking it 96 crore tigers appeared... that's why the Khalsa are known as Khal-se ( born from tiger skin). They went into the battlefield led by Dusht Daman & destroyed the demons.

Your correct when you say a protagonist in a Bani nihangs read is a woman... but we recognise her as the sargun saroop of Adh Shakti & respect her as such. we do not worship her as or regard her as Parmeshvar himself.... Mata Durga sought the help of Rishi Samund (Guru Tegh Bahadur) & Rishi Dusht Daman (Guru Gobind Singh Ji) who were the sargun saroop of Akal Purekh.

2 hours ago, SantSapai said:

How to do sangat or get in touch with Singh's/Nihung Singh's there?

Go to Shaheedi Bagh in Anandpur Sahib, it's about 5 min walk from Kesgarh Sahib. Ask for Baba Gurdev Singh. Shaheedi Bagh is a Nihang Singh chauni 

On 02/04/2017 at 2:52 PM, Jonny101 said:

As long as they are living accordingly to Sikhi they will get kushi of Guru Sahib. But when they go Bipran ki reet, then they will lose blessings. There is only one organisation in the list you mentioned that is actively fighting against Bipran ki reet, the rest of them have blended themselves in Bipran ki Reet, some more than others.

This video gives a good history of these sampardas... it's depressing to think what we as a panth have lost

12 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

@ADMIN @MOD

The fact that no such warnings were put against those in this thread who wrote hatred against AKJ, says a lot. AKJ has been bashed in this thread numerous times. I am now reporting to you Mod (and Admin) to please show due impartiality as a Mod should. 

I will attach several posts one is a hate post against AKJ directly by User Akalifauj and second is a much more directed post from user guruvah about Taksalis which you allowed to remain (which my post was a response to actually just confirming it). Please note the part he has bolded. 

Now as a MOD should please show impartiality and same care towards ALL jathas and treat ALL members the same. 

Or else Ihis seems as a very directed personal hate attack towards myself. 

 Hate post against AKJ by akalifauj (please note the 'pakhand kirtani jatha' reference especially.) if indeed you do care about ALL jathas... 

Directed post about Taksalis which was allowed to remain and nothing was said:

Please note I have kept screenshots of all of this including this post (in case of anything drastic as result of this reply).... now please show where is the impartiality toward all members and jathas?

Which year & which of the Guru's established AKJ? 

On 03/04/2017 at 7:40 AM, HarkiranKaur said:

Hmm wasn't going to comment but:

1: I have over 20 years in the Canadian Military. That included basic training (ARMY combat stuff) before I trained for Navy. That included hand to hand combat, small arms, tactics, being able to move as a unit silently, element of surprise etc. In today's world virtually 0% of combat is up close and hand to hand. It's distant and with semi automatic weapons.  I have been involved in multiple real world scenarios in the Navy and have several medals to show for it. I've been through real world emergencies on board like floods etc and did my part as any crew member would. I retired from a supervisory position with male subordinates. And I am a female. 

@Mahakaal96 now let's hear YOUR military experience (if you actually have any). 

2: I have reached red belt in ITF Tae Kwon do which does spar male vs female and up close. Being not very tall, I got my instructor a few times by surprise because I was able to actually pass under his arm (while grabbing it) and getting him into a pressure point hold. By the way being only 5'2" tall I can kick over 6 feet in height and Taekwon Do teaches how to do so with power. I'm by no means an expert in Taekwon do and I never did continue to black belt. But point is there is way more to fighting than brute strength. In fact an opponents strength can be used against them. 

As for very few women being present that day in 1699 I agree there probably were not as 1) they were likely caring for children while husbands were there and 2) women didn't usually go to public gathering in that time. So there is likely some truth in his post. I doubt Guru Gobind Singh Ji would ever hold that against all women for all time. 

 

You served in a worldy man made army that is part of Kalyugs machinery.... congratulations to you.

I am happy to serve & learn in Akal Purekhs amry... where we are taught bhagti first & then the cultivation & use of Akal Shakti.

Akal Purekhs army serves dharam.... the army you served in serves kalyug & adharam.

1 hour ago, Jonny101 said:

Bro there's a lot of us who don't belong to any of these labels. 

Udasis, sevapanthis, nirmalas/taksalis & nihangs are the branches of the tree that is Sikhi. These 4 sampardas are like specialist schools/way of life. Majority of the Panth are Sikhs of Mahraj. 

My issue is with man made cults... not the majority of sikhs who just belong to 'Sikh Panth'.

Udasis, sevapanthis, nirmalas/taksalis & Nihangs were all established by Guru Mahraj themselves & will always remain true in this dark age of kuljug. Any other groups or jathas that came into exsistence after these 4 are man made cults. 

1 minute ago, Akalifauj said:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/a-driver-not-to-mess-with-siberias-strongest-woman-gets-road-rage-after-man-cuts-in-front-of-her/ar-BBz0mmL?li=AAggFp5&ocid=UE12DHP

@Mahakaal96  I found a woman that you need to tell to her face, she can't be part of your women hating army.  Let's see how much of a man you are, little boy.

I'll stick to Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal Maryada....you can run things your way.... she can be 1 of the Panj Pyare along side a kusra transsexual at one of your equal rights Panj Pyare amrit sanchars

2 hours ago, Kira said:

Woman can give physical birth. Men cant. Men can give Spiritual birth while woman cant. Equality is there.The rehitnama says Khanda da Amrit, now you're lying through your teeth.

A woman can't give birth unless a man plants his seed (desire) inside her... just like Adh Shakti Maya can't create anything until parmeshvar gives hukam of his desire to expand.

The translation says 'khande ki pahul'.. I've attached pic so you can see for yourself. 

2 hours ago, Kira said:

The Rehitnama says all woman are the body of deceit. You believe it so you must believe Mata Gujri was a deceitful woman. Stop flipping this into a Dasam Bani thing, that's a completely different line altogether since Charitropakhyan contains stories about MAN and WOMAN. The bani explores how important womans roles are in society and how important men are too.

The rehitnama also warns against keeping sangat with certain types of men.... just like Dasam Bani does

2 hours ago, Kira said:

So once again, if you believe that Rehitnama you also believe that all of the Guru Sahib's Mahaals were deceitful woman and shouldn't be trusted. If you don't believe that then you believe this rehitnama is wrong. So which is it? if you think that the Rehitnama is right then you also believe that all the woman that married Guru Sahib's physical forms were deceitful beings. Is that what you believe about them? its a Yes or No answer. If you don't then you don't believe this rehitnama is completely legit, if you do then God help you for insulting the very woman who helped build up sikh institutes and gave their own lives for Sikhi.

If you want to put the Mehals of Guru Sahib on the same level as your average wordly woman then that's your choice.

If maryada at Hazur Sahib is so wrong then how is it that sikhi is flourishing in that area? Almost every sikh is kesadhari & shasterdhari. They have Prakash & unwavering love & devotion to Dasam Pita's Bani. No Muslim or non sikh even dares to smoke for miles around Hazur Sahib. 

Compare that to Panjab... where the 'mainstream' maryada is followed... no Prakash of Dasam Granth at any Takhat... hardly any kesadhari youth left... alcohol & tobacco being consumed & sold within walking distance of Gurdwaras... including Harimandir Sahib.... The proof is in the pudding as they say... how can it be that the place that is following manmat is flourishing but the place that is following so called real maryada is in a pathetic state? 

On 28/03/2017 at 9:44 PM, Kira said:

I believe its been corrupted over time. Sant Ji made it clear woman and man are equal, and they were purtan Brahmgyanis, If anyone followed Guru Sahib's own marayda to the point its them. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's hukamnama also contradicts Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's one. So I'm of the mind that the one floating around has been corrupted. Until the Gurmukhi one is unearthed, its all just smoke and mirrors. The same Rehitnama has various translations some of which dont even contain that verse. 

 

Based on the translation you provided do you believe that.

1) woman should never be trusted, this includes woman in your own family (as stated).

2) Woman should not be allowed to read from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

3) Regard woman as being the very form of deceit.

4) Never trust a woman.

 

Based on that description I guess if you had been a Sikh receiving the Hukamnamas from the mother of the Khalsa you wouldn't trust them, because she's a woman. Would you think she's deceitful? that she shouldn't be trusted? Would you say all that as Mata Gujri too? Mata Kivi? Mai Bhago? Bibi Bhani?

Sant Ji also says that women can't be in Punj Pyare.. so not complete equality there.

Also it should be clarified that Hazur Sahib, Budha Dal & Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama do not say women should not be given amrit, they all say women should not be given 'Khande Ki Pahul' (which today is commonly called amrit) 

Bhai Chaupa singhs rehitname also warns against keeping sangat with certain types of men so it's not just women who are targeted.

On 28/03/2017 at 9:44 PM, Kira said:

Based on the translation you provided do you believe that.

1) woman should never be trusted, this includes woman in your own family (as stated).

2) Woman should not be allowed to read from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

3) Regard woman as being the very form of deceit.

4) Never trust a woman.

 

Based on that description I guess if you had been a Sikh receiving the Hukamnamas from the mother of the Khalsa you wouldn't trust them, because she's a woman. Would you think she's deceitful? that she shouldn't be trusted? Would you say all that as Mata Gujri too? Mata Kivi? Mai Bhago? Bibi Bhani?

I don't think this logic is applicable... this is the same logic anti Dasam Granth people use to denounce Dasam Bani, in particular Sri Charitropakhyan bani.

9 minutes ago, Kira said:

Then post them here. The Gurmukhi ones, if they exist then find them and bring them to the discussion. OH wait. You cant. You decide to post translation done by wait for it....someone who already knee deep in controversy.  

 

Bhai Kahn singh was born in 1861, he was just shy of 40 years when he wrote the text. So please tell me how a 40 year old man wouldn't know the maryada and why he wouldn't mention it, he spent years doing the research The book was published on that date. The translation you use has been done by someone who already wrote controversial articles about Sikhism. I've posted a translation predating his and that verse isn't there. So please. There goes the rehitnama proofs. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji rehitnama says Sikhs should be baptised, I guess only men can be sikhs.  Nice to see you're grasping at straws now.

 

You've now gone off and said that Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji wasn't a brahmgyani who knew the true maryada. Because of when he was born! lmao. So now according to you he didn't do his own research and that you (Mr Super Man) are far more knowledgeable than him.

 

The Naamdhari also made claims that Ram Singh was their Guru. I guess now you believe that? Its a well known fact that there were portions of Punjab and other states that did discriminate against woman receiving amrit purely for gender reason. Naamdhari could easily release propoganda and say "we believe woman should all be baptised" to shed those parties in a negative light.  All your proof comes from dubious sources, Bhai Chaupa Singh's rehitnama (which has multiple translations floating, one from the 19th century which excludes your favourite line,not to mention the taksal also use it to justify man and woman getting amrit), the Naamdhari (who already make ridiculous claims) and the use of the word Dev

 

You already lied about Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji's arths, now you're insulting him by saying he missed something in his own research? A "treasure amongst scholars" decided not to tell people the true Maryada? On top of that you've said he decided to up and change Guru Gobind Singh Ji's order not to give woman Amrit . Wow. 

 

Based on that argument then you must be of the opinion that Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal follow their own made up maryada? 

2 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

You didn't provide your own arth of the two words.  You went on the internet and looked for arths.  Doing arth of a line of Gurbani means making sense of various words used to come to one message.  Anyone can take a dictionary of any language and look up the definition of one or two words or even find the meaning for each word, but still are unable to find the meaning of the sentence.  As you found out the two words you looked up have several meanings.  So which one does a person use and which meaning doesn't apply here.  This is where you can't do the arth.  You are full of hot air, where I have already done the arth in my own words in English.  You are still confused about the meaning of two words. 

Just to shut the women hater up.  In a previous post you praised Sant baba Gurbachan Singh ji Khalsa as such:

I went and found his recording on the arth of ਮਨੁਖਾ and he says this word is referring to women in the Gurbani pankti on ang 797.  Sant ji gives a full explanation and then adds men and women have the right to taking Amrit from the Punj Pyare.  Do you know what the word besharam means?  As you are looking it up, be standing in front of a mirror.

Sant ji recording is on gurmatveechar.com in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji katha.  Go to recording of ang 796 + 797.  Approximately 36 minutes in Sant ji does the interpretation starting from the beginning of the Shabad. 

 

In a previous post I've already said that the likes of Sant Gurbachan Singh & Sant Jarnail Singh propergating that women take amrit is understandable as by the time they came on the scene the practice of giving amrit to women had already become a common practice EXCEPT for at Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal (who say the follow unchanged maryada from time of mahraj).

Sant Gurbachan Singh was born around 1903, Sant Jarnail Singh around 1947... by that point the practice of giving amrit to women had become common practice.... although Naamdharis vehemently say & write in their books that they were the first to start doing this around 1850s... why would they make such claims if sikhs were already doing this.

2 hours ago, Kira said:

Since Mr-Super man here wants to exploit Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama lets have a look from further back in history. Gurmat Sudhakar was written in 1899 by Bhai Kahn Singh Ji. He was born in 1861, firstly observe we have a person from prior to 1900. Secondly he translates and writes about Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji's rehitnama. What a shock...the line about not giving woman amrit....not there. Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's rehitnama...that speaks about giving amrit to SIKHS. So If Mr Super man is right here, only men can be Sikhs.  A translation that predates the one that Mr Super man is screeching about has now been shown to contain no such verse. 

 

 

 

 

That was written 1 year prior to 1900... great! Originals of Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama are available at Hazur Sahib.

the best source that explains Hazur Sahib maryada is Sri Hazur Sahib Maryada Parbodh & was written by mahapursh Baba Joginder Singh Ji

Bottom line it all comes down to is you have 1 of the 5 takhts... Hazur Sahib & Budha Dal claiming they follow a maryada that is the maryada direct from mahrajs time against a maryada that on the balance of evidence seems to have been changed around 1900s due to various reasons. 

The panth was also given gurgaddi & authority in the form of Punj Pyare... so if the panth did decide to alter maryada in 1900 then there's nothing wrong with that as long as the WHOLE panth decided to do so together... but that hasn't happened... 1 of our 5 takhats & a historical institution that goes back to the time of mahraj both follow the same maryada as each other but different to the rest of the panth... Sants from both sides saying different things... which side is right? 

59 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

I asked you to do the arth of the whole line.  You refuse to do it because you do not have the knowledge or skill to do the arth of the whole line. Which makes your understanding good as harkiran who doesn't even know how to speak punjabi. When I said both of you are cut from the same cloth, I meant it and its being proven.

Yep, because I can provide arths for only 2 words out of the whole line.... after 2 words I miraculously lose the ability to do 3 or 4 words or the whole line.... mahraj only gave me the ability limited to 2 words per line...

You was asked to show where 'women' are mentioned in that line as per the translation you posted..... and as per usual you provide nothing but hot air... tell everyone here, from that line you posted, which Gurmukhi word means women???

you was asked yesterday to provide reference to a hukamnama or rehitnama where mahraj used a pen name rather then their real name, please provide reference to back up your comment?

its been over a week since you said you would provide references & evidence for pre 1900 that women were given Khande Di Pahul in 1699... please provide those references?... I remember you making a comment about 'you better put big boy pants on today' but rather what has happened since  is that your child sized kachera has been getting pulled down & you've been getting exposed for the small & inadequate specimen that you are 

Theres a familiar pattern emerging with you..... speaks a lot of hot air, has no substance, can't back anything up with references, makes bold claims then can't back them up, when asked a question you are unable to answer you come back with a question of your own that is usually fabricated out of thin air to divert the question asked of you in the first place... nice try... but like I said... won't work with me 

Provide answers to all the above questions & provide all the references & evidence to back up all the claims you made... do that & gain some credibility.... until then keep your mouth shut 

36 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

the four yugs, which or who was saying male of human kind plus males of other species could obtain Naam and now the Guru has resolved the dispute to say male of human kind has access to Naam?

Let me guess you are going to say monkeys in the 4 yugs were claiming they can get Naam, but not anymore.....only the true homosapien, mahakaal96 can get Naam  

Once again this fool fabricates stuff out of thin air & resorts to childish comments to cover up his inadequacy.

The arths given by shabad kosh for 'nar' says nar can mean man, narsingh (avtar of Vishnu), a unique breed of gods or Narayan.

When you have Nar & Manuka together the message is clearly being directed to that Nar which is of human kind. 

You can try to divert & cover up for your lack of knowledge & fabricate stuff out of thin air all you want... won't work with me