Mahakaal96

That would be very very unlikely as amrit sanchar was in 1699, mahraj returned to Sachkand in 1708, Mata jis hukamname are from several years after that. So your looking at a minimum of around 10-15 years after amrit sanchar so unlikely Mata would continue to use a previous name. And also if we look at other females in the panth right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji I can't recall any of them having Deva or Devi added to their name. If Mata had taken amrit & therefore become a Kaur as is common practice today then she would not have continued to use a previous name... just like mahraj themselves never used sodhi or rai once they became a Singh.

What do you think this is... babysitting spoon feeding time?? The original is widely available... here's an idea... do some research yourself. The translation is of a text written in 1700. The handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva are originals from early 1700's, if Mata had taken Khanda da amrit she must have become a Kaur as is popular practice today... so why has Mata signed those rehitnama as Sahib Devi & not used the word Kaur anywhere?? Do your research and you will realise the word 'Kaur' actually means 'Prince'... not princess You have been given a translation of a text from 1700 (original widely available) & actual originals of hukamname written by Mata Sahib Deva herself from early 1700's..... where's your evidence that backs up your argument???

I'm not making anything up, it's there in black & white to read & it's from Bhai Chaupa Singh not me. People need to realise that the initiation rites of a SIKH & the initiation rights of a SINGH/KHALSA are not the same. The KHALSA rehitnama is for those initiated into the Khalsa FAUJ by way of taking 'Khanda Di Pahul'. The Khalsa is a fauj... not a social club where you bring your wives, sisters kids etc along. Firstly understand what a fauj is, then understand what the Khalsa is. Like I said in previous post, please take your questions & grievances directly to Hazur Sahib to get clear answers

"(v) A. Gursikh should not marry his daughter to a mona unless he agrees to acceptinitiation. ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash aGranth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should berecited. The couple should then drink the water. If the bridegroom has previouslyworn a sacred thread he may .continue to do so during the wedding ceremony, but heshould subsequently remove 11. [16, 21)" I assume this became the process by which charan pahul was prepared once SGGS were given gurgaddi; ' ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash aGranth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be recited'

Bhai Chaupa singh was the nephew of Shaheed Bhai Mati Dass Ji & a Shaheed himself. Hazur Sahib would be more then happy to answer your questions or anyone else's. Baba Kulvant Singh jathedar of Hazur Sahib is easily approachable as is Baba Prem Singh Ji from Gurdwara Mata Sahib Deva.

Rehitnama written by Bhai Chaupa Singh (if you don't know who Bhai Chaupa Singh is then research it) This rehitnama was written in 1700 which means Guru Gobind Singh Ji were still on this mortal world (maharaj returned to sach kand in 1708) heres translation for you, it is written that khanda da amrit should not be given to women; I've asked several times but will ask once more, please provide written historical source which predates 1900 that proves women did take Khanda da amrit. Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama from 1700 says women should not be given khanda da amrit & hukamname from Mata Sahib Deva from early 1700's show Mata never used Kaur in her name (which she would have had she taken khanda da amrit) Hazur Sahib have written historical sources from the time of mahraj to back up their maryada, unless you provide some ACTUAL evidence then this conversation is at a standstill & pointless.

A lot of effort & hot air but still no ACTUAL evidence or historical evidence. you seem to love the exhibition of your so called knowledge... even though it is based on no real evidence. unlike you I'm not going to talk much, I'm just going to post up some actual evidence for you. I'm not going to do all the work for you... go research it yourself but anyhow Mata Sahib Deva hukamname;

seems like you have selective vision that alters what is actually written so that it can be changed to fit a narrative that suits you... My post said ' Quote Sikhi in the area of Hazoor Sahib is much stronger then the whole of Punjab (man made maryada land). Obviously there is kirpa & shakti at Harimandir Sahib but can it be said that Panjab as a whole is flourishing when it come to sikhi? I think we all know the answer to that. Anyone who has even spent a few days in Nanded can see how dedicated to Guru & Sikhi people are there.... it's a world apart from Panjab. you can come out with whatever you want... there's a reason why Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal only give kirpan amrit to women, there's a reason Mata signed her handwritten hukamname using Sahib Devi & not Kaur, there's a reason why naamdharis claim they were the first to give women Khanda da amrit, theres a reason why eyewitness accounts from 1699, some even written by our enemies & there's no mention of women, there's a reason why there's apparently no written evidential source pre 1900 that proves women were given Khanda da amrit... you can conjur up whatever phantom narratives, emotional blackmail stories you want but please try & disprove the above points IF you can. Do that & I'll be a happy man... I'm looking for answers myself

Don't know if you've ever been to Hazur Sahib or not but I'm sure most would agree that if they were following manmat practices then there's no way that place would have so much shakti & kirpa there. You seem to lack understanding of evidence collecting & in general don't seem capable of having an intellectual adult conversation but never the less... In my first post I wrote 'according' to maryada of Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal women were not given khanda da amrit (they are given kirpan amrit at Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal) in 1699. In support of this stance both Hazur Sahib & Buddha Dal claim that there is no evidence from 1699 that suggests women took Khanda da amrit. To further support this they say that handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva shows that Mata signed them as Mata Sahib Devi... but why would she do this if she had taken amrit & become a 'Kaur' as is popular practice at other takhts. There's apparently also hukamname by Mata Sundri Ji where Kaur has not been used but I don't know if that is true or not as I haven't seen them myself. Separate to these but of interest is the fact that around 1850s the naamdharis make written claims that they are the first ones to give women Khanda Da amrit... if women were already being given khanda da amrit why would they make such a claim that would be easily blown out the water? If men can only take amrit with their wives then what are the names of the wives of the panj pyare who would have also taken amrit? Why do eyewitness accounts from that actual day in 1699 not mention women at all apart from Mata adding patasee into the amrit. Accounts from 1699 unanimously state mahraj asked for 5 heads.... not 5 couples heads. also you misunderstood the murti comment. Before formation of SGPC mahants had installed murtis of Devi Devte into the parkarma at Harimandir Sahib... in the Punjab, yet in Hazur Sahib where they are supposedly meant to be Hindu worshippers this never happened. Point being, not just based on the murti incident but a general feeling seems to be that Hazur Sahib sikhs seem more dedicated & committed to following a maryada & rehit that they claim has been unchanged since time of 10ve patshah. We can't just sideline Hazur Sahib & dismiss it as manmat... it's 1 of the 5 takhts so all their claims & practices need to be examined & looked at seriously in an intellectual adult way.

I asked for historical sources that predate 1900 that give evidence of women taking amrit... not emotional blackmail pappu parchar. Even if what your saying is right then that would mean that in 1699 the Panj Pyare would only have been allowed to take amrit WITH their wives & when Mahraj themselves took amrit they would only have been allowed to do so WITH Mata Sundri Ji, Mata Jeeto Ji & Mata Sahib Deva Ji! There's eye witness written accounts of what happened that day... of how mahraj asked for 5 heads.. beheaded 5 heads then bought back to life then bowed down & took amrit from panj pyare themselves... no where does it mention women or that the men could only take amrit with their wife. If women took amrit & became 'kaurs' then why are all handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva signed Mata Sahib Devi & not kaur?? Naamdharis have written sources that say they were the first to give women amrit & did so around 1850 onwards.

Listen to his katha on Guru Granth Sahib to make up your own mind.... he was ex-communicated for political reasons under the guise of him supposedly being anti Guru Granth Sahib (which he is not as evidenced in his SGGS katha). He was ex-communicated because he openly calls akal takht corrupt & under the control of government & openly criticises the jathedars. Mata Bhago ji's final resting place & tap asthan is just south of Hazur Sahib... no one there refers to Mata Ji using 'Kaur'. All Hukamname issued by Mata Sahib Deva were signed by Mata as 'Mata Sahib Devi'... no use of the word 'kaur' by Mata herself. Please provide historical written source that predates 1900 that gives evidence that women were given amrit... apparently there is no source available so would like clarification on this

According to maryada of Hazoor Sahib & Buddha Dal women were never given Khande Di Pahul. Hazoor Sahib/Buddha Dal has maintained the original maryada since time of 10ve patshah. Sikhi in the area of Hazoor Sahib is much stronger then the whole of Punjab (man made maryada land). Every Sikh in Nanded is mostly kesadhari & shasterdhari. They have Prakash of Sri Dasam Granth & never had a problem where Mahants bought murtis into the Gurdwara like what happened in Panjab but still get accused of being followers of Hindu traditions. Naamdharis were the first to start giving amrit to women around the late 1800's, there's written proof of this. Watch this video to get knowledge about why & when women were given amrit & when it all started;

Thanks for that. Its says that baba Binod singh was a Trehan (Guru Angad Dev Ji) whereas I thought Baba Binod Singh Ji was from Bhalla lineage of Guru Amar Das Ji? I've heard that Baba Baaz Singh was the nephew of Baba Mani Singh & cousin of Baba Uday Singh, bhai Bachiter Singh & the other 9 brothers, is that correct?

Wasn't Baba Kahn Singh Baba Binod Singhs Ji's son?

Jonny boy you are out of your depth on this one. There's a hukamnama from Mata Sundri Ji herself commanding that all sikhs abandon Banda because he had gone off the path of gurmat. The only person who has done nindiya is you... saying those things about Baba Binod Singh... someone who stuck to gurmat & obeyed the command of Mata at all times... who the hell do you think you... read some books & think you know it all. For your information Baba Binod Singhs son was only released due to the intervention of Mata Sundri Ji herself. And when Baba Mani Singh placed the two papers in the Harimandir Sahib sarovar to see which faction mahraj declared as the true Khalsa then it was Tat Khalsa under the command of Baba Binod Singh that mahraj chose & not Banda Khalsa (under command of Amar Singh if my memory serves me right) In the future watch your mouth... reading a few books doesn't mean what you've read is the truth. And even if you wanted to express your views they could have been done politely

Keep spewing all the rubbish you want, & if you think it's just jatt girls who do such thing then you are obviously delusional. You can have all the biased views you want, fact is historical accounts from hundreds of years ago are still available and there for everyone to see..... who cares about what some bum who calls himself big tera thinks? Largest numbers of sikhs outside of Panjab and abroad are jatts for your information & as for the distribution of wealth we all know the truth. Anyway, I hope everyone enjoyed the accounts about jatts from non jatts from hundreds of years ago. There's actually plenty more out there if anyone is interested. Jealousy is a very bad trait.... if outsiders praised jatts but didn't mention any other caste then so be it. Last post from me. I don't need to justify or argue any point. I posted independant non Sikh non jatt accounts.... everyone can take them how they want.... fateh

The division & other rubbish on this thread was not started by myself. It's ok for a member to refer to every other jatt as phudus on this site but if someone posts independant accounts that are positive about jatts then they are branded as being casteist? Does that sound fair & according to the principles of truth to you? you are very right when you say our atma has no caste. Our prarabdh Karma dictates the family, religion, caste etc that you are born into. Atam Gyan katha from Suraj Prakash as uttered by the mouth of bhai Daya Singh on direct instructions from 10ve patshah covers the whole topic. Bottom line is when someone is going out their way to insult jatts at every opportunity then why should we stay quiet. No one pulled him up on his casteist comments but as soon as someone put up something positive about jatts the whole forum comes out to play

I'm very aware of what the British did to our panth, especially through the formation of the SGPC & the sidelining of Akali Nihang Singh's

Obviously didn't bother reading any of the accounts... some which say being kesa dhari was a jatt tradition before they adopted sikhi. You seem to think there is some kind of burden of proof on me to provide accounts regarding Hindus & Muslims.... you want such accounts go find them, and while your at it find some about other Sikh tribes... there must be some, there's plenty about nihangs. None of the praise in all those accounts comes from jatts.. they are all non jatt, non Sikh & non Indian accounts ranging from 17th to 20th century. People shouldn't be so ready to speak provocatively using insulting language on here about jatts & not get a reply. Everyone knows who started this. The difference is everything he said bout jatts was based on his prejudices. Everything I posted is from historical accounts by non jatts & from several sources that cover several hundred years.

The only thing I've done is research historical accounts & posted them here because of the constant casteist views of a certain member. At no point did I say I agree in part or completely with the accounts posted. It is what it is... independant eye witness accounts by non Sikh individuals from a vast period of time. By your very logic, why are there no similar accounts about Sikh tharkhans or Sikh chumars? Similar British accounts about the attributes of other tribes such as native Americans, abhoriginis, zulus & middle eastern tribes can be found. Likewise derogatory accounts about sikhs (mainly about nihangs) by the British are also available. Of course the praise & large part of the whole picture is down to Guru kirpa but why are similar accounts about other tribes like tharkan or chumars not found to this extent? They received the same kirpa after all

I've noticed his language towards other members & in particular his casteist views hence why I decided to post. His intelligence (or rather lack of) is quite evident to see. He obviously has some kind of psychological problem with jatts which was most probably caused by some kind of trauma, maybe bullying or a beating received

Although that was the aim within the highest ranks of the British it is absurd to think that all colonels, soldiers, historians & travelers were 'all in' on the plot. The dates of the sources provided cover from the 16th century upto the 20th century so that debunks your theory. Most jatts in panjab today can't read English so how on earth were accounts written in the 16th 17th & 18th centuries used to divide & rule?! The bristish have historical accounts about Africans, native Indians of America, the Aboriginal tribes of Australia to name but a few. For the most part these are just historical accounts, whether they were used as reconnaissance material by the higher ranks of the British may well be true but the bottom line is that they are eye witness independant accounts... there are many about the Akali Nihangs as well... I suppose they were written to divide & rule them as opposed to just an honest observation. I sometimes wonder why the panth is in this current state, coming on this website & seeing the level of intellect & logic explains a lot.

I'm not sure which way round it is but in Suraj Prakash Singh's from maja are praised & called the most loyal where as in Panth Prakash it is singhs from Malva who are praised. My memories not that great on this but do remember the difference in the 2 Granths

Anyone with a brain can see what pattern this thread has followed. Posting independant historical accounts that are hundreds of years old are not good enough & just because those accounts don't fall in line with casteist views of certain members they are ignored whilst unfounded vile based on casteist views from other members is ok? same member who used the term pudu jatts in a thread just a few days ago And you call yourself sikh!! Pathetic

You know that is not the implication being made and you know it. Some of the sources listed in this thread claim that there may have been a strong possibility that a selective selection took place in that the Guru identified certain qualities in the jatts of Panjab & thus chose to start the movement from there. Guru is king of all places but why did they chose Panjab & why were the initial followers mainly from the jatt tribes?