Balkaar

https://www.facebook.com/DhanSriSatguruDalipSinghJiSacepatshah Take a lot at this facebook page. There are pictures of Thakur Dalip Singh warmly greeting people who appear to be Panthic Gursikhs. I do not think this meeting would have taken place if he was still disposed towards Namdhari nonsense. However, the rest of the page is littered with propitiations being made to Dhan Dhan Satguru Dalip Singh, and to previous Namdhari 'Gurus'. Either some of of Thakur Dalip Singh's followers haven't quite got the message, or we on this forum are under a terrible misapprehension.

What in God's name are the two of you talking about? I wasn't saying Sikhi was normal, only that if an opinion is held by most Sikhs on a subject, such as the meaning of the word Shaheed, then it is by definition the normal view among Sikhs. Are you determined to take objection to everything I write, ever?

Jio, that was because the Sikh leadership was largely constituted by Jatt supremacists who worried that the influx of Dr Ambedkar's dalit followers would radically alter the caste composition of the Panth.

'Respect and obey your elders' is a maxim of almost every society. The justification for this idea is that the elderly are wise. I don't know that I entirely agree with this. Wisdom isn't the corollary of age, but of experience or learning. Just because somebody is advanced in years doesn't necessarily mean that their words possess clout. By all means, an elder can be wise, if they spent their long years on Earth productively studying Gurbani and history, traveling the world or experiencing wonderful things. I love my grandparents dearly, and respect that they worked hard in their lives, but they are two of the most naive and ignorant people I know. They never travel anywhere but to the Punjab, their tastes in reading are restricted to Des Pardes and Manjit Weekly and they've next to no knowledge of Bani or Itihaas. They think Kes and Amrit Sanchaar are mischievous concoctions by fanatics. Before retirement, their lives consisted of nothing but going to work, and now that they've retired, they waste away their days in front of the television being slowly lobotomised by Indian soap operas. Their views on pretty much everything are crusty and cobwebbed, riddled with fearful superstitions. When they ask me to perform some physical task I invariably do it out of love and awareness of their frailty. But I don't believe the simple fact that they've managed to avoid being hit by a bus for 80 years compels me to consider them sages or fonts of wisdom.

What? That's actually a thing? Why?

We are the only ones that can screw things up now. Lets not hold any of their past mistakes against them and welcome them with open arms, and Panth Khalsa will be considerably better off for it. Pray that the morons and the hatemongers among us don't spoil this opportunity.

-

-

You are a fascinating study Preeet. I've never encountered anyone who can have such fanatically militant views on Sikhi and still shamelessly peddle Bahmanwaad.

I'm not saying that Gurbani is wrong, or that historical sources are greater than Gurbani, only that the tuks of Gurbani the user quoted were irrelevant to the issue of vegetarianism and my sources were not. You ultra-vegan fanatics can't silence me by accusing me of slandering Gurbani when your wilful ignorance and disregard for historical FACT forces you into corners.

In my Nana's Pind, Talhan, dist. Jalandhar, there is a Guru Ghar that was erected in memory of a bazurg Gursikh who was named a Shaheed after he met with an accident in a well whilst installing a pulley. His name was Baba Nihaal Singh. He was an upstanding Sikh, but to call him a martyr for dying whilst going about his daily profession really is extravagantly silly. Its not just the term Shaheed that gets thrown around with careless abandon. Mahapurakh, Sant, Giani, Brahmgiani, all of these titles are administered too readily.

Yes, because it doesn't deal with the topic of vegetarianism. A meat eater can still demonstrate kindness to animals, and a vegetarian, cruelty to them. If Guru Sahib would take objection to anything, it would be your declarations concerning who is and who isn't a Sikh, rather than someone proposing his views. My historical evidence means nothing? If I have to repress the repugnance I feel for the way you play pick and mix with our sacred itihas in order to justify your fanaticism for a moment longer, I might just have a horrific aneurysm. If several historical sources all attest to the same thing, the likelihood of their being mistaken is extremely small. Gurbani can be interpreted in several ways, a factual source cannot really. You don't appear to have any conception of the way in which rational minds operate or discern the provenance of material. I don't see that there is any point continuing this argument with you.

VIVEK is a Tamil film actor ( you seem to interject Hindu parlance into everything you post and use it interchangeably with Gurmukhi ). However, are you aware Preeet that the tradition of Gurmat BIBEK as used by jathas like the AKJ was originally a practice exclusive to Nihang Singhs, a group that consumes Jhatka meat? There are plenty of Mahapurakhs in the Nihang Dals who are omnivores, and they are above your slanderous accusations of being malecch or paapi. I have provided you irrefutable historical evidence of the consumption of Jhatka meat by Sikhs in an earlier post. Forget everything I said about Akal Takhat and Tamoguni, all that was incidental to me, it barely mattered. The point I really wanted you to take me up on was that of the historical sources, they were the crux of my argument and they are the very things you've decided to ignore so that you could instead leap about aiming ripostes at my minor commentary. Simply being a vegetarian does not mean you have daya for all pasus and human beings. I know plenty of vegetarians who are simply awful, and some of the kindest people I know happen to enjoy a Pork chop in the evening. Guru Nanak Dev himself cites the hypocrisy of those who abhor flesh but 'consume men by night': The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.

Do you believe eating Jhatka is tamoguni and therefore akin to murder or child abuse?

LOL I can see how having the power to name one's offspring anything might fill someone with an exhilarating sadism. Jamespal's parents could have no justification for what they did, but that they derive some sort of twisted pleasure from their son weeping pitifully every day after school. I for my part am going to sire several children with absolutely no vowels in their names, trsndltns and pfftffgnrs.

I was hoping somebody might be able to provide me with some insight on a very odd phenomenon. Whenever one peruses the accounts of the lives of Puraatan Gursikhs, they are found to possess names like Daya, Dharam, Kharak, Bhag, Bachittar or Himmat. Good old Gurmukhi names, usually one word, one meaning. These sorts of names persisted in vogue right up until the beginning of the twentieth century. But in the latter half of the very same century, a magical formula was concocted whereby a seemingly arbitrary prefix was shoved onto the beginning of a Sikh's name, and a suffix was chosen from a selection of deeps, preets, binders, jinders and pinders, et cetera. This system has become very popular now. Old Sikh names have become quite a rarity. I don't know any Avtars or Zorawars, but I'm practically drowning in a sea of Harpreets and Bhupinders. And yet I can't remember ever having come across such a name as Harpreet or Bhupinder in all my study of Sikh Itihas pre-1900s. Is it laziness? Some parents apparently can't even be bothered to make sure their kids' names actually make sense, hence the lamentably named 'mighty lamps' (Baldeeps). Is it a lack of creativity? Or is it perhaps that the parents responsible for this phenomenon didn't know the stories about Bhai Bachittar or the names of the Panj Piaraay and the heroes of Sikh history? I ask forgiveness if I have offended anyone who happens to be a _deep or a _pinder or something, though I hope the admission that I'm in the same boat allays any outrage you might be feeling.

Of course, but Pooran Gursikhs are extremely difficult to find. The passage from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that you have posted states that Satsangat may be found where Naam is spoken. This isn't exclusive to Gursikhs (Sikhs professing an allegiance to Guru Sahib). Bhagat Ravidas, Baba Farid, Bhagat Namdev, Bhagat Kabir, all praised the Naam and were the equals of the most principled Gursikhs, but not one of them professed Sikhi. Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a commonwealth of the wisdom of men of God from several different faiths. Does this not testify to the fact that Satsangat and the understanding that the naam is hukam may be derived from the society of non-Sikhs as well? We forget all to often that when we bow before Guru Granth Sahib Ji, we pay homage not just to all our previous Guru Sahibaan, but the Sufi Farid and the Hindu Namdev.

No you're bang on, Baba Ranjit Singh is particularly well regarded, if the NKJ can be said to belong to any Jatha it would be his. They wear the garb of the Nihang Singhs, perform Kirtan in the manner of the AKJ, and Katha in the manner of the sants/nanaksar. They're like a Sikhi potpourri.

They imitate some of the practices of the Jatha, notably Saas-Giraas Simran and Rehansbhais, but they've never been a limb of the AKJ. They seem to draw their influences from quite a few of the older traditions within Sikhi, particularly the Sants.

It has everything to do with your post. If eating Jhatka was tamoguni, or as harmful as you maintain, then why would Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib, which when passing decisions on such matters consults some of the most learned and keen minds in the Sikh world, declare it permissible? If eating a chicken fell under tamogun, a branch of actions which includes murder and rape, do you really think it would be given a green light by the highest temporal power in the Sikh world? The answer is an emphatic no.

Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib, the highest temporal authority in Sikhi, maintains that it is permissible. Read any Puraatan account of the old Sikhs, or the very earliest observations of them by outsiders. They will all, without exception, attest to the fact that Sikhs have always eaten Jhatka meat. "Each Zamindar... from the Attock... to the gates of Delhi lets his beard grow, cries Wah Gorow (Waheguru), eats pork, wears an iron bracelet, abominates the smoking of tobacco... sets up immediately for a Seik Sardar" - A Major Polier to Colonel Ironside (1776) "They consider Halali meat as forbidden... and eat the jhatka meat, that is, the meat of any animals slaughtered by the sword" - James Skinner, Tasrhihu'l Aqwan, 1825, quoted in Sikh history from Persian sources, p.218 You can't rewrite, whitewash or play pick and mix with our history to flatter your vegetarianism. This isn't an issue of opinions, but of historical fact, and it is a historical fact that the Sikhs of old consumed Jhatka meat.

All meat eaters? Hardly. Organic meat in the EU is not laden with poisons, the article you've quoted attests to this. Besides, the vegetables eaten by our brothers in the Punjab are just as heaped with chemicals as these American meat products, considering the level of pesticides they use. That said, none of the meat in the West is Jhatka and is therefore off limits.

I hope you don't mind my saying eduardo, but I'm curious how an anglo-saxon, christian (presumably) comes to be so interested in Punjabi culture. On the subject of music however, I should point out that Bhangra isn't the traditional music of the Punjab. Bhangra dancing has existed for centuries, but the music only really came about in the latter half of the twentieth century. This is one example of how the traditional music of the Punjab sounds - This style is known as Dhadi, martial songs. There is another style known as Kavishri, where men with high-pitched and resonant voices sing in acapella -

Sant Ji was a great Gursikh, but we ought to be very wary of mythologizing him or embellishing his life with fairy stories like this. This sounds like something out of the Janamsakhis. I have made comments on this forum before where I defended, without sharing their convictions, those who continue to insist Sant Ji is alive, but after reading what you've posted above I begin to worry that some Sikhs apparently esteem him more highly than our Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. That is pakhand. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in saying that if such a miraculous event as the one you describe truly occurred, the first I'd hear of it wouldn't be in an obscure post on the sikhsangat forum. Sant Ji also attained Shaheedi. This isn't my opinion, its kind of an irrefutable fact with evidence to support it, including the shaheedi saroop of Sant Jarnail Singh himself.

Of course not, its outrageous. Damn the employers for being so hobbled and retarded by their political correctness. And damn Sarah Mbuyi for being a hypocrite and a homophobe.