Where were Nihungs in 1984?

[V]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

so if they are true singhs, true warriors, truly akal purkh ki fauj, then go do some good, and these pappis on their way

prove that u are equal to 125000 and use ur arms

i guess you could say that about any one of us sitting on our asses behind our computers talkin the big talk. all of us carry shasters and some of us even rock big dumallay. but before we attack someone else for not doing something, think....what have we done....or are the decked out dumallay all for show.

plus, who are we to try to make guru sahib dey singh look bad...

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

those who commit kurehits are nor Guru Dey Sikhs :T: :wub:

what do u think the purpose of posting this was -

‘Be initiated into the Khalsa and go hunting. Preserve the martial traditions in anyway

you can. Chatka goats and eat them. Do not eat carrion or Halal meat [of animal slaughtered Muslim way]. Nurture your long hair. Do not cut your hair with razor. Forsake your ancestral ways. Focus on the Gurus feet. They who get on the wrong path punish them. Whatever method [of initiation] the Guru has ordained do it. From five Bhujangi [Nihangs] be initiated.’

(‘Panth Prakash’, 1832, Expurgated by Vir Singh, Pa.44)

so it's okay with a scissor? :T:

[anon]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

those who commit kurehits are nor Guru Dey Sikhs 

what do u think the purpose of posting this was -

hold up man who are we to judge anyone. if any gursikh has done something wrong, guru sahib will take care of em himself.

there is a sakhi, i apologize as i dont remember it fully. i read/heard it somewhere. maybe someone else can tell it in more detail and correct what i say wrong. heres a very brief version....

there were two sikhs and one was very poor. he stole money (gold coins?) from the second sikh. later on the second sikh saw it in the first sikhs bag. the other sikhs also saw this and asked why he didnt confront the first sikh. the second sikh said if he had made a scene, it would make guru sahib look bad that his sikhs are stealing/fighting with each other. therefore he kept quiet about it.....

i can think all of us should take the same stance on this issue (where were nihungs in 1984).....

bhul chuk maaf

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

[10th regiment]

a sikh is not silent when injustice occurs

[GurooDaChela]

POINT 1 - Without getting into the authenticity of Dasam Granth, EVERYONE accepts that it was never personally ordained as Guru by Siree Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee. It was apparently the 'Akali Nihangs' (the 'followers') who placed it upon such a pedestal, along with 'Sarbloh Granth', directly alongside Siree Guru Granth Sahib Jee. This is the 'Akali Nihangs' own admission. Ask yourself since when should the cart decide where the horse should lead it! i.e. the followers decide and overide what their leader ordains?

__________________________

It has been this way since before Akali Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Panjwah Takht Hazoor Sahib has maintained the same tradititions since the first 5 guru's. Nothing has changed.

Your Point 2 has already been answered in my last post... read carefully about what is stated about bhagat kabir jee.

Your point three makes no sense...

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

"It has been this way since before Akali Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Panjwah Takht Hazoor Sahib has maintained the same tradititions since the first 5 guru's. Nothing has changed. "

Got any documentation that provides irrefutable evidence to this effect? History records that the Nihangs were hunted to near extinction by the British, which issued orders to shoot them on site. Would the British let a power center of the Nihangs like Thakht Hazoor Sahib remain? To that end, even the Snatani website recorded that because of the British, the Nihangs were pushed into the forests and barely survived (even mentioned that this Shastar Vidiya was single-handedly saved by one Nihang Baba). This is a gross inconsistency to the reported "fact" that Nihangs were in control of Thakt Hazoor Sahib.

"Your Point 2 has already been answered in my last post... read carefully about what is stated about bhagat kabir jee."

Point two was not addressed by your post, as you proceeded to focus on meat, whereas the point initially addressed the topic of sukha. Nobody is asking about the meat issue...the issue is sukha (sorry if this sounds harsh). Citing that Bhagat Kabir is only a peaceful bhagat, whereas the Akalis, including Guru Gobind Singh Sahib were warriors makes no sense. Shall we put conditions on Guru Arjan Sahib's Gurbani and create exceptions because he chose the path of peaceful resistance rather than open armed conflict? Arguements that Bhagat Kabir Sahib being a pacifist make no sense, as the ENTIRE of the Guru Granth Sahib is the jyot, the views and the ideals of the Guru Sahiban (as they are the ones who included the Bhagatan Di Bani in the Guru Granth

Sahib). If Guru Sahiban were to make these little exceptions, surely they would have done a clarification after the Bhagatan Di Bani in the Guru Granth Sahib. The Guru Granth Sahib is supreme over all other scriptures, including any Maryadas, Puratan or otherwise.

"Your point three makes no sense... "

Point three is of absolute relevance. To this point in time, not a single reason for using sukha and its context within Sikhism has been yet substantiated. The "evidence" provided keeps saying "Well, so and so said so and it is Puratan, so it must be true". One has only to peruse Sikh history on a cursory basis to understand that Puratan does not mean the truth or the way it should be (if this was true, than we would all be worshipping Durga idols as that is what is written in the Puratan granth Suraj Parkash by Kavi Santokh Singh).

As for the Snatanis being some body who is completely the opposite to the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha, you might do well to check the preface the Panthic Rehat Maryada, which explicitly mentions two Snatani groups - the Nirmalas and the Buddha Dal - as groups that participated in the drafting process. You may see that here:

http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/introduction.html

Perhaps the first thing you should do is ask the SGPC to remove the Buddha Dal's name from that list or issue a clarification. Otherwise, it seems that the Buddha Dal supported the move of that Rehat Maryada.

Please do not take this to be a personal attack of some sort (if you feel so, I apologize).

[anon]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

a sikh is not silent when injustice occurs

i can tell you follow this whole heartedly. i bet youve been cryin about nihangs not showing up since. but what have you done yourself since the attack? have you tried to seek justice yourself. have you tried to go after kps gill or anyone else who is still alive. until you do something, i think its best to remain quiet about anyone else not doing anything.

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

[10th regiment]

i dont claim to be fearless

i dont claim to be a defender of the weak

i dont claim to be gods very own army

and im not always armed to the teeth

but the nihangs do

again, are their weapons for show?

rememeber what sant ji said

killing innocents when armed is wrong but to not use your arms when injustice is being done is worse

case closed. sant ji himself said it. going to argue with that?

[Jagroop Singh]

Vahiguru ji ka khalsa, Vahiguru ji ki fateh!

Veer/Bhain 'Guroodachela' ji,

Thank you for replying.

(Before i go on, it seems that several recent posts (not yours Veer/Bhain ji) have started to cause a shift in this thread: towards a cussing match basically. Can we KEEP THINGS RELEVANT. Thanks.)

You wrote, in reply to Point 1:

'It has been this way since BEFORE Akali Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Panjwah Takht Hazoor Sahib has maintained the same tradititions since the first 5 guru's. Nothing has changed'.

> So what you are saying is that it was not AFTER 10th Nanak Sahib Ji that the Dasam Granth was installed - it was before; in fact from 'since the first 5 guru's'.

That's confusing...what i can't work out is how could the writings of 10th Nanak Sahib Ji have been around many years BEFORE he took birth - were they already installed before his birth? Perhaps i have misunderstood your response - please clarify.

Also, you haven't FULLY responded to the question: namely, 'should the followers really override what Siree Guru Sahib Ji decided?' Please respond.

You further wrote:

'Your Point 2 has already been answered in my last post... read carefully about what is stated about bhagat kabir jee'.

(POINT 2 was - Keeping Point 1 in mind, if 'Hikayat' mentions the consumption of drugs, then this is not to be taken as fact. This is simply because Siree Guru Sahib Jee says, via Bhagat Kabir Sahib Jee, that we are to stay away from cannabis. The question is do the 'Akali Nihangs' not view the Word of Bhagats as equal to the

rest of GurBani? In other words, do they have a 'two-tier respect' approach concerning Siree Guru Granth Sahib Jee? This question was in part raised earlier by a Veer but remains, somewhat conspicuously, unanswered

> After re-reading your earlier response, i will now assume then that 'Akali Nihangs' certainly DO have a two-tier respect approach towards Gurbani - please correct me if you feel it is neccesary i.e. they do not feel the need to agree with Words uttered by Bhagat Kabir Sahib Ji because it 'doesn't count' because he was NON-MARTIAL. Hence, these words do not carry much weight.

I guess that implicitly, this is also your standpoint concerning those quite 'inconvenient' Words regarding that no-matter what, those who 'consume Cannabis will go to hell'...nonetheless, let's move-on unless you wish to clarify.

Secondly, it is your primary explanation regarding Point 2 that is perhaps 'warped'. You use this Quote:

‘Oh Kabir, he who kills creatures with FORCE and they who call it HALAAL. When in the court of the COMPASSIONATE, ACCOUNT is asked for [doing Halal], then who will present himself [for this ACCOUNT]?’

(‘Adi Guru Durbar, Salok Kabir, Pa.1375)

Clearly, the emphasis is upon FORCE and labelling it as PURE/LAWFUL (the literal meaning of Halaal) when killing an animal for consumption i.e. where is the COMPASSION / the lawfulness / the PURITY in such an act that is labelled Halaal? As to ACCOUNT for this; how can it indeed be argued. But as we shall see, you have attempted to argue such a hapless ACCOUNT...

You wrote that:

'Whereas Chatka eaters make a DISTINCTION between ‘Halal’/’Kuttah’ (slaughtered the Muslim way) and ‘Chatka’ (killed with a single blow), this is not the case with vegetarian Sikhs fanatics. These vegetarian groups see both kinds of meat as ONE, and go to many lengths attempting to convince people of their warped views'.

> You have quite obviously gone-off on a comp

lete tangent regarding Bhagat Kabir Sahib Ji's Words (which i see as TOTALLY IMPORTANT/RELEVANT/APPLICABLE). In fact, you have elaborated regarding slaughter methods which for the purposes of discussing this quote, are totally irrelevant. i simply don't understand how you took such an import form those Words! What have methods got to do with this?

The rest of what you have provided, which i can only assume you regard as solid proof (as opposed to circumstantial), is nothing but secondary/third source material which does not stand-up when applied to the ETERNAL TOUCHSTONE of Gurbani.

Your reliance upon such material is akin to 'Sikhs', in two hundred years time, looking back upon today's era and deciding 'that was the real Sikhi' i.e. caste-based marriages, cutting of Kesh, consumption of alcohol...'oh, what a Golden Era' is what such Sikhs may say, as they try to promote their particular brand of Sikhi amongst the 'Victorian vegetarian fanatics' of the future.

All i can say is that it seems that certain people find it hard to accept that the misl and Ranjit Singh periods were perhaps not as rosy, as far as Gurmat practice is concerned, as we would like to believe...but i digress.

You wrote:

'Your point three makes no sense...'

Veer/Bhain ji, in what 'sense' does it not 'make sense'? The thrust was: 'Are we saying that the Khalsa Akaal Purakh Ki Fauj, created complete by Siree Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee through Vahiguru's Beant Shakti, were lacking mental strength, physical prowess etc. and needed a 'drug-induced' boost?' Well, did they need such a boost?

Also, can i request that at some point we go on to discuss the very valid points raised by Veer 'ms514' ji regarding:

- 'The "evidence" provided keeps saying "Well, so and so said so and it is Puratan, so it must be true". One has only to peruse Sikh history on a cursory basis to understand tha

t Puratan does not mean the truth or the way it should be (if this was true, than we would all be worshipping Durga idols as that is what is written in the Puratan granth Suraj Parkash by Kavi Santokh Singh)'.

> i.e. are we really follows of 'historical sources' or Gurbani especially when we can find major inconsistencies in Puraatan / Rehitnama materials?

- 'As for the Snatanis being some body who is completely the opposite to the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha, you might do well to check the preface the Panthic Rehat Maryada, which explicitly mentions two Snatani groups - the Nirmalas and the Buddha Dal - as groups that participated in the drafting process. You may see that here:

Perhaps the first thing you should do is ask the SGPC to remove the Buddha Dal's name from that list or issue a clarification. Otherwise, it seems that the Buddha Dal supported the move of that Rehat Maryada'.

> i.e. Was Buddha Dal 'so majorly' excluded from the Panth, and so set against the terrible Victorian-inspired and prudish 'Tat Khalsa Singh Sabias'...and in such a polarised manner?

Thanks in advance Veer/Bhain ji.

Vahiguru ji ka khalsa, Vahiguru ji ki fateh!

[Guest mehtab]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

I don't know much about Nihangs. But here is the little bit I have to say about meat eating.

Say there are 2 chardi kala GurSikhs. One eats meat and the other doesn't. They both are at a great spiritual avastha. Now what could happen after they die?

Case 1 : Dharamraaj is cool with meat eating (Halal or chatka or whatever)

Result : Both go to sachkhand

Case 2 : Dharamraaj is strictly against meat eating period!

Result : The vegetarian Sikh makes it to Sachkhand while the other has to pay for his deeds.

Conclusion : The veggie Sikh goes to Sachkhand in goth cases. The non-veggie has a 50% chance, and so he is the one taking the risk of coming back.

my half cent

bhul chuk maaf

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

[anon]

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!

i dont claim to be fearless

i dont claim to be a defender of the weak

i dont claim to be gods very own army

the KHALSA is gods very own army. we're just as at fault as the nihangs are

and im not always armed to the teeth....but the nihangs do

if you have taken amrit, you are armed. end of story. no where does it say that if you carry just a 10 inch kirpan you dont have to protect the innocent.

again, are their weapons for show?

every other amritdhari in the world that hasnt done anything, is their kirpan for show?

rememeber what sant ji said

killi

ng innocents when armed is wrong but to not use your arms when injustice is being done is worse

case closed. sant ji himself said it. going to argue with that?

like ive pointed out a million times, that applies not ony to nihangs but also every other singh in the world.

10 regiment jee, have you taken amrit?

vwihgurU jI kw Kwlsw!

vwihgurU jI kI &iqh!!