Kutchee Bani?!

[N30S1NGH]

After the training of five nirmale's in Benares who were sent by sri guru gobind singh ji they returned to the court of Guru Gobind Singh which was now established in Anandpur Sahib. At their return Guru Gobind Singh gave them the title nirmala from the Sanskrit nirmala: ‘im-maculate’ or ‘blemish-less’. After the introduction of the khande di pahul in 1699 the Nirmalas received the new initiation and were put under the command of Bhai Dharam Singh and Bhai Daya Singh. The Nirmalas were then progressively (throughout their history) divided into 24 sub-sections (upa-sampradayas). Thirteen of these 24 sub-sections go back to Bhai Daya Singh and eleven of them to Bhai Dharam Singh.  Out of thirteen of these sub sections,very famous upsampardha's are- nanaksar, rara sahib, harkhowaley, hoti mardan, reru sahib, naurangabad. Here is their pictorial spiritual geneology

139288[/snapback]

Fateh,

Since uve made it a point to re-mention the "history" of nirmale, it seems you may have missed the previous discussion on them. So for your benefit in case u missed it, let me remind you of the actual TRUE HISTORY about the whole 'nirmale' movement. And before you disregard this is some sort of nirmala or jatha/sant bashing please try and read that entire post on nimrale history with a clear objective mind. Thanx

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showto...95entry134695

139301[/snapback]

Kharkho4life, i have no issues with what you think about nirmale, your views are only your views, not views of sri akaal takth sahib who consider nirmale are integral part of the panth and besides, you can post anything and call it Truth but fact is - you lack research and fail to use puratan source as your research, you can even try to harder and use neo sikh resources which are just 100 years old...even those will not credible because of most of so called "neo" sikh groups who claim themselve tat khalsa were against not only nirmala's but other samparda's too...!

As they say- when you spit on the moon(orders created and blessed) by guru's themselves), spit comes on your face.

If you think nirmala's samparda does not exist, it's your own ignorance..you going to reject one whole order, you also have to reject other orders who ie- taksal, akali nihangs since sikhs belonged to this orders also over lap with nirmale orders because they represent more than one orders under khalsa panth

If you think nirmala samparda does not exist, then you also have to reject two of panj pyares- Bhai Dya Singh Ji And Bhai Dharam Singh Ji, after all 24 upsamparda's of nirmale are from 2 pyares of sri guru gobind singh.

All 5 Sikhs after taking amrit from Sri Dasam Patsah were send to anandpur sahib. Panj Pyares were trained by the original five nirmaley khalsa which gave them full vidya's.

24 upsamparada's/sub-section of Nirmala exist today all came from- Bhai Dya Singh Ji (13 sub sections) and Bhai Dharam Singh Ji (11 sub sections).

so you can reject all you want..it really does not matter, couldn't care less.

[Kharkoo4Life]

Kharkho4life, i have no issues with what you think about nirmale, your views are only your views, not views of sri akaal takth sahib who consider nirmale are integral part of the panth and besides

I agree, we both have different views on this matter and should be respectful of each others viewpoints, which i am. However, being respectful does not entail that we must remain silent or quietly accepting of something which has no logical basis to it.

Firstly, i do not contest that nirmala do not exist. There are many things which exist today in the Sikh panth, a great deal of them having no relation to Sikhi at all. The important question isnt about arguing whether they exist or not but for us to actually critically analyze where these movements/jathabandis/sampardas originated from and why? What role if any do they serve in Sikhi, and if it is not a meaningful role than why are they so openly accepted by the masses?

With regards to ur refernce to the Akaal Takhat, i do not wish to get into a debate into that for it is a long topic which wud be better suited to a new thread, but simply put yes Akaal Takhat holds heavy importance in the Khalsa Panth and is regarded as the central voice of reason for all issues pertaining to the Panth. But that being said Akaal Takhat itself is merely an institution (made to voice the stand of Sarbat Khalsa) and like any institution in Sikhi if that instittion is not based on and run according to Gurmat then the decisions made by that institution should be accepted with great caution.

For instance, gurdwaras are considered centeres of sikhi parchaar, saadh sangat etc and we go there for support and advice on all matter related to a sikhs life. But if that gurdwara is run by a committee who have very limited if any knowledge about gurbani, who themselves do not properly practice Sikhi and in fact are hypocrites then what value can we place in the advice such a gurdwara hands out to the sangat? Very little! Similarly, one will be suprised to know to the degree and depth that such hypocritcal individuals have infiltrated Sikhi and the various institutions of Sikhi, particularly SGPC and its affiliated branches eg. Akal Takhat, Harmindar Sahib etc. This isnt to say we should just boycott and abandon all these instituation, but rather than blindly acceptin every word or judgement that come from their, we should excercise some own invdividual bibek budhi in seein how much those decisions actually concurr with the kusvutee of gurbani.

you can post anything and call it Truth but  fact is - you lack research and fail to use puratan source as your research, you can even try to harder  and use neo sikh resources which are just 100 years old...even those will not credible because of most of so called "neo" sikh groups who claim themselve tat khalsa were against not only nirmala's but other samparda's too...!

I think your methods of researching seem to be somewhat tainted bro. First you say that my research is lacking and then you go on to say that proper research should include using puratan sources as a refernce guide. Well any student of history will tell u that just because somethin is old does not make it more authentic or true. If we were to simply use that research logic of yours that puratan=more truth, then y not go to the original puratan books n use the hindu shashtars n veds as the primal truths for everythin? The Gurus rejected those cuz the message had become tainted and clouded in all sorts of false myths n sakhis. That is why we were blessed with GUru Granth Sahib Ji. But how said is it that today 300 years after being blessed with this gurbani as our guru, we too are clouding the original message of nanak amidst a plethora of meaningless myths, sakhis n tall tales.

Because somethin is NEW doesnt make it bad or against the original truths. Nanaks message was NEW and he made ppl rethink the original purpose and message behind the old veds n other puratan books. Ppl had become attached to all these associated fabricated stories and forgot the original message of love and tolerance. Guru Nanak was a reformist, someone with NEW approach so wud u consider him as a traitor to all theother indians jus based on his new approach? SImilarly this "neo-sikh" movements u so strongly seem to be opposed to was the foundation of the Singh Sabha lehar, a movement which if never took place, we would all be sittin in our homes in panjab bowing to statues of krishan and shiv ji

This movment took place just over 100 years ago and would fall into the same anti-panthic neo-sikh movements u seem to hold animosity to. Their whole basis was to OPENLY CHALLENGE AND CRITICALLY ANALYSE the same purataan books n steeks u seem to acknowledge as pure truths. It was by exposing these purataan books/resources and the contradictions and baseless facts within them that they proved that so many of the stories and customs associated with Sikhi were all baseless and bhramincal based.

So maybe it is you who needs to re-asses his own research methods rather than I.

As they say- when you spit on the moon(orders created and blessed) by guru's themselves), spit comes on your face

Such wording and accustaion are completely uncalled for bro. I did not spit (degrade or belittle) anythin to do with our GUrus. In fact, my whole aim has been to show the Gurus in their true splendour rather than attach such ludicrous tales to them which in fact are the things which are most degrading towards our Guru.

If you think nirmala's samparda does not exist, it's your own ignorance..you going to reject one whole order, you also have to reject other orders who ie- taksal, akali nihangs since sikhs belonged to this orders also over lap with nirmale orders because they represent more than one orders under khalsa panth

If you think nirmala samparda does not exist, then you also have to reject two of panj pyares-  Bhai Dya Singh Ji And Bhai Dharam Singh Ji, after all 24 upsamparda's of nirmale are from 2 pyares of sri guru gobind singh.

This is utter nonsense!! By criticizing the nirmala movement i am rejectin half the panj pyaray?? lol Bro, again seems like uve let ur emotions get the better of u. I never rejected the existence of anything, i simply questioned the origins of that movement as to how we have alway sbeen taught they came about and wether that is true or not.

All 5 Sikhs after taking amrit from Sri Dasam Patsah were send to anandpur sahib. Panj Pyares were trained by the original five nirmaley khalsa which gave them full vidya's.

How strange is this. Firstly, if the guru was willing to give the first panj khandey dhi pahul do u not think he'd make sure that thse people were fully knowledgable and firm in their understanding of sikhi sidhaant and gurbani? Would the guru hiimself be willing to bend down n take amrit from five ppl who were yet untrained in sikh philosophy and lacked full vidya? And granted saw we do accept he did, then would he not take this reponsiblity on himself? He was willing to sit himself by Bhai Mani Singh and Baba Deep Singh to get the whole of sri guru granth sahib written, so wud he not take such a great undertakin relating to the panj pyaray himself too? Why would he leave this task to someone else? ANd that too, in the hands of ppl who had to go to the centre of hindu thought/philosophy BENARES, to attain their vidhaya? SUch stories when looked closer seem utterly ridiculous and without any merit.

[N30S1NGH]

If you want to have proper scholary debate on nirmaley, i suggest you counter post here are links i have provided below.. since i don't want copy and paste stuff from there on here and beside it be off-topic....i invite you on Sikhawareness, we have few nirmala's on our forum, people have already debated on nirmala's and their orgin..Gursikhs like bikramjit singh also there as bobbyboy:

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=5426

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=6853

[jagjit_waheguru]

waheguru ji ka khalsa, waheguru ji kefateh

Pyare jio, veer kharko4life has said everything that needs to be said.

Both sides of the dharna arguiment have been presented, it for others to read and decide.

Veer namstang, I was busy at the weekend. so did not listen that your file, but will do so and get back to you, because you are so adamant and enraged by it.

As far as udases/nirmalas, etc. You have sent a drawing of a plant with names of Gursikhs on it. Clearly you are impressed by it, but sorry if I am not too impressed at all. Then you have sent a picture of Sant Attar Singh not wearing a kirpan. I have a lot of respect for him, and give daswand and have given land to Akal Academy. They are very strict from what I have seen, especially on kaakars and dastaar. Just because you attach a nirmalla tag on every Gursikh in the Panth who has done something, does not make them that. people who makes lineages add every name to themselves. But I believe in the lineage of the Guru Khalsa Panth, so I do not need to mention any name.

For example, Sant Attar Singh was also part of the Panch khalsa Diwan, which believed in very strict rehit. So please forgive if I am not like you and just accept the first thing that is said to me.

What is the context of this picture, I leave to you to explain. However does this mean kirpan is not essential for an Amritdhari? NO, it does not. Does it means Kirpans are not essential for Amrit sanchaar? No it does not.

Veer ji, let me explain some things to you, as you jump to assumptions very easily. For example, your whole kattchie bani theory of Sahib Siri Amar das ji, based on Prithvi Chand, who was actually Sahib Siri Guru Arjan dev jis brother.

KHALSA vs Udasis/nirmala

Sahib Siri Gobind Singh ji created just the Guru Khalsa Panth. It is a Niralla (distinct) Panth. It has a Roop, bani, bana, rehit, etc which are all prescibed by Guru ji. There is one rule for everybody and everyone adheres to it. Basically it is One God: Waheguru, One Guru: Sahib Siri Guru Gobind Singh ji and One Group: Guru Khalsa Panth.

In the Panth, this is all accepted and respected. Over time discrepancies have come up on rehit. So over a 30+year period discussions took place and the Akal Thakht Rehit maryada was set. It has set the minimum standard for Amritdharis to be part of the Panth. Many youth may criticize it, because of 3 banis, meat, etc, but very few have actually read, and actually it is far more strict than many understand.

If Gursikhs wish to follow more rehit as some jathas do, than no one stops them, but they cannot follow any less Rehit. The minimum standards has been set.

Nirmallas,udasis, who take Amrit, keep kesh, and follow the minimum standard are perfectly welcome, but if they think they cannot keep kesh, not take Amrit, or adhere to the Akal Thakht rehit maryada, etc, but still consider themselves as part of the Panth because of lineage link or something, then they are mistaken. Everyone has to adhere by the minimum standard. I have not criticized those who do, only those who do not, or those who colluded with Anti-Panthik forces and killed Singhs, or grassed them up.

Guru ji only created this one group - The Guru Khalsa Panth. This Group is eternal. Jathas, Misls, and even Empires, etc, will come and go as we have seen, but the only eternal thing is the Guru Khalsa Panth.

Guru ji did not create multiple groups, with differents rules, which contradict each other. It is "Khalsa mera roop hai Khas", not nirmala, udasis, etc.

Further as far as these so-called groups. Lets be clear - Sahib Siri Guru Nanak Dev ji rejected Siri Chand, and instead chose Sahib Siri Angad dev ji as his successor. The reasons why you are well aware of. Similarly the same rules apply today. It is the Khalsa, that is accepted.

If you wish to have this debate of KHALSA VS nirmallas, udasis, then it starts at Sahib Siri Guru Nanak dev ji because the first udasis was Siri Chand. If you wish to have this debate then you are welcome on the thread pointed out by veer kharkoo 4 life.

If not, then I believe we have come to a conclusion because you seem to have nothing substantial to offer.

waheguru ji kakhalsa, waheguru ji ke fateh