Hazoor Sahib

[N30S1NGH]

If u have been to Hazur Sahib,then you will be totaly> :umm: @ !

What you read is NOTHING   compared to what you will see there <_<

150292[/snapback]

yeah i don't think black/white sikhs are too pleased to see puratan maryada which challenges their mindset, they don't even try to research into things which are done there, so they cannot fathom cosmic interpertation of rituals performed there.

i just love to see how uncomfortable(over parnoid) these black and white sikhs get when they see rituals which challenges their mindset...i usually crack a smile and move on.

150300[/snapback]

Hey Bhaj , what do you think of Amritpal Singh Amrit's analysis of Hazoor Sahib Maryada - is Amritpal Singh also one of those "black and white" Sikhs? ?

150424[/snapback]

Amritpal anyalsis is not against arti but against sukha and jhatka, he himself is hazoori singh and does not tolerate soo called black and white sikhs from punjab or anyone where else slandering hazoori singhs or hazoori maryada.

[N30S1NGH]

it is known that there was a period durin sikh history when it was hinduus and masants that controlled gurughats, tru singhs were all mostly in jungles and fighting

MANY hindu influences crept in here, and the british raaj didint help either

places like hazoor sahib stilll are left to abandon artee stuff which as singstah said is jus useleess

iof u read an dUNDERSTAND artee in GURUBANEE, u will see the artee of a dhaal is nuthin and pointless, the whole universe is doin a celestial artee

theres no point in readin arthee and then doin the hindu version

bhula chuka maf

150406[/snapback]

I have spoken to Taksali Singhs and they have different views to you, and dont have a problem with artee at Sri Hazoor Sahib. Also if you want to understand more about Purtan maryada then please read Sant Jawala Singhs Jee Jeevan Katha all these points are covered. As Purtan Taksal did not have a problem with this. Nihangs, Nirmalas also do artee in the same way.

I find sikhs nowadays think everything as to do with hindus.

150414[/snapback]

sikhi is right here,

no one can deny taksal bhindran is more authentic when it comes to puratan traditions than mehta. Mehta taksal had to change with a time(those troubling times of 1980's onwards) which is quite understandable. However, now mehta taksal is going back to its root.

[Singhstah]

yeah but ji, u still havent answered how it makes sense to do the oposite of what the bani is actually saying

[N30S1NGH]

Allow me to quote tirath singh nirmala regarding arti-arta ceremony, gurbani has three layers of interpertation - historical(outer), inner and cosmic. You have to understand the whole wisdom of sri guru granth sahib does not revolve around english translations ie- usual sikhitothemax etc.

It's a bit long but hopefully clarifies a few things...

To my mind the evidence really weighs in favour of accepting aarti with deepa and dhoop, and instead it should be the case for those against it to state on what evidence it is to be rejected.

Taking a one particular style of interpretation based on pre-conieved assumptions of particular verses of Guru Granth Sahib alone is by itself not a way of determining what and what isn't time-honoured maryada, as I could equally justify it’s practice using the same bani (various discussions still go on to no conclusion using Guru Granth Sahib alone to define what are practical issues of maryada). Therefore we must look to other sources as well.

Some things that spring to mind on this issue,

1) Guru Granth Sahib is nowadays adorned with the maryada that we see in texts and images of how the Gurus themselves were treated (e.g. chauri sahib, gaddi, palanquin, etc). By the time of Guru Arjun Dev ji and in particular Guru Hargobind ji the Guru's darbar was functioning akin to a Maharaja's darbar as sources of both political and social decision making, coupled with spiritual influence (miripiri). Hukamnamas were issued, an army was maintained, activities of hunting with nagara occurred, in line with the activities of a traditional maharaj, etc.

It would have to be a very specific distaste based on a very specific conceptual problem with the aarti ceremony of honouring a maharaj that would cause its rejection by Guru ji (and as such would be expected to appear in texts of the time) yet allowing for open maintenance of other aspects of traditional darbar maryada. There would have to have been something particularly disliked about for it not to have been performed, and as such one would expect such a particular dislike stipulated in guidance given by early quasi-rehitnamay.

An alternative explanation for all this is to a) to interpret Guru ji's bani as rejecting any possible form of symbollic practice, therefore b) assume Guru ji would not perform such ceremonies along with any other form of symbolic practice c) ignore historical accounts of such practices as a perversion of tradition by brahmins/hindus d) conclude that it is to be read alone not performed.

2) Bhai Gurdas' varan aim at setting out what is expected of the Sikh in daily practice, and it is clear that aarti is to be performed separately from sohilla (in other words, the wording denotes two separate things, not one). The question that arises here is which aarti? What is interesting here is that the earliest commentary I have seen on it is Swami Anandaghun Udasi (who later was responded to by Baba Santokh Singh in Garabganjani Steek), in which the aarti he adds commentary to is much shorter and (if my memory serves me well) is only Guru Nanak Dev ji's opening bani. I presume this is the section that is being referred to by Bhai Gurdas. How and when the varying shabds were collated together in practice, I don't know. The issue here is the same as that for the dasam bani section of Rehras Sahib. There is an issue as to who the focus is of the aarti recorded at this time. Was it to be part of darbar maryada and hence accorded to the Adi Granth Sahib as it stood then? These are questions I have yet no answer for. I have seen in traditional guru-puja for the disciple to initially perform the aarti verses to the Guru, and then if appropriate for the Guru to lead the aarti of the ishtdev.

3) Lets be absolutely clear on the Hazoor Sahib maryada here. In the recent video of aarti performed by the sevadar at the takhat, he holds it still (adorned with both ghee jot and camphor jot in elaborate deepa lamps on a thal) for the first few sections of the bani and then (after ‘sankhan ki…’ possibly) proceeds to wave it in circular motions toward Guru Granth Sahib and then moves and does the same of Dasam Granth Sahib. I saw the Patna Sahib aarti ceremony this summer, and this is toward the portrait and shaster of the Guru rather than Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth Sahib. A conical aarti stand (with many deepas) on a thaal is used here and again moved in a circular motion. Having spoken with Mahant Tirath Singh he clarified that ALL sewapanthi institutions are expected to perform aarti with deepa, dhoop and shank. The recording I have of Guruwara Sis Ganj performs aarti with shank and phoolan, although no deepas.

4) As I stated earlier, the fact that all traditional orders, all traditional institutions, and traditional maryadas proceeding the Lahore Singh Sabha movement support this practice makes it a task for others to disprove its traditional role prior to the reforms. Apart from the Nirankaris I can’t think of anyone else who had rejected its practice (perhaps someone can add more). Furthermore, considering the differences between geographically diverse historical institutions and orders, it is surprising the consistency of the practice considering the diversity in other practices.

5) There is a secondary issue of the doctrinal assumptions that arise from exegesis of the meaning of the aarti bani. It is clear that nowhere does it state that aarti is not to be performed, it is instead investing the ceremony with cosmological significance. This is entirely concordant with the teachings of Sikhi, and furthermore that the practice of aarti is given a non-dualist angle in this composition. This is a common theme in Guruji's bani of pointing to the inner meaning of spiritual practices. In Japuji Sahib, Guru ji states that 'Mundaa santokh saram put jholi', pointing to the internalisation of the garments of a sadhu. The same arises within the teaching on the inner meanings of the practice of namaaz. Is Guru ji actually stating it should not be performed, or is he stating that one should invest it with deeper meaning as a means of internalising spiritual symbols? If he rejected any form of religious symbolism whatsoever, and that everything should have a purely functional purpose that would make key everyday practices in Sikhi redundant. If one accepts the 'ek jot' Guru philosophy then this thinking creates a conflict as there is no possible explanation for how symbolic practices have been instituted (and seemingly rejected) by the same jot.

[crayzy]

what is shanka?

I get what you're saying - you mean its not a ritual because it has a deeper meaning, whereas rituals are blindly done with no understanding, and the candels etc are symbols....

?

[Gupt daasan daas]

sikhi veer je

i dunt repersent taksal

if this is taksals view on this, then for now i disagree with it

perhaps there is something i duntkno bout this matter, which leads the singhs u talked to have a different view than me sall gud

but i definietley do not agree wit arthee bein done

to do so wud be useleess, at same time reading arthee

jus go and read arthee for ureself

anyone who reads it cannot deny that hindu arthee is useless

taksal mehtha is the real taksal, audio proof is avaialible of this

and mehtha right now is being led by a pakhandee who i wud not be surprised to see is gov., and is a sellout to not only taksal, but to the panth

but babab mohan singh je is a extremly good gurmukh who spends almost ALL of his time jus doin bhagthee, amazing

no one can ignore what gurbanee says on this matter

its not even like its not talking bout directly this matter

gurbanee DIRECTLY refers and CLEARLY gives us the answer to this

as far as i can see on this mater, gur je has given us the answer

bhula chuka maf

[crayzy]

did you read the post Namstang made...?

Ive read aarti, and until I just read that explanation I was against the "rotation of candles" too.

Though I must say that Mustanawale Sant Samparda doesnt physically do the aarti - they have a tray of diwas that they just lay in front of Guru Sahib...as far as I know - I may be wrong.

[Gupt daasan daas]

ya crazz i did

i jus dont agree wit veer je this time:)

theres a reason to Y guru je wrote tha arthee

while hinduus are doing that arthee with symobls, guru je told us about the beuatiful cosmic arthee going on

the arthee in a dhaal done by us does not compare

and further bhagath ravidaas je explains wat the TRUE arthee, wat our true devotion should be, which is NAAM

gurbanee is clear

now im not sayin its PAAP to do arthee tha way

but its useless

bhagath ravidaas je has showed us the true way of doin arthee

NAAM thero arthee majan murarai

bhula chuka maf

[N30S1NGH]

what is shanka?

I get what you're saying - you mean its not a ritual because it has a deeper meaning, whereas rituals are blindly done with no understanding, and the candels etc are symbols....

?

150473[/snapback]

Shanka is shell you found in ocean, it's played in times of dharam yudh.

Sikh khalsa army used to play nagara and second was shank to declare something.

[crayzy]

To Gupt Dassn Das: i agree, but how about the argument that Gurbani is giving the true meaning behind the aarti rather than telling us not to do it.

Thanks Namstang.