Guru Ji's Family Tree

[republicofkhalistan]

Can you tell me the source for your info? Show me the bani which supports your claims. Thank you

Source: His un-used brain

His stupidity supports his claims.

[N30S1NGH]

wjkk wjkf

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageF1.html

note: please do not get confused with "Rama" as the hindu god "Ram Chandar" and "Shiv Rama" and hindu god "Shiv"

wjkk wjkf

Why missionaries are soo hell bent re-defining sikhi and sikh theology just because they cannot get over their insecurity and hindu parania.

Sri man 108 sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale nirmole heera of taksal lists some small facts about the 10 Guru Sahibs on pages 13 to 23 of his book ‘Gurbani Paath Darshan’.

Baba Ji states that the “Bedi” family of Guru Nanak Maharaaj can be linked back to a Kush the son of Siri Raam Chandra. And because a descendant of Kush studied the Vedas at Kanshee the family was called the “Bedi” family.

Guru Angad Maharaaj Ji’s “Tehan” lineage is said to go back to to the son of Siri Lashman Ji whose name was Takh and hence his lineage was known as the ‘Tehan’ family.

Guru Amardass Ji’s “Bhalla” lineage can be linked to the brother of Siri Raam Chandra whose name was Bharath, his son Bhallan is said to have given his name to the “Bhalla” family.

Guru Raamdass Ji’s “Sodhi” lineage can be linked back to Luv the son of Siri Raam Chandra. The descendants of Luv won over the kingdom of “Snoaudh” and from there the “Sodhi” family descends.

In this way Baba Ji has linked all of the Gurus back to the family of Siri Raam Chandra Ji. We cannot deny these links as they are agreed upon not only by Panth-Rattan Baba Gurbachan Singh ‘Khalsa’ but also many other Nirmala, Udasi and Sevapanthi Gurmukh Pyare, Sadhu Sants. This is also confirmed by the writings of Dashmesh Pitta Guru Gobind Singh in ‘Bachittar-Natak’.

should we just ignore this true fact just in case we are scared of being classed as ‘Hindus’?

[kaur_khalistani_lioness]

"Ek Pita Ekas Ke Ham Barik..."

:BL:

[Laadli Fauj]

great post namastang

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

the funny thing is that the guru sahibs never cared to mention their ancestory but we seem to be stressed over the issue. the gurus could be linked to Luv and Kush, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?

peace.

[Guest shastr]

its funny that when they speak of sikhs being a seperate religion, the hindu's always cry "oh you guys came from us, ur a part of us, tussi sada ek ang oh".

then they turn around and say, "oh sikhs are terriorst", "oh sikhs are vakhvadi's", "oh sikhs are ugarvadh's". but if sikhs were a part of hindu's, then i wanna start seeing newspapers, and tv shows says, "oh hindu's are terrorist".........

y does it even matter wat 1 person has to say...especially on the freakin internet, like its gonna change the sikh kaum? oh come on guys, its just some lozer whos got nothing better to do but start a fight.

singho, bani parro rajj ke, and dont worry about wat people like "satpalahuja" have to say.

freakin bhappe.......ek bhappa, sau siyapa..............wat if there was sau bhappa? hahahahahaha

[satpalahuja]

Interesting, most of the family trees have no name like Singh. But of course , Guru Gobind came in after 9 Gurus.

So what were our Gurus before the Khalsa was established ? What did the term Sikh mean ? Just another sect, you know Hinduism had hundreds of sects doing their rounds at any one time. The credit for 'identifying', 'branding' and 'marketing' ( in crude but pefect language of today ) Sikhism goes to Guru Gobind Singh.

So what were our Gurus before the Khalsa was established? I think they were no more than enlightened Hindus. But they were Hindus, yes Hindus. Everything Guru Nanak said wsa being followed centuries earlier in North India and was loosely identified by the Britishers as a sect called Sant Tradition. Guru Nanak was preaching the beauty of this sect.

Bad luck, my Khalistani friends, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. Our Gurus were enlightened Hindus.

Sikhs were called Sikhs even before the time of Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj, even by others. A Hindu is one who follows the ideas, teachings and practises of Hinduism. Guru Nanak did not follow the practises of Hinduism. He did not follow the Vedas, the Upanishads nor the Puranas. If Guru Nanak was following Sant Mat, why was he not a follower of Kabir and Namdev. Why did he not put all of their writings into the Guru Granth, instead of a few? Surely all of the writings of "sants" of sant mat were valid?

All of the Gurus changed the minds and souls of those who followed them. Guru Gobind Singh made that inward change reflect outwards. He did not make "Sikhs", he made "Singhs". There was only one Guru who changed form ten times. Why did he distinguish Sikhs from others if they were followers of Sant Mat too?

Simply said, if the Gurus were followers of "Sant Mat", there would be no "Sikhi" or "Guru Granth".

Have you heard of WH Mcleod ? Mcleod wrote a well researched books on ‘Evolution of the Sikhs.’ This is what he had to say.

“Guru Nanak has been characterized as fitting squarely within the Sant parampara (tradition) and also in a wider sense, the Bhakti milieu of North India. The tradition rejected the worship of incarnation and Hindu forms of professional asceticism, spurned the authority of Vedas and other scriptures, and ignored the ritual barriers between low and high castes. Further, the sants stressed the use of vernacular language in their rejection of orthodoxy. Central to their doctrines, and binding them, were their ethical ideals and the notion of interiority, rituals, pilgrimages, and idols were worthless in the quest for liberation; only loving adoration of the Ultimate mattered. These strong similarities between the various groups who lived by these ideals have been characterized by W. H. McLeod (1989:25) as Sant synthesis, a combination of Vaishnava tradition and the Nath tradition, with possible elements of Sufism as well. What the Sants also had in common was a stress on the necessity of devotion and practice, the repetition of the divine name, the devotion to the divine guru (satguru), and the need for the company of sants (satsang)”

Mcleod, like most mischevious White writers of that time , had no political interest in dividing Sikhs, nor a condescending or denigrating or superficial interest in our religion. He just concentrated on the academic argument.

Wicked warrior, - have I answered your query ?

[Guest shastr]

are we all gonna beleive wat some dude had to say about guru nanak dev ji?

come on people, all of our guru's are saroop of akal purk.

guru nanak dev ji = god....the same guru nanak dev ji who had the power to make galab jamans fall out of a tree........

how is some writer dude going to possibly characterize guru j....nobody on this earth will ever be able to figure out guru ji.......

[Inder Singh]

Interesting, most of the family trees have no name like Singh. But of course , Guru Gobind came in after 9 Gurus.

So what were our Gurus before the Khalsa was established ? What did the term Sikh mean ? Just another sect, you know Hinduism had hundreds of sects doing their rounds at any one time. The credit for 'identifying', 'branding' and 'marketing' ( in crude but pefect language of today ) Sikhism goes to Guru Gobind Singh.

So what were our Gurus before the Khalsa was established? I think they were no more than enlightened Hindus. But they were Hindus, yes Hindus. Everything Guru Nanak said wsa being followed centuries earlier in North India and was loosely identified by the Britishers as a sect called Sant Tradition. Guru Nanak was preaching the beauty of this sect.

Bad luck, my Khalistani friends, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. Our Gurus were enlightened Hindus.

Guru Nanak was founder of sikhism.Bhai Guradas ji wrote

Maria sikka jagat vich

nanak nirmal Panth chalaya

Then in SGGS Guru has written in asa di vaar

Nanak Nirbhau Nirankar

Hor kete Ram raval

Says Nanak God is fearless and formless

Millions of ramas are a mere dust at his feet.

In light of sikh teachings condemning Hindu demi Gods, how can you say that sikhs are a branch of Hinduism. Study sikhism first before uttering this nonsense.

[SaRpAnCh]

Interesting, most of the family trees have no name like Singh. But of course , Guru Gobind came in after 9 Gurus.

So what were our Gurus before the Khalsa was established ? What did the term Sikh mean ? Just another sect, you know Hinduism had hundreds of sects doing their rounds at any one time. The credit for 'identifying', 'branding' and 'marketing' ( in crude but pefect language of today ) Sikhism goes to Guru Gobind Singh.

So what were our Gurus before the Khalsa was established? I think they were no more than enlightened Hindus. But they were Hindus, yes Hindus. Everything Guru Nanak said wsa being followed centuries earlier in North India and was loosely identified by the Britishers as a sect called Sant Tradition. Guru Nanak was preaching the beauty of this sect.

Bad luck, my Khalistani friends, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. Our Gurus were enlightened Hindus.

Ah shut up Guru Nanak Dev Ji Mahraj and the other Gurus were not Idolators How dare you come here and say that you fool you <banned word filter activated> mahapaapi ,come meet me say that to my face and I will ensure you get a a proper reply in your face ,where are you from how dare you call our Gurus Hindus ,you Hindustani