Guru Ji's Family Tree

[Inder Singh]

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.

In fact what guru ji wrote in Dasam granth is that many generations of luv and kush came and went.They indulged in fights over territory like normal humans.Because of their weakness for materialism they were left with twenty villages where they did farming.

On the other hand family Guru Nanak dev ji( That is sikhism) is prosepring because of noble teachings of Guru sahib.

Dasam granth does not eulogise luv and kush at all.In fact it draws a comparison between those who fight over property and get ruines and House of Guru Nanak where God's naam is taken and saintly sould flourish.

It has nothing to do with family lineage as some are putting here.

[apne]

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 ?

So you are a follower of Mc-leod. It is interesting that most Anti-Sikh scholars include in their diatribe the lines "Britishers had a political objective in writing Sikh history there by attempting to divide sikhs from Hindus." They, with their enclosed and poisoned mind fail to see that in the first ever population census done by British in india, classified Sikhs as Hindus.

The British historian who is blamed by such people for giving a new shape to Sikh thought is Joseph Davey Cunningham (often called Macaulay). They don't see that he was punished by the British for writing genuine history and was humiliated by his commanding officers and died of heart-break, it is said. As for dividing society, i don't want to talk about the thousand years old divisions of Indian society, by Hindus.

Mc-leod was a political agent of Indira Gandhi (a fact he denied whole heartedly, but his actions if studied clearly reveal that he was working under 'external pressures'). He was a christian missionary working to convert Sikhs in punjab (he said in his autobiography that he became an agnostic, a lie told to escape criticism by those who called him working with motivated intentions as he was a missionary). Mcleod preached Christianity all his life but used his historical capabilties to write about an 'alien faith', Sikhi and not his 'natural faith' Christianity, in which he was well versed. ironical !

Mc-leod's entry into writing Sikh history marks the period when Sikhs were fighting Indian Govt. He invented the term 'Sant Mat' and used it to include Guru Nanak in it. He said that Guru Nanak chose Bhai lehna over Baba Buddha as his successor because Bhai lehna was a Khatri and Baba Buddha a Jat. it is clearly mentioned in sggs that Bhai lehna was chosen because of his devotion to Guru Nanak (why did Mc-leod refused to accept sggs as authority? because later on he would attempt, through his student Pashaura singh (another GOI agent) that sggs was tampered with by Guru Arjan who changed hymns of Guru Nanak and Sikhs later on and it was not 'revealed bani'). Mc-leod also translated wrongly Bible into only old testament, to defend his God, Jesus. He was a malicious writer who openly twisted Sggs and refused to correct even when reminded. He said that Guru Nanak did not find a new religious philosophy and Sikhi is thus not a religion of Guru Nanak.

He stated that arms were taken by Sikh Gurus at the instance of 'Jats'. If you go through all of his work, you will see that he tried to down grade the jats role in Sikhism, an attempt to undermine Khalistan movement in North America, esp. Canada (Jats were at forefront of the movement)

I could give you a hundered logical reasons that refute Mc-leods work and observations, which were motivated. But as a Sikh Historian said, "hindus have learned one thing that they cannot learn another", so i won't waste any further energy.

[satpalahuja]

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 ?

So you are a follower of Mc-leod. It is interesting that most Anti-Sikh scholars include in their diatribe the lines "Britishers had a political objective in writing Sikh history there by attempting to divide sikhs from Hindus." They, with their enclosed and poisoned mind fail to see that in the first ever population census done by British in india, classified Sikhs as Hindus.

The British historian who is blamed by such people for giving a new shape to Sikh thought is Joseph Davey Cunningham (often called Macaulay). They don't see that he was punished by the British for writing genuine history and was humiliated by his commanding officers and died of heart-break, it is said. As for dividing society, i don't want to talk about the thousand years old divisions of Indian society, by Hindus.

Mc-leod was a political agent of Indira Gandhi (a fact he denied whole heartedly, but his actions if studied clearly reveal that he was working under 'external pressures'). He was a christian missionary working to convert Sikhs in punjab (he said in his autobiography that he became an agnostic, a lie told to escape criticism by those who called him working with motivated intentions as he was a missionary). Mcleod preached Christianity all his life but used his historical capabilties to write about an 'alien faith', Sikhi and not his 'natural faith' Christianity, in which he was well versed. ironical !

Mc-leod's entry into writing Sikh history marks the period when Sikhs were fighting Indian Govt. He invented the term 'Sant Mat' and used it to include Guru Nanak in it. He said that Guru Nanak chose Bhai lehna over Baba Buddha as his successor because Bhai lehna was a Khatri and Baba Buddha a Jat. it is clearly mentioned in sggs that Bhai lehna was chosen because of his devotion to Guru Nanak (why did Mc-leod refused to accept sggs as authority? because later on he would attempt, through his student Pashaura singh (another GOI agent) that sggs was tampered with by Guru Arjan who changed hymns of Guru Nanak and Sikhs later on and it was not 'revealed bani'). Mc-leod also translated wrongly Bible into only old testament, to defend his God, Jesus. He was a malicious writer who openly twisted Sggs and refused to correct even when reminded. He said that Guru Nanak did not find a new religious philosophy and Sikhi is thus not a religion of Guru Nanak.

He stated that arms were taken by Sikh Gurus at the instance of 'Jats'. If you go through all of his work, you will see that he tried to down grade the jats role in Sikhism, an attempt to undermine Khalistan movement in North America, esp. Canada (Jats were at forefront of the movement)

I could give you a hundered logical reasons that refute Mc-leods work and observations, which were motivated. But as a Sikh Historian said, "hindus have learned one thing that they cannot learn another", so i won't waste any further energy.

I am not a follower of W H Mcleod. Unlike most of you, I don't get blindly passionate about anything. But before we go to Mcleod, lets understand the concept of history. In brief, History means 'to dig the ground, find something, explain half of it, and add your own views to the other half not explained'. That is why we idolize Maharaja Ranjit Singh whereas the Pakistanis consider him to be an intolerant fanatic. And vice versa about Aurangzeb.

Our Sikh history has been littered by assumptions. And as Sikhs in a religious group can be a violent, close minded lot, most Sikhs and all Hindus stay way from contradicting these assumptions. 2 Sikh scholars nurtured by Mcleod were hauled up before the Akal Takht to atone for their sins. Its like the olden days – if you say that the earth is round – it is blasphemy. Best not to contradict Sikhs when they are in a group. Let them say that lassi is made in computer. Whatever – just let them say anything. You are right – I am wrong….. Sat Sri Akal.

Now - a lot of your statements are assumptions, so why argue ? I am not saying they are definitely wrong, only that they are not necessarily right either. Instead of blindly assuming Mcleod to be true, just give him a fair read. Remember, he did devote a lot of time to Sikh studies. He had a doctorate in Oriental Studies, he spent 9 years in Batala, learnt Gurmukhi, studied the Sikh scriptures, janam-sakhis (life stories) of Guru Nanak etc. and whatever else was available on the subject.

Lets stay away from assumptions and concentrate on historical facts. You have made a huge gaffe when you say – "They, with their enclosed and poisoned mind fail to see that in the first ever population census done by British in india, classified Sikhs as Hindus." In fact in the various population census done by British, it is the hindus who returned themselves as Sikhs. Why did this happen – why 200 years after the initiation of the khalsa were Hindus and Sikhs mixing each other up. Was it because the Khalsa was not of such huge relevance anymore? We know from our Grandparents that till the 40's and 50 's Hindus and Sikhs freely mixed and intermarried. Elder sons in Hindu families were made Sikhs.

The Khalsa has been recentty rejenuvated by Right Wing Sikhs after Right Wing Hindus tried to intolerantly bring back all sects of India back to ther brahmanical religion, by various ploys such as the Arya Samaj. Then Indira Gandhi came along and made it worse…….This hatred is all politics.

[satpalahuja]

How can you forget that the British were Imperialist. Also, the British and "Academic" thought is purely Eurocentric it is a pattern of thought that lacks deep contemplations in the realm of Eastern Spirituality, its like comparing apples and oranges.

Was it not the British that were baffled by Hindu Practices when they first arrived and created this concept of Hinduism as one homogenized faith?

Eurocentric Imperialist thought is not relevant nor credible. I would love for you "satpalahuja" to address my previous post, or will you conveniently ignore it?

Eurocentric Imperialist thought is not relevant nor credible. - Agreed . But an outsider generally has a more objective analysis - provided he does it without bias. <BR><BR>Agreed to your earlier post as well when you said Guruji is without such labels.  I only made my statements because we love to label our Gurus in one particular way.

[apne]

I am not a follower of W H Mcleod. Unlike most of you, I don't get blindly passionate about anything. But before we go to Mcleod, lets understand the concept of history. In brief, History means 'to dig the ground, find something, explain half of it, and add your own views to the other half not explained'. That is why we idolize Maharaja Ranjit Singh whereas the Pakistanis consider him to be an intolerant fanatic. And vice versa about Aurangzeb.

Our Sikh history has been littered by assumptions. And as Sikhs in a religious group can be a violent, close minded lot, most Sikhs and all Hindus stay way from contradicting these assumptions. 2 Sikh scholars nurtured by Mcleod were hauled up before the Akal Takht to atone for their sins. Its like the olden days – if you say that the earth is round – it is blasphemy. Best not to contradict Sikhs when they are in a group. Let them say that lassi is made in computer. Whatever – just let them say anything. You are right – I am wrong….. Sat Sri Akal.

Now - a lot of your statements are assumptions, so why argue ? I am not saying they are definitely wrong, only that they are not necessarily right either. Instead of blindly assuming Mcleod to be true, just give him a fair read. Remember, he did devote a lot of time to Sikh studies. He had a doctorate in Oriental Studies, he spent 9 years in Batala, learnt Gurmukhi, studied the Sikh scriptures, janam-sakhis (life stories) of Guru Nanak etc. and whatever else was available on the subject.

Lets stay away from assumptions and concentrate on historical facts. You have made a huge gaffe when you say – "They, with their enclosed and poisoned mind fail to see that in the first ever population census done by British in india, classified Sikhs as Hindus." In fact in the various population census done by British, it is the hindus who returned themselves as Sikhs. Why did this happen – why 200 years after the initiation of the khalsa were Hindus and Sikhs mixing each other up. Was it because the Khalsa was not of such huge relevance anymore? We know from our Grandparents that till the 40's and 50 's Hindus and Sikhs freely mixed and intermarried. Elder sons in Hindu families were made Sikhs.

The Khalsa has been recentty rejenuvated by Right Wing Sikhs after Right Wing Hindus tried to intolerantly bring back all sects of India back to ther brahmanical religion, by various ploys such as the Arya Samaj. Then Indira Gandhi came along and made it worse…….This hatred is all politics.

There are assumptions in some historical works on sikhi, and not in Sikh history. You know not a dime about Sikh history, or how cultures are preserved. You know mate, just because many of Hindus had Sikh sons does not make Sikhs as Hindus or vice versa.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and the charge against him when he was brought before Roman council was that he called himself 'King of Jews'. Does that make christians 'jews'? No, it does not. It took christianity 400 years to shake off Judaism and Sikhs are still in this process of shaking of 'hindu'.

Hinduism is like the 'dead skin' on Sikhs body, something which has no value and has to be removed. The Dead Skin while being removed by a snake makes it blind for a moment until it is completely shaken off, similarly some sikhs are 'blind' but sooner they get rid of this dead skin, the better.

Ask your grandparents why they raised their elder son as a Sikh, whose offspring have long been back into hinduism and have no concrete views on religion. They are confused people trying to reclaim lost glory, without adhereing to the principles of that glorious tradition. This is your parental inheritence, but i don't know anything about this as there has not been a single 'Hindu' in my family history for past 500 years.

You know, frankly, there is no 'hinduism' in a factual sense. It is a name given to a diverse and sometime contradictory beliefs for the sake of a common name. It is not a religion.

Arya Samaj was founded to bring back your grandparents, who became Sikhs from a Hindus, to hinduism. They succeded a lot. But they did not get back to hinduism completely, nor could they leave sikhi completely, that, now, becomes a catch 22 situation.

The Khalsa was founded by Guru Gobind Singh and was rejenuvated by devoted sikhs "to preserve their culture, heritage and glorious traditions" so that people like you did not succeed in exterminating Sikhs as you did Buddism. (i know your argument regarding buddhism, all that farce debating by Adi Shankara, no need to repeat it as a defensive argument)

All the 'bhagats' (Kabir included) were runaways from society, unlike Sikh Gurus.

I have given Mc-leod & Co. a fair deal of reading and after reading a lot of Mc-leod, Harjot and Pashaura and contemplating upon these men, i will say they were a motivated lot , liers, nindaks, slanderers, agnostics, hypocrites and material minded corrupt souls (esp. Mc-leod who spent 9 years at the christian institution at Batala, headquarters of christain propagatory machine and centre of christian proselytization in Punjab ).

As for ==Best not to contradict Sikhs when they are in a group== we all know what the 'hindu groups' did at Gaya in 800, New delhi in 1984, Ayodhya in 1992, Orissa in 2000, Gujrat in 2002.

:nishaan_sahib_right:

[saint-soldier]

I am not a follower of W H Mcleod. Unlike most of you, I don't get blindly passionate about anything. But before we go to Mcleod, lets understand the concept of history. In brief, History means 'to dig the ground, find something, explain half of it, and add your own views to the other half not explained'. That is why we idolize Maharaja Ranjit Singh whereas the Pakistanis consider him to be an intolerant fanatic. And vice versa about Aurangzeb.

Our Sikh history has been littered by assumptions. And as Sikhs in a religious group can be a violent, close minded lot, most Sikhs and all Hindus stay way from contradicting these assumptions. 2 Sikh scholars nurtured by Mcleod were hauled up before the Akal Takht to atone for their sins. Its like the olden days – if you say that the earth is round – it is blasphemy. Best not to contradict Sikhs when they are in a group. Let them say that lassi is made in computer. Whatever – just let them say anything. You are right – I am wrong….. Sat Sri Akal.

Now - a lot of your statements are assumptions, so why argue ? I am not saying they are definitely wrong, only that they are not necessarily right either. Instead of blindly assuming Mcleod to be true, just give him a fair read. Remember, he did devote a lot of time to Sikh studies. He had a doctorate in Oriental Studies, he spent 9 years in Batala, learnt Gurmukhi, studied the Sikh scriptures, janam-sakhis (life stories) of Guru Nanak etc. and whatever else was available on the subject.

Lets stay away from assumptions and concentrate on historical facts. You have made a huge gaffe when you say – "They, with their enclosed and poisoned mind fail to see that in the first ever population census done by British in india, classified Sikhs as Hindus." In fact in the various population census done by British, it is the hindus who returned themselves as Sikhs. Why did this happen – why 200 years after the initiation of the khalsa were Hindus and Sikhs mixing each other up. Was it because the Khalsa was not of such huge relevance anymore? We know from our Grandparents that till the 40's and 50 's Hindus and Sikhs freely mixed and intermarried. Elder sons in Hindu families were made Sikhs.

The Khalsa has been recentty rejenuvated by Right Wing Sikhs after Right Wing Hindus tried to intolerantly bring back all sects of India back to ther brahmanical religion, by various ploys such as the Arya Samaj. Then Indira Gandhi came along and made it worse…….This hatred is all politics.

you answered your own question in the last sentence. elder sons in hindu families were made sikhs not sikhs into hindus... Just because two communities live together they dont become one. Do some history check before the partition in punjab everyone lived together in peace, even the hindus and muslims...hmmm maybe hindus are part of islam because under the rule of maharaja ranjit singh hindus and muslims lived in harmony <_<

You talk about historical facts what facts do you have that say that hindus and sikhs were intermarring? and how much % of the sikhs need to be intermarring so that in your book we become part of hindus? if 5% of the population decides that there son/daughter is to be married to someone from another religion then does that speak for the rest of 95% of the population? i guess to you it does.

[Wicked Warrior]

Have you heard of WH Mcleod ?

You want me to trust the word of a man who cannot give a straight answer?

Ask him if Guru Nanak was a hindu and he will say "yes and no".

He is the type of man who, when asked does 1+1=2?, would say "yes and no".

This is a man who decided to work with someone who nothing about Sikhi rather than work with the many famous historians who did know about Sikhi.

This is a man who falsely declared his belief in Christianity, then used the money for Christian missionaries on himself so he could go and move elsewhere rather than stay in the missionary centre and spend the money honestly.

Furthermore, his work seems intent on undermining Sikhi. As already stated above, he doubts the authority of the Guru Granth Sahib and does not realise that Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Nanak Dev are one and the same.

Yes I've heard of the man and I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth or from his pen.

[waaheguroo]

People like satpalahuja don't want an Khalistan because they don't want Sikhi to expand. These cunning Brahmins own most of the shops, businesses in Punjab. Brahmans are very racist no wonder millions of low-caste Hindus turned to Islam. They also blame everything on the British and "white people" because they had the common sense to call their "idols" as "idols". Sikhism shook the foundations of Hinduism. Two Brahmin women were caught after burning several Gutkey in the Gurdwara.

[Anonymous_kaur]

no need to educate himm, he's jus a foolish time waster !!

[Singhson]

Just reading up more on Sikhiwiki re. Guru Hargobind's two marriages (Mata Damodri and Mata Nanaki Ji). The article, without reason, suggests that the two marriages are disputed. Does anybody know the reason for this?

Also, assuming the family tree is correct, does that mean Guru Har Rai Ji was the nephew of Guru Tegh Bahadur?