Do you agree and support Ranjit Dhahderanwala Prachar?

[Singhballer]

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Thanks for the info. I think indeed Kavi Ji was more than a poet as per your post.

Can I ask whether you have done some serious reading/listening to this Granth?

No worries.

Listening yes, no reading/santhiya. In particular, the end of the Suraj Parkash, Guru Gobind Singh Ji's and Baba Banda Singh Ji Bahadur's history is what I have the most recollection of. 

[chatanga1]

58 minutes ago, Singhballer said:

Listening yes, no reading/santhiya. 

Have you read/listened to some of the parts that are attacked by the missionaries/ghaghris?

[Guest GuestSingh]

On 10/29/2018 at 6:55 PM, Jaggaa said:

So wait, you don't want Sikhs to use logic and instead use what? blind faith?

Bhai Ranjit Singh is a parcharak, you might not agree with him 100% and that is what you should debate. Pick out something of his you don't agree with and discuss that. Don't speak out silly provocative statements against an individual and grow up or you'll end up pushing MORE people away.

another one who does matha tek to whitey..

so all those who lived during Guru's time and after had blind faith? science wasn't around in those days so tell us..what did they have?

its a shock and quite sad to see so many agree with your post - but at least it reveals how many on here atm masquerade as a Sikh but deep-down, in their heart of hearts, don't actually have that much if any true and real faith and love in Guruji..

On 10/30/2018 at 6:12 PM, Jaggaa said:

I'm not an affiliate of any jatha, samprada and quite frankly don't care as much as some people here do but I am against entitled individuals telling people how to think especially where they think it's fair to restrict someone to their viewpoint.

but isnt that what youre doing when you say people should only use logic and science, not 'blind faith'..?

[Guest GuestSingh]

On 10/30/2018 at 7:45 AM, HardeepCov said:

How do you know it will never succeed? Is it better to believe in fairy tales? When children ask why we do something or why such and such is happening do you think its better to give them an answer which makes logical sense or better to say something like lok idha kehde aa? Sianhe idha kehde aa? Babaji idha kehnda aa? That's not good enough especially for older more independent thinking kids. Or do you want our children to be like sheep and just follow the crowd?

Also science has been changing since the development of the Quantum theory. Many quantum physicists say there were atheists but now believe in a higher power and believe the universe is made by design.

Science is a great tool but I don't think it has all the answers. Some of these we need to find within ourselves.

another one..

in this day and age, children arent all going to be interested in science from a young age..they need something exciting about Sikhi i.e. stories first so any interest is planted like a seed then later developed..

and yeah science doesn't have all the answers..so why do any of us need to waste time wondering why and worry about it when Guru ji has already given them?

think too many in our community spend more time trying to fit in with whitey by reading about science/theories etc. than they do reading Guru ji's Bani..

[Singhballer]

5 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Have you read/listened to some of the parts that are attacked by the missionaries/ghaghris?

Yes, but I should also add that some parts are also not accepted and criticized by vidhvaans and kathavachiks from the Nirmale, Taksal, Nihang Singhs, and other samparda. These parts are entirely omitted from katha or an explanation of the inaccuracies are given.  

As mentioned previously, there are historical inaccuracies in the Suraj Parkash due to information that wasn't possessed by Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh. However, Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and missionaries don't often pinpoint these issues (I doubt they've done the research in order to do so) but instead point our the writing in Suraj Parkash they believe to be against Sikhi. Many of such writings are tamperings with the granth done by Kavi Ji's Brahmin assistants. 

A bit of background on Suraj Parkash

• Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh, who was sponsored by the Raja of Kaithal to complete Suraj Parkash, employed five (if I recollect correctly) Brahmin assistants to transcribe his rachna/poetry
• Those assistants were necessary as Kavi Ji needed learned persons who knew Brij and the technicalities of poetry 
• The assistants inserted their own writing into Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh Ji's poetry
  • Some of this is obvious to those knowledgeable in Poetry. The tamperings sometimes don't follow the matra/meters of Kavi Ji's own writing 
• Kavi  Ji left Kaithal three times in protest of this happening. But was convinced to stay as this huge undertaking of compiling all Sikh history was too important not to finish
• Kavi Ji finished the Suraj Parkash, with the tampered writings still in the granth and did not undertake any editing of it (he was in poor health)
• When Kavi Ji presented Suraj Parkash to the Panth he stipulated that the granth has tampering and mistakes in it, and that the Khalsa Panth should do sudhaayi/editing of the granth as they see fit 

All of the above details are to the best of my recollection from listening to Suraj Parkash katha. 

So are there false accounts in Suraj Parkash? Yes. 

• To this day the Panth has not edited Suraj Parkash, as per Kavi Bhai Santokh Singh Ji's wishes
• Bhai Vir Singh Ji did a full steek/translation of Suraj Parkash and pointed out these mistakes and inaccurate accounts 
  • Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji Bhindranwale agreed with Bhai Vir Singh Ji's conclusions 
  • But the Panth never started a samvaadh to edit Suraj Parkash once and for all

The issue with Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries' rejection of Suraj Parkash

• They bring forth no historical evidence, new research, documentation, or archaeological discoveries to disprove accounts in Suraj Parkash
• The accounts they view as being false (due to it being against Sikhi), may well be, but one has to be weary of their opinions because:
  • Their understanding of Sikhi/Gurbani is distorted, warped, and inaccurate due to their nazariya/viewpoint being rooted in western philosophy (logic, science, etc.), as I discussed in my previous posts
  • Since they have an inaccurate understanding Sikhi/Gurbani, their assertions that Suraj Parkash is against Sikhi are hard to trust
• They excessively demonize Suraj Parkash. Their listeners greatly detest Suraj Parkash as they have no knowledge about the background of our historical texts 
  • They fail to realize that without these granths they have no source material for talking about any Guru history 

It seems to me that Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries want to throw the baby out with the bath water. To throw out our entire history because of tamperings/mistakes in an unedited Suraj Parkash 

[BhForce]

On 10/31/2018 at 9:30 AM, Singhballer said:

The main fault that Sikhs find with Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji's parchaar, I think, is the following:

1. He is redefining Sikhi, Gurbani, our history, our traditions, our culture, our literature, by using western philosophy (logic, science, etc.), that too with an incomplete comprehension of it

Specifically, he is interpreting Sikhi through a lens that is not Gurmat, but a foreign philosophy. Thus it leads to:

1. His interpretations causing him to change core principles and values of Sikhi
2. His distorted understanding of Sikhi leads him to renounce and discard Panth-approved Sikh history 

Is it wrong to "call out" history/sakhian? 

In short, no.

But to disprove accepted history, you have to have evidence the written history is factually incorrect, that the Poet's research was flawed, or that the written history is philosophically incorrect, that it is plainly against Sikh values and principles. 

Singhballer, you are so on point with your posts in this thread. Highly detailed, they strike at the very heart of the so-called "rationalist" Sikhs, who, in the end, really don't even believe in the very existence of God, which, after all, is a superstition, according to the rationalist mode of thought.

Fans of Dhadrianwale have been left flailing and mouthing generalities.

Kudos.

[carinder]

 

An authoritative scripture was created to protect the integrity of hymns and teachings of the Sikh gurus, and thirteen Hindu and two Muslim bhagats of the Bhakti movement sant tradition in medieval India.

 

 

So who we believe in Sant or Giani

[BhForce]

1 hour ago, carinder said:

 

An authoritative scripture was created to protect the integrity of hymns and teachings of the Sikh gurus, and thirteen Hindu and two Muslim bhagats of the Bhakti movement sant tradition in medieval India.

 

 

So who we believe in Sant or Giani

What are you trying to say?

[Singhballer]

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

Singhballer, you are so on point with your posts in this thread. Highly detailed, they strike at the very heart of the so-called "rationalist" Sikhs, who, in the end, really don't even believe in the very existence of God, which, after all, is a superstition, according to the rationalist mode of thought.

Fans of Dhadrianwale have been left flailing and mouthing generalities.

Kudos.

I appreciate it! 

But one thing I really believe is that when we have differences in opinion or we think people in our Panth are heading down the wrong track, we must do our best to try and have a constructive conversation with them. It shouldn't be an adversarial or hostile exchange. When you antagonize someone who opposes you via name calling, snide comments, or projecting them in a negative light, they just dig in and become more entrenched in their views. That neither helps you in trying to introduce them to different ideas or convince them that their current opinions may be wrong. 

It pumps our ego when we 'stick it' to someone but it changes nothing. Opinions just become more polarized. People need to try and more plainly state their views, provide arguments, reference evidence, and let others engage with your ideas. I find it's the only way to really get through to others. 

There are scholars in our Panth that would be more than capable to have such discussions on all these philisophical/historical debates, but I find Bhai Ranjit Singh Ji and the missionaries are very evasive when it comes to sitting down for a discussion. 

• Imagine a 1-2 hour discussion on a single topic
  • Two sides can make their opening statements about what they're views are on the topic
  • Each side is then capped to 10-15 minute periods to make their arguments and respond to the opposing side
  • A neutral person can moderate, to keep everyone on time and force everyone to address and respond to the arguments raised by either side
    • Debaters would be kept accountable. They'd have to respond to every point raised
    • Viewers would be able to easily see who's arguments are backed up with facts and evidence
  • Such a discussion would actually be fruitful to dispelling peoples' misinformed views 

[BhForce]

3 minutes ago, Singhballer said:

But one thing I really believe is that when we have differences in opinion or we think people in our Panth are heading down the wrong track, we must do our best to try and have a constructive conversation with them.

I agree with that. The problem is that Dhadrianwale and crew have refused to debate/discuss. There were big Dasam Granth Samagams where they were invited, they failed to show up.

I agree that you have to be constructive. I disagree with some Singhs all out condemning Dhadrianwale and then call for his assassination.

I'm usually constructive, though I admit I've been a bit testy with Mahadulai. (I'm not the only one. Even Harsharan000, probably the most mellow poster on this whole board, became exasperated with him.

For the rare case, I think you have to take an aggressive approach, just to shock the other person into clarifying his thoughts.