"Chand" - Is it a Khanda???

[Deep Singh]

Great! :TH:

[amandeep]

To MS514

First off a Khanda is not a shiv ling. My point is that the central "thing" in the Add Chand symbol is a shivling NOT a khanda. Its just that the central "thing" seems to be depicted as a khanda and seen as some but it isnt - here are some thoughts:

a) THe BUddha Dal consider it a Shivling - thats a pretty good provenance since it was they who have kept this symbol alive and use it most prominantly.

b) The Shivling has multitude of forms, eg in Bhutan it is a perfectly formed male gential, whilst in southern india it is simply a rounded stone and in between there are all manner of varaiations

c) in the nineteenth century Akali Chands (in pictures and artefacts) the central art of a chand tora less closely resembles a khanda

d) the two "balls" at the base of the "khanda" (as you put it) are not a khanda hilt !! THey are exactly what woudl be at teh base of a shivling

Essentially the depiction is an artistic one and therfore there is some licenbse - hence why the trishul, Add Chand, Shicvling etc all look different but they are all from the same root - they are not exact representations. Think about it, if the modern day khanda was an exat depiction the central chakkar woudl be about 4 foot in diameter! the two swords on either side woudl be almost hemispherical in their curve - again this is simply graphic art.

I woudl continue t contend that we are looking at a Shiv symbol. Incedentally, the shivling is a problematic symbol (look at the picture from Gurbarr akal and you can see that not only is it "in Situ" but it is also at its most potent). Since India become increasingly prudish about this symbol - a function of 200 years o

f christianity in the country - there has been a movement to re invent the shivling away from its origins as shivs to a flame ! INa 100 years or so this may well become recieved wisdom and the same deabte will rage. That central "thing" in the Add Chand is similarly morphing from being a shivling to being a khanda - because the original expanation is considerd unacceptable. I woudl imagine that within a few years we will see Add Chands without the two "balls" at teh bottom just to finally put a nail in that coffin,

THe more important Question was raised by Deep Singh, ie was the Chand incorporated by Guru Gobind Singh? This is much harder to answer

Aman

[Ryu Hayabusa]

Niranjana, killer post bro!

If some people have a difficult time identifying with Shiva, why don't you think in terms of energy (Afterall Shiva is just God's energy (energy of destruction, God still fully controls this energy). It is understandable that in war this is the type of energy you would want to invoke.

Anyways I don't know if I made any sense.

[NavjotSinghKhalsa]

Bhai Amandeep Singh Jeeo,

Can you please provide actual concrete proof (written, historic) than just pointing to a photo or two as proof regarding the origins of the "Chand."

While some conclude that the cresent represents Shiva, others as this Hindu site (http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/shiva) state that "Shiva's hair also supports a crescent moon, a symbol of the female reproductive cycle."

So if we went by what they say, is it safe to conclude that Singhs go around wearing symbols of the female reproductive cycle? What about linking to the Islamic cresent, which the Hindus already claim that it is copied from them ?

Below is a picture of Shiv supposebly mixing Bhang. The UK Nangs use this image to link themselves to Shiv also. Notice that he is also wearing a garment that looks very similar to a Kashera. I don't think we can go around concluding that Kasheras are originated from Shiva or from Hanuman as some other say. It is all speculation.

Many years ago we asked Tarna Dal Jathedar Baba Nihal Singh Ji of Harian Belan about the Chand shape. He commented that the Chand shape is merely a simplification of the the Swords of Miri-Piri, with the two handles emerging from the bottom where the Torra is inserted into. He mentioned that the Singhs in the old days didn't have the capabilities to manufacture intricate shapes and designs, so the Chand and the two dangling handles repsented their simple Miri-Piri design. Knowing Baba Nihal Singh, I doubt if he would try to cover up the truth and just conjure up the above e

xplanation.

The explanation of the Farla is also too humourous. It is the first I have heard of it. Perhaps Budha Dal does use this explanation, but they also state that they are an offshoot of Hinduism so that does not surprise me. According to Mahan Kosh and many other writings, the Farla represents the Blue Khalsa Nishaan Sahib, and was worn by the Jathedars who would be leading the battlefield. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha details the Farla's origins to the Blue Nishaan Sahib and not Shiv.

In fact if we start using images images of Shiva and Hindu gods as historical references for Sikhism, then I guess everything is borrowed from Hinduism. Our long hair, top-knot joora, kara, kashera, Kirpan, etc.

We no longer can be called a Niralla Panth could we, if we are merely mimicking Hinduism?

Until real evidence can provided that the Singhs used the Chand as a representation of Shiv, Islam, or the female reproduction cycle, I don't think we should be making such bold statements. If we do then are not we implicating Singhs like Akali Phula Singh Ji to be worshippers of Hindu gods ? Again, please provide actual historic references.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

If we do then are not we implicating Singhs like Akali Phula Singh Ji to be worshippers of Hindu gods ?  Again, please provide actual historic references.

Can you tell me if ANYONE here even mentioned worship of hindu gods?

What is a hindu god? define hinduism...

[Akaal Purakh Di Fauj]

Excellent post Novjot Veerji

[amandeep]

This paragraph was hilarious : "Many years ago we asked Tarna Dal Jathedar Baba Nihal Singh Ji of Harian Belan about the Chand shape. He commented that the Chand shape is merely a simplification of the the Swords of Miri-Piri, with the two handles emerging from the bottom where the Torra is inserted into. He mentioned that the Singhs in the old days didn't have the capabilities to manufacture intricate shapes and designs, so the Chand and the two dangling handles repsented their simple Miri-Piri design. Knowing Baba Nihal Singh, I doubt if he would try to cover up the truth and just conjure up the above explanation." :wub:

So let me get this straight, the armourers who could produce the most beuatiful damascus steel, fabulous recrved blades, the most dramatic and sought after blades in eth world from the hardest materials known to man coudlnt form a simply sword hilt from soft steel !!! and if theywere so hamfisted that they couldnt manage a intricate design then why go to the trouble of dangling the balls on small closed hooks - surely it woudl have been easier to simply rpoduce littel welded blobs !!!!that explanation is hilarious, absolutely amazing. Baba Nihal Singh has shown time and time again that he is quite prepared to gloss over some of the less palatable aspects of his own belief system in order to market his own brand of the Buddha Dal lifestyle - but this really does take the biscuit.

I will respond to your pther points tommorow after I have stopped laughing

aman

[Gurbar Akaal]

my views exactly amandeep :wub:

below is a picture of a buetiful shastar, with intricate koftgari and damascus steel blade, the hilt itself is brilliantly designed and im sure that singhs of old would have needed machinery to make them, or are you presuming the khalseh used chipped stone weapons like cavemen? <_<

if singhs could make shastars like this, why would they "simplify" miri piri swords?

[GuruManeyoGranth]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

I wasnt present to hear Baba Jee's comments, but if we extrapolate and look at the context in which Baba Nihal Singh Jee would have made those comments, it can be interpreted in this manner: since nearly all Nihang Singhs of the time would have worn the Aad Chand Khanda on their dastaars, they would have been batch produced as quickly as they possibly could - thus, taking the shortcut in the Aad Chand form. However, I'm sure there must be manufactured Khandas from the period which are in the full form, with both the Miri-Piri Kirpaans. This easily reconciles the great craftsmanship of the Singhs at the time in producing wonderfully ornate weapons, whilst sometimes producing the Aad Chand on a batch production basis.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Gurfateh

[Deep Singh]

I think Navjot Singh Ji presented a good explanation, but as Amandeep Ji's post indicated; it can be criticized.

Still, if the Aad-Chand/Chand-tora doesn't have anything to do with Shivji's Chand, then why is it called 'Chand'? If it is miri-piri, then it should have been called something thereafter, atleast in Nihang terms! But, it is known as Chand, hence it must be linked to the Chand of Shiv.