Why didn't Khalsa have its field day ? Or is it yet to come ?

[dallysingh101]

21 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Just managed to download both volumes. Cheers.

Enjoy. Volume 2 (about the rise of Sikh power) is like proper Game Of Thrones ish.

Note how pre-british influenced Sikh historiography is not anything like what emerged after annexation with the SIngh Sabha lehar. The original stuff is raw and brutally honest to the point that it makes what came after look like whitewashed propaganda. 

[MisterrSingh]

On 3/12/2019 at 10:42 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Enjoy. Volume 2 (about the rise of Sikh power) is like proper Game Of Thrones ish.

Note how pre-british influenced Sikh historiography is not anything like what emerged after annexation with the SIngh Sabha lehar. The original stuff is raw and brutally honest to the point that it makes what came after look like whitewashed propaganda. 

I'm working through the six volumes of McAuliffe's work (currently nearing the end of Volume 4), so this'll be next once I'm done with those. 

I briefly perused the introduction, and it's interesting to read the author (or translator, Dr. Kulwant Singh?) was categorical about Rattan Singh's literal superhero flights of fancy regarding Banda Singh Bahadhur. Makes me question the entire endeavour if there's parts of it that are... shall we say a little incredulous. Tempered displays of mystical power I can live with -- and believe with as much veracity as anyone -- but some of the feats attributed to BSB are next level stuff that even our Guru Sahibs were against, lol. I mean, you only have to read accounts of 6th Guru's life to realise how they didn't really go for any of those unnecessarily showy and egotistical displays of supernatural abilities. They chided two of their son's for such mistakes, which arguably indirectly lead to their respective deaths.

[dallysingh101]

38 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I'm working through the six volumes of McAuliffe's work (currently nearing the end of Volume 4), so this'll be next once I'm done with those. 

I briefly perused the introduction, and it's interesting to read the author (or translator, Dr. Kulwant Singh?) was categorical about Rattan Singh's literal superhero flights of fancy regarding Banda Singh Bahadhur. Makes me question the entire endeavour if there's parts of it that are... shall we say a little incredulous. Tempered displays of mystical power I can live with -- and believe with as much veracity as anyone -- but some of the feats attributed to BSB are next level stuff that even our Guru Sahibs were against, lol. I mean, you only have to read accounts of 6th Guru's life to realise how they didn't really go for any of those unnecessarily showy and egotistical displays of supernatural abilities. They chided two of their son's for such mistakes, which arguably indirectly lead to their respective deaths.

My advice is to read it (PP), without any preconceptions. Then let it dwell inside for a bit to process, then form opinions. The stuff about BSB is probably the most controversial, but what they probably actually point at is the high probability that many contemporary Khalsa leaders were very fearful of him, and his style of leadership. BSB inspired fear all around - going by contemporary accounts the sullay were even shyting bricks about him right till the end.

You have to read the whole thing before making any assumptions anyway. There is a latter point (after BSB's shaheedi) when the Khalsa are hard pressed in some battles and they actually lament deserting BSB, saying words to the effect of: 'If he was here, he would've easily destroyed these people who press us so hard now.' Bear that in mind.  The vision of BSB we have now is the whitewashed one of SS lehar. I think people grown up today are so influenced by this style that true Sikh texts are actually troublesome to them (as opposed to informative). That's sad. 

It's good to go from Maucallife to Bhangu, because it gives a perfect juxtaposition of the latter protestant-victorian-anglo influenced historiography of 'Sikhism' in contrast to history as written by a respected Sikhs who were not compromised by colonialism or influenced too heavily by pachmee thought at that point. 

In any case - can't you see your self-contradiction where you accept Macaulliffe's  many many recorded miracles (which he obviously is skeptical about, but compelled to put in by his Sikh advisors), but then you are incredulous about the accounts of BSB in PP. Doesn't make sense to me. What's influenced your thoughts so much that you'd take a white man's word about your faith over an obviously talented and conscious Sikh writer?

Plus make sure you read the forwards of Maucalliffe's texts, because there he explicitly states that his work has a political agenda of placating Sikhs who were grievously offended by Ernest Trumph's earlier no holds barred contemptuous/offensive book about them. Macaulliffe even confidently states that they've managed to incorporate vows of loyalty to the british monarch in the amrit ceremony of the time - if that's not a blatant corruption/manipulation of Amrit Sanchaar, I don't know what is? SO that book has it's own colonial politicised agenda - though that is not to say that it isn't valuable in other respects - in that it records sakhis that would've probably otherwise been lost. And that it offers early translation efforts - with their strengths and weaknesses. 

Check my scribd if you want. There's a shortish critical article about Macauliffe there written by an Irish researcher that you might find interesting. Tadhg Foley. 

[MisterrSingh]

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

My advice is to read it (PP), without any preconceptions. Then let it dwell inside for a bit to process, then form opinions. The stuff about BSB is probably the most controversial, but what they probably actually point at is the high probability that many contemporary Khalsa leaders were very fearful of him, and his style of leadership. BSB inspired fear all around - going by contemporary accounts the sullay were even shyting bricks about him right till the end.

You have to read the whole thing before making any assumptions anyway. There is a latter point (after BSB's shaheedi) when the Khalsa are hard pressed in some battles and they actually lament deserting BSB, saying words to the effect of: 'If he was here, he would've easily destroyed these people who press us so hard now.' Bear that in mind.  The vision of BSB we have now is the whitewashed one of SS lehar. I think people grown up today are so influenced by this style that true Sikh texts are actually troublesome to them (as opposed to informative). That's sad. 

It's good to go from Maucallife to Bhangu, because it gives a perfect juxtaposition of the latter protestant-victorian-anglo influenced historiography of 'Sikhism' in contrast to history as written by a respected Sikhs who were not compromised by colonialism or influenced too heavily by pachmee thought at that point. 

In any case - can't you see your self-contradiction where you accept Macaulliffe's  many many recorded miracles (which he obviously is skeptical about, but compelled to put in by his Sikh advisors), but then you are incredulous about the accounts of BSB in PP. Doesn't make sense to me. What's influenced your thoughts so much that you'd take a white man's word about your faith over an obviously talented and conscious Sikh writer?

Plus make sure you read the forwards of Maucalliffe's texts, because there he explicitly states that his work has a political agenda of placating Sikhs who were grievously offended by Ernest Trumph's earlier no holds barred contemptuous/offensive book about them. Macaulliffe even confidently states that they've managed to incorporate vows of loyalty to the british monarch in the amrit ceremony of the time - if that's not a blatant corruption/manipulation of Amrit Sanchaar, I don't know what is? SO that book has it's own colonial politicised agenda - though that is not to say that it isn't valuable in other respects - in that it records sakhis that would've probably otherwise been lost. And that it offers early translation efforts - with their strengths and weaknesses. 

Check my scribd if you want. There's a shortish critical article about Macauliffe there written by an Irish researcher that you might find interesting. Tadhg Foley. 

Well, I'm still going through the bulk of it at the moment, so acceptance is perhaps not the most accurate word to describe my state of mind at the moment. Just trying to soak up as much as possible. It'll be interesting to move on to Rattan Singh's work, and then compare and contrast.

Yes, McAuliffe outright stating one of the major reasons for him undertaking his efforts is to inculcate loyalty on the part of Sikhs who were fighting alongside the British. That did make me uncomfortable, but if it's a truth, then so be it. 

Isn't McAuliffe's work a summarised collection of the major janam sakhis that are still used as the basis of katha and parchaar to this very day? In the footnotes there's regular references to the Suraj Prakash, etc. 

I find it very interesting and amusing how McAuliffe has an obvious and unashamed lack of anything approaching tolerance of the Brahman agenda. He lays into their rituals and the way they conspired against Sikhs at various points in history. 

What type of things was the German fellow writing about Sikhs? McAuliffe doesn't mention particulars, but just that it was designed to defame and slander the Gurus.

[dallysingh101]

On 3/14/2019 at 6:10 PM, MisterrSingh said:

What type of things was the German fellow writing about Sikhs? McAuliffe doesn't mention particulars, but just that it was designed to defame and slander the Gurus.

It was whole bunch of ignorant gibberish, stuff like:

Guru Granth Sahib is shallow to the extreme and just repeats the same thing again and again. 

The language within is dark and no one can really understand the contents of the granth.

Dasmesh Guru ji manipulated a bunch of ignorant juts to hate sullay.

Singhs lost all learning from being at war for so long.

Sikhi is no different to 'Hinduism'.

It is unrestrained pessimism. 

Yadda yadda yadda

 

That kind of crap.

 

Plus he pulled out a cigar and blew smoke on maharaj in front of a bunch of gianis (who promptly took guru ji away in disgust). 

Even though he was meant to be a genius linguistic - he apparently couldn't fathom the language of Guru Granth Sahib, so he insulted it - but begrudgingly acknowledged it was a 'treasure trove' for the study of linguistics. 

He was a proper orientalist. 

[MisterrSingh]

5 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

It is unrestrained pessimism. 

Sounds like a lulloo, but that above is hilarious. I'd argue the exact opposite: it's perhaps optimistic to the point of expecting the unrealistic from a very, very flawed species, that's before even going into the minutiae of localised racial and communal beliefs and attitudes. 

[dallysingh101]

35 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Sounds like a lulloo, but that above is hilarious. I'd argue the exact opposite: it's perhaps optimistic to the point of expecting the unrealistic from a very, very flawed species

Exactly. He didn't get the inherent chardhi kala aspect of SIkhi in the face of the most daunting opposition. I think he was paid by the new colonialist 'masters' to put the boot in when Singhs were low after the Sikh-anglo jung. Plus, if you come from an Abrahamic conditioned perspective, you wouldn't get Sikhi because it isn't framed in that whole binary thing the mid-east religions have going on. 

 

Quote

, that's before even going into the minutiae of localised racial and communal beliefs and attitudes. 

 

What do you mean by this? 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

What do you mean by this? 

How many Sikhs do you know that you could honestly appraise as doing "it" as it should be? One? A handful? Even the self-identified faithful, there's still certain blind spots when it comes to following the "rules." One of your favourite subjects, caste, is a prime example. It's all well and good posing and posturing about religious teachings and levels of adherence and devotion, but you know very well when it comes to the forces exerted on an individual and the day-to-day realities of life, most people don't have the desire to deviate from family or communal norms, even if that places them some distance from the doctrine they purport to love. That doesn't make it right; I'm just observing a reality.

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

How many Sikhs do you know that you could honestly appraise as doing "it" as it should be? One? A handful? Even the self-identified faithful, there's still certain blind spots when it comes to following the "rules." One of your favourite subjects, caste, is a prime example. It's all well and good posing and posturing about religious teachings and levels of adherence and devotion, but you know very well when it comes to the forces exerted on an individual and the day-to-day realities of life, most people don't have the desire to deviate from family or communal norms, even if that places them some distance from the doctrine they purport to love. That doesn't make it right; I'm just observing a reality.

lol....

 

Welcome to the real world.

 

Most people (across cultures, faith, nationality, race, caste, colour) are conformist cowards.

If you are blessed to witness and identify the tiny few that aren't, and that have a moral/ethical backbone - thank WAHEGURU from your core and put them in positions of power - which will inevitably destroy them. 

 

That energy is rare - and the guiding force for humanity.  

[Guest]

 

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

If you are blessed to witness and identify the tiny few that aren't, and that have a moral/ethical backbone - thank WAHEGURU from your core and put them in positions of power - which will inevitably destroy them. 

There is some merit in getting destroyed as well, for a noble cause, atleast thats what the sikh history taught me,

It is not without a deeper meaning that two sahibzade were martyred in open in battle, and two in captivity.

Rest of the sikh history that followed the year 1708 seems to be an expansion of those 4 children, as many singhs were martyred in battle and many tortured in captivity . It is said Khalsa is the fifth son of Guru Gobind Singh and he put the blood of his other four sons for his fifth one 

As the thread title goes, Maybe that blood still is there somewhere , that sacrificial holy blood of martyrs awaiting the final days when sovereignty is finally handed down to sikhs.  Perhaps thats why Ranjit singh's khalsa raaj came to an end, he was wasting that precious blood's use when he had infact become corrupt at a later stage (he used to dye his beard and other things) .

Sorry if this makes no sense to you. I was trying to be mystical as usual