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

[Guest]

 

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

Or maybe lets simply call it  "dhur ki baani" , the word of god itself 

[dallysingh101]

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

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.

Have you noticed how the language being used in Macauliffe's work is blatantly trying to mimic the language of the King James bible? 

I find this quite irritating (not to mention antiquated). 

[MisterrSingh]

12 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Have you noticed how the language being used in Macauliffe's work is blatantly trying to mimic the language of the King James bible? 

I find this quite irritating (not to mention antiquated). 

I was wondering what was going on with the, "Thoueth speaketh..." carry on. Maybe he wanted to misguidedly confer a sense of Christian derived holiness and style on the various interactions between personalities? It is very jarring, though, but understandable why he went there. 

I've always wondered the style of day-to-day speaking of our Guru Sahibs particularly in terms of their khatri background. Was it as coarse and unrefined as some gianis portray it to be? I can't imagine they were slapping their thigh and addressing everyone as, "Singha!" all the time. Yes, in times of war and during battles they most likely had to assume a certain forceful style of dialogue to get their message across, which is probably where the bellows of Singha originate. Something tells me they weren't talking down to the level of their followers in order to engender commonality. The True King doesn't need to speak like his subjects to be respected.

[dallysingh101]

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

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. 

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking Sikhs were fighting alongside the Brits, they were actually fighting subordinate to them - there is a big difference between the two. 

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

I've always wondered the style of day-to-day speaking of our Guru Sahibs particularly in terms of their khatri background. Was it as coarse and unrefined as some gianis portray it to be? I can't imagine they were slapping their thigh and addressing everyone as, "Singha!" all the time. Yes, in times of war and during battles they most likely had to assume a certain forceful style of dialogue to get their message across, which is probably where the bellows of Singha originate. Something tells me they weren't talking down to the level of their followers in order to engender commonality. The True King doesn't need to speak like his subjects to be respected.

I don't think that crude: "Chaklo Singho!" thing ever actually existed except in the imaginations of modern people who've never had military experiences. 

There are lots of examples of Guru ji having conversations with Sikhs in their darbar in older extant literature. I think simple minded Singhs/Sikhs came for darshan at the darbar, gave a gift, maybe sat around listening to kirtan and sermons and went away happy (like many still do!). It was a more intellectual/sophisticated type that questioned Guru ji on various things. Like the inner circles, especially writers and poets. The Chibber family did a lot of writing. Bhai Mani SIngh seems to be the main parchaarak back then too. There are so many references to his parchaar in older texts. 

From certain contemporary or near contemporary sources it seems like Guru ji was very paternalistic towards Sikhs, who sometimes behaved in ways that weren't exactly pious - almost childlike. There appears to be a slight element of exasperation. But some did ask serious questions - like Bhai Nand Lal. Given Guru ji's consistent (from a young age) efforts to intellectualise and educate Sikhs - I think it would be out of character for them to go down to pendu levels to communicate with certain Sikhs. Language was a big thing to Guru ji, make no mistake about that! Dasam Granth is testimony to this. But they did use language in ways that might shock the more genteel conservative amongst us today - like the phrase 'laandh kuttiye' to describe circumcision, which is very graphic and direct and suggests that this practice wasn't exactly favoured (or maybe even subtly mocked?)

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I don't think that crude: "Chaklo Singho!" thing ever actually existed except in the imaginations of modern people who've never had military experiences. 

There are lots of examples of Guru ji having conversations with Sikhs in their darbar in older extant literature. I think simple minded Singhs/Sikhs came for darshan at the darbar, gave a gift, maybe sat around listening to kirtan and sermons and went away happy (like many still do!). It was a more intellectual/sophisticated type that questioned Guru ji on various things. Like the inner circles, especially writers and poets. The Chibber family did a lot of writing. Bhai Mani SIngh seems to be the main parchaarak back then too. There are so many references to his parchaar in older texts. 

From certain contemporary or near contemporary sources it seems like Guru ji was very paternalistic towards Sikhs, who sometimes behaved in ways that weren't exactly pious - almost childlike. There appears to be a slight element of exasperation. But some did ask serious questions - like Bhai Nand Lal. Given Guru ji's consistent (from a young age) efforts to intellectualise and educate Sikhs - I think it would be out of character for them to go down to pendu levels to communicate with certain Sikhs. Language was a big thing to Guru ji, make no mistake about that! Dasam Granth is testimony to this. But they did use language in ways that might shock the more genteel conservative amongst us today - like the phrase 'laandh kuttiye' to describe circumcision, which is very graphic and direct and suggests that this practice wasn't exactly favoured (or maybe even subtly mocked?)

 

 

I imagine Guru Gobind Singh ji's vocabulary to be more inclined towards brij bhasha with punjabi here and there. But its so odd imagining Guru Gobind Singh ji speak in language that would sound like bhojpuri of today .

But one thing I wouldn't doubt, gurus would have spoken little and as succinct  as possible, because eminent personalities even today don't speak much and try to convey as briefly as possible. Speaking more is seen as inferior 

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

 

I imagine Guru Gobind Singh ji's vocabulary to be more inclined towards brij bhasha with punjabi here and there. But its so odd imagining Guru Gobind Singh ji speak in language that would sound like bhojpuri of today .

But one thing I wouldn't doubt, gurus would have spoken little and as succinct  as possible, because eminent personalities even today don't speak much and try to convey as briefly as possible. Speaking more is seen as inferior 

That's an interesting point. Look at how much of DG is in Brij Bhasha compared to Panjabi. It's only Chandhi Kee Vaar that's in Panjabi, and that has other versions in Brij Bhasha included too. Guru ji growing up in Patna is a factor too. 

Where is Bhojpuri? 

[MisterrSingh]

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

There are lots of examples of Guru ji having conversations with Sikhs in their darbar in older extant literature. I think simple minded Singhs/Sikhs came for darshan at the darbar, gave a gift, maybe sat around listening to kirtan and sermons and went away happy (like many still do!). It was a more intellectual/sophisticated type that questioned Guru ji on various things. Like the inner circles, especially writers and poets. The Chibber family did a lot of writing. Bhai Mani SIngh seems to be the main parchaarak back then too. There are so many references to his parchaar in older texts. 

From certain contemporary or near contemporary sources it seems like Guru ji was very paternalistic towards Sikhs, who sometimes behaved in ways that weren't exactly pious - almost childlike. There appears to be a slight element of exasperation. But some did ask serious questions - like Bhai Nand Lal. Given Guru ji's consistent (from a young age) efforts to intellectualise and educate Sikhs - I think it would be out of character for them to go down to pendu levels to communicate with certain Sikhs. Language was a big thing to Guru ji, make no mistake about that! Dasam Granth is testimony to this.

 

Yes, I'm nodding in agreement to the bolded text. That's exactly the impression I've gleaned over the years from trying to ascertain the mood and demeanour of interactions between Guru Sahib and his inner circle of Singhs. I don't wish to do the Singhs a disservice, but I imagine for anyone but an ocean of tolerance and patience, some of the inane issues Guru Ji had to deal with would've been infuriating. I suppose the genuine devotion, affection, and loyalty shown by his Sikhs would've certainly made humouring their superficial indiscretions of manner that less egregious.

Even going back as far as Guru Nanak in the accounts of their uddasis told in Suraj Parkash, Mardana is constantly asking question after question about some of the most hilariously random things, such as how far is heaven from the earth in miles; how many villages would fit in heaven; how far do they need to travel before they reach their next destination (basically, are we there yet?), etc. Like you said, it's the paternal affection coupled with the ability to discern men's hearts -- in as much as being able to see the purity of soul -- of their companions and other Sikhs, makes even those minor annoyances insignificant issues for beings of their stature. 

[dallysingh101]

8 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yes, I'm nodding in agreement to the bolded text. That's exactly the impression I've gleaned over the years from trying to ascertain the mood and demeanour of interactions between Guru Sahib and his inner circle of Singhs. I don't wish to do the Singhs a disservice, but I imagine for anyone but an ocean of tolerance and patience, some of the inane issues Guru Ji had to deal with would've been infuriating. I suppose the genuine devotion, affection, and loyalty shown by his Sikhs would've certainly made humouring their superficial indiscretions of manner that less egregious.

Even going back as far as Guru Nanak in the accounts of their uddasis told in Suraj Parkash, Mardana is constantly asking question after question about some of the most hilariously random things, such as how far is heaven from the earth in miles; how many villages would fit in heaven; how far do they need to travel before they reach their next destination (basically, are we there yet?), etc. Like you said, it's the paternal affection coupled with the ability to discern men's hearts -- in as much as being able to see the purity of soul -- of their companions and other Sikhs, makes even those minor annoyances insignificant issues for beings of their stature. 

I'm talking about the interactions with the general Sikh population in your highlighted bit. I think the interaction with the inner circle (which included his mama Kripal Singh) was very different. That was heavily spiritual/intellectual/tactical and serious in tone. Those guys knew war was upon them. They weren't just foot soldiers. Some of them were very interested in metaphysical stuff. 

Look at what kind of things are being discussed in that Chapua Singh rehat extract I posted earlier for instance. War against a larger better resourced and experienced enemy (the state no less), corruption within the panth, the expansion of the panth, different types of Sikhs and their motivation, preserving high ethics and morals in all this. That's serious stuff. 

That inner circle was different to the general populace in my opinion. They were the leaders and influencers. And I believe they had a deep love of Guru ji and his mission. That's why they all became shaheed for it. 

[dallysingh101]

17 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

some of the inane issues Guru Ji had to deal with would've been infuriating. I suppose the genuine devotion, affection, and loyalty shown by his Sikhs would've certainly made humouring their superficial indiscretions of manner that less egregious.

I think some of the stupidity that was witnessed by Guru ji and the darbar (within the community) are incorporated into CP too.