Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dsinghdp

Back to Nanakshahi calendar?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

Where did he use Bikrami of 1999?

Purewal based his new dates on one calendar. I thought it was on Khalsa tricentary but if not, then SGGS tricentary on 2008. It was on one of these occasions that he based it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chatanga1 said:

Purewal based his new dates on one calendar. I thought it was on Khalsa tricentary but if not, then SGGS tricentary on 2008. It was on one of these occasions that he based it on.

Nanakshahi was released in 2003, how could he have used a year in the future? 23 Poh, 2064 BK was on January 7, 2008 and Poh Sudi 7, 2064 BK was on January 15, 2008. There was no "base year". I'm still baffled by this as mathematically, when calculating Nanakshahi dates, there is no base year used anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Both Guru Sahib and Purewal cannot be right.

I will show other examples aside from Purewal then:

An Indian Ephemeris, Vol VI, Swamikannu Pillai

Pages-from-2015.73149.An-Indian-Ephemeris-Ad-700-To-Ad-1799-Vol-Iv_text.pdf-compressor.thumb.png.d63e01af069422e48e1b3c703629eacb.png

Pancanga software (version 3.14), By M. YANO and M. FUSHIMI, Kyoto University, Japan.

LV0R8vb.png

According to Purewal, if we use 1754 Sammat, Bhadon Sudi 8 comes on Sunday. Maybe Guru Sahib used elapsed years instead of Vartmaan years? This is a question for scholars to look at Puratan Birhs of Sri Dasam Granth or do research in history to figure out why. I have given the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

Nanakshahi was released in 2003, how could he have used a year in the future? 23 Poh, 2064 BK was on January 7, 2008 and Poh Sudi 7, 2064 BK was on January 15, 2008. There was no "base year". I'm still baffled by this as mathematically, when calculating Nanakshahi dates, there is no base year used anywhere.

I will try and find the article which tells of which year purewal used. I was sure it was the tricentary of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sikhs we follow what our Gurus did. If Gurus celebrated Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar then as their faithful Sikhs we will also celebrate Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar. 

 

After the fall of the Sikh Khadku (militant) movement the Indian government wanted to infiltrate Sikh ranks and start such controversies that would make Sikhs fight each other instead of our external enemies. The dasam bani and calendar issue is such an example. The calendar was first introduced by purewal who was a lifelong faithless communist. When he came to introduce his calendar he was a Mona during the early 90s. Dr Anurag Singh who saw him then says how no one took him seriously because of this. He then decided to keep his kesh for this very reason.

CM Beanta who had just brutally suppressed the Sikhs then gave purewal his break when the Punjab government of Beanta first published purewal's calendar from the funds intended for the Punjab school board books this resulted in purewal getting backing from the government and somewhat acceptance from universities which until then had discarded his earlier attempts.

At first Sikhs did not understand the science behind calendars and most were fooled by this faithless Communist purewal. But as awareness has grown opposition has now also grown. Purewal has been challenged to debates by knowledgeable Singhs like bhai Jaswant Singh ji from California but purewal does not accept out of fear of losing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

As Sikhs we follow what our Gurus did. If Gurus celebrated Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar then as their faithful Sikhs we will also celebrate Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar. 

So we aren't allowed to reform the Bikrami Calendar? If you read my posts above, Nanakshahi is a reformed version of Bikrami. It uses the Tropical Year (sayana) rather than the Sidereal year (niryana). Reason being is that the Sayana year is attached to the Vernal Equinox (or in Nanakshahi, the Summer solstice as Guru Sahib mentioned it in Gurbani in the Asarh month in Barah Maha Tukhari). This means the calendar is linked with the seasons.

Also, I have mentioned that during the time of the Guru's, the Surya Sidhantta was used for Bikrami calculations. Now, a different method of calculation called Drik Gannit is used for Bikrami calculations. Can we really call the modern day Bikrami Calendar the same as the one Guru Sahib used?

And if we have (presumably, as no one pro-Bikrami cares this change happened) accepted the change from Surya Sidhantta to Drik Gannit, why can't we now accept the change from using the Niryana year length to the Sayana Year length?

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

Dr Anurag Singh who saw him then says how no one took him seriously because of this. 

No one takes Anurag Singh serious on the Nanakshahi calendar issue. He just uses Ad hominem attacks and sets up many strawmans on this FB posts. I was blocked by him from commenting on his posts as I used to argue with him on the calendar issue. I argued on technical grounds only, I wasn't interested in arguing with whatever strawman or political issue he made up.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

The calendar was first introduced by purewal who was a lifelong faithless communist. When he came to introduce his calendar he was a Mona during the early 90s.

CM Beanta who had just brutally suppressed the Sikhs then gave purewal his break when the Punjab government of Beanta first published purewal's calendar from the funds intended for the Punjab school board books this resulted in purewal getting backing from the government and somewhat acceptance from universities which until then had discarded his earlier attempts.

Any proof for this? Or it this just Anurag Singh rambling on Facebook creating a false cause. His Jantri 500 has been checked by Western and Indian scholars alike and has been praised for being a good tool to calculate dates in history. Other Panchangs (like An Indian Ephemeris) only differ by a day because of different rules used and which location. Purewal used Punjab Sanskranti rules (similar to Orissa) while others used rules from other states (as Bikrami isn't a singular calendar, there are various versions of it. The actual name of the calendar is not Bikrami, it is Panchang. Bikrami is just a sammat). I have personally checked his calculations using the Pancanga program above. I was only a day off on certain Sangrands. This is because the Japanese professor who made the program studied the calendar in Kerala, where Sangrand rules are much different from Punjab.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

At first Sikhs did not understand the science behind calendars

They still don't know the science being both the Nanakshahi calendar and the Bikrami calendar. Anurag Singh blocked me for calling out his lack of knowledge on the technicalities of both calendars.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

But as awareness has grown opposition has now also grown. Purewal has been challenged to debates by knowledgeable Singhs like bhai Jaswant Singh ji from California but purewal does not accept out of fear of losing

Yes, he has. The most vocal has been Col. Nishan Singh, which Purewal debated last year in Surrey, BC. There is a video on YouTube that is around 3 hours long of a debate between Purewal and Col. Nishan Singh. Purewal answered all his technical points and Col. Nishan Singh (out of fear of losing I guess) starting going into emotional and political arguments. I don't know who this Bhai Jaswant Singh is, but unless he makes a credible technical argument on the Nanakshahi calendar, I don't see why anyone should waste their time dealing with the nonsense that is the political and emotional strawman arguments made against Nanakshahi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 1:20 PM, chatanga1 said:

I will try and find the article which tells of which year purewal used. I was sure it was the tricentary of something.

300 sala in 1999. He based all dates from that year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sikhi4Ever said:

300 <banned word filter activated> in 1999. He based all dates from that year. 

 

On 3/22/2019 at 7:47 AM, FreshMind13 said:

This argument does not hold up. There is no such thing as a "Base Year". No Nanakshahi Calculations use a base year. The Bikrami Date for 23 Poh (in 1999/2055BK) was January 7th, 1999. The Lunar Date of Poh Sudi 7, 2055BK was on December 25, 1998. If we use the actual year of Guru Sahib's Parkash, it would have been January 1st (check the table I posted earlier).

Where did he use Bikrami of 1999? Nowhere. This is a misunderstanding of how Nanakshahi dates were calculated. Read what I had posted earlier. This isn't some arbitrary date as people people like to make it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be interested in the public conference call to talk on this issue and posted up on youtube or here on this website? It will be related to this calendar issue? I tried to make it with col. Nishan Singh and purewal but purewal don't want to do either in person nor on call. Why not solve this issue by a 2 person call for public to hear ? Solve the matter right away yeh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

There is a video on YouTube that is around 3 hours long of a debate between Purewal and Col. Nishan Singh.

If that's the case, go ahead and post the link.

14 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

Col. Nishan Singh (out of fear of losing I guess) starting going into emotional and political arguments.

Perhaps a reason for that might be the fact that Purewal himself made emotional/political arguments in his own PDF arguing for his calendar. I don't see why Purewal should get to make non-technical points and Nishan Singh should not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

So we aren't allowed to reform the Bikrami Calendar? 

I suppose we are. 

The point is that the real discussion of technical calendar points gets very hairy real fast.

And it should be a protracted discussion.

It should not be something where Purewal is trying to whip up a frenzy among half of Sikhs to try to wage a kind of religious war against the other half merely for the gratification of his ego.

And there is simply no reason to rush things along. And no appeals to irrelevant arguments like Bikrami is Brahmanism.

Once those ground rules are accepted, the Panth can have a calm, detailed discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, Jonny101 said:

If Gurus celebrated Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar then as their faithful Sikhs we will also celebrate Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar. 

I don't necessarily agree. But I do agree that 1) celebrating according to Bikrami is not Brahmanism and 2) there's no rush need to change from Bikrami.

On 3/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, Jonny101 said:

After the fall of the Sikh Khadku (militant) movement the Indian government wanted to infiltrate Sikh ranks and start such controversies that would make Sikhs fight each other instead of our external enemies. The dasam bani and calendar issue is such an example.

Strongly agree. As Sikhs, we would be fools to go into the technical details of these debates. Arguing about Gurpurab dates, Surya Siddhant, Dasam Granth Sahib birs, and so on is simply missing the point: our detractors want us to spend our energy and time arguing and fighting instead of doing something for the Panth.

On 3/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, Jonny101 said:

When he came to introduce his calendar he was a Mona during the early 90s.

Are there any pictures of him? He should answer why he cut his hair before and why he kept it later. Did you have some sort of religious awakening? If so, what?

For the supporters of this man, it would be useful to know what his personal rehit and faith is. The reason is that he has made emotional appeals to religion in order to make his case. Sikhs deserve to know who the man is that is pushing the entire Panth on his whims. (The same for our Jathedars.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sikhi4Ever said:

I tried to make it with col. Nishan Singh and purewal but purewal don't want to do either in person nor on call. Why not solve this issue by a 2 person call for public to hear ? Solve the matter right away yeh?

Not a call, bro. Either in person or video streaming (Skype or something). I'd like to see both men faces while they are talking in order to assess where they're coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

Any proof for this?

Well, are you denying that the PSEB published his book?

Or are you questioning whether CM Beant Singh authorized it?

I believe his book was published in 1994? Beant Singh died in 1993, right? But the question is, before his death, did Beant Singh authorize the PSEB to publish Purewal's work?

If so, it totally destroys any fig leaf of pretense that Purewal might have to be pro-Sikh.

Purewal needs to be questioned as to who he met with in order to get funding to publish his work. Did he meet with Beant Singh? I would like to see if he denies or accepts it. And if there is  proof of a meeting (as in visitor logs).

Who was he working for in those days? What was his day job? If calendar dabbling was his day job, who was funding him? The Panth deserves to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use