Jump to content

Throwing flowers on wedding


Guest Akaal
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

Please don't get in a tizzy lol. I'm not saying Sikhs are Hindu, or that we should change Anand Kaaraj etc. It's just perspective.

Yes I'm suggesting, and telling.

Pre-Laavan Bani - according to the Sakhi people went to Pandits, we can assume this would've been the Vedic ceremony.

Post-Laavan Bani - I used the word "deduce" specifically because one can come to the logical conclusion that fire remained but the hymns changed. The sakhi alludes to just Sangat performing the whole ceremony themselves, without the service of any Pandit or Granthi.

Later in Sikh history - there was lack of Sikhi so many people simply got married by the Vedic ceremony. If your grandparents are around or some bazurg ask them. It's highly probable someone in your own family got married this way. This is a well known fact. Some of my great-grandparents got married this way but they were still Sikh.

Further in Sikhi history - Mass printing of Saroops began, certain traditions were changed and formalised. I believe Anand Karaj as we know it today was created by Nirankaris (not the manmukh sect, the old ones). Now phere are done around SGGSJ. This is the current system and it works fine. I am not proposing we change it, but the history is still interesting nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

So during marriages of 4th guru onwards , they married by fire ? and that includes Guru Gobind singhji as well ? 

I am genuinely curious because of the many claims made by RSS about "reminding sikhs of their past" , this is also one that one commonly encounters, that ancient sikhs and gurus married by fire and that it wasn't until those evil pesky britishers who drove a wedge between hindus and sikhs and voila Anand karajs started 

Whats the meaning of 'laav ' ? perhaps it could mean something altogether then ? 

Anyways , regardless , I would reckon Hinduism have had far, far more changes to it considering its almost 10 times older than sikhism is (500 vs 5000 !) . Hinduism is so old infact, that rig vedic deities like Indra, Asvins , Maruts,  etc are not even heard of today , let alone worshipped 

Sikhi is more pristine in comparison in the turmoils of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

32 minutes ago, MrDoaba said:

See why does it have to be "Agni Devta"? I don't think Namdharis actually believe in Agni Devta lol. It's just a fire. Again from what I've heard when the the current Anand Kaaraj was being formalised, Namdharis had representation. They just decided to retain the fire.

 

I have a english pdf of Rig veda , the oldest scripture of Hinduism, the oldest of the 4 vedas ,  and perhaps the most revered . 

It starts with a hymn praising Agni and asks it to reside over the 'straw and fodder' of the havan.

HYMN I. Agni.

1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
He shall bring hitherward the Gods.

Looking at the index of the scripture , I am surprised , Agni is like everywhere in it almost. So , yes the marriage rites are basically asking Agni devta . "Agni devta" is the main witness of hindu marriage . 

 

EDIT ----

A hymn in another mandal says 

HYMN LIX. Agni. 1 THE other fires are, verily, thy branches; the Immortals all rejoice in thee, O Agni

So , I think Agni may not be the "fire" as in flames, but rather the heat energy pervading the universe, be it in form of fire energy, metabolic heat in body, nuclear heat inside sun, power plants, etc or the latent fuel inside wood , etc. It basically refers to the "heat" form of god . I could be wrong though. and I don't think I have enough time to go through the vast expanse of the text . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

So during marriages of 4th guru onwards , they married by fire ? and that includes Guru Gobind singhji as well ? 

Honestly, I don't know. I will look into the matter and see if some answers comes up. Bear in mind I was talking about regular Sikhs. Not the Gurus themselves. Even if there was a fire, it wouldn't have been Vedic in any sense.

6 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

I am genuinely curious because of the many claims made by RSS about "reminding sikhs of their past" , this is also one that one commonly encounters, that ancient sikhs and gurus married by fire and that it wasn't until those evil pesky britishers who drove a wedge between hindus and sikhs and voila Anand karajs started 

Well the difference is in what is meant and being suggested. To them "fire" means the whole Vedic shebang and a return to it. One can equally call out practises from Vedic times which are now obsolete and say "lets return to them!" right back to these groups.

It's not hard to concieve in reality that certain things remained similar but the intention of disucssing the matter is important.

In the case of weddings, there is very little information. Guru Sahib rejected the janeu for example, to which there is a Sakhi and Bani attached. But it is not until Guru Ramdas Ji that Sikhs get their own ceremony, and again I will repeat I was deducing with regards to the use of fire. Lots of ambiguity. Maybe the couple did just stay sitting or standing whilst Laavan were read by Sangat, maybe not.

As for Sikhs such as my great-grandparents, that was just a matter of circumstance. One cannot use that argument to promote a return to Vedic style weddings.

 

4 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

Looking at the index of the scripture , I am surprised , Agni is like everywhere in it almost. So , yes the marriage rites are basically asking Agni devta . 

Yes I'm aware that within Hindu weddings it is indeed Agni Devta. But we are talking about Namdharis, and from what I have seen, there is no invocation from Rig Ved - that's what I'm saying, we assume that the fire present in a Kooka wedding is considered as Agni Devta when in actual fact to me, it seems as though it's....just a fire. Which really has no particular meaning per se; just a continuation of one aspect of the ceremony. They read Suhi Mahalla 4.

A fire is only Agni "Devta" if one believes and invokes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

In the case of weddings, there is very little information. Guru Sahib rejected the janeu for example, to which there is a Sakhi and Bani attached. But it is not until Guru Ramdas Ji that Sikhs get their own ceremony, and again I will repeat I was deducing with regards to the use of fire. Lots of ambiguity. Maybe the couple did just stay sitting or standing whilst Laavan were read by Sangat, maybe not.

There is actually a sakhi of Guru Nanaks wedding.that kandh still stands. And the sakhi says Guru ji refused the fire and used the kitaab or books he carried in which he wrote his bani. 

About the laava sakhi, it might be that the pandit was needed to make it official like registry marriage or to do katha afterwards or to even say tue vedoc shaloks while sikhs did phere around a gutka? 

Idk but there is that sakhi of Guru Nanak Dev ji refusing the agni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bhujang

Read Prem Sumuragh granth, 

It states that lavaan were done around the fire(in the presence of Aad Guru Granth Sahib Ji) before the inception of the SGPC. It was actually the blasphemous nirankaris thats started the tradition of doing lavaan around Aad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The Agni Dev as stated in this rehatnama bore witness to the marriage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

Yes I'm aware that within Hindu weddings it is indeed Agni Devta. But we are talking about Namdharis, and from what I have seen, there is no invocation from Rig Ved - that's what I'm saying, we assume that the fire present in a Kooka wedding is considered as Agni Devta when in actual fact to me, it seems as though it's....just a fire. Which really has no particular meaning per se; just a continuation of one aspect of the ceremony. They read Suhi Mahalla 4.

 

Lets stop fooling ourselves ? What purpose does the fire serve ? Is it "Agan Singh" ? lmao . Whenever they're using ritualistic fire, the implicit meaning is fire god 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in their own words:

The ritual for marriage ceremony, was first performed by Satguru Ram Singh in 1863. Simply put the couple is required to circumambulate four times around the sacred ceremonial fire (havan) along with recitation of hymns of "Lavan" from Sri Adi Granth Sahib. The first-ever inter-caste marriage was performed on June 3, 1863, in Khote village of Ferozepore in Punjab. The Anand form of marriage remained a dead-letter until Sri Satguru Ji advocated it. The first Marriage performed according to the Anand Marriage form was that of Bhai Samund Singh's daughter at Haripur (Khote). District Ferozpur.
http://www.namdhari-world.com/marriages.html

all the flavours of vedic marriage are there , tying knots between  the bride and groom , the havan , although combined with Dasam Granth and Guru Granth Sahib ji paat , then amritsanchar to couple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

they don;t believe in amrit sanchar or 5 ks

read the article , I have met a namdhari bibi and talked with her for hours and she said to me 'nitnem is necessary you can't leave it ever'  they have kept the rehit of daily life but they have fallen into dehdhari guru trap and milgoba of vedic rasams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use