Throwing flowers on wedding

[AjeetSingh2019 187]

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 

[jkvlondon 5,079]

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

[AjeetSingh2019 187]

51 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

then amritsanchar to couple

they don;t believe in amrit sanchar or 5 ks

[jkvlondon 5,079]

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

[AjeetSingh2019 187]

7 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

she said to me 'nitnem is necessary you can't leave it ever' 

so they're better than us in this regard 

[jkvlondon 5,079]

21 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

so they're better than us in this regard 

seems so ...maybe we can lift the good khalsa habits they have preserved and reintroduced them in our lives  such as that nitnemi attitude.

[MrDoaba 909]

11 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

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

Yeah heard many variations of this sakhi. Do you know what the actual source is? The point I was making is, throughout ithiaas, when Maharaaj seeked to change something, especially as big of a sanskaar as this, things have been clearer. I just find it odd that there isn't any Bani with the Sakhi - and - that a marriage ceremony came up only at the time of Guru Ramdas Ji. Big gap. Something doesn't quite add up.

Hmm possibly with regards to the Pandit, although Vedic Saloks whilst walking around a Gutka? Idk about that.

 

8 hours ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

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 

Nobody is fooling themselves. For some reason, and I don't actually know why, you want the fire to be representitive of Agni Devta.

A fire can symbolise many things. Meanings and definitions change (as is the case for many things within Sikhi itself); it doesn't necessarily mean it's anthropomorphized or personified in the way you want it to be.

This is the same level of reasoning people use to reject the use of jyot (and other practises in common) in Gurdwaras.

 

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

seems so ...maybe we can lift the good khalsa habits they have preserved and reintroduced them in our lives  such as that nitnemi attitude.

I've always said, that if Namdharis were normal Sikhs, they would be one of the most rehitvaan, shardavaan Sampardas we have. Their Maryada is solid and they have many good qualities which they put into practise. Plus their Nitnem is big.

I've been to Bhaini Sahib and it's really quite a sight. They have this little building where non-stop Jaap/Simran has been going on since like the 1920s. SGGSJ was prakash in one of the buidings as well; was some kinda of triple Akhand Paath going on.

And fyi Ajeet, they do believe in Amrit Sanchar and Panj Kakkar, however they don't wear the Kirpan - they were banned from keeping Shastar during Brit rule and for some unbeknownst reason continued to stay without them.

They have kept many Puratan traditions going. It's a shame they've fallen in other areas. And before anyone says it, no I am not promoting Namdharis or letting their manmat views off.

[jkvlondon 5,079]

6 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

Yeah heard many variations of this sakhi. Do you know what the actual source is? The point I was making is, throughout ithiaas, when Maharaaj seeked to change something, especially as big of a sanskaar as this, things have been clearer. I just find it odd that there isn't any Bani with the Sakhi - and - that a marriage ceremony came up only at the time of Guru Ramdas Ji. Big gap. Something doesn't quite add up.

Hmm possibly with regards to the Pandit, although Vedic Saloks whilst walking around a Gutka? Idk about that.

 

Nobody is fooling themselves. For some reason, and I don't actually know why, you want the fire to be representitive of Agni Devta.

A fire can symbolise many things. Meanings and definitions change (as is the case for many things within Sikhi itself); it doesn't necessarily mean it's anthropomorphized or personified in the way you want it to be.

This is the same level of reasoning people use to reject the use of jyot (and other practises in common) in Gurdwaras.

 

I've always said, that if Namdharis were normal Sikhs, they would be one of the most rehitvaan, shardavaan Sampardas we have. Their Maryada is solid and they have many good qualities which they put into practise. Plus their Nitnem is big.

I've been to Bhaini Sahib and it's really quite a sight. They have this little building where non-stop Jaap/Simran has been going on since like the 1920s. SGGSJ was prakash in one of the buidings as well; was some kinda of triple Akhand Paath going on.

And fyi Ajeet, they do believe in Amrit Sanchar and Panj Kakkar, however they don't wear the Kirpan - they were banned from keeping Shastar during Brit rule and for some unbeknownst reason continued to stay without them.

They have kept many Puratan traditions going. It's a shame they've fallen in other areas. And before anyone says it, no I am not promoting Namdharis or letting their manmat views off.

they are the ones who started the little metal kirpan on the kangha , maybe somebody should explain to them you cannot do ifazat of anyone with your kanga...

[GurjantGnostic 525]

6 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

they are the ones who started the little metal kirpan on the kangha , maybe somebody should explain to them you cannot do ifazat of anyone with your kanga...

Wellll....point taken...but if one was really inclined lol..

[puzzled 2,395]

On 10/18/2019 at 10:44 PM, Guest akaal said:

why do you have to always blame the girls? the men are equally as stupid for allowing this to happen, regardless of who's idea it is. on top of this, it's on a beach and they has a kund/ghoonghat infront of maharaj. blood joke. should have just had a hindu wedding. 

So you saying the men came up with the idea of throwing petals? Very unlikely, but if that is the case they are a bunch of gays.

Covering your face should not be allowed in the gurdwara. In the old days ladies covered their faces because they didn't want other men seeing them  there was very little contact between men and women in those days. In those days is a man accidentally brushed against a woman, the woman saw that as an attack on their honour and dignity .that tradition has died out now and there is no need for it.     using a veil todays is just a stupid fashion trend and should not be allowed in the presence of guru granth sahib 

 

[Guest guest]

in 'So Dar', it says "Wind, water and fire sing of You. The Righteous Judge of Dharma sings at Your Door. "

fire since ancient times is a divine 'witness'.  like for a modern wedding to be legal, you need a legal (human) witness to authenticate it.

people seem to forget that publishing presses only came to Panjab about 150 yrs ago.  Before that, I doubt people had such easy access to SGGS Saroops.