Jump to content
Guest kaurrrrr

Singhnis with Dastaar look ugly?

Recommended Posts

Guest London jwaan
On 12/03/2017 at 8:02 PM, Guest Gupt said:

Jasbir Kaur Villaschi,

Give it a rest.

Are you sure you are an Amritdhari Sikh? You certainly do not act nor speak like one. If you are, please consider visiting the Panj Pyare and asking for Pesh. Making violent threats and using potty-mouth language is not Gurmat. Samjh?

Also, I doubt your husband would do that as violence seeing as he is a Brazilian who knows very, very little about Sikhi itihaas.

You are not fooling anyone here.

I couldn't agree more. Jkvlondon, over and over again you adopt an aggressive tone to your discussion, accusing others of beadbi if they disagree with your militant views - which on many an occasion are a misrepresentation of facts, retrospective rewriting of history or declaring that others are not Sikhs.

However the elephant in the room is that despite your attempts to show that you are pious, the inconvenient truth is that metaphorically you choose to do the Brazilian lambada in front of SGGS as your choice in life. 

So keep spouting nonsense, the forum sangat are well aware of your hypocrisy. And no amount of militant nonsense will undo that.

Is your husband a teetotal amridhari convert? If not, then clearly you have chosen kaum as your path. So live with it. Did you have an Anand karaj? How long were you dating before you were married? Is that pious?

Like the guest said, you're not fooling anyone here.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Bhai Chaupa singh was the nephew of Shaheed Bhai Mati Dass Ji & a Shaheed himself

I know the family tree , but the problem is there are some thing there in the written rehitnama which we know that go against Khalsa Rehit (if we are just talking men) when you have amrit you break the bonds to previous belief systems such as caste system and recognise all as one jaat , humanity so why does he do this in the rehitnama:

"7.. Doctrine. A second reason for rejecting the extant text as the unadulterated work of
Chaupa Singh is presumably the presence of attitudes and injunctions which conflict with
twentieth-century orthodoxy. A prominent example is provided by the following item.

Any Gursikh who is a Brahman should receive twice the service and consideration that other
Sikhs receive. He who renders such service shall earn a double reward. 38

The rahit-nama's attitude towards Muslims is similarly unacceptable to orthodox ideals.

A Gursikh should never touch a Muslim woman. He should never become friendly with a
Muslim, nor should he trust his word. Never drink water from the hands of a Muslim and do
not sleep in the company of Muslims. Never trust the oalh of a Muslim ... 39

The notion that Guru Gobind Singh could have sanctioned privilege for Brahmans or the
contemptuous ostracising of all Muslims is unthinkable. No work inspired by the Guru could
possibly include such instructions. If the rahit-nama is truly the work of the Guru's servant
Chaupa Singh then these injunctions and others like them must surely be later interpolations.
conflict with later orthodoxy is also implied in some notable omissions. These include the
text's failure to mention the panj kakke (the five K's)40 and the absence of a distinctive
marriage ritual."
l

 

actually he was great grand nephew as they were grand uncles to Kesar Singh his father

under treatment of women he has put 

" (li) A Gursikh should never trust a woman, neither his own nor another's. Never entrust
a secret to them. Regard them as the embodiment of deceit. [100]"

This is a very Brahmin attitude to women not the Guru's  so you have to be intelligent and weigh it up against Gurbani and Gur Karni ..

under the section on caste :

" 3. Caste133
(i) Personal relationships amongst Sikhs should be based on the belief that there is only
one caste (gotra) and only one lineage for those who are followers of the one true
Guru. [79]"

then immediately contradicts:

" (ii) Sikhs should, however, observe the distinctive customs of their various castes, and
they should marry according to the traditional prescriptions of caste and lineage. This
they should do in order that no stigma may attach to their narne. 134 [II, 121]
(iii) Sikh marriages should be performed by Brahmans. [120]
(iv) Brahman Sikhs should receive double the deference and attention normally bestowed
on a Sikh. Any Sikh who imparts the teachings of the Guru should be similarly
honoured. [24]
At meals, however, Brahmans should not be seated in front of others. All should be
required to sit in the same line and Brahmans should not necessanly be served flrst.[499]"

then you have seperate satsangs for men and women mentioned later  etc too many to-ings and fro-ings , We know that women were admitted into Guru ji's darbar e.g. Rani visiting Guru Amar Das ji  so what's going on ? Has these Rehitnama been messed with at a later time ? Chaupa SIngh was Shaheed in 1723.

it is strange to see under marriage that a Singh can only marry the daughter of a mona if she has CHARAN DA PAHUL  and yet we are told by Guru Sahib himself from 1699 charan di pahul will be replaced by Khande da pahul .  A daughter of a sikh can be married to a Mona if he promises to take intiation :

"(v) A. Gursikh should not marry his daughter to a mona unless he agrees to accept
initiation. ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be
recited. The couple should then drink the water. If the bridegroom has previously
worn a sacred thread he may .continue to do so during the wedding ceremony, but he
should subsequently remove 11. [16, 21)"

so confusing ...as this initiation is not even equal to sikh initiation , charan pahul

 

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

So much hate for one-eyed Singhs. Harsh.

it is because all pairs of eyes imbibe the amrit with energy , even abilakhees are told to do naam jap whilst listening and look at the surface of the amrit .(at least I was told to by my elders) plus the panj are supposed to embody Guru Sahib , who was untainted by disfigurement or handicap

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"(v) A. Gursikh should not marry his daughter to a mona unless he agrees to accept
initiation. ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be
recited. The couple should then drink the water. If the bridegroom has previously
worn a sacred thread he may .continue to do so during the wedding ceremony, but he
should subsequently remove 11. [16, 21)"

I assume this became the process by which charan pahul was prepared once SGGS were given gurgaddi;

' ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be recited'

Edited by Mahakaal96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mahakaal96 said:

"(v) A. Gursikh should not marry his daughter to a mona unless he agrees to accept
initiation. ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be
recited. The couple should then drink the water. If the bridegroom has previously
worn a sacred thread he may .continue to do so during the wedding ceremony, but he
should subsequently remove 11. [16, 21)"

I assume this became the process by which charan pahul was prepared once SGGS were given gurgaddi;

' ThlS lS performed with sweetened water which has been used to wash a
Granth Sahib lectern (manji). Five stanzas of Japji and five of Anand Sahib should be recited'

then why is it not said the same for the mona woman in the previous section ? stop making up stuff and recognise that there are some things here that against Guru Gobind SIngh's rehit  especially numerous Hindu specific rituals like yearly shrad and putting phul of antim sanskar in GANGA ... also no mention of anand Karaj anywhere.  

It is literally contradicting itself , then comparing againt Bhai Nand Lal SIngh's rehitnama  again the difference are apparent.

No daughter of a sikh is supposed to given in the house of a mona  from Guru ji's own hukam  - roti beti di sanjh.. so how does one equate this rehit nama to Guru ji's orders ?

 

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

then why is it not said the same for the mona woman in the previous section ? stop making up stuff and recognise that there are some things here that against Guru Gobind SIngh's rehit  especially numerous Hindu specific rituals like yearly shrad and putting phul of antim sanskar in GANGA ... also no mention of anand Karaj anywhere.  

It is literally contradicting itself , then comparing againt Bhai Nand Lal SIngh's rehitnama  again the difference are apparent.

No daughter of a sikh is supposed to given in the house of a mona  from Guru ji's own hukam  - roti beti di sanjh.. so how does one equate this rehit nama to Guru ji's orders ?

 

I'm not making anything up, it's there in black & white to read & it's from Bhai Chaupa Singh not me.

People need to realise that the initiation rites of a SIKH & the initiation rights of a SINGH/KHALSA are not the same. The KHALSA rehitnama is for those initiated into the Khalsa FAUJ by way of taking 'Khanda Di Pahul'. The Khalsa is a fauj... not a social club where you bring your wives, sisters kids etc along. Firstly understand what a fauj is, then understand what the Khalsa is.

Like I said in previous post, please take your questions & grievances directly to Hazur Sahib to get clear answers 

Edited by Mahakaal96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mahakaal96 said:

I'm not making anything up, it's there in black & white to read & it's from Bhai Chaupa Singh not me.

People need to realise that the initiation rites of a SIKH & the initiation rights of a SINGH/KHALSA are not the same. The KHALSA rehitnama is for those initiated into the Khalsa FAUJ by way of taking 'Khanda Di Pahul'. The Khalsa is a fauj... not a social club where you bring your wives, sisters kids etc along. Firstly understand what a fauj is, then understand what the Khalsa is.

Like I said in previous post, please take your questions & grievances directly to Hazur Sahib to get clear answers 

ok also tell why a sehajdhari is allowed to trim his/her body hair with a scissor , does this mean there four classifications of sikh or three because you have khalsa (khande di pahul), Sikh man (charan pahaul) , Sikh child (kirpan di pahul/chaula), sikh bibian ,keep kesh ,cover heads, not allowed to recite bani to satsang (doesn't specify whether this only relates to male satsang or female satsang (so could be only a male reads to females) and yet is supposed to as part of her duties teach her husband sikhi and gurbani ??? (only kirpan di pahaul)

I'm sorry but too many contradictions  somebody who is called deceitful and untrustworthy , unworthy of sitting in mixed sangat, unworthy of taking gurvaak much less singing kirtan in darbar,  has to have lesser form of amrit, lesser rehit and yet instruct and remind  her husband of his rehit ?

what happened to "so kion manda aakiya jitt jamai rajan ?" of Guru Nanak Dev ji , the Manjis and parchaariks of whole areas by Bibian? How can one instruct other newcomers  of mixed genders if there is such a paabandi on gurvaak, gursewa in sangat? 

Problem is we don't know how much is truly authentic as it even contradicts contemporary Nand Lal rehitnama in places. Guru ji wasn't known to constantly change rehit  just build on previous Guru Sahiban's rehit.

 

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Rehitnama written by Bhai Chaupa Singh (if you don't know who Bhai Chaupa Singh is then research it)

This rehitnama was written in 1700 which means Guru Gobind Singh Ji were still on this mortal world (maharaj returned to sach kand in 1708)

heres translation for you, it is written that khanda da amrit should not be given to women;

I've asked several times but will ask once more, please provide written historical source which predates 1900 that proves women did take Khanda da amrit. Bhai Chaupa Singhs rehitnama from 1700 says women should not be given khanda da amrit & hukamname from Mata Sahib Deva from early 1700's show Mata never used Kaur in her name (which she would have had she taken khanda da amrit)

Hazur Sahib have written historical sources from the time of mahraj to back up their maryada, unless you provide some ACTUAL evidence then this conversation is at a standstill & pointless.

 

IMG_1947.PNG

IMG_1951.PNG

This is not proof.  Provide Bhai chaupa Singh's rehat in its original writing.  A guy puffing his chest for hazuri singhs and Buddha dal is providing McLeod translations.  Lmao.... What's next Dr. Pashura singh writings.  What happened to your predated stipulation of 1900 evidence only.  Clown college presents translation dating from 1990 or so.  Hi Mr. Bigly Trump.....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more interested in the why. Why can women not take Khande Di Pahul? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Akalifauj said:

This is not proof.  Provide Bhai chaupa Singh's rehat in its original writing.  A guy puffing his chest for hazuri singhs and Buddha dal is providing McLeod translations.  Lmao.... What's next Dr. Pashura singh writings.  What happened to your predated stipulation of 1900 evidence only.  Clown college presents translation dating from 1990 or so.  Hi Mr. Bigly Trump.....lol

What do you think this is... babysitting spoon feeding time?? The original is widely available... here's an idea... do some research yourself. The translation is of a text written in 1700. 

The handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva are originals from early 1700's, if Mata had taken Khanda da amrit she must have become a Kaur as is popular practice today... so why has Mata signed those rehitnama as Sahib Devi & not used the word Kaur anywhere?? 

Do your research and you will realise the word 'Kaur' actually means 'Prince'... not princess

You have been given a translation of a text  from 1700 (original widely available) & actual originals of hukamname written by Mata Sahib Deva herself from early 1700's..... where's your evidence that backs up your argument???

Edited by Mahakaal96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mahakaal96 said:

What do you think this is... babysitting spoon feeding time?? The original is widely available... here's an idea... do some research yourself. The translation is of a text written in 1700. 

The handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva are originals from early 1700's, if Mata had taken Khanda da amrit she must have become a Kaur as is popular practice today... so why has Mata signed those rehitnama as Sahib Devi & not used the word Kaur anywhere?? 

Do your research and you will realise the word 'Kaur' actually means 'Prince'... not princess

You have been given a translation of a text  from 1700 (original widely available) & actual originals of hukamname written by Mata Sahib Deva herself from early 1700's..... where's your evidence that backs up your argument???

wasn't it tradition for mahals to be surnamed deva/ devi ? and if issuing hukams for the panth signing with that name would be more well known than her new moniker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

wasn't it tradition for mahals to be surnamed deva/ devi ? and if issuing hukams for the panth signing with that name would be more well known than her new moniker.

That would be very very unlikely as amrit sanchar was in 1699, mahraj returned to Sachkand in 1708, Mata jis hukamname are from several years after that. So your looking at a minimum of around 10-15 years after amrit sanchar so unlikely Mata would continue to use a previous name. And also if we look at other females in the panth right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji I can't recall any of them having Deva or Devi added to their name. If Mata had taken amrit & therefore become a Kaur as is common practice today then she would not have continued to use a previous name... just like mahraj themselves never used sodhi or rai once they became a Singh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

What do you think this is... babysitting spoon feeding time?? The original is widely available... here's an idea... do some research yourself. The translation is of a text written in 1700. 

You are the one who made the claim of women not being given amrit at all first then changed your position to women were given kirpan amrit.  So it is on you to provide sufficient evidence for your claims.  Clearly you didn't understand the humpty dumpty example provided for your simplistic arrogant mind.  If I was to provide your evidence, I would be spoon feeding the clown college illiterate child by providing his own "evidence".  Man O man you are Donald Trumps replica.  And to further show how illiterate you are, you claimed kirpan amrit is given to women, the translated document you provide says nothing about women being given kirpan amrit.  If the translated document is gospel this would make Buddha Dal and Hazur Sahib wrong on women getting kirpan amrit.  As a result your original claim of Hazur Sahib and Buddha dal having the Guru given maryada is wrong.  Also do you see how the author of your translated document doesn't even write down the 5 Bani were recited to make the amrit.  Again Hazur Sahib and Buddha dal maryada will be wrong because they recite the 5 Banis to prepare amrit.   My initial assessment was correct, you are a child. 

Quote

People need to realise that the initiation rites of a SIKH & the initiation rights of a SINGH/KHALSA are not the same. The KHALSA rehitnama is for those initiated into the Khalsa FAUJ by way of taking 'Khanda Di Pahul'. The Khalsa is a fauj... not a social club where you bring your wives, sisters kids etc along. Firstly understand what a fauj is, then understand what the Khalsa is.

If Khande da Amrit was for only the fauj, then the Guru's have been fighting wars since Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji.  Khande Da Amrit would have been initially given by the Sixth Guru, you illiterate arrogant little boy. 

Quote

The handwritten hukamname of Mata Sahib Deva are originals from early 1700's, if Mata had taken Khanda da amrit she must have become a Kaur as is popular practice today... so why has Mata signed those rehitnama as Sahib Devi & not used the word Kaur anywhere?? 

Well do your homework little boy and find sources to make sense of it all.  I know what is going on here, but I won't spoon feed the illiterate arrogant little child, so he can go and troll other forums and Sikhs with his illiterate beliefs.  Time to put on big boy pants today.  You can't push me around little boy. 

If you had done your research, you would know other Gursikhs who gave their life to the Guru wrote an account of what happened on 1699.  This account is different than the English translated document you provided.  Again no spoon feeding for you little boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

You are the one who made the claim of women not being given amrit at all first then changed your position to women were given kirpan amrit.  So it is on you to provide sufficient evidence for your claims.  Clearly you didn't understand the humpty dumpty example provided for your simplistic arrogant mind.  If I was to provide your evidence, I would be spoon feeding the clown college illiterate child by providing his own "evidence".  Man O man you are Donald Trumps replica.  And to further show how illiterate you are, you claimed kirpan amrit is given to women, the translated document you provide says nothing about women being given kirpan amrit.  If the translated document is gospel this would make Buddha Dal and Hazur Sahib wrong on women getting kirpan amrit.  As a result your original claim of Hazur Sahib and Buddha dal having the Guru given maryada is wrong.  Also do you see how the author of your translated document doesn't even write down the 5 Bani were recited to make the amrit.  Again Hazur Sahib and Buddha dal maryada will be wrong because they recite the 5 Banis to prepare amrit.   My initial assessment was correct, you are a child. 

If Khande da Amrit was for only the fauj, then the Guru's have been fighting wars since Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji.  Khande Da Amrit would have been initially given by the Sixth Guru, you illiterate arrogant little boy. 

Well do your homework little boy and find sources to make sense of it all.  I know what is going on here, but I won't spoon feed the illiterate arrogant little child, so he can go and troll other forums and Sikhs with his illiterate beliefs.  Time to put on big boy pants today.  You can't push me around little boy. 

If you had done your research, you would know other Gursikhs who gave their life to the Guru wrote an account of what happened on 1699.  This account is different than the English translated document you provided.  Again no spoon feeding for you little boy.

Yawn..... still just hot air & childish remarks but still no ACTUAL facts or evidence....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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...

×