Jump to content

Budha Dal & Banda Bairagi - The Facts


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Again, I reiterate my point, you have shown no actual sources that back up your view, all you have provided is 1 name yet continue to ask for even more sources & evidence from those who oppose your view. If this were an actual gyan sabha you would be laughed out the door by now.

Untill you provide sources & evidence that back up your views & hold as much weight as the names & sources I have provided this discussion can not continue.

Lets keep it factual & leave the emotional heartstring stuff like Gurmukh/manmukh stuff to one side for now...... but if you insist on going down that route & base your argument on how could someone ‘handpicked’ by mahraj fall from grace then the example given by Kira is appropriate. If 7ve Gurus own biological son Ram Rai can fall from grace then why not anyone else? Those who do not understand the complexity of hankar & ego wont be able to get their head around that. 

Besides, it is universally accepted that Banda redeemed himself during his shaheedi, so again, leave the emotional stuff to 1 side & let’s stick to the facts & please provide sources that your views are based on. Emotional blackmail, personal feelings & individual personality worship traits do not count in a genuine gyan sabha.

Mahakaal, Again you did not address any of my points and I don't understand why the tone of your post is full of hostility towards me. I am addressing you normally in a friendly debate. I have nothing against you bro. So take it easy.

 

You said Baba Banda Singh Bahadur called himself a Guru. But did not provide anything from his own letters proving he called himself a Guru. The only contemporary sources which call him a Guru are the Mughal ones not Sikh ones. PP and SP were written during the era of M Ranjit Singh(many generations after and contain errors in regards to other Shaheeds). Giani Gian Singh's time period was even after PP and SP. The letters of Mata Ji are forged by the Mughals who wanted the Khalsa to stop waging war against the Mughals. The Mughals had lost considerable territory to the Sikhs and thousands of soldiers and capable commanders during the Sikh rebellion. So it is understandable they will use Saam Dhaam Dand and Bhed tactics to make the Khalsa stop their activities.

 

The Gurmukh/Manmukh argument is not emotional. It is logical. How can a Manmukh get Shaheed like Baba Banda Singh Bahadur who was tortured all over his body with red hot pliers, had his eyes gouged out, had his hands and feet chopped of yet remain calm. Which Manmukh would have the Sabbar to have his son(a little boy) killed in front of him yet remain true to Sikhi? Which Manmukh would remain a humble servant of the Guru yet not even crown himself as king after winning such a huge territory. These are not the attributes of a Manmukh but a Gurmukh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

Mahakaal, Again you did not address any of my points and I don't understand why the tone of your post is full of hostility towards me. I am addressing you normally in a friendly debate. I have nothing against you bro. So take it easy.

 

You said Baba Banda Singh Bahadur called himself a Guru. But did not provide anything from his own letters proving he called himself a Guru. The only contemporary sources which call him a Guru are the Mughal ones not Sikh ones. PP and SP were written during the era of M Ranjit Singh(many generations after and contain errors in regards to other Shaheeds). Giani Gian Singh's time period was even after PP and SP. The letters of Mata Ji are forged by the Mughals who wanted the Khalsa to stop waging war against the Mughals. The Mughals had lost considerable territory to the Sikhs and thousands of soldiers and capable commanders during the Sikh rebellion. So it is understandable they will use Saam Dhaam Dand and Bhed tactics to make the Khalsa stop their activities.

 

The Gurmukh/Manmukh argument is not emotional. It is logical. How can a Manmukh get Shaheed like Baba Banda Singh Bahadur who was tortured all over his body with red hot pliers, had his eyes gouged out, had his hands and feet chopped of yet remain calm. Which Manmukh would have the Sabbar to have his son(a little boy) killed in front of him yet remain true to Sikhi? Which Manmukh would remain a humble servant of the Guru yet not even crown himself as king after winning such a huge territory. These are not the attributes of a Manmukh but a Gurmukh.

Prominent scholars, sants & jathedars from Taksal, Budha Dal, nirmala sampardai & Hazur Sahib are all universally agreed that the Hukamnama from Mata Sundri Ji is genuine. If I remember correctly Mata Ji had Guru Sahibs mohr which would have been on the hukamnama.

PP & SP may have been written years later but they were written by gursikhs of the highest calibre who came from strong gursikh families.

Banda Bahadurs exemplary & praise worthy actions during his shaheedi have never been questioned by anyone, it is accepted across the board that Banda redeemed himself during his shaheedi.... it is not an issue here.... the issue is whether there was a fall from grace prior to shaheedi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

My points about PP also stand for Suraj Prakash. Like PP, the SP was also written during the era of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. We should not treat PP and SP as if they are Dhur Ki Bani which cannot contain mistakes or errors. Personally I like to read PP and SP but I don't blindly believe everything from those Granths. The opinion of two Sampradahs I can respect but I respectfully disagree because those opinions were based on PP and SP and those two Granths based their opinion on forged letters.

Again these weren't based solely on the Granths, this was from the oral history passed down as well. One of these Sampardayas was completely isolated from the other, yet they both retained the same history. The forged letter argument is completely baseless, firstly Mata Sundri Ji was in Delhi during the sikh campaigns, She was quite literally the only thing keeping them safe from Sikhs. If the Emperor had forged a letter by her and sent it out, Sikhs would have known instantly. Bhai Mani Singh Ji (who was corresponding directly with Mata Ji), Baba Deep Singh Ji, the court poets and a large portion of the court of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji were all still around. Many of whom were master scribes (having written so many scriptures) and were intimate with the handwriting of the Mehals and Guru Ji himself. They could spot a forgery a mile off and would have alerted Mata Sundri Ji, such an insult would have brought the carnage having in Punjab to Delhi's doorsteps in an instant. What sikh would tolerate such an insult against the Guru Mata? 

Suraj Prakash Granth wasn't based off the letters, firstly that's a totally inaccurate statement as no historian worth their salt would, no collector would as well. Kavi Ji spent 40 years researching and collecting everything, to base an entire life saga and then elaborate an entire historical event would be an insult to any historian.  

Quote

From the same Sampradah, Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale also had Divine Darshan of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur as a Shaheed Singh along with Baba Deep Singh jee and 3 other respected Shaheed Singhs. If he was a Manmukh(who claimed to be a Guru) how could he be in the ranks of the Shaheed Singhs like Baba Deep Singh Jee? I don't know if you believe in the existence of Shaheed Singhs or how much you have read SP, but SP also mentions an incident where Guru Gobind Singh jee gave Baba Banda Singh Bahadur divine vision of Shaheed Singhs. How can a Manmukh who claims to be a Guru have blessed Darshan of Shaheed Singhs? Only a high caliber Gurmukh can have such divine visions.

Like the Granths exalt and like the oral tradition states, Baba Ji had a relapse but eventually saw the error of his ways. The Singhs that abandoned Guru Ji had a similar issue, yet Guru Ji forgave them because of their sincerity. No ones questioning Baba Ji's Shaheedi, he was a Gursikh in the end but there was a time when he fell off that path, that's why he's a Shaheed and a Gursikh, Just like Bedawa written was never held over the Sikhs who left Guru Ji as he forgave them. You keep saying that work "manmukh" yet no one is calling Baba Ji that. Baba Ji had a relapse which was noted, but he later on changed and reverted back to the right path. Which is the most important part. 

Quote

Besides this, look at the way he became Shaheed. Having his son killed right in front of his eyes yet did not leave Sikhi, was tortured in the most unimaginable ways yet refused to leave Sikhi. Can a Manmukh(who claims to be Guru and all the other Manmukhi things PP and SP claims about him) go through all such tortures and have his son killed right in front of himself and not flinch? I doubt it. These are the clear signs of a Gurmukh Pyara and not just any Gurmukh but a Gurmukh of high spiritual states.

Again No ones questioning Baba Ji's shaheedi or where Baba Ji's loyalty was at the time, we're pointing out that before it Baba Ji fell off that path before that but later saw the error of his ways. Just like the Singhs who abandoned Guru Ji at Anandpur Sahib, its never been held against them and this has never been held against Baba Ji. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kira said:

Again these weren't based solely on the Granths, this was from the oral history passed down as well. One of these Sampardayas was completely isolated from the other, yet they both retained the same history. The forged letter argument is completely baseless, firstly Mata Sundri Ji was in Delhi during the sikh campaigns, She was quite literally the only thing keeping them safe from Sikhs. If the Emperor had forged a letter by her and sent it out, Sikhs would have known instantly. Bhai Mani Singh Ji (who was corresponding directly with Mata Ji), Baba Deep Singh Ji, the court poets and a large portion of the court of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji were all still around. Many of whom were master scribes (having written so many scriptures) and were intimate with the handwriting of the Mehals and Guru Ji himself. They could spot a forgery a mile off and would have alerted Mata Sundri Ji, such an insult would have brought the carnage having in Punjab to Delhi's doorsteps in an instant. What sikh would tolerate such an insult against the Guru Mata? 

Suraj Prakash Granth wasn't based off the letters, firstly that's a totally inaccurate statement as no historian worth their salt would, no collector would as well. Kavi Ji spent 40 years researching and collecting everything, to base an entire life saga and then elaborate an entire historical event would be an insult to any historian.  

Like the Granths exalt and like the oral tradition states, Baba Ji had a relapse but eventually saw the error of his ways. The Singhs that abandoned Guru Ji had a similar issue, yet Guru Ji forgave them because of their sincerity. No ones questioning Baba Ji's Shaheedi, he was a Gursikh in the end but there was a time when he fell off that path, that's why he's a Shaheed and a Gursikh, Just like Bedawa written was never held over the Sikhs who left Guru Ji as he forgave them. You keep saying that work "manmukh" yet no one is calling Baba Ji that. Baba Ji had a relapse which was noted, but he later on changed and reverted back to the right path. Which is the most important part. 

Again No ones questioning Baba Ji's shaheedi or where Baba Ji's loyalty was at the time, we're pointing out that before it Baba Ji fell off that path before that but later saw the error of his ways. Just like the Singhs who abandoned Guru Ji at Anandpur Sahib, its never been held against them and this has never been held against Baba Ji. 

 

The oral history argument doesn't hold since neither you nor me have any real proof what the oral history was from the perspective of Buddha Dal and Dam Dami Taksal or how correct the oral history was. Oral history can always add or subtract information as it passes from one generation to the next. Just take the oral history of what happened in 1984 and Santa Singh's rebuilding the Akal Takht from the perspective of Dam Dami Taksal vs the Buddha Dal. They both have a very different perspective of the same event. While majority of the Panth knows the Dam Dami Taksal version is correct. But 300 years from now who is to say which oral perspective was correct? It will be left to future historians like Dr Ganda Singh to analyze and some to a balanced view of the events as he did when he wrote his book on Baba Banda Singh Bahadur.

 

As for the letters, an expert historian who has studied the letters will know if something is correct or not. And that is what Dr Anurag Singh did when he closely scrutinized the letter to see if it is authentic or not to which he came to the conclusion it is not. That is probably why the Khalsa ignored the letters and did not stop it's war effort. They saw through it and kept on till the last conflict in the Fort of Gurdas Nangal. It is only in the this very last and final conflict that the the Sikhs split. Just out of curiosity, do you actually know what was written in those letters? Have you read them?

 

It seems your argument is corresponding to Mahakaal's argument. Of the so called relapse which seems to have been discovered on this very forum since today. The idea that first Baba Jee was good then he went bad but then he went good again right before he became Shaheed. Problem which this is, this argument seems to have been designed to only counter my argument but is not in agreement with SP, PP or any other source which have only vilified Baba Banda Singh Bahadur till his very end.

 

Let's say if he really did turn bad as you say, meaning he really did became Hankari and called himself a Guru, why did the Sikhs including Baba Deep Singh Ji, Bhai Mani Singh Jee and countless Singhs continue to fight for a bad Baba Banda Singh Bahadur who was pretending to be Guru of the Sikhs? Did Bhai Mani Singh Jee and Baba Deep SIngh Jee not know? What year did he all of a sudden become Hankari and start to call himself a Guru of the Sikhs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Prominent scholars, sants & jathedars from Taksal, Budha Dal, nirmala sampardai & Hazur Sahib are all universally agreed that the Hukamnama from Mata Sundri Ji is genuine. If I remember correctly Mata Ji had Guru Sahibs mohr which would have been on the hukamnama.

PP & SP may have been written years later but they were written by gursikhs of the highest calibre who came from strong gursikh families.

Banda Bahadurs exemplary & praise worthy actions during his shaheedi have never been questioned by anyone, it is accepted across the board that Banda redeemed himself during his shaheedi.... it is not an issue here.... the issue is whether there was a fall from grace prior to shaheedi

 

Mahakaal Ji, neither you will change your view of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur and neither will I. While your view is more in line with SP and PP and my view is more in line with historian Dr Ganda Singh ji who had studied a wide variety of primary sources such as Sikh, Muslim, Persian, European, Hindu sources to come to his conclusions of Baba Ji. We can only agree to respectfully disagree with one another on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

The oral history argument doesn't hold since neither you nor me have any real proof what the oral history was from the perspective of Buddha Dal and Dam Dami Taksal or how correct the oral history was. Oral history can always add or subtract information as it passes from one generation to the next. Just take the oral history of what happened in 1984 and Santa Singh's rebuilding the Akal Takht from the perspective of Dam Dami Taksal vs the Buddha Dal. They both have a very different perspective of the same event. While majority of the Panth knows the Dam Dami Taksal version is correct. But 300 years from now who is to say which oral perspective was correct? It will be left to future historians like Dr Ganda Singh to analyze and some to a balanced view of the events as he did when he wrote his book on Baba Banda Singh Bahadur.

 

Again you're confusing several things here. Firstly the oral history from both traditions in this situation is 100% the same with some minor details obviously, something that one or the other would be privy too. The "oral" history that you're mentioning regarding the takhat is different from a recount, that is historical explanation. The oral history in the 1984 incident is that Akaal Takhat was destroyed and Baba Santa Singh Ji rebuilt it. The reasons why he did that is with Budhha Dal, Taksal also note that Baba Santa Singh Ji rebuilt it but have a differing opinion on reasons, not the event, both accept the event happened. The history is the same, the only difference is the reasons. Which in this instance is totally and utterly inconsequential since the discussion is if Baba Ji error-ed and fell off the path, which both traditions agree he did. 

Quote

As for the letters, an expert historian who has studied the letters will know if something is correct or not. And that is what Dr Anurag Singh did when he closely scrutinized the letter to see if it is authentic or not to which he came to the conclusion it is not. That is probably why the Khalsa ignored the letters and did not stop it's war effort. They saw through it and kept on till the last conflict in the Fort of Gurdas Nangal. It is only in the this very last and final conflict that the the Sikhs split. Just out of curiosity, do you actually know what was written in those letters? Have you read them?

Sant Jarnail Singh Ji is also a historian and a Brahmgyani, that status alone trumps anything any human historian can say. I have read letters by Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Ji but the ones I read were dated relatively near the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's leave to Sachkhand, that's why I asked you to post the others. As the dates are extremely significant.

Quote

It seems your argument is corresponding to Mahakaal's argument. Of the so called relapse which seems to have been discovered on this very forum since today. The idea that first Baba Jee was good then he went bad but then he went good again right before he became Shaheed. Problem which this is, this argument seems to have been designed to only counter my argument but is not in agreement with SP, PP or any other source which have only vilified Baba Banda Singh Bahadur till his very end.

You really need to read the Granths, they praise Baba Ji. So does Taksal, So does Dal. He was a Panth Soorma of the highest calibre yet they all know he error-ed and fell off the path. This isn't a new argument, the reason you've never heard of it is because you've (im sorry if I sound callous) seem to want to take the words of a human being over that of Brahmgyanis, this was all recorded in the oral traditions, its always been the reason. Even SP and PP both exhalt Baba Ji, even in Shaheedi, until you actually read them with an open mind everything will seem like slander. Just here you tried to insinuate that Sant Jarnail Singh Ji is somehow unaware of what actually happened, that he simply sat down one day, read something and then repeated it like a parrot. Sant Ji was a scholar of the highest degree.

Quote

Let's say if he really did turn bad as you say, meaning he really did became Hankari and called himself a Guru, why did the Sikhs including Baba Deep Singh Ji, Bhai Mani Singh Jee and countless Singhs continue to fight for a bad Baba Banda Singh Bahadur who was pretending to be Guru of the Sikhs? Did Bhai Mani Singh Jee and Baba Deep SIngh Jee not know? What year did he all of a sudden become Hankari and start to call himself a Guru of the Sikhs?

Bhai Mani Singh Ji was busy doing his own seva for the panth. Baba Deep Singh Ji was busy doing his own seva, the only time (that I can remember historically of the top of my head where they fought together was during the Battle of Sirhind, which everyone agreed was part of Guru Ji's order) he was serving the panth with Baba Banda Singh Ji was during the battle of Sirhind, after that he was assigned his own misl and disappears from the , none of them were at or even following under Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Ji, they weren't present during this time when Baba Ji did this. There were plenty of sikhs around that did follow Baba Ji during that period, just like there were plenty of misguided sikhs who followed Baba Ram Rai Ji when he claimed to be Guru.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2018 at 7:23 PM, Kira said:

Again you're confusing several things here. Firstly the oral history from both traditions in this situation is 100% the same with some minor details obviously, something that one or the other would be privy too. The "oral" history that you're mentioning regarding the takhat is different from a recount, that is historical explanation. The oral history in the 1984 incident is that Akaal Takhat was destroyed and Baba Santa Singh Ji rebuilt it. The reasons why he did that is with Budhha Dal, Taksal also note that Baba Santa Singh Ji rebuilt it but have a differing opinion on reasons, not the event, both accept the event happened. The history is the same, the only difference is the reasons. Which in this instance is totally and utterly inconsequential since the discussion is if Baba Ji error-ed and fell off the path, which both traditions agree he did. 

Sant Jarnail Singh Ji is also a historian and a Brahmgyani, that status alone trumps anything any human historian can say. I have read letters by Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Ji but the ones I read were dated relatively near the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's leave to Sachkhand, that's why I asked you to post the others. As the dates are extremely significant.

You really need to read the Granths, they praise Baba Ji. So does Taksal, So does Dal. He was a Panth Soorma of the highest calibre yet they all know he error-ed and fell off the path. This isn't a new argument, the reason you've never heard of it is because you've (im sorry if I sound callous) seem to want to take the words of a human being over that of Brahmgyanis, this was all recorded in the oral traditions, its always been the reason. Even SP and PP both exhalt Baba Ji, even in Shaheedi, until you actually read them with an open mind everything will seem like slander. Just here you tried to insinuate that Sant Jarnail Singh Ji is somehow unaware of what actually happened, that he simply sat down one day, read something and then repeated it like a parrot. Sant Ji was a scholar of the highest degree.

Bhai Mani Singh Ji was busy doing his own seva for the panth. Baba Deep Singh Ji was busy doing his own seva, the only time (that I can remember historically of the top of my head where they fought together was during the Battle of Sirhind, which everyone agreed was part of Guru Ji's order) he was serving the panth with Baba Banda Singh Ji was during the battle of Sirhind, after that he was assigned his own misl and disappears from the , none of them were at or even following under Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Ji, they weren't present during this time when Baba Ji did this. There were plenty of sikhs around that did follow Baba Ji during that period, just like there were plenty of misguided sikhs who followed Baba Ram Rai Ji when he claimed to be Guru.

 

When you say Baba Ji errored or fell off the path. Can you tell me what exactly he did wrong?

Link to comment
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...
 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