Maharaja Ranjit Singh (Sher-e-Punjab)...
Sanatan Singh

Toronto, Canada

#1206 Jul 26, 2012
vikram singh wrote:
ranjit singh was a king of punjab but he was sansi by caste .those who claimed him jatt are totally wrong, they hide their caste ,they are making king as a jutt .out of 100 historians 70 percent declared him sansi ,only few jutt historians claiming him jutt,but truth is that he was sansi by caste
Agree. There is no such clan as Sansi Jat . It is a pure fabrication of Jat writers. Sansi is a gypsy caste originating from Bhati Rajputs .

Ranjit Singh was a Sansi, as noted by Lepel Griffin and Muhamnad Latif.
Zuber Singh

New Delhi, India

#1207 Jul 26, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should Hindu practices be identified with their corrupt form and those of other religions /sects be identified with their original pristine spirit . This is your bias .
No Hindu that I know considers Idol a "messenger" . Some ignorant people might do it but Hindus have no monopoly over such adherents .
Muslims in many countries go and pray on the graves of their holy men. They think that the dead saint will intercede between them and God and there is special merit in praying at the shrine. Catholics have identical beliefs .
Even many neo-Sikhs believe in the special blessing in bathing in Hari Mandir Sahib tank. To a non believer it is just any other pond .
Lastly , you say that Sikhs do not believe in intermediary between devotee and God. What do you make of the term "Gur Parsad" in mool mantar? If you believe in Adi Granth as your Guru , then it IS the "messenger" between you and the God. Otherwise , please explain "Gur Parsad"
Please also explain the Gurbami verse :" Gur sa na koi dev" ( there is no God like guru).
Well to be fair there is no idol worship in the Vedas either. If you consider the Vedas as the most pristine form of Hinduism as I do then you would also agree that I am not biased against true Hinduism (the Vedas). If this agreed with, then there should be no idol worship in any major Dharmic faith.

Muslims and Christians also carry these practices out no doubt, even though it is not recommended by their respective scriptures. Sikhs should not hold the belief that bathing in the sarovar grants moksha as such beliefs were not endorsed by the Guru.

Also I would just like to point out that I never said the Guru was not an intermediate between devotee and deity. No doubt it is. I said that in Idol worship, an Idol acts as a messenger between deity and devotee, sort of like a phone line. If one worships or prays to the statue, then the representative of the statue will directly get the same worship or prayer. There is no such concept however in Sikhi, we do not speak to god through the Guru, the Guru is more like an escort to within ourselves, who shows us god directly. In this way the Guru is very much a intermediate. In the words of Bhagat Kabir, "Balihari Guru apne Gobind diyo bataye" It is the Guru who has shown you the path to God (so respect is first due to him.)

I remember you said before that Gurbani doesnt just have a literal meaning, its meaning is much more deeper, and I completely agree with you.

"Gur sa na koi dev" This verse can be seen it two ways. There is no deva/demigod (Indra/Agni/Rudra) who can compare to the Guru, as the Guru is more spiritually evolved than they.

Alternatively you could see it in the light that since god exists in everyone, the Guru is the most self realized so the existence of god as the Guru is more complete than any other.

The verse is not saying that the Guru is god alone, and we are definitely not bowing to the Guru Granth Sahib as a form of god, if this were the case then we would have to drag our bodies along bowing everywhere we go as God is always in our presence.

Sorry if I created any misconceptions.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.
Zuber Singh

New Delhi, India

#1208 Jul 26, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. There is no such clan as Sansi Jat . It is a pure fabrication of Jat writers. Sansi is a gypsy caste originating from Bhati Rajputs .
Ranjit Singh was a Sansi, as noted by Lepel Griffin and Muhamnad Latif.
Yes, I'm beginning to realize that Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Ranjit Singh might have actually been related. Jassa Singh also descended from the royal house of Jaisalmer (Bhati Rajputs). In the Ahluwalia clan, there is a subgroup called Sundh, perhaps they originated from the same village that Ranjit Singh's cousins, the Sandhawalias came from.
Zuber Singh

New Delhi, India

#1209 Jul 26, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are confirming that in this line Guru Ji is talking about this own Tilak and Janju :
"Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh Tab Ta. Ka"
"Your Tilak and Sacred Thread was Then Protected , O God"
(Bachitar Natak)
So the Janju is now positively a Sikh symbol too, like Tilak (as you admitted previously )
Btw, this Khushwaqt Rai was a British spy . I would use any thing written with caution . His real mission was to help British weaken the Khalsa.
I'm sorry, I'm not too sure I understand what you are saying here, could you rephrase the question?

I don't think Khuswaqt Rai could have possibly been a spy, to my knowledge his report went to the British and was not given to Sikhs as propaganda. His job was essentially the same as Rattan Singh Bhangu's (of Pracheen Panth Prakash fame) who was clearly not a spy.
Sanatan Singh

Toronto, Canada

#1210 Jul 26, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I'm beginning to realize that Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Ranjit Singh might have actually been related. Jassa Singh also descended from the royal house of Jaisalmer (Bhati Rajputs). In the Ahluwalia clan, there is a subgroup called Sundh, perhaps they originated from the same village that Ranjit Singh's cousins, the Sandhawalias came from.
Jassa Singh was actually a kalal . It is a caste of bootleggers (wine sellers). He was known in his day as Jassa Kalal .

Ranjit Singh was a Sansi . They are banjaras. They claim to be Rajputs from Bhatner who became gypsies during Khilji's time . The status of rest of the caste is actually very low, much like those of Roma gypsies in Europe.

According to Sansi legends they had vowed never to settle down again until they had expelled Muslims from Bhatner from where they had originated . Their descendants had become highway men and sometimes petty thieves.

Ranjit Singh's grand father , Charat Singh, was a great freebootet and a cattle thief . But at the same time he was a very fierecely patriotic Hindu (Sanatan Sikh). He and his men had harassed Abdali's army and looted their caravans all the way upto Pakthtoonistan.
Sanatan Singh

Toronto, Canada

#1211 Jul 26, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I'm not too sure I understand what you are saying here, could you rephrase the question?
I don't think Khuswaqt Rai could have possibly been a spy, to my knowledge his report went to the British and was not given to Sikhs as propaganda. His job was essentially the same as Rattan Singh Bhangu's (of Pracheen Panth Prakash fame) who was clearly not a spy.
Khuswaqt Rai was an employee of East India Company who was deployed in Amritsar to spy on Khalsa . I read that in a book written by Nalwa's descendant . You can find it in Google Books.

His real task was to confuse and weaken the Sikhs . He looks like a precursor of Macaulliffe .

They call it divide and rule.
Zuber Singh

Delhi, India

#1212 Jul 27, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Jassa Singh was actually a kalal . It is a caste of bootleggers (wine sellers). He was known in his day as Jassa Kalal .
Ranjit Singh was a Sansi . They are banjaras. They claim to be Rajputs from Bhatner who became gypsies during Khilji's time . The status of rest of the caste is actually very low, much like those of Roma gypsies in Europe.
According to Sansi legends they had vowed never to settle down again until they had expelled Muslims from Bhatner from where they had originated . Their descendants had become highway men and sometimes petty thieves.
Ranjit Singh's grand father , Charat Singh, was a great freebootet and a cattle thief . But at the same time he was a very fierecely patriotic Hindu (Sanatan Sikh). He and his men had harassed Abdali's army and looted their caravans all the way upto Pakthtoonistan.
Yeah he was a Kalal. His ancestor however was Prince Tulsi, a prince of Jailsalmer (exiled) and a Sikh of Guru Hargobind. His family and followers (Bhatti Rajputs) married into Jats and settled down in the village of Ahlo. Prince Tulsi's part Rajput part Jat grandson fell in love with a Kalal girl. The two families were thereby joined on the condition from the Kalals that their descendants would carry the Kalal family name and not any other. That was how Jassa Singh Ahluwalia's family started.
Sanatan Singh

Toronto, Canada

#1213 Jul 27, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah he was a Kalal. His ancestor however was Prince Tulsi, a prince of Jailsalmer (exiled) and a Sikh of Guru Hargobind. His family and followers (Bhatti Rajputs) married into Jats and settled down in the village of Ahlo. Prince Tulsi's part Rajput part Jat grandson fell in love with a Kalal girl. The two families were thereby joined on the condition from the Kalals that their descendants would carry the Kalal family name and not any other. That was how Jassa Singh Ahluwalia's family started.
Interesting information. I did not read it anywhere else . Kalals are however an independent caste . They are considered neither Jats nor Rajputs .

I used to know a Sehajdhari Kalal family which had Bir at home in a dedicated room . They also used to go to Vaushno Devi every year . Grand father knew Sikh scriptures very well.
Zuber Singh

Delhi, India

#1214 Jul 27, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting information. I did not read it anywhere else . Kalals are however an independent caste . They are considered neither Jats nor Rajputs .
I used to know a Sehajdhari Kalal family which had Bir at home in a dedicated room . They also used to go to Vaushno Devi every year . Grand father knew Sikh scriptures very well.
Yes I know! I came to know about this very recently myself. Small world!
Zuber Singh

New Delhi, India

#1215 Jul 28, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Khuswaqt Rai was an employee of East India Company who was deployed in Amritsar to spy on Khalsa . I read that in a book written by Nalwa's descendant . You can find it in Google Books.
His real task was to confuse and weaken the Sikhs . He looks like a precursor of Macaulliffe .
They call it divide and rule.
Interesting, and may be very well true.

However Twarikh-e-Sikhan was written for the British, I doubt he would have supplied them with wrong information.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1216 Jul 28, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, and may be very well true.
However Twarikh-e-Sikhan was written for the British, I doubt he would have supplied them with wrong information.
If it had been written for the British audience, it would not be titled "Twarikh-e-Sikhan".

This only shows that British were a proactively busy trying to sabotage the Sikh identity even before Punjab fell to them.

They first divided Punjabi and Sindhi Hindus into Hindus and Sikhs, Within this new category "Sikh" (read neo-Sikh), it was further split into castes (martial castes vs "cowardly" business castes).

Army recruitment policy was used to split Sikhs on the basis of caste and split them from their parent Hindu body by emphasizing Khalsa Sikh identity and disenfranchising Sehajdhari Sikh identity. A new category of "martial Sikhs" was nurtured by making them loyal to the empire by doling out special favors to them at the expense of the otehr "non-martial" Sikhs.

Mcaullife's and Cunningham's books on Sikh history abd nurturing of Lahore Singh Sabha at the expense of Amritsar Singh Sabha was part of this policy of weakening Sikhs by dividing them against their parent Hindu tradition and further against each other.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1217 Jul 28, 2012
cairene wrote:
Alrigt, while i understand the language of the SGGS, at times, to be allegorical, do you then accept the SGGS verse is saying that the Prophet's message is sweet? Or in your opinion, was that an allegory or something something?
Muhammad's name is not mentioned even once in SGGS. The references to the prophet are as "Paikambar" mostly and are in conjunction, with the word "Pir". The latter is not acceptable word to orthodox Muslims.

The Islam that was found and practiced in Punjab at the time of Sikh Gurus was heavily Vedanta and Nath mysticism. You can see that even in the writings of Shah Muhammad and Waris Shah.

Most Indians received Islam through the filter of the Sufis. They identified Islam with the Sufis. Very few of them, except the very learned in Arabic and Persian, had exposure to real Islam.

Sufis have successfully infiltrated Islam and softened and diluted it. Their Muhammad is different from the real Muhammad.

The vague references to Muhammad in SGGS is this Muhammad of Sufis and his Allah is not monotheistic but a pantheistic one ("Khalk Khalk Khalk Mein Khalik"). I can follow this Muhammad too but this is not historically true Muhammad. It is a Muhammad of Sufi's projection. It is not the Muhammad of Hadith, the actual historical tradition of Islam. And the actual interpretation of Quran and biography of Muhammad is not possible with Hadith.

It is also noteworthy what while SGGS is full of intimate , uplifting and detailed references to Hindu Puranic and epical stories and concepts, the references to Islamic concepts are vague at best. There is no mention of judgement day. Gabriel, Lukmaan, Musa, Isa, Ibrahim, promise of virgins, etc.

The only conclusion that can be made is that Sikh Gurus too received Islamic ideas through Sufis and even if they did know the actual content of Islam they, for obvious reasons, chose to emphasize the soft and pantheistic Sufi version of it - in the sparse references we have in SGGS- which was already mixed with Monist Vedanta.

It is also worth noting that Sikh Gurus tries their best in preventing Hindus from accepting or converting to Islam. Bhai Sati Das, Guru Tegh Bahadur's presence, actually told the Mullah that Islam was false before he was brutally executed. It is especially worth noticing. He did not say Islam is only as good as Hinduism to be politically correct. He actually said that Islam was false and if God wanted all people to be Muslims he would have made sure that all people are born circumcised.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1218 Jul 28, 2012
with corrections:
cairene wrote:
Alrigt, while i understand the language of the SGGS, at times, to be allegorical, do you then accept the SGGS verse is saying that the Prophet's message is sweet? Or in your opinion, was that an allegory or something something?
Muhammad's name is not mentioned even once in SGGS. The references to the prophet are as "Paikambar" mostly and are in conjunction, with the word "Pir". The latter is not acceptable word to orthodox Muslims.

The Islam that was found and practiced in Punjab at the time of Sikh Gurus was heavily mixed with Vedanta and Nath mysticism of the Hindu tradition. You can see that even in the writings of Shah Muhammad and Waris Shah.

Most Indians received Islam through the filter of the Sufis. They identified Islam with the Sufis. Very few of them, except the very learned in Arabic and Persian, had exposure to real Islam.

Sufis have successfully infiltrated Islam and softened and diluted it. Their Muhammad is different from the real Muhammad.

The vague references to Muhammad in SGGS is this Muhammad of Sufis and his Allah is not monotheistic but a pantheistic one ("Khalk Khalk Khalk Mein Khalik"). I can follow this Muhammad too but this is not historically true Muhammad. It is a Muhammad of Sufi's projection. It is not the Muhammad of Hadith, the actual historical tradition of Islam. And the actual interpretation of Quran and biography of Muhammad is not possible with Hadith.

It is also noteworthy what while SGGS is full of intimate , uplifting and detailed references to Hindu Puranic and epical stories and concepts, the references to Islamic concepts are vague at best. There is no mention of judgement day. Gabriel, Lukmaan, Musa, Isa, Ibrahim, promise of virgins, etc.

The only conclusion that can be made is that Sikh Gurus too received Islamic ideas through Sufis and even if they did know the actual content of Islam they, for obvious reasons, chose to emphasize the soft and pantheistic Sufi version of it - in the sparse references we have in SGGS- which was already mixed with Monist Vedanta.

It is also worth noting that Sikh Gurus tries their best in preventing Hindus from accepting or converting to Islam. Bhai Sati Das, in Guru Tegh Bahadur's presence, actually told the Mullah that Islam was false before he was brutally executed. It is especially worth noticing. He did not say Islam is only as good as Hinduism to be just politically correct. He actually said that Islam was false and if God wanted all people to be Muslims he would have made sure that all people are born circumcised.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1219 Jul 28, 2012
sorry another correction:

And the actual interpretation of Quran and biography of Muhammad is not possible WITHOUT Hadith.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1220 Jul 28, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
Their service is useless. Those who fall at the feet of a stone god their work is wasted in vain.||1||
-SGGS Ang 1160
This is the Gurbani I was talking about when I said that Idol worship cannot be considered a meditative aid since it is a waste of time. Furthermore, I don't think it will be possible to make an idol for a god who is 'Nirankar'
First off, Adi Granh does not say God is just formless ("nigun") only. It also says God does take form ("sagun"). Those who say that God is "nirgun" ("Nirankar actually mean egoless not formless) only are also benighted. He has got a form but He is also formless. He is fullness and yet he is emptiness. It is given as below in Sukhmani Sahab:

Sargun nirgun nirankaar sunn samadhi aap.
Aapan kee-aa naankaa aapay hee fir jaap

So your position of God being without form always is wrong and is not supported by Sikh scripture.

Secondly, Gurus also have criticized blind wearing of Turban as follows:

"upon your head is a turban, and you wear two loin cloths.

If you knew the nature of God,

you would know that all of these beliefs and rituals are in vain."

(Guru Nanak Dev, page 470, Adi Granth)

"Napak Pak Kar Hadur Hadisa Sabat Surat Dastar Sira"

"Purify what is impure, and let the Lord's Presence be your religious tradition. Let your total awareness be the turban on your head." ||12||

(Guru Arjun Dev, page 1084, Adi Granth)

So you agree that wearing of Turban is total waste of time and effort and will not lead to any religious merit?
Sikhimylife

Reservoir, Australia

#1221 Jul 28, 2012
svas wrote:
proud sullah u are just being very silly and immature.
its hard to take someone like u serious.
Yes EXACLTY, so I can be proud by shutting up as well
Zuber Singh

Delhi, India

#1222 Jul 29, 2012
Sanatan Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, Adi Granh does not say God is just formless ("nigun") only. It also says God does take form ("sagun"). Those who say that God is "nirgun" ("Nirankar actually mean egoless not formless) only are also benighted. He has got a form but He is also formless. He is fullness and yet he is emptiness. It is given as below in Sukhmani Sahab:
Sargun nirgun nirankaar sunn samadhi aap.
Aapan kee-aa naankaa aapay hee fir jaap
So your position of God being without form always is wrong and is not supported by Sikh scripture.
Secondly, Gurus also have criticized blind wearing of Turban as follows:
"upon your head is a turban, and you wear two loin cloths.
If you knew the nature of God,
you would know that all of these beliefs and rituals are in vain."
(Guru Nanak Dev, page 470, Adi Granth)
"Napak Pak Kar Hadur Hadisa Sabat Surat Dastar Sira"
"Purify what is impure, and let the Lord's Presence be your religious tradition. Let your total awareness be the turban on your head." ||12||
(Guru Arjun Dev, page 1084, Adi Granth)
So you agree that wearing of Turban is total waste of time and effort and will not lead to any religious merit?
well god in sggs is both nirgun and sargun, we cannot make an idol to god if god is without form. but that being said we cannot make an idol to god when god is all-form, that would be impossible. If you can pray to god in the form of an idol of shiva, then surely you can pray to a statue of Aurangzeb as well.

as for the turban issue, a turban is not going to make you a more spiritually progressed person. if you tie a turban on your self and hope to automatically become a better human being who is closer to god, then i absolutely agree that this blind ritual is a waste of time. for a khalsa however tying a turban is not a meaningless issue, and both you and i, i hope, agree to that. you had said before that this quote was from guru arjan dev, actually it is the first gurus composition. if you will read a bit back shabad also says:

"You worship stones and sit like a stork, pretending to be in Samaadhi."
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1223 Jul 29, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
well god in sggs is both nirgun and sargun, we cannot make an idol to god if god is without form. but that being said we cannot make an idol to god when god is all-form, that would be impossible. If you can pray to god in the form of an idol of shiva, then surely you can pray to a statue of Aurangzeb as well.
And we can make a book-idol to the guru when he is not there, right?

When you bow down before you holy book in Gurudwara , what merit is gained? It is also plain darkness. Guru Nanak would have same thing about your book-idol what he said about stone-idol. A Sikh whose Sikhi is restricted merely to bowing down before holy book (no matter what name you call it) is also an idolater. A book-idol is still an idol.

You would say you don't bow down before the book but the Guru it represents. Same thing can be said Shiva though but you are selectively blind.

Let me rephrase your last sentence and see how much sense it makes to you:

If you can pray to guru in the form of a book-idol of guru (granth sahab), then surely you can pray to a statue of Aurangzeb as well.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1224 Jul 29, 2012
Zuber Singh wrote:
<quoted text>
well god in sggs is both nirgun and sargun, we cannot make an idol to god if god is without form. but that being said we cannot make an idol to god when god is all-form, that would be impossible. If you can pray to god in the form of an idol of shiva, then surely you can pray to a statue of Aurangzeb as well.
And we can make a book-idol to the guru when he is not there, right?

When you bow down before your holy book in Gurudwara , what merit is gained? It is also plain darkness. Guru Nanak would have said the same thing about your book-idol what he said about stone-idol. A Sikh whose Sikhi is restricted merely to bowing down before the holy book (no matter what name you call it) is also an idolater. A book-idol is still an idol.

You would say you don't bow down before the book but the Guru it represents. Same thing can be said about Shiva though but you are selectively blind.

Let me rephrase your last sentence and see how much sense it makes to you:

If you can pray to guru in the form of a book-idol of guru (granth sahab), then surely you can pray to a statue of Aurangzeb as well.
Sanatan Singh

Richmond Hill, Canada

#1225 Jul 29, 2012
The veneration of a holy text as representative of living gurus (or god whichever case applies) is also idolatry. A more precise term for it would be Bibliolatry.

Basically, a book is no longer read nor its message practiced and yet its physical form is treated as embodiment of a human teacher or some deity. All attendant rituals are offered to it as if it were a living person. This is plain idolatry. In other words , a book has been turned into an idol. Guru Granth Sahab is nothing more than a book-idol for the majority of the Sikhs today.

Yet they point out speck in the eyes of the others but do not see the moat in their own.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sikh Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kaun meri bahen ko mere samne phone per abhi ch... 3 min suinl babbar 16
Poll Buzdil hinduo ki maa ka bhosda (Jun '12) 11 min TVs3 191
kise apni biwi chudana h (Mar '15) 12 min Rahul dev 0955416... 3,041
punjabi suhagraat (Jun '15) 13 min Rahul dev 0955416... 84
kon kon apni wife ko kisi aur se chudwana chaht... (Jun '15) 15 min avmaxx 421
pyasi housewife (Jun '15) 16 min Rahul dev 0955416... 23,178
only matured muslim for my married elder sis 19 min azhar 30
Mujhe chodo koi (Apr '15) 1 hr Rahul dev 0955416... 15,642
More from around the web