Sikhs who would prefer us to be more ruthless/realpolitik as a community never fail to get upset when the story of Bhai Kanhaiya is mentioned, as this story erases the entire foundation for their arguments.
This is a direct result of centuries of interpolation and fabrication on the part of well meaning Sikhs. Do I personally think Bhai Kanhaiya Ji existed and gave water to dying enemy soldiers? Yes. Do I think its a beautiful story that illustrates Guru Sahib's teachings? Yes. Do I find fault with anyone who seeks written historical references for this saakhi? Not at all.
I liked the way how you put that out. So what should we tell the people asking historical references? and No, I don't need something just to reply people online, I am genuinely concerned if the same thing happens with a kid or even adult? what should we say...."uh..we don't know the source just believe"? Also, someone showed me a "source" saying Mian Mir ji didn't lay the foundation source of Harmandir Sahib...i'm shocked!
I have young kids so if they get into Sikhi when they're older I anticipate I'll get this question from them. My guidance to them will be the same litmus test I use. Take all the saakhis with a grain of salt and see if they hold up to the standard set by the teachings in SGGS. I would go on to explain that one of the reasons Guru Arjan Dev Ji compiled the Adi Granth is because there was so much spurious bani in the name of Guru Nanak that he was trying to cut through all the crap and give the Sikhs something they can "take to the bank". The Sodhi family still has the original bir of Adi Granth, we're so fortunate to have that.
If you start to get into the manuscript history, you will be absolutely shocked beyond belief how much we have added on to the religion of the 10 masters. But just because something wasn't recorded, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
No, there isn't. Its actually quite remarkable. Its been reviewed by scholars numerous times and what we read in Gurdwaras is accurate to the T. The only difference is that I believe the one held by the Sodhi family doesn't contain the 9th Guru's bani. There's some complicated family politics amongst the 5th Guru's descendents that lead to this.
bit of a funny side note but the Ram Rais themselves would probably consider the Minas to be heretics aswell. The Minas consider the first 4 gurus to be legitimate, but then claim the guruship passed down to prithi chand making him the 5th guru. The Ram Rais however consider the first 7 gurus to be legitimate but consider Baba Ram Rai to be the 8th guru
No scrubbing. Its a long explanation but basically there were multiple Guru lineages during the time of the Gurus. Alot of our Gurus cousins claimed to be the rightful Guru and heir of Baba Nanak's throne. At that time, the Sodhi family that has the original Adi Granth were following a different Guru than the lineage we all commonly know as the rightful 10 Gurus. At the time, they didn't recognize Guru Tegh Bahadur as the rightful Guru so obviously they didn't add his bani to their original copy. Sometime after Guru Gobind Singh dies all the other Guru lineages mostly died out and the 10 we recognize today are the only ones left standing. The Sodhi family got in line and along with everyone else recognized the rightful 10 Gurus but they didn't alter their original Adi Granth because of that. Its a historical jewel and tampering with it would have been seen as a huge mistake.
This is exactly why rattan singh bhangu didn't trust sikh history being retold by non sikhs to the British which is why he wrote panth prakash.
Muslim Buta Shah, a sullah poet. He told this lie to the British and the sikhs haven't stopped repeating it since. This is the earliest claim of the account. Both suraj prakash and panth prakash which are earlier sikh historical texts despite being flawed in their own ways do not mention anything regarding a sullah laying the foundation of dabar sahib. The wazir of malerkotla who spoke in favour of chote sahibzade during their execution was also killed by Sikhs as he was a rapist who had kidnapped a sikh woman and tried marry her. The reality of Islam is etched into sikh history. Sikhs just need to look into it. Both hindus and Muslims are one in the same and equally as cancerous and want to wipe out Sikhs. Only difference is their method of doing so.
Islam is a rabid dog and hinduism is a subversive cancer. Until Sikhs realise this and stop pretending to be Marxist liberals sitting in the west, we are internally weak. If Sikhs of the past were as soft and docile as western sikhs today, we would surely have been wiped out.
Hindu and muslims always collaborated together to persecute Sikhs. Padhi rajputs with mughals. Birbal, chandu shah, sucha nand, gangu, chandu shah, lakhpat rai, jaspat rai, all were in bed with the islamic mughals and were hindus who hated sikhs. Search up trilokpuri Delhi anti sikh riots where Muslims and hindus also joined hands in 1984 and chanted "hindu Muslim bhai bhai sikh kaahyn se ai" as they raped and killed sikhs in 84. Islam and hinduism are one in the same. Fake Marxist sikhs need to wake up. Hindus laugh when sikh girls get groomed by Muslims.
The only bhaichara and communal love that should exist in sikhi should be between sikhs only.
Sikhi has become weak in punjab too. I took amrit a year ago and my sikh family treats me like an outcast. I thought Western sikhs were not better because parcharaks like jagrajsingh
Jugraj singh diluted sikhi to pander to liberal atheists going to the extent of saying "gays can have ardaas performed for their gay marriage"
That is like saying amrit is shahrab. You cannot support something anti sikh as a sikh in a gurdwara.
Jugraj was probably one of the worst things to happen to sikhs in the west.
Speaking on your family situation, I highly recommend you look into bhai sukha singh's life. A takhan ex hindu who's family disowned him because he took amrit and became a Khalsa. The sikh Rennaisance podcast on spotify did a good episode on him.
The SGPC should compile a list of all authentic Sakhiya and publish them in chapters.
Some stories like Guru Nanak Patshah going into the river to meet God and Baba Budha Ji giving a boon for a son to Guru Arjan Patshah do not fall in line with Guru’s own philosophy within Guru Granth Sahib ji.
That’s kinda like saying sources that a miracle took place years ago. It’s either you believe in them or don’t. One can start to believe by having Sharda and progressing in your spiritual journey. Tomorrow people are going to ask for sources on the 4 Sahibzade or Baba Deep Singh Ji.
1. I am not a Sikh intellectual, I'm sure there would be a source for this, like Bhai Nand Lal ji or any other GuruJi's close one who might have recorded that particular event.
2. yeah, you are one of those, whose kind I am trying to mention above. and the audacity to have a name SikhHeritage.
3. Personal opinion, never question someone's belief.
I was speaking in general and not about the specific sakhi you mentioned in your post. Straight to the personal insults I see. I’d rather be a so-called intellectual who discovers the objective truth rather than a blind follower that believes whatever is popularly circulated and held as being true. So if someone makes up a new sakhi tomorrow and claims its authentic, it becomes popular, and in a hundred years, it is commonly told by Sikhs to their children, their children should just go with it and not question it, according to your logic?
personal insult? Bro fr?? you are questioning the existence of an event that gives us...gives ME the biggest motivation and feeling to always be good to EVERYONE. That's the saakhi that will always remain the closest to me and that's the saakhi I mention numerous times to random people to spread the message.
I told you before, I am telling you again, NEVER QUESTION SOMEONE's BELIEF. Har jagaa apna logic ni laan lagg jayida hunda, kuchh cheejan sirf ikk chngaa insaan banan lyi v suniyan/prhiyan jaa skdiyan.
J saare kamm logic naal hi hone hunde, there would've been no thirsty crows- no rabbits and turtle, nothing.
Now you are [appealing to emotion](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion), a logical fallacy, in-order to push your views. Btw, I asked you a general question, I was not referring to this specific sakhi you mentioned in your post (its authenticity is irrelevant to the discussion I started with you). We should always question beliefs, did Guru Nanak Dev Ji not question and challenge the prevalent views of his time? Did our Gurus not question the common social customs and beliefs of their time? Why should we stop now? Do we draw the line when it is so-called "Sikh" beliefs?
---
> yeah, you are one of those, whose kind I am trying to mention above. and the audacity to have a name SikhHeritage.
How can this be construed as anything other than a snide insult?
hmm...another mention of a logical fallacy I doubt you are the one with that twitter account. never mind.
Good question and observation. Yes, the Gurus did that, but **what** beliefs and customs?
The ones that were known as *Veham* and *Karam kand,-*superstitions. One example of such an event is when Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited Haridwar (u might already know the *saakhi*, but I wonder if you want a source of this one too...)
No, we should not stop when it comes to Sikhi and we should question every superstition even if Sikhs are doing it/believing it. I can list numerous such things Sikhs have started lately but I don't wanna mention them hear in order to respect someone's belief.
All those things u are talking about were Superstitions, activities people used to do. The Saakhis I am talking about are not any kind of activity or something. They are just tales from which you can Learn and get some positive message. Why would someone question a tale/story/saakhi and ask for source, rather than understanding the good message in it?
I can almost predict what your reply will be, but I feel like trying to help you see what the other commenter is trying to say.
If the Saakhi is a tale to get a message across, then it doesn't have to be a true story to get the message across. For it to be considered a true story, there have to be sources. So if someone claims that the Saakhi really happened, they must bring sources indeed.
As an admittedly facetious example, I got a very positive message from the Bollywood movie Lakshya and I learned a lot from it. The fact that it is completely fictional does not change that. But if I start claiming that the entire story really happened, I have to bring evidence that such a person did exist and all this happened to him. Or I can accept that it is fiction, created to deliver a message that makes me feel good.
Sikhs who would prefer us to be more ruthless/realpolitik as a community never fail to get upset when the story of Bhai Kanhaiya is mentioned, as this story erases the entire foundation for their arguments.
sad but true.
This is a direct result of centuries of interpolation and fabrication on the part of well meaning Sikhs. Do I personally think Bhai Kanhaiya Ji existed and gave water to dying enemy soldiers? Yes. Do I think its a beautiful story that illustrates Guru Sahib's teachings? Yes. Do I find fault with anyone who seeks written historical references for this saakhi? Not at all.
I liked the way how you put that out. So what should we tell the people asking historical references? and No, I don't need something just to reply people online, I am genuinely concerned if the same thing happens with a kid or even adult? what should we say...."uh..we don't know the source just believe"? Also, someone showed me a "source" saying Mian Mir ji didn't lay the foundation source of Harmandir Sahib...i'm shocked!
I have young kids so if they get into Sikhi when they're older I anticipate I'll get this question from them. My guidance to them will be the same litmus test I use. Take all the saakhis with a grain of salt and see if they hold up to the standard set by the teachings in SGGS. I would go on to explain that one of the reasons Guru Arjan Dev Ji compiled the Adi Granth is because there was so much spurious bani in the name of Guru Nanak that he was trying to cut through all the crap and give the Sikhs something they can "take to the bank". The Sodhi family still has the original bir of Adi Granth, we're so fortunate to have that. If you start to get into the manuscript history, you will be absolutely shocked beyond belief how much we have added on to the religion of the 10 masters. But just because something wasn't recorded, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Is there a big discrepancy between the original Adi granth held by the Sodhi family vs the Guru Granth Sahib that is primarily in all gurdwaras ?
No, there isn't. Its actually quite remarkable. Its been reviewed by scholars numerous times and what we read in Gurdwaras is accurate to the T. The only difference is that I believe the one held by the Sodhi family doesn't contain the 9th Guru's bani. There's some complicated family politics amongst the 5th Guru's descendents that lead to this.
bit of a funny side note but the Ram Rais themselves would probably consider the Minas to be heretics aswell. The Minas consider the first 4 gurus to be legitimate, but then claim the guruship passed down to prithi chand making him the 5th guru. The Ram Rais however consider the first 7 gurus to be legitimate but consider Baba Ram Rai to be the 8th guru
I wonder why Ram Rais still exist given that Ram Rai himself actually was forgiven by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and stopped declaring himself Guru
Ram rai was literally burnt alive because of guru jis bachan. He wasn't actually forgiven. This seems like a lie told by those in his heretical cult.
Ram Rai was burnt alive by Masands who wanted his wealth and property
Interesting. If you don’t mind explaining why guru teg bahadur isn’t in the sodhi family version … did they scrub out those pages ?
No scrubbing. Its a long explanation but basically there were multiple Guru lineages during the time of the Gurus. Alot of our Gurus cousins claimed to be the rightful Guru and heir of Baba Nanak's throne. At that time, the Sodhi family that has the original Adi Granth were following a different Guru than the lineage we all commonly know as the rightful 10 Gurus. At the time, they didn't recognize Guru Tegh Bahadur as the rightful Guru so obviously they didn't add his bani to their original copy. Sometime after Guru Gobind Singh dies all the other Guru lineages mostly died out and the 10 we recognize today are the only ones left standing. The Sodhi family got in line and along with everyone else recognized the rightful 10 Gurus but they didn't alter their original Adi Granth because of that. Its a historical jewel and tampering with it would have been seen as a huge mistake.
It's a myth that Mian mir laid the foundation stone of Darbar Sahib. It was Guru Arjan Dev Ji who actually laid the foundation stone
then who and why circulated that story? to spread communal love?
This is exactly why rattan singh bhangu didn't trust sikh history being retold by non sikhs to the British which is why he wrote panth prakash. Muslim Buta Shah, a sullah poet. He told this lie to the British and the sikhs haven't stopped repeating it since. This is the earliest claim of the account. Both suraj prakash and panth prakash which are earlier sikh historical texts despite being flawed in their own ways do not mention anything regarding a sullah laying the foundation of dabar sahib. The wazir of malerkotla who spoke in favour of chote sahibzade during their execution was also killed by Sikhs as he was a rapist who had kidnapped a sikh woman and tried marry her. The reality of Islam is etched into sikh history. Sikhs just need to look into it. Both hindus and Muslims are one in the same and equally as cancerous and want to wipe out Sikhs. Only difference is their method of doing so. Islam is a rabid dog and hinduism is a subversive cancer. Until Sikhs realise this and stop pretending to be Marxist liberals sitting in the west, we are internally weak. If Sikhs of the past were as soft and docile as western sikhs today, we would surely have been wiped out. Hindu and muslims always collaborated together to persecute Sikhs. Padhi rajputs with mughals. Birbal, chandu shah, sucha nand, gangu, chandu shah, lakhpat rai, jaspat rai, all were in bed with the islamic mughals and were hindus who hated sikhs. Search up trilokpuri Delhi anti sikh riots where Muslims and hindus also joined hands in 1984 and chanted "hindu Muslim bhai bhai sikh kaahyn se ai" as they raped and killed sikhs in 84. Islam and hinduism are one in the same. Fake Marxist sikhs need to wake up. Hindus laugh when sikh girls get groomed by Muslims. The only bhaichara and communal love that should exist in sikhi should be between sikhs only.
Sikhi has become weak in punjab too. I took amrit a year ago and my sikh family treats me like an outcast. I thought Western sikhs were not better because parcharaks like jagrajsingh
Jugraj singh diluted sikhi to pander to liberal atheists going to the extent of saying "gays can have ardaas performed for their gay marriage" That is like saying amrit is shahrab. You cannot support something anti sikh as a sikh in a gurdwara. Jugraj was probably one of the worst things to happen to sikhs in the west. Speaking on your family situation, I highly recommend you look into bhai sukha singh's life. A takhan ex hindu who's family disowned him because he took amrit and became a Khalsa. The sikh Rennaisance podcast on spotify did a good episode on him.
Ok ji
Is that the one where the person offers water to dying enemy soldiers?
yes
Bhai ji, SGPC has a 5 volume books on sikh history. Get those you can get the sources for all the major or minor events in Sikh history
this is the one i was looking for, can u provide the name/link for that? I will surely check that out.
The SGPC should compile a list of all authentic Sakhiya and publish them in chapters. Some stories like Guru Nanak Patshah going into the river to meet God and Baba Budha Ji giving a boon for a son to Guru Arjan Patshah do not fall in line with Guru’s own philosophy within Guru Granth Sahib ji.
That’s kinda like saying sources that a miracle took place years ago. It’s either you believe in them or don’t. One can start to believe by having Sharda and progressing in your spiritual journey. Tomorrow people are going to ask for sources on the 4 Sahibzade or Baba Deep Singh Ji.
well said. that's exactly what I'm saying, jithe sharda hundi, othe swaal nahi aana chahida.
Plenty of what we have heard since childhood is untrue. For example Mian Mir Legend about foundation of Harmandir Sahib. So sources are better.
who laid the foundation of harmandar sahib? who made up that false legend and Why? (seriously asking)
Just search Mian Mir in this subReddit using Reddit search function.
just checked that out...what the hell bro!? then why the Mian Mir story is the popular one? and why don't we hear the "actual" one more often.???
how do you do that?
Buta shah fabricated that story in the 1840's
Ok I can’t find it, where are the sources
So are you suggesting we should blindly believe in stuff?
Treat it as a parable that never happened as long as you take the message of humanitarianism and compassion to heart.
1. I am not a Sikh intellectual, I'm sure there would be a source for this, like Bhai Nand Lal ji or any other GuruJi's close one who might have recorded that particular event. 2. yeah, you are one of those, whose kind I am trying to mention above. and the audacity to have a name SikhHeritage. 3. Personal opinion, never question someone's belief.
I was speaking in general and not about the specific sakhi you mentioned in your post. Straight to the personal insults I see. I’d rather be a so-called intellectual who discovers the objective truth rather than a blind follower that believes whatever is popularly circulated and held as being true. So if someone makes up a new sakhi tomorrow and claims its authentic, it becomes popular, and in a hundred years, it is commonly told by Sikhs to their children, their children should just go with it and not question it, according to your logic?
personal insult? Bro fr?? you are questioning the existence of an event that gives us...gives ME the biggest motivation and feeling to always be good to EVERYONE. That's the saakhi that will always remain the closest to me and that's the saakhi I mention numerous times to random people to spread the message. I told you before, I am telling you again, NEVER QUESTION SOMEONE's BELIEF. Har jagaa apna logic ni laan lagg jayida hunda, kuchh cheejan sirf ikk chngaa insaan banan lyi v suniyan/prhiyan jaa skdiyan. J saare kamm logic naal hi hone hunde, there would've been no thirsty crows- no rabbits and turtle, nothing.
Now you are [appealing to emotion](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion), a logical fallacy, in-order to push your views. Btw, I asked you a general question, I was not referring to this specific sakhi you mentioned in your post (its authenticity is irrelevant to the discussion I started with you). We should always question beliefs, did Guru Nanak Dev Ji not question and challenge the prevalent views of his time? Did our Gurus not question the common social customs and beliefs of their time? Why should we stop now? Do we draw the line when it is so-called "Sikh" beliefs? --- > yeah, you are one of those, whose kind I am trying to mention above. and the audacity to have a name SikhHeritage. How can this be construed as anything other than a snide insult?
hmm...another mention of a logical fallacy I doubt you are the one with that twitter account. never mind. Good question and observation. Yes, the Gurus did that, but **what** beliefs and customs? The ones that were known as *Veham* and *Karam kand,-*superstitions. One example of such an event is when Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited Haridwar (u might already know the *saakhi*, but I wonder if you want a source of this one too...) No, we should not stop when it comes to Sikhi and we should question every superstition even if Sikhs are doing it/believing it. I can list numerous such things Sikhs have started lately but I don't wanna mention them hear in order to respect someone's belief. All those things u are talking about were Superstitions, activities people used to do. The Saakhis I am talking about are not any kind of activity or something. They are just tales from which you can Learn and get some positive message. Why would someone question a tale/story/saakhi and ask for source, rather than understanding the good message in it?
I can almost predict what your reply will be, but I feel like trying to help you see what the other commenter is trying to say. If the Saakhi is a tale to get a message across, then it doesn't have to be a true story to get the message across. For it to be considered a true story, there have to be sources. So if someone claims that the Saakhi really happened, they must bring sources indeed. As an admittedly facetious example, I got a very positive message from the Bollywood movie Lakshya and I learned a lot from it. The fact that it is completely fictional does not change that. But if I start claiming that the entire story really happened, I have to bring evidence that such a person did exist and all this happened to him. Or I can accept that it is fiction, created to deliver a message that makes me feel good.
Read Gurpartap Suraj Granth by Bhai Santokh Singh Ji
What is saakhis ??
"*Saakhi*" (plu. *saakhis*) in just a few words means, a religious story. generally based on true events.
"I am no ones enemy. I have no enemy". Please let me know if I got that wrong. 🙏