Bandhi Chhorh Divas and Diwaali

What is history of the bandhi Chhorh Divas and what is the Gurmat view onon Divali and what's the history of Divali?

Bandi Chhorh Divas is the day Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji had Jahangir free 52 Kings. Jahangir freed
these Hindu Kings on Diwali. This event ( Bandi Chhorh Divas) is celebrated by many Gursikhs.
Diwali on the other hand is celebrated by Hindus and it marks the time when Raam conquered Lanka ( Ravan), captured
Seeta and returned to his kingdom. The people celebrated his return by lighting lamps. Im not sure of the exact reason
but I think some Gursikhs like to light lamps on Bandi Chhorh divas to also symbolize GUru Sahibs return from jail.
In the past I was against lighting lamps on this day but after further study I have changed my views.

While Raam and Seeta are our common ancestors its not right to celebrate Hindu festivals. We should celebrate
Bandi Chhorh and keep the celebration distinct from Hindu practices.

VaheguroooojeekaaKhalsaaaaVaheguroooojeekeeFatehhhh!!!!
I am not very good with history but from what I have read, Bandi Chod divas was made up to fall on Diwali as an excuse for Sikhs to celebrate the Hindu festival. According to Bhat Vahis (I know not everything there could be trusted), the day of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji release was either late Sept or early February but not Diwali. Also think why everyone celebrate bandi chod diwas with so much utshah but never celebrate any other Gurupurab with similar enthusiasm e.g. Parkaash or Visaakhi (not talking about few Gursikhs but overall Sikh community).
VaheguroooojeekaaKhalsaaaaVaheguroooojeekeeFatehhhh!!!!

Or maybe it was Guru Sahib's own kautak to clearly show the distinct identity of the Sikhs? That Sikhs celebrate Bandi Chhirr Divas and NOT Divali (2 different names) ? That the history behind these 2 festivals is different? So perhaps this in itself was meant to be an indication that Sikhs are NOT Hindus?

[punjabspectrum.com]

IkOngkaarSreeVahigurooJeeKiFateh

VahiguroojikaKhalsaVahiguroojikiFateh!!

One of the Singhs told me that the tradition goes back to the time of Guru Amardass ji. Guru Amardass ji united Sikhs by fixing three festivals: Divali, Baisakhi and Maghi. At these festivals Sikhs from different regions assembled for spiritual discussions and became much closer with one another.
Since Hindus celebrated Divali with great pomp and show, so the Hindu people in Amritsir lighted lamps to welcome the sangat to Amritsir and slowly with time it was called Bandi Chorr Divas.
However, we may find that many historic moment in Sikhism took place on the Deepawali Day. An important Sikh event associated with Diwali is the martyrdom of Bhai Mani Singh ji in 1737.
It is also believed that this event along with other Sikh martyrdoms gave further momentum to the Khalsa struggle for freedom and eventual success in establishing the Khalsa rule in the north of Delhi.

Therefore Divali stands distinct for Sikhs.

Dass
Harleen Singh

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bandi Chhorh Divas is the day Guru Hargobind Sahib
> Ji had Jahangir free 52 Kings. Jahangir freed
> these Hindu Kings on Diwali. This event ( Bandi
> Chhorh Divas) is celebrated by many Gursikhs.
> Diwali on the other hand is celebrated by Hindus
> and it marks the time when Raam conquered Lanka (
> Ravan), captured
> Seeta and returned to his kingdom. The people
> celebrated his return by lighting lamps. Im not
> sure of the exact reason
> but I think some Gursikhs like to light lamps on
> Bandi Chhorh divas to also symbolize GUru Sahibs
> return from jail.
> In the past I was against lighting lamps on this
> day but after further study I have changed my
> views.
>
> While Raam and Seeta are our common ancestors its
> not right to celebrate Hindu festivals. We should
> celebrate
> Bandi Chhorh and keep the celebration distinct
> from Hindu practices.



"Raam & Seeta are our common ancestors"

Do elaborate further....

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
>
> While Raam and Seeta are our common ancestors its
> not right to celebrate Hindu festivals. We should
> celebrate
> Bandi Chhorh and keep the celebration distinct
> from Hindu practices.


To align raam and seeta as our common ancestors is just madness Sukhdeep Singh jeeo!
To even think of raam and seeta as our common ancestors is also madness too.

There is a big difference between the tradition followed on these historic days which are commonly shared with holy days for other faiths now and in puraatan times.

In old days:

Gursikhs would get together on the days to engage in Naam Abhyaas and Gurbani Kirtan. No where in the Sikh history it suggests that sikhs used to light fireworks on Diwali. And no where it suggests Sikhs used to pray for Raam chandar on this day.

In the modern era, slowly and slowly these traditionally common days are taking a completely different and very dangerous route. Daas was informed by few relatives in India that it is now becoming a common practice in local Singh Sabha gurdwaras to while doing Ardaas for Bandi Chorr diwas etc the Granthis also do ardaas pertaining to Raam chandar. Recently there was the occasion of Janmashtami, birth of Krishan and a lot of guru ghars did ardaas that He Guru Sahib yousikhs are today celebrating the birth of krishan Ji maharaaj. Es khushi de mauke chardhi kala bakhshani.... Ragis have started singing shabads linked to krishan or Raam chandar and twisting their meanings to promote common ancestor theme and somehow telling Sikhs that its ok to worship these Hindu gods.

Sikhs channels are going around shops interviewing people buying fireworks and sweets (may be full of insects and rat infestation as Bhai Kulbir Singh mentioned in other thread ). So much enthusiasm is never shown on other Gurpurabs.

Khalsa ji issue is not about should we or shoud we not celebrate these days. Issue is how they should be celebrated. Daas got text messages from plenty of Sikhs living in local region who have never said Vadhai on a gurpurab throughout the year but some how remember to send vadhai text messages on Bandi Chorr Divas because it is 'DIWALI'. There was live telecast of the Fireworks at Darbar Sahib yesterday and the whole place was full of smoke and fumes. Whole place felt so much polluted. Majority of people engaged in this plus candle lighting at Darbar Sahib did not even kept full kes or dastar.

At times Guru Ramdas Sahib Ji's langar was only cooked by Rehatvaan Singhs. Slowly non amritdharis started getting involved. Now even non Sikhs/Hindus/Bhayiye tobacco chewing people are allowed to do seva in Langar. They are also now allowed to do vichai of sheets inside the Darbar Sahib where the Ragi Singhs sit to do kirtan. Only place which is untouched so far is the Parkash asthan of Guru sahib. That day is not far when it will be taken over as well unless this practice of involving everyone irrespective of their background and celebrating everything blindly is not stopped.

Khalsa has to remain distinct.

It is because of such foolishness Sukhdeep Singh posts, that people still to this day have the blasphemy and the guts to point at us and say Sikhs? No, just a Hinduism Sect.

"Sikh Kee ney ? oh jee hinduaan ton te aye ne, koee farak nahee. guroo nanak sahib hindu san."

Oh gurmukh pyareo sajjano, rehitnamay quote karday rehney oh

kaday baanee vee par leyaa karo galtee naal.

"naa hum hindu naa musalmaan allaah raam ke pind puraan"

Our Ancestors are the 10 Guroo Sahibaan

And our blood lineage originates from Khande Batay Kee Pahul.

humri jaat paat gur satgur

Bhai Upkaar Singh Jee,

Please refrain from having very mean posts. It is fine to have a differing opinion and to also point out another posters flaws in their posts, but please keep it positive and do not try to demean the other person. It ruins the atmosphere of the forum.

I have done this many times and regretted it afterwords.

I do disagree with a lot of Sukhdeep Singh's points and I agree that he needs to have a more critical analysis when looking through rehatnamay.

Quote

"Raam & Seeta are our common ancestors"

Do elaborate further....

Upkaar SIngh Jeeo,

In 1699, Sri Dasmesh Pita JI adopted the Khalsa panth as his own family. When the abhilakhees took
Amrit they were told their previous religion, village, family lineage no longer exist. They are now of the
SOdhi lineage ( Guru Sahibs biological lineage) , and their birth place is Kesghar Sahib ( Giani Gian Singh, TWARIKH GURU KHALSA).
Yes, Khalsa is our family , but our lineage is of Sodhi descent. History of Sodhis have a long history in Sikh history. Let me explain further.


According to Bachitar Natak, Ram Chanders father "Dastrath" had three wives. One of his wives gave birth to Raam Chander the others gave birth
to Bharat, Lakshman and Shatrughan. According to Bansvalinama, Bhai Lehnas Jis lineage Trehn descends from Lakshman, and Baba Amar Das Jis lineage descends from Bharat. Pehli Paatshahs lineage ( Bedi) and Guru Raam Das - Guru Gobind Singh Jis lineage have come
from Raam Chander.

Raam Chander and Sita had two sons ( Lao(w) and Kush). Both were great kings.
KaalKet and Kal Rai descended from these lineages. Kaalket defeated Kaal Rai and
Kaal Rai escaped into the country of Sanaud ( sodhi) and married a princess. They
gave birth to Sodhi Rai. This is how the Sodhi family was established. Sodhi Rai eventually
become victorious and the descendents of Kaal Rai escaped to the Benares to recite the vedas
they became known as the Bedis.

The Bedis recited the four vedas to Sodhi Rai and SOdhi Rai
gave his kingdom to the Bedis so he can do BHagti in the jungles. Amrit Rai ( bedi)
told Sodhi Rai the kingdom will come back to the sodhi during the fourth Gurus time.
This is mentioned in both Bhai Gurdas Jis vaars and Bachitar Natak.

Our lineage descends from Sodhi Sultan ( Guru Raam Das) but our family is Khalsa.
According to Sarab Loh Granth, the Bedi, SOdhi, Trehn, Balla lineage are all of noble
descent but the Gurus family ( khalsa) is of the highest descent.
The house of GUru Nanak Sahib is distinct from the house of Bedis or the house of Sodhis, but there
is along history on how the house of Guru nanak Sahib ji House was established which dates back to thousands
and thousands of years ago. We should learn this history, before we are so quick to dismiss such history out of Hinduphobic concerns.
There is such a thing as history before 1469.

Sukhdeep Singh, the idea of Sikhs having a connection with the two brothers Luv and Kush is very similar to what the RSS also says about the Sikhs. Luv and Kush both were sons of Raam Chander. They disobeyed their father, Raam Chander, and hence, are not seen with a good eye among the Hindus. RSS uses the example of Luv and Kush to first claim that Sikhs come from the lineage of Luv and Kush, and because Luv and Kush do not have a very good reputation, RSS uses this to claim all Sikhs as terrorists, and therefore, should be eliminated in India.

Just out of curiosity, you're not a member of RSS by any chance, are you???

ਸੁਖਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਲਿਖੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਪੋਸਟ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਚ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ ਕਰਕੇ ਵੀ ਪਾਓ ਜੀ !ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਦਾਸ ਦਾ ਅੰਗ੍ਰੇਜੀ ਚ ਹਥ ਥੋੜਾ ਤੰਗ ਹੈ !

Quote

According to Bachitar Natak, Ram Chanders father "Dastrath" had three wives. One of his wives gave birth to Raam Chander the others gave birth to Bharat, Lakshman and Shatrughan. According to Bansvalinama, Bhai Lehnas Jis lineage Trehn descends from Lakshman, and Baba Amar Das Jis lineage descends from Bharat. Pehli Paatshahs lineage ( Bedi) and Guru Raam Das - Guru Gobind Singh Jis lineage have come from Raam Chander.

If you could provide any historical proof that’d be great because Bansavalinama is not a historical work on Raam Chandar nor has the author done any research on the subject otherwise he would’ve pointed to the sources he is basing his assertions on. Don’t just state the source, explain why you think it is correct. By the way, which Raam Chandar is this? The one born in Ayodehya or one from Varanasi? Which version of Ramayan is being used by Kesar Singh? Dasam Granth also states that there have been countless Raams so which one does Guru Ji descend from? You do not know how to properly study the historical texts and always take them literally. Did you seriously not see any of this being influenced by Semitic thought of Mohammad, Jesus and Moses coming from the same ancestors? Does Dasam Granth state that 2nd and 3rd Gurus are descendents of Lakshman and Bharat?

Quote

Raam Chander and Sita had two sons ( Lao(w) and Kush). Both were great kings. KaalKet and Kal Rai descended from these lineages. Kaalket defeated Kaal Rai and Kaal Rai escaped into the country of Sanaud ( sodhi) and married a princess. They gave birth to Sodhi Rai. This is how the Sodhi family was established. Sodhi Rai eventually become victorious and the descendents of Kaal Rai escaped to the Benares to recite the vedas they became known as the Bedis.

This is based on Dasam Granth but without any proof. Those who believe Raam Chandar existed state that he lived in 5000 BCE. Four Vedas did not exist then. In fact, there used to be only three Vedas originally and Athrav is not relatively the most recent Veda. Further, Vedas were written over a long period of time and were added on to by different rishis. So which Vedas did they recite? Also, why did they not learn from the brahmins they employed in their kingdoms? Another point that needs to be noted is that Ayodheya was not inhabited by Hindus until 8 AD and archeological evidence shows that the city was founded after Buddha’s time. So how could Raam take birth in a city that did not exist?

Quote

The Bedis recited the four vedas to Sodhi Rai and SOdhi Rai gave his kingdom to the Bedis so he can do BHagti in the jungles. Amrit Rai ( bedi) told Sodhi Rai the kingdom will come back to the sodhi during the fourth Gurus time. This is mentioned in both Bhai Gurdas Jis vaars and Bachitar Natak.

According to the mythical story, it was while listening to the fourth Vedas that he gave up his kingdom. I have already stated that four Vedas did not exist back then. Further, if the story is true then the gurugaddi should’ve stayed in Bedi family whereas it went to Trehan and Bhalla. Bedis hardly had any kingdom left in 15th century. Also, worldly kingdom is not equivalent to true kingship of gurugaddi. If the story is true then Sodhis would’ve got the worldly kingdom but Bhai Jetha Ji lived a very poor life in his childhood. Even after becoming the Guru, Guru Raamdas Ji did not inherit any worldly riches. The reason he is called “Patshah” is because in him enshrined the Jot of Guru Nanak that rules the entire creation. It was not an epithet pertaining to ordinary worldly kingship or physical rule. The story also renders the test for guruship as useless. There was no need for Guru Sahib to test for the right candidate since it had already been prophesized. It would’ve been simply comical for Guru Sahib to test his own sons and son-in-laws since the candidate had already been chosen. There is also a sakhi that once Guru Hargobind Ji decided to give gurugaddi to a Sikh for reciting Jap Ji Sahib so attentively but when the Sikh wished for horses, Guru Sahib changed his mind. This sakhi proves that gurugaddi was never destined to remain in Sodhi family nor did it become a family inheritance. It went to the worthy one. Pauri of Bhai Gurdas Ji you are referring to states that gurugaddi only goes to the one who is worthy of it. It does not support your viewpoint unless you are reading sampardayee misinterpretation.

Don't deviate from main topics with your ramblings. This topic was about Bandi Shorr Diwas but for some reason you wanted to boast about some stuff you probably read recently. I presume Taksal is not “baamanvaad” anymore since you are referencing their source now. Guru Rakha

Quote

In 1699, Sri Dasmesh Pita JI adopted the Khalsa panth as his own family. When the abhilakhees took
Amrit they were told their previous religion, village, family lineage no longer exist. They are now of the
SOdhi lineage ( Guru Sahibs biological lineage) , and their birth place is Kesghar Sahib ( Giani Gian Singh, TWARIKH GURU KHALSA).
Yes, Khalsa is our family , but our lineage is of Sodhi descent.

This is blasphemy. You are converting us to a Hindu lineage. There is no tradition of adopting the Sodhi lineage in Khalsa Panth. Remember one thing - Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee Maharaj too took Amrit and as such his Sodhi family lineage too disappeared as everyone else.

Surely, our old family lineage is gone but that does not mean that we adopt the Sodhi lineage. If this had been the case, then we all should have been given "Sodhi" as our last name but such is not the case.

In Bachitter Natak, the background of Sodhis and Bedis has been given as general knowledge and not for us to adopt Sodhi or Bedi family names. If we were to adopt some worldly family lineage, then Guru Sahib would have left us with our original family lineages.

Quote

According to Sarab Loh Granth, the Bedi, SOdhi, Trehn, Balla lineage are all of noble
descent but the Gurus family ( khalsa) is of the highest descent.

Bedis, Sodhi, Trehans or Bhalla Kuls (clans) are only noble if their descendents take Amrit. Otherwise, to say that all Bedis, Sodhis etc. are automatically noble is an extreme case of Brahmanvaad, that has no place in Gurmat.

There is nothing special about Bedis, Sodhis, Trehans or Bhallas. They are just ordinary beings like rest of us.

Kulbir Singh

Bijla SIngh Jeeo,
Unless you learn to talk with more respect consider this my last response to you.

Quote

If you could provide any historical proof that’d be great because Bansavalinama is not a historical work on Raam Chandar nor has the author done any research on the subject otherwise he would’ve pointed to the sources he is basing his assertions on. Don’t just state the source, explain why you think it is correct. By the way, which Raam Chandar is this? The one born in Ayodehya or one from Varanasi? Which version of Ramayan is being used by Kesar Singh? Dasam Granth also states that there have been countless Raams so which one does Guru Ji descend from? You do not know how to properly study the historical texts and always take them literally. Did you seriously not see any of this being influenced by Semitic thought of Mohammad, Jesus and Moses coming from the same ancestors? Does Dasam Granth state that 2nd and 3rd Gurus are descendents of Lakshman and Bharat?

My reference is Sri Bachitar Natak. I have no idea why you believe Raam Chander is referring to someone else. I am referring to the Raam Chander married to Sant Raja Janaks daughter "Seeta also known as Seea.
ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਜਯੋ ਤਿਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੁਮਾਰਾ ॥ ਭਰਥ ਲੱਛਮਨ ਸਤ੍ਰ ਬਿਦਾਰਾ ॥
ਬਹੁਤ ਕਾਲ ਤਿਨ ਰਾਜ ਕਮਾਯੋ ॥ ਕਾਲ ਪਾਇ ਸੁਰਪੁਰਹਿ ਸਿਧਾਯੋ ॥੨੨॥
ਸੀਅ ਸੁਤ ਬਹੁਰਿ ਭਏ ਦੁਇ ਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਰਾਜ ਪਾਟ ਉਨਹੀ ਕਉ ਛਾਜਾ ॥

According to Mahankosh Seea refers to Seeta. Verses from Bansvalinama have nothing to do with semetic theology. In fact, it clearly states we can never know are physical origins. We all have originated from someone. Im not claiming we have originated from Adam or Raam Chander. We can never know who was the first man. I am simply claiming Sodhi family originated from Raam Chander.

Quote

This is based on Dasam Granth but without any proof. Those who believe Raam Chandar existed state that he lived in 5000 BCE. Four Vedas did not exist then. In fact, there used to be only three Vedas originally and Athrav is not relatively the most recent Veda. Further, Vedas were written over a long period of time and were added on to by different rishis. So which Vedas did they recite? Also, why did they not learn from the brahmins they employed in their kingdoms? Another point that needs to be noted is that Ayodheya was not inhabited by Hindus until 8 AD and archeological evidence shows that the city was founded after Buddha’s time. So how could Raam take birth in a city that did not exist?

In Bachitar Natak, Guru Sahib says which veda was recited.
ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਸਾਮ ਬੇਦੰ ਜੁਜਰ ਬੇਦ ਕਥੰ ॥ ਰਿਗੰ ਬੇਦ ਪਠਿਯੰ ਕਰੇ ਭਾਵ ਹੱਥੰ ॥੩॥

The coming of Guru Nanak Sahib to kaljug did not happen randomly. There is a long history behind this coming.
Bachitar Natak explains in great details the details of this coming and how the " House of Nanak " was established. Also, before you are so quick to slander Bansvailnama take into consideration this text explains much of the history of Sri Dasam Granth.

Either way Im from California and you are from California if you have any problem with my "ramblings" you are more
then welcome to meet me face to face to discuss these ramblings

Quote

ਸੁਖਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਲਿਖੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਪੋਸਟ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਚ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ ਕਰਕੇ ਵੀ ਪਾਓ ਜੀ !ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਦਾਸ ਦਾ ਅੰਗ੍ਰੇਜੀ ਚ ਹਥ ਥੋੜਾ ਤੰਗ ਹੈ !

Vadhbhagee Jeeo,

Im still learning to write in Gurmukhi. When I get better at writing it then I will post for you.

Kulbir Singh Jeeo,

You are either misunderstanding me or twisting my words around. I never once said we should adopt the
last name Sodhi. Our last name is Singh and we were adopted by Sri Dasmesh Pita Ji who was born in a Sodhi
family in Patna Sahib. A son always adopts the heritage of their father. Bhai Jetha Singh Jis rehatnama says our village
is Anandpur Sahib and our birth place is Patna Sahib. Guru Sahib was born in Sodhi family in Patna Sahib and we cannot
deny our fathers history. His heritage is our heritage. We will always be Singhs and we will always be part of the Khalsa family, but this doesnt mean we should have a basic understanding of our biological genealogy. If we dont claim Guru Sahibs biological genealogy then whose genealogy should we claim?

Im not converting anyone Im merely restating what our history says. What is the big deal to say our physical lineage
is of Sodhi. I have already stated Khalsa is our true family physical lineage is of no use for Khalsa. When I say Bedi, Sodhi,
Trehans, and Bhalla clans are blessed I say so because Guru Sahiban took birth in these clans. There must be a reason
why these families had the fortune to have Guru Sahiban in their family. Akal Purakh had to find a body that was worthy when he came into the world. Surely he would of chose a family that was worthy. Bhai Gurdas Ji says himself that the Gurship would said in Sodhi bans as know other family was fit enough to take on Gurgaddi.

I would never claim all Sodhis, Bedis, Bhallas etc are blessed. Baba Prithi Chand and Baba Sri Chand from Bedi and Sodhi clan are prime examples. So cursed were these people that Guru Sahib forbid us to have any social relations with them. Once again physical body or genealogy is less important then our spiritual genealogy, but why should we deny our warrior history . First man in history was a warrior who adored and adorned weapons and would destroy tyrants. This is mans true origin. Nobody is saying to take everything in Bachitar Natak as literal but the message should always be taken literal. Khalsa Dharam is Kashtari Dharam!

Quote

We will always be Singhs and we will always be part of the Khalsa family, but this doesnt mean we should have a basic understanding of our biological genealogy. If we dont claim Guru Sahibs biological genealogy then whose genealogy should we claim?

Why should we be concerned about our biological genealogy when our real being is not made up of biological material? We are not our body but we are Aatma and as such our genealogy is with Akal Purakh and not with some Sodhi family. Guru Sahib has rejected biological lineages because this is what the root of caste system is. Guru Sahib is Akal Purakh and not Sodhi Bedi or Trehan. These family names and lineages have no meaning in Gurmat.

Please show a historical evidence to prove that Khalsa belongs to the Sodhi clan; otherwise please retract your statement as it is very misleading assertion. I have never met a decent Sodhi or Bedi; they are mostly Hankaari people. Only a rare Sodhi, Bedi, Bhalla or Trehan person is a Tyaar bar Tyaar Kharagdhaari Sarblohi Bibeki Khalsa. Stop connecting us to these people. Khalsa is straight from Akal Purakh and not some Bedi Sodhi clan. Guru Sahib Himself is not the body but Akal Purakh and as such was above such clans. It's true that casually they have been referenced to as Sodhi or Bedi but this does not make these clans any special.

Quote

Khalsa Dharam is Kashtari Dharam!

Why Kashatri or Brahman or Vaish or Shood? Why not just Khalsa Dharam?

Kulbir Singh

Beautiful post Bijla Singh jeeo - let's back to the topic once again

[www.sikhiwiki.org]

Hope you enjoyed you day with Mahraj's blessings- of naam and Gurbani abyaas - and a possible tangent to delve further into Gurbani

Apologies Bhai Preetam Singh & Bhai Sukhdeep Singh jee.

But post seemed very outrageous.

Quote

My reference is Sri Bachitar Natak. I have no idea why you believe Raam Chander is referring to someone else. I am referring to the Raam Chander married to Sant Raja Janaks daughter "Seeta also known as Seea.

There are different versions of Ramayan which claim that Raam Chandar was born at Ayodheya, Varanasi or other places. There is no definite answer. This is why I asked you. According to one version, Seeta fell for Raavan and loved him even after coming back with Raam. According to another version, Raavan is a good guy and Raam is bad because he attacked a woman and was the first to start the war with Raavan. Sri Dasam Granth states that there have been many Raams so which one is Sri Bachitar Natak referring to? Where was he born and where did he live and in what time period?

Quote

According to Mahankosh Seea refers to Seeta. Verses from Bansvalinama have nothing to do with semetic theology. In fact, it clearly states we can never know are physical origins. We all have originated from someone.

Mahan Kosh is not a historical work on Raam Chandar. I know Seea refers to Seeta but that is irrelevant. Many of our sakhis do have Semitic influence. The famous sakhi of Baba Jujhar Singh Ji coming back for water is nothing but carbon copy of Hussain’s story. If we cannot know the origin then what makes you think we definitely come from one man and not 100 men? Couldn’t God create more than one in the beginning?

Quote

In Bachitar Natak, Guru Sahib says which veda was recited.
ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਸਾਮ ਬੇਦੰ ਜੁਜਰ ਬੇਦ ਕਥੰ ॥ ਰਿਗੰ ਬੇਦ ਪਠਿਯੰ ਕਰੇ ਭਾਵ ਹੱਥੰ ॥੩॥

So only three vedas were recited? In this case, the story falls apart because gurugaddi could not have been given to Sodhis in 4th place. If Athrav Veda was recited then it is also false because it did not exist back then. In case you have not realized yet, taking every story of Sri Dasam Granth literally will leave you confused and baffled.

Quote

The coming of Guru Nanak Sahib to kaljug did not happen randomly.

Absolutely not and it certainly wasn’t due to a foretold prophecy. It happened because fog of ignorance spread everywhere and Guru Sahib came to dispel it.

Quote

Either way Im from California and you are from California if you have any problem with my "ramblings" you are more then welcome to meet me face to face to discuss these ramblings

Is that a threat? Ironic that you didn’t want to meet to discuss Guru Nanak Sahib’s status yet you find your ramblings more important.
You did not counter my other arguments. Why do you pick and choose? Partial response does not validate your viewpoint. You are attacking uniqueness and heritage of Gurmat by claiming it to be part of Hinduism. Guru Rakha

Bijla Sodhi SIngh Jeeo,

Nobody is claiming verses in Bachitar Natak or Bansvalinama should be taken literal. There
is a reason why Guru Sahib uses the title " Bachitar Natak" . They are talking about the play
of the world in a poetic fashion. There is no reason for the details to be historically accurate. Had you read the intro to Bachitar
Natak and Bansvalinama carefully you would not jump to conclusions and try to find so many contradictions
in both. The gist of the writings is Man is by nature a fighter ( warrior). THis is what we should take from these verses.
Most verses in Sri Dasam Granth are about WAR.

Whether Sodhis descended from Raam Chander and Sita is irrelevant. When I made that comment about Raam Chander
being our common ancestor I was referring to genealogy mentioned in Bansvalinama and Bachitar Natak. When I said
Guru Sahib told us we are of Sodhi Clan I was referring to Giani Gian SIngh Jis writings. Instead of discussing these
references in a civil manner people decided to gang up and slander me on whatever level they can. Never once
have I claimed Hinduism to be part of GUrmat. This was my initial statement.

Quote

While Raam and Seeta are our common ancestors its not right to celebrate Hindu festivals. We should celebrate
Bandi Chhorh and keep the celebration distinct from Hindu practices.

If I say Jesus descended from the House of David does that mean Im claiming Christianity
is part of Judaism? The House of Nanak has been explained eloquently in Bachitar Natak. From these verses we learn our origins is the
battlefield. When we get this nostalgic feeling to go back to our origins ( home) we lose our fear in the battlefield.

Quote
Sukhdeep Singh
Bijla Sodhi SIngh Jeeo,

Why did you put sodhi in the middle of Veer Bijla Singh name?

Chota veer

Quote

Nobody is claiming verses in Bachitar Natak or Bansvalinama should be taken literal. There is a reason why Guru Sahib uses the title " Bachitar Natak" . They are talking about the play of the world in a poetic fashion. There is no reason for the details to be historically accurate.

Now you are going against your previous arguments. You read Sri Dasam Granth and took the stories literally from which you drew the conclusion that Sikhs originate from Raam’s lineage. When I asked for proof, you changed your argument and now claim that it shouldn’t be taken literally. If this is your new argument then you have no case because Sikhs do not have Sodhi lineage.

Quote

The gist of the writings is Man is by nature a fighter ( warrior).

Not true. Had this been the case, there was no need to write Sri Dasam Granth. Man by nature is an animal under the control of five vices. True warrior spirit was instilled by Guru Sahib through Gurbani and Amrit.

Quote

Whether Sodhis descended from Raam Chander and Sita is irrelevant.

So what exactly is your argument then if Raam and his family are irrelevant? In my opinion, if one asserts that Guru Sahib descends from Raam’s family then it is very much important to prove that Sodhis descend from Raam’s family. Before that, it needs to be proved that Raam actually existed and then identify which out of countless Raams. If this is all irrelevant then why did you bring up this subject then?

Quote

When I made that comment about Raam Chander being our common ancestor I was referring to genealogy mentioned in Bansvalinama and Bachitar Natak.

I know what is stated in these sources. Now you are taking the story literally which you stated in the beginning of your post that it shouldn’t be. You do not seem to have a firm stance on your arguments.

Quote

When I said Guru Sahib told us we are of Sodhi Clan I was referring to Giani Gian SIngh Jis writings.

Giani Ji used Sri Dasam Granth as his source. Hence, it cannot be called an independent research work. Do not simply start naming sources. Provide reasoning as to why you think these sources are correct.

Bottom line is that you initially claimed that all Guru Sahibans come from Dasrath’s family (which is not true) and you couldn’t provide any proof. Going further, you unintentionally called Khalsa part of Hindu “Kshatriya Dharam” which does not exist by stating that Khalsa was “reestablishment” of the same old Hindu society. However, India was never united as one society. Caste has existed since Satyug according to Hindu mythology. Your claim makes Guru Sahib a reformer whereas all Sikh scholars are unanimous that Guru Sahib’s message was revolutionary and such a message had never been preached or practiced before. Now you are claiming that message of Sri Dasam Granth and Bansavalinama shouldn’t be taken literally which is contradictory to your previous arguments. If this is the case then by default Guru Sahib does not descend from Raam’s family because the story shouldn’t be taken literally.

Quote

Bijla Sodhi SIngh Jeeo

I am not bothered by the fact that you are distorting my name but do you seriously think taking cheap shots will add weight to your flimsy arguments? Can you show one reference from any rehatnamas that a Sikh should add “Sodhi” in his name? Since Guru Sahib did not care for his own family name and instructed Sikhs to add Singh/Kaur to the name then why should we care for any biological lineage? Guru Rakha

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> When we get this nostalgic feeling to
> go back to our origins ( home) we lose our fear in
> the battlefield.


Sukhdeep Singh jeeo - it's not about feeling nostalgic - it's about what are we learning or grasping here trying to find lineages of our Guru Sahibs where we that is me and you and most likely anyone on this forum cannot go back then our own grandfather about our lineages -- just think about that for a minute - trace your own linage to see how far you will get to the truth let alone Guru Sahibs. Oh don't forget SGGS:

"PITA KA JANAM KE JANEE POOT "

Your ascertations are absurd to say the least sir