ਸਤਿਗੁਰਬਚਨਕਮਾਵਣੇਸਚਾਏਹੁਵੀਚਾਰੁ॥
Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Chaubole Bani

Posted by ravneetsinghkhalsa 
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 23, 2013 03:02PM
Quote

For example SRi GUru Ji would never eat from someone who stole money this contradicts Gurbani.

Sukhdeep Singh Ji,

Sheesh, you make it sound like they were career criminals, we cant compare them to the likes of Malik Bhago or pakey thags. If the intentions of both as Kulbir Singh bhaji mentions were good, and in this instance they were and obviously known to Antarjami Maharaj, I see no reason why Guru Ji would not eat the food. Guru Sahib is also 'Sadh Bakshanhaar'. They would have known the lengths Samman and Moosan went to to help serve langar. If the Sakhi is as you mentioned, I would be kurbaan to those Sikhs who would cut of their heads so not to bring disrepute to Guru Ji's house. The prem they had was out of this world.

What do we make of Singhs who looted Mughal invaders to keep alive during hard times? Assuming they followed Sarbloh Bibek, do you think they would have purchased food to consume by selling the loot? One would hope so.
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 23, 2013 07:05PM
Unjan , Sri Guru Ji would not eat food which was not earned by honest hards. This is basic bibek. I don't to waste my time talking about basic bibek I have already provided a pangti which illustrates this basic bibek. In addition, when Sri Guru Ji was in the Jahangirs fort he did not eat for many days. When asked why he said he wont eat unless the food has been earned by some honest Gursikhs. So Gursikhs went into the city and made a living and then purchased food.

Im surprised you think Khalsa has such character as stealing and looting. There is no evidence to suggest Khalsa looted the Mughals. I remember one sakhi there was a SIngh who went to take the shasters of a dead Muslim, SRi Guru Ji forbid him to take them and said such looting would lead to a curse. Either way I don't care to make any more replies on this thread.
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 24, 2013 06:02AM
Quote

Im surprised you think Khalsa has such character as stealing and looting. There is no evidence to suggest Khalsa looted the Mughals.

If the Khalsa were in dire straits and their very survival depended on looting who are we to judge?


Be good if someone can provide authentic sources for the following accounts:

From Panthkhalsa.org
Jathedar Darbara Singh (1716-1733)

The period between 1716 to 1733 was the darkest period of the Sikh history The policy of Farrukh Siyar, Abdul Sama and Zakriya Khan was total extinction of Sikhs. The price was laid at the head of Sikhs and the Sikh persecution was to be done most vigorously. But the spiritual message of the Gurus and the stories of the undeterred faith even in the face of tortured deaths, kept their spirits high. Banda Singh had left a lasting mark on the character of the Sikhs. He fanned the fire of independence, ignited by the tenth Guru. They believed that there was no higher cause for a holy man than to destroy the oppressive and tyrant force of the Mughal empire. The Sikhs lived in jungles and deserts under extreme conditions of poverty and helplessness but their spirits were kept high by theit leaders like Tara Singh who with his ill-equipped and half fed men fought like tigers against Zakriya Khan's 4000 strong punitive force under the command of General Moman Khan. Each one of them died fighting a brave man's death but also wrought havoc in the ranks of the enemies.

The Sikhs all over Punjab burnt with the spirit of revenging the death of Bhai Tara Singh and his companions, organised themselves under the command of Jathedar Darbara Singh, and after passing Gurmata at a gathering at Amritsar, started inflicting casualties on the Mughals and looting the imperial treasury. As the number of Sikhs, who plundered the imperial treasuries and destroyed the Government officials, continued to increase, Zakriya Khan realised his utter futility in annihilating the Sikhs and decided to adopt a policy of conciliation by offering them a Jagir with an annual revenue of one lakh rupees and the title of Nawab for their leader. The policy bore the desired fruit; the Sikhs accepted the Jagir and the title. This happened in 1733. And with this ended the darkest period of the Sikh annals and persecution.

Though worst persecutions were to follow, but the later period was not potent with destructive factors as after 1733 Sikhs had a strong, capable and unanimously accepted leader.


=============================================================================================================


Daljeet Singh Kharak Singh "Sikhism, its Philosophy and History"

below is only an excerpt

Nadir Shah entered Delhi as a victor on 9th March, 1739. He demanded 2.5 million Rupees as retribution, but the Rangila Emperor had nothing in his government treasury. He threw open his personal safe of jewels, and Nadir availed himself of all the diamonds and rubies of the Peacock Throne, and also the famous Koh-i-noor.

He left Delhi at the beginning of May 1739, taking with him a few thousand Indian girls (both Hindu and Muslim), a large number of boys as slaves and thousands of elephants, horses and camels loaded with the booty his men had collected. The hollow shell that made up the Mughal empire had been smashed open by Nadir Shah with one sweep, and the Sikhs quickly moved in to collect the broken pieces.

During his stay at Delhi, the Sikhs had come out of their jungle retreats and had no difficulty in looting all the Mughal posts at countryside from the river Chenab to the areas around Karnal. Zakaria Khan's police forces were too demoralised to offer resistance. So Nadir's arrival was most opportune for the Sikhs in the replenishment of their depleted stores. Again when people learnt about his departure from Delhi, the rich landlords and noblemen promptly evacuated the cities and headed for the hills as they could not trust Mughals for their security anymore. Mohmmad Shah Rangila was a bad administrator, all his croonies had looted the rich landlors and elite after Nadir Shah left to fill up the coffers of Mughal kingdom.

Meahwhile, The Khalsa bands got together and passed a resolution: "Nadir Shah must deliver a part of the booty he was carrying away from Delhi." Nadir, on the other hand, felt that his reputation was a sufficient deterrent to anyone attacking him on the way. He had chosen the route along the foothills of the northern mountains to escape the heat of the plains. His baggage train being heavy-laden, lagged well behind his main force, and it was quite a shock for him to hear on reaching Akhnoor by the river Chenab, that all his slaves had been freed by Sikh bands, who had also seized a large share of his gold. Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia who had just turned 21, showed a glimpse of his greatness as a leader by planning those raids, and by escorting the freed maidens to responsible homes from where they could return to their families.

Zakaria Khan had accompanied Nadir Shah to Akhnoor, and Nadir asked Zakaria Khan who those Sikhs were. On being told that they were all bands of poor sadhus, without clothing or riches, he asked;

"Then why don't you burn their houses down to punish them ?"

To that Zakaria replied,

"Their only homes are the saddles of their horses. They can last long
periods without food and rest. They are known to sleep on horseback.
We have put prizes on their heads, but their numbers keep increasing.
They are never despondent, but are always singing the songs of their Pirs."

With a sigh, Nadir admitted that in that case the Sikhs would one day rule the land. Then he obtained a promise of a tribute of 2 million Rupees annually from Lahore, and confirmed the appointment of Zakaria Khan at Lahore and of his son Shah Nawaz Khan at Multan (where Abdus Samad Khan had just died).

With the departure of Nadir Shah, Zakaria Khan took stock of his household and saw it all in ruins. He decided to take full revenge on the Sikhs for all his misfortunes.



The way I see it, under exceptional circumstances certain actions performed in good faith cannot be considered as 'crimes' at least not in the real sense of the word. Its not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 24, 2013 07:16AM
During old times when its struggle for survival was going on, Khalsa no doubt used to loot the imperial treasures and rich Jagirdars and moneylenders. Many such accounts are found in our history books. Bhai Sukha Singh of Mari Kambo got his first horse by looting it from the local chieftain. Pracheen Panth Prakash and other texts are full of such accounts.

Kulbir Singh
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 24, 2013 10:55AM
Hanjee Teek Ya we can eat from people who steal and we can steal ourselves during dire circumstances because this is what some history books say. I guess we can also eat meat during dire circumstances as this is what our modern history books such as Pracheen Panth Parkaash says. No more comments from me I am worn out
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 25, 2013 11:09AM
Bhai SukhDeep Singh Jeeo,

You worn out this cannot be true - A SIKH is never worn - always learning , growing his learning - growth mindset - not fixed mindset.

Issue we have is simple not as complex as we make it, however Khalsa is not a fixed mindset and does change according to the times and conditions that are present, however as your rightly comment - for us sitting on our a88es warm and comfortable who have not experienced anything the Khalsa of those times did - we will never fully understand why and what they did - unless we are very very open minded about this.

Not sure if your aware during the recent 84 era General Labh Singh robbed a bank and bought the monies to Sant Bhindranwale Jee - who at once declined and advised he is not interested in using such funds for the mission he is on - didn't take a penny from it.

No one is saying it shoudl be this and that - however we have to try understand the situation and conditions at hand one can either choose the hard way or the easy way - there is no way all will choose the one way - nature doesn't work that way sir. Tell me in a acre of sunflower or sugar cane do they all grow the same way??
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 26, 2013 11:42AM
I personally like the way Saakhis are linked with Gurbani. Probably not all the Banis are linked to a Saakhi like Japji Sahib is being linked as a discussion with Guru Jee and the Siddhs. But we can't dismiss all the Gurbani related Sakhis. A lot of Gurbani must have been revealed to Guru Jee and the Bhagats during a particular event or Saakhi. Now in the case of Saman and Moosan, surely it must be true since they are mentioned by name in Chaubole. Problem is when we try to rationalize things according to our logic. This is what missionaries and Kala Afghanists do. They try to over rationalize everything even to the extent of denying famous events from our history like revolving of the Kabbah, Panja Sahib or bhagat Kabir Jee sitting on water because it does not fit into their so called "rational way of thinking"
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Re: Chaubole Bani
October 27, 2013 12:01AM
I shall chip in, just for adding something to the discussion from a different point of view.

- A common mind which vibrates at lower level is ego oriented. The sens of separate individual existence is very strong.

- Such mind is constantly reacting and responding to inner and outer experiences in an egoic way. Desire and aversion are constantly generated.

- Such movements of the mind, such thoughts, create binding, attachment to every action at all levels: Mann, Bachan, Karam(outer action)

- A Gyani (meaning somebody who has realized the spiritual nature of existence, even if he/she is not a pooran brahmagyani yet) knows that a jeev is bound in janam-maran through such relations or karmic bindings.

-One way (theoretically) of becoming free from these bindings is by giving up ego, the sense of individual existence. In this way when the 'doer' is eliminated, the karam, which the 'doer' was attached to, remain no longer in continuity, they are shed off.

-The second way, the way of bhakti marg, is to make the ego a servant of Waheguru. This is why the term 'Sahib' is used so fondly in Japji Sahib. When the ego works as a servant, it indulges in karma in a non-attached way. It does not think, 'I want to do this'. It thinks, 'This needs to be done'.

- A Brahmagyani may do anything, even things such as looting, but He does these things in a non-egoic way. He does such things because he thinks out an action in a non-egoic way and decides that an action is 'required' to be done for a chosen purpose. And the purpose behind all the purposes is always spiritual. A Brahmgyani knows the hidden reality behind all the drama. And therefore any action that a brahmgyani does, does not generate an attachment. Everything he does is a bhet to waheguru. In fact it is the Waheguru which works through him because ego is no longer in power in brahmgyani's mind.

-So when a brahmgyani looks like he might be indulging in things like 'looting' from outside, it is actually not so. The inner reality is different. A Brahmgyani is doing the work of Waheguru and performing a spiritual act.

-Waheguru is the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer. Waheguru is not bound in any karma. Similarly a brahmgyani, being the physical manifestation of Waheguru is just an instrument of Waheguru. And outwardly he may seem to be involved in some deplorable thing, but actually he is not.

All the puratan khalsa were realised being. Their ego was in service of Waheguru. All the labour of their mind was 'arpit' to waheguru. And when they killed someone, that someone actually was benefitted by getting killed by a brahmgyani.

ਓਹ ਨਾ ਕੇਵਲ ਆਪਣਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਪਾਉਂਦੇ ਸੀ , ਸਗੋਂ ਇੱਕ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਗਿਆਨੀ ਹਥੋਂ ਸਦਗਤੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਦੇ ਸੀ
Reply Quote TweetFacebook
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login