Talk:Guru Gobind Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Punjab (India) workgroup.

[edit] Facts disputed

The references contradict the teachings of the SGGS, the Sikh holy book and are from sites which are not supported by any official Sikh organisation.

[edit] Last Living Guru

He proclaimed himself the last living Guru (indeed, this was in Nanak's plan)

I'm wondering where this comes from? I know he was proclaimed the last living guru, but where in Nanak's teachings or sayings does it put forth that it was his plan? I don't mean to challenge this view, I would merely like to read further as to this matter. Thanks - Hidoshi 13:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this, so I'd vote to remove the "(indeed, this was in Nanak's plan)" until the issue is clarified. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's appropriate to remove. It seems far too POV. - Hidoshi 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh had proclaimed that after him the Guru Granth Sahib would be the Guru and Sikh's would not worship any living being as a guru. The tenets of Sikhism as we know it today are more based on Guru Gobind Singh than Guru Nanak. The 5 K's were not given by Guru Nanak either. It might be Guru Gobind's POV but that is how it is.Haphar 08:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guru Gobind Singh and Rama

I read somewhere that Guru Gobind Singh had stated that he is a descendant of Lord Rama, through one of his twin sons, Luv. Is this a true statement that is recognized by all Sikhs?

Thanks.

Raj2004 14:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you be a decedent of a mythological Hindu god? its not possible --Street Scholar 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

dont presume Rama was a myth.

I presume you mean 'descendant'? Many people believe he existed so yes, it is possible. However, whether he actually was a god is another matter altogether. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib has elucidated and elaborated his genial descent from the Suryawanshi Ishwakoo Rajput lineage of Rama of Ayodhya through Rama's son Kush who had settled in Madra earlier Punjab, in his own biography the Vichitra Naatak.Lutfullah (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Guru Gobind Singh himself wrote about it. It is also mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

No, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib's lineal descent from the house of Ramachandra, king of Ayodhya, is no where to be seen in Shri Guru Granth Saahib Ji. This is a misstatement! In fact the Holy Granth does not carry a single line composed by the pen of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib!Lutfullah (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

No, neither it is true nor Guru Gobind Singh had written about it. There is no claim or refrence in Guru Granth Sahib about this. Please be confirmed and make a research before posting such a bogus claims. TheSingh 12:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do a proper investigation before positing such bogus claims. There is no relationship between Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee and Hindu Ram.

Gobind Singh jee Bani is compiled in Granth named Dasam Granth. A Sikh daily routine of reciting 5 Banis in the morning contains 3 Banis recited by Guru Gobind Singh Jee.

There are many occurrences of word RAM in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and they all refer to Almighty God (Akal-purakh).

Nope that is not true that is what many Hindu extremist groups are saying to convert Sikhs, sad really.

Go to www.sikhlionz.com or go to google and type in sikh lions, then go to one of the top links which is probably called anti Sikh groups or something, read those articles.

I've heard something along these lines was written in Bichitra Natak. However, I'm in no position to decide whether that's legitimate or not. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It is true. I request to people who are actually intrested to know shoul read dasham Granth. Where one can find out that Guru Nanak Sahib was from Kush Vansh and and fourth guru fro Sodhi's was from Luv Vansh. There are four Yugas ie Satjug,Dwapar, Treta and finally Kaljug. God had taken Visible forms in all the yug and with seperate powers. Like 16 kala avtar. 9 kala avtar in Kalyug with sarv ie all kala avtar in the form of Shri Guru Nanak Sahib. The same jot ie Spirit transformed to ten gurus. No one can challange that, as the only true path for salvation as was in oldr yugas in Kalyug is Sikkism.

i dnt know about that, but all i know is dat in sikhism not hinduism there are 11 gurus an Gods name is the highest. Our goal in life is to reach God.

Those are just coincedinces, they don't mean anything!

He never said anything relating to this

This only goes to show how ill informed and parochial today's Sikhs have become! Like modern day Muslim fanatics who lack the basic facts of Islamic history and are eager to have their say however ridiculous! The topic here is whether Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib was born to the family of Ayodhya's king Ramachandra. The topic IS NOT about Sikhs recognising or worshipping Ramachandra as God! Instead of understanding this simple fact a lot of meaningless arguement has poured in this page from uninformed people who do not even care to research on the works written by the founder of the Sikh faith. This is the state of their awareness of their Guru who had departed the world in 1708! Only 3 centuries have passed and they don't bother to read his autobiography! I wonder what shall be the state of these people's awareness of their Guru three centuries from now !Lutfullah (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutfullah (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaha!!!!!

I want to make it clear that word Ram in Guru Granth Sahib refers to Almighty God not to Rama the Hindu god.

However there are some references about Hindu god Rama but these are to clear the confusion between the Almighty God and Hindu Rama. Sikh Gurus always worshiped the Almighty God and not any Hindu God (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv, Rama, Krishan etc.). If some people are spreading such rumours then they are wrong and trying to misinterpret the Sikh Gurus And Guru Granth Sahib.

RSS is misinterpreting sikh history.Following are few examples i want to mention:

1) Every sikh knows that it was Gangu Brahmin who cheated Mata Gujri ji and Chhote Sahibzade and informed the Subedaare Sirhind causing their arrest and hence the executions.

RSS is spreading that Gangu was not a brahmin but a muslim Gangu-ul-Haq who did all this.

2) A common misinterpretion that is being spread by RSS and hindu extremist groups is that sikhs don't have any independent existance but they were created as an army to serve hindus.

However hindus themselves don't know who was the founder of "hinduism" and why they are called hindus.

"Jagey dharm Hindu ! Sakal bhand bhaajey ! - Vichitra Natak by Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib.Lutfullah (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

TheSingh 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC) TheSingh

What with all this anti-hindu stuff? Ram should be respected, and within the Guru Granth Sahib ji it is possible that their name is mentioned. Just like Shiva ji. But the whole point is, is that there is one God and these are just forms off God. Even Guru Gobind Singh ji said that if they were his Sikhs then they should also respect Mata ji (one of the 'hindu Gods'). What is anti-hindu stuff here? Also i did not disrespect Rama.

Now i want to make this clear that any reference to hindu gods in Guru Granth Sahib does not mean that Sikh Gurus worshiped hindu gods. Sikh Gurus wordhiped only Almighty God and none else.In Guru Granth Sahib there are also some references about Allah, Rahim, Holy Kuraan. But that does not mean that Gurus workshipped Mohammad Sahib or any muslim Paigumber.

Guru Gobind Singh never told sikhs to worship any hindu goddess 'Mata Ji'. Please provide the source of information for your comment.

Alas! This lot of uninformed, uneducated of Sikh tenets, keep posting their ignorance with great conviction here without bothering to do their basic homework! Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib commences his Jaapji with the lines "Shri Bhagwati Ji Sada Sahai! This Bhagwati Ji is Hindu deity Mata Durga. Also in his famous composition which even an unlettered Sikh in Punjab may have heard umpteenth times, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib writes " Deh Shiva! Var mohey shubh karman soon kabahoon na taraun! Who is this Shiva from whom Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib is seeking blessings? It is Shiva Shankara the spouse of Bhagwati referred to earlier here and the most reverred and worshipped deity of Hindus also known as Mahadeva. It is indeed ridiculous of Sikhs contributing here to show off themselves as non Hindus and also to distance themselves from the very teachings of the greatest reformer and epic Guru of the Hindus perhaps without whose efforts the Hindu faith may have been wiped off the face of the Indian subcontinent, Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib. He had commented to his wife Mata Sundari Ji on his last meeting her at Delhi after his being invited there by Aurangzeb's successor Muazzam Shah Alam Bahadur Shah, on the loss of his four sons in his strife against the Mughal tyranny on Hindus "In putran key kaarney waari diyo sut chaar! Muey chaar to kya hua? Jeewit kayi hazaar!" For these thousands of sons of mine (these Hindus) I have sacrificed my own begotten four sons! It is the greatest tragedy in India and Pakistan that this monumental and tall beyond perception humanist figure to whom my Muslim head bows in salute and reverence, has been totally forgotten by both Hindus and Sikhs today. The Hindus are little aware of the protector of their faith. The Sikhs who have descended from the Hindu contributors to the Grand Khaalisa Panth of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib, today in India alienate themselves from Hindus declaring themselves as a minority community in India separate from the majority of Hindus. They keep the pretence of the Guru's tenets in their appearances, dresses and religious practises but possess nothing of the divine and all encompassing spirit of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib who had the mercifulness in raising the orphan child of a Muslim assassin that had come all the way from Sirhind to Nanded in the garb of a horse seller with orders to kill the Guru while he slept in his chamber! When the assassin's plans were revealed and he with his accomplice was killed by the Guru Ji's bodyguards, his minor son was put forward to his court next morning for further action. The benevolent and merciful Guru Ji took the child in his lap and asked his following to adopt him. Seeing their silent refusal he himselves adopted the killer's son and raised him like a Muslim by hiring a Maulavi for that child's education! We have read thousands of books in human history on heroes but are yet to come across such grand examples of humanity which make lives like Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Saahib immortal and to be respected and revered by the entire human race.Lutfullah (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

hahaha!!! one can only laugh at this user 'luftullah' knowledge of historyTurniplp (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Sikh philosophy God is formless(Ajuni) God never comes in forms. If other religions believe that God comes in forms as is done in Hinduism then this is their own belief.

Also dear friend please leave your name with your comment. TheSingh 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gobind Singh's age

dont know much about Guru Gobind Singh, but was he only 9 years old when he became Guru? I just feel that he was very young or unlogic to become a leader in such a young age. So the question is actually, are the date of birth and year of becoming a guru correct? Dhirad 23:56, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER: the age of a person does not determine his wisdom or spirtuality or even his logic.

I didnt ask qustion about his wisdom or spiritualty, only if a 9 year old child is capable of managing the whole sikh army --Dhirad 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and its happened, and it wasen't a army, Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the Khalsa.

Ram is refernce to god. and sikh is not different from hindu or muslim. brotherhood is the prime message of sikhism. Please do not distort the message to seek identities. for god is the one to judge.

[edit] Improvements needed.

This article needs many improvements. i dont think it is upto the acceptable quality. the material is not very well organized , and misses out on many important aspects of guru gobind singh ji's life. There should be more additions to the content and reordering/rewording of the existing content.

[edit] his death

~~is there any account of gurujis death. if anyone knows it, please tell me on my talk page. thanks. nids 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)~~ i got the answer.nids (♂) 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no "death" it was ascension Guru Ji ascended and were never murdered thats completly stupid this article needs to be re done or deleted and we are not related Hinduism what so ever so there is no relationship between Guru Gobind Singh and "Lord Ram"

Edit/Commentary: This previous user writing the paragraph above has made a bit of a misstatement. Sikhism is related to Hinduism and Islam, and therefore Christianity and Judaism by proxy. "Ascension" is a term that Sikhs (as current user writing this paragraph is a Sikh) like to use, but in an attempt to be quite neutral, it was a death, meaning that the body is ceasing to function.

This entire article needs to be reworded to be less biased and use less glowing language. It also needs historical verification, and it needs critiques on Gobind's statements, actions, and philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.96.252 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I do agree - the point of wikipedia is to be as factual as possible, putting aside your own emotions. Let Guru Gobind Singh's life, words, actions, and sacrifices speak for themselves. They do speak very loudly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazirah (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC) the guru Nank was the first Guru.

[edit] The organization of this article

The article's organization (I have nothing to say on the content) needs to be cleaned up. There are two 'chronology' sections, which makes very little sense, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazirah (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding wound as cause of death

Someone (possibly by the name of dave green) is reverting my edit in the box in "cause of death") The reference he cited is not a reliable source. Further the cause of death, as also described in the same ref. is the one i stated, which he is reverting.[1] it states he died eventually because of the wound. Does not state that it was immediatly after the wound. it does not mention that the wounds were sewn up, which can be found in my ref. That is , excessive bleeding due to re-opening of wound. The cause of death is re-opening of wound, and not attack. The cause of wound is attack by the two pathans. There is a lot of difference between, cause of wound and cause of death. Please don't manipulate the statements in ref. Ajjay (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it not be reliable source as the cause of his death is clearly cited in many references as having been stabbed by Wazir Khans merceraries, yes he was wounded and dies as a result of a STAB WOUND. Its even mentioned in the article, in fact some cites reference say he was stabbed and dies, so don't distort it by suggesting the wound was some act of divine will that appeared all by itself. That would amount to political abuse of historical facts. DG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No body is claiming that the wound was an act of divine will. Further the cause of death was re-opening of the wound which was sewn-up. The wound was sewn-up and re-opened two or three days later, which resulted in his passing away. So stabbing was an in-direct cause, not direct. Direct cause was re-opening of the wound. Even your ref. mentions that the guru passed away, eventually, because of the wound. it fails to mention sewing up,inbetween.

Besides, what is the difference betweem stabbed by Wazir Khans merceraries, yes he was wounded and dies as a result of a STAB WOUND.

Do you know that an English surgeon, by the name of COLE, treated Guru Gobind Singhs wound. It might be an out of nowhere fact for you.Ajjay (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did mention that in the article but thanks to you you deleted it

Shall I put it back up ?

[2]

"Guru Gobind Singh stabbed by Jamshed Khan, a hired assasin. Evening of the day when Baba Gurbakhash Singh left for Punjab, Guru Gobind Singh was visited by two Pathans. One of them was commissioned by Wazir Khan, Subedar of Sirhind. to assasinate Guru Gobind Singh. Wazir Khan was afriad of the ongoing talks between the Guru and Emporer Bahadhur Shah who had ordered Wazir Kahn to pay Guru Gobind Singh a sum of Rupees 300/day."

Hpefully a moderator will be able to see that you deleted it as it was referenced which as I understand you have had several warnings for already Ajjay.

One of the Pathans, Bashal Beg kept a vigil outside the Guru's tent while Jamshed Khan, the hired assassin stabbed the Guru twice. He was killed in one stroke by the Guru himself, while those outside altered by the btumult killed the other. The wound was sewn up the following day, by an English Surgeon, named Cole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a little scratch that got out of hand ????????? Get real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who needs to get real,not meAjjay (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The assasin in question was Jamshed Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So !, are you going to bring up his testimony!!Ajjay (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hi. I'm here as the result of a request for a third opinion. It's hard for me to tell what the exact question I'm supposed to answer here, and I think the biggest problem I see is a lack of polite, respectful discussion. I'd ask the anonymous editor to create an account and log in; it makes discussions smoother.

That said, If the question is what to put in the info box, then it should be a summary of what is in the main text. I've only got one reference handy that covers the death, but that seems to match roughly with our (unreferenced) text here. So if I were looking for a non-controversial summary, I'd suggest, "complications from an assassin's wound". That conveys the essentials, which is all the box needs. If that were too long, I'd just go with "stabbed by assassin". Yes, he didn't die that instant, but there seems to be no question that the wound caused his death.

Another alternative is just to leave the cause of death out of the info box. None of the other Sikh guru articles have it now. William Pietri (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the third option is the best, as there is always going to be debate over how it should be written. I am removing the "cause of death" from info-box. Serves no purpose. Thanks for your help.Ajjay (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, cause of death due to 'complications from an assassin's wound' is apt. As for why there is no mention on how and why the other Gurus cause of death is NEVER mysteriously mentioned on wikipedia or left out beats me since most were butchered alive by the Mughal Emperors or imprisioned, but I guess that will be airbrushed out of history too, another sad but political abuse of historical facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other articles, but I agree there's nothing particularly indirect about how he died. The one-word summary for his death would be "assassinated". The early US president James A. Garfield took two months to die of his wound, but he is still regarded as assassinated. If how the Sikh gurus died is culturally or historically significant, which 90.196.3.244 suggests, then it should be part of all the info boxes, rather than none of them. William Pietri (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you William, and thanks for pointing out about the lack of information regarding the assassinations of other Gurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

about the lack of information regarding the assassinations of other Gurus???

Perhaps you need to go through these books.

[3]
[4]
[5] (This book is by a retired indian foreign service officer (diplomat), and his knowledge is undisputable, plus he reveals facts, which were not known before, and lots of govt. hidden info. thats supposed to be TOP SECRET)
[6]
[7]

Besides there is a lot of difference between an assassination attempt and assassination. Further the identity of the persons who stabbed is given as varying in different accounts, and involvement of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah is also not ruled out.

I am placing an argument that was originally pointed by Sikh historian

_______

We live in a time when everyone thinks everything is on the internet. Yes you have a lot of quantity but not quality (the information is shallow 10% and does not cover the subject in dept 90% falling short). The only way to get more confidence in a subject is by reading books -they are usually far more reliable (8-10 times) than websites. It take aleast year to write book, 6 months for peer review research paper, whereas a web article 15 minutes by ANYONE!!!

best & most reliable sources of information:

Books Peer reviewed research papers These are Good books to get you going into understanding Sikhism (priority order):

Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh ISBN-10: 8173802041 (One of the best 20th century *Sikh historians & scholars - if EVER in doubt you use one of his books to read)
The Sikhs of the Punjab ISBN-10: 0521637643
Khalsa: Sikhs and Non-Sikh Perspectives ISBN-10: 8173045801
Understanding Sikhism ISBN-10: 1903765153 (cheap to buy)
Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction ISBN-10: 0192806017 (cheap to buy)
A History of the Sikhs ISBN-10: 0195673093
Sikhism ISBN-10: 0140252606

Current Sikh websites don't trust 100% only trust with 40% confidence. Only exception being www.sikhs.org This is the MOST reliable Sikh site = trust 70% confidence. Therefore really with Sikhism you have to read books to understand -because most Sikh websites are RUBBISH.

Ajjay (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay, its a well known fact that people try to change history to suit their political or other objectives, this is classed as the abuse of history. When we read many historical texts many years ago and compare with what teens splash out on the web which is based on cheap political sentiment, then its pretty obvious to the maturer reader of history to differentiate.

Yes, you say many sikh websites are rubbish but thats because you don't agree with historical facts so will subvert truth, integrity and honesty at its expense (which is a common phenomenon these days) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Sikh 'Historian'

You say "Besides there is a lot of difference between an assassination attempt and assassination. Further the identity of the persons who stabbed is given as varying in different accounts, and involvement of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah is also not ruled out"

You give too many reasons which contradict the many many sources that suggest he was stabbed by Jamshed Shah.

If you are a qualified legitimate historian, then use a real name.

Secondly, an assassination attempt which fails to kill is an attempt, on the other hand if the victim dies as a result of the attempt its called an assassination. Pretty obvious actually ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wiki Policy on WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Also no original research[8] Ajjay (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] who is this user luftullah

instead of inserting your comments as replies to comments that are more than a year old, why dont this user start a new topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turniplp (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About picture in infobox

The infobox needs a picture. But the picture has to be a real definitive photo that represents actual facial features. There is no actual picture of Guru Gobind Singh. In that sense it misleads the reader into assuming that Guru Gobind Singh looked like the picture. If a picture is to be put in infobox, it has to be in a way which does not make one see things in a particular manner. Turniplp (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)