# Being Naamdhari Is Sikhi



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

*

My rules are simple: One post at a time to keep 1v1 debate/talk instead of 10 different discussions in all different directions. If will attempt to each question. If someone already posted before you, wait for me to reply so we stay on the same boat(repeating wut I said above).

Premises is simple enough "Being naamdhari is sikhi" try to be in ballpark of this discussion. Idea is to provide better understanding of our own religion culture for ones who are interested. All questions are welcome. :happy:

**Folllowing is quote from sikh namdhari. *
*
Being Naamdhari is Sikhi. I am using his quote instead of my own text for a reason. * 
  Fellow Sikh Brothers and Sisters, 

Sat-Sri Akaal 

I have refrained from contributing my humble opinions on this site for a good few months after members started to get abusive..
Under such circumstances it begins to get difficult to retain ones composure and answer with objectivity.

From the comments one reads on these forums it becomes clear that most, if not all, members are prejudiced against Namdhari Sikhs. There are so many lies written about Namdharis that one wonders at the capacity of ignorance and hatred in people who profess themselves to be 'Sikhs' (seekers of God?). 

I will try to counter some of the myths being spread about Namdharis. It is up to the individual to do their own research to discover what is true and what isn't before launching into hate filled assaults.

Firstly, let's get one fact straight:

*SIKHI* and *SIKHISM *are distinctly different. 

Gurus and Sikhs existed long before the coming of Satguru Nanak Devji.
Satguru Nanak Devji did not create a seperate religion (*ism*). His mission was to rid us of the impurities of our thoughts and to sit together as brothers before each other and before our Creator.

He being the Enlightened Soul, Superior Being, was capable through His words and Deeds to deliver that message to those who were ready to recieve it, no matter what their previous religious convictions. Those who wanted to accept His message revered Him as their Guru. The message was not new; only it needed renewing. Like today, men were at each others throats, trying to impose their own doctrines on those whose were different to their own.
If the weaker ones resisted they were put to the sword. _Is that the hidden message I hear on these forums, I wonder?_

*Satguru is a title given to God Personality*. (*SARGUN*)

Akal Purakh permeates the Universe as *NIRGUN. *

*When NIRGUN chooses to become SARGUN: SATGUR walks this planet and all others to reveal His existance to His Creation.*

Thus, according to the verses of Aad and Dasam Gurus' Granth Sahibs, the Formless (who is incomprehensible to mankind) takes the form of Man. 

How we interpret the Holy scriptures seems to me to be dependant on which denomination we belong to! Most of the subscribers to these websites belong to the section of Sikhs who would rather wash over the Shabads that describe God thus. Nearly all would not even read the Dasam Granth wherein Satguru Gobind Singhji narrates the deeds of the various Avtaars of Akaal Purakh. Modern day 'Sikhism' has evolved to encompass western thought and doctrine which is repulsed by the very idea of one individual having supernatural powers, unless, of course, he/she happens to be a Superhero from Marvel.

I have yet to understand where in the vastness of Sikh history the first 10 Satgurus ordained their followers to stop regarding Them as Satguru and follow the 'Shabad Guru'. Everyone who wants to tell me about 'Shabad Guru' points to the now famous verse in Sidh Gost:
_*'Sabad Guru, Surat Dhun Chela..'.* _

_THE MEANING OF THIS LINE IS NOT WHAT IT IS MADE OUT TO BE. _
_WITHIN *ALL *_OF THE GURBANI THE TWO WORDS *SHABAD* AND *GURU *APPEAR IN THE CONTEXT OF '*SABAD GURU KA'*, *SABAD GUR*, *GUR SABAD* OR *GURMANTR.* NOWHERE CAN ITS MEANING BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT THE SABAD IS GURU.

THE CONTEXT IS ALWAYS: *GURU'S SHABAD. *

SATGURUJI HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME USED POETIC LICENCE TO OMIT OR ADD WORDS.

I ask you this: IF GURU NANAKDEVJI'S OBJECTIVE WAS TO ENJOIN HIS FOLLOWERS TO 'SHABAD GURU' WHY OH WHY DID HE CONTINUE THE LINEAGE OF HUMAN GURUS WITH GURU ANGAD DEVJI? *Quotes only from the Gurbani, please. *

*WHY DO THE BHATS STATE CATEGORICALLY WITHIN THE GURBANI THAT IT IS THIS LINEAGE OF HUMAN GURUS, AS ORDAINED BY: ".. AADH PURAKH.." THAT WILL SEE OUT THIS AGE OF KALYUG? see: Sveyae Mahalae Pehilae Ke [pages 1389-90] *

*WHEN DID THE HOLY VERSES OF THE GURBANI (WHICH IS ETERNAL TRUTH) BECOME WRONG AND THE MODERN CONCEPT OF GURU BECOME TRUE? *


*NAMDHARI Sikhs, AS COMMANDED BY THEIR SATGURU BELIEVE IN HIM AS DESCRIBED BY ALL THE VERSES IN AADH AND DASAM GURUJIS' GRANTH SAHIBS.*

THERE ARE NO WRITTEN COMMANDS BY ANY OF OUR GURUS ANYWHERE WHERE THEY COMMAND THEIR Sikhs TO ABSTAIN FROM FOLLOWING A HUMAN GURU OR THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DISCONTINUE THE LINEAGE OF HUMAN GURUS.

NAMDHARIS DO NOT BELIEVE ANY WRITINGS BY ORDINARY HUMANS AS GURUS' COMMAND. THEY ONLY BELIEVE IN THE WRITINGS OF OUR TRUE GURUS STARTING FROM SATGURU Nanak DEVJI.

All of the evidence presented to verify that Guru Gobind Singhji eliminated the lineage of Human Gurus is written by ordinary men. 

The Holy Granths say different. Guru Gobind Singhji in any of His own writings does not propogate the idea of Panth guru or Granth Guru. Hence why champions of this idea would not want you to read His writings in the Dasam Granth. 

In His opening verse of Chaubis Avtaar He writes:

_*'...Jab, Jab hott arist apaara, tab, tab Dhe dharat Avtaara...'*_

This is Guru Gobind Singhji's teaching of God's doctrine. Modern champions of the same Guruji would tell us that God does not take Avtaars! 

They will mistakenly repeat Gurujis earlier verses in which He extols the virtues of the *Nirgun* form of God. So what do our champs do? They ignore the Sargun teachings and adopt the Nirgun. Question their motives for doing so.

Nirgun is unobtainable; Sargun is required for Humans to become one with Nirgun. That is why in the Mool Manthr, after singing the euologies of Nirgun, Satgur Nanak Deviji ends with ..'Gur Parsad'. Such a God is attained through the Grace of His own manifestation as Guru. _A Guru is proactive._ A Guru will correct a misdeed. A Guru will hold your hand when you are unstable. Not, hypothetically by us concoting an idea or image in our minds, but in real time and life as a living, breathing entity. AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL:
Source:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14966 (Being Naamdhari is Sikhi)

*A SATGUR ADMINISTERS THE Amrit: NAAM*

*IF YOU RECIEVE NAAM FROM SOMEONE WHO WEARS THE 5 SHASTER DURING AN Amrit SANCHAR BUT HAS NO CONNECTION WITH HIS CREATOR OUTSIDE OF THE GURDWARA; WHO WILL TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SOUL AFTER YOUR DEMISE, HOW CAN YOUR RECITATION OF THAT NAAM BRING YOU SALVATION? *
Source:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14966 (Being Naamdhari is Sikhi)

*ONLY BY RECEIVING NAAM FROM, OR THROUGH THE ORDER OF, ONE WHO IS IMMERSED IN NAAM HIMSELF 24 HOURS A DAY WITH EACH BREATH, WHO LEADS BY EXAMPLE HOW TO LIVE A LIFE THAT IS COLOURED BY NAAM CAN WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE SALVATION FROM THE CYCLE OF 840,000. *

*SUCH ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO US IN THE HOLY GRANTH SAHIBS WHICH WE ALL READ.*


So now I ask you:

How is this belief harmful to Sikhi? How are the adherants to this belief not Sikhs? 

Guru Ram Singhji did by preaching and deed what no man can do and everything that Gurus had done before Him. How could those who came into contact with Him not call Him Guru? How can we, who have recieved the love and grace of Guru Jagjit Singhji not call Him Guru? Any more than those who came into Guru Nanakdevji's fold were compelled through His love to call Him their Master! Guru Ram Singhji taught nothing new, He merely, like Guru Nanakdevji, renewed a truth about love and freedom that mankind had forgotten. 

All of you on these sites who profess to be followers of that wonderous Gurudom of Guru Nanakdevji: give up your bigotries, give up Sikhi*sm *and embrase *SIKHI.* Set yourselves on a path of learning rather than teaching, for we are the students, the Sikhs of our great Master: The SATGURU.

Sat Sri Akaal


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 8, 2009)

josh ji

This is an admin note: 

Many are sympathetic to your request to stay focused one topic at a time in a forum thread. Unfortunately a single forum member cannot establish the rules for discussion for all the other members. As long as forum guidelines are not violated, at SPN, we are light-handed in our moderation.

Abusiveness in the form of hostilities directed against individual discussants in a thread will be noted, and infractions or even deletions imposed according to the judgment of thread moderators or admin. 

When discussions go off topic new threads are frequently opened and those who digress are warned.

Since you have listed a number of issues related to the thread title, it is IMHO a foregone conclusion that there will be many parallel discussions as the thread evolves. These parallel discussions would not be digressions in every instance. Because you have introduced a complex topic in a complex way. 

You will also meet forum members who do not see the thread topic in black and white. Rather they will probably disagree with the premise that Namdharis are practicing Sikhi and Sikhism. Yet they will also express the opinion that Namdharis played a crucial role during the independence struggle and that they have a sincere devotion to Guru Nanak.

Other than that, no promises can be made. The topic is interesting. And I hope that interesting discussion and debate ensues.

:welcome: Narayanjot Kaur


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

I would also request your opinion/view on the topic "being namdhari is sikh".

Thx for explaining the technicalities


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh ji

I am honored and will give my opinion later in the day. At this moment I am looking at all the new threads, responding when I can because the response is short, and moving on to the next thread.


Always on the lookout for forum issues :}8-:.

Your comments deserve more than a quick and flip response. So I hope you will forgive me and give me some time.


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

It does take less muscles to smile than frown


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh Martin ji,

Guru Fateh.

Before I respond to  your queries, can you please share with us if you are born a Namdhari or a convert. The reason I asked you that is because of your name as your user ID.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

Born sikh, not namdhari or convert. Also, not my real name.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> Born sikh, not namdhari or convert. Also, not my real name.



One wonders why! But anyway, can you please explain the difference between a Sikh and a Naamdhari  with the help of Gurbani from SGGS our ONLY GURU?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

[qoute]the difference between a Sikh and a Naamdhari  with the help of Gurbani from SGGS our ONLY GURU?[/quote]

Premises of this topic is "being naamdhari is sikhi". The auther, sikh naamdhari, who seems to have gone through pains to write something close to his heart, has dedicted his entire post to your very question.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> [qoute]the difference between a Sikh and a Naamdhari  with the help of Gurbani from SGGS our ONLY GURU?



Premises of this topic is "being naamdhari is sikhi". The auther, sikh naamdhari, who seems to have gone through pains to write something close to his heart, has dedicted his entire post to your very question.[/quote]

Josh ji,

Guru Fateh,

I am sorry to say that I can only respond to your queries once I understand the difference between a Sikh and a Naamdhari based on SGGS, our Only Guru.

What is your personal opinion? Please share with us as you said you are a Naamdhari.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

> What is your personal opinion? Please share with us as you said you are a Naamdhari.




I must have confused you. I am not a naamdhari. Born sikh, not convert or naamdhari. 

Sikh naamdhari is the person who wrote this article, I simply copy pasted it. When I said , the author, sikh naamdhari, seems to went through pains... I meant the real author of article; Sikh Philosophy Network - View Profile: Sikh Namdhari, article; http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/14966-being-naamdhari-is-sikhi.html

I don't have any quarries. simply stated that Being namdhari is also sikhi. Later in his article, and I get a vibe you havn't read it, auther asks: 

How is this belief harmful to Sikhi? How are the adherants to this belief not Sikhs? 


I do like this quote:
Sikhi is the journey of the indvidual, and each of us carry our own Spiritual torch and thanks to your dedication offer the light from your own torch to them like the scent of a flower which emits itself in all directions sans bais. What a great way Sikhi has taught us!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> I must have confused you. I am not a naamdhari. Born sikh, not convert or naamdhari.
> 
> Sikh naamdhari is the person who wrote this article, I simply copy pasted it. When I said , the author, sikh naamdhari, seems to went through pains... I meant the real author of article; Sikh Philosophy Network - View Profile: Sikh Namdhari, article; http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/14966-being-naamdhari-is-sikhi.html
> 
> ...



Josh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Yes, I have read the article. I wanted to know your opinion about the difference between a Sikh and a Naamdhari. As you have posted the essay by someone , you must have some kind of opinion as a Sikh which is based on SGGS, our ONLY GURU.

Can you request the Naamdhari gentleman who has written this essay to come and interact here. I have a lot of questions to ask. 

As far as the quote is concerned, the one you like, I thank you for that because that is my quote.

Let us interact. Please do not hesitate to express yourself as a Sikh.


Regards

Tejwant


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

My opinion: Sikh is defined by rehat, not by bieng born a sikh or converting to sikh"*ism"*
I believe being a sikh has nothing to do with wether you are naamdhari, muslim, diff caste, male/female, etc


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> My opinion: Sikh is defined by rehat, not by bieng born a sikh or converting to sikh"*ism"*
> I believe being a sikh has nothing to do with wether you are naamdhari, muslim, diff caste, male/female, etc



Josh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am a bit confused by your response. 

Please define rehat according to SGGS, our ONLY GURU.

How can a Muslim be a Sikh? Please elaborate your thought on that.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

I like this quote from the original post 
"All of you on these sites who profess to be followers of that wonderous Gurudom of Guru Nanakdevji: give up your bigotries, give up Sikhi*sm *and embrase *SIKHI.* Set yourselves on a path of learning rather than teaching, for we are the students, the Sikhs of our great Master: The SATGURU."

Rehat would be to follow Guru Ji's mat. 

Muslims-sikhs? Is sikhi limited to birth right?

I would like to hear your opinion on same questions you asked me.

What is the difference between naamdhari and sikh?
How do you see rehat?.. based on SGGS, our ONLY GURU


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jul 8, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> My opinion: Sikh is defined by rehat, not by bieng born a sikh or converting to sikh"*ism"*
> I believe being a sikh has nothing to do with wether you are naamdhari, muslim, diff caste, male/female, etc



Sikhi needs no license


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 8, 2009)

Nice reply, wait wut does it mean by " no license"? 
Also what's your view on main topic?  Naamdhari's are sikhs too?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jul 8, 2009)

only the person would know if he/she is a SIKH

no one else can tell him/her that he/she is a sikh or not.

I hope that answers your first and second question.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jul 8, 2009)

slightly off topic but an interesting read in line with the theme:

Mark Twain's short story: Carnival of Crime in Connecticut
:roll:


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 9, 2009)

> *Satguru is a title given to God Personality*. (*SARGUN*)



For me, my disagreements start here, so really no need to continue the rest. 

Best Wishes


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 9, 2009)

The question should be, *why do Namdhari's have to prove they are Sikh?*

Unless of course they are uneasy about having a living Guru.:u):


----------



## Lee (Jul 9, 2009)

Many years ago I attended a Sikh summer camp, and during the course of a talk give by some granthi or other he proclaimed that Naamdhari's are not really Sikh.  There was such a Sikh in the aduiance who put her arm up to ask to be able to address the granthi and the audicance.  After speaking and exlpining what she actualy belived re: sikhi, Waheguru, and the ten Sikh Gurus, the granthi applogised and took his remarks back.

I guess even a brake-away Sikh sect is still Sikh.


----------



## harbansj24 (Jul 9, 2009)

Dear Josh ji,

Guru Fateh,

I have nothing against Namdharis. In fact they are a great group who made significant contribution to Indian history, culture and sports. Their patriotic sacrifices are second to none. Having said that, I wish to point out that recognized recorded history says that Guru Gobind Singh ji departed from this world in 1708. Now the question is did he leave the Sikhs Guru less. No one including the Namdharis believe that he could do that. So we have to believe that he must have left a message that ordained Sikhs accept Guru Granth Sahib as their Guru there after.

Namdharis claim that Guru Gobind Singh ji became a recluse after 1708 and he departed from this world only in 1812 and before that he passed on the Guruship to Guru Balak Singh Ji. I regret to say that recognised recorded history does not support this claim.


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 9, 2009)

> I guess even a brake-away Sikh sect is still Sikh.
> 
> As long they are still considered sikh
> 
> ...




Still sounds in the ballpark of Guru's and sikhism.


I read the other thread, and there were some reply's I am worried about.


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 9, 2009)

YouTube - Santoor with Tabla - Raag Bageshwari-www.kiranpalsingh.com


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 9, 2009)

NamJap ji

Lovely, really very special and unique---- and one or both of these men are your relations I think. Am I correct?


----------



## Astroboy (Jul 9, 2009)

Nope. But can't we all relate to classical music ?


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 9, 2009)

Sorry, I thought it was your cousin. But just the same it is great!


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 10, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> Still sounds in the ballpark of Guru's and sikhism.
> 
> 
> I read the other thread, and there were some reply's I am worried about.



Yes in the ball park, but the sticking point is "Guru Maneyo Granth". Namdhari's believe in a living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

Their present Baba has issued some strange decrees, for example, women cannot carry Kirpans. Perhaps something to do with the Nottingham incident a few years back?


----------



## Lee (Jul 10, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Yes in the ball park, but the sticking point is "Guru Maneyo Granth". Namdhari's believe in a living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
> 
> Their present Baba has issued some strange decrees, for example, women cannot carry Kirpans. Perhaps something to do with the Nottingham incident a few years back?


 

I was on my way home from work yesterday evening and as often happens my mind got around to certian thoughts, and is also my habit I let my mind drift where it would, rather than concentrate on that which was forming in my head.

The thought was about the kirpan, and whether Guru ji if alive in person and not Guru Granth Sahib, would change his Hukum regarding teh carrying of it in these days.

Let me explain. For many Khalsa now-a-days, the kirpan is little more than a small blunt replica of a kirpan.  Do you carry it out of obediance?  Is it a symbol of such?  What was Guru ji's intent for his Gursihks when he initiated the Khalsa?  If it was in defence of the defensless, if it was all about 'when all else has failed it is right to pick up the sword' then surly the blunt instrument the Khalsa carry now is useless for such a task?

Now please my freinds do not feel anger towards me here, I am now as I ever was asking honestly and openly, to quest for understanding.


----------



## harbansj24 (Jul 10, 2009)

Dear Lee,

It is true that the kirpan in its present form is of not much use either for self defense or in defence of the defenceless. But it is a powerful reminder to a Gursikh about his duties. In the present day world there are many distractions which tend to confuse and distract you from your fundamental duties not only towards the society but also to your spiritual self. and all the 5 Ks serve as instantaneus reminders to you.

Though I am not an ideal Gursikh, I can assure you  that these must have pulled from the brink countless number of times.

Gurufateh and regards

Harbans Singh


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 10, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Yes in the ball park, but the sticking point is "Guru Maneyo Granth". Namdhari's believe in a living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
> 
> Their present Baba has issued some strange decrees, for example, women cannot carry Kirpans. Perhaps something to do with the Nottingham incident a few years back?


b

I don't think they "admit" to believing in living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  Anyone would be blaspheming if they did. Looking at the basics, they read gurbani, wear turbans, do kirtan, keep some sort of rehat. They like in respecting saints, more openly than some of us perhaps. 

keeping an open end..


----------



## Lee (Jul 10, 2009)

harbansj24 said:


> Dear Lee,
> 
> It is true that the kirpan in its present form is of not much use either for self defense or in defence of the defenceless. But it is a powerful reminder to a Gursikh about his duties. In the present day world there are many distractions which tend to confuse and distract you from your fundamental duties not only towards the society but also to your spiritual self. and all the 5 Ks serve as instantaneus reminders to you.
> 
> ...


 

Harbans ji,

I understand.  However what of Kesh?  I can see that perhaps there are only two reasons to keep this(please if you are aware of more let me know) the frist because Guru ji tells us to, the second the very reason you have supplied.

So then if Kesh reminds us of our duties, do we need kirpan to do the same?  

Please what is your understanding of the reasons for each of the 5 k's?


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 10, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> b
> 
> I don't think they "admit" to believing in living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  Anyone would be blaspheming if they did. Looking at the basics, they read gurbani, wear turbans, do kirtan, keep some sort of rehat. They like in respecting saints, more openly than some of us perhaps.
> 
> keeping an open end..



I'm afraid they do believe in living Guru's:

Namdhari (Sikh sect) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 10, 2009)

randip singh said:


> I'm afraid they do believe in living Guru's:
> 
> Namdhari (Sikh sect) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia



I don't think they "admit" to believing in living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.[my quote

They don't believe living guru's which supersede Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

We are walking on thin lines here  Keep in mind we are looking for an understanding, not condem/damnation.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 10, 2009)

Naamdharis have a LIVING GURU which is a human. They do not only believe in him, they consider him equal to if not above SGGS.

Sikhs have SGGS as the ONLY LIVING GURU.

Hence, Naamdharis are for SANTMAT and are against GURMAT.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 10, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> b
> 
> I don't think they "admit" to believing in living Guru which supersedes the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  Anyone would be blaspheming if they did. Looking at the basics, they read gurbani, wear turbans, do kirtan, keep some sort of rehat. They like in respecting saints, more openly than some of us perhaps.
> 
> keeping an open end..



Jio Fateh!

Without enmity toward Namdharis, let's stipulate that a central belief that distinguishes Sikhi from Namdhari Sikhs as a sect is the belief that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the final and everlasting Guru.

Many religious systems of belief involve reading gurbani, wearing turbans, doing kirtan, and keeping some sort of rehat, and respecting sants. Yes --You are correct. Yet, these are not distinguishing features of Sikhi in and of themselves. For example: there are Hindu panths that read gurbani, followers of the Kabir panth do kirtan, there are muslims in Afghanistan who wear turbans, and the phrase "some sort of rehat" is too ambiguous to be meaningful.  None of these practices alone or collectively outweighs the centrality of the Sikh belief that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the Guru.

This is an idea that actually pre-dates Guru Gobind Singh - as we find the ideas in the vaaran of Bhai Gurdas. 


Gur moorat gur shabad hai, sadh sangat mil amrit vela. [Var 24, stanza          11.] 
        Guru’s form is his shabad, which can be obtained in early morning          holy congregation. 

        Gur moorat gur shabad hai, sadh sangat samsar parwana. [Var 24, stanza          15.] 
        Guru’s form is shabad.The shabad and sadh sangat is one and the          same. 

        Gur moorat gur shabad sun, sadh sangat asan nirankari - [Var 11 stanza          2.] 
        Listen to the Guru’s shabad as the Guru’s form. Sadh sangat          is the seat of God. 

Namdharis not only give a living Satguru equality with Sri Guru Granth Sahib, they take personal mantras upon initiation from the living Satguru. There are many elements of their very *specific* rehat that are not only different from Sikh Rehat Maryada, but contradict it along with contradicting the rehats of Dandami and Buddha Dal. Wearing a turban in the absence of keeping 5 K's as an initiated Sikh doesn't mean anything. In contrast Naamdharis do not carry a kirpan but a bamboo staff; they wear mala or rosaries, which is forbidden in the Sikh Rehat Maryada - though many do wear them. 

*The Namdhari rehat can be found here Sikh identity: an exploration of ... - Google Books*

How is the rehat of the Namdhari different? Quick overview of the unique maryada -- you can read more at the link above. 

1. Marriage involves walking around agni - Such rituals are forsaken by SRM.
2. The rehat states kechera should never leave the body -- this is not found in SRM.
3. Namdhari are strict vegetarians, excluding meat, fish and eggs from the diet. This is not required in SRM, which forbids halal meat only. And in the other Sikh rehats meat can also be taken.
4. Namdhari forbid tea and coffee in addition to intoxicants, whereas the SRM forbids tobacco and intoxicants.
5. Namdhari forbid dowries completely. The SRM forbids excessive dowry.

I wish however to stress that differences in rehat are more than technical disparities. Even as there are differences in the 5 K's, so there are differences as Naamdharis disregard two essential decrees of Sri Guru Gobind Singh that established the Khalsa panth.

 The 5 K's are the signature of the Khalsa panth, and Guru Gobind Singh declared that panth was in his own image "guru" as a temporal and democratic institution to decide on matters affecting corporate Sikh life. 

_"The Khalsa is my own image. I shall always manifest myself in the Khalsa. 
The Khalsa is my body and soul; The Khalsa is the life of my life. 
The Khalsa is my perfect leader. The Khalsa is my brave friend. _

And he was the one who gave Sri Guru Granth Sahib the status of the everlasting Guru, Satguru. 

_"Agya bhai Akal ki tabhi chalayo Panth Sabh Sikhan ko hukam hai Guru manyo Granth_ Guru Granth Ji manyo pargat Guran ki deh Jo Prabhu ko milbo chahe khoj shabad mein le Raj karega Khalsa aqi rahei na koe Khwar hoe sabh milange bache sharan jo hoe." 

"Under orders of the Immortal Being, the Panth was created. All the Sikhs are enjoined to accept the Granth as their Guru. Consider the Guru Granth as embodiment of the Gurus. Those who want to meet God, can find Him in its hymns. The Khalsa shall rule, and its opponents will be no more, Those separated will unite and all the devotees shall be saved." 



Fundamental


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 10, 2009)

Namdharis not only give a living Satguru equality with Sri Guru Granth Sahib, they take personal mantras upon initiation from the living Satguru.[qoute

Only mantra's I have ever seen any naamdhari or any sikh for matter is vaheguru or mool mantra.  

There are many elements of their very *specific* rehat that are not only different from Sikh Rehat Maryada, but contradict it along with contradicting the rehats of Dandami and Buddha Dal. Wearing a turban in the absence of keeping 5 K's as an initiated Sikh doesn't mean anything. In contrast Naamdharis do not carry a kirpan but a bamboo staff; they wear mala or rosaries, which is forbidden in the Sikh Rehat Maryada - though many do wear them. [quote

It's forbidden to wear maala's, carry staffs? News to me

1. Marriage involves walking around agni - Such rituals are forsaken by SRM.
2. The rehat states kechera should never leave the body -- this is not found in SRM.
3. Namdhari are strict vegetarians, excluding meat, fish and eggs from the diet. This is not required in SRM, which forbids halal meat only. And in the other Sikh rehats meat can also be taken.
4. Namdhari forbid tea and coffee in addition to intoxicants, whereas the SRM forbids tobacco and intoxicants.
5. Namdhari forbid dowries completely. The SRM forbids excessive dowry.

 All I see is Namdhari's go a step extra which SRM doesn't require. But I do see your point in trying to point out all differences.


I wish however to stress that differences in rehat are more than technical disparities. Even as there are differences in the 5 K's, so there are differences as Naamdharis disregard two essential decrees of Sri Guru Gobind Singh that established the Khalsa panth.
The 5 K's are the signature of the Khalsa panth, and Guru Gobind Singh declared that panth was in his own image "guru" as a temporal and democratic institution to decide on matters affecting corporate Sikh life. 

Here you are comparing sikhi with Khalsa Amritdhari Singhs. By these standards 99% of sangat in gurudwara's in sacramento wouldn't qualify as sikhs.

And he was the one who gave Sri Guru Granth Sahib the status of the everlasting Guru, Satguru. [quot

_"Agya bhai Akal ki tabhi chalayo Panth Sabh Sikhan ko hukam hai Guru manyo Granth_ Guru Granth Ji manyo pargat Guran ki deh Jo Prabhu ko milbo chahe khoj shabad mein le Raj karega Khalsa aqi rahei na koe Khwar hoe sabh milange bache sharan jo hoe." 

"Under orders of the Immortal Being, the Panth was created. All the Sikhs are enjoined to accept the Granth as their Guru. Consider the Guru Granth as embodiment of the Gurus. Those who want to meet God, can find Him in its hymns. The Khalsa shall rule, and its opponents will be no more, Those separated will unite and all the devotees shall be saved." 

And this strictly forbids everyone to bow to saints or seva of saints or anyone other than Shiri Guru Granth Sahib ji?

I would like to share a simple story here. Although Baba SHiri chand ji started his own gadhi/seat which still continues today, Shiri Guru Raamdas ji cleaned his feet with his dhari. Was he better/higher/more spiritual than Shiri Guru Raamdas ji? ofcourse not, no ones higher, but Shiri Guru Sahib tought us humility, seva and Nivna(to bow down). 
5th Patshahi, Shiri Guru Arjun Dev ji, walked to Baba Shiri Chand ji's place to ask for his CHarnamrit himself cuz water in Harminder sahib wouldn't stay. Couldn't Guru ji do it himself, ofcourse, but they set an example for rest of us. 
GuruSahib ji, asked Mian meer ji to make "NIh" of Shiri Harmandir Sahib ji, Couldn't he have done it himself or asked *SIKHS *like Bhai Gurdaasji, Baba Budha ji or many other able sangat? Guru ji teach us that naam/simran/seva/GurMaT transcends race/caste/religion. If Guru Ji are so respectfull of Baba shiri Chand ji and a Muslim peer Mian Meer ji, Why do we, SIKHS of the same Guru Sahib criticiz and Ninda others Tagging/labeling them as sects/non sikhs etc. 

Have we this new MAT which is higher than our Guru Sahib? SInce when did we as SIKHS became so wise as to Pin -down / excumminate/outcaste others from "OUR" religion. If you are looking for it, you will find it. More in each of us than in others I am sure.

 Fundamental
[/quote]


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 10, 2009)

Josh Martin ji



Josh martin said:


> Namdharis not only give a living Satguru equality with Sri Guru Granth Sahib, they take personal mantras upon initiation from the living Satguru.[qoute
> 
> Only mantra's I have ever seen any naamdhari or any sikh for matter is vaheguru or mool mantra.
> The difference is that the mantar is given by panj pyaaree representing the Guru's panth, and not by a Living Satguru. Point made earlier and signifies a big difference. Yes I am stressing the differences. Maybe it is politically incorrect.
> ...


[/quote]

Regards


----------



## harbansj24 (Jul 11, 2009)

Dear Josh ji,

Please do appreciate that the forum of internet has its own limitations and cannot cater to endless debates and arguments. At best you can get some limited clarifications from people who are knowledgeable in the subject. You cannot garner total in depth knowledge here. Any attempt to do so will will only lead to diversionary and pointless discussions.

We can at best have clarity on basics only.

What Narayanjot Kaur ji and others have said can  briefly be said as under:

A Gursikh is one who:


Recognizes Guru Granth Sahib as his/her Guru.
Has 5ks and does not contemplate discarding them.
Does Simran, Kirit and Vand Chakh.
Others who only partly adhere to the above, are not Gursikhs, whatever else they may be.

Our Dasam Pita had (I believe He still has!) tremendous fore knowledge when he prescribed a code of conduct for Sikhs. Only now the world is beginning to realise this.

Just two examples will suffice;

1. The Surgeon General of USA, the most advanced country in the world had declared only 50 years ago that Tobacco is harmful to health and the world is moving towards total ban only now but our Dasam Pita had said the same thing in 1699.

2. Govts. the world over are now officially saying that to prevent AIDS we must practice sexual faithfulness. Our Dasam Pita had said it in 1699.

Lee ji has also been rasing similar queries. To him also I will say that to a GurSikh the hukum of Guru is sufficient. (and we do not doubt that he actually ordained us that way)

As a very limited anwer to Lee ji, I would say the following:

A "Sabat Soorat Sikh" has to think twice before he does anything unethical because whenever such a person is involved in wrongdoing it will be said that a Sikh has done wrong. This is not so with any other community. It does not mean that a Sabat Soorat Sikh does no wrong but whenever he does, the whole community gets identified so that it does make him that much more careful. Similarly whenever a Sikh does something good, he brings a good name to community.

If both Josh ji and Lee ji wish to understand Sikhi in its entirety, then I will humbly suggest that they invest time and read the following books by Bhai Vir Singh Ji:

1. Guru Nanak Chamatkar.
2. Guru Kalghidar Chamatkar
2. Asht Guru Chamatkar

And if possible also Baba Naudh Singh and Rana Surat Singh.

After reading these all your qurries and doubts will be answered.

These Books are published by Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan, New Delhi

Guru Fateh and regards

Harbans Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 11, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> Namdharis not only give a living Satguru equality with Sri Guru Granth Sahib, they take personal mantras upon initiation from the living Satguru.[qoute
> 
> Only mantra's I have ever seen any naamdhari or any sikh for matter is vaheguru or mool mantra.
> 
> ...



Hi Josh, I think you have taken on the poison chalice when taking on this.

My wifes cousin is married to a Namdhari, and he says that their living Guru's supersede the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. There are fundemental differences between Sikhs who believe in the SRM and Namdhari's.

and if as you say:

_All I see is Namdhari's go a step extra which SRM doesn't require. But I do see your point in trying to point out all differences._

Is somethng I fundementally disagree with. The whole point of SRM is that it is done by consensus. You cannot have living Guru's or Baba's _go a step extra _or that *pours water on the SRM* and the fundemental principles of Gurmatta in Sikhi.

I think you should come clean and admit you are a Namdhari.

Here at SPN we respect other peoples views but they at the same time should come clean and admit differences with mainstream Sikhism.


----------



## Josh martin (Jul 11, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Hi Josh, I think you have taken on the poison chalice when taking on this. I think you should come clean and admit you are a Namdhari.



Vista/amrit not much difference. Admitting namdhari would be needed if I was anything close to a sikh in first place 

Off to work/ will reply's tommarow; Until this part of my post was walked over/avoided. Thoughts on this plz. An factual error was inserted, which no one has picked on;

And this strictly forbids everyone to bow to saints or seva of saints or anyone other than Shiri Guru Granth Sahib ji?

I would like to share a simple story here. Although Baba SHiri chand ji started his own gadhi/seat which still continues today, Shiri Guru Raamdas ji cleaned his feet with his dhari. Was he better/higher/more spiritual than Shiri Guru Raamdas ji? ofcourse not, no ones higher, but Shiri Guru Sahib tought us humility, seva and Nivna(to bow down). 
5th Patshahi, Shiri Guru Arjun Dev ji, walked to Baba Shiri Chand ji's place to ask for his CHarnamrit himself cuz water in Harminder sahib wouldn't stay. Couldn't Guru ji do it himself, ofcourse, but they set an example for rest of us. 
GuruSahib ji, asked Mian meer ji to make "NIh" of Shiri Harmandir Sahib ji, Couldn't he have done it himself or asked *Sikhs *like Bhai Gurdaasji, Baba Budha ji or many other able sangat? Guru ji teach us that naam/simran/seva/GurMaT transcends race/caste/religion. If Guru Ji are so respectfull of Baba shiri Chand ji and a Muslim peer Mian Meer ji, Why do we, Sikhs of the same Guru Sahib criticiz and Ninda others Tagging/labeling them as sects/non Sikhs etc. 

Have we this new MAT which is higher than our Guru Sahib? SInce when did we as Sikhs became so wise as to Pin -down / excumminate/outcaste others from "OUR" religion. If you are looking for it, you will find it. More in each of us than in others I am sure.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 11, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> Vista/amrit not much difference. Admitting namdhari would be needed if I was anything close to a sikh in first place
> 
> Off to work/ will reply's tommarow



Josh ji 


Makes sense to me. The entire point of persisting with the Namdhari Sikh discussion was to put members of the forum on the defensive regarding their knowledge of Sikhism and their adherence to Sikh values. If successful in doing that, it would then be easy to shake the confidence of various other participants and slip in beliefs from a different religious system.

That is what is happening. In a sense you have to read ALL the threads in which Josh Martin ji is responding to pick up on it.  Open with a quick assault, then put the opposition on the defensive with short quick nips and jabs.

Josh ji it is obvious from your very first post earlier this week on one thread. In which you say that you have been reading discussions in the forum for some time, and you have come to the conclusion that this forum is bigoted.  If you already have the answer that we are bigoted, then why continue to ask questions? By your own reasoning, we can only give you bigoted answers. Yet on the same various threads, you proceed next to question  the legitimacy of believing that Sikhism is unique. No  member of any religion should be required to go on the defensive and defend the fundamentals of belief in his own house, or in the forum of her professed religion. 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
*
BTW, What does this mean?*  Vista/Amrit not much difference.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 12, 2009)

Lee said:


> I was on my way home from work yesterday evening and as often happens my mind got around to certian thoughts, and is also my habit I let my mind drift where it would, rather than concentrate on that which was forming in my head.
> 
> The thought was about the kirpan, and whether Guru ji if alive in person and not Guru Granth Sahib, would change his Hukum regarding teh carrying of it in these days.
> 
> ...



Its a valid point. I stated in a forum that wouldn't the Guru's have chosen something like a gun today.

A fellow writer pointed out guns existed in those days but Guruji did not chose that. I think each of the 5 K's also has a symbolic meaning too.

We say things like "Deg, Teg, Fateh".

To mess around with these symbols and metaphors just seems to destroy the fundementals within Sikhi.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 12, 2009)

Josh martin said:


> Vista/amrit not much difference. Admitting namdhari would be needed if I was anything close to a sikh in first place
> 
> Off to work/ will reply's tommarow; Until this part of my post was walked over/avoided. Thoughts on this plz. An factual error was inserted, which no one has picked on;
> 
> ...



A slave cannot have two masters.:yes:


----------

