# Sehajdhari Sikh Federation! Comments, Please



## curious seeker (Mar 9, 2010)

Hello Everyone

 Could you comment on this:

Sehajdhari Sikh Federation

Blessings
Curious


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*

Oh it will be very interesting to see what happens next. :happykaur:


----------



## ballym (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*

The move seems to have fizzled out. It was more of a political outfit. However, such gurudwras of sehajdharis may comeup.... may be 100 years later.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*



ballym said:


> The move seems to have fizzled out. It was more of a political outfit. However, such gurudwras of sehajdharis may comeup.... may be 100 years later.



ballym ji

Thanks for your insights. My quick read of the homepage and also the second level pages led me to come to a similar conclusion. The photo gallery consisted of pictures that looked like political gatherings, rallies and public relations shots. There were a lot of "Sants" listed among the leadership. Strange. The home page commentary seemed to be specifically aimed at judicial controversies where it was important to define a "Sikh" for political reasons that were limited to constitutional issues within India. But I am not certain.


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*



ballym said:


> The move seems to have fizzled out. It was more of a political outfit. However, such gurudwras of sehajdharis may comeup.... may be 100 years later.



Hi Ballym

Thanks for replying! I  was more interested on some of the things said.

 For ex,
 'In 1699, all Sikhs were invited (not ordered) to become Khalsa. It is reported by the emperor’s own spies that 20,000 out of 80,000 able-bodied men, and some women took up the offer. The great Guru did not curse, criticize or condemn those who did not take up the offer! The Guru was just asking of His followers to take the fight to the Muslim rulers. He loved them all, Khalsa or not. And if you think about it properly, Guru Gobind Singh Ji had actually raised an army of Khalsa to defend, yes, the Sikhs, the folks who HAD NOT taken the Panj Kakari Amrit. ...''

 It seems that the writer is saying that the Khalsa, was to be a special grade or order of Sikhs, Saint Soldiers  who are specially called to an army of Saint Soldiers, called indeed, to fight evil in any way, but  more than just spiritually.

 He also goes on to say:

'' The Khalsa were the Knights of the Guru’s table. The Khalsa, and not the Sikh, was required to wear the 5 K’s, their uniform, as an outward display of their status in society, and their will to fight state sponsored terrorism.''

And:

'' This clearly means that anyone who believes in the above, without any reservation, is a Sikh of the Guru. Notice, that there is no mention of turbans or long hair. Notice also that there is no mention of any requirement to wear kakaars. That specifically is the code for a Khalsa, and clearly, that cannot be disputed. To be a Khalsa, one must bear all 5 kakaars. But to be a Sikh, one only needs to satisfy the three conditions listed above.  ...''

 Now coming from different traditions, I have to tell you that if there is no direct call in the SGGS, or well and clearly attested, by the living Gurus,  for the final goal of all Sikhs to be Khalsa, then, most Non-Sikhs, and most non-Punjabis, will believe that the Khalsa was not meant for every one, and that attempts to present it otherwise, are based on other than scripture and will be considered to be fanaticism.

 Thus my intention was for Sikhs to comment on the specifics of what was said in the article.

Blessings
Curious


----------



## Arvind (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*

Very amusing ... must say that. That is what happens when a way of living is chained with some '...ism'. (!)Logical(!) minds putting definitions around different words as per their limited understanding...

Guru sahib has ready given the definition of sikh in the shabad - Guru Satguru ka jo sikh...  http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/14247-gur-satgur-ka-jo-sikh-akhai.html

With Regards, Arvind.


----------



## dalbirk (Mar 13, 2010)

Sehajdhari is also one of those terms which is UNIQUE to Sikhs . Are there Sehajdhari Muslims , Sehajdhari Christians , Sehajdhari Jews . This term is totally misleading , mischiveous & wholly constructed with some AGENDA in mind . Those RODAS , GHONA-MONAS whose only aim of life is EAT,DRINK & MAKE MERRY are out to control Sikh institutions & avail other minority benifits but CRIB at the very mention of KEEPING HAIR have devised this new platform . I may dare them just to leave Sikhs & Sikhi alone , we will be happy to be in a minority in Punjab but never compromise with the principles & beliefs .


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*



Arvind said:


> Very amusing ... must say that. That is what happens when a way of living is chained with some '...ism'. (!)Logical(!) minds putting definitions around different words as per their limited understanding...
> 
> Guru sahib has ready given the definition of sikh in the shabad - Guru Satguru ka jo sikh...  http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/14247-gur-satgur-ka-jo-sikh-akhai.html
> 
> With Regards, Arvind.


 
Hi Arvind ji

Thank you very much, I did check out the thread and sure enough, just like I thought, the men of God do not divide men, men that don't know God do ...
Blessings


----------



## harbansj24 (Mar 13, 2010)

Curious Seeker ji,
Apart from the political aspect, the article does raise some questions which cannot be brushed aside.
 However IMHO every Gursikh's desire definitely is to be baptised as Khalsa. So the journey from so called "Sehajdhari" to Khalsa is a continuum. Some may reach it and some may not but that does not make them any less beloved to the Guru. 

Again in my humble opinion the task of a Sikh, a "Sehajdari" or otherwise is continuous self improvement and sevice to mankind which includes protecting the weak against tyranny, "Vand Chak" and propagation of the concept of Simran or Naam Jap irrespective of caste, creed or religion. And ofco{censored} as Khalsa the same aims are pursued more passionately.

In light of above, the conept of Khalistan being limited to a tiny geographic region appears absurd. For  Khalsa the whole Earth is Khalistan.

However for the purpose of governance in India, a Sikh needs to be Keshdhari as per the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana high Court.


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 13, 2010)

dalbirk said:


> Sehajdhari is also one of those terms which is UNIQUE to Sikhs . Are there Sehajdhari Muslims , Sehajdhari Christians , Sehajdhari Jews . This term is totally misleading , mischiveous & wholly constructed with some AGENDA in mind . Those RODAS , GHONA-MONAS whose only aim of life is EAT,DRINK & MAKE MERRY are out to control Sikh institutions & avail other minority benifits but CRIB at the very mention of KEEPING HAIR have devised this new platform . I may dare them just to leave Sikhs & Sikhi alone , we will be happy to be in a minority in Punjab but never compromise with the principles & beliefs .



Dalbirk ji

We humans have nature to mold religions to suit ourself.Because ours is Young Religion that's why people have difficulty to accept sehajdhari form.
Prophet mohammed in one of Hadith's clearly said That he has no connection with people who shave their beards.Hijab is recommened in Quran.Still we see large percentage of muslims without Hijab and Beard .So in other word majority of muslims are sehajdhari muslims.It is just their leaders don't force community (barring Talibans ) to wear it.

At present hoping that 100% sikh community will keep uncut hair is like day dreaming.The more we force them the more people we loose to other carbon copy Dera's and religions.This will result in Final extinction of sikhism


----------



## bscheema (Mar 13, 2010)

sehajdharna vs rehatt maryada


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 13, 2010)

I think it is important as harbhansj ji helped explain that this issue of sehajdhari is complicated by the contexts in which the word comes up. It is actually very complicated --almost like a ball of yarn that has become tangled up over time and different cats having been playing with it. 

1. Originally the sehajdhari were "friends, followers, disciples" of our Gurus who were on the path to sehaj - tranquility of God consciousness. It is not clear from history whether at that point there was a distinction related to kesh.

2. The term later came to mean those sikhs who were not baptized and therefore did/did not keep hair. 

3. At some point the distinction sehajdhari, keshdhari (keeps hair but is not baptized) , amridthari (baptized) emerges. That is the point where the idea of a "continuum" or degrees of adherence to the 5 kakkars begins to be voiced.

4. The Sikh Rehat Maryada is written and adopted. (1931)

Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India


In this document it is stated that a Sikh should keep hair. However that is not included in the first part where a Sikh is defined -- i.e.,  the importance of kesh is discussed later on in the document. Rather the definition of a Sikh includes "belief" in Sikh baptism, though it does not say in that particular spot a Sikh must be baptised to be a Sikh. That idea is also developed later in the document.

5. The legal and political questions which have surfaced recently come from the particulars of government and politics in India. The question Who is a Sikh increasingly has been defined for purposes of allocating funding, reserving benefits, or resolving disputes in terms of keeping hair as per the Sikh Rehat Maryada.

Point number 5 has virtually no importance for those living outside of India. The other points persist as areas of controversy. 

What I find interesting about the web site is that it rises from India and has a very clear bias in favor of "sehajdhari" as a way to define all of us. Now go back and look at the photo gallery and you will see why. The group, according to its own agenda, saw some benefit in wading through muddy water. So it churned the bottom of the pond.


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 13, 2010)

N.kaur ji

The fact is sehajdhari form is accepted then 99% of Young sikh males will opt for sehajdhari form.majority of Humans prefer simple route rather than tough one.Tell why will a young sikh man will wear turban when he sees daily spending 1/2-1 hour in turban tying beard tying,then looking different ,then some people making fun of him,then facing rejection from girls particularly because of  turban and beard.Moreover If he has dream of going outside then facing higher risk of racial attack,can't be eligible for some jobs like pilot.

In All the above circumstances I doubt whether 1% will be opt or not


----------



## Embers (Mar 13, 2010)

Hi Curious
It is interesting how self identity is also political identity. The "home" tab on that site clarifies that this is not just a spiritual movement. In fact it has always been a part of the Sikh agenda it would appear, reading about the oppression in the past. Can Sikhism ever be separated from self identity?  

What I find most liberating and beautiful is that one is constantly reminded in SGGS to look beyond the name and form which can lead us astray, as there beyond lies the ultimate truth. 

:meditation:


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 13, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> N.kaur ji
> 
> The fact is sehajdhari form is accepted then 99% of Young sikh males will opt for sehajdhari form.majority of Humans prefer simple route rather than tough one.Tell why will a young sikh man will wear turban when he sees daily spending 1/2-1 hour in turban tying beard tying,then looking different ,then some people making fun of him,then facing rejection from girls particularly because of  turban and beard.Moreover If he has dream of going outside then facing higher risk of racial attack,can't be eligible for some jobs like pilot.
> 
> In All the above circumstances I doubt whether 1% will be opt or not



No doubt! This irritates me no end though I do try to overcome my negativity. When someone decides to take the path of sehajdhari  and they make up a fairly large group, then why all of this resentment toward keshdhari who tie dastar?  That is the direction that I personally observe. I rarely see or read a keshdhari or amritdhari sikh, for that matter, taking the time to stir up controversy in order to say  that person x or y is not a Sikh. :advocate:  Yet sehajdhari accuse keshdhari of doing it, saying they are made targets of bigotry. You can read it in that web site, and it is not unusual.


----------



## harbansj24 (Mar 13, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur ji & Kanwardeep Singh ji,
Sehajdaris who are so from birth have been treated with considerable warmth by Keshdaris, a fact which they cannot deny.

Keshdharis do sometimes show resentment towards apostates who were earlier Keshdharis but have shed their Kesh for  perceived "advantages" but still insist on being known as Sikhs and demand all the "benefits" of being a Sikh!
This obviously is unacceptable.


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 14, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> No doubt! This irritates me no end though I do try to overcome my negativity. When someone decides to take the path of sehajdhari  and they make up a fairly large group, then why all of this resentment toward keshdhari who tie dastar?  That is the direction that I personally observe. I rarely see or read a keshdhari or amritdhari sikh, for that matter, taking the time to stir up controversy in order to say  that person x or y is not a Sikh. :advocate:  Yet sehajdhari accuse keshdhari of doing it, saying they are made targets of bigotry. You can read it in that web site, and it is not unusual.



N.kaur ji

The dispute between sehajdhari and Keshdhari is quite an old one.Earlier many Hindu's as well as sikhs never considered sikhism as separate religion.
The people who used to keep hair were considered as sikhs while those who Don't were considered as Hindus.there was hardly any concept of sehajdharis
As a growing up I had seen many Hindu families who had so much faith and
dedication towards Gurdwara's.They use to go to more to Gurdwara than mandirs,use to do paath , sewa in Gurdwara,even use to celebrate Gurpurabs .by lighting their home's.Stilll by doing all these things they called themselves Hindus.


Yet on the another hand these people also use to crack 12 o clock jokes and in turbulent times never stood for sikhs for their political cause.It is only turbaned sikhs from past many years are fighting for sikh cause.

The above are the one of the main reason that why  sehajdhari's were never considered as part of sikhism because they are considered as part of Hinduism.


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 14, 2010)

harbansj24 said:


> Narayanjot Kaur ji & Kanwardeep Singh ji,
> Sehajdaris who are so from birth have been treated with considerable warmth by Keshdaris, a fact which they cannot deny.
> 
> Keshdharis do sometimes show resentment towards apostates who were earlier Keshdharis but have shed their Kesh for  perceived "advantages" but still insist on being known as Sikhs and demand all the "benefits" of being a Sikh!
> This obviously is unacceptable.



I am sorry harbans ji but in this age this logic is not going to work.One has to wear turban or keep hair just because he/she is born in sikh family.A person
born in Hindu or any other religion can enjoy all the benefit of sikh spirituality
and still call himself/herself sikh.While a person born in sikh family even he is non religious or Don't want to practice sikhism for time being should keep hair


----------



## dalbirk (Mar 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Ji ,
              IMHO if we accept Roda ( clean shaven ) as a Sehajdhari then I feel Sikhs will be history in next 50 years . A study of Hinduism clearly tells that you do anything in the name of spirituality , you can still be called Hindu . The Muslims & Christians differ from Sikhism due to the fact that their Mecca & Vatican lie outside India , which chalk out various programmes & also these are much older religions . Sikhs have their SGPC , Golden Temple & all Gurudwaras in India as such they are affected by majority practices , politics like we have seen in Nanakshahi Calender , Sikhs visiting temples , Pirs , astrologers, practicising Castism , fasting , Graves & whole lot of other superstitions . In addition to Article 25 ( B) there are many hurdles in independent identity of Sikhs . The idea that it takes 30 minutes to tie beard & turban is not applicable to some like me who do these chores in average less than 5 minutes in daily routine which is much less time than consumed in shaving & gelling hair . So a SABAT SOORAT Sikh identity is our only hope for independent identity as well protection of our beliefs , practices , philosophy , ideology . Any compromise with this will bring us to near extinction not otherwise .


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 14, 2010)

dalbirk said:


> Kanwardeep Ji ,
> IMHO if we accept Roda ( clean shaven ) as a Sehajdhari then I feel Sikhs will be history in next 50 years . A study of Hinduism clearly tells that you do anything in the name of spirituality , you can still be called Hindu . The Muslims & Christians differ from Sikhism due to the fact that their Mecca & Vatican lie outside India , which chalk out various programmes & also these are much older religions . Sikhs have their SGPC , Golden Temple & all Gurudwaras in India as such they are affected by majority practices , politics like we have seen in Nanakshahi Calender , Sikhs visiting temples , Pirs , astrologers, practicising Castism , fasting , Graves & whole lot of other superstitions . In addition to Article 25 ( B) there are many hurdles in independent identity of Sikhs . The idea that it takes 30 minutes to tie beard & turban is not applicable to some like me who do these chores in average less than 5 minutes in daily routine which is much less time than consumed in shaving & gelling hair . So a SABAT SOORAT Sikh identity is our only hope for independent identity as well protection of our beliefs , practices , philosophy , ideology . Any compromise with this will bring us to near extinction not otherwise .



Dalbirk ji

With due respect the present form sikhism is already a lost case.The backbone of any community live's in rural area and we all know that rural sikhs were the first one to discard identity.Then very strong pillar of community are women again 
here we see how they are running with non sikh men .So whom we are trying to protect.Handful of urban sikhs allover India?
 or the handful of sikhs outside India who suddenly rediscover their identity after doing all the worldly things


----------



## harbansj24 (Mar 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh ji,

Probably I have not used proper expressions. I do mean exactly the same thing as you are saying. That is Keshdhari Sikhs do not mind people who are Hindus by birth calling themselves as Sehajdhari Sikhs and in fact they are treated with respect and warmth

But they do resent Sikhs who were earlier Keshdharis and now have shed their Kesh but still insist on being called as Sikhs and wish to enjoy all the benefits of being a Sikh. I fully agree that this unprincipled and should be opposed.


----------



## curious seeker (Mar 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Dalbirk ji
> 
> We humans have nature to mold religions to suit ourself.Because ours is Young Religion that's why people have difficulty to accept sehajdhari form.
> Prophet mohammed in one of Hadith's clearly said That he has no connection with people who shave their beards.Hijab is recommened in Quran.Still we see large percentage of muslims without Hijab and Beard .So in other word majority of muslims are sehajdhari muslims.It is just their leaders don't force community (barring Talibans ) to wear it.
> ...



Kanwardeep Singh, ji

That is precisely one of the points I wanted to raise, thanks!

Curious

PD I will be away from the PC for 4 0r 5 days


----------



## ballym (Apr 8, 2010)

Sikhism will not be extinct. Some talibani "sikhs" will live somewhere, create trouble and we will face more rigorous checking on all airports. 
Hopefully there will not be any support for them in general sikh polpulation.... like it happened in 1980 and nineties. When general population support was gone, the so called terrorism died.


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 9, 2010)

Hello Every One

 Any one care to give alternative translations of Sahajdhari? I have seen it translated as natural adopter, original adopter and innate adopter. and of course the often quoted slow adopter. I am not a little non-plussed, and will like to know your opinions on this, and why you hold them. Is there any relation to Sehaj?

Blessings 
Curious


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 9, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Hello Every One
> 
> Any one care to give alternative translations of Sahajdhari? I have seen it translated as natural adopter, original adopter and innate adopter. and of course the often quoted slow adopter. I am not a little non-plussed, and will like to know your opinions on this, and why you hold them. Is there any relation to Sehaj?
> 
> ...



curious seeker ji

You are never going to get closure on this question. Literally the term means "slow" and "on a spiritual path" equaling someone who is taking the slow path to full acceptance of the Sikh roop (keeps hair and follow the tenets of Sikhism in their totality)

However, I found an article at Skhnet, which is in my opinion a good one, because it explores a variety of interpretations of the word "sehajdhari" in a scholarly fashion, citing the_ Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925_, and the _Mahan Gosh,_ and other sources as well. I don't like to shoot from the hip, so I am more comfortable giving you a number of respected sources so you can weigh this for yourself. 

SGPC sticks to old definition of Sehajdhari | SikhNet


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 9, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> curious seeker ji
> 
> You are never going to get closure on this question. Literally the term means "slow" and "on a spiritual path" equaling someone who is taking the slow path to full acceptance of the Sikh roop (keeps hair and follow the tenets of Sikhism in their totality)
> 
> ...



 Dear Narayanjot Ji

Thanks for the article , it does frame  the issue, however, I  am neither seeking 'closure'  nor trying to string along an argument   If Shehajdhari and Sahajdhari are the same thing, which they seem to be since you spelled it Sehajdhari, then I am definitely puzzled. Because obviously the term sehaj which is in the SGGS does not seem to mean slow but poised, balanced and/or intuitively balanced, as several different English translations and even the Spanish translation state.

 So unless I have read you totally wrong,  and missperceived the whole issue, it does seem that we have a difference in meaning between what the SGGS says the Sehaj, and thus Sehajdhari, means and what the SGPC says it means. N'est ce pas?

Blessings
Curious


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 9, 2010)

Dear curious seeker

The problem of accepting sehajdhari  is not  simple .Many things should be looked from practical point of view. In India there are more hindu's who visit Gurdwara's than sikhs.The question now is who are they?If SGPC or sikh instituitions accept them as sikhs then many of them will take benefits what are given to Sikhs and many may influence Gurdwara elections Yet in tougher times like 1984 many these will not stand by the sikhs


----------



## ballym (Apr 9, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Many things should be looked from practical point of view. In India there are more hindu's who visit Gurdwara's than sikhs.The question now is who are they?If SGPC or sikh instituitions accept them as sikhs then many of them will take benefits what are given to Sikhs and many may influence Gurdwara elections Yet in tougher times like 1984 many these will not stand by the sikhs



It does not justify denying them the option. By this logic, only amritdhari will remain as sikhs. Physical identity can not and should not be basis of anything.
 If someone is embracing the religion, he should be allowed entry. He can be a khalsa or a non-khalsa sikh.
Going by the lifestyle of Hindus in punjab, they are not much different from sikhs. 
there are other means to identify genuineness of a sikh rather than physical identity... otherwise ashutosh and Joginder sahni should be termed true sikhs but not many others non-keshdhari. A true follower can NEVER say that one style is better than other. All are God's people.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 9, 2010)

ballym said:


> It does not justify denying them the option. By this logic, only amritdhari will remain as sikhs. Physical identity can not and should not be basis of anything.
> If someone is embracing the religion, he should be allowed entry. He can be a khalsa or a non-khalsa sikh.
> Going by the lifestyle of Hindus in punjab, they are not much different from sikhs.
> there are other means to identify genuineness of a sikh rather than physical identity... otherwise ashutosh and Joginder sahni should be termed true sikhs but not many others non-keshdhari. A true follower can NEVER say that one style is better than other. All are God's people.



If you want RSS and other hindu organisations to take over Sikhism and destroy the remaining sikhs then go ahead try this Idea.Ashutosh call himself living Guru so their is no question of him being a sikh.

Btw in all other religions their is a type of ceremony by which a person embrace that religion.I think for sehajdhari's we have to invent that ceremony
then they can become part of sikhism


----------



## ballym (Apr 9, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Btw in all other religions their is a type of ceremony by which a person embrace that religion.I think for sehajdhari's we have to invent that ceremony
> then they can become part of sikhism


Great idea. After all a human need to have a defined boundary and a discipline to follow. No denying that. 
But this discipline should not make people shun that path. Like a father being too strict and kids not following him at all. It does not lead to positive result.
Good practical solution.


----------



## roab1 (Apr 10, 2010)

Whats the purpose if you dont want to follow one boundry but want another although a lesser and lighter?


----------



## ballym (Apr 10, 2010)

Human is first or religion is first. Boundaries are decided depending on limits tolerance, acceptance and norms whatever you may call it. I am always looking at things from a  practical aspect. 
Roab Ji, Most people are not able to reach to your level. 
My point in writing last post was to have something ... which is better than nothing. A stricter boundary mostly results in more people outside boundary.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 10, 2010)

roab1 said:


> Whats the purpose if you dont want to follow one boundry but want another although a lesser and lighter?



roab ji

My understanding of the conversation on this point is that many who follow all the tenets of Sikhism but do not take amrit would benefit from a form of initiation consistent with their level or stage. I did not get a sense that this would be for people who are trying avoid a boundary. But it would be a way, an important step, to acknowledge to oneself that one is not ready for Khanda da pahul, yet one wishes to identify as a Sikh. And it is important also for the panth to recognize those who do accept only Sri Guru Granth Sahib as guru, do Nit Nem, take very seriously seva to the Guru and to the Panth, and abide by all other beliefs of Sikhism. There are many things that many Sikhs take to heart. And it makes no sense for their identity to be in question given one scenario or another, oftentimes having to do with politics. The line drawn to be a Sikh can be so rigid that it drives  people away into dera worship, babawale practices, or no participation at all. This is already happening. So I think the suggestion is merely a way to be inclusive. Of course if I am not getting it, then Kanwardeep ji or ballym ji will clarify their points.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 10, 2010)

roab1 said:


> Whats the purpose if you dont want to follow one boundry but want another although a lesser and lighter?



If a person Don't follow want to follow any boundry he/she can come to Gurdwara , do sewa etc. But on the Other hand he/she has no right interfere
in Sikh Affairs or take benefits that given to sikhs.


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 10, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Dear curious seeker
> 
> The problem of accepting sehajdhari  is not  simple .Many things should be looked from practical point of view. In India there are more hindu's who visit Gurdwara's than sikhs.The question now is who are they?If SGPC or sikh instituitions accept them as sikhs then many of them will take benefits what are given to Sikhs and many may influence Gurdwara elections Yet in tougher times like 1984 many these will not stand by the sikhs



Dear Karwardeep Ji

 I am sorry if I have given the impression that my questions are more about who runs the Gurdwaras. that is not the case, in fact, I would totally agree that members of a dedicated group, in all religions, should run its affairs, be elected to office, be involved in missionary activities, etc and not those who either do not find themselves ready for a more committed and involved disposition or are there basically  to 'add' God to their busy lives or to play 'saint'

 My questions are more along the lines of the meaning of the terms and whether being Khalsa is a requirement for bing a 'true' Sikh.  I am not here to criticize, far from it. I consider Sikhi as having a lot more to contribute to humanity than even most Sikhs may think. But I also worry that some elements are using the spirit of the Khalsa to fanaticize and divide the Sikh Way  , and I am also asking myself if I am seeing things right. I certainly would not want to make a wrong judgment or make a wrong conclusion. And that is why I pester you guys with questions.

 Divine Light
Curious


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 10, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Dear Narayanjot Ji
> 
> Thanks for the article , it does frame  the issue, however, I  am neither seeking 'closure'  nor trying to string along an argument   If Shehajdhari and Sahajdhari are the same thing, which they seem to be since you spelled it Sehajdhari, then I am definitely puzzled. Because obviously the term sehaj which is in the SGGS does not seem to mean slow but poised, balanced and/or intuitively balanced, as several different English translations and even the Spanish translation state.
> 
> ...



curious seeker ji

I am truly unable to understand your question? At what level are you asking?

Sehajdhari and Sahajdhari are the same word. The "e" and "a" in that noun position are pronounded the same way -- in English like the "u" in "thud." The schwa sound in English. Transliterations can be very variable and therefore throw a person off. The word "sehaj" in Gurmukhi looks like this ਸਹਜਿ, which is .... s - h - j (soft j) - eh 

You notice that the "e" or "a" following the initial "s" is not even written. It is voiced but not written. Whenever that is the fate of a vowel in Punjabi, then the vowel sounds like "uh." The transliteration has to include a vowel, in the case of sehaj (an "e" or an "a")  because without it the word would be mispronounced  as if starting with an "sh."
-------------------------------------------

Now I think you are asking more than that. One translation for "sehaj" is intuitive ease -- or the state of equipoise experienced by one who achieves realization.  But it also means "natural state" "inborn nature" "effortless state" or the "highest spiritual state." When Guru Nanak used the word he was referring to those who were moving on a path toward the highest spiritual state. On the way to sehaj, seeking the jyote or inner light of Waheguru. And yes, the modern meaning is different, but also it is not so different.

-----------------------------------------------------

 In the modern sense the sehajdhari are making their way toward realization of their inner nature through their devotion as Sikhs. They have not taken a final step, which to be baptized and adopt the Sikh roop. Though this may sound as if somehow a shift has occurred and greater emphasis or value is placed on one's physical appearance, that is not the case.  

In 1699 Guru Gobind Singh formed the Khalsa on Vaisakhi, soon to be celebrated on April 14. Before him inner and outer spirituality had always been two pillars of Sikhi. On Vaisakhi Guru Gobind Singh formalized this fusion of inner and outer spirituality when he created the Khalsa. Guru Gobind Singh declared Sri Guru Granth Sahib as the final and eternal Guru. But he also said to his khalsa 

The Khalsa is my own special form
Within the Khalsa I’ll ever abide,
The Khalsa is the life of my life;
The Khalsa is the breath of my breath.
The Khalsa is my worshipful lord.
The Khalsa is my saintly knight.

Sikh bana, including kesh, of a baptized Sikh symbolizes that "special form." It is the representation of outer spirituality. Sure many keshdhari and amritdhari do not live up to the verses above. And many who are sehajdhari are extremely spiritual. But in the ideal sense, to be that "saintly knight," one gives up that part of one's individuality or ego that stands in the way of accepting the bana of a baptized Sikh. This is my understanding. And the best answer that I can give you. Others will have to improve on my deficiencies.


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 10, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> If you want RSS and other hindu organisations to take over Sikhism and destroy the remaining sikhs then go ahead try this Idea.Ashutosh call himself living Guru so their is no question of him being a sikh.
> 
> Btw in all other religions their is a type of ceremony by which a person embrace that religion.I think for sehajdhari's we have to invent that ceremony
> then they can become part of sikhism




Dear Kanwardeep Singh JI

I do believe that All who wish to be called Sikhs should show some sort of commitment and then should be formally admitted. I am not so sure though that admittance into the Khalsa  is that way at first. As to inventing a ceremony for Sehajdharis that is not true. Before Khalsa Sikhs had an Initiation ceremony, correct? I think something along those lines ought to be tried then you would not habe to worry about all those Hindus pretending to be Sehajdhari Sikks  

Not that the re-instated ceremony would change the fact that the Khalsa as the Guru's own should still run the show, No, I look at it as a way to giving a sense of belonging to Sikhs that may otherwise feel left out specially young Sikhs and more specially so in the West. It would also help many seekers take the first step to becoming a committed Sikh.

Divine Light
Curious


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 10, 2010)

ballym said:


> Great idea. After all a human need to have a defined boundary and a discipline to follow. No denying that.
> But this discipline should not make people shun that path. Like a father being too strict and kids not following him at all. It does not lead to positive result.
> Good practical solution.



Dear Ballym Ji

 Precisely! I think something along the lines of a formal and public renunciation of manmukhi ways and then a formal recognition as a Sikh would do wonders!

Divine Light
Curious


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 10, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> roab ji
> 
> My understanding of the conversation on this point is that many who follow all the tenets of Sikhism but do not take amrit would benefit from a form of initiation consistent with their level or stage. I did not get a sense that this would be for people who are trying avoid a boundary. But it would be a way, an important step, to acknowledge to oneself that one is not ready for Khanda da pahul, yet one wishes to identify as a Sikh. And it is important also for the panth to recognize those who do accept only Sri Guru Granth Sahib as guru, do Nit Nem, take very seriously seva to the Guru and to the Panth, and abide by all other beliefs of Sikhism. There are many things that many Sikhs take to heart. And it makes no sense for their identity to be in question given one scenario or another, oftentimes having to do with politics. The line drawn to be a Sikh can be so rigid that it drives  people away into dera worship, babawale practices, or no participation at all. This is already happening. So I think the suggestion is merely a way to be inclusive. Of course if I am not getting it, then Kanwardeep ji or ballym ji will clarify their points.



 Dear Narayanjot Ji

 Well you know, in my book? YOU GOT IT!!!!!. At least this is something that all my 62 years of experience tells me would do wonders for Sikhi and Sikhs. However, realistically what are the chances of something like this  actually coming about?

Divine Light
Curious


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 10, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Dear Narayanjot Ji
> 
> Well you know, in my book? YOU GOT IT!!!!!. At least this is something that all my 62 years of experience tells me would do wonders for Sikhi and Sikhs. However, realistically what are the chances of something like this  actually coming about?
> 
> ...




Curious Seeker ji

Whatever it is that I GOT does not belong to me on this subject. I have learned from thinking about other's perspectives on this problem. As you ask  "realistically what are the chances of something like this actually coming about?" I am almost certain it will happen sooner than we may think. Maybe not in my lifetime or yours. But celebration of *early stages (added)* of a Sikh identity is going to be increasingly more relevant as more kids leave their traditions and as more converts enter the fold. I am speaking as a convert BTW. I will not allow myself to get into arguments about whether one must be Khalsa to be Sikh. There are -- and everyone knows this is so -- many answers to that question, all depending on context and the biases of those who respond to the question. In the end, as individuals we have to take a personal account of where we are with what we know we must do. The question I like to ask myself is whether I would turn back now? Would there be any circumstance that might turn me away from Sikhism? I know there is none. Everything else pales against Sri Guru Granth Sahib who is my guru. Akaal will decide the rest. Will decide eveyrthing.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 10, 2010)

> My questions are more along the lines of the meaning of the terms and whether being Khalsa is a requirement for bing a 'true' Sikh. I am not here to criticize, far from it. I consider Sikhi as having a lot more to contribute to humanity than even most Sikhs may think. But I also worry that some elements are using the spirit of the Khalsa to fanaticize and divide the Sikh Way , and I am also asking myself if I am seeing things right. I certainly would not want to make a wrong judgment or make a wrong conclusion. And that is why I pester you guys with questions



Khalsa being a requirement of true sikh is difficult to answer.If in Sikhism there is no requirement of become a Khalsa then almost 100% sikhs will opt for not being a Khalsa
and Sikh identity will be diluted forever.After all why should people prefer to choose a difficult path rather than simple way


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 10, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> curious seeker ji
> 
> I am truly unable to understand your question? At what level are you asking?
> 
> ...



Dear Narayanjot Ji

 That is wonderful reply!  It does place the Amritsari vs Sehajdhari thing in a very clear light Its not that God would require of men the outer forms of a special commitment, its that men, themselves, needed  to show to themselves they are, indeed, committed, did I get you at least half right?

 I see all the benefits of the Khalsa , I worry that sometimes the emphasis on direct response to perceived injustice makes the Khalsa somewhat prone to be manipulated into over reacting. This despite the clear injunction not to use weapons or violence but as the very last resort. 

And as to Sehajdhari issue: The ability to go through some sort of process of validation, acceptance and belonging for those who either has not grasped the importance of the Amrit and of the Khalsa, or do not feel ready for that kind of absolute commitment, can , IMO, not be exaggerated. It could solve the budding problem with many youths , It could be a very great help in the West both giving a sense of  belonging to Diaspora Sikhs and facilitating acceptance by many Westerners of the Sikh way. 

In fact, for all we know many of those Hindus that supposedly flood  the Gurdwaras in India, might even actually become Sikhs and give up idolatry  and even caste, It is possible that they are going to the Gurdwara because they follow the Bani but feel left out and even scared of a commitment to the militancy of the Khalsa. 

 But I ask you what I asked elsewhere in another post in this thread: How possible is that some sort of Initiation for Non-Khalsa  Sikhs could come about? Is it realistically doable? I ask because, in most religions , change of the structure is almost impossible.

 Divine Light
Curous


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Apr 10, 2010)

sat ari akaal ,


i donot feel  there is any   compulsion on Sikh  for becoming Khalsa  , infact its totally ones own choice / wish .

i bow to Tenth Nanak sahib sri Guru Gobind  singh sahib ji   for blessing his beloved Khalsa with such distinct saint soldier identity .


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 10, 2010)

curious seeker ji

I did answer it in post 39.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 11, 2010)

curious seeker said:


> Dear Kanwardeep Singh JI
> 
> I do believe that All who wish to be called Sikhs should show some sort of commitment and then should be formally admitted. I am not so sure though that admittance into the Khalsa  is that way at first. As to inventing a ceremony for Sehajdharis that is not true. Before Khalsa Sikhs had an Initiation ceremony, correct? I think something along those lines ought to be tried then you would not habe to worry about all those Hindus pretending to be Sehajdhari Sikks
> 
> ...



Curious Seeker ji,

Guru Fateh.

Allow me to offer my 2 cent worth on this subject.

Sikhi is a unique way of looking at life, from inwards to outwards rather than the other way around, hence it is the internal manifestation, the desire to learn, to improve, to breed goodness through the three basic tenets working as our inner spring boards.

1. Naam Japnah ( Always be aware that there is ONE SOURCE of all irrespective of our hue,cred or faith, hence all are One and The One is in all). 

2.Kirat Karni ( doing any task with love,devotion, dedication and in an honest manner irrespective of our age, career or profession).

3. Vand kei Chaknah ( sharing- not giving- whatever we can with others, a laughter, a tear or two, a smile, a shoulder to lean on, a helping hand etc. etc.).

The four doors of Harmander Sahib indicate that anyone from any hue,creed or faith is welcome to participate in this nectar of goodness and become a better Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Jaini, Parsi etc. etc.

The concept of Langar- Community kitchen (unlike  the Christian Soup kitchens which only cater to the poor) also teaches the equality among all humanity, irrespective of a religion and social status. The Prince and the Pauper break the bread sitting together, side by side.

SGGS, our only Guru, teaches that. That is why the name Sikh simply means a student, a learner, a seeker. Nothing more.

A few years ago there was an International Religious Convention held in Madrid, Spain. Sikhs set up a big tent with Langar there where they served 8000 meals. Peoples from all different religions had the opportunity to partake in this wonderful  event. A Rabbi whose name slips my mind wrote about it and said that this event where he ate all those days when he was at the convention made him a better Jew.

So, the idea of Sikhi is for each of us to become better as human beings. This is one more reason that proselyting is forbidden in Sikhi because then it would become an external imposition of a dogmatic kind whereas Sikhi is pragmatic way of life.

Thus, this internal manifestation which sprouts love, if followed with honesty and truthfulness can make one become a Sikh externally as well which may take one to take khandei de pahul eventually.

Finally to answer your initial query about any kind of initiation in Sikhi would make it dogmatic and hence defeat the purpose what Sikhi and SGGS are all about and what they stand for.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 11, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Curious Seeker ji
> 
> Whatever it is that I GOT does not belong to me on this subject. I have learned from thinking about other's perspectives on this problem. As you ask  "realistically what are the chances of something like this actually coming about?" I am almost certain it will happen sooner than we may think. Maybe not in my lifetime or yours. But celebration of *early stages (added)* of a Sikh identity is going to be increasingly more relevant as more kids leave their traditions and as more converts enter the fold. I am speaking as a convert BTW. I will not allow myself to get into arguments about whether one must be Khalsa to be Sikh. There are -- and everyone knows this is so -- many answers to that question, all depending on context and the biases of those who respond to the question. In the end, as individuals we have to take a personal account of where we are with what we know we must do. The question I like to ask myself is whether I would turn back now? Would there be any circumstance that might turn me away from Sikhism? I know there is none. Everything else pales against Sri Guru Granth Sahib who is my guru. Akaal will decide the rest. Will decide eveyrthing.



 Dear Narayanjot ji

 Very , very, well said. My sincere admiration. By the way what you got was the gist of the previous argument, but well you obviously know that. Thank you for being so wiling to share your understanding of Sikhi and for being so patient with us seekers, we can be, and often behave like, bulls in a china shop.

 Sat Nam!
Curious


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 11, 2010)

Narayanjot Ji

 OOPs! Sorry

Curious


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 11, 2010)

90! of sikhs who cut their hair....INSIST on their SONS/DAUGHTERS keep hair..tie patka..
IN My Gurbani Classes..in the Punjabi School...i am no longer surprised when i see a Dastaar wallah young boy..bringing his GHONA father to meet me....very few GHONAS have ghona children....why ?? ..the elder GHONA's fault lies in HIS PARENTS..who failed him...he has reaiased his failure..and doesnt want his son to be the same GHONA as he is...

SIKHI is SAFE..even renowned historians like KHUSHWANT SINGH have to SWALLOW their SPIT...becasue he said the Exact same thing in his Book Sikh history...he "predicted" there will be NO MORE DASTAAR WALLEH SIKHS IN 50 YEARS....he had to swallow that spit back from the ground...when the 50 years passed..and Dastaaree sikhs still around in MILLIONS..Now same types of DHEHNDEE Kalla walleh making the statements....wont happen..dastaar will still be around...

This is His Khalsa..it will be:thumbsupp::thumbsupp::thumbsupp: around as long as HE is...


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 11, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> 90! of sikhs who cut their hair....INSIST on their SONS/DAUGHTERS keep hair..tie patka..
> IN My Gurbani Classes..in the Punjabi School...i am no longer surprised when i see a Dastaar wallah young boy..bringing his GHONA father to meet me....very few GHONAS have ghona children....why ?? ..the elder GHONA's fault lies in HIS PARENTS..who failed him...he has reaiased his failure..and doesnt want his son to be the same GHONA as he is...
> 
> SIKHI is SAFE..even renowned historians like KHUSHWANT SINGH have to SWALLOW their SPIT...becasue he said the Exact same thing in his Book Sikh history...he "predicted" there will be NO MORE DASTAAR WALLEH SIKHS IN 50 YEARS....he had to swallow that spit back from the ground...when the 50 years passed..and Dastaaree sikhs still around in MILLIONS..Now same types of DHEHNDEE Kalla walleh making the statements....wont happen..dastaar will still be around...
> ...


Where Sikhi is safe ? in some elite home' of punjabi's sikhs.Right now Indian premier league of Cricket is going on.I can count on finger tips how many sikhs are playing in it.there are 10-12 sikhs that are in different teams .4-5 of them wear Patka.All of those Patka wearing sikhs trim/shave their beard.So in Other words their is not even 1 fulll sikh in entire cricket league of India


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 11, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*



ballym said:


> The move seems to have fizzled out. It was more of a political outfit. However, such gurudwras of sehajdharis may comeup.... may be 100 years later.



ballym ji,
 Wich move has fizzled out?More than 80 % Sikhs are Sehajdharies.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 11, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Where Sikhi is safe ? in some elite home' of punjabi's sikhs.Right now Indian premier league of Cricket is going on.I can count on finger tips how many sikhs are playing in it.there are 10-12 sikhs that are in different teams .4-5 of them wear Patka.All of those Patka wearing sikhs trim/shave their beard.So in Other words their is not even 1 fulll sikh in entire cricket league of India



Pardon me Jios..
In a Field full of Grazing SHEEP..one must stop looking at the SHEEP..and look out for the SHEPHERD !!
Trouble is today too many concnetrate only on the "sheep"..which by nature will be MANY and more NUMEROUS any way....but fail to see the shepherd..which by nature will be MINORITY !! The KHALSA IS always about MINORITY...it has NEVER BEEN the MAJORITY anywhere at anytime..in any place...and never will be...

Thanks and keep in chardeekalla while you concentrate on finding the shepherd among the crowded field full of sheep...

1. Anandpur Sahib..a handful of Khalsas INSIDE..a MILLION strong outside...
2. Chamkaur dee garrhee.. less than 40 Khalsa INSIDE..a MILLION strong outside...
3. Saragharee Fort...17 Khalsa INSIDE..a FEW THOUSAND afghans OUTSIDE...
4.Lohgarh..chhota ghallughara..wadda ghallughara.. 1984 Darbar sahib COMPLEX....NEVER the MAJORITY..always the MINORITY !!!

KHALSA is SAVA LAKH..is that just a JOKE ?? it is REALITY...Imagine if just about "every tom D** and Harry became a KHALSA..the world would be toppled over..becasue it would be like 6 billion X 125000... WHY we NEVER proseltyze..never convert..we NEED only the Solidly CONVICTED persons volunteers..not bought...enticed...persuaded...obliged...etc etc types..ONLY those who have their HEADS on their PALMS....such are Never the Majority..or overwhelming in NUMBERS.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 12, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Pardon me Jios..
> In a Field full of Grazing SHEEP..one must stop looking at the SHEEP..and look out for the SHEPHERD !!
> Trouble is today too many concnetrate only on the "sheep"..which by nature will be MANY and more NUMEROUS any way....but fail to see the shepherd..which by nature will be MINORITY !! The KHALSA IS always about MINORITY...it has NEVER BEEN the MAJORITY anywhere at anytime..in any place...and never will be...
> 
> ...



If khalsa or sikhs can never be in majority then Forget about Political power.
Everywhere we have Democracy where all it matters are numbers even in Gurdwara elections.Khalsa will keep on begging to majority to give them some rights.It is only through numbers that sikhs can gain some political rights and live with dignity.

Also on your previous post about Mona's want their sons to be keshdhari .I just want to say that I don't think it work.One day the son will ask his father why he is not wearing turban then what?


----------



## ballym (Apr 12, 2010)

*Re: Comments, Please*



jasbirkaleka said:


> ballym ji,
> Wich move has fizzled out?More than 80 % Sikhs are Sehajdharies.



It was about the political outfit ... it did not get any support. I agree with you that more than 95% are really sehajdhari as per definition. I am supportive of this move of sehajdhari because that is what our Gurus really meant. khalsa was a special category ... not for all.On 13th April 1699. Did all persons were given amrit?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 12, 2010)

There are two different conversations developing in the thread, and one of them has me somewhat concerned. I have moved some posts to the "Leaders" section temporarily. Not easy to decide where to start moving posts, I used relevance to the thread topic as the guideline. It is really important to confine our remarks to the topic, and to resist the temptation to judge motivations and states of mind when we do that. Thanks, Narayanjot Kaur


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 13, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> There are two different conversations developing in the thread, and one of them has me somewhat concerned. I have moved some posts to the "Leaders" section temporarily. Not easy to decide where to start moving posts, I used relevance to the thread topic as the guideline. It is really important to confine our remarks to the topic, and to resist the temptation to judge motivations and states of mind when we do that. Thanks, Narayanjot Kaur


 
Dear Narayanjot Ji

 As far as I am cocerned the conversattion with the gentleman is over but I do understand after all I do manage my own lists  and I see your point

 Ushta Te
Curious


----------



## PCJ (Apr 13, 2010)

Once there is violence, these so-called Sehajdharis will disappear...


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 13, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Once there is violence, these so-called Sehajdharis will disappear...



:khanda3:Wah,wah, what a great a follower of Guru Nanak.Hopefuly there are not too many like him.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2010)

Made me a little nervous too jasbirkaleka ji and I re read the comment. I think the point is that if some violence like the Dehli riots broke out there would be a disappearing act. Of course this is a hypothetical and only PCJ can clarify.


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 13, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Once there is violence, these so-called Sehajdharis will disappear...



  I think you also believe that SUKHA and JINDA were  cowards.But I doubt if you ever remember who they were or even know who they were.Their were many such  Sehajdhari SIkh shaheeds who sacrificed their lives so that Sikhs could live with  their heads held high.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 13, 2010)

jasbirkaleka said:


> :khanda3:Wah,wah, what a great a follower of Guru Nanak.Hopefuly there are not too many like him.


I am actually not a follower of Guru Nanak, I simply made a comment. What are chances of these so-called Sehajdharis sticking around once the Amritdharis start suing violence against them? I don't think they will at all.

In this conflict, if Sehajdharis decided to take over Gurdwaras for example, eventually there would be violence against them and then they will give up this fight...

I don't know much about Sukha and Jinda other than that they killed someone who was responsible for attacking Golden temple. I sort of assumed that they were amritdhari but it seems like you are saying that they weren't. But it doesn't matter as I am not questioning them at all...


----------



## Gurbinderp (Apr 18, 2010)

Waheguru ji ka khalsa 
Waheguru ji ki Fateh,

I, myself a sahejdhari,

It was my decision to be like this, When i have chosen this path i knew that i will loose many of rights. SGPC is the foremost and the supreme committee of Sikh religion, Decision made by SGPC not to include the sahejadharis is important to keep the religion in the current form. It was the decsions made at the time of the formation of the religion since 1699. If someone wants to be worthy to be a part of sikh mainstream then he must obey the rules of the religion. I do not understand why sehajdhari, amritdhari have came to the existence. There is only one form of the religion, which have been clearly directed by dashmesh pita ji.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 18, 2010)

The "sehajdharees" did DISAPPEAR..while actually BEING THERE in their THOUSANDS !!
Where and When ??
IN Chandni Chowk.....in DELHI..on the Day when Guru Teg bahdur Ji was PUBLICLY EXECUTED.
Thousands of his sehajdharee Sikhs were THERE..among the CROWD..but they had "disappeared" juts like David Copperfield's Jumbo 747 or Great Wall of China "disapperared".

THIS was one of the Main reaosns why GUru Gobind Singh Ji declard that NEVER AGAIN will His SIKH ever do such a disappearing act while being present..Sava Lakh se ek larroaan..sava lakh se EK will be VISIBLE !!

Actually NO ONE is stopping any sehajdharees from starting their OWN Gurdawras..where ONLY sehajdharees can be presidents pardhaans skatars and Panj Piayaras..whatever. There are in fact some such Places already existing in Delhi and other towns...just LOOK for them...they are run by "sehajdharees" whio OUTWARDLY donned the Banna and look like Amrtidharees..but deep inside they remained sehjadharee...one such is a famous kirtaniyah who was  a Lal....he runs a sehajdharee gurdwara ! Again there was a commotion about another such Gurdwara-mandir complex....


----------



## ballym (Apr 18, 2010)

PCJ said:


> What are chances of these so-called Sehajdharis sticking around once the Amritdharis start suing violence against them? I don't think they will at all.
> 
> In this conflict, if Sehajdharis decided to take over Gurdwaras for example, eventually there would be violence against them and then they will give up this fight...QUOTE]
> Surprisingly , a clear comment by PCJ... great.
> ...


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 18, 2010)

ballym ji

I am not as pessimistic. What appears to be a move to exclude sehajdhari to me looks more like one of two things.

1. The necessity of defining terms for purposes of governance in India only.
2. Emotionalism and extremism on the world wide web by very provincial minded individuals and groups, limited to a small number of web sites.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 18, 2010)

The "EXCLUSION" per se is from the VOTING LISTS of the SGPC.
The SGPC is the Governign Executive of all Major Historical gurdawaras in areas under its Jurisdiction as per the Gurdawras Act 1925 in Punjab/Haryana/Himachal and for the DGMC in Delhi.

These SIKH "VOTERS" ( who have to be visibly Amritdharees and sign a declaration affirming their total Faith in ONLY the Ten Gurus, SGGS and the Pahul(amrit) and have no other religious affinities )...VOTE in SGPC ELECTIONS to elect SGPC Members...who will then RUN the Gurdawars and Takhats.

There is nothing wrong/excluisve/discriminatory about this.

1. I am a Punjabi Indian originally from India..now malaysian CITIZEN..thus I have RIGHTS to VOTE in Malaysian elections for the Govt of malaysia. For a Voter there are certain RESTRICTIONS. Mnay just arrived Punjabis form India..DONT have this RIGHT..neither od those Punjabis who arrived earlier but who have just PR - permanent residence..etc etc..different laws for different categories. ALL are welcoem to stay here..work here..eat here..BUT VOTE is only for CITIZENS !! Can somebody say this is DISCRIMINATION ?? That Malaysia earns money form non-Citizens..yet discriminates by not allowing them to Vote ?? Same set of Laws apply in every country..I CANNOT VOTE in PUNJAB..i Cannot vote in SGPC elections even though I am also Amrtidharee and satsify ALL the religious requirements...SO ?? what shall I say ?? shout ??? I have also sent money to Darbar sahib..Takhat sahib..so can i VOTE ?? why NOT ?? IS every Single cent in GOLUCKS of Indian Gurdawars contributed ONLY by INDIANS ?? so why take money form NRI's and deny them Votes ?? BUT we KNOW the LAW..and so we keep QUIET. The LAW is the LAW.No one is above the LAW. Period. accept it.
:happysingh::happysingh::happysingh::happysingh::happysingh:


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> The "EXCLUSION" per se is from the VOTING LISTS of the SGPC.
> The SGPC is the Governign Executive of all Major Historical gurdawaras in areas under its Jurisdiction as per the Gurdawras Act 1925 in Punjab/Haryana/Himachal and for the DGMC in Delhi.
> 
> These SIKH "VOTERS" ( who have to be visibly Amritdharees and sign a declaration affirming their total Faith in ONLY the Ten Gurus, SGGS and the Pahul(amrit) and have no other religious affinities )...VOTE in SGPC ELECTIONS to elect SGPC Members...who will then RUN the Gurdawars and Takhats.
> ...


 

that is what i have been saying all along...there is a difference between discrimination and words like distinction, discernment and distinguishment...elements of group formation.

it is the same for every non-profit organization...you can donate but you have no say in the allocation of the funds themselves nor do you have a seat at the board (unless that is you pay enough).

that is all well and good.

what is being expressed here by me?
the beleif that the panth is shrinking and power is being concentrated at the SGPC like an exclusive country club. Couldn't the political organization of sehajdaari's play positive role in shaking up the current SGPC. namely parties like shiromani akali dal (badal)?

the greater utilitarian argument is that all akali dal's have been largely unsuccessful at disasembling badal's power over the SGPC...at the end of the day may even strengthen the panth


----------



## ballym (Apr 18, 2010)

A true Hindu must have janeu, Muslim must have beard and should not listen to music.
So all have conflicts but they are stiill one. No one is expelled.
What is our problem. 
yes, we were given an identity but others were not excluded. Matter ends.... Only problem is if someone attacks if a sehajdhari goes to gurudwara( even keshdharis are attacked!). This is what is being reached at. there are motivated people behind this. Otherwise entire population lives with diffrences. Why not us. We were living with differences. Suddenly it is being made violent, not tolerated any more.
There are hidden motives for sure.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 19, 2010)

The truth as that if the sehajdhari's are recognised then Turbans will become rare or almost extinct.Almost every teenager sikh boy in his home will ask his parents that when so many sehajdhari's are sikhs then why I am wearing Turban?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 19, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> The truth as that if the sehajdhari's are recognised then Turbans will become rare or almost extinct.Almost every teenager sikh boy in his home will ask his parents that when so many sehajdhari's are sikhs then why I am wearing Turban?



do they really "ask" such questions ?? I thought they cut their hair first and then the parents find out !! Nearly all the ones i know did that...eve a GRANFATHER did that. He is a Gynacologist..with a religious wife...has two teenage children. At first he would "complain complain..every weekend..when his son washed his hair...about the hair beign so long..tangles etc etc and then began to CUT the sons hair FROM INSIDE (center)..when I foudn out..he smiled liek a sheep and said..kesh bahut bhareh hai nah..mera son bolda..sir dukhda...too much hair..my son says headache...and then he came home totally bald.Then his sister who used to trim and pluck eyebrows etc..became shoudler length..the mother cried a bit..and thats it...THEN the Daddy began to wear a woven Cap ALL the time...i suspected he had no hair..a year later i caught him unprepared..then he admitted..i cut the hair but still wear a turban..becasue with a TURBAN..the Chinese think I LOOK MORE like a DOCTOR that cna be respected/trusted !! And its TRUE..his colleague down the street also had  asimialr clinic..that sikh cut his hair and discarded hsi turban 30 years ago...his clinets began to drop off like flies...today he is a relative NOTHING..compard to this gyne who is a multi millionaire !! The HIS FATHER who is 80+ also said oen day..OIyeh mein vee katt kar ke vekh laan..OH let me also try cuuting..all my life i wnated to do so..BUT was SCARED fo what people will say...and this man has been a Pardhaan of a Gurdawra for 30 years...its thus TRUE that he is a BHEKHI SINGH who kept the hair/turban only for the SOCIETY..not his conviction...There must be many like this..ALIENS among Sikhs..as the X-Files would say..!!!


----------



## curious seeker (Apr 19, 2010)

Ushta Ve

 Well  I can only say, that Sikhs like any one else have to come to grips  with what is the essential teachings of their scriptures and what is not. The question of the hair , the turban, etc  can only be resolved this way. Is the turban ordered by the SGGS or is it a tradition? Is the hair ordered by the SGGS or is it a tradition? Is the Khalsa, for every Sikh or is an order of the commited  to defend the religion?  Those are questions that only Sikhs can answer. But they ought to answer them. I would not ever presume to try to answer them. 

I will, however, give all you guys a special bit of advice from the heart.  A Christian Bishop faced with even worse divisions than Sikhs have today said. 

Brethren: In essential things be in agreement. In Non-essentials have liberty and, in the name of God, in all things have love for each other.

Ushta 
Curious


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 19, 2010)

> do they really "ask" such questions ?? I thought they cut their hair first and then the parents find out !! Nearly all the ones i know did that...eve a GRANFATHER did that. He is a Gynacologist..with a religious wife...has two teenage children



The circumstances differ from family to family..There are families where children sit with their parents discuss their problems and parents do tell them about their problems life etc.While their are families where persons are like North east south west.Each one has his/her own life


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 19, 2010)

PCJ ji

I have just removed a comment regarding your perspective,  SGPC, power, money, and Arnold Schwartzeneggar, Governor of California, and his salary. It had nothing to do with the conversation.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 19, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Then why didn't you remove the comments towards me?
> 
> This makes me real happy as I learn more about you people, more I understand how lost you people are....
> 
> Someone who had even a little bit of self-confidence would at least couter-argue....



You want to curse Sikhism turbaned sikhs,Amrithdari's and anything related to sikhism Yet you want people should not write anything against you.

You have love-hate relations with Sikhs .You can't Live with them  You can't live without them


----------



## PCJ (Apr 19, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> You want to curse Sikhism turbaned sikhs,Amrithdari's and anything related to sikhism Yet you want people should not write anything against you.
> 
> You have love-hate relations with Sikhs .You can't Live with them You can't live without them


 
OK show me what I said about turban, amritdharis and anything related to Sikhism and then prove it that it's any worse than calling people Patit and Saakat and sons of prostitute....


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 19, 2010)

PCJ said:


> OK show me what I said about turban, amritdharis and anything related to Sikhism and then prove it that it's any worse than calling people Patit and Saakat and sons of prostitute....



Is there anyone on this forum who called you son of prostitute


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 19, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Is there anyone on this forum who called you son of prostitute



Kanwardeep ji,

Guru Fateh.

Good question. The same thing happened with me. First PCJ accused me of being angry, offended and upset etc. etc. and when I challenged him to show the posts, he sheepishly said that people on Sikhnet did that.

This kind of character this person has which lacks honesty and hence no open and honest discussion can be held with him because he has shown his true colours of a dishonest person again and again and keep on talking about his Lord but too shamed to say who he/she is.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## PCJ (Apr 19, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Is there anyone on this forum who called you son of prostitute


 
The point here is that what I have been saying about Amritdharis is nothing compared to what they say about others. You people are having tough time accepting what I have to say because you are so used to calling others names without any reaction from the other side that it bothers you when someone like me even tells that you are wrong. You think telling you that you are wrong is like calling you names. This is how spoiled you people are and then you claim to be saints...

Calling me or anybody else names is the same thing. You people call monas Patit and Saakat, do you not? Your Guru compared so-called Saakats to sons of prostitutes, did he not? If you are really an honest person, you would answered this as yes and accept this.

Then how on this earth can you deny any name-calling from your side? But you think even pointing out that you are wrong is like name-calling...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 19, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Kanwardeep ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
Tejwant, in good debate, this is very important for everyone to be honest. You have no argument at all. That's the reason why you making up stuff that I was being dishonest.

I am more honest you and every Sikh I known so far could ever be...

I warned you because from my experience Sikhs were getting upset and hurt because of my reason to lose faith in Sikhi. Can you understand something so simple? Yes on people on Sikhnet were upset. I just gave you fair warning before I gave you the reason why I lost faith in Sikhi and I only told you why I lost faith in Sikhi because you kept insisting and I knew if I didn't give my reason to lose faith in Sikhi, you would keep using this against me.

You are lying right now. You obviously have no valid argument at all. So, you falsely keep repeating that I am dishonest...


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 19, 2010)

PCJ said:


> The point here is that what I have been saying about Amritdharis is nothing compared to what they say about others. You people are having tough time accepting what I have to say because you are so used to calling others names without any reaction from the other side that it bothers you when someone like me even tells that you are wrong. You think telling you that you are wrong is like calling you names. This is how spoiled you people are and then you claim to be saints...
> 
> Calling me or anybody else names is the same thing. You people call monas Patit and Saakat, do you not? Your Guru compared so-called Saakats to sons of prostitutes, did he not? If you are really an honest person, you would answered this as yes and accept this.
> 
> Then how on this earth can you deny any name-calling from your side? But you think even pointing out that you are wrong is like name-calling...



First of all I am not Amritdhari

2nd I have never called anybody patit.Many people don't even know the full meaning of patit  they use it for someone becoming a mona  or cutting their hair and I don't even know what is saakat?

3rd point I have never considered  myself saint neither  I call myself

4th point What sikhs do is their matter .The if anyone mona consider himself or herself sikh then he can discuss this issue .You don't consider yourself sikh so you don't have any Right to discuss this issue.

5th point If you are so upset then go and discuss this matter with people who called mona's son of prostitute if any.Why are you blaming all the sikhs for it.You just have revegeful mentality and you just want to take revenge with sikhs whatever previous discussions you have on sikhnet that's why you visit sikh forums and blame each and everybody without even knowing to whom you are discussing with

6th point To be fair here on SPN we don't even know who is Mona, who trims his beard who wax etc unless
someone himself or herself tells it.All are welcome as long as they discuss and abide by the rule's of SPN


----------



## ballym (Apr 19, 2010)

Point # 7 is added.
 Why should we discuss with an unknown entity. What and who are you at persent. We must know your current context. You wereborn sikh. But what now. identify uor thinking and then discuss. I can not discuss with someone who can not identify him/herself.
 I do not know if you are formless/ genderless, which gender.
Thanks,
 Only request: Play fare game.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 20, 2010)

ballym said:


> Point # 7 is added.
> Why should we discuss with an unknown entity. What and who are you at persent. We must know your current context. You wereborn sikh. But what now. identify uor thinking and then discuss. I can not discuss with someone who can not identify him/herself.
> I do not know if you are formless/ genderless, which gender.
> Thanks,
> Only request: Play fare game.


 
Formless just like The Lord, thank you so very much...

I am very well aware that you are incapable of communicating with the formless


----------



## PCJ (Apr 20, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> First of all I am not Amritdhari
> 
> 2nd I have never called anybody patit.Many people don't even know the full meaning of patit they use it for someone becoming a mona or cutting their hair and I don't even know what is saakat?
> 
> ...


 
Hey you are the one who started this part of thread with this:



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> You want to curse Sikhism turbaned sikhs,Amrithdari's and anything related to sikhism Yet you want people should not write anything against you.
> 
> You have love-hate relations with Sikhs .You can't Live with them You can't live without them


 
It doesn't matter whether or not monas complain. Like I said, they are real saints. But those who call people names and then they claim that they believe in The Almighty Lord are simply lying about the latter. Anybody who truly believe in the The Almighty Lord will do his or her best to those who lies in name of Lord from lying...

But think about it. The author the article compared all of the non-Amritdharis to sons of prostitute. Now think about this how many people visiting this site, he was comparing to sons of prostitutes....


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 20, 2010)

> Hey you are the one who started this part of thread with this:



So you agree with me?



> Hey you are the one who started this part of thread with this



Who is the Author of that article? What authority he has over sikhism.Which sectof sikhism is he following?
You very well know there are many sects in sikhism and many are hardcore fanatics.AKJ is one of them.According to AKJ's me and most of my relative were never ever sikhs because we eat meat and there are several article's by AKJ authors that people who eat meat are not sikhs.

PCJ some incidents just struck in our mind.I think that article has impacted you so much
That it is not going out of your mind.I seriously Advise you to meet any psychologist or may be psychyatrist


----------



## PCJ (Apr 20, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> So you agree with me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you on what? That I cursed Amritdharis? No, I didn't curse anybody. I simply stated the facts which may sound like cursing to you. What that means is you should look into the issue more deeply as to why just simple truth sounds like cursing to you...

Well article impacted me so much that I left the religion. Regardless who wrote the article, the quote still came from your guru.

I don't need to see a psychiatrist because now I have accept the fact that gurus are not perfect. That's I refuse to accept them as my gurus. This is what Lord's will was and I have accept Lord's will.

What's troublesome is that you people are living in denial. You keep following the very same religion that doesn't recognize you and gives people reasons to call you names...

I wish you people would wake up...


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 21, 2010)

> I agree with you on what? That I cursed Amritdharis? No, I didn't curse anybody. I simply stated the facts which may sound like cursing to you. What that means is you should look into the issue more deeply as to why just simple truth sounds like cursing to you...



No I was saying  that do you agree with it that you have love hate relationship with sikhs?



> Well article impacted me so much that I left the religion. Regardless who wrote the article, the quote still came from your gur



So tommorow if their is another Article that convince you That islam is the only true Religion then will you convert to islam?



> I don't need to see a psychiatrist because now I have accept the fact that gurus are not perfect. That's I refuse to accept them as my gurus. This is what Lord's will was and I have accept Lord's will.



Nothing wrong then why spending so much time on sikh sites convincing others that you are the one who only is speaking the truth?



> What's troublesome is that you people are living in denial. You keep following the very same religion that doesn't recognize you and gives people reasons to call you names...
> 
> I wish you people would wake up...



Sorry we people happy to be asleep we Don't need 21st century prophet PCJ to enlighten US


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 21, 2010)

> As far as Islam goes, I don't even agree with the prophet. Therefore, I could never convert into Islam. What I have determined is that religion is more of an obstacle than help. Religion in itself is maya. I am pretty sure you know what maya is. Maya is anything that keeps you away from The Lord, opposite of spirituality



If One article could convince you to leave one religion The Other could convince you to convert.I just said If.



> Therefore someone has to correct them. It just happened to be me



After writing this can you even call yourself a spiritual person? Muslims converted and killed 
millions in the name of correcting others.White supermacists,communists killed millions and millions in name of correcting others.Before correcting others just correct yourself.


----------



## Siri Kamala (Nov 14, 2010)

dalbirk said:


> Sehajdhari is also one of those terms which is UNIQUE to Sikhs . Are there Sehajdhari Muslims , Sehajdhari Christians , Sehajdhari Jews . This term is totally misleading , mischiveous & wholly constructed with some AGENDA in mind . Those RODAS , GHONA-MONAS whose only aim of life is EAT,DRINK & MAKE MERRY are out to control Sikh institutions & avail other minority benifits but CRIB at the very mention of KEEPING HAIR have devised this new platform . I may dare them just to leave Sikhs & Sikhi alone , we will be happy to be in a minority in Punjab but never compromise with the principles & beliefs .



Sat Sri Akal  

Actually... there are Sehajdhari Christians (informally known as "liberal" or "progressive" Christians here) and Sehajdhari Jews as well (formally known as "Reform Jews" to distinguish them from "Orthodox Jews").

I am guessing that, anywhere you go in the world, no matter what faith you focus on, you will find those who are wedded to the letter of that religion's law and those who are wedded to the spirit of the religion's law, and a large number of people who fall somewhere in between.

I guess the thing I struggle with, as someone who is only just beginning to explore the Sikh faith, is this idea that God (who created the entire Universe, and that includes other galaxies and solar systems and planets, most likely with life forms that don't even remotely resemble our own) -- that HUGE enormous God who is so much bigger than our puny human brains can comprehend ... that that God would care what I do with my hair, or what undergarments I wear. 

My thought is that if someone finds that that is useful to them, and it strengthens their faith, then more power to them - 5 K's all the way every day!  But if someone finds those things alien, and uncomfortably foreign because they emerged from a history and culture that are not remotely their own, and might possibly even be a distraction rather than an enhancement of faith, then what God is so petty that that would be held against someone who is *otherwise* living a compassionate and exemplary life, and who meditates on God's name with every breath?

And is it really our job to judge and admonish others who do not keep to the standards we believe are most in keeping with what God wants?  Shouldn't that be God's job?  And if we reject those who struggle with these things, are we not guilty of putting ourselves in God's place?  Are we not then demonstrating an increase in ego and a decrease in compassion?

So much of what I read about the Sikh path speaks to me on a deep soul level, but I really struggle with the matter of the 5 K's because I think what is most essential to God is invisible to the eye -- just as God is invisible to the eye.

Thank you, in advance, for any thoughts you all might have.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 15, 2010)

Siri Kamala ji

At the risk of sounding as if I do not get your most important thoughts -- I think I do -- please let me reply to two ideas that do not seem correct. They both concern the idea of sehajdhari Christians and sehajdhari Jews.

First permit me to define a practicing Sikh as one who keeps the 5 k's, is baptized and adheres faithfully to the Sikh Rehat Maryada. Without a definition the discussion will become chaotic in no time flat. 

_Your analogy a sehajdhari Sikh differs from a practicing Sikh just as a Reformed Jew differs from an Orthodox Jew is actually not correct_. 

Or better,  there is no analogy. Reformed Jews are an officially recognized denomination with Judaism. Reform Judaism has a distinct and "cohesive" identity within the World Union for Progressive Judaism, along with several other recognized denominations of progressive Jews. 
Progressive Jews, including Reformed Jews, are not progressive because they are "laid back" or lenient about Judaism.

"Sehajdhari"  Sikhs are not an organized denomination of Sikhs with a distinct liturgy, dogma, understanding of their scripture, or ordained clergy, as found in the various denominations of progressive or reformed Judaism.

The title of the thread suggests that Sehajdhari Sikh Federation has official status as a denomination within Sikhism. That is not the case, and it is misleading. Rather, the members of this organization have public and covert ties with different groups within sanatan dharma,  a purely political move which is relevant only in India. They do not represent sehajdhari Sikhs in any official capacity. 

A sehajdhari Sikh differs from a practicing Sikh according to the Sikh lifestyle: does not keep the 5 k's, is not baptized, and therefore is not a strict adherent of the Sikh Rehat Maryada. There is no "sehajdhari" interpretation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.  Nor are there sehajdhari equivalents for Sikh clergy as there are Reformed rabbis in progressive Judaism. In fact, there is no clergy in Sikhism. 

Now the same can be said in the analogy:

_A sehajdhari Sikh differs from a practicing Sikh just as a progressive Christian differs from an orthodox/conservative Christian._ 

To be Christian there are only a few basic requirements. One must accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Incarnation of "God" as "God's  Son" made flesh. You must accept that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was true and led to the deliverance of soul. You must accept that his birth, crucifixion and death is the fulfillment of a prophesy, to atone for the sins of humankind.  You must accept the Christian Testament as the the word of God. There will be other requirements depending on particulars of Christian denominations - of which there are hundreds. As with Jews, Christian progressive and conservative denominations have incorporated distinctive public identities with unique liturgies, ordination of clergy, and theologies. 

A progressive Christian adheres to the beliefs I listed above. The differences between progressive and conservative are many, but one major feature that divides them is the extent to which they depend on a literal interpretation of the testaments, old and new. There is no equivalent for this in Sikhi, and in fact, there are many acknowledged scholars of Sri Guru Granth Sahib who are not practicing Sikhs.


----------



## ballym (Nov 15, 2010)

So, over a period, sehajdhari body will take shape and become real. In the beginning it may be superficial like it is today..... 
BTW what is SGGS ji interpretation of sikh? There is some mention in the post above which is not clear.
Is there a difference in interpretation and truth... the ultimate?
 I am sure each person is different and different variant of a religion will continue to be there.... unless some BODY forces the people to follow certain religious rules.
Look within... and correct yourself.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 15, 2010)

Ballym ji

Guru Fateh! Sorry if I was not clear. I did not refer to Sri Guru Granth interpretation of a sikh. What I hoped to say, and think I said, is that sehajdhari Sikhs do not have a sehajdhari interpretation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. But... progressive Christians can and do interpret the Bible differently according to their denomination.

Also

It does in fact happen in Christianity 





> I am sure each person is different and different variant of a religion will continue to be there.... unless some BODY forces the people to follow certain religious rules.


 People are forced to follow certain rules in some Chritisan denominations, or they are excommunicated, either officially or by virtue of their acts. An example, a few years back, progressive  Roman Catholic scholars who adhered to something they called "liberation theology" were ordered to end their teachings or face excommunication. And some of them did it ,because in Roman Catholicism the Pope speaks as the ultimate temporal authority in matters of faith and morals.  They wanted to remain Roman Catholics so they obeyed.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 12, 2010)

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/33567-interpretation-of-religious-scriptures.html#post138471

THis is to inform sangat on SPN that some recent posts of this thread have been moved to
above link.


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 12, 2010)

If I may repeat some things that I said in earlier posts to put this thread into perspective. The topic is now old. 

The story of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation is old news. Somehow it picks up reactions in spite of the fact that their issues have next to nothing relevant to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, or any authentic concerns about SRM.

1. The Sehajdhari Sikh Federation is something of a non-issue for 2 reasons. Perhaps I should liken it to a lead balloon. It was formed some years back as a political block in relation to Indian politics only, and has virtually no relevance to the issues of sehajdhari outside of India. The purpose was to unify Sikhs who do not follow the Rehat Maryada and it was supposed to be a political anschlus against the SGPC prior to elections for committee seats.

The SGPC elections continually review the eligibility of Sikhs who do not keep hair as voters. A large contingent of Sikhs are sehajdhari and the federation was supposed to give them a voice.

2. The second point considers the irony that emerged. If you go to their web site and look at the contributors, founders and supporters, and also to the photo gallery, here is what you will find. A large number of members coming from Sant Samaj organizations and deras. Most of them keeping hair BTW. Babas and sants from splinter groups that have also felt "left out" because of their unwillingness or inability to follow the portions of the Sikh Rehat Maryada that forbids Hindu rituals.

Look several layers down and find out that the issue of hair was not the issue.

May I also repeat that there is no such thing as a sehajdhari interpretation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Apologies for being blunt, but when I said that earlier few seemed to take note.


----------



## lionprinceuk (May 10, 2012)

Well, ok lets use some technicalities shall we. A little off-topic but perhaps not.

Compared to Akali Nihang Khalsa, all non-nihangs are really sehajdharis or keshadharis if talking with regard to being Khalsa of the dal panth.. The majority of Gurdwaras out of Nihang control only keep parkash of Adi Guru Granth Sahib and not Guru Gobind Singh's bani, which more or less makes them sehajdhari gurdwaras. This also includes punjabi gurdwaras like the Akal Takht/Bunga that were forcefully taken over during the Lahori Singh Sabha movement and Dasam Granth saroops were removed.

Secondly the Khalsa fauj ie the Akali Nihangs don't follow SGPC SRM rehit maryada either, so go figure sangat ji hehe.


----------



## Parma (May 10, 2012)

curious seeker said:


> Ushta Ve
> 
> Well  I can only say, that Sikhs like any one else have to come to grips  with what is the essential teachings of their scriptures and what is not. The question of the hair , the turban, etc  can only be resolved this way. Is the turban ordered by the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or is it a tradition? Is the hair ordered by the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or is it a tradition? Is the Khalsa, for every Sikh or is an order of the commited  to defend the religion?  Those are questions that only Sikhs can answer. But they ought to answer them. I would not ever presume to try to answer them.
> 
> ...




Totally in agreement!!

Thankyou Sir!
0


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 11, 2012)

I feel that the classification of Sikh should be unaccepable as the concept itaself is anti Gurmati.Sikh is onky Sikh. just as Love is only Love.
Prakash.s.Bagga


----------

