# Mona And Sehajdhari



## J.A.T.T (Dec 16, 2006)

I am confused about these people. Do Sikhs classify these people as Sikhs or not?   What do people here think about them?


----------



## navroopsingh (Dec 17, 2006)

I personally believe that many people that think of themselves as Sikh, keep their hair, go to the gurdwara, and walk around with a kirpan, yet don't follow the true sikh path and do the actualy things the guru told us to do aren't even true Sikhs. A sikh is a person who has taken Amrit, vowed to follow the Gursikh path, and lived by the guru's teachings only. No one else is a true Sikh.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 17, 2006)

J.A.T.T said:


> I am confused about these people. Do Sikhs classify these people as Sikhs or not?   What do people here think about them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dear jatt

just like there are different types of muslims,hindu,s there are different types of sikhs.orthodox sikhs beleive that a person should atleast keep hair for being a sikh.while there are liberal sikhs who accept sehajdhari's as sikhs
so there are different point of view regarding mona/sehajdhari sikhs.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 17, 2006)

Muslims christians, hindus...of all religions ONLY SIKHISM is Named after the FOLLOWERS..and NOT the Founders/Prophets etc.
1. For Formality a SIKH as defined in the SRM or Code of conduct is One who beleives in the ten Gurus, the SGGS, Guru Gobind Singh jis Amrit of Khanda Batta..AND DOES NOT beleive in any other religion/prophet etc.
So these are stages....To begin with One MUST RELINQUISH ones beleif in any other religion...than begin to walk along the Path of Gurmatt begun by Guru nanak ji and ending with SGGS...and after this one is expected to chhak Khandey batte dee Pahul and be initiated into the KHALSA..apex of Sikhi.

2. Important:..One who has NOT chhak Amrit/Pahul..is NOT a PATIT. A PATIT is ONE who  has Chhak Pahul and then BROKE it by committing one or more of the Four Bajjar Kurehits. So any mona is not automatically a Patit. A Patit may have long hair, kirpan, etc BUT slept with someone not his wife/husband..then he/she is a PATIT..or he may have smoked Tobacco, taken drugs..or eaten Hallal meat...he/she is a PATIT inspite of having all the panj kakars !!!  I have seen many "amritdharees" going around calling all monas as patits... WRONG MOVE.

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 17, 2006)

navroopsingh said:


> I personally believe that many people that think of themselves as Sikh, keep their hair, go to the gurdwara, and walk around with a kirpan, yet don't follow the true sikh path and do the actualy things the guru told us to do aren't even true Sikhs. A sikh is a person who has taken Amrit, vowed to follow the Gursikh path, and lived by the guru's teachings only. No one else is a true Sikh.



The argument isn't about who is a "true" Sikh. The issue is about if Mona and Sehajdhari have the rights to call themselves as Sikhs or not. Besides, using your definition, there isn't many Sikhs in this world at all.   But again, there are hardly any people in this world who follow their religion perfectly.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 17, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> dear jatt
> 
> just like there are different types of muslims,hindu,s there are different types of sikhs.orthodox sikhs beleive that a person should atleast keep hair for being a sikh.while there are liberal sikhs who accept sehajdhari's as sikhs
> so there are different point of view regarding mona/sehajdhari sikhs.



Oh I see...

I guess this conflict will never be solved.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 17, 2006)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Muslims christians, hindus...of all religions ONLY SIKHISM is Named after the FOLLOWERS..and NOT the Founders/Prophets etc.
> 1. For Formality a SIKH as defined in the SRM or Code of conduct is One who beleives in the ten Gurus, the SGGS, Guru Gobind Singh jis Amrit of Khanda Batta..AND DOES NOT beleive in any other religion/prophet etc.
> So these are stages....To begin with One MUST RELINQUISH ones beleif in any other religion...than begin to walk along the Path of Gurmatt begun by Guru nanak ji and ending with SGGS...and after this one is expected to chhak Khandey batte dee Pahul and be initiated into the KHALSA..apex of Sikhi.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your input.

But keep in mind that not all Sikhs follow the SGPC Rehat Maryada.  Every jatha have their own rehat maryada.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 17, 2006)

Oh yeah, I like to point out that I am not only asking if Mona and Sehajdhari can call themselves Sikhs spiritually, but I am also asking if they can call themselves Sikhs politically and socially as well.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 17, 2006)

J.A.T.T said:


> Oh yeah, I like to point out that I am not only asking if Mona and Sehajdhari can call themselves Sikhs spiritually, but I am also asking if they can call themselves Sikhs politically and socially as well.



politically and socially there is no restriction  on mona/sehajdhari's being called as sikhs.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 17, 2006)

<Muslims christians, hindus...of all religions ONLY SIKHISM is Named after the FOLLOWERS..and NOT the Founders/Prophets etc.>>

correction Gyani ji

hinduism has nothing to do with any prophets....

Muslims - religion known as Islam is also not named after Muhammed

christianity.. yes

buddhism - yes



<<politically and socially there is no restriction on mona/sehajdhari's being called as sikhs.>>

KDS ji, i differ on this point, Non Khalsa (wouldn't call them Monas/Sehajdharis -  it is being used by many to signify different thought stream from Khalsa) are not allowed to lead SIKH gatherings.... or vote in SGPC elections, or even stand for elections...


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 18, 2006)

amarsanghera ji

in the census of sikh population any person who calls himself as sikh
is counted as sikh irrespective of whether he keeps hair or not so how could you say that politically sehajdharis cannot call themselves.as far as religious gatherings are concerned only those people are allowed to lead gatherings
which are acceptable and for many orthodox sikhs sehajdhari's are not acceptable


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 18, 2006)

hinduism is not even a religion....so many KROR devtas,,sects..gods goddesses,no two hindus are the same...new devtas and devis created as we go along..latest is Jayalalitha the tamil film actress who has  aMandir dedicated to her.
Islam may not be named after Mohammed ( the name mohammedanism never took off) but it isnt named after MUSLIMS either..so that leaves ONLY SIKHISM.....others i left out are Bahaism, Zoroastriansim..Taoism.Confucionism...Shintoism..all anmed after founders..

Thanks for input
Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 19, 2006)

Quick question: what’s the difference between a mona and Sehajdhari?


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 20, 2006)

J.A.T.T said:


> I am confused about these people. Do Sikhs classify these people as Sikhs or not? What do people here think about them?


 
I think of Sehajhdhari's as those people that are like graduates ....those with a degree.....they have knowledge of Sikh teaching.....some very deep knowledge. I think of Amritdhari's as Post Graduates.....those with Masters Degree's........and have Mastered themselves in this particular field..........both striving to reach Doctorates (Gurmukh).

All are Sikh.

Alas however, this picture can be complecated by the fact that some people can Graduate from duff Universities.........alas there are many Sant/Jatha movements that represent these duff movements. Also some have got through by cheating their way.

Thats the way I understand it anyway.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 20, 2006)

J.A.T.T said:


> Quick question: what’s the difference between a mona and Sehajdhari?


 
Mona is that that trims his hair and beard..........he can be a Sejajdhari. A Sehajdhari can be a turbaned Sikh too, but trim's his beard and doesnt keep the 5 k's.

So Mona is a type of Sehajdhari.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 20, 2006)

randip singh said:


> I think of Sehajhdhari's as those people that are like graduates ....those with a degree.....they have knowledge of Sikh teaching.....some very deep knowledge. I think of Amritdhari's as Post Graduates.....those with Masters Degree's........and have Mastered themselves in this particular field..........both striving to reach Doctorates (Gurmukh).
> 
> All are Sikh.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I have noticed that.  I personally don't like these jathas because they just make Sikhi more complicated to the average person. Some of their beliefs kind of goes against the basic Sikh beliefs.


----------



## roopsidhu (Dec 20, 2006)

Respected Amarsanghera ji
Thanks a lot,  you have written it what exactly I wanted to write. Very well said.
Thanks again


----------



## simranjeetsinghsimmy (Dec 21, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> <Muslims christians, hindus...of all religions ONLY SIKHISM is Named after the FOLLOWERS..and NOT the Founders/Prophets etc.>>
> 
> correction Gyani ji
> 
> ...


yeah i support this guy too... there is discrimination shown... cuz one is not considered a sikh widout being physically complete to be called a sikh. so, differences are shown to him or her...


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 21, 2006)

> *Mona and Sehajdhari* 			 			 			 		 		 		     I am confused about these people. Do Sikhs classify these people as Sikhs or not?   What do people here think about them?


they are definitly classified as sikhs. I dont believe that people who consume alcohol or take drugs should be considered sikhs though, hair should not even be an issue as it is not one of the five sins, cutting hair is a personal choice which will affect u in terms of salvation inevitably, as u are meant to grow it, for Spiritual reasons of course, retention of energy and better ability to meditate etc. however people these days keepit for all the wrong reasons which lead to ego and pride, two of the five sins. and then there is still the issue that manyyy moneh are far more spiritually advanced than many amritdaris so it is only really the outer appearance that leads them to be unfairly judged.......I myself have kept hair but i never discriminate against sikhs without kept hair as it is their choice and they will have to deal with it whatever it may be, if anything at all!


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 21, 2006)

A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib which is to take Amrit, get naam, do Amrit vela and stay away from bajjar kurehats. Rehat also includes keeping hair. Hence in Sikhi, keeping hair is not optional but a requirement. Those who don't follow rehat are not Sikhs.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 21, 2006)

here you go Randip ji, KDS ji

<A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib which is to take Amrit, get naam, do Amrit vela and stay away from bajjar kurehats. Rehat also includes keeping hair. Hence in Sikhi, keeping hair is not optional but a requirement. Those who don't follow rehat are not Sikhs.>

i rest my case.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 22, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> here you go Randip ji, KDS ji
> 
> <A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib which is to take Amrit, get naam, do Amrit vela and stay away from bajjar kurehats. Rehat also includes keeping hair. Hence in Sikhi, keeping hair is not optional but a requirement. Those who don't follow rehat are not Sikhs.>
> 
> i rest my case.



read my first reply in this thread


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 22, 2006)

kds ji

i agree there are different view points

i only wanted to point out that the orthodox view point is much louder than others


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 22, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> kds ji
> 
> i agree there are different view points
> 
> i only wanted to point out that the orthodox view point is much louder than others



this is true for all religions


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 22, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib which is to take Amrit, get naam, do Amrit vela and stay away from bajjar kurehats. Rehat also includes keeping hair. Hence in Sikhi, keeping hair is not optional but a requirement. Those who don't follow rehat are not Sikhs.



But there are so many different kind of rehats out there though.   According to the AKJ Sikhs, kesh (hair) isn't one of the 5 K's.   Also using your definition, I can say that people like Maharaja Ranjit Singh weren’t Sikhs at all.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 22, 2006)

Regardless of variations of Rehats all jathebandis agree that taking Amrit and getting Naam is a requirement. All jathebandis agree upon the most fundamentals of Sikhi such as keeping hair, five banis, Guru Granth Sahib the only Guru etc. AKJ believes in Keski as Kakkar but they still hold keeping hair a requirement. The definition I provided can be backed by rehatnamas, tankhanamas and Sikh history. If Maharaja Ranjit Singh did not keep rehat and follow the teachings of Guru Sahib then he was not a Sikh but it doesn't mean he was a bad person or anything. There are no exceptions for anyone when it comes to Sikhi.


----------



## Lionchild (Dec 23, 2006)

lol...

Namdaris
Amritdaris
Sehajdhari
keshdari

Somehow it seems all of place and is does not sound right...


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 23, 2006)

Can you provide any solid reference that namdharis are Sikhs of Guru Granth Sahib Ji (Jot of Guru Nanak Sahib)?


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 24, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> Regardless of variations of Rehats all jathebandis agree that taking Amrit and getting Naam is a requirement. All jathebandis agree upon the most fundamentals of Sikhi such as keeping hair, five banis, Guru Granth Sahib the only Guru etc. AKJ believes in Keski as Kakkar but they still hold keeping hair a requirement. The definition I provided can be backed by rehatnamas, tankhanamas and Sikh history. If Maharaja Ranjit Singh did not keep rehat and follow the teachings of Guru Sahib then he was not a Sikh but it doesn't mean he was a bad person or anything. There are no exceptions for anyone when it comes to Sikhi.




So I guess this means that there isn't any Sikhs in this world.  The last time I checked the figures, there were about 23 million Sikhs in this world.  I wonder how many of them are Amritdharis and do their prayers daily.  Like it or not, mona/Sehajdhari and Keshdahris are Sikhs by default.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 24, 2006)

Define default? I would like to see the references from acceptable Sikh sources. Sikhi doesn't need quantity but quality. 23 million or any other figures include all those who claim themselves Sikhs. Many of them cut hair, drink, smoke and do bajjar kurehats. Stop giving me opinions. Present solid references. One who is not Amritdhari and doesn't keep rehat is not a Sikh. This is the hard fact which for you like any other mona is hard to swallow.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 24, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> This is the hard fact which for you like any other mona is hard to swallow.


 
What's really hard for people like you to swallow is that someone with behaviour like yours, leave alone being a Sikh, is not even a human...

Have a good day


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 24, 2006)

Tough talk coming from someone who has no references to prove their point. I may not be a Sikh according to you but the fact is that monay people as well as everyone who is not Amritdhari are not Sikhs of Guru Sahib. By the way, how did you reach the conclusion that I am not a human? If other people state their opinions you are fine with it because you agree with them but if I state my opinions based on Sikhi you resort to personal insults. This shows how intolerant you really are.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 25, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> Tough talk coming from someone who has no references to prove their point. I may not be a Sikh according to you but the fact is that monay people as well as everyone who is not Amritdhari are not Sikhs of Guru Sahib. By the way, how did you reach the conclusion that I am not a human? If other people state their opinions you are fine with it because you agree with them but if I state my opinions based on Sikhi you resort to personal insults. This shows how intolerant you really are.


 
If you are not even sure yourself whether or not you are a Sikh, how on this earth do you think you have right to tell others that they are not Sikhs?

The least a good human should do in today's society is try not splitting humanity. The one who does anything to split humanity doesn't even qualify to be a human. Religion fanatics are the worst offenders of splitting humanity, thus are not qualified to be good humans.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 25, 2006)

> Sikhi doesn't need quantity but quality



bijla singh ji a religion need both quantity and quality to survive.quality cannot emerge without quantity.also without quantity political power  is not possible.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 25, 2006)

How about you swallow this:

THE SIKH GURDWARAS ACT, 1925.

“Sikh “Sikh” means a person who professes the Sikh religion or, in the case of a deceased person, who professed the Sikh religion or was known to be a Sikh during his life time. If any question arises as to whether any living person is or is not a Sikh, he shall be deemed respectively to be or not to be a Sikh according as he makes or refuses to make in such manner as the [Provincial Government], may prescribe the following declaration:-
                        I solemnly affirm that I am a Sikh, that I believe in the Guru Granth Sahib, that I believe in the Ten Gurus and that I have no other religion.]”


THE SIKH GURDWARAS ACT, 1925



Sikh Rehat Maryada:

Chapter I
The Definition of Sikh
Ariticle 1 

Any human being who faithfully believes in

(i) One Immortal Being,
(ii) Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh,
(iii) The Guru Granth Sahib,
(iv) The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and
(v) the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.

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


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 25, 2006)

> If you are not even sure yourself whether or not you are a Sikh, how on this earth do you think you have right to tell others that they are not Sikhs?


 
I never said I wasn't a Sikh. Re-read my posts before writing a response. I stated that "According to you I may not be a Sikh" but the facts is that only Amritdhari rehatwaan person is a Sikh.



> The least a good human should do in today's society is try not splitting humanity. The one who does anything to split humanity doesn't even qualify to be a human. Religion fanatics are the worst offenders of splitting humanity, thus are not qualified to be good humans.


 
How am I trying to split humanity? I provided the definition of a Sikh. I never said non-Sikhs weren't humans. If I say one who believes in Mohammad is a Muslim and not a Sikh, is that splitting humanity also? If you must know Guru sahib has even stated that name of a "Nigura" person is bad. "Niguray Ka Hai Nau Bura". One can only become a Guru Wala by taking Amrit. Those who turn their backs on Guru Sahib are the real traitors of the Panth.

Mr. "Jatt" first you ask "I am confused about these people" and then you come up with your own definitions. In any case, read the Maryada carefully. How can one claim to follow Guru Sahib and not take Amrit which is the teaching of Guru Sahib? Naam Japna is one of the basic principles of Sikhi and naam cannot be obtained without a Guru. Hence one must take Amrit.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 25, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> I never said I wasn't a Sikh. Re-read my posts before writing a response. I stated that "According to you I may not be a Sikh" but the facts is that only Amritdhari rehatwaan person is a Sikh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah sure an Amritdhari can be a terrorist and still be a Sikh, an Amrtidhari can be drug smuggler and still be a Sikh, sure an Amritdhari can be dirty politician and still be a Sikh. Sorry pal, Sikhi ain't that cheap. 

As far as Rehat Maryada goes, you need to find the one guru(s) wrote. Don't give us the manmade Rehat Maryada. Show us the original Rehat Maryada written by any of the gurus. All so-called Rehat Maryadas today were written by people like you and me and have nothing to do with spirituality. In fact, there are alot of stuff in so-called Rehat Maryadas today that not only go against humanity and spirituality but also aren't logical at all, thus go against spirituality and Sikhi. 

Yes technically all religious groups split humanity. Religion(s) may be good but the religious fanatical groups are like bunch of gangs with no logic at all.

How do you know that you are a guruwalla? Did Guru ever come to you and told you your behaviour is acceptable? You may think you are a guruwalla but it doesn't really mean you are. Nor anyone with short hair is a nirgura. It's more important to be honest and compassionate person than a rude religious fanatic. Do you think Gurus don't like honest, compassionate people? Then sorry too bad.


----------



## kaur-1 (Dec 25, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib which is to take Amrit, get naam, do Amrit vela and stay away from bajjar kurehats. Rehat also includes keeping hair. Hence in Sikhi, keeping hair is not optional but a requirement. Those who don't follow rehat are not Sikhs.



Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa waheguru ji Ki Fateh

I am now more inclined (80%) to agree with the above definition of a Sikh. 

I guess there is no half way. One is either a Sikh or not. At the end of the day, we should all try to be "Guru Ka Sikh".

But can one still call oneself "trying to be a Sikh ie Guru ka Sikh" keeping rehat i.e. before taking Amrit. I know we should all try and "live" Gurbani not just read as a ritual. To try and "live" Gurbani is also trying to be a Guru ka Sikh - a Gurmukh. 

_(20% doubt) The only 21st century problem is on paper - ie under "your religion" - what should someone trying to be a guru Ka Sikh classify oneself as? *Other or Sikh?*_


----------



## Lionchild (Dec 25, 2006)

The rehat maryada??? We follow that today? I don't see any mention of the SGGS in the quote. i always thought we should follow the SGGS and guru ji!

Well that is just pure BS.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 25, 2006)

kaur-1 said:


> Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa waheguru ji Ki Fateh
> 
> I am now more inclined (80%) to agree with the above definition of a Sikh.
> 
> ...


 
Is a Sikh the one who seeks the Truth (God) or is it the one has achieved the Truth (God)? Until you find an answer to this, you will not know who is Sikhs and who is not, nor you will know whether you are Sikh or not.


----------



## kaur-1 (Dec 25, 2006)

Lionchild said:


> The rehat maryada??? We follow that today? I don't see any mention of the SGGS in the quote. i always thought we should follow the SGGS and guru ji!
> 
> Well that is just pure BS.



Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru ji Ki Fateh

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mentioned in the word "naam"[shabad guru] and "Guru Sahib" is also mentioned.

I dont think one can call "rehat" BS . Rehat is a discipline or code of conduct similar concept to one we have in school or the army etc.

From my understanding, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji is the 10 Guru and if we dont accept Guru ji's stating that Guru Ji's roop will be found in the Khalsa and Guru ji's essence in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji then we are saying that there never was the tenth Guru or even Guru Nanak Dev Ji (as they were all one in essence).

I could be wrong here but in my understanding, there are several mentions of what we can term rehat ie discipline in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Are we thus saying that these are also BS?

For eg:Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji age 305:SearchGurbani.com

Gaurhee Guru Ram Das 
 mÚ 4 ]
ma 4 ||
Fourth Mehl:

 gur siqgur kw jo isKu AKwey su Blky auiT hir nwmu iDAwvY ]
gur sathigur kaa jo sikh akhaaeae s bhalakae outh har naam dhhiaavai ||
One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru the True Guru shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name.

 audmu kry Blky prBwqI iesnwnu kry AMimRq sir nwvY ]
oudham karae bhalakae parabhaathee eisanaan karae anmrith sar naavai ||
Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar.

 aupdyis gurU hir hir jpu jwpY siB iklivK pwp doK lih jwvY ]
oupadhaes guroo har har jap jaapai sabh kilavikh paap dhokh lehi jaavai ||
Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased.

 iPir cVY idvsu gurbwxI gwvY bhidAw auTidAw hir nwmu iDAwvY ]
fir charrai dhivas gurabaanee gaavai behadhiaa outhadhiaa har naam dhhiaavai ||
Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name.

 jo swis igrwis iDAwey myrw hir hir so gurisKu gurU min BwvY ]
jo saas giraas dhhiaaeae maeraa har har so gurasikh guroo man bhaavai ||
One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind.
 ijs no dieAwlu hovY myrw suAwmI iqsu gurisK gurU aupdysu suxwvY ]
jis no dhaeiaal hovai maeraa suaamee this gurasikh guroo oupadhaes sunaavai ||
That person, unto whom my Lord and Master is kind and compassionate - upon that GurSikh, the Guru's Teachings are bestowed.

jnu nwnku DUiV mMgY iqsu gurisK kI jo Awip jpY Avrh nwmu jpwvY ]2]
jan naanak dhhoorr mangai this gurasikh kee jo aap japai avareh naam japaavai ||2||
Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and inspires others to chant it. ||2||


If for eg we dont follow the above or even *more importantly*, accept and  *"live"* the teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, should we put "Other" rather then a "Sikh" in 'state your religion' section on forms we fill out.?

This topic is heading mona and sahejdhari. As regards to being a mona(_a person with cut head hair)_ and calling ourselves Sikhs is simple stating that we are rejecting that there was ever the tenth Guru, panj piara's etc. How can we just reject our Guru? If we reject one Guru then we are rejecting all the 10 Guru's.....


----------



## Veeru (Dec 25, 2006)

kaur-1 said:


> As regards to being a mona(_a person with cut head hair)_ and calling ourselves Sikhs is simple stating that we are rejecting that there was ever the tenth Guru, panj piara's etc..


 
Do you do everything gurus did? Do you know what would have happened if you did?

Also, it's really important to know the reason why Guru Gobind Singh Ji encouraged growing hair. Does anybody know the reason why? We also need to see if keeping the hair in today's society has the same effect as it did then.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 25, 2006)

I clearly stated that if a person takes Amrit and follows the rehat only then he/she is a Sikh. If one takes Amrit and never follows the rehat then clearly he is not a Sikh. A Sikh is a saint-soldier not a smuggler or terrorist. Show me one line in any of my posts where I stated that terrorists can be Sikhs. Sikhi is pure truth and truth never changes over time. So the excuse that there is no need to keep hair in today's world is rubbish. Sikhi doesn't change over time nor does it need to. Hand written account of Bhai Jeevan Singh clearly explains how Amrit was prepared and what rehat was given. Rehat Maryada of 1925 wasn't an invention but a written document based upon practiced rehat which comes from rehatnamas and tankhanamas. Also, work of Bhai Gurdas Ji is very useful in understanding Gurmat. Documents written down by Gursikhs were written for a reason. History books were written by gursikhs so would you reject them also on the basis that Guru Sahib never wrote them? Gurbani clearly states that without Naam no can be liberated. The only way to obtain naam is by becoming a Guru wala. No one in the world can disprove this fact using Gurbani. Guru Sahib established a simple way to adopt a Guru i.e. to take Amrit. I am guruwala because I took Amrit and I try my best to follow the rehat I was told. This is how I know I am son of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Guru Sahib's Khalsa Mahima clearly explains who a real Khalsa is - one who keeps internal and external rehat. There are no two sets of rehats - one for monay and one for Amritdharis. Not keeping hair would’ve saved thousands of lives in 18th century and would’ve made lives of Sikhs easier but they kept their rehat because it was Hukam of Guru Sahib. Khalsa is made niyara and unique. Only Khalsa is roop of Guru Sahib not anyone else. If you don't want to follow Guru Sahib then that is your choice but then you will not be a Sikh. It doesn't mean you will be a bad person or inferior to others. It simply means that you won't be a Sikh. Making excuses won’t get you anywhere. You can only satisfy yourself but that won’t change the facts. Unless you have some concrete evidence from acceptable Sikh sources to prove that Sikhi does not require rehat this discussion won’t go anywhere. Have a happy life. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> I clearly stated that if a person takes Amrit and follows the rehat only then he/she is a Sikh.


 
So what is it that one is supposed to achieve by following so-called Rehat Maryada? 

Have you achieved what someone is supposed to achieve following Rehat Maryada?



Bijla Singh said:


> I am guruwala because I took Amrit and I try my best to follow the rehat I was told.


 
Do you become guruwala because you have done something that you think Guru likes it or do you become guruwala because Guru has accepted you?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 26, 2006)

thanks for accepting that Ranjit Singh was not a sikh..

what a sad blow to Khalistanis who trumpet the Maharaja's rule as kingdom of sikhs...and that they are fighting to get it back....you can trwal many sites on net which have the khalistani literature citing Sikh soverignity using the Ranjit singh rule logic.... 

coming back to the discussion,

i donot think that anyone needs a "certificate" from anyone to call himself a sikh. Whoever wants, can very well call himself one

i think atleast in india, during census they donot ask a person to show how much he has been observing rehat.... don't know to what limit they will go into in the dreamland of Khalistan 

and coming back to solid proofs,

bijla ji,

Can you prove a SOLID proof stating that a Mona is not a Guru wala..... and how exactly a person gets to know that He/she has become Guruwala...is it an external thing?

or is it something deep within ?



ofcourse you will cite Rehats..but that would be a mere repetition...  you may like to share some experiences you had after you became a "Guruwala" in your definition....



opinion are welcome


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 26, 2006)

<<Rehat is a discipline or code of conduct similar concept to one we have in school or the army etc.
>>

kaur1 ji

sikhi is not some army or school..

we all are tired of such corollaries


----------



## Archived_member7 (Dec 26, 2006)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Satsriakaalji Saadh Sangat 

     Here is our greatness...how great we are !!! We are ok with muslims worshipping Guru Nanakji in Pakistan with their mulla caps and chaddar..which is not sikhi...but if the Hindu woships Sikhi ..this is how we treat him ...!!!!![/FONT]​




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Sikh group attacks multi-faith temples*[/FONT]​[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]






A Sikh campaign group recently stormed two temples to remove the Guru Granth Sahib from the premises, on the pretext that the Sikh holy book should not be present at premises where 'non-Sikh worship' takes place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The two temples were the Ek Nivas temple in Wolverhampton, which serves a mixed Hindu and Sikh congregation, and the Guru Wadbagh Singh Trust Gurudwara in Greenford. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Both premises were attacked on Sunday 10th December. According to eyewitness reports, around 400 Sikh men surrounded the Ek Nivas temple, some of who threw stones, causing some minor injuries to two temple workers. Some murthis (images) of Hindu deities were also damaged. A smaller group, of about 30 individuals, mostly in their late-twenties, were involved in the incident at the Gurudwara in Greenford. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to Mataji Kanwaljeet Kaur, head priestess of the Wolverhampton temple, she was verbally abused and intimidated by the campaigners.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]





"We didn't have the Granth Sahib on the premises. What they took is called pothiyan, which are chapters from the holybook that anybody can buy from any shop." she added.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Guru Granth Sahib (or the sections of it present on the premises) were removed and taken to other Gurudwaras, which the campaigners consider to adhere to Sikhism in a 'purer' form, and therefore be a more suitable place to house the holy book.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 'Respect for Sri Guru Granth Sahib Campaign' made headlines last year for attacking some Sikh wedding parties. The group aims to protect the Sikh holy book, which Sikhs consider to be their living Guru, from disrespect. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Their current campaign is to prevent Sikh or Hindu temples (gurudwaras and mandirs) from having a copy of the SGGS at their premises, if the worship of 'Hindu idols' also takes place in the same area. The group has threatened to target two other temples in coming weeks. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Guru Nanakji condemns all idol worship and to have the Guru Granth Sahibji in the same area is absolutely disgraceful," commented a spokesperson for the campaign group.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to their website, the 'Respect for Sri Guru Granth Sahibji Campaign' distance themselves from any violence that occurred, but say that they will continue to search out places where the Guru Granth Sahib is placed alongside the worship of idols.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*The wider issue*[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The latest string of attacks on temples, are very worrying. There are dozens of mandirs and gurudwaras in Britain in which the Guru Granth Sahib is displayed alongside either the worship of Hindu deities (such as Rama, Shiva or Durga) or the study of other forms of Hindu scripture. It is a tradition dating back centuries, and it is a potentially huge security issue for the Hindus and Sikhs who use these temples if all of them are going to be attacked in a similar way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In their quest to maintain and consolidate the identity of Sikhism as a totally different and unrelated religion to Hinduism, they are indulging in intolerant acts that do not have a parallel anywhere in Sikh religion or history.[/FONT]


----------



## kaur-1 (Dec 26, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> <<Rehat is a discipline or code of conduct similar concept to one we have in school or the army etc.
> >>
> 
> kaur1 ji
> ...



Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru ji Ki Fateh

If you read my statement again, its clearly does *not *say Sikhi is some army or school. All I am explaining is the word "rehat" ie discipline or code of conduct.

But at the end of the day, its really up to you as an individual to keep rehat or not.

I am sorry that you are so tired as to why a Sikh should keep rehat. 

To be a Gursikh, the path is narrower than a hair and sharper than a razor's edge. This statement refers to the *discipline* required. Sikhi however is  open and accessible to all.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

So, so far what we have learnt about these people who are claiming to be Sikhs because they are Amritdharis and claiming that nobody else is Sikh don't even know whether or not a Sikh is supposed the one who seeks God oe is it supposed to be the one who have achieved God and yet they claim to be Sikh.

All so-called Rehat Maryadas today were manmade. That's why there are logically incorrect, e.g. they say it's OK to kill but to cut your hair. They spiritually make no sense as they use terms like "A Sikh must". Everything that encourages forcing people has nothing at all to do with spirituality. In addition, they split humanity by saying that a Sikh must marry another Sikh. Also, if a Sikh is more compatible with a so-called non-Sikh, s/he has no right to have a good life with a non-Sikh. 

So it makes no sense to follow so-called Rehat Maryada unless someone can provide us with the original Rehat Maryada. 

If anything, Guru Granth Sahib would be considered the best Rehat Maryada.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 26, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> thanks for accepting that Ranjit Singh was not a sikh..
> 
> what a sad blow to Khalistanis who trumpet the Maharaja's rule as kingdom of sikhs...and that they are fighting to get it back....you can trwal many sites on net which have the khalistani literature citing Sikh soverignity using the Ranjit singh rule logic....
> 
> ...



I think these people need to re-write their history books.  By using their logic, a lot of people aren't Sikhs including Ranjit Singh and Udham Singh.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 26, 2006)

> All so-called Rehat Maryadas today were manmade. That's why there are logically incorrect, e.g. they say it's OK to kill but to cut your hair



pcjs are you saying that rehat maryada is wrong because you beleive that
killing animals is wrong and cutting hair is o.k.?if it is opposite then would you have been supporting rehat maryada?


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 26, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> Mr. "Jatt" first you ask "I am confused about these people" and then you come up with your own definitions. In any case, read the Maryada carefully. How can one claim to follow Guru Sahib and not take Amrit which is the teaching of Guru Sahib? Naam Japna is one of the basic principles of Sikhi and naam cannot be obtained without a Guru. Hence one must take Amrit.



Actually, if you read the rehat and especially gurdwara act closely, then you can see that you can find terms such as "amritdhari", “keshdhari” and “sehajdhari”.    

They’re all recognized as Sikhs.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> pcjs are you saying that rehat maryada is wrong because you beleive that
> killing animals is wrong and cutting hair is o.k.?if it is opposite then would you have been supporting rehat maryada?


 
Does it logically make sense to say it's OK to kill and not cutting here? The key word is "logically"...

I wouldn't support anything that isn't logically correct....


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 26, 2006)

No one needs a certificate from me or anyone else but everyone needs a certificate from Guru Sahib. Guru sahib has established a path (Amrit Sanchaar) for one to become a Sikh. First you want proofs and then you say it will be a "repetition". What kind of proofs do you want as nothing is acceptable to you? Eye witness account of Bhai Jeevan Singh is one of the sources that give all the details about first Amrit Sanchaar. Work of Bhai Nand Lal Singh Ji is explains rehat. Rehatnamas of Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji, Bhai Daya Singh Ji and also Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji explain rehat. If one wants to become a guruwala then he/she must follow the teachings of Guru Sahib i.e. follow rehat. Guru Sahib has blessed his roop to Sikhs and Sikhs are those who follow the rehat given by Guru Sahib. Monay and patit are nowhere near the roop of Guru Sahib. Making excuses is no way to justify your kurehats. All of you have provided not a single source from 18th century, no hand written account, no reference from work of Bhai Nand Lal Singh Ji and Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji to justify your claims. Gurbani is clear on the stance that without Naam no one can become guru wala or get liberation. One gets naam when they take Amrit. Is there any other way? I would like to see the reference from Gurbani if you have any. Who else is a Satguru equal to Guru Sahib? There is only one Satguru and only the Satguru has the authority to give Naam. Guru Sahib gave His authority to Panj Pyare. There are no exceptions for anyone in Sikhi be it Udham Singh or Maharaja Ranjit Singh (if he wasn’t Amritdhari) or anyone else. 

I would also like to see the reference that a Sikh can marry a non-Sikh. When Sikhs were offered multiple wives, sex slaves and 72 virgins in heaven by Mughal rulers they refused because they were strict in the rehat and they followed the teachings of Guru Sahib. They didn’t make excuses like you are. All they had to do was cut their hair and enjoy the riches but they knew that satisfaction that comes from Naam Abhiyaas cannot be fulfilled by worldly pleasures. If monay are Sikhs then give me one account from 18th century where a mona was martyred because he was considered a Sikh. I rather keep my experiences to myself. Just look at Shaheedis of Bhai Mati Das Ji, Bhai Dayala Ji, Bhai Taru Singh Ji, Bhai Shabag Singh Ji, Bhai Mani Singh Ji and Baba Banda Singh Ji to understand what it means to become a Sikh. If you want to know about experiences then I suggest you to go to Tapoban forum and read the “What made you interested in Gurmat” and “Rehat Experiences” topics. Also pick up some books like Jail Chitthiyan, Rangley Sajjan, Se Kineheya and Autobiography of Bhai Rama Singh Ji. This will get you started. No reference or proof can satisfy you, only Gurmat Naam and your desire to follow Guru Sahib and become His Sant-Sipahi will. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 26, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> No one needs a certificate from me or anyone else but everyone needs a certificate from Guru Sahib. Guru sahib has established a path (Amrit Sanchaar) for one to become a Sikh. First you want proofs and then you say it will be a "repetition". What kind of proofs do you want as nothing is acceptable to you? Eye witness account of Bhai Jeevan Singh is one of the sources that give all the details about first Amrit Sanchaar. Work of Bhai Nand Lal Singh Ji is explains rehat. Rehatnamas of Bhai Chaupa Singh Ji, Bhai Daya Singh Ji and also Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji explain rehat. If one wants to become a guruwala then he/she must follow the teachings of Guru Sahib i.e. follow rehat. Guru Sahib has blessed his roop to Sikhs and Sikhs are those who follow the rehat given by Guru Sahib. Monay and patit are nowhere near the roop of Guru Sahib. Making excuses is no way to justify your kurehats. All of you have provided not a single source from 18th century, no hand written account, no reference from work of Bhai Nand Lal Singh Ji and Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji to justify your claims. Gurbani is clear on the stance that without Naam no one can become guru wala or get liberation. One gets naam when they take Amrit. Is there any other way? I would like to see the reference from Gurbani if you have any. Who else is a Satguru equal to Guru Sahib? There is only one Satguru and only the Satguru has the authority to give Naam. Guru Sahib gave His authority to Panj Pyare. There are no exceptions for anyone in Sikhi be it Udham Singh or Maharaja Ranjit Singh (if he wasn’t Amritdhari) or anyone else.
> 
> I would also like to see the reference that a Sikh can marry a non-Sikh. When Sikhs were offered multiple wives, sex slaves and 72 virgins in heaven by Mughal rulers they refused because they were strict in the rehat and they followed the teachings of Guru Sahib. They didn’t make excuses like you are. All they had to do was cut their hair and enjoy the riches but they knew that satisfaction that comes from Naam Abhiyaas cannot be fulfilled by worldly pleasures. If monay are Sikhs then give me one account from 18th century where a mona was martyred because he was considered a Sikh. I rather keep my experiences to myself. Just look at Shaheedis of Bhai Mati Das Ji, Bhai Dayala Ji, Bhai Taru Singh Ji, Bhai Shabag Singh Ji, Bhai Mani Singh Ji and Baba Banda Singh Ji to understand what it means to become a Sikh. If you want to know about experiences then I suggest you to go to Tapoban forum and read the “What made you interested in Gurmat” and “Rehat Experiences” topics. Also pick up some books like Jail Chitthiyan, Rangley Sajjan, Se Kineheya and Autobiography of Bhai Rama Singh Ji. This will get you started. No reference or proof can satisfy you, only Gurmat Naam and your desire to follow Guru Sahib and become His Sant-Sipahi will. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh



Do you know who Diwan Kaura Mall (Mitta Mall) is?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 26, 2006)

PCJS said:


> Does it logically make sense to say it's OK to kill and not cutting here? The key word is "logically"...
> 
> I wouldn't support anything that isn't logically correct....



 DEAR PCJS

.god has not created
fertile land everywhere there are coastal areas,icy regions where people have to eat meat.so how could a maryada that say that eating meat is wrong
is logical.such maryada is only for people that are living in fertile areas.

i want to ask you a question.small farmer all over the world use ox to plough their field.the plight of these animals is really miserable.for all their life they are beaten with sticks.now tell me logically what is wrong ,killing animal with single blow or giving them life long suffering.

in the end i just want to say that don't reject maryada solely because it does
not suit your logic.basically sikhism is following gurmat not what suits your logic because if all people start applying their logic then their will be no gurmat left.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 26, 2006)

Oh yeah, if people like Udham Singh and Maharaja Ranjit Singh aren't Sikhs, then for the love of god, please re-write your history books and not take credit of other communities accomplishments.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 26, 2006)

> in the end i just want to say that don't reject maryada solely because it does
> not suit your logic.basically sikhism is following gurmat not what suits your logic because if all people start applying their logic then their will be no gurmat left.


 
Very nice say. I agree.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

So KDS,

Please tell us if logically it makes sense to say that cutting hair worse than killing without going into irrelavant stuff...


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

Bijla Singh,

Answer the following questions:

1. Is a Sikh the one who seeks the Truth (God) or is it the one has achieved the Truth (God)? Until you find an answer to this, you will not know who is Sikhs and who is not, nor you will know whether you are Sikh or not.

2. Are you claiming to be guruwala just because you think you are following Guru's footsteps or are you a guruwala because Guru ever told you that your behaviour was accepted by him?

Let me give you an example of someone of Guruwala. One time, Guru Amar Dass Ji, while bringing water for his guru to bathe fell in front of someone's house. When the husband heard the noise outside, he asked his wife who it could be. The wife said who else could it be, it must Amaru Nathaana. Guru Amar Dass Ji heard this and said, jhalliye main nathaana nehi, mai taa'n guru waala. Right away the lady in the house became mentally ill simply because Guru Amar Dass Ji referred to her as Jhalli. Are you this kind of guruwala or simply you think you are a guruwala?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 26, 2006)

PCJS said:


> So KDS,
> 
> Please tell us if logically it makes sense to say that cutting hair worse than killing without going into irrelavant stuff...




i beleive that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for eating.as far is hair is concerned i agree there is no logic behind keeping hair beside that it was guru's order.so it is basically following guru ji's order.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 26, 2006)

Accordin to Gurbani this is the definition of a Sikh:

ਸੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਖਾ ਬੰਧਪੁ ਹੈ ਭਾਈ ਜਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਭਾਣੇ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਵੈ ॥
ਆਪਣੈ ਭਾਣੈ ਜੋ ਚਲੈ ਭਾਈ ਵਿਛੁੜਿ ਚੋਟਾ ਖਾਵੈ ॥ (Ang 601)

ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥
ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥
ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥
ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਦਇਆਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ ॥
ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥2॥ (Ang 305)

ਧੰਨੁ ਧੰਨੁ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸੇਵਾ ਕਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਲਇਆ ॥
ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੰਉ ਹੰਉ ਸਦਾ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੀ ਜੋ ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਭਾਣੈ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਚਲਿਆ ॥18॥ (Ang 593)

According to Bhai Gurdas Ji, a Sikh is described as follows:

ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖੁ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥16॥ (Vaar 27)

ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਪਿਛਲ ਰਾਤੀਂ ਉਠ ਬਹੰਦੇ॥
ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵਾਲਾ ਸਰ ਨ੍ਹਾਵੰਦੇ॥
ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਇਕ ਮਨ ਹੋਇ ਗੁਰ ਜਾਪ ਜਪੰਦੇ॥ (Vaar 12)

There are numerous other references but I think these are enough to show that a Sikh follows the teachings of Guru Sahib. I don’t know where you are getting your definition from. “One who seeks truth” is very vague answer. where is the truth? When will one know if they have sought the truth? What actually is the truth? Does truth have limits? All the above quotes make it clear that:

1) A Sikh follows the teachings of Guru Sahib.
2) A Sikh gets up at Amrit vela and does Naam Abhiyaas. Naam can only be obtained from Satguru by taking Amrit. No one can disapprove this fact. 500 years of history is the proof of it. 

You are either not reading my posts clearly or ignoring them purposely. A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib. A Sikh is not determined by level of spirituality or by supernatural powers but by rehat. More rehat one keeps, more spirituality will increase. One doesn’t need to perform miracles to justify him being a Sikh. One only needs to keep rehat of Guru Sahib. Who is an acceptable Sikh for Guru Sahib? One who follows the hukam. This is clear from Pauri 15 of Aasa Di Vaar. 

Regarding hair – Read Hail Hair and Hair Power books. Guru Ji gave us hukam to keep hair. A true Sikh doesn’t need any more “logics” but if it was illogical then Guru Sahib wouldn’t have given us the hukam to begin with. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

kds1980 said:


> i beleive that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for eating.as far is hair is concerned i agree there is no logic behind keeping hair beside that it was guru's order.so it is basically following guru ji's order.


 
Well this is not true that there is no logic behind keeping hair. Just because we don't know the reason, it doesn't mean that there isn't any reason. But definitely, cutting hair isn't as bad as killing unless we absolute have to for ethical reasons.

So Bijla Singh,

What do you expect to achieve following guru's footsteps? Is the ultimate to be one with God?


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 26, 2006)

I follow Sikhi because I love it and find peace. Gurbani tells us what a person can achieve by following Guru Sahib. "Joti Jot Rallee Sampooran Theea Raam", "Bin Har Bhajan Nahi Chutkara". What Satguru can do and does for a Sikh cannot be described as the list would be never ending. I am not following footsteps of Guru Sahib but trying my best to follow His hukam. 

I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets. 

Le Griffin writes that: "Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom exactly according to the Sikh way of life and Sikhism considers everyone as friends and talks about the welfare of all irrespective of caste and creed." 

Charles Hugal in his book, "The Court and Camp of Ranjit Singh", writes that, "Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom according to the Sikh tenets. All the important positions were given to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, entirely based on merit. Even his main advisors were three famous Muslim brothers: Fakir Aziz-ud-Din, his foreign minister; Fakir Nur-ud-Din, his home minister; Fakir Imam-ud-Din, his custodian of the {censored}nals. Forty-six senior Army officers and two top ranking Generals were Muslims. 

One General was French and score of military officers were Europeans. In police and civil services he has about one hundred Muslim officers alone. Hindus too, used to hold many key positions in Sarkar-e-Khalsa. Ranjit Singh was secular through-and-through. 

Since he had lost his one eye in childhood, due to small pox, he used to remark jokingly about himself that, "God Willed that as a true Sikh I should look upon all religions with one eye"." 


Murray writes, "Ranjit Singh was full of humanity. He ruled by following the etiquettes of Sikhism and therefore he was generous, benevolent and a sympathiser."


----------



## Veeru (Dec 26, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> I follow Sikhi because I love it and find peace. Gurbani tells us what a person can achieve by following Guru Sahib. "Joti Jot Rallee Sampooran Theea Raam", "Bin Har Bhajan Nahi Chutkara". What Satguru can do and does for a Sikh cannot be described as the list would be never ending. I am not following footsteps of Guru Sahib but trying my best to follow His hukam.


 
I am not getting clear answer from you Bijla Siyan. Do you at end expect to be one with God or not? The answer is either yes or no...


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 27, 2006)

<<I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets. >>

thanks sir !!

i was waiting for you to give him a certificate...

so Maharaja Ranjit singh - married multiple times, drunkard, opium smoker...and account by none other than non -sikh sources similar to ones you had quoted above glorifying him..

he was also out and out superstitious......many accounts of that can be read too..


so does this define a SIKH ???


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 27, 2006)

Does it matter what I expect. Gurbani is clear on this matter. Gurbani explain what one will get by following the hukam. If you need references then let me know. The point of the discussion is Sikhi not my personal life. You and everyone else have yet to provide me with some solid references to prove your point. 

I have already stated that no one needs a certificate from me. One is determined by rehat if he is a Sikh not by name or popularity. I only provided the sources I had. I will change my opinion when proven wrong. Give me references to prove your point. He made numerous mistakes, no doubt, but the point is if he did bajjar kurehats and never did pesh then he became a patit and not a Sikh.


----------



## k s gadh (Dec 27, 2006)

sahjdharis should be called sikhs if they have become sahjdhari due to some illness,or professional circumstances or by some riots.  Now those pepole should try to come to the previous platform , if possible.  Mona is not related with the sikh word. we should not say mona sikh. sahjdhari sikh is sufficient


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 27, 2006)

bijla singh jidoes Gurbani say which Hukam to be followed?


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 27, 2006)

PCJS said:


> Well this is not true that there is no logic behind keeping hair. Just because we don't know the reason, it doesn't mean that there isn't any reason. But definitely, cutting hair isn't as bad as killing unless we absolute have to for ethical reasons.
> 
> So Bijla Singh,
> 
> What do you expect to achieve following guru's footsteps? Is the ultimate to be one with God?



pcjs ji for khalsa cutting hair is much worse than killing animals for food.
there are plenty of evidences that khalsa  prefer to die rather than cutting hair.on the other hand there is no evidence that khalsa prefer to die rather than killing animals for food.infact in war time sikhs were evid hunters and
ate meat.so your logic that killing is worse than cutting hair is not applicable for khalsa.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 27, 2006)

Bijla Siyan,

It seems like you aren't even sure yourself whether or not you are heading towards God. Most people follow religion because they think some day, they will be united with God following a religion. 

But since even you aren't sure where you are heading, why should people follow you? I know you are going to say that one should follow Guru, not you. When you say that one should follow Guru in your way, basically what you are saying is that people should follow you. 

Obviously you have not been united with God and you are saying that you are simply doing your best. It clearly shows that your best isn't good enough and it's a simple fact that you can't do better than your best. So you should be honest about it and admit that obviously there something isn't right about the direction you are going in. 

This is what I was asking when I asked you whether or not a Sikh was the one who seek God or the one who had achieved God. You simply seek God but you have not achieved God. So if you think a Sikh is the one who seeks God, everybody who seeks God is a Sikh and if you say a Sikh is the one who has achieved God, obviously you aren't a Sikh either.

I know now you are going to say that at least you are trying. Well so is everyone else.

When you say you do whatever you do because it gives you peace, it's more like a wordly pleasure that gives you temporary peace. Nanak bhagata'n sada vigaas. Bhagats don't need a temporary pleasure or peace, they are forever in bliss.

As I have pointed out SGPC Rehat Maryada has nothing to do with spirituality. 

If you really wanna be spiritual, follow Guru Granth Sahib. 

KDS Ji, when it comes to truth, it really doesn't change from religion to religion. There is only one God and there is only one hukam and truth about Him. If it logically doesn't make sense, it can't make sense, period...


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 27, 2006)

I am sure I am a Sikh because I follow Guru Sahib and I keep rehat. It is Guru Sahib who does kirpa on Gursikhs more and more everyday. Despite all the facts and references presented from Gurbani you keep ignoring the definition of a Sikh. A Sikh follows hukam of Guru Sahib. Give me references from Gurbani that prove your point or support your so-called self-made definition. The reason I am not answering your question about what I expect is because it is my personal life and this discussion has nothing to do with what I expect but about what Sikhi is and who a Sikh is. I personally think you are highly disillusioned as are majority of the Indians when it comes to Sikhi. You are defining Sikhi based on your opinions and have never provided any references to back up your claims.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 27, 2006)

Bijla Siyan,

Apparently, you aren't following Guru's hukam. Otherwise you would have gotten somewhere in spirituality. If you were following Guru properly, you would have realized God by now. You are simply following what you think is guru's hukam. Obviously, guru's entire hukam is out of your reach. Otherwise you would have found God by now, just like the example I gave you of Guru Amar Dass Ji, who truly was guruwala...


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 27, 2006)

Founding God? Explain this in clear terms. Is God a hidden treasure? Gurbani tells us that God is realized from within. Gurbani is the roop of Waheguru. I have found the Satguru and there is no difference between a Guru and God as Gurbani says "Gur Parmeshar Eko Jaan". By what measurement tool are you measuring my spirituality? I don't know for what reason you want to discuss my spirituality and my level of Sikhi whereas the topic is about who a Sikh is. This has been made clear numerous times. Refer to previous posts. This is why I say that you are disillusioned and have no clear sense of what Sikhi is. Sikhi is not defined by one's behavior or one's character or even one's miracles but by principles that Guru Sahib has set forth. Sikhi is not defined based on me, Maharaja Ranjt Singh or anyone else. Rehat is the tool to determine one's Sikhi. No Rehat = No Sikh. Don't just keep arguing for the sake of argument. Provide references and solid facts not mere opinions.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 27, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> Founding God? Explain this in clear terms. Is God a hidden treasure? Gurbani tells us that God is realized from within. Gurbani is the roop of Waheguru. I have found the Satguru and there is no difference between a Guru and God as Gurbani says "Gur Parmeshar Eko Jaan". By what measurement tool are you measuring my spirituality? I don't know for what reason you want to discuss my spirituality and my level of Sikhi whereas the topic is about who a Sikh is. This has been made clear numerous times. Refer to previous posts. This is why I say that you are disillusioned and have no clear sense of what Sikhi is. Sikhi is not defined by one's behavior or one's character or even one's miracles but by principles that Guru Sahib has set forth. Sikhi is not defined based on me, Maharaja Ranjt Singh or anyone else. Rehat is the tool to determine one's Sikhi. No Rehat = No Sikh. Don't just keep arguing for the sake of argument. Provide references and solid facts not mere opinions.


 
Whether it is found outside or realized inside, the fact is that you neither found nor realized God or Satguru. Either way you look at it, you have no way of proving that you are any closer to God or Guru than anybody else and you know that you aren't any closer than anybody. You may think you are but you are not.

It's important to discuss your spirituality because you are the one who is judging others. If you don't wanna be judged, don't judge others. Obviously, you have no advantage over anybody else here of being with God or Guru.

We know that Sikhi isn't defined based on you. Therefore, we know that you are not a Sikh.

Once again the Rehat we know today is manmade by SGPC. Obviously, you can't become Sikh following it. You are a perfect example yourself. Why are you suggesting that others should follow the Rehat when it hasn't made you any better than others?


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 27, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> I follow Sikhi because I love it and find peace. Gurbani tells us what a person can achieve by following Guru Sahib. "Joti Jot Rallee Sampooran Theea Raam", "Bin Har Bhajan Nahi Chutkara". What Satguru can do and does for a Sikh cannot be described as the list would be never ending. I am not following footsteps of Guru Sahib but trying my best to follow His hukam.
> 
> I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets.
> 
> ...



LOL

Ranjit Singh never took amrit.   Back in the days, anybody born in Sikh family was consider a Sikh.  Besides, what type of amritdhari will marry a non-amritdhari?  Ranjit Singh married (or at least slept with) a muslim woman.

By the way, do you know who Diwan Kaura Mall (Mitta Mall) is?


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 27, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> <<I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets. >>
> 
> thanks sir !!
> 
> ...



Exactly.  Maharaja Ranjit Singh wasn't a good Sikh (I am using this term loosely)


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 27, 2006)

> Whether it is found outside or realized inside, the fact is that you neither found nor realized God or Satguru. Either way you look at it, you have no way of proving that you are any closer to God or Guru than anybody else and you know that you aren't any closer than anybody. You may think you are but you are not.


 
I don't know how to measure others' spiritual level but I know who a Sikh is. One who keep rehat and follow the hukam. Once again, provide reference from Gurbani to back your claims or definition. I have realized who a true Guru is, Guru Nanak Sahib. I know His teaching and His rehat. I know his hukam which I follow. One who follow the hukam is a Sikh. You on the other hand have not even understood the very basics of Sikhi. You don't even have basic understanding of Gurbani not to mention a simple definition of a Sikh based on Gurbani.




> It's important to discuss your spirituality because you are the one who is judging others. If you don't wanna be judged, don't judge others. Obviously, you have no advantage over anybody else here of being with God or Guru.


 
I am providing definition of a Sikh based on Gurbani. Therefore, it is Gurbani that is making the judgement. I have the advantage because I am Guruwala. Those who are not will not get muktee and Gurbani is clear on this.




> We know that Sikhi isn't defined based on you. Therefore, we know that you are not a Sikh.


 
This is one of the most foolish statement ever. Sikhi is defined by principles of Guru Sahib which you have not understood clearly and I don't think you have the capability to understand it. Who is "We"? You and your lana bana?



> Once again the Rehat we know today is manmade by SGPC.


 
Rehat in 1925 was taken from puratan sources. Study some Sikh history first. Have you stuided hand written accounts and Bhatt Vahis? I think not.



> You are a perfect example yourself. Why are you suggesting that others should follow the Rehat when it hasn't made you any better than others?


 
You are quick to pass judgement without giving any justifiable reasons. No doubt monay/patits have lost their common senses. There is a difference between being superior and being a better person. I said I wasn't a superior human being because everyone is created equally but this doesn't mean a Sikh is no better person than a thief or a coward who has turned his back on Guru. A Sikh is always a better person as he/she is the roop of Guru. Patits and monay have no place in Sikhi. 

If you want to understand spiritual powers of Sikhi then I suggest you study the jeevans of Shaheeds and other well known Gursikhs.


----------



## Archived_member2 (Dec 27, 2006)

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakal!
Dear all!

Quote from Bijla Singh Jee " . . . but this doesn't mean a Sikh is no better person thana thief or a coward who has turned his back on Guru. A Sikh is always a better person as he/she is the roop of Guru. Patits and monay have no place in Sikhi."
Please provide a reference from the Gurus also where they have said so. I will be grateful.

Surprise, is this the understanding of a dedicated Sikh. Have we forgotten that our ancestors were all Patit and Monay before becoming Sikhs? Do we know the variety of people who want to become Sikh today? Have we closed the doors for all others than Sikhs? With what is Guru's Sikh entangled while The True Guru is today also busy initiating Patit and Monay into true Sikhi?
Please respond.


Balbir Singh


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 27, 2006)

*KDS* 			 			 		 		 		 		 	Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *PCJS* 

 
_So KDS,

Please tell us if logically it makes sense to say that cutting hair worse than killing without going into irrelavant stuff..._


i beleive that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for eating.as far is hair is concerned i agree there is no logic behind keeping hair beside that it was guru's order.so it is basically following guru ji's order.













we're animals so why not kill humans? read this article mate, killing animals for food is sick, the only reason guru gobind singh ji killed animals was because he took pity on them, wanting to free them from their turn as animals in reincarnaton- he knew how the spiritual world worked so he had the right to kill them. the mind of the person that kills an animal for food is that of a butcher, therefore if u kill animals for food- a cold blooded reason to kill one of gods beautiful creatures, u automatically have the ability to kill any animal- or most importantly, human- in cold blood.

read this 

Panthic Weekly: What is Kuttha? (Part 2)


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 27, 2006)

J.A.T.T[QUOTE      




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bijla Singh*
> 
> 
> ...



LOLLLL This is evidence that MR BIJLAAAA SINGH should have stopped talking a long timeeeeeeeee ago in this thread!!!!! __________________


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 27, 2006)

oh and killing animals is veryyyy wrong, especially for food! it shows u can kill one of gods living creations with a soul in COLD BLOOD! and therefore automatically gives u the ability to kill ANY of gods living creations in cold blood! read this taken from an extract of an article- 



> The reason why a Sikh doesn't eat meat is not related to 'ahimsaa' or "respect for all life" like the Jains.  The reason is 'daya'.  Mercy evaporates when we butcher and eat meat.  A carrot may have life but it will never run away screaming when you go to the garden to get it.  Guru Sahib is clear in Gurbani that life must sustain itself on life.  There is no lack of mercy or daya (mercy) excercised when cutting a vegetable as it does not reacts to being cut.  Contrast that with animals.  These animals beg and cry and little calves cling to their mothers in terror when they sense they will be slaughtered.  The word "gardener" has no pejorative connotation.  The word "butcher" on the other hand stands for someone who has no mercy.  If one's heart doesn't melt at seeing the shrieks and anguish of animals, why would it matter when a human does the same?  Why is it Muslims can do Halal on humans?  It's because they have so much experience with animals that the jerking, gasping of dying animals and blood is something usual for them.  A butcher will have the heart of a butcher.  A butcher can never be a 'Dharmi' (spiritually pious) person.



Panthic Weekly: What is Kuttha? (Part 2)


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 27, 2006)

> KDS Ji, when it comes to truth, it really doesn't change from religion to religion. There is only one God and there is only one hukam and truth about Him. If it logically doesn't make sense, it can't make sense, period...



pcjs ji please tell me who will decide what is logical and what is illogical
what could be logical for you may be illogical for me and what could be logical
for me may be illogical for you. so don't say that it doesn't  make sense to 
you is wrong for everybody


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Dec 27, 2006)

ur right KDS ji

logic is relative.

but i agree with pcjs ji


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 28, 2006)

amarsanghera said:


> ur right KDS ji
> 
> logic is relative.
> 
> but i agree with pcjs ji



on which point do you agree with pcjs ji?
please clarify


----------



## Veeru (Dec 28, 2006)

KDS Ji,

Prof. Darshan Singh Ji tried to justify keeping hair over nails by arguing that cutting hair is like killing a species because he said that hair is alive as it changes color and nails are not. 

So obviously, killing is considered wrong, even in Sikhism. Now we need to see if killing is wrong, period, i.e. you can't kill at all or if it's OK to kill for certain purpose. Also, we need to see if there is different levels of killing, i.e. if killing a plant is same as killing a human e.g. or an animal. 

Now why is killing wrong? A few reasons that I can think of are:

1. Killing takes away a life. In case of a humans, by killing we are taking away his/her opportunity to be united with God and in case of animals, we are taking away its opportunity to finish all the karmas so that it can be born into a higher form and eventually as a human. In case of plants, nowhere it says that they have soul and are part of re-incarnation. So killing a plant can not be as bad as killing an animal and human.

2. We are taking that's naturally doesn't belong to us. When we kill, it's like we have right on others, whether they are animals or humans.

In case of hair, none of these points apply as hair is our own and hair doesn't have soul either. If anything, the logical reason to keep hair would be to stay as God created us. But then spirituality isn't all about us. A spiritual person should also care about our surroundings. 

Using spiritual logic, the only reason why I can think of killing a human is worse than an animal is that in human life, it's possible to be united with God and earn karma (good or bad), and in case of an animal life, they can only earn karma. But other than that, animals are pretty much like humans as they also have emotions for their families and people as well.

So if we had to measure killing on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 not bad at all and 10 being the worst), logically thinking killing a human would be 10 and killing an animal would be upto 9 and killing a plant would start at 1 but cutting hair would be more like 0 and not even equal to 1.

So, we may look at it differently, but either way we look at, logically it doesn't make sense to say that cutting hair is worse than killing.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 28, 2006)

Bijla Siyan,

It's really important to see the original Rehat Maryada to conclude that SGPC Rehat Maryada is exact translation of the original Rehat Maryada. It was more of a political document to keep control over Gurdwaras by SGPC, which is mainly controlled by Akalis. Punjab was split into three states for the very same reason because Akalis knew they could never make majority in Punjab as it was so big. 

Sikhi is about controlling mind and at least five vices. Whatever we do, whether take Amrit, do nitnem, do sewa, listen to Gurbani, sit among saadh sangat or help the needy is to control mind and five vices. Obviously, there is a lot ego within yourself. Therefore, you cannot even be close to being Sikh leave alone being gurwala. unless you have controlled mind and all vices, nothing else matters. You could be amritdhari or do nitnem. But if you don't have control over mind and vices, it isn't that effective.

For some reason, you keep ignoring that Guru Amar Dass Ji proved that Guruwala have a lot of power. Nanak Dass mukh se jo bolay iya'n uya'n sach hoye. Since you are nowhere near spiritual wisdom of Guru Amar Dass Ji, you are not a guruwala. You may think you are guruwala because you are doing what Guru wanted us to do. But this is simply your perception based upon what you learn from the people today who learned from SGPC Rehat Maryada, not Guru.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 28, 2006)

pcjs ji your and mine debate in this thread started when you said that current rehat maryada is not o.k. because it does not ban meat.and eating meat is worse than cutting hair.so basically your rejecting it because it does not suit your logic but my logic is different.so if we all start rejecting rehat maryada because it does not suit our logic there will be no rehat maryada left.

just like you have represented your logic in favour of vegetarianism i can too present my logic.and in the end we are not going to convince each other.

btw the point you have mentioned that plants don't have souls and they are not part of reincarnation is wrong according to a shabad in gurbani they are 
also part of reincarnation.please read the the following article and entire
15 page debate.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

as far as current rehat maryada of akal takhat is concerned please read the following link

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...onduct.html?highlight=history+of+code+conduct

so if there is chance of any true rehat maryada of guru gobind singh
then it is only of akal takhat maryada which was prepared by decades
of hard work by sikh scholars.


----------



## Veeru (Dec 28, 2006)

KDS Ji,

I wouldn't rely on the translation too much. There have been some errors. Either way, does it say anywhere that we were hair in one life or the other? So logically cutting hair couldn't be as bad as killing...


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 28, 2006)

Gurbani is clear that Sikh can never be equal to Guru. Guru is Guru whose powers are unlimited. Every Sikh has different levels of spirituality. Guru Sahib did more simran and seva and only after following the Hukam more and more He was blessed with powers. Comparing a Sikh to Guru Sahib is a stupid thing, nothing more. A Sikh never goes after such powers. To say that one is not a Sikh because his powers are less than that of others is a foolish thing and has no logic. How much power do you have? By the same argument you and every other person is not a Sikh because you all have no powers. You all don't even follow the hukam of Guru Sahib. How can one do bajjar kurehats and be a Sikh at the same time? This is a contradiction and has no place in Sikhi. 

I am not even talking about SGPC Maryada. I never used it for reference. I pointed out all sources from 18th century and accepted work of Bhai Nand Singh Ji and Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji. Do you have one source from those times to show me rehat only for monay? Do you have stories of monay who were martyred by Mughals because they were considered Sikhs? Were any monay beheaded and their heads used to get price of 80 gold coins? Do you have names of monay who were in misls? Or better yet any Misl of monay? The answer is simply NO. When Madho Das wanted to become a Sikh, he was given Amrit and Bhatt Vahis prove this beyond the doubt. This shows that one must take Amrit, keep rehat and do naam abhiyaas. These tools are the basis for controlling thieves. Non-Punjabis (white, Mexicans etc) have to take Amrit to become Sikhs then why should there be exceptions for monay from Punjab? There are no exceptions. I am not full of ego but proud to be a Sikh because I follow His hukam. Guru Sahib blessed His roop to rehatvaan Gursikhs not to monay. That's all that matters. Without Naam no one becomes guruwala and no one will get muktee. I have received naam and by guru's kirpa will get muktee. You still have not provided a single credible source to back up your claims or justify your definitions. Until you do this discussion is over. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh


----------



## Veeru (Dec 28, 2006)

Bijla Siyan,

That's exactly right. If you expect a Sikh to be perfect, then yes a Sikh must be as perfect as Guru. Otherwise, whoever believes in Gurbani and tries to control mind and vices is a Sikh.

Apparently, there was a good reason for Guruji to tell Amritdharis to keep hair. That's why it's important to know the reason behind. Even if you look completely like an Amritdhari as guruji wanted an Amritdharis to be, until you can be spiritually Amritdhari, it's not only useless, it very well be sinful to take the oath as an Amritdhari and then spiritually doing completely opposite of what an Amritdhari is supposed to do.

A true Amritdhari or Khalsa would be have become one with God and for a true Amritdhari or Khalsa, Nanak Dass mukh sei jo bole iyaa'n uyaa'n sach hove would have become true. In other words, if you were true Amritdhari or Khalsa, what you said would have become true.

So why is it that we don't wanna be like you? Because you have drifted away from true Sikhi. I have this feeling that this is because you believe more in SGPC Rehat Maryada than Guru Granth Sahib. A Sikh believes "hum nehi changay bura nehi koye" and you guys believe that you are the best. 

What you guys do is nothing better than a caste-ridden person does. Just look around. You are doing the same in Gurdwaras exactly but brahmins did in Mandirs and when it comes to marrying. 

I am simply stating the fact. It should not be taken as that I would ever want to marry an Amrtidhari. Most desirable woman for me to marry would be a non-Amritdhari.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 28, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> Gurbani is clear that Sikh can never be equal to Guru. Guru is Guru whose powers are unlimited. Every Sikh has different levels of spirituality. Guru Sahib did more simran and seva and only after following the Hukam more and more He was blessed with powers. Comparing a Sikh to Guru Sahib is a stupid thing, nothing more. A Sikh never goes after such powers. To say that one is not a Sikh because his powers are less than that of others is a foolish thing and has no logic. How much power do you have? By the same argument you and every other person is not a Sikh because you all have no powers. You all don't even follow the hukam of Guru Sahib. How can one do bajjar kurehats and be a Sikh at the same time? This is a contradiction and has no place in Sikhi.
> 
> I am not even talking about SGPC Maryada. I never used it for reference. I pointed out all sources from 18th century and accepted work of Bhai Nand Singh Ji and Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji. Do you have one source from those times to show me rehat only for monay? *Do you have stories of monay who were martyred by Mughals because they were considered Sikhs?* Were any monay beheaded and their heads used to get price of 80 gold coins? Do you have names of monay who were in misls? Or better yet any Misl of monay? The answer is simply NO. When Madho Das wanted to become a Sikh, he was given Amrit and Bhatt Vahis prove this beyond the doubt. This shows that one must take Amrit, keep rehat and do naam abhiyaas. These tools are the basis for controlling thieves. Non-Punjabis (white, Mexicans etc) have to take Amrit to become Sikhs then why should there be exceptions for monay from Punjab? There are no exceptions. I am not full of ego but proud to be a Sikh because I follow His hukam. Guru Sahib blessed His roop to rehatvaan Gursikhs not to monay. That's all that matters. Without Naam no one becomes guruwala and no one will get muktee. I have received naam and by guru's kirpa will get muktee. You still have not provided a single credible source to back up your claims or justify your definitions. Until you do this discussion is over. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh



Haqiqat Rai was a mona who got beheaded in public for his refusal to disown his Sikh belief and accept Islam.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 28, 2006)

sikh78910 said:


> J.A.T.T[QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## S|kH (Dec 29, 2006)

kds180 said there is no restriction politcally or socially about mona's/sehajdharis being called sikhs.

I would say this is WHERE a distinction IS placed.
Mona's can not go to the front lines of newspapers and be claiming to speak for all sikhs. To be our political/social leader, you have to look traditionally atleast. Because remember, no one's going to be looking internally, they are only looking face-value. 

As far as spiritually is concerned, yeah...anyone can call themselves a Sikh and be seen as one. 

Politcally and socially....only Sardars (Keshdharis) and Khalsa can be called or should speak on the behalf of all Sikhs.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 29, 2006)

Brief History of Bhai Hakikat Singh Ji

*Family Background *– Bhai Nand Raam was a resident of village Goltiyan who became a Sikh of Guru Harrai Sahib Ji. According to the hand written account of the family, Bhai Nand Raam was given three instructions: not to cut hair, not to eat tobacco and wear turban instead of a hat. Bhai Nand Raam had two sons – Bhai Bagh Mall Ji and Bhai Bhaag Mall Ji. Both took Amrit from Guru Gobind Singh Ji and became gursikhs. Bhai Hakikat Singh was born in the house of Bhai Bagh Singh (Mall) Ji. 

*Nankay (Maternal) Family Background* – In 1648 in village Sodhra, Bhai Kanhayea Ji was born in the family of Bhai Nathu Ram Ji and Bibi Sundari Ji. Bhai Kanhayea Ji met Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji in 1674 and became Sikh. Later he took Amrit from Guru Gobind Singh Ji and became Bhai Kanheya Singh Ji. He is well known in the Sikh world for his great seva. He had one son – Bhai Lacchi Raam Singh Ji. Bhai Lacchi Raam Singh Ji had two daughters Bibi Kauran Kaur and Bibi Gauran Kaur and one son Bhai Arjan Singh Ji. Both bibis married Bhai Bagh Singh and Bhai Bhaag Singh. Hence mother of Bhai Hakikat Singh Ji was Bibi Kauran Kaur Ji.

*In-laws Family Background* – Bhai Hakikat Singh was married to Bibi Nand Kaur Ji, daughter of Bhai Kishan Singh Ji. Bhai Kishan Singh had two brothers – Bhai Dall Singh and Bhai Mall Singh. All three brothers were Amritdharis and Bibi Nand Kaur was a pooran gursikh. According to “Sidak Khalsa” Bibi Ji was a rehatvaan strict gursikh who would choose death over giving up Sikhi.

Bhai Hakikat Singh’s father was an Amritdhari and his family had been in Sikhi since 7th Guru Sahib, mother was an Amritdhari whose family had been in Sikhi since 9th Guru Sahib and his in-laws were all Amritdharis. This proves beyond the doubt that Bhai Sahib was from a family of and himself was a pooran Amritdhari gursikh not a mona. 

Bhatt Vahis, hand written records of his decendants, Bhai Kartar Singh writer of Sidak Khalsa, Bihari Lal Shaant writer of Hakikat Chrittar, and Agar Singh Sethi writer of Hakikat Vaar and numerous other accounts make it clear that Bhai Hakikat Singh was not a “Rai” or a mona but an Amritdhari gursikh. His family relatives were all Amritdharis and companions of Baba Banda Singh Ji. It is pathetic that ignorant people of today without ever studying little bit of Sikh history resort to distorting Sikhi so they can justify their patit-puna.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 29, 2006)

S|kH said:


> kds180 said there is no restriction politcally or socially about mona's/sehajdharis being called sikhs.
> 
> I would say this is WHERE a distinction IS placed.
> Mona's can not go to the front lines of newspapers and be claiming to speak for all sikhs. To be our political/social leader, you have to look traditionally atleast. Because remember, no one's going to be looking internally, they are only looking face-value.
> ...



sat sri akal s1kh ji
good to see you back on this site

when i said that a sehajdhari can himself can call himself sikh politicaly
it means in the eye of law whether he is a sikh or not.if mona's politically cannot call themselves sikhs then on what basis we claim that punjab is a sikh majority area.there are hardly 10 to 20 % keshdhari sikhs left in punjab.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Dec 29, 2006)

You are absolutley RIGHT Bijla singh ji.  Lets not get confused with "rai" or "Dass"  "Lall"..etc etc. Next some one may say Gobind Rai was a MONA Guru !! ( Remeber the names of all the Nine Gurus !!..if it was all in the Name only..they can all be MONAS !!!There is absolutley NO Evidence that ANY "MONA" was martyred because the Only IDentity of a SIKH was KESH. Several instances of GREEDY HINDU PARENTS, Uncles etc..Cutting off the heads of GIRLS/women/etc to claim REWARD of RS 80 for a SIKH Head is PROOF that LONG KESH was reuired for the REWARD. The Girls were claimed to be YOUNG SIKHS...( Trust the greedy to find a loophole..) MONAS wouldnt be arrested. Even in Post 1984..it was the AMRITDHAREE that was Targetted by the security Forces..being an amritdharee was automatic attraction to the police/indian army/crpf etc.

Gyani jarnail Singh


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 29, 2006)

Bijla Singh said:


> Brief History of Bhai Hakikat Singh Ji
> 
> *Family Background *– Bhai Nand Raam was a resident of village Goltiyan who became a Sikh of Guru Harrai Sahib Ji. According to the hand written account of the family, Bhai Nand Raam was given three instructions: not to cut hair, not to eat tobacco and wear turban instead of a hat. Bhai Nand Raam had two sons – Bhai Bagh Mall Ji and Bhai Bhaag Mall Ji. Both took Amrit from Guru Gobind Singh Ji and became gursikhs. Bhai Hakikat Singh was born in the house of Bhai Bagh Singh (Mall) Ji.
> 
> ...



Here's a link of Bhai Haqiqat Rai:

Great Sikh martyrs

Anyway, Bhai Haqiqat Rai wasn't even an Amritdhari or Keshdhari for that matter (check the link for the picture).


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 29, 2006)

*edit*


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 29, 2006)

S|kH said:


> kds180 said there is no restriction politcally or socially about mona's/sehajdharis being called sikhs.
> 
> I would say this is WHERE a distinction IS placed.
> Mona's can not go to the front lines of newspapers and be claiming to speak for all sikhs. To be our political/social leader, you have to look traditionally atleast. Because remember, no one's going to be looking internally, they are only looking face-value.
> ...



umm only Amritdhari should speak and lead the Sikh community.  Keshdharis should not speak and lead the community as well.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 29, 2006)

*edit*


----------



## J.A.T.T (Dec 29, 2006)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> You are absolutley RIGHT Bijla singh ji.  Lets not get confused with "rai" or "Dass"  "Lall"..etc etc. Next some one may say Gobind Rai was a MONA Guru !! ( Remeber the names of all the Nine Gurus !!..if it was all in the Name only..they can all be MONAS !!!There is absolutley NO Evidence that ANY "MONA" was martyred because the Only IDentity of a SIKH was KESH. Several instances of GREEDY HINDU PARENTS, Uncles etc..Cutting off the heads of GIRLS/women/etc to claim REWARD of RS 80 for a SIKH Head is PROOF that LONG KESH was reuired for the REWARD. The Girls were claimed to be YOUNG SIKHS...( Trust the greedy to find a loophole..) MONAS wouldnt be arrested. Even in Post 1984..it was the AMRITDHAREE that was Targetted by the security Forces..being an amritdharee was automatic attraction to the police/indian army/crpf etc.
> 
> Gyani jarnail Singh



I am sure no "mona" fought and die for the movement during 80's and early 90's. :roll:


----------



## Veeru (Dec 29, 2006)

Well this discussion has taken an interesting turn. 

Do we know why not that many monas were targetted?

My assumption is that there weren't many monas in Muslim times. But in 80's and 90's, there were some so-called kharhkus who cut their hair to disguise but did any monas go out there and kill people?


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 29, 2006)

One has to be a fool to ignore the sources of 18th century and believe "Bed Time Stories" as an accurate account which has no references from old accounts. In 18th century giving up Sikhi meant cutting Kes. No account says that Bhai Hakikat Singh was a mona.

Sikh Ardas - "Bakhsho Ji Sikhan Noo *Sikhi Daan*, *Kes Daan*, *Rehat Daan*, Bibek Daan, Visah Daan, Bharosa Daan, *Naam Daan*, Sri Amritsar Ji De Darshan Ishnaan"


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 29, 2006)

keeping ur hair in the gurus times was mainly for this reason- to distinguish between the true lions and the cowards, any sikh that kept his turban was automatically identified as such, a "sikh" and was therefore in immediate danger as the muslim rulers of the times specifically targetted sikhs. nowadays a sikh with a turban in a western country is generally NOT  distinguished from a muslim, being seen by many even as members of the afganistani TALIBAN. lol so the wearing of a turban nowadays in western countries is for a completely different reason. if sikhs were under seige in the uk i would definitly look down of those sikhs that did not wear one as cowards not willing to stand up for their faith and hide. nowadays it is to do with the spiritual side of things, i do not condemn those who cut their hair as it is less of a segregating factor or a "show" as is common in 90% of todays amritdharis. 



Sikh Ardas - "Bakhsho Ji Sikhan Noo *Sikhi Daan*, *Kes Daan*, *Rehat Daan*, Bibek Daan, Visah Daan, Bharosa Daan, *Naam Daan*, Sri Amritsar Ji De Darshan Ishnaan"

this line is not a prayer for sikhs to GROW THEIR HAIR it is for them to KEEP  IT!!! in the gurus days and well afterwards until the 1980s in INDIA! hair, and therefore sikhs only identity and difference from hindus and muslims in india was taken away. i agree that SIKHS IN INDIA  should keep their hair for this reason, but sikhs OVERSEAS need a reality check on why they keep their hair in the first place. i know why i keep mine, and its definilty NOT for show.....


----------



## sikh78910 (Dec 29, 2006)

> this line is not a prayer for sikhs to GROW THEIR HAIR it is for them to* BE ALLOWED TO KEEP IT!!!* in the gurus days and well afterwards until the 1980s in INDIA! hair, and therefore sikhs only identity and difference from hindus and muslims in india was taken away. i agree that SIKHS IN INDIA should keep their hair for this reason, but sikhs OVERSEAS need a reality check on why they keep their hair in the first place. i know why i keep mine, and its definilty NOT for show.....




sorry read the bold writing instead!!


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 29, 2006)

4 - 5 months ago dal singh ji on this site posted sikh history from persian point of view and according to it there were beardless sikhs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a translation from a Persian manuscript completed in 1731 by Khafi Khan regarding the Moghul battles with Banda Singh Bahadur. 

I made a few notes (in brackets) highlighting points I feel are interesting.
-----------------------

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikhi...story-persian-sources-edited-j.html#post45901
(Siege of Lohgarh)

The wretched chief of that sect (Banda) accompanied by his error tending, doomed followers, whom wealth seeking as well as deep faith had bound to that eternally misled one, incited and encouraged his followers to fight and resist with such fables and inducements as that whoever is killed in this battle will without delay in the very form, whether bearded or beardless, in which he dies, return and attain further progress in the stages of worldly life. Those persons who regarded the statement of their spiritual leader and chief in the matter of transmigration of souls (which is condemned by all scripture believing God praying faiths) as absolutely proved, lent their ears in agreement. 

--(Note: That according to this account some of the people fighting on the Sikh side were "beardless").--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
so i think there were sahijdhari's in the 18th century who fought and died for the panth.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Dec 29, 2006)

Study who Khafi Khan was first. According to him Baba Banda Singh butchered pigs and cows in the mosques to get back at Muslims which is not true. Khafi Khan's accounts are highly biased and not true when compared to other sources. Baba Ji's army included muslim pathans as well. Not all were Sikhs. Many were very young at age. How many "sehajdharis" were beheaded in Delhi out of 700 Sikhs? None. How many "sehajdhari" heads were loaded on the carts? None. How many "sehajdhari" heads were displayed on the spears? None. Sahibzadas of Guru Sahib were beardless (except Baba Ajit Singh Ji) so does that make them "sehajdharis"? No.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 3, 2007)

<<Sri Amritsar Ji De Darshan Ishnaan>>

i am surprised at a Sikh believing in asking God for boons of pilgrimages...

this ardas was built by SGPC and is not a part of SGGS

as someone pointed out earlier...many of the SGPC reforms were politically oriented


----------



## Bijla Singh (Jan 4, 2007)

The Ardaas (except first paragraph) was compiled over the years in 18th century. The only new portion that was added in 1947 was about Gurdwaras that were separated from the Panth. Ishnaan at Darbar Sahib is not related to this discussion but you are free to start a new topic on this.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 4, 2007)

<<The Ardaas (except first paragraph) was compiled over the years in 18th century. The only new portion that was added in 1947 was about Gurdwaras that were separated from the Panth.>>

can you give me valid proofs, document references, links for the same?

as far as i know it is documented that it was structured and compiled during the Singh Sabha movement.


<<Ishnaan at Darbar Sahib is not related to this discussion but you are free to start a new topic on this.>>

i think though the point might not be, but the essence is relevant to the topic.

it drives home the point that most of the dogmas which people believe to be REQUIREMENT of "Sikhism" MIGHT not be originating from the Gurus but added by other people later....

i am not contesting whether they are good or not...but the origin..



thanks..............


----------



## Bijla Singh (Jan 4, 2007)

Once again, you ask for proofs and then reject them without giving any reason. Vaar Chandi includes first paragraph of Ardas. Rest was compiled later. Just think about it. If Ardas was compiled during Singh Sabha movement (no reference provided) which was during British Empire then how exactly did Sikhs do Ardas before then? Ardas has been part of the panth since beginning. There are numerous sakhis recorded of Sikhs which prove that Sikhs did Ardas back then. At any rate, this is going away from the topic.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 5, 2007)

<Once again, you ask for proofs and then reject them without giving any reason.>

it was just a taste of your own medicine..

anyways... we are discussing the totality of the ardas and especially the paragraph you mentioned.

do you intend to say that sikhs made EXACTLY the same ardas throughout the periods? this is ridiculous...of course they would have said ardas, but we donot have written proofs of what it was....hence using a contemporary document and raising it to level of Guru-bani is wrong.


in my personal opinion ( if u may bear to read it) ardas is a personal supplication to God..and can be said in any fashion, respectfully.

All i contend to say is that Ardas is not something to give a example . it is a composition made by multiple authors and over a long period of time. the ardas we do today was composed during singh sabha movement.....yes ..the inital portion authorship is ascribed to Guru ji but later portions were added over time... and the only written proof is available when singh Sabha wrote it down during Gurudwara reforms.

for reference sake,
you can check Macaulife's translations to see the ardas being used in his times...............it has no reference to the lines mentioned by you.

i donot have a soft copy but have read a hard bound book written by Macaulife.


----------



## roopsidhu (Jan 5, 2007)

thanks Amarsanghera ji
'Well said' Ardas means supplication to god. It may have any form, any language and any words.
The only authenticated words of  guru ji's are the Gurbani og SGGS ji. 
all other litratures are nullified by the hukam of Sri guru Gobind Singh Ji which ask sikhs to Guru Maniyo Granth.


----------



## jasi (Jan 13, 2007)

J.A.T.T said:


> I am confused about these people. Do Sikhs classify these people as Sikhs or not?   What do people here think about them?


Thanks for posting your question about "Jatt". If they qualify as sikhs or not.. Ofcourse they are considered sikh as any one else. Any one from any cast or background who belives in sikh principals are considered sikhs. Jatts are the people who belongs to farming class in India as the rajput belongs to warrier class. Though there are more sacrifices recoreded  by rajput and other sikhs background but still Jatt contribute lot to our agriculture out put accross India or Pakistan.

jaspi


----------



## J.A.T.T (Jan 13, 2007)

jaspi said:


> Thanks for posting your question about "Jatt". If they qualify as sikhs or not.. Ofcourse they are considered sikh as any one else. Any one from any cast or background who belives in sikh principals are considered sikhs. Jatts are the people who belongs to farming class in India as the rajput belongs to warrier class. Though there are more sacrifices recoreded  by rajput and other sikhs background but still Jatt contribute lot to our agriculture out put accross India or Pakistan.
> 
> jaspi



Huh?  Jatt were more than just a farmer class.   Do a little history research to see how powerful Jatts were especially during after Khalsa was created.    

Anyway, thanks for your input on this topic.


----------



## freedom84 (Jan 14, 2007)

J.A.T.T said:


> Huh? Jatt were more than just a farmer class. Do a little history research to see how powerful Jatts were especially during after Khalsa was created.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for your input on this topic.


 
I think it maybe better to say Jatt's are just farmers. We don't want to start dividing into 'castes', or we will be no different to the Brahmins.

Sikhs are just Sikhs.


----------



## gursikh (Jan 24, 2007)

i dont understand what will happen to sikhism after another 10 yrs... 
truley the condition wont be goood.... 
Sikhism is now seen socialy and politicaly rather than spiritualy.... Oh GOD!!!
how narrow and empty so-called-sikhs have become.....


----------



## nimana17 (Jan 24, 2007)

There is no Sehejdhari Hindu ,muslim or jews, why only sikhs.
 Only keeping hair is not a identity of a sikh, with out Amrit you can call aperson ,with hair   a perfect Human, not sikh, to become a sikh you have to
 1 keep your body as God gave to you ( symbol of good human)
 2 Take amrit pan and follow the laws of  Gurbani
  so there should be no question of Sehajdhari sikh


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 24, 2007)

> There is no Sehejdhari Hindu ,muslim or jews, why only sikhs.



there are sehajdhari  muslims.mohammed strictly recommended that all muslims should keep beards and he has no connections with muslims who do not keep their beards but 99% of muslims don't keep their beards.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 25, 2007)

does anyone not calling me a non sikh make me a non sikh ?

does anyone calling a muslim, a non muslim make him one ?

it does not

simple thought will easily distinguish that real religion is a personal matter of a person and is inside...


this is what is say to all who set definitions of who is a sikh and who isn't:


 you may call me a non sikh, a kaffir anything you like....

but i know and i will remain a sikh indeed "in deed"


----------



## Bijla Singh (Jan 27, 2007)

By the same argument someone calling himself a Sikh doesn't make him one.


----------



## badmash (Jan 27, 2007)

I find identifying who is and not a sikh a laughable idea. Whoever says they are sikh, they are. As for Jats and casts, excerpt from Khuswant Singh's History of the Sikhs, Volume 1, page 15. 

"The Jat's spirit of freeom and equality refused to submit to Brahmanical Hinduism and in its turn drew the censure of the privileged Brahmins of the Gangetic plains who prnounced that "no Aryan should stay in the Punjab for even two days" because the Punjabis refused to obey the priests. The upper caste Hindu's denigration of the Jat did not in the least lower the Jat in his own eyes nor elevate the Brahmin or the Kshatriya in the Jat's estimation. On the contrary, he assumed a somewhat condescending attitude towards the Brahmin, whom he considered little better than a soothsayer or a beggar, or the Kshatriya, who disdained earning an honest living and was proud of being a mercenary. The Jat was born the worker and the warrior. He tilled his land with his sword girded round his waist. He fourght more battles for the defeence of his homestead than the Kshatriya, for unlike the martial Kshatriya the Jat seldom feld from his village when the invaders came. And if the Jat was maltreated or if his women were molested by the conqueror on his way to Hindustan, he settled his score by looting the invaders' caravans on their return journey and freeing the women he was taking back. The Punjabi Jat developed an attitude of indifference to worldly possessions and an instinct for gambling with his life against the odds. At the same time he became conscious of his role in the defence of Hindustan. His band of patriotism was at once hostile towards the foreginer and benign, even contemptuous, towards his own countrymen whose fate depended so much on his courage and fortitude." :wink:


----------



## Bijla Singh (Jan 27, 2007)

If one says he is the President of the United States then he is. right? I find using Khuswant a laughable idea.


----------



## badmash (Jan 27, 2007)

Keep on laughing. Have you done more for sikhism? I do not care if Khuswant Singh is a womanizing, corrupt lout. I still admire him for his scholarship and contributions. The quote stands on its own. As for laughing, keep laughing and watch the sikh quom decline. Who will have the last laugh, some dude doing sukhmani sahib all alone by himself? It is still tragic. Point again being --- the commonalities should be stressed. Any philana with and IQ sufficient to post can disagree. And again, what is the point of rhetoricism in this topic. No one is actually right, it is all PERSPECTIVE  and THE WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.


----------



## J.A.T.T (Jan 28, 2007)

badmash said:


> I find identifying who is and not a sikh a laughable idea. Whoever says they are sikh, they are. As for Jats and casts, excerpt from Khuswant Singh's History of the Sikhs, Volume 1, page 15.
> 
> "The Jat's spirit of freeom and equality refused to submit to Brahmanical Hinduism and in its turn drew the censure of the privileged Brahmins of the Gangetic plains who prnounced that "no Aryan should stay in the Punjab for even two days" because the Punjabis refused to obey the priests. The upper caste Hindu's denigration of the Jat did not in the least lower the Jat in his own eyes nor elevate the Brahmin or the Kshatriya in the Jat's estimation. On the contrary, he assumed a somewhat condescending attitude towards the Brahmin, whom he considered little better than a soothsayer or a beggar, or the Kshatriya, who disdained earning an honest living and was proud of being a mercenary. The Jat was born the worker and the warrior. He tilled his land with his sword girded round his waist. He fourght more battles for the defeence of his homestead than the Kshatriya, for unlike the martial Kshatriya the Jat seldom feld from his village when the invaders came. And if the Jat was maltreated or if his women were molested by the conqueror on his way to Hindustan, he settled his score by looting the invaders' caravans on their return journey and freeing the women he was taking back. The Punjabi Jat developed an attitude of indifference to worldly possessions and an instinct for gambling with his life against the odds. At the same time he became conscious of his role in the defence of Hindustan. His band of patriotism was at once hostile towards the foreginer and benign, even contemptuous, towards his own countrymen whose fate depended so much on his courage and fortitude." :wink:



NICE!  Thanks for posting this quote.


----------



## muneet (Jan 28, 2007)

Sikhi has evolved over the ten Gurus. Final uniform and rehat was given after the display by us all, of cowardice in Chandni Chowk during the assassination of Guru Teg Bahadur. Final touches - from chidis to Baaj transformation occured in 1699 when sikhs were exhorted to take amrit- only five out of thousands were guru ka sikh then- what you all talk now!!
We all must take a holistic view- beyond a stage everyone is at a different level of his /her religion. Yes the Panth is one but each panthi is not at same level of intellect/ spirituality.
Religion is but a primer to help us all on the path to finding the Mysterious One. Like the Saturn rocket discards its boosters and gantry once it has sufficient power and momentum towards its goal- after a certain stage of looking inwards what is the need to judge and evaluate others ?


----------



## Veeru (Jan 28, 2007)

Bijla Singh said:


> By the same argument someone calling himself a Sikh doesn't make him one.


 
Absolutely right... Just look at yourself... You call yourself Sikh but are not...


----------



## Bijla Singh (Jan 28, 2007)

This discussion has taken place before but in case you have forgotten one who follows hukam of Guru Sahib is a Sikh. By merely calling myself a Sikh and not following rehat (amrit vela, nitnem etc) I will not be one and neither will anyone else. Rehat defines a Sikh not your manmat.


----------



## Veeru (Jan 28, 2007)

Bijla Singh said:


> This discussion has taken place before but in case you have forgotten one who follows hukam of Guru Sahib is a Sikh. By merely calling myself a Sikh and not following rehat (amrit vela, nitnem etc) I will not be one and neither will anyone else. Rehat defines a Sikh not your manmat.


 
A Sikh is the one who seeks the ultimate Truth. It has been discussed before that so-called Rehat Maryada is man-made and is not word of God, unlike Guru Granth Sahib. Therefore, you will never be able to realize Truth following the man-made Rehat Maryada, thus you fail to be a Sikh.


----------



## Bijla Singh (Jan 29, 2007)

Provide reference from Gurbani to back up your definition. I have already provided quotes from Gurbani to prove my point. Rehat had existed long before 1925 which can be found in Vaars and Bhai Nand Singh Ji's work which are approved by Guru Sahib. There are other sources but I rather not go into that. "Guru Bin Mukat Na Hoyee".


----------



## sahilmakkar1983 (Jan 29, 2007)

Yes very true , Guru Bina Mukat Na hoyee


Bijla Singh said:


> Provide reference from Gurbani to back up your definition. I have already provided quotes from Gurbani to prove my point. Rehat had existed long before 1925 which can be found in Vaars and Bhai Nand Singh Ji's work which are approved by Guru Sahib. There are other sources but I rather not go into that. "Guru Bin Mukat Na Hoyee".


----------



## Veeru (Jan 30, 2007)

Bijla Singh said:


> Provide reference from Gurbani to back up your definition. I have already provided quotes from Gurbani to prove my point. Rehat had existed long before 1925 which can be found in Vaars and Bhai Nand Singh Ji's work which are approved by Guru Sahib. There are other sources but I rather not go into that. "Guru Bin Mukat Na Hoyee".


 
This has to be goal of every religion, to seek the ultimate truth. Don't you seek the ultimate truth? The bottom line is that none of the so-called Rehat Maryadas were written by any of the gurus. Therefore following man-made Rehat Maryadas, you can not say that you are following guru or with guru. 



Bijla Singh said:


> "Guru Bin Mukat Na Hoyee".


 
Except when God helps someone Himself as he did to Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Did Guru Nanak Dev Ji have any guru?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 1, 2007)

your comparison of a sikh and president of USA is utterly laughable...i really found it hard to control myself ...apologies for being rude ...hahaha


----------

