# The Janeus We Wear



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 8, 2009)

Are some of us back to wearing _janeus_ (the Hindu sacred thread) that the child Guru Nanak had refused to don even at the tender age of seven?

By the look of the rituals performed everyday at Harmandar Sahib, for example, it seems that we are. In order to express my viewpoint, I would like to first share what I see Sikhi to be.

First and foremost, Sikhi is the only religion amongst the six world faiths that is not personality-based, but idea-based. Islam (Mohammed), Christianity (Jesus), Judaism ("Messiah in coming"), and Hinduism (Ram Chander ji, Krishan ji, and many other deities), all had their respective embodiments personified as having and proclaiming a direct link to the Almighty. The sixth, Buddhism, intrinsically revolves around Gautama Buddha.

  If Sikhi was to be one more religion based on personalities, then Guru Granth Sahib would have only had the compositions of the Sikh Gurus, instead of the current formulation: the teachings of six Gurus and thirty-one saints from other religions, including Hinduism and Islam. And, our Gurus would have been worshipping each other, rather than _Ik Ong Kaar_. 

 If Sikhi was based on personalities, then Harmandar Sahib  -  the most sacred shrine in Sikhi - would not have had four doors to welcome all mankind, nor would a Muslim have been asked to lay its foundation stone. If it was based on personalities, we would not have the _sangat_ and _pangat_ concept of breaking bread with everyone and anyone from any hue, creed or background, in  _Guru ka Langar_.

While growing up in Ferozepore, Punjab, my family and I used to visit Harmandar Sahib often, as it is only sixty miles away. During one of these journeys, I remember my mother, who we lovingly called Ammi ji, explaining to me the beautiful ritual of carrying Guru Granth Sahib from the Akal Takht to Harmandar Sahib in a huge and ornate _palki_ of gold. I was about ten then. She said that it is common knowledge that when people carry the palki for _prakash_ in the early hours of _amrit vela_, it is very heavy ... as if the Gurus were actually sitting in it; but when they bring it back empty, it is disproportionately lighter.

About ten years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Harmandar Sahib and participate in the same ritual by taking turns in offering my shoulder to carry the _Palki Sahib_ to and from the sanctum sanctorum every morning for a full week. 

The first bewildering realization was that no women were allowed to participate in this ritual; sadly, it remains true, even today.

The event reminded me of Ammi ji's story from thirty years earlier. All of a sudden, I became very alert and was ready to observe the sudden loss of weight of the Palki Sahib, while carrying it back to the Akal Takht. I did not feel any difference in weight while carrying it empty. I did this for one week and felt the same. However, everyone I talked to who participated in the procession never ceased talking about feeling the sudden loss of weight, describing it with great reverence.
I never understood why we Sikhs feel the need to take on this psychosomatic belief in order to believe in the existence of Ik Ong Kaar in a "physical" form.

I would like to expand this further through Gurbani.

_Ik Ong Kaar_ is neither a deity nor a "physical" embodiment, but Creative Energy, as explained beautifully by Guru Nanak in the _Mool Mantar_ that we recite several times a day. So, now the question arises, how shall a Sikh tap into that Creative Energy?

We read every day in the _Jap-ji_:

_Gaviaey suniaey munn rukhiaey bhao, dukh purhar sukh ghar lae jaey_("By singing, listening, contemplating and putting _gurmat_ in practice, we can find true happiness".)

We perform the first part very well when we know the words of the s_habad_ and start singing along with _raagis_. Unfortunately, we stop at the first one. We do not even contemplate what "_suniaey_" and "_munn rakhiaey bhao_" would bring us. 

This is where, our Gurus have indicated, dwells the nectar of Sikhi. The singing, in itself and without anything more, becomes a mere ritual, the same as cleaning off the non-existent dust from the inner sheets of the Guru Granth, washing the palki with milk and, last but not least, touching the _chaur_ to our foreheads every time we pretend to whisk a fly or two ... and the many other acts we perform daily so mechanically.

It is also worth noticing that at Harmandar Sahib, the most sacred shrine of the Sikh _panth_, not even a single female Sikh chants the _savaeaey_ that are recited every day when Guru Granth Sahib's _prakash_ takes place. I have not seen an all-female _raagi jatha_ performing there either. I hope there are some. The ironic part is, that this beautiful hymn from _Asa di Vaar_ is recited every morning:

_So kion manda akhieay jin jamaey rajaan_

("How can we denigrate the very one who gives birth to kings?") 
And, no female Sikh is found anywhere among the _sevadaars_ or the _granthis_.

The whole essence of Sikhi is that it is based on ideas. We, in our everyday lives, play with ideas. The good ones we embrace and put into practice to make our lives better, the bad ones we discard. Guru Granth Sahib is our sacred book of Gurmat ideas that need to be put in practice through _rehat_.

Gurmat challenges our thought processes so that we can discard the rituals that contradict it, and embrace those that complement it.

So, in order for us to separate the "_janeu_" rituals from the meaningful ones, we have to try to understand and work with the tools bestowed upon us by our Gurus via _Gurbani_. Only by living up to these ideals can we tap into the heart and soul of Sikhi.


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 9, 2009)

Tejwant ji,

Excellent thoughts. Beautifully expressed!


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 9, 2009)

Here s a similar view..this time from a Muslim living in Malaysia a Muslim country by majority population...and they too seem to be saying the same things...





*Art Harun* describes himself as a non-governmental organism, intent on infecting the conscience.     		


*  		Kahlil Gibran’s ‘Give Me The Nay’	*

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/art-harun/39889-kahlil-gibrans-give-me-the-nay

     OCT 9 — I have always observed that to most of us, being religious is more important than embracing the spiritual aspect of our faith. Being religious, after all, entails ritualistic observance of whatever is decreed by our faith.
 And so, the Muslims fast and we pray and we pay zakat. And the Christians would go to the church on Sundays and wear a necklace with a cross pendant. The Hindus would swim in the Ganges River and break coconuts in the morning before going to work. And so on and so forth.
    What our faith brings us is the least of our concern. What our ritualistic observance turns us into does not matter. As long as we perform the rituals religiously; we are, after all, religious. And God asks us to be religious.
 Or does He?
 I have always related this story to my friends. And I am going to tell it here. And let me preface it with a statement. I am not telling this story to insult or to belittle Christianity or Christians.
 I used to live near one of the most active churches — if not THE most active and wealthy — in Kuala Lumpur. I have no qualms with that. That church was very active. It organised speeches and sermons almost every other night. The church-goers were known to donate up to 15 per cent of their monthly income to that church. And every time they did that, the place would be full of cars, parked everywhere.
 Many drivers of the cars would try and make a three-point turn in front of my house. That was okay by me. But out of 10, one or two would invariably knock on my gate. Of course it was unintentional. My gate lock would be bent. I had to repair that lock many times. And then the next week it would happen again.
 In all the six years I was there, this happened many, many times. However, there wasn't a single person who had stopped to ring my bell to say sorry. Nor anyone who left a note to say so. It was a small matter to me. And it was not a big deal to me.
 But the thing that bothered me was this. It would appear that all the nightly sermons and speeches and all the monthly donations had done nothing to improve common courtesy among all those who had knocked my gate. And sometimes I pondered have we all ever thought what all this religiosity had done to us? Has it made us any better?
 And now, at the current moment in this country, we have people who shout and scream about jihad this and jihad that. About caning a woman. About shutting up people who dare to question. About throwing the Sedition Act against some parties who are just raising awareness. What has happened to all of us? To our faith? Is our faith just about ritualistic observance of some rules and regulations?
 Sometime I think we are living in a very unforgiving society. Do we blame teenage girls who abandon their babies in a drain at the back of a school? Or even kill their babies? In a moment of lust, they could have succumbed to human temptation and they are pregnant.
 What do they do? Tell their pious father and mother about it? What would happen? They would be chased away from home? Or caned? Or even kicked and ridiculed by the whole neighbourhood? Nowhere they could go without being talked about or whispered about. Oh she is so immoral! Look at her. That young immoral {censored}! And what will happen to the baby when he or she is born? ******* child! Anak haram. That's what he or she is. He or she can't even have his or her father's name on his or her birth certificate. That is how unforgiving all of us are. How cruel we are. How nasty we are.
 And what choice is left for the teenage girl other than to hide the pregnancy and suffer alone. And what could she do to avoid the ignominy of being stamped "immoral and unwanted"? Are we surprised then to see so many babies are abandoned or even killed? Does our faith implore us to be such creatures?
 How often do we pray for forgiveness when in fact we are unable to forgive? Why do we seek compassion when we ourselves are unable to be compassionate? Have we ever, ever prayed for love? Why would we seek mercy when we are, as human beings, merciless?
 Take the Palestinian issue. When the Israelis were bombing Palestine some time ago, there were text messages and e mails going around asking Muslims to pray for the destruction of Israel. And for the Jews be killed. We shed tears when we see a Palestinian mother wailing away holding her dead toddler covered with blood on the face in front of a crumbled house. And then we pray for all Jews to be killed. How about the innocent ones? How about their children? Do we laugh and smirk in satisfaction if we look at a picture of a Jewish mother wailing while holding her dead toddler? Is that okay just because that child is Jewish? Where do we go from here?
 Has our faith taught us to be heartless, cruel, cold and vicious? The God that we worship and pray is to is the Most Compassionate and Merciful. And yet we, His followers are the exact opposite.
 What has happened to justice and fairness? Why is it wrong has become right and right has become wrong? Has our faith taught us to forgive some and punish others? Or has our God blinded us because He is tired of our antics?
 Perhaps, when Kahlil Gibran wrote "Give Me The Nay", he was referring to us in Malaysia now. Perhaps he had a vision of what was going to happen here now. And he wrote:
_"With man, religion is a field_
_Tilled only by those who sow it with selfish_
_prayers —_
_whether preachers hoping for eternal happiness_
_or ignorant men who fear the flames of hell._
_Without the penalty of Judgement_
_Man would not have worshipped any Lord_
_And without the promise of reward he would_
_have blasphemed,_
_as though religion were a business matter_
_devotion to its cause will bring him gain;_
_neglect, loss._
_In the forest there is no religion,_
_no hideous blasphemies;_
_for when the nightingale sings_
_he is not saying: ‘This is just.’_
_The religion of man appears_
_like a shadow, then disappears._
_After God and the Messiah_
_there is no religion on earth._
_Give me the nay and sing,_
_for song is the pearl of prayers;_
_the laments of the nay will reach_
_far beyond the fading of Life._
_If they heard talk of it, justice on earth would_
_make the jinn weep;_
_and if they could see it, the dead would laugh._
_For those who commit a misdemeanour are_
_reserved prison and death;_
_and those who commit great crimes earn_
_prosperity and fame._
_The man who steals the flower is censured and_
_scorned,_
_while he who robs the fields is a daring and_
_fearsome hero._
_He who murders the body is condemned to_
_death,_
_while he who murders the soul remains_
_unknown to all._
_In the forest there is no justice,_
_nor even punishment._
_When the willow’s shade lengthens over the ground,_
_the cypress does not say: ‘What sacrilege!’_
_The justice of man is like snow —_
_once the sun sees it, it melts._
_Give me the nay and sing,_
_For song is the justice of hear

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/art-harun/39889-kahlil-gibrans-give-me-the-nay
_


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 9, 2009)

Gyani ji,


Guru fateh.

Thanks for posting this great article.

It depicts in an honest manner the beautiful and naked truth about the mechanical rituals we stick to hoping for some kind of miracles to occur, no matter which religion we belong to.

As we talked about about pilgrimages people go to in another thread, I was reading somewhere that some obese Sikhs died while climbing to Hemkunt Sahib. People higher other people to carry them up there which shows the true pilgrimage is only for those who carry other people up the mountains. 

And then when we get home, we tell our friends that is the nth time we have gone on this pilgrimage, not what we have learnt in these innumerous journeys of ours. How has it changed us? How this change has affected others we come in contact with?

This can not become the part of the equation because then it will build some thought process which puts in the danger of shattering these rituals which have been built for years with love, care, money and a whole lot of Me-ism.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 11, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Gyani ji,
> 
> 
> Guru fateh.
> ...


 

Religion can exist with out rituals. The real question is why do we support the religion that is based on rituals? Because we are week. We believe if we don’t do the rituals the god will be angry with us. So to save our self we have to do the stupid rituals. Persone who believe in religion can not analyze the rituals. He/she think if he speak up against he/she will be out casted.
As for the Sikhi of Nanak there is   NO RITUAL at all. Nanak never said to do any rituals.  In fact he condemns all the rituals and we do then in his name. How stupid he died in vain. Every thing we do in gurudaras are rituals Nanak condemned. All the gurudawaras are to make money nothing else.
I have seen at the sees ganj gurudwara the sevadar will not let the beggars in to the langar. Is it not the langar is for the needy? Who would be needier then the beggar?

As far for the  hemkund, this is totally wrong place to go. It has no ties to any guru at all. It is stupid to go there. I am surprised that the writer has called it hemkund sahib. It is myth that that guru Gobind did the meditation there in his last birth. If we believe it ( which have no proof of the last or future birth). Guru was yogi of hindu religion. Many Sikhs are adamant that Sikhs are not Hindus. Then why so called Sikhs go the the Hindu yogi’s meditation and death place? There are thousand and one rituals Sikhs are doing and will keep on doing till the end of time.
In Canada and USA and maybe in other counties we are forced to sit on floor to eat langar. We are told that it was started by the guru that every one should sit on same place. There she be no more higher then the other. If we all sit ( as it use to be) on chairs are we not on equal level? In India people could sit on floor very easly but in the west people have problem sitting on floor and eat. I seen people take the langar to home after the sermon is over. At their home those Sikh sit on chairs to eat the same langar, why is that?

Why we are not at peace? Because of the teaching of the bhai ji mualn brhaman. That teaches us to hate not to love the fellow human. To be spiritual do we need religion that teach us hate?

First we kill the teacher then when he is dead we will worship him. That’s what we are worshiper of dead.

seeker


----------



## Vikram singh (Oct 12, 2009)

*Tejwant Singh ji,

great article.
Thanks*


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 26, 2009)

Did Nanak really not wear janeo as a child? Big question? I know almost all Sikhs believe that he did not wear it. Logically it doesn’t make sense. I know there is no place of logic in religion. I always believed that Sikhism was logical. At least Nanak always used logic.
As a child he may have asked the question of the impotence of the janeo. But no child of that time can refuse the parent. What ever parent want to do that was right. Child can not question and can not argue with parent. He wore the janeo but he has taken it off when he grew up. His marriage was arranged by his parent. That shows he was obedient child.
He would not have done any thing to the contrary. There is nothing about the other gurus. Did they take it off? Next gurus were Hindus and they must have worn janeo. How come there are no comments about any of them removing janeo? 

seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 26, 2009)

Seekr 3 ji..
Guru Angad ji was a HINDU ?? As Bhai lehnna ji he used to go to Naina Devi pilgriamge every year without Fail..after becoming a SIKH of GURU NANAK..He STOPPED and NEVER went again. By what logic do you say he is HINDU ??
Same for Bahi Amardass Ji..he used to go to Hardwar and other Teeraths..but stopped once he became a SIKH.
There is no proof that even Bhgats like Kabir ji, namdev Ji, etc ever wore any Janeaus..if they did they threw them away soon after realising futility. NO SIKH ever wore any janeaus..ever..:happysingh:


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 26, 2009)

Every one that time were Hindus. You can not understand the logic.
Let's leave at that


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 26, 2009)

seeker3k said:


> Every one that time were Hindus. You can not understand the logic.
> Let's leave at that



OH i see. Ok.
 In that I am a Hindu too.


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 26, 2009)

Here is a fundamental problem with this idea that Sikhs are Hindus. The label does not work and the analogy only barely works if the Sikh in question is of Indian ancestry, and then it is a stretched, convoluted, worn-out theory, full of political innuendo. I am a Sikh -- but no Indian blood in my veins nor collected Hindu thoughts in my heritage. Even the Indian government would not know what to do with me, because I live here and not there, and am not covered by the Indian constitution.  :}{}{}: I don't fit into any box but a Sikh box.   So now what? 

Do you have to be/have been a Hindu to be a Sikh?:shifty:

What was the point Guru Nanak was trying to make? :whisling::whisling::whisling:


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 27, 2009)

Yes Narayanjot ji,

Sikhs not belonging to Indian origin chose to be Sikhs because of the ideas propounded by Sikhism such egalitarianism, non discrimination based on gender or race and upliftment of the deprived and these are in perfect sync with the later day liberal Western thought. 

This has nothing to do with the complex Hindu thoughts which to the Western educated mind sometimes appear bizarre and contradictory. It is precisely because of this that some Hindu thinkers like Radhakrishnan coined the phrase that Hinduism is a "way of life". Organisations like RSS quickly picked it up and equated being Indian to being Hindu. There is no clarity among themselves as to what exactly constitutes Hindu or Indian culture. So we see sporadic attacks on Christians, and Muslims. They are absolutely sure that Sikhs are Hindus and some of them need only gentle pursuasion or coersion to fall into line. Covert and overt attempts are made to infilterate into the functioning of Sikh institutions and manipulte the basic and simple philosophy of the Gurus.

Guru Nanak ji and other Gurus being of Indian origin, naturally did first try to address the shortcommings of the society in their immediate environment. Hence the  several referaces to Hindu mythology and culture. These are then taken out of context to show that the Sikh Gurus were practioners of Hinduism.

*In the Indian context*, (_in my opinion_) I will  again say that Hinduism and Sikhism are different _BUT _their relationship can be defined as that of a finger nail embedded in in the flesh and skin of the finger. Try to seperate them and there will be agony  but the nail will regrow in the same environment.


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 27, 2009)

It is not the question of you is Hindu or I am Hindu. It is we using logic or not.
We Sikhs are making with deal about that Nanak refused to wear it. As I said Nanak may have question it. But he has to wear it. Parent would not hallowed him  not to wear it
Can you remember any thing about you when you were child that parent let you do what you wanted when it contradicts with their faith. How many boys don’t want to keep their hairs and want it cut? But parent will not let them cut your hair.

Kabir said it in his poems about the janeo very forcefully. He said to Hindus the so called sacred “janeo” you are talking about it is made in our (delit’s) home. He said the same thing to Muslims if Allah wanted me to have sunnet then I should have been born with it. Kabir said these things long before Nanak. Nanak read Kabir’s poems and was very impressed by his views.  This is the story attached with Nanak to glorify him nothing more. There many stories attached with Nanak. They are not true but we believe it because they all glorify our Guru. We can not question them. All the stories like snake, panja. Milk from roti and making reetha sweet. There are many myths associated with Hindu avtars so people made up stories and attached with Nanak. Because Nanak is our Guru(avtar) he can not be any less then Hindu avtar. We have to look at what Nanak preached not the so called miracle.There is rituals that Nanak approved. Show men any that Nanak told us to do? 
What did Amardas did at Gobindwal? He built the gurdwara with 84 steps going down to water. You can see what became of that. People reading path on each step then go down take a dip in water then comes up and do the path on the 2nd stap and so  and on. This way one’s 84 lives will be eliminated. Is this not the same thing Hindus doing going to Ganga to eliminate their sins.
What is gatra we wear? Hindus use to have sword long ago. They were forced to remove the sword. It came down to janeo as a symbol.  I have asked here and many other Sikhs whay we have 6” dagger? It was 3’ sword what Gobind Singh gave. No one is able to give me the answer. Now I will tell you why it became 6”
It was the British when they wanted to ban the sword and it was not practical in the army.
Instead totally banning the sword they propose the 6” as a symbol. British are gone but we still keep the 6” and we call it sword. Now no one have the guts to change it back to the 3” long sword. But we are glorifying that Nanak Janeo is as important to Hindu as the gatra is for us. They both are symbol and have nothing to do with the religion. Same thing when Gobind Singh said on Sikh can fught with 125,000 it is not mean latterly. No one can fight with 125,000 but person can have the courage to fight till he die. Sikh will not be afraid of death. But people are people many will be afraid of death Sikhs or Hindus alike. And people will be tartars Hindus or Sikhs. We all have seen it. Not only Sikhs are brave and Hindus are cowards or weak.
It is not my intension to put down the gurus I am only trying to show people to use logic.

seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 27, 2009)

Although I cna see the logic...are you aware that theere was a KIRPAN MORCHA by the same Akali Sikhs who had Morchas to win their Gurdwaras ? This KIRPAN MORCHA was against the LIMIT imposed by the British on the KIRPAN. This MORCHA like the ones against mahant Control of Gurdawras was WON. There was even an Award called KIRPAN BAHADUR in this honour. TODAY there is NO LAW that LIMITS the KIRPAN..and ALL SIKHS May carry a THREE FOOT KIRPAN.
Only places where "security" issues arise..airports etc and in Indian Parliament..Kirpans are not allowed...and Simranjit Singh mann refused to enter Parliament in Delhi wehn his Kirpan was not allowed in.. In the WEST..democracies are allowing Sikh Children even to have the Kirpan in schools and public places...its the sikhs themsleves who dont carry it...and many want it REDUCED to a JANEAU type of symbol simply becasue THEY PERSONALLY have COLD FEET. I have a Friend in Tapoban in Canada who carries a 3 ft Kirpan/an arrow 3 ft long, a spear and chakars on his dastaar and huge 2 kg Karras serrated  edges on his wrists...no one bothers him...and he is Lawful citizen..not  a goonda.


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 28, 2009)

seeker3k ji,

I do not understand why you do not believe that Guru ji refused to put the janeo. He must have been old enough by then say about 12 or 13. And he was  a child with extraordinary intelligence far above what we consider as genius.

I will tell about an incidence personally known to me. I have a friend of much above average intelligence and conviction. His father was a well  known public figure and a Union Minister. His parents took him to Rishikesh for the janeo ceremony when he was 13. There he revolted and said that he will not put on a useless thread. His parents took to a well known and wise sage of Rishikesh whose name was Swami Sivananda. Swamiji who was sitting in a congregation asked him if he was unwilling for janeo. He just nodded. He then asked him to tell the congregation why he was refusing to wear the janeo. My friend was just tongue tied and he could not utter a word. Swami ji just patted his back and told him not to worry, he would not force him to wear it!

So I do not think it was impossible for Guru ji to have refused it.


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 28, 2009)

Harbans Ji,

I have no problem what you believe. It is the truth for you and no one can prove you wrong. I don’t know how old you are now. Your friends must be your age I think. This happened when he was 13 and must been 13 or so then. They was you told the story it showed that you were not there when it happened. You only believe what he told you. What really has happened no one knows?
No one knows what age was Nanak when this happened. Most believe he was 7. There is not of difference in 7 and 13. If you do not want to use logic that is your choice. I beleve that Nanak was intelligent person. All his writing tell us that he used logic and common sense. But we are not using common sense any more. We just blindly believe what what uneducated bhai ji tell us. And there is no proof who wrote this story. There is autobiography or any one from his time who wrote Nanak’s life story. The so called sakhis are written in 1900’s not at the time of Nanak. So how much truth is in these stories. All the religions flourish because people do not use logic. That is the reason new religion comes in. And all of the founders claim they are the real guru. Radhasuami Narankari and so on.

I am not here to change you or any one. I am just sharing what I know. It may not be the truth.
You forgot to tell me what rituals Nanak told us to do?

seeker


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 28, 2009)

Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji,

You are much more intelligent then me You know more about the Sikhim The I do. I am just an student always learning. I did not way it is against the law to have 3’ kirpan. O know Sikhs can have 3’ kirpan and khanda. What happened in the case of  Simranjit Singh’s care. Did he take the sword in to the parliament? I know that person in Canada. I live in Canada.
My question to you was and is who started to give 6” at the amritpan to the Sikhs? Why the Sikhs accepted it and why all the Sikhs are happy with 6” dagger? Is that what Gobind Sing wanted? Are we not abandoning his Hukam? I think I read it some where that. Sikh pyara nahi, rehat pyari mujh ko. 
If it was ok for some one to change the 3’ to 6” then why not some other changes? Far as I can understand guru also gave the bara of blue dress which the Nahang’s are wearing. Why not all the Sikhs who take amrit wear that dress. Because it don’t look good and not practical in daily living. 
So the change has happened and there should be more changes as time evolve.
 6” gagger is symbol the symbol can be of any martial. It don’t have to be steel can be plastic wood. 

I don’t understand you and all other Sikhs reject janeo because it is just a symbol have no use in the daily living. Then why not treat the 6” dagger the same? 

I know it very well that no is going to change to what I am saying.
Every one knows the story of the rope and snake. No one want to know the truth.

seeker


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 28, 2009)

Seeker3k,

Guru Fateh.

I know this question has nothing to do with the topic being discussed but can you please share with us your religious background and what religion do  you follow now so I can understand where you are coming from?

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 28, 2009)

Seeker Ji..are you referring to the same person..
My friend is Gyani Jasbir Singh Khalsa and he is Granthi Sahib of Tapoban Gurdwara Brampton. He is from MALAYSIA...and a long time friend and colleague....and when he visited me recently he also carried the same shastars and karras etc and he wore the Blue Banna Nihung Style. IN Malaysia you very seldom see any Amrtidharee Sikh wearing the Kirpan - even the 6" ones...only the Granthis and a few sikhs wear them (INSIDE) thier shirts.:happysingh:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 28, 2009)

seeker Ji,
Have you read Guur nanak Jis Bani about the Janeau. Do you seriously think an ordinary child scared of his father could write such Gurbani ?? I put it thta Guru nanak ji is no Ordinary Child at all...so we cannot compare HIM to ourselves...


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 29, 2009)

Gyani  Ji,         

I never said Nanak was ordinary man. He was very observant person. He traveled lot. In the travel he met lot of people and he discussed with many people. From the child hood his thinking was leaned to ward spirituality. People who are into spirituality are not ordinary people. Nanak was also logical person. He reasoned every thing what he saw and heard. He was not interested in business. He was also not interested in work. He was good writer. But he was not God as many people claim. This is not insult to Nanak. He never claimed that he was Guru. So why we are making him Guru? I have the highest respect for Nanak in the world. There was no other that used common sense and logic. I am trying to live my life according to Nanak’s teaching. Things I say are hurting them so they get anger with me. That’s what happened to Nanak. He told the truth and people stoned him and called me kurahia, lost person. But he never wavers from his ideals. If we stop making him God and just follow his teaching we will be happy and can have peace. 
Peace is from inside not from out side. No matter what we do or what we wear or what religion we adopt we will not have peace. Only live according to his teaching.
I am sorry if I offended some one.

seeker


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 29, 2009)

Tejwant Singh Ji,

There is some information about me in my introduction. You can look in it. If you need more I can give you more info about my self. That information is just little bit. I did not feel to write all then. Let me know
My email is truth3k@gmail.com

seeker


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 29, 2009)

Seeker3k ji,

You are right when you say that  at the age of 13, I could not have revolted against my parents. But the person I am talking about, I know him for the last 4 decades and I have no reason not to believe that he could not have done what he told me he did.

For a person of Guru Nanak ji caliber, I have not heard of anyone from any faith (leave alone Sikhs) doubting that he could not have refused to wear the janeu. I do not understand why you insist  that it would have been impossible for a person like Guru Nanak to have refused such a simple thing.

Regarding prescription of rituals by Guru Nanak, of co{censored} he did not prescribe any. He didn't need to . He was only advocating a simple philosophy of life. At his time Sikhism was not institutionalized. Now, let alone religion, any system that is institutionalised needs to have a prescribed system for it to operate. These systems are subject to ammendments as per requirement for it to continue to be operational.

So for Sikhism also to continue meaningfully, its systems have to under continuous critical examination to prevent it from being fossilized. _But system it must have. _Privately you can follow Guru Nanak's philosophy without being called a Sikh. But if wish to be a part of a organised religious group called as Sikhs then you have be a part of a system which has Gurudwaras, has a congregation known as Sangat with certain relevant and current rules and regulations.

These rules and systems are under continues critical examination. For example at present the Sikh Rehat Maryada is under critical examination regarding its relevance in the presnt form under changed situation. It is likely to undergo a change in future. But a Rehat Maryada has to be in place if Sikh religion is to continue as an organised instituition.


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 29, 2009)

Dear Harbansj24

To help your ego I agree with your Nanak protested and refused to wear janeo.

seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 29, 2009)

seeker3k said:


> Dear Harbansj24
> 
> To help your ego I agree with your Nanak protested and refused to wear janeo.
> 
> seeker



seeker ji,

such condescending language doesnt help communication...or promote learning...we ALL have "EGO"..and no one can help or hinder except OURSELVES with GURPARSAAD..gurus kirpa only...
No offense em ant or implied...just my 2 cents worth...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Oct 29, 2009)

seeker3k said:


> Tejwant Singh Ji,
> 
> There is some information about me in my introduction. You can look in it. If you need more I can give you more info about my self. That information is just little bit. I did not feel to write all then. Let me know
> My email is truth3k@gmail.com
> ...



Seeker3k ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response but it does not tell me anything. I did go to your profile and found the following:

BiographyBorn in sikhism.*But I am seeking the truth.*Can you please elaborate what you mean by  your statement about your biography? 

Do you mean that Sikhi does not let one seek the truth? Why not and what suggestions would you have for a person to seek the truth and share its modus operandi with us, if you do not mind?


Then you said something to your post to  Gyani ji  which aroused my curiousity. I do apologise for piggy back riding on it but as you know very well the meaning of the word Sikh is a student, a learner, a seeker and I need your help in understanding what you  stated in your the following remarks:



> But he was not God as many people claim. This is not insult to Nanak.


Who claims Guru Nanak to be God? Please share with us. Has anyone in this thread did that?



> He never claimed that he was Guru. So why we are making him Guru?


What does the word Guru mean for you?

I agree. None of our Gurus claimed themselves to be Gurus. In fact they did not even give themselves any names nor any titles in the SGGS, our ONLY GURU. They gave themselves just numbers and that is not only their greatness but their wonderful vision which they shared with us in SGGS. 

And that vision is to get rid of Me-ism. That is the reason in my opinion they did not care about names, titles, their autobiographies which they would have easily written if they desired so.




> I have the highest respect for Nanak in the world. There was no other that used common sense and logic. I am trying to live my life according to Nanak’s teaching.


I am glad that you are following the path of Guru Nanak. We are all told to emulate our Gurus rather than putting them on some pedestal and hence creating a distance. Our Gurus were our mates. They spoke to the world on our behalf.



> Things I say are hurting them so they get anger with me.That’s what happened to Nanak. He told the truth and people stoned him and called me kurahia, lost person. But he never wavers from his ideals. If we stop making him God and just follow his teaching we will be happy and can have peace.


Pardon my ignorance but I am a bit confused with your above claim. Who is hurting and who is angry at you and why? Has someone stoned you too? Who called you kurahia, lost person and for what reasons?

This forum is the perfect venue for all of us who want to share our things what we have/ cultivated within.

So, please share with us.

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 29, 2009)

harbhansj ji

You seem to be saying that we need to act consciously and with evaluation within the framework (i.e., SRM) in order to preserve the idea of rational action. And we can change the framework, but also in a rational way (conscious thought with evaluation). But to just toss out the framework leaves every man and woman to himself/herself and then belief cannot be shared and a path is not longer a path but a washed out road full of chaos.


----------



## harbansj24 (Oct 30, 2009)

Narayanjot ji,

You have put it concisely and precisely.


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 30, 2009)

Dear Harbans Ji

As I said that I was born in Sikhism. I left India 50 years ago. I do not have a religion. I am spiritual person.
What more information you need? And how cans my past will help you? It is not the part I dwell I live in the present. I have no information about you or any others who write here. And I will not look at the information of the people who write. This site is to share ideas not information about one self. People get clouded by the person’s past.

Yes I was kicked out of Ashrams Gurdwaras Manders for asking the questions. No one hit me. Only place I was not kicked out was church. Once I talked with them for hours. No one got angry. You can see in the writing I use then name Nanak Sikhs get angery. They want me to say Guru Nanak Dev ji. Not just Nanak. If you read your writing you also write Guru Nanak ji. A many people reading are upset that I use only Nanak. And I write granth which it not acceptable to Sikhs. If we can not see that it is book of good writing and it is not a living person then how can you move forward? I am not here to make people change. The change comes from with in. All the religion says that kingdom of God is in you. Jot saroop. How do we go in and find out. Is there can opner that we can use it to go inside to find that Jot?
Guru and chela is both way street not just one way. Both have to accept each other. Here we are accepting granth our guru, guru not accepting us as chela. How is guru kirpa come to play part in this case? Only the living person can do kirpa not a book or stone.

All the writing of Nanak and others in the granth emphasizes on guru. With out guru can not be saved and get the enlighten. If that is true then who was Nanak’s guru? Nanak praised guru every writing how can he praise guru if he did not had guru? 

There are writing posted in this forum that claim, Nanak as God and scientist. You can look it up.

What does this mean it is in granth, sil pther me jantu pai? If you brake stone there in no jeev in that stone. No one has found it yet.

I am not an educated person as you can tell in my writing.
seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 30, 2009)

Dear Seeker Ji...This Introduction reveals the REAL seekr...
and makes so many things clear...You were born a Sikh..and now prefer something else..the "Church" people are not that goody two shoes...they have actually BURNT entire Churches FULL of Blacks INSIDE !! So far i have not come across any Sikhs who set fire to a "Gurdwara full of...." So Its all a MATTER of PERSONAL Experience. I too was born a sikh..but from Day one as early as age two i was sent to a Catholic Church Kindergarten/Nursery..which was nearby to the GURDWARA where my dad was Granthi and my Mum was Punjabi Teacher...I attedned the Catholic School till I was 20 Years old Higher School Ceritificate Class..and I was "taught" the Bible much more than the SGGS..BUT..I never felt at nay age that I was Out of Place with my Joorra..and then Puggh..and the Long hair which sometimes came unopened during play..never for a moment i "hated my hair or wanted to cut it"...I GREW up in a "CHURCH" environment..and came to KNOW HOW MUCH HATE they have....hatred of the Satan..that is in the Jehovahs wittnesses..in the Lutherans..in the Seventh day Adventists....the SATAN is EVERYWHERE...except in their "OWN DENOMINATION" !! You talked to the Church people a few hours..i talked to them  and lived with them for 20 years...and i Became a STAUNCHER SINGH. I attended services of ALL the Churches mentioned above..I went through the World Bible Course ( ANYTHING FREE I TOOK !! he he he) and Passed with Flying colours !! Yet I remained a SINGH !!

Just a minor point...
Sil pathar mein jant UPAI....
Just google up and watch a documentary about Earth's development...you will SEE how "STONES" grew out of the Boiling Lava Flows in the Oceans more than 2 billion years ago...These look like stones, behave like stones..but are LIVING CREATURES...

Churches have no words of "respect"...Jesus is merely Jesus..to those who RESPECT HIM, LOVE HIM..and for those who HATE HIM..DESPISE HIM..its the same "JESUS". We Sikhs however due tot he Indian Environment have the respect words like JI, Sahib etc added. IF one doesnt LIKE it..no body forces anyone to add JI...but those who Love and respect Nanak like to call Him Guru nanak ji..Sahib..Maharaj...all are essentially just words...I too refert o Jesus as Jesus JI when I talk about him to a Punjabi Christian..simply because i understand the langauge/environemnt..BUT strangely the Punjabi Christians too DISCARD the JI..simply because their Church people DONT USE IT...why would I get angry ?? I too then STOP saying JI to Jesus...


----------



## Sikh royalist (Oct 31, 2009)

i remember the day i was in a conversation with my friend who is a Hindu Brahman he was telling me that the man who wears a janeu(janjua in Punjabi) becomes indestructible and he will not die even if some one tried to kill him or even nature cannot kill him. i was thinking who can tell him that my Guru sacrificed his life to save their belief who? but i was not the one if the one who did the sacrifice never made them realize what he has done for them why should i being his follower at least.

i think the only janeu which a Sikh is expected to wear physically is a kripan which at last protects us at every time and in every situation and the janeu our soul must wear is the faith in our Guru so that we may never get away from the path of our Guru.


----------



## seeker3k (Oct 31, 2009)

Now we know about each other. All I see hate for the christian.
If that is the life you want to live, good for you.

seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 31, 2009)

seeker3k said:


> Now we know about each other. All I see hate for the christian.
> If that is the life you want to live, good for you.
> 
> seeker



Completely WRONG. You Dont know me at all.
IF i "hated" Christians...i wouldnt be celebrating Christmas even more than Vasakhi as i have more christian friends than sikh friends...in  a year i attend more christian weddings in churches than i attend anand karajs in Gurdwaras..

I am perfectly satisfied with the LIFE I live..I am SAFE in my Faith in the Religion is was BORN into..and can still ENJOY the religion i grew up with..and Live my life happily knowing I am SAFE with BOTH feet in One BOAT. I am NOT LOST.
Chardeekalla friend..go on SEEKING..and you "may" find...but i doubt it becasue what you seek is INSIDE YOU...but you look OUTSIDE..


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 1, 2009)

Tejwant Ji,

Do you mean that Sikhi does not let one seek the truth? Why not and what suggestions would you have for a person to seek the truth and share its modus operandi with us, if you do not mind?

All the religions will not let the person to question what they are doing. And why they are doing the rituals. They just want you to believe what they say. Try question when the bhai ji is preaching in gurdwara. Yet the same bhai ji criticize other religions. Person has to be in touch with himself. Go with in?

Who claims Guru Nanak to be God? Please share with us. Has anyone in this thread did that?
There is thread posted here. But I don’t know who posted it.You have to look it up
There is one sant called Blandpuri He live in Blandpur. I think in distt of Ludhiana. I maybe wrong  for the location. His CD’s are distributed in Canada. In one of the CD he claim that nirakar was born in Nanka’s body. Their centers are all over in Canada.

What does the word Guru mean for you?

Guru word was in use before Nanak was born. It is Sanskrit word. Person who shed the darkness is guru. It was never from a stone or book. Guru has to be living person. There are many many reference about guru in the granth. If we read and understand it then we can see what it mean. In one place it says if there are 100 moons and 1000 suns, it still be dark with out guru. If nanak meant the garnth to be guru don’t you think he should have completed it by him self and told us to worship it. Yet he did not do that, why? Even Arjandev called it pothy. Not guru. You can continue to believe that Gobibd Singh told us to believe granth as guru. There is no real evidence that he said it. Even he said it read the sloke and understand what it is saying.

  And that vision is to get rid of Me-ism. That is the reason in my opinion they did not care about names, titles, their autobiographies which they would have easily written if they desired so.

No one believes in second best. His religion is the number 1 others are false. If that is not me-ism then what is?

I am glad that you are following the path of Guru Nanak. We are all told to emulate our Gurus rather than putting them on some pedestal and hence creating a distance. Our Gurus were our mates. They spoke to the world on our behalf

So called your guru never spoke to the world on your behalf. No one knew them that time. Just few people that’s all. It is our ego to make them bigger then human. There is more writing of sants and fakirs then the guru. But we don’t ever hear too much about them. The granth looks like copy and paste book. And now we claim it is ours. Who are we to claim it is ours. Is that not ego? We celebrate few of the guru’s BD or Death. Never of any sants who contributed more then gurus. If you read the writing of some guru it looks like they copy it from others. Compare Nanak and Arjan’ bani with Kabir.

Things I say are hurting them so they get anger with me.That’s what happened to Nanak. He told the truth and people stoned him and called me kurahia, lost person. But he never wavers from his ideals. If we stop making him God and just follow his teaching we will be happy and can have peace. 
Pardon my ignorance but I am a bit confused with your above claim. Who is hurting and who is angry at you and why? Has someone stoned you too? Who called you kurahia, lost person and for what reasons?

Are you not angry with me? Do you like what I wrote? People don’t wish to know the truth. Truth always hurt.

If as Sikhs claim we have grand as guru then why are we celebrating gurus who have been dead for long time. Dead can not help. It is like we are worshiping the ghosts. We do it because we need to do some thing like Hindus are doing but in different name
I will be happy to give you more information.

seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 1, 2009)

seeker ji..are you trying to make me angry? Tejwants ji angry ?? if so you are not succeeding because you have got the wrong kind of sikh here. We are the ones who QUESTION...as our Guru taught us..Kicchh kaheayeh..kichh sunneah....Uttar deejeh Ros na keejeh...say..ask..give answers..dont get annoyed...is GURU NANAK.
TU Sultan kahoon hun meian teri kawan wadayee...if you call the MOON a piece of rock..it still remaisn the MOON..shining orb of light in the darkness...calling GURU NANAK..simply nanak arjan etc doesnt demean them in any way..doesnt take away their GREATNESS an iota...you mentioend sants like bulandpuriah..etc..those are the types who will get "angry"
the Most UNIVERSAL GRANTH that contains ONLY LOVE of the Creator by Varied persons looks like a "cut and paste" job to you...I ma sure you think GOD must have written the Ten Commandments on Stone Tablets..with Lightning..or that the Original Koran in GOLD is in Heaven under lock and key..or the Bible is one beautiful piece of work written by GOD himself at one sitting..well go on..enjoy those ORIGINAL WORKS..and leave the Cut and Paste badly done job well alone...its greatness doesnt go down one iota. No one can make a purse out of sow's ear..BUT then  again No sows ear should be used to make a purse....the GRANTH is PARAS  that makes other Parases...

TRUTH only HURTS those who are FALSE. The TRUTHFUL love TRUTH...Sach Sunaisee SACH ki BELA....Truthful Living is always higher than TRUTH...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 1, 2009)

Seeker3k ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the post.Please bear with me because your posts have aroused lots of interesting questions in my mind and I am sure I am going to learn a lot from your wisdom.

My post:
"Do you mean that Sikhi does not let one seek the truth? Why not and what suggestions would you have for a person to seek the truth and share its modus operandi with us, if you do not mind?"

Your response:



> All the religions will not let the person to question what they are doing. And why they are doing the rituals. They just want you to believe what they say. Try question when the bhai ji is preaching in gurdwara. Yet the same bhai ji criticize other religions. Person has to be in touch with himself. Go with in?


Can you please elaborate what you mean by the above? Pardon my ignorance but it is a bit confusing for me to grasp what you are trying to say.

First of all, for me Sikhi is not a religion but a pragmatic way of life and as you must know that Sikh only means one thing- a student, a seeker, a learner.

I have no idea which Bhai ji you are talking about. I have questioned all kinds of Bhai jis, Kirtan walas, Kathavachaks and have interacted with them for a very long time and have happened to learn a lot from this experience. 

Sikhi is based on questioning. It may depend how the questions are asked, perhaps. So, I would like you to give me a particular instance in your life which made you upset when you asked the questions to Bhai Sahib. We can all learn from that. I agree with you that Sachkhand is found within but that goes for all of us.

My post:
"Who claims Guru Nanak to be God? Please share with us. Has anyone in this thread did that?"

Your response:



> There is thread posted here. But I don’t know who posted it.You have to look it up
> There is one sant called Blandpuri He live in Blandpur. I think in distt of Ludhiana. I maybe wrong  for the location. His CD’s are distributed in Canada. In one of the CD he claim that nirakar was born in Nanka’s body. Their centers are all over in Canada.


It is you who claimed the above, so it is your duty to show it and share your own opinion regarding this. I hope you would do that.

My post:

"What does the word Guru mean for you?"

Your response:



> Guru word was in use before Nanak was born. It is Sanskrit word. Person who shed the darkness is guru. It was never from a stone or book.


Yes, the word GURU was used long before Guru Nanak's time. It means a teacher or a learning tool. Seeker ji, please share with us if you have learnt any thing from the books  that were part of your school studies. 

Do you learn anything from watching the nature that one gets awestruck with?

Have you learnt anything through any other way besides a person as a Guru? Please share with us. We can all learn from you.




> Guru has to be living person.


As you claim above that Guru has to be a living Guru, can you please share with us who your living Guru is.




> There are many many reference about guru in the granth. If we read and understand it then we can see what it mean. In one place it says if there are 100 moons and 1000 suns, it still be dark with out guru. If nanak meant the garnth to be guru don’t you think he should have completed it by him self and told us to worship it. Yet he did not do that, why? Even Arjandev called it pothy. Not guru. You can continue to believe that Gobibd Singh told us to believe granth as guru. There is no real evidence that he said it. Even he said it read the sloke and understand what it is saying.


Please forgive me for my ignorance once again as I am still learning things in life. 

Can you please elaborate what you are trying to say above for my better understanding because I do not want to misunderstand what you are trying to convey?

  My post:

"And that vision is to get rid of Me-ism. That is the reason in my opinion they did not care about names, titles, their autobiographies which they would have easily written if they desired so."



> No one believes in second best. His religion is the number 1 others are false. If that is not me-ism then what is?


Pardon my ignorance but what is that to do with my post? Can you please elaborate it for me?

My post:
"I am glad that you are following the path of Guru Nanak. We are all told to emulate our Gurus rather than putting them on some pedestal and hence creating a distance. Our Gurus were our mates. They spoke to the world on our behalf."

Your response:



> So called your guru never spoke to the world on your behalf. No one knew them that time. Just few people that’s all. It is our ego to make them bigger then human. There is more writing of sants and fakirs then the guru. But we don’t ever hear too much about them. The granth looks like copy and paste book. And now we claim it is ours. Who are we to claim it is ours. Is that not ego? We celebrate few of the guru’s BD or Death. Never of any sants who contributed more then gurus. If you read the writing of some guru it looks like they copy it from others. Compare Nanak and Arjan’ bani with Kabir


Once again I do not understand what you are trying to say in your post above. Please elaborate with examples.

As you mentioned above that you believe in a living Guru and hopefully your will share his/her name with us and share with us what you have learnt from him/her so far.

Let us say for the sake of the argument that if your living Guru dies, then you unlearn everything that he/she taught you when he/she was alive? Can you shed some light on this thought process of yours?



> Things I say are hurting them so they get anger with me.That’s what happened to Nanak. He told the truth and people stoned him and called me kurahia, lost person. But he never wavers from his ideals. If we stop making him God and just follow his teaching we will be happy and can have peace.


 My post:

"Pardon my ignorance but I am a bit confused with your above claim. Who is hurting and who is angry at you and why? Has someone stoned you too? Who called you kurahia, lost person and for what reasons?"

Your response:



> Are you not angry with me? Do you like what I wrote? People don’t wish to know the truth. Truth always hurt.


It seems that you are presuming too much and prejudging me without any reasons. Does your living Guru teach you to prejudge others without any basis?

Show me where in my post have I expressed my anger towards you?

What made you jump to this conclusion? I do not find any reasons to be angry at you, hence I am interacting with you so I can learn the truth from a fellow Sikh. And No, you are wrong, Our Gurus have taught us that truth never hurts but it enlightens us and acts like a balm on our internal and sometimes self created wounds.

No, I have no reason to get angry with you but as a Sikh, I can only learn by asking questions.



> If as Sikhs claim we have grand as guru then why are we celebrating gurus who have been dead for long time. Dead can not help. It is like we are worshiping the ghosts. We do it because we need to do some thing like Hindus are doing but in different name


So, please share with us who you living Guru is and what you have learnt from him/her.




> I will be happy to give you more information.


I would love to have all the information I have asked you in details so I can learn from you. So, please do not hesitate to respond in an elaborate manner for all of my queries.

As I said before, I hope to learn a lot from you.

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 1, 2009)

Gyani Ji,

Now the true color shows. Instead replying to what I asked you accused me of the things I never said. I thought we should reply to the topic at hand. I never wrote about ten commandments nor about the bible. Never said any thing about kuran or islam. Mulim is not a religion. So there is nothing to write about muslims.
I know every thing about bible and jesus and Mohamed. Nothing is what is claimed by them. It is we who are falling victim of the false preaching. And we are corrupting what Nanak said and lived.
This the lowest of low to accuse some who is asking question. This is what I said all along that Sikhs can not discuss. The only way one can say his religion is the best in the world is to discuss their belief. 
I can claim that my father was the greatest wrestler in Punjab.(he was wrestler) But what are the rest of the people of Punjab are saying? Does any one recognize that he was the best? Is there any proof that my father never lost? If there is no proof then I can not claim what I am claming. We have to put every thing on the table and let the intellectuals examine.
You can see on TV there is some thing discussed about Jesus. In favor and against him. There are open discussion going on. No one is accusing the producers. There was one producer made the documentary about the way Muslim treat women. The producer was shot. Kala Afgana wrote and question about baba budha blessing the wife of Arjan Dev. He was kicked out the whole Sikh community. 
Now I ask the question and you getting angry and claim that you are not angry. Only the frustrated angry person accuses the one who is asking question.

If you don’t like they way I ask question then you have the right to take me off the membership list. And ban my questions. So that other Sikhs can not be cotupted by my thoughts.

seeker


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 1, 2009)

seeker ji, you assume too much.

1.I DONT ban/UNBAN anyone. I have already said..i follow Gubani that says..kichh kaheayh,,kichh sunneah..ros na keejeh uttar deejeh...but you still go on jumping to wrong concluisons and assuming...

2. NO one has been Banned from SPN for asking questions...show proof or retract this false accusation. Whoever was "banned" was warned for using vulgarity/abusive langauge/or spamming or insulting the Gurus/srm/sikh panth/gurmatt...and when they persist they are removed. ASKING QUESTIONS is our Cornerstone..SPN exists to  ENABLE posters to...ask questions and provide ANSWERS.

I leave you with Tejwant Ji to interact as tejwant ji has the knack of answering you better.
:happysingh:


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 1, 2009)

seeker3k ji

I have to step in here at the risk of agitating you or anyone else in the conversation. Forgive me if I am interrupting the flow of thought. However this conversation is getting very difficult to follow. And seeker3k ji -- no one is even thinking of banning you or dismissing your point of view. The problem is that many of us are having a hard time making the same connections that you are making from point to point. 

It would help if you would re-group as they say in the military. Pull in and re-organize your argument. We would like to be able to follow what you are saying. It has nothing to do with your English which is better than you think. 

Please restate your thinking on the following points. Don't explain but just restate and then maybe we can put the rest of it together. 

Here are the points

1. Your understanding of Guru Nanak as a human being and as a leader of the Sikh panth.

2. Your understanding of Guru Nanak's contribution to spirituality.

3. Your understanding of Guru Nanak's way to union with the Creator.

4. Your understanding of the value of the shabads composed by Guru Nanak in leading others to a more truthful life.

That will do to start. It would really help a lot if you could just tell us what you think on each of those points.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 1, 2009)

Let's forget about the Janeau's for a post or two so we can understand seeker3k's basic ideas. Then we can get back to the question of blindly following cultural rituals and practices and Guru Nanak's stance in relation to all of that.


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 2, 2009)

Seeker 3K ji ,
               Before Hinduism , from 6th Century BC to 8th Century Ad for 1400 years most ( 80 % )of India was Buddhist . These so called Hindu Brahmins were barely surviving by tricks & deciet . So can we say for now that Hindus are Buddhists , because in whole of India Hinduism had ceased to exist ( practically ) then .


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 2, 2009)

Budhism started to flurish after the Ashoka became budist 261BC.
Wht did India turn back to hinduism?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 2, 2009)

seeker3k ji

Please humor some of us by answering the questions I have asked. Thank you. Dalbirk ji in fact is asking a very relevant question.


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 2, 2009)

I asked the question that why india went back to Hinduism. It you or Dilbirk should answer not me


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 2, 2009)

seeker3k ji Then we have to leave it at this. Many of us are having trouble grasping the connections you are trying to make. There is nothing else to be done. Thanks.


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 3, 2009)

That proves it that you and others don’t answer if one asks the question, Dilbirk seem to be making the point by saying there were 80% of the population in India at one time. Now there are 14%. What happened to Buddhist? Did the Brahmin kill the 60% Buddhist? How the Hindus population became the largest in India?
What is the point he was making by writing this? Where the 80% Buddhist came from? Did the Buddhist kill all the Hindus to become 80%?
It is up to Dilnirk to explain what he wrote. Stop playing games. This forum you and Dilbirk have the responsibility to answer the question. 
seeker


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2009)

*Warning: Seeker3k ji you have been given several opportunities to clarify your arguments. You chose not to take advantage of them. At this point the conversation needs to return to topic. Further bickering will require deletions. Naryanjot Kaur*


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 3, 2009)

go on do the right thing


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 3, 2009)

Sikhs ALWAYS do the RIGHT THING..its because Guru nanak ji commands..Truth is High..BUT higher still is TRUTHFUL LIVING..we at SPN obey this Command and subscribe to TRUTHFUL LIVING. So YES..the RIGHT thing will be done..not to worry.:happysingh::happykaur::happy::welcome:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 3, 2009)

Seeker3k ji,

Guru Fateh.

Your write:



> It is up to Dilnirk to explain what he wrote. Stop playing games. This forum you and Dilbirk have the responsibility to answer the question



I agree with you but also keep in mind that the very same rules that you demand others to follow also apply to you. Let us practice first what we preach. 

I am still eagerly waiting for the answers to my questions from you. Isn't it your responsibility to do the same?

Hoping to hear from you so I can learn a lot from you.

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 3, 2009)

Before Hinduism , from 6th Century BC to 8th Century Ad for 1400 years most ( 80 % )of India was Buddhist . These so called Hindu Brahmins were barely surviving by tricks & deciet . So can we say for now that Hindus are Buddhists , because in whole of India Hinduism had ceased to exist ( practically ) then . 

This is the post by Dulbirk, where is the question to me in this writing? They keep asking me to reply to the question, What question?
This was my question to Dilbirk. Which he refued to answer. Tell me the question he asked me?
Budhism started to flurish after the Ashoka became budist 261BC.
Why did India turn back to hinduism?
Why did the hindus turned to Buddhism? Then turned back to hinduism?
I am asking it again please teel me.


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 4, 2009)

Seeker 3k Ji ,
Yesterday I was about to post when my laptop battery gave away . I had forgot my charger in the office which was closed due to Bandh . Buddhism declined due to following factors :
1. As Buddhism had been the RAJ DHARMA for nearly 1200 years many rituals kept creeping in it , which took the religion away from spirituality into more ritualistic mode .
2. The monks had all become used to easy lifestyle flushed with a lot of money & power .
3. The third & the biggest cause was the relentless campaign of Adi Shankracharya who adopted & studied the best of Buddhist practices , gave the concept of Advaitic Vedanta , attcked , criticised the nihilism of Buddhism as Atheism . He won many rounds of debates with Buddhist monks , scholars , took all SURYAVANSHI kings in his side . But exact reason was the AHIMSA PARMO DHARMA policy of Buddhist monks which saw their decline when attacked & hounded by Suryavanshi kings . Nearly 1.5 million Buddhists were killed , monastries destroyed , libraries burnt in 8th & 9th century starting from South . Fearing for life Buddhists fled to Far Eastern countries & China . The same story played in North India & Afghanistan when Muslim invaders killed many more million Buddhists , converted & destroyed properties in 10th , 11th , 12th centuries . Thus Buddhism was shunted out of India .
            There is not exactly one reason why Buddhism declined in India , but it would be a mistake to point it to inferiority of Buddhist philosophy . The Advaitic philosophy given by Adi Shankracharya was almost immediately after his death disowned by Brahmins who went into their old ways of Varna System & Devi Devtas popularly known as Brahminism . Even today the Advaitism of Adi Shankracharya is used only for paper debates nowhere is practised in India .


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 4, 2009)

Seeker 3k ji , I'm on SPN for last two years , I may assure you that this is the most liberal & open of all the philosophical & religious sites you will find on the whole internet wherein you'll not be banned even asking most outrageous question / posts . I wish to bring to your kind attention to one small booklet HUM HINDU NAHIN by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha ji wriiten in 1898 a full 110 years ago . You are probabely too impressed by RSS's stand that Sikhs are Hindus . Not a single of these tens of millions of RSS lovers have been able to answer to even a single word/ line / arguement put up by Kahan Singh Nabha ji in full 110 years , but keep on parroting Sikhs are Hindus for the last 50-60 years emboldened by article 25(B) . Here is small article based on this booklet .

Sikh Articles - Sikhism vs. Hinduism

Summary differences between Sikhism, Hinduism and Islam
      The booklet HUM HINDU NAHIN is available in English , Hindi & Punjabi costs only Rs40/ published by Singh Brothers , Amritsar .
Singhbrothers - Publisher, BookSeller, Exporter, Quality Printer
or you can PM me your address & I'll send u one if you require .


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 4, 2009)

dalbirk ji

Thanks for taking the time to give a concise and meaningful education on Buddhism in India. I learned a lot. :yes:


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 5, 2009)

Seeker 3k Ji ,
                     Today one question just popped out of my mind why was India enslaved by Muslims for 700 years & then British for 200 years starting from 1000 AD onwards ?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 5, 2009)

Not Just Enslaved...as in slaved nations..
Slaved India..had laws like..when a MUSLIM needs to SPIT..a Slaved Indian should OPEN HIS MOUTH so that holy islamic spit shouldnt fall to the ground !! Enslaved Hindus couldnot keep a knife at home...special implements were invented to perform household tasks like cutting vegetables etc...all meat was to be slaughtered by the Kazis servants...no Hindu could keep or ride a Horse..no weapons..any HINDU GIRL could be takena away by any Muslim..hence the SINDOOR CUSTOM as  a means to signify that this woman is already VIOLATED..not VIRGIN..so PLEASE PLEASE LEAVE her alone...(didnt work all the time)..CHILD Marriages to achieve the same thing as sindoor...
GURU NANAK JI so aptly describes the LOWEST STATE of his time in Asa di Vaar..abhakhiayah ka kuttha bakra khanna..Hindu religious ceremony was served HALALL GOAT MEAT !!! to put Janeau..they ate Hallal Bakra...spoke the MALECHHA Langauge..UNCLEAN Langauge !!! they were the downtrodden of the downtroddena dn YET they treated their own SHUDRAS even WORSE....this was INDIA for more than 1000 YEARS....until the SIKH GURUS came along...and BROKE the CHAINS of this Slavery...and CLOSED SHUT the darra KHYBER for ever !!! as they say..karrahhi bolleh..karrchhee wee boleh ???:crazy:


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 5, 2009)

Dalbirk Ji,

When two men have debate as did the Adi Shankracharya and Nanak with Sidhs. Who won the debate is also debatable. There is no record were kept who said what and who won? The followers of both sides can claim that their man won the debate. It is true now days too where no recording is kept. You gave the explanation of the down fall of the Buddhist but what was the reason that they became 80%? You claim that rituals crept into Buddhism. I agree with you. Are we not bringing the useless rituals into Sikhism? What will happen to Sikhism?
Your post is to condemn the Hindus. Why so much hated for the Hindus? We use to listen to kathawach in Gurdwaras preaching hatred against Muslims in the 50’s and 60’s. Now we hear hate propaganda against Hindus

You can claim that this is the most liberal forum but when I am called joker accused me for writing what I did not write. And did not post when I wrote kirpan a 6” piece of steel. Do you really think it is liberal?

All over the west countries Sikhs are not liked. Why is that? We are not liked in India too. We have to examine our self not hate the one who hate us. We have to learn from the one who criticize us. They are the mirror to us.

Do we see Jews demonstrating in the streets? Yet they get what they want.

Hinduism was not a religion to begin with it was science.(same Sikh was not lirigion) But it became violent and used force to become what they became. You can see their devtas full of weapons and skulls around their necks. That is not the sign of non violence. We have taken that part of Hinduism. That time may have been right to use violence but not now days. We can see the result of our behavior. No one can get any thing by demanding but by negotiation.

If I hate my parent and grand parent chances are that my kids will hate me too. Muslim’s been fighting with Jews yet they honor Abraham. Abraham is called the father of nation. Christians do not like Jews and they killed thousands of Jews at the time of Spanish inquisition yet they honor all the Jews prophets. Hate will bread hate.  
seeker


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 6, 2009)

Seeker 3k ji ,
               I appreciate your concern but if Sikhism had been a voilent religion then Sikhs would not have suffered like they did in 1984 . Their greatest folly was that they did not heed to Guru Gobind Singh Ji's baana & did not keep weapons in their homes . Wherever Sikhs faced the hooligans with arms they survived , wherever they did not face the hooligans due to lack of weapons or under the impression of POLICE ASSURANCES , they were killed . I'm reminded of one article in which it was mentioned that almost 80 million Hindus were killed ,10 miilion women , girls & boys taken to Bazzars of Kabul , Ghazni ,Kandhahar , Baghdaad for sale for as low as Two Dinaars ( 25 paise that time ) those who did not sell by evening were sometimes murdered to avoid feeding them as there was oversupply in 750 years of Muslim rule . Why were they killed by almost less than 1% of Muslims . I also learnt that Muhammed Bin Qasim came with 500 men , most of them Gujjars ( shepherds ) by profession who came in search of FODDER for cattle 712 AD , killed
150,000 men women , took away thousands of young girls , women & even queens of king Dahir Walia ( Sindh ) , loads of treasure including gold , diamonds & priceless jewels as WAR BOOTY . You maybe right in your assesment that Sikhs need to give up sword but not everybody agrees with your observation moreover it is a compulsory Baana prescribed by Guru Ji we cannot do away with it . It is alongwith our HAIR a major factor of our UNIQUENESS , we cannot survive without it .
I like to quote following observation of Keay , John in his book ' INDIA : A History ' " Buddhism originated India in 5th century BC & greatly influenced Indian culture . It declined ironically because of its widespread acceptence by Hindus . "
                The hate which you feel among Indians or even Westerns ( if any ) for Sikhs is partly due to propaganda by Indian Govt . IMHO ( though all members may not agree to it ) that the events preceeding 1984 or even after when Sikhs were dubbed as terrorists were stage managed by Congress Govt to malign the Sikhs , it served two purposes this broke the Akali stranghold over Akal Takhat thus Indira took her revenge from Akalis when during emergency almost 19,000 of those 25,000 arrested for protesting against Emergency & demanding its share of river waters & power were Sikhs . Secondly it assured Congress of vote of 80% of Hindu majority projecting it as the saviour of UNITY & INTEGRITY of India from Sikhs who demanded Khalistan , a slogan given by Jagjit Singh Chauhan after he met Indira Gandhi in 1980 . Ironically those very Khalistan leaders like Jagjit Singh Chauhan & Wassan Singh Zaffarwal were given honourable asylum in Punajb under Congress Govt of Capt Amarinder Singh in 2003-2004 . Even today all the so called PANTHIC organisations like Dal Khalsa , Damdami Taksal ( maybe ) , Khalsa Action Commettie & countless others are on payrolls of Congress .


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 6, 2009)

Dalbirk Ji,

The hate which you feel among Indians or even Westerns ( if any ) for Sikhs

There you go also. You and others here can not understand between criticize and hate
I do not hate any one. 
There is whole new world out there and we Sikhs are still stuck in 300 years ago. Other nations are going to mars and beyond but we?

This my last post here. My work here is done. I do not expect the Administer to change but there are many other readers. Many of them are logical thinker.

seeker


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 7, 2009)

seeker3k said:


> Dalbirk Ji,
> 
> The hate which you feel among Indians or even Westerns ( if any ) for Sikhs
> 
> ...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Nov 7, 2009)

Its so easy to hurl such accusations...criticise the Bible..ah you hate Christians...criticise the SGGS,.ah you hate Sikhs...criticise the Vedas..brahmins..ah you hate hinduism...
is it really that way ?? imho NO. HATE is such a strong and dirty word..but so often used..surprising..maybe i hate.."hate"...simply becasue i am criticising hate...:u)::crazy::down:


----------



## Sikh royalist (Nov 7, 2009)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> seeker ji..are you trying to make me angry? Tejwants ji angry ?? if so you are not succeeding because you have got the wrong kind of sikh here. We are the ones who QUESTION...as our Guru taught us..Kicchh kaheayeh..kichh sunneah....Uttar deejeh Ros na keejeh...say..ask..give answers..dont get annoyed...is GURU NANAK.
> TU Sultan kahoon hun meian teri kawan wadayee...if you call the MOON a piece of rock..it still remaisn the MOON..shining orb of light in the darkness...calling GURU NANAK..simply nanak arjan etc doesnt demean them in any way..doesnt take away their GREATNESS an iota...you mentioend sants like bulandpuriah..etc..those are the types who will get "angry"
> the Most UNIVERSAL GRANTH that contains ONLY LOVE of the Creator by Varied persons looks like a "cut and paste" job to you...I ma sure you think GOD must have written the Ten Commandments on Stone Tablets..with Lightning..or that the Original Koran in GOLD is in Heaven under lock and key..or the Bible is one beautiful piece of work written by GOD himself at one sitting..well go on..enjoy those ORIGINAL WORKS..and leave the Cut and Paste badly done job well alone...its greatness doesnt go down one iota. No one can make a purse out of sow's ear..BUT then again No sows ear should be used to make a purse....the GRANTH is PARAS that makes other Parases...
> 
> TRUTH only HURTS those who are FALSE. The TRUTHFUL love TRUTH...Sach Sunaisee SACH ki BELA....Truthful Living is always higher than TRUTH...


 
gyani ji you made my day such a nice post thank you for such words

you know the problem with most of the "agyanis"(ignorant people) is not that they know nothing but that they would never admit that the lap of understanding is on their part.they would debate you for two purposes first to hide their "agyan"(ignorance) and second that they debate not to prove they are right but to prove you are wrong.what ever no man knows everything and we shd better admit it rather than hiding it.for such peoples guru ji directed us not to debate "murkhan naal na lujhiye"


----------



## Sikh royalist (Nov 7, 2009)

> I also learnt that Muhammed Bin Qasim came with 500 men , most of them Gujjars ( shepherds ) by profession who came in search of FODDER for cattle 712 AD


are you serious brother as far as i know he was so ordained by abu bakar he led a complete army he was seventeen

, 





> killed 150,000 men women , took away thousands of young girls , women & even queens of king Dahir Walia ( Sindh ) , loads of treasure including gold , diamonds & priceless jewels as WAR BOOTY


the mighty king you have mentioned was named raja dahir sen (you were thinking abt jassa singh ahluwalia?)if you have time and energy we can start a thread to discuss the advent of Islam in India 



> The hate which you feel among Indians or even Westerns ( if any ) for Sikhs is partly due to propaganda by Indian Govt . IMHO ( though all members may not agree to it ) that the events preceeding 1984 or even after when Sikhs were dubbed as terrorists were stage managed by Congress Govt to malign the Sikhs , it served two purposes this broke the Akali stranghold over Akal Takhat thus Indira took her revenge from Akalis when during emergency almost 19,000 of those 25,000 arrested for protesting against Emergency & demanding its share of river waters & power were Sikhs . Secondly it assured Congress of vote of 80% of Hindu majority projecting it as the saviour of UNITY & INTEGRITY of India from Sikhs who demanded Khalistan , a slogan given by Jagjit Singh Chauhan after he met Indira Gandhi in 1980 . Ironically those very Khalistan leaders like Jagjit Singh Chauhan & Wassan Singh Zaffarwal were given honourable asylum in Punajb under Congress Govt of Capt Amarinder Singh in 2003-2004 . Even today all the so called PANTHIC organisations like Dal Khalsa , Damdami Taksal ( maybe ) , Khalsa Action Commettie & countless others are on payrolls of Congress .


 
well brother i am one of those who wont agree actually bcz i am so much of Indian i remember that once in my childhood i was told by my teacher that drinking tea is a bad habit and i cannot remember the last time i had a cup of tea and so was i told from my childhood that i am Indian a Sikh born to serve the nation protect the Hindus . i may not from heart agree to most of the Indian leaders their actions and words both of them but they represent my nation from that perspective i need to show respect.if you call this hypocrisy it isn't i will be a hypocrite if i don't respect them and say i am an Indian.


----------

