# Sehajdharis Seek Separate SGPC If Voting Right Denied



## kds1980 (Apr 12, 2010)

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories

Sehajdharis seek separate SGPC if voting right denied 
Our Correspondent 

Jagraon, April 11
The national executive council of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation (SSF), a political party registered with the Election Commission of India, has decided to form a separate SGPC for ‘Patits’ and Sehajdhari Sikhs as they have been denied voting right in the SGPC elections. 

Condemning the new definition of the Sikh given by the High Court, SSF leaders stated that the fanatic attitude of the SGPC and the Delhi Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee the Sikh religion had been confined to the ‘keshdharis’ and ‘amritdharis’ only. 

Spokesperson of the federation Balwant Dhaliwal stated that the World Sikh Conference at Delhi was merely an eyewash of the Sarna brothers where 85 per cent of the Sikh population had been ignored by declaring them ‘Patits’ and non-Sikhs. 

‘If a person who trims his beard is not a Sikh, a person who colours his /her hairs is not a Sikh who goes to the beauty parlour is not a Sikh, who consumes alcohol is not a Sikh, then who is left behind to be called a Sikh’, questioned the SSF leaders. 

The SSF council stated that after the Haryana, Rajasthan SGPC was formed and after that a few so-called Sikhs have formed an All-India SGPC but all of them have ignored the Sehajdhari Sikhs. They stated that the persons born in Sikh families who does not keep unshorn hairs or trim their beards cannot be called ‘Patit’ as it is applicable for those thrown out of religion and those who commit transgressions after par taking amrit of the 10th Guru. 

Labeling non- amritdhari as the ‘patits’ and non-Sikhs has divided the religion. Sikh religion, which is already in minority, has been divided into a sub-minority by this definition of the Sikh.


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 12, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories
> 
> Sehajdharis seek separate SGPC if voting right denied
> Our Correspondent
> ...


:khanda3:The SGPC and other such other Sikh Organisations are proving to be the worst enemy of their own They are doing a great  a dis-service to the most modern and rational religion of the world.Tsk.tsk.Going to the courts to defne who is a Sikh.What a great idea.What next? 
And lo, the Hindus are so happy to see the Sikhs redused to such a minuscule minority.


----------



## harbansj24 (Apr 12, 2010)

Jasbirkaleka ji,

The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave a definition of who is a Sikh only for the purpose of governance. 
Now if you did not have such a definition, then anybody can claim to be Sikh and then enjoy preferred admission  into Sikh minority institutes, vote in the gurudwara elections etc. Sikhism being such an open and inclusive religion, anyone can declare himself to be Sikh without being questioned.
So then how would you differentiate between a Sikh and a non Sikh for such purposes?


----------



## ac_marshall (Apr 12, 2010)

Why would Hindus be happy? What have they got to do with the internal politics of Sikh Organizations? Is there a single Gurudwara that Hindus don't visit? Most Hindus and other communities don't even know who are Sehajdharis and Amritdharis. All that most of the people of other Indian communities know is that a Sikh is called "Sardarji" who maintains unshorn hair, beard and wears a turban and that he is the most appealing member in India's Armed Forces. Why would Hindus, Christians or Muslims even bother about knowing who are Sehajdharis? 





jasbirkaleka said:


> :khanda3:The SGPC and other such other Sikh Organisations are proving to be the worst enemy of their own They are doing a great a dis-service to the most modern and rational religion of the world.Tsk.tsk.Going to the courts to defne who is a Sikh.What a great idea.What next?
> And lo, the Hindus are so happy to see the Sikhs redused to such a minuscule minority.


----------



## ballym (Apr 12, 2010)

harbansj24 said:


> Jasbirkaleka ji,
> 
> The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave a definition of who is a Sikh only for the purpose of governance.
> Now if you did not have such a definition, then anybody can claim to be Sikh and then enjoy preferred admission  into Sikh minority institutes, vote in the gurudwara elections etc. Sikhism being such an open and inclusive religion, anyone can declare himself to be Sikh without being questioned.
> So then how would you differentiate between a Sikh and a non Sikh for such purposes?



Why should there be a reservation in educational system? Give them free education but never compromise on quality.
If Gurudwaras are really for everyone then what is the problem if a person visiting it regularly votes( and does not have hairs) in its election. Criteria should be active , constructive involvement. 
If some unwanted person is still able to vote, then it is some problem with eligibility mechanism which can be corrected.
 Simply keeping hairs is should not be a criteria. Right now, that is practically the criteria. I respect you are a great scholar.... please suggest a different method other than length of hairs.
Real intellectuals like you can only bring a change. And a change is a must .... otherwise  it may be too late.


----------



## ballym (Apr 12, 2010)

ac_marshall said:


> Why would Hindus be happy? What have they got to do with the internal politics of Sikh Organizations? Is there a single Gurudwara that Hindus don't visit? *Most* Hindus and other communities don't even know who are Sehajdharis and Amritdharis. All that most of the people of other Indian communities know is that a Sikh is called "Sardarji" who maintains unshorn hair, beard and wears a turban and that he is the most appealing member in India's Armed Forces. Why would Hindus, Christians or Muslims even bother about knowing who are Sehajdharis?


 I guess you are unaware of religious black market( I have coined this phrase just now! Copyright   ) .There are so many agencies who are interested in getting a piece of sikh population folllowing their Guru. Hindus are definitely one of them. Why should they state that sikhs are just a part of hindus. They do it time and again.
Why a Christian clergy had to do when he offered me to convert? It did happen. What is your motive in being so naive? Are you really ignorant about the questions you have asked? Read related threads on this forum to get information instead of asking simple questions.
You have stated MOST. SO how many bad apple does it takes to create problem. Muslims say that MOST of them are peace loving!


----------



## ac_marshall (Apr 12, 2010)

Gurfateh,
The only thing I've tried to convey is that internal conflict among Sehajdharis and Amritdharis cannot benefit either christians, hindus or muslims. 

With members of each group (Amritdhari and Sehajdhari) sticking to their argument of being true Sikhs, how can an external religion derive benefit? Both are strong and clear in their arguement that they are "Sikhs". Had the RSS or VHP got support of Sikh leaders, Hindu organizations would definitely feel happy. But here the matter is within the Sikh community with neither Christians, Muslims nor Hindus in picture. 

I totally agree with you about the mass prosyletizing activities undertaken by Christian missionaries and about Hindu organizations claiming Sikhs to be a part of Hinduism. But, I don't find anything in the conflict internal to Sikhism that would benefit Hinduism, Christianity or Islam. 

-Regards:
Adam Marshall


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 12, 2010)

> Why should there be a reservation in educational system? Give them free education but never compromise on quality.
> If Gurudwaras are really for everyone then what is the problem if a person visiting it regularly votes( and does not have hairs) in its election. Criteria should be active , constructive involvement.



Reservations in India are necessary if you want your community to become prosperous.Many of you living outside India have no knowledge how much difference is their between lives of Urban metro people,small town people and rural people.As majority of sikhs  are living in rural area's there is hardly any chance for them to compete with urban metro people.

Merit in education not only comes from hard work but also from money and family conditions
.If your parents can afford you very expensive coaching institutes and totally plan your career then its very easy for those people to enter top level universities.On the other hand you are from rural area with  family and financial problems then even if you are better than an urban person you cannot make it to top level university


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 12, 2010)

ballym said:


> Why should there be a reservation in educational system? Give them free education but never compromise on quality.
> If Gurudwaras are really for everyone then what is the problem if a person visiting it regularly votes( and does not have hairs) in its election. Criteria should be active , constructive involvement.
> If some unwanted person is still able to vote, then it is some problem with eligibility mechanism which can be corrected.
> Simply keeping hairs is should not be a criteria. Right now, that is practically the criteria. I respect you are a great scholar.... please suggest a different method other than length of hairs.
> Real intellectuals like you can only bring a change. And a change is a must .... otherwise  it may be too late.



Ballym ji,

Guru fateh.

As long as there is a caste system in India where not all are considered equal, this reservation will exist and is must. As Kanwardeep pointed out quite correctly that most of the Sikhs live in the rural areas of India and have no means to educate their kids. So, in order for the Sikhs to have the opportunity to excel, this decision by the High court is necessary.

As you live in Canada, you must be aware of the Affirmative Action south of your border in the US which helped many people even some of them became the Judges of the Supreme Court and one is still there.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## PCJ (Apr 13, 2010)

harbansj24 said:


> Jasbirkaleka ji,
> 
> The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave a definition of who is a Sikh only for the purpose of governance.
> Now if you did not have such a definition, then anybody can claim to be Sikh and then enjoy preferred admission into Sikh minority institutes, vote in the gurudwara elections etc. Sikhism being such an open and inclusive religion, anyone can declare himself to be Sikh without being questioned.
> So then how would you differentiate between a Sikh and a non Sikh for such purposes?


 
Here is a catch-22. Religion can not survive without differentiating people but religion becomes unGodly once it starts differentiating.

Here is a perfect example: You remember Bhagat Kabir said: ek noor te sabh jag upjeya kaun bhalay kau manday? Also one of your gurus said: na ko vairi nehi begaana sagal sang hum ko ban aayi.

So what it means is that a true believer in the Almighty Lord doesn't see people different from each other. But at the same time though, if people of religion do not differentiate, anybody can take over religious places. That's why, out of fear of someone else taking over religious places, the people of religion have to differentiate and as soon as religion starts differentiating, it becomes unGodly.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 13, 2010)

> here is a catch-22. Religion can not survive without differentiating people but religion becomes unGodly once it starts differentiating.



Religions like sikhism also do lot of sewa even to non sikhs.Hundreds of Gurdwara serve Free langars,There are thousands of sikh schools and college's where non sikh students study and they are not asked to convert to sikhism.Despite lot of shortcoming in Religions
many religions still do sewa.May I ask you self styled religion haters what you are doing on Ground level except talking and ranting .


----------



## PCJ (Apr 13, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Religions like sikhism also do lot of sewa even to non sikhs.Hundreds of Gurdwara serve Free langars,There are thousands of sikh schools and college's where non sikh students study and they are not asked to convert to sikhism.Despite lot of shortcoming in Religions
> many religions still do sewa.May I ask you self styled religion haters what you are doing on Ground level except talking and ranting .


 
Stating facts is not hatred...

You may not be prepared to accept the truth. This however does not mean that nobody should state truth.

Think about this. Those who achieved higher state of mind than us stated that all people were equal and same. In other words, those who are closer to Lord state that then all are created equal. It's pretty simple. 

Therefore, one of the signs that someone is closer to Lord than others is that he or she doesn't even look at people differently. The opposite of this is that those are farther away from Lord actually do look at people differently. They do discriminate...

This is not because I say so. This is so because it obviously is God's Law. 

As far as people in Sikh schools go, 100% of the seats allowed by the Gov't. to be reserved for Sikhs are reserved for Amritdhari and sehajdhari Sikhs.

You have to realize that in spirituality, what matters is the state of soul. Those, who have any reason at all to discriminate, can not claim that their soul is in the state of perfection. So, everything becomes useless, wheather it's so-called sewa or anything else.


----------



## narenem (Apr 13, 2010)

jasbirkaleka said:


> :khanda3:The SGPC and other such other Sikh Organisations are proving to be the worst enemy of their own They are doing a great a dis-service to the most modern and rational religion of the world.Tsk.tsk.Going to the courts to defne who is a Sikh.What a great idea.What next?
> And lo, the Hindus are so happy to see the Sikhs redused to such a minuscule minority.


i agree


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 13, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Stating facts is not hatred...
> 
> You may not be prepared to accept the truth. This however does not mean that nobody should state truth.
> 
> ...



Again as usual ranting. You believe what you are speaking  is the truth so it
must be truth.Same as a muslim say that What i am speaking about the islam is the truth.Is there any difference between you and fanatic muslim?Both Believe they are speaking the truth

As far reservation is concerned Only 50% of seats are reserved for sikh students and that too in technical and medical college's.In schools there is hardly any reservation and in many non sikh area's a very large majority of students are sikhs.My mamaji himself is Gurdwara president in small town of Assam and the school they run their benefits assamese kids.Your blaming about 100% seats reserved only show how ignorant you are.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2010)

Kanwardeep ji

The vast majority of people born in the US do not understand the "reservation" system that is built into the Indian constitution. So they do not understand how this system actually works against Sikhs in areas where Sikhs are in the majority. Although in the US we have affirmative action (a way to boost minorities who have experienced historical discrimination) we do not have what is exactly a system of quotas or set-asides which would operate more the way reservations do  in India. In fact recently quota systems used by universities have been struck down in the US, and also formulas used by universities to calculate percentages for various groups. There have been major court cases related to this.

So it would be great if you could take a moment to explain how reservations work.

Note: in the US private companies may set quotas if they choose to, but under  _Bakke v. Regents_ that public  universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific  numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.<sup id="cite_ref-.2770s_242_1-5" class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota#cite_note-.2770s_242-1</sup>


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 13, 2010)

> So it would be great if you could take a moment to explain how reservations work.



Narayanjot ji

In India Dr ambedkar made a provision of reservation in College's as well as in jobs For Dalits as tribe's.of 22.5%.Unfortunately with the time it became a political tool in the hands
politicians.Later on India extended this reservation to Backward communities which are called OBCs.Now many communities despite being financially succesful are enjoying this reservation just because they have political numbers.In many states day by day quota
is increasing despite supreme court order that reservation should no exceed 50%

Now coming to minorities Like sikhs,christians muslims.They are entitled a special right that if they open a college then they can reserve 50% seats for their community.Now sikh institutions are running some medical and engineering college's .A reserved seat in those college's is very valuable.As large majority of sikhs are in general category it is necessary for us to have more good sikh college's as no reservation is provided to sikhs in Govt college's


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 13, 2010)

I also like to point out that Sikhs open very large number of schools in India where there is no reservation for sikh students  and very large number of students are non sikhs and unlike Christians who openly try to purchase faith  of students by asking them that if they convert their whole or partial fee's will be waived sikh schools never do That


----------



## jasi (Apr 13, 2010)

WAHE GURU JI KA KHALSA ,WAHE GURU JI KI FATEH.

Now here we go again defining . Who is Sikh?

Already divided community will be further divided and put against each others.

Sikh means follower of truth and Guru Nanak dev Ji's preachings to make one's life easy to pass through  youth and  GRASTI MARG yet stay completely dedicated to Akal Purkh. 

SIKH CAN BE ANY ONE WITHOUT ANY COLORS OR ORIGINS,CAST ,OR SPECIAL DRESS OR WITHOUT TURBANS OR WITHOUT ANY RITUALS,WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL GARBS. 

THERE ARE MILLIONS OF SINDHIES ,MUSLIM OTHERS ARE CALLED SIKHS ,MEANS THE STUDENTS  OF TRUTH AND  BABA GURU NANAK DEV JI TEACHINGS.

HOPE THIS SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD ONCE FOR ALL TIMES.

THAT IS WHAT I LEARNED FROM MY CHILDHOOD.

NOW COMES THE KHALSA AND TURBAN ISSUE ONE IS FREE TO BE AMRITDHARI SIKH AND SINGH AT THE SAME TIME WITHOUT CRITICIZING ANY ONE 'S CHOICE. BECAUSE ANY ONE HAVE A FAITH OR LEARNING GURU NANAK DEV JI'S TEACHING IS GURU' SIKH.

ONE CAN NOT RESTRICT TO CERTAIN DRESS TO BE CALLED HIMSELF AS A SIKH . SIKH OF WHAT ?.  SIKHISM AS UNIVERSAL FAITH TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL AND ALL WILL BE CALLED SIKHS OF TRUTH FOLLOWERS  OF GURU NANA DEV JI'S TEACHING AND PREACHINGS.

Guru Gobind Singh created a khalsa with certain visible changes and created a Sant Sepahi according to the situations existed at that time.


Singh(Tiger) was added with first name without any cast back ground to  give the final touch to the foundations of oneness laid by Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. by eradicating the cast system. 


let the wist dome play roles to give as much as MAT to respect each others and spread Gi uru nanak deve Ji univesal tecahing to all over the world without critsizing based on cast system for fut rther divisons

Let us shun EGO and HAUME.

JASPI






Kanwardeep Singh said:


> The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories
> 
> Sehajdharis seek separate SGPC if voting right denied
> Our Correspondent
> ...


----------



## Rupinder.Singh (Apr 13, 2010)

Every now and then these issues creep up....and real motive behind all these issues is nothing but love for leadership.

And Easiest leadership comes pre-embedded with "Divide and Rule" policy. 

Religion has nothing to do with these issues, and to solve these problems nothing more is required than common sense.

but as someone said, "There are millions of scamps around, but I have not met a single one who accepts it" 

Here are my few cents:

First one:

1. A person born in a Doctor Family is not a doctor unless he/she himself achieves the medical degree and Most importantly practices it. 

And the whole process is as follows

Education > Degree > Practice


So is a Sikh. 

"Without Education, Degree and Practice no-one is a Sikh."


Second One:

2. To have more doctors, we obiviously need to educate more people with medical degrees and thus give them a chance to practice, and the easy candidate for it are youngs born in Doctor families

But as these young ones are already born in Doctor families, they have started considering themselves doctors (SehajDhari Doctors) without need of any education, degree or practice, just because they know that simple flu can be cured with xyz tablets.

So they dont want to Go thorugh the tough process of 

Education > Degree > Practice

but still want themselves to be addressed with title of "Doctor Sahb"

This state of mind is called as "state of Fear"

and it is my opinion that "Sehajdhari Sikhs" are one of those kids born in (or somehow related to) Sikh families, who are fearfull to Go through the well established process of 

Education > Degree > Practice  of sikh phylosophy

but still want themsleves to be considered Sikhs



3. Now Will a person without a doctoral Degree, Education or experience  , be allowed to talk/vote on the international Conference on Some medical research...


Answer to above question will probably shed light on the answer to the issue at hand.


4. And whoever came up with the term "Sehajdhari Sikhs" in the first place, I believe, did not even know the definition of "Being a true Sikh", but he/she surely might have heard about Easy leadership policy somewhere.


5. In the end I would say I am not being critical of so called Sehajdhari Sikhs, but I wont support anyone who says education, degree and practice are not necessary to become a doctor. 

"Dont make any decisions just to increase the quantity of Doctors, make decisions that lead to quality doctors who can really save lives"

"It is quality that matters, not quantity"

Dont Shun System to win support, Work towards getting support for the system.

God Is one...Humanity is above all religions...


----------



## Gurmit Singh (Apr 13, 2010)

Waheguru jee ka Khalsa  Waheguru jee kee Fateh

Very First Stanza of Japp Jee Sahib advises us daily:

   "Hukam Razaai Chalnaa  Nanak  Likhiya Naal".

A Sikh must lead his/her life under God's Divine Command.
Hair are God's gift both for Females and Males and as such
we must take care just like other Body Parts.

The Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925 has also prescribed Form to
declare that I am a Keshadhari Sikh; do not trim or shave
my beard or Keshas; do not smoke or use Kutha (Halal)
meat, in any form; do not take alcoholic drinks; and am 
not a Patit. *Patit means a person, who being Keshadhari
Sikh trims or shaves his beard or Keshas or who after
taking Amrit commits anyone or more of the Four Kurahits...

The Sikh Reht Maryada, 1945 and the Sikh Ardaas remind
us to maintain unshorn Hair, beard, moustaches, eyebrows.

On 30 May 2009, A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court had delivered Judgement that "maintaining hair
unshorn is an essential component of the Sikh religion."

If any doubt representative Photo of a Sehajdhari reproduced
at page 693 of Mahan Kosh (in Punjabi) - Encyclopaedia of
Sikh Literature by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, available since
1930 may be seen.

Let Dr. Harbans Lal of USA and his other associated Patits
may do whatever they like. I am sure the Court will term
them as Sehajdhari Hindus so that they are free to shave/
trim/cut their hair and read Bhagwat Geetta or Ramayan
including Veds and Manu Samiriti for elevating their lives.


Gurmit Singh (Australia)


----------



## japjisahib04 (Apr 14, 2010)

Rupinder.Singh said:


> Every now and then these issues creep up....and real motive behind all these issues is nothing but love for leadership.
> 
> And Easiest leadership comes pre-embedded with "Divide and Rule" policy.
> 
> ...


You are right it is all leadership and attempt to misrepresent the whole motive behind. These people always support 80 percent who have forsaken gursikhi. I wonder once you have divorced, still calling yourselves as married is just like 'tu maan na maan, mai tera mehman'. It was your own choice and not that by birthyou are born outclassed, the belief as is prevalent  These people are, ' na oh suhaagan na oh rand'. like rolling stone, they neither are married nor widowed, thus are guilty. You have chosen your way of life. We don;t interfere in your business. Let us live the way our guru have guided and elevated us from downdrown to khandel bhatey ki pahul. Similarly 80% of Hindu population are so called 'DALIT' who are treated worse than animals and are deprived of many facilities, but still when it comes for numbering, they count in full as Hindus. 
Best regards


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 14, 2010)

I voted "NO" in the above poll. :meditation:


----------



## PCJ (Apr 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Again as usual ranting. You believe what you are speaking is the truth so it
> must be truth.Same as a muslim say that What i am speaking about the islam is the truth.Is there any difference between you and fanatic muslim?Both Believe they are speaking the truth
> 
> As far reservation is concerned Only 50% of seats are reserved for sikh students and that too in technical and medical college's.In schools there is hardly any reservation and in many non sikh area's a very large majority of students are sikhs.My mamaji himself is Gurdwara president in small town of Assam and the school they run their benefits assamese kids.Your blaming about 100% seats reserved only show how ignorant you are.


 
I stated: 





> As far as people in Sikh schools go, 100% of the seats allowed by the Gov't. to be reserved for Sikhs are reserved for Amritdhari and sehajdhari Sikhs.


 
I deliberately worded it this way so that you could see where I was coming from. But it seems like you only saw 100% and jumped on the conclusion that I was wrong because you were only thinking about 50%.

But no worries, I am not giving up on you people, at least not just yet unless of course you ban me. I know sooner or later, you people will ban but I will understand, it's just human nature.

The fact is Sikhs are allowed by the Gov't. to reserve 50% of the seats for Sikhs. Since Sikhs are reserving all (100%) of the 50% allowed to be reserved for Sikhs for Amritdharis and Sehajdharis, it's a true statement that 100% of the seats allowed by the Gov't. to be reserved for Sikhs are reserved for Amritdharis and Sehajdharis.

So, let further explain where I was coming. Since Sikhs reserve 100% of seats allowed to be reserved for Amritdharis and Sehajdharis, it clearly shows that they are reserving maximum number of seats for Amritdharis and Sehajdharis. So, if they were allowed to reserve 100% of the seats, they would reserve them for Amritdharis and Sehajdharis only. 

I don't know if people of other religions do the same, assuming that you are right, it only shows that people of other religions are doing it wrong as well and this only further proves that religion is bad for humanity in this category.

But look at who is at loss in this whole reservation deal. It seems like monas are the only who are not part of any reservatin quota and only because they were born in Sikh households.

Also, I don't see how people of other religions deny priviledge to the reservation as long as the candidates declare them to part of those religions. But among Sikhs, monas are denied any rights even if they claim to be Sikhs.

What's even worse is that the chances are that the people of other religions at least don't discriminate against the people whom they financially support their religious places, but Sikhs dicriminate against monas, the same people who financially support Gurdwaras.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 14, 2010)

> I deliberately worded it this way so that you could see where I was coming from. But it seems like you only saw 100% and jumped on the conclusion that I was wrong because you were only thinking about 50%.
> 
> But no worries, I am not giving up on you people, at least not just yet unless of course you ban me. I know sooner or later, you people will ban but I will understand, it's just human nature.
> 
> ...



You were talking about schools ,it was me who wrote about college's.How cleverly you are skipping the point that large number of sikh schools provide education to all kind of students.Now coming to reservation any community,state when put its own resources then they want that first benefit should go to their own people,now if sikhs want to do that
what's the problem?



> But look at who is at loss in this whole reservation deal. It seems like monas are the only who are not part of any reservatin quota and only because they were born in Sikh households.
> 
> Also, I don't see how people of other religions deny priviledge to the reservation as long as the candidates declare them to part of those religions. But among Sikhs, monas are denied any rights even if they claim to be Sikhs.



First of al majority religion Hindu's are not allowed to reserve seats as very large percentage of students in most of college's are hindu's.Now coming to your point about Mona's It is also for the benefit for the sikh community.If the right to admission in reserved
seats were extended to Mona's then very large number of Punjabi hindu's will declare themselves as sehajdhari's and will take benefit even if they don't consider themselves as sikhs.Being Mona is a choice and they can become keshdhari to get admission.For Other religions too you have to pass some criteria then only you can reap the benefit of a minority seat.It is not like that anyone who calls himself mohammed or ahmed can get himself in muslim institute


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 14, 2010)

Gurmit Singh said:


> Waheguru jee ka Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh
> 
> Very First Stanza of Japp Jee Sahib advises us daily:
> 
> ...


Gurmit Singh ji,
ikonkaarplease stop trimming your nails because it is  God"s gift to us.Still better.why not roam about naked,because that is how God send us to this world and is also God's will.
I am flabbergasted to know that those who follow the teachings of Guru Nanak in the true spirit, without showing any uotward signs are not Sikhs,
Thanks for the enlightenment.:badmood:


----------



## sdad (Apr 14, 2010)

WGJKK! WGJKF!!

I find it very odd that people who will not obey the hukum of the Guru than want a right to vote at a Gurdwara of the same Guru.
Surely, the bottom line here is the definition between believers and non-believers. Although I agree just having hair does not make one a Sikh, it is also true that a true Sikh will have hair.

BTW: my personal view is that the Panj-Phaireh (five beloved ones) should be able to over-ride any committee decisions. Now would anyone in his right mind say they are not required to have hair?

IMHO; this topic is simple and does not require any debate. 

Gurfateh!


----------



## sdad (Apr 14, 2010)

jasbirkaleka said:


> Gurmit Singh ji,
> ikonkaarplease stop trimming your nails because it is God"s gift to us.Still better.why not roam about naked,because that is how God send us to this world and is also God's will.
> I am flabbergasted to know that those who follow the teachings of Guru Nanak in the true spirit, without showing any uotward signs are not Sikhs,
> Thanks for the enlightenment.:badmood:


Jasbirkaleka-ji
Please bear in mind:
Nails are dead cells as opposed to hair which contain DNA. Gods gift, yes indeed, please read articles about hair on the many forums around, I have been around this too many time to go over it again. About going naked, are you not aware, one of our five articles more than covers this point? And finally take Guru Gobind Singh-ji's example and what more do need know? I fear your so called bad mood may be responsible for your comment.
Gurfateh!khandaa


----------



## Janpreet (Apr 14, 2010)

jasbirkaleka said:


> Gurmit Singh ji,
> ikonkaarplease stop trimming your nails because it is  God"s gift to us.Still better.why not roam about naked,because that is how God send us to this world and is also God's will.
> I am flabbergasted to know that those who follow the teachings of Guru Nanak in the true spirit, without showing any uotward signs are not Sikhs,
> Thanks for the enlightenment.:badmood:


Guru Nanak dev ji believed and preached that if we want to be truthful in your life, you want to attain peace and bliss of spiritual experience then one should walk under the ‘hukam’ of Akal Purakh (god).

‘Hukam’ can be “law of nature” or “will of God”. If we read Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says :

Kive sacheyara Hoyiye, Kiv Kudhe totte paal
(how can you be truthful and how can you achieve peace?)

Above tukk is question Guru Ji asked and in following tukk he gave answer to his own question:

Hukam Rajaai chalna nanak likhiya naal
(Nanak says, walk under the will of god)

Hair and nails we have on our body is will of Akal Purakh. Therefore we should accept the will of Akal Purakh. Now coming to your argument _"please stop trimming your nails because it is  God"s gift to us"_

Yes you are right. You really don’t have to cut your nails either instead you can let them grow. Again ‘will of god’ will come in play when you will snap off your long nails while typing on your keyboard. Your body will shun extra long nails itself exactly how your body shun hair when you comb them.

Moreover Hair never interferes with your day to day routine. You can neatly and tidily tie you hair in a ‘jodha’ and tie up your beard and go about doing your day to day work. But on the other hand nails will interfere if grown too long,

Please remember Gurbani also emphasis on being hygienic, to be hygienic you don’t have to cut something; rather you need to clean it. That’s why it’s okay to wash and comb your hair and keep them clean. Similar logic applies to nails. Don’t cut your nails but keep them clean, they will snap off itself just like hair does when you comb.

Hence, unshorn/uncut hair was first promoted and encouraged by Guru Nanak dev Ji, later Guru Nanak Dev Ji in his 10th form also made it mandatory.


----------



## Janpreet (Apr 14, 2010)

Regarding your analogy that _“why not roam about naked”_, please also consider the fact that Guru Nanak dev ji also asked us to live in the context of a family life. :happysingh:


----------



## PCJ (Apr 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> You were talking about schools ,it was me who wrote about college's.How cleverly you are skipping the point that large number of sikh schools provide education to all kind of students.Now coming to reservation any community,state when put its own resources then they want that first benefit should go to their own people,now if sikhs want to do that
> what's the problem?


School is a general term for all education institution. The problem isn't about Sikhs or anybody else. Don't read it as a complaint from me. I am simply stating the fact religion causes people to create a criterion to discriminate, which actually takes people away from Lord as Lord can not be biased.



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> First of al majority religion Hindu's are not allowed to reserve seats as very large percentage of students in most of college's are hindu's.Now coming to your point about Mona's It is also for the benefit for the sikh community.If the right to admission in reserved
> seats were extended to Mona's then very large number of Punjabi hindu's will declare themselves as sehajdhari's and will take benefit even if they don't consider themselves as sikhs.Being Mona is a choice and they can become keshdhari to get admission.For Other religions too you have to pass some criteria then only you can reap the benefit of a minority seat.It is not like that anyone who calls himself mohammed or ahmed can get himself in muslim institute


 
I understand it happens in all religions. That's why religions actually beat the purpose. Someone who claims to believe The Almighty Lord, has no reason at all to discriminate. Those who do discriminate and still claim that they believe in The Almighty Lord are simply lying about the part that believe in The Almighty Lord...

In addition, claiming that monas could convert to reap the benefit also takes people's freedom of religion away from monas. Freedom of religion is not only about freedom to choose any religion at all. Freedom of religion also means freedom not to choose any religion at all and freedom to choose part of any religion.

This is another reason why religion beats the purpose. Freedom of religion is not guaranteed in religions...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 14, 2010)

sdad said:


> Jasbirkaleka-ji
> Please bear in mind:
> Nails are dead cells as opposed to hair which contain DNA. Gods gift, yes indeed, please read articles about hair on the many forums around, I have been around this too many time to go over it again. About going naked, are you not aware, one of our five articles more than covers this point? And finally take Guru Gobind Singh-ji's example and what more do need know? I fear your so called bad mood may be responsible for your comment.
> Gurfateh!khandaa


 
Just as an FYI, nails and hair are both made up of same protein...

The doctor who misinformed people by writing the article simply lied and doesn't deserve to be a doctor...


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 14, 2010)

sdad said:


> Jasbirkaleka-ji
> Please bear in mind:
> Nails are dead cells as opposed to hair which contain DNA. Gods gift, yes indeed, please read articles about hair on the many forums around, I have been around this too many time to go over it again. About going naked, are you not aware, one of our five articles more than covers this point? And finally take Guru Gobind Singh-ji's example and what more do need know? I fear your so called bad mood may be responsible for your comment.
> Gurfateh!khandaa


WGJKK WGJKF
My response was to Gurmit Singh ji"s remark of God"s Divine Command and God"s gift of long hair to mankind.It had nothing to do with what Guru Nanak ji or Guru Gobind Singh ji ordained
The question still stands- Can the term SIKH and KHALSA  be used intermittently?
 By the way,both nails and hair have dead cells and both contain DNA. 
Bhul Chuk Maaf
Jasbir Singh Kaleka


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 14, 2010)

> School is a general term for all education institution. The problem isn't about Sikhs or anybody else. Don't read it as a complaint from me. I am simply stating the fact religion causes people to create a criterion to discriminate, which actually takes people away from Lord as Lord can not be biased.



PCJ

For your kind information Linguistic minorities in India are also entitled to set up college's and reserve seat upto 50% for their students.Here i want to show you a conversation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'College seats are reserved to protect minority rights' - The Times of India
'College seats are reserved to protect minority rights'

MUMBAI: With college admissions now in progress, the issue of reservation of seats for linguistic minorities has cropped up once again. Many colleges managed by linguistic minorities are openly declaring that they have reserved as many as 50 per cent of their seats for students from their respective communities. 

This has resulted in widespread resentment among Marathi-speaking youth who feel discriminated against in their own state. 

TNN spoke to Professor J.K. Bhambhani (72), a veteran educationist who is the rector and secretary of the Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate Board, which runs as many as 23 institutions in Mumb a i and Ulhasnagar, including colleges of arts, science, commerce, engineering and pharmacy. 

The board had fought a grim legal battle up to the supreme court to uphold the rights of minority educational institutions and Prof. Bhambhani was closely associated with the litigation. Excerpts from an interview: 

There is lot of resentment among Marathispeaking students of Mumbai because they have less chance of getting admission in colleges run by *Sindhis, South Indians, Gujaratis and other linguistic minorities.* These colleges are openly advertising the fact that as much as 50 per cent of their seats are reserved for students of their communities. Don't you think that this is unjust? 

The first clause of Article 30 of the constitution gives minorities the fundamental right to administer educational institutions for members of their communities. This position has been rightly upheld by the apex court. We were compelled by circumstances to move the court to defend our fundamental right. 

What were these “compelling circumstances''? 

In 1992, the Maharashtra government started interfering in the working of institutions run by minorities. We had no choice but to move the courts to stop this interference and assert our fundamental right. 

But aren't minority institutions being parochial when they reserve seats for their communities? 

No. Even though in our admission notices we state that up to 50 per cent seats are reserved for Sindhis, we end up filling only 20 per cent seats with Sindhis. Except for our engineering colleges, in all our other institutions 50 per cent of students are non-Sindhis. 

If you are not filling 50 per cent with Sindhi students, then why have a seperate quota for them? 

*The aim is to safeguard our basic rights as minorities. We are not against anybody. But minority rights have to be protected in a democracy. In fact, the courts have clarified that just because a minority institution gets a government grant it does not mean that its rights can be trampled upon by the authorities. *

The ground reality is that even Marathispeaking students with adequate marks are not getting admission in colleges of their choice. An absurd situation is thus prevailing in the capital of Maharashtra, where sons of the soil are finding themselves discriminated against because of their mother tongue. Please comment. 

Any community which is less than one per cent of the population of a state is treated as a minority. For example, Sindhis are minorities in all the states of the Indian union. We have no state of our own. 

We have set up educational institutions not only for our community, but for others as well. We are only ensuring that students belonging to our community, and who have merit, are not at a disadvantage. We have nothing any against any other community. 

In fact, the cut-off line (of marks) for Sindhis and students belonging to the backward categories is the same. 

But, where do Marathi-speaking students go for admissions? 

The constitution should be amended if the present situation is to change. I wish to emphasise that nobody is against Marathi-speaking students. But court verdicts should be respected. The Supreme Court had passed its order on minority institutions after extensive deliberation. 

Marathi-speaking people have allowed those from outside Maharashtra to come to Mumbai and flourish in the metropolis. 

Shouldn't the linguistic minorities reciprocate their goodwill? 

There is no doubt that there should be a sense of fair play. Our board is displaying that in ample measure. I cannot advise other minority-run bodies. But meritorious students should not be denied admission on any ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now what you are going to say about language's.Should we all start hating Language? Should we start speaking in sign language



> understand it happens in all religions. That's why religions actually beat the purpose. Someone who claims to believe The Almighty Lord, has no reason at all to discriminate. Those who do discriminate and still claim that they believe in The Almighty Lord are simply lying about the part that believe in The Almighty Lord...
> 
> In addition, claiming that monas could convert to reap the benefit also takes people's freedom of religion away from monas. Freedom of religion is not only about freedom to choose any religion at all. Freedom of religion also means freedom not to choose any religion at all and freedom to choose part of any religion.



The seats that reserved for practicing sikhs.If a mona consider himself sikh and want to take admission  for seat that is reserved for Sikh Then he needs to become a practicing sikh.If a person has right freedom not choose any religion then how could he want a benefit that is reserved for a person who is practicing a religion


----------



## pushp247 (Apr 15, 2010)

As the president of SGPC can be appointed by the influence of politics, so I don't have faith in SGPC anymore. I'm surprised to see this forum and ppl's response and ignorance on this topic, these people have nothing to with sikhism its all about money(Golak).ikonkaar


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 15, 2010)

pushp247 ji

Read a few more threads before you give up on SPN...there are many who are as critical as you are of SGPC. On this particular topic, the conversation has more to do with the constitutional issues that require a definition. And it is the Gurdwara Act that empowers SGPC from 1925/1947 to have as much input as it has.

Welcome here. I hope you continue to post. As I said, don't give up yet. There are many points of view here.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 15, 2010)

*Kanwardeep Singh*






You obviously don't even understand where I am coming from.

So let me ask you if you understand what I am talking in the following manner...

First, is your purpose to follow a religion to be closer to God? Do you understand what this means? I hope the answer is "yes", i.e. yes your goal is to be closer to God...

Do you understand that those people who supposedly got closer to God looked at all people equally? In other words, they didn't look for excuses to discriminate against people of any background at all.

So obviously, in order for someone to be closer to God, he or she has to get rid of any excuse at all to discriminate against anybody at all in this world. Someone closer to God is not going to play favoritism toward someone just because he is a Sikh for example, nor is he going to dicriminate against someone just because he is not a Sikh. Do you understand what this means?

But by reserving seats in schools for example, people of religions are obviously discriminating against people who don't belong to their religion(s). Do you understand what it means?

Since someone who is close to God has no reason at all to discriminate, someone who discriminates can not claim to be close to God. Do you understand what I am saying?

Since people of religion have found reasons to discriminate against people and someone who is close to God has no reason at all to discriminate, it means that those people of religion who have found reasons to discriminate are not close to God at all. In other words, instead of taking people closer to God, religion actually takes people away from God by giving people reasons to discriminate.

Since the original purpose to follow a religion was to be close to God and religion actually pushes people away from God, religion actually doesn't serve the original purpose.

Do you understand what I am talking about?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 15, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> I voted "NO" in the above poll. :meditation:




Me too is a Definite NO. and No regrets.:veryhappymunda1:


----------



## PCJ (Apr 15, 2010)

It isn't practical because there will be violence against Sehajdhari SGPC and they will give up...


----------



## Sinister (Apr 15, 2010)

PCJ said:


> *Kanwardeep Singh*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, you are mixing up vocab.

<?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




some groups breed their social consciousness through acts of discrimination, but let us just let that words meaning be examined.

discriminate is not synonymous with words such as discernment and the act of distinguishing/distinguishment...which are largely objective observations. These are words that give group consciousness life, and correspond more with George Simmel’s ‘laws of group formation’.

if you believe in social evolution then it is difficult not to examine ALL the agencies responsible for group formation, as necessary for human survival. Enlightenment takes on a different meaning altogether in this reality. Groups can exist without what would appear to be a general display of bravado or feelings of entitlement.

Do you believe that the language you use is a modest representation of truth? 

Because, for the most part, I think you have glossed over something very important.

A social groups survival may seem dependant upon a type of systematic discrimination, expansion/assertion of political prowess, and assimilation, but, is actually, for the most part, not at all dependant upon something that 'sinister?'. group formation has to do more with the individuals pychological need for belonging, longing for organization & structure, to actually display unity and not only affect the surroundings (with the power of soical organization) but eventually affect the group itself.


And for that reason I also support the natural right for this new group “sehajdaari’s” to organize politically, provided it is done for original reason that promote a type of distinguishment or pride, rather than just spite...so my answer to the poll above is a definite maybe.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 15, 2010)

Sinister ji

I really support the articulate and logical argument you have made above. My next reaction is not a criticism per se, but a question grounded in the way in which religion is governed as per the Indian Constitution.

As you suggest, Sehajdhari like any other group would have a basic right to organize politically and assume a political identity - a discernible political identity. 

The SGPC as it is currently constituted has legal status to administer gurdwaras (approximately 70 or 72) and is called upon to resolve various matters related to the panth, including the rendering of opinions as to who is a Sikh. That question is important because it pertains to how reservations will be determined within India.

Outside of India SGPC has virtually no authority except that which diaspora Sangats permit it to have, and it should have no governance over theological matters. 


How would an organization such as a separate SGPC  for sehajdhari Sikhs gain constitutional recognition? How would differing conclusions regarding the question, Who is a Sikh, be legally resolved?


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 15, 2010)

> You obviously don't even understand where I am coming from.
> 
> So let me ask you if you understand what I am talking in the following manner...
> 
> ...



I don't want to diclose anything personal about me but The purpose of following religion could be anyone,being closer to god,Social or just because you are bprn it with and it is 
Part of your lifestyle part of your lifestyle

 A religion has 2 element Miri and piri Political and spiritual.The aim of spiritual element is to be closer to god while The aim of political  element is to take care of worldly interest of Your community.You may find political element discriminatory But It necessary for any community have this element O/W the rulers or Govt of that place may not allow you to freely worship or the type of spirituality you want to practice.

Many sufi saints hindu bhagats claimed that they are not following any religion.Where their followers are now? They are either assimilated in Hinduism or Islam.It clearly shows that spirituality cannot survive without being molded into a religion

Had the sikh Guru's not molded sikhism into a religion then all  sikh spirituality would have been lost and We all have been sitting on HIndu philosophy.net or islam philosophy.net.The difference is in front of you the sikh dominated Punjab of India is very much seculer compared to Muslim dominated punjab of Pakistan


----------



## Sinister (Apr 15, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> How would an organization such as a separate SGPC for sehajdhari Sikhs gain constitutional recognition? How would differing conclusions regarding the question, Who is a Sikh, be legally resolved?


 

Hello Narayanjot Kaur ji,

I dunno...but we could look for parallels... if it is purely legislative problem to administer affirmitive action programs then I was thinking of something along the lines of Tribal Enrollment Programs? (usually used by all the different first nations people in Canada who benefit from affirmitive action programs)

or even

a preliminary ceremony if need be...showing that an individual is committed to the betterment of the faith and panth.


----------



## ballym (Apr 15, 2010)

Who is a Hindu? Who is a muslim? Who is a Christian? Do they ask their adherents or persons who call themselves as such to PROVE that they are what they are claiming to be?
Whole trouble is about Turban.
How do you admit a girl to guru Ramdas medical college...from where all this trouble started?
Based on her father's religious behaviour? or length of his hairs?
If she has  less than 10" hair... she is not allowed?
How will you judge whether she cuts her hairs or not?
So cutting is not critical... right? How deep you cut is the criteria?
Critical is that you do not double speak and truly state that you are not going to keep hairs. 
Stating a truth makes you loose your "sikh benefits". Are not we going against our religious teachings to speak, hear, see truth?

This sikh definition will motivate more people to live a double life. Is this what our religion want?
Just for a minor trouble of identification criteria, we want to deny majority of people a benefit?..... and give a chance to throw them far away from sikhism?
Why would such a person cling to this faith?
 Ok... you do not want such people. then why do you cry if some Dera or RSS or christians jump on such opportunity?
And let these sehajdhari call themselves with some name.
 What is the problem?
Do not be on both sides. Either take them or leave them. If you are leaving them... then do not cry unless they do any harm.


----------



## ballym (Apr 15, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> the rulers or Govt of that place may not allow you to freely worship or the type of spirituality you want to practice.
> Many sufi saints hindu bhagats claimed that they are not following any religion.Where their followers are now? They are either assimilated in Hinduism or Islam.It clearly shows that spirituality cannot survive without being molded into a religion


Well said.. No one really remember chaitanya mahaprabhu/ Kabir and their contemporary. they are not remembered as path breaking. I do see passing reference to chaitanya mahaprabhu is some sections of hindus but not in mainstream.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 15, 2010)

ballym said:


> Who is a Hindu? Who is a muslim? Who is a Christian? Do they ask their adherents or persons who call themselves as such to PROVE that they are what they are claiming to be?
> Whole trouble is about Turban.
> How do you admit a girl to guru Ramdas medical college...from where all this trouble started?
> Based on her father's religious behaviour? or length of his hairs?
> ...



I am not against reservation for genuine sehajdhari's but the problem is once the route is open for them then many many fake sehajdhari's will come and grab seats reserved for sikhs.

Let me give you some information which my brother told me.Recently he is working in MNC software company as trainee.That company also picked trainee's from Punjab's best university Thapar where 50% seats are reserved for students of Punjab.Hardly any of trainee that came in contact with my bro are sikhs not even mona's.They speak Punjabi but they are from Bania and other Hindu families from Punjab.This clearly show how much sikhs in Punjab are lagging behind.Now do you want these same people to grab handful of seats reserved for sikhs by disguising as sehajdhari's  in some college's then go ahead.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 15, 2010)

When Guru nanak ji was looking for a Successor...do you all know what were the trials and tribulations he put his followers through ?? Read the Janmsakhis....all sorts of inducements, welath, gold, jewels, etc etc were thrown and many picked these up and left...the LAST person "Standing" was Bhai lehna Ji who had been so persistent..his final "test" was Guru nanak jis command to begin eating a dead rotting body found along the wayfare...Bhai Lehna Jis question was..From which side shall i begin eating..Head or feet ??

Succeeding Gurus also faced such gruelling "tests" of Faith, LOYALTY, OBEDIENCE, SEVA. HUMILITY etc etc etc...

All these were for just ONE Successor "GURU". When Guur Gobind Singh Ji decided that after Him there would be no "single" leader....his TEST was EQUALLY GRUELLING...He DEMANDED....a "HEAD" ready to be CUT OFF. This is NOT  a NEW CONCEPT...Guru Nanak ji had already delcared more than 200 years earlier..Je to PREM KHELLAN KA CHAO..Sir DHAR TALI Galee meri aao...IF YOU want to play the Game of LOVE with ME...coem to my street with YOUR HEAD ON YOUR PALM.   GURU GOBIND SINGH JI was just carrying out this Command in a PRACTICAL WAY that the HUGE CROWD of 80,000 could WATCH.
FIVE times Guru Ji demanded a HEAD..and FIVE times He got ONE !!

TODAY...we have "DEMANDS" on the GURU..."give me a seat in this MBBS course..OR i go become a  Radha Soami...or a Christian...or a Hindu...a Muslim...!!!!!"
I am POOR...give me 10,000 Rs monthly..or i am joining the Catholic Missionaries as a " Catholic -SIKH Priest" and preaching the Bible to fellow Catholicsikhs !!
a sevadaar at the Gurdawra called me a...***** so I am going to the Ravidassee Gurdawra from Now on..I am a Ravidassiah SIKH...so on and son..the WHINING goes on...people have become so MATLABEE...of what use are such "sikhs or sehajdharees" IF they are BOUGHT OVER and have no genuine LOVE for the GURU ?? WHAT "heads" can they Give ?? they cant even give their HAIR ?? ( they would rather PAY a Barber to take away their Hair which the GURU commands DONT !!)

When Guru Gobind Singh stood before a Crowd of 80,000 in 1699 and demanded for a HEAD..did the 80,000 stand up instantly....75,000?/ 60,000?? 50,000?? 10,000?? 1000?? 500?? 100 ?? 75 ?? 50 ?????? 25 ???? 10 ???? 5 ???? 3 ??? 2 ??? NO NO NO NO...ONLY "ONE" STOOD UP after THREE CALLS !!! What about the SECOND TIME GGS Called out...again just ONE came forward...same thing repeated until Guru Ji had FIVE VOLUNTEERS !!!

What would have happened IF GGS had stood up and said..Heres a 10000 GOLD MOHARS to the first 1 to come forward..I am sure the entire 80,000 would have got up and rushed forward...BUT GGS was NOT AFTER "NUMBERS"...as we are !! WE WANT NUMBERS...the MAXIMUM...the MAJORITY..even if we have to BUY them...cajole them...BRIBE THEM with MBBS seats...university education..college seats..naukree...wohtee...ghar..zameen....high posts..etc etc etc. YES..the Christians do give these..so peole convert...the Muslims also do that..so people convert...amny are saying..JOIN THEM..lets also BUY all the Converts we can..do we have the RESOURCES to COMPETE ?? do we want to compete in this BUYING MARKET ?? Did our GURUS do this ?? Does SGGS advocate this BUYING ?? NO.NO. NO. A SIKH has to be VOLUNTARY..out of PREM of the GURU. no two ways about that.:happysingh::khanda3:ikonkaar:thumbsupp:


----------



## Sinister (Apr 15, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> I am not against reservation for genuine sehajdhari's but the problem is once the route is open for them then many many fake sehajdhari's will come and grab seats reserved for sikhs.


 
What happens if a described sikh (as per the Indian constitution) goes in a seat reserved for Sikhs but when he graduates decides not to be a sikh anymore…or maybe 2-3 years later decides not to be a sikh anymore. or maybe when he moves out decides to become a sehajdaari? or maybe does something that does not fit into the criteria of a sikh anymore while he is in school (surely schools do not want an empty seat)? what if someone dishonestly became a sikh just to get the seat? what if a child was forced to be a sikh and get a sikh seat but then when he grew up decided not to be a sikh?

should we ask for the degree back? or maybe legislate and mandate that he remain a sikh?
affirmative action on the basis of religion and not ethnicity all seems kinda weird, especially to a foreigner.
:crazy:


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> I don't want to diclose anything personal about me but The purpose of following religion could be anyone,being closer to god,Social or just because you are bprn it with and it is
> Part of your lifestyle part of your lifestyle
> 
> A religion has 2 element Miri and piri Political and spiritual.The aim of spiritual element is to be closer to god while The aim of political element is to take care of worldly interest of Your community.You may find political element discriminatory But It necessary for any community have this element O/W the rulers or Govt of that place may not allow you to freely worship or the type of spirituality you want to practice.
> ...


 
Any reason to follow a religion other to be closer to God is obviously an unGodly reason to follow a religion. I am pretty sure you understand what this means. It's pretty simple...

No religion can bring spirituality into its folds as creation of religion in itself goes against spirituality. Here is an example, spiritually wise people tell us to recognize all as one but creation of religion is itself creates division among people.

Any religion, whether it's Sikhsim, Islam, Hindusim or Chrisitianity, that causes division of human race can not claim to have brought spirituality into its folds as it has gone against spirituality by being created.

Spirituality doesn't need to be written on piece of paper to survive. Just look around us, people are learning that all people are equal unless of course religion pulls them back. These people who make equality of all practical are much more spiritual than any religious person who causes division among people...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Sinister said:


> No, you are mixing up vocab.
> 
> <?"urn:
> 
> ...


 
Social Evolution can only be good if it happens for the society as a whole, not for an individual groups. Society can not evolve when individual groups become selfish.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

Sinister said:


> What happens if a described sikh (as per the Indian constitution) goes in a seat reserved for Sikhs but when he graduates decides not to be a sikh anymore…or maybe 2-3 years later decides not to be a sikh anymore. or maybe when he moves out decides to become a sehajdaari? or maybe does something that does not fit into the criteria of a sikh anymore while he is in school (surely schools do not want an empty seat)? what if someone dishonestly became a sikh just to get the seat? what if a child was forced to be a sikh and get a sikh seat but then when he grew up decided not to be a sikh?
> 
> should we ask for the degree back? or maybe legislate and mandate that he remain a sikh?
> affirmative action on the basis of religion and not ethnicity all seems kinda weird, especially to a foreigner.
> :crazy:



There no answers to Ifs and buts.A college cannot dictate the entire life of a student but it has to make sure that seats reserved for any community should go to legitimate person

One can say same thing about linguistic minority reservations.

Also there are many ways to bypass even caste based reservations.There was a case when a an upper caste rich man asked his Schedule caste  servant to legally adopt his son so in Future his can reap all the benefits given to schedule caste community.

We have to accept that reservations are part of Indian system and Rural sikhs are very much lagging behind in education


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

> No religion can bring spirituality into its folds as creation of religion in itself goes against spirituality. Here is an example, spiritually wise people tell us to recognize all as one but creation of religion is itself creates division among people.



Could you please describe what is spirituality ? What could be spirituality for one person it may be not for other.so even spirituality could create divisions?



> Spirituality doesn't need to be written on piece of paper to survive. Just look around us, people are learning that all people are equal unless of course religion pulls them back. These people who make equality of all practical are much more spiritual than any religious person who causes division among people...



LOL are you living in your imaginery world.? Where people are learning that we are equal
Racist attacks on Indian students,attacks on sikhs after 9/11 ,Attacks on people of  UP bihar In Bombay etc.In India day by day people are getting more divided and this time Religion is not is one of the major cause.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Could you please describe what is spirituality ? What could be spirituality for one person it may be not for other.so even spirituality could create divisions?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Spritiuality would be something that brings someone closer to God. It has nothing to do with someone's personal opinion...

If you are not even sure what spirituality is, then how on this earth could have claimed that religion brought spirituality into its fold in your previous post?

I know that world around me is not imaginary and I further know that I am much less likely to be discriminated against by the people around me than by Sikhs for example...

Believe or not by supporting religious discrimination, you are equally responsible for racism as any racist out there, especially now the some of the Sikhs actually claimed that Sikh is a race on the 2010 US Census...


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Believe or not by supporting religious discrimination, you are equally responsible for racism as any racist out there, especially now the some of the Sikhs actually claimed that Sikh is a race on the 2010 US Census...



PCJ ji

How is Kanwardeep supporting religious discrimination? He is talking about inequalities that result from laws.  The inequalities are real. To talk about them, or describe them, or give examples, does not make one a racist.

How does claiming that Sikhi is a race on the 2010 US Census make someone a racist? I myself think that idea was wrong and far-fetched -- kind of illogical -- but I don't think the claim makes one a racist.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> PCJ ji
> 
> How is Kanwardeep supporting religious discrimination? He is talking about inequalities that result from laws. The inequalities are real. To talk about them, or describe them, or give examples, does not make one a racist.
> 
> How does claiming that Sikhi is a race on the 2010 US Census make someone a racist? I myself think that idea was wrong and far-fetched -- kind of illogical -- but I don't think the claim makes one a racist.


 
For those who reported that their race was Sikh, Sikhi is more of a race than a religion. Any race-based discrimination is called racism.

Therefore, anybody who supports Sikhi-based discrimination, such as discrimination in Sikh schools, is a racist...

It's good though that Sikhs started claiming that Sikhi is a race. Now, I hope they make it official by taking a hukamnaama...


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

> Spritiuality would be something that brings someone closer to God. It has nothing to do with someone's personal opinion...



So you believe that spirituality is one that brings a person closer to god.But different people Believe in Different methods for getting closer to god.For example many tribals sacrifice animals,some believe in meditation some believe singing loud kirtan  and list goes on .

Now please tell us how  spirituality does not divide humans?


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> So you believe that spirituality is one that brings a person closer to god.But different people Believe in Different methods for getting closer to god.For example many tribals sacrifice animals,some believe in meditation some believe singing loud kirtan and list goes on .
> 
> Now please tell us how spirituality does not divide humans?


 
It doesn't matter what people believe. If it doesn't bring you close to God, it's all useless...

Please tell us what you were referring to when you mentioned the word spirituality in your previous post...


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ said:


> For those who reported that their race was Sikh, Sikhi is more of a race than a religion. Any race-based discrimination is called racism.
> 
> Therefore, anybody who supports Sikhi-based discrimination, such as discrimination in Sikh schools, is a racist...
> 
> It's good though that Sikhs started claiming that Sikhi is a race. Now, I hope they make it official by taking a hukamnaama...



LOL That is pretty sarcastic, but I could not help laughing. You are funny! And i still disagree with you.

If you claim that Sikhi is a race, you are guilty only of an error of fact. It is a ridiculous claim as far as I am concerned. Most Sikhs are from Punjabi origins. Therefore they are Indo European and "white" as opposed to "oriental" or "african/black" etc. A growing number of Sikhs do not even share the Punjabi gene pool. So both sides are ignoring facts. But that does not add up to discrimination or to racism, only to wishful thinking.


The so-called Sikh based discrimination comes about as the result of reservations and set-asides in India. Sikhs look for ways to off-set the restrictions and limitations imposed on them by law. That is not discrimination, that is called looking after your young. The fault lies with proportional representation in a constitutional democracy. That is political argument not a race-based argument.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ said:


> It doesn't matter what people believe. If it doesn't bring you close to God, it's all useless...
> 
> Please tell us what you were referring to when you mentioned the word spirituality in your previous post...



What I am saying is that there different methods which people adopt to get close to god.As You said that spirituality is one that brings a person closer to god.so even spirituality give birth to differences and divide people..One person may not agree with other person  version of spirituality


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 16, 2010)

Sinister said:


> What happens if a described sikh (as per the Indian constitution) goes in a seat reserved for Sikhs but when he graduates decides not to be a sikh anymore…or maybe 2-3 years later decides not to be a sikh anymore. or maybe when he moves out decides to become a sehajdaari? or maybe does something that does not fit into the criteria of a sikh anymore while he is in school (surely schools do not want an empty seat)? what if someone dishonestly became a sikh just to get the seat? what if a child was forced to be a sikh and get a sikh seat but then when he grew up decided not to be a sikh?
> 
> should we ask for the degree back? or maybe legislate and mandate that he remain a sikh?
> affirmative action on the basis of religion and not ethnicity all seems kinda weird, especially to a foreigner.
> :crazy:



Exactly what you describe has happened..and will happen. In Malaysi we have a Sikh Education Fund..to help sikh students enter universities..and one of the requirements was keshadharee etc..etc...many "became" just THAT..to get the MONEY..once they Grdaduated..bye bye sikhi..kesh..and the MONEY too..come look for me if you want..find me if you can..and then we will see how you take back the money...

WHY did this happen ??Becasue the very FOUNDATION was based on a LIE....the "student" LIED that he was keshadharee sikh..the Fund manager "LIED" that the person before him is a keshadharee SIKH..becasue the person is NO SUCH THING ( no meter has been invented to see inside a sikh's mind ??ha ha ha )..BOTH sides LIED.

Just the other day a Fraud Baba..Pakhandi baba became the HERO..when he had the money to give "aid" to single sikh mothers...poor sikh children..etc etc...and ALL were singing his praises..and CONDEMNING the GURDWARAS..as goluck hungry..goluck grabbers..bhekheh parbhandaks...the Pkahndi baba COVERED all his FAULTS..WITH "MONEY" ( Money which is NOT hsi hard earned earnings..BUT Sangat collections anyway from kirtans in Gurdawars..donations form snangats to buy this instruemtn and that instrument, charitable schools trusts etc etc etc etc just like all other Pakhandi babas do all the time..SADEE JUTTEE SADEH SIR !! Our own shoe to whack our own head !!
This is EXACTLY what we too PRAY to SGGS when we offer a "rumallah" and ask Guur to COVER OUR FAULTS..here and in the hereafter..in EXCHANGE for a piece of cloth 5 metres square !!! a bargain isnt it ??

As I said PREM PREM and more PREM is all a SIKH needs for his GURU. Nothing else counts.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 16, 2010)

SIKHS doing what they are doing..is becasue of the SYSTEM IMPOSED on them by INDIA. Castes..reserved seats etc etc.
REMOVE ALL THOSE..and SIKHS can COMPETE with the BEST on MERIT ALONE.

If the LAW states that a certain Parliament seat is RESERVED for a Scheduled Caste...then the SIKHS have no choice except to go find one..the Best cnadidate may be a JATT or a Brahmin..but he cannot stand......otherwise they cant fight..its the LAW. IF its a reserved woman seat..they have to field a woman even though the BEST may be a Man...same for everything else..quotas..reservations..etc are Mandated by LAW and should GO.


----------



## jasi (Apr 16, 2010)

Sat Sri Akal ji.

Your comments are 100% right. 

These priests and illiterate old minded people are ignoring the essence of Sikhism and fundamental teaching,preaching by Guru Nanak dev Ji that we all come from one light and there is no body is bad  or good because of thier origin or cast.

*Definition *of SIKH IS very simple and understood by all in India and abroad:

*
ANY ONE WHO HAS A FAITH IN"GURU GRANTH SAHIB"  JI AND PRACTICES THE GURUBANI ,ARE CALLED SIKHS REGARDLESS OF ANY  ORIGIN AND CAST SYSTEM,GENDERS OR COLORS.*


ALL FOLL0WERS OF GURU NANAK DEV JI 'S TEACHING ,PRECHING AND HAVE FAITH IN FINAL GURU *"GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI"* ARE CALLED SIKHS.


TO ALL OF US AND WORLD AT LARGE ,IT WAS REVEALED BY GUR GOBINDH SINGH JI TO HAVE FAITH IN  GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI AS A LAST GURU FOR ALL BELIEVING SIKHS BY GURU GOBINDH SINGH JI MAHARAJ  

"GURU GRANTH JI MANIO .PARGAT GURAN KI DHE"  


SIKHISM IS FOR UNIVERSAL WORLD AND EVERY ONE CAN BECOME A SIKH WHO FOLLOWS GURU JI PHILOSOPHY TO ACHIEVE REALIZATIONS OF THE TRUTH AND AKAL PURKH HIMSELF.


THIS PHILOSOPHY WAS NOT INITIATED BY GURU NANAK DEV JI LIMITING TO ONLY PUNJABI BUT WORLD AT LARGE.

THE ONLY FAITH EXISTING IN THE WORLD WHICH RECOGNIZES THE HUMANITY RIGHT TO LIVE FREE IN THIS WORLD.

THE REST OF THE LEADERS OR ANY ONE WILL FURTHER US REDUCE TO MINUSCULE AND DIVIDE US FURTHER.

JASPI




jasbirkaleka said:


> :khanda3:The SGPC and other such other Sikh Organisations are proving to be the worst enemy of their own They are doing a great  a dis-service to the most modern and rational religion of the world.Tsk.tsk.Going to the courts to defne who is a Sikh.What a great idea.What next?
> And lo, the Hindus are so happy to see the Sikhs redused to such a minuscule minority.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 16, 2010)

a famous inger..POOJA who tried to .."make Hay whiel the Vienna sun shone"..by singing the Song..Begampura vassaonna hai..NAVAN PANTH Challoanna hai....had to eat HUMBLE PIE and BEG FORGIVENESS from the Audiences in Canada...becasue what she "thought"...( as many others too) was that the Vienna incident..and the resulting backlash of .."separate Gurdawras for ravidassis..Ravidassih REMOVING SGGS form their Gurdwaras and renaming them mandirs..BLAH BLAH BLAH..all turned out to be just one big CHHOCHHA !! a BUBBLE that only one small INSIGNIFICANT DERA of ravidassihs was involved..and it was taking the entire Ravidassih community for a RIDE !!
That New Album was her idea of Marshalling the New Found ravidassi Forces..and Begin the NEW PANTH !! What FOOLS...what took TEN GURUS SAHIBS...239 YEARS..and Personal SACRIFICES to begin the Guru Khalsa Panth..and these fools thought a SONG can begin a NEW PANTH !! REALITY HIT them square in the face..MOST ravidassihs REJECTED the new "power Play..as dera ballan politics...and majority stayed solidly with SGGS as their GURU as always...and NOW miss POOJa foudn out that in Canada..the MONEY is all coming form the "Old Panth of KHals Ji"..and no tickets will be bought by her "new Panth"....so she had to APOLOGISE PUBLICLY for her stupidity..and give lame excuses like..i "respect" all religions...blah blah..i sing all dharamik songs of everybody..blah blah blah..but IF i have hurt nayoens sentiments..I APOLOGISE..PLEASE attend MY CONCERTS !!! so there you ahve it..all a huge BUBBLE..BURST !!
The so called Sehajdharee federation Blah blah blah si another simialr BUBBLE..for the SGPC elections...after the elections are over..these people will go back to their holes..:happysingh::seriousmunda::thumbsupp:


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> LOL That is pretty sarcastic, but I could not help laughing. You are funny! And i still disagree with you.
> 
> If you claim that Sikhi is a race, you are guilty only of an error of fact. It is a ridiculous claim as far as I am concerned. Most Sikhs are from Punjabi origins. Therefore they are Indo European and "white" as opposed to "oriental" or "african/black" etc. A growing number of Sikhs do not even share the Punjabi gene pool. So both sides are ignoring facts. But that does not add up to discrimination or to racism, only to wishful thinking.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I am not the one who claimed Sikhi as a race on the census form. If anybody is guilty, it's Sikh who are guilty of wrongdoing...

But it does shows that Sikhs get so desperate while trying to prove that they are separate that they wouldn't even hesitate from calling religion a race...

Obviously, in America, any social group can be declared as a race and Sikhs decided to declare Sikhi as their race.

As far as racism based on reservation goes, someone who is anti-discrimination will fight against discrimination, not go along with it. Sikhs by being part of discrimination are equally responsible for discrimination (now racism as Sikhi has been declared as a race) as anybody else responsible for discriminating.

A theft doesn't become the right thing to do just because others do it too.

By committing discrimination/racism, Sikhs are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Since no discrimination is the only way to make this world a better place for the entire human race, Sikhs are making their contribution in making this world a worse place to live...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> What I am saying is that there different methods which people adopt to get close to god.As You said that spirituality is one that brings a person closer to god.so even spirituality give birth to differences and divide people..One person may not agree with other person version of spirituality


 
People can not adopt a way to get closer to God on their own, although people have attempted by following but failed terribly. They failed so terribly that religion today has become more of a social group, race or terrorist group but not something that will lead you to God.

Spirituality does not give birth to division. creation of religion gives birth to division.

Here is an example: When Kabir Sahib, "Ek noor te sabh jagg upajiya kaun bhalay kau manday", he didn't divide human race by making this statement. But Sikhs decided to include this statement in their granth and that's what created the division.

Kabir Sahib wasn't lying when he made this statement. Knowing that Lord is perfect, it couldn't happen in any other way.

Spirituality is positive change in people's belief system. It's not a belief system in itself but it's positive change in belief system. Something that brings people closer to The Almighty Lord is the only thing that can be considered positive. 

Now, just at majority of the kids born in America for example. With time, racism is disapearing. Kids don't even care wheather someone is White, Black or Brown and they don't even care about their friends' religion. They make friends without worrying about their race and religion. Now this is what spirituality is. This is what Manas ki jaat sabhe eko pahchanvo means. But religion on the other takes people in the opposite direction by practicing discrimination.

That's why a religion is lying if it claims that it brought spirituality into its folds. Religion actually goes against spirituality...


----------



## ballym (Apr 16, 2010)

Why reservation? if you are not competent then bania and others get in. We are living in past? Today you need to ask your children to study and get ahead. reservation currently is based on length of hairs. 
What if some person keeps hair for 6 years ... just to get a seat.In today's competitive market, it is possible.
Why do not we have reservation in Canada... except for very very special cases.
Such rich sikhs need a reservation? Very fact that manipulation is possible is indicative of wrong theory.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ ji,

Guru Fateh.

You make some interesting points. Please share more about yourself with us as this is an interfaith forum.

What's your religion, faith, way of life?

Where do you derive your value system from?

Why don't you talk about other religions in the forum as you do about Sikhi?

You use the word Lord a lot in your posts. What kind of Lord are you referring to?

The reason for my asking these questions is so I can understand where you are coming from and what kind of preconceived biases do you hold in your own value system, so that we can interact in a more objective manner.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

> Spirituality does not give birth to division. creation of religion gives birth to division.
> 
> Here is an example: When Kabir Sahib, "Ek noor te sabh jagg upajiya kaun bhalay kau manday", he didn't divide human race by making this statement. But Sikhs decided to include this statement in their granth and that's what created the division.
> 
> Kabir Sahib wasn't lying when he made this statement. Knowing that Lord is perfect, it couldn't happen in any other way.



How could you say that spirituality does not give birth to division? Do you think there is one standarised version of spirituality? Many people adopted different ways of spirituality
Please have a look at what same kabir ji said about women
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In common with all monastic, ascetic or otherworldly sects, Kabir does not think well of women. Ihere is almost a tirade against them in the hymns of Kabir. Woman is characterised as "a black cobra', thc pit of hell and the refuse of the world." She is considered to be a hurdle in the path of thc spiritual progress of man. He spoke, "woman ruins everything when she comes near a man; Devotion, salvation and divine knowledge no longer enter his soul." His views, about woman are also evident from all his vehement attacks against maya. Almost everywhere he links maya to a woman who is out to entice and entrap man, and destroy his spiritual lifc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the same Kabir ji made anti women statements and many spiritual Hindu saints held this view.

The fact is there is no one standard version of spirituality in the world .To be spiritual many spiritual people had said and done some weird things.



> Now, just at majority of the kids born in America for example. With time, racism is disapearing. Kids don't even care wheather someone is White, Black or Brown and they don't even care about their friends' religion. They make friends without worrying about their race and religion. Now this is what spirituality is. This is what Manas ki jaat sabhe eko pahchanvo means. But religion on the other takes people in the opposite direction by practicing discrimination.



Yeah and this is why we hear turbaned sikhs getting attacked in USA even though their population is very small in USA.Americans are really tolerant.I am sorry to say that your views are based totaly on your personal experiances of life


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

ballym said:


> Why reservation? if you are not competent then bania and others get in. We are living in past? Today you need to ask your children to study and get ahead. reservation currently is based on length of hairs.
> What if some person keeps hair for 6 years ... just to get a seat.In today's competitive market, it is possible.
> Why do not we have reservation in Canada... except for very very special cases.
> Such rich sikhs need a reservation? Very fact that manipulation is possible is indicative of wrong theory.



Gyani ji has already answered this question .Reservation are part and parcel of Indian government and sikhs have to live with it.Its better If sikhs living outside India should leave this to Indian sikhs.You people are living in world's most advanced countries while sikhs in India are living in One of most backward country of world.One cannot compare conditions of USA,canada with India


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> PCJ ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
Basically I was born in a Sikh family and kept my hair until I was 19.

But I quit considering myself a Sikh once I found out that I realized that Sikhi was not what I believed it to be....

Why Lord? Because I believe terms like God, Allah, Waheguru or Bhagwan are simply based those people's perception of The Almighty Lord - The Creator. We start setting limits one Lord when we start using terms that are based on someone else's perception.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ ji

You life in the US, and so do I. How can we be looking at the same information and coming up with different conclusions? My comments and questions inline and in blue.




PCJ said:


> Well, I am not the one who claimed Sikhi as a race on the census form. If anybody is guilty, it's Sikh who are guilty of wrongdoing...
> 
> So far there is nothing on the census form that declares Sikhs a race. I just filled one out a few weeks ago. Nothing.
> 
> ...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> PCJ ji
> 
> You life in the US, and so do I. How can we be looking at the same information and coming up with different conclusions? My comments and questions inline and in blue.


 



> So far there is nothing on the census form that declares Sikhs a race. I just filled one out a few weeks ago. Nothing.
> 
> "Sikhs" have not *claimed* Sikhs are a race...some Sikhs have *asked* the US Census Bureau to create a new racial category.


Apparently, census gives people a freedom to declare any of the social and/or religious groups as a race. That's the reason why Sikhs were able to declare Sikhi as race. 

It's right here: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/community-out-reach/29566-us-census-2010-sikhs-don-t.html

It says, fill in "Some other race" as "Sikh". Obviously, people can pick anything as their race.




> So what are you talking about? What* wrongdoing* are Sikhs guilty of? Is asking the government to make a change on the census form a *wrongdoing? *In my world, that is a question put to the government for redress of issues which is a perfectly fine thing to do in a democratic society.


 
You are the one who said I was guilty. I am not guilty of anything at all as I was not the one who declared Sikhi as a race. If you were referring to someone as guilty of declaring Sikhism as a race, then you were actually talking Sikhs, not me.





> Where do you get the idea of "desperate?" It is a democratic process. When any group of citizens petitions the government they are using the democratic process to make a change. How is that the act of desperate people?


 
They obviously are desperate to be considered separate that they are even ready to classify their religion as a race. Only someone desperate would this.




> So far no one has declared Sikhs a race. A number of different groups within American Sikhi have started a discussion about it. It is a discussion that will go on for a few more years. When a decision is made, it will be made based on debate in a democratic society. Sikhs cannot just declare they are a race, and so far it hasn't happened either.


 
Obviously, you don't need special permission to declare any group as a race. All you really need to do is fill it in the census form. 





> I already explained that in the US there are almost no examples of "reservations" such as are constitutional under Indian laws. So comparisons with India don't work. The only thing one can say is that there are 2 different constitutions resulting in different ways to address minority needs. Fighting against discrimination is a good thing to do. So if something in government leads to unjust treatment of an individual or a group, then you have to do what is required within the law. Every democracy has a way to PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, and let the democratic process proceed.





> So if Sikhs are working within the framework of the constitution and the law, how are they discriminating. I don't understand how you get to this idea that Sikhs are discriminating. Against whom? Please clarify.


 
It really doesn't matter whether or not you are within constitution, if you discriminate, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.




> What theft?
> 
> If a group sets up a school and has a charter and everything is going according to the law, then who is stealing?


 
I was simply giving you an example that nothing becomes the right thing to do just because others are doing it...

In Sikhs' case, it's misusing the Jharaava that comes from all people, including monas and yet you use the same money to discriminate against monas. That's why it's really unethical...



> As above -- you have some kind of fixation about "Sikhs" being discriminators. You are turning an entire panth into a band of discriminators and racists. Some Sikhs discriminate as individuals. There are Sikhs who won't eat or associate with other Sikhs who eat meat. Won't associate with them because they say it is part of their religion. Yet, both are Sikhs.


So far, I have not found any Sikh who is against this discrimination. The day I find someone, I will mention that not all Sikhs support this kind of discrimination.





> And, sometimes discrimination might be a good thing. Is child marriage OK? Should we discriminate when we hear about it? Some religious groups in the US believe that it is OK to marry little girls of 8 or 9 to old men who get them pregnant by the time they are 10 years old as part of their religious beliefs. Are they being discriminated against when citizens complain and law enforcement raids their churches and homes and takes their children away from them? That happens in the US too.


 
Irrelavant...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> How could you say that spirituality does not give birth to division? Do you think there is one standarised version of spirituality? Many people adopted different ways of spirituality
> Please have a look at what same kabir ji said about women
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In common with all monastic, ascetic or otherworldly sects, Kabir does not think well of women. Ihere is almost a tirade against them in the hymns of Kabir. Woman is characterised as "a black cobra', thc pit of hell and the refuse of the world." She is considered to be a hurdle in the path of thc spiritual progress of man. He spoke, "woman ruins everything when she comes near a man; Devotion, salvation and divine knowledge no longer enter his soul." His views, about woman are also evident from all his vehement attacks against maya. Almost everywhere he links maya to a woman who is out to entice and entrap man, and destroy his spiritual lifc.
> ...


 
Yes there is only one standardized spirituality, the only thing that helps people get closer to Lord. All other beliefs are false and have nothing to do with spirituality.

If some drunkard killed a Sikh, it doesn't make the whole nation racist. Most people are not racist, with exception of some supremists. But in general, a mona for example is less likely to be discriminated against by an American than by a Sikh.

The reservation system in schools make it evident...


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Exactly what you describe has happened..and will happen. In Malaysi we have a Sikh Education Fund..to help sikh students enter universities..and one of the requirements was keshadharee etc..etc....


 
Let me put on the spot here. There is nothing wrong with this because an honest person is never afraid of being put on the spot.

When you collect money in Gurdwaras, you don't care whether it comes Kesadharis or Monas or even non-Sikhs.

Do you think it's ethical for you to make being kesadhari a requirement when in reality you actually collect money from all kinds of people?

If these people in Gurdwaras were ethical, they would refuse to take the money from monas as they use this money to discriminate against them...


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 16, 2010)

> Yes there is only one standardized spirituality, the only thing that helps people get closer to Lord. All other beliefs are false and have nothing to do with spirituality.



You mean your version of spirituality  Right.so far you have not answered my question about spirituality that why people adopt different methods to get closer to god.I am assuming you believe that kabir ji was spiritually wise then why he wrote statement against women?



> f some drunkard killed a Sikh, it doesn't make the whole nation racist. Most people are not racist, with exception of some supremists. But in general, a mona for example is less likely to be discriminated against by an American than by a Sikh.
> 
> The reservation system in schools make is evident...



Oh come these statements are only based on your personal experiance.80-90% American canadian sikhs are mona's Yet they proudly call themselves sikhs .Many mona's later on in life become keshdhari.If Mona's are discriminated so much by sikhs then why they call themselves part of sikh community?


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> You mean your version of spirituality Right.so far you have not answered my question about spirituality that why people adopt different methods to get closer to god.I am assuming you believe that kabir ji was spiritually wise then why he wrote statement against women?


 
My version might very well be 

I don't know what Kabir Sahib wrote about women, nor am I going to assume what he said as people often take things out of context. But it doesn't matter. Even if he wrote something bad about women, it doesn't mean nothing he wrote was right. If he wrote something bad about women, all this means he might not be worthy of being a true guru. 

People can adopt all the different path thinking that different paths will lead them Lord. But just because people choose different paths thinking that these paths will lead them to The Lord, it does not mean their path is the true path to lead them to The Lord. There is only one path (spirituality) that will take someone closer to Lord. There is nothing people can do to learn spirituality. In fact, those who attempt actually don't learn it. The only way to learn spirituality is when it comes naturally, provided people don't mess it up by following wrong paths.



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Oh come these statements are only based on your personal experiance.80-90% American canadian sikhs are mona's Yet they proudly call themselves sikhs .Many mona's later on in life become keshdhari.If Mona's are discriminated so much by sikhs then why they call themselves part of sikh community?


 
Many monas are gullible. They think that putting a turban on, people have become better than them. Then there are monas who know that putting turban on their heads doesn't make people better than monas but they still believe in religion and that's why they call themselves Sikhs.

But reservation in Sikh colleges for Amritdharis and so-called Sehajdharis clearly shows that monas are being discriminated against in Sikh colleges. You have been supporting all this and yet you question the same thing. I have also come across some of the Sikhs who believed in hiring Sikhs only.

So the fact is that a Sikh is less likely to be discriminated against than a Sikh discriminating against others, including monas...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Let me put on the spot here. There is nothing wrong with this because an honest person is never afraid of being put on the spot.
> 
> When you collect money in Gurdwaras, you don't care whether it comes Kesadharis or Monas or even non-Sikhs.
> 
> ...



I GET your POINT loud and clear....But these people are not that guilty..you see part of the Goluck feeds everybody irrespective of mona..ghona..roda..muslim..isaii..hindu..etc etc..so imho your assertion is partly right.

Anyway the Sikh Education Fund locally is NOT "Goluck" funded.(beside the point)

But Bottom Line is I agree wholeheartedly with you...a SIKH is for the SERVICE OF ALL !! any Sikh who disctriminates in any way..is not serving his SIKHI/GURU..well. BHAI GHANIYAH ji PROVED this point and got the Blessings and shbash of Guru Ji.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 16, 2010)

PCJ said:


> Basically I was born in a Sikh family and kept my hair until I was 19.
> 
> But I quit considering myself a Sikh once I found out that I realized that Sikhi was not what I believed it to be....
> 
> Why Lord? Because I believe terms like God, Allah, Waheguru or Bhagwan are simply based those people's perception of The Almighty Lord - The Creator. We start setting limits one Lord when we start using terms that are based on someone else's perception.



PCJ,

Guru fateh.

Thanks for the partial response. I have no idea why some of the questions were not responded. Allow me to ask you those again and add some more.

Where do you derive your value system from?

Why don't you talk about other religions in the forum as you do about  Sikhi?

Are you against Sikhi per se or the Sikhs who do not seem to practice it the way it is prescribed in the SGGS, our only Guru?

Or are you just against both? Your posts seem to indicate that.

Can you explain the reasons about this disdain?

How much Gurbani have you studied and your thoughts about it if you have?

Do you know that Lord is used in Christianity and Judaism and one can also buy the title Lord for a few Pounds in the UK?

So, this is the reason I quite did not get it with your explanation in your post and one wonders why Ik Ong Kaar is missing! Can you shed some light on it?

What's your faith, religion now?

What is your own mission in this life no matter what religion or faith you belong to and what do you do in your life daily to accomplish that?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## PCJ (Apr 16, 2010)

Although it shouldn't matter, here it is:



Tejwant Singh said:


> PCJ,
> 
> Guru fateh.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

Pcj ji,

Guru Fateh.

-


> - Since I was born in a Sikh family, obviously the  base comes from part of Sikhi. But as I learned more about Sikhi, I  realized that it contradicted the values I had learned from Sikhi  itself. Equality of all mankind is one of those values. Sikhs always  claimed that Sikhi believed in equality of all mankind. But more  recently, I discovered that Sikhi has nothing to do with the way I  perceive equality of all mankind..


Can you elaborate this with the examples from SGGS, our only Guru. Unfortunately what you are saying makes no sense but a simple ranting laced with disdain. You have to back up your thoughts in your posts with references.




> -  Neither, I am simply against anti-humanity behvaiour.


Once again, you need references to prove your point. What was anti human about the sacrifices of our 5th and 9th Gurus?



> - Not much but enough to determine that I am not  a Sikh.


A Sikh means a student, a learner, a seeker. So, do you claim you are none of that which contradicts your last statement at the end of the post. Why this self contradiction?




> -  To me, Lord is the most appropriate term as I described in my previous.  Lord refers to the highest authority. Other names were used by the  people as per their own perception. Once people start using their own  perception to come up with names for The Lord, they start imposing  limitation on Him. For example, if we call Him God, all this means is  that Lord can not be beyond the perception of the person who came up  with the word God. But Lord has no limit. Therefore, it isn't the right  thing to do refer to Him using any of the names people came up with.


Please define Lord according to your own value system.



> - I don't consider myself a Sikh anymore.  Therefore, no Ek Onkar.


Ik Ong Kaar means, One Source of All there is, which is Creative Energy. Do you believe in the Energy that is the Source of All or not?



> - Since I don't agree  with any of the religions I looked into, I really don't have choice but  to have faith in The Almighty Lord.


This again is a self contradictory statement. Please define The Almighty Lord and his/her attributes.




> - Learn as much Truth as possible.


That's what the word Sikh means. So why this self contradiction?



> Truth refers to The Law  established by Lord - physical and spiritual.



Who is this Lord that has established The Law? 
What are his/her doctrines? 
Is this Lord of yours a personified deity?

Thanks for indulging me in this learning process.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Amrit Pal Singh Bhatia (Apr 17, 2010)

No in any case only sampooran sikhs shoild have the Voting right.Sikh is only sikh there is no any term sahajdhari sikh degined by Dashmesh Guru.the pesoon who can not maintain Sikhi can not be called the sikh and should not having voting right


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Pcj ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
I can answer all of these question but I like to warn you first that my reasons often offend Sikhs. That's why I suggest that you don't ask for the answers...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ said:


> I can answer all of these question but I like to warn you first that my reasons often offend Sikhs. That's why I suggest that you don't ask for the answers...



PCJ,

Guru Fateh.

Does your Almighty Lord teach you to doubt others or give the benefit of the doubt to them?

What kind of truth are you trying to seek if you feel so much disdain that your comments come with a "warning" of your being offensive when we are trying to learn from each other?

Why this self insecurity? Is this part of the doctrines of your Almighty Lord?

How can your giving references from SGGS be offensive?

Why this defensive posture?

Please read my edited version and respond and never be afraid to seek the Truth which is the cornerstone of Sikhi.

Interact without being hateful and disdainful.

Hope to learn from this interaction and please respond each question as asked.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> PCJ,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
Since you insist, I quit considering myself Sikh after reading 



> Saakat Besuva Poot Ninaam (ang1239)
> The infidel is nameless like a prostitute's son.


 
in this article posted on Sikhnet:

(CLOSED) - True Meaning Of Amritdhaaree And Non-amritdhaarees

I simply refuse to consider someone my guru who calls someone "son of a prostitute" even though he is referring to a so-called infidel. Of course, nobody can point finger at someone that he or she is an infidel. But why even refer to anybody, who is not son of prostitute, as son of a prostitute. If calling someone son of prostitute is considered bad, then why even refer to a son of prostitute as a son of a prostitute.

Plus, this article is about difference between an Amritdhari and a non-Amritdhari and author is claiming that non-Amritdharis are among those people to whom the guru referred to as son of a prostitute. That's pretty bad but it wouldn't happen if guru hadn't written something so denagrating in the first place.

Of course, my objection to referring to someone as 'son of a prostitute' is offensive to Sikhs but it's not because of me. It's simply because they are not ready to accept the truth. But since you wouldn't take 'no' as an answer, I had to post it here.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ Ji...
The EMPHASIS in the line you quoted is on "*NAMELESS*"....not either the "infidel" ( sakat is one who doesnt beleive in GOD/Creator )..or the "Prostitute" or he son/daughter.

Nameless..is an attribute....and a FACT of life...as a P sleeps with so many men..who knows the name of the father of her children..just like we cannot know which dog is the father of the puppies born in the street. They are just "nameless" unlike those born IN MY HOUSE as I know the ***** and the Male dog who fathered them...My ***** ahd just ONE puppy - named Marble..while the ***** in my backyard gave birth to 10 puppies..just as beautiful, playful, and lovingly lovable...BUT stil I would call them "nameless"..no Vet will issue them a certificate ( as Marble Has)...THAT IS A FACT and It has to be stated as MY GURU has done.

BTW..even the Men who slept with the P..have not the slightest idea...whether they "fathered" any children...to them also the KIDS BORN TO P are NAMELESS as the Men are Nameless...as is the P also Nameless !!!  Its NAMELESS that is the COMMON DENOMINATOR !!! Now tell me whats WRONG with this FACT.

BTW..the fault lies with the "translators..(infidel..OMG what an injustice to sakat !!) and people who find fault even without actually looking...and then Throwing mud at the GURU for stating a Fact.  I would advise you to go to a properly qualified "translator" to understand the GURU. The Guru is a "ferari/Porche" of sorts..and one doesnt go to a  bike mechanic to "understand" a Porsche...the best he will do is RUIN it.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

input from one of the kids in my kiddie gurbani class...
If I had known that one could "drop" the Guru for stating a fact that is common knowledge..I would have dropped out of school as soon as the Class Teacher wnated to see my "birth Certificate" to find out my daddy's name. How dare the teacher want to KNOW that" fact" ?? what right he had to CHASE AWAY the poor GIRL who DIDNT HAVE the  BIRTH CERT as I had. The poor girl went away crying...refused admission to a Govt school for not having  a piece fo paper i had with me..simply becasue my dad was KNOWN unlike hers. What a DENIGRATING thing the "teacher" did ???? He should have just kept quiet, admitted the nameless / certless kid..????
This is just an Example form the Worldy world we live in...vis a vis the "nameless"..the "certless"...the Paperless..the Passport less..why are some called "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" ?? arent they human ?? do we LEAVE the USA..Canada..in PROTEST ?? Afterall soembody is responsible for this...for calling them "illegal" ??? why ?? alert the Human Rights Orgs..but best of all LEAVE THE COUNTRY/ITS LEADERS who condone such..who wrote such laws..who practise such discrimantory actions....!!! OH..???? OH ?? who can issue Birth certificates to sons of P's...??? so they wont be *nameless*..and so we can be happy...with our Guru for not stating the OBVIOUS.
Sometimes the simple is not so simple...even a kiddie can teach me a thing or two...just finished the class..on a high note..learnt so much today. THANK YOU JIOS.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 17, 2010)

> People can adopt all the different path thinking that different paths will lead them Lord. But just because people choose different paths thinking that these paths will lead them to The Lord, it does not mean their path is the true path to lead them to The Lord. There is only one path (spirituality) that will take someone closer to Lord. There is nothing people can do to learn spirituality. In fact, those who attempt actually don't learn it. The only way to learn spirituality is when it comes naturally, provided people don't mess it up by following wrong paths.



Your statements are quite contradictory.First you said that spirituality is something that brings someone closer to god,now you are saying that people who think their path is true path that may be not for some people.Now you are saying that sprituality comes naturaly
and one don't need to learn anything

Now my question is who is going to decide which path is right which is wrong.Who has the Authority

Let me give you examples.

person A believe's in Naam simran

B believes in lestening loud kirtan

C believe's in That by sacrificing animals he can come closer to go

D believes in vipaasna meditation

E believes in worshiping idols and treating them like gods will him closer to god

Now all of them are following their version of spirituality and belives that their path is right one.Who is going to decide which one is right.
who has the authority ?There is good chance that some of these people may fight with each other that who is right and who is wrong.so like religion spirituality also can create divisions.



> Many monas are gullible. They think that putting a turban on, people have become better than them. Then there are monas who know that putting turban on their heads doesn't make people better than monas but they still believe in religion and that's why they call themselves Sikhs.
> 
> But reservation in Sikh colleges for Amritdharis and so-called Sehajdharis clearly shows that monas are being discriminated against in Sikh colleges. You have been supporting all this and yet you question the same thing. I have also come across some of the Sikhs who believed in hiring Sikhs only.
> 
> So the fact is that a Sikh is less likely to be discriminated against than a Sikh discriminating against others, including monas...



There is already enough discussion on reservation.If you cannot understand Indian conditions then leave it to Indian sikhs

My question is still unanswered .If mona sikhs feel so much discriminated then why do they come to Gurdwara? why they donate money to Gurdwara? Do turbaned sikhs force them to do that?


And BTW it is open truth that sikh separatist movement in India was largely funded by sikhs living outside India which include majority of monas .The urban Turbaned sikhs of India
hardly supported it.So why Mona's which were so discriminated by sikhs were supporting khalistan


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

Kanwardeep Ji wrote:
<<<<My question is still unanswered .If mona sikhs feel so much  discriminated then why do they come to Gurdwara? why they donate money  to Gurdwara? Do turbaned sikhs force them to do that?

ACTUALLY they DONT. I seriously uspect that the "monas" who scream the LOUDEST..about discrimiantion etc etc DONT contribute a CENT..they may not even matha tek a cent....they are a MINORITY..and thier TRUTH comes out as it has right here in this THREAD....people "leaving" for the slightest reasons, no faith in the Guru or to Find out the real truth about the GURU before maligning Him...empty vessels making the most noise...MOST monas are happy and contented to be what they are. ( This is my opinion based on what i see..until surveys are conducted and 'facts" are confirmed- others are also confirming their own confirmations)


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let me start the response from your bottom comment.

You write:



> But since you wouldn't take 'no' as an answer, I had to post it here.


No for what? I asked you some questions and it is you who have refused to answer them, hence showing your own insecurity. One wonders why!

 I have read the article which was written in March 2008 and your responses show your intellectual dishonesty of what you have posted here and your own response at Sikhnet.com, not a good trait for someone who claims to seek the Truth as you have done repeatedly in your post.

Secondly, Gitika Kaur, the writer of the article admitted herself in March 2008, being new to Sikhi. She must have learned a lot since then which does not seem to be your case because this matter still bothers you after 2 years, hence your bogus justifications. One wonders what happened to the " Truth Learning Process" that you claim!

Is this the part of the doctrines of your Almighty Lord that teaches you to be dishonest? One hopes not!

But that discussion shall follow  in an honest and open manner after you have answered my questions in a truthful way, the way you claim to seek.

I will be anxiously waiting for them and I have posted them again for your own convenience.



 Quote:
 <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">                      Originally Posted by *Tejwant Singh* 

 
_PCJ,

Guru Fateh.

Does your Almighty Lord teach you to doubt others or give the benefit of the doubt to them?

What kind of truth are you trying to seek if you feel so much disdain that your comments come with a "warning" of your being offensive when we are trying to learn from each other?

Why this self insecurity? Is this part of the doctrines of your Almighty Lord?

How can your giving references from SGGS be offensive?

Why this defensive posture?

Please read my edited version and respond and never be afraid to seek the Truth which is the cornerstone of Sikhi.

Interact without being hateful and disdainful.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Hope to learn from this interaction and please respond each question as asked.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh_
 </td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Apr 17, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Kanwardeep Ji wrote:
> <<<<My question is still unanswered .If mona sikhs feel so much  discriminated then why do they come to Gurdwara? why they donate money  to Gurdwara? Do turbaned sikhs force them to do that?
> 
> ACTUALLY they DONT. I seriously uspect that the "monas" who scream the LOUDEST..about discrimiantion etc etc DONT contribute a CENT..they may not even matha tek a cent....they are a MINORITY..and thier TRUTH comes out as it has right here in this THREAD....people "leaving" for the slightest reasons, no faith in the Guru or to Find out the real truth about the GURU before maligning Him...empty vessels making the most noise...MOST monas are happy and contented to be what they are. ( This is my opinion based on what i see..until surveys are conducted and 'facts" are confirmed- others are also confirming their own confirmations)


Gyani Jarnail Singh JI,
Gur Fateh.
So much anger and  hatred.?That too  coming from a person of much learning and erudiction and whose views are always respected.
So all the so called "monas" who contibuted to the Sikh cause and sacrificed their lives for the Sikh cause, had no faith in the Gurus. 
What kind of surveys do you want. Visit any Grudwara in Punjab and see the number of Sehajdharies thronging these places or just watch the live-cast on t.v.
From my personal experience I can vouch for the fact that a major portion of the funds for the Khalistan movement were sent by 'monas' living abroad,and they are still doing it. And the urban Sikhs contibution was almost nill. 
Once in answer to my post you said who-ever follows and tuely believes in the teachings of Guru Nanak ji is a Sikh and  a Khalsa is a Sikh who has taken Amrit.Now you say only a Khalsa  can be called  a Sikh.
With regards
Jasbir Singh Kaleka


----------



## ballym (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ starts out as benign... putting some cryptic sense...and whever asked to tell about him/her self.. keeps giving some reference to something written somewhere or some other theory.
Waste of time. Sorry to be direct. 
you may be a male, female, formless, lordless, less .... less.... or in the word of rajneesh... More is less.
 keep confusing people... and leave without answers.
 All reader beware. no point in keeping a hope .
Why to keep bad company?  Company makes your future. Do you agree on this PCJ? yes or No? only one word answer is totally acceptable.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

ballym said:


> PCJ starts out as benign... putting some cryptic sense...and whever asked to tell about him/her self.. keeps giving some reference to something written somewhere or some other theory.


 
What part of this did you not understand?



PCJ said:


> Basically I was born in a Sikh family and kept my hair until I was 19.
> 
> But I quit considering myself a Sikh once I found out that I realized that Sikhi was not what I believed it to be....
> 
> Why Lord? Because I believe terms like God, Allah, Waheguru or Bhagwan are simply based those people's perception of The Almighty Lord - The Creator. We start setting limits one Lord when we start using terms that are based on someone else's perception.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> PCJ Ji...
> The EMPHASIS in the line you quoted is on "*NAMELESS*"....not either the "infidel" ( sakat is one who doesnt beleive in GOD/Creator )..or the "Prostitute" or he son/daughter.
> 
> Nameless..is an attribute....and a FACT of life...as a P sleeps with so many men..who knows the name of the father of her children..just like we cannot know which dog is the father of the puppies born in the street. They are just "nameless" unlike those born IN MY HOUSE as I know the ***** and the Male dog who fathered them...My ***** ahd just ONE puppy - named Marble..while the ***** in my backyard gave birth to 10 puppies..just as beautiful, playful, and lovingly lovable...BUT stil I would call them "nameless"..no Vet will issue them a certificate ( as Marble Has)...THAT IS A FACT and It has to be stated as MY GURU has done.
> ...


 
The bottom line is that had the gur not written this, an amritdhari wouldn't have said that such quotes refer to non-Amritdharis...

That's the worst part part. When guru writes such quotes, people start using these quotes toward people that are only different from them but may not mean that they sakats or infidel.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ ji

You are clutching for straws at this point, and not making any sense. Now you are saying that gurus' words have negative consequences (as defined by you) because people will take them out of context (as defined by you) and use them for wrong (as defined by you) . I think the next stage in this discussion should take a look at the improbable what-nots of thinking you are introducing.

Your bottom line seems to be that no one should write, think, say, invent, create, institute, or promote any thought, idea or activity that might result in something that you do not agree with.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> PCJ ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
It has nothing to do with my insecurity. I knew that Sikhs usually got offended/hurt by my reason to quit calling myself a Sikh. That was the reason why I warned you first because I didn't want to hurt your and other Sikhs feelings. I understand you have no control over what you guru said and therefore, you should not be hurt for what your guru. That was the reason why I was trying not to mention this.

The bottom line is that a guru has to be careful what to write and what not to write. He must make sure that he writes so perfectly that nobody can take it out of context, including his followers.

Why would a true guru give his followers any reason at all to use what he said toward putting others down?

Secondly, Gitika didn't write this. She is not capable of writing an article. She didn't know the general rule of providing the source. I saw the same article on other sites as well but with time, it disappeared. But I am pretty sure we still find it on one or two other sites.

I haven't been dishonest about anything at all. I always get attacked because I have been honest and I expect others to be honest as well. This matter doesn't bother me anymore. I have simply accepted the fact that nobody is perfect. Therefore, nobody is worth being a guru. I only brought it to you because you asked me about me and this article was part of the information you needed to know. But I was kind enough to warn you first.

Please see my response to your question in red.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> input from one of the kids in my kiddie gurbani class...
> If I had known that one could "drop" the Guru for stating a fact that is common knowledge..I would have dropped out of school as soon as the Class Teacher wnated to see my "birth Certificate" to find out my daddy's name. How dare the teacher want to KNOW that" fact" ?? what right he had to CHASE AWAY the poor GIRL who DIDNT HAVE the BIRTH CERT as I had. The poor girl went away crying...refused admission to a Govt school for not having a piece fo paper i had with me..simply becasue my dad was KNOWN unlike hers. What a DENIGRATING thing the "teacher" did ???? He should have just kept quiet, admitted the nameless / certless kid..????
> This is just an Example form the Worldy world we live in...vis a vis the "nameless"..the "certless"...the Paperless..the Passport less..why are some called "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" ?? arent they human ?? do we LEAVE the USA..Canada..in PROTEST ?? Afterall soembody is responsible for this...for calling them "illegal" ??? why ?? alert the Human Rights Orgs..but best of all LEAVE THE COUNTRY/ITS LEADERS who condone such..who wrote such laws..who practise such discrimantory actions....!!! OH..???? OH ?? who can issue Birth certificates to sons of P's...??? so they wont be *nameless*..and so we can be happy...with our Guru for not stating the OBVIOUS.
> Sometimes the simple is not so simple...even a kiddie can teach me a thing or two...just finished the class..on a high note..learnt so much today. THANK YOU JIOS.


 
But yes it would make sense to drop out of a class where the teacher assumed without even looking at the birth certificate that someone didn't know his father and compared a child who couldn't produce a birth certificate to a son of a prostitute...

Such teacher should not be teaching children in the first place....


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> PCJ ji
> 
> You are clutching for straws at this point, and not making any sense. Now you are saying that gurus' words have negative consequences (as defined by you) because people will take them out of context (as defined by you) and use them for wrong (as defined by you) . I think the next stage in this discussion should take a look at the improbable what-nots of thinking you are introducing.
> 
> Your bottom line seems to be that no one should write, think, say, invent, create, institute, or promote any thought, idea or activity that might result in something that you do not agree with.


 
Everybody is welcome to write, think, say, invent, create, institute, or promote any thought, idea or activity that might result in something that I do not agree with, but in a civilized manner...

The article clearly shows how Amrtidharis think of non-Amritdharis and because of this quote, they compared them to sons of prostitutes....


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Your statements are quite contradictory.First you said that spirituality is something that brings someone closer to god,now you are saying that people who think their path is true path that may be not for some people.Now you are saying that sprituality comes naturaly
> and one don't need to learn anything
> 
> Now my question is who is going to decide which path is right which is wrong.Who has the Authority
> ...


 
This is not contradiction...

Think about it...

If none of the statements (A, B, C, D and E) above is correct in taking someone closer to The Lord, then none of the statements reflects sprituality. But if only one of them takes you closer to The Lord, then only that one statement reflects spirituality. People might be silly enough to fight claiming that their beliefs bring them closer to The Lord, but the fact is that all those practices that do not tkae you closer to The Lord are not part of spirituality.

Your question regarding monas going to gurdwara and calling themselves Sikhs has been answered already but I will answer it again: This is because many monas are gullible. They think that putting a turban over his head, someone has become better than them. That's the reason why they take all this abuse from you people as well. Some other monas however know that turbanned people are hypocrites but they still have faith in gurus and that's why they keep calling themselves Sikhs...

I have tested you people many times. I have called some of the Amritdharis by names similar to the names they call monas by and these amritdharis get upset. So, these monas must be some kind of saints. They take all this abuse from Amritdharis and they still support them...


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 17, 2010)

> If none of the statements (A, B, C, D and E) above is correct in taking someone closer to The Lord, then none of the statements reflects sprituality. But if only one of them takes you closer to The Lord, then only that one statement reflects spirituality. People might be silly enough to fight claiming that their beliefs bring them closer to The Lord, but the fact is that all those practices that do not tkae you closer to The Lord are not part of spirituality.



But who is going to decide which path is genuine. and which is not? Who has the authority?



> Your question regarding monas going to gurdwara and calling themselves Sikhs has been answered already but I will answer it again: This is because many monas are gullible. They think that putting a turban over his head, someone has become better than them. That's the reason why they take all this abuse from you people as well. Some other monas however know that turbanned people are hypocrites but they still have faith in gurus and that's why they keep calling themselves Sikhs...
> 
> I have tested you people many times. I have called some of the Amritdharis by names similar to the names they call monas by and these amritdharis get upset. So, these monas must be some kind of saints. They take all this abuse from Amritdharis and they still support them...



 To be honest I was really laughing reading above comment.Mona's are real saints of sikhism.They take all the abuse yet they donate to Gurdwara's ,Even one step further they also support Khalistan.Seriously PCJ discussion with you is real fun


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ ji,

Guru Fateh.

First of all all my questions I asked you to respond to were in the other post that you ignored on purpose. Please go back to post # 78 which has my questions and respond.



> It has nothing to do with my insecurity. I knew that Sikhs usually got offended/hurt by my reason to quit calling myself a Sikh


. 

It is laughable to say the least how blatantly dishonest you are. Show me anywhere in my post where I said I was offended.  Be truthful as your Lord requires you to do. I am rather having fun here which makes you uncomfy and your posts show that.



> That was the reason why I warned you first because I didn't want to hurt your and other Sikhs feelings.



One more dishonest remark from you who talks about his Lord being pure. Why are you in this muck then, one wonders!



> I understand you have no control over what you guru said and therefore, you should not be hurt for what your guru. That was the reason why I was trying not to mention this.



I am not offended by your ignorance either here. You have no idea what our Guru said. You are doing nothing but distorting the facts and showing us more about your Lord who is in hiding because you are too insecure to talk about him/her.



> The bottom line is that a guru has to be careful what to write and what not to write. He must make sure that he writes so perfectly that nobody can take it out of context, including his followers.



Ignorance a galore once again. Who are you to tell someone if they are right or wrong when you do not have the courage to talk about your Lord that you mention in every post? You are hillarious to say the least. It is fun skinning your thought process.



> Why would a true guru give his followers any reason at all to use what he said toward putting others down?



You are not the follower of our Guru, so why this itch if I may ask?



> Secondly, Gitika didn't write this. She is not capable of writing an article. She didn't know the general rule of providing the source. I saw the same article on other sites as well but with time, it disappeared. But I am pretty sure we still find it on one or two other sites.



You did not mention that in your response to her article. May I ask why?One more dishonest act on your part


> I haven't been dishonest about anything at all.



You  have been nothing but dishonest. To prove that, just copy and paste your response about the translation not being reliable that you posted on Sikhnet.com and check your own post#82 in this thread where you took the translation literally. It shows nothing but your dishonesty and falsehood. Which Lord teaches you this?



> I always get attacked because I have been honest and I expect others to be honest as well.



No one is attacking you here.  Now, this is a cop out of a scared person it seems. Asking questions and demanding honest answers is called interaction just in case you did not know.



> This matter doesn't bother me anymore.



You are being dishonest here again. If it did not bother you then you would share who your Lord is that you talk about as asked by me many times. You can run, but you can not hide under these false pretenses and facades.



> I have simply accepted the fact that nobody is perfect. Therefore, nobody is worth being a guru. I only brought it to you because you asked me about me and this article was part of the information you needed to know. But I was kind enough to warn you first.



Thanks for the warning about you being dishonest. A Guru means a teacher. If you had gone to any school in your life, then you must have had many Gurus. Denial is not the way to seek the truth.

But, it is fun to interact with you because you have been caught with your dishonesty many times.

Carry on.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> But who is going to decide which path is genuine. and which is not? Who has the authority?


 
Only Lord Himself decides what path is genuine and acceptable. A lot of times, people's behaviour makes it much easier to tell when their path is not genuine than it is.



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> To be honest I was really laughing reading above comment.Mona's are real saints of sikhism.They take all the abuse yet they donate to Gurdwara's ,Even one step further they also support Khalistan.Seriously PCJ discussion with you is real fun


 
You were lauging because you think you are saint and monas are not even good enough to human.

The way name-calling goes among Sikhs, anybody can easily tell that monas are much more spiritually wise than the amritdharis who call them names. Nobody who calls people names can be spiritually wise.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

See my resonse in RED



Tejwant Singh said:


> PCJ ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballym (Apr 17, 2010)

So,
PCJ is an ex-sikh. He is spiritual. believes in a Lord creator. he is somehow scared of people threatening.
My request for guidance from such enlightened person did not elicit any response on other thread of this forum after which I had to quit.
So PCJ.... fault finding is done. Sikhs are bad.....
Once agin.... what next! If not sikhi then what......
 I CAN NEVER understand anything which does not give me the answer to this......

Please enlighten us. Atleast I am ready to be your follower.
Make me your disciple and guide me.
otherwise, do not judge/comment on others.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 17, 2010)

ballym said:


> So,
> PCJ is an ex-sikh. He is spiritual. believes in a Lord creator. he is somehow scared of people threatening.
> My request for guidance from such enlightened person did not elicit any response on other thread of this forum after which I had to quit.
> So PCJ.... fault finding is done. Sikhs are bad.....
> ...


 
I never said I was scarred of people threatening. People are silly, they start threatening when they have nothing good to argue about. I simply mentioned to let the other participant know that people are offended by this stuff...

As far as no Sikhi, then what goes, it's a blessing in disguise when Lord helps people get rid of religion because once you lose faith in religion, you really don't have a choice but to have in Lord Himself and nothing can beat this....


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 17, 2010)

PCJ wrote:
The way name-calling goes among Sikhs, anybody can easily tell that  monas are much more spiritually wise than the amritdharis who call them  names. Nobody who calls people names can be spiritually wise.         

But ALL you have been doing here is calling Names to Amritdharees...and whining............is that the sign of a spiritually wise mona ?? I wonder ??


----------



## PCJ (Apr 18, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> PCJ wrote:
> The way name-calling goes among Sikhs, anybody can easily tell that monas are much more spiritually wise than the amritdharis who call them names. Nobody who calls people names can be spiritually wise.
> 
> But ALL you have been doing here is calling Names to Amritdharees...and whining............is that the sign of a spiritually wise mona ?? I wonder ??


 
Name-calling is more like calling people Patits and Saakat, which amritdharis call monas.

I am simply stating facts, which is not really name-calling.

But this is another example of how amritdharis are offended when someone simply states facts but they call monas names all the times...


----------



## japjisahib04 (Apr 18, 2010)

This superflous discussion reminds me a pankti from gurbani manmukh bhagat karai bin satguru vin satguru bhagat na hoey raam SGGS 768.17. Even japji sahib reminds us vin gun keetai bhagat na hoey. Thus gun gobind gaeyo nahi janam akarakh keen thus are wasting life in superfluous argument.


----------



## kds1980 (Apr 18, 2010)

> You were lauging because you think you are saint and monas are not even good enough to human.
> 
> The way name-calling goes among Sikhs, anybody can easily tell that monas are much more spiritually wise than the amritdharis who call them names. Nobody who calls people names can be spiritually wise.



In this entire discussion you called me racist,projected turbaned people as very bad  people and Amritdhari's Demons.On the other hand I have not uttered a single word against You.Yet you believe You are spiritual Person Who is speaking The truth.BTW do you even Know how many people here are Amrithdhari's?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 18, 2010)

PCJ ji

From non-amritdhari Narayanjot Kaur: I have been reading every thread in this forum as it is posted since 2006. Now I do it because admin has to keep an eye on things. Back then I did it because I could not learn enough. The learning continues. One thing that is perfectly clear to me is that the non-armitdhari act more persecuted and throw out more labels, names, and accusations of bad faith than do their "adversaries" (in quotes because it always seems as if the amritdhari are the adversary). This is nonsense. This is not about who are the monsters instead of angels. This is about people who are rude and harbor hatred. 

Who said He made angels out of men? Who said Kartar Purakh is without hatred and enmity? Guru Nanak. Where do you read it? Sri Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj. What religion espouses the Guru Granth and openly admits to following the philosophy of Guru Nanak?  Sikhism. Now that you have found fault with that, and there is no end to the points you can pick -- and if we are all so benighted and foolish -- why do you waste your time with us? An advanced spirit such as you are should have more heavenly planes to visit on a daily basis. 

There is only one answer. You are a troll, doing what you like best, trolling.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 18, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> In this entire discussion you called me racist,projected turbaned people as very bad people and Amritdhari's Demons.On the other hand I have not uttered a single word against You.Yet you believe You are spiritual Person Who is speaking The truth.BTW do you even Know how many people here are Amrithdhari's?


 
Someone who favors racism or race-based discrimination is a racist. Since some of the people have declared on US Census 2010 Sikhi as a race, someone who uses Sikhi as basis to discrmination becomes racist. It doesn't take a brainer...

I have called monas saints because they take all this name-calling from you people and still support you people. You take this as calling you bad people. Just imagine, it bothers you people when I call monas saints. Then how should they feel when you call them names like Patit and Saakat? I actually learnt this more recently, but apparently, it's very normal for Amritdharis to call monas Patit.


----------



## PCJ (Apr 18, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> PCJ ji
> 
> From non-amritdhari Narayanjot Kaur: I have been reading every thread in this forum as it is posted since 2006. Now I do it because admin has to keep an eye on things. Back then I did it because I could not learn enough. The learning continues. One thing that is perfectly clear to me is that the non-armitdhari act more persecuted and throw out more labels, names, and accusations of bad faith than do their "adversaries" (in quotes because it always seems as if the amritdhari are the adversary). This is nonsense. This is not about who are the monsters instead of angels. This is about people who are rude and harbor hatred.
> 
> ...


 
I have noticed two Punjabi Sikhs on Sikhnet who repeated called monas Patit and both of them are Amritdharis for sure. I have noticed one White Sikh calling monas Patit and I objected to it and I have not seen him calling anybody else Patit ever again. But it took a lot to stop the Punjabi Sikhs from repeatedly calling people Patit, although I am not sure if they stopped it all together.

As far as Gurbani goes, it's right there in front of everybody. It is what it is. I didn't make up anything. 

Wasting time on you? Do not use religion to discriminate against people. If you plan on using religion to discriminate against anybody, then you should admit and make it public that you don't believe in The Almighty Lord. Then I would no reason at all to waste time on you.

Those who openly discriminate against anybody at all and then they claim they believe in The Almighty Lord are nothing but liars.

So you have choice: Either do not encourage any discrimination at all or admit that you don't believe in The Almighty Lord...


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 18, 2010)

PCJ

Thanks for making my previous points  even more evident. It took you 21 minutes to read and reply to me and that has been your pattern. Each time a fish nibbles at your lure, you are right there to wiggle it and tease that fish. You respond instantly. With another response which takes us around in circles. * Trolling.* You must online watching "your threads" many hours of the day and night just waiting for this opportunity. 

I think we have gone as far as we can in this discussion. You have offered nothing new or convincing in the past 2 days. You have brought a lot of self-importance. The thread is closed.


----------

