# Judging



## carolineislands (Mar 24, 2008)

Let me start by saying that I am new and have only been reading SGGS and learning about Sikhi for about a year. So, forgive me if any of my words are offensive. But there is something I have been seeing so much of in these forums that deeply disturbs me. And that is JUDGING.

Pardon me for saying this, but so much of what I hear from Sikhs does not line up with what I read from Guru Nanak. On the one hand I read the SGGS and stories of Guru Nanak's life and I find acceptance of all, all persons have equal value, all religions belong to God, no one is high or low. No distinctions, no rules or judgments about who is right and who is wrong and who is Sikh and who is not and who is Amritdhara and who is not and who has a right to call themselves Sikh and who does not and who really understands Naam and who doesn't and this and that and this and that.

To tell the truth my friends, I'm pretty disgusted. Is Sikhi the religion that sprang up out the of message of Guru Nanak ji or isn't it? Is it a competition to see who is really a Sikh and who isn't? What is Sikh anyway? Who has the right to say what human being can impart Naam? Who has the right to say whether another person is a Sikh or not? Who has the right to say who is high and who is low?

I know a lot of posts that judge are quick to qualify themselves by adding some sort of comment like, "Of course everyone has a right to live how they choose." and then the post goes on to judge that person as though that little disclaimer made it right.  Then they go on to declare who does and does not have a right to call themselves this or that or consider themselves this or that.  It's heartbreaking -- it really is!

Now I'm judging, of course. And I'm ranting a bit as well. But I really need to talk about this. I am a new Sikh and there are a lot more new Sikhs coming into the community, as well as more and more to come. And it didn't really take me long to realize that I should be careful about how much time I spend reading the posts here because so much of the judging hinders my spiritual development. Several times I have restricted myself from this board in order to focus on the SGGS and the loving message of my Guru because of all the legalism and sectarianism that seems to be going on in the community.  And most of it comes from people who have been Sikhs a while, and are even Khalsa!  Matter of fact, pardon me for saying so but it seems like Khalsa are the most likely to be judgemental and uppity about their station and to speak down to and about those who are not.  Is that supposed to make new Sikhs want to be Khalsa?  Because it only makes me want to take more time to come to that place just to make sure I don't have that attitude when I do.

What is going on? Didn't Guru Nanak make it his life's mission to spread a word of unity and equality and do away with legalism? I fell in love with this message thinking it was something called Sikhism, then I go to Sikh forums and find, what?
Legalism, inequality, judging, sectarianism. This rule and that rule, who can be this because they did that, who can call themselves that because they believe this.

Now, I know some of you will get angry at me and I am sorry for that. But it seems to me that many Sikhs have turned Sikhi into the very thing that Guru Nanak lived his life to do away with.

And honestly, it disheartens me. What is Sikhi -- a bunch of rules and uniforms and people setting themselves up in a position to decide who has naam and who is a real Sikh and this and that by how rigidly they follow the rulebook? Because that seems to me to be in deep conflict with the message of Guru Nanak.

Pardon my presumptuousness. I know I am a new Sikh and have no right to say these things. But I really need to say what I see and hopefully address some of these issues.

Thanks for your patience and understanding and my apologies to any whom I might have offended.  I am speaking from the heart and would like to know your heartfelt thoughts as well.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 24, 2008)

If anyone tries anything with you carolineislands ji, I will beat them up:whisling:



carolineislands said:


> Let me start by saying that I am new and have only been reading SGGS and learning about Sikhi for about a year. So, forgive me if any of my words are offensive. But there is something I have been seeing so much of in these forums that deeply disturbs me. And that is JUDGING.
> 
> Pardon me for saying this, but so much of what I hear from Sikhs does not line up with what I read from Guru Nanak. On the one hand I read the SGGS and stories of Guru Nanak's life and I find acceptance of all, all persons have equal value, all religions belong to God, no one is high or low. No distinctions, no rules or judgments about who is right and who is wrong and who is Sikh
> 
> ...



Now you are asking heartfelt questions, logical questions, and questions having practical value. You are not describing any dilemma that I have not myself asked myself 1,000 times. What Am I Doing?  The flip attitudes, sarcasm, antagonisms, narrow views, unwillingness to converse in a dialog of partners, extremism, fault finding, etc. Part of the  answer is "human nature" -- and the fact that this is an Internet forum. Some of the things that are said are said because people take cover of anonymity and lack of accountability on an Intenet forum-- any forum including forums about vitamins, horticulture or coding in Linux.  

Another idea is that the extent of your experience with Sikhs in real time and space may be only a few months old. Many more first hand encounters will likewise over time paint a completely different picture.

Another part of my answer is: This is a forum with religion as content. Religion is something that defines the self. Challenge even the smallest matter, and someone gets offended. Take heart.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 24, 2008)

the first thing that comes to my mind is that we're all humans here, not Guru.  we try our best according to our abilities.  perhaps people who are more enlightened spend less time in online forums, so you come across poor moorakhs like me on SPN. 

please do not judge the religion by it's followers.

you said:



> And most of it comes from people who have been Sikhs a while, and are even Khalsa! Matter of fact, pardon me for saying so but it seems like Khalsa are the most likely to be judgemental and uppity about their station and to speak down to and about those who are not.




i find this interesting...  because i get judgmental **** all the time from people because i try to follow maryada more strictly than some people.  they just automatically assume i'm "uppity", before i open my mouth, and are rude or snobbish, or whatever.   i've heard the same thing from many other amritdharis, especially women who wear dastaar...  people assume that because we choose to follow our faith in a more orthodox way, we must be looking down at them.  even if we don't say anything!  they will twist our words to make it look as though we're making insults, even if that wasn't our intention.   perhaps they do this to make themselves feel better about their chosen lifestyle.  

no one here is better than anyone else.  we don't even KNOW each other for the most part, so how can we even think to judge?

perhaps people who speak in ego will find a reason to insult someone, no matter how tenuous the logic.


----------



## pk70 (Mar 24, 2008)

[


Carolineisland ji

You have a very fine mind. You also have the light given by Guru Nanak ji, keep moving on your path, dont mind the mist.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Mar 24, 2008)

this is the question that no one will try to answer in a direct way 

not even me

i have been harping for long... Sikhi and Sikhism are two different things. One is what all we know from SGGS and the way Gurus showed us and second is a structured religion.

Who calls himself sikh?

a person who is on the "sikhi" way or a person who follows the SIKHISM as defined by SGPC


religion as defined is a structured, community binding organization. Some call it opium of masses, i wouldn't go to those extremes.

Religion provided sense of belonging and inclusivity. The rituals dim down the curious and seeking mind. Religion provides followers the cause and effect logic to give comfort feeling, "if i am doing this, i must be right"



here's my parting shot, something to chew upon 

"having no religion does not make a person atheist."


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

I had written a long message but the internet ate it so I will have to just say that I am very touched by all your replies.  I was feeling sort of bad about being so negative and came back and found all these understanding, compassionate, encouraging words and I ... well, I'm humbled by your kindness.

I don't know if I'll ever be a good Sikh but I know I'll be in good company.


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

pk70 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Carolineisland ji
> ...


:8- thank you...


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> here's my parting shot, something to chew upon
> 
> "having no religion does not make a person atheist."


  Hey, you know what?  Your RIGHT.  Matter of fact, Guru Nanak didn't have a religion, did he?  I read that he used to wear colors and symbols from two or three different religions and nobody could ever really say what he was.  He said, "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim..."  I wonder, were he alive today, if he might add  :shutup:  uh... never mind.


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 25, 2008)

I'm going to go and beat an egg. After that I have to do laundry. I was reading the Indian words and meanings - came across the meaning of Dhobi - laundry taken to a river and beaten into submission on a rock. I've often called SPN a platform of Universal Emotion. This is where emotions dance to estacy level - revolving so fast that the effects are - the readers are whipped into refinement. Once you are so fine like powder, you become pure - the dust of their feet - nothing can harm you. Kabeer goes two steps further by saying becoming dust isn't enough :








Surinder Singh Matharoo - Kabir Rora Hoe Raho

kabeer rorhaa ho-ay rahu baat kaa taj man kaa abhimaan.
Kabeer, let yourself be a pebble on the path; abandon your egotistical pride.

aisaa ko-ee daas ho-ay taahi milai bhagvaan. ||146||
Such a humble slave shall meet the Lord God. ||146||

kabeer rorhaa hoo-aa ta ki-aa bha-i-aa panthee ka-o dukh day-ay.
Kabeer, what good would it be, to be a pebble? It would only hurt the traveller on the path.

aisaa tayraa daas hai ji-o Dharnee meh khayh. ||147||
Your slave, O Lord, is like the dust of the earth. ||147||

kabeer khayh hoo-ee ta-o ki-aa bha-i-aa ja-o ud laagai ang.
Kabeer, what then, if one could become dust? It is blown up by the wind, and sticks to the body.

har jan aisaa chaahee-ai ji-o paanee sarbang. ||148||
The humble servant of the Lord should be like water, which cleans everything. ||148||

kabeer paanee hoo-aa ta ki-aa bha-i-aa seeraa taataa ho-ay.
Kabeer, what then, if one could become water? It becomes cold, then hot.

har jan aisaa chaahee-ai jaisaa har hee ho-ay. ||149||
The humble servant of the Lord should be just like the Lord. ||149||


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 25, 2008)

> Let me start by saying that I am new and have only been reading SGGS and learning about Sikhi for about a year. So, forgive me if any of my words are offensive. But there is something I have been seeing so much of in these forums that deeply disturbs me. And that is JUDGING.
> 
> Pardon me for saying this, but so much of what I hear from Sikhs does not line up with what I read from Guru Nanak. On the one hand I read the SGGS and stories of Guru Nanak's life and I find acceptance of all, all persons have equal value, all religions belong to God, no one is high or low. No distinctions, no rules or judgments about who is right and who is wrong and who is Sikh and who is not and who is Amritdhara and who is not and who has a right to call themselves Sikh and who does not and who really understands Naam and who doesn't and this and that and this and that.
> 
> To tell the truth my friends, I'm pretty disgusted. Is Sikhi the religion that sprang up out the of message of Guru Nanak ji or isn't it? Is it a competition to see who is really a Sikh and who isn't? What is Sikh anyway? Who has the right to say what human being can impart Naam? Who has the right to say whether another person is a Sikh or not? Who has the right to say who is high and who is low?


You know panji, bibek is a process of discrimination by which we distinguish between things. I know you are talking about my posts. Panji, your upset about "judging." But posts where I have objected to someone calling themself a Sikh had to do with someone excommunicated, Kala Afghana, with Naamdharies and their dedhari pakhandi guru Jagjit Singh Naamdhari.

I never said that you or anyone else was not a Sikh...except these people. For very good reason... They aren't Sikhs.

You know, I don't care how many videos people like Guruka Singh Khalsa make, and this isn't only my opinion, but those people aren't going to be accepted no matter how much you may tear us apart personally as being unloving. First of all, I didn't exclude them. I acknowledge that they have been excluded. You know, if this was an interfaith forum I could understand your rant. But panji, it's a SIKH forum. And no apostate group is going to get legitimacy if 99.9% of all the posters agreed with you. 

Just because I say they are not accepted, how am I judging? I do not decide these things. As a Sikh, I only accept them, because I accept the wisdom of Guru Panth as point of faith.



> I know a lot of posts that judge are quick to qualify themselves by adding some sort of comment like, "Of course everyone has a right to live how they choose." and then the post goes on to judge that person as though that little disclaimer made it right. Then they go on to declare who does and does not have a right to call themselves this or that or consider themselves this or that. It's heartbreaking -- it really is!


How are my posts quick to judge when Akal Takht has already decided these matters? This is not my judgment panji. Everyone does have a right to choose. But no Sikh can override Gurbani, Panj Piare, or Akal Takht Sahib Ji Hukamnama. You realize in 1978 one of these dedhari gurus ordered the attack on 60 Gursikhs killing 13 of them? Why would anybody question the social boycott of such sects? Why is this heartbreaking? They are under social boycott for a reason. I just happen to accept the wisdom of the reason. I am not personally rejecting anyone. And anyone who comes to Panj Piare and Sikh sangat for forgiveness will be forgiven.

Panji, I have no right to declare a social boycott. I have no right to make or alter the accepted Panthic definition of who is a Sikh. Why is it heartbreaking to you when you don't even understand what a Panthic opinion is or the authority of Guru Khalsa Panth and say things like:


> *Are the Panj Piare human beings? Do they instruct you not to take any as savior other than the Gurus? How, then, can you say they ARE Guru? Doesn't that mean you are taking them as savior, exactly as they instructed you not to?*
> 
> *Interesting, that the very Panj Piare that instruct you not to think of anyone except the Gurus as your savior are now being presented as the Guru. Wouldn't that be thinking of them as your savior?*
> 
> ...


Panji, give me a break. I stayed up all night, without eating to write out answers to peoples questions. Not because I'm uppity, but because there isn't enough Gursikhi parchaar. A lot of people don't have the information of what Sikhism even believs before they make themselves a teacher. That's why the opinions of an excommunicated scholar, a boycotted sect, and a video of a yoga teacher who doesn't lend one single pauri of Gurbani to support his assertion that Naam is unique to everybody and means whatever you want it to. And that's why I stayed up all night trying to answer everybody's objections. I mean, Sikhism is a RELIGION. It HAS RULES. And I didn't invent them. I only accept them. I'm sorry that I disgust you.

Suppose someone went to a mainstream Christian Church and said, "Hey, you gotta accept me! You gotta be kind to me! You gotta be open-minded because I'm a Christian too! I don't believe in Jesus. I don't believe in the Virgin Birth. I don't believe in the son of God. I don't believe in heaven or hell. I don't believe in the disciples or the Bible. I don't believe in the crucifixion OR the resurrection. But you gotta accept me as a Christian, or I'll rant about how you disgust me."

Doesn't every religion have a right to identity and self-definition? What if you went to the Jews and said, "Hey, you orthodox guys have it all wrong! When you keep those beards and earlocks and black hats its because of PRIDE! And you disgust me. Who says I can't cut mine off and still be an orthodox Jew? Who are you to tell me anything? I'm telling you, your orthodoxy is legalism! It's unspiritual! It's against the Bible that I read for the last year and you're all heartbreaking."

Wouldn't that just about be the most arrogant approach anyone could have to orthodox Jews who have been through so much just to be here today preserving and cherishing that identity? Why would you be bent out of shape because rejecting orthodoxy, the orthodox don't accept you?

Panji, you have unrealistic expectations. *Just listen to the intolerance in what your saying. *

*You aren't talking to excommunicated, or boycotted. You aren't talking to people ostracized for murdering Sikhs or making themselves Guru. Your talking to someone with an orthodox opinion that doesn't conform to your own.*

Panji, I'm a convert too. And I have not been walking this path that long either. I took amrit not quite 3 years ago. So the last thing I wanted to do was to make you unhappy or discourage your seeking. That's why I worked so hard to give you the best answer I could give. Is this post condemning me the best you could give?




> Now I'm judging, of course. And I'm ranting a bit as well. But I really need to talk about this. I am a new Sikh and there are a lot more new Sikhs coming into the community, as well as more and more to come. And it didn't really take me long to realize that I should be careful about how much time I spend reading the posts here because so much of the judging hinders my spiritual development. Several times I have restricted myself from this board in order to focus on the SGGS and the loving message of my Guru because of all the legalism and sectarianism that seems to be going on in the community. And most of it comes from people who have been Sikhs a while, and are even Khalsa! Matter of fact, pardon me for saying so but it seems like Khalsa are the most likely to be judgemental and uppity about their station and to speak down to and about those who are not. Is that supposed to make new Sikhs want to be Khalsa? Because it only makes me want to take more time to come to that place just to make sure I don't have that attitude when I do.


Panji, the orthodox view is that Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the same jyot as Guru Gobind Singh Ji. That sant rass is the same as bir rass. That the Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is indisputedly Guru, but is the sant granth. Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji is the sipahi granth. The Rehat Maryada of the Khalsa is also the creation of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. We are to be fearless adversaries to our enemies, as we are loving to those in need. The orthodox opinion doesn't see only love in Guru Ji's message, but a clear and unmistakeable identity, definite rules, definite sacrifice. 


> What is going on? Didn't Guru Nanak make it his life's mission to spread a word of unity and equality and do away with legalism? I fell in love with this message thinking it was something called Sikhism, then I go to Sikh forums and find, what? Legalism, inequality, judging, sectarianism. This rule and that rule, who can be this because they did that, who can call themselves that because they believe this. Now, I know some of you will get angry at me and I am sorry for that. But it seems to me that many Sikhs have turned Sikhi into the very thing that Guru Nanak lived his life to do away with.
> 
> And honestly, it disheartens me. What is Sikhi -- a bunch of rules and uniforms and people setting themselves up in a position to decide who has naam and who is a real Sikh and this and that by how rigidly they follow the rulebook? Because that seems to me to be in deep conflict with the message of Guru Nanak.


Panji, you keep confusing Guru Nanak Dev Ji with Jesus Christ and his conflicts with the legalism of orthodox Judaism. The same Guru Gobind Singh Ji who gave us these rules, this uniform and separate identity as Khalsa. _Guruji didn't spend his life trying to do away with the Khalsa order He called His very own form._ This is the Gurmat Gursikh faith. There is no conflict with the message of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, because Guru Nanak Dev Ji is still with us today in the Khalsa Panth and Panj Piare and Shabad Guru Ji Maharaaj. 



> Pardon my presumptuousness. I know I am a new Sikh and have no right to say these things. But I really need to say what I see and hopefully address some of these issues. Thanks for your patience and understanding and my apologies to any whom I might have offended. I am speaking from the heart and would like to know your heartfelt thoughts as well.


Panji, you have a right to ask any questions at all. Can't you see this is different from apostate beliefs being preached to confuse Sikh teaching? If you have belief in the 10 forms of Guru and the Shabad Guru and no belief in any other teaching (Im sorry, but as per Rehit Maryada) then you, and all the 3HO people are Sikhs and part of the Sikh Panth. I didn't decide this, it's Guruji's hukam, and I accept you as my sister.



> What is Sikh anyway? Who has the right to say what human being can impart Naam? Who has the right to say whether another person is a Sikh or not? Who has the right to say who is high and who is low?


Guruji has that right. And no Sikh will violate the Guru's hukam.



> because so much of the judging hinders my spiritual development.


You are called to become the fearless Khalsa. When bullets are flying from enemies who want to torture and kill you, your going to be worrying about small thing like this? Be strong! And look at how you too are in the maya of judgment along with the rest of us.



> Matter of fact, pardon me for saying so but it seems like Khalsa are the most likely to be judgemental and uppity about their station and to speak down to and about those who are not. Is that supposed to make new Sikhs want to be Khalsa? Because it only makes me want to take more time to come to that place just to make sure I don't have that attitude when I do.


If I was uppity would I even give you the time of day? And yet here I am still trying to answer your objections. To become Khalsa is to accept an invitation for love affair with Guruji. If Guru is not your beloved one, and your not willing to have your head cut off and become shaheed. If you are wavering over attitudes, what will you do when bullets are flying? Guruji dares you to become Khalsa. He doesn't beg. You will walk this path with a sword in your hand, and instruction never to turn your back to the battle.

ਕਬੀਰ ਜਉ ਤੁਹਿ ਸਾਧ ਪਿਰੰਮ ਕੀ ਪਾਕੇ ਸੇਤੀ ਖੇਲੁ ॥ 
kabeer jo thuhi saadhh piranm kee paakae saethee khael ||
Kabeer, if you desire to play the game of love with the Lord, play it with someone with committment.​ 
ਕਾਚੀ ਸਰਸਉਂ ਪੇਲਿ ਕੈ ਨਾ ਖਲਿ ਭਈ ਨ ਤੇਲੁ ॥੨੪੦॥ 
kaachee sarasoun pael kai naa khal bhee n thael ||240||
Pressing the unripe mustard seeds produces neither oil nor flour. ||240||​ 
ਢੂੰਢਤ ਡੋਲਹਿ ਅੰਧ ਗਤਿ ਅਰੁ ਚੀਨਤ ਨਾਹੀ ਸੰਤ ॥ 
dtoondtath ddolehi andhh gath ar cheenath naahee santh ||
Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint.
~SGGS Ji p. 1377​ 

click here---> *YouTube - 1984 teri yaad*​


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

Harjas Kaur Khalsa said:


> You know panji, bibek is a process of discrimination by which we distinguish between things. I know you are talking about my posts.


 Well, actually I wasn't talking about your posts.  Some of the things you say are similar to many of the things I've been hearing, yes.  But frankly, this is something that has been on my mind for a while and I'm sorry if you thought I was directing my post at you but I think if you ask around you'll see that some of us have touched on this before I even saw any of your posts.



> Panji, your upset about "judging." But posts where I have objected to someone calling themself a Sikh had to do with someone excommunicated, Kala Afghana, with Naamdharies and their dedhari pakhandi guru Jagjit Singh Naamdhari.


Sorry -- I really don't know what you're talking about here...




> You know, I don't care how many videos people like Guruka Singh Khalsa make, and this isn't only my opinion, but those people aren't going to be accepted no matter how much you may tear us apart personally as being unloving. First of all, I didn't exclude them. I acknowledge that they have been excluded. You know, if this was an interfaith forum I could understand your rant. But panji, it's a SIKH forum. And no apostate group is going to get legitimacy if 99.9% of all the posters agreed with you.


I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you're talking about.   



> Just because I say they are not accepted, how am I judging? I do not decide these things. As a Sikh, I only accept them, because I accept the wisdom of Guru Panth as point of faith.


I was not aware that you had said they were not accepted.




> How are my posts quick to judge when Akal Takht has already decided these matters? This is not my judgment panji. Everyone does have a right to choose. But no Sikh can override Gurbani, Panj Piare, or Akal Takht Sahib Ji Hukamnama. You realize in 1978 one of these dedhari gurus ordered the attack on 60 Gursikhs killing 13 of them? Why would anybody question the social boycott of such sects? Why is this heartbreaking? They are under social boycott for a reason. I just happen to accept the wisdom of the reason. I am not personally rejecting anyone. And anyone who comes to Panj Piare and Sikh sangat for forgiveness will be forgiven.





> Panji, I have no right to declare a social boycott. I have no right to make or alter the accepted Panthic definition of who is a Sikh. Why is it heartbreaking to you when you don't even understand what a Panthic opinion is or the authority of Guru Khalsa Panth and say things like:


Again I apologize but I really don't know what you're talking about.  As for the quotes of comments I made in another thread, please don't take things I've written out of context and try to insert them into another discussion.  It's really not fair and doesn't make any sense.



> Panji, give me a break. I stayed up all night, without eating to write out answers to peoples questions. Not because I'm uppity, but because there isn't enough Gursikhi parchaar. A lot of people don't have the information of what Sikhism even believs before they make themselves a teacher. That's why the opinions of an excommunicated scholar, a boycotted sect, and a video of a yoga teacher who doesn't lend one single pauri of Gurbani to support his assertion that Naam is unique to everybody and means whatever you want it to. And that's why I stayed up all night trying to answer everybody's objections. I mean, Sikhism is a RELIGION. It HAS RULES. And I didn't invent them. I only accept them. I'm sorry that I disgust you.


  What is Gursikhi parchaar?  I had not idea that Sikhism actually excommunicated people!  And please -- you "disgust" me?  Where in the WORLD did you get THAT?  My dear sister -- please get some sleep!  



> Suppose someone went to a mainstream Christian Church and said, "Hey, you gotta accept me! You gotta be kind to me! You gotta be open-minded because I'm a Christian too! I don't believe in Jesus. I don't believe in the Virgin Birth. I don't believe in the son of God. I don't believe in heaven or hell. I don't believe in the disciples or the Bible. I don't believe in the crucifixion OR the resurrection. But you gotta accept me as a Christian, or I'll rant about how you disgust me."


  Well to tell the truth, if I expected Sikhi to be the same as Christianity I'd probably just have gone ahead and stayed a Christian.   



> Panji, you have unrealistic expectations. *Just listen to the intolerance in what your saying. *


  I knew full well I was being presumptuous and said so from the beginning.  But I needed to hear some opinions and get a few answers.  Mainly I wanted to know if I was alone with my thoughts and found out I was not.  That helped a lot.  But again, please pardon my presumptuousness.  



> Panji, I'm a convert too. And I have not been walking this path that long either. I took amrit not quite 3 years ago. So the last thing I wanted to do was to make you unhappy or discourage your seeking. That's why I worked so hard to give you the best answer I could give. Is this post condemning me the best you could give?



Actually, my post was not an answer to you at all.  I posted my answers to you in the appropriate thread.  This post was a general question for the whole forum and it sprang from many interactions I had before I ever even knew you existed.  Again, pardon me for saying this but you've blown it way out of proportion and taken it on as an attack on you when the things you said had a very small part in my feelings at all.  I admit that some of the things you say sound more like things I heard in my prior religion and I disagree with you on a lot of things, but trust me -- my post was not some underhanded, passive aggressive attack on you.  
 



> Panji, you keep confusing Guru Nanak Dev Ji with Jesus Christ and his conflicts with the legalism of orthodox Judaism.


  I disagree.  Although I do find Guru Nanak's message similar to that of Jesus Christ's message.  I do not confuse them.  And although I do find disturbing similarities between the orthodoxy I see in Sikhism and many other organized religions -- I do not confuse them.




> Panji, you have a right to ask any questions at all.


  Thank you.



> Can't you see this is different from apostate beliefs being preached to confuse Sikh teaching?


  Well I can see the difference now that you mention it but I truly have no idea what the connections is between this and my post.  That's probably because you're mistakenly assuming I'm reacting to something you wrote that I haven't even read.



> If you have belief in the 10 forms of Guru and the Shabad Guru and no belief in any other teaching (Im sorry, but as per Rehit Maryada)


  No need to apologize.  I don't put much stock in the Rehit Maryada anyhow.  



> then you, and all the 3HO people are Sikhs and part of the Sikh Panth. I didn't decide this, it's Guruji's hukam, and I accept you as my sister.


  Thank you. 




> And look at how you too are in the maya of judgment along with the rest of us.


  Yes I do realize that and had addressed that in the original post as well.  I do apologize but I'm glad I chose to be open about my feelings because many of the replies I got her helped me a lot.




> If I was uppity would I even give you the time of day?


  Probably not, unless you were trying to put me in my place.  Which you'd have a right to do.



> If Guru is not your beloved one, and your not willing to have your head cut off and become shaheed.


 Guru has been my beloved for many years -- long before I ever heard of Sikhi.  And I think I took the first step to placing my head in his hands about 20 years ago when I prayed, "God, I am going on a quest to find the truth about You -- if you send me to Hell for it then I will go, because I'm willing to go to hell if that's the price I have to pay for seeking out the truth about you."  



> Guruji dares you to become Khalsa. He doesn't beg. You will walk this path with a sword in your hand, and instruction never to turn your back to the battle.


  That is beautiful but it's not my experience with my True Guru.  


ਢੂੰਢਤ ਡੋਲਹਿ ਅੰਧ ਗਤਿ ਅਰੁ ਚੀਨਤ ਨਾਹੀ ਸੰਤ ॥ 
dtoondtath ddolehi andhh gath ar cheenath naahee santh ||
Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint.
~SGGS Ji p. 1377​ 

 So true.

My sister, I am so sorry you took my post as a rebuttal to you personally.  Obviously, it was not since I was not even aware of some of the things you said.  So much so that I was quite confused by some of your references.  Yes, we disagree on several points and seem to have different philosophies about some things.  I think that is because God chooses how he will reveal himself to each person according to his plan.  You don't have to believe the same way I do and I don't have to believe the same way you do.  I am a Sikh for reasons that you may not even be aware of.  I believe there are a lot of Sikhs in this world that have never heard of Sikhi.  But that is just me.

And I guess I can believe any way I feel like believing since I'm not amritdari I can't be excommunicated anyhow.   

Hope you get some sleep.  And thank you for your commitment and devotion to Sikhism and Sikhs.


----------



## S|kH (Mar 25, 2008)

> Panji, the orthodox view is that Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the same jyot as Guru Gobind Singh Ji. That sant rass is the same as bir rass. That the Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is indisputedly Guru, but is the sant granth. Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji is the sipahi granth. The Rehat Maryada of the Khalsa is also the creation of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. We are to be fearless adversaries to our enemies, as we are loving to those in need. The orthodox opinion doesn't see only love in Guru Ji's message, but a clear and unmistakeable identity, definite rules, definite sacrifice.
> 
> Panji, you keep confusing Guru Nanak Dev Ji with Jesus Christ and his conflicts with the legalism of orthodox Judaism. The same Guru Gobind Singh Ji who gave us these rules, this uniform and separate identity as Khalsa. _Guruji didn't spend his life trying to do away with the Khalsa order He called His very own form._ This is the Gurmat Gursikh faith. There is no conflict with the message of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, because Guru Nanak Dev Ji is still with us today in the Khalsa Panth and Panj Piare and Shabad Guru Ji Maharaaj.


 
     First, I want to say that what you treat as empirical fact in the above paragraphs, is not fact and relies heavily on interpretation. If you truly believe there is no contradiction in the message that Guru Nanak initially sent out, and the message of Khalsa Panth that Guru Gobind gave us then you have been reading a horrible translation. There is a very obvious leap in flow from Guru Nanak to the Khalsa Panth that HAVE to be filled by translations, interpretations, and rehits. Maybe you have found comfort in the ideology of the Panth that was initially taught to you, but you must realize that for many new Sikhs (young kids, and converts) there is a big question of ... what entitles Guru Nanak's message, and what entitles the Khalsa. Just the fact that this question is being asked by the global diaspora must show you that the connection isn't as empirical fact as you are treating it to be. Matter of fact, the Akhal Takht disagrees with you as it clearly defines a Sikh, and then a Khalsa as separate but related identities. 

       I'm not saying I have the answer, or that there is absolutely a contradiction between the messages. All I'm saying is, if most people in the global diaspora are asking the same question ... it must be relevant. If you think that question is useless, your obviously looking at skewed data or making a biased opinion. Most of the time when asked the relation amongst Sikhs and Khalsa people have to connect the two with their own words rather than words of the Guru. I can not use Guru Nanak's quotes to fulfill the definition that Guru Gobind laid out for the Khalsa. I have to use an INTERPRETATION that Guru Nanak's message laid the foundation for the eventual realization of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind. That is a big difference from FACT. 





> Panji, you have a right to ask any questions at all. Can't you see this is different from apostate beliefs being preached to confuse Sikh teaching? If you have belief in the 10 forms of Guru and the Shabad Guru and no belief in any other teaching (Im sorry, but as per Rehit Maryada) then you, and all the 3HO people are Sikhs and part of the Sikh Panth. I didn't decide this, it's Guruji's hukam, and I accept you as my sister.
> 
> Guruji has that right. And no Sikh will violate the Guru's hukam.



You often quote the Rehit Maryada as the final order or be-all, and then claim it's Guru's hukam. Be careful, the Guru did not pen the rehit, his followers did.

"The All India Sikh Mission Board accorded their acceptance to the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee's Conduct and Conventions Sub-Committee's draft of conduct and conventions by their resolution no.1 of 1st August 1936 and the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, by their resolution No.14 of 12th October, 1936. The S.G.P.C.'s Advisory Committee on Religious Matters again considered the draft in its meeting on 7th January, 1945 and made recommendations for certain additions to and deletions from it. The undermentioned gentlemen were present at this meeting of the Advisory Committee.
1 Singh Sahib Jathedar Mohan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat;
2 Bhai Sahib Bhai Achhar Singh, Head Granthi, Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar;
3 Prof. Teja Singh M.A., Khalsa College, Amritsar;
4 Prof. Ganga Singh, Principal, Shahid Sikh Missionary College;
5 Giani Lal Singh, Professor, Sikh Missionary College, Amritsar;
6 Prof. Sher Singh M.Sc., Government College, Ludhiana;
7 Bawa Prem Singh of Hoti;
8 Giani Badal Singh, Incharge, Sikh Mission, Hapur.
The additions and deletions as per the Advisory Committee's recommendations received the S.G.P.C.'s acceptance by its resolution No. 97 passed at its meeting held on 3rd Feb.,1945."

I don't see any of the names of the Guru's listed in the above individuals? How is this Guru's Hukam? Wasn't it this same rehit that initially did not ban adultery, but only "Marrying muslim women" and the later changed the taboo. History gets re-written. (Can someone actually check up on this for me, I forget if I had just heard this or it's actual fact)

Think about it ... There were non-Sikh poets in the SGGS that the Gurus either took as their true followers, or were even used as inspiration for the Guru's (Bhagat Kabir) that did not believe in ONLY the things the Rehit Maryada has you follow to claim to be a Sikh. Yet, any of those poets would be considered Sikhs by the Gurus (besides, they quoted passages from them to use in a book that was eventually to be revered as the next Guru) ...




> You are called to become the fearless Khalsa. When bullets are flying from enemies who want to torture and kill you, your going to be worrying about small thing like this? Be strong! And look at how you too are in the maya of judgment along with the rest of us.
> 
> If I was uppity would I even give you the time of day? And yet here I am still trying to answer your objections. To become Khalsa is to accept an invitation for love affair with Guruji. If Guru is not your beloved one, and your not willing to have your head cut off and become shaheed. If you are wavering over attitudes, what will you do when bullets are flying? Guruji dares you to become Khalsa. He doesn't beg. You will walk this path with a sword in your hand, and instruction never to turn your back to the battle.



I'm sorry to hear this. You must live a pretty intense life if every situation of yours can be answered by "What would I do in the event when bullets are flying?"..
I've never had bullets fly passed me ... seems kinda scary. 


Directly from Sikhism.com 





> "Why are there so many different versions of the Rehat Maryada?
> 
> Guru Gobind Singh Ji verbally explained the Rehat Maryada on Baisakhi Day of 1699, when the Khalsa was initially founded. We do not have a complete set of systematically written directions regarding the Rehat Maryada from him. Of course, many Sikhs, some contemporaries of the Guru and others descendent of those who attended the Guru, have written their observations and instructions regarding the conduct to be practiced by the Khalsa. When these writings are compared, they contradict each other (both directly and by omission). In a few cases, the instructions go against the principles of Gurmat (permanently recorded and authenticated Gurbani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib). Sikh scholars, therefore, realized that some sections of the Rehat Namas were not written by the persons whose names are associated with those writings. They were modified later on.
> 
> Hence, when the Rehat was explained to new members of the Khalsa during later Amrit ceremonies, changes were unintentionally made to the spoken instructions originally given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. A popular school exercise demonstrates that even if one were to whisper a sentence from person to person within a single classroom, by the time the message reaches the last person, it is completely changed from the original. In the specific case of the Rehat Maryada, each new Amritdhari had to learn and repeat not just a sentence, but a philosophy and a way of life. This easily resulted in people creating their own interpretations of the message, even when attempts were made not to do so. One can only imagine the changes which took place when some people tried to create a Maryada "better and holier" than the one practiced by other Sikhs."


----------



## S|kH (Mar 25, 2008)

This thread begs me to ask the following question :

If we can not judge a religion by its followers, what tool of measurement is appropriate to judge or analyze a religion by?

There are those that are meant to be kept on paper, because when followed, they falter greatly. 

If we didn't analyze and judge Communism by it's followers ...


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 25, 2008)

carolineislands said:


> Let me start by saying that I am new and have only been reading SGGS and learning about Sikhi for about a year. So, forgive me if any of my words are offensive. But there is something I have been seeing so much of in these forums that deeply disturbs me. And that is JUDGING.
> Pardon me for saying this, but so much of what I hear from Sikhs does not line up with what I read from Guru Nanak. On the one hand I read the SGGS and stories of Guru Nanak's life and I find acceptance of all, all persons have equal value, all religions belong to God, no one is high or low. No distinctions, no rules or judgments about who is right and who is wrong and who is Sikh and who is not and who is Amritdhara and who is not and who has a right to call themselves Sikh and who does not and who really understands Naam and who doesn't and this and that and this and that.
> To tell the truth my friends, I'm pretty disgusted. Is Sikhi the religion that sprang up out the of message of Guru Nanak ji or isn't it? Is it a competition to see who is really a Sikh and who isn't? What is Sikh anyway? Who has the right to say what human being can impart Naam? Who has the right to say whether another person is a Sikh or not? Who has the right to say who is high and who is low?
> I know a lot of posts that judge are quick to qualify themselves by adding some sort of comment like, "Of course everyone has a right to live how they choose." and then the post goes on to judge that person as though that little disclaimer made it right. Then they go on to declare who does and does not have a right to call themselves this or that or consider themselves this or that. It's heartbreaking -- it really is!
> ...


Great post. I've been reading Bani for years yet I have not the grasp of Sikhi you have displayed.
I think with any faiths over time man starts to make hierarchy. In Sikhism we have no Priests yet we have "Gyani's". In Sikhism we have no caste, yet marriage is arranged by Sikhs on basis of caste. In Sikhism no man is less than another yet an Amritdhari is seen as better than a Sehajhdari (slow adopter).
If one reads the history of Sikhism one can see how things like this have evolved. I think the message of Sikhism remains the same, and it is an eternal resonating Truth. Over time people change.
To my mind there have been some distinct phases in Sikhism. There are:

1) Period When Guru's were alive >>>>> message of Sikhism remained true.

2) Period of Bandha Bahadhur>>>>> some split amongst Sikhs as Bandha tries to introduce some Vashnavite ideas to Sikhism.

3) Misl Period>>>>> Communalism and Materialism becomes prevalent with Sikh Chieftans vieing with one another for power.

4) Maharaja Ranjit Singh period>>>>> Brahminism makes in roads into Sikhism, and Sikh message get distorted.

5) British Period>>>>>Struggle for Freedom galvanises Sikhs and some reforms occur which try to take Sikhism back to its original form. However, Sikhs are too fractured for these reforms to take effect, and splinter sects branch off eg Bhai Randhir Singh Jatha, Namdhari's etc etc.

6) Post British Period>>>>> Groups like AKJ, GNSSJ and others have taken Sikhism unwittingly to Vaishnavitic form, albeit with a turban and long hair. Message behind 5k's lost. Infact there is no agreement over 5k's. Sehajdhari's sidelined.

7) Present >>>>> Sikhism in flux and people through the internet can discuss Sikhism and make it what is was intended. This could be an enlightened period for Sikhism.


----------



## pk70 (Mar 25, 2008)

S|kH said:


> F
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sikh ji
I really appreciate your logical questioning. *Carolineislands *just tried to share what was felt while reading contradictory opinions on this site as a new Sikh. I dont think that *carolineislands'*s post really deserves any uncalled for commentry. *Thanks*.


----------



## singhbj (Mar 25, 2008)

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ ਬਾਣੀ ਭਗਤਾ ਕੀ ॥ 
रागु गोंड बाणी भगता की ॥ 
Rāg gond baṇī bẖagṯā kī. 
Raag Gond, The Word Of The Devotees. 

ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਘਰੁ ੧ 
कबीर जी घरु १ 
Kabīr jī gẖar 1 
Kabeer Jee, First House: 

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ 
ੴ सतिगुर प्रसादि ॥ 
Ik&shy;oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ. 
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru: 

ਸੰਤੁ ਮਿਲੈ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੁਨੀਐ ਕਹੀਐ ॥ 
संतु मिलै किछु सुनीऐ कहीऐ ॥ 
Sanṯ milai kicẖẖ sunī&shy;ai kahī&shy;ai. 
When you meet a Saint, talk to him and listen. 

ਮਿਲੈ ਅਸੰਤੁ ਮਸਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੧॥ 
मिलै असंतु मसटि करि रहीऐ ॥१॥ 
Milai asanṯ masat kar rahī&shy;ai. ||1|| 
Meeting with an unsaintly person, just remain silent. ||1|| 

ਬਾਬਾ ਬੋਲਨਾ ਕਿਆ ਕਹੀਐ ॥ 
बाबा बोलना किआ कहीऐ ॥ 
Bābā bolnā ki&shy;ā kahī&shy;ai. 
O father, if I speak, what words should I utter? 

ਜੈਸੇ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਰਵਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
जैसे राम नाम रवि रहीऐ ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ 
Jaisė rām nām rav rahī&shy;ai. ||1|| rahā&shy;o. 
Speak such words, by which you may remain absorbed in the Name of the Lord. ||1||Pause|| 

ਸੰਤਨ ਸਿਉ ਬੋਲੇ ਉਪਕਾਰੀ ॥ 
संतन सिउ बोले उपकारी ॥ 
Sanṯan si&shy;o bolė upkārī. 
Speaking with the Saints, one becomes generous. 

ਮੂਰਖ ਸਿਉ ਬੋਲੇ ਝਖ ਮਾਰੀ ॥੨॥ 
मूरख सिउ बोले झख मारी ॥२॥ 
Mūrakẖ si&shy;o bolė jẖakẖ mārī. ||2|| 
To speak with a fool is to babble uselessly. ||2|| 

ਬੋਲਤ ਬੋਲਤ ਬਢਹਿ ਬਿਕਾਰਾ ॥ 
बोलत बोलत बढहि बिकारा ॥ 
Bolaṯ bolaṯ badẖeh bikārā. 
By speaking and only speaking, corruption only increases. 

ਬਿਨੁ ਬੋਲੇ ਕਿਆ ਕਰਹਿ ਬੀਚਾਰਾ ॥੩॥ 
बिनु बोले किआ करहि बीचारा ॥३॥ 
Bin bolė ki&shy;ā karahi bīcẖārā. ||3|| 
If I do not speak, what can the poor wretch do? ||3|| 

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਛੂਛਾ ਘਟੁ ਬੋਲੈ ॥ 
कहु कबीर छूछा घटु बोलै ॥ 
Kaho Kabīr cẖẖūcẖẖā gẖat bolai. 
Says Kabeer, the empty pitcher makes noise, 

ਭਰਿਆ ਹੋਇ ਸੁ ਕਬਹੁ ਨ ਡੋਲੈ ॥੪॥੧॥ 
भरिआ होइ सु कबहु न डोलै ॥४॥१॥ 
Bẖari&shy;ā ho&shy;ė so kabahu na dolai. ||4||1|| 
but that which is full makes no sound. ||4||1|| 

Source: Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

pk70 said:


> Sikh ji
> I really appreciate your logical questioning. *Carolineislands *just tried to share what was felt while reading contradictory opinions on this site as a new Sikh. I dont think that *carolineislands'*s post really deserves any uncalled for commentry. *Thanks*.



um, he wasn't responding to carolineislands, he was responding to Harjas Kaur Khalsa.

but i agree, she doesn't deserve that type of commentary.


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 25, 2008)

I have to give credit to Harjas Kaur Khalsa for defining sikh principles in a way which is hard to express in words. Her talent has to be appreciated. She can also become a good human-rights spokeswoman. Jasleen Kaur is another star who can become a good defence lawyer:star:. We need people like them by ourside always. Everybody has weaknesses. We grow in each other's presence. I'm not being a judge just an observer.:ice:


----------



## pk70 (Mar 25, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> um, he wasn't responding to carolineislands, he was responding to Harjas Kaur Khalsa.
> 
> but i agree, she doesn't deserve that type of commentary.


 
*jasleen _ Kaur ji*

*I pointed out his views in context of Harjas Kaur Khalsa, I also thanked him for pointing out uncalled for commentry by her( his questioning in context of Harjas Kaur Khalsa). Sorry to know that you misunderstood the whole thing. I just wonder !*


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

S|kH said:


> First, I want to say that what you treat as empirical fact in the above paragraphs, is not fact and relies heavily on interpretation. If you truly believe there is no contradiction in the message that Guru Nanak initially sent out, and the message of Khalsa Panth that Guru Gobind gave us then you have been reading a horrible translation. There is a very obvious leap in flow from Guru Nanak to the Khalsa Panth that HAVE to be filled by translations, interpretations, and rehits. Maybe you have found comfort in the ideology of the Panth that was initially taught to you, but you must realize that for many new Sikhs (young kids, and converts) there is a big question of ... what entitles Guru Nanak's message, and what entitles the Khalsa. Just the fact that this question is being asked by the global diaspora must show you that the connection isn't as empirical fact as you are treating it to be. Matter of fact, the Akhal Takht disagrees with you as it clearly defines a Sikh, and then a Khalsa as separate but related identities.
> 
> I'm not saying I have the answer, or that there is absolutely a contradiction between the messages.



um, just a note...  Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Gobind Singh ji were the same Jyot.  how is it even possible for them to contradict one another?  both spoke the words as God mad them speak it.  there can be no contradictions in Guru ji's words, no matter what form he was in when he spoke them.




> You often quote the Rehit Maryada as the final order or be-all, and then claim it's Guru's hukam. Be careful, the Guru did not pen the rehit, his followers did.
> 
> I don't see any of the names of the Guru's listed in the above individuals? How is this Guru's Hukam? Wasn't it this same rehit that initially did not ban adultery, but only "Marrying muslim women" and the later changed the taboo. History gets re-written. (Can someone actually check up on this for me, I forget if I had just heard this or it's actual fact)



the original rehet were the instructions given by the Gurus to their followers.  for example, Guru Nanak Dev ji told Bhai Mardana not to cut hair, to wake at amrit vela and do simran, and to do seva for travelling devotees of God.

every Guru gave instructions to his follwers, whether through their Bani or through individual conversation.  these have been collected from SGGS, Sakhis, the writings of Bhai Gurdas ji and Bhai Nand Lal, even the 52 Hukamnama of Guru Gobind Singh ji ( which says not to commit adultry, by the way,  as well as saying a Sikh should marry a Sikh.  )

the compilation of all of this material into the Panthic Maryada took several years, many respected scholars, and is accepted by the vast majority of Sikhs as Law.

of course, you're free to follow or not follow as you choose.  



> Think about it ... There were non-Sikh poets in the SGGS that the Gurus either took as their true followers, or were even used as inspiration for the Guru's (Bhagat Kabir) that did not believe in ONLY the things the Rehit Maryada has you follow to claim to be a Sikh. Yet, any of those poets would be considered Sikhs by the Gurus (besides, they quoted passages from them to use in a book that was eventually to be revered as the next Guru) ...



it really bugs me when pepole say Guru ji was "inspired" by Kabir ji.  Guru ji spoke the words as God put them in his mouth.  read Kabir ji's writings that are NOT bani and you will see why Guru ji could not have been inspired by him.   the bani of bhagats and bhatts was included because the words they spoke were in perfect harmony with Guru ji.  God's words flowed from their pens and tongues.   



> I'm sorry to hear this. You must live a pretty intense life if every situation of yours can be answered by "What would I do in the event when bullets are flying?"..
> I've never had bullets fly passed me ... seems kinda scary.



[/quote]

i think you took that statement WAY out of context.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *jasleen _ Kaur ji*
> 
> *I pointed out his views in context of Harjas Kaur Khalsa, I also thanked him for pointing out uncalled for commentry by her( his questioning in context of Harjas Kaur Khalsa). Sorry to know that you misunderstood the whole thing. I just wonder !*




i see, yes, i'm quite stupid.  thank you for helping me to understand.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

carolineislands said:


> Well, actually I wasn't talking about your posts.  Some of the things you say are similar to many of the things I've been hearing, yes.  But frankly, this is something that has been on my mind for a while and I'm sorry if you thought I was directing my post at you but I think if you ask around you'll see that some of us have touched on this before I even saw any of your posts.
> 
> Sorry -- I really don't know what you're talking about here...
> 
> ...




was that commentary really as snide and sarcastic and rude as it came across?  or was this another case of writing not conveying the full intent of the words?

sorry to ask, but it really felt rude to me.


by the way, prachaar is "teaching" or "preaching" (i put teaching first because it's not the same as preaching in the christian sense of "you're going to hell" and all that).   Gursikhi is living as a Sikh of the Guru, meaning following Guru's hukam, not picking and choosing of his teachings.  

and yes, Akal Takht can excommunicate people.  again, it's not excommunicate in the catholic sense of condemning them to hell, but more of a social boycott...  instructing other sikhs not to interact with them because their teachings or beliefs are Anti-Gurmat (contrary to Guru's teachings) and could be dangerous to the panth as a whole.


----------



## S|kH (Mar 25, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> um, just a note...  Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Gobind Singh ji were the same Jyot.  how is it even possible for them to contradict one another?  both spoke the words as God mad them speak it.  there can be no contradictions in Guru ji's words, no matter what form he was in when he spoke them.



The same Jyot? Seems like a refuge the believers will take to claim they all were "one in the same" They were different people, never in the history of man have people from different genes ever been related or shared memories. That is an illogical assumption to assume the Gurus had power beyond science, when they never claimed so. In fact, I believe some of the reason why the Gurus did NOT select their children as the successors was to destroy any belief that there was a "common light" that could be passed down, instead it was supposed to be an "enlightened individual" that they trusted deeply. They made a point by not selecting their children that the followers would not deem the genetic blood-line holy, but instead the ability to reach that mind-state as "holy". Guru Gobind furthered the thought and said anyone can reach this level of intelligence by creating the Khalsa and then becoming "The Khalsa's follower".

For someone to believe that there was an actual commonality passed down through either genes, God, or some other super-natural method that allowed all the Gurus to share the same memories, message, thought, and being is a bold statement that will get directly challenged by science. They were different human beings, with different thoughts. 

Let's assume they were the same "Jyot" ... what is the basis for Guru Gobind to create a holy book then instead of passing the "Jyot' onwards indefinitely? Matter of fact, if it was passed ten times successfully (Thats 2 centuries, and quite a few generations, a LONG time)...why did he choose to end it, or pass the jyot to a scripture that can never pass it onwards? A lot of people cite that Guru Gobind foresaw the eventual corruption of the Guru-hood and had compiled what was then a perfect document (SGGS) to lead the followers instead of taking chances in another human. I believe Guru Gobind was an amazing individual, and very intelligent. In order to come to this conclusion, he must have either realized the GuruHood can not be passed on in human form forever without eventually becoming corrupt .... or dare I say, he must have seen a few errors in his predecessors judgment that made him think it's merely not possible for another human to carry the throne, and whoever he selected would lead to mass chaos amongst the various sects which had newly embraced Sikhism. (Hence Panj Pyares -- genius idea! ... get all the leaders of the warring tribes to unite in front of you to prevent internal chaos and rift)





			
				jasleen_kaur said:
			
		

> the original rehet were the instructions given by the Gurus to their followers.  for example, Guru Nanak Dev ji told Bhai Mardana not to cut hair, to wake at amrit vela and do simran, and to do seva for travelling devotees of God.
> 
> every Guru gave instructions to his follwers, whether through their Bani or through individual conversation.  these have been collected from SGGS, Sakhis, the writings of Bhai Gurdas ji and Bhai Nand Lal, even the 52 Hukamnama of Guru Gobind Singh ji ( which says not to commit adultry, by the way,  as well as saying a Sikh should marry a Sikh.  )



When followers write down the details that the Guru told them, it will differ, it's never exact word. Look at the Bible. What makes you believe the same sort of errors can never happen amongst the Sikhs? See my above quote from sikhism.com with the classroom whisper example. (And that was only a 30 minute test, imagine if people had to try to remember and write down the whisper over a course of many years...)

As per the Rehat ... I do know it currently states not to commit Adultery. I am saying, at one point in time, I had read, or heard... that the initial version clearly stated Do Not Marry Muslim Women (Sikhs were at war with the muslims). I even extrapolate the historical relevance of such taboos and claim the same reason as to why Sikhs shouldn't eat halal meat. Genius way to keep Sikhs and Muslims separated. Do not let them share a meal together at anytime. Do not let your kids go to their house and be hospitable by Muslim parents. Keep Muslim children away from yours, do not let them eat your food. You have to think in a historical relevance -- Why ban one type of meat as opposed to the other, and it just so happens to be a ban on the community the Sikhs were at war with... Oh, because of the way the animal is slaughtered? We know for a fact that Guru Gobind hunted game (debatable if he ate the meat or not), but he did hunt. A Bow and arrow from a distance considered better than a slit to the throat? And then Sikhs changed the story, and claimed the ban was issued because the Muslims prayed to God for forgiveness while killing.

Most people(Sikhs) have a misconception of Halal meat and claim that we are allowed to eat Jhakta meat because of the way it's prepared. They claim Halal meat tortures the animal ... if you ask any muslim, or read any encyclopedia entry .. it claims the exact opposite :



			
				WikiPedia said:
			
		

> Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. The objective of this technique is to more effectively drain the body of the animal's blood, resulting in more hygienic meat, and to minimize the pain and agony for the animal.[1] The precise details of the slaughtering method arise largely from Islamic tradition, rather than direct Quranic mandate. It is used to comply with the conditions stated in the Qur'an:



Minimize pain and agony. Clearly defined. Why is there a ban then to eat Halal Meat? Sikhs then started claiming that it's okay to kill an animal, but to never kill in God's name (pray over the slaughter of an innocent). My question is then ... why only hold that standard to animals? not plants? or other humans at war? "Bole So Nihaal, SAT SIRI AKAL" and swords would rise, and the war would begin. Most of the time there was a Gyani in the back holding the SGGS and reciting for the troops ... is that not praying to God over death...and even worse than animals ... it was against humans? You call God, and then you slaughter a human?

The only logical explanation is the historical relevance of banning halal meat because we were at war with the Muslim community. History gets re-written, and you were lied to by the religious institution. 



			
				SGPC1938 said:
			
		

> It is learnt that on October 9, 1938, then MLA Sampooran Singh, who was also a member of the SGPC, had moved a resolution in the Punjab assembly that all SGPC members must support the Jhatka Bill.
> 
> Ninety-six SGPC members in the House had unanimously supported the resolution.



Encyclopaedia of Political Parties ... - Google Book Search
Encyclopedia of Political Parties in India, Pakistan ... talks about Sampooran Singh.





			
				jasleen_kaur said:
			
		

> the compilation of all of this material into the Panthic Maryada took several years, many respected scholars, and is accepted by the vast majority of Sikhs as Law.
> 
> of course, you're free to follow or not follow as you choose.
> 
> ...



If a message was written before you exist, and you read the message and place it in what you revere as your holiest text, it's an obvious assumption to claim that you were inspired by that text. If a lot of what you write comes in perfect harmony with text that is already published and written prior to your existance, and you realize that it has already been written ... it's called an inspiration. If the Guru added everything Bhagat Kabir had wrote, then Bhagat Kabir would be the first known leader of the Sikhs...but only a few passages of his were selected, ones that inspired Guru Nanak and led him to create a new message. (This is a technicality on the term anyway).




			
				jasleen_kaur said:
			
		

> i think you took that statement WAY out of context.



I wrote that sarcastically, because Harjas Kaur posed that example of the bullets a few times in relation to the most minuscule events in rehat. 

"You question the Rehat that claims you need to wake up at 4am to pray on days that you go to sleep from a hard day of work at 1am ... what will you do when bullets whizz passed your head at 3am in the middle of the Golden Temple? Only the true followers will survive and not question the Guru"


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

pk70 said:


> Sikh ji
> I really appreciate your logical questioning. *Carolineislands *just tried to share what was felt while reading contradictory opinions on this site as a new Sikh. I dont think that *carolineislands'*s post really deserves any uncalled for commentry. *Thanks*.


 
Thank you pk70.  But I think SiKh's post was a reply to another post -- not mine.


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> was that commentary really as snide and sarcastic and rude as it came across? or was this another case of writing not conveying the full intent of the words?
> 
> sorry to ask, but it really felt rude to me.


I have a bad habit of blurting out something silly when the seriousness of a situation starts to get tedious. It was just meant to be a lighter comment poking fun at ourselves as humans and how silly we can get with our imaginary separation lines. The underlying feeling was that the lines are things we've created out of our imagination as silly humans when really we are all the same. It was meant to point out our commonalities by poking fun at some of the things we do that keep us focusing on our differences. Sometimes my husband and I do this with jokes about our differences. Like when he asked why the birds are not coming to the feeders I said it's probably because they're afraid of Haitians. He laughs and chases me around the house. Then the next time he'll make a siimilar comment to me. My comment was made in a similar fashion to my comment about Haitians. The purpose was to try to laugh a little at ourselves and maybe realize our commonalities in the process.

Guess it didn't work very well. Sorry about that.



> by the way, prachaar is "teaching" or "preaching" (i put teaching first because it's not the same as preaching in the christian sense of "you're going to hell" and all that). Gursikhi is living as a Sikh of the Guru, meaning following Guru's hukam, not picking and choosing of his teachings.


 
Thank you for this explanation. It helps to have some of the language interpreted. Otherwise I have to keep a tab opened to google just to read some of these posts. LOL 



> and yes, Akal Takht can excommunicate people. again, it's not excommunicate in the catholic sense of condemning them to hell, but more of a social boycott... instructing other sikhs not to interact with them because their teachings or beliefs are Anti-Gurmat (contrary to Guru's teachings) and could be dangerous to the panth as a whole.


 
Hmmm. My own opinion is that it's probably misguided and maybe even self defeating in terms of creating peace and understanding between factions, but it's good to know and I appreciate the explanation. 

I do apologize for any offensiveness of my opinions. All I can do in my search for truth is to pray and learn. I think it's also important to be true to what we believe -- as you have done. So I hope that we can respectfully disagree as sisters. I will try not to judge your convictions and I hope you will do the same for me. I think that is in keeping with the teachings of Guru Nanak, and would honor the one Creator of us all. 

I'm sorry for the times I come off biting. My sense of humor doesn't always translate over the internet. And my opinions are sometimes offensive to people. I have spent many years keeping certain of my thoughts to myself for fear of people's reactions but I have decided it's not a good way to learn. Now I am learning to say what I believe and ask questions in a way I can find out what I am longing to know, but to do it in a way that does not offend.

I am in the learning process -- no doubt about it. And I appreciate your patience and compassion more than you may know.

Respect!


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

S|kH said:


> The same Jyot? Seems like a refuge the believers will take to claim they all were "one in the same" They were different people, never in the history of man have people from different genes ever been related or shared memories. That is an illogical assumption to assume the Gurus had power beyond science, when they never claimed so. In fact, I believe some of the reason why the Gurus did NOT select their children as the successors was to destroy any belief that there was a "common light" that could be passed down, instead it was supposed to be an "enlightened individual" that they trusted deeply. They made a point by not selecting their children that the followers would not deem the genetic blood-line holy, but instead the ability to reach that mind-state as "holy". Guru Gobind furthered the thought and said anyone can reach this level of intelligence by creating the Khalsa and then becoming "The Khalsa's follower".
> 
> For someone to believe that there was an actual commonality passed down through either genes, God, or some other super-natural method that allowed all the Gurus to share the same memories, message, thought, and being is a bold statement that will get directly challenged by science. They were different human beings, with different thoughts.



so the majority of the sikh panth is simply believing the wrong thing, because you say so?  why would Guru ji call himself NANAK in every body?  how could Guru Gobind Singh ji speak the entire contents of SGGS to his scribes without ever referring to paper, unless he knew it already, because he had written it all before?

Ten Gurus Of Sikh, The Sikh Gurus, Guru Granth Sahib, Das Sikh Gurus, Sikh Saints, Sikh Holy People, Gurus Of Sikhism, Sikhism Gurus, India[SIZE=-1]            The word 'Guru' in Sanskrit means teacher, honoured person, religious           person or saint. Sikhism though has a very specific definition of the           word 'Guru'. It means the descent of divine guidance to mankind           provided through ten Enlightened Masters. This honour of being called           a Sikh Guru applies only to the ten Gurus who founded the religion           starting with Guru Nanak in 1469 and ending with Guru Gobind Singh in           1708; thereafter it refers to the Sikh Holy Scriptures the Guru Granth           Sahib.* The divine spirit was passed from one Guru to the next as "The           light of a lamp which lights another does not abate*. Similarly a           spiritual leader and his disciple become equal, Nanak says the truth."[/SIZE]

from Guru Gobind Singh ji:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"They distinguish            and separate one Guru from the other. *And rare is the one who knows            that they, indeed, were one*. They who realised this in their hearts,            attained Realisation of God." (Guru Gobind Singh, Dohira, Vachitra Natak)_[/FONT]
from the vaaran of Bhai Gurdas ji (the key to Gurbani):

ਜਾਰਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਮੁਲਤਾਨ ਦੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਕਰਤਾਰਿ ਪੁਰੇ ਨੋ ਆਇਆ । 
jaarati kari mulataan dee dhiri karataari puray no aaiaa|
After the journey of Multan, Baba Nanak again turned towards Kartarpur.
 ਚੜ੍ਹੇ ਸਵਾਈ ਦਿਹਿ ਦਿਹੀ ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ । 
charhhay savaaee dihi dihee kalijugi naanak naamu dhiaaiaa|
His impact increased by leaps and bounds and he made people of kaliyug remember Nam.
 ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਮੰਗਣਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਦੁਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਦੁਖ ਸਬਾਇਆ । 
vinu naavai horu manganaa siri dukhaan day dukh sabaaiaa|
Desiring anything except the Nam of the Lord, is  invitation to multiplying sufferings.
 ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿਕਾ ਜਗਤਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥੁ ਚਲਾਇਆ । 
maariaa sikaa jagati vichi naanak niramal pandu chalaaiaa|
In the world, he established the authority (of his doctrines) and started a religion, devoid of any impurity (niramal panth).
 *ਥਾਪਿਆ ਲਹਿਣਾ ਜੀਂਵਦੇ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਸਿਰਿ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਫਿਰਾਇਆ । 
**daapiaa|ahinaa jeenvaday guriaaee siri chhatr dhiraaiaa|
**During his life time he waved the canopy of Guru seat on the head of Lahina(Guru Angad) and merged his own light into him.
* *ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਇ ਕੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕਿ ਰੂਪੁ ਵਟਾਇਆ । 
**jotee joti milaai kai satigur naanaki roopu vataaiaa|
**Guru Nanak now transformed himself.
* ਲਖਿ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਸਕਈ ਆਚਰਜੇ ਆਚਰਜੁ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ । 
lakhi n koee sakaee aacharajay aacharaju dikhaaiaa|
This mystery is incomprehensible for anybody that awe-inspiring (Nanak) accomplished a wonderful task.
*ਕਾਇਆ ਪਲਟਿ ਸਰੂਪੁ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥੪੫॥ 
**kaaiaa palati saroopu banaaiaa ॥45॥
**He converted (his body) into a new form.*
wait, let me guess, you don't believe in Bhai Gurdas ji. 

 	g*u*r n*aa*nak dh*ae*v g*o*v*i*(n)dh r*oo*p ||8||1||
 _Guru Nanak Dayv is the Embodiment of the Lord of the Universe. ||8||1||_SGGS p. 1192, m. 5

 	g*u*r meh*i* *aa*p sam*o*e sabadh varath*aa*e*i**aa* ||
 _You have merged Yourself into the Guru; You are pervading through the Word of Your Shabad._SGGS p. 1279, m. 1

 	g*u*r meh*i* *aa*p rakh*i**aa* karath*aa*r*ae* ||
 _The Creator Lord has enshrined Himself within the Guru.
_SGGS p. 1024, m1
		sath*i*g*u*r k*ee* b*aa*n*ee* sath sath kar j*aa*nah*u* g*u*ras*i*khah*u* har karath*aa* *aa*p m*u*hah*u* kadt*aa*e*ae* ||
_O GurSikhs, know that the Bani, the Word of the True Guru, is true, absolutely true. The Creator Lord Himself causes the Guru to chant it.
_SGGS p. 308, m. 4

i can find more if necessary.





> Let's assume they were the same "Jyot" ... what is the basis for Guru Gobind to create a holy book then instead of passing the "Jyot' onwards indefinitely? Matter of fact, if it was passed ten times successfully (Thats 2 centuries, and quite a few generations, a LONG time)...why did he choose to end it, or pass the jyot to a scripture that can never pass it onwards?



um, he DID pass it onwards.  to SGGS.  Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is not just some book...  it is our LIVING Guru.   



> or dare I say, he must have seen a few errors in his predecessors judgment



are you saying that Guru sahib is not perfect, or did i totally misunderstand your statement?



> When followers write down the details that the Guru told them, it will differ, it's never exact word. Look at the Bible. What makes you believe the same sort of errors can never happen amongst the Sikhs? See my above quote from sikhism.com with the classroom whisper example. (And that was only a 30 minute test, imagine if people had to try to remember and write down the whisper over a course of many years...)



the difference being that north india had an incredibly strong oral tradition...  stories were passed down for hundreds of years before being written down.  the vedas were not actually written down for over a thousand years, but passed from priest to priest and memorized.  
also we're only talking a couple hundred years here, not the thousands it took to compile the bible, so that's not really a fair comparison.




> As per the Rehat ... I do know it currently states not to commit Adultery. I am saying, at one point in time, I had read, or heard... that the initial version clearly stated Do Not Marry Muslim Women (Sikhs were at war with the muslims).



you could say it still says that, it says a Sikh should only marry a Sikh.  i don't think it's ever NOT had a taboo against adultery, but i will investigate.



> Why ban one type of meat as opposed to the other, and it just so happens to be a ban on the community the Sikhs were at war with... Oh, because of the way the animal is slaughtered? We know for a fact that Guru Gobind hunted game (debatable if he ate the meat or not), but he did hunt. A Bow and arrow from a distance considered better than a slit to the throat? And then Sikhs changed the story, and claimed the ban was issued because the Muslims prayed to God for forgiveness while killing.



huh?  sikhs "changed the story"?  ritual slaughter is clearly seen as unnecessary and hypocritical throughout SGGS.  it's not a change, it's a continuation from the time of the first Nanak.


> My question is then ... why only hold that standard to animals? not plants? or other humans at war? "Bole So Nihaal, SAT SIRI AKAL" and swords would rise, and the war would begin. Most of the time there was a Gyani in the back holding the SGGS and reciting for the troops ... is that not praying to God over death...and even worse than animals ... it was against humans? You call God, and then you slaughter a human?



um, do you EAT dead humans?  no?  neither do i.  i will assume that neither did the early Sikhs.  your comparison makes no sense.  we're talking about consuming ritual sacrifices.



> The only logical explanation is the historical relevance of banning halal meat because we were at war with the Muslim community. History gets re-written, and you were lied to by the religious institution.



are you this cynical about everything in life, or only religion?   (sorry, not meant as an attack, i'm genuinely curious)


> If a message was written before you exist, and you read the message and place it in what you revere as your holiest text, it's an obvious assumption to claim that you were inspired by that text. If a lot of what you write comes in perfect harmony with text that is already published and written prior to your existance, and you realize that it has already been written ... it's called an inspiration. If the Guru added everything Bhagat Kabir had wrote, then Bhagat Kabir would be the first known leader of the Sikhs...but only a few passages of his were selected, ones that inspired Guru Nanak and led him to create a new message. (This is a technicality on the term anyway).



that's all well and good, except that God spoke through the mouth of Guru...  Guru was inspired by God.  was kabir ji God?  no.  inspired?  enlightened?  sure.  God?  no way.


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

Although it is unfortunate that some have taken offense to my comments I want to say thank you to all of you for reponding to my questions.  I have learned a LOT from just these 3 pages and am immensely grateful for all of you who have shared your knowledge with me.

I am curious about another thing.  Does anyone have a link to information about all the different "sects" of Sikhism?  I remember reading something once that described the different groups and their particular beliefs or practices but now I've forgotten it and can't find it again.  

Thank you!!!


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2008)

Sikhism :: Sects --* Britannica Online Encyclopedia

I will post a few more.
3HO
Akhand Kirtani Jatha
Bhatra
Chamar
Labana
Mazhabi
Nihang
Prasadis
Ramgarhia
Sanatan Singh Sabha
I do want to point out that members of any of the groups listed above may not think of their group/jatha within Sikhism as a sect. Nihangs for example may not consider themselves a sect; Likewise 3HO may not. So I am posting this in answer to a question, fully aware that the perception of hard and fast boundaries that may be created by my doing so, may offend some forum members. Apologies for any offense taken. It is not intended.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Sikhism :: Sects --* Britannica Online Encyclopedia
> 
> I will post a few more.
> 3HO
> ...



just for clarification...  Bhatra, Chamar, Labana, Mazhabi, and Ramgarhia are not sects, but castes/clans.   for the most part they follow exactly the same path as any other sikh.  i worry that naming them as "sects" creates caste-based divisions in the panth, which is clearly anti-gurmat.


i know that this list comes from an online source, not from Antonia, so it should not be interpreted as a criticism of her post.

i'd add Nanaksar and Damdami Taksal to the list, these were some of the original divisions within the panth.   

there are also groups OUTSIDE of the panth which consider themselves Sikh, but which Akal Takht does not accept.  included are Nirankaris, Naamdharis, Sanatan Sikhs, Radhosoamis, etc.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2008)

Just a quick reply Jasleen ji. Historically caste and sect were connected and communities were formed. There were 2 castes that were not unified with Jats and Khatri in the time of Guru Nanaak. These caste/religious distinctions continued throughout the 19th and 20 centuries. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh warrior units consolidated as sects with specific practices. At the time of the British raj, Sikhs in castes below that of Jat were recruited as military units, and then migrated to places outside of India, places like Africa. Then through isolation and history more than anthing else a sectarian identity evolved.I can provide a couple of references if you like.


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

I apologize for the use of the word "sect."  I know it's not exactly accurate but can't pull up a more appropriate word at the moment.

Thanks!!!


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2008)

Every word you might choose will be problematic. It is just like that.

Here are some other sects.

Udasi
Nirmali

Here is a link to an interesting online book that talks about the evolution of Sects within Sikhism. The Construction of Religious ... - Google Book Search


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2008)

This book, a Google online book, covers a lot of territory related to your earlier question carolineislands ji

Sikh Identity: An Exploration Of ... - Google Book Search


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Every word you might choose will be problematic. It is just like that.
> 
> Here are some other sects.
> 
> ...




Udasi and Nirmali fall under the "sanatan sikh" category...  and are not considered Sikhs by Akal Takht (or by most mainstream sikhs). 

it's really confusing sometimes.  in india, religion as seen as more fluid, so you wind up with some groups who call themselves sikhs even though they don't follow the most basic of our tenets...   (in this case, never taking amrit, being celibate, etc).  

there are also "sects" who only exist due to support from anti-sikh political or social movements (hindutva groups support sanatan sikhs, naamdharis, congress supported Nirankaris, etc)


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Just a quick reply Jasleen ji. Historically caste and sect were connected and communities were formed. There were 2 castes that were not unified with Jats and Khatri in the time of Guru Nanaak. These caste/religious distinctions continued throughout the 19th and 20 centuries. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh warrior units consolidated as sects with specific practices. At the time of the British raj, Sikhs in castes below that of Jat were recruited as military units, and then migrated to places outside of India, places like Africa. Then through isolation and history more than anthing else a sectarian identity evolved.I can provide a couple of references if you like.



thanks for the info...  i still prefer to keep caste divisions seperate though, to avoid confusion.  Sikhi is 100% against caste bias/divisions, i feel uncomfortable making those divisions "valid" by accepting them.  just my personal preference, i guess.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2008)

Jasleen ji,

It is not my impression that historians were so much accepting caste divisions. They were pointing out that the message of Guru Nanak and also Guru Amardas about caste distinctions-- no exclusion, no prejudice, no castes -- was not fully assimilated in the culture of India before, during, and after the Raj. Sikh Jats were scornful of higher caste Sikh Khatris, the city-dwellers whose names often sounded Hindu. And no one wanted one's garments to be touched by a Chumar servant woman, or drink from the same cup as an untouchable  If that happened, then one had to purify oneself.

And the reasons were cultural,  economic and political. Muslims BTW also were organized by caste in India then.  But even today when I read Sikh matrimonials, which are often posted for an eligible girl or boy by a parent, the caste is given and the message is that the marriage needs to remain within caste. Sometimes culture and religion become deeply emeshed.

I feel perhaps like Carolineislands ji at times. I can remember how perplexed I was when I first discovered this. It could not be Sikhism, not caste distinctions! Then I calmed down and decided to chalk it all up to the "human condition."  We have so much racial prejudice here -- and yet our laws forbid discrimination. The good thing is Nanak lives!


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 25, 2008)

I just finished reading about Sanatan Sikh Seva Panthi and find that Guru Gobind Singh actually blessed Bhai Kanhaiy ji and declared him and his followers as a Sikh order that should serve mankind indiscriminately, at the same time exepting them from military duty for this cause.  If Guru Gobind Singh made this declaration, how can Akal Takt refuse to acknowledge them as Sikhs?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 25, 2008)

I just finished editing my last post -- you sure do ask tough questions bhenji!  Could be that Randip ji, an historian, can clear this up.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> Jasleen ji,
> 
> It is not my impression that historians were so much accepting caste divisions. They were pointing out that the message of Guru Nanak and also Guru Amardas about caste distinctions-- no exclusion, no prejudice, no castes -- was not fully assimilated in the culture of India before, during, and after the Raj. Sikh Jats were scornful of higher caste Sikh Khatris, the city-dwellers whose names often sounded Hindu. And no one wanted one's garments to be touched by a Chumar servant woman, or drink from the same cup as an untouchable  If that happened, then one had to purify oneself.
> 
> ...




i think you missed my point.  i don't care if "historians" think caste divisions are valid.  i feel, personally, as a Sikh, that using caste as a base for distinguishing groups or dividing people is not useful or necessary.   if other people still practice "untouchability" or "ritual impurity", or marrying by caste, they're not following sikhi, and i don't see the need to encourage them.

sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 25, 2008)

> I know a lot of posts that judge are quick to qualify themselves by adding some sort of comment like, "Of course everyone has a right to live how they choose." and then the post goes on to judge that person as though that little disclaimer made it right. Then they go on to declare who does and does not have a right to call themselves this or that or consider themselves this or that.


When I responded to Carolineislands, I was struck by an almost direct quote of something I had written in her comments about Khalsa Sikhs being judgmental and uppitty an excluding others. Thus, I do not feel my response was unnecessary commentary. For this reason, and because it addressed some positions I have taken, I felt the post was a criticism of me personally.

However, Carolineislands has shared this was not the case and it's the _perspective_ she disagrees with, not opinions about me personally. But my responses to her were genuine and I don't believe "unnecessary." Otherwise, I would still have hurt feelings thinking she had directed such comments to me. I'm grateful for a forum like this to evaluate issues related to Sikhism. Now I can go back and reread Carolineislands post and take the best points from it with a happy heart. So I do believe dialogue is important. There is no "useless commentary" unless it's intended to be deliberately rude or hostile. Such was not the case on _either_ of our parts. And I apologize to the forum members for any inclarity or hurt feelings.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 26, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> i think you missed my point.  i don't care if "historians" think caste divisions are valid.  i feel, personally, as a Sikh, that using caste as a base for distinguishing groups or dividing people is not useful or necessary.   if other people still practice "untouchability" or "ritual impurity", or marrying by caste, they're not following sikhi, and i don't see the need to encourage them.
> 
> sorry for the confusion.



I wasn't sure :hmm: But am glad you clarified. It is a wonder that these practices continue and people hurt themselves in the process.


----------



## carolineislands (Mar 26, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> Udasi and Nirmali fall under the "sanatan sikh" category...  and are not considered Sikhs by Akal Takht (or by most mainstream sikhs).



Wasn't Guru Gobind Singh a Sanatan Sikh?  Wasn't he Nihang?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sanatan Sikhi - The Sanatan Sikhs


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 26, 2008)

> I just finished reading about Sanatan Sikh Seva Panthi and find that Guru Gobind Singh actually exempted them from the requirements of and declared that there should be a Sikh order after Bhai Kanhaiya ji that should serve mankind indiscriminately, at the same time exepting Bhai Kanhaiya ji and his followers from military duty for this cause. If Guru Gobind Singh made this declaration, how can Akal Takt refuse to acknowledge them as Sikhs?


 Panji, you should consider Sikh history during this time. For example, Naamdhari's claim lineage of Gurgaddhi being passed by 148 year old Guru Gobind Singh (who was living in hiding all that time) to Balak Singh, and then to Ram Singh and so forth down to Jagjit Singh Naamdhari. Just because Naamdhari's believe in this lineage, doesn't mean it's true.

Nirmala Sikhs for example, believe that Guru Gobind Singh sent five of his Sikhs to study Sanskrit and Vedic scriptures and this is the basis of their religious order. Just because Nirmala believe that doesn't make it true. Although it is acknowledged that Nirmala are religious scholars, their form of Nanakian spirituality comes under the sanatan umbrella because they are essentially keshdhari Hindus. Why would Guruji, having written that searching the Vedas will not bring liberation, and being the embodiment of liberation Himself for our time as Guru-liberator in the kalyug, send his disciples to study another message?




> In 1875, the Arya Samaj established itself in Punjab, and some of its members began stating publicly that Sikhism should be considered a branch of Hinduism using what was seen as derogatory language in reference to Sikh Gurus and their writings. Leaders in the Sikh community, however, showed resolve in maintaining the status of their religion as *independent *and *unique*, and the statements of the Arya Samaj activists were summarily denounced as *acts of aggression with the intent of destroying Sikh religious identity*. It was also alleged that the *Arya Samaj,* which had taken an increasingly active role in certain *Sikh Gurdwaras, *was _*introducing practices*_ that were _*contrary to Sikh principles *_and *behaving in ways which would prove detrimental to the Sikh faith.* In response, organizational efforts such as Singh Sabha and Gurdwara Sudhar Movement were launched for *countering Arya Samaj influence* and peacefully reclaiming control of Sikh Gurdwaras. Arya Samaj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


​
The political forces active during this history were trying to unify India under one banner, and still are today. Thus, to Hinduize the message of Sikhism is considered patriotic. But Guruji did not create orders and sects of Hindu Panth within Gursikhi. Hindu Panth created orders and sects within Gursikhi to alter the message and identity of Gursikhi under Hindu parivaar. Today sanatan organizations, while hiding under a guise of multiculturalism and openness are in fact politicized by the nationalistic Hindutva movement which has the creed:* Hindu-Hindi-Hindustan*."It is an article of faith with the RSS-BJP that India's religious minorities do not have a legitimate, independant identity... According to the RSS leader Sudarshan, "If Muslims want to stay in India, they have to submit to the Indianization of their religion." ​YouTube - Ban The RSS In The UK - Nazi Ideology​Remember, Timeless Akal is One, but we still are living in Kalug where corruption flourishes. Just because Akal Purakh is existing in all beings, does not mean bow down to all beings or worship stones and statues. These corruptions of Sikhism are with intent to overwhelm Guruji's message of liberation. Udasis and Nirmalas are among the sanatan mahants who corrupted Gurdwaras with statues and pictures of Hindu devtas, for which the Gurdwara Reform movement was needed. They are of the Hindu faith, and not of the Sikh faith.








~Bhul chak maaf


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 26, 2008)

http://www.projectnaad.com/wp-content/uploads/leaflets/sikhism_vs_indian_culture.pdf

http://www.projectnaad.com/wp-content/uploads/leaflets/is_sikhism_out_of_hinduism.pdf

http://www.projectnaad.com/wp-content/uploads/leaflets/hindu_prophecies_of_guru_nanak.pdf

http://www.projectnaad.com/wp-content/uploads/leaflets/sikhism_and_hinduism.pdf

The above articles can be improved by sending your feedback to projectnaad. We may include these in our discussions too.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 26, 2008)

> Wasn't Guru Gobind Singh a Sanatan Sikh? Wasn't he Nihang?


Guruji's message is an entirely new faith, not a sect of Hinduism. Else why wouldn't Gurbani say, "Hindu gods give liberation, serve them and keep all Hindu practices?" But instead Gurbani says the Hindu devas had faults, made mistakes, fell under influence of Maya and need liberation themselves. So if you think logically, it isn't coherent for Guruji to say one thing and be another. It is _detractors from the message_, who put their own words in Guru's mouth who make confusion. 


ਬ੍ਰਹਮੈ ਗਰਬੁ ਕੀਆ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥ 
brehamai garab keeaa nehee jaaniaa ||
Brahma acted in pride, and did not understand.​ 
ਬੇਦ ਕੀ ਬਿਪਤਿ ਪੜੀ ਪਛੁਤਾਨਿਆ ॥ 
baedh kee bipath parree pashhuthaaniaa ||
Only when he was faced with the downfall of the Vedas did he repent.​ 
ਜਹ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਸਿਮਰੇ ਤਹੀ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਿਆ ॥੧॥ 
jeh prabh simarae thehee man maaniaa ||1||
Remembering God in meditation, the mind is conciliated. ||1||​ 
ਐਸਾ ਗਰਬੁ ਬੁਰਾ ਸੰਸਾਰੈ ॥ 
aisaa garab buraa sansaarai ||
Such is the horrible pride of the world.​ 
ਜਿਸੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਮਿਲੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗਰਬੁ ਨਿਵਾਰੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
jis gur milai this garab nivaarai ||1|| rehaao ||
The Guru eliminates the pride of those who meet Him. ||1||Pause||​ 

Nihung (crocodile) Singhs were an order within the Sikh military and remain a Sikh Jatha. They were the warriors who did not fear death. Some historians called them "suicide squads." Nihungs were formidable Gursikhs, one of the most famous is Akali Nihung Baba Deep Singh Ji, Jathedar of the Shaheeda Misl. But simply to have been a Nihung Singh historically, does not mean rejection of Guru's Sikh message or embracing of Hindu Dharam. Certainly Guru Gobind Singh Ji was a fearless Nihung Akali warrior, but he was NOT a sanatan Hindu. The Budha Dal have their own rehit which permits meat-eating through jhatka, slicing head off a goat in one blow, and use of bhang/sukha/marijuana as "shaheedi degh." Nihangs acted in collusion with the Hinduized mahants and were driven out from Gurdwaras along with Udasis and Nirmalas. 


> many in the costume of Nihangs have in the past and continue today to attack the Panth and serve anti-Panthic interests. Bhai Sahib Randheer Singh jee and a big Jatha of Singhs and Singhnees, led by Bibi Joginder Kaur also drove out corrupt Nihangs/Nangs from Gurdwara Chamkaur Sahib. ​
> Panthic Weekly: When the "Nihangs" took Control of Sri Akal Takht in 1920​







*Dhan Dhan Baba Deep Singh Ji*


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 26, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> just for clarification... Bhatra, Chamar, Labana, Mazhabi, and Ramgarhia are not sects, but castes/clans. .


 
I would argue that because these clans have opened Gurudwaras based on their clans, they have in effect become sects of Sikhism too.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 26, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I would argue that because these clans have opened Gurudwaras based on their clans, they have in effect become sects of Sikhism too.



isn't this limited to the UK though?  i thought most of these "divisions" occurred because of the british...

i've never seen a caste gurdwara in the US or Canada...  has anyone else here?


----------



## pk70 (Mar 26, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> most ...
> 
> i've never seen a caste gurdwara in the US or Canada... has anyone else here?


 
Jasleen _ Kaur ji


Yes there is one I am aware of. It is in San Fernando Valley, California


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 26, 2008)

carolineislands said:


> Wasn't Guru Gobind Singh a Sanatan Sikh?  Wasn't he Nihang?
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Sanatan Sikhi - The Sanatan Sikhs



any fearless warrior could be called Nihang. 

the sanatan sikhs, however, are not Nihang, they're "Nang" (naked).  they began their sect in the late 1880s, and have many practices that are anti-gurmat.

Panthic Weekly: What do you know of 'Sanatan Sikh Shastar Vidiya'?

Nidar Singh and the "Sanatanists" seems to be confused about Sikhi. A few examples will show illustrate this. They propagate a traditional pluralistic Sikhi consisting of Udasis, Seva Panthis, Nirmalas and Akali Nihang Singhs. Did Guru Gobind Singh Ji when creating the Khalsa on Vaisakhi in 1699 create four sects or was it the one Khalsa?
 Guru Gobind Singh Ji says:
 ਖਾਲਸਾ ਮੇਰੋ ਰੂਪ ਹੈ ਖਾਸ ॥ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਮਹਿ ਹੌ ਕਰੋ ਨਿਵਾਸ ॥
"The Khalsa is my image. Within the Khalsa I reside."
(Guru Gobind Singh Ji)
 There is no mention by Guru Gobind Singh Ji anywhere that he created, ordained or blessed any sects, splinter groups or divisions amongst the Sikhs.
 Guru Amar Daas Ji says:
 ਇਕਾ ਬਾਣੀ ਇਕੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਇਕੋ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥
"There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate.
(Ang 646)
 Sikhi is not a narrow doctrinal religion. If you stick to the belief in One God, Guru Panth and Guru Granth, and follow the Rehat Maryada, that will leave you a lot of freedom for your own individual religious experience. But Nidar Singh and his small group of Sanatanist followers want to include people in the panth who do not follow Guru's teachings. Udasis fought with Guru Gobind Singh Ji against the Rajas and the Mughals, they looked after Gurdwaras, but they are not Sikhs.
 ਸੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਖਾ ਬੰਧਪੁ ਹੈ ਭਾਈ ਜਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਭਾਣੇ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਵੈ ॥
"He alone is a Sikh, a friend, a relative and a sibling, who walks in the Way of the Guru's Will."
(Ang 601)
 Nidar Singh contrasts this 'pluralistic' Sikhi with that of the 'British Raj accommodating' (or Angrez) Sikhs, who later developed into the Singh Sabha movement. In reality things were quite different. When the British Raj treated the Sikhs well, there was peace. At other times the Sikhs and the British disagreed, like in the time of the Singh Sabha movement, over who should control the historical Gurdwaras, and there was a serious conflict.
 Nidar Singh is some aspects is similar to some western scholars, who also deplore that the Sikhs moved away from the 'pluralistic' Hindu tradition under the influence of the Singh Sabha movement. He tries to divide the Khalsa in different ranks, based on military skills. Obviously if the Khalsa is doing building work, we will choose builders as our leaders, and when we are waging war, we will follow experienced warriors. But our Guru made farmers, tailors and traders into fighters, and he did not want to create a 'caste' of fighting men, or of builders for that matter. Do not forget that our war against injustice involves more than physical fighting. The "Sanatan Sikh Shastar Vidiya" 'Ustad' also favours celibacy, another Hindu tendency.
 ਬਿੰਦੁ ਰਾਖਿ ਜੌ ਤਰੀਐ ਭਾਈ ॥
ਖੁਸਰੈ ਕਿਉ ਨ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਈ ॥੩॥
"If someone could save himself by celibacy, O Siblings of Destiny, why then haven't eunuchs obtained the state of supreme dignity? ||3||
(Ang 324)


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 28, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> any fearless warrior could be called Nihang.
> 
> the sanatan sikhs, however, are not Nihang, they're "Nang" (naked). they began their sect in the late 1880s, and have many practices that are anti-gurmat.
> 
> ...


 

I beg you.

Please don't post from Panthic Weekly. Nothing they write can be belived.

Sanatan Sikh is a generic term to cover many sects of Sikhs including Nihungs:

Sanatan Sikhi - Sanatan Sikh Gurus

From the site:

*Note due to the fact on our web sites www.sarbloh.info and www.shastarvidiya.org we have employed, in particular, imagery from the Hindu world, certain insecure narrow-minded bigotted Sikh fanatics and personality cult followers, who have an overwhelming paranoid fear of Sikhism being 'absorbed into Hinduism', have accused us of "worshiping" Hindu deities.*

_The Jathedar of the Budha Dal, UK, *Nihang Niddar Singh*, under the supreme command of the *Panjvah Takht Shromani Panth Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa 96 Crore Budha Dal Chalda Vaheer*, or any of his Shagirds (students), associates who run or contribute to the websites, do *not* worship any deity but *Ekh Nirankar Akal Va-eh Guru*, *the three Sikh scriptures*, *Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa Panth* (Spiritual Way), *Udhasi*, *Nirmala* and *Sevapanthi Sikh Panth* and the *Shastars* (traditional weapons employed in Sanatan Sikh Shashter Vidiya)._

The people who write Panthic weekly are nothing but gossip mongers. They should hang their heads in shame. I am not a Sanatan Sikh but I know enough about Sikh History that what Panthic Weekly is writing is gossip, hearsay, inendo and just plain Nindia.


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 28, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> isn't this limited to the UK though? i thought most of these "divisions" occurred because of the british...
> 
> i've never seen a caste gurdwara in the US or Canada... has anyone else here?


 
There is Labana controlled Makhan Shah Labana Gurudwara in New York.

There is a Ramgarhia Gurudwara in Vancouver too I think.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 28, 2008)

randip singh said:


> There is Labana controlled Makhan Shah Labana Gurudwara in New York.
> 
> There is a Ramgarhia Gurudwara in Vancouver too I think.




i stand corrected.

i still believe the phenomenon is not anywhere as bad as it is in the UK however.


----------



## Randip Singh (Mar 28, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> i stand corrected.
> 
> i still believe the phenomenon is not anywhere as bad as it is in the UK however.


 
In the UK we have :

Bhatra Gurudwara
Sri Ravidas Gurudwara
Ramgarhia Gurudwara
Namdharia Gurudwara
 etc etc

The Bhatra's seem to be reverting theirs to Singh Sabha. As for the rest the verdict is out.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 28, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I beg you.
> 
> Please don't post from Panthic Weekly. Nothing they write can be belived.
> 
> ...




our opinions on panthic weekly differ.

however, i can give more sources if you like:

there are a few interesting articles here:

http://www.amritworld.com/main/sanatan_sikh/sanatan_sikh_index/

Who are 'Nihang Singhs'? | Sikhism101.com | UniversalFaith.net


Scheduled Castes In Sikh Community

 The          social universe of the Sikhs at that time was defined by, what was          described as ‘Sanatan Sikh tradition’ – primarily a priestly religion.          Giani Pratap Singh, later the head priest at the Golden Temple, noted          that the mazhabis were forbidden to enter the Golden Temple for worship;          their offering of karah prasad was not accepted and the Sikhs denied          them access to public wells and other utilities [Pratap Singh          1933:146-47, 156-57]. When a group of Rahtia Sikhs tried to enter the          Temple in the summer of the year 1900, “the manager of the sacred          establishment, Sardar Jawala Singh, ordered their arrest. The reformist          Sikhs who accompanied them were abused and finally beaten up... Because          one of the defining characteristics of a sacred precinct, in the eyes of          the Sanatan Sikhs, was its ritual purity” [cf Oberoi:1994:107].


 Sanatan Sikhi - Distortions of Sikh History


or from their own website, you can see that they equate akal takht and AKJ both with nirankaris!   and that they hate "dirty foriegners".    we also know from the experiences of Vijaydeep Singh here on SPN that they are casteist and do not distribute Amrit equally.  based on the fact that they do not allow women into their orders and are celebate, we can see that they are also sexist.   does any of this sound like Sikhi to you?

yes, they dress cool and have great looking dumallas.  it's fascinating how they like to keep the "old" traditions (as they know them, not as Gurus taught).  but can we really consider them Sikh?
they themselves say that they belong to "sanatan dharma" (hinduism)...

read through the sarbloh website.  i think most sikhs would be upset by what they read.  especially with their unfounded hatred of Akal Takht and AKJ...  they think only THEY are the "true" sikhs and anyone else who ties a blue dumalla is an impostor or fake.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 28, 2008)

> Please don't post from Panthic Weekly. Nothing they write can be belived.
> 
> Sanatan Sikh is a generic term to cover many sects of Sikhs including Nihungs:
> 
> I am not a Sanatan Sikh but I know enough about Sikh History that what Panthic Weekly is writing is gossip, hearsay, inendo and just plain Nindia.


And so you do nindya of Panthic Weekly?  Can you prove your allegations?  Panthic Weekly is very reputable and posts corroborative links to things like Dasam Granth Sahib seminar complete with videos.  Perhaps yours is a political grievance because you don't like the Gurmat message of the Panthic Weekly editors?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 28, 2008)

Jios,

I suffer from ignorance. What is the meaning then of "nindya." I understand it to mean "slander" or defamation. Perhaps I am wrong. 

My understanding:  saying untruthful things which are harmful to another person's reputation. In Gurbani --_ nindhaa _is slander and _nindhak _is slanderer. People, saints and Guruji are identified in Gurbani as targets of slander in many places. But the slander in Gurbani does not point to disagreement. Else all but a very small number of people would be slanderers.

If nindya means slander, then how is it even possible to slander an organization, specifically  news organization or media outlet? A news organization like Panthic Weekly may have an editorial position. A reader may disagree with the editorial position and say so publicly. That is disagreement not slander. A news organization may also print material that is purely informational in nature. A reader may then express a negative reaction to that information. How is that slander or defamation?

P/S I even checked the editorial position of Panthic Weekly. They have an Op/Ed section. That tells me that they welcome opposing points of view.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 28, 2008)

> I know enough about Sikh History that what Panthic Weekly is writing is gossip, hearsay, inendo and just plain Nindia.


"In law, *defamation* (also called *vilification*, *slander*, and *libel*) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 28, 2008)

aad0002 said:


> P/S I even checked the editorial position of Panthic Weekly. They have an Op/Ed section. That tells me that they welcome opposing points of view.




this is true.  they're one of the only news outlets that tells what's REALLY going on in punjab these days, not controlled by government propaganda...  

regardless, you're right, it isn't slander for a newspaper to print an OpEd piece.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (Mar 28, 2008)

Opposing points of view is not the same meaning as the definition of slander, which is to malign the reputation either of an individual or a business.  Deliberately harming the reputation falsely is a slander and nindya.  In the United States, the burden of proof is on the one who slanders.  The presumption of innocence is on the slandered party.

In this instance we have someone who, based on their _knowledge of history_ alleges the Newspaper is guilty of gross unprofessionalism and publically maligns their reputation as Sikhs... _"writing is gossip, hearsay, inendo and just plain Nindia."_

All unsubstantiated accusations publically made without evidence.

A clearer case of nindya against a business with intent to undermine their professional integrity and credibility could not be found.  In the United States it would be actionable under law and liable for a court case.


----------



## Astroboy (Mar 29, 2008)

At one point I gave a sermon to my then teenage daughter that if one follows the common law, no one would require religion to guide them. That was my limited understanding then.


----------

