|
Author: News
Date: 03-29-07 11:48
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/world/asia/29turban.html?em&ex=1175313600&en=bb62f7a1ff27e06f&ei=5087%0A
Amritsar Journal
Young Sikh Men Get Haircuts, Annoying Their Elders
Alexandra Jones for The International Herald Tribune
At a turban clinic run by a Sikh heritage group, Karan Singh, 15, wrapped his head with the help of Jaswinder Singh.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By AMELIA GENTLEMAN
Published: March 29, 2007
AMRITSAR, India — The day Jugraj Singh, at age 14, abandoned his turban and had a lifetime’s growth of hair cut off, he collected the tresses from the barbershop floor and packed them into a plastic bag. Then he threw the bag into a river flowing out of Amritsar, the spiritual home of the Sikhs.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
For Young Sikhs, the Turban Is Old Hat (iht.com)Slide Show
For Young Sikhs, the Turban Is Old Hat (iht.com)
Enlarge This Image
Alexandra Jones for The International Herald Tribune
Jugraj Singh, 18, cut his hair four years ago to be stylish. His parents did not object.
“It was my parents’ idea to float it down the river,” said Mr. Singh, now an 18-year-old business student. “They thought it would be a display of respect to the hair I had cut off. For me it wasn’t an emotional moment.”
Like many young Sikhs, he found the turban a bother. It got in the way when he took judo classes. Washing his long hair was time-consuming, as was the morning ritual of winding seven yards of cloth around his head. It was hot and uncomfortable.
“In the end,” he said, “it was a question of fashion. I felt smarter without it.”
Sikh spiritual leaders express dismay at the rapidity with which a new generation of young men are trimming their hair and abandoning the turban, the most conspicuous emblem of the Sikh faith. While there are no hard data, Jaswinder Singh, a lawyer and leader of a “turban pride” movement, estimates that half of India’s Sikh men now forgo the turban, compared with just 10 percent a couple of decades ago.
“The problem is very severe,” he said from the basement headquarters of his organization, Akaal Purkh Ki Fauj, or Army of God, here in Amritsar, in Punjab, the northern state where most of India’s 18 million Sikhs are based. “We are going to have to battle hard to turn back the tide. Otherwise, another 20 years will pass and India won’t have any more Sikhs in turbans.”
Since 1699, about two centuries after the founding of the religion, Sikh leaders have prohibited their members from cutting their hair, saying long hair is a symbol of Sikh pride. The turban was conceived to manage the long hair and intended to make Sikhs easily identifiable in a crowd.
But these days not every young Sikh wants to stand out so boldly.
The dwindling numbers of turban wearers reflects less a loss of spirituality than encroaching Westernization and the accelerating pace of Indian life, Jaswinder Singh said.
He puts the start of rapid decline at the mid-1990s, as India began liberalizing its economy, more people began traveling abroad and satellite television arrived in the villages of Punjab. Working mothers are too rushed to help their sons master the skill of wrapping a turban, he said, and increasingly they just shrug and let them cut their hair.
“Everyone is working harder to buy themselves bigger cars,” he said. “They don’t have time to teach their children about the Sikh heroes. Boys take film stars as their idols instead.”
Some abandoned the turban in self-defense after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguard in 1984, leading to the massacre of thousands of Sikhs across India. But globalization probably has had a greater impact.
“There is this terrible, misplaced urge to merge with the rest of the world,” said Patwant Singh, a historian and the author of “The Sikhs” (John Murray, 1999).
In addition, since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Sikhs traveling abroad have complained of being mistaken for turban-wearing Taliban and harassed by airport security guards.
Outside the Army of God offices, there is a turban clinic offering free classes for boys — one of a series of Sikh revival programs. Standing before full-length mirrors, an instructor shows teenage boys in baggy jeans and sports shoes how to twist the cloth into neatly layered folds on one side and smooth the pleats into sharp lines with a hooked silver pin, which is then concealed beneath the hair at the back.
A “Smart Turban 1.0” CD-ROM offers step-by-step instructions to create fashionable looks and guides new turban wearers on how to choose the most flattering style according to face shape.
To promote the turban as a fashion item, Sikh leaders have also started holding Mr. Singh International pageants. Contestants are judged by looks, moral character, personality, knowledge of Sikh history and principles, and turban tying skills. The sixth World Turban Day will be celebrated on April 13 with a march through Amritsar by thousands of turban-wearing Sikhs.
India has no shortage of powerful Sikh role models, like Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Lt. Gen. Joginder Jaswant Singh, the army chief of staff. But they are hardly style icons, and their prominence has done nothing to stem the younger generation’s disaffection with the turban.
For that, turban promoters turn to the Punjabi pop star Pammi Bai. Grinning, his canary-yellow turban at a jaunty angle, he sings of the glory of wearing a turban in a single released as part of the campaign.
“I try my level best to gear up the youngsters,” Mr. Bai said in an interview, absent-mindedly pulling a pin from his turban to dig out the battery from his cellphone. “They’ve adopted bad European habits: fast food, pubs and clubs. They want to show they are modern. They are forgetting their own culture.” The album containing the turban song has sold 100,000 copies so far.
Are those efforts working?
Not according to Namrata Saluja, manager of the Color Lounge hairdressers in central Amritsar, which every week turns away young Sikh men who want their long hair cut off. “Kids come in groups,” she said. “There’s a lot of peer pressure. But we won’t unturban them here. We don’t want to be responsible for that upheaval in their families.”
Instead, the barbers advise the boys to cut their own hair at home and come back for styling.
“It’s usually college-going students who are more worried about looking good than about their spiritual identity,” Ms. Saluja said. “It’s a thrilling moment for them. You can see a flush on their faces. Taking eight or nine meters of cloth off your head releases a certain amount of pressure.”
But while it is good for business, as a religious Sikh she feels ambivalent about the trend. “At the end of the day, it is a bit hurtful,” she said. “It means one more identifiable Sikh is missing.”
|
|
|
|
Author: News
Date: 03-29-07 11:53
Young Sikhs discard turban, elders worried
Posted on : Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:23:00 GMT | Author : World News Editor
News Category : World
New ( News Alerts by Email click here )
AMRITSAR, India, March 29 India's Sikh spiritual leaders are unhappy their young men are discarding their Kesh or long hair, one of the five articles of faith, in the name of fashion.
A Sikh is forbidden from cutting his Kesh, kept tied under a Pugree or long turban that gives the Sikh their special identity. Other requirements are Kuch specially designed underwear), Kara (an Iron bangle), Kanga (a wooden comb to keep the Kesh in a knot) and Kirpan or a sword.
However, in keeping with today's lifestyle, young Sikhs who are part of their 18 million population in India, are cutting their hair and discarding the turbans.
In Sikhism's holiest city of Amritsar, an 18-year-old told the International Herald Tribune he found the turban a bother as it got in the way during judo classes.
"In the end," he said, "it was a question of fashion. I felt smarter without it." Additionally, since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, some Sikhs have complained of being confused with members of the Taliban at airport security.
Jaswinder Singh, a lawyer who heads the "turban pride" movement, estimated that half of India ' s Sikh men have given up the Pugree. All Sikh men carry the "Singh" (or lion to denote their martial tradition) surname. "We are going to have to battle hard to turn back the tide. Otherwise another 20 years will pass and India won't have any more Sikhs in turbans."
Copyright 2007 by UPI
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 03-29-07 14:26
What about the sikh girls? Aren't they suppose to wear a turban too?
Anyway, I HATE how everybody only criticize Sikh guys for not wearing a turban, but never criticize Sikh girls for not wearing one too. Damn hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
Author: confused
Date: 03-29-07 16:22
Sad but true, you dont want to wear the glorious crown Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee gave us, then you really must be a fool.
|
|
|
|
Author: jassmannn
Date: 03-30-07 09:45
Not to worry.
I heard a katha once by a Giana ji, can't remember his name but is was quite inspiring.
In the Katha he made two points that stood out.
1: Sikhs should try to educate their young about Sikhi. After that it is the young persons responsibilty whether they choose to adopt or not.
2: The second point he made was a little more controversial, whether you believe or not is your choice, He said that SOME Sikhs who grew their hair and then cut it were muslims in their past lives, and died at the hands of a mahapurush, puran sikh, or even Guru Sahib in a past life which earned them the right to Sikhi. But moving back to their old ways has lead them to cutting their.
Fundamentally it's the indivuals choice, and I don't ever think the Sikhs will fade out. Probably a smaller group, but a lot more loyal and committed.
As they say, who would value a diamond, if there was one in every home.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bachitar Singh
Date: 04-02-07 02:30
I agree with that giani. I have heard that after one of Guru Hargobind Jee's battles, the sikhs had cremated the sikhs and the muslims together. Guru Hargobind said that muslims were to be buried. He then said these people will be born into sikh families. They will look like sikhs, but they will not act like them. Look at people like Badal.
Sikhi has it's ups and downs. When ever Guru Sahib see's it fit he sends down someone to take care of business. Look at Bhai Randhir Singh's time. How many great sikhs were born in that era including him. Look at the bhindrawala era how many great sikhs were there. This is just a cycle of play by Waheguru. People will only get old worrying about these things. It is all in Guru Sahib's hands.
|
|
|
|
Author: PTE SINGH
Date: 04-03-07 05:51
I don't know what all the fuss is about, 100% of Sikh men and boys wear a dastaar of some kind and have long hair, those that do not are not Sikh at all.
The Headline of the Newspaper should read, Sikh boys discard their religion. Having long hair and a dastaar is the first step toward Sikhism, it is the only fundemental part of Sikhism that started from day one and a point that every Sikh agrees upon.
There is no basis to consider any person that has a hair cut to be a Sikh, a Mono has nothing in common to me, more than any other person of Punjabi origin. No country in the world extends any laws that are aimed to protect Sikhs to the Mono. When others do not consider mona to be Sikhs then why should we???
If people no longer want to be Sikhs, then that is their choice.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-03-07 14:31
<<<I don't know what all the fuss is about, 100% of Sikh men and boys wear a dastaar of some kind and have long hair, those that do not are not Sikh at all.>>>
What about Sikh women? Doesn't that rule apply to them as well?
Besides, Do you know what a Sehajdhari is?
Also, if you want an extremist definition of a Sikh, then it should be the ones who take amrit. If you're not an amritdhari, then you're not a sikh. There is more to sikhi than just keeping uncut hair.
|
|
|
|
Author: Esher Singh
Date: 04-03-07 23:56
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji KI Fateh,
"Seeker of the Truth" Veerji,
I am not as knowledgable as other people who are over here on this forum(phorum). But now a days lot of hue and cry has been made regarding the term Sahjdhari Sikhs.
At one time sahajdhari Sikhism was - as the meaning of the word signified, Those who take time—the halfway house to the hirsute form of Khalsa Sikhism. Now the process is reversed, and it has become a halfway house to Hinduism or other religions such as Christianity or Islam as well.
The ultimate aim of any Sahajdhari sikh is to take "Khandey de Pahul" and become khalsa.
We were made Sardars by Guru Gobind .Now a days we proudly say that we are Sardars without even knowing the meaning of this word. The "Dar" is a farsi word word meaning "Kayam hai" or "Mojood hai" or simple put in english "it is present". Take for example "Ijjatdar" means whose ijjat(honor) is kayam or present . "Wafadar" meaning who is loyal or jiski "wafaa" kayam hai or loyality is present in him. Same way "Sardar" means whose "Sar" is Kayam" on the path shown by our Guru Sahiban. Remeber when Guru sahib asked for our "Seesh" or "Sar".(Baisakhi of 1699)
"Jion tion Prem khilan ka chaao
Sir dhar tali gali mere aao
Et marag pair dhareejay
sir dheejay par kaan na keejay".
<< Also, if you want an extremist definition of a Sikh >>. So in the end I would like to say that there is no extremist definition of Sikh, but it is we who have fear , who have faltered in not following the Path shown by our Guru Sahiban. It is we who are looking for the escape route from Sikhism by labelling Sikhi saroop as orthodox behaviour, extremist definition of Sikh.
|
|
|
|
Author: Demonic Warrior
Date: 04-04-07 05:57
'Seeker of the Truth', to have uncut hair is the most important aspect that makes up a Sikh. In Guru Ji's time so many Gurmukhs protected their hair with their life, but now human beings have become so weak and faithless that they should be protecting their own hair from themselves.
The Naam that we jap won't work if we are not externally pure. We have to be both externally and internally pure to ever reach a Khand. The energy and power of Naam flows through every hair on the body. To keep ones hair is also the natural law and order of God, but because human beings are so proud, they think of themselves to be God. They do and say whatever they please through falsehood and a sinful life.
In the story of 'Samson and Delilah' compare Samson with the other people of his time? Tell me the difference of blessing and purity that he had opposed to the others?
Here's a rehit by Bhai Desa Singh Ji of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's time:
dhaarrhaa mushh sir kaes banaaee || hai eih dhrirrh jih prabhoo razaaee || maett razaaee j sees mu(n)ddaavai || kahu thae jag kaisae har paavai ||80||
The hair moustache and beard are created within God's order. How can those who violate their natural form by cutting their hair ever be accepted by the Lord?.
|
|
|
|
Author: PTE SINGH
Date: 04-04-07 07:25
Seeker of Truth
You need to face up to this fundemental truth. Sehajdhari is a invention of the 1920's before which Punjabi Mona were simply called Hindu's. Sehjadhari is a name given to a mona by a mona to cover the shame that they are unable to carry forward the traditions of their Guru and forefathers.
Acknowledging these facts do not make anyone an extremist, just a realist. It is accepted and clear as an evolutionery part of Sikhism that an Amritdari or Singh Khalsa is a better Sikh than one that is not amritadari. From a Sikh comes the Khalsa, a step forward, however to become a mona when all our ancestors were Sardars is a step back to that which we were before we became Sikhs.
You are right, uncut hair and the covering of their heads in a respectful way does apply to women. You are also correct that there is more to being a Sikh than 'JUST' having long hair. But having the long hair is the first and biggest step in Sikhism, the fact that you use the word 'JUST' shows that you have no idea what a Sikh's hair and dastaar means to them and the devotion to god that it requires to maintain them. Proving my point quite well.
Logic, tradition and tenet dictates that a Mona is not a Sikh. The Sikh exceptance of Mona as Sikhs and the Mona illusion that by wearing a kara they have in some way joined the club, is the problem facing Sikhism in the 21st century.
|
|
|
|
Author: Man Singh
Date: 04-04-07 10:00
We criticise Brahmins most of the time becasue of their emphasis on external rituals without character.
Brahmins also claimed that Tilak, Choti and janeu that makes them brahmins opposite to scriptural requirements of high spritual discipleine and sadhna along with external symbols. Slowly people started discussing external symbols VS internal purity which one is great and real?
Truth is that external symbols along with spritual discipline togatner makes a perfect Brahmin.
Today here we are discusisng the same topic in refernce of Sikhism if External symbols of Sikhi or Spritaul discipline/character which one is real sikhi.
Friends The complete system included external symbols as well as internal purity togather.
A man with turban and hair committing crimes day and night do not deserve to call himself a Sikh.
A man without turban and hair doing a lot of spritual sadhna naam jap etc is incomplete sikh unless he/she has external symbols as well.
Nobody is a perfect Sikh other then great Gurus. We all are in the process of reaching the last step of ladder.
Some start with turban and hair and do spritual sadhna, others start with spritual discipline and then reach to turban and hair.
Real Sikhs are those who follow the panth in totality.
Till then let's invite verybody to sikhi. Let them start from imperfection and take them to perfection.
That's how panth grows and khalsa shines.
We should always remeber that Those before Pita Dashmesh were also Sikhs.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-04-07 11:14
PTE SINGH, Demonic Warrior and Esher Singh,
If anybody needs to face the truth, it is you my friends. The term ‘Sehjadhari’ existed a long time ago. That word ‘sehjadhari’ still applies today. Sehjadhari are Sikhs if you like it or not. Do a research on a sehjadhari name Kaura Mal. Do you think Khalsa Singhs (Amritdharis) didn't consider him a Sikh especially what he did for Khalsa?
Also I like to point out that Sardars (Keshdharis) aren’t Sikhs either if we are going use the so-called “true” definition of who a Sikh here. In fact, taking amrit alone doesn’t make you a Sikh. You still have to do your prayers, defeat your 5 evil vices, do seva etc.... If you fail to do one of those things, then you are not a sikh.
Monay are Hindus? Why not Muslims?
Do you guys consider Raja Ranjit Singh and Shaheed Udham Singh to be Sikhs?
<<< 'Seeker of the Truth', to have uncut hair is the most important aspect that makes up a Sikh.>>>
The most important deed is meditation of god, not keeping uncut hair.
"Meditation of the Lord is the highest of the deeds, through which myriads obtain release, through which the thirst (of desires) is quenched, through which one becomes all knowing, through which the fear of death goes away, through which all the desires are fulfilled, through which the dirt of the mind is cleansed and the Nectar of the Name of God is absorbed in the mind" (Guru Nanak, Gauri Sukhmani)
Please, don’t quote some rehit to prove your point.
Guru Granth Sahib, Page 305:
mehlaa 4.
Fourth Mehl:
ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
गुर सतिगुर का जो सिखु अखाए सु भलके उठि हरि नामु धिआवै ॥
gur satgur kaa jo sikh akhaa-ay so bhalkay uth har naam Dhi-aavai.
One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru, the True Guru, shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name.
ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥
उदमु करे भलके परभाती इसनानु करे अम्रित सरि नावै ॥
udam karay bhalkay parbhaatee isnaan karay amrit sar naavai.
Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar.
ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥
उपदेसि गुरू हरि हरि जपु जापै सभि किलविख पाप दोख लहि जावै ॥
updays guroo har har jap jaapai sabh kilvikh paap dokh leh jaavai.
Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased.
ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
फिरि चड़ै दिवसु गुरबाणी गावै बहदिआ उठदिआ हरि नामु धिआवै ॥
fir charhai divas gurbaanee gaavai bahdi-aa uth-di-aa har naam Dhi-aavai.
Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name.
ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥
जो सासि गिरासि धिआए मेरा हरि हरि सो गुरसिखु गुरू मनि भावै ॥
jo saas giraas Dhi-aa-ay mayraa har har so gursikh guroo man bhaavai.
One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind.
So why do some Sikhs always talk about the external aspect of Sikhi, but never talk about meditating?
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-04-07 11:22
Man Singh,
Wow, interesting analysis especially about comparing Brahmins to Sikhs of today. I never thought of it like that. You are right no one is perfect. Everybody got their own flaws to deal with it and Sikhi is there to help us defeat those flaws. Maybe our bad karma is the reason why some of us are doing things that aren't very Sikh like.
|
|
|
|
Author: Balpreet Singh
Date: 04-04-07 11:32
There is no dichotomy between external and internal Sikhi. Sikhi is a package and you don't pick and choose. In fact, the external is MUCH easier than the internal and if that's a problem I suspect doing the internal is going to be even more difficult.
The focus of Sikhi is naam and meditation on naam. But naam is obtained only from the Punj Pyaaray at the time of the Amrit Sinchaar. The path of a Sikh towards Vahiguru truly starts after that day.
As for the term "sehajdhari": This is a genuine term but not used honestly anymore. If someone has never been keshdhari but is moving slowly towards adopting Sikhi, I wouldn't have a problem in calling them Sehajdhari. But if someone cuts their hair and says they want to be a "Sehajdhari Sikh" now, it's a fraud and not an honest use of that term.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bachitar Singh
Date: 04-04-07 20:24
To seeker of the truth: "Rehat Pyaare Mujh Ko, Sikh Pyaare Nahin." Have you ever heard that? I don't know what your defination of rehat is, but I consider not cutting hair in there. Now Guru sahib stressed how important keeping your hair is. He gave the gift of naam to sikhs, but who needs to be a sikh when we got the key.
|
|
|
|
Author: Esher Singh
Date: 04-05-07 00:43
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,
"Seeker of the Truth" Veerji,
<<That word ‘sehjadhari’ still applies today.>>
Nowhere I have denied the existence of Sahajdhari Sikhs.You can read my post for that matter on this thread. But the meaning of Sahajdhari still remains the same "Those who take time—the halfway house to the hirsute form of Khalsa Sikhism."
But if the process is reversed ie "if it becomes a halfway house to Hinduism or other religions such as Christianity or Islam as well."
Would you still call that person on the latter part a sahajdhari sikh?
<<The most important deed is meditation of god, not keeping uncut hair.>>
Here your first part of the statement is very very correct , but sadly the later part absolutely wrong. It is like saying that you want to go to certain school/college but you want to follow it's discipline or its code of conduct. Which is absolutely wrong.
Yes one should meditate, here Guru sahib in Anand Sahib are insrtucting us by saying
"jee-ahu mailay baahrahu nirmal.
baahrahu nirmal jee-ahu ta mailay tinee janam joo-ai haari-aa."
We as Sikhs need both external and internal rehat. Veerji when you are saying that keeping uncut hair is not necessary then you are insulting our Guru Sahiban. Remember Bhai Taru Singh Ji Saheed who had his head cut rather then let barber cut his hair. Here same goes for the persons who keep keep external rehat but don't keep internal rehat. Both are necessary and both compliment each other.
Again in Anand Sahib Guru Sahib says
"jee-ahu nirmal baahrahu nirmal.
baahrahu ta nirmal jee-ahu nirmal satgur tay karnee kamaanee.
koorh kee so-ay pahuchai naahee mansaa sach samaanee.
janam ratan jinee khati-aa bhalay say vanjaaray.
kahai naanak jin man nirmal sadaa raheh gur naalay."
Again Guru Sahib says, why I have wore turban
" ho gosaaee dhaa pehilavaanarraa ||
mai gur mil ouch dhumaalarraa ||
sabh hoee shhi(n)jh eikat(h)eeaa dhay bait(h)aa vaekhai aap jeeo ||"
Again Guru Sahib says
" sae dhaarreeaaa(n) sacheeaa j gur charanee laga(n)nih ||
anadhin saevan gur aapanaa anadhin anadh reha(n)nih ||
naanak sae muh sohanae sachai dhar dhisa(n)nih ||"
Here guru sahib says that keeping only external rehat is also not sufficient .
Veer Man singh Ji,
<<We should always remeber that Those before Pita Dashmesh were also Sikhs.>>
Nobody here is saying that they were not sikhs. But by saying this you are undermining the teachings of Dasmesh Pitaji and raising a finger on him and his beautiful daath of "Khandey de pahul".
Dashmesh pitaji by giving "Khandey de pahul" graduated Sikhs to Khalsa Sikhs. Which is, which should be the ultimate aim of any Sikh.
Are we good enough to say that we are better at judgement then Dashmesh Pitaji? If not, then why are we questioning "Khandey de pahul" , why are we afarid of it, and why we are finding escape routes by saying "We should always remeber that Those before Pita Dashmesh were also Sikhs".
|
|
|
|
Author: confused
Date: 04-05-07 09:14
you dont know how to jap naam if you aint taken amrit
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-05-07 12:33
Bachitar Singh,
<<< To seeker of the truth: "Rehat Pyaare Mujh Ko, Sikh Pyaare Nahin." Have you ever heard that? I don't know what your defination of rehat is, but I consider not cutting hair in there. Now Guru sahib stressed how important keeping your hair is. He gave the gift of naam to sikhs, but who needs to be a sikh when we got the key.>>>
Yeah, but there are so MANY different kinds of rehits out there. How do you determine which rehit is correct and which rehit is wrong? Also some of the things stated in these rehits goes against basic sikh principles.
Esher Singh,
<<< Nowhere I have denied the existence of Sahajdhari Sikhs.You can read my post for that matter on this thread. But the meaning of Sahajdhari still remains the same "Those who take time—the halfway house to the hirsute form of Khalsa Sikhism."
But if the process is reversed ie "if it becomes a halfway house to Hinduism or other religions such as Christianity or Islam as well."
Would you still call that person on the latter part a sahajdhari sikh?>>>
First of all, my post was more directed to PTE SINGH. Sorry for not being more clear about that.
Anyway, Sehajdharis are those Sikhs who perform ceremonies according to Sikh rites” and who do not “use Tobacco or Kutha (Halal meat) in any form” and who are not “Patit” and “who can recite Mul Mantar”, as defined in Section 10-A of the 1925 Gurdwaras Act. They're fully recognized as Sikhs.
<<< We as Sikhs need both external and internal rehat. Veerji when you are saying that keeping uncut hair is not necessary then you are insulting our Guru Sahiban. Remember Bhai Taru Singh Ji Saheed who had his head cut rather then let barber cut his hair. Here same goes for the persons who keep keep external rehat but don't keep internal rehat. Both are necessary and both compliment each other.>>>
Remember Sehajdharis like Kaura Mall and Haqiqat Rai who refuse to give up their Sikh beliefs and got beheaded for not accepting Islam?
kbIr pRIiq iek isau kIey, Awn duibDw jwie]
BwvY lWby kys kru, BwvY Grir mufwie] slok 25, kbIr jI, pMnw 1365
Kabir, inculcating devotion to the One (God) dispels double-mindedness;
Whether one grows long hair or he shaves his head. Page 1375
|
|
|
|
Author: Bachitar Singh
Date: 04-05-07 23:32
Oh come on seeker of the truth it is the first kakaar. Now if you don't tell me that is important shame on you. I think that Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala said it best. "If you don't want to keep your hair, pray to god that in your next life he make you a women." You cannot call yourself a sikh and not be a singh. You cannot call yourself a singh and have cut hair. Guru sahib has given us such a big gift of sardari and your just tossing it out the window. How long are you going to use the excuse that naam is important nothing else matters. So is it okay for me to
A)commit adultery
B)smoke tobbaco
C)drink beer
D)eat meat
E)proclaim my self as a guru
According to you it is alright. I meditate on naam so doesn't that entitle me to be able to do those things. Cause remember naam is the most important.
|
|
|
|
Author: PTE SINGH
Date: 04-06-07 04:53
Seeker of the Truth,
"Anyway, Sehajdharis are those Sikhs who perform ceremonies according to Sikh rites” and who do not “use Tobacco or Kutha (Halal meat) in any form” and who are not “Patit” and “who can recite Mul Mantar”, as defined in Section 10-A of the 1925 Gurdwaras Act. They're fully recognized as Sikhs"
The words 'clutching at straws' comes to mind. Does that mean that only the mona that fits that definition is a Sikh and one that can't recite 5 lines of path is not. I am sure that much of your mona brethren with their 3kilo kara and kanda tattoos will disagree with you on that. So what are those huge percentage of people who can't recite the mul mantar or have the occasional 'dodgy Donner'?
I am making the definition of Sikhism on a defining article of faith, and you are making it on eating habits and a good memory, well argued old boy.
By your definition of a Sikh we should include all Hindu Punjabi's, most don't smoke, or eat any meat. They attend the Gurdwara and have more respect for our gurus and their ways then the average 'Sajehdari'.
A soldier adorns his uniform and is judged by it and the conduct that becomes it. A soldier without a uniform is called a spy he is judged as a spy and is extended no rights and honours of a soldier. A Sikh is a soldier of faith and represents his guru at all times. He must wear his uniform first and then be judges by his Rehit.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-06-07 12:42
Bachitar Singh,
<<<Oh come on seeker of the truth it is the first kakaar. Now if you don't tell me that is important shame on you. I think that Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala said it best. "If you don't want to keep your hair, pray to god that in your next life he make you a women." You cannot call yourself a sikh and not be a singh. You cannot call yourself a singh and have cut hair. Guru sahib has given us such a big gift of sardari and your just tossing it out the window. How long are you going to use the excuse that naam is important nothing else matters. So is it okay for me to
A)commit adultery
B)smoke tobbaco
C)drink beer
D)eat meat
E)proclaim my self as a guru
According to you it is alright. I meditate on naam so doesn't that entitle me to be able to do those things. Cause remember naam is the most important.>>>
I am NOT saying killing people, doing drugs and people proclaiming themselves as gurus is right as long they do their prayers. All I am trying to say is that keeping uncut hair isn’t the biggest deed in Sikhi. I think Sikhs tend to emphasize too much on keeping uncut hair while ignoring the other aspects of Sikhi. Also I find that there is big double standard in the Sikh community when comes to hair. How come Sikh women can cut their hair, do their eyebrows, shave legs etc, but Sikh men can’t? I believe Sikh preaches about equality so how come we don’t see this equality when comes to the kesh issue in the Sikh community? If anything, I see more sikh men wearing turbans than sikh women. So why is the article is being bias about this issue? How come we don't see any articles about Sikh women not wearing turbans and not keeping their kesh? Also, why do some amritdhari women don’t wear turbans but instead wear a scarf?
For the record, there is nothing wrong with eating meat. Only Sikhs who belong to certain “jathas” don’t eat meat.
PTE SINGH,
<<< The words 'clutching at straws' comes to mind. Does that mean that only the mona that fits that definition is a Sikh and one that can't recite 5 lines of path is not. I am sure that much of your mona brethren with their 3kilo kara and kanda tattoos will disagree with you on that. So what are those huge percentage of people who can't recite the mul mantar or have the occasional 'dodgy Donner'?
I am making the definition of Sikhism on a defining article of faith, and you are making it on eating habits and a good memory, well argued old boy.>>>
That wasn’t my definition I made up. I got that definition from the 1925 Gurdwara act.
Here’s what the sikh rehit defines who a sikh is:
ANY HUMAN BEING WHO FAITHFULLY BELIEVES IN
i. One Immortal Being,
ii. Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib,
iii. The Guru Granth Sahib,
iv. The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and
v. the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and WHO DOES NOT OWE ALLEGIANCE TO ANY OTHER RELIGION, IS A SIKH
http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html
<<<<By your definition of a Sikh we should include all Hindu Punjabi's, most don't smoke, or eat any meat. They attend the Gurdwara and have more respect for our gurus and their ways then the average 'Sajehdari'.>>>
I don’t know what Hindu Punjabis you know and hang out with, but the Hindu Punjabis I know don’t even understand the basic principles of the Sikh religion. No need to make assumptions here, my friend.
Also keep in mind that eating meat isn’t wrong at all.
<<< A soldier adorns his uniform and is judged by it and the conduct that becomes it. A soldier without a uniform is called a spy he is judged as a spy and is extended no rights and honours of a soldier. A Sikh is a soldier of faith and represents his guru at all times. He must wear his uniform first and then be judges by his Rehit.>>>
If you knew anything about the army, then you would’ve known that not all soldiers wear traditional uniforms. In fact, there are soldiers that wear “normal” clothes to perform their mission (usually hard task missions that your average solider can’t perform and it requires special and intensive training).
Do you consider people like Kaura Mall and Haqiqat Rai to be Sikhs?
By the way, are you an amritdhari by any chance?
|
|
|
|
Author: PTE SINGH
Date: 04-07-07 10:35
"If you knew anything about the army, then you would’ve known that not all soldiers wear traditional uniforms. In fact, there are soldiers that wear “normal” clothes to perform their mission (usually hard task missions that your average solider can’t perform and it requires special and intensive training)"
Seeker of truth
I'm afraid that i've grown tired on continuing this with a person that thinks its a good idea to use and belittle those things, that he is not brave enough to commit to or even comprehend, in his arguments.
You are not an 'average soldier' nor do you keep 'just' your kesh, yet you think you can make sweeping judgement going against all logic, tradition, precident and fact.
You have shown yourself to be disrespectful of another mans religion and occupation and have been left wanting in your Military knowledge as much as in your knowledge of Sikhism.
What do you think the PTE stands for my good man?? Clue:-(soon to 2Lt Singh)
Pardon any offence
Kind regards
From an average soldier and an average Sikh
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-07-07 13:16
PTE Singh,
You seriously didn’t point out any FACTS in your argument, while I used facts to prove my claims. Your so-called logic of comparing a religion to an army is awful. I like said before, there are special groups in the army that perform special tasks that don’t need to wear an uniform similar to how there are some cops that don’t wear their uniforms to perform their jobs (they’re called “undercover cops”).
Besides, you didn’t answer any of my questions.
Let me ask you and rest of the posters in this thread again,
Are you an amritdhari?
Do you consider people like Kaura Mall and Haqiqat Rai to be Sikhs?
Monay are Hindus? Why not Muslims?
Do you guys consider Raja Ranjit Singh and Shaheed Udham Singh to be Sikhs?
|
|
|
|
Author: Bachitar Singh
Date: 04-07-07 13:35
Bhai Sahib seeker of the truth:
Singh = Sikh You cannot be a sikh unless you are a Singh. To become a singh you must take amrit. Now when you have people who manipulate there own views into the religion they practice often the result is that the religion gets watered down. Take meat for example. There is no meat eating in sikhi. The singh's lived in jungles and there they ate pathay. The muslims who could a whole bakar in one sitting were no match for the strength of the Singhs. Harvard Medical School released a study many years back that over half of cancers come from eating meat. So why would you want to eat it? Because you love the taste don't you. Bhangra is another example. There is no bhangra in our religion or culture. The muslimans used to do it. Up until now there was no bhangra in our culture. Another example is the people wearing the pencil sized kirpans. What happened to the days of every sikh being embedded in shashtars?
Guru Gobind Singh has given everything to his khalsa. He has done everything for the khalsa. The only thing he asked for was our heads. Now you can say whatever you like, but to become his khalsa you must take amrit.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-07-07 15:58
Bachitar Singh,
I am confused now! You first said, “singh = Sikh You cannot be a sikh unless you are a Singh. To become a singh you must take amrit”, then later of your post, you said, “Guru Gobind Singh has given everything to his khalsa. He has done everything for the khalsa. The only thing he asked for was our heads. Now you can say whatever you like, but to become his khalsa you must take amrit.”
What’s the difference between Khalsa and Sikh? Why use two different terms to explain the same thing to me?
Anyway, remember this line: “"Rehat Pyaare Mujh Ko, Sikh Pyaare Nahin."? According to the Sikh rehit, any human being who believes in Sikh gurus and doesn’t owe allegiance to any other religion is a Sikh. So I don’t understand why you don’t consider non-amritdharis to be Sikhs. But whatever, you got your opinion and I got my opinion on this issue.
<<< Take meat for example. There is no meat eating in sikhi>>>
The meat issue is a foolish issue to discuss about.
“First Mehl:
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.”
Source: Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Page 1289.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bachitar Singh
Date: 04-07-07 20:13
I just used that as an example I have no intention of even arguing that. A sikh is only a Amritdhari. Thats my opinion you have yours keep yours to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself
|
|
|
|
Author: Demonic Warrior
Date: 04-08-07 10:55
Seeker of truth, you wish to seek for truth, then why don't you listen to the sangat that say the right things. You do not even understand the shabad you have provided us with. We know what spiritual wisdom and meditation is and what opposes it by preventing it from working, ascending and levitating.
These prevent our spiritual growth:
Bujjar curehit= cutting hair, eating meat, drinking intoxicants and having drugs and adultery, as these are given at amrit sanchaar to be avoided of such sin.
- Being a Disciple of Guru Ji, a Sikh, is to take his orders into acceptance and to have realisation of wrong and right, sin and virtue and hating God and Loving God.
- Disregarding Guru Ji's orders is becoming a baymukh.
- The sangat have only said right, such as naming uncut hair and meat against Sikhi. We Sikhs practice Truth to the highest of Truths, the ultimate and difficult Truth to practice and accept.
I'm a seeker of Truth too and I know that we should be humble to such an extent that we accept Truth and the right the sangat of Guru Ji says. What I've heard from the sangat sounds right.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-08-07 13:01
You guys are funny (no offence)
First, y’all said only amritdharis could be Sikhs and telling me to follow the rehit. So once I look the definition of who is a sikh in rehit, it clearly didn’t state anything about only amritdharis are Sikhs. In fact, it stated that any human being who believes in the sikh gurus and does not owe allegiance to any other religion is a Sikh. But yet, you guys refuse to accept the rehit definition while telling me to follow the rehit? Talk about being a hypocrite!
Secondly, y’all said that eating meat is wrong while Guru Granth Sahib states only fools argue over meat and made it clear that there is no sin in eating meat. But yet, you guys refuse to accept Guru Ji words and accepted what some man made groups and wannabe Brahmins say about this issue.
Demonic Warrior, you said, "Bujjar curehit= cutting hair, eating meat, drinking intoxicants and having drugs and adultery, as these are given at amrit sanchaar to be avoided of such sin." But if you read the rehit, it clearly states, "eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way" is consider a sin.
Now, y’all pulling out the "what we said was right" card at me without using any facts to back up your claims. But whatever, if you guys don’t want to accept non-amrtdharis to be your brothers and sisters and not consider them as Sikhs, then I am cool with that, as long you don’t consider your opinions to be actually facts.
|
|
|
|
Author: Esher Singh
Date: 04-09-07 01:02
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,
"Seeker of the Truth" Veerji,
<<Do you consider people like Kaura Mall and Haqiqat Rai to be Sikhs? >>
Kaura Mall came from Hindu background and was influenced by Sikhi way of life and slowly started his way to Sikhism here you can call him sahajdhari , one who is slowly adopting sikhi way of life.
About Kaka Haqiqat Rai , he was very much Sikh infact an amritdhari Sikh to be precise . He partook amrit when he got maried to the daughter of Sardar Kishan Singh Uppal of Batala at the age of 18. You can go through history about him. Kaka Haqiqat Rai become saheed but he did not cut his hair as he had got the chance to do it .
Both, Kaura Mall ji and Kaka Haqiqat Rai were Keshadhari they were not monay.
About Maharaja Ranjit Singh, he was also Keshadhari as far we all know, if you have any knowledge that he had his hair cut then please let us know.Also, he was subjected to the punishment of 20 lashes at Harmandir Sahib , by Akali Pholla Singh and he received it willingly and accepted his mistake.(But that is another story).
About Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh, both returned to their original form that is Kesahdhari in Jail. They were monay for a very short period of time and You should be knowing that why did they cut their first.
What do you say about Bhai Taru Singh Ji who had his skull removed but not his hair?
Now,just ponder over this Guru Amar Das called his son Mohri a SIKH only when he accepted Guru Ramdas. After Mohri fell at the feet of Guru RamDas , then Guru AmarDas said to Baba Mohri "Sikhi Pad mein tumko diya, Tum puneet sikh mam bhaeya". Also in Guru Granth Sahib reference to the above is like this
"Satguru purukh je boleya Gursikhan mann layee rajee jio, mohri put sumnukh hoyeya ramdasey pareien paiye jio" Ang 924
If Baba Mohri and Baba Ram Rai (Both were Sons of Guru Sahiban) could not call themselves Sikhs, when they did not follow words/teachings of Guru Sahiban, then who we are to call ourselves Sikhs then, if we do not follow what our Guru has asked from us.
"Tuttey tanth na bajeey Rabab, bhul bigario apna kaaj". For us our hair are like rabab di tanth which attaches with our Guru Sahib.
Guru Sahib taught us and warned us like this
1. "Hamri Jaat pat sabh gur satgur hum bechai sir satgur ko"
2. " jo gur kahai soi bhal mano"
3. "Jion tion prem khilan ka chhao Sir dhar thali gali mera aao, eith marag pair dhareejai sir dheejai kaan na keejai".
Based on teaching ,On Vaisakhi of 1699 Dasmesh Pitaji asked for heads. Only five stood up and they become five beloved ones . Now insted of following those five beloved ones we want to follow somebody else.Why?
Now on the end note "Seeker of the Truth" veerji , Yes I have not taken Amrit yet, but I will take it very soon, right now I am following the rehat which is required after taking amrit, so that after giving my head to my guru I shall not not take it back from him. Also veerji as you have gone personal I say it to you , I am also not looking for any escape routes like you from Sikhi as I know "Sikhi khandeo Tikhi".
"Manmukhan nu prabh baksh ley, Manmukhan de ehay Sajjaeiy hai".
|
|
|
|
Author: Demonic Warrior
Date: 04-09-07 12:11
'Seeker of the Truth'
'"eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way" is consider a sin. '
If Guru Ji said this, then he is a man like us all, and not a Guru that has become one with God. To accept this rehit is to hate and look upon Muslims with negativity, and not equally. Remember that Sin haunts us.
If guru ji did say that then he meant this:
In the past Noah was told by God that to eat meat is forbidden, as this is a sin, but then when Noah lived after the great flood. God then granted humans the authority to eat animals, who have died and have no life inside of it, meaning blood. This means Humans can be eaten when dead. Eating a animal is equivalent to eating a human being. So, none of this should be accepted. To eat animals/humans altogether is a sin. For Muslims this is an excuse. That is why, Guru Ji announced that there is no Muslim nor Hindu.
Bhagat Kabeer Ji was the only one to practice the truth.
The weak were given lesser knowledge from an unknowledgeable prophet, such as Noah, Mohammed, Jesus etc. When humans had become more stable, and were committing less sin and meditating more on God with the help of prophets, then God finally sent down Guru Ji. To declare the, difficult and complete truth of the half-truths that the other prophets told. Now, only the true that are few are pre-destined to follow the truth.
If you cannot accept this, not even to be cautious or for love for God, then...use your imagination.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-10-07 13:20
Esher Singh,
Your post is nothing but false statements.
1) Sikh scholars recognize Kaura Mall and Haqiqat Rai as monay, not keshdhari or amritdhari.
Go to www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/ to find more information on those two.
2) Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a big time drinker, worship Hindu idols and slept with multiple of women. The only thing sikh about him was he wore a turban. Do you really want to consider someone like Ranjit Singh to be a Sikh?
3) Shaheed Udham Singh wore a turban in jail before getting hanged by the British? Do I even have to explain this to you? Do you realize how silly your comment was towards Shaheed Bhai Udham Singh?
4) Shaheed Bhai Bhagat Singh was an atheist. Now some people here might say he was a Sikh before he died. If this is true, then how come Bhagat Singh didn’t even mention anything about him being a sikh in his letters?
5) Bhai Taru Singh Ji died for freedom to practice his faith. I am sure if he believed in cutting hair while the Mughals believed in keeping uncut, then he would’ve still choose to die than accepting Mughals’ beliefs.
Anyway, people here are saying that only Amritdharis can be Sikhs. So if your claims were correct, then it wouldn’t mean anything because people here don’t even consider Keshdharis to be Sikhs as well.
Demonic Warrior,
Okay, I don’t understand why you keep discussing about the meat issue. Guru Ji said that only fools argue over meat while rehat states only eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way is consider a sin. Besides, Hinduism is one of the oldest faiths and a lot of their followers didn’t eat meat. So saying that god sent unknowledgeable prophets to preach the half truth then sending guru Ji to preach the full truth is really silly. Also I like to point out that Guru Nanak Ji eat meat before. (http://www.sangha.net/messengers/Nanak.htm)
|
|
|
|
Author: Balpreet Singh
Date: 04-10-07 14:07
Bhai Hakikat Singh was indeed a "Singh" and is written as such in the Bhatt Vehis. It's only recently that people have begun to deny this and Hindu fundamentalists go so far as to suggest he was a Hindu.
In my mind, we can't try to impose on someone if they call themselves a Sikh or not. But a Sikh in the truest sense of that word is one who has taken Guru Nanak as a Guru and that is only possible through deekhyaa or amrit. This is my belief.
There are of course people who will claim an affiliation with Sikhi without being amritdhari and this is a question of self-identification. But Sikh in the true sense of that word is more than just an identity.
|
|
|
|
Author: Demonic Warrior
Date: 04-10-07 14:25
Seeker of the Truth ,
'Also I like to point out that Guru Nanak Ji eat meat before. '
Your knowledge on Guru Ji is messed up, sorry, but someone really filled your mind with such false accusations to excuse their own wrong-doings.
'Guru Ji said that only fools argue over meat'
And sing a new tune. Can't even accept the truth, sorry if you enjoy eating meat so much that its all think about and love, over God.
'Hinduism is one of the oldest faiths and a lot of their followers didn’t eat meat. So saying that god sent unknowledgeable prophets to preach the half truth then sending guru Ji to preach the full truth is really silly.'
This is because some naturally live a truthful living, as they carried out good deeds in their past lives - those who haven't carry on committing sin in this life and gradually become worse. Guru Ji was given complete understanding of Truth due to becoming one with God in contrast to the prophets who had not.
|
|
|
|
Author: Man Singh
Date: 04-10-07 15:37
The weblink posted by seeker of truth contains the following:
Nowhere in this discussion it is mentioned that Guruji even touched meat forget about eating?
"On his arrival at the fair, Guru Nanak had Mardana cook them a meat dish of a deer presented to them by one of his followers. Upon finding that meat was being cooked on the holy premises, a large angry crowd gathered in anger to attack the Guru for what they thought amounted to sacrilege (Bhai Mani Singh, Gyan Ratnavali, pg. 123). Upon hearing the angry crowd Guru Nanak responded;
"Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. They don't understand truth nor do they meditate on it. Who can define what is meat and what is plant? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non- vegetarian?" (Malhar)"
Similar stories has been described in many Hindu scriptures as well when a devotee with pure love for God offered meat to God as that peace of meat was the most precious thing that person was having.
What Guru Nanak meant is simply to be rational and not fanatic.
Satvic food prepared by satvically earned money, cooked with satvik methods and served with satvik feelings definitely helps in accelerating spritual growth and can be proved experimentaly even today. Then wht's so much fuss about it?
Spritual masters have their unique ways to educate humanity. As mentioned by Bhai balpreet Singh Ji, that Sikhi is a complete package for spritual growth. Just like a balanced diet means a balance in all nutrietns togather. Vitamins plenty and protein zero or protein plenty and vitamins zero will not work.
Any spritual discipline needs a complete pachage and Sikhi is no execption. I have no right to comment about other methods of spritual developement but I am sure about my path given by Guru Nanak Dev Ji maharaj, tsted by so many disciplies and is open to scientific verification even today by any believr or non believer.
If a law of Newton can cross verified by anybody even today why should we waste our time in going back to Newtons' life style?
|
|
|
|
Author: Esher Singh
Date: 04-11-07 00:16
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Fateh,
Seeker of the Truth veerji,
I did not find any refernce to Diwan Kaura Mall as being monay in the link what you have provided in the form of Sikh Encyclopedia. So let us take your point that he was a mona not a keshadhari(It means ,I am wrong and I humbly regret posting false information on this forum ).
Regarding other things that I posted are not wrong and I very much stand by them.
1. Regarding Bhagat Singh , there is always mention about his letters but nobody talks about his photograph which was taken to the end of his life in jail. In that photograph he has been shown as Keshadhari.
2. About Bhai Haqiqat Rai what "Balpreet Veerji " has said is correct. You believe it or not , your choice.
To say that they were not Khalsa(Amritdhari Sikhs) is to invariably equate us to them. We must first look inwards to see if we are worthy of the comparison. Let us not forget that by taking Amrit from the Beloved Five, the Guru showed the way.
The emphasis on Sikh and Khalsa is not so much to create these as distinct categories, as it is to highlight Khalsa as the pinnacle of the Sikh way of life. Falling short of being and becoming a Khalsa is rather unfortunate. A Sikh (lit. student) is on a spiritual progression that leads to the Order of the Khalsa (saint-soldier).
"following line I have taken from Sardar Mewa Singh Ji article , I hope that he forgives me "
Every religion has its own form of initiation, emblems, and code of conduct that is binding on its followers, as well as, its own ideology, doctrines and religious practices. Every individual is free to follow a religion which they prefer, but once a decision is made they are expected to obey the dictums of that religion. No one has the right to change or interpret any of the dictums to suite their personal views, as it may misrepresent that religion and disturb its uniformity and consistency. This is what is going to happen to the Sikh religion if the self-created categories are not stopped.
Sikh initiation, Sikh emblems, and Sikh code of conduct prescribed by Guru Gobind Singh are a part of the Sikh religion. No Sikh has any right to change it. Rather, Sikhs are duty bound to follow it. Scholars of Sikh religion have held these as fundamentally important for Sikhs. Suffice it to quote British scholar Jeans Culler,
“ Eliminate your symbols, my dear Singh, and watch the Khalsa crumble. Take off the turban, shave the beard, cut the hairs, throw aside the Kara, I can tell you truthfully the result would be embarrassing as well as disastrous. These five symbols had held the Sikhs in united brotherhood. They serve to make a Sikh and act as a Sikh. They endow him with courage to accomplish feats, which otherwise would be impossible for an average man. To make a long story short, the Five symbols have a psychological bearing on the man who wears them. They are manifestation of Guru, the Eternal.”
|
|
|
|
Author: Khalsaspirit
Date: 04-11-07 09:43
Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh
Khalsa jio,
The topic originally was
NY Times: Young Sikh Men Get Haircuts by News
Before us almost 32-33 posts were showed very few talked about the topic and the concern of problem instead went to an other way talking about meat and etc etc. We like to share our concern on this issue. We have some questions but before that we have to recongnize this that it is a very common practice in youth who born in Sikh families since last 100 years or so and every fore sighted Sikh recognized this problem since then and tried there best to prevent it but since last 2 decades it is on high pace as compare to before. Now come to our question
1. Why NY times is publishing this story which happened thousand’s mile away overseas in Punjab?
2. How they got the story in other words who supplied them this story?
3. What is the intent of NY times or the supplier of this story to publish in American Media? Or what is there give away message?
Khalsa ji although I think those needed to be discussed and keep in mind NY TIMES is considered as the far left liberal media in U. S.
The biggest question which is actually a challenge, now Sikh community is facing world wide that there children are going far from Gursikhi jeevan. Recently came to our attention that children of those Gursikhs who claimed that they are very strict Gursikhs and took Amrit thru a popular school who claim to be a good school of granthees and etc are given away the Kesh.
So for this challenge we will talk differently but concerning to this topic on day the this news was published in NY times our team was giving the presentation in one of the school in U.S about 1500 students of grade 8 and 7 were attending the presentation. Without even knowing that there is a news about a Sikh child in NY times one of our presenter while in Q & A period mentioned that some of Sikh kids these days giving up there family Sikh values as others Kids from Christian, Jews kids are including cutting there Kesh and this is challenge today which almost every religion face today. We did not know about NY times until teacher brought up news paper after presentation (during relaxation period) and agreed with us what mentioned earlier in the presentation and his wording was that
“Because kids in today’s world are very much influenced by materialistic world so that is why this is happening and no matter what religion there families belongs to”
After our presentation he and 1500 children came to know what Sikhism is and why we wear a Turban. That teacher also mentioned that before this presentation he do not know anything about Sikhism and shared a story that about 5 years ago there was a Sikh boy in his class with joora on his head and he met the same student few years later and he had no more joora on his head and he was told that because there was no other kid in the school so he gave up keeping his hair. Any way teacher was impressed with the presentation and assured us to work with us to prevent the same in future. The same teacher was also wondering why this story is in NY times. So does we that why they published this story and never covered that much before about the tragedies happened to SIKH in U. S especially after September the 11th. Even there were numerous events happened right in New York since then WHY ONLY STORY FROM OVERSEAS WHICH PORTRAY NEGATIVITY.
Now khalsa ji you can clearly judge whose works is this and why. So khalsa ji instead of wasting time discussing further keep your khalsa spirit alive and keeping reading/listening Gurbani, doing Naam Simran. There stories are part of wake up alarm.
Guru Mehar Karay
Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-11-07 14:42
You guys are funny.
Bhai Hakikat Singh?
His name was recorded as Bhai Haqiqat Rai. Here's a quote to prove my claims on Haqiqat Rai and Kaura Mall:
"In the early part of the eighteenth century when Sikhs suffered fierce persecution and when to be a Kesadhari, that is to bear kesh or long hair, was to invite sure death, the Sahajdharis looked after their places of worship and protected the households and the kith and kin of those driven to seek safety in hill and jungle. Some even defied the persecutors and courted martyrdom as did the teenaged Haqiqat Rai, who was beheaded in public for his refusal to disown his Sikh belief and accept Islam. A leading Sahajdhari Sikh of that time was Kaura Mall, a minister to the Mughal governor of Lahore, Mu’in ul-Mulk (1748-53), who helped the Sikhs in diverse ways in those days of severe trial. He had so endeared himself to them that they called him Mittha (‘sweet’, in Punjabi) Mall instead of Kaura (which, in Punjabi, means ‘bitter’) Mall. Sikh tradition also recalls another Sahajdhari, Des Raj, of this period who was entrusted by the Khalsa with the task of having reconstructed the Harimandar, demolished by the Afghan invader, Ahmad Shah Durrani, in 1762. Dina Nath was Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s finance minister. Bhai Vasti Ram, a learned man well versed in Sikh scripture, enjoyed considerable influence at the court."
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Sahajdhari&printable=yes
<<<1. Regarding Bhagat Singh , there is always mention about his letters but nobody talks about his photograph which was taken to the end of his life in jail. In that photograph he has been shown as Keshadhari. >>>
Yes, when he went to jail the first time, he had long hair, but when he went to jail after the bombing, then no, he didn't have long hair. Usually, people get this mix up and post pictures of Bhagat Singh Ji when he was in jail for the first time and claim that how he looked before being hanged by the British by using that picture as proof.
|
|
|
|
Author: Balpreet Singh
Date: 04-11-07 14:47
"Seeker of Truth"
Do some real research as opposed to cut/paste jobs from internet sites. H.S. Dilgeer has written a book of Sikh history and historical figures based on the oldest source, the Bhatt and Panda Vehis. These clearly say Bhai Hakikat Singh was a Singh.
I don't make any such claim about Kaura Mal.
|
|
|
|
Author: Seeker of the Truth
Date: 04-11-07 14:50
Balpreet Singh,
all sikh websites claim his name was Haqiqat Rai, not Haqiqat Singh.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bachitar Singh
Date: 04-11-07 15:04
Wow I told Seeker of the truth to do the same thing in a different post. I kind of feel bad, but you leave us so much material to work with.
Now watch out guys here comes another one of my racist comments. Bhai Hakikat Singh was a Singh. No hindu would die for a sikh. In fact they don't even like dying. Look in Hyderbad India there are so many muslimans who's ancestors were once hindus. They are all peaceful movement and stuff like Gandhi because they can not do anything that involves physical labor. Now before you guys go out and start raising an alarm about my posts. I just do not make stuff up. I actually research stuff like this for a living. I'm a Soc major. So I do have evidence to back my claims up.
As for Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh they were uncle toms. Why else do you think that bollywood has glorified them. Had they never cut there hair they never would have gotten a couple million movies based on them.
Now back to the original post. Stop cutting your hair kids.
|
|
|
|