Dera Sucha Sauda -Sikh conflict in India

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2007, 07:08 PM by Husky.)

Post 63:
QUOTEMy personal opinion is that All Hindus in India should become Sikhs to better serve their motherland and to become better Hindus.I have moorthis and countless pictures of my Gods, and I must and will have them. Sometimes I think of Gods as many and sometimes think of God as one, and I have the freedom to do so. Now I think of it, I realise I'm exactly the kind of Hindu that the christoislamic scriptures rail against: 'the polytheistic idolatrous heathen infidel'. (If the salamis had made it to Korea and Japan they'd have found ultra-'infidels' there too, of course.)

I love the Vedas, Puranas and legitimate untampered parts of Hindu scripture (the bits I might not approve of I am free to reject). This body of knowledge cannot be traded in for only-Sikh scripture. I respect the Sikh Gurus, but among the ancient to more recent Hindus I find many teachers who are more important to me.
I can serve my motherland best as a Hindu. I am happiest as a Hindu. I will not be a better Hindu as a Sikh - though others may. Everyone makes their own choice. It's entirely up to them.

In fact, as you can see, in my particular case, Sikhism could not be among my immediate next choices. Rather, Shinto, because it has many Gods and encourages images of Gods, would be one of my first alternatives if I could not be a Hindu.
Others could well have different preferences for their first alternative religious choices, and in this way Sikhism might be favoured by some Hindus.

This bit for Bharatvarsh:
The only reason some Hindus think that Sikhs were the only sword-arm in India is because of communist historians carefully concealing how Hindus stood up to invaders from the Greeks down to the Brits. By far most of the defenders of Dharma and Bharat have only ever been regular Hindus (which is natural, because most of the Indian population has always been Hindu). There's been countless Kshatriyas since ancient times, fighting bravely to protect their Hindu people, country and civilisation. By far most of them have been completely ignored by their Eminencies. Communist historians either have no idea who most of them were - like the Shaivite Shahiya dynasty - or would hate them if they did.

05-23-2007, 07:05 PM

QUOTE100 years from now, let's say if most Sikh youth give up wearing a turban and donât strictly following Sikhism (at least the sort of strict Sikhism practiced by some elder Sikhs today), what are the chances of Sikhism still being around in 100 years from now? Won't Sikhism just slowly die out and disappear all together with the passage of time?


Allright!! sir ji!! let's watch and watch!!!! People have been saying this from the day one of Guru Nanak Dev and then when Khalsa was created.

QUOTELet's face it, one of the reasons Sikhism also flourished in the past was becoz Punjabi Brahmins made their first born son a Sikh and moreover, there were a lot of inter-caste marriages between Hindus and Sikhs.

The Khatris, Rajputs and Brahmin Hindus and Sikhs married among themselves!!! and these communities raised their first born as Sikh.

majority of Sikhs who are Jats, Ramgarhias and Lubanas did not marry with Hindus or Muslims. Majority of Jats in Punjab are Sikhs. The Khatri Hindus and Sikhs were business class in punjab and exclusively in cities. Punjabi Brahmins (bhardwaj, agnihotri) are not even 1% of Sikhs and are mostly located in Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar (doab) area.

Badal, Amrinder, Vedanti, Tohra, Bhindrenwala, all Khalistani terrorists!! are all Punjabi Jutts. Bibi Jagir Kaur is from Lubana community.

QUOTEPossibility of that happening in future are also very low now. You(Sikhs) are just shooting yourself in the foot if you 'bite the hand that feeds you'. So don't expect much largesse from Hindus in the future the same way you did in the past.


OK! sir if you say so!!! I agree that you should not feed the Sikhs!!!! Sikhs have become too lazy by getting used to the support from "Hindu" community. but It is my personal opinion that you are mistaken.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2007, 07:21 PM by Husky.)

QUOTESo don't expect much largesse from Hindus in the future the same way you did in the past.Ajatshatru, speak for yourself.
Dharmic people help Dharmic people.
(It's true Hindus won't help Khalistanis - but they're not Dharmic.)

QUOTEWon't Sikhism just slowly die out and disappear all together with the passage of time?Judaism has often been reduced to tiny numbers, but the religion will keep going as long as there are people to continue it. History teaches that numbers of adherents - large or small - do not serve as predictors.

05-23-2007, 07:19 PM

QUOTE My personal opinion is that All Hindus in India should become Sikhs to better serve their motherland and to become better Hindus.

QUOTEI have moorthis and countless pictures of my Gods, and I must and will have them. Sometimes I think of Gods as many and sometimes think of God as one, and I have the freedom to do so. Now I think of it, I realise I'm exactly the kind of Hindu that the christoislamic scriptures rail against: 'the polytheistic idolatrous heathen infidel'. (If the salamis had made it to Korea and Japan they'd have found ultra-'infidels' there too, of course.)


I am not talking about Idol worshipping or morthis or anything to that affect.

When I say that "All Hindus should become Sikhs to better serve their motherland and to become better Hindus" <b> It is my opinion that India will be better served if majority of people are following core principles of Sikhi</b>

05-23-2007, 07:51 PM

QUOTE(sbajwa @ May 23 2007, 07:19 PM)When I say that "All Hindus should become Sikhs to better serve their motherland and to become better Hindus" <b> It is my opinion that India will be better served if majority of people are following core principles of Sikhi</b>
[right][snapback]69250[/snapback][/right]
I think sbajwa was misunderstood and now that he has clarified, lets move on.

"Sant-sipahi" is a great ideal and its not only a sikh ideal, but is very much a hindu ideal too. This concept is present right there in "Gita" in Sri Krishna's own words.

The point is not that a majority of hindus will become better hindus if they practice core-principles of sikhi. Most probably they would. But the main point is that they would become better hindus if they practiced ANY PRINCIPLES. Current crisis in India is a lack of principles in practice. Not that hinduism lacks any principles which are available elsewhere. Problem is of putting principles to practice.

And in the same vein it can be said that any human will become a better human if he/she practiced Gita.
QUOTEhe govind he gopal, he dayal nath--Sri Nanak Dev

05-23-2007, 07:53 PM

P.S. Saying that majority of sikhs are khalistanis is untrue, counterproductive and ill-advised.

05-23-2007, 08:01 PM

QUOTEmajority of Sikhs who are Jats, Ramgarhias and Lubanas did not marry with Hindus or Muslims.

Their ancestors were neither Hindus nor Muslims...in fact they descended straight from heaven as Jats, Ramgarhias and Lubanas <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' />

QUOTESikhs have become too lazy by getting used to the support from "Hindu" community. but It is my personal opinion that you are mistaken. 

Wah Bajwaji, wah...Such beautiful sarcasm...

and Bajwaji, one more thing, does 'largesse' just means feeding to you(like Gurdwara 'Langar')?

QUOTEOthers could well have different preferences for their first alternative religious choices

Husky, speak for yourself. Most Hindus are 100% satisfied and happy being just Hindus so would not even consider or want 1st, 2nd or 3rd alternative religious choice(s).

05-23-2007, 08:49 PM

QUOTEAnd in the same vein it can be said that any human will become a better human if he/she practiced Gita. 

Exactly! I don't see any difference between Saint Soldier and Dharmic values of Gita. The point is that Sikh Gurus channelized the earlier gathered knowledge towards Practice (langar, five kakkars, etc) by telling people to get off their butt and do something for society.

As long as people are following in practice "Satyamev Jayate" Which is also "Sat Sri Akal" I have no problems.

05-23-2007, 09:01 PM

Greater Punjab region (Including India and Pakistan) had âherd mentalityâ. Harapa Civilization started here and along with Sun and Shiva worship took its root, during Vedic period, everyone followed Veda and Vedic period prospered here. During 3rd-4th century whole region became Buddhist, some remnant of Vedic followers brought back Vedic religion with flare of Buddhism, lot of temple were built, then Islamic invasion; people followed new wave and started following Islam. Islam mixed with temple concept changed into Pir. Next came Bhakti period, Pir, Babas, Sikhism came and people started following new religion. Then came Arya Samaj, New tread started and in masses people started following Arya Samaj and back to Vedic religion. Same time lot of Baba started preaching. This region is always in flux, either its herd survival mentality or people believe in Chamatkari Baba, some sort of visible Idol to follow. Only religion which failed here is Christianity.

It is a regular process. I still see herd mentality, nothing had changed. Region is waiting for another Chamatkari. In 80s we thought it was Bhiderwale, now some is trying to make DDS, Sai Baba would have more successful in this region had he stayed here. Or any current Shankarcharyas.

05-23-2007, 10:53 PM

QUOTE(sbajwa @ May 23 2007, 08:49 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAnd in the same vein it can be said that any human will become a better human if he/she practiced Gita. 

Exactly! I don't see any difference between Saint Soldier and Dharmic values of Gita. The point is that Sikh Gurus channelized the earlier gathered knowledge towards Practice (langar, five kakkars, etc) by telling people to get off their butt and do something for society.

As long as people are following in practice "Satyamev Jayate" Which is also "Sat Sri Akal" I have no problems.
[right][snapback]69254[/snapback][/right]
</div>
I know thats what you meant even earlier. So now we can move on.

It is curious that two Indians who talked about the sant-sipahi ideal were born thousands of years apart but were both named Govind/Gobind. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

05-24-2007, 04:47 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ May 23 2007, 10:53 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sbajwa @ May 23 2007, 08:49 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAnd in the same vein it can be said that any human will become a better human if he/she practiced Gita. 

Exactly! I don't see any difference between Saint Soldier and Dharmic values of Gita. The point is that Sikh Gurus channelized the earlier gathered knowledge towards Practice (langar, five kakkars, etc) by telling people to get off their butt and do something for society.

As long as people are following in practice "Satyamev Jayate" Which is also "Sat Sri Akal" I have no problems.
[right][snapback]69254[/snapback][/right]
</div>
I know thats what you meant even earlier. So now we can move on.

It is curious that two Indians who talked about the sant-sipahi ideal were born thousands of years apart but were both named Govind/Gobind. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />
[right][snapback]69259[/snapback][/right]
</div>

All the Hindu gods wear different weapons of war yet Hindu keep forgeting this very concept of saint soldier and getting lost into Gandhigiri.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 05-24-2007, 04:58 AM by Bodhi.)

Three questions to Sandeep Bajwa ji.

QUOTE(sbajwa @ May 22 2007, 09:52 AM)to be towards
Satt = Truth
Santokh = Contentment
Sabr = Patience
Daya = Compassion
Dharam = Rightousness

and these five things are represented through the five symbols Kesh, Kara, KAchcha, Kirpan, Kangha.
[right][snapback]69160[/snapback][/right]


1. Is there a one-to-one correspondence between the above? e.g. Kesh->Truth etc?

2. These 5 are very much within the ageless 5 yams (Satya:Truth-Ahinsa:non-violence-Asteya:non-stealing/righteouseness-Bramhacharya-Aparigraha:non-accumulating) as taught in ashtangayoga, countless shastras and Acharyas of Dharma, including Ashta-patha of Bhagwan Buddha. Symbolism might be new, but message is ageless and consistant. Do Sikhs acknowledge this fact that the essence of Guru Granth attests to what Bhagwan Krishna explains, and also Bhagwan Buddha? (In my experience, the unfortunate thing is that most youngster Sikhs take objection to this, if shown). Is there anything that wise Sikhs or Gurudwaras doing to show the commonness to youngser Sikhs?

3. If you translate Sikh=Shishya and that Hindus today need to become Sikh, I wouldnt object in that catholic sense of Sikhi. But you also mentioned that if a person today follows any living Guru in human form, he is automatically a non-Sikh. Meaning Sri Guru Govind Singh was the 'last' human Guru, and humanity will never be blessed with another Guru in human form? AT least this part is where the biggest inconsistence of Dharmic traditions and Sikh"ism" come in play. Other Dharmic traditions tell us that the parampara of living Gurus, appearing from time to time, to teach humanity will not come to an end. Therefore this doubt. Have you first hand studied the message of tenth Guru to interpret the above? Insistance upon 'Last Guru and no more' thing is really a foundation of Messianic religions, and not Dharmic traditions. Is it possible that the tenth Guru may have very well designated Sri Grath Sahib as the 11th Guru but might not have meant 'no more human Gurus'? (just asking. If you have considered the question in that light.)

Finally, Dharma followers need to be united by so many things that bind them together, rather than be divided upon so little that divides. Got to learn this much from our history at least. 'One who does not learn from his history, is bound to live through it again.'

05-24-2007, 04:58 AM

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/23dera.htm

QUOTEAgnivesh said he would not like to comment whether it was right or wrong for the Dera head to have imitated a dress of Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Sikh Guru.

"But it is a fact that the sentiments of the Sikhs have been hurt (due to the act of the Dera Head)," he said, adding, "They (Dera) should come forward and apologise." 

QUOTERakesh Parkash Jain, Father Philips and Mohd Jamal Ahmed Ilyasi representing Jain, Christianity and Muslim religions, accompanied Swami Agnivesh.

QUOTESGPC chief Avtar Singh Makkar told reporters in Amritsar said his organization would take all possible steps for compliance of the religious edict issued by the five Sikh high priests last Sunday against the Dera, <b>including closure of its centres in Punjab by May 27.</b>

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-24-2007, 05:10 AM by dhu.)

We should analyse why Khalsa did not generalize to general Indian population and instead became baap ki jaagir of jats. What was position of Jats before sikhi and after? Did they not switch to upper caste from Lower caste. would not same have happened again if ambedkar had been allowed to follow his intuitions. Khalsa Panth was reformulation of Gita for certain new hurdles in kali yuga. even Git awas delivered at beiginning of kali Yuga with forknowledge of nature of hurdles of kali Yuga. Why has Sikhi has become mired in "religion" paradigm. Agreed that kangressis are playing both sides.

05-24-2007, 07:11 AM

QUOTE1. Is there a one-to-one correspondence between the above? e.g. Kesh->Truth etc?


As an absolute Truth that hair are grown natural and thus should not be cut. Guru Gobind Singh wanted to create a Soldier and thus give them fericious manly look as well as totally independent (no need to visit barber or to carry extra stuff)., also ancient indian people (ram krishna and others) always had long hairs. All Saints in India have long beards. A person with long beard is automatically thought of "Sadhu/Saint". In fact many "fanatic Khalsa" sikhs do not even let doctors shave off their hairs before any type of surgery.

QUOTE2. These 5 are very much within the ageless 5 yams (Satya:Truth-Ahinsa:non-violence-Asteya:non-stealing/righteouseness-Bramhacharya-Aparigraha:non-accumulating) as taught in ashtangayoga, countless shastras and Acharyas of Dharma, including Ashta-patha of Bhagwan Buddha. Symbolism might be new, but message is ageless and consistant. 

All the others except for "Brahmacharya" are pretty much sikhi. Sri Guru Nanak dev rejected Brahmacharya (though Guru Gobind Singh practiced it after he had four sons)., Guru Nanak Dev's Son became ascetic (Brahmchari) and Guru Nanak dev outrigt told his Sikhs (Shishya is a new word Sikh is an ancient word for
Disciple or shishya) that his son is not fit to be a Sikh.

QUOTEDo Sikhs acknowledge this fact that the essence of Guru Granth attests to what Bhagwan Krishna explains, and also Bhagwan Buddha? (In my experience, the unfortunate thing is that most youngster Sikhs take objection to this, if shown).


Off course! all Sikhs acknowledge the fact that Dharma is an outright message of Mahabharata and Gita and Truth, Satya is an outright message of Ramayana.
Young Sikhs object because they do not know.

QUOTE Is there anything that wise Sikhs or Gurudwaras doing to show the commonness to youngser Sikhs?

Any valid granthi that is educated by SGPC or Nirmala schools know this and often go right into Gita or Mahabharata or Ramayana to explain what SGGS is saying. Sikhi is suppose to be very very liberal (liberal in the sense of accepting others as equal to them but not Sex, drugs or alcohol). Just visit any Gurudwara in the world and check it out for yourself. It might be hard for you to understand punjabi but in western countries (usa, canada, uk) these days we have a projector and a laptop through which translated Gurbani is displayed across the whole gurdwara.

QUOTE3. If you translate Sikh=Shishya and that Hindus today need to become Sikh, I wouldnt object in that catholic sense of Sikhi. But you also mentioned that if a person today follows any living Guru in human form, he is automatically a non-Sikh.

Sikh is Disciple or Student
Guru is Teacher or Ustaad

Guru Gobind Singh when dying told his people that

"Aagya bhai akal ki tabhi chalayo panth, Sabb Sikhan ko hukam hai guru manya granth"

"By the order of Akal (timeless, genderless spirit) I started this new Panth, I order all Sikhs to take this Granth as their Guru"

"Guru Granth ji manyo pragat guran ki deh, jo gur ko mil boch hai, khoj shabad mein lei"

"Make this Granth as if a Guru's body is present in front of you, If anybody wants to take an advice of Guru, open up the book and read the first page you get".

So!! from that day onwards... Sikh Gurudwara Services go like this..

1. SGGS Prakash is started.. i.e. the Book is taken out of a Bed and put in as if a King/Guru is seated... then a Granthi reads the Japu ji sahib (the first prayer as told by Guru Nanak dev).

2. Then... aaasa di waar is either sung in Gurbani or Granthi just reads it.

3. Shabad Kirtan is sung.. as Fifth Guru when compiling Guru Granth SAhib included the name of Raaga to go along with each verse.. So the Raagis (trained classical vocalists) sing whatever is appropriate (there are Shabads for each month and each day of the year).

4. The Rahiraas is sung.. or read.

5. Then Ardaas (prayer) is said to Guru and to God... then.. prasad is distributed.. This prayer has many political things or if somebody requests stuff lke "birthday","death",etc..

6. Then.. Sukhaasan is done.. i.e. book is closed and taken out to Bed.

7.. Then langar...

So!! as you can see!! the Book lives to be a living Guru.. According to Guru Gobind Singh all knowledge that any living guru can give you is already in the book so read and comprehend it.

QUOTE Meaning Sri Guru Govind Singh was the 'last' human Guru, and humanity will never be blessed with another Guru in human form? AT least this part is where the biggest inconsistence of Dharmic traditions and Sikh"ism" come in play. Other Dharmic traditions tell us that the parampara of living Gurus, appearing from time to time, to teach humanity will not come to an end. Therefore this doubt. Have you first hand studied the message of tenth Guru to interpret the above? Insistance upon 'Last Guru and no more' thing is really a foundation of Messianic religions, and not Dharmic traditions. Is it possible that the tenth Guru may have very well designated Sri Grath Sahib as the 11th Guru but might not have meant 'no more human Gurus'? (just asking. If you have considered the question in that light.)


Well... SGGS is a Guru according to Sikhs but... any new person who comes along has to be in the boundries of SGGS as well as he/she can take the title of "Jathedar" i.e. "Leader" but not Guru.

QUOTEFinally, Dharma followers need to be united by so many things that bind them together, rather than be divided upon so little that divides. Got to learn this much from our history at least. 'One who does not learn from his history, is bound to live through it again.' 

off course! but as long as we have fraud Gurus and gullible Sangat... there is very dim hope.

05-24-2007, 07:17 AM

QUOTEWe should analyse why Khalsa did not generalize to general Indian population and instead became baap ki jaagir of jats. What was position of Jats before sikhi and after? Did they not switch to upper caste from Lower caste. would not same have happened again if ambedkar had been allowed to follow his intuitions. Khalsa Panth was reformulation of Gita for certain new hurdles in kali yuga. even Git awas delivered at beiginning of kali Yuga with forknowledge of nature of hurdles of kali Yuga. Why has Sikhi has become mired in "religion" paradigm. Agreed that kangressis are playing both sides.


I don't know why Khalsa was limited to Punjab. Sri Guru Nanak DEv ji travelled all the way to Mecca to Burma, to Kailash mansarova to Rameswaram to spread his message.. so did many later gurus.

Guru TEgh Bahadur ji (who martyred at Delhi to save Kashmiri Brhamins) travelled all over North India from Afghanistan to Burma. His son (Guru Gobind Singh) was born at Patna ...

When Guru Gobind Singh created Khalsa in 1699 the original five Panchayat that he picked was

1. Guy from Jagannath Puri in Orissa.
2. Guy from Hastinapur in Haryana/Delhi.
3. Guy from Dwarka in Gujarat.
4. Guy from Bidar in Karnatka.
5. Guy from Lahore in Punjab.

So... you tell me how/why/why not people all over India became Khalsa?

Why didn't at least Kashmiri Brahmins became Khalsa to protect themselves from Aurungzeb..? At least modern Kashmiri and Pakistan problem would have been solved from the beginning.

I think that majority of Indian people do not differentiate between Cowardice and Non-violence... and thus we have these problems.

05-24-2007, 07:11 PM

124 (SBajwa):
QUOTEIt is my opinion that India will be better served if majority of people are following core principles of Sikhi.Understood now.
IMO, India will be best served by Dharmics practising their regular Hindu Dharma or other Indian Dharma (as the case may be). As some others have written above, the fundamentals are the same. But as Ashok Kumar (I think it was) mentioned, the problem is that a large number of people aren't practising any of this.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 05-24-2007, 08:22 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(sbajwa @ May 23 2007, 09:41 PM)All the others except for "Brahmacharya" are pretty much sikhi.Â Sri Guru Nanak dev rejected Brahmacharya (though Guru Gobind Singh practiced it after he had four sons).,Â Guru Nanak Dev's Son became ascetic (Brahmchari) and Guru Nanak dev outrigt told his Sikhs (Shishya is a new word Sikh is an ancient word for
Disciple or shishya) that his son is not fit to be a Sikh.


As per particularly the non-Sikh sant traditions of Bharat, Yogi Srichandra ji, the elder son of Guru Nanak ji was a great Yogi, a great scholar of Vedant, founder of Udasi parampara of sannyasis, adherant to the ageless traditions of sannyas principals, in accordance to the dashanami sannyasa ethos of Adi Shankar. Udasi sampraday was till 1800s the sannyas part of the Sikhs, and the strongest link with the traditions. So, in my opinion rejecting and writing off its founder Srichandra Ji is the most natural thing for Sikh"ism" since Srichandraji represents the traditions. Is there any written proof (any Hukumnama or history written during the life-time of the 10 Gurus) that proves Guru Nanak's rejection of his son? On the contrary, so many other sant paramparas outside of Sikhs tell the story that Srichandra ji had taken the blessings of his father-God Guru Nanak before taking to Sannyasa, and that Guru had blessed his Udasi sannyas order too.

Rejecting bramhacharya (and the psec claim of their having rejected the overall varnashram dharma) - this is one of the biggest myths. Guru Nanak Dev (and countless Sants much before him, including and probably starting in middle ages from Sant Kabirdas ji) had not <b>rejected</b> bramhacharya nor sannyasa, while they had taken efforts to make Grihastha equally respectable. Accepting and introducing spiritual sadhana for Grihasthas <i><b>does not equal</b></i> rejecting sannyasa or Bramhacharya. By the way Bramhacharya also does not mean 'celibacy' which it is often misunderstood to be. Even Bhagwan Krishna who explained it in Gita, was a Brahmachari but not celibate. (there is a story about this in Srimad Bhagavat Puran of Gopikas, Durvasa, and Krishna)

The sant parampara (Sikh-sants included) made the Grihasth-sprituality popular - that is true. They also challenged the-then popular notion that Sannyasa is the only path to self-realization - that is also true. What is absolutely not true is that they <i><b>rejected</b></i> Sannyasa.

Sant Kabirdas Ji says:
premabhaava ek chahiye, bhes anek banaay
chahe ghar me vaas kar, <b>chahe vana me jaay</b>

[what is needed is the expereince of Love, irrespective of the vesha
that can be acheived by living at home, and also by taking to the forest]

QUOTEGuru Gobind Singh when dying told his people that

Did Guru Gobind Singh ji also ordained that 'Sikh = Khalsa' and 'Khalsa = Sikh'? Sikhs must be khalsa is largerly the interpretation today. However, to what I have read, Khalsa was a situational and temporary emergence to protect sikhi, under the historical situations of the times.

05-24-2007, 08:01 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ May 24 2007, 07:11 PM)124 (SBajwa):
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEIt is my opinion that India will be better served if majority of people are following core principles of Sikhi.Understood now.
IMO, India will be best served by Dharmics practising their regular Hindu Dharma or other Indian Dharma (as the case may be).
</div>

Yep... Like our India Forum Dharma is to debate and sort out issues, as per my understanding this serves exactly same as earlier Satsang where people would come together and sing Bhajans. In modern times where everybody is educated they realize the futility of Satsang (except to take care of mental stress entertaining values) and thus we debate to fix issues. Then...Our Family Dharma is to work and take care of our families., our spiritual Dharma is to never forget Om, our political Dharma is to realize all this and make sure that this knowledge is never lost again. Indian Dharma realize that there are many ways to God (Sarv Dharm) but if Indian Dharma is lost then in future generations we will lose this very belief (many philosophies to same God).

05-24-2007, 08:56 PM

QUOTEIs there any written proof (any Hukumnama or history written during the life-time of the 10 Gurus) that proves Guru Nanak's rejection of his son? 

Guru Nanak dev ji had two sons Srichand and Lakhmichand. Sri Chand was Udasi (BTW Nirmalias and Udasi Akhara is right across from Golden Temple in Amritsar and all Sikhs acknowledge that it is due to Nirmalias and Udasis that Sikh literature from the Times of Guru Nanak dev was protected) while Lakhmichand was full of ego., according to many Sakhis (stories) Guru Nanak dev ji often tested his sons and rejected them both. According to one particular Sakhi, Sri Guru Nanak dev ji threw his bowl in a mud asking one of his son to get it out but he outright refused (since lot of sikhs respected the sons they became full of ego)., Guru Nanak Dev picked one of his disciple named Bhai Lahina as his successor, he got a coconut and five paise and put it in front of Bhai Lahina., then he told his Sikhs that from now on Bhai Lahina is named as "ANGAD" i.e. "My own Body" and is your guru. So from that point onwards all Sikh gurus when appointing the next guru used the same ritual (coconut and five paisa and declaration). He himself declared that Bhai Lahina is the second Guru., there is actually no controversy about it, even Guru Nanak's both sons accepted Bhai Lahina as their Guru.

There is another story that one day Baba Srichand became very angry at one Sikh of Guru Angad and stormed into his place at Khadur Sahib., Guru Angad dev then washed his feet with his own hands and wiped them with his beard. Baba Srichand then became calm and told that now I have realized why my father picked you as a successor.

QUOTEOn the contrary, so many other sant paramparas outside of Sikhs tell the story that Srichandra ji had taken the blessings of his father-God Guru Nanak before taking to Sannyasa, and that Guru had blessed his Udasi sannyas order too.

All the Sikh Gurus were family man... in Whole Guru Granth sahib value of family is emphasized over and over... Sanyas is futile for society as per Guru Nanak dev as well as Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?