<!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+May 23 2007, 09:41 PM-->QUOTE(sbajwa @ May 23 2007, 09:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guru Gobind Singh when dying told his people that<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
Disciple or shishya) that his son is not fit to be a Sikh.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guru Gobind Singh when dying told his people that<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.