<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sahijdhari Sikhs are those who take Sri Guru Granth Sahib to be their Guru but not wearing any of the five symbols (Radhasoamis will be in this category since they do take SGGS as their Guru but also revere some human gurus)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for clarifying. Understood now. So are Radhaswamis accepted as authentic Sikhs by Keshdhari Sikhs?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Srichandra Ji and Angad ji were perfectly amicable and respected each other. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. Srichandraji acknowledged Sri Angad ji as the fit successor of Guru Nanak ji even during the life of Guru Nanak ji - no doubt. Was there ever any challenge from Srichandraji on the Gurupad? No, never.
As I tried to say in my earlier post - there is NO controversy about the succession. Controversy is in writing off and demonizing the founder of Udasi sect - Srichandra ji, son of Guru Nanak ji, by the proponents of 'identity-crisis' neo-Sikhism. And it is not a very old phenomenon - started in late 1800s. This is a propoganda, please don't fan it further, unless you are yourselves convinced. Don't demean a great Yogi and scholar like Sri Chandra ji, and his wonderful Sannyas sect of Udasis. Please read Jadunath Sarkar's 'A History of Dashanami and Naga Sannyasis' if you can find it - is not to be found anywhere it seems. The book predates modern politics.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sanyas is futile for society as per Guru Nanak dev as well as Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please. Sikh as well as non-Sikh sants did popularize the ancient values of Grihastha Sadhana, and did challenge the 'Sannyas as the ONLY way' to self realization, even preferred Grihastha over Sannyasa. But please do quote where Sants have said what you say : 'Sanyas is futile'. Sants were and are Grihastha-viraktas, but does not mean there is no place for Sannyasa! A true dharmik tradition should have place and tolerance for all the currents and varieties of spiritual traditions. "Simplification" and "templatization" is certainly not a hallmark of Indic dharma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->according to many Sakhis (stories) Guru Nanak dev ji often tested his sons and rejected them both.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will be interested in learning these. Can you kindly quote the Sakhis specific to Srichandraji?
to Ajatshatru : one need not get worked up. Sandeep Bajwa is only adding value to the discussion as far as I can see. I could not find where he is "taking swipe at Hinduism". True, propoganda is a matter of fact throughout the Internet. We can challenge it without getting angry - to some extent.
Thank you for clarifying. Understood now. So are Radhaswamis accepted as authentic Sikhs by Keshdhari Sikhs?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Srichandra Ji and Angad ji were perfectly amicable and respected each other. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. Srichandraji acknowledged Sri Angad ji as the fit successor of Guru Nanak ji even during the life of Guru Nanak ji - no doubt. Was there ever any challenge from Srichandraji on the Gurupad? No, never.
As I tried to say in my earlier post - there is NO controversy about the succession. Controversy is in writing off and demonizing the founder of Udasi sect - Srichandra ji, son of Guru Nanak ji, by the proponents of 'identity-crisis' neo-Sikhism. And it is not a very old phenomenon - started in late 1800s. This is a propoganda, please don't fan it further, unless you are yourselves convinced. Don't demean a great Yogi and scholar like Sri Chandra ji, and his wonderful Sannyas sect of Udasis. Please read Jadunath Sarkar's 'A History of Dashanami and Naga Sannyasis' if you can find it - is not to be found anywhere it seems. The book predates modern politics.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sanyas is futile for society as per Guru Nanak dev as well as Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please. Sikh as well as non-Sikh sants did popularize the ancient values of Grihastha Sadhana, and did challenge the 'Sannyas as the ONLY way' to self realization, even preferred Grihastha over Sannyasa. But please do quote where Sants have said what you say : 'Sanyas is futile'. Sants were and are Grihastha-viraktas, but does not mean there is no place for Sannyasa! A true dharmik tradition should have place and tolerance for all the currents and varieties of spiritual traditions. "Simplification" and "templatization" is certainly not a hallmark of Indic dharma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->according to many Sakhis (stories) Guru Nanak dev ji often tested his sons and rejected them both.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will be interested in learning these. Can you kindly quote the Sakhis specific to Srichandraji?
to Ajatshatru : one need not get worked up. Sandeep Bajwa is only adding value to the discussion as far as I can see. I could not find where he is "taking swipe at Hinduism". True, propoganda is a matter of fact throughout the Internet. We can challenge it without getting angry - to some extent.