Sehajdhari Sikh Federation! Comments, Please

kds1980 · #91 (**permalink**) 13-Dec-2010, 04:19 AM

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-t...tml#post138471

THis is to inform sangat on SPN that some recent posts of this thread have been moved to
above link.
*

spnadmin · #92 (**permalink**) 13-Dec-2010, 04:26 AM

If I may repeat some things that I said in earlier posts to put this thread into perspective. The topic is now old.

The story of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation is old news. Somehow it picks up reactions in spite of the fact that their issues have next to nothing relevant to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, or any authentic concerns about SRM.

1. The Sehajdhari Sikh Federation is something of a non-issue for 2 reasons. Perhaps I should liken it to a lead balloon. It was formed some years back as a political block in relation to Indian politics only, and has virtually no relevance to the issues of sehajdhari outside of India. The purpose was to unify Sikhs who do not follow the Rehat Maryada and it was supposed to be a political anschlus against the SGPC prior to elections for committee seats.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29484-sehajdhari-sikh-federation-comments-please.html

The SGPC elections continually review the eligibility of Sikhs who do not keep hair as voters. A large contingent of Sikhs are sehajdhari and the federation was supposed to give them a voice.

2. The second point considers the irony that emerged. If you go to their web site and look at the contributors, founders and supporters, and also to the photo gallery, here is what you will find. A large number of members coming from Sant Samaj organizations and deras. Most of them keeping hair BTW. Babas and sants from splinter groups that have also felt "left out" because of their unwillingness or inability to follow the portions of the Sikh Rehat Maryada that forbids Hindu rituals.

Look several layers down and find out that the issue of hair was not the issue.

May I also repeat that there is no such thing as a sehajdhari interpretation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Apologies for being blunt, but when I said that earlier few seemed to take note.

lionprinceuk · #93 (**permalink**) 10-May-2012, 18:25 PM

Well, ok lets use some technicalities shall we. A little off-topic but perhaps not.

Compared to Akali Nihang Khalsa, all non-nihangs are really sehajdharis or keshadharis if talking with regard to being Khalsa of the dal panth.. The majority of Gurdwaras out of Nihang control only keep parkash of Adi Guru Granth Sahib and not Guru Gobind Singh's bani, which more or less makes them sehajdhari gurdwaras. This also includes punjabi gurdwaras like the Akal Takht/Bunga that were forcefully taken over during the Lahori Singh Sabha movement and Dasam Granth saroops were removed.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29484
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29484

Secondly the Khalsa fauj ie the Akali Nihangs don't follow SGPC SRM rehit maryada either, so go figure sangat ji hehe.

Parma · #94 (**permalink**) 11-May-2012, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious seeker

Ushta Ve

Well I can only say, that Sikhs like any one else have to come to grips with what is the essential teachings of their scriptures and what is not. The question of the hair , the turban, etc can only be resolved this way. Is the turban ordered by the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or is it a tradition? Is the hair ordered by the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or is it a tradition? Is the Khalsa, for every Sikh or is an order of the commited to defend the religion? Those are questions that only Sikhs can answer. But they ought to answer them. I would not ever presume to try to answer them.

I will, however, give all you guys a special bit of advice from the heart. A Christian Bishop faced with even worse divisions than Sikhs have today said.

Brethren: In essential things be in agreement. In Non-essentials have liberty and, in the name of God, in all things have love for each other.

Ushta
Curious

Totally in agreement!!

Thankyou Sir!

prakash.s.bagga · #95 (**permalink**) 11-May-2012, 18:17 PM

I feel that the classification of Sikh should be unaccepable as the concept itaself is anti Gurmati.Sikh is onky Sikh. just as Love is only Love.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29484
Prakash.s.Bagga