Sikhi - The End Game

Ambarsaria · #28 (**permalink**) 20-Mar-2012, 20:53 PM

Dogra ji thanks for your post. Some comments,

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogra

Just a few questions:
1) If Indian govtn wanted to destroy Sikhism, then why have a Sikh as PM, dont make sense, as this will only publicise Sikhism in India and the world, its the last thing you do. Would Hitler have a Jewish Prime Minister or even in the cabinet, or his ilk? never
One person does not make a community. There are lot of Sikhs acting as non-Sikhs in their activities. So it is not as black and white as you state. Good argument or comment though.

2) Where were the protests from Non Sikhs when PM Singh became PM, not to forget many Hindu faith voted for him?
Why should there be protests as Sikhs did not care and Hindus don't mind if a Sikh is there who acts like Hindus or carried forward with their agenda. In this case Congress agenda.

3) There is a just cause for justice for 1984,
This is most disgusting comment. This was a planned attack on Sikhism and nothing else. Of course led by the favorite daughter of India.

and fact Nehru went back onhis word to the Sikh leaders after great evil of partition, but then this Nehru also betrayed those that voted for Congress as majority of people did not want partition.
At its very core, Congress is driven by Arya Samaj as mentioned in another post. So the future with such Congress and BJP is equally bad for all minorities in India.

Nevertheless fair resolution to Sikh demands need addressing.

If it was not for the brave Sikhs of past, the Hindus in North India would have been converted!

In fact Northern India would be like Bangladesh and would have become part of Pakistan.

Regards.

Luckysingh · #29 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 07:05 AM

If it was not for the brave Sikhs of past, the Hindus in North India would have been converted!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/38228-sikhi-the-end-game.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38228

In fact Northern India would be like Bangladesh and would have become part of Pakistan.

This comment is so true and real that many don't even realise this.
The simple privelages that many take for granted are thanks to brave sikhs. I'm not saying any hindus never played parts in bravery, but not many changed the course of history the way the sikhs did.
Rather than be recognized for this, instead they are trying to shun the sikh nation.

Waheguru

BhagatSingh · #30 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckysingh

If it was not for the brave Sikhs of past, the Hindus in North India would have been converted!
[I]

This comment is so true and real that many don't even realise this.
The simple privelages that many take for granted are thanks to brave sikhs. I'm not saying any hindus never played parts in bravery, but not many changed the course of history the way the sikhs did.
Rather than be recognized for this, instead they are trying to shun the sikh nation.

Waheguru

Nope not entirely true. What we are never told is that 99% of the Khalsa forces are coming from Hindus who are taking amrit. In families first born son was initiated into Khalsa and was expected to die for the Guru. What we are also not told about is our Muslim allies and mercenary armies during Guru Gobind Singh ji's time (especially battle of Bhangani, a few Udasis also fought in the Battle of Bhangani.) and Muslim infantry and artillery units during Maharaja Ranjit Singh ji's time.

The Marathas (much larger than the Sikh empire) were also weakening the Mughal power from the South and the Afghans from the North.

Quote:

If it was not for the brave Sikhs of past, the Hindus in North India would have been converted!

It was actually Hindus who propagated this saying as gratitude. But in today's times it has been used against them by some Sikhs to demonstrate (and shove down their throats) the superiority of "Sikhism" (in quotes because Sikhism defined by the ego is not Sikhism). A belief has been propagated that because Sikhs are superior, Hindus are trying to sabotage them. "They are all conspiring against us." "Evil Brahmin conspiracy to destroy Sikhism" These are false beliefs that comes out of ignorance and leads to nothing but paranoia, rage, hostility and further ignorance.

Believing is seeing.

Luckysingh · #31 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 09:35 AM

Thank you for that information Bhagat ji.
I was aware that forces were coming from hindus taking the new sikh faith but wasn't aware of any figures or percentages.
My reference and understanding was for the bravery of estabilished new sikhs, that already were standing up to muslim conversion for the sake of other hindus.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38228
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38228

I will try and learn a few more facts and figures with regards to this issue and thanks again for highlighting this point.

Lucky Singh

Ambarsaria · #32 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 10:15 AM

Bhagat Singh ji I know you are talking history and living in the past. Past was very good in many ways but that is not 2012. The pendulam is swinging towards contraction of Sikhism through Hinduism and not expansion through Hinduism. I have some comments,

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Nope not entirely true. What we are never told is that 99% of the Khalsa forces are coming from Hindus who are taking amrit.
From your understanding how many Hindus took Amrit in 2011?

In families first born son was initiated into Khalsa and was expected to die for the Guru. What we are also not told about is our Muslim allies and mercenary armies during Guru Gobind Singh ji's time (especially battle of Bhangani, a few Udasis also fought in the Battle of Bhangani.) and Muslim infantry and artillery units during Maharaja Ranjit Singh ji's time.
Those days of thankfulness are long gone. From your understanding how many Hindus offered their first son to be a Sikh in 2011? Now it is the thankless times from Hindus. I don't know if you have updated yourself.

The Marathas (much larger than the Sikh empire) were also weakening the Mughal power from the South and the Afghans from the North.

It was actually Hindus who propagated this saying as gratitude.
What saying?

But in today's times it has been used against them by some Sikhs to demonstrate (and shove down their throats) the superiority of "Sikhism" (in quotes because Sikhism defined by the ego is not Sikhism). A belief has been propagated that because Sikhs are superior,
Nobody says Sikhs are superior most level headed just say Sikhs are not Hindus! Where is the error in that?

Hindus are trying to sabotage them. "They are all conspiring against us." "Evil Brahmin conspiracy to destroy Sikhism" These are false beliefs that comes out of ignorance and leads to nothing but paranoia, rage, hostility and further ignorance.
I am sorry was it Muslims who killed tens of thousands of Sikhs in the name of danger to India in 1984 and the eighties and nineties. You should re-check the 1984 section articles at spn.

Believing is seeing.
What are you seeing as I see shrinking Sikhism with sabotage and concerted effort of the majority in India?

Sat Sri Akal.

Manni Singh 85 · #33 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 10:38 AM

99% Hindus became Sikhs first and then they took Amrit and become Khalsa.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38228

I may be wrong. Khima karna

Ambarsaria · #34 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manni Singh 85

99% Hindus became Sikhs first and then they took Amrit and become Khalsa.

I may be wrong. Khima karna

I don't believe there is any debate about the origin for Sikhs to be predominantly from Hindus. But once they are Sikh they are Sikh. The creation of some dualities as realities in this regards is distasteful to say the least and a rejection of what our Guru ji created and did for us. Many a thousands of Sikhs who died to so protect are also distastefully disposed off through such mindsets of Hidnu-Sikh virtual dualities promotion.

Sat Sri Akal.

BhagatSingh · #35 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 11:44 AM

Ambarsaria ji,
Perhaps the problems we face are misunderstood, meaning what we think is the problem isn't the problem and thus the solutions that are being implemented do not address what the actual problem is.

I am not living in the past as I do understand the situation in 2012. What I am doing is encouraging an understanding of the past, a correct understanding of the past so that solutions to modern problems can be tackled under the guidance of the correct understanding. The past allows us to understand who we are and if we don't understand that then we don't understand much.

Quote:

From your understanding how many Hindus offered their first son to be a Sikh [ Khalsa] in 2011?

From the Hindu perspective there is now no need to join the Khalsa military order.

Quote:

Nobody says Sikhs are superior most level headed just say Sikhs are not Hindus! Where is the error in that?

Not too sure what that means any more. It seems it's apparent meaning is not its actual meaning.

Hindu can mean one whose ancestors are from the Hind (India).

Hindu can also mean one who follows Hinduism. But Hinduism is not a religion, it is a collection of traditions (with differing philosophies, perspectives, practices, etc). You cannot technically follow Hinduism. So Hindu in the sense of following Hinduism is a meaningless label. Now Hinduism has this guru-sikh propagation mechanism whereby a sikh seeks a guru under whose guidance he can learn about the guru's tradition, his particular philosophy, beliefs and set of practices and work through it to make his life better and to achieve mukti. All the various traditions were spread by gurus this way. E.g. the Bhakti tradition in Northern India: Guru Ramanand ji passed on his beliefs to his sikhs, one of which was Bhagat Kabir (who never became a Guru), and Bhagat Kabir ji along with other Bhakti saints passed on the Bhakti tradition to Guru Nanak Dev ji who passes them down to Guru Angad Dev ji and so on. Remember the tradition is spreading so there are other Gurus and Sants who are propagating these beliefs throughout North India. Guru Nanak and his successors start to gain more popularity however especially when the latter 5 enter into politics and military.

Bhagat Kabir ji (1440–1518) was the Sikh of Guru Ramanand ji (1400-1476), who was the Sikh of Guru Raghavanand ji (or Acharya Raghavanand), who was the Sikh of... (don't know at this point)... they followed the Vishitadvaita philosophy of Guru Ramanuja ji (or Ramanujacharya; 1017-1137) who was the Sikh of Guru Kancipurna ji and so on and so forth.

Sant Ramanand ji as he is referred to, was a significant proponent of the Bhakti movement in Northern India, he influenced a lot of people. His disciples include the following Bhagats whose bani is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: Dhanna ji , Pipa ji, Ravidas ji, Sain ji. The beliefs of Guru Nanak Dev ji and his successors can be traced back as such. It is a continuing tradition.

This is the reality of the situation.

Quote:

I am sorry was it Muslims who killed tens of thousands of Sikhs in the name of danger to India in 1984 and the eighties and nineties. You should re-check the 1984 section articles at spn.

I am sorry was it not the Hindus who were saving Sikhs from the mobs aroused by a few Congress party members. I am sorry was it not the 20% Sikh Indian army (with a Sikh General) who were given the task to flush out the militants. I am sorry was it not the Sikh Punjab police who set-up the curfew, and who were going around looking for militants.

Things are not as black and white as you make them to be Ambarsaria ji. Look at ALL of the details.

prakash.s.bagga · #36 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2012, 18:36 PM

It seems that Sikhs have or are forgetting their zero-zero I mean point of Origin.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38228
The problem is that we openly do not say that only Khalsa is a Sikh.
Prakash.S.Bagga