• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Is Everyone A Sikh?

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK
Please do not patronise me.
..excuse me ! I see nothing condescending in the statement, "..sikh not sikhi", but rather a grammatical correction consistent with the topic to hand [Is everyone a Sikh]. I'm sorry you misperceived.
I may well believe you are missing the point and out of step with the spirit of sikhi.
..perhaps !
Hopefully the penny will drop one day
lol..thank you ! the penny did drop, hence, stopped talking Sikh and started walking Sikh.

Goodnight -
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 13, 2012
748
218
48
UK
..excuse me ! I see nothing condescending in the statement, "..sikh not sikhi", but rather a grammatical correction consistent with the topic to hand [Is everyone a Sikh]. I'm sorry you misperceived.

..perhaps !

lol..thank you ! the penny did drop, hence, stopped talking Sikh and started walking Sikh.

Goodnight -
Lol

Without this exchange becoming overly combative what I found patronising was your suggestion 'the penny may drop for me one day'. I'm glad it has for you.. Please forgive ignorance.
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 13, 2012
748
218
48
UK
..excuse me ! I see nothing condescending in the statement, "..sikh not sikhi", but rather a grammatical correction consistent with the topic to hand [Is everyone a Sikh]. I'm sorry you misperceived.

..perhaps !

lol..thank you ! the penny did drop, hence, stopped talking Sikh and started walking Sikh.

Goodnight -
When I wrote "I may well believe you are missing the point and out of step with the spirit of sikhi." I was trying to elucidate the fact that we all have our own beliefs and interpretations, but just as you may believe I have misunderstood your truth I could equally dismiss you and your opinions as misguided. Surely it's better to find a more constructive approach
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 13, 2012
748
218
48
UK
We all hopscotch from Manmukh to Gurmukh daily.

To quote 'the verve' - I'm a million different people from one day to the next..

Personally I find critical debate and critique of my own thoughts /propositions /understanding of great benefit. However it is only of value when the approach to challenging is constructive rather than dismissive
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
To quote 'the verve' - I'm a million different people from one day to the next..

Personally I find critical debate and critique of my own thoughts /propositions /understanding of great benefit. However it is only of value when the approach to challenging is constructive rather than dismissive

This is the reason a Sikh is a conversationalist rather than a believer of some blind faith. A Sikh learns through questioning, not by believing blindly. Blind faith makes people blind where as conversation opens the eyes and the doors.
 

Dalvinder Singh Grewal

Writer
Historian
SPNer
Jan 3, 2010
1,245
421
78
May I ask you your thoughts on whether the Bhagats were Sikh? Or for that matter whether guru nanak dev ji sits outside of sikhi, clearly he would have had his hair shorn and as a child.

As I think I have mentioned before Guru gobind singh ji recognised 'udasis' as sikh, not khalsa but sikh. Khalsa panth is not one and the same as sikh panth. Khalsa clearly have a exulted position within the sikh panth and but being a sikh should not necessarily mean you have to be khalsa. Personally I would love to at some point in my life take 'amrit sanchar' however at this point in my life I do not believe that I am ready to take on such a great responsibility or am deserving of it. If I did it tomorrow, kept my kes etc, I would get much kudos, however wearing the outward symbols of khalsa yet not accepting all people as my family. Guru gobind singh ji invited people to take amrit, with out compelling them, he didn't say if you don't come forward you are manmukh, or not gur sikh or sikh. He said those that who step forward are khalsa panth, "khalsa mera roop", the khalsa were given a very special role within sikh panth. If struggle to resolve the idea that should guru gobind singh ji had wanted to define sikh as khalsa why he didn't? Or why he didn't proscibe the term sikh and say henceforth the term sikh should not be employed. Moreover I do not see evidence of guru sahib using the either term interchangeably rather the conflation and blending of terms seems from my own limited study a modern phenomenon. A phenomenon that gained momentum with the advent of the 'singh sabha' movement and what I think was probably a unexpected, outcome of the need of 'batten down the hatches' in face of the cultural and political onslaught of arya/rss to subsume 'sikhi'. Just as in England or the UK certain bigots try to define 'English' as exclusively white or western European and many of us challenge and reject that, we reject ghettoising ourselves by becoming more insular, and building a socio-political identity around ourselves.

Even if tomorrow somehow all 'sikhs' or those exposed to bani were wiped out, even if somehow all traces of gurbani was erased from memory sikhi would still be, still exist, still be true. In that 'truth' lies real strength.

Most of the definitions given above are mixed up with the clarifications for connotations of 'Sikh', 'Gursikh', 'Gurmukh', 'Singh' and 'Khalsa.' All these are different terminologies and are needed to be understood inb their different forms.
 

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 13, 2012
748
218
48
UK
Most of the definitions given above are mixed up with the clarifications for connotations of 'Sikh', 'Gursikh', 'Gurmukh', 'Singh' and 'Khalsa.' All these are different terminologies and are needed to be understood inb their different forms.
I fully agree. I for one would find it very helpful to use language that is concise. For me I see the term 'sikh' as all inclusive, hence my original comment. Developing a 'lingua franca' is for me the first step. In many ways it's the absence of this which creates 90% of issues. I'm a pedant and hence for me I perceive a conflation of terms. They well be one and the same but I until someone or thing illuminates me to what I am missing in my logic I will struggle.. Straight up, I at this point in my understanding see sikh and khalsa as words which mean different things..
Sukh
 

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
My question still stands.

If we can call every human a Sikh then we need a term to use to differentiate those who follow Sikhi. Not all those who follow Sikhi are Khalsa / Amritdhari. Some are Sehejdhari, some are Kesdhari, but they still follow Sikhi. Those terms on their own do not define a 'follower of a particular belief system' such as Sikhi. So if we can no longer use Sikh Panth to describe those following the Sikh faith, then we need to determine some descriptor that encompasses that.

Can you see my point, if you point at a Christian and say they are a Sikh, and then someone asks you well I thought that guy who wears a turban there and goes to the Gurdwara was a Sikh so what is he then? In the broader sence, he'd be a Sikh but why not just use the term that already exists which encompasses ALL (who invariably learn through their lives) and that term is 'human'?? If we remove the term 'Sikh' from the faith known as 'Sikhi' then we need a new descriptor to use in conversation to refer to those specifically who follow Sikhi (whether they are sehejdhari, kesdhari, amritdhari etc).
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK
Good morning All

Look, am I missing something here ? The question was [quote, RD1] "Do you believe that everyone is a Sikh?" and not whether everyone practiced Sikhi. Where the former a "noun" [Sikh] the latter a "verb" [Sikhi]. And, just as head and tail are two different sides of the one coin so is Sikh n Sikhi. The owner of the thread has "specifically" requested to know the "sikh" side and not Sikhi per se. In other words, the "particular" from the "general" [formal logic].

In answering the question, I said, "Both HKJ and Sukh are right in their estimation of what is a "sikh". From an academic perspective it would follow that since Sikhism is a system of belief, which is supported and implemented by institution everyone is not a Sikh, only those who believe n follow are Sikhs. From an ideological perspective and by definition [Sanskrit] everyone is a Sikh since learning is intrinsic to human nature".

I offered an affirmative and consistent an answer [above] to the case in point and Harkiran Ji, quite rightly raised the following: "But, I don't think that the 'learning' that qualifies one as being a Sikh, is just any old learning..."

To which, I responded, thus " ..much of what makes us human is cultural, passed from generation to generation through a process called "learning" [sikhya]. It's from within this perspective I generalised the term "sikh" to embrace humanity on the whole, but insofar the unique n particular construction of the word "sikh" is to effect distinctive vocabulary then I concur with your observation above".

I now turn to the live debate that is relevant to the case in point [Is everyone a Sikh, note, not Sikhi. No offence intended].
If we can call every human a Sikh then we need a term to use to differentiate those who follow Sikhi.
..human nature has many facets. For example, intellectual, moral, social, political, religious, etc. And, from within the scio-religious sector, Sikh the "particular" [believers of Nanak's satnam] from the "general" [world at large] suffices for that very reason [formal logic]. Accordingly, those that believe in Nanak's "satnam" tick the corresponding box [Sikh] on their statutory declarations.
Not all those who follow Sikhi are Khalsa / Amritdhari.
..correct !
Some are Sehejdhari, some are Kesdhari, but they still follow Sikhi.
..correct !
Those terms on their own do not define a 'follower of a particular belief system' such as Sikhi.
..they are "relative" pronouns, meaning, they are connected in some respect to the "absolute" noun, Sikh. Take the word football for example; it has two syllables, foot n ball. Together they make football. Ball on its own is no more a physical object like the rest of inanimate matter unless it gets kicked about and played as a sport, football [true nature of the game football crystallising]. By the same analogy, Sehejdhari and Keshdhari are empty words unless they'd be associated to an ideology to effect meaning. And, just as the players of the game are called footballers so are the followers of Nanak's school of thought, called Sikh [true nature of the spiritual human].
Can you see my point,
..I do indeed, and a valid one - thank you ! I've made an attempt addressing the same for clarification.

Good day !
 
Last edited:

Sikhilove

Writer
SPNer
May 11, 2016
608
166
I think we are all missing the point here. To be a Sikh is to be inclusive as per the teachings in SGGS.
What does being inclusive mean in Sikhi some may ask?
To be inclusive in Sikhi is to share the universal message of Sikhi sans proselytizing and that is :

1. To be always connected to The Source.
2. To live honestly and truthfully.
3. Share our bounty of any aspect to the needy no matter what religion/s they may belong to.

The above 3 are for all humanity not to any particular dogma.

Lastly, I would like to add something to what Original ji said,



He is quite good and awfully quick at dividing people into two categories of Manmukh and Gurmukh, and this is not the first time he has done so. The above claim of his is more like a commandment by some Derawala with a Sikhi baana rather than a Sikh. His ideas of blind faith in Sikhi is derived from Hindutva which he may have learnt from his ancestors as he often reminds us of his learning process only through them.

The above in bold is nothing but an arrogant shameless babble which Original ji is famous for.

He has no idea that if we were mere believers as he claims himself to be, then Guru Nanak would not have refused to wear janieu and would not have taught us to stay clear from all the mechanical rituals of fasting, pilgrimages and other meaningless rituals which make a dogmatic religion a believer's religion, which thankfully is not the case of Sikhi but rather to the contrary.

I have asked him the same questions several times about the rituals that Guru Nanak rejected were based on belief system, he is too timid to respond for the reasons only known to him.

Little has he been able to grasp as mentioned many a times that being Manmukh or Gurmukh are not destinations nor any titles but a work in progress till our last breath. We all hopscotch from Manmukh to Gurmukh daily. This is called Sikhya- Learning in Sikhi.

Hi

Your post has come across a bit harsh, I truly believe that Original is coming from a good place. You may not agree with his posts and some may find some of them patronising, but out of all of the forums online, I like this one the most, it's full of people who genuinely want to learn about Sikhi and it would be great if people treated each other with respect here :)
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK
Sikhilove Ji

Thank you for speaking up and repudiating anti-social behaviour [ASB] on a public domain for the want of civility n tolerant a sangat - trait of a "true Sikh". It was lack of respect n dignity for the human being that prompted young Nanak to take a stand against the mighty Mughals. Hence, Sikhism. I salute you for highlighting fundamental values of respect and dignity of a person.

Exposing the kind of behaviour exhibited by the gentleman in question must be championed because it subjects it to scrutiny rather than exclusion from consideration. It is the duty of the host provider to exercise care and control to ensure harmony and well being of it's members remains a top priority. Rhetorical and metaphorical violence causes psychological injury and must never be allowed to manifest in the first place. The irony however, in this case is the gentleman in question is a mentor to the host provider. It makes you wonder whether Sikhism need enemies when you've got mentors like these !

All is not doom n gloom, I'm pleased to say SPN are doing all they possibly can to uphold fundamental freedoms and the rights of humans to practice and enjoy their God given rights in a democratic society.

On a conservative note, I'm equally guilty I guess, in places for the "jat" kinda banter which is not always welcomed. And, I'm sorry if I come across as such ! I am all in all, a true Sikh, encompassing All faiths but practicing 1 - Singh is King !

Once again Sikhilove Ji, thank you - means a lot !

Good day !
 
Last edited:

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
So is everyone sikh?

Sukh Singh ji,

Guru Fateh,

I can also see Harkiran ji's side because she is a convert to Sikhi from a background where names/definitions do matter. This is the beauty of this Sikhi prism. And she is right in her thinking. In reality, Sikhi has no conversion. A person molds her/himself into it.

So, everyone is a sikh but a few call themselves Sikhs, which is also fine.
 

Sikhilove

Writer
SPNer
May 11, 2016
608
166
Glad to see everyone getting along lol :)

In response to the topic,

Everyone is at their own stage of learning. A Sikh is a Bhagat, someone who has seriously grasped the blessing of walking(or running) down the path of Truth. Sikh means Student and we are students of Truth, the Gurus students. We learn and apply the Gyan of Gurbani to our daily lives.

The path isn't meant to be difficult because the Gyan is simple. Sometimes the Bhagat may fall and then rise up again.

Really, All souls are sangat, the slanderer, the saint, the human, the angel, the demon- the problem is that they don't Actually Know that they're sangat because they haven't seriously started on the path of self discovery.

Bhagats are recognised sangat.

To treat all with respect and in acceptance that they are at the stage of learning that He wants them to be and to love All, not only humans, but the Universe as a whole, as Truth is beautiful.
 

Sikhilove

Writer
SPNer
May 11, 2016
608
166
Sikhilove Ji

Thank you for speaking up and repudiating anti-social behaviour [ASB] on a public domain for the want of civility n tolerant a sangat - trait of a "true Sikh". It was lack of respect n dignity for the human being that prompted young Nanak to take a stand against the mighty Mughals. Hence, Sikhism. I salute you for highlighting fundamental values of respect and dignity of a person.

Exposing the kind of behaviour exhibited by the gentleman in question must be championed because it subjects it to scrutiny rather than exclusion from consideration. It is the duty of the host provider to exercise care and control to ensure harmony and well being of it's members remains a top priority. Rhetorical and metaphorical violence causes psychological injury and must never be allowed to manifest in the first place. The irony however, in this case is the gentleman in question is a mentor to the host provider. It makes you wonder whether Sikhism need enemies when you've got mentors like these !

All is not doom n gloom, I'm pleased to say SPN are doing all they possibly can to uphold fundamental freedoms and the rights of humans to practice and enjoy their God given rights in a democratic society.

On a conservative note, I'm equally guilty I guess, in places for the "jat" kinda banter which is not always welcomed. And, I'm sorry if I come across as such ! I am all in all, a true Sikh, encompassing All faiths but practicing 1 - Singh is King !

Once again Sikhilove Ji, thank you - means a lot !

Good day !

No problem :)
 

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

Top