I firmly believe everyone is a sikh.I'd like to revisit a topic that was briefly touched upon in a different thread, to get a more thorough discussion about it.
Do you believe that everyone is a Sikh? Why or why not? What does this mean to you?
From an ideological perspective and by definition [Sanskrit] everyone is a Sikh since learning is intrinsic to human nature. Take your pick !
In essence, everyone is a Sikh - that's what makes Nanak's AP beautiful, just and the good God of all !
Enjoy Friday, I will !
TC
Sikhi is beyond definition so I reject SRM clumsy problematic attempt to define it. IDepends on if you are following the definition of a Sikh from Sikh Rehet Maryada, or going by the meaning of the word, and even then, I would say it's context dependent.
Ok lets look at SRM definition:
A Sikh is defined as any person, male or female, who faithfully:
So going by that definition, I would say that no, not everyone is a Sikh. Many people owe allegiance to other religions, do not believe in Amrit Sanchar, and do not follow the teachings of the Gurus. Many people don't even believe in a God at all, some believe in science only, some believe in multiple Gods / Goddesses.
- believes in the existence of One Eternal God
- follows the teachings of, and accepts as their only Spiritual guides, the Guru Granth Sahib and the ten human Gurus
- believes in the baptism (Amrit Sanchar), as promoted by the tenth Guru
- does not owe allegiance to any other religion
Now if we go by the meaning of 'Learner' even then, I would say it's context dependent, and that context is in relation to truth - but not just any truth - no it's not learning truth about who won the Oscars or what's the latest video game release or the top 10 songs. It's truth on context of our existence, reality, spirituality. Who we are and our divine connection.
So I guess what I am saying is no not everyone is a Sikh. That's not to say that those who don't follow the Sikh faith can not be a Sikh. They can. But I don't think that many people today who focus on worldly material things and have no interest in their divine / spiritual origins, living oblivious to the truth, I don't think they can be considered Sikhs.
But it's just my opinion only and I am not by any means a perfect Sikh myself.
Dylan roof thought he was right. Hatred and bigotry closes people's minds. He thought he was doing a good thing. His khoj led him to a dark destructive place, much like jihadis or nazisSat Sri Akaal,
I certainly wouldn't call everyone a Sikh, unless we have no problem with bleeding all meaning from language. There is a specific thought indicated by the term 'Sikh', just as other words have come into usage to indicate specific things. Saying everyone is a Sikh reminds me of what we sometimes hear, that "Everyone is beautiful". This is, of course, not the case, unless we toss out all meaning of words. While it's not a clear consensus, there are clearly people who are distinctly pretty, while there are plenty of people who are unattractive. While it's nice to have an affirmative, embracing attitude, it nevertheless defies reality to dispense with all distinctions; words are words for a reason. By the same token, I've met many people in my life who have little interest in issues of spirituality, righteousness, discipline, charity or inner-life. The killer Dylann Roof is on trial today for murdering nine innocent worshipers in a South Carolina church where they had welcomed him to join them in prayer. Is he a Sikh? If the word 'Sikh' has no meaning, yeah, I guess.
All people learn and evolve, all are sikh however not all apply the strict self-critical, hyper-rationality that gurbani gives us.But, I don't think that the 'learning' that qualifies one as being a Sikh, is just any old learning. As I said, if I learn who won the oscars this year, does it make me a Sikh? How about if I learn how to rob a bank? Or deceive someone? Even mundane stuff, if I learn how to ride a skateboard, does that make me a Sikh? No I don't think they do. I think the learning that applies to calling one a Sikh, is taken in context, someone who strives to learn about our true nature, spirituality, the nature of God, and the teachings of the Gurus (with aims to follow those teachings and incorporate them in life). That's the type of learning that makes one a Sikh.
All people learn and evolve, all are sikh however not all apply the strict self-critical, hyper-rationality that gurbani gives us.
If all people are one then why do you feel compelled to want to differentiate? Gurbani tells us that being a sikh is not about us trying to identify ourselves as a exclusive group but rather our actions and behaviour define us. Nah koi hindu na mussalman.. Surely this means the desire to differentiate is maya, ahankar. Bhai Mardana the first 'sikh' was a Muslim but being a Muslim didn't mean he also wasn't 'sikh'.Okay if you want to put blanket meaning to the word Sikh as learning anything from how to count to 10, to what celebrity married who. However, then the word has no meaning in regards to the religion / faith / spiritual path.
So what then do we call those who actually follow Sikhi if we can no longer use the term Sikh? Since Muslim children in kindergarten who never even heard of the Gurus or what they taught can be considered Sikhs, then how do we differentiate and what to call those who actually follow the faith? We then need another term.
If all people are one then why do you feel compelled to want to differentiate? Gurbani tells us that being a sikh is not about us trying to identify ourselves as a exclusive group but rather our actions and behaviour define us. Nah koi hindu na mussalman.. Surely this means the desire to differentiate is maya, ahankar. Bhai Mardana the first 'sikh' was a Muslim but being a Muslim didn't mean he also wasn't 'sikh'.
Guru gobind singh ji in zafarnama chastised arungzeb by expressing exactly that. If arungzeb wasn't a zealot and exploit 'islam' as a justification of his oppression we would not be having this conversation.
Pray five times a day, worship a idol, be a militant atheist, or become khalsa great. If you do it for true reasons. If you have looked within yourself and ask am I doing this because everyone else is, it brings me respect, it provides me with a fortress (a fortress opposite someone else's fortress) around myself, to constantly feel the need to define myself as the other.
My mum used to tell me 'sikhi sanji quam hai'. Those of us who have been exposed to gurbani are just lucky to have heard such a concise exposition of the nature of the universe and akaal. But no one can claim ownership of the truth.
Nobody can claim ownership on he truth but we still need a descriptor for those who follow the Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Because an atheist for example is not following what is laid out in Gurbani so if you blanket call all humans Sikhs then we need a different term just so we can have a discussion when referencing those who follow Sikhi. errr should I call Sikhi something else too? Is Christianity also Sikhi now? And Buddhism is Sikhi too? If so we need some term just so we can have a discussion and reference those we mean who follow this path.
Depends on if you are following the definition of a Sikh from Sikh Rehet Maryada, or going by the meaning of the word, and even then, I would say it's context dependent.
Ok lets look at SRM definition:
A Sikh is defined as any person, male or female, who faithfully:
So going by that definition, I would say that no, not everyone is a Sikh. Many people owe allegiance to other religions, do not believe in Amrit Sanchar, and do not follow the teachings of the Gurus. Many people don't even believe in a God at all, some believe in science only, some believe in multiple Gods / Goddesses.
- believes in the existence of One Eternal God
- follows the teachings of, and accepts as their only Spiritual guides, the Guru Granth Sahib and the ten human Gurus
- believes in the baptism (Amrit Sanchar), as promoted by the tenth Guru
- does not owe allegiance to any other religion
Now if we go by the meaning of 'Learner' even then, I would say it's context dependent, and that context is in relation to truth - but not just any truth - no it's not learning truth about who won the Oscars or what's the latest video game release or the top 10 songs. It's truth on context of our existence, reality, spirituality. Who we are and our divine connection.
So I guess what I am saying is no not everyone is a Sikh. That's not to say that those who don't follow the Sikh faith can not be a Sikh. They can. But I don't think that many people today who focus on worldly material things and have no interest in their divine / spiritual origins, living oblivious to the truth, I don't think they can be considered Sikhs.
But it's just my opinion only and I am not by any means a perfect Sikh myself.
..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.But, I don't think that the 'learning' that qualifies one as being a Sikh, is just any old learning.
..meanings of words have to have precision n consistency to make sense; genre, if you like is a prerequisite in that regard to afford "specific" accommodation. In this case it is religion and not any other discipline.As I said, if I learn who won the oscars this year, does it make me a Sikh? How about if I learn how to rob a bank? Or deceive someone? Even mundane stuff, if I learn how to ride a skateboard, does that make me a Sikh?
..confirmed !I think the learning that applies to calling one a Sikh, is taken in context, someone who strives to learn about our true nature, spirituality, the nature of God, and the teachings of the Gurus (with aims to follow those teachings and incorporate them in life). That's the type of learning that makes one a Sikh.
..granted, but the case in point is "sikh" not sikhi !Sikhi is beyond definition
..use of inappropriate adjectives in matters of religious congruity should be avoided. It is difficult to associate some of life's unfortunate activities with the proud civilisations that created virtue, honour, respect and dignity. To you what appears to be "clumsy n problematic" is "strength" to those who laid their lives protecting, preserving, believing and upholding its principles. Their was a world that worshipped strength because it is strength that makes all other "values" possible, nothing survives without it. SRM, albeit timed-out in places, is the backbone of the religion Sikh necessary to anchor human activity.so I reject SRM clumsy problematic attempt to define it. I
..move away from the letter Sikh and move-in with the spirit Sikh. The penny will drop and you'll be able to hear it !Guru gobind singh ji himself said of the udasis that you are also my Sikhs. There is a conflation of terms going on. Khalsa =sikh, Sikh does not equal khalsa.
..the truth in this context would a truth that is "experienceable" and not knowledge or accessible as you seem to suggest because Nanak's satnam is beyond time n space. How can you know and access something that is inconceivable to the human mind?If truth is eternal, omnipresent and self evident as guru nanak dev ji articulates then by definition it is accessible to all regardless of knowledge or access to bani.
..bang on !The term 'sikh' comes from 'guru/shishya'.
..well defined !And the term 'guru' is far broader than just human teacher, or the physical 10 guru's. All knowledge is your guru.
..if you're a believer than Gurbani is "form" God, meaning, you believe, regardless.Gurbani provides us with a framework with which to discipline our 'khoj' to reject dogmatism and even more warn us against getting comfortable and becoming intransigent in our own beliefs.
..how true !but most importantly we have to remember to be humble enough to consider that our own opinion or understanding /approach may be flawed.
you accept sikhi is beyond definition, yet try to apply cultural, social, religiously inspired political identity moorings to 'sikh'. A very interesting leap....granted, but the case in point is "sikh" not sikhi !
I've noted in places how you employ the word "khoj" in much of your religious choreography and suggested you look up "vichar". This was to enable you to familiarise your self with their true n precise functionality. The manmukh is invited to "khoj" for the ultimate truth, the gurmukh however, is provided with the ultimate truth [anhad shabd] to reflect n contemplate [vichar] for union. Rejection n selection are manmukh modes, believers stay clear of such unorthodox blips and knuckle down to fulfil meaning and purpose of life.
I agree with Harkiran kaur that it is context dependent. All are Sikhs by birth since all have hair from the birth. They become Hindus by cutting their hair (mundan sanskar). Sikh re original and do not alter any part of the body ever. They become Muslims by doing sunnat.
In another context we all are Sikhs because everyone has to do continuous/ life long learning for effective survival.
There may be many other contexts to prove that all arfe Sikhs. there may be many contexts to prove that all are not Sikhs.
Dr dalvinder Singh Grewal
Original said: ↑
I've noted in places how you employ the word "khoj" in much of your religious choreography and suggested you look up "vichar". This was to enable you to familiarise your self with their true n precise functionality. The manmukh is invited to "khoj" for the ultimate truth, the gurmukh however, is provided with the ultimate truth [anhad shabd] to reflect n contemplate [vichar] for union. Rejection n selection are manmukh modes, believers stay clear of such unorthodox blips and knuckle down to fulfil meaning and purpose of life.