Mona And Sehajdhari

[kds1980]

So KDS,

Please tell us if logically it makes sense to say that cutting hair worse than killing without going into irrelavant stuff...

i beleive that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for eating.as far is hair is concerned i agree there is no logic behind keeping hair beside that it was guru's order.so it is basically following guru ji's order.

 

[Bijla Singh]

Accordin to Gurbani this is the definition of a Sikh:

ਸੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਖਾ ਬੰਧਪੁ ਹੈ ਭਾਈ ਜਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਭਾਣੇ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਵੈ ॥
ਆਪਣੈ ਭਾਣੈ ਜੋ ਚਲੈ ਭਾਈ ਵਿਛੁੜਿ ਚੋਟਾ ਖਾਵੈ ॥ (Ang 601)

ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥
ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥
ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥
ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥
ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਦਇਆਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ ॥
ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥2॥ (Ang 305)

ਧੰਨੁ ਧੰਨੁ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸੇਵਾ ਕਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਲਇਆ ॥
ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੰਉ ਹੰਉ ਸਦਾ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੀ ਜੋ ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਭਾਣੈ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਚਲਿਆ ॥18॥ (Ang 593)

According to Bhai Gurdas Ji, a Sikh is described as follows:

ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖੁ ਕਮਾਵੈ ॥16॥ (Vaar 27)

ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਪਿਛਲ ਰਾਤੀਂ ਉਠ ਬਹੰਦੇ॥
ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵਾਲਾ ਸਰ ਨ੍ਹਾਵੰਦੇ॥
ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਇਕ ਮਨ ਹੋਇ ਗੁਰ ਜਾਪ ਜਪੰਦੇ॥ (Vaar 12)

There are numerous other references but I think these are enough to show that a Sikh follows the teachings of Guru Sahib. I don’t know where you are getting your definition from. “One who seeks truth” is very vague answer. where is the truth? When will one know if they have sought the truth? What actually is the truth? Does truth have limits? All the above quotes make it clear that:

1) A Sikh follows the teachings of Guru Sahib.
2) A Sikh gets up at Amrit vela and does Naam Abhiyaas. Naam can only be obtained from Satguru by taking Amrit. No one can disapprove this fact. 500 years of history is the proof of it.

You are either not reading my posts clearly or ignoring them purposely. A Sikh follows rehat of Guru Sahib. A Sikh is not determined by level of spirituality or by supernatural powers but by rehat. More rehat one keeps, more spirituality will increase. One doesn’t need to perform miracles to justify him being a Sikh. One only needs to keep rehat of Guru Sahib. Who is an acceptable Sikh for Guru Sahib? One who follows the hukam. This is clear from Pauri 15 of Aasa Di Vaar.

Regarding hair – Read Hail Hair and Hair Power books. Guru Ji gave us hukam to keep hair. A true Sikh doesn’t need any more “logics” but if it was illogical then Guru Sahib wouldn’t have given us the hukam to begin with. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

 

[Veeru]

i beleive that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for eating.as far is hair is concerned i agree there is no logic behind keeping hair beside that it was guru's order.so it is basically following guru ji's order.

Well this is not true that there is no logic behind keeping hair. Just because we don't know the reason, it doesn't mean that there isn't any reason. But definitely, cutting hair isn't as bad as killing unless we absolute have to for ethical reasons.

So Bijla Singh,

What do you expect to achieve following guru's footsteps? Is the ultimate to be one with God?

 

[Bijla Singh]

I follow Sikhi because I love it and find peace. Gurbani tells us what a person can achieve by following Guru Sahib. "Joti Jot Rallee Sampooran Theea Raam", "Bin Har Bhajan Nahi Chutkara". What Satguru can do and does for a Sikh cannot be described as the list would be never ending. I am not following footsteps of Guru Sahib but trying my best to follow His hukam.

I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets.

Le Griffin writes that: "Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom exactly according to the Sikh way of life and Sikhism considers everyone as friends and talks about the welfare of all irrespective of caste and creed."

Charles Hugal in his book, "The Court and Camp of Ranjit Singh", writes that, "Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom according to the Sikh tenets. All the important positions were given to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, entirely based on merit. Even his main advisors were three famous Muslim brothers: Fakir Aziz-ud-Din, his foreign minister; Fakir Nur-ud-Din, his home minister; Fakir Imam-ud-Din, his custodian of the {censored}nals. Forty-six senior Army officers and two top ranking Generals were Muslims.

One General was French and score of military officers were Europeans. In police and civil services he has about one hundred Muslim officers alone. Hindus too, used to hold many key positions in Sarkar-e-Khalsa. Ranjit Singh was secular through-and-through.

Since he had lost his one eye in childhood, due to small pox, he used to remark jokingly about himself that, "God Willed that as a true Sikh I should look upon all religions with one eye"."


Murray writes, "Ranjit Singh was full of humanity. He ruled by following the etiquettes of Sikhism and therefore he was generous, benevolent and a sympathiser."

 

[Veeru]

I follow Sikhi because I love it and find peace. Gurbani tells us what a person can achieve by following Guru Sahib. "Joti Jot Rallee Sampooran Theea Raam", "Bin Har Bhajan Nahi Chutkara". What Satguru can do and does for a Sikh cannot be described as the list would be never ending. I am not following footsteps of Guru Sahib but trying my best to follow His hukam.

I am not getting clear answer from you Bijla Siyan. Do you at end expect to be one with God or not? The answer is either yes or no...

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets. >>

thanks sir !!

i was waiting for you to give him a certificate...

so Maharaja Ranjit singh - married multiple times, drunkard, opium smoker...and account by none other than non -sikh sources similar to ones you had quoted above glorifying him..

he was also out and out superstitious......many accounts of that can be read too..


so does this define a SIKH ???

 

[Bijla Singh]

Does it matter what I expect. Gurbani is clear on this matter. Gurbani explain what one will get by following the hukam. If you need references then let me know. The point of the discussion is Sikhi not my personal life. You and everyone else have yet to provide me with some solid references to prove your point.

I have already stated that no one needs a certificate from me. One is determined by rehat if he is a Sikh not by name or popularity. I only provided the sources I had. I will change my opinion when proven wrong. Give me references to prove your point. He made numerous mistakes, no doubt, but the point is if he did bajjar kurehats and never did pesh then he became a patit and not a Sikh.

 

[k s gadh]

sahjdharis should be called sikhs if they have become sahjdhari due to some illness,or professional circumstances or by some riots. Now those pepole should try to come to the previous platform , if possible. Mona is not related with the sikh word. we should not say mona sikh. sahjdhari sikh is sufficient

 

[Archived_Member_19]

bijla singh jidoes Gurbani say which Hukam to be followed?

 

[kds1980]

Well this is not true that there is no logic behind keeping hair. Just because we don't know the reason, it doesn't mean that there isn't any reason. But definitely, cutting hair isn't as bad as killing unless we absolute have to for ethical reasons.

So Bijla Singh,

What do you expect to achieve following guru's footsteps? Is the ultimate to be one with God?

pcjs ji for khalsa cutting hair is much worse than killing animals for food.
there are plenty of evidences that khalsa prefer to die rather than cutting hair.on the other hand there is no evidence that khalsa prefer to die rather than killing animals for food.infact in war time sikhs were evid hunters and
ate meat.so your logic that killing is worse than cutting hair is not applicable for khalsa.

 

[Veeru]

Bijla Siyan,

It seems like you aren't even sure yourself whether or not you are heading towards God. Most people follow religion because they think some day, they will be united with God following a religion.

But since even you aren't sure where you are heading, why should people follow you? I know you are going to say that one should follow Guru, not you. When you say that one should follow Guru in your way, basically what you are saying is that people should follow you.

Obviously you have not been united with God and you are saying that you are simply doing your best. It clearly shows that your best isn't good enough and it's a simple fact that you can't do better than your best. So you should be honest about it and admit that obviously there something isn't right about the direction you are going in.

This is what I was asking when I asked you whether or not a Sikh was the one who seek God or the one who had achieved God. You simply seek God but you have not achieved God. So if you think a Sikh is the one who seeks God, everybody who seeks God is a Sikh and if you say a Sikh is the one who has achieved God, obviously you aren't a Sikh either.

I know now you are going to say that at least you are trying. Well so is everyone else.

When you say you do whatever you do because it gives you peace, it's more like a wordly pleasure that gives you temporary peace. Nanak bhagata'n sada vigaas. Bhagats don't need a temporary pleasure or peace, they are forever in bliss.

As I have pointed out SGPC Rehat Maryada has nothing to do with spirituality.

If you really wanna be spiritual, follow Guru Granth Sahib.

KDS Ji, when it comes to truth, it really doesn't change from religion to religion. There is only one God and there is only one hukam and truth about Him. If it logically doesn't make sense, it can't make sense, period...

 

[Bijla Singh]

I am sure I am a Sikh because I follow Guru Sahib and I keep rehat. It is Guru Sahib who does kirpa on Gursikhs more and more everyday. Despite all the facts and references presented from Gurbani you keep ignoring the definition of a Sikh. A Sikh follows hukam of Guru Sahib. Give me references from Gurbani that prove your point or support your so-called self-made definition. The reason I am not answering your question about what I expect is because it is my personal life and this discussion has nothing to do with what I expect but about what Sikhi is and who a Sikh is. I personally think you are highly disillusioned as are majority of the Indians when it comes to Sikhi. You are defining Sikhi based on your opinions and have never provided any references to back up your claims.

 

[Veeru]

Bijla Siyan,

Apparently, you aren't following Guru's hukam. Otherwise you would have gotten somewhere in spirituality. If you were following Guru properly, you would have realized God by now. You are simply following what you think is guru's hukam. Obviously, guru's entire hukam is out of your reach. Otherwise you would have found God by now, just like the example I gave you of Guru Amar Dass Ji, who truly was guruwala...

 

[Bijla Singh]

Founding God? Explain this in clear terms. Is God a hidden treasure? Gurbani tells us that God is realized from within. Gurbani is the roop of Waheguru. I have found the Satguru and there is no difference between a Guru and God as Gurbani says "Gur Parmeshar Eko Jaan". By what measurement tool are you measuring my spirituality? I don't know for what reason you want to discuss my spirituality and my level of Sikhi whereas the topic is about who a Sikh is. This has been made clear numerous times. Refer to previous posts. This is why I say that you are disillusioned and have no clear sense of what Sikhi is. Sikhi is not defined by one's behavior or one's character or even one's miracles but by principles that Guru Sahib has set forth. Sikhi is not defined based on me, Maharaja Ranjt Singh or anyone else. Rehat is the tool to determine one's Sikhi. No Rehat = No Sikh. Don't just keep arguing for the sake of argument. Provide references and solid facts not mere opinions.

 

[Veeru]

Founding God? Explain this in clear terms. Is God a hidden treasure? Gurbani tells us that God is realized from within. Gurbani is the roop of Waheguru. I have found the Satguru and there is no difference between a Guru and God as Gurbani says "Gur Parmeshar Eko Jaan". By what measurement tool are you measuring my spirituality? I don't know for what reason you want to discuss my spirituality and my level of Sikhi whereas the topic is about who a Sikh is. This has been made clear numerous times. Refer to previous posts. This is why I say that you are disillusioned and have no clear sense of what Sikhi is. Sikhi is not defined by one's behavior or one's character or even one's miracles but by principles that Guru Sahib has set forth. Sikhi is not defined based on me, Maharaja Ranjt Singh or anyone else. Rehat is the tool to determine one's Sikhi. No Rehat = No Sikh. Don't just keep arguing for the sake of argument. Provide references and solid facts not mere opinions.

Whether it is found outside or realized inside, the fact is that you neither found nor realized God or Satguru. Either way you look at it, you have no way of proving that you are any closer to God or Guru than anybody else and you know that you aren't any closer than anybody. You may think you are but you are not.

It's important to discuss your spirituality because you are the one who is judging others. If you don't wanna be judged, don't judge others. Obviously, you have no advantage over anybody else here of being with God or Guru.

We know that Sikhi isn't defined based on you. Therefore, we know that you are not a Sikh.

Once again the Rehat we know today is manmade by SGPC. Obviously, you can't become Sikh following it. You are a perfect example yourself. Why are you suggesting that others should follow the Rehat when it hasn't made you any better than others?

 

[J.A.T.T]

I follow Sikhi because I love it and find peace. Gurbani tells us what a person can achieve by following Guru Sahib. "Joti Jot Rallee Sampooran Theea Raam", "Bin Har Bhajan Nahi Chutkara". What Satguru can do and does for a Sikh cannot be described as the list would be never ending. I am not following footsteps of Guru Sahib but trying my best to follow His hukam.

I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets.

Le Griffin writes that: "Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom exactly according to the Sikh way of life and Sikhism considers everyone as friends and talks about the welfare of all irrespective of caste and creed."

Charles Hugal in his book, "The Court and Camp of Ranjit Singh", writes that, "Ranjit Singh ruled his kingdom according to the Sikh tenets. All the important positions were given to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, entirely based on merit. Even his main advisors were three famous Muslim brothers: Fakir Aziz-ud-Din, his foreign minister; Fakir Nur-ud-Din, his home minister; Fakir Imam-ud-Din, his custodian of the {censored}nals. Forty-six senior Army officers and two top ranking Generals were Muslims.

One General was French and score of military officers were Europeans. In police and civil services he has about one hundred Muslim officers alone. Hindus too, used to hold many key positions in Sarkar-e-Khalsa. Ranjit Singh was secular through-and-through.

Since he had lost his one eye in childhood, due to small pox, he used to remark jokingly about himself that, "God Willed that as a true Sikh I should look upon all religions with one eye"."


Murray writes, "Ranjit Singh was full of humanity. He ruled by following the etiquettes of Sikhism and therefore he was generous, benevolent and a sympathiser."

LOL

Ranjit Singh never took amrit. Back in the days, anybody born in Sikh family was consider a Sikh. Besides, what type of amritdhari will marry a non-amritdhari? Ranjit Singh married (or at least slept with) a muslim woman.

By the way, do you know who Diwan Kaura Mall (Mitta Mall) is?

 

[J.A.T.T]

<<I forgot to address one point about Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I believe he was a Sikh because he was Amritdhari. He was grandson of Maharaja Charat Singh who was a devout sikh. He was a relative of Sardar Shaam Singh who was also a devout Sikh. Furthermore, he was given a tankhah at Akal Takhat Sahib. Non-Sikh sources also claim that he ran his kingdom according to Sikh tenets. >>

thanks sir !!

i was waiting for you to give him a certificate...

so Maharaja Ranjit singh - married multiple times, drunkard, opium smoker...and account by none other than non -sikh sources similar to ones you had quoted above glorifying him..

he was also out and out superstitious......many accounts of that can be read too..


so does this define a SIKH ???

Exactly. Maharaja Ranjit Singh wasn't a good Sikh (I am using this term loosely)

 

[Bijla Singh]

Whether it is found outside or realized inside, the fact is that you neither found nor realized God or Satguru. Either way you look at it, you have no way of proving that you are any closer to God or Guru than anybody else and you know that you aren't any closer than anybody. You may think you are but you are not.

I don't know how to measure others' spiritual level but I know who a Sikh is. One who keep rehat and follow the hukam. Once again, provide reference from Gurbani to back your claims or definition. I have realized who a true Guru is, Guru Nanak Sahib. I know His teaching and His rehat. I know his hukam which I follow. One who follow the hukam is a Sikh. You on the other hand have not even understood the very basics of Sikhi. You don't even have basic understanding of Gurbani not to mention a simple definition of a Sikh based on Gurbani.

It's important to discuss your spirituality because you are the one who is judging others. If you don't wanna be judged, don't judge others. Obviously, you have no advantage over anybody else here of being with God or Guru.

I am providing definition of a Sikh based on Gurbani. Therefore, it is Gurbani that is making the judgement. I have the advantage because I am Guruwala. Those who are not will not get muktee and Gurbani is clear on this.

We know that Sikhi isn't defined based on you. Therefore, we know that you are not a Sikh.

This is one of the most foolish statement ever. Sikhi is defined by principles of Guru Sahib which you have not understood clearly and I don't think you have the capability to understand it. Who is "We"? You and your lana bana?

Once again the Rehat we know today is manmade by SGPC.

Rehat in 1925 was taken from puratan sources. Study some Sikh history first. Have you stuided hand written accounts and Bhatt Vahis? I think not.

You are a perfect example yourself. Why are you suggesting that others should follow the Rehat when it hasn't made you any better than others?

You are quick to pass judgement without giving any justifiable reasons. No doubt monay/patits have lost their common senses. There is a difference between being superior and being a better person. I said I wasn't a superior human being because everyone is created equally but this doesn't mean a Sikh is no better person than a thief or a coward who has turned his back on Guru. A Sikh is always a better person as he/she is the roop of Guru. Patits and monay have no place in Sikhi.

If you want to understand spiritual powers of Sikhi then I suggest you study the jeevans of Shaheeds and other well known Gursikhs.

 

[Archived_member2]

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakal!
Dear all!

Quote from Bijla Singh Jee " . . . but this doesn't mean a Sikh is no better person thana thief or a coward who has turned his back on Guru. A Sikh is always a better person as he/she is the roop of Guru. Patits and monay have no place in Sikhi."
Please provide a reference from the Gurus also where they have said so. I will be grateful.

Surprise, is this the understanding of a dedicated Sikh. Have we forgotten that our ancestors were all Patit and Monay before becoming Sikhs? Do we know the variety of people who want to become Sikh today? Have we closed the doors for all others than Sikhs? With what is Guru's Sikh entangled while The True Guru is today also busy initiating Patit and Monay into true Sikhi?
Please respond.


Balbir Singh

 

[sikh78910]

KDS Quote:
Originally Posted by PCJS
So KDS,

Please tell us if logically it makes sense to say that cutting hair worse than killing without going into irrelavant stuff...


i beleive that there is nothing wrong in killing animals for eating.as far is hair is concerned i agree there is no logic behind keeping hair beside that it was guru's order.so it is basically following guru ji's order.



we're animals so why not kill humans? read this article mate, killing animals for food is sick, the only reason guru gobind singh ji killed animals was because he took pity on them, wanting to free them from their turn as animals in reincarnaton- he knew how the spiritual world worked so he had the right to kill them. the mind of the person that kills an animal for food is that of a butcher, therefore if u kill animals for food- a cold blooded reason to kill one of gods beautiful creatures, u automatically have the ability to kill any animal- or most importantly, human- in cold blood.

read this

Panthic Weekly: What is Kuttha? (Part 2)