Sikhism : An Offshoot Of Hinduism

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

Personally speaking, someone coming on a Sikh site to basically promote the idea that there is no Sikhism says it all. What more can I say to that? I think it speaks for itself. The two positions are that Sikhism is an independent religion and the other is that it is tied up in the tentacles of the term Hinduism.

This is a Sikh philosophy forum, which means the interchange of ideas, opinions, beliefs and interpretations of the participants provided such are expressed respectfully. Since a significant part of the Sikh population considers itself "sanatan" and has done so from the time of the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and not as some modern subversion of the Indian state, then any discussion of this nature requires fairness to the facts, and not unsupportable slanders. I have no affiliation with the Indian state or even RSS. And for years I supported an independant Khalistan. But it is my studied opinion, that the remarks said in hostility, said with intent to bully the suppression of even the mention that Sikhism has any viable relationship to Hinduism, which are commonly heard among Sikhs are spoken more out of fear than actual conviction. The evidence for sanatan Sikhism is overwhleming, and the arguments against are largely based on deliberate distortions of what Hinduism is, and actually teaches, parroting the worst excesses as the example in an effort to deny similarities. While I do not blame any individual Sikhs, that is a reflection of the true intellectual dishonesty of scholars of the Singh Sabha reform, whose face is today, modern Sikhism. Badgering an unpopular opinion with insults such as pagh-wale Hindu, is, as we all know, the worst insult against a Sikh. Because the truth is, the majority opinion among Sikhs is very disparaging of Hindus and Hindu religion. People can say, "I love Hindus" "I'm best friends with Hindus" "I'm descended from Hindus" until they turn blue. Anyone can hear the comments in Gurdwara or on Sikh forums about the "monkey god" and "Shiva's lingum" and "short, cowardly brown race" said in colorful and curseword phrases. The real attitude of Sikhs toward Hindus, as a community, is one of superiority and disgust. Let's be sincere.

And seeing as every form of Guru was an Indian born on Indian soil, gaining wisdom and spiritual vision from ancient Indic teachings, that Sikhs are not a "separate Aryan race" or the only form of "martial" community, let's consider such self-deceptions as racism of the British with intent to divide and generate hate between people. Such is the politics of genocide, and no wonder genocide has already been the fruit of agitation for separatism, with political intolerance, fear and loathing on both sides of the Sikh-Hindu divide. But don't dare dress up such egotistical pettiness as any form of spirituality, whether it is esposed from Congress, Hindutva, Arya Samajis or Sikhs. It is belittling to the Sikh religion to continue to perpetuate these myths and blind hatreds. I am coming from the influence of a Khalistani community which absolutely deifies shaheeds and men with bombs and machine guns. This is not spirituality. It is a political distortion of spirituality. We have an entire generation of kids who think Sikh-Hindu relations began with 1984, which praise Bhindranwale blindly and condemn Hindus as a community for the political violence of the secular Congress Party.

Again, these distortions have nothing to do with truth. Why are we allowing ourselves to be manipulated as a spiritual community with glorification of senseless violence, political intimidation, and lack of empathy for ALL people instead of "just the Sikh community?" This "us against them" mentality is so juvenile, so destined for political failure as it is destined for spiritual condemnation. We now have a generation of young people who firmly believe they are destined to fight and die to advance the cause of Sikhs, economically, politically and socially, and really do not care anything about anyone else at all. Is this the Khalsa Raj who will treat ALL men and women as EQUALS? No. It is the antithesis. It is the reason why we do NOT have a Khalsa Raj. Is the idea of an independant nation of Khalistan sitting between nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India in the middle of major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq actually some security for Sikh people? Is this what it will take to make the big, strong Khalsa safe in their identity? The Buddhists sit in the middle of India. acknowledge their sanatan roots and have communal harmony. No one has destroyed their ability to be Buddhists. No one has altered their philosophy. We have to see through these political manipulations of the community. IF the violence of the Indian state continued to be directed against Sikhs, then by all means, the struggle should continue. But after so much bloodshed, after so much injustice, after so much sorrow, let us build peace. Vengeance is NOT a dharmic justification, it is based on haumai and krodh. And all it will ensure is more violence, more hostility, and a repetition of the injustices of the past. This is a spiritual philosophy? Who can responsibly speak fro a separate nation of Khalistan now? And to be what? Some ghettoized version of the Taliban? Let's be honest about political Sikh leadership. It would be a nightmare on the way to a disaster party. If the God wanted to establish a Khalistan, it would be standing, and nothing could earth could topple it. But in all honesty, the Sikh separatist movement died the ugliest, bloodiest death and failed amazingly. If anything, it is cursed. What would Khalistanis inherit? A bankrupt farming system? Polluted rivers? Political hostility and perpetual warfare from both India and Pakistan? It wouldn't even be economically viable. So stop the foolish talk about Khalistan. The Sikh Raj did not rule Khalistan. They ruled Punjab. And Punjab has always been a part of Hindustan. Everything about the Sikh Kingdom was based on commonality, harmony, equality and respect for Hindus. Maharaja Ranjit Singh willed the Koh-i-noor Diamond to Jagganath temple, not Harmandir Sahib. So all this Britishized, modern talk of "independant nationhood," "separate identity," "Sikh rights," "Sikh racial differences" is the lowest common denominator of spirituality. It's all MAYA! It has no validity. It's future is death. Why kill more Sikh kids by filling their heads with such nonsense? Why create more fear and loathing in the Hindu community by making apprehensive with idolizing bombers and machine gun-wale religionists? I can say with conviction, some fool toting a machine gun who gets blasted by police services is no instant shaheed who receives mukti. That is a lie and a deception. Everything we do has a karmic repercussion. If we do well, it is a benefit, and if we do poorly, it doesn't matter how many posters people make our likeness, we suffer that. We suffer. How did this jihadi mentality become a part of the noble and tolerant truths of Sikh religion? No one can glorify violence against the innocent and be a spiritual person. It doesn't matter if you call yourself Hindu or Sikh. You are NOT that if you do not protect and defend the innocent from harm. THAT is the essence of Dharma. If our life isn't a blessing for others, then we wasted that life. And if we harmed anyone, when we die, we will regret, because we will feel the pain we caused. So glorification of violence is a nightmare. It is the premonition of hell.

Air India memorial

 

[dalsingh]

Modern Sikhism tolerates no idols, no arti. Yet, it cannot be denied that historically idols were kept and arti performed in Gurdwara. So the question becomes, what was the original practice? The Tat Khalsa say Sikhi was Hinduized to weaken it from a purataan original form. The sanatan Sikhs say Sikhi has always been like this with traceable historical references, and the British influenced Tat Khalsa tried to establish an independant identity rejecting anything in practice, interpretation or belief which had any sanatan connotations, and even going to extreme of either ignoring certain pauris or deliberately mis-defining Hinduism to exaggerate differences.

OK, but factor these contemporary observations into your schema of things:


This early quote is from a Persian manuscript written during Guru Hargobind's time. The author spent some time with Sikhs and knew the Guru. His writings imply a distinct difference to Hinduism. It also seems to answer your question about the position of arti and idol worship in original Sikh worship.

To be brief Nanak's followers scorn images. Their belief is that all the Guru's are Nanak as stated previously. They do not recite the mantras of the Hindus and do not pay respect to their idol temples. They do not count the avtaars for anything. They do not have attachment to Sanskrit, which the Hindus call the language of angels.

Dabistan i Mazahib by Mobad (1645-46) . Translated by Irfan Habib

The following from a Persian Manuscript covering Banda's rebellion also portray Sikhs as generally being separate from Hindus and Hinduism. Make of it what you will. I think it goes against the idea of oneness with Hinduism as posited by some. I think the reference to Hindus who deserved to be killed may refer to those Hindus who were colluding with and supporting the Moghul administration.

Although from the lower castes of Hindus, countless people like ants and locusts gathered around him (Banda Singh Bahadhur) and lost no time in getting killed or coming into battle for his sake, yet they did not harm such Hindus of high status as Khatris, who were colluding in the designs and plans of that rebel or Jats famous for their bravery, who were supporting and joining the army of that doomed one. All remaining Hindus, along with the Muslims they regarded as deserving to be killed.

Muntakhabu 'l Lubab by Khafi Khan (1716). Translated by Majida Bano.

This observation is from an Afghan opponent of Sikhs who came to Panjab with Abdali Shah. This observation is explicit in its categorisation of Sikhs as distinct from Hindus.

If you are not conversant with their religion I shall tell your honour that the Sikhs are disciples of a Guru, and that fortunate guide had lived at Chak [this is an old name for what we know call Harmandir Sahib]. The ways and practices of these people are derived from Nanak who showed to the Sikhs a separate path. His last successor was Gobind Singh, from whom they received the title Singh. They are not from amongst the Hindus. These miscreants have a distinct religion of their own.


Jang nama by Noor Mohhamad (1764-1765). Translated by Iqtidar Alam Khan.

But the truth is, forgetting all forms of hostility and personal prejudice, or any modern form of practice or artificial distortions of actual Hindu teaching, it comes down to what is the spiritual and philosophical teaching of Gurbani and how close or far is it from original Hindu scriptures. No matter what anyone wants to believe, the answer is, not far at all.

Conclusion: We cannot portray the practices of Maharajah Ranjit Singh's time as unadulterated Sikhi. Evidence suggests that some "Sanatanisation" of Sikhi may have taken place. Similarities between some ancient Hindu texts and Sikh material doesn't mean they are one and the same thing. Overlaps may occur for sure but denying Sikhs an independent identity, when clearly, many saw them in this way during their formative years is mischievous.


PS - Harjas, I just read through your last post. I'm not condoning violence and a negative attitude towards Hindus. I largely agree with your analysis of the impact of Britishers on Sikhs. I also agree with your comments concerning corruption in Panjab. But none of this changes the issue at hand, that Sikhs are a distinct group. Just because I believe this doesn't mean I have hatred towards Hindus or Hinduism. If anything, lately I have had the desire to study Hinduism in more depth. My previous attempts were flawed because I couldn't find a coherent system in all of what I studied. I now have a better understanding and am better prepared to understand it.

I don't agree with sanatanised interpretations myself. Again I point at the success Sikhs had against Moghuls compared to the Anglo-Sikh wars. That some protestant thinking may have influenced Singh Sabha thinkers is conceded. I am not trying to hide this. Also I'm a bit confused about your comments on glorifying violence. I don't believe I ave done this and I openly condemn those who call themselves Sikhs and commit atrocities on innocents, be this for Khalistan or anything else.

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

Also I'm a bit confused about your comments on glorifying violence. I don't believe I ave done this and I openly condemn those who call themselves Sikhs and commit atrocities on innocents, be this for Khalistan or anything else.

Veer ji, I am not speaking directly to you as personally condoning violence against innocents, but to the Khalistan movement in general as I have been exposed to it. Not very long ago, I held almost the same positions you are now sharing. But I am honestly saying what is pushing me to the sanatan view happens to be coming from Khalistanis. The more I listen to it, the more it is unbearable. It remains a "pro-Sikh rights only" political agenda intent on isolation and separatism, devaluing Hindu religion and undermining the security of the Indian state. And to what purpose? How will these attitudes and philosophy EVER help the Sikh identity? I am convinced it is destroying it. I hate to be embarrasing, but the Khalistanis are doing nothing for the farmer suicide crisis, but Hindu physicist Vandana Shiva is creating programs that are saving lives and giving farmers an economic chance. Why? Because she loves people. Creating divisions, perpetuating hostilities is no bridge. And in a world filled with suffering, we need mature spiritual people to create bridges and help wounds to heal.


Guru's called name of God, Ram. Krishna. Vasudeyv. And everybody stretches and strains to say, "but it's not Ram, it means Parabrahm." "It's not Krishna, it means nirguna." "It's not Vasudeyv, it means the Ajooni." And yet Gurbani is so clear as to describe the sarguna as Ram Chandra, Har Krishan and das avtaaras while distinguishing Advaitic teaching that the nirgun is beyond comprehension of the sargun, His limits can't be reached by even the sargun manifestation, because the physical world was created in the modes of three gunas, duality and Maya. The merged God-consciousness is what transcends sansaara and intuitively grasps what physicality cannot. The sarguna is the Jyot, it is the merged consciousness. YET Gurbani acknowledges it is the One nirgun incomprehensible which pervades in ALL forms, including the das avtaaras, and the devas and even you and I. No one can call the Naam of the nirguna, because no word could describe it. So Gurbani and even vaaran of Bhai Gurdas Ji is very clear that Naams of the One Uncreated nirguna are called after the Jyot of sarguna, and describing in harmony with Vaishnava Vedanta: Ram, Krishna, Vasudeyv, Govinda, Gopala. Gurbani even says the gopis dancing are the One Ajooni pervading in these forms for His own Leela.

Hindu's are not trying to strangle Sikh identity. Politicized Sikhs are strangling their own spirituality. Honest research and you will find sanatan teachings all over Gurbani, sanatan history all over Sikhism. It is Sikh politicians trying to perpetuate Britishized racist divide of separatism which destroys unity, of hostility which destroys brotherhood, of intimidation which creates fear and apprehension. So what if Sikhism is largely based on Vedic teaching. All that tells you is Sikh religion is deeper and more meaningful than the arrogant limitations Singh Sabha reform sought to impose. It doesn't tell anyone they have to run out and worship idols. But it does say, in tolerance and harmony that spiritual truths are very ancient, they do not only belong to a handful of people professing a particular faith. It does say the God is present in the Hindu. God is present in the Muslim. God is present in the Sudra. God is present. Love people. Love God. That is the message. All these fanatical teachings about Hindu's having false gods, or fake gods, or mythologically meaningless and inferior religion is so wrong. It opposes the words of Gurbani which teaches the reality of devas and demi-gods as spiritual beings, of the Vaishnav Naams of the sarguna.

This is a conversation I had this week with Christian missionary:
"Why do you keep long hair? That is primitive superstition.
"Why do you have that name of Kaur it belongs to a pagan religion."
"You say the Sikh religion believes in One God. Which God? It isn't 'my God.' That's not the true God. The true God is Jesus. So you are an idol worshipper just like the Hindus. Why don't you embrace the true religion?"​

So to hear almost the exact same beliefs about Hindus that I hear about Sikhs from Christian missionaries, and you start to get a whole new perspective. How amazingly wise and mature is the sanatan Dharma. How amazingly tolerant are the teachings,acceptance of difference, respect for the All-pervading One God behind all forms, and all forms of religious understanding. This is the unequivocal and unimpeachable TRUTH. All forms of jihadi separatism, specialness, self-elevation, self-righteousness belief in "One True Way," intolerance and disrespect of any other is the lowest form of spirituality.


ALL human beings are the atma of the Paramatma, we are the sargun face of the hidden Beloved One. All sincerely religious paths which have any form of Dharma are a path of the One All-Pervading. Some are more mature than others. But eventually we will ALL merge with the All-Pervading, because it is our truest essence and Real nature.'

"An enlightened person looks at a learned and humble Braahmana, an outcast, even a cow, an elephant, or a dog with an equal eye." ~Bhagavad-Gita 5.18​

Know that all creatures have evolved from this twofold energy, and Brahman is the origin as well as the dissolution of the entire universe. (7.06)
O Arjuna, there is nothing higher than Brahman. Everything in the universe is strung on Brahman like jewels on the thread of a necklace. (7.07)
O Arjuna, I am the sapidity in the water, I am the radiance in the sun and the moon, the sacred syllable OM in all the Vedas, the sound in the ether, and the manhood in men. (7.08)
I am the sweet fragrance in the earth. I am the heat in the fire, the life in all living beings, and the austerity in the ascetics. (7.09)
O Arjuna, know Me to be the eternal seed of all creatures. I am the intelligence of the intelligent, and the brilliance of the brilliant. (7.10)
I am the strength, that is devoid of lust and attachment, of the strong. I am the lust (or Kaama) in human beings that is in accord with Dharma (for procreation), O Arjuna. (7.11)
Know that the three Gunas, Saattvika, Raajasika, and Taamasika, also emanate from Me. I am not in (or dependent on) the Gunas, but the Gunas are in (or dependent on) Me. (7.12)
Human beings are deluded by these three Gunas of nature; therefore, they do not know Me who is above these Gunas and eternal. (7.13)
My divine Maya consisting of three Gunas or states of mind is difficult to overcome. Only they who surrender unto Me cross over this Maya. (7.14)

The evil doers, the ignorant, the lowest persons who are attached to demonic nature, and whose intellect has been taken away by Maya do not worship or seek Me. (7.15)
Four types of virtuous ones worship or seek Me, O Arjuna. They are: the distressed, the seeker of Self-knowledge, the seeker of wealth, and the wise one who knows the Supreme. (7.16)
Among them the wise one, who is ever united with Me and whose devotion is single minded, is the best. Because, I am very dear to the wise, and the wise is very dear to Me. (7.17)
All these (seekers) are indeed noble, but I regard the wise as My very Self, because the one who is steadfast becomes one with the Supreme Being. (7.18)
After many births the wise ones resort (or surrender) to Me by realizing that everything is (a manifestation of) Brahman indeed. Such a great soul is very rare. (7.19)
They, whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires impelled by their own Sanskaara, resort to other gods (or deities) and practice various religious rites. (7.20)
Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity (using whatever name, form, and method) with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. (7.21)
Endowed with steady faith they worship that deity, and fulfill their wishes through that deity. Those wishes are, indeed, granted only by Me. (7.22)
Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23)
~Bhagavad-Gita ch. 7:6-23
​

I don't really appreciate this ongoing attempt to absorb Sikhism into Hinduism. I know majority influence can be strong and that the media/academic pressure is strong in India to make Sikhs think they are some form of Hinduism, so I am not surprised that people like Sikh80 are produced in this environment. If anything, it just adds to the case for Khalistan.

Truth is so strong, it rights all error. Just be sincere. Nothing can harm the Truth. Just like a shining light dispels darkness, truth can be approached, investigated, tackled, and no matter what errors are in people's minds, it always remains the eternal Truth. Sikhism is just a name. It means disciple of a Satguru. Be a disciple of Satguruji and embrace Reality and not worry so much about the Maya world that is passing away every minute. You can't save existence of Sikh form any more than you can hold the sun in the sky. What will be, will be. And every one of us is greater than this physical form appears. We are embodied lights.

This world, these bodies, these religions, these identities... are all part of the illusion of Maya. If they fade away or die, if the whole world disappears, the Truth hiding behind these forms remains untouched. Nothing can harm it. Nothing can change it. Truth is eternal and it resides in bliss. Just as the Sufi mystics say, "Christ dances on the cross." So Guru is blessing people in the middle of torture. He is guiding people to light even while being crushed. Nothing can touch Him. He cannot be destroyed. He is ONE with the eternal. Everything will pass away. Your life, your identity will pass away. Your dukh, even your karma will one day pass away.

Only love can live forever.

"Even if the greatest sinner worships God with all his soul, he must be considered righteous because of his righteous will." ~Bhagavad-Gita ch. 9:30​

~Bhul chak maaf

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

yet they did not harm such Hindus of high status as Khatris, who were colluding in the designs and plans of that rebel or Jats famous for their bravery, who were supporting and joining the army of that doomed one. All remaining Hindus, along with the Muslims they regarded as deserving to be killed.

Muntakhabu 'l Lubab by Khafi Khan (1716). Translated by Majida Bano.

This observation is from an Afghan opponent of Sikhs who came to Panjab with Abdali Shah. This observation is explicit in its categorisation of Sikhs as distinct from Hindus.

Hindus of high status...Khatris...Jats... all remaining Hindu's.

Certainly Sikhs of the Guru were an independant military force and became Rulers by blessing of Vaheguru. But to the question, were they Hindu in origin, orientation, teaching, and exactly how different were the teachings of the new "Sikh" community from Hindu scriptures goes to some incredible gymnastics to make Sikhs NOT have any association with Vedanta.

Are not Khatris and Jats part of Sikh history, Sikh misls, Sikh Army? And who exactly were the Hindus deserving to be killed? Were they Sikh collaborators? Were they brahmins? You see Gurbani called the Vaishnav equal to a Gurmukh. In today's modern parlance, does that mean Vaishnav is NOT a Hindu?

So analysis is really required to find the true interpretation of Sikh history, which in so many ways has been distorted by the dominant view, Singh Sabha.

They do not count the avtaars for anything. They do not have attachment to Sanskrit, which the Hindus call the language of angels.

Dabistan i Mazahib by Mobad (1645-46) . Translated by Irfan Habib

Can you explain why Gurbani praises the das avtaaras as sargun manifestation of the God? Can you explain why Gurbani refers to Guru as an avataar? And as for Sanskrit,

Guru Gobind Singh ji from 1675 until 1690 took an extensive courses in Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, and Punjabi in educating himself. According to chronicles, Pandit Kirpa Dutt helped Guru Gobind singh in his Sanskrit Studies.
Sikh Warriors

The final section from pages 1353 to 1430 is a selection of salokes or verses. These salokes include Sanskrit salokes by Bhagat Kabir and Baba Faridand svaiyay (quatrains) by the bards as well as additional salokes by the Gurus.
Guru Granth Sahib Ji

Punjabi language is said to have emerged from Apbhransh about 1000 A.D. In the twelfth century, Baba Farid wrote his saloks in Lehndi dialect. During the next three centuries, India was attacked by muslim adventurers and, therefore, heroic verses known as known as Vars became popular. During this period, the Yogis developed a dialect of their own which was called the saint-language and contained terms of systems of Indian philoso-phy. There was very little literature worth the name before the Sikh Gurus. Moreover, Panjabi was regarded as a language of the vulgar by the aristocratic and Brahamanic sections of Hindu society. The Yogis also wrote in the Sanskrit. Some Sanskrit! saloks, are included in Guru Granth Sahib.

The Sikh Gurus preached their principles in the language of the masses. The adopted popular forms of poetry such as salok Chhant, Bara Mahan, Thhittin, Bawan Akhari, Var (heroic ballad). The Var is also a song of praise. The Gurus praised the Name and at the same time denounced egoistic pursuits.

The Sikh Gurus enriched Panjabi literature. The crude and poor language became in their hands a treasury of thoughts. They absorbed the diction of saint-language and current philosophies. In Guru Granth Sahib are found words associated with the Vedas, Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shakatism, Buddhism, Jainism and Islam. Panjabi was also enriched by words of saint-language which owed its origin to Sanskrit. Persian and Arabic words came through Islam.http://services.google.com/feedback...om&adT=ImageAd&exp=Ads+by+Goooooooogle&done=1

The Japji, Asa-di- Var of Guru Nanak, the Anand of Guru Amardas, the Sukhmani of Guru Arjan are rightly esteemed as classics of Panjabi literature. The verses of the ninth Guru are included in the Guru Granth Sahib. Formalism and ritualism of Hinduism and Islam have been condemned. Great spiritual truths have been illustrated through simple and homely similes.
Siri Guru Granth Sahib, Indian Sikh Scriptures, Adi Granth, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Adi Guru Granth Sahib, India

Guru Gobind Singh was a great lover of literature. He translated the Vedas, the Upanishads, etc., into the common language of the people. He employed fifty-two poets to create new literature. He was a great scholar of Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit, Brijbhasha and Punjabi. Not only could he use these languages most efficiently but he could also write poetry in these languages. His poetry is unique in its rhythm, its colourful use of adjectives and adverbs and its ability to inspire truth.
The Sikh Bangle - The Background of the Kara

They do not recite the mantras of the Hindus and do not pay respect to their idol temples.

Naam is Gurmantra. He must be referring to jado tuna tantra mantra which is NOT something ALL Hindu's practice, that is an erroneous oversimplification. And indeed Vaishnavs jap the same NAAM Gurmantra using the very same Naams of the One Lord to praise sarguna as do the Sikhs. Can you explain why Naam of God is called Ram, Har Krishan, Govinda, Gopala, Vasudeyva, even Vaheguru? And is this NOT Gurmantra? Perhaps author is referring to Gayatri mantra, and this would be correct. But this alone is no distance from Vaishnavism of praising sargun manifestation with names of Raam and Krishna. Sikhs don't jap Mool Mantra? Or are they saying this mantra is a different kind of mantra? Maybe it would be correct to say Sikhs don't jap mantras of Brahmins, because they can be proven to jap mantras of Vaishnavas. I am curious as to what word for Hindu these authors are using, and in what ways it may be distorted in translation to prove a political view of Sikh separatism supporting the Singh Sabha perspective.

Sikhism was not the state religion during Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule. The Maharaja’s regime was essentially secular with patronage evenly distributed amongst the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. His Prime Minister was a Hindu Dogra, his Foreign and Interior Ministers were Muslims.

It was the Britishers who tried to foster the sense of identity as distinguished from the Hindus amongst the Sikh soldiers for reasons of their own. However, the Hindu religious practices continued to be followed amongst the Sikh masses; there were idols even on the premises of the Golden Temple.

In order to meet this challenge, the Singh Sabha Movement was launched towards the close of the nineteenth century. It was a reformist movement which laid stress on the distinctive Sikh identity. The process continued in one form or another until 1950 when a statement of the Sikh Rahat Maryada (the Sikh Way of Life) was adopted by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, the statutory Sikh Council.
Religious Tolerance in Sikhism - Mainstream Weekly

ਜੁਗਿ ਗਰਦੀ ਜਬ ਹੋਵਹੇ ਉਲਟੇ ਜੁਗੁ ਕਿਆ ਹੋਇ ਵਰਤਾਰਾ ।
jugi garadee jab hovahay ulatay jugu kiaa hoi varataaraa|
During the down fall of an age, people setting aside the duties of the age bahave contrary to their nature.

ਉਠੇ ਗਿਲਾਨਿ ਜਗਤਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਵਰਤੇ ਪਾਪ ਭ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸੰਸਾਰਾ ।
utday gilaani jagati vichi varatay paap bhrisati sansaaraa|
The world gets engrossed in remorseful activities and sin and corruption prevail.

ਵਰਨਾਵਰਨ ਨ ਭਾਵਨੀ ਖਹਿ ਖਹਿ ਜਲਨ ਬਾਂਸ ਅੰਗਿਆਰਾ ।
varanaavaran n bhaavanee khahi khahi jalan baans angiaaraa|
Different sections(castes) of society develop hatred for one another and finish themselves through squabbles as the bamboos, due to their mutual friction, producing fire burn themselves as well as others.

ਨਿਦਿਆ ਚਲੇ ਵੇਦ ਕੀ ਸਮਝਨਿ ਨਹਿ ਅਗਿਆਨਿ ਗੁਬਾਰਾ ।
nidiaa chalay vayd kee samajhani nahi agiaani gubaaraa|
Condemnation of the knowledge starts and in the darkness of ignorance nothing remains visible.

ਬੇਦ ਗਿਰੰਥ ਗੁਰ ਹਟਿ ਹੈ ਜਿਸੁ ਲਗਿ ਭਵਜਲ ਪਾਰਿ ਉਤਾਰਾ ।
bayd girand gur hati hai jisu|agi bhavajal paari utaaraa|
From that knowledge of the Vedas which gets man across the world ocean even the knowledgeable people get away.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਬੁਝੀਐ ਜਿਚਰੁ ਧਰੇ ਨ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਅਵਤਾਰਾ ।
satigur baajhu n bujheeai jicharu dharay n prabhu avataaraa|
So long God does not descend on earth in the form of true Guru, no mystery can be understood.

ਗੁਰ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਇਕੁ ਹੈ ਸਚਾ ਸਾਹੁ ਜਗਤੁ ਬਣਜਾਰਾ ।
gur paramaysaru iku hai sachaa saahu jagatu banajaaraa|
The Guru and God are one; He is the true master and the whole world craves for Him.

ਚੜੈ ਸੂਰ ਮਿਟਿ ਜਾਇ ਅੰਧਾਰਾ ॥੧੭॥
charhai soor miti jaai andhaaraa ॥17॥
He rises like sun and the darkness is dispelled.
~Vaar 1 Pauri 17 of Vaaran Bhai Gurdas​

ਚਾਰਿ ਬਰਨ ਚਾਰਿ ਆਸ੍ਰਮ ਹੈ ਕੋਈ ਮਿਲੈ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੋ ਆਪਿ ਤਰੈ ਕੁਲ ਸਗਲ ਤਰਾਧੋ ॥੨॥੫॥੧੧॥
chaar baran chaar aasram hai koee milai guroo gur naanak so aap tharai kul sagal tharaadhho ||2||5||11||
There are four castes, four social classes, and four stages of life. Whoever meets the Guru, Guru Nanak, is himself carried across, and he carries all his ancestors and generations across as well. ||2||5||11||
~SGGS Ji p. 1297​

ਗਾਵਹਿ ਗੁਣ ਬਰਨ ਚਾਰਿ ਖਟ ਦਰਸਨ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾਦਿਕ ਸਿਮਰੰਥਿ ਗੁਨਾ ॥
gaavehi gun baran chaar khatt dharasan brehamaadhik simaranthh gunaa ||
The four castes and the six Shaastras sing His Glorious Praises; Brahma and the others contemplate His Virtues.

ਗਾਵੈ ਗੁਣ ਸੇਸੁ ਸਹਸ ਜਿਹਬਾ ਰਸ ਆਦਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗਿ ਧੁਨਾ ॥
gaavai gun saes sehas jihabaa ras aadh anth liv laag dhhunaa ||
The thousand-tongued serpent king sings His Praises with delight, remaining lovingly attached to Him.

ਗਾਵੈ ਗੁਣ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਧਿਆਨ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਜਾਣਿਓ ॥
gaavai gun mehaadhaeo bairaagee jin dhhiaan niranthar jaaniou ||
Shiva, detached and beyond desire, sings the Glorious Praises of Guru Nanak, who knows the Lord's endless meditation.

ਕਬਿ ਕਲ ਸੁਜਸੁ ਗਾਵਉ ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਾਜੁ ਜੋਗੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਮਾਣਿਓ ॥੫॥
kab kal sujas gaavo gur naanak raaj jog jin maaniou ||5||
KAL the poet sings the Sublime Praises of Guru Nanak, who enjoys mastery of Raja Yoga. ||5||
~SGGS Ji p. 1390​

The word translated “caste” is varna–color. Krishna says: Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam–“The four castes [colors] were brought forth by me.” This is important, as many translations say things such as “I created/established the system of four castes.” This is patently false. Rather, Krishna is saying that the Supreme Spirit has brought forth into manifestation human beings of a fourfold kind. And this Supreme Lord has not “created” human beings as four types, but has manifested them guna karma vibhagashah–“according to the sharing of their guna and karma.” That is, all human beings fall into four very broad categories according to the evolutionary level of their development–according to the quality (guna) of the energies of which their subtle and gross bodies are formed, and according to the karmas which they must fulfill.
http://www.atmajyoti.org/hi_gita_commentary_35.asp

ਅਧਮ ਚੰਡਾਲੀ ਭਈ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣੀ ਸੂਦੀ ਤੇ ਸ੍ਰੇਸਟਾਈ ਰੇ ॥
adhham chanddaalee bhee brehamanee soodhee thae sraesattaaee rae ||
The lowly outcaste becomes a Brahmin, and the untouchable sweeper becomes pure and sublime.
~SGGS Ji p. 381​

Thousand-headed is Purusa, thousand-eyed, thousand-footed. Having covered the earth on all sides, he stood above it the width of ten fingers. Only Purusa is all this, that which has been and that which is to be. He is the lord of the immortals, who grow by means of [ritual] food. Such is his greatness, yet more than this is Purusa. One-quarter of him is all beings; three- quarters of him is the immortal in heaven. Three-quarters of Purusa went upward, one-quarter of him remained here...When they divided Purusa, how many ways did they apportion him? What was his mouth? What were his arms? What were his thighs, his feet declared to be? His mouth was the Brahman [caste], his arms were the Rajanaya [Ksatriya caste], his thighs the Vaisya [caste]; from his feet the Sudra [caste] was born. ~Rig Veda

According to the Rig Veda, all the castes are created from the God, and thus, are part of the God.

In the Chandogya Upanishad, Satyakama (the illegitimate, varnasankra, son of a Shudra woman who did not even remember who her son's father was) went on to be accepted and educated for Brahmin work (the Gita: Ch. 18 - verse 42). This shows that the people (including the Shudra and of unknown lineage) had the choice of pursuing any occupation (even that of a Brahmin).
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/_caste.html

The ways and practices of these people are derived from Nanak who showed to the Sikhs a separate path. His last successor was Gobind Singh, from whom they received the title Singh. They are not from amongst the Hindus. These miscreants have a distinct religion of their own.

Jang nama by Noor Mohhamad (1764-1765). Translated by Iqtidar Alam Khan.

This is a highly suspect passage. It's far too convenient a piece of "allegedly" historical evidence to establish a political position of Sikhs, and doesn't sound like something the independant opinion of a Moghul historian would even care to distinguish, as Muslims regard all non-Muslims as Kaffirs. So why would they care about a new sect of Ramnaamis who called God Krishna and Ram? First, Singh as a surname dates to the 8th century among "Hindu" Rajasthani warriors and hill chiefs. So it would not likely be considered new and unique surname all of a sudden in the 17th century, as it had a very old useage and is no doubt derived from the Lion-man Avtaar Narasingh. Second, the notion that Sikhs are NOT from amongst the Hindu's is not even admissable in a realistic sense as every form of Guru descended from Hindu families and part of Gurubani is derived from Vaishnava sants. As to Sikhs having a "distinct religion of their own," at this historical time how would they have been differentiated by Moghuls from Kabirpanthis, Ramanands, Vaishnav and Shaivite Army acharas? How would they have explained the Shiv saroop of the Akali Nihangs? The Vaishnavas were showing all Hindus AND Muslims a separate path from time of Ramanuja in the 1100's, which is why we even have Sufi Panth.

"He had learnt Tantra and was locally famous for his occult powers." Banda Singh Bahadur Ji was a well known bhairaagi. Now how had he learned tantra and siddhis if he was NOT from among the Hindus up until the moment he became a disciple of Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

These miscreants have a distinct religion of their own.
"There are no thieves among these dogs."
"The body of every one of them is like a piece of rock and in physical grandeur everyone of them is more than fifty men."

The work consists of 55 statements called "Bian" in Persian - each dealing with some event, personality, racial group, tactics of war, or the behaviour of the Sikhs. The author has a strong prejudice against the Sikhs whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dog of hell, pig eaters, accursed infidels, dirty idolators, fire worshippers, etc.
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sikhs_-_Noor_Mohammad

I'm curious to research the reliability of such convenient "commentary" and how such manuscripts might have been altered and edited to present such a glorious view. Because it's completely unbelievable that Jang Nama was written by someone who "hated" Sikhs and called them so many names while lauding their saintliness. History is written to serve a propaganda purpose. Who can believe this is written by an enemy who pretends to hate Sikhs? Historians write the prevailing opinion. The war against Sikhs was being waged and justified because they were "kaffirs." To this day, has Muslim sentiment changed? Why would it be so dramatically different in Jang Nama where Sikhs are blameless and praiseworthy, yet a war of extermination is on-going? And how improbable it is that a Muslim historian would take time to note Sikhs were a separate religion from Hindus despite the fact that all non-believers are lumped together as hell-bound? It's also possible that in their admiration, they were trying to deliberately distinguish Sikhs from kaffir Hindus by emphasizing their similarity to Islam in much the way some Muslims try to prove Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a secret Muslim convert.






~Bhul chak maaf karni ji

 

[dalsingh]

Harjas: Whilst I can understand your opinion after coming face to face with some of the ignorant Khalistanis who adopt a supremacist world view hingeing on their religion (and usually caste). It would be wrong to assume all people who believe in a separate Sikh identity are of that ilk. The danger with what you are doing, is that it ignores the vulnerable position of a minority. India is very bad in this this respect - not only against Sikhs but other minorities.

I agree with your assertion that the average hot head "Khalistani" has neglected his/her faith to the point of dehumanising the so called "enemy", ignoring the humanity inherent in Sikhism. However, denying an independent Sikh identity is no solution. Instead, people need to be made more aware of the insaaniyat (humanity) that is a part and parcel of Sikhism.

All of the problems you have highlighted are a direct consequence, not of Sikh action, but rather Congress party activity in the late 70s and 80s. Can you turn around and tell me that Sikhs were separatist prior to this, or were they loyal to India to the point that MANY gave their lives for its independence? It's common knowledge that Indira Gandhi tried to manipulate Panjab politics for her own end. Also the infiltration of the so-called Khalistani movement is well known with some people involved speaking up about it and questioning its morality now.

Recently I visited the doctors. The GP I saw was a Hindu Panjabi. He spoke about his anger at the politics of communalism followed by Congress. Those of us from a Panjabi background over a certain age will know prior to 84, many Sikhs considered Hindus as their brothers and sisters.

If this has changed now - You have to truly and honestly ask why. I again reiterate it was the governments own policies that brought this about.

 

[Randip Singh]

Yes, reading does not bring liberation.It is the actual practice of the teachings that may. Same is and can be stated about Granth sahib ji.I am right now only reading bani. It is not likely to be fruitful unless I put it into practice.

You may kindly like to answer the questions about Hukumama in relation to Gurus ,Lord and True Guru and related terms.

Good Night ,Dear randip ji.It is about 11p.m. here.
See U tomorrow.

Hi Sikh 80,

Like I said above, I don't want to say any more on this matter. My view is simple. Sikhism is a distinct and separate faith. It is not Hinduism (all though Hidu references are used in Bani), It is not Islam (although Islamic refernces are used in Bani), it is not any other faith, it is Sikhi.

PS in a side note Sikhs in the UK are recognised (after the Mandala Case) as a distict and separate ethnic group as well as a religion.

1. MANDALA & anr. v- DOWELL LEE & anr. (1983) 1All ER 1062 - HOUSE OF LORDSFor a group to constitute an ethnic group, it must regard itself and be regarded by others as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics some of which are:-

1. a long shared history of which the group is conscious.
2. a cultural tradition of it's own including family
3. and social customs - not necessarily associated with religious observance.
4. a common geographical origin.
5. a common language not necessarily peculiar to the group.
6. a minority suffering oppression..
7. such groups can accept converts and as long as they are accepted by the group they are part of it..
8. a group is identifiable in terms of its ethnic origins if it is a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs and beliefs, traditions and characteristics from a common or presumed common past, even if not drawn from what in biological terms is a common racial stock.

http://www.cathcham.freeserve.co.uk/book/08.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of "racial group' set out in s28(4) is almost word for word the same as the definition of "racial group' in s3(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976, which deals with racial discrimination in the workplace. For this reason cases under that act will be the starting point for deciding whether the victim of an alleged offence is or is not a member of a _racial group' and therefore whether the provisions relating to racially aggravated offences applies. The leading case defining "Racial Group" for the purpose of the Race Relations Act is Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2AC 548 where the House of Lords had to decide whether refusing to allow a Sikh to wear his Turban constituted racial discrimination under the Act or constituted religious discrimination which is not covered by the Act. The House of Lords held that even though Sikhism is a religion Sikhs were to be regarded as a distinct racial group because of their awareness of a common history and culture as well as their common religion.

Furthermore

In the lead case, Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, Lord Fraser set out the factors to be considered in assessing whether a protected "ethnic group" exists,

"For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the Act of 1976, it must, in my opinion, regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics are essential; others are not essential but one or more of them will commonly be found and will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community. The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these, (1) a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive; (2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to these two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant, (3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a number of common ancestors; (4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; (5) a common literature peculiar to the group; (6) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it; (7) being a minority or being an oppressed or dominant group within a larger community, for example (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups.) A group defined by reference to enough of these characteristics would be capable of including converts, for example, persons who marry into the group, and of excluding apostates. Provided a person who joins the group feels himself or herself to be a member of it, and is accepted by other members, then he is, for the purposes of the Act, a member. . . . In my opinion, it is possible for a person to fall into a particular racial group either by birth or adherence, and it makes no difference, so far as the Act of 1976 is concerned, by which route he finds his way into the group." ([1983] 2 AC at 562)

Applying these criteria, Mandla held that Sikhs constituted an "ethnic group"; in subsequent cases Gypsies have also been held to be an "ethnic group" (CRE v Dutton [1989] IRLR 8 (CA)), while Rastafarians have not (Dawkins v Department of the Environment [1993] IRLR 284, [1993] ICR 517 (CA)).

Interesting :yes:

 

[Sikh80]

Those of us from a Panjabi background over a certain age will know prior to 84, many Sikhs considered Hindus as their brothers and sisters.
If this has changed now - You have to truly and honestly ask why. I again reiterate it was the governments own policies that brought this about.

Dalsingh ji,

I am an Indian and am happy as a sikh in the manner I live. I do not know which part Of India you belong to. I have the prerogative of undergoing the Trauma of 1984 . It was just an organized mass scale murder of Sikhs for political reasons and I give it no importance now. It was His will and that is all.

Sikhs even now command respect and things have only changed for the better. My non-sikhs neighbours [Hindu Ladies] visit Gurudwara for the Darshan Of Gurudwara and even for Langar.They like this tradition of the sikhs.

Yes, sikhs have a problem so far as the religion is not considered as a separate religion neither de juro nor de facto. It also has some reasons that can be attributed to the fact that we do not have a solid platform where sikhs can come together and share the feeling and put forward our grievances before the Government. SGPC is almost non-functional. Sikhs Role models are almost absent. Manmohan singh [pm] is not a role model.

Hindus treat sikhs with some respect only that is based on reciprocity. In the parts that we live Hindus and sikhs live with mutual respect that prevails in civil society.

It is the outfits like Babar Khalsa etc. that is a cause of worry to the sikhs now in India. A blast In Ludhiana can send the shudders through the spine lest 84 may begin again.

 

[Sikh80]

Dear Randip ji,

I shall answer your post tomorrow after carefully going some Indian Judgements on this. But these days Judiciary is almost the same and Supreme courts refer to the judgements of other countries. In that sense i do not think that I shall find something new.But give me a chance to give it a try.

Shall revert back on this soon.

Wjkk Wjkf

 

[Sikh80]

No two jokers do not make a circus. But in a hand of poker, one joker can take everyone else to the poorhouse if jokers are wild. :}8-: What are you saying? That only one point of view is permitted per thread? :advocate: Or that only one joker is permitted dominate the discussion? :inca: Or something else? :whisling:

Which of the following equation is incorrect.?

3>2
2+1=3
1+1+1=3

Take your time and respond..

 

[spnadmin]

Ok.

 

[Astroboy]

Beliefs get stronger when more evidence supports them and they become weaker when something appears to be contradicting with them.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

sometimes it works the other way round

 

[Sikh80]

Beliefs get stronger when more evidence supports them and they become weaker when something appears to be contradicting with them.

It is a very interesting a subject.Let us first understand as to what you mean by Belief.

It is the attitude where we think that a particular proposition is True. Once that belief is formed the mind starts carrying an impression/s that are reinforced over a period of time till it is ingrained in mind/consciousness that the proposition is perfectly ok. Once that stage is reached there is no need of further investigation into the matter.

Let us say,It is my belief that Sikhi is the best; and if the state of belief has reached that stage that it is ingrained in my sub conscious mind then no evidence can undermine it as the mind shall reject everything, at that point of time, even if something, that you call as evidence, does not support the truth, if any, in evidence. Let us avoid epistemological discussion; it is abstract for me. On the contrary, if the stage of belief is not at the level of irreversibility of the predisposition of the mind all that you have stated, namjap ji, should hold good.

Kindly refer the following link for further discussion. It is meant for people of philosophical dispositions that you have in ample.

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/FONT]Please feel free to correct me. Aad ji and Amar ji are the persons who can tell more.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

Belief turns into Faith

Faith is unshakable(though nothing in this world is)

 

[Sikh80]

Belief turns into Faith

Faith is unshakable(though nothing in this world is)

Faith is a belief.No!!

 

[Sikh80]

This is the second Aarti that I am posting below. There is the same essence that His names are different but He nourishes the devotess.
The line that strike out is that contains the reference to Prana.
To my english speaking friends, I shall try to get the Meaning of this in English and shall post for reference.

The lyrics text words of the eternal song.{ This has been the song/aarti that has been used by Bollywood]

Allaa tero naam eeshwar tero naam
sab ko sanmatee de bhagawaan

maangon kaa sendoor naa chhoote
maan bahanon kee aans naa toote
deh binaa bhatake naa paran

o saare jag ke rakhawaale
nirbal ko bal denewaale
balawaanon ko de de dynaaan

Lyrics in Hindi Language

अल्लाह तेरो नाम, ईश्वर तेरो नाम
अल्लाह तेरो नाम, ईश्वर तेरो नाम
सबको सन्मति दे भगवान
सबको सन्मति दे भगवान
अल्लाह तेरो नाम ...

माँगों का सिन्दूर ना छूटे
माँगों का
सिन्दूर ना छूटे
माँ बहनो की आस ना टूटे
माँ बहनो की
आस ना टूटे
देह बिना, दाता, देह बिना
भटके ना प्राण
सबको सन्मति दे भगवान
अल्लाह तेरो नाम, ईश्वर तेरो नाम,

ओ सारे जग के रखवाले
ओ सारे जग के रखवाले


WJKK WJKF

 

[Archived_Member_19]

then what else is faith?

 

[Sikh80]

Faith is a some kind of belief in the correctness of some an idea that has yet to be established.



The word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of Religion, as in theolgy ' sat' , or else in a God.
Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as a hope or sometimes trust as well.

Faith can refer to a religion. Faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes. Belief is something that we are convinced about to larger extent.
it is the way I look at these two terms that have subtle difference

I think Sinister ji and aad ji can attend to the abstracts or you may also refer to wikipedia that I also refer,sometimes, these days.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Hindu is more term represented by people living in a part of world more like a nation.While we as Khalsa are a faith wider then that.next thing about Vedanta read Vars of Bhai Gurdas Ji from Searchgurbani.com.

God of Vedanta is same as us,as who is in all and visible to all,yet way to get that God in us is devotion to that lord and service to that's manifestations all around us and then relaiseing that in and out of us oops! by that time us does not remains but that only remains.

ਪੰਨਾ 657, ਸਤਰ 17
ਜਬ ਹਮ ਹੋਤੇ ਤਬ ਤੂ ਨਾਹੀ ਅਬ ਤੂਹੀ ਮੈ ਨਾਹੀ ॥
जब हम होते तब तू नाही अब तूही मै नाही ॥
Jab ham hoṯë ṯab ṯû nâhî ab ṯûhî mai nâhî.
When I am in my ego, then You are not with me. Now that You are with me, there is no egotism within me.
ਭਗਤ ਰਵਿਦਾਸ ਜੀ - view Shabad/Paurhi/Salok


Where as in Vedanta we have knowledge of truth and then state Aham Brahm Asmi and similar things in Islam in Iran An (i) Al(the ) Haq(Truth). exits.Differance could be made out.

Yes Kala Afghanaism(old name is Bhag ambalaism) teaches justification baded upon logic(scintific) so that could be treated as Fifth Philosophy of nyay darshan.

Our junior Vedanta failed it already.

 

[Sikh80]

Dear Vijaydeep ji

Realized sages dwell in the essence, they can recognize ways that are at variance with it and tell us as to how to be in sync. with it. They are capable of representing truth in a definitive form and prompting other men to its pursuit. This is what all seer- prophets-Ram, Mahabir, Buddh, Jesus, and Muhammad-have done. And so it was with the more recent Tulsidas, Kabir, and Guru Nanak dev ji. Deplorably, however, after a sage has departed from the world, instead of following the path shown by him, his followers gradually begin to revere and worship such physical objects as the places of his birth and death or the spots he had frequented during his life.[/FONT]

In other words, they proceed to idolize the realized Soul. Their memory of the sage is so sharp and strong at the beginning, but it gets blurred with time, and men come increasingly under the sway of misguided and false notions that finally crystallize into stupid, irrational practices and finally they end up treating that Great souls as the creator or the supreme soul. We find many Tuks in the bani that God and guru are same and Bani is Nirankaar and everything becomes Nirankaar. Hence the in built concept of Bani is diluted and the Vedantic concept, Ahm Brahm asmi also prevails as everything in the nature is His manifestation. Guru nanak and the fifth nanak have been adorably stated by Bhatts as Nirankaar. But we literally take them as Nirankaar. This becomes a grey are and many of us start believing that The realized soul is the supreme soul. The discussion is at the periphery of that you have stated. It was necessitated on account of the fact that we should know one another better so that we know the person whom we are talking to and what are likely to be his reactions. I am fairly comfortable with you as I find you fairly flexible and amenable to discussion not culminating into avoidable heated exchanges .[/FONT]

Interesting the post raises a question as to what is Hinduism and that it has not been properly identified. It would be amicable if it is presumed that Hindu is referred to as the person whom bani refers to as Hindu, may be, on account of the geo political reasons. It shall and should settle as to what we are referring to. Hindu is the one who practices Vedanic philosophy that is summed up in Vedas, Upnishdas, shastras,smirities and in nut shell in Gita as well. Gita deals with the sould and mind and as to how to connect ourselves with HIM. Right now we refer to Vedas and Gita as the source book of knowledge without undermining the value of the other scriptures. Deplorably, however, after a sage has departed from the world, instead of following the path shown by him, his followers gradually begin to revere and worship such physical objects as the places of his birth and death or the spots he had frequented during his life etc, etc. In other words, they proceed to idolize the great Soul. Their memory of the sage is indeed sharp and strong at the beginning, but it gets blurred with time, and men come increasingly under the sway of misguided and false notions that finally crystallize into stupid, irrational practices.[/FONT][/FONT]

I know many members will point out many things hence I shall try to be short to the extent.[/FONT]

Theoretically speaking, every religion should explain the concept of god and the method of attaining Him by whatever name called. If the God and attributes are same and there are differences on the method of attaining Him, one can look into that aspect as well. [/FONT]
The method of devotion is advocated in Sikhi and In Vedanta though the term devotion is Not exactly the same in the two.[/FONT]

The God part has been dealt out with in the earler post to which you have responded.[/FONT]

Your posts have three very interesting observations:[/FONT]

• That path to meet Him in sikhi is through complete devotion.[/FONT]
• What happens to one in post-merger state.[/FONT]
• Ahm Brahm Asmi is absent in Sikhism.[/FONT]

Let us have a look at these so that we understand one another. Taking up the first point first let me detail out the concept as contained in Gita.[/FONT]

Path Of Devotion[/FONT]

Krishn promises in verses 20-22 of Chapter 9 : [/FONT]

"Men who do the pious deeds enjoined by the three Ved, who have tasted nectar and freed themselves from sin, and who wish for heavenly existence through worshipping me by yagya, go to heaven and enjoy godly pleasures for their virtuous acts."[/FONT]

Worship is doing Service to Lord as prescribed in other scriptures that we are discussing. [/FONT]

The path of devotion is also professed in Vedas. In subsequent posts I shall try to post even the verses along with the commentary that can prove beyond doubt that that there are many paths of attaining God and the one advocated by Lord Krishna is the path of devotion and the path of karma with no expectation of fruits or call it self less service and sikhi also recognizes it. I am not quoting from bani as you are much more versed than me in these matters.[/FONT]

Post Merger State[/FONT]


It is also suggested that the one who goes beyond the Ved, by knowing God, is a Brahmin. So, although the usefulness of the Ved does come' to an end for worshippers of the Brahmin class, there is no doubt about their utility for others. [/FONT]

It is proclaimed in the twenty eighth verse of Chapter 8 that after having secured knowledge of the essence of God, the yogi goes beyond the rewards of Vedic scriptural study and thus attains to absolution. [/FONT]

It is proclaimed that the one who realizes God becomes one with Lord.It is done by shedding ego, lust, desire and attachment and all other things that are stated in bani. Right now I cannot type much and shall do so if there is any need of any proof.[/FONT]

In any case one is with the ONE ,it is of little relevance to what happens to the one in the ppost merger stage. Shedding of ego is one of the important must as referred to Hindus scriptures. I do not find a difference of even an expression.[/FONT]



Ahm Brahm Asmi[/FONT]


'I am God' is the essence of the above. It is on account of the assumption that we all have divinity in us and that has the common element that the supreme soul or the super consciousness does have and that Is God.
In bani we have similar concept, though not exactly the same, and I can also say that I have 'small element' of the Big one called as 'sat' or Reality.
But as per bani He is everywhere including in His manifestation.[Prakrti][/FONT]

If He is in me and I have the potential of becoming the same or I can also Become the same.[ though I shall not become the same as I cannot, on account of my limitations that I cannot be Sachiara that is edicted in jap Ji Sahib.] Sikhi has this much of concept of ahm Brahm Asmi.
I am reminded of a 'Tuk'

Maun Toon apna Mul pachan
[/FONT] [Know thy essence ..you have the same jyot..that you are also the same...]
But to state that sikhi is completely divorced from the concept of ‘Ahm Brahm Asmi’ would not be cent percent correct.[/FONT]

kwieAw ngir bsq hir suAwmI hir inrBau inrvYru inrMkwrw ] (720-4, bYrwVI, mÚ 4)
In the body-village, the Lord Master abides; the Lord is without fear, without vengeance, and without form.


kwieAw hir mMdru hir Awip svwry ] (1059-17, mwrU, mÚ 3)
The body is the temple of the Lord; the Lord Himself embellishes it.




iqsu ivic hir jIau vsY murwry ] (1059-17, mwrU, mÚ 3)
The Dear Lord dwells within it.

AMqir dyau n jwnY AMDu ] (1160-7, BYrau, mÚ 5)
The Divine Lord is within the self, but the spiritually blind one does not know this.


What is that Divine Lord. I think it is the part of consciousness only and even if sikh do not call ‘Ahm Brahm asmi’ but they are that way as we all are part of consciousness that is all pervasive in the nature and we are all part of that nature. It is just like that Newton found the law of gravity but the gravity was always there.

I end the note here.

Wjkk WjkF

{ Needless to state that I have quoted from standard work on Gita, My English is not good. If there are mistakes please bear with me]