Who Is A Sikh?

[kaur-1]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Who Is A Sikh?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-Harsimran Singh

[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] What does it take to become a Sikh? If my parents are Sikhs, does that make me a Sikh? If I have unsheathed hair and wear a turban, does that make me a Sikh? If I go to Gurdwara every week, does that make me a Sikh? So what does it take to become a Sikh?

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said this many times, and it was also repeated by all of the following Gurus. Well that was easy. There’s your answer: Pray, Share, and live an honest life. So is anybody who does these three things a Sikh? These are the basic principles of Sikhism, but there is much more required to become a Sikh. Along with these things, a Sikh must be pure of the five thieves, Kam (Lust), Krodh (Anger), Lobh (Greed), Moh (Attachment), Ahankar (Ego).

Guru Gobind Singh Ji said every Sikh must take amrit. So therefore everybody who takes amrit is now automatically a Sikh. In everyday when we see someone who has taken amrit we do assume that they are Sikhs. Usually they are, but we must realize there is more to becoming a Sikh than doing path and wearing the five K’s. One can take amrit, but still not be in control of the five temptations listed above. This is very possible, just look at the people around you. Is their anyone you know who has taken amrit, but is also greedy or lustful or attached to something or is angry or has a huge ego? You probably know some one who is, and do you refer to them as a Sikh? Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not say, If you take amrit you will become a Sikh. He said, if you want to become a Sikh you must also take amrit. There is a huge difference in the two. The latter implies there are other things you must also accomplish. So how do you become a Sikh?

Many Sikh scholars state, that in order to be considered a Sikh you must read gurbani and meditate on Nam. Following the general pattern here you can see, that there is going to be a catch. We all know people who read gurbani on a regular basis. We also know some people who do this but also sin on a regular basis. I know people who read gurbani and still cut their hair, people who still drink, people who still discriminate.
Do these people understand what they are reading? There is a difference in reading gurbani and studying gurbani. You have to be able to understand the meaning behind what is said. Yet, even after that, you must implement what you have learned in every decision you make. You must use what you have learned from the teachings of Gurbani on a daily basis. This will also help show people who Sikh’s truly are. Now we are close to discovering who a Sikh is.

The main problem to answering this question is that the Sikh society has become too loose. We have lost the strictness that many other religions still retain. So just because someone calls themselves a Sikh, do not believe them. I apologize if I being too frank, actually I will not apologize. This is an example of the leniency we must shed. We should not stop ourselves from informing our society just because we may insult someone whom we know personally. We have made too many levels of Sikhism: we have the Puran Sikhs, the Amritdhari Sikhs, the Gursikhs, and Sahjdhari Sikhs. I believe you are either a) Not a Sikh, b) a Sahjdhari Sikh, or c) a Sikh. Usually people consider themselves Sahjdhari Sikhs. Most of the time the people who refer to themselves as this, are not even Sahjdhari Sikhs. If you know something you are doing is said to be wrong in gurbani, but yet you continue doing it by making an excuse, then you are not a even a Sahjdhari Sikh. It is not wise to question whether what the guru’s said or did is right or wrong. The most common way people try to find a loophole around this is by misinterpreting a quote from gurbani. They will either take a quote out of context or they will give an incorrect translation because they do not know gurmukhi, the language gurbani is written in. This way they can indulge themselves in whatever unsikh practice they wish to partake in without any guilt. There are many issues in Sikhism today such as "Meat or Vegetarian" or "Photos of Guru’s or Not" or "Sit on Chair’s in Gurdwara or on the floor" or "Alcohol or Sobriety."

As a Sikh the answers to these questions lay in gurbani. The Guru Granth Sahib is very similar to the US Constitution in that they are very general. The answers to these questions are not specifically stated because the questions are endless. Therefore the Guru Granth Sahib gives general laws that can be used to answer any question. When people want to do something that is wrong they usually say "Show me in gurbani where it says I can not…." They must realize the answer will not be stated straightforward, but instead it will be found by deeper understanding of gurbani. Remember this, even if you some how manage to convince yourself it is correct, God still knows that you are sinning. A Sahjdhari Sikh is someone who as they learn what they are doing is against the rules of sikhi, immediately stops and try to become closer to god and prepare themselves to take amrit. Only after you have taken amrit and achieved a level of knowledge about Sikhism and gurbani are you prepared to correctly represent this religion? Here then is the answer a Sikh is person who has taken amrit and actually lives his life according to the teachings of gurbani.


[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What Next?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If you are not prepared to become a Sikh than stop calling yourself a Sikh. It is truly better to not be a Sikh rather than a false Sikh. "But how is this, is Sikhism not the ultimate religion, will god not penalize me more if I do not call myself a Sikh?" NO, this is where Sikhism differs from every other religion. Every religion states we are all created equally, but at the proverbial "Judgement Day" god will only except you if you are part of this religion. In Sikhism we believe god created everyone equally, and no strings-attached. Yes it is possible to live during your physical existence as a member of some other religion or even no organized religion at all and still become one with God. Anybody can realize God by Truly loving him, but to become a Sikh you not only has to love God, you will also have to follow other rules laid down by our Gurus. God does not discriminate. Only God can judge whether what we do is right or wrong. Therefore we can not judge someone else’s beliefs or religion or actions due to the fact that we are not God.

-Harsimran Singh​

[/FONT][/FONT]

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

 

[J.A.T.T]

Well in that case, the Sikh community needs to stop taking credit of non-Sikhs like Shaheed Udham Singh and Shaheed Bhagat Singh. This also means that Sikhs never ruled Punjab since Maharaja Ranjit Singh wasn't a Sikh. And if you look at other religions, then you will realize their definition of who is what is must looser than the Sikh definition of who is a Sikh. Like Guru Nanak Ji said, “There is no hindu or muslim” well there is no Sikh either.

 

[dalsingh]

No offence but excluding people from the panth because of their laxness means there would be hardly anyone left!

This would spell disaster to an already shrinking community.

Not saying people can do what they want but still. Remember in U.K. law Sikhs are considered to be both a religious group AND a race, like Jews are.

Let people progress deeper into their Sikhi at their own pace.

Just some thoughts

 

[kaur-1]

No offence but excluding people from the panth because of their laxness means there would be hardly anyone left!

This would spell disaster to an already shrinking community.

Not saying people can do what they want but still. Remember in U.K. law Sikhs are considered to be both a religious group AND a race, like Jews are.

Let people progress deeper into their Sikhi at their own pace.

Just some thoughts

I agree with your point.


But on the other hand, quality or quantity.? For e.g:

Quote"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The reason for the success of the Khalsa was their love for humanity and the protection they provided to the poor and helpless at the cost of their own lives. The high character of the Sikhs was so popular with the people that even a Muslim historian, Kazi Noor Mohammed, could not help recognizing it and recording it in his book.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Though he nursed and extreme hatred for the Sikhs and referred to them as Sugs (dog, in Persian) instead of Singh, he could not help admitting their high character. He writes:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In no case would they slay a coward, nor would they put an obstacle in the way of a fugitive. They do not plunder the wealth and ornaments of women, be she a well-to-do lady or a maidservant. There is no adultery among these dogs nor are these mischievous people given to thieving. Whether a woman is young or old, they call her a "buriya" and ask her to get out of the way.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (The word "buriya" in the Indian language means "an old lady"). There is no thief at all among these dogs nor is there any housebreaker born among these miscreants. They do not make friends with adulterers. Jang Nama PP 156-159."[/FONT][/FONT]


How did most Sikhs of those times have such a high character?

 

[dalsingh]

They still had the idealism of Guru Gobind Singh Ji influencing them then. They were close to the fountain of inspiration. That piece by the Qazi was written in the mid 1700s, people who had been around the Guru would've still been around or at least the children of such people.

But regarding the quantity and qualiity argument. Pan Ji i feel we need both!

 

[kds1980]

this topic that who is a sikh and who is not has nearly destroyed the sikh religion.religion is like a ladder some one is on first step and someone is on last step.when we call that other non sikh then we kill sikh identity in him/her.

SO ANYBODY WHO BELEIVES IN THE TEACHINGS OF 10 SIKH GURU'S AND GURU GRANTH SAHIB ITS LIVING GURU SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS SIKH.

 

[kaur-1]

Sangat Jio,

Why dont we start a new thread for all "New to Sikhi" or "are wondering on how one becomes a Sikh". Directions for anyone who wants to follow the Sikh way of life. Many people ask this questions and I think we should come up with a basic guide- list's.

E.g.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/new-to-sikhism/14997-on-the-path-to-becoming-sikh.html

 

[badmash]

We are always muddling up terms and times. Sikhs of old were mostly illiterate paindoos, with good measure of sense of 'izzat' and 'badla', mixed with a sense of spiritual acceptance and fair play, and that is what made them great. They were tough, worked long days in the harsh sun, could ride horses saddleless for days, go without food and water and still had the courage (or fatality?) to fight, and fight to the end. It has been said of the Sikhs, and of the Juts, that what separates them from most is their tenacity and that they did not know when they were beaten, i.e. they kept on going in the face of irrational odds. Well, that is fine by me. They also had a good store of lore imbibing them with no little love for the muslim rulers of india nor of the Afghan invaders. In this context, no matter what the talk of justice for the sake of justice, there still was a lot of payback at issue.

I think it is clear, what was a Sikh in appearance and action in the historical past is no longer so. The language he or she spoke is radically changed, our habits altered, our prosperity far advanced, our physical toughness diminished, our cultural cocoons in Punjab shattered by partition and all the affluence of modernity and the pressing weight of the offal, crass and cannabilistic greed and shamelessness of modern indian norms, language and values. How could any community (hardly one which can not even rule itself or produce leaders of quality now) face such a challenge and succeed?

The "sikh" way of life is now of that of an idealist, realist, and passive. Do you really think the sikhs of old were that accepting and benign? They were rough, aggressive, militant, martial and sometimes, high on bhang and alcohol. The often gave better then they got. And now? History speaks for itself. I am sure the vast majority of Sikhs used to first associate with one another based on some degree of sikhism, with equal measure for the value of the brotherhood of punjabi speakers, or of those of rural and frugal background (and let us not say it too loud, but yes, of their own caaassstttee....with whom they shared links of name, clan, history and geography).

This topic is so broad and in some ways so senseless it is pathetic. Someone here saying, "that is not sikh". Someone saying, "We are all sikh". He is saying "That form of Sikhism is wrong", the other reciting verses and hymns fit for an ascetic under the tree while people all around are too busy, too stressed, too far removed from any form or sense of Sikhism to make any contribution to it other than to say "I am a Sikh".

Just my ravings on a topic, while important, I feel highlights the sad reality of modern religion. While every othe major religious group can afford such schizms and fractures because they are so large, we as Sikhs will suffer greatly if we can not at least agree to respect and learn about our history, language, culture and identity as the Sikhs of the Punjab, then who will?

 

[dalsingh]

A couple of points regarding your post Badmash.

We are always muddling up terms and times. Sikhs of old were mostly illiterate paindoos, with good measure of sense of 'izzat' and 'badla', mixed with a sense of spiritual acceptance and fair play, and that is what made them great. They were tough, worked long days in the harsh sun, could ride horses saddleless for days, go without food and water and still had the courage (or fatality?) to fight, and fight to the end. It has been said of the Sikhs, and of the Juts, that what separates them from most is their tenacity and that they did not know when they were beaten, i.e. they kept on going in the face of irrational odds. Well, that is fine by me. They also had a good store of lore imbibing them with no little love for the muslim rulers of india nor of the Afghan invaders. In this context, no matter what the talk of justice for the sake of justice, there still was a lot of payback at issue.

I don't dispute this. A large part of early Sikh success could be put down to this spirit of Panjab but it is too simplistic to put it all down to this. What Sikhism did do was discipline and give a sense of unity to Panjabis. but it was also very inclusive, look at where the panj piaray came from, some of them were from what is now called South India. Banda wasn't Panjabi either.

Kaur made a good point with her post about the character of Sikhs of those times. From what I understand Juts were/are not known for the type of behavior mentioned in her quote by the Qazi. Countless older women from back home told me that it was considered dangerous to wander alone past the "khet" lest some lecherous farmer got hold of you. Contrast this behaviour with what Qazi is saying. The theme of Jat Balatkaar versus the noble Jat was even the theme of EVERY Panjabi film produced in the 1980s. Sikhism made such people restrain themselves. Plus Juts are always known for interclan infighting and Sikhism provided a mechanism for them to overcome this. You really need to read Jagjit Singh's book The Sikh Revolution, he explains this in detail.

The "sikh" way of life is now of that of an idealist, realist, and passive. Do you really think the sikhs of old were that accepting and benign? They were rough, aggressive, militant, martial and sometimes, high on bhang and alcohol. The often gave better then they got.

Yep I agree, some even made Muslim converts eat pork to test their sincerity. Others put boars blood in the amrit and made the converts wear boars tusks as an amulet. Bhang and opium wasn't unknown to them and you are right, they weren't hippy types but co{censored}, hardened fighters. They had to be to survive and fight against the odds they did. What you get now is a white wash which attempts to paint our ancestors in a seriously unrealistic light.

I do however subscribe to the position that kds1980 records on this thread. i remember a few years ago when the Pak-Sikh thing was going full strength. Back then amrit dharis/kesh dharis weren't complaining about the Sikhs who had cut hair and drank. These people was at the forefront of most of the fighting that went on.

Accept Sikhs without too much judgement. Of course this doesn't mean that anything is allowed but still......if our ancestors were taking bhang, opium and hunting and still being Singhs it shows that back then people were more accepting..

We are not in a position to start pointing fingers and saying who is Sikh and who not.....as long as you believe in the 10 human Gurus, the current Maharaj and have no other religion you are Sikh....it is true that some may be well ahead of you in their Sikhi or some miles below, still.....no need to get funny about it

 

[Lionchild]

On a philosophical level, anyone who follows a path to god is a already sikh, we all ultimately believe in god. Although, we have different beliefs and also different prophets in each religion.

Today, the sikh community is somewhat lost.. fighting over chairs, people getting killed over gurdwara politics, unbalance of race, and lack of knowledge of the sikh scriptures.

In our day and age, we must do independent research into the scriptures and what the gurus taught us. That is the most direct and untainted truth that we can find now.

 

[dalsingh]

I agree Lionchild. I also believe we need to understand the movement in the early 1700s as this is where most of our inspiration in the post Guru phase comes from. Scholars need to look at this period in an unbiased fashion to see what kind of people went and faced the world with no precendent of the future and fought unrelenting odds to victory where most people would have given up. No doubt bani was integral to this movement but also what military training did they have? How did they strategise? Who supported them? How did they live?

We do have some insight into some of these questions from recently uncovered sources but rely on tradition quite a bit for information.

 

[badmash]

On a philosophical level, anyone who follows a path to god is a already sikh, we all ultimately believe in god. Although, we have different beliefs and also different prophets in each religion.

Today, the sikh community is somewhat lost.. fighting over chairs, people getting killed over gurdwara politics, unbalance of race, and lack of knowledge of the sikh scriptures.

In our day and age, we must do independent research into the scriptures and what the gurus taught us. That is the most direct and untainted truth that we can find now.

Unfortunately, research is very difficult to do, as most of it is of a non sikh or non indian origin. Mind you, post 1984, the still shameful destruction or hiding away of the sikh library is a big stumbling block. Secondly, to be very honest, very few contemporary sikh sources were present, given that most sikhs were either illiterate or were unable to document what was happening. And, the weather in the Punjab is such that nearly all organic things decompose or are otherwise destroyed within a relatively quick span of time. So, while I think research and scholarly efforts to research the scriptures of sikhism is a great idea, there are many good reasons why it is a very difficult, and limited endeavour.

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

People high on bhang and alcohol disorder their senses and commit atrocities and warcrimes. In olden days bhang and alcohol were painkillers for battlefield injuries. You do injustice to the authentic image of a Sikh fighter willing to die for his beliefs contrasted with a careless ruffian high on drugs.

The greatest warriors were spiritual and idealistic. Only an idealist is willing to die for a cause. An unbeliever in a cause will always sell it out and conpromise when times are bad. A ruffian is self-serving, a warrior is self-sacrificing. When you are a consumer of drugs for the sake of sensual experiences, you are definitely not someone committed to hardship. Frequent use of drugs renders them incapable of providing medicinal relief of pain due to physiological tolerance. In hospitals drug users require more and frequent pain medication for it to even be effective. In a war, this kind of physiological tolerance would cause a drug addict to experience more pain, undergo withdrawal and cravings and in every aspect render him an unreliable combatant.

Examples can be seen in modern times. Look at the Vietnam conflict. The drug addicts who survived the war became homeless criminals. They had deep psychological issues related to combat trauma and atrocities they had participated in. The soldiers who kept discipline and personal honor returned to become leading Generals and war heroes. One kind of soldier kept their mind, the other lost it.

Only people who have no experience of the spiritual dimension try to interpret history and religion solely by physiological explanations. I assure you, in human history, more people in all religions and cultures have endured insane abuse, terrible tortures and disfigurement, imprisonment and death for ideals then have drug addicts even for desire of drugs, or arrogant rough men for display of machismo.

It is not a drug user out of his senses or an arrogant macho man who sings praises to God while being hacked into pieces. Warriors who are outnumbered by thousands facing certain defeat with certainty of afterlife are far more formidable than people high on bhang and alcohol. Even the imperial Japanese were willing to give 7 lives for the emperor because they were willing to die for their ideals. The nazi SS troops were taught to stand ramrod still while balancing a handgrenade atop their helmets. Severe discipline promotes self-confidence and courage, not drugs. If you want to read formidable battles, read about the SS child divisions who defended Berlin when all hope was lost. It was fanatic idealism which kept 15 and 16 year olds manning machine guns against advancing artillery. And they fought even to death, because they were true believers. Not because they were macho kids, or high on bhang and booze. There is something potent in the human spirit when embracing ideals of deeply cherished beliefs. The goal is to embrace true ideals and not be betrayed by false ones. Such would be the difference in dying for nazism or Imperial Japan versus dying for love of Guru and for justice. Which soldiers do you think were greater?

If the Khalsa are great soldiers, it is because they are serving a True Guru with intensely idealistic faith combined with fanatic discipline. Not all soldiers are idealists. But all great soldiers are. Even in this day and age great Singhs gave their lives for the faith, not high on bhang, but lives and minds permeated with Guru's bani.

This warrior's confidence increased and he went up to the top most floor of Baba Atal.
A sniper fired at Bhai Sahib and the bullet hit him in the forehead.
Bhai Sahib fell to the ground, but when a nearby Singh asked "Mehnga Singh!!!
How are you??" he replied "Chardi Kalaa!!!"

Panthic Weekly: Shaheed Bhai Kulwant Singh Babbar

 

[Veeru]

Who Is A Sikh?

The one who doesn't wonder who a Sikh is...

 

[roopsidhu]

yes lionchild is right
whoever is trying to be a student of any religion is a sikh i:e student. Discrimination is always destructive.
bhul chuk maaf

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

yes lionchild is right
whoever is trying to be a student of any religion is a sikh i:e student. Discrimination is always destructive.

A student of everything is a disciple of no one. you have to pick a path and follow it with your heart. Gurbani says all paths have validity. It does not say Sikhs believe in and practice every single contradictory religious teaching. A Sikh is a disciple of Guruji. That is who he belongs to. Just as a Christian has given himself to Jesus, a Muslim has committed himself to the teachings of Prophet Mohammed. Without the Guru or Prophet or Teacher, what point is having a religion?

Without discrimination, a person will not know what situation will put him in danger. Without discrimination, anyone can consume poison instead of medicine. Without discrimination you will follow all freeways but never find your destination. We have to discriminate between sin and virtue, good and evil.

Discrimination in this world of duality has both negative and positive connotations. To discriminate in a way which distinguishes heat from cold is a survival mechanism. To discriminate in a way which prejudicially denies the rights of a human being is an evil. Not all discrimination is evil. Not all discrimination is healthy. But one must discriminate (distinguish) for oneself to make that determination.

duibDw mhlu n pwvY jig JUTI gux Avgx n pCwxy ]7] (1233-17, swrMg, mÚ 3)
dubiDhaa mahal na paavai jag jhoothee gun avgan na pachhaanay. ||7||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who are involved in duality do not find the Mansion of the Lord's Presence; caught in the false nature of the world, they do not discriminate between merits and demerits. ||7||

Sikhi is a path. It has very specific teachings. Whoever is trying to be a student of any religion may be a disciple/shishya of a particular path, but he is not a disciple of every single one. A student of all paths is not a Sikh (disciple of Guru Nanak Dev Ji) unless he becomes a disciple of Guru Ji. All paths are false without following a True Guru to guide you on that path. If you are guiding yourself on that path, well there is a saying...

"He who constitutes himself his own disciple, is the disciple of a fool."

siqgurU ibnw hor kcI hY bwxI ] (920-7, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
satguroo binaa hor kachee hai banee.
bwxI q kcI siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ] (920-7, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
banee ta kachee satguroo baajhahu hor kachee banee.
khdy kcy suxdy kcy kcˆØI AwiK vKwxI ] (920-8, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
kahday kachay sunday kachay kacheeN aakh vakhaanee.
hir hir inq krih rsnw kihAw kCU n jwxI ] (920-8, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
har har nit karahi rasnaa kahi-aa kachhoo na jaanee.
icqu ijn kw ihir lieAw mwieAw bolin pey rvwxI ] (920-9, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
chit jin kaa hir la-i-aa maa-i-aa bolan pa-ay ravaanee.
khY nwnku siqgurU bwJhu hor kcI bwxI ]24] (920-9, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
kahai naanak satguroo baajhahu hor kachee banee. ||24||
------------------------------------------------------------------
Without the True Guru, other songs are false.
The songs are false without the True Guru; all other songs are false.
The speakers are false, and the listeners are false; those who speak and recite are false.
They may continually chant, 'Har, Har' with their tongues, but they do not know what they are saying.
Their consciousness is lured by Maya; they are just reciting mechanically.
Says Nanak, without the True Guru, other songs are false. ||24||

People who are not authentic followers of a path sometimes claim for themselves their own version of what they desire it to be. Who is an authentic follower? Very simple. Who is conforming himself to his best ability to the spiritual practices that path is teaching? To publically misinterpret teachings in criticism, to correct those teachings with your own personal version is not conforming to a path. That's just following yourself in the name of religion.

Lionchild renounced Sikhi and embraced the Bahai religion because he did not want to change his name or learn Punjabi. Lionchild may be right for Lionchild. But what he was teaching and understanding about Sikhism wasn't right.

khY nwnku suxhu sMqhu so isKu snmuKu hoey ]21] (920-1, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
kahai naanak sunhu santahu so sikh sanmukh ho-ay. ||21||
jy ko gur qy vymuKu hovY ibnu siqgur mukiq n pwvY ] (920-1, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
jay ko gur tay vaimukh hovai bin satgur mukat na paavai.
pwvY mukiq n hor QY koeI puChu ibbykIAw jwey ] (920-2, rwmklI, mÚ 3)
paavai mukat na hor thai ko-ee puchhahu bibaykee-aa jaa-ay.
------------------------------------------------------------
Says Nanak, listen, O Saints: such a Sikh turns toward the Guru with sincere faith, and becomes sunmukh. ||21||
One who turns away from the Guru, and becomes baymukh - without the True Guru, he shall not find liberation.
He shall not find liberation anywhere else either; go and ask the wise ones about this.

A Muslim is a disciple of Prophet Mohammed.
A Christian is a disciple of Jesus
A Buddhist is a disciple of Buddha
A Hindu is a disciple of Vedanta, Shiv, Krishna, Vishnu, etc.
A Sikh is a disciple of ShabadGuru Ji

All religious paths have distinctions, different prophets-teachers-Gurus, different understandings, different daily sadhana practices. There are many paths because people are different and have different needs. All high spiritual paths repeat the same highest teachings because at some level all come from the same source. But it is an injustice to Muslims and Christians to say they are followers of Vedanta. And I don't think Hindu's like to be thought of as converts to Islam. Let's be reasonable. Will a Jewish person be forced to acknowledge belief in Christian Jesus? Will a Buddhist be forced to wear kirpan? That kind of admixture of religious paths is irresponsible to the individual truth of those faiths. It is a rejection of every unique path. It is a disrespect to how those religions define themselves.

If a person feels in their heart drawn to bits and pieces of all paths, then by all means he should become a wise philosopher of those many teachings. But it would be impossible not having dedication to any particular path to claim to be a follower of any.

~bhul chuk maaf karni Ji

eyko sbdu scw nIswxu ] (1188-14, bsMqu, mÚ 1)
ayko sabad sachaa neesaan.

pUry gur qy jwxY jwxu ]3] (1188-15, bsMqu, mÚ 1)
pooray gur tay jaanai jaan. ||3||

eyko Drmu idRVY scu koeI ] (1188-15, bsMqu, mÚ 1)
ayko Dharam darirhai sach ko-ee.

gurmiq pUrw juig juig soeI ] (1188-15, bsMqu, mÚ 1)
gurmat pooraa jug jug so-ee.
----------------------------
The Shabad, the Word, is the Insignia of the One True Lord.
Through the Perfect Guru, the Knowing Lord is known. ||3||
There is only one religion of Dharma; let everyone grasp this truth.
Through the Guru's Teachings, one becomes perfect, all the ages through.

 

[Parma]

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT EVERY MAN AND WOMEN ON THE EARTH IS A SIKH. THE WORD SIKH MEANS LEARN OR DISCIPLE. NOW IF WE LOOK AT THAT NO-ONE IN THIS WORLD HAS EVER BEEN BORN LEARNED, THAT HAS ALWAYS COME LATER ON IN LIFE. THROUGH EXPERINCE AND GUIDANCE A HUMAN BECOMES WHO THEY ARE. THE SIKH FAITH IS A TRUE AND INTELLIGENT WAY TO LIVE AND UNDERSTAND LIFE. SO A SIKH IS A HUMAN THATS IS ALWAYS WILLING TO LEARN AND IMPROVE THEMSELVES. BY KEEPING THE TEACHING OF THE GURU GRANTH SAHIB AS A BASE. IF YOU LOOK DEEP AT THE MEANINGS AND TEACHINGS PUT SIMPLY THEY ARE TO LIVE WITH MORALS, DIGNITY AND INTERGRITY. WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT ALL FAITHS THEY PROVIDE, BUT THEY DO WITH A IM WRIGHT YOUR WRONG VIEW. HOW DO THEY KNOW THEY ARE WRIGHT THEY ARE NOT GOD. THE SIKH RELIGION DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER THOUGHT AS WRONG, BUT PRACTICES THE SAME SYSTEMS THAT WE ARE HERE TO FIND PEACE OF MIND THREW GOD, AND THE GURU GRANTH SAHIB'S TEACHINGS. AND TEACH'S US HOW TO DO THIS WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE . WHICH TO ME DEFINES EVERYONE AS A SIKH!!! plz carry on case

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT EVERY MAN AND WOMEN ON THE EARTH IS A SIKH. THE SIKH FAITH IS A TRUE AND INTELLIGENT WAY TO LIVE AND UNDERSTAND LIFE. SO A SIKH IS A HUMAN THATS IS ALWAYS WILLING TO LEARN AND IMPROVE THEMSELVES. BY KEEPING THE TEACHING OF THE GURU GRANTH SAHIB AS A BASE.

But not every man and woman on the earth keeps the teaching of Dhan Dhan Siri Guru Granth Sahib as a base. By this definition, there is no such thing as Sikh religion. I really don't think Jewish people would appreciate being defined as Sikhs. Primarily because it disrespects their self-definition. While everyone may be a student, not everyone is a shishya (disciple/student of a spiritual teacher). And certainly not everyone is a disciple of Dhan Dhan Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. So why not be clear?

qurk qrIkiq jwnIAY ihMdU byd purwn ] (340-7, gauVI pUrbI, Bgq kbIr jI)
turak tareekat jaanee-ai hindoo bayd puraan.
mn smJwvn kwrny kCUAk pVIAY igAwn ]5] (340-7, gauVI pUrbI, Bgq kbIr jI)
man samjhaavan kaarnay kachhoo-ak parhee-ai gi-aan. ||5||
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Muslim knows the Muslim way of life; the Hindu knows the Vedas and Puraanas.
To instruct their minds, people ought to study some sort of spiritual wisdom. ||5||

Why is this bani not calling all people Sikhs? But calls some Hindu, some Muslim? If everyone was a Sikh, would it not say?

THE SIKH RELIGION DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER THOUGHT AS WRONG, BUT PRACTICES THE SAME SYSTEMS THAT WE ARE HERE TO FIND PEACE OF MIND THREW GOD, AND THE GURU GRANTH SAHIB'S TEACHINGS

Yet, Gurbani says something different. Which is the correct teaching of Sikhism?

kir pMjIru KvwieE cor ] (1136-3, BYrau, mÚ 5)
kar panjeer khavaa-i-o chor.
Ehu jnim n mrY ry swkq For ]2] (1136-3, BYrau, mÚ 5)
oh janam na marai ray saakat dhor. ||2||
sgl prwD dyih loronI ] (1136-4, BYrau, mÚ 5)
sagal paraaDh deh loronee.
so muKu jlau ijqu khih Twkuru jonI ]3] (1136-4, BYrau, mÚ 5)
so mukh jala-o jit kaheh thaakur jonee. ||3||
jnim n mrY n AwvY n jwie ] (1136-5, BYrau, mÚ 5)
janam na marai na aavai na jaa-ay.
nwnk kw pRBu rihE smwie ]4]1] (1136-5, BYrau, mÚ 5)
naanak kaa parabh rahi-o samaa-ay. ||4||1||
-----------------------------------------------------
You prepare sweet treats and feed them to your stone god.
God is not born, and He does not die, you foolish, faithless cynic! ||2||
You sing lullabyes to your stone god - this is the source of all your mistakes.
Let that mouth be burnt, which says that our Lord and Master is subject to birth. ||3||
He is not born, and He does not die; He does not come and go in reincarnation.
The God of Nanak is pervading and permeating everywhere. ||4||1||

If Guruji did not define other thought and practices as wrong, why is he correcting the worship of stone idols as a source of mistakes? If Guruji believed in God taking incarnation, why does he say mouth that says this shall be burnt? Obviously Guruji is not promoting these same practices as right. He is distinguishing them from His own correct practice to find God.

vrq n rhau n mh rmdwnw ] (1136-9, BYrau, mÚ 5)
varat na raha-o na mah ramdaanaa.
iqsu syvI jo rKY indwnw ]1] (1136-9, BYrau, mÚ 5)
tis sayvee jo rakhai nidaanaa. ||1||
eyku gusweI Alhu myrw ] (1136-9, BYrau, mÚ 5)
ayk gusaa-ee alhu mayraa.
ihMdU qurk duhW nybyrw ]1] rhwau ] (1136-10, BYrau, mÚ 5)
hindoo turak duhaaN naybayraa. ||1|| rahaa-o.
hj kwbY jwau n qIrQ pUjw ] (1136-10, BYrau, mÚ 5)
haj kaabai jaa-o na tirath poojaa.
eyko syvI Avru n dUjw ]2] (1136-10, BYrau, mÚ 5)
ayko sayvee avar na doojaa. ||2||
pUjw krau n invwj gujwrau ] (1136-11, BYrau, mÚ 5)
poojaa kara-o na nivaaj gujaara-o.
eyk inrMkwr ly irdY nmskwrau ]3] (1136-11, BYrau, mÚ 5)
ayk nirankaar lay ridai namaskaara-o. ||3||
nw hm ihMdU n muslmwn ] (1136-11, BYrau, mÚ 5)
naa ham hindoo na musalmaan.
Alh rwm ky ipMfu prwn ]4] (1136-12, BYrau, mÚ 5)
alah raam kay pind paraan. ||4||
--------------------------------------
I do not keep fasts, nor do I observe the month of Ramadaan.
I serve only the One, who will protect me in the end. ||1||
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
He administers justice to both Hindus and Muslims. ||1||Pause||
I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines.
I serve the One Lord, and not any other. ||2||
I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers.
I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there. ||3||
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.
My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both. ||4||

Why is bani saying a Sikh does not do any of these practices. When you say "THE SIKH RELIGION DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OTHER THOUGHT AS WRONG, BUT PRACTICES THE SAME SYSTEMS?" Gurbani most certainly defines practices of other religions as wrong. And clearly defines that one is not to do these practices if one is a Sikh of the Guru (someone who follows instruction of Gurbani.) How is this compatible with what you say "AND TEACH'S US HOW TO DO THIS WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE. WHICH TO ME DEFINES EVERYONE AS A SIKH!!!" Yet quite clearly, the bani is telling us something different. Which do we accept as what Sikh religion teaches?

ihMdU AMn@w qurkU kwxw ] (875-2, iblwvlu goNf, Bgq nwmdyv jI)
hindoo anHaa turkoo kaanaa.
duhW qy igAwnI isAwxw ] (875-2, iblwvlu goNf, Bgq nwmdyv jI)
duhaaN tay gi-aanee si-aanaa.
-----------------------------
The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye.
The spiritual teacher is wiser than both of them.

jo guru gopy Awpxw su Blw nwhI pMchu Ein lwhw mUlu sBu gvwieAw ] (304-1, gauVI, mÚ 4)
jo gur gopay aapnaa so bhalaa naahee panchahu on laahaa mool sabh gavaa-i-aa.

pihlw Awgmu ingmu nwnku AwiK suxwey pUry gur kw bcnu aupir AwieAw ] (304-1, gauVI, mÚ 4)
pahilaa aagam nigam naanak aakh sunaa-ay pooray gur kaa bachan upar aa-i-aa.

gurisKw vifAweI BwvY gur pUry kI mnmuKw Eh vylw hiQ n AwieAw ]2] (304-2, gauVI, mÚ 4)
gursikhaa vadi-aa-ee bhaavai gur pooray kee manmukhaa oh vaylaa hath na aa-i-aa. ||2||
------
O chosen people, O self-elect, one who does not publicly affirm his Guru is not a good person; he loses all his profits and capital.
People used to chant and recite the Shaastras and the Vedas, O Nanak, but now the Words of the Perfect Guru have come to be the most exalted of all.
The glorious greatness of the Perfect Guru is pleasing to the GurSikh; the self-willed manmukhs have lost this opportunity. ||2||

Very clearly a Gursikh is someone who must publically affirms his Guru, no longer recites scriptures of other faiths, but exalts his own Guru's words as most exalted of all. If every man and woman was a Sikh, why in Gurbani say that some are Hindus, some are Muslims, some are Gursikhs and some are manmukh?

bhul chuk maaf~
Please correct my mistakes.

 

[Parma]

In hasnt defined it as WRONG, to be of another faith. RELIGION IS MAN MADE NOT MADE BY GOD. I do not keep fasts, nor do I observe the month of Ramadaan.
I serve only the One, who will protect me in the end. ||1||
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
He administers justice to both Hindus and Muslims. ||1||Pause||
I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines.
I serve the One Lord, and not any other. ||2||
I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers.
I have taken the One Formless Lord into my heart; I humbly worship Him there. ||3||
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.
My body and breath of life belong to Allah - to Raam - the God of both. ||4||

If anything it shows that beyond all the idols and praying 5 times a day you can still find god. Guru nanak has not taught a way to distance ourselves from the others or guru gobind didnt teach that either but the message may have been lost if it wasnt given an identity. They merely teach that you look for god in the wrong way. but not to abondon the principals of what they have learnt+Sikh. Which is were that phase would come from. They tell us that we are to have morals dignity and integrity. If these religions were so wrong why would guru nanak say his life belongs to RAAM AND ALLAH.

Another point that I have gained from many religions as well as the sikh faith is that god is the only perfect thing. If that is the case then all other things are in-perfect. whether that be a guru jesus buddha whoever. If you accept the fact that god is perfect then you cannot deny they were in-perfect. If that is the case which in my view god is the most perfect thing ever. Then even the guru's prophets, massiahs as well as all other human beings can make mistakes.

PLEASE CORRECT MY UNDERSTANDING AS Iam a sikh and as the name defines always willing to learn. Teach me!

So harjas if i was to follow the sikh religion for my own purpose then it would be to find peace of mind. If I accept your view that would put our religion into the same catergory as the muslim and hindu religion i'll tell you why. There are many sikhs out there that believe you have to have amrit or wear 5 k's to be a true sikh. Is that not the reason why guru nanak started off the sikh religion to obolish such practices and weird superstitions that god is in a stone or how you may proclaim in your appearance. He clearly states that it is not by looking or acting in a certain way you become closer to god he teaches it through your deeds and character. As that is the sikh religion I believe in if that is not the sikh religion then i can no longer call myself a sikh. And niether would i want to be one as there is no difference between the muslim 5 times praying or hindu idol worshipping then that to maintain a certain appearance would make you closer to god. That would be total non-sense to me and not in my view to god because god to me exsists everywhere. not just in my appearance or where i pray but in my character and my deeds

Please Reply Bk !!!!

Forgive me if my thoughts dont make sense to some, but thats what forums are about discussing ideas. I am not an extremist and dont view my thoughts as absolute truth. As that is only found in the gurbarni. I would not try to make people follow my view. What I am doing is trying to follow reason as without reason you cannot have sense. Without sense there is no understanding without understanding there is no voice. Which is listening to sath sagath and not yourself.

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT EVERY MAN AND WOMEN ON THE EARTH IS A SIKH.

In hasnt defined it as WRONG, to be of another faith.

BUT PRACTICES THE SAME SYSTEMS

Gurbani has defined as WRONG certain PRACTICES of other faiths, hence contradicting your defintion that all human beings are Sikhs, when they are clearly defined as belonging to religions other than Sikh. And also contradicting your statement that Sikhi shares all the same practices. Which, if it did, would not correct them as wrong to practice for a Sikh.

Another point that I have gained from many religions as well as the sikh faith is that god is the only perfect thing. If that is the case then all other things are in-perfect. whether that be a guru jesus buddha whoever. If you accept the fact that god is perfect then you cannot deny they were in-perfect. If that is the case which in my view god is the most perfect thing ever. Then even the guru's prophets, massiahs as well as all other human beings can make mistakes.

Good grief. :hmm:


Without the Guru's grace, the speaking voice of silent God, no one can ever attain God. It is very nice that God is perfection, but we can never perceive it...without Guru. Guru is the Shabad-Jyot of God Himself. If you think Guru makes mistakes which you are capable of criticizing and correcting, what is there to discuss? Guru does not make mistakes. There are no mistakes in Gurbani. If you believe there are, well and good for you.

<> siq nwmu krqw purKu inrBau inrvYru Akwl mUriq AjUnI sYBM gur pRswid ] (1-1, mÚ 1)
ik-oNkaar sat naam kartaa purakh nirbha-o nirvair akaal moorat ajoonee saibhaN gur parsaad.
--------------------
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace ~

PLEASE CORRECT MY UNDERSTANDING AS Iam a sikh and as the name defines always willing to learn. Teach me!

A Sikh is someone who accepts the Guru as his path to salvation. You do not believe in the Guru. A Sikh will learn everything from Gurbani, not by correcting Gurbani with his own limited opinions and "logic." Only Guru has pierced the nirgun (imperceivable) and sargun(manifest) aspects of Waheguru. Because of our bondage to maya, to ego, to the panj dhoots, we can't even imagine a way out. We are like the blind. Guru is the boat who carries us to liberation. You don't question and correct a Satguru. You follow blindly, because only Guru can see.

Sikhi is not a man-made religion. But if you believe that, you will, as a man make all your own mistakes picking apart Guru's guidance in order to justify following yourself.

ibnu pauVI giV ikau cVau gur hir iDAwn inhwl ]2] (17-13, isrIrwgu, mÚ 1)
bin pa-orhee garh ki-o charha-o gur har Dhi-aan nihaal. ||2||

guru pauVI byVI gurU guru qulhw hir nwau ] (17-13, isrIrwgu, mÚ 1)
gur pa-orhee bayrhee guroo gur tulhaa har naa-o.

guru sru swgru boihQo guru qIrQu drIAwau ] (17-14, isrIrwgu, mÚ 1)
gur sar saagar bohitho gur tirath daree-aa-o.
----------------------------------------------------
How can I climb up to the Fortress without a ladder? By meditating on the Lord, through the Guru, I am blessed and exalted. ||2||
The Guru is the Ladder, the Guru is the Boat, and the Guru is the Raft to take me to the Lord's Name.
The Guru is the Boat to carry me across the world-ocean; the Guru is the Sacred Shrine of Pilgrimage, the Guru is the Holy River.

ipru rIswlU qw imlY jw gur kw sbdu suxI ]2] (17-19, isrIrwgu, mÚ 1)
pir reesaaloo taa milai jaa gur kaa sabad sunee. ||2||
--------------------------------------------------------------
We meet with our Beloved, the Source of Joy, when we listen to the Word of the Guru's Shabad."||2||

gurmuiK rwm jphu rsu rsnw ien ibiD qru qU qwrI ]2] (1126-2, BYrau, mÚ 1)
gurmukh raam japahu ras rasnaa in biDh tar too taaree. ||2||

bhry krn Akil BeI hoCI sbd shju nhI bUiJAw ] (1126-2, BYrau, mÚ 1)
bahray karan akal bha-ee hochhee sabad sahj nahee boojhi-aa.

jnmu pdwrQu mnmuiK hwirAw ibnu gur AMDu n sUiJAw ]3] (1126-3, BYrau, mÚ 1)
janam padaarath manmukh haari-aa bin gur anDh na soojhi-aa. ||3||

rhY audwsu Aws inrwsw shj iDAwin bYrwgI ] (1126-4, BYrau, mÚ 1)
rahai udaas aas niraasaa sahj Dhi-aan bairaagee.
---------------------------------------------------------
As Gurmukh, chant the Lord's Name, and savor it with your tongue; in this way, you shall cross over to the other side. ||2||
Your ears are deaf, and your intellect is worthless, and still, you do not intuitively understand the Word of the Shabad.
The self-willed manmukh wastes this priceless human life and loses it. Without the Guru, the blind person cannot see. ||3||
Whoever remains detached and free of desire in the midst of desire - and whoever, unattached, intuitively meditates on the Celestial Lord